Occam's razor & Coincidence theorists

Again, you have to establish that impact damage and fire could have done that in the first place. You have proven absolutely nothing.

From the Madrid fire shows that fires can collapse steel buildings:

The steel columns above the 17th floor suffered complete collapse, partially coming to rest on the upper technical floor.

www.concretecentre.com...

The fire at WTC7 was, by all accounts, massive:

I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on.

More qoutes here: www.debunking911.com...
911myths.com...

The NIST Report does not state that "all or most" of the core columns were weakened by fire. There is no credible source for this statement, that you just made in a previous post.

I'm sorry, I've never looked at it myself, and from what I've read elsewhere the fires were very widespread. Do you have a link?

Besides the fact that the WTC Towers were both fully capable of withstanding the impacts, with a small minority of columns being severed in the impacting regions in the process (check FEMA's Report, sections 2.2.1.1 and 2.2.2.2 and NIST's core impact modeling), the WTC's construction manager, Frank Demartini, has also stated that the buildings could have stood multiple impacts from fully-loaded 707s.

They did withstand the impacts, but that's only part of the problem. Was Frank Demartini just bragging, or did he accually do the calculations?

Problem: Where was all the buckling, pre-collapse?

Here's some pictures: www.debunking911.com...

If you remember how much of the structure it would take, in addition to the impact damage, to fail a single floor, then becomes apparent that an awful lot of perimeter columns would have to buckle to cause a whole floor to fail, and a lot of the core as well. NIST actually shows us a handful of buckled perimeter columns, or at least what appear to be buckled columns (you can't actually see many/most of them for the aluminum coverings, which were contorted in all number of directions). Nowhere is there shown enough buckling to provide justification for the collapse of a whole floor, or even nearing the amount needed to reach a "critical mass" for a chain reaction to take place. We saw nothing that would indicate a global collapse was coming.

This is just your opinion, therefore I can ignore it until you proved evidence.

Every time you use Occam's Razor as you have been, you're ignoring ALL of the above. I'd like to see you actually address it, before using the razor as you have been.

You say I'm ignoring these points, but if you never presented them I'm not ignoring them. This is accually a perfect time to use Occam's razor.

From what you said, I can come up with 3 possibilities:
1. The towers shouldn't have come down, therefore the experts were wrong
2. The towers shouldn't have come down, therefore the experts are in on it/threatened/bribed
3. The towers were damaged enough for them to come down, therefore you're wrong

Occam's razor says 3 is the most likely. One presumes that every expert to examine the collapse got it wrong, involves many people. Two presumes even more people that 1, so it's even more likely. Three just presumes you're are wrong. Occam's razor is a great tool for when you aren't qualified to speak about the subject at hand.
It can be used to find the option most likely to be true, it's not perfect, but it works well.

Mr. Pointy, your response to the figures I just posted was ridiculous (non-existant). Can you try to address the actual safety factor ratings, and column damages?

And the Windsor Tower's steel was 2 or 3 inches thick, like a pipe, on the exterior of the building. Hardly comparable with massive box columns, or even the perimeter columns.

Mr. Pointy, your response to the figures I just posted was ridiculous (non-existant). Can you try to address the actual safety factor ratings, and column damages?

Are you seriously saying that me applying Occam's razor, in a thread about Occam's razor is somehow not an answer? I'm not qualified, i said that before, if I was, I wouldn't need to use it, and it states that you are most likely wrong. Can you address the fact that for you to be right, all the experts to have examined the collapses would have to be wrong?

And the Windsor Tower's steel was 2 or 3 inches thick, like a pipe, on the exterior of the building. Hardly comparable with massive box columns, or even the perimeter columns.

It also wasn't supporting anything.

This case study is an example of the excellent performance of a concrete frame designed using traditional methods and subjected to an intense fire. It also highlights the risks when active fire protection measures fail or are not included in steel frame construction.

www.concretecentre.com...

[edit on 16-8-2006 by Mr_pointy]

Originally posted by Mr_pointy
Are you seriously saying that me applying Occam's razor, in a thread about Occam's razor is somehow not an answer?

My point is that you have no idea if you're using it properly. It does not take impossibilities into account: as simple as possible; no simpler! That is why I posted all of the previous information for you to look at.

You claim not to be qualified to address it, then at least give us a disclaimer every time you try to use Occam's Razor.

