Creative Speculation

> I ignore Bazant because his theories bear no resemblance to what actually happened so they're irrelevant, because rely on absurd assumptions, and because the fact that NIST gives him no love whatsoever validates those observations.

You have repeatedly demonstrated that you don't understand Bazant's analysis, so your dismissal of it is of no consequences whatsoever. And that's without noting that your dismissal is based on simply imagining what's going on inside a cloud of smoke and dust. If someone who actually understands Bazant's arguments actually had a valid technical criticism of them, they still have plenty of opportunity to make a name for themselves by criticizing them in the proper venue: the technical journal where his papers have been published. Gourley tried that and Bazant handed him his ass. You don't see that, but the people who read that journal surely do. Your simply refuse to acknowledge the obvious problems with his "3rd law" nonsense and ignore that the Verinage videos demonstrate the "crush-down" phenomenon in action, but that's not the important part of Bazant's analysis, anyway. Over and over, you demonstrated that you simply could not even comprehend what Bazant was saying about the structure being unable to absorb the energy that was unleashed, much less criticize it. So why exactly do you think anyone ought to be impressed that you ignore an expert who has written 450 peer-reviewed journal articles and 6 textbooks on structural mechanics?

> I might read Greening if he were published in a peer-reviewed journal, but when people link to anonymous propaganda websites I have no way of knowing if what I'm reading is what Greening really wrote, or perhaps something he wrote years ago and has since repudiated.

LOL, yeah right, unless "his theories bear no resemblance to" your imaginary physics, in which case credentials and peer-reviewed publications don't matter.

> Where did I say I accepted arguments by Gourley and Chandler?

Oh, I'm sorry; did I once again just assume that you were actually trying to make a point by parroting their arguments?

> How can any reasonable person expect another reasonable person to accept scientific measurements taken by an anonymous internet poster? Especially one so obviously as biased as yourself? Who would expect such a stupid thing? And how can we respect the judgment of someone who does?

WTF are you talking about? On several occasions I've offered graphics that illustrate my points -- is that what you are referring to, and is that going to be your excuse for ignoring what they show?

> I guess I misunderstood your argument about WTC7, which is not surprising since it seemed to be deliberately presented in a verbose and confusing way. It doesn't change the point of the argument: NIST's WTC7 animations bore no resemblance to what happened. Nor did they bear any resemblance to what you claim happened. And again, how can you expect anyone to give a bitter fig about an anonymous internet poster's wacky theories?

It's not a "wacky theory," but to understand why, you'd need to understand that the interior floor beams and girders were connected to the exterior columns and spandral beams with "shear connections," not "moment connections": They were only designed to carry the gravity load, not to resist the interior ends falling and twisting away. Furthermore, you'd need to acknowledge the video evidence that the interior structure did fall away from the exterior walls when the structure under the east penthouse collapsed, but the only sign from outside was broken windows all the way up the building. I have given this "wacky theory" some thought; you refuse to, because it spoils your "mystery."

> I'm not beating any dead horses. I am asserting irrefutable FACTS: 273 of the widows' 300 questions were never answered;and NIST only gave us half a report about the towers, dodging the ten essential mysteries of the collapses by cutting off their analysis when the collapse began. For you and AZ to accept the injustice of the first and the scientific illegitimacy of the second is very revealing. How can anyone who believes in democracy do so?

Wrong again. I have said many times here that I believe the 9/11 Commission dodged many important issues about the attacks, for political reasons, but I have said that the "truth movement's" pursuit of idiotic controlled demolition theories does nothing but distract from the serious questions that remain. You try to make a goulash of that and the NIST reports, but it is quite clear that you are simply searching for excuses for dismissing those reports, not trying to solve any "mysteries." That's because it's quite clear that the continuation of the collapse after initiation is not a mystery to experts who actually understand structural mechanics, and it's quite clear that Richard Gage's "2000 plus architects and engineers" have manifestly failed to produce a single valid technical argument for why the experts are wrong. You build a "mystery" out of your own ignorance, for no purpose except your own amusement, and then protect it by abjectly refusing to understand even the simplest principles involved.

> The accessibility of the core columns pertains to the demolition of the cores, "William". That's part of the collapses, part of what NIST refuses to touch. Initiation of the collapses is a different animal;NIST makes the distinction between the two phases. So why can't I?

As I said before, you have a peculiar way of dealing with being wrong.

