"Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status."
NIST "lacks supporting evidence or plausibility" Making it Pseudo Science!
0.25% steel recovered from WTC 1 and 2 combined... 0% steel recovered from WTC 7... NIST metallurgy tests state nothing above 250oC was found... But yet they ESTIMATE 600oC... No EVIDENCE of FIREPROOFING being blown off... No EVIDENCE of CORE supports being severed..
That is PSEUDO SCIENCE... No questions asked hands down!!!
Well if you had read the comments I have presented my source.. NIST NCSTAR 1-1 through 1-9. If you fail to comprehend this fact, i8t lies with your stupidity then!!!
Present what source? I have provided quotes from NIST and FEMA the entire time!!! That is the source retard! You are hilarious, dance around everything!!!
"no i mean cite where they say only .25%, 0% was recovered, figures etc."
NIST NCSTAR WTC 1-2
""For the second task related to aircraft impact, the aircraft impact damage to the exterior of the WTC towers could be visibly identified from video and photographic records."
"However, no visible information could be obtained for the extent of damage to the interior of the towers, including the structural systems (floors and core columns, partition walls,and interior building contents. Such information was needed for the subsequent fire dynamics simulations and post-impact structural analyses. In addition, for the fire dynamics modeling, the dispersion of the jet fuel and the location of combustible aircraft debris were required."
awesome...you can copy paste. now what is your point?
are you going to say they couldn't know about the fireproofing removal, because we both know your moving the goal posts. oh right i forgot you were dictating that models aren't science.
"awesome...you can copy paste. now what is your point?"
Awesome you can't copy and paste NIST NCSTAR REPORTS, you actually have to read them and type them!!!
"are you going to say they couldn't know about the fireproofing removal, because we both know your moving the goal posts."
I can point you in the direction of NIST's shady tests conducted, I can also quote where they state the SFRM did not fly off of the bar test. Is that what you want, that I do it for you?
correction...you can misquote them. way to ignore the other tests they conducted, or the fact that the plane defeated the aluminum cladding on the exterior then the fireproofing (aka-reality). around and around we go, where will we stop? well never, because its a truther running in circles.
"correction...you can misquote them. way to ignore the other tests they conducted, or the fact that the plane defeated the aluminum cladding on the exterior then the fireproofing (aka-reality)."
No correction, it defeated the Aluminum Facade, the Steel perimeter box columns, then the SFRM, then the Gypsum board, and then the Steel core columns! That was the Aluminum Alloy sheet metal of a plane. Funny part is, it tore the SFRM off but did nothing to the furniture!!!
LOL! ok...so we can't see the interior of the building but you know this. but ncie way to change the subject. everyone climb aboard! its the truther carousel!
Well that is part of the NCSTAR Report!!! I am just telling you what your own report states!! Watch that video, learn a little bit.. You are in serious denial, do I have to quote NCSTAR more because you are to lazy to read it, or just to stupid to understand it!!
"wrong liar. you are taking the report and claiming a small amount of steel was recovered by misquoting them. stop lying and calling it "truth"."
Well all of the steel was recovered, there is subsequently about 5% left over and 0.25% was inspected! One would think if they had all of that steel, then they could have at least found steel that reached critical temps. You know, most scientists would never write a report without supporting evidence!!! Sorry that is life!!!
So try to understand this one thing... I did not write that quote I only copied it from the NCSTAR Reports!!! I mean look at the QUOTATION MARKS, that is what NIST STATES. That they only tested 0.25-0.5% of the total steel from WTC 1&2 combined, and they also state they had NO STEEL from WTC 7. Once again that is a quote from NCSTAR Reports! Not my opinion, not my investigation, and certainly not my report!!! Can you understand that yet, that I am not saying that?
"you are taking the report and claiming a small amount of steel was recovered by misquoting them."
So why is it so hard for you to quote NIST and prove me wrong? Is there a reason for you not quoting the story you are trying to hype? I mean it is your opinion against a full page quote and several different quotes with references!!!
So get to reading and type away to prove me wrong!!!
"NIST possesses 236 structural steel elements from the World Trade
Center (WTC) buildings. These pieces represent a small fraction of the enormous amount of steel examined at the various recovery yard..." (right before your quote mine trying to pretend your figures respresented the actual recovery)
"its called burden of proof jackhole. 9/11 truthers hear voices from magical ponies from zebulan 5...prove me wrong."
So how much steel did NIST recover you jackass? I mean I posted 4 different quotes, from 4 different reports, showing you that NIST only had 0.25-0.5% of all WTC STEEL, so when are you going to admit you were wrong?
I never said NIST had more steel. You stated only .25% of the steel was recovered.....period I stated you were misquoting the NIST report to make that claim.
"0.25% steel recovered from WTC 1 and 2 combined... "
"One would think if they had all of that steel"
Your exact words. Stop lying and trying to pretend all the steel wasn't recovered.
Problem with that story and the story of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon (that the plane tore out 5 steel telephone poles), is that wings sever upon contact with 14" wood telephone poles!!! Here is a video confirming this!!!
/watch?v=gehmLdYK_48
"well never, because its a truther running in circles."
Why is it that I quote your official story, and you just say something? Is it intentional ignorance, or is it just plain stupidity?
liar. that isn't a 767. it isn't even moving fast enough to take off. they were flying at around 500 MPH. not to mention it defeats both polls & for the inner "the basic wing structure remains intact" (3:25). your own video debunks you liar.
"Why is it that I quote your official story..."
because you're running back to the same BS you couldn't back up before. steel > aluminum
Can't believe I missed this. Take a frozen chicken...drop it on your windshield. Then accelerate it to 100 MPH and compare the results. See mass vs speed. Your ignorance is astounding.
this guy is a paid commentor. Look at his channel to see the profile of a paid troll - all his posts are on 911 vids, even though he obviously opposes a new investigation so shouldnt care. Back under the bridge
"So any time you want to start explaining Newton I am all ears."
"Third Law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear. This means that whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body exerts a force −F on the first body. F and −F are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. This law is sometimes referred to as the action-reaction law, with F called the "action" and −F the "reaction"."
that is a clear sign that you are lost, even when speaking about the laws of motion..
You are the one who asked me about those laws, and brought them up...
That is something called research, you can also do that in college, as long as you don't plagiarize and give credit, through quotation marks, hence why it is called a quote and reference...
I didn't copy paste. I love how truthers have just reverted to saying what they hear other people say to try to appear on level. Fission was an a analogy. Try to keep up.
You didn't explain how Newton applied here. You just copied an pasted a definition to pretend like you had a clue of what you are talking about. But yeah your google skills sure prove something.
"You didn't explain how Newton applied here. You just copied an pasted a definition to pretend like you had a clue of what you are talking about. But yeah your google skills sure prove something."
It is simple, it is called deceleration!!!
When a FORCE F applies force on something, there is an equal or greater force F- applied to FORCE F...
So when a plane smashes into a building the stationary object wins, just as a wall would win against your car!!!
LMAO, that is coming from the guy, that claims NIST recovered more than .50% of WTC1&2 steel combined, and 0% of WTC7 steel!!!
You still argue that I misquoted them, and I have been waiting for over 3 months now for your proof to this claim, I just waited, and let you make an ass out of yourself!!!
@ctrackmonger Which isn;t what I said. You claimed that only that much was recovered period, based on NIST's samples. I showed NIST's samples weren't all the recovered material. So you keep moving the goal posts. 9 years of fail what else should I expect?
@ctrackmonger Nice dodge btw monger. Learn wtf your babbling about next time. The 5 secs you spent googling newton in no way makes you knowledgeable on the subject. Friggin parrots.
Oh yea, one more thing you moron, when you post something about me on the JREF Forum, at least post what you are complaining about, instead of just saying I'm the copy/paste king!!!
"because you're running back to the same BS you couldn't back up before. steel > aluminum"
Wow that was the worst answer I have ever seen, you blame your ignorance on BS? When I quote the official report? That is National Institute of Science and Technology, I would hope that the report was not BS!!! I mean the CONGRESS CHARGED NIST with the INVESTIGATION!!!
And just to FYI, the planes fuel tanks are in those wings!!! When they contact a surface they do not punch through and blow up, they blow up upon contact!! So that means whatever hit the WTC had no fuel in the wings and WINGS OF STEEL, to cut the steel beams like they were butter!!!! Open your eyes fool, denial is not the way to go!!!
