Originally Posted by
gerrycan
No. You're underestimating the importance of what Tony and others found...
I doubt it. In regard to his WTC7 claims he asserts that NIST was wrong in some details - which is a "so what?" even if he is correct. He has never AFAIK "proved" his starting scenario - and I am well aware that false starting assumptions is Tony's most consistent bit of error or trickery. But the "so what's?" in the broader picture are what matter. Even if anyone produces an alternate failure initiation mechanism for the failure of Col79 - so what?.
Originally Posted by
gerrycan
Even the FEAs done in Edinburgh for WTC7 tried removing various elements to try to induce failure and failed to do so...
And.....?
Originally Posted by
gerrycan
They also looked at detailed areas in isolation...
By "they" do you mean Edinburgh? Are you saying that they made the same errors as Tony? I don't have academics on a high pedestal. Look at the series of papers Bazant collaborated in following Bazant and Zhou. Very much the same problems as I identified with T Szamboti's paper back in 2007:
Originally Posted by me-another forum Nov 2007
The paper referenced as Engineering Reality by Tony Szamboti is typical of many which look impressive in detail to the non-engineer. The complex calculations may even be correct but the base premises are faulty and the resulting conclusions can readily be demonstrated to be totally wrong.
Same issue - lots of confusing looking details and maths when the starting foundation is wrong. And a lot of debunkers also fall for it.
Originally Posted by
gerrycan
While it is certainly valid to take this connection in isolation and examine the effects of heat induced expansion on it,...
Not "certainly" - "can be valid" - provided the system boundaries are clearly and validly identified AND any vectors crossing those boundaries are properly dealt with.
Originally Posted by
gerrycan
I don't get the impression that the FEA being discussed here will stop at that. Far from it.
You could be right - I've seen nothing defining the scope at this stage - and undefined scope is SOP for truther initiatives. Hence my previous post comment - IF AE911 does it legitimately it will be a big step forward for them.
Originally Posted by
gerrycan
You should ask at the site given when you are able, to ask about the scope of the analysis.
I'll wait and see. I rarely waste energy chasing "reversed burden of proof" when challenged to do so in a forum by the usual run of truther/troll. I'm certainly not into chasing every rumour looking to see if someone has a valid argument. The big issues still raised by trutherdom are "CD" and "Inside job" - the former nonsense and the latter as usually presented is also nonsense.
Originally Posted by
gerrycan
I will wait with interest to see what you are told.
Don't hold your breath.