View Single Post
Old 5th December 2007, 12:03 AM   #11
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by cmcaulif View Post
BTW, he can't be serious with page 5 can he?

I think the removal of fireproofing is the weakest part of the NIST theory because of the uncertainty associated with assessing the condition of fireproofing in the tower, but I am quite sure they did not claim that all of the fireproofing was stripped over five floors.
No, NIST did not. NCSTAR1-2B clearly describes the zone of predicted fireproofing removal, floor by floor, case by case, and it's nowhere near the total area of five floors.

Another amusement is his insistence that I'm using a "zero energy loss ricochet." Yeah. I'm assuming that after ricocheting, pieces retain all of their energy to damage more parts of the structure.

Read that again slowly.

Find the bug?

Here's the bug: If it isn't a "zero energy loss ricochet," then the energy is lost in an inelastic collision. But energy is conserved. Even Mr. Ryan surely must know this. So where did it go? Why, into deforming what the pieces hit, of course. Causing damage.

I believe this is called "having your cake and eating it too," or by its newer, 9/11 Conspiracy specific name, "the Gordon Ross principle."
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top