My point is that you have no idea if you're using it properly. It does not take impossibilities into account: as simple as possible; no simpler! That is why I posted all of the previous information for you to look at.

I am using it properly, read my post again. I'm using it to examine your claims of impossibility.

From what you said, I can come up with 3 possibilities:
1. The towers shouldn't have come down, therefore the experts were wrong
2. The towers shouldn't have come down, therefore the experts are in on it/threatened/bribed
3. The towers were damaged enough for them to come down, therefore you're wrong

Those are the 3 possibilities available to me, I explained why Occam's supports 3. You seem to be so arrogant, that you are claiming to know more that the people that trained to do their job. As for it being an impossibility, show me ONE expert that thinks it wasn't possible, and that they produced a paper on it that survived peer review.

You claim not to be qualified to address it, then at least give us a disclaimer every time you try to use Occam's Razor.

But if I was qualified, I wouldn't NEED Occam's razor.

[edit on 16-8-2006 by Mr_pointy]

Originally posted by Mr_pointy
I am using it properly, read my post again. I'm using it to examine your claims of impossibility.

siighhhh

Then you're trying to replace objective information, with a razor that was designed to guide theoretical work. Science is not synonymous with Occam's Razor for a reason.

You seem to be so arrogant, that you are claiming to know more that the people that trained to do their job.

If you mean structural engineers, I don't think they're the relevant experts here in the first place. They don't study building collapses. It's that simple. They deal with static loads. Understand?

This might explain why there are no two papers on the collapses from structural engineers that agree with each other. If these guys are really that relevant, and really know what they're talking about, you'd think they'd at least agree with each other. We have papers saying impact damage was the major cause, fire was the major cause, we have truss failure theory, zippers, column failure theory, etc., on and on. The first structural engineers to comment on the collapse said they thought the steel MELTED! And that assertion stayed mainstream for an embarrassingly long amount of time! These guys are TOTALLY out of their league, without additional expertise with forms of engineering or physics expertise that involve collisions, transfers of momentum, impulse, etc.

But if I was qualified, I wouldn't NEED Occam's razor.

I don't think it was designed to be a crutch for people that don't know what they're talking about, either. :-/

Again, it doesn't replace science. Look up articles on Occam's Razor. Read about it. It has a pretty specific purpose, and your use of it is a little off.

Then you're trying to replace objective information, with a razor that was designed to guide theoretical work. Science is not synonymous with Occam's Razor for a reason.

I know Occam's razor isn't scientific, but it still states that the most likely explanation is that you're wrong.

If you mean structural engineers, I don't think they're the relevant experts here in the first place. They don't study building collapses. It's that simple. They deal with static loads. Understand?

So you aggree they can tell us if it should have collapse, because until it does, it's static.

If these guys are really that relevant, and really know what they're talking about, you'd think they'd at least agree with each other.

All they can do is create theories, noone can ever know exactly what was going on inside the building. Do any of them state that it shouldn't have fallen, I have never heard of any.

We have papers saying impact damage was the major cause, fire was the major cause, we have truss failure theory, zippers, column failure theory, etc., on and on.

That's becasue it's all theoretical, unless we have a time machine, we'll never know the exact cause, it could be a combination.

Here a link to a list of peer reviewed papers, for you to be right, all of them would have to be wrong.
www.debunking911.com...

The first structural engineers to comment on the collapse said they thought the steel MELTED!

Perhaps they just didn't know how hot fires normally got, or the melting point of steel, name 1 peer reviewed paper that supports this.

And that assertion stayed mainstream for an embarrassingly long amount of time!

Mainstream according to whom, the press?

These guys are TOTALLY out of their league, without additional expertise with forms of engineering or physics expertise that involve collisions, transfers of momentum, impulse, etc.

Physicists might be called upon for the plane impact only.

Again, it doesn't replace science. Look up articles on Occam's Razor. Read about it. It has a pretty specific purpose, and your use of it is a little off.

I never said it did, your claims don't replace the science done by NIST or anyone else, which you said yourself you didn't totaly understand. It's only use is to decide the answer most likely to be true when given more that 1 solution to a problem, this is what i did when you present your unsourced opinion on the collapse.

Originally posted by Mr_pointy
I know Occam's razor isn't scientific, but it still states that the most likely explanation is that you're wrong.

