Real Science vs. Pseudoscience, 9/11 WTC Collapses Style

[stickdog]

Real science proceeds from the best available evidence. Take the theory of cometary formation, for example. Before the Stardust mission returned samples from Comet Wild 2, scientists didn't have access to any direct physical evidence of cometary composition, so they therefore were forced to rely on far less direct evidence and computer models. But what has happened to their long cherished theories after getting actual physical evidence from just one comet?

NASA's Stardust Findings May Alter View of Comet Formation ( http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/news/status/060313.html )

Now compare actual science to what NIST did when they "explained" the WTC collapses. NIST's only report that discusses the hard physical evidence of the WTC towers' collapses ( http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf ) admits that:

1) no WTC-7 steel was recovered or analyzed,

2) no testing for explosives (or sulfidation or other residue of any kind) was performed by NIST and the only metal tested extensively by metallurgists (by FEMA) revealed strange signs of sulfidation of unknown origin,

3) only 12 total core columns were carefully analyzed for high temperature exposure from WTC-1, WTC-2 & WTC-7 combined and none showed exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C, and

4) of 170 examined areas on the perimeter column panels, only three showed exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C (and for one of these three forensic evidence indicated that the high temperature exposure occurred AFTER the collapse).

NIST had (or should have had) access to all the physical evidence any scientist could ever hope for just sitting on the ground in Manhattan waiting to be analyzed. But instead of carefully examining this potential goldmine of actual physical structural collapse data, NIST chose to look at just 0.25% of it even cursorily. And of the 0.25% NIST examined, about one percent of this tiny fraction (that's less than 1/40,000 of the total collapsed WTC metal) showed any signs of being heated in excess of 250 C for any period longer than fleeting seconds.

Meanwhile, NIST invented a bunch of speculative and physically unsupported theories about how the towers fell that required significant portions of the WTC towers' steel structure to be heated for significant periods of time well in excess of what even the most heated physical evidence they examined actually demonstrated. Basically, NIST ignored their best evidence -- the actual physical remains of the collapsed towers -- in favor of a bunch of comparatively pseudoscientific postulation.

Now compare what these NIST "scientists" did to what NASA's real scientists are doing in the case of cometary formation. It's as if NASA scientists randomly sampled 2000 different comets -- 99% of which showed signs of being formed close to the sun -- yet still clung to their old unsupported computer models that basically POSTULATED that the vast majority comets were formed in the outer reaches of the solar system.

In summary, everything NIST concluded about the collapse of the WTC towers is contradicted by the best available evidence, and nothing they concluded is supported by even a shred of hard, physical evidence. Facing such a dilemma, any real scientists would have had only three choices: revise their speculative theories to match the small portion of retrieved and analyzed physical evidence, extend their survey of the relevant physical evidence until they found at least some hard, physical support for their speculations, or admit their complete ignorance of the WTC collapse phenomena while advocating much more rigorous additional future research. Instead, NIST simply dismissed the best available scientific evidence in favor of complicated speculative models which they fed a bunch of physically unsupported guesstimates that, at best, cannot be disproven (simply because they didn't survey enough physical evidence to disprove them).

Sound familiar, global warming advocates?

[drm604]

1. I don't quite follow all of your arguments.

In point 1 you state "no WTC-7 steel was recovered or analyzed" then in point 3 you state "only 12 total core columns were carefully analyzed for high temperature exposure from WTC-1, WTC-2 & WTC-7 combined and none showed exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C". What was recovered from WTC-7? Was it steel or something else?

Also, can you break down the 12 core columns from point 3 by building, location, and composition? Simply saying only 12 combined doesn't tell us much without telling us which came from which building, how exactly they were tested, and how they came to those conclusions.

In point 4 you talk about "170 examined areas on the perimeter column panels". Which buildings did these come from, what was their composition, how many panels were examined, and how were they examined? "170 examined areas" could be all on one panel, or on 170 different panels, or any number in between.

Science is in the details. What you're presenting here, in all respect, appears to be purposely selective and vague. I'm not accusing you of this. I think the problem is with your source. Go back to your source and ask for more details if possible.

I keep seeing these types of arguments and I honestly don't understand them. If the Bush administration were behind 911, why wouldn't they simply do it the way it appears on the surface to have been done? Why fake it? And if you're going to fake it, why would you fake it in a manner that is, according to proponents of these theories, so easily detectable?

