Donate to DU!
Democratic Underground Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Google

Reply #47: To quickly summarize NIST's WTC tower collapse studies: [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
First thread | Last thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
stickdog (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Wed Mar-29-06 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #39
47. To quickly summarize NIST's WTC tower collapse studies:
1) NIST's best evidence, the actual physical pieces of steel structure that they analyzed, says that the temperatures didn't get hot enough to cause any kind of collapse.

2) NIST's best guesstimate model says that the temperatures didn't get hot enough to cause any kind of collapse.

3) NIST's worst case, reverse-engineered, combustible overloaded model says that the temperatures may have gotten hot enough to cause an initial collapse, but doesn't explain how this initial structural failure then triggered the total structural collapse of both WTC-1 & WTC-2 including the entire cores of both buildings.

4) NIST didn't even attempt to explain WTC-7's collapse.

Right, everybody?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  Real Science vs. Pseudoscience, 9/11 WTC Collapses Style stickdog  Mar-26-06 09:11 PM   #0 
   I don't quite follow all of your arguments.  drm604   Mar-26-06 09:51 PM   #1 
   No WTC-7 metal, including core columns, were retrieved.  stickdog   Mar-26-06 09:58 PM   #2 
      It's late,  drm604   Mar-26-06 10:35 PM   #3 
         All I'm saying is that NIST ignored the physical evidence  stickdog   Mar-27-06 01:06 AM   #9 
   Your very first sentence states:  Make7   Mar-26-06 11:28 PM   #4 
   Are you serious?  stickdog   Mar-27-06 01:00 AM   #5 
   Kinda.  Make7   Mar-27-06 01:29 AM   #11 
   My point is exactly what I said it was.  stickdog   Mar-27-06 01:38 AM   #12 
      Two points.  Make7   Mar-27-06 02:38 PM   #33 
      Conclusions  Kevin Fenton   Mar-27-06 02:45 PM   #34 
         My opinion is...  Make7   Mar-27-06 07:24 PM   #35 
            Come on.  stickdog   Mar-27-06 10:47 PM   #36 
            I believe the answer to that can be found in the post you replied to. nt.  Make7   Mar-27-06 11:14 PM   #37 
            I wouldn't deal in absolutes  Kevin Fenton   Mar-28-06 12:46 AM   #38 
            Explosives are not in the NIST base case.  Make7   Mar-28-06 03:40 AM   #39 
               I didn't quite understand the first part of your post...  Kevin Fenton   Mar-28-06 05:48 AM   #40 
               Found it (or something like it)  Kevin Fenton   Mar-28-06 07:22 AM   #41 
               I'm only going to address your first point(s).  Make7   Mar-29-06 03:32 AM   #46 
               Okay, I see where the confusion lies - I accidentally omitted something.  Make7   Mar-30-06 11:44 PM   #48 
               unknowns  Make7   Apr-01-06 11:32 PM   #57 
               To quickly summarize NIST's WTC tower collapse studies:  stickdog   Mar-29-06 01:24 PM   #47 
            The purpose of steel collection wasn't what many think...  AZCat   Mar-28-06 08:50 AM   #42 
               WHY was this the supposed only goal of steel gathering?  stickdog   Apr-01-06 07:14 PM   #56 
      Sample size.  Make7   Mar-31-06 02:48 PM   #49 
         How many comets are there in the solar system?  stickdog   Apr-01-06 07:55 AM   #50 
            Why? Because  LARED   Apr-01-06 08:51 AM   #51 
            What physical evidence do we have regarding conditions in the WTC  stickdog   Apr-01-06 04:04 PM   #53 
            Sample size.  Make7   Apr-01-06 01:53 PM   #52 
               If all four columns demonstrated significant exposure to  stickdog   Apr-01-06 04:13 PM   #54 
                  Could you please show me where I am claiming the opposite?  Make7   Apr-01-06 05:09 PM   #55 
   maybe this will help?  MrSammo1   Mar-27-06 03:34 AM   #16 
   You're playing dumb. You've been around here long enough to  petgoat   Mar-27-06 01:05 AM   #8 
   Stardust doesn't radically alter our knowledge  greyl   Mar-27-06 01:00 AM   #6 
   Read the article I linked.  stickdog   Mar-27-06 01:23 AM   #10 
   "Just read the headline"?  greyl   Mar-27-06 01:52 AM   #13 
      Jeez, what is it with y'all and your misdirection tonight?  stickdog   Mar-27-06 02:21 AM   #14 
         "NASA's Stardust Findings May Alter View of Comet Formation"  greyl   Mar-27-06 03:02 AM   #15 
            Really?  stickdog   Mar-27-06 04:21 AM   #17 
               My version was closer to the truth.  greyl   Mar-27-06 04:28 AM   #18 
                  You wish  JackieO   Mar-27-06 04:39 AM   #19 
                  what story? nt  greyl   Mar-27-06 04:57 AM   #22 
                     google "Saddam statue Chalabi"  stickdog   Mar-27-06 05:07 AM   #25 
                     And people spend thousands of dollars on a tortilla chip with Jesus'  greyl   Mar-27-06 05:22 AM   #30 
                        And I've spent thousands on this ...  stickdog   Mar-27-06 06:00 AM   #31 
                     The one you can read about if you google 'saddam statue chalabi'  JackieO   Mar-27-06 05:11 AM   #29 
                  I can't argue with your subjective (lack of) facial recognition.  stickdog   Mar-27-06 04:50 AM   #20 
                     You or CNN? Haha.  greyl   Mar-27-06 04:56 AM   #21 
                        Yes, let's.  stickdog   Mar-27-06 05:00 AM   #23 
                           The subject is science vs pseudoscience,  greyl   Mar-27-06 05:06 AM   #24 
                              Back to the old standby ad hominems, I see.  stickdog   Mar-27-06 05:09 AM   #27 
   faeries?  HamdenRice   Mar-27-06 07:26 AM   #32 
   If the NIST researchers had any integrity they would have  petgoat   Mar-27-06 01:03 AM   #7 
   Can I just point out that...  Kevin Fenton   Mar-27-06 05:08 AM   #26 
   Thanks.  stickdog   Mar-27-06 05:11 AM   #28 
   It's worse than that:  rman   Mar-28-06 08:59 AM   #43 
   OK, I'm confused  Radio_Guy   Mar-28-06 09:58 AM   #44 
      The fire got hotter, sure.  stickdog   Mar-28-06 04:58 PM   #45 
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2009 Democratic Underground, LLC