"oh right i forgot you were dictating that models aren't science."
Well when the FEA is MADE AND RAN by the USER, and the towers would not fall unless they gave in more than 2000 break points, I would say no those do not constitute science! That constitutes the USER'S OPINION"S!!
"The estimate of the extent of damage to the fireproofing on the structural steel in the towers due to impact was essential for the thermal and structural analyses. The aircraft impact damage analyses were the primary tool by which most of the information on the tower damage could be estimated."
Here comes the next about how much they have!!! YOU ARE A FAIL RETARD THOSE ARE THE WORDS FROM NIST, we can see you failed to research shit before you pop off at the mouth!!!
wow that was cute...you claimed certain percentages were recovered. what you fail to mention is that what you are referencing is how much they examined for the investigations, not the total recovered. way to misquote.
"NIST possesses 236 structural steel elements from the World Trade
Center (WTC) buildings. These pieces represent a small fraction of the enormous amount of steel examined at the various recovery yard..." (right before your quote mine
"These pieces represent a small fraction of the enormous amount of steel examined at the various recovery yard..." (right before your quote mine"
aha like they could tell what reached temps from pictures right? When you examine something you look at it and then test it. Just looking does not constitute an examination. Kind of how Dr.s do pap smears and not just grope the women!!! Or what about X rays when they know the bone is broken? Are you really that stupid?
No steel was recovered from WTC 7; however, construction-related documents describe the structural steel as conventional 36 ksi, 42 ksi, and 50 ksi steels."
"No pieces could be unambiguously identified as being from WTC 7."
Well considering I left more quotes stating that they failed to have steel!!! Sorry read the quotes, then look them up!!! I didn't write that report just copied it, hence the quotation marks!!
NCSTAR 1-3B Inventory of Steel Page xxv second paragraph.
"Upon arrival at NIST, the samples were cataloged, documented, and when possible, identified as to their precise, as-built locations within the buildings. The vast majority of the structural components are from WTC 1 and WTC 2. It is estimated that roughly 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent of the 200,000 tons of steel used in the construction of the two towers was recovered"
"This collection of steel from the WTC towers is sufficient for determining the quality of steel and for determining mechanical properties as input to models of building performance. The lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests on actual material from the structure: however, WTC 7 was constructed of three grades of conventional steel (36 ksi, 42 ksi, and 50 ksi), and literature values may be used to estimate properties"
So I would say you are either a liar or very very ignorant!!! I just left a quote, page number, paragraph, and report. So you answered extremely fast before with what you assumed I couldn't produce, now are you going to acknowledge that you were incorrect?
Why are you calling me a jackass, and what didn't I do until now? I have been reading the reports for the last 10 months!! I am still not done with them but I sure got the impression!!!
"Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status."
NIST "lacks supporting evidence or plausibility" Making it Pseudo Science!
WARNING....willfully ignorant truther ahead. arguments from reason and evidence have no effect. all claims will not be substantiated and any counter evidence will be ignored or dismissed out of hand. turn back.
Has this thread attracted a resident 9/11 faithkeeper? one of grandms' most constant tactics is to not point at the official technical analyses into the 3 9/11 World Trade Center structural failures.
This is fairly common among 9/11 faithkeepers. They defend a story tooth and nail, but won't point to it. Kinda high-priests who won't share their sacred scriptures with the believers.
Why are 9/11 faith-keepers so afraid of the story they defend? Would they know what they are covering up?
@grandmastershek Is gms getting curious about high college chemistry? Wow...
Schrodinger's equation is chemistry's fundamental law. The official analyses into the 9/11 structural failures at the World Trade Center contradict it.
Could this be why gms won't guide our readers to these analyses?
@DanUuNoel "The official analyses into the 9/11 structural failures at the World Trade Center contradict it."
awesome dan, now explain how exactly. remember two weeks ago you made this same claim? i asked for demonstration & your response boiled down to "FOR THE LOVE OF GOD CHANGE THE SUBJECT!".
but as is typical, demonstration for a truther is "well i said so didn't i?". after all look at gage & jones. science sans validation in the best of traditions! oh well, we can just trust them i guess.
@grandmastershek gms is exhibiting the syndrome of the typical cornered 9/11 faithkeeper. When challenged to produce the official analysis of any of the 3 World Trade Center structural failures--so the fraud would be visible to the readers--(s)he pretended not to read. This time, we are even treated to a Divine invocation.
Science sans validation? What gms seems to be advocating is belief without knowing.
so dan schrodinger's equation. please explain how it applies and the conflicts with "the official story".
its ok dan. i am sure you were so excited to start throwing around words over 3 syllables and forgot that people with educations don't get intimated by people who just throw words around. so any day dan you can start backing up your 2 week old baseless claims.
@grandmastershek gms may be trying to understand some chemistry. Let us congratulate her/him and wish him the best.
In the meantime, we have been waiting for 2 weeks for her/him to guide us to the subject of this controversy: the official analyses of the three 9/11 structural failures in the World Trade Center.
Are they that hard to find? Or is it that gms knows better than to lead her/his readers to them?
@grandmastershek Does gms masters projection? (S)he defends the official 9/11 myth of the World Trade Center structural failures yet seems to try hard to not guide the readers to it. Talk about being short on evidence!
@grandmastershek gms is checking, eh? Would it be time for readers to wonder why (s)he is trying hard to ignore a challenge to guide them to the official technical analyses into the 3 WTC structural failures?
It is not only him it is every debunker... Why is it that the truthers (me at least) are using NIST as a REFERENCE??? When I post those quotes from NIST 70% get spammed. There is a reason for this!!! Debunkers hate the fact that I use their reports against them.. To anyone who doubts this try it yourself.
@ctrackmonger It is indeed amazing. 9/11 faithkeepers avoid the official technical WTC reports like the plague. If anything, this gives legitimacy to questioning 9/11. If the keepers of the official myth are ignorant or afraid of what they are defending...
no more than why they should be wondering why you cant back up the claims you made 3 weeks ago.its ok. you ppl have been failing since the start, why change now?
@grandmastershek does gms stand for "Grand Master of Deception?" (s)he still has some work to do to get there. Anyway...
I have asserted that the official technical investigations into the 3 WTC structural failures were fraudulent. We are still waiting for gms to find them. How long shall we have to wait?
how am i ignoring it dan? i am asking you to cite where your problems are with it. remember the claims you made almost a month ago that you repeatedly fail to back up? oh right..you're a truther. just unhinge your jaw and believe!
why is so hard for you to produce the documents you claim to have read? oh wel dan its been 4 weeks now and you havent backed 1 thing up yet, so i guess everyone can conclude you can't.
@grandmastershek is gms challenging me to produce the documents (s)he defends? why? could it be that (s)he has no idea as to what they are?
Speaking of 4 weeks, gms compared me to some religious proselitizer. At least religious missionaries keep their sacred scriptures with them and are ready to share them with skeptics.
Why is gms afraid of sharing official 9/11 documents that supposedly prove the official conspiracy theory? Doesn't (s)he know their existence?
i am challenging you to produce the sections you claim violate scientific properties. oh well such is twoof. a lot of bold claims and no follow through.
HEY GSM an 'ESTIMATE' as NIST wrote in the abstract of 1-6D for the damage done from impact. And an 'ESTIMATE' for the fireproofing to be blown off. It is just that an 'ESTIMATE' which is the opinion of NIST and has no actual testing to back it up is not the scientific method. An estimate as a final value is against the scientific method... What NIST wrote is the sole OPINION of those who wrote it!!!!
@grandmastershek Using the scientific method you first create a hypothesis (ESTIMATE). then you TEST those hypothesis (ESTIMATE) repeatedly. Then you come to a conclusion based on the data from those TESTS and that confirms your hypothesis (ESTIMATE).. Using an ESTIMATE as a final value with no TESTING is not the scientific method.. So you tell me how the NIST NCSTAR WTC Report(s) pass to the hypothesis when 90% of the information was based on those ESTIMATES?
LOL! a scientific hypothesis is not an estimate jackass; its a guess based on previous knowledge of how a new set of circumstances will behave and must be testable. NIST took what they knew about the fireproofing and the plane impacts and determined an estimate of the effect. scientists use estimates all the time if definite values cannot be determined. you can find them used in any number of papers on subjects from genetics to physics.