> FEMA said a few failing truss anchors could initiate the collapse--and that absurd notion was prevailing wisdom for three years. Your demand that all facts pertain to all questions is just an hysterical excuse to discard facts.

You really should stay away from arguing about structural mechanics; your ignorance makes you too vulnerable. If the truss seats had failed along the perimeter walls, then indeed that would have been sufficient to initiate the collapse: The floors would have "pancaked" on each other and the perimeter columns would have easily buckled after losing lateral restraint. Yes, that initial theory was discarded, but not because it was an "absurd notion"; it was discarded after actually investigating the construction details and quantitatively analyzing them, which showed that the seat connections were strong enough to resist the supposed sequential "unzippering" effect that Thomas Eager had proposed. That shows that NIST was actually doing its job of analyzing, but "truthers" try to spin it as yet another excuse for dismissing NIST's conclusions; and again, you uncritically parrot bullshit you've read on "truther" sites.

> The fact that most of the main structural columns were accessible for most of their length from the elevator shafts hardly "means nothing" as you claim. It means that the claim that demolition of the buildings was impractical is a lie.

That is simply wrong. "Most" of the columns were only accessible in the lower third of the building, far away from where explosives would need to be planted to initiate the collapse. In the upper third, fewer than 1/3 of the core columns were accessible from elevator shafts. If you really can't figure out how that affects theories that occupied office buildings were easily rigged for a controlled demolition, then I can't help you, but please spare me any more bullshit about trying to solve "mysteries."

> I never said I "don't trust anything coming out of NIST". I cite them as an authority often. For instance section 6.14.4 where they say the towers came down "essentially in free fall". The part where they say WTC1 fell in less than 12 seconds.

You distrust anything coming out of NIST that shows that controlled demolition theories are not necessary to explain what happened. But you consistently demonstrate that your distrust is based on lame excuses, not sound reasoning.

> I never claimed to be an heroic investigator. Why should anyone care about the investigations of anonymous internet posters? I leave that kind of nonsense to fools like you--who think we should believe your handwaving proclamations about mysteries where NIST feared to tread.

If NIST's had been tasked with convincing "truthers" that there was no controlled demolition, you are a prime example of why they should fear taking on that impossible task, but that isn't the case. The fact that you can't understand why total collapse was inevitable after it began does not mean that NIST was required to make a futile attempt to explain it to you. But I suppose you are correct; you haven't directly claimed to be an heroic investigator; you've simply tried your damnedest to imply that by claiming to be poking holes in the "official story" with garbage dredged up from "truther" sites.

> The pulverization of the concrete has everything to do with the collapses because, as anyone with any basic concept of the first law of thermodynamics knows, the energy necessary to pulverize the concrete must be subtracted from the kinetic energy available to take the building down, and would have slowed the collapses accordingly. That's why we need the official energy budget that AZ sneers at.

You're putting the cart before the horse: The pulverization of the concrete was not "necessary" and it did not make any "demands" (Gordon Ross' term) on the total energy available. Rather, the pulverization of the concrete shows how much extra energy was available beyond that which destroyed the structural integrity of the load-bearing structure. As I said, you'd do better to avoid discussing structural mechanics, but in fact, even Gordon Ross' analysis (after correction) showed that there was enough energy to explain all the observed damage. This is another of your "mysteries" that you protect with ignorance.

> I never said anyone pulverized the concrete with explosives. Where would you get such a silly idea?

Well, apparently I once again got the silly idea that you were actually trying to make a point, but if you don't believe that there was enough gravitational energy to explain the pulverization, then where do you suppose it came from? Oh, that's right; you're just pointing out the "mysteries," not looking for solutions. That would take all the fun out of it.

>Why are you so obsessive and so emotional about these things? Would you spend hundreds of hours of your time arguing with Creationists or global warming deniers? What kind of warped person will do that? You think you have the truth. Isn't that enough? Why must you argue with people you regard as fools? My motivation is quite clear. I think I don't have the truth, and I want to have the truth, and I want to facilitate the self-discrediting of those who want to keep it from me.

Back in the early days of Usenet, I did in fact waste a lot of time arguing with creationists, but after a while it became clear that Jonathan Swift was correct when he observed that you can't reason someone out of a belief that wasn't the result of reason to begin with. I could say the same thing about "truthers," but to answer your question, three things: 1) Bullshit never did anyone any good; 2) the truth about 9/11 actually matters, certainly enough that the bullshit needs to be weeded out; and 3) as we see from JFK conspiracism, unchallenged bullshit doesn't disappear, it procreates.