[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

It may be impossible to do by exhaustive search currently but there may be other methods that are currently possible but unknown.

Unless you mean its impossible to know until it's proven which is sort of true but a rather odd use of impossible, rt would men all unproved maths theores were impossible to know until someone worked out the proof

Stein. I'm in a non-competitive state. Can't vote for actual genocide committed by the Dems.

You do go on.

The whole truther edifice rests on the heat resistance of steal. If jet-fuel-fed office fires can't weaken structural steel, then we have to look for alternative explanations for the building collapse. If the Towers first COULD buckle steal, then there's no reason to look for exotic theories and we can believe what's plain before our eyes.

The Tower fires reached 1800 F. Steel lo...

So the genesis of 911 Truther stories -- that jet fuel fires can't melt steal -- is bunk. The fire doesn't have to melt steal, just weaken it. There's no reason to investigate exotic theories. /thread

That’s the dispute. I don’t think it’s almost certain solved chess is a draw. If it is, it won’t be hard to come up with reasons why white has an advantage if you allow for mistakes, which I think is “almost certain”. But we’re not to that point.

I'm really curious what you think GTO chess is and how it would be different from someone playing solved chess.

There's are plenty of questions and reason to investigate.

Lets assume the fire from the jet fuel (basically kerosene) melted the steel totally (not just weakened it, for this example).

The fire from the crash was between floors 93 to 99 in one tower and floors 77 to 85 in the other one. You seem like a logical guy so here's the question. If the fire melted or weakened the steal, where did all the other steal that was below the fire floors go? The towers were almost 1,400 feet high and they used over 40 million pounds of steel. When it came down, why didn't the steel below the fire floors survive? The pile of debris should of been several hundred feet high (maybe up to a quarter of what is was originally) but there was almost nothing left besides some small random pieces of steel and a lot of white powder.

^^^I don't know that any of your assertions are true. The link I provided included pictures of buckled structural steel. Your bottom picture shows steel.

I know it shows some steel. The question was, with ALL THE STEEL that was used in both towers, which was NEVER TOUCHED by any fire or flames, where's the rest of it? I'm talking literally about 170 floors of steel from both towers.

The steel in the picture above is a tiny fraction of what the pile should of looked like in a collapsed steel building of that size.

pb2k, you do realize that skyscrapers are designed to be efficient as in mostly hollow space rather than support structures, they are generally only 30% support/walls/floors/furniture with the rest being open space, under pressure that stuff compacted quite a bit

idk if you're ready to watch this, it could blow your mind too much

I mean it's impossible using any technique or technology currently known.

It's impossible due to hardware constraints, but I think that in computer science that term is reserved for things that are a theoretical impossibility, e.g. it is impossible to define an algorithm which will determine if an arbitrary program with a given set of inputs will halt or run forever. It's specifically not used to describe tasks that are simply impracticable or infeasible with current hardware, but for which an algorithm is nonetheless known to exist.

TLDR: Not impossible, but not currently possible 😀

That's like comparing apples with bananas. There wasn't a hydraulic press above the towers, the steel supposedly free fell on top of each other. That's not enough to flatten solid steel beams so much that it becomes invisible. It would of still been a highly visible mangled mess of steal in a pile of around 400 feet high.

Playbig, do you think when a hydraulic press exerts, e.g. 1000 psi of pressure, that is different to when a large collapsing weight from above exerts 1000 psi of pressure?

For this, we could examine my original statement, which was it's impossible to KNOW CURRENTLY.

Which is 100% true.

well a more reasonable simulation would be crushing thin erector set skeleton as a steel pipe is far more sturdy and stable than a skyscraper is

it was more about "look at this big pile of metal disapear into an incredibly tiny thing under pressure" than it was to replicate the collapse of the towers

you're also conveniently forgetting that the twin towers had 7 stories of basement levels, so the fact that the rubble was from anywhere between 20 to 70 feet above the surface level means it'd all gone into 7 stories below ground and another 2-7 stories above ground depending on the section of the pile

this is also why underground fires persisted for 99 days after the collapse, the fires were happening so deep within the pile that they were unable to put them out

this is also why it took 8 months to clear the place of debris despite that they began that process the very next day - because it wasn't just removing that top layer, they had to go 7 stories deep as well

so a building which is 70% air that is 110 stories very reasonably collapses to about 33 floors simply removing the gaps and under further compression you can easily fit that 33 floors into space which is about 10 floors in general, especially since it's going to be dispersed over a wide area that's much larger than the original building footprint

again, this is a solid blocks of metal which themselves can be compressed significantly

and now take a look at it under construction, even there there's tons of gaps in between all the steel, they do not use solid chunks, that can easily be condensed by a massive factor under the right conditions

It was impossible for us to know if your original statement meant that it was “literally impossible” to ever know a perfect way to play chess.