Yes but that estimate they provided was bias to the fact that fire brought down the buildings. They failed to even test for explosives and incendiary residues. That means that ESTIMATE was biased. That also mean the test done there after and global analysis were also biased to these facts. Hence not testing the fire tests with fire proofing and using user variables with over 2000 break points to run the collapse simulation... Making it not the scientific method!!!! Clear now?
ROFL! bias? awesome, show where in their estimates that this bias arises. maybe they were "biased" towards fire because the collapses initiated where the fire and planes were? see occam's razor sometime.
NCSTAR 1-3 is the metallurgical analysis of the steel. why would you test for explosive residues if the results of such residues or components are not present? do you check for heart attack when a person has a gun shot wound to the chest?
its even less clear now. fireproofing is not designed to resist the impact of a jet nor the resulting explosion. provide a superior model. its what real science demands.
Okay send me any study that has studied an explosion with JP8 on fireproofing!!! Send me any study done on what a plane impact does on fire proofing!!! So I will say it one more time for you!!! There is no evidence that fireproofing would be blown off upon impact and ensuing fire ball explosion. That is a flammable explosion not and explosive... So what is real science is the fact that you have no evidence of this. Real science demands testing a theory. Something you fail at!!
LOL! i see so fire proofing can resist the impact and explosion of a jet while steel beams cannot. makes total sense. had you read the NIST report you would have seen the photographic evidence of what happened to the fireproofing on the outside. but i guess your personal beliefs trump reality.
and please stop citing what science is and is not. you ave already made it glaringly apparent with your last bumbling of what a hypothesis that your way over your head.
Where is that evidence that it can't? Oh yea NIST failed to test that and instead based 90% of the STUDY as they call it but it is a CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION. So where is all of this proof? I am waiting for those tests results... Come on what you think and what happens in reality are two different things. Come on show me the evidence. I have read the NIST report if I quote it... Where are your quotes from NIST? Come on where is all this proof you profess to have???
i see so the fireproofing on the inside of the building was stronger than the fireproofing on the outside. if you go to NCSTAR 1-2 they discuss their modelling for the damage from the planes extensively.
Also I would like to point out the fact that you say steel beams can not resist the impact.. The only visible evidence that any steel was damaged was to the facade. I am still waiting for the evidence from you and NIST that the CORE and FIREPROOFING was affected as NIST stated and you continue to argue over. Where is the EVIDENCE? I have made a hypothesis also that it was not affected. It holds the same weight as NIST because neither was tested...
its called math jackass. you calculate the mass of an object and the resistance a steel column will provide. had you actually read the reports you criticize you would know they explain all this and prvide the details for the modelling they used. you could of course also look at the purdue study on it but that of course you would quickly dismiss out of hand as well.
I have looked at the study that uses the same exact data from NIST which coherently is the same exact data from FEMA with a few word changes... What else do I have to say besides I win you lose and I am done with you thanks for the tools to make a video busting all of you at the same time!!!!!
Come on you would love to prove me wrong!!! So go get some quotes stating that they were not ESTIMATES and that they TESTED the FIREPROOFING and STEEL in a controlled fashion in context with an IMPACT and RESULTING EXPLOSION... Come on talk is cheap prove me wrong... I challenge you too. But I am 120% sure you will fail at that challenge....
who said they werent estimates? are you still hung up on your beliefs that science doesnt use estimates? for fucksake, you don't need to test fire proofing for such an even. look at the photos.'
scientists use models all the time to explain phenomena. its not like dexter's lab. sorry to disappoint. if you know how steel behaves, and how the other components behave you don't have to run real world tests.
maybe write a counter paper as opposed to "NUH UH!"" ?
What is it that you can not comprehend? The study has yet to prove that it happened as they stated. Is it really that hard for you to understand that after all of the quotes I have posted? NIST states that 90% were estimates. They state there was no visual evidence of that... So which part is it that you can not understand?
well since youre unaware of how science actually works i';ll explain. scientists take what they know, then fill in the gaps based on guesses based on the best inferences available. they use estimates because they know they cannot recreate the situation exactly as was. so unlike truthers scientists use what they can best guess as opposed to truthers who think they have the truth based on 0 evidence.
WOW QUOTE THOSE TEST FOR ME... Why do you always talk, and yet you always fail to provide any evidence of what you state? Prove it here is the link to the NIST NCSTAR WTC Report(s) Why do I give the link out more than any debunker? Why have I been the only person I have see to quote those reports? Where is your sources? Oh yea I am using them against you!!!!
wtc(dot)nist(dot)gov/NCSTAR1/
Get to scrubbing that study as you call it!!!! When you find evidence to test post them!
why can't you just read it yourself? NCSTAR 1-2. the method of modelling and everything else is there. or maybe you could propose a specific criticism of their findings as opposed to your ignorant assumptions of estimates and "no proof"?
you don't need to model the fireproofing. all you need to know is what the forces where involved. we already know that fireproofing won't resist such effects. all you need to know is where.
No you need to provide me with the proper testing so I will shut the hell up... Until then there will always be people like me who does not believe it because the tests were not conducted using the scientific method. As I have posted over and over again. The tests provided by NIST were all but correct!!! As I have sent you another PM proving this using quotes from NIST themselves.
well that might be a problem since yo don;t know what the scientific method is. in your opinion they were incorrect, but oddly enough no one can create a study that demonstrates as such. just morons like you saying "NUH UH! NUH UH!".
what you proved is that you think your speculation based on your non authority is science.
Since I don't know what the scientific method is? I mean come on guy that is all you can say but actions are larger than words. And according to my actions I have copied and pasted the entire meaning of the phrase 'SCIENTIFIC PROCESS'. The one who fails to know what it is is you. You are the one who claims that NIST did adhesive tests with the fireproofing and forces to knock it off. Although the quote referenced by me was from that test... Again like a rock...
according to your own words you don't know what a hypothesis is. i cited the portion where they did the tests i noted. and the strength tests were from a different set of experiments; not the debris field testing.
A hypothesis is an estimate of what will happen. The opinion from the person making that hypothesis. It only becomes a reality when the tests are done and the data is provided making it a working hypothesis. A working hypothesis is not based on the opinion no more rather the data. You are an idiot.. Keep playing word games... I will keep attacking your stupidity...
That is like saying confiscation and stealing do not have the same meaning. The only difference is one is condoned according to law the other not. It is the same as saying oppression and taxing are not the same. Same meaning except one is condoned according to law the other not. Do you understand I can play the word game great...
you're severely retarded. this is about as moronical as your tube argument.
i have already demonstrated estimates are regularly use in science. yes you play word games very well. apparently in trutherland equivocation is the highest from of science.
As I have as well... They are used at the start of the scientific process. They then need testing to prove the theory is correct. When you fail to conduct that testing (when it is in another environment) using the same methods as the original then that testing is a fail. Leaving you with the theory and no real fact outcome because you failed to put it into the right context!!! How dumb can you be?
sure, stick your fingers in your ears. i cited two sources of estimates used as conclusions. basically what we have here is yet again you pulling something out of your ass and claiming it as fact. you pulled hypothesis as a an estimate out of your ass, even though a hypothesis as an "estimate" is not the same as the calculated estimates from NIST. too stupid for words.
thanks for proving my point about truthers and equivocation fallacies.
Putting a piece of fireproofing on incorrect and shooting something that was the minority in the entire thing at it is out of context in all aspects. That is not considered testing that is considered lacing results to get the outcome desired...
So go quote NIST on the tests conducted that proved the fireproofing to have been jarred loose... The only thing they have in there is the shotgun test... So if I misrepresent them then prove me wrong stop running your chops and quote them yourself... If not, then that is all you are doing is running your chops....
sigh...i cited the other test already. you choose to believe they dont exist. doesn't matter anyway. did the fireproofing we can see get damaged, yes or no?
Aha you sited the test that I quoted... Hence we have a problem here. I quoted it to you and you used it as a reference after I quoted it. But yet you failed to quote it because it was the same quote as the one I posted... Now that we have that clear prove me wrong and stop bumping your gums....
aha debris is what would have knocked them off correct? Show me where they made a mock and blew roughly 90,000 liters of fuel up and observed the fire proofing being jarred loose. Well then your test means nothing and the only test that holds weight for the theory is the shotgun tests. Which that test itself was a fail. You claim they tested the fireproofing and proved it would have been blown off but yet fail to have the test results other than what I quoted...