No it doesn't. I'm not even going to explain anymore. Reread my posts. Just no, it doesn't.

So you aggree they can tell us if it should have collapse, because until it does, it's static.

I just posted information in that regard on the previous page.

Here a link to a list of peer reviewed papers, for you to be right, all of them would have to be wrong.
www.debunking911.com...

So be it. The world was flat and revolved around the Sun when the Church was in power. Who funds the engineering departments of scholarly institutions?

Perhaps they just didn't know how hot fires normally got, or the melting point of steel, name 1 peer reviewed paper that supports this.

These are the same people that would be peer-reviewing structural engineering papers:

Richard Ebeltoft, a structural engineer and University of Arizona architecture lecturer, speculated that flames fueled by thousands of gallons of aviation fuel melted the buildings steel supports. Ebeltoft said steel loses half its strength when heated to temperatures of 700 to 1,000 degrees.

An exposition like this, he said, probably caused fires that burned at temperatures between 1,500 and 2,200 degrees.

Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the Trade Center's construction manager, speculated that flames fuelled by thousands of litres of aviation fuel melted steel supports.

"It was the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning." [s]aid structural engineer Chris Wise.

"The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other."

[Professor of Structural Engineering at the University of Newcastle, John Knapton] told BBC News Online: "The world trade centre was designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, but that was unusual... we are trying to discover why they [ the towers ] collapsed and what needs doing to rebuild them."

"The buildings survived the impact and the explosion but not the fire, and that is the problem."

"The 35 tonnes of aviation fuel will have melted the steel... all that can be done is to place fire resistant material around the steel and delay the collapse by keeping the steel cool for longer."

A September 14 report in the Cincinnati Business Courier paraphrases Elmer Obermeyer, president and chairman of Graham Obermeyer & Partners Ltd., a structural engineering firm in downtown Cincinnati. Obermeyer is considered the "guru in his field" according to the article.

Obermeyer said the fire probably melted the steel beams of the World Trade Center towers, which were never designed to survive the kind of shot they took Sept. 11.

M.I.T. professor of civil and environmental engineering Eduardo Kausel endorsed the fire-melts-steel idea a month after the attack, as a panelist at a public event in Cambridge, MA.

["]I believe that the intense heat softened or melted the structural elements--floor trusses and columns--so that they became like chewing gum, and that was enough to trigger the collapse.["]

Sources: 1, 2.

These people are idiots on this subject.

And that assertion stayed mainstream for an embarrassingly long amount of time!

Mainstream according to whom, the press?

See above. Follow the sources and you'll see how widespread their idiocy became, amongst themselves, anyway.

Physicists might be called upon for the plane impact only.

Considering physics is the basis of all engineering, you might want to reconsider this statement.

I never said it did, your claims don't replace the science done by NIST or anyone else, which you said yourself you didn't totaly understand.

Please show me where I have stated that I did not understand NIST. NIST's own report, their own release, contradicts their assertions. They did two separate tests and failed to support their hypothesis in both of them, and also failed to support it with any actual evidence, in photographs, from Ground Zero, etc.

That speaks for itself.

[edit on 16-8-2006 by bsbray11]

Hahaha, that is remarkably funny BSBray11 If they DID have a clue about what was claimed of have happened, they would of noticed that nothing did melt, only weakened.

Those engineers, they sure know their stuff =)

No it doesn't. I'm not even going to explain anymore. Reread my posts. Just no, it doesn't.

I've read you posts, how am I wrong? you never seem to state this.

I just posted information in that regard on the previous page.

Where?

So be it. The world was flat and revolved around the Sun when the Church was in power. Who funds the engineering departments of scholarly institutions?

Avoiding the issue I see.

These people are idiots on this subject.

Let's see, you gave me speculation not the peer reviewed papers I asked for. The only thing the quotes suggest to me, is that they didn't know how hot the fires were, when were these quotes taken, before any investigation started?

See above. Follow the sources and you'll see how widespread their idiocy became, amongst themselves, anyway.

OK, you have a few engineers that thought they melted, where's the proof it was mainstream anywhere except the press?

Considering physics is the basis of all engineering, you might want to reconsider this statement.

Why? They don't create degrees on a whim, there has to be specific reasons to create them, otherwise there wouldn't be any engineers, just physicists. Engineers cover material that physicists don't.

