(continuedfromabove)

Paul.L insists that all three tower collapses have been fully explained, yet, after 7 years, no one has produced any credible computer simulation of how those collapses have occurred and proceeded to completion.

Does this strike Paul.L as odd?

We simply don't know, because, as with any point he seems incapable of answering, he does exactly what he accuses me of, that is, he "moves on."

---

Paul.L wrote, "It is clear you simply have NO idea about the science involved."

I concede that I am not a qualified engineer and Paul.L is, but, whilst it may not be obvious to everyone else here, it is obvious to me that he is abusing his relative mastery of this subject matter in order to mislead others and this conduct does no credit whatsoever to his profession.

---

Other points from which Paul.L has "moved on" is evidence of a cover-up and highly suspicious behaviour on the part of George Bush and senior members of his administration.

Note how Paul.L has not commented on the fact that not one black box recorder was recovered from any of the four flights. Note, how is not bothered by the facts that airport surveillance tapes which would have shown people like Neil Mariani and Todd Beamer boarding their doomed flights, that the passenger lists and records of air traffic control communications have been suppressed, Bush's impersonation (http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/bush-911.htm) of a severely emotionally and intellectually retarded child as the US was under attack on 11 September 2001 ("george bush acted funny," says Paul.L, and that's all that needs to be said, he would have us think), etc. etc.

Paul L. I have to admire your persistence on this topic - it is like trying to have a swordfight with an amoeba.

dagget, back at this post http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#46440 (I hope the link works properly) I provided 12 references in real engineering jounals that had been checked by experts - not from trufer websites. These references cover the whole engineering issues related to the collapse of the buildings: including pictures and computer models. They are all you need to know on the topic. Now at the time, I suggested you and your alter egos should read these before commenting any further. 260 posts later and it is clear you haven't even bothered to look.

Oh and before you get yourself into another pyroclastic flow embarrasment, WTC7 only looks like a controlled demolition to those who have never seen a controlled demolition. Oh and the trufers, who suspend their critical thinking facilities because of their need to believe.

I note Agronomist's 'participation' in this discussion, thus far, has been to either snipe from behind the skirts of others and posting links other documents, but with little demonstrated comprehension of either what has been said here or on those links.

No, Agronomist, there was no "pyroclastic flow embarrasment" on my part. We have a document which Paul.L claims proves that the massive dust cloud was all caused by the friction of the collapse of the buildings. That issue is still under dispute.

So Agronomist assures us "WTC7 only looks like a controlled demolition to those who have never seen a controlled demolition."

Really, Agronomist?

So you are saying that the collapse of WTC7 looks nothing the controlled demoliton in http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo ?

No doubt Agronomist has lots of examples showing similar collapses of tall buildings caused by fire alone ...

... or he doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.

Dagget

Dagget >> “I have no doubt that further documents exist ...I hope others will understand if I don't track them down immediately.”

Yet you have time to write 3 pages filled with issues other than the one I’ve just shown you is ridiculous. There isn’t going to be another document that will demolish the Greening article, for the simple reason that Hoffman’s assumptions don’t make sense.

CLEARLY the dust clouds were not 700 degrees Celsius. Or do you dispute that as well?

You say >> “I concede that I am not a qualified … it is obvious to me that he is abusing his relative mastery of this subject matter in order to mislead others … ”

Abusing? I’m not abusing anything. I like a lot of normal people believe that the buildings fell down because terrorists rammed planes full of fuel into them at very high speed. Because that’s what the evidence suggests. The truthers are abusing the trust of laypeople like yourself by writing seemingly scientific articles, which in fact are unadulterated wishful thinking.

Kevin Ryan LIED. He suggested that the temperature of the fires didn’t exceed 250 degrees Celsius. That is an outright lie. He suggested NIST “impli[ed] that “ 2000F would melt the steel.”

NIST did NOT say that the steel was melted. Its model showed the collapse of the structure due to the weakening (not melting) of the steel.

By the way, I suggest you have a look at some of the other material Kevin Ryan has written. WACKJOB!! !! http://www.americanbuddhist.net/psychorelativity-and-mindfulness..

Here are some real scientific articles written by structural engineers. Ryans background is Chemistry, by the way.

Journal of engineering mechanics.
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

Structure magazine
http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

Heavy Engineering Research Agency
http://www.hera.org.nz/PDF%20Files/Elaboration%20on%20WTC%20Paper.PDF

You will note that NONE of the “truthers” have managed to get a paper published in a respected science journal. Either the whole scientific world is in on the conspiracy, or, as in fact is the case, the “truthers” who make these far out claims are NOT experts in the fields they are making their claims in.

TBC

Cont

Dagget >> “Whilst these statements (wrongly, in my view) … failures of the twin towers . ..expected, they nevertheless show the claims by NIST that UL was not involved in the certification of the structural steel to have been false.

Firstly, “wrongly in your view”? Please, you’ve already admitted you have no idea what you are talking about. What you mean is 'wrongly in their view' "their" being the conspiracy nuts.

NIST reports acknowledged that UL was involved in testing the floor assembly as a whole. What they denied was that the structural steel itself was individually tested and certified to maintain its structural integrity for two hours at 2000 degrees farenheit.

See >> “UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true.” http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Trying to link Bush’s behaviour after learning of the events to his knowledge of them is PATHETIC. There is NO evidence. Its all pure speculation. I know you believe that if enough people speculate that makes it relevant. It does not. Its still speculation. This is by far the WEAKEST argument you have yet put forward and thats really saying something.

Considering the hundreds of tangents you’ve gone down, the fact that I may have missed one or two is hardly surprising. Neither is it surprising that you would attempt to make something of this fact. You’re floundering

dagget >> "... claims the massive dust cloud was all caused by the friction of the collapse"

You really don't have a clue at all. I'll bet you didn't even read the addendum by Greening.

The main thrust of Greenings argument is that Hoffmans preliminary assumptions which underpin his theory are scientifically insupportable. Particularly the assumption that the dust clouds consisted entirely of air from inside the building, and not drawn in from outside.

I notice that the above discussion has proceeded in a somewhat complicated way with long posts and many points in each with strong views presented on each side.

Here is a short post which makes only one claim, namely that WTC7 was brought down by explosives. This claim arises from the following:

1. The link below provides proof that the roof of WTC7 fell for part of the time at free fall acceleration, as near as could be measured.
2. Free fall acceleration indicates that no upward force was experienced by the falling section of the building.
3. No upward force implies that all support columns were simultaneously severed.
4. Similarly the fact that the building started falling with almost perfect verticality implies that the support columns were all severed simultaneously.
5. Fire, even if severe, cannot be expected to produce loss of strength in every steel column which is both total and simultaneous.

I trust that any reader who is an engineer or physicist or metalurgist would agree with those five points.

Here is the link in question:
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=gC44L0-2zL8

Here is another link, perhaps a little less accurate in its calculation, which makes the same point, and provides more detail: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200611/911-Acceleration-Study-Proves-Explosive-Demolition.pdf

And another:
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/LeggeVerticalCollapseWTC7_6.pdf

One has to ask if fire couldn’t do it what could?