Aha so you test its strength and do the forces from the plane. Once again you fail to use the plane theory on WTC 7 that fell due to fire. How did WTC 7 loose its fireproofing? I mean for it to fall then the fireproofing needs to be gone. Without that plane impact you have no story as to how it would magically blow off!!! To bad so sad.
yup...you can't read. i never said it lost its fireproofing, and neither does NIST. i cited a source showing fireproofing has a rating of 2hrs. it burned over 5 hours unfought and collapse was suspected by many firefighter you claim to believe, but only when its convenient.
so what twoofer site are you copying and pasting from?
This rating is the requirement for protecting paper documents. Above 350°F (176.7°C) paper is distorted by the heat and information is lost. A Class 350-4 Hour vault must keep the temperature below 350°F. for at least four hours, with temperatures up to 2,000°F. (1,093.3°C) outside the vault."
wow...we were talking about the fireproofing in the WTC buildings & what did you produce? absolutely nothing about the fire proofing in the WTC (which is what you were swinging your dick about) nor anything about fireproofing applied to structural steel. instead, in a pure demonstration of your endless stupidity you copied & pasted a wiki article about safes. or did the word vault confuse you? let me guess..not only were the WTC buildings built like mufflers but safes as well.
That shut you the hell up huh!!! Come on I am waiting for the references to where I can find out what WTC 7 had for fireproofing... Until then you are just bumping your gums as always with the DEBUNKER CAMP!!!!
uh huh...well i provided a source showing max fireproofing rating is 2 hours. but like a good little twoofer you shoved your fingers in your ears. maybe instead of asking stupid questions you should stop sitting in a puddle of ignorant piss and find the answers yourself? its called burden of proof jackass. look it up when you are done slapping yourself on the back.
geee...google wtc 7 fireproof rating and what do you get? an article from wiki (which you just love copying & pasting like the in depth researcher you are) which lead to the FEMA report on WTC 7.ooops...my bad the ratings were 2 hours for the trusses & 3 hours for the columns because the columns were further insulated beyond spray on fireproofing with multiple layers of gypsum board. how long did 7 burn for? oh right 6 hrs.
stop asking stupid questions you can get answers for.
Aha you reference FEMA but have you read the report from FEMA? You state they talked about WTC 7... I call BS on ya right now because they left that building out of their report.. So when you get a valid argument get back at me.. Until then your arguments hold no weight.. No quotes from them no report from them no weight!!!
LOL! try getting your nonsensical twooferisms right. its amazing how i cite an exact point where they reference WTC 7 yet you pretend it doesn't exist; nor bother ti punch it into google to find out. nothing like proving youré delusional all by your lonesome. not to mention i just cited your own source which confirms what i posted from FEMA. stop embarrassing yourself.
Which fireproofing? That of WTC 7, or that of WTC 1 and 2? Because NIST states there was no visual evidence of the inside of the buildings. They state this in the abstract of every report. What is it that you fail to understand?
Whahahaha Magic bombs... Well over 100 first responders witnessed secondary explosions. So what is magical about the explosions that happened that day? Why are you avoiding my questions? I can do a recap unless you are just going to keep bumping your gums....
I love how the "truthers" have validity in their claims, but the "birthers" are just plain nuts. Lol
buddybudmac 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status."
NIST "lacks supporting evidence or plausibility" Making it Pseudo Science!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
0.25% steel recovered from WTC 1 and 2 combined... 0% steel recovered from WTC 7... NIST metallurgy tests state nothing above 250oC was found... But yet they ESTIMATE 600oC... No EVIDENCE of FIREPROOFING being blown off... No EVIDENCE of CORE supports being severed..
That is PSEUDO SCIENCE... No questions asked hands down!!!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
present your source.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@grandmastershek
"present your source."
Well if you had read the comments I have presented my source.. NIST NCSTAR 1-1 through 1-9. If you fail to comprehend this fact, i8t lies with your stupidity then!!!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
"present your source."
Present what source? I have provided quotes from NIST and FEMA the entire time!!! That is the source retard! You are hilarious, dance around everything!!!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
no i mean cite where they say only .25%, 0% was recovered, figures etc.
you're lying and we both know it.
example: evidence of fireproof removal. there are numerous photos of dislodged fireproofing on the exterior columns.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
"no i mean cite where they say only .25%, 0% was recovered, figures etc."
NIST NCSTAR WTC 1-2
""For the second task related to aircraft impact, the aircraft impact damage to the exterior of the WTC towers could be visibly identified from video and photographic records."
Cont.
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
"However, no visible information could be obtained for the extent of damage to the interior of the towers, including the structural systems (floors and core columns, partition walls,and interior building contents. Such information was needed for the subsequent fire dynamics simulations and post-impact structural analyses. In addition, for the fire dynamics modeling, the dispersion of the jet fuel and the location of combustible aircraft debris were required."
Cont.
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
awesome...you can copy paste. now what is your point?
are you going to say they couldn't know about the fireproofing removal, because we both know your moving the goal posts. oh right i forgot you were dictating that models aren't science.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
"awesome...you can copy paste. now what is your point?"
Awesome you can't copy and paste NIST NCSTAR REPORTS, you actually have to read them and type them!!!
"are you going to say they couldn't know about the fireproofing removal, because we both know your moving the goal posts."
I can point you in the direction of NIST's shady tests conducted, I can also quote where they state the SFRM did not fly off of the bar test. Is that what you want, that I do it for you?
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
correction...you can misquote them. way to ignore the other tests they conducted, or the fact that the plane defeated the aluminum cladding on the exterior then the fireproofing (aka-reality). around and around we go, where will we stop? well never, because its a truther running in circles.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
"correction...you can misquote them. way to ignore the other tests they conducted, or the fact that the plane defeated the aluminum cladding on the exterior then the fireproofing (aka-reality)."
No correction, it defeated the Aluminum Facade, the Steel perimeter box columns, then the SFRM, then the Gypsum board, and then the Steel core columns! That was the Aluminum Alloy sheet metal of a plane. Funny part is, it tore the SFRM off but did nothing to the furniture!!!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
LOL! ok...so we can't see the interior of the building but you know this. but ncie way to change the subject. everyone climb aboard! its the truther carousel!
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
Well that is part of the NCSTAR Report!!! I am just telling you what your own report states!! Watch that video, learn a little bit.. You are in serious denial, do I have to quote NCSTAR more because you are to lazy to read it, or just to stupid to understand it!!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
wrong liar. you are taking the report and claiming a small amount of steel was recovered by misquoting them. stop lying and calling it "truth".
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
"wrong liar. you are taking the report and claiming a small amount of steel was recovered by misquoting them. stop lying and calling it "truth"."
Well all of the steel was recovered, there is subsequently about 5% left over and 0.25% was inspected! One would think if they had all of that steel, then they could have at least found steel that reached critical temps. You know, most scientists would never write a report without supporting evidence!!! Sorry that is life!!!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
So try to understand this one thing... I did not write that quote I only copied it from the NCSTAR Reports!!! I mean look at the QUOTATION MARKS, that is what NIST STATES. That they only tested 0.25-0.5% of the total steel from WTC 1&2 combined, and they also state they had NO STEEL from WTC 7. Once again that is a quote from NCSTAR Reports! Not my opinion, not my investigation, and certainly not my report!!! Can you understand that yet, that I am not saying that?
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@grandmastershek
"you are taking the report and claiming a small amount of steel was recovered by misquoting them."
If you believe I am misquoting NIST then what is so hard to quote them and prove your point? Why are you avoiding the report for?
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
"you are taking the report and claiming a small amount of steel was recovered by misquoting them."
So why is it so hard for you to quote NIST and prove me wrong? Is there a reason for you not quoting the story you are trying to hype? I mean it is your opinion against a full page quote and several different quotes with references!!!
So get to reading and type away to prove me wrong!!!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ctrackmonger
i did. you ignored it.
"NIST possesses 236 structural steel elements from the World Trade
Center (WTC) buildings. These pieces represent a small fraction of the enormous amount of steel examined at the various recovery yard..." (right before your quote mine trying to pretend your figures respresented the actual recovery)
keep lying.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
its called burden of proof jackhole. 9/11 truthers hear voices from magical ponies from zebulan 5...prove me wrong.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@grandmastershek
"its called burden of proof jackhole. 9/11 truthers hear voices from magical ponies from zebulan 5...prove me wrong."
