Jet fuel can't melt steel. (But it sure can weaken it)

[monkeylove]

14 minutes ago, mudslag said:

 

 

He can't provide a number but his armchair spidey sense tells him it's not enough.

Please state the guidelines from experts which shows that only around 150 pieces are needed.

 

2 minutes ago, trag3dy said:

Okay. Here is the problem. You assume from the get go that it was a crime scene for and thus you need evidence to support your theory.

 

What if, and bear with me here because it might sound crazy, but what if it wasn't actually a crime scene and instead a terrorist attack? The people doing the investigation were looking at evidence for a terrorist attack and not an attack made by it's own government. It sounds crazy, I know, but I think I'm on to something here.

You do understand that a committing terror is a crime?

 

[trag3dy]

1 minute ago, monkeylove said:

Please state the guidelines from experts which shows that only around 150 pieces are needed.

 

Please show the ones that don't. It's  your claim. Do your own research to back it up.

[monkeylove]

1 minute ago, mudslag said:

 

Your comment doesn't make sense, so I guess that makes sense why you're confused. You're not an expert and you've yet to show why they are wrong. You just keep expressing they are wrong without supporting your claim. You want to keep saying the experts are wrong, prove it. Stating something lacks common sense doesn't even begin to support your view. 

 

 

 

You're the one making the argument that the evidence gathered was not enough, you're the one that has yet to show that to be true. That puts it on your to back it up, something you still haven't done. 

No, it makes lots of sense. What doesn't is resorting to videos, including simulations, after much of physical evidence is destroyed for no reason at all.

 

I didn't argue that the evidence gathered isn't enough. I argued that there's no proof that the evidence gathered was enough. The only way to prove either case is to compare what was gathered with what was destroyed, but that's no longer possible for obvious reasons.

 

[monkeylove]

3 minutes ago, trag3dy said:

Please show the ones that don't. It's  your claim. Do your own research to back it up.

You made the claim that the evidence was sufficient, remember? You have to prove your argument now.

 

[trag3dy]

4 minutes ago, monkeylove said:

You made the claim that the evidence was sufficient, remember? You have to prove your argument now.

 

I never made any claims as far as I can remember.  None that require proving at any rate.

 

On the other hand haven't you been repeatedly claimed that what we got wasn't sufficient? That is your claim is it not? It's up to you to prove it and thus far all you've done is repeat after yourself which doesn't actually make it true.

[mudslag]

34 minutes ago, monkeylove said:

Please state the guidelines from experts which shows that only around 150 pieces are needed.

 

 

Again from your link

 

 

Quote

It is important to note that the quality of the pieces, rather than the number of pieces, is significant to this study.

 

[mudslag]

44 minutes ago, monkeylove said:

No, it makes lots of sense. What doesn't is resorting to videos, including simulations, after much of physical evidence is destroyed for no reason at all.

 

I didn't argue that the evidence gathered isn't enough. I argued that there's no proof that the evidence gathered was enough. The only way to prove either case is to compare what was gathered with what was destroyed, but that's no longer possible for obvious reasons.

 

 

You do realize this report is just part of a larger one right?   

 

Quote

This report presents observations, findings, and recommendations regarding the performance of buildings affected by the September 11 attacks on the WTC towers in New York City. The report also describes the structural and fire protection features of the affected buildings and their performance in response to the terrorist attacks.

 

Do you also realize that the report you posted regarding the 150 pieces is more about the pieces placement within the building? They even show you in the spreadsheet where in the buildings they believe the pieces originated from. The report you linked to doesn't even directly deal with the structural Integrity of the impact zone. This report is regarding an performance overview of the whole building. You don't even realize what you're ranting about. 

 

 

 

I didn't argue that the evidence gathered isn't enough. I argued that there's no proof that the evidence gathered was enough. The only way to prove either case is to compare what was gathered with what was destroyed, but that's no longer possible for obvious reasons.

 

As you have pointed out here, this is your argument that no proof that the evidence gathered is enough, that puts the burden on you to show why proof is even needed as you're the one suggesting that it is. This is on you since you're the one doubting. 

Edited March 9, 2016 by mudslag

[HawkMan]

1 hour ago, monkeylove said:

The problem is that we're not looking at one small piece but much of physical evidence destroyed hastily and for no valid reason.

 

 

Read my earlier rpely to that. they loked at all the metal, then they took what they needed for actual detailed analysis, more than enough to see what they needed. besides that, unlike you, and me they know their physics. 

[xrobwx71]

On 12/24/2015 at 9:27 AM, FloatingFatMan said:

I won't bother with the rest as it's ALL been proven to be bullpoop.  However, this one is amusing.

 

Do you understand physics? Even a little bit?

 

IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO FALL AT GREATER THAN THE RATE OF GRAVITY WITHOUT SOME MEANS OF THRUST!

 

Jeez... No wonder people take the ###### out of these idiots... Talk about dumb as a rock...

 

I believe the term is: terminal velocity?

