glasseye wrote:Huh? "Again"? I asked several pointed questions and you addressed none of them. Not one. Rather poor rebuttal, IMHO.Lanval wrote:Question answered. Again.
I'm not "wrong", any more than you're "right". I simply have unanswered questionsLanval wrote:I'm done with this "conversation" ~ nothing will convince you you're wrong;
Hello MikeExtremelyPuzzledByColin,
Let's say I have read Popular Mechanics since I was a little boy (I have).
I used to read their car reviews with complete slavish attention to every word.
I even memorized the specifications pages. I resented the shit out of their review of the '63 bus up against the Ford Econoline and Corvair Greenbriar.
I have read several other magazines over the years. I now know VWs well enough to catch the errors easily. PV4, for example, reviewed the '73 Bus and went off half-cocked about how VW mysteriously narrowed the '73 bus by an inch "probably to improve the handling." WHAT? How about the new bumpers no longer had the side steps of the old ones.
My dearly departed uncle could rip innumerable articles in Sports Illustrated/ Road&Track/ Car&Driver/ Automobile Quarterly/ ad infinitum/ to shreds, because he was A) the object of the article and B) he was there, and he was continually baffled and pissed at the liberties taken by writers to make their arguments have internal logic. He also was subjected to "peer experts" in the antique automobile business, man, what steely patience he had to listen to blowhards bloviate about the cars he knew intimately while they had just picked up the hobby five years ago.
I have a healthy h-e-a-l-t-h-y skepticism of what I read!
The "conventional wisdom" (that I did not accuse you of accepting - you offered that you do) of how these buildings collapsed I cannot accept, not because of an ExtremelyPuzzledByColin defect of personality or character or intelligence or logic nor by a need to "hate on the government", but because there are too many loose ends surrounding the event. Like any scientist will tell you, Subsequent Theories always evolve with ever-widening spheres of evidence. The real reasons for these unprecedented building collapses will necessarily include greater evidence than the current bullshit explanations. Einstein toasted Sir Isaac Newton with a far greater reach of understanding, but guess what? everything Newton had postulated fit inside the new greater understanding. I feel like Einstein being rebuked by Newton. There is a vast additional amount of evidence that just is not being addressed.
a little Wiki, anyone?
The FEMA report also determined that thinning of the steel had occurred by the severe high-temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation, that heating of the steel in a hot corrosive environment at temperatures approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) resulted in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel, and that this sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel.[54] The FEMA report concluded that the severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of the steel columns examined were "very unusual events" and that there was "no clear explanation" for the source of the sulfur found.[55]
. . . and . . .
The large pile of debris left on the site burned for three months, resisting attempts to extinguish the blaze until the majority of the rubble was finally removed from the site.[82][83]
Three months? What building fire/ collapse has ever taken that long to put out? Perhaps one laced with thermite? Sort of like the confusion firefighters have had with old Volkswagen fires when the magnesium gets going ... ?
I reject the official explanation (get ready Mike, steel yourself) because it makes no sense. I know when people are stretching too far. I told you to your face when you still liked me, that I will never fill the shoes of "guru" because I am far happier to say "I don't know" when confronted by things I do knot know. I also told you to your face that I will always defer to the experience of my customers before I would ever ask them to accept my "answers", particularly when my answers conflict with their experience. Here in this discussion, there are two of us at least, who refuse to stop at little "a" answers when we have big "Q" questions.
There is no fucking way on this Earthly Plane that central steel column supports can COLLAPSE so fucking entirely neatly at the speed of gravity when it has been exhaustively explained by the information PROVIDED that buildings CANNOT just collapse through their greatest resistance. It is not I, nor others who have questions like glasseye does, who is stuck in an illogic loop, "who just doesn't get it". Sometimes the truth is more complex and more messy than a tidy little report with glaring omissions.
The scope of the NIST investigation was focused on identifying "the sequence of events" that triggered the collapse, and did not include detailed analysis of the collapse mechanism itself (after the point at which events made the collapse inevitable).
When all the evidence is taken into account, there are remaining questions. For those who cannot tolerate ambiguities and loose ends, this is NOT the time to claim "cognitive dissonance" in those of us curious enough to wait for answers that have yet to be generated. Hell no. Not when you refuse to acknowledge iron microspheres and sulphur residue and molten steel (melting airplane aluminum does not glow orange-red) down in the basement levels where even a collapsing building that had a fire 78 stories up CANNOT TRANSMIT THAT SORT OF HEAT. Even if the jet fuel had not completely combusted within seconds, and had theoretically poured down elevator shafts to the basement, the thermal insulation on the beams was intact throughout the building save for a few floors where the planes hit. We did not have "days of jet fuel fires ...." in the basement!!!
The behavior of those three buildings and the subsequent physical evidence can currently be fully explained only by targeted demolition. That doesn't mean I am a zombie "it was a demolition" groupie. I don't know what happened! I am trying to fit all the evidence together! You cannot deny the evidence to make me buy your acceptance of the official story. I am not demanding that you "believe" me or accept my questions, so don't demand that I stop with my questions. They are based in reality, on physical material reality. Deal with it. Even acknowledge it!! as you go ahead and disagree that iron microspheres and sulphur residue and that the force of acceleration of the upper building mass cannot be used in the pancake scenario when it was clearly blown up way up top, all of these questions cannot yet be explained by the current conclusions.
Note, please, that I am not going to descend into any judgments of those who think that the WTC building collapses were all due to the plane crashes. I could give a damn to answer to anyone saying one argument is more preposterous than another. The fact that the tragedy of 9/11 occurred at all was Preposterous.
Colin