Truthers, how was this engine planted?

[Gamolon]

So apply this to WTC 7. NIST said fire along brought that skyscraper down.

NIST explained how it happened in detail within their report. Am I correct in saying that you don't agree with the explanation in the WTC7 report? If you don't agree with it, can you please point out one section they they got wrong?

¤quick sidebar.....you asked eots to show where Dr Q spoke of more than one alternate explanation and here it is:

."Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another."
Http://www.ae911truth.org/info/12

Now to your question.....when you answer mine I will answer yours. You claim a skyscraper comparison is legit so what skyscrapers have you compared wtc 7 to?

None. Can you point me to a skyscraper/building with a similar design to WTC7, that had fires on many floors caused by falling debris so I can make one?

Furthermore, I said that CTers want to make historical comparisons to the Twin Towers saying that their collapses are impossible based on the fact that no steel skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fires alone.

That claim is bunk for the following reasons. There has never been a steel skyscraper designed like the Twin Towers that was struck by a jet and then caught fire. THAT'S why the claim is garbage. How can you make a comparison to something that never happened before?

 

[Gamolon]

¤quick sidebar.....you asked eots to show where Dr Q spoke of more than one alternate explanation and here it is:

."Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another."
Http://www.ae911truth.org/info/12

That's wrong. eots specifically says that Dr. Q had more than one theory. That quote above does not state one of these other theories. Where exactly is/are the "other" theory/ies that Dr. Q subscribes to?

 

[eots]

Specifically I will demonstrate why I believe the NIST conclusion is
deficient and I will offer an alternative conclusion.

An alternate conclusion. Just one. No more.

So eots, where are the other ones you seem to think he has?

how can he properly formulate theories if he is ..blocked.. if ..fact finding is deterred ..question unanswered ..evidence withheld ...request denied ?... why would he call for his peers to become... conspiracy theorist if he thought there were but two probabilities

 

[eots]

NIST explained how it happened in detail within their report. Am I correct in saying that you don't agree with the explanation in the WTC7 report? If you don't agree with it, can you please point out one section they they got wrong?

¤quick sidebar.....you asked eots to show where Dr Q spoke of more than one alternate explanation and here it is:

."Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another."
Http://www.ae911truth.org/info/12

Now to your question.....when you answer mine I will answer yours. You claim a skyscraper comparison is legit so what skyscrapers have you compared wtc 7 to?

None. Can you point me to a skyscraper/building with a similar design to WTC7, that had fires on many floors caused by falling debris so I can make one?

Furthermore, I said that CTers want to make historical comparisons to the Twin Towers saying that their collapses are impossible based on the fact that no steel skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fires alone.

That claim is bunk for the following reasons. There has never been a steel skyscraper designed like the Twin Towers that was struck by a jet and then caught fire. THAT'S why the claim is garbage. How can you make a comparison to something that never happened before?

wtc 7 is claimed to have collapsed from fire with damage having no significance in the collapse other than imitating the fires

 

[CurveLight]

¤quick sidebar.....you asked eots to show where Dr Q spoke of more than one alternate explanation and here it is:

."Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another."
Http://www.ae911truth.org/info/12

That's wrong. eots specifically says that Dr. Q had more than one theory. That quote above does not state one of these other theories. Where exactly is/are the "other" theory/ies that Dr. Q subscribes to?

That's wrong? I quoted Dr. Q directly stating "real alternatives" but you still deny it. Nice.

 

[Gamolon]

Specifically I will demonstrate why I believe the NIST conclusion is
deficient and I will offer an alternative conclusion.

An alternate conclusion. Just one. No more.

So eots, where are the other ones you seem to think he has?

how can he properly formulate theories if he is ..blocked.. if ..fact finding is deterred ..question unanswered ..evidence withheld ...request denied ?... why would he call for his peers to become... conspiracy theorist if he thought there were but two probabilities

Your statement previously indicates he has more than one theory. Please present it/them.

