23-09-2013, 11:48 AM
Lemkin wrote:
"You were trained poorly, in Physics, logic and/or as a forum provocateur. How do YOU explain molten steel - lots of it from building collapses from fires not hot enough to melt steel? Not to mention nanothermite residues, beams thrown laterally hundreds of yards, timed flashes and squibs....and all the failures that led up to the phony non-interception of the planes [which did not bring down the buildings]? You're using the standard approach of not looking at the full picture of all that happened...and trying to cast doubt on each itty bitty thing with NO logic and against the laws of Physics!
On just the pulverization of the concrete.....alone...."
I will not respond to the pasted links.
I am not trained as a physicist....neither are you! or I dare say anyone posting on this site. I am trained and licensed as an architect and have studied basic structure, statics and so forth and have a basic, though more than members of this forum... understanding of buildings and structural systems. I am not a chemist, nor a forensic investigator as is the case for the members of this forum.
I rely on the visuals in the public record and the analysis and conclusions in some cases of experts who seem to have done rigorous work. There are many who APPEAR to be rigorous and scientific, but are not. Clearly it may be difficult to determine who is the real deal with real solid data and who is not. It comes down to which "expert" you choose to believe.
NIST has clearly made errors.
Chandler has made errors
Hoffman has
Szamboti has
We all make errors. All errors are not equal.
I don't have to explain every single artifact which was the RESULT of an extreme catastrophic event involving 1.5 million tons of buildings contents and all sorts of energy sources within them. These events whether CD or not were of a scale never before seen and so we have nothing in the historical record to refer to. It does not seem unusual that the release of so much energy applied to so much mass in such as short interval would produce all manner of unusual and unexpected
results.
There has been no determination what the flowing liquid seen under the pile was. We have seen no material that hardened... such as an "ingot" to analyze. There are multiple possible materials which would glow and flow under high heat conditions (not determined how hot it was) and one cannot conclude what the material may have been. The same caveats apply to what poured out of a single corner in 2WTC on the 78th floor... the location where the engine of the plane exited the building.
Nanothermite residue remains a speculation. It has not been confirmed and may be the result of poor technique. The experiments have yet to be reproduced by other labs as is standard scientific protocol.
There were no "beams" thrown hundreds of yards. The furthest steel from a WTC building came from 1WTC's west face and was from the facade panels of the 84th floor and landed about 450' from the west face.
There were no timed flashes or squibs. That is YOUR conception. Any series of events exist in time and one can measure the intervals between them. This in itself shows no causality or relation between them.
Can't even begin to comment on "non interception of planes" other than to say we would have expected our defenses to have been able to respond to a hijacking(s). I don't know what the in place procedures were at the time were or even what they are now. Do you expect a fighter to be scrambled intercept and shoot the hijacked plane down? Whatever the procedures at the time, they were ineffective. Was it incompetence? Confusion? Ineffective response procedures? All of the above? Or was there a willful action to not stop the hijacked planes from hitting their targets?
No single factor or thing brought the towers down. Multiple sequential things or factors did. The plane damage was one of them, the fuel they carried igniting inside was another, the contents burning inside was another, the loss of fire protection from the plane crash debris impacting it was another, the design of the structure was another, the failure to fight the fires once started was another, the energized systems inside the building at the time was another (high tension wiring). None of these factors alone would have led to the building coming down. But all of them together in sequence apparently did.
The one who is not looking at the entire picture...the complexity and all the contributing factors acting synergistically is YOU. It is you and others who look at some result or anomaly and use it as being ONLY possible when some unspecified CD was used. Where is the EVIDENCE of what nanothermite attacked? How was that done? Are those the timed flashes.... so few to destroy such massive structures with thousands of columns and connections?
You are in fantasy land because of your incredulity and lack of understand of physics, engineering and the actual data from the buildings and the event... And you do this. And you take this extreme irrational position because you hate and don't trust the government and the media. I agree that the government and the media is not to be trusted... but that is not license to make up your own fantasies to suit your political views.
