Burden of proof is required by the source of the report or any defender of the report, that is not me, I am neither the source nor defender that is you. Thats ok it does not bother me if you cant defend it. Probly not going to hang around too long so if you have a valid argument you can come up with I will be happy to engage otherwise I see no point in chasing your ghosts and false arguments around.
I do not need to defend it. The burden of proof is not on me it is on you. It is you who is attacking it out of absolute ignorance. If you cannot cite a false passage and show it is false your argument means nothing. I have stated nothing to defend
this isnt rocket science do I have to explain everything to you? Like I dont care which road you take. your statement is everything stated in the report unless you admit you cant defend it, then you are off the hook, you either can or cant, and the blind can see that you havent even constructed a valid argument ffs.
The companion to that is the reverse burden of proof fallacy. e.g. I know Santa Claus is real, prove me wrong.
No that is not my statement and never has been go find a post where I said that and quote me otherwise stop your childish lies. It is you making the fictitious claim which you cannot support.
It is your statement: and it is your statement again: I am sure ou have convinced yourself to believe your own lies, fine by me.
Unfortunately not much of a discussion when one party doesnt even know the difference and insists on strawman fallacies and other similar nonsense as a legitimate form of debate, much less a fact finding mission. Looks like their legitimacy gas tank is running on empty.
I have a problem believing these trolls don't know what's up. It's difficult to believe anyone can write reasonably coherent posts and also be that pathologically obtuse.
So they can tell us there were two types of concrete used in the building, 110 lb/sq fit and 150 lb/sq ft, but then not say how much? Some people are just too dumb to notice when they are not being told information that should be obvious. psik
No it is not my statement and you are being dishonest. You cannot point out a post where I said that. Now quote one passage from the report which is a lie and show evidence that it is a lie.
here I will pull out the crayolas and explain what an ignorant argument that is aside from the excellent example already given by bob. Say you walked into a room and found your dog dead. The police report says the dog is dead. While that is not a false statement IT IS A LIE by omission since the dog had a bullet hole in its head and it was not entered into the report. For a gubmint investigation to lie by omission is a crime, luckily for you only your credibility is flushed down the toilet. That is why your argument is academically known as an argument from ignorance. I suggest if you have an interest in discussing issues that you consider thinking about what you want to say then construct a valid argument that drives to the merits and substance of the matter. If you need any more help let me know.
So you cannot quote any post from me making such a statement. Nor can you quote any passage from the report which is a lie and show evidence that it is a lie. Nor have you ever demonstrated any omission of any significance. You are lying especially about arguing from ignorance because that description strictly applies to all of the drivel you post, Not to what I have posted. You nor anyone else has any evidence to support any of your claims and no fact or proof to back up anything you say
NIST NCSTAR 1-6D, WTC Investigation 321 Chapter 5 NIST NCSTAR 1-5A, WTC Investigation lxv Executive Summary This ignores the effect that distribution of mass must have had on the supposed collapse time due to Conservation of Momentum. Therefore analysis without mass distribution is nonsense. https://commongroundzero.quora.com/WTC-Specs-Official-v-Alternative-Hypothesis psik
Jet fuel burns between 800 to 1500 degrees Fahrenheit. The chart below shows how temperature affects steel strength. Steel will lose about 90% of its strength at 800 degrees which is the minimum at which jet fuel burns. So, it's no mystery on how the towers fell.
that is pure genius! so how come my uninsulated fuel oil furnace which weighs over a ton and supports its own weight and has a flame in it all day and night in the winter and doesnt collapse? I am really glad its not a mystery to you because it is a mystery to me how my furnace can lose 90% of its strength and still support its own weight and its not even structural steel. Mind boggling. Awesome that you dropped in to explain that to us.
So, are you questioning metallurgical data or are you wondering how your oil furnace works? I posted metallurgical data. You can do with it want you want. If you want to know how your furnace works, then do your own research.
clearly your metallurgical data only applies to expensive structural steel used on high rises not the cheap stuff used on furnaces since high rises collapse and furnaces do not.
Here, I'll put it in layman's terms... Your furnace is using a burner and is a contained flame under thermostatic control. The fires burning in the towers as a result of the jet fuel and all the combustible items in the offices (paper, furniture, solvents, rugs, flooring, plastics, etc.) were not contained and burning out of control. Plus as the fire raged, it created an updraft (hot air rises) pulling cold fresh air from the lower floors through the elevator shafts, stairwells, and open doors. This continual fresh air was similar to a blacksmith's forge which gets its continue air flow from bellows causing extreme temperatures.
sorry but I am not very good with laymans terms, can you try about 10 magnitudes more academic so I can understand wtf you are trying to say? There is no such thing as a thermostatically controlled flame and there is no such thing as a raged fire, that is pure drama queen ignorance, and I would like to see any factual evidence that the elevators supplied air, because I think you are making it all up especially since there was plenty of air from the holes they blew in the side of the buildings
Are you that ignorant? Your oil furnace is controlled by a thermostat which controls the flame that provides the heat. I didn't say "raged fire". I said "as the fire raged" which is proper English. ...and the air from the holes. So, you agree that the fire got very hot from the convection currents flowing throw the entire tower, right?
I dont agree with anything you post after you tried to tell me that a furnace has thermostatically controlled flame, especially after I informed you that there is no such thing. Show me in building 2 a picture of this fire that you think is extraorndinarily hot.