[HawkMan]

10 hours ago, monkeylove said:

Completely the opposite! That's why crime scenes, investigation of fires and of air crashes involve gathering as much physical evidence as possible. That's not what happened in this case.

 

 

you talk and you talk and you make claims, you're not providing any proof or evidence.

 

this isn't a crime scene. a crime scene includes human factors.

 

what we have here is a big set of known factors where a simulation actually tells us FAR MORE than any amount of scrap iron.

 

and do you really think they went around and picked up random pieces of steel, or do you think these very smart investigators possibly filtered out the steel they needed that would tell them what happenes form the areas they need to investigate to build the sims and investigate the steel for heat properties change...

 

[HawkMan]

10 hours ago, monkeylove said:

Point out the report which documents all of the pieces gathered, why only around 150 were selected from that, and why the rest were destroyed.

 

as has been told you and EXPLAINED to you why, about 50 times at least in this thread, because that's MORE than they needed and because they told them what they needed to know. they didn't need all of the steel to see what happened to the steel, more importantly they didn't need the steel from the supports of 110 floors to tell them what happened in 5-10 floors. 

[HawkMan]

10 hours ago, monkeylove said:

No, it makes lots of sense. What doesn't is resorting to videos, including simulations, after much of physical evidence is destroyed for no reason at all.

 

I didn't argue that the evidence gathered isn't enough. I argued that there's no proof that the evidence gathered was enough. The only way to prove either case is to compare what was gathered with what was destroyed, but that's no longer possible for obvious reasons.

 

physical evidence of wrecks don't tell you much. 

 

think about it. what are they going to do, rebuild the entire tower from the scrap ? that somewhat works for planes, but even on planes, rebuilding them are in general useless and is only done when they don't know what happened at all to get a clue where the failure originated, then they focus on the part that actually failed, a part that often is a matter of years of investigating a SINGLE damn bolt. 

 

with the tower they already knew where the failure was, and they had a pretty good idea what happened. so they didn't need the steel from the whole tower. because you know, they already knew which floors failed and caused the collapse. so the steel from all the floors above and below are useless for anything but control, and for control you'd only need a couple of small pieces. 

 

So in fact looking at it form that angle, and being logical and thinking with your own mind and not the conspiracy theory hive mind, not only do they have enough steel to investigate with, they have far far more than they need. 

[Draconian Guppy]

Out of curiosity, has there been a poll with a simple yes o no, "do you believe it happened   or  conspiracy" ?

[HawkMan]

9 hours ago, xrobwx said:

I believe the term is: terminal velocity?

Well technically, gravity is a force and doesn't have a speed limit.

 

On this planet there's only two things limiting the speed at which gravity can accelerate an object to.

 

- Air resistance. The shape of the object against he air resistance limits the speed at which gravity can pull you, and thus you have temrinal velocity.

- The ground. this one is pretty much terminal. as far as velocity goes anyway

3 minutes ago, Draconian Guppy said:

Out of curiosity, has there been a poll with a simple yes o no, "do you believe it happened   or  conspiracy" ?

Do you REALLY want to know how many people believe in these conspiracies ? it might effect your mental health and sanity knowing

[Draconian Guppy]

3 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

Well technically, gravity is a force and doesn't have a speed limit.

 

On this planet there's only two things limiting the speed at which gravity can accelerate an object to.

 

- +1.Air resistance. The shape of the object against he air resistance limits the speed at which gravity can pull you, and thus you have temrinal velocity.

- The ground. this one is pretty much terminal. as far as velocity goes anyway

+2Do you REALLY want to know how many people believe in these conspiracies ? it might effect your mental health and sanity knowing

+1 I remember physics class, dropping a coin and a 1lb metal ball, both dropped at the same rate, then, when adding a high speed fan, ball fell faster whilst coin span(sp?)

 

2.

Sure, for teh lolz  how are are we to segregate em  

[HawkMan]

Just now, Draconian Guppy said:

+1 I remember physics class, dropping a coin and a 1lb metal ball, both dropped at the same rate, then, when adding a high speed fan, ball fell faster whilst coin span(sp?)

 

2.

Sure, for teh lolz  how are are we to segregate em  

In some countries they may be many enough and crazy enough that they could end up ruling in that case

[xrobwx71]

14 hours ago, Draconian Guppy said:

+1 I remember physics class, dropping a coin and a 1lb metal ball, both dropped at the same rate, then, when adding a high speed fan, ball fell faster whilst coin span(sp?)

 

2.

Sure, for teh lolz  how are are we to segregate em  

#2 look up: State Prison Farms on Youtube George Carlin

[Draconian Guppy]

59 minutes ago, xrobwx said:

#2 look up: State Prison Farms on Youtube George Carlin

ah i am well versed in Georgies ways  

[monkeylove]

On 3/9/2016 at 7:29 PM, trag3dy said:

I never made any claims as far as I can remember.  None that require proving at any rate.

 

On the other hand haven't you been repeatedly claimed that what we got wasn't sufficient? That is your claim is it not? It's up to you to prove it and thus far all you've done is repeat after yourself which doesn't actually make it true.