So how much steel did NIST recover you jackass? I mean I posted 4 different quotes, from 4 different reports, showing you that NIST only had 0.25-0.5% of all WTC STEEL, so when are you going to admit you were wrong?
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
"its called burden of proof jackhole."
Well the BURDEN OF PROOF, as you call it, has been proven...
You stated they had more steel, so I QUOTED NIST stating how much they had... Maybe you missed that part jackass?
So now the BURDEN is on you, to prove that NIST collected more than 0.25-0.5% of the actual WTC 1&2 steel!!! Get the picture dumbass?
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ctrackmonger
I never said NIST had more steel. You stated only .25% of the steel was recovered.....period I stated you were misquoting the NIST report to make that claim.
"0.25% steel recovered from WTC 1 and 2 combined... "
"One would think if they had all of that steel"
Your exact words. Stop lying and trying to pretend all the steel wasn't recovered.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
so shifting burden of proof is your way of getting out of admitting you lied?
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
Problem with that story and the story of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon (that the plane tore out 5 steel telephone poles), is that wings sever upon contact with 14" wood telephone poles!!! Here is a video confirming this!!!
/watch?v=gehmLdYK_48
"well never, because its a truther running in circles."
Why is it that I quote your official story, and you just say something? Is it intentional ignorance, or is it just plain stupidity?
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
yup..change the subject, again & again & again.
"Here is a video confirming this!!!..wings sever"
liar. that isn't a 767. it isn't even moving fast enough to take off. they were flying at around 500 MPH. not to mention it defeats both polls & for the inner "the basic wing structure remains intact" (3:25). your own video debunks you liar.
"Why is it that I quote your official story..."
because you're running back to the same BS you couldn't back up before. steel > aluminum
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
"yup..change the subject, again & again & again.
"Here is a video confirming this!!!..wings sever"
liar. that isn't a 767. it isn't even moving fast enough to take off. they were flying at around 500 MPH."
So the faster it goes the stronger the wings are? Something wrong with you, I mean that seriously!!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
Can't believe I missed this. Take a frozen chicken...drop it on your windshield. Then accelerate it to 100 MPH and compare the results. See mass vs speed. Your ignorance is astounding.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
this guy is a paid commentor. Look at his channel to see the profile of a paid troll - all his posts are on 911 vids, even though he obviously opposes a new investigation so shouldnt care. Back under the bridge
interlovepol 1 year ago
@interlovepol
Ad hom! Its the 911 truth way!
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
What ignorance? WTF are you talking about?
I am speaking of the video link you posted, where you stated NIST didn't recover the little amount quoted....
You have some issues....
Is that all you can say?
You can't even comment on the steel recovered, are you afraid of being laughed off of YT?
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
Ignorance as in you have no idea what mass is or how its effected by speed and acceleration. You just proved it. Stop crying.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
Ignorance is UNEDUCATED, I know NEWTONS LAWS OF MOTION, you are the one who seems not too....
As I said, you are stupid due to you being uneducated, which just happens to be the meaning of IGNORANCE....
You are a true moron...
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
Uh huh..well you out it in CAPS so it must be true. Forget demonstration you wrote it in CAPS!
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
I wrote in cps, because I want you too see that, because you always seem to miss things....
Just as when I wrote about NIST, then you disagreed, and I quoted and referenced them, and you still denied it....
Wonderful you are a moron...
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger "FOR THE LOVE OF GOD CHANGE THE SUBJECT!"
As usual, get called on you BS and you change the subject. So any time you want to start explaining Newton I am all ears.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
"So any time you want to start explaining Newton I am all ears."
"Third Law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear. This means that whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body exerts a force −F on the first body. F and −F are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. This law is sometimes referred to as the action-reaction law, with F called the "action" and −F the "reaction"."
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
Wow....copy-paste. Always a good sign someone has a grasp of the topic. Hmmmm...maybe I'll google fission and pretend to be a physicist.
Self-fail.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
wow copy and paste, then you jump to fission...
that is a clear sign that you are lost, even when speaking about the laws of motion..
You are the one who asked me about those laws, and brought them up...
That is something called research, you can also do that in college, as long as you don't plagiarize and give credit, through quotation marks, hence why it is called a quote and reference...
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
I didn't copy paste. I love how truthers have just reverted to saying what they hear other people say to try to appear on level. Fission was an a analogy. Try to keep up.
You didn't explain how Newton applied here. You just copied an pasted a definition to pretend like you had a clue of what you are talking about. But yeah your google skills sure prove something.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
"You didn't explain how Newton applied here. You just copied an pasted a definition to pretend like you had a clue of what you are talking about. But yeah your google skills sure prove something."
It is simple, it is called deceleration!!!
When a FORCE F applies force on something, there is an equal or greater force F- applied to FORCE F...
So when a plane smashes into a building the stationary object wins, just as a wall would win against your car!!!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger In a closed system. Try again.
By your reasoning a wrecking ball cant destroy a building. Keep swinging for the fences.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
LMAO, that is coming from the guy, that claims NIST recovered more than .50% of WTC1&2 steel combined, and 0% of WTC7 steel!!!
You still argue that I misquoted them, and I have been waiting for over 3 months now for your proof to this claim, I just waited, and let you make an ass out of yourself!!!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger Which isn;t what I said. You claimed that only that much was recovered period, based on NIST's samples. I showed NIST's samples weren't all the recovered material. So you keep moving the goal posts. 9 years of fail what else should I expect?
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
No, I can go back and copy my original posts, that isn't a problem...
100% was recovered, more than 95% was destroyed without looking at it.
FEMA had 156 pieces of WTC and surrounding buildings steel, NIST had 251 pieces WTC1&2 steel and 5 pieces WTC5 steel!
They shared over 40 pieces of steel!
Outside of that the remaining 3-5% is only for MEMORIALS, in accordance with PANY/NJ!
I parrot shit, because it isn't my opinion, it's a fact, and you are a moron that's a fact!!!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger Nice dodge btw monger. Learn wtf your babbling about next time. The 5 secs you spent googling newton in no way makes you knowledgeable on the subject. Friggin parrots.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
Newtons rules are for GRAVITY....
Like when a building falls, I was waiting for you to say something, but it took to damn long!!!
Like when a BUILDING FALLS, FOR EXAMPLE WTC1,2, & 7!!!
Gravity in NYC is 9.8m/sec...
FREE FALL ACCELERATION of ANY BUILDING IMPLIES NO NEGATIVE RESISTANCE, WHICH STRUCTURES PROVIDE!!!
WHICH MEANS THAT, ALL OF THE SUPPORTS WERE REMOVED, FOR 2.25 SECONDS, ACCORDING TO NIST, on WTC7!!!
Go read a book or something moron!!!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
Oh yea, one more thing you moron, when you post something about me on the JREF Forum, at least post what you are complaining about, instead of just saying I'm the copy/paste king!!!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
Oh and one more thing, I learned the laws of motion when I was in 8th grade, what is your problem????
Just as you claimed I lied about NIST and how much steel they recovered, even after posting a quote from them...
Do you not have 2 brain cells, that allow you to learn?
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger ", I learned the laws of motion when I was in 8th grade"
Awesome..so you shouldn't need to plagiarize now get to the explaining..
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
I am not plagiarizing shit, as stated notice the quotation marks, those aren't my words you fucking moron!!!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
Why is it that I quote your official story...
Your answer was
"because you're running back to the same BS you couldn't back up before. steel > aluminum"
Wow that was the worst answer I have ever seen, you blame your ignorance on BS? When I quote the official report? That is National Institute of Science and Technology, I would hope that the report was not BS!!! I mean the CONGRESS CHARGED NIST with the INVESTIGATION!!!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
Correction: you misquote the "official story" then get called on it, then move the goal posts..
grandmastershek 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@grandmastershek
"Correction: you misquote the "official story" then get called on it, then move the goal posts.."
so if i misquote them, what is so hard for you to prove???
The amount stands, that is NIST's words, and you certainly can't prove otherwise!!!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
And just to FYI, the planes fuel tanks are in those wings!!! When they contact a surface they do not punch through and blow up, they blow up upon contact!! So that means whatever hit the WTC had no fuel in the wings and WINGS OF STEEL, to cut the steel beams like they were butter!!!! Open your eyes fool, denial is not the way to go!!!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@grandmastershek
"oh right i forgot you were dictating that models aren't science."