These arguments are reminiscent of global warming arguments but, again in all respect, not the arguments coming from the side you're thinking of.

[stickdog]

2. No WTC-7 metal, including core columns, were retrieved.

Point #3 was just emphasizing that only 12 columns FROM ALL THREE BUILIDINGS COMBINED were even cursorily analyzed for temperature exposure.

For a more extensive summary of NIST's report that answers all of your questions, see:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=45315&mesg_id=45315

My source, is of course, is the NIST report itself:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf

Do you think I would have bothered to make my original posting otherwise?

[drm604]

3. It's late,

if I had read your post more carefully I would have realized that your info came from NIST. I apologize for missing that.

However, I still don't find this type of argument very convincing. Even if NIST was sloppy in their examinations, that doesn't prove much of anything except that they were sloppy. And even supposing that there is lack of evidence for the official explanation, that is not proof of a different one.

These types of arguments, in all respect, are reminiscent of those used by creationists and global warming deniers. They point out supposed inconsistencies and gaps in an opposing theory and then conclude that this proves their theory.

Why aren't the vast majority of structural engineers on this bandwagon? Surely if the evidence is so clear they would see it. Compare this to the voting machine issue where, as far as I can see, the majority of software professionals and computer scientists (other than those employed by the voting machine companies or right-wing think tanks) agree that there are serious issues with these machines.

[stickdog]

9. All I'm saying is that NIST ignored the physical evidence

(even their OWN physical evidence) -- which was the best available scientific evidence -- in favor of speculative pseudoscientific computer models fed with reverse engineered temperature (over)estimates based on tertiary evidence like photographs and video.

Did I make any other claims or are you just imagining them?

[Make7]

4. Your very first sentence states:

Real science proceeds from the best available evidence.

Okay, does NIST not have the best available physical evidence? Is there someone that has something better? What would you propose they do to obtain better physical evidence?

- Make7

[stickdog]

5. Are you serious?

What is the scientifically superior evidence for determining the actual temperatures that the collapsed WTC towers' steel frames were exposed to -- NIST's speculative computer models (of an admittedly unique phenomenon, no less) or the collapsed towers' steel frame pieces themselves?

[Make7]

11. Kinda.

I think given an adequate sampling size using the measurements made from the physical evidence is preferable. However, the amount of steel NIST has to work with would hardly seem to represent enough of the structure in question to base any reasonable conclusions upon it.

One of the points in your opening post appeared to be that the sampling size is inadequate. Do you feel that the sampling size is not large enough yet still think the conclusions should be made based upon the data obtained from an inadequate sample?

- Make7

[stickdog]

12. My point is exactly what I said it was.

Everything NIST concluded about the collapse of the WTC towers is contradicted by the best available evidence, and nothing they concluded is supported by even a shred of hard, physical evidence. Facing such a dilemma, any real scientists would have had only three choices: revise their speculative theories to match the small portion of retrieved and analyzed physical evidence, extend their survey of the relevant physical evidence until they found at least some hard, physical support for their speculations, or admit their complete ignorance of the WTC collapse phenomena while advocating much more rigorous additional future research.

[Make7]

33. Two points.

From your opening post:

NIST invented a bunch of speculative and physically unsupported theories about how the towers fell that required significant portions of the WTC towers' steel structure to be heated for significant periods of time well in excess of what even the most heated physical evidence they examined actually demonstrated. Basically, NIST ignored their best evidence -- the actual physical remains of the collapsed towers -- in favor of a bunch of comparatively pseudoscientific postulation.

So you are saying that the physical evidence is the best evidence they had regardless of whether or not the sample size of steel represented enough of the structure in question to reach any conclusions at all?

If this sample size was not adequate it simply cannot be used as conclusive evidence, even if it supports whatever particular theory you may have. Do you, or do you not, believe that the amount of steel NIST used is an adequate sample upon which to make a conclusion?

stickdog wrote:

any real scientists would have had only three choices: revise their speculative theories to match the small portion of retrieved and analyzed physical evidence, extend their survey of the relevant physical evidence until they found at least some hard, physical support for their speculations, or admit their complete ignorance of the WTC collapse phenomena while advocating much more rigorous additional future research

Are you suggesting that "real science" dictates that someone either:

• makes a conclusion on data gathered from an inadequate sample.
  
• somehow "discovers" more steel to analyze until a firm conclusion can be reached.
  
