Still waiting for this test to be connected with 911 conspiracies.
I know there were buildings on fire on 911 but that is somewhat tenuous.
Can I just start some threads about plane crashes and let you guys join the dots?
You see, this is your problem: Instead of discussion of relevant issues, you'd rather attack. This is why we're more than justified in lumping you in with all other truthers: You do not care about discovering the knowledge, you'd rather attack the discussion of it.
Of course there's no direct link between a study of structure fires and 9/11 conspiracies. These tests do not speak towards hijackings of airplanes or identification of terrorists. What they
do do, however, is inform fire and structure researchers how fires progress in certain conditions. It doesn't directly apply to how it affects a structure built like the Twin Towers, but it
does speak to the detail of how a fire progresses in windy conditions. It is
basic knowledge, which serves as a building block that can be used to evaluate and reevaluate existing research such as the NIST report. Studies like this, like the Cardington Fire Tests, and others are used to build models of fire propogation, and the validity of those models are continually evaluated as time goes on. New research induces new evaluations. That's how knowledge progresses.
So, in spite of not having a direct link, how does this relate to 9/11 conspiracies? Well, implicit in the attack on NIST is the critique that their fire models are wrong; how many times do we see conspiracy peddlers claim that the tower fires could not have affected the tower in the way it did on 9/11? Sure, part of that misapprehension is due to the fact that you all find it convenient to ignore impact damage when you people forward that complaint, but a good deal of it comes from the fact that conspiracy fantasists say the NIST report cannot be right. These issues address a specific issue that can be applied to the Twin Towers: Fires and combatting it in windy conditions. It provides more knowledge to add to the existing body, and drives forward that body of knowledge. Eventually, the accumulation of such knowledge may modify what was concluded in the NIST report. It likely won't directly affect it by itself, but that's not the goal or the point: The point is to forward the general field. This is what these reports do.
So that's what the relation to the September 11th conspiracies is. Like practical aerodynamics to evaluate the various "bad pilot" claims, and like the somewhat specialized chemistry needed to understand Astaneh-Asl's observations, this is a study that adds to our knowledge of basic fire principles and fire fighting, and provides context necessary to evaluate various claims forwarded by truthers regarding firefighting. No, the studies don't directly address 9/11 or conspiracies. They don't have to in order to be relevant to our interests in this subforum; if you look at his history, NYCEMT86 has made a thread as well as a few posts aimed at giving a general, brief education into firefighting principles. That ends up being background knowledge. This is background knowledge about structure fires and practical firefighting of a wind driven fire.
That's the difference between you conspiracy advocates and the rest of us: We are interested in context and knowledge; you all are only interested in pushing a worldview. That's why you don't get how these reports are applicable: They're context and basic knowledge. Something too many of you ignore when you dive into 9/11 history.