Well when the FEA is MADE AND RAN by the USER, and the towers would not fall unless they gave in more than 2000 break points, I would say no those do not constitute science! That constitutes the USER'S OPINION"S!!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@grandmastershek
"The estimate of the extent of damage to the fireproofing on the structural steel in the towers due to impact was essential for the thermal and structural analyses. The aircraft impact damage analyses were the primary tool by which most of the information on the tower damage could be estimated."
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
Here comes the next about how much they have!!! YOU ARE A FAIL RETARD THOSE ARE THE WORDS FROM NIST, we can see you failed to research shit before you pop off at the mouth!!!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
wow that was cute...you claimed certain percentages were recovered. what you fail to mention is that what you are referencing is how much they examined for the investigations, not the total recovered. way to misquote.
"NIST possesses 236 structural steel elements from the World Trade
Center (WTC) buildings. These pieces represent a small fraction of the enormous amount of steel examined at the various recovery yard..." (right before your quote mine
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
"These pieces represent a small fraction of the enormous amount of steel examined at the various recovery yard..." (right before your quote mine"
aha like they could tell what reached temps from pictures right? When you examine something you look at it and then test it. Just looking does not constitute an examination. Kind of how Dr.s do pap smears and not just grope the women!!! Or what about X rays when they know the bone is broken? Are you really that stupid?
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
NCSTAR 1-3 E.6 Page xliv
"Structural Steel in WTC 7
No steel was recovered from WTC 7; however, construction-related documents describe the structural steel as conventional 36 ksi, 42 ksi, and 50 ksi steels."
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
kind of dishonest representation to omit this.
"No pieces could be unambiguously identified as being from WTC 7."
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
"No pieces could be unambiguously identified as being from WTC 7."
Well considering I left more quotes stating that they failed to have steel!!! Sorry read the quotes, then look them up!!! I didn't write that report just copied it, hence the quotation marks!!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
NCSTAR 1-3B Inventory of Steel Page xxv second paragraph.
"Upon arrival at NIST, the samples were cataloged, documented, and when possible, identified as to their precise, as-built locations within the buildings. The vast majority of the structural components are from WTC 1 and WTC 2. It is estimated that roughly 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent of the 200,000 tons of steel used in the construction of the two towers was recovered"
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
NCSTAR 1-3B Page xxvi last paragraph
"This collection of steel from the WTC towers is sufficient for determining the quality of steel and for determining mechanical properties as input to models of building performance. The lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests on actual material from the structure: however, WTC 7 was constructed of three grades of conventional steel (36 ksi, 42 ksi, and 50 ksi), and literature values may be used to estimate properties"
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
So how is it that NIST compares WTC 7 to WTC 1 and 2 steel when the twins were built 16 years earlier?
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
please clarify
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
So I would say you are either a liar or very very ignorant!!! I just left a quote, page number, paragraph, and report. So you answered extremely fast before with what you assumed I couldn't produce, now are you going to acknowledge that you were incorrect?
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
jack ass...you didn't do that until just now. let me read and i shall see.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
"jack ass...you didn't do that until just now."
Why are you calling me a jackass, and what didn't I do until now? I have been reading the reports for the last 10 months!! I am still not done with them but I sure got the impression!!!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status."
NIST "lacks supporting evidence or plausibility" Making it Pseudo Science!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
WARNING....willfully ignorant truther ahead. arguments from reason and evidence have no effect. all claims will not be substantiated and any counter evidence will be ignored or dismissed out of hand. turn back.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
FYI- this this thread has now changed titles to "how to avoid rationality" by dan.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
correction by dan and ctrackmonger""
grandmastershek 1 year ago
Has this thread attracted a resident 9/11 faithkeeper? one of grandms' most constant tactics is to not point at the official technical analyses into the 3 9/11 World Trade Center structural failures.
This is fairly common among 9/11 faithkeepers. They defend a story tooth and nail, but won't point to it. Kinda high-priests who won't share their sacred scriptures with the believers.
Why are 9/11 faith-keepers so afraid of the story they defend? Would they know what they are covering up?
Love,
DanUuNoel 1 year ago
@DanUuNoel
so dan? schrodingers equation? care to explain? 2 weeks now...no one will hold their breath.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek Is gms getting curious about high college chemistry? Wow...
Schrodinger's equation is chemistry's fundamental law. The official analyses into the 9/11 structural failures at the World Trade Center contradict it.
Could this be why gms won't guide our readers to these analyses?
Love,
DanUuNoel 1 year ago
@DanUuNoel "The official analyses into the 9/11 structural failures at the World Trade Center contradict it."
awesome dan, now explain how exactly. remember two weeks ago you made this same claim? i asked for demonstration & your response boiled down to "FOR THE LOVE OF GOD CHANGE THE SUBJECT!".
but as is typical, demonstration for a truther is "well i said so didn't i?". after all look at gage & jones. science sans validation in the best of traditions! oh well, we can just trust them i guess.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek gms is exhibiting the syndrome of the typical cornered 9/11 faithkeeper. When challenged to produce the official analysis of any of the 3 World Trade Center structural failures--so the fraud would be visible to the readers--(s)he pretended not to read. This time, we are even treated to a Divine invocation.
Science sans validation? What gms seems to be advocating is belief without knowing.
Love,
DanUuNoel 1 year ago
@DanUuNoel
so dan schrodinger's equation. please explain how it applies and the conflicts with "the official story".
its ok dan. i am sure you were so excited to start throwing around words over 3 syllables and forgot that people with educations don't get intimated by people who just throw words around. so any day dan you can start backing up your 2 week old baseless claims.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek gms may be trying to understand some chemistry. Let us congratulate her/him and wish him the best.
In the meantime, we have been waiting for 2 weeks for her/him to guide us to the subject of this controversy: the official analyses of the three 9/11 structural failures in the World Trade Center.
Are they that hard to find? Or is it that gms knows better than to lead her/his readers to them?
Love,
DanUuNoel 1 year ago
@DanUuNoel so dan lets hear it. why so shy? oh well just more demonstratrin that truthers are big on claims and short on evidence.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek Does gms masters projection? (S)he defends the official 9/11 myth of the World Trade Center structural failures yet seems to try hard to not guide the readers to it. Talk about being short on evidence!
Love,
DanUuNoel 1 year ago
@DanUuNoel
just checking in to see if dan backed up his claims yet. nope? righty-o!
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek gms is checking, eh? Would it be time for readers to wonder why (s)he is trying hard to ignore a challenge to guide them to the official technical analyses into the 3 WTC structural failures?
Love,
DanUuNoel 1 year ago
@DanUuNoel
It is not only him it is every debunker... Why is it that the truthers (me at least) are using NIST as a REFERENCE??? When I post those quotes from NIST 70% get spammed. There is a reason for this!!! Debunkers hate the fact that I use their reports against them.. To anyone who doubts this try it yourself.
ctrackmonger 1 year ago 2
@ctrackmonger It is indeed amazing. 9/11 faithkeepers avoid the official technical WTC reports like the plague. If anything, this gives legitimacy to questioning 9/11. If the keepers of the official myth are ignorant or afraid of what they are defending...
Love,
DanUuNoel 1 year ago
@DanUuNoel
no more than why they should be wondering why you cant back up the claims you made 3 weeks ago.its ok. you ppl have been failing since the start, why change now?
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek does gms stand for "Grand Master of Deception?" (s)he still has some work to do to get there. Anyway...
I have asserted that the official technical investigations into the 3 WTC structural failures were fraudulent. We are still waiting for gms to find them. How long shall we have to wait?
Is it that gms does not know these analyses?
Love,
DanUuNoel 1 year ago
@DanUuNoel "I have asserted..."
see burden of proof jackass.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek is gms changing tactic? An insult...wow...a heavy and saddening argument, by all means. Alas, it is not convincing.
Why is gms trying hard to ignore the existence of official technical analyses into the 3 9/11 World Trade Center structural failures?
Love,
DanUuNoel 1 year ago
@DanUuNoel
how am i ignoring it dan? i am asking you to cite where your problems are with it. remember the claims you made almost a month ago that you repeatedly fail to back up? oh right..you're a truther. just unhinge your jaw and believe!