• admits that without physical evidence, in the form of steel samples, a conclusion cannot possibly be reached.

- Make7

[Kevin Fenton]

34. Conclusions

Given the small sample size, the steel cannot really be said to be completely conclusive. However, given that the steel, NIST's base case model and the photographic and video evidence agree, why should we go with the severe case model (or any other theory)?

[Make7]

35. My opinion is...

... that if the amount of steel tested by NIST is not an adequate sample size, it cannot be used to confirm or condemn any theory. In effect, if one believes the sample size is not sufficient, it can in no way represent the event(s) in question. Whatever one may wish to conclude from it.

It is also my opinion that the amount of steel analyzed is not adequate to draw any conclusions from it as representing the rest of the structure.

Well, I guess the main reason that we should not use the NIST base case is because it obviously is not supported by the photographic and video evidence. Unless I am mistaken, doesn't the NIST base case result in no building collapse? I think the video evidence is fairly conclusive that the buildings did indeed collapse. So another hypothesis is certainly warranted.

Just because you believe that their base case models the events most closely does not mean that it is in fact representative of the actual events as they happened. No matter how accurate the estimating of what is believed to be the pertinent set of facts and figures involved with modeling an event this complex, it will not be anywhere close to what actually occurred.

If you believe that the base case factored in every detail necessary and the myriad of estimations were all accurate then by all means you can use that as your preferred model of the events in question. Other people just might not agree that it is truly representative enough of the events to be that conclusive.

- Make7

[stickdog]

36. Come on.

Well, I guess the main reason that we should not use the NIST base case is because it obviously is not supported by the photographic and video evidence. Unless I am mistaken, doesn't the NIST base case result in no building collapse? I think the video evidence is fairly conclusive that the buildings did indeed collapse. So another hypothesis is certainly warranted.

Exactly. A hypothesis that contradicts NIST's best estimate models as well as NIST's own physical evidence, but of course completely supports the official conspiracy theory that 10 ragtag Arabs directed by a guy hiding in a cave caused 3 giant skyscrapers to fall down in their footprints simply by flying a single plane into two of them.

Right?

[Make7]

37. I believe the answer to that can be found in the post you replied to. nt.

[Kevin Fenton]

38. I wouldn't deal in absolutes

"if the amount of steel tested by NIST is not an adequate sample size, it cannot be used to confirm or condemn any theory."
I would add the word "conclusively" before "confirm or condemn". In my opinion, an argument that accounts for the steel samples taken rather than explains them away as exceptions is more likely to be true.

"Well, I guess the main reason that we should not use the NIST base case is because it obviously is not supported by the photographic and video evidence. Unless I am mistaken, doesn't the NIST base case result in no building collapse?"
You are mistaken. The NIST base case results in no building collapse due to the impact damage and the fire. It is entirely consistent with the buildings being destroyed by explosives. It is also consistent with the size and shape of the impact hole and the speed with which the fires spread, which the severe case is not.

My argument is not that the base case is utterly conclusive, but that it represents the most accurate and detailed scientific study available to date and that it matches nicely with the recovered steel and the photos and videos. When we throw in the squibs (and, say, the vibrating fixed-point camera), where does that leave us?

[Make7]

39. Explosives are not in the NIST base case.

Posted by Kevin Fenton:

"Well, I guess the main reason that we should not use the NIST base case is because it obviously is not supported by the photographic and video evidence. Unless I am mistaken, doesn't the NIST base case result in no building collapse?" - Make7

You are mistaken. The NIST base case results in no building collapse due to the impact damage and the fire. It is entirely consistent with the buildings being destroyed by explosives. It is also consistent with the size and shape of the impact hole and the speed with which the fires spread, which the severe case is not.

Maybe what I wrote to finish out the paragraph might make my meaning a little bit more clear. "I think the video evidence is fairly conclusive that the buildings did indeed collapse. So another hypothesis is certainly warranted." I believe that explosives would be considered another hypothesis. Should I have explicitly pointed out that explosives were another hypothesis. Should I also have mentioned that low radiation nuclear bombs, thermite used to melt the support structure, and high yield microwave energy beams are also alternate hypotheses?

I was simply saying that if the base case did not result in collapse then it obviously is not an adequate explanation by itself. I thought that was clear. This seems a little bit nit-picky for you. Now if I was the one doing the nit-picking it wouldn't be much of a surprise. :)

Besides I don't really see how you can say that I am mistaken for saying the buildings collapse in the base case, you said that very thing in post #26: "Can I just point out that the towers don't actually collapse in NIST's base case model..."