Please show me where I have stated that I did not understand NIST. NIST's own report, their own release, contradicts their assertions. They did two separate tests and failed to support their hypothesis in both of them, and also failed to support it with any actual evidence, in photographs, from Ground Zero, etc.

Why should I believe you? Name 1 relevant expert that disaggrees with the science NIST did.

Your arrogance is disgusting, you claim to know better than all the scientists to study the collapse, none of which say that they shouldn't have fallen.

[edit on 16-8-2006 by Mr_pointy]

Hahaha, that is remarkably funny BSBray11 If they DID have a clue about what was claimed of have happened, they would of noticed that nothing did melt, only weakened.

Name 1 peer reviewed article that says anything had to melt.

So be it. The world was flat and revolved around the Sun when the Church was in power. Who funds the engineering departments of scholarly institutions?

Missed this last post, are you seriously accusing the every engineer in the world of covering up 9/11?

[edit on 16-8-2006 by Mr_pointy]

Mr_Pointy, for this brief moment I've taken you off ignore because you've gone too far and are asking for the impossible but doing so on a logic we've explained.

BSB has already talked about experts are experts but their opinions are still opinions.

People thought the world was flat.. experts.. thought the world was flat but you had others that thought also.

If you want "experts" opinions look elsewhere.

You want EVIDENCE, want to know what's hysterically funny about this comment, that's what WE and A BUNCH of others are PUSHING FOR, a better funded, more thorough investigation, which inevitably at this point, seems meek but still hopeful due to the steel and other evidence being recycled.

Other than taking a critical view on subject matter or an objective view, which you've failed to do, and can be clearly asserted with your statement about Steven Jones, which is pretty lame by the way.

But us here on the board that seem to take a stand against the official story are doing our own investigative work into the matter and coupling our research together to help find the puzzle out. You're obviously just a mouth piece of B.S. and in no way are providing anything worth while to show you've done ANY research in a critical or analytical way other than citing people who claim others that believe 9/11 was a conspiracy are nuts. You show no research by your own part, none, on a critical or analytical view. You're a mouthpiece for everyone who is trying to support the official story.

I'd rather try to come to terms with them then with likes of you.

You can continue to shout for expert opinions, which seem to OBVIOUSLY be the only way anything can be official, which is of course, complete utter B.S. because experts opinions are just opinions and do not make anything directly fact. You can continue to shout for HARD EVIDENCE which obviously we do not have a lot of or otherwise we'd have a strong case now would we.

Now do yourself a favor and do your own research into the reasonability behind 9/11 and if so, come back with some results and then we can talk, otherwise, you'll continue to be on my ignore list and continue to have a lack of respect from me and I'm sure others on this board because you're becoming more of a nuisance for your lack of investigative skills (which seem to be limited to linking "Expert opinions") and make a difference than annoying everyone.

Have a nice day... back to ignore for you.

[edit on 8/16/2006 by Masisoar]

Originally posted by Mr_pointy
I've read you posts, how am I wrong? you never seem to state this.

I'll give you a couple of quotes.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Occam's Razor is NOT that simpler = true, because this would obviously lead to many grossly untrue statements.

Occam's razor is not equivalent to the idea that "perfection is simplicity". Albert Einstein probably had this in mind when he wrote in 1933 that "The supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience" often paraphrased as "Theories should be as simple as possible, but no simpler." It often happens that the best explanation is much more complicated than the simplest possible explanation because it requires fewer assumptions. In the light of this, the popular rephrasing of the razor - that "The simplest explanation is the best one" - can lead to a gross oversimplification when the word simple is taken at face value.

My bold; Source.

Where?

Originally posted by bsbray11
Besides the fact that the WTC Towers were both fully capable of withstanding the impacts, with a small minority of columns being severed in the impacting regions in the process (check FEMA's Report, sections 2.2.1.1 and 2.2.2.2 and NIST's core impact modeling), the WTC's construction manager, Frank Demartini, has also stated that the buildings could have stood multiple impacts from fully-loaded 707s.

The "massive" amount of impact damage you're referring to was less than 15% of the perimeter columns in the impacted regions in either building, and the core damage NIST modeled wasn't above 25% even in the worst-case scenario if my memory serves me, and they even modeled WTC2's impact as being dead-on (it was not).

Got that? >15% of the perimeter columns, >25% of the core structures, worst case scenarios.