 

[Gamolon]

¤quick sidebar.....you asked eots to show where Dr Q spoke of more than one alternate explanation and here it is:

."Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another."
Http://www.ae911truth.org/info/12

That's wrong. eots specifically says that Dr. Q had more than one theory. That quote above does not state one of these other theories. Where exactly is/are the "other" theory/ies that Dr. Q subscribes to?

That's wrong? I quoted Dr. Q directly stating "real alternatives" but you still deny it. Nice.

Is this the same as Dr. Q stating another theory he has in addition to his failing truss theory? No it is not. He has stated one theory and one theory only.

There is no way around this.

 

[Gamolon]

Curve and eots.

You seem to have an issue in answering one question that I have presented a couple of times now.

I will ask it again.

Dr. Q, in his paper, has stated his conclusion that the Twin Towers collapsed from failing floor trusses due to heat from fires.

Do you agree with him since he is an "expert" in this matter?

Yes or no?

 

[Gamolon]

¤quick sidebar.....you asked eots to show where Dr Q spoke of more than one alternate explanation and here it is:

."Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another."
Http://www.ae911truth.org/info/12

Now to your question.....when you answer mine I will answer yours. You claim a skyscraper comparison is legit so what skyscrapers have you compared wtc 7 to?

None. Can you point me to a skyscraper/building with a similar design to WTC7, that had fires on many floors caused by falling debris so I can make one?

Furthermore, I said that CTers want to make historical comparisons to the Twin Towers saying that their collapses are impossible based on the fact that no steel skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fires alone.

That claim is bunk for the following reasons. There has never been a steel skyscraper designed like the Twin Towers that was struck by a jet and then caught fire. THAT'S why the claim is garbage. How can you make a comparison to something that never happened before?

wtc 7 is claimed to have collapsed from fire with damage having no significance in the collapse other than imitating the fires

What's your point? I know how WTC7 is claimed to have collapsed.

 

[Gamolon]

Specifically I will demonstrate why I believe the NIST conclusion is
deficient and I will offer an alternative conclusion.

An alternate conclusion. Just one. No more.

So eots, where are the other ones you seem to think he has?

how can he properly formulate theories if he is ..blocked.. if ..fact finding is deterred ..question unanswered ..evidence withheld ...request denied ?... why would he call for his peers to become... conspiracy theorist if he thought there were but two probabilities

Why would he call his peers to become "conspiracy theorists, but in the proper way." That's the second time you left that part of his quote out. Why? Well, I shouldn't ask you why because I already know the answer.


Dr. Q also says this:

Conspiracy theorists have dominated the web pages and received strong recognition in the media. Yet responsible criticism has been minimal.

He mentions CTers and then says "Yet responsible criticism has been minimal." I guess he considers CTer's fluff "irresponsible criticism"?

 

[CurveLight]

That's wrong. eots specifically says that Dr. Q had more than one theory. That quote above does not state one of these other theories. Where exactly is/are the "other" theory/ies that Dr. Q subscribes to?

That's wrong? I quoted Dr. Q directly stating "real alternatives" but you still deny it. Nice.

Is this the same as Dr. Q stating another theory he has in addition to his failing truss theory? No it is not. He has stated one theory and one theory only.

There is no way around this.

It's silly for you to try and split hairs like this. Dr. Q clearly demonstrates more than one possible alternative. Why do you think he is calling for an independent investigation? Why do you think he advocates healthy skepticism of NIST's conclusions? If he was confident he had the correct theory he wouldn't ask others for their efforts in looking at real alternatives.

 

[CurveLight]

Curve and eots.

You seem to have an issue in answering one question that I have presented a couple of times now.

I will ask it again.

Dr. Q, in his paper, has stated his conclusion that the Twin Towers collapsed from failing floor trusses due to heat from fires.

Do you agree with him since he is an "expert" in this matter?

Yes or no?

You seem to have a real problem with the fact your question has been answered. It looks like the only reason you keep asking is to hope for some type of inconsistency. You can either silently admit I've stated my position on the towers as well as why I referenced dr q or continue with false accusations.

 

[Gamolon]

That's wrong? I quoted Dr. Q directly stating "real alternatives" but you still deny it. Nice.