I think you agreed with me, before you disagreed with me on that one. :)

Posted by Kevin Fenton:

My argument is not that the base case is utterly conclusive, but that it represents the most accurate and detailed scientific study available to date and that it matches nicely with the recovered steel and the photos and videos. When we throw in the squibs (and, say, the vibrating fixed-point camera), where does that leave us?

I agree that modeling something this complex with many unknowns is not conclusive, I think my larger point would be that the NIST modeling shows that at the very least local failure of the building's structure can possibly be caused by the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires. Whether one believes that the crashes as they occurred that day were enough to cause that failure is debatable, but it is possible. Just as it is possible that explosives were used, but also debatable.

The photos and video do not show much of what was occurring inside the buildings, such as core column damage and fire behavior in the core area. Any model is by necessity going to make assumptions regarding some of the data. One wrong assumption could have a meaningful impact on the entire model. Perhaps you could elaborate some more on your point about the base case matching nicely with the photos and video - I'm not entirely sure about everything that you believe is matching. (And no I haven't read the full report that contains the NIST model, but I'd probably ask even if I had.)

I've only seen one shot of a vibrating fixed-point camera, and as there are numerous things that could cause perceptible movement, this needs to be correlated to with other data to make it useful. All by itself, it just proves that the camera moved - not what moved it.

I think it leaves us in a position to continue to debate it.

- Make7

[Kevin Fenton]

40. I didn't quite understand the first part of your post...

... so I'll just repeat that I don't think the damage is adequate to cause the collapse and that the base case model is evidence (but obviously not proof) of this. This is a plank in the argument that, if the damage were not sufficient, then explosives must have been used, which I prefer to "freefall with total concrete pulverization".

Anyway,
"the NIST modeling shows that at the very least local failure of the building's structure can possibly be caused by the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires."
It depends what you mean by "local failure", if we define it as "local failure capable of causing global failure" then I would suggest that the definite article before "aircraft impacts" should be removed. It is not enough to claim that any old set of aircraft impacts (e.g. four 747s) could cause global failure, but it must be claimed that the specific impacts on 9/11 were sufficient to cause the failure. As NIST's severe case uses aircraft with different speeds, failure strains, etc. and towers with different failure strains, more combustibles, etc., then what does it really tell us about what happened on 9/11?

The fixed-point camera is obviously not stone-cold proof, but it is another piece of evidence. Lacking concrete proof of what really happened, we must arrive at the most likely version. How many phenonena associated with explosive demolition can be dismissed as coincidences, before it is necessary to change one's mind?

I am not claiming that the base case is 100% accurate. However, I believe that it is reasonably accurate (or at least more accurate than other estimates), because:
(1) Many of the other theories, for example those put forward by Thomas Eagar and Frank Greening, are less detailed;
(2) It provides a better match for the temperatures of the recovered steel than the severe case;
(3) It provides a better match for the impact hole than the severe case:
In the base cases "the overall agreement with the observed damage was very good. The agreement for Cases B and D was slightly lower."
NIST main report, p. 116/166.
You might argue that the difference is only slight, but a better match than the severe cases was obtained by using more accurate figures, which is hardly surprising.
This would have been (4) I had a quote that said the base case fires better matched the photos, but I can't find it now. In fact, I've found something neutral for WTC 1 and contradictory or WTC 2. So perhaps I'd better have another look at this. Oh, well.

[Kevin Fenton]

41. Found it (or something like it)

"The fire spread rates in WTC 1 were consistent with a combusted fuel load of 4 psf (20 kg/m2). Higher combusted fuel loadings resulting in slower fire spread rates that did not match the patterns in the photographic evidence."
NIST NCSTAR1-5, p. 184/239
4 psf is for the base case. 5 psf is for the severe case. So at the moment it seems I was only half right (and half wrong).

But there was a quote that wasn't limited to WTC 1. I wonder where they put that. Would it make any difference?

on edit: added name of pesky NIST document

[Make7]

46. I'm only going to address your first point(s).

I don't have much time, but wanted to at least respond. I'll get back to the rest of it in a couple of days.

Posted by Kevin Fenton:

I didn't quite understand the first part of your post...

I was rather tired when I wrote that post last night, I may not have been overwhelmingly articulate.