I didn't claim that the evidence isn't sufficient. I claimed that only around 150 pieces were examined carefully and that most of the evidence was destroyed. Given that, there's no way to tell whether or not the fraction of physical evidence stored is sufficient.

 

[monkeylove]

On 3/9/2016 at 7:52 PM, mudslag said:

 

 

Again from your link

 

 

 

The only way to tell whether or not the evidence collected is of such quality is to compare it with the rest. Where is that shown in the report? And don't forget to read the title page of the collection spreadsheet: out of the 156 pieces, only 41 were kept. 45 were left at the yards, only samples of 19 were taken, and the rest were discarded or "accidentally processed" for salvaging.

 

In short, only 41 pieces and samples from 19 were kept, and that's after only examining around 20 pct of the debris:

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/wtc-girder-key-collapse-puzzle-article-1.489475

 

Around 80 pct were not examined at all, with around 250 tons stolen:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1357981/250-tons-of-scrap-stolen-from-ruins.html

 

Given all that, how do we know the evidence eventually stored (less than 1 pct of the total debris) is of such quality?

 

[monkeylove]

On 3/9/2016 at 5:59 AM, HawkMan said:

physical evidence of wrecks don't tell you much. 

 

think about it. what are they going to do, rebuild the entire tower from the scrap ? that somewhat works for planes, but even on planes, rebuilding them are in general useless and is only done when they don't know what happened at all to get a clue where the failure originated, then they focus on the part that actually failed, a part that often is a matter of years of investigating a SINGLE damn bolt. 

 

with the tower they already knew where the failure was, and they had a pretty good idea what happened. so they didn't need the steel from the whole tower. because you know, they already knew which floors failed and caused the collapse. so the steel from all the floors above and below are useless for anything but control, and for control you'd only need a couple of small pieces. 

 

So in fact looking at it form that angle, and being logical and thinking with your own mind and not the conspiracy theory hive mind, not only do they have enough steel to investigate with, they have far far more than they need. 

If that's the case, then why do investigators of fires, aircraft crashes, and crime scenes go through physical evidence extensively?

 

The purpose of collecting evidence is to rebuild towers? That makes absolutely no sense at all.

 

[monkeylove]

That's what happens when much of the physical evidence is destroyed: we're left with videos, polls, simulations, and conspiracy theories.

 

[Jim K Global Moderator]

10 minutes ago, monkeylove said:

If that's the case, then why do investigators of fires, aircraft crashes, and crime scenes go through physical evidence extensively?

 

The purpose of collecting evidence is to rebuild towers? That makes absolutely no sense at all.

 

Because they want to know why/where the fire occurred, they want to know what brought the plane down, and they want to know why/how/who committed the crime.  The examples you listed are poor because they typical start with the unknown variable.

 

With the WTC ... they already knew the main culprit so the “unknown” was established even before they fell.  With further investigation ... they determined that the heat weakened the steel + the damage from the impact = tower collapse.  Not exactly rocket science.

 

What other "evidence" do you want.  Have you applied to the NIST so you can give them your insight?  Or are you just playing armchair investigator on a tech site?

 

6 minutes ago, monkeylove said:

That's what happens when much of the physical evidence is destroyed: we're left with videos, polls, simulations, and conspiracy theories.

No ... this is what happens when armchair investigators do not comprehend what the investigators found.

 

[trag3dy]

1 hour ago, monkeylove said:

I didn't claim that the evidence isn't sufficient. I claimed that only around 150 pieces were examined carefully and that most of the evidence was destroyed. Given that, there's no way to tell whether or not the fraction of physical evidence stored is sufficient.

 

Yes and we've been over that haven't we? Let's assume that the people who were conducting the examinations know a little bit more about what they're doing than you think you know what they should have been doing.

 

Okay? With me so far?

 

How much do you think would have been enough? Because apparently what the experts decided and what you from your armchair decided do not line up equal with each other.

 

You seem to have something in mind and it's your job to prove your argument and so far you haven't provided a single shred of proof of even a solid reason for why it wasn't good enough for you other than you just think so.

[mudslag]

1 hour ago, monkeylove said:

The only way to tell whether or not the evidence collected is of such quality is to compare it with the rest. Where is that shown in the report? And don't forget to read the title page of the collection spreadsheet: out of the 156 pieces, only 41 were kept. 45 were left at the yards, only samples of 19 were taken, and the rest were discarded or "accidentally processed" for salvaging.

 

In short, only 41 pieces and samples from 19 were kept, and that's after only examining around 20 pct of the debris:

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/wtc-girder-key-collapse-puzzle-article-1.489475

 

Around 80 pct were not examined at all, with around 250 tons stolen:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1357981/250-tons-of-scrap-stolen-from-ruins.html

 

Given all that, how do we know the evidence eventually stored (less than 1 pct of the total debris) is of such quality?

 

 

Which would imply that they went through the pieces and picked out the quality ones. If you want to suggest that wasn't done, then you need to provide evidence of that otherwise your argument has failed. 

 

I like how you skipped over the next post, I don't think you realize what those pieces even represent.