Is this the same as Dr. Q stating another theory he has in addition to his failing truss theory? No it is not. He has stated one theory and one theory only.

There is no way around this.

It's silly for you to try and split hairs like this. Dr. Q clearly demonstrates more than one possible alternative. Why do you think he is calling for an independent investigation? Why do you think he advocates healthy skepticism of NIST's conclusions? If he was confident he had the correct theory he wouldn't ask others for their efforts in looking at real alternatives.

Who's splitting hairs? eots made statement that clearly indicates Dr. Q himself has theories other than the only one he states in his paper and elsewhere. The only one Dr. Q states is the failing truss theory. He states in his paper that the "EVIDENCE" has more support for this theory than the column failing theory NIST presents.

Please point me in the direction of where I can find his other stated theories that eots is referring to.

 

[Gamolon]

Curve and eots.

You seem to have an issue in answering one question that I have presented a couple of times now.

I will ask it again.

Dr. Q, in his paper, has stated his conclusion that the Twin Towers collapsed from failing floor trusses due to heat from fires.

Do you agree with him since he is an "expert" in this matter?

Yes or no?

You seem to have a real problem with the fact your question has been answered. It looks like the only reason you keep asking is to hope for some type of inconsistency. You can either silently admit I've stated my position on the towers as well as why I referenced dr q or continue with false accusations.

No you haven't.

Do you agree with Dr. Q's conclusion stated in his paper, based on the evidence he has seen, that the towers collapsed due to the floor trusses failing due to heat from the fires.

Yes or no?

 

[Gamolon]

Curve and eots.

You seem to have an issue in answering one question that I have presented a couple of times now.

I will ask it again.

Dr. Q, in his paper, has stated his conclusion that the Twin Towers collapsed from failing floor trusses due to heat from fires.

Do you agree with him since he is an "expert" in this matter?

Yes or no?

You seem to have a real problem with the fact your question has been answered. It looks like the only reason you keep asking is to hope for some type of inconsistency. You can either silently admit I've stated my position on the towers as well as why I referenced dr q or continue with false accusations.

You are using Dr. Q's assessment of the evidence he has seen and his statements as proof that NIST is wrong in their conclusion of what happened. You have obviously read his paper.

Since you are using his conclusion and statements and consider him an expert, then that means you agree with his conclusion that the towers collapsed due to the failing floor trusses caused by heat from fires.

So, do you agree with Dr. Q's conclusion in his paper or not? Either you do or don't. Why do you keep avoiding the question?

 

[Gamolon]

What about you eots?

Do you agree with your "expert", Dr. Q, that the towers collapsed due to the floor trusses failing form heat due to fires?

Yes or no?

 

[Gamolon]

Specifically I will demonstrate why I believe the NIST conclusion is
deficient and I will offer an alternative conclusion.

An alternate conclusion. Just one. No more.

So eots, where are the other ones you seem to think he has?

how can he properly formulate theories if he is ..blocked.. if ..fact finding is deterred ..question unanswered ..evidence withheld ...request denied ?... why would he call for his peers to become... conspiracy theorist if he thought there were but two probabilities

So you're saying that his conclusion in his paper, where he clearly states that the evidence he has looked at, is more supportive of his theory that the floor trusses failed due to heat from the fires, is not properly formulated now?

 

[CurveLight]

Is this the same as Dr. Q stating another theory he has in addition to his failing truss theory? No it is not. He has stated one theory and one theory only.

There is no way around this.

It's silly for you to try and split hairs like this. Dr. Q clearly demonstrates more than one possible alternative. Why do you think he is calling for an independent investigation? Why do you think he advocates healthy skepticism of NIST's conclusions? If he was confident he had the correct theory he wouldn't ask others for their efforts in looking at real alternatives.

Who's splitting hairs? eots made statement that clearly indicates Dr. Q himself has theories other than the only one he states in his paper and elsewhere. The only one Dr. Q states is the failing truss theory. He states in his paper that the "EVIDENCE" has more support for this theory than the column failing theory NIST presents.

Please point me in the direction of where I can find his other stated theories that eots is referring to.

