Hi OneWhiteEye and thanks for the welcome. I'm very easy to please, so Stundie or stundie is fineOneWhiteEye wrote:Hello Stundie (or do you prefer stundie?), welcome.
Not at all OWE, it was aimed at anyone and everyone, so I do not mind you commenting or answering it.OneWhiteEye wrote:I'm inclined to believe your question was directed at the theoreticians, hope you don't mind me commenting.
OneWhiteEye wrote:Seeing as we still do not know exactly how WTC 1, 2 & even 7 collapsed and all these fire induced collapse theories seem to have serious faults which do not match the evidence (As in the photos & videos) or are physically impossible.
First, I should disclaim myself:
1) I know very little
2) I'm slightly inclined towards the notion that the towers fell too slowly, at least based on theory and the alleged (something I haven't checked myself, in other words) measured total times
There are some significant discrepancies between theory and observation.
You know more than me about the subject, I've looked at the computer models you have made and they are excellent and very detailed. So I don't undervalue your skills as you are able to have created them. Personally, I wouldn't know where to start...lol
There are indeed many discrepancies between theories and observation and this is why I ask the question.
There are obvious discrepancies between the theories of lets say NIST and observations, this is not taking away anything from NIST as such, but it shows us that NIST got some theories wrong. If the theory doesn't match the observations and evidence, then it is not a viable theory.
And I agree with you totally OneWhiteEye.OneWhiteEye wrote: You may see I'm lobbying for advancement of the theory so as to achieve a better qualitative description, at the very least.
Lets say we have a fire induced initiation collapse theories 1 to (insert figure here) and evidence/observations A, B, C, D, E, Fetc. So we look at theory 1, great it matches evidence/observations A & B, but none of the others. So we look at theory 2, it matches A,C and D but not B & E and you keep going until theory you have ran out of possible theories (insert figure here)
What happens when we have exhausted all possible theories? Do we take theory 2 and ignore/handwave B & E to make the theory fit with what happened?
There are flaws with such theories and there must be a point when we have to say "Right, I'm giving this up..." or even "putting it on pause..." "...for the moment and will look at alternative theories that may explain some or possibly all the evidence."
I can believe that. The more you learn about anything, the more you understanding you have.OneWhiteEye wrote:You might also see I have great respect for the theory*** to date for, while I've not checked every jot and tittle personally, it elegantly expresses so much of what one needs to know to even begin to approach an understanding of this problem. I'm not there yet, and it will be some time.
I think it was a poor choice of wording, maybe I should have used the words "not possible" instead because theoretically, nothing is impossible.OneWhiteEye wrote:Could you elaborate on 'physically impossible'?
I find the Crush Down theory of the WTC as something I would ascribe to as being physically impossible, as in not possible. The problem is that is that the upper portion block A would have to remain intact while pounding the lower portion block B, when the reality is that forces generate by the fall of the upper portion block A (x floors) would have collided with the lower portion block B (x floors) the forces generated would have to be distributed equally, as they are the same objects but in 2 separate pieces.
If the failure point was lower down, then this would be physically possible....
I get what you mean, but I mean individually, I honestly wasn't talking collectively as in a group or groups of people.OneWhiteEye wrote:How long is it before you give up hypothesising a fire induced collapse theory if all avenues of your investigation and research so far suggests that it did not happened?
Not entirely sure but, from my perspective, the words 'you' and 'your' above do not refer to the same parties, at least on this board. Do you get what I mean?
***as if there were only one!
I agree with what you and Major Tom are suggesting, that maybe it's time to think of advancing another theory, however to discuss this further would be off topic and might be better off on another thread.