The safety factor ratings of the perimeter and core columns were 5 and 3.35 respectively, if I remember correctly. That means the perimeter columns could support 5 times their expected loads and the core columns could support about 3.35 times their expected loads.

That means 500% and 335% of their expected loads, respectively, according to NIST figures (I think they attribute too much of the load-bearing to the perimeter columns, but it only hurts their argument here because of the extra redundancy in the perimeter columns, so I won't complain

). Take >15% of the perimeter away, and >25% of the core away, and what happens? Still standing, easily. This is what happened after the impacts.

So, the job of the fires, to get a whole floor to fail, then becomes to do about 4 times the work of the impacts if you work it out (I'm going off another set of data now, but it works out close enough for the point to remain perfectly valid). You'd have to fail around 60% more of the total structure to get a floor to fail, with fire alone. Or some equivalent, taking buckling into account.

Buckling, in fact, was what NIST blamed the failures on, if you read their report. Trusses failed, perimeter columns lost stability and failed, and then the core structure failed by some mechanism they completely fail to make clear.

Problem: Where was all the buckling, pre-collapse?

If you remember how much of the structure it would take, in addition to the impact damage, to fail a single floor, then becomes apparent that an awful lot of perimeter columns would have to buckle to cause a whole floor to fail, and a lot of the core as well. NIST actually shows us a handful of buckled perimeter columns, or at least what appear to be buckled columns (you can't actually see many/most of them for the aluminum coverings, which were contorted in all number of directions). Nowhere is there shown enough buckling to provide justification for the collapse of a whole floor, or even nearing the amount needed to reach a "critical mass" for a chain reaction to take place. We saw nothing that would indicate a global collapse was coming.


That sums up my argument for suspecting fires and impact damage alone would not have initiated a collapse.

Every time you use Occam's Razor as you have been, you're ignoring ALL of the above. I'd like to see you actually address it, before using the razor as you have been.

There. It's on the previous page of this thread, just like I freaking said. It was even addressed to you. This is ridiculous. Honestly, I could probably keep quoting my previous posts every time you respond to me.

Now can you show me where I stated I didn't understand the NIST Report?

Let's see, you gave me speculation not the peer reviewed papers I asked for.

You apparently do not understand the process of peer review. These are the people that would have been doing the peer-reviewing. Did you not see their titles? Structural engineers? Civil engineers? Architects? At scholarly institutions? "Gurus"? The real issue is the lack of scientific papers on the collapses at this point in time. There should be little doubt in your mind from the above quotes that this is what these people were thinking. It illustrates how knowledgeable they really are here.

The only thing the quotes suggest to me, is that they didn't know how hot the fires were,

More like, they don't understand how hot fires like that can possibly get.

OK, you have a few engineers that thought they melted, where's the proof it was mainstream anywhere except the press?

If engineers from leading universities do not count, then who does? Who are the "experts" you're referring to, if not these people?

Engineers cover material that physicists don't.

No, engineers just specialize (and structural engineers don't specialize in building collapses, again, or fire, or anything else besides static loads).

Why should I believe you? Name 1 relevant expert that disaggrees with the science NIST did.

The whole problem is who you consider relevant. See above.

Your arrogance is disgusting, you claim to know better than all the scientists to study the collapse, none of which say that they shouldn't have fallen.

I'm not alone, dude. Griff, another member of ATS, is a civil engineer, and he has raised a lot of problems with NIST's Report. Many other engineers, architects, physicists, mathematicians, etc., are all finding gross problems with NIST in their respective fields (have you seen the Scholars for 9/11 Truth member list?).

Why don't you educate yourself and look at what those people are saying? Do you think this stuff is beyond you? It's not. You may not be able to give yourself enough of an informal education to go out and take the place of any one of those people, from either side, but you can at least educate yourself to understand and consider what they are saying. Structural engineering is a very, very narrow field of study.

Missed this last post, are you seriously accusing the every engineer in the world of covering up 9/11?

No, you're just taking what I said a bit too far.

[edit on 16-8-2006 by bsbray11]

Occam's Razor is NOT that simpler = true, because this would obviously lead to many grossly untrue statements.

Strawman, I never said that simpler = true, I said it was more likely to be true.