I was basically wondering why you said that I was mistaken. To rephrase what I had said previously: The NIST base case does not result in a collapse, therefore it must not be an accurate representation of what happened because the video and photographic evidence clearly shows that the buildings collapsed. Therefore another explanation is necessary - that one does not explain what happened. That was my point, I don't see what was mistaken about any of that. By "another explanation" I mean just that, some other explanation. Perhaps I didn't word it very well before. (Or perhaps even now.)

Posted by Kevin Fenton:

... so I'll just repeat that I don't think the damage is adequate to cause the collapse and that the base case model is evidence (but obviously not proof) of this. This is a plank in the argument that, if the damage were not sufficient, then explosives must have been used, which I prefer to "freefall with total concrete pulverization".

I understand what your point is, I just don't agree with it. But I do think it is a reasonable argument. The same cannot be said for the "freefall and total pulverization" angle.

- Make7

[Make7]

48. Okay, I see where the confusion lies - I accidentally omitted something.

When I wrote:

Besides I don't really see how you can say that I am mistaken for saying the buildings collapse in the base case, you said that very thing in post #26: "Can I just point out that the towers don't actually collapse in NIST's base case model..."

I meant to say: "I don't really see how you can say that I am mistaken for saying the buildings didn't collapse in the base case..."

I was tired and obviously did not adequately proof read before posting. Sorry for the confusion. Hopefully it makes more sense if the missing didn't is factored in.

- Make7

[Make7]

57. unknowns

I mean a failure of the impact/fire floors when I say local failure. If I had meant more than that, I would have explained it in more detail. Since the NIST report does not explain the progressive failures, it would not really be accurate for me to say the modeling shows that progressive failures are possible.

Look, if you want to believe that the base case is close enough to what actually occurred to be a useful measure as to whether a failure would result or not, go right ahead - I am just saying that I don't think it is - there are many assumptions, estimations, and unknowns that could have a significant effect on the outcome.

The fixed-point camera moving is not evidence of anything other than something caused it to move. If it does not coincide with any other data, then it is essentially useless. How could anyone possibly know that its movement was caused by explosives and not something else without even comparing it to something that would either support or discredit that hypothesis?

- Make7

[stickdog]

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?

[AZCat]

42. The purpose of steel collection wasn't what many think...

The gathering of steel samples from the WTC towers had one goal - to gain a representative sample of each of the different types of steel used in the WTC structure so they could verify the material properties for their model. The amount of steel collected was sufficient to accomplish this task.

[stickdog]

56. WHY was this the supposed only goal of steel gathering?

Please explain ...

[Make7]

49. Sample size.

The NIST report states that, from the recovered steel, 2 core columns were identified as being from the fire floors of WTC1 and 2 core columns were identified from the impact floors of WTC2.

Are you seriously suggesting that it is reasonable to infer what fire conditions the entire core structure in these areas were exposed to based on a two column sample from each tower? Do you feel that a reasonable conclusion can be made regarding the fire performance of the core areas in question based on only these two samples for each tower?

- Make7

[stickdog]

50. How many comets are there in the solar system?

Why the should the physical evidence of just one comet impact our cometary formation theories?

BECAUSE IT'S THE BEST EVIDENCE WE HAVE AND, AS SUCH, IT SUPERCEDES SPECULATIVE MODELS EVEN IF IT ISN'T STATISTICALLY CONCLUSIVE!

[LARED]

51. Why? Because

it is the only physical evidence there is of comets. So naturally it would have a big impact on comet formation theory.

On the other hand there is plenty of physical evidence regarding conditions in the world trade center. There is also enormous amounts of data gathered by testing to determine conditions in a fire.

So far no one can recreate a comet in a laboratory.

[stickdog]

53. What physical evidence do we have regarding conditions in the WTC

towers that backs up NIST's theories about the temperatures the WTC steel structures reached post-impact?

[Make7]

52. Sample size.

The NIST report states that, from the recovered steel, 2 core columns were identified as being from the fire floors of WTC1 and 2 core columns were identified from the impact floors of WTC2.

Are you seriously suggesting that it is reasonable to infer what fire conditions the entire core structure in these areas were exposed to based on a two column sample from each tower? Do you feel that a reasonable conclusion can be made regarding the fire performance of the core areas in question based on only these two samples for each tower?

- Make7

[stickdog]

54. If all four columns demonstrated significant exposure to

temperatures in excess of 600 C, would it be reasonable to argue that 4 out of 4 physical observations confirming NIST's theories were meaningless because of statistical insignificance?