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek what is gms grand-master at? Certainly not at reading. Probably not at knowing what (s)he defends.
Why is it so difficult for 9/11 faithkeepers to produce the documents that are the basis for their faith?
Love,
DanUuNoel 1 year ago
@DanUuNoel
why is so hard for you to produce the documents you claim to have read? oh wel dan its been 4 weeks now and you havent backed 1 thing up yet, so i guess everyone can conclude you can't.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek is gms challenging me to produce the documents (s)he defends? why? could it be that (s)he has no idea as to what they are?
Speaking of 4 weeks, gms compared me to some religious proselitizer. At least religious missionaries keep their sacred scriptures with them and are ready to share them with skeptics.
Why is gms afraid of sharing official 9/11 documents that supposedly prove the official conspiracy theory? Doesn't (s)he know their existence?
Love,
DanUuNoel 1 year ago
@DanUuNoel
i am challenging you to produce the sections you claim violate scientific properties. oh well such is twoof. a lot of bold claims and no follow through.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
HEY GSM an 'ESTIMATE' as NIST wrote in the abstract of 1-6D for the damage done from impact. And an 'ESTIMATE' for the fireproofing to be blown off. It is just that an 'ESTIMATE' which is the opinion of NIST and has no actual testing to back it up is not the scientific method. An estimate as a final value is against the scientific method... What NIST wrote is the sole OPINION of those who wrote it!!!!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago 2
@ctrackmonger
LOL! how are estimates against the scientific method? pulling shit out of your ass again? well you say so therefore its true i guess.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek Using the scientific method you first create a hypothesis (ESTIMATE). then you TEST those hypothesis (ESTIMATE) repeatedly. Then you come to a conclusion based on the data from those TESTS and that confirms your hypothesis (ESTIMATE).. Using an ESTIMATE as a final value with no TESTING is not the scientific method.. So you tell me how the NIST NCSTAR WTC Report(s) pass to the hypothesis when 90% of the information was based on those ESTIMATES?
ctrackmonger 1 year ago 2
@ctrackmonger
LOL! a scientific hypothesis is not an estimate jackass; its a guess based on previous knowledge of how a new set of circumstances will behave and must be testable. NIST took what they knew about the fireproofing and the plane impacts and determined an estimate of the effect. scientists use estimates all the time if definite values cannot be determined. you can find them used in any number of papers on subjects from genetics to physics.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
Yes but that estimate they provided was bias to the fact that fire brought down the buildings. They failed to even test for explosives and incendiary residues. That means that ESTIMATE was biased. That also mean the test done there after and global analysis were also biased to these facts. Hence not testing the fire tests with fire proofing and using user variables with over 2000 break points to run the collapse simulation... Making it not the scientific method!!!! Clear now?
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
ROFL! bias? awesome, show where in their estimates that this bias arises. maybe they were "biased" towards fire because the collapses initiated where the fire and planes were? see occam's razor sometime.
NCSTAR 1-3 is the metallurgical analysis of the steel. why would you test for explosive residues if the results of such residues or components are not present? do you check for heart attack when a person has a gun shot wound to the chest?
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
its even less clear now. fireproofing is not designed to resist the impact of a jet nor the resulting explosion. provide a superior model. its what real science demands.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
Okay send me any study that has studied an explosion with JP8 on fireproofing!!! Send me any study done on what a plane impact does on fire proofing!!! So I will say it one more time for you!!! There is no evidence that fireproofing would be blown off upon impact and ensuing fire ball explosion. That is a flammable explosion not and explosive... So what is real science is the fact that you have no evidence of this. Real science demands testing a theory. Something you fail at!!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
LOL! i see so fire proofing can resist the impact and explosion of a jet while steel beams cannot. makes total sense. had you read the NIST report you would have seen the photographic evidence of what happened to the fireproofing on the outside. but i guess your personal beliefs trump reality.
and please stop citing what science is and is not. you ave already made it glaringly apparent with your last bumbling of what a hypothesis that your way over your head.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
Where is that evidence that it can't? Oh yea NIST failed to test that and instead based 90% of the STUDY as they call it but it is a CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION. So where is all of this proof? I am waiting for those tests results... Come on what you think and what happens in reality are two different things. Come on show me the evidence. I have read the NIST report if I quote it... Where are your quotes from NIST? Come on where is all this proof you profess to have???
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
i see so the fireproofing on the inside of the building was stronger than the fireproofing on the outside. if you go to NCSTAR 1-2 they discuss their modelling for the damage from the planes extensively.
seriously, stop embarrassing yourself.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
Also I would like to point out the fact that you say steel beams can not resist the impact.. The only visible evidence that any steel was damaged was to the facade. I am still waiting for the evidence from you and NIST that the CORE and FIREPROOFING was affected as NIST stated and you continue to argue over. Where is the EVIDENCE? I have made a hypothesis also that it was not affected. It holds the same weight as NIST because neither was tested...
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
its called math jackass. you calculate the mass of an object and the resistance a steel column will provide. had you actually read the reports you criticize you would know they explain all this and prvide the details for the modelling they used. you could of course also look at the purdue study on it but that of course you would quickly dismiss out of hand as well.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek "you could of course also look at the purdue study on it but that of course you would quickly dismiss out of hand as well""
yahtzee!
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
I have looked at the study that uses the same exact data from NIST which coherently is the same exact data from FEMA with a few word changes... What else do I have to say besides I win you lose and I am done with you thanks for the tools to make a video busting all of you at the same time!!!!!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
wrong...your hypothesis is based on you saying "NUH UH!". thanks for proving again the education level for being an informed truther is 0.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
Come on you would love to prove me wrong!!! So go get some quotes stating that they were not ESTIMATES and that they TESTED the FIREPROOFING and STEEL in a controlled fashion in context with an IMPACT and RESULTING EXPLOSION... Come on talk is cheap prove me wrong... I challenge you too. But I am 120% sure you will fail at that challenge....
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
who said they werent estimates? are you still hung up on your beliefs that science doesnt use estimates? for fucksake, you don't need to test fire proofing for such an even. look at the photos.'
scientists use models all the time to explain phenomena. its not like dexter's lab. sorry to disappoint. if you know how steel behaves, and how the other components behave you don't have to run real world tests.
maybe write a counter paper as opposed to "NUH UH!"" ?
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
you already have the study NIST conducted. you just dont like the results. sorry but you saying "NUH UH!" isn;t an argument.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
What is it that you can not comprehend? The study has yet to prove that it happened as they stated. Is it really that hard for you to understand that after all of the quotes I have posted? NIST states that 90% were estimates. They state there was no visual evidence of that... So which part is it that you can not understand?
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
well since youre unaware of how science actually works i';ll explain. scientists take what they know, then fill in the gaps based on guesses based on the best inferences available. they use estimates because they know they cannot recreate the situation exactly as was. so unlike truthers scientists use what they can best guess as opposed to truthers who think they have the truth based on 0 evidence.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
provide a superior explanation undergoing equal standards of evidence and methodology. until then your a five year old saying "NUH UH!".
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
WOW QUOTE THOSE TEST FOR ME... Why do you always talk, and yet you always fail to provide any evidence of what you state? Prove it here is the link to the NIST NCSTAR WTC Report(s) Why do I give the link out more than any debunker? Why have I been the only person I have see to quote those reports? Where is your sources? Oh yea I am using them against you!!!!
wtc(dot)nist(dot)gov/NCSTAR1/
Get to scrubbing that study as you call it!!!! When you find evidence to test post them!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
why can't you just read it yourself? NCSTAR 1-2. the method of modelling and everything else is there. or maybe you could propose a specific criticism of their findings as opposed to your ignorant assumptions of estimates and "no proof"?
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
I did I also just sent you quotes from it VIA PM because it will not let me post them anywhere on youtube...
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@grandmastershek
"NCSTAR 1-6C
5.5.5 USER DEFINED BREAK ELEMENTS
Table 5-11 Number of user defined break elements in the full floor model.
Total number of USER DEFINED BREAK ELEMENTS is 2,068.
USER DEFINED BREAK ELEMENTS are what were removed to make the towers fall. The computer did not model the collapse the user modeled the collapse."
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
Please do feel free to post a quote of NIST where they model fireproofing in the tower!!! I can also reference the tests conducted...