The common form of the razor, used to distinguish between equally explanatory theories, can be supported by appeals to the practical value of simplicity. Theories exist to give accurate explanations of phenomena, and simplicity is a valuable aspect of an explanation because it makes the explanation easier to understand and work with. Thus, if two theories are equally accurate and neither appears more probable than the other, the simple one is to be preferred over the complicated one, because simplicity is valuable.

The simpler option is the better one. The simple option is that you're wrong.

There. It's on the previous page of this thread, just like I freaking said. It was even addressed to you. This is ridiculous. Honestly, I could probably keep quoting my previous posts every time you respond to me.

You said they deal with static loads, nowhere in your post does it say they aren't static.

Now can you show me where I stated I didn't understand the NIST Report?

Trusses failed, perimeter columns lost stability and failed, and then the core structure failed by some mechanism they completely fail to make clear.

There, you don't understand how they explain it.

You apparently do not understand the process of peer review. These are the people that would have been doing the peer-reviewing. Did you not see their titles? Structural engineers? Civil engineers? Architects? At scholarly institutions? "Gurus"? The real issue is the lack of scientific papers on the collapses at this point in time. There should be little doubt in your mind from the above quotes that this is what these people were thinking. It illustrates how knowledgeable they really are here.

They had to model the fires, the models have to stand up scientifically.

More like, they don't understand how hot fires like that can possibly get.

Sounds like they didn't understand how hot jet fuel would make the fires, the never would have worked with it before.

If engineers from leading universities do not count, then who does? Who are the "experts" you're referring to, if not these people?

A few people is not mainstream, were are the polls?

No, engineers just specialize (and structural engineers don't specialize in building collapses, again, or fire, or anything else besides static loads).

If you ever need a heart transplant go see a brain surgeon, this study the same things, they just specialize. Again, precollapse is static.

The whole problem is who you consider relevant. See above.

OK, there are none, glad we covered that, some guy on a forum certainately isn't.

I'm not alone, dude. Griff, another member of ATS, is a civil engineer, and he has raised a lot of problems with NIST's Report. Many other engineers, architects, physicists, mathematicians, etc., are all finding gross problems with NIST in their respective fields (have you seen the Scholars for 9/11 Truth member list?).

Are you ever going to link your sources, who is griff? BTW architects, physicists, and mathematicians aren't relevant.

Why don't you educate yourself and look at what those people are saying? Do you think this stuff is beyond you? It's not. You may not be able to give yourself enough of an informal education to go out and take the place of any one of those people, from either side, but you can at least educate yourself to understand and consider what they are saying. Structural engineering is a very, very narrow field of study.

You just tell me to look at what they say, yet you only provive the part of the name of ONE. I never said said structural engineering was the only field.

Mr_Pointy, for this brief moment I've taken you off ignore because you've gone too far and are asking for the impossible but doing so on a logic we've explained.

Gone too far with what? What logic?

BSB has already talked about experts are experts but their opinions are still opinions.

Expert opinions, backsed with science.

People thought the world was flat.. experts.. thought the world was flat but you had others that thought also.

Wrong, the common person thought that, not the educated.

You want EVIDENCE, want to know what's hysterically funny about this comment, that's what WE and A BUNCH of others are PUSHING FOR, a better funded, more thorough investigation, which inevitably at this point, seems meek but still hopeful due to the steel and other evidence being recycled.

You will never get one, it's a waste of money, and the vast majority of scientists support the conclusions.

Other than taking a critical view on subject matter or an objective view, which you've failed to do, and can be clearly asserted with your statement about Steven Jones, which is pretty lame by the way.

That's his papers aren't peer reviewed and are rejected by even his own university?

But us here on the board that seem to take a stand against the official story are doing our own investigative work into the matter and coupling our research together to help find the puzzle out. You're obviously just a mouth piece of B.S. and in no way are providing anything worth while to show you've done ANY research in a critical or analytical way other than citing people who claim others that believe 9/11 was a conspiracy are nuts. You show no research by your own part, none, on a critical or analytical view. You're a mouthpiece for everyone who is trying to support the official story.

I have strong evidence that you never even looked at the evidence I provided. You never addressed the fact the Silverstien was talking to a firefighter when he made the 'pull it' remark, and that demolitionists only used it to refer to literally pulling building over with cables.