Why then do you claim the opposite?

Remember that the steel conducts heat very well and that all steel core pieces were attached to each other!

[Make7]

55. Could you please show me where I am claiming the opposite?

Was it here?

I posted on Mar-27-06 04:24 PM:

My opinion is that if the amount of steel tested by NIST is not an adequate sample size, it cannot be used to confirm or condemn any theory. In effect, if one believes the sample size is not sufficient, it can in no way represent the event(s) in question. Whatever one may wish to conclude from it.

It is also my opinion that the amount of steel analyzed is not adequate to draw any conclusions from it as representing the rest of the structure.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=78475&mesg_id=78639

Oh, wait - that is the exact opposite of what you are suggesting that I have claimed. Perhaps you didn't read that post, although perhaps I should mention that you did reply to it, so I guess I thought that maybe you actually read it before responding.

Why do you feel it necessary to misrepresent my position?

- Make7

[MrSammo1]

16. maybe this will help?

http://www.vancouver.indymedia.org/print.php?id=34507

[petgoat]

8. You're playing dumb. You've been around here long enough to

know that the evidence has been destroyed, and the only way to get better physical evidence was not
to destroy it in the first place.

And then to add insult to injury the NIST report (unless I'm mistaken--it was several months ago that I skimmed it) pretends that the FEMA Appendix C steel samples from WTC7 don't exist.

[greyl]

6. Stardust doesn't radically alter our knowledge

so much as it supplements it, first of all.
Second, in effect you're asking for NASA to consider the possibility that faeries live inside of comets.

Finally, there are some "modes of thought" that continue no matter what the evidence is.
Compare the progress of the controlled demolition theory to the advances made in astrology during the same time period.
They are exactly the same.

[stickdog]

10. Read the article I linked.

You don't know jack about cometary formation theory if you don't realize that finding olivine in the Stardust's return sample will require a serious revision of the until now dominant theory. To suggest otherwise is to sound like Rice discussing the "Bin Laden Determined to Attack" PDB in front of the 9/11 Commission.

Just read the headline ( http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/news/status/060313.html ) :

NASA's Stardust Findings May Alter View of Comet Formation



You said: "Finally, there are some ]modes of thought' that continue no matter what the evidence is."

Exactly. Yours and NIST's include ignoring the best available scientific evidence if it leads you to question the idea that 19 ragtag Arabs led by a guy hiding in a cave singlehandedly caused three WTC towers to collapse in their own footprints simply by flying a passenger plane into two of them. But to you and NIST, even CONSIDERING what the best evidence says is tantamount to thinking "that faeries live inside of comets."

Right?

[greyl]

13. "Just read the headline"?

I read the entire article and others on the subject instead.

It's noted that you only want attention to be paid to your particular spin of the headline.

Do you still believe that this is two guys? ;) :

[stickdog]

14. Jeez, what is it with y'all and your misdirection tonight?

Please point out exactly what in the linked article leads you to believe that the headline is erroneous.

BTW, do you still believe that the toppling of Saddam's statue was a spontaneous expression of Iraqi joy at our "liberation" of them?

[greyl]

15. "NASA's Stardust Findings May Alter View of Comet Formation"

The headline is true, I never said it was erroneous as you falsely claim.
Your spin is bullshit.

"BTW, do you still believe that the toppling of Saddam's statue was a spontaneous expression of Iraqi joy at our "liberation" of them?"

I never believed that.
What I believed was that you were effectively creating a childish distraction from authentically important events.

[stickdog]

17. Really?

Google "Saddam statue Chalabi"

Now compare those results to what our corporate media was saying at the time: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/09/sprj.irq.statue

Whose version was closer to what actually happened? See: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001971815_statue04.html

BTW, IIRC you initially signed up on DU to dispute my version of these events. How exactly did that happen? What or whose purpose did you serve in doing so?

You are completely unbelievable. I broke the real story all over the internet, and my version of events has now been confirmed by the U.S Army's own internal report. Meanwhile, CNN was reporting an obvious PSYOPS as God's own truth. But you stayed up all night making your cute little misdirection photoshops and arguing that black was actually white and up was actually down and an obvious PSYOP was actually not so obvious. To what end, greyl? Why was it so important to you to try to prove me wrong if you knew that I was right -- at least in terms of the overall scope of the event?

