lol

The floors could handle a dynamic load (a load in motion) of 6 floors. The number of floors above the collapse was more than that. That isn't vague or handwaving. That was the mechanism. Readily explainable to anyone who has stood on an aluminum can to crush it. You're not interested in the truth though so you'll keep playing this stupid "...not meant stand(sic) up to scientific inquiry..." bull****. Try and find another "question" about how the towers fell "funny" this one is answered.

By definition, that's not a mechanism. I don't think that even qualifies as hand waving. With hand waving you at least address that there is a question or gap in explanation.

If the complete absence of a quick copy and paste refutation by any of several at least half way educated posters (who hate my guts, would love to disprove me, and have repeatedly pointed to NIST for answers) has not clued you in to your being wrong then it's not surprising that your analogizing the event to a person standing on a can of pop doesn't strike you as bogus.

Here is a more apt pop can analogy. Imagine a tower of pop cans. Imagine that part of one of the cans near the top is severed. Are the cans upward of the sliced can going to commence to drive through and crush the remaining intact supporting cans at free fall? Is this really the way you think the physical world operates? Make the cans any mass you want as long as they are all equal mass.

http://sciencewithkids.com/science/c...ng-experiment/

you might have to ask some kids to help you

Actually it is, just for funsies what is your definition of a "mechanism?" Could you give an example of a mechanism please?

This is just amazing. You're saying that because I'm the only one of the three posters who were arguing this with you to find this web page and bring it to your attention that it is bogus? You're also saying that because I summed it up in language you might be able to understand instead of quoting the two points from the FAQ I linked to that I know it's wrong? You must really know this is what happened if you are grasping at such flimsy straws. I will grant you that standing on a soda can is an incomplete analogy, I left out the part where after you stand on the can you hop just a little, but Kukraprout's link is a better demonstration of the mechanism.

Yes, they will, under the following conditions:
1. There is a number of cans that when dropped from the distance of one can (or if you'd rather, the width of the slice) on a can will crush it.
2. If by slice you mean completely removed.
3. The number of cans above the can that is removed is 2 to 3 times more than the answer to the first condition.

In other words, what the NIST FAQ says in question 12.

Sure. When NIST gave an explanation of building 7, they gave a very detailed mechanism. They proposed a specific sequence of events and their immediate causes which led to the collapse of building 7. We can talk about that, but the their giving such an explicit mechanism in that case makes the lack thereof more conspicuous in the case of the twin towers.



Plenty of posters have weighed in on 911, and weighed in with citations to the NIST report. Most any of them would have taken the time to refute such a crazy sounding claim of mine that no explanation of the actual collapse was given in that report. If I simply misspell a word I am jumped on in here. Like, catching me in a genuine mistake, no matter how trivial or irrelevant, is cool points to these grunts. Do you think they would let me spout off on something like if it wasn't true?

On the other hand, you don't see them say anything like "hmmm...that's interesting...the very document I have been pointing to to support a theory that I always somehow felt was valid doesn't even contain any theory at all."

I prefer the completely removed and elevated top portion version of analogies because it illustrates the point better. What actually happens in corresponding real world examples is that things crush into each other when they are of the same material and exerting force onto each other. So when two cars, which are of approximate equal composition, crash into each other, both are damaged. You don't see one car crushing through another without also deforming itself, and you don't see the tops of buildings crushing through intact remaining portions while themselves remaining intact.

This fundamental discrepancy is why NIST doesn't attempt to give a mechanism. They would obviously love to give a mechanism. It must be that NIST can't provide one that would even pass the laugh test.

Why do you people keep talking to him like he can listen?

It's interesting seeing just how deluded truthers are and the lengths they'll go to hold on to there special little theory.

no, that was interesting about 6 months ago

now that particular dead horse has been so thoroughly kicked that it resembles nothing but a pile of bloody pulp

Holy ****ing ****. Kerowo provided the EXACT piece of information you inquired about which very clearly and simply explains why the collapse happened, and this is what you come up with?

Seek medical attention buddy, you need some meds

So great... And I'm going to destroy this.

You talk about destroying stuff. However, that's all you do is talk.

Try explaining why the economy continually grew after Katrina and other hurricanes. You know because energy didn't get more expensive or anything.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/53572.pdf

Geez, Jiggs, you really going to destroy my argument the economy isn't driven solely on energy now.

.6% of GDP really brought on a recession, and slowed growth to a stand still like 2008's meltdown.

Yeah, what was the price spike that month after the storm? $4-5? From $55 to $60? We do that in a week today. So, while pretending energy spikes don't hamper growth, you basically admit that a very tiny blip, well... kinda did. $70 billion for one storm, no less.

It's adorable watching you learn as you go along, while maintaining undying loyalty to the baseless theory that growth is magical.

