View Single Post
Old 24th November 2015, 02:33 PM   #82
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
I also look forward to seeing the results. That the NIST hypothesis is wrong is proven already, in the context of the specifics of the beam expansion that they claimed.
You really need to stop saying this. Where is this "proven"?
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Personally, I would like to see a set of conditions imposed that would replicate what NIST supposed re the girder walk off, though it is hard to imagine what those conditions could be given that the column retains enough lateral support to prevent the seat moving East.
Usmani managed to dance around the issue in Glasgow a few months back. The prospect of defending NISTs explanation against a model whos inputs are known is not something so easily danced around.
Why do you only focus on this one area where the NIST clearly does not?

Was the rest of the floor area structure pristine?

Obviously column 79 failed. Why do you think it did? This is how you form a hypothesis. When are you guys going to do it? I'll read it if you ever do. Stop trying to prove you're right by showing some point of the NIST wrong. It's childish when you have no coherent hypothesis of your own. .
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 24th November 2015 at 02:36 PM.
DGM 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