Remember that all I did was post two pictures and say, "See anybody familiar in the Chalabi/INC/Free Iraqi Forces clan pictured above this photo?"

[greyl]

18. My version was closer to the truth.

"BTW, IIRC you initially signed up on DU to dispute my version of these events. How exactly did that happen? What or whose purpose did you serve in doing so?"

Sip of delusional grandeur anyone?


(: reknaw a si godkcits

[JackieO]

19. You wish

stickdog broke that story, despite your attempts to ridicule and obfuscate.

[greyl]

22. what story? nt

[stickdog]

25. google "Saddam statue Chalabi"

I do give you credit for timeliness and effort that night. You did your best. Too bad you failed so miserably in your attempts to immediately discredit what I found. Thank God so many people have eyes that see for themselves. Hell, even yahoo news (through Ted Rall) picked up my (yes, my) story. But such is the power of compelling info (or even disinfo), as you well know.

[greyl]

30. And people spend thousands of dollars on a tortilla chip with Jesus'

face on it.

Grandeur.

[stickdog]

31. And I've spent thousands on this ...

BTW, both The Times of India and John Pilger also saw fit to run with my story.

Just trying to do my tiny part ...

[JackieO]

29. The one you can read about if you google 'saddam statue chalabi'

Now knock it off with your off-topic bullshit.

[stickdog]

20. I can't argue with your subjective (lack of) facial recognition.

I couldn't then, and I can't now.

All I did was post two photos. One of Chalabi & his boys:



And one of a "random Iraqi" celebrating our "liberation" of Iraq:



and ask DU'ers to make their own judgments.

Once again, I ask you to google "Saddam Statue Chalabi" and ask yourself who was the more reliable journalist it terms of analyzing this event, me or CNN?

Sorry about saying you signed up at DU for that thread. I was dead wrong. I was confusing you with pennstate.

[greyl]

21. You or CNN? Haha.

False dichotomy.

Let's get back to this Science vs Pseudoscience point you were trying to make.

[stickdog]

23. Yes, let's.

Who changed the subject to real Iraqi celebrations vs. pseudo Iraqi celebrations, anyway?

[greyl]

24. The subject is science vs pseudoscience,

It's a fascinating subject when those involved in the discussion apprehend the difference between the two.

[stickdog]

27. Back to the old standby ad hominems, I see.

Ah, well. It was fun while it lasted, old friend.

[HamdenRice]

32. faeries?

[petgoat]

7. If the NIST researchers had any integrity they would have

resigned, refusing to venture an opinion when the evidence had so clearly been suppressed.

At the least they should have issued a strong statement about the speculative nature of their
opinions, and decried the destruction of the evidence. Their presentation of computer-simulated
wish-list data points as if it were actual observed data is highly dishonest. The whole thing
stinks.

[Kevin Fenton]

26. Can I just point out that...

... the towers don't actually collapse in NIST's base case model (the most detailed and accurate available), but only collapse in the severe case model, in which all the input variables have been altered. For example, in the severe case model NIST added 200 tons of non-existant combustibles to the fire floors, which may well have had an influence on the outcome. So NIST's conclusions aren't even supported by its own best modelling.

[stickdog]

28. Thanks.

I forgot to add that very important and highly relevant point.

[rman]

43. It's worse than that:

NIST only shows that it's plausible that in their extreme case scenario structural failure can occur in the areas where the fires were. They don't show any kind of mechanism to have local structural failure cause complete collapse - they simply state that it does.

[Radio_Guy]

44. OK, I'm confused

My apologies as I just found this forum today. So I haven't gone through the threads yet. You had this in your post:

"only 12 total core columns were carefully analyzed for high temperature exposure from WTC-1, WTC-2 & WTC-7 combined and none showed exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C"

250 C = around 475 F. My grill gets hotter than that when I light the charcoal. Are you saying the fire with all that jet fuel didn't get any hotter than a charcoal grill fire?

[stickdog]

45. The fire got hotter, sure.

But it was like a bunch of lighter fluid but just a few charcoals on a huge grill connnected to a giant heatsink.

The steel frame was fireproofed and connected to many thousands of more tons of steel, which conducted away the heat from any one location very efficiently.

At least that's what the physical data actually examined by NIST says: only about 1% of the pieces examined (all which were chosen because of they were relatively close to the crash area) were exposed to temperatures in excess of 250 C for as long as a couple of minutes.