I think we all know what we mean and there's probably not enough disagreement to continue. I think philosophers could argue for a very long time about whether your statement is 100% true. Until mthe beer runs out anyway.

fwliw I'm in the 'we dont currently know but it may be possible to know currently' camp. (Not relying on some secret technology). There's no logical proof that it can't be known without an exhaustive search.

That's a really obtuse take you got from somewhere. It's another glitter box of wrong situation here. Is that your tactic? to just say a bunch of heavy handed incorrect claims to distract from the issue?

There was no jet fuel burning in WTC 7.

Nobody says heat from office fires cannot weaken steel and at no point in the 20+ years of this debate has anything hinged on that claim. That claim, which I've heard repeated, is just a pretty bold straw man, bold because it doesn't just try to twist an argument but attempts to insert an argument for the opposition and then classify that argument as the foundational argument. It's ridiculous. Maybe it's not the most ridiculous tactic given that most truthers are highly suggestible people. You're little inception scheme might work on some of them. But it's just silly when you're not talking to people who have not arrived at their conclusions from paranoia and specious thinking.

There are observations I have cited which do not fit the "natural" collapse model or that have never been explained. The explanations given to justify the natural collapse model by NIST are beyond absurd. None of you have even attempted to either address the NIST claims themselves or address the observations which fit the demolition hypothesis and are counter to or orthogonal to the natural collapse model. Apparently none of you have any clue about how to know things or you pretend not to know when it comes to this subject.

Nah, it's just that nobody can be ****ed to engage with a bad faith clown who hand waves away/finds specious reasons to ignore any and all information that doesn't comport with his crazy dumbass theories.

We were told it was high school level physics, so I didn’t bother with the NIST report. Should be much easier than slogging through a bunch of structural engineering I have no background in

Good choice. It's not peer reviewed, so probably just a bunch of nonsense anyway.

If someone labeled a paper "Direct Proof of Dark Matter" and when you clicked on it you were sent to a Rick Astley video, would you not be able to ascertain that the paper does not really provide direct evidence of dark matter?

I'm using hyperbole here to establish that you don't have to be an expert in a field to draw valid conclusions about the nature of some content. So when an expert in structural engineering criticizes the NIST paper for, example, not taking into account the heat sinking properties of the steel core of the building, it is perfectly fine to adopt that criticism as, if you have any basic knowledge of just how the world works, you know that heat will flow through metal quite easily. And when you see this is just one example of a far ranging pattern of omissions and totally unjustifiable assumptions it is valid to draw conclusions about the nature of the NIST report. Not to mention, once again, that the NIST report doesn't even attempt to explain how the twin towers actually collapsed. It hands waves away the only part anyone was interested in knowing, whether you are a truther or just curious how it happened.

But I'm pretty satisfied with our point of disagreement. You think, for example, that it's legit to justify the removal of all fireproofing from the impact zones by carrying out a simple experiment in which a piece of fire proofing on a beam is shot with a gun and it falls off. I think that is laughable and I don't think all the fireproofing fell off the beams any more than I think a member of the Blue Man could clean the paint from themselves by getting hit by a speeding car. You can keep endorsing NIST having never read it. Your argument is basically that some report you've never read which you claim you aren't competent to evaluate explains what happened. It's a faith based argument. And as such it's not even up to the standards of the religious zealots, the inerrantists who believe the Bible is literal truth. At least they've read the Bible. You have complete faith in a paper you've never read.

Right. And I can tell you for certain that I know enough high school and undergrad physics to where it's not obvious to me the NIST paper is wrong. It has to be that obvious to you for psychological reasons, not scientific ones. Maybe if that wrong free fall claim sounded reasonable to you, it's easy to trick yourself.

Hey Deuces, remember when you said this before and I asked you for a reference/link to the relevant section of the NIST report and you didn't provide it? That happened about half a dozen times, so you should remember.

These steel beams?