Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Albert Doyle]

Lauren,



Could you answer my point about Chandler's corner column CD theory? Specifically in the context of how the easy refutability of his corner CD claims reflects on his overall credibility and that of his theories.

Albert, I have noticed you have made demands of people to respond often accompanied with accusations. I just got done responding. I would expect something like, 'Thanks, Lauren. Hmmm. I'll think about it.'

Nope. Nothing. Just the next task. This has happened before. I'll pass.

You can't back your theories. Meanwhile a person who has made personal insinuations as responses to forensic arguments has the gall to correct my manners while flagrantly dodging proof she can't answer.


You're not seriously trying make people believe that you're doing this for reasons other than simply not being able to answer the simple facts? Honestly.


I made perfectly reasonable points. If you can't answer those points that means they stand. Reality dictates that if my points stand and Chandler's don't therefore his position isn't backed by credible argument or facts. Where is Tony to come in and back you up on this Lauren?

I'm sorry but I don't think you realize passing on this isn't a credible option if one is pretending credible debate on the cause of the Tower collapses. I made some perfectly reasonable forensic arguments about Mr Chandler's corner column CD claims. In short, the puffs coming off those columns are too slow to be explosives and don't show any of the white hot sparkling burning characteristics of thermite. If you can't answer you're only proving my point.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Lauren,

Could you answer my point about Chandler's corner column CD theory? Specifically in the context of how the easy refutability of his corner CD claims reflects on his overall credibility and that of his theories.

Albert,

I am thoroughly impressed by and envious of your command of these technical issues and the erudite manners in which you bring it to bear on the topics being discussed on this thread.

Both / and

Charles Drago

and

Controlled Demolition

:e=mc2:

[Albert Doyle]

It's obvious some people are desperate to avoid admitting there's truth to the points they can't answer.


I'd ask those persons to show the credibility of their position by answering those on-topic points that were the matter at hand.


Or are some saying they are above answering sound points?

[Lauren Johnson]

Lauren,



Could you answer my point about Chandler's corner column CD theory? Specifically in the context of how the easy refutability of his corner CD claims reflects on his overall credibility and that of his theories.

Albert,

I am thoroughly impressed by and envious of your command of these technical issues and the erudite manners in which you bring it to bear on the topics being discussed on this thread.

Would you be so kind as to provide a brief reading list so that I and others might further develop our appreciations of this otherwise arcane and challenging material?

Forgive me if I'm being forward, but the sooner I can get my hands on your source material, the sooner I can attempt to achieve mastery of the topic commensurate with your own.

With thanks in advance,

Charles

Albert, Charles has can be a little cutting, no, wait ... Starting over. Charles, can stick the knife in, but not twist it too hard, Actually ....

Look Albert, I have been amazed and then appalled at your ability to behave as if you are structural engineer, or some such. I disagree with Jeffrey but I wouldn't dare to tell him he is incompetent, as you have with Tony. Your posts the last few days have been jaw dropping--and not in a good way.

[Albert Doyle]

Albert, Charles has can be a little cutting, no, wait ... Starting over. Charles, can stick the knife in, but not twist it too hard, Actually ....

Look Albert, I have been amazed and then appalled at your ability to behave as if you are structural engineer, or some such. I disagree with Jeffrey but I wouldn't dare to tell him he is incompetent, as you have with Tony. Your posts the last few days have been jaw dropping--and not in a good way.

I'm failing to see what point you are trying to make if you can't answer what I wrote in my last posts? If you can't answer that means the controlled demolition proponents can't back their claims.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Albert, Charles has can be a little cutting, no, wait ... Starting over. Charles, can stick the knife in, but not twist it too hard, Actually ....

Look Albert, I have been amazed and then appalled at your ability to behave as if you are structural engineer, or some such. I disagree with Jeffrey but I wouldn't dare to tell him he is incompetent, as you have with Tony. Your posts the last few days have been jaw dropping--and not in a good way.

I'm failing to see what point you are trying to make if you can't answer what I wrote in my last posts? If you can't answer that means the controlled demolition proponents can't back their claims.

I would say the way they back their claims is by selecting what they believe is evidence in support of them, ignoring any evidence which undermines them and often making ad hom insults at those who disagree.

I've long said the technical debate can only be had if the two sides stipulate to the same set of facts and include all observations.

However interpreting observations is key because one side sees X and attributes a CD to cause to it and the other side sees X and says it is a non CD cause.

Obviously no one is litterally seeing the frame members or joints/connections failing... but the tell tale signs of their failure.

[Albert Doyle]

Why weren't they picked up on mics while the buildings were collapsing was for the same reason I gave for the Banfield audio except the opposite: there was a lot of noise -- the roar of a collapsing high rise building. Parsing out discrete sounds on directional mics meant for interview people as was Banfield's, could not have picked up the charges you are imagining. They just blend in the roar. During the initiation of the collapse, the charges used made less noise than the Banfield audio and could be hidden in the noise of the early collapse.

That's my best answer.

If you watch this video you can see it is actually just as quiet as the Banfield location. No sirens, no noise, when the South Tower falls, and, more importantly, no booms. An open mic right under the falling tower in a prime location. You need a better excuse. Go to the 3:22 mark where ABC reporter NJ Burkett catches the collapse from right underneath it:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEZosc4bJS4




Please have Tony explain the vast overkill dust jets he and Chandler present on the North Tower collapse. Any look at You-Tube videos of demolitions would show they don't produce gigantic overkill dust plumes like those they are claiming.

[Lauren Johnson]

@3:22 where Burkett says "a huge explosion" ? That part?

[Jeffrey Orling]

@3:22 where Burkett says "a huge explosion" ? That part?

Lauren,

Really this is such subject nonsense really. 32 stories of a building broke free and crashed onto 78 stories and you expect it to be quiet and the sound not to be described as... explosive?

Assuming there was no BOMB what would this be described as?

[Lauren Johnson]

@3:22 where Burkett says "a huge explosion" ? That part?

Lauren,

Really this is such subject nonsense really. 32 stories of a building broke free and crashed onto 78 stories and you expect it to be quiet and the sound not to be described as... explosive?

Assuming there was no BOMB what would this be described as?

Just like Burkett said.

BTW, I could easily imagine this video sounding same under conditions of CD and natural collapse. I don't take it to indicate one way or the other.

Finally, I am done with this thread.

Edit: I changed my mind