You still don't get it. If dr. Q was sure his theory was correct he would not demand a new full independent investigation. He would not encourage colleagues to become healthy conspiracy theorists and you once again ignored the fact he said they should look at real alternatives. That's plural for alternative. Meaning more than one. Meaning more than his presented theory.

 

[Gamolon]

It's silly for you to try and split hairs like this. Dr. Q clearly demonstrates more than one possible alternative. Why do you think he is calling for an independent investigation? Why do you think he advocates healthy skepticism of NIST's conclusions? If he was confident he had the correct theory he wouldn't ask others for their efforts in looking at real alternatives.

Who's splitting hairs? eots made statement that clearly indicates Dr. Q himself has theories other than the only one he states in his paper and elsewhere. The only one Dr. Q states is the failing truss theory. He states in his paper that the "EVIDENCE" has more support for this theory than the column failing theory NIST presents.

Please point me in the direction of where I can find his other stated theories that eots is referring to.

You still don't get it. If dr. Q was sure his theory was correct he would not demand a new full independent investigation. He would not encourage colleagues to become healthy conspiracy theorists and you once again ignored the fact he said they should look at real alternatives. That's plural for alternative. Meaning more than one. Meaning more than his presented theory.

What YOU don't understand is that in his paper, he spells out his theory as to what happened in the towers. Here is the excerpt:

Conclusions
I contend that the NIST analysis used a fuel load that was too low and
their fire durations are consequently too short. Only these short fires could
then heat the bare core columns as NIST reports. The fires were too short
to heat the insulated trusses to failure. The NIST analysis has flaws, is
incomplete, and has led to an unsupported conclusion on the cause of the
collapse.
An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause
appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and
the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures
corresponding to failure based on structural analyses. This hypothesis puts
the blame on the insufficiency of the truss insulation. Something NIST says
was not an issue.
The two different hypotheses lead to very different consequences with
respect to recommendations and remedial action. I think the evidence is
strong enough to take a harder look at the current conclusions. I would
recommend that all records of the investigation be archived, that the NIST
study be subject to a peer review, and that consideration be given to reopening
this investigation to assure no lost fire safety issues.

Do you agree with his assessment that the floor trusses failed because of the heat from fires thus causing the collapse or don't you?

 

[Gamolon]

It's silly for you to try and split hairs like this. Dr. Q clearly demonstrates more than one possible alternative. Why do you think he is calling for an independent investigation? Why do you think he advocates healthy skepticism of NIST's conclusions? If he was confident he had the correct theory he wouldn't ask others for their efforts in looking at real alternatives.

Who's splitting hairs? eots made statement that clearly indicates Dr. Q himself has theories other than the only one he states in his paper and elsewhere. The only one Dr. Q states is the failing truss theory. He states in his paper that the "EVIDENCE" has more support for this theory than the column failing theory NIST presents.

Please point me in the direction of where I can find his other stated theories that eots is referring to.

You still don't get it. If dr. Q was sure his theory was correct he would not demand a new full independent investigation.

He seems pretty sure to me as he pointed out the fact that the evidence he looked at supports his theory.

He would not encourage colleagues to become healthy conspiracy theorists

Explain this to me. What exactly is a "healthy conspiracy theorist"?

and you once again ignored the fact he said they should look at real alternatives.

And you ignored the fact that eots says Dr. Q has other theories other than his truss theory. Please find those and point me to them.

That's plural for alternative. Meaning more than one. Meaning more than his presented theory.

What's your point? Again, eots made a statement that Dr. Q HIMSELF has other theories. Where are they? Asking people to look for alternatives and saying that HE HIMSELF has other theories is quite different. Here is eots' quote:

this is is one example he offers of an alternative scenario

“I suggest that there’s an equally justifiable theory and that’s the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different,”

The above says that the truss theory is just one example he offers. WHAT OTHER THEORIES HAS HE OFFERED???? WTF??? Is it that hard to understand? Again, If I said that Nike is just one brand of shoe that Foot Locker offers, that statement implies that Foot Locker offers more than just Nike shoes.

It's not that difficult to understand.