quote:

---

Originally posted by ergo123

So, you are saying that the possibility that gravity alone brought the towers down (given the damage...) is proof that explosives were not used? What kind of logic is that? If you feel a sharp pain in your chest that COULD be due to gas, do you not also consider the possibility it is a heart attack in progress? When you hear a fire alarm in your house go off at 3:00 that COULD be due to someone in the house making toast do you just roll over and go back to sleep?

Science doesn't just accept the first plausible explanation it runs across as being the answer. Especially when that explanation is INCONSISTENT with observed events/results. Why didn't NIST adjust the model to account for ALL the mis-matches between its model and what was observed? How can it say it had no evidence of explosions from any eyewitnesses, including the firte department when we have all seen the 4 firemen talking about hearing a series of explosions--'like the ones in a controlled demolition.'

I get that it would be hard to deal with the situation if it is true that the administration played a role in the events of 9-11-01. But that shouldn't keep us from using our brains.

---

quote:

---

ergo123:
Science doesn't just accept the first plausible explanation it runs across as being the answer.

---

quote:

---

ergo123:
I get that it would be hard to deal with the situation if it is true that the administration played a role in the events of 9-11-01. But that shouldn't keep us from using our brains.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ergo123

No, Ghost. We know the vertical members DID snap--most into 30' sections. My question is HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN? The attachments are much less strong than the box columns. If they were sheared off the box columns they could not transfer energy to the box columns after the shear. We'd be left with a pile of rubble on the ground and 287 very long beams. But we weren't. We had lots of steel beams but it was in 30' long sections.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ergo123

DaveW: Finally you are doing what i asked in my original post--providing evidence (not just your opinion) that Ross' model is inappropriate.

---

quote:

---

You still have some errors in your assessment, but at least it looks close.

---

quote:

---

Why did it take you 10 pages to provide ths kind of info.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kil

quote:

---

ergo123:
Science doesn't just accept the first plausible explanation it runs across as being the answer.

---

Perhaps, but science does accept the most plausible explanation. And given the problems already discussed in setting up a controlled demolition, that would not qualify it as the most plausible explanation. In fact, it would place it way down near the bottom of the list.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghost_Skeptic

quote:

---

Originally posted by ergo123

So, you are saying that the possibility that gravity alone brought the towers down (given the damage...) is proof that explosives were not used? What kind of logic is that? If you feel a sharp pain in your chest that COULD be due to gas, do you not also consider the possibility it is a heart attack in progress? When you hear a fire alarm in your house go off at 3:00 that COULD be due to someone in the house making toast do you just roll over and go back to sleep?

Science doesn't just accept the first plausible explanation it runs across as being the answer. Especially when that explanation is INCONSISTENT with observed events/results. Why didn't NIST adjust the model to account for ALL the mis-matches between its model and what was observed? How can it say it had no evidence of explosions from any eyewitnesses, including the firte department when we have all seen the 4 firemen talking about hearing a series of explosions--'like the ones in a controlled demolition.'

I get that it would be hard to deal with the situation if it is true that the administration played a role in the events of 9-11-01. But that shouldn't keep us from using our brains.

---

You just don't get it. Appaerently some firemen talking about what something sounded like it outwieghs the evidence that it was not possible to plant explosives without way too many people knowing about as has been poinnted out repeatedly by Dude and others.
Do you think this forum is populated by Bush apologists?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kil

quote:

---

ergo123:
Science doesn't just accept the first plausible explanation it runs across as being the answer.

---

Perhaps, but science does accept the most plausible explanation. And given the problems already discussed in setting up a controlled demolition, that would not qualify it as the most plausible explanation. In fact, it would place it way down near the bottom of the list.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kil

quote:

---

ergo123:
I get that it would be hard to deal with the situation if it is true that the administration played a role in the events of 9-11-01. But that shouldn't keep us from using our brains.

---

To paraphrase Carl Sagan and others: “We should have an open mind. But not so open that our brains fall out.”

Also, it is rather insulting that you would think that it's our fear of the implications it would mean if our government would or even could do such a thing that keeps us from considering your “theory” as viable. You're grasping at straws…

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paulos23

quote:

---

Originally posted by ergo123

No, Ghost. We know the vertical members DID snap--most into 30' sections. My question is HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN? The attachments are much less strong than the box columns. If they were sheared off the box columns they could not transfer energy to the box columns after the shear. We'd be left with a pile of rubble on the ground and 287 very long beams. But we weren't. We had lots of steel beams but it was in 30' long sections.

---

There is a good reason for the 30' sections if you look at the construction of the building.

http://www.911myths.com/html/30_foot_lengths_of_steel.html

---

quote:

---

And what proof do you have that it would be impossible to plant explosives without way too many people knowing about (as has been poinnted out repeatedly by Dude and others)?

---

1. The columns broke up into 30' lengths
2. NIST describes no errors in its simulations and model
3. Sounds of explosions accompanied onset of collapse
4. The buildings collapsed in a radially symmetric pattern around their vertical axes
5. There was "consistent pulverization of non-metallic materials"
6. The buildings were "totally destroyed"
7. I refered to the NIST report as a description of what actually happened
8. The medium case in the NIST report matched all observations except that the buildings remained standing
9. The NIST severe cases were the worst of all possible cases
10. The same things happened to both towers
11. The 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST report are "incongruent"
12. I have made incorrect assumptions about something
13. I have missed some sort of "obvious connections"
14. I have made some sort of error in my assessment of Ross' paper
15. "we have evidence (video, photo, eyewitness) that debris, including pieces of steel beam, being forcefully ejected from the towers"
16. Air being forced out of the towers would require "pancaking"
17. Debris outside the tower footprints is inconsistent with a gravity collapse
18. "it is physically impossible for the buildings to have fallen as fast as they did due to gravity alone"
19. The 9/11 Commission Report gave multiple reasons for why the towers collapsed
20. Ross' analysis is correct
21. The 9/11 Commission Report says it took 10 seconds for the towers to collapse
22. WTC 7 fell for the same reasons that WTC 1 & 2 fell
23. "sensors recorded maximum temperatures of only 350 to 400 degrees" [inside the towers]
24. "Firefighers, also, reported only pockets of small fires on the floor that would have been the first impacted floor"
25. 'mass' is "scientist talk" for 'weight'
26. The towers were designed to withstand several direct impacts from commercial airliners
27. "no other steel & concrete building ever before or since fell due to fire"
28. Dust was "shot upwards" during the collapses
29. The concrete in the buildings was 100% pulverized
30. The 9/11 Commission was "not allowed" to examine why the towers collapsed
31. The working theory [implied: of the 9/11 collapses] contradicts observed phenomena
32. The vertical columns of the towers were welded together [implied]

quote:

---

Originally posted by pleco

quote:

---

And what proof do you have that it would be impossible to plant explosives without way too many people knowing about (as has been poinnted out repeatedly by Dude and others)?

---

You are asking to prove a negative?

---