fluff counters are easily countered and yes, duration does matter
This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s
post 882 in this thread.
That depends. Consider:
Kevin Ryan says that 2+2=4
Mackey Ryan says that no, 2+2=17.
I come in and simply state that Kevin's original answer is right, as it follows the laws of mathematics, where Mackey's clearly didn't.
Silly examples aside, the point at hand is that you think is that when discussing a particular article, any criticism of that article can be responded to by posting the article again. Can you not see how stupid that is? It completely circular. You go on about civil discussion and yet you don't actually want one.
You need to do this because you aren’t actually able to defend or back up the articles that you post so you just keep spamming them.
Frequently, Mackey Ryan's "rebuttal" are nothing more then fluff; sometimes even I can see that.
No one is convinced that you are able to assess Mackey’s writing yourself. You just spam the same criticism from 911research over and over.
An assertion based on some sound arguments made by the person he is 'rebutting', yes.
NIST's workstation tests were clearly tweaked, as Steven Jones and others have made clear.
I don't think you even know what we are discussing. You just throw the ‘as Steven Jones made clear’ for good measure.
Don't you think it rather curious that the -physical- models of the WTC steel never collapsed?
The workstation tests did not involve testing steel for collapse scott.
Why do you think that?
It wouldn't do much to steel on the few floors of WTC building that had the fires,
Steel is only at about 50% of it’s strength at 600C scott.
but perhaps to a weaker structure, such as the Windsor Tower in Madrid, it could produce a gradual partial collapse.
Yes never the mind the CONCRETE CORE!
The only way NIST could get the WTC buildings to collapse via office fires was to 'simulate' it on tweaked computer models; real steel models of the WTC buildings, which follows the laws of real physics, simply wouldn't comply.
This post is in response to the 5th part of shaman_'s
post 863 in this thread.
I'm not pretending anything. Something mentioned 4 times over the course of multiple threads spanning thousands of posts doesn't always leave a mark.
Ignoring evidence without even commenting four times is a little suspicious don’t ya think scott?
The Cardington tests did not simulate the conditions in the WTC buildings. This is something you have failed to note.
The last test was fueled only by office equipment......
\
There -were- tests done that -did- simulate what happened in the WTC buildings. The results of these tests were not favourable to NIST's 'office fires' theory, however- none of those steel beams collapsed. The only way NIST could get the twin towers to even -appear- 'poised to collapse' was to tweak a computer model; reality simply wouldn't cooperate. In other words, they did some snazzy special effects on a computer, where cartoon physics can most certainly apply.
Which tests are you talking about. Explain to me without cutting and pasting.
\
There is no solid evidence that much of the fireproofing was removed in the WTC buildings prior to collapse. Explosives could certainly have removed it during collapse, however.
The collapse alone would have removed some. Think about it scott. You see explosives and megasuperdooperthermite as the instant answer for everything.
But as usual you are trying to deflect from the point at hand. You keep mentioning tests by UL done on complete fireproofed assemblies. Not relevant.
Alright, I'll assume you're right on that one for now. However, the Cardington tests were not modelled after the WTC buildings
An office fire is an office fire.
1000C fires does not equal 1000C steel.
In the Cardington tests the temperature of the steel was only marginally that of the atmosphere. You guys refuse to accept this.
Not to mention the fact that Kevin Ryan has stated that there is no evidence that even the WTC fires reached those temperatures.
I can't believe you are still saying this.
Kevin Ryan saying something does not constitute evidence. What are you doing at a science forum?