Build your case on facts not fantasy.
"You were trained poorly, in Physics, logic and/or as a forum provocateur. How do YOU explain molten steel - lots of it from building collapses from fires not hot enough to melt steel? Not to mention nanothermite residues, beams thrown laterally hundreds of yards, timed flashes and squibs....and all the failures that led up to the phony non-interception of the planes [which did not bring down the buildings]? You're using the standard approach of not looking at the full picture of all that happened...and trying to cast doubt on each itty bitty thing with NO logic and against the laws of Physics!
On just the pulverization of the concrete.....alone...."
I will not respond to the pasted links.
I am not trained as a physicist....neither are you! or I dare say anyone posting on this site. I am trained and licensed as an architect and have studied basic structure, statics and so forth and have a basic, though more than members of this forum... understanding of buildings and structural systems. I am not a chemist, nor a forensic investigator as is the case for the members of this forum.
I rely on the visuals in the public record and the analysis and conclusions in some cases of experts who seem to have done rigorous work. There are many who APPEAR to be rigorous and scientific, but are not. Clearly it may be difficult to determine who is the real deal with real solid data and who is not. It comes down to which "expert" you choose to believe.
NIST has clearly made errors.
Chandler has made errors
Hoffman has
Szamboti has
We all make errors. All errors are not equal.
I don't have to explain every single artifact which was the RESULT of an extreme catastrophic event involving 1.5 million tons of buildings contents and all sorts of energy sources within them. These events whether CD or not were of a scale never before seen and so we have nothing in the historical record to refer to. It does not seem unusual that the release of so much energy applied to so much mass in such as short interval would produce all manner of unusual and unexpected
results.
There has been no determination what the flowing liquid seen under the pile was. We have seen no material that hardened... such as an "ingot" to analyze. There are multiple possible materials which would glow and flow under high heat conditions (not determined how hot it was) and one cannot conclude what the material may have been. The same caveats apply to what poured out of a single corner in 2WTC on the 78th floor... the location where the engine of the plane exited the building.
Nanothermite residue remains a speculation. It has not been confirmed and may be the result of poor technique. The experiments have yet to be reproduced by other labs as is standard scientific protocol.
There were no "beams" thrown hundreds of yards. The furthest steel from a WTC building came from 1WTC's west face and was from the facade panels of the 84th floor and landed about 450' from the west face.
There were no timed flashes or squibs. That is YOUR conception. Any series of events exist in time and one can measure the intervals between them. This in itself shows no causality or relation between them.
Can't even begin to comment on "non interception of planes" other than to say we would have expected our defenses to have been able to respond to a hijacking(s). I don't know what the in place procedures were at the time were or even what they are now. Do you expect a fighter to be scrambled intercept and shoot the hijacked plane down? Whatever the procedures at the time, they were ineffective. Was it incompetence? Confusion? Ineffective response procedures? All of the above? Or was there a willful action to not stop the hijacked planes from hitting their targets?
No single factor or thing brought the towers down. Multiple sequential things or factors did. The plane damage was one of them, the fuel they carried igniting inside was another, the contents burning inside was another, the loss of fire protection from the plane crash debris impacting it was another, the design of the structure was another, the failure to fight the fires once started was another, the energized systems inside the building at the time was another (high tension wiring). None of these factors alone would have led to the building coming down. But all of them together in sequence apparently did.
The one who is not looking at the entire picture...the complexity and all the contributing factors acting synergistically is YOU. It is you and others who look at some result or anomaly and use it as being ONLY possible when some unspecified CD was used. Where is the EVIDENCE of what nanothermite attacked? How was that done? Are those the timed flashes.... so few to destroy such massive structures with thousands of columns and connections?
You are in fantasy land because of your incredulity and lack of understand of physics, engineering and the actual data from the buildings and the event... And you do this. And you take this extreme irrational position because you hate and don't trust the government and the media. I agree that the government and the media is not to be trusted... but that is not license to make up your own fantasies to suit your political views.
Build your case on facts not fantasy.