But where did I say one storm would "slow growth to a standstill," you fraud? Gambool must be proud of his pupil over your progress with the straw-man learning curve. ... Too bad your camp is likely doing a collective face-palm at your fail premise here.

That's just one storm, one tiny uptick in global WTI price, which the futures markets understood would be from a temporary refinery bottleneck. Kinda different from a spike that results from supply constraints in source nations due to, you know, geology and civil war, and stuff.

Further, you realize that costs for natural disaster "recovery" literally count towards GDP, yes? But what does disaster clean-up matter to free market zealots? That cost input is always someone else's problem. And if it counts toward the illusion of growth, all the better!

Anyhoo, here's more relevant perspective ... that you undoubtedly won't read:

High Oil Prices Are A Bigger Problem Than You Realize

Another factor in the slow uptake of high oil prices is the fact that governments can temporarily hide some of the effects of high-priced oil through unemployment benefits and stimulus programs. This temporary cover-up cannot continue for long, though, because governments (such as the US and other oil importers) soon run into problems with high deficits (as is happening now). When governments raise taxes or reduce benefits to solve their financial problems, the deferred high-priced oil problems return, showing that the problem never really left.

I do listen, or read, as the case may be. I respond to specific arguments people make. You don't talk to me because you are afraid. Not everyone is terrified of engaging me, Didsy. You started screaming for everyone to ignore because...why exactly? because of my theories or claims about 911? About the actually insane people who think the buildings themselves were never real, you say go ahead and pummel those morons. But when it comes to me, you scream ignore him. Why? You don't want to examine the matter logically. That is too painful for you. That's fine, if you're that much of a scared fool. But lobbying others to take on your fearful and feeble perspective is scraping the absolute depths of cowardice: I'm so fearful but I am awso too afraid to be fearful aww bwy mysewlf.

First of all, kerowo shifted the goal posts. I said the report said nothing about it, and it doesn't. Kerowo went to the QA section and brought back some quotes which, still, do not propose a mechanism. Maybe you are not aware things are established in the science world, but it's not through Q and A's.

I have characterized what kerowo did post. If you don't agree then show me where I am wrong. Question 6 said absolutely nothing. Question 12 talked about the meta conditions in very broad terms, but did not say how it actually went down.

The challenge remains unmet: nowhere in the NIST report does NIST give the actual mechanism of how the twin towers fall. They don't give a mechanism I don't understand- they simply give no mechanism.

Anyone who actually looks into it and disagrees perhaps needs medication as they are seeing things which are not, at all, there. Or maybe not; ignorance is bliss, right?

This is a pretty good summary.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi.../wtc_about.cfm

So do you care about how the buildings came down or the NIST report?

Question 12 pretty clearly states that the mechanism for the collapse was a dynamic load applied to the floor underneath the collapse which exceeded the structural capability of the floor to such an extent that it offered very little resistance. That doesn't make sense to you? Or you're rejecting it because it wasn't in the NIST report?

You're doing it again Kerowo: you are paraphrasing from a non-technical Q and A. Why? You keep twisting the words from a Q and A to show that there is something there which isn't there.

And why wouldn't what you think is in the Q and A not be in the actual report when that was the entire reason for the report in the first place? Think. You're a NIST investigator. You are tasked with the structural autopsy of all time. Are you really going to completely leave out the only critical part when you have an explanation that you believe in? What about the actual report?

Here is NIST on pancake theory which you (erroneously) think they are proposing in the Q and A:
Note the first sentence which is a direct quote from NIST. Here again is what NIST does wrt the twin towers. They can't go forward with the pancake theory (for reasons I won't try to explain but understand) because it's just crap so they focus on the initiation and don't even bother to hand wave the actual stated focus of the inquiry.

**** you. This is a better explanation than "it fell funny" being used to discount the official story. Until you come up with something better to refute it than "pew pew pew it's not in the report" this argument is over.

Hint: You didn't win.

I think we've found the problem. You don't know what an explanation is. "it fell funny" is (in yet another example) not an explanation.

I do win. The debate was whether or not any explanation of the complete collapse was in the report. I say it isn't in there. In a hilarious goal-post-shift fail, you turn to twisting and paraphrasing a Q and A. It's like you whiffed terribly, set up the goal posts to five feet in front of you, whiffed hard again, and then proclaimed victory.

Bravo! You live up to your avatar and are quite the clown. You should set up a virtual tip hat. I would throw you a few bucks for such fine entertainment.

The NIST report does not prove that the towers were real!
Stop hand waving the question of the realness of the towers!

Certain assumptions of a shared reality are not subject to proof. How the buildings fell is not one of those. In fact that's why they, ya know, commissioned the report.

Now that you know the central question was never answered, do you want your money back? or do you feel sufficiently palliated that the report, though an utter failure from an investigative standpoint, was worth the money?

I suggest you rephrase your central question in a few words and type these words in a google search bar. If your central question is still not answered I promise I'll take the time to help you, if you promise you will listen.