You can continue to shout for expert opinions, which seem to OBVIOUSLY be the only way anything can be official, which is of course, complete utter B.S. because experts opinions are just opinions and do not make anything directly fact. You can continue to shout for HARD EVIDENCE which obviously we do not have a lot of or otherwise we'd have a strong case now would we.

OK, so you aggree you case is extremely weak, when the people that know the most about the subject don't aggree, and they are more than opinions, they include math and analysis tools designed for these purposes.

Now do yourself a favor and do your own research into the reasonability behind 9/11 and if so, come back with some results and then we can talk, otherwise, you'll continue to be on my ignore list and continue to have a lack of respect from me and I'm sure others on this board because you're becoming more of a nuisance for your lack of investigative skills (which seem to be limited to linking "Expert opinions") and make a difference than annoying everyone.

I don't have the skills or I would BE an expert, which is why I ask for them. You say I'm annoying for linking experts, but you NEVER back up you argueements with anything other thatn your own opinions, and continued to claim things were Obvious when I showed the they weren't, when put in context.

Have a nice day... back to ignore for you.

Come back when you can debate properly.

Originally posted by Mr_pointy

Trusses failed, perimeter columns lost stability and failed, and then the core structure failed by some mechanism they completely fail to make clear.

There, you don't understand how they explain it.

How they explain it? lol

I would ask you to point me to where exactly they explain the core failures, especially considering the cores of each building continued to stand after the rest of the collapses, but I have a feeling I'm going to get more of the same. I'm adding you to ignore as well. We're just going in circles.

Btw, Griff is a member here, not like I didn't just say that in my last post. Thus, that is his username. Contact him. I also referred you to a member list that gives names of engineers/etc., and as I stated, structural engineering is a very narrow field of study.

You are refusing to accept any other professional opinions, even when SE's have been shown to be embarrassingly clueless with specific issues at hand. Considering a conspiracy would suggest a cover-up, I would consider SE ignorance of metallurgy (effects of fire on steel, of which you have seen how ignorant they were) and dynamic building collapses a key reason for the emphasis being placed upon them by government investigations. They are clearly out of their field of expertise. And you refuse to consider any other professional opinions. Way to deny ignorance.

I would ask you to point me to where exactly they explain the core failures, especially considering the cores of each building continued to stand after the rest of the collapses, but I have a feeling I'm going to get more of the same. I'm adding you to ignore as well. We're just going in circles.

You're the one with the link to the report, I asked for it before, but you seem allergic to posting souces.

Btw, Griff is a member here, not like I didn't just say that in my last post. Thus, that is his username. Contact him. I also referred you to a member list that gives names of engineers/etc., and as I stated, structural engineering is a very narrow field of study.

So, that's 1 guy on an internet forum, very unimpressive.

You are refusing to accept any other professional opinions, even when SE's have been shown to be embarrassingly clueless with specific issues at hand.

You haven't GIVEN me any evidence, you just claim they're out there, somewhere.

Considering a conspiracy would suggest a cover-up, I would consider SE ignorance of metallurgy (effects of fire on steel, of which you have seen how ignorant they were) and dynamic building collapses a key reason for the emphasis being placed upon them by government investigations.

Strawman, I said relevant experts, you brought up the structural engineers. The structural engineers study the effects of fire, they have to for safety reasons. However, they don't model fires, that was done by the Building and Fire
Research Laboratory.

They are clearly out of their field of expertise. And you refuse to consider any other professional opinions. Way to deny ignorance.

When modeling fires, yes, but they didn't have to, the just have to use the models provived by other experts, and use that to calculate the static loads present before collapse. You keep mentioning other professional opinions, but NEVER GET AROUND TO PRESENTING ANY. You just gave me your unsourse opinions about the collapse. The assertion that you know more about the collapse than the relevant experts, is the most arrogant thing I have ever heard.

Back to Occam's razor, it says to not presume the existance of anything not shown to exist, we know there are fires and structural damage, don't know of any other reasons for the towers to fall. Therefore, Occam states that the fires and damage mostlikely cause them to fall, simple, why can't you understand that?

Why are there three or four usernames on here that all use the same arguments and tactics... sometimes even common mispellings and wordings?

I think all of your arguments aer weak Mr. Pointy...

Ever see that Monty Python bit where the guy pays for an argument...

Fellas... Like all incarnations before and those yet to come, stop wasting your keystrokes on Mr. No-pointy.