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
you don't need to model the fireproofing. all you need to know is what the forces where involved. we already know that fireproofing won't resist such effects. all you need to know is where.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
No you need to provide me with the proper testing so I will shut the hell up... Until then there will always be people like me who does not believe it because the tests were not conducted using the scientific method. As I have posted over and over again. The tests provided by NIST were all but correct!!! As I have sent you another PM proving this using quotes from NIST themselves.
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
well that might be a problem since yo don;t know what the scientific method is. in your opinion they were incorrect, but oddly enough no one can create a study that demonstrates as such. just morons like you saying "NUH UH! NUH UH!".
what you proved is that you think your speculation based on your non authority is science.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
Since I don't know what the scientific method is? I mean come on guy that is all you can say but actions are larger than words. And according to my actions I have copied and pasted the entire meaning of the phrase 'SCIENTIFIC PROCESS'. The one who fails to know what it is is you. You are the one who claims that NIST did adhesive tests with the fireproofing and forces to knock it off. Although the quote referenced by me was from that test... Again like a rock...
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
according to your own words you don't know what a hypothesis is. i cited the portion where they did the tests i noted. and the strength tests were from a different set of experiments; not the debris field testing.
anyone can look it up and see you're a moron.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
A hypothesis is an estimate of what will happen. The opinion from the person making that hypothesis. It only becomes a reality when the tests are done and the data is provided making it a working hypothesis. A working hypothesis is not based on the opinion no more rather the data. You are an idiot.. Keep playing word games... I will keep attacking your stupidity...
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
That is like saying confiscation and stealing do not have the same meaning. The only difference is one is condoned according to law the other not. It is the same as saying oppression and taxing are not the same. Same meaning except one is condoned according to law the other not. Do you understand I can play the word game great...
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
you're severely retarded. this is about as moronical as your tube argument.
i have already demonstrated estimates are regularly use in science. yes you play word games very well. apparently in trutherland equivocation is the highest from of science.
but i guess estimates are not since you say so.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
As I have as well... They are used at the start of the scientific process. They then need testing to prove the theory is correct. When you fail to conduct that testing (when it is in another environment) using the same methods as the original then that testing is a fail. Leaving you with the theory and no real fact outcome because you failed to put it into the right context!!! How dumb can you be?
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
sure, stick your fingers in your ears. i cited two sources of estimates used as conclusions. basically what we have here is yet again you pulling something out of your ass and claiming it as fact. you pulled hypothesis as a an estimate out of your ass, even though a hypothesis as an "estimate" is not the same as the calculated estimates from NIST. too stupid for words.
thanks for proving my point about truthers and equivocation fallacies.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
Putting a piece of fireproofing on incorrect and shooting something that was the minority in the entire thing at it is out of context in all aspects. That is not considered testing that is considered lacing results to get the outcome desired...
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
well if that was the only test conducted i would agree. but it wasn't. nice way to misrepresent the facts.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
So go quote NIST on the tests conducted that proved the fireproofing to have been jarred loose... The only thing they have in there is the shotgun test... So if I misrepresent them then prove me wrong stop running your chops and quote them yourself... If not, then that is all you are doing is running your chops....
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
sigh...i cited the other test already. you choose to believe they dont exist. doesn't matter anyway. did the fireproofing we can see get damaged, yes or no?
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
Aha you sited the test that I quoted... Hence we have a problem here. I quoted it to you and you used it as a reference after I quoted it. But yet you failed to quote it because it was the same quote as the one I posted... Now that we have that clear prove me wrong and stop bumping your gums....
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
wrong...you cited the debris test, i cited the strength test. yes you do have a problem.
watch?v=svwGRJA28lY
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
aha debris is what would have knocked them off correct? Show me where they made a mock and blew roughly 90,000 liters of fuel up and observed the fire proofing being jarred loose. Well then your test means nothing and the only test that holds weight for the theory is the shotgun tests. Which that test itself was a fail. You claim they tested the fireproofing and proved it would have been blown off but yet fail to have the test results other than what I quoted...
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
you don't need to jackass. you test its strength and determine the force caused by the plane. its called math.
so when are you guys going to pass peer review? because until then you guys are just another fringe cult saying "NUH UH! NUH UH!".
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
Aha so you test its strength and do the forces from the plane. Once again you fail to use the plane theory on WTC 7 that fell due to fire. How did WTC 7 loose its fireproofing? I mean for it to fall then the fireproofing needs to be gone. Without that plane impact you have no story as to how it would magically blow off!!! To bad so sad.
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
yup...you can't read. i never said it lost its fireproofing, and neither does NIST. i cited a source showing fireproofing has a rating of 2hrs. it burned over 5 hours unfought and collapse was suspected by many firefighter you claim to believe, but only when its convenient.
so what twoofer site are you copying and pasting from?
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
And please do fill me in on the fire proofing rating??? Which rating did WTC 7 have? I bet you do not even know....
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
i already posted the link. you chose to ignore it like any good twoofer does. maybe you can find a source showing a fireproofing rating of 5 hours?
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
Come on where is that link? I didn't see it please post it again if not you are just bumping your gums....
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
hows that? you shoving your fingers in your ears is me bumping my gums? cute catch phrase btw...like most truther arguments, catchy but baseless.
oh well apparently the googles is too complicated for the twoof.
purdue[dot]edu/uns/x/2007a/070612HoffmannWTC[dot]html
lemme guess..."NUH UH! NUH UH!", right?
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
"Class 350 Rating
This rating is the requirement for protecting paper documents. Above 350°F (176.7°C) paper is distorted by the heat and information is lost. A Class 350-4 Hour vault must keep the temperature below 350°F. for at least four hours, with temperatures up to 2,000°F. (1,093.3°C) outside the vault."
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
wow...we were talking about the fireproofing in the WTC buildings & what did you produce? absolutely nothing about the fire proofing in the WTC (which is what you were swinging your dick about) nor anything about fireproofing applied to structural steel. instead, in a pure demonstration of your endless stupidity you copied & pasted a wiki article about safes. or did the word vault confuse you? let me guess..not only were the WTC buildings built like mufflers but safes as well.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
That shut you the hell up huh!!! Come on I am waiting for the references to where I can find out what WTC 7 had for fireproofing... Until then you are just bumping your gums as always with the DEBUNKER CAMP!!!!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
uh huh...well i provided a source showing max fireproofing rating is 2 hours. but like a good little twoofer you shoved your fingers in your ears. maybe instead of asking stupid questions you should stop sitting in a puddle of ignorant piss and find the answers yourself? its called burden of proof jackass. look it up when you are done slapping yourself on the back.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
geee...google wtc 7 fireproof rating and what do you get? an article from wiki (which you just love copying & pasting like the in depth researcher you are) which lead to the FEMA report on WTC 7.ooops...my bad the ratings were 2 hours for the trusses & 3 hours for the columns because the columns were further insulated beyond spray on fireproofing with multiple layers of gypsum board. how long did 7 burn for? oh right 6 hrs.
stop asking stupid questions you can get answers for.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
Aha you reference FEMA but have you read the report from FEMA? You state they talked about WTC 7... I call BS on ya right now because they left that building out of their report.. So when you get a valid argument get back at me.. Until then your arguments hold no weight.. No quotes from them no report from them no weight!!!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger "NUH UH! NUH UH!"
LOL! try getting your nonsensical twooferisms right. its amazing how i cite an exact point where they reference WTC 7 yet you pretend it doesn't exist; nor bother ti punch it into google to find out. nothing like proving youré delusional all by your lonesome. not to mention i just cited your own source which confirms what i posted from FEMA. stop embarrassing yourself.
fema[dot]gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5[dot]pdf
fema[dot]gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc[dot]pdf
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
Which fireproofing? That of WTC 7, or that of WTC 1 and 2? Because NIST states there was no visual evidence of the inside of the buildings. They state this in the abstract of every report. What is it that you fail to understand?
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
man you're retarded. do you remember talking about eh fireproofing that we talked about? the ones visible outside?
oh right, just like the magic bombs no one heard they had magic fireproofing inside the buildings.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek
Whahahaha Magic bombs... Well over 100 first responders witnessed secondary explosions. So what is magical about the explosions that happened that day? Why are you avoiding my questions? I can do a recap unless you are just going to keep bumping your gums....
ctrackmonger 1 year ago