|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
24th November 2015, 02:12 PM | #81 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
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.
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. |
24th November 2015, 02:33 PM | #82 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
You really need to stop saying this. Where is this "proven"?
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 |
|
24th November 2015, 03:21 PM | #83 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
The erratums NIST were forced to issue speak directly to the accuracy of their analysis.
Sunder stated quite clearly that this was NISTs position re the c79 connection in his tech briefing. And that area interests me so I would like to see the model results wrt that area. Is that okay with ya? Dumb question. Yes. And obviously there was an initiating factor in that failure ie the girder failure, which followed the supposed expansion of the beam. I don't know. But it wasn't thermal expansion as per NISTs analysis. Okay then. How much does the 53ft beam expand at the given temp? The assertion is that NIST are wrong. How should we go about proving that this assertion is correct without proving that NIST are wrong? NO, What would be childish is to accept an invalidated NIST hypothesis just because of the absence of an alternative. |
24th November 2015, 03:40 PM | #84 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
"Forced"? You imply guilt where none is shown.
Sure . I known. It's only asked because you seem to focus on only one aspect/area where the NIST did not. Plus other factors according to the NIST. Obviously you also consider these factors (see my stupid question) You have not shown this to be true using all of the conditions outlined by the NIST There you go again taking one element in isolation. Stop. By developing an independent hypothesis. I thought I explained this. It has not be "invalidated". That's your claim and it has never been supported and has nothing to do with the fact you have not been able to produce a better hypothesis. |
__________________
"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 |
|
24th November 2015, 03:50 PM | #85 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
I implied error - the erratum statements show error. The clue is in the name.
The column 79 connection is exactly where NIST focused. Moreso in the tech briefing than the report, granted. Which one? And there you go again telling people to stop. So you reckon NIST modeled the connection correctly. You're entitled to that opinion, but it remains just that - your barely asserted opinion. |
24th November 2015, 03:55 PM | #86 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
It will be a big step forward if AE911 does go outside that false limitation.
To date that Szamboti imposed nonsense has limited debate of WTC7 initiation including the flow on AE911 initiatives such as those by Pepper. Once they move outside of that false limit it means that they are abandoning most of Szamboti's nonsense. It would be "One small step for 9/11 debate. One giant leap for AE911 kind." |
24th November 2015, 04:16 PM | #87 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
Sorry, I took "forced" to mean they did not do this willingly.
Exactly.They did not attibute the failure to that one connection in isolation. There is no "one". This is where you go wrong. Yes, stop looking at a complex problem in the eyes of only one aspect. They modeled it the way they saw fit and published their reasoning. It maters very little to me in the broad scheme because I've not seen anyone present a better hypothesis. Do you guys plan to some day or are you happy trying to show some aspect of the NIST wrong? |
__________________
"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 |
|
24th November 2015, 04:24 PM | #88 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
No. You're underestimating the importance of what Tony and others found. Even the FEAs done in Edinburgh for WTC7 tried removing various elements to try to induce failure and failed to do so. They also looked at detailed areas in isolation.
While it is certainly valid to take this connection in isolation and examine the effects of heat induced expansion on it, I don't get the impression that the FEA being discussed here will stop at that. Far from it. You should ask at the site given when you are able, to ask about the scope of the analysis. I will wait with interest to see what you are told. |
24th November 2015, 04:35 PM | #89 | |||
Muse
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 512
|
Video published |
|||
24th November 2015, 04:40 PM | #90 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
24th November 2015, 04:42 PM | #91 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
When I said which one, I meant which silly question.
I agree that this is a load of complex problems and that the connection at c79 is one of many. They made an absolute mess of it and did not publish their input data. What little they did release in terms of element dimensions etc was just plain wrong hence the erratum statements. The absence of an alternative hypothesis does not validate NISTs hypothesis in any way shape or form. That depends who you mean by "you guys". I don't speak for ae911 if that's who you are referring to, but good on them for doing what your govt didn't. The group that I helped form was put together to research the structural drawings of the building. We studied the drawings and published what we found. We approached NIST initially with regard to some serious errors that we found, also, AE911 and others showed an interest and appear to be driving the issue forward. That would have been far outwith the means and scope of the research group that I was in. |
24th November 2015, 04:56 PM | #92 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
That would be anyone. The NIST likely didn't get it perfect. I can't see why it maters that much.
Unless you are arguing that fire did not cause it their recommendations are still sound. Bottom line. To make a building safer, protect it from fires by protecting it systems and make it faster and easier for everyone to get out. Understand? |
__________________
"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 |
|
24th November 2015, 05:15 PM | #93 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
24th November 2015, 05:18 PM | #94 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
If by "didn't get it perfect" you mean can't tell the difference between 11 and 12 inches than yes. That you can't see why this kind of detail matters is not surprising.
Look, I know you'd love to move the goalposts here by getting me to offer an alternative hypothesis to fire, but that's not gonna happen. I am arguing that NIST got it wrong and crucially so. In the "protect it from fires" category, would you include the allowance for thermal expansion of elements by ensuring that the gaps in the connections can accommodate the maximum expansion potential of the element? I understand perfectly thanks. |
24th November 2015, 05:22 PM | #95 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
|
24th November 2015, 05:23 PM | #96 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
24th November 2015, 05:26 PM | #97 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
|
24th November 2015, 05:30 PM | #98 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
Does this detail mean it could not fail due to fire?
Because it's a position you can't support. I'm not moving any goal post, I'm trying to get you to state your objectives for proving this point you claim the NIST got wrong. No. I would protect the suppression systems so the steel never gets to this extreme. If it does the building is already in serious trouble. I doubt it. If you did you wouldn't be posting in 9/11 conspiracies. |
__________________
"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 |
|
24th November 2015, 05:34 PM | #99 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
24th November 2015, 05:37 PM | #100 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
24th November 2015, 05:40 PM | #101 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
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?.
And.....? 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
Not "certainly" - "can be valid" - provided the system boundaries are clearly and validly identified AND any vectors crossing those boundaries are properly dealt with. 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. 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. Don't hold your breath. |
24th November 2015, 05:47 PM | #102 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
|
Column 79 was a corner column of the central core in WTC 7.
You may not know that the lateral support at each story to keep a column from buckling only needs to be about 0.6% of the axial load on the column. So the east and west girders were more than sufficient to laterally support column 79 and keep it from buckling. You may also not know that the NIST model was manually manipulated by removing things when they felt the item would have failed. |
24th November 2015, 05:50 PM | #103 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
|
24th November 2015, 05:50 PM | #104 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
|
24th November 2015, 05:52 PM | #105 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
|
Every column in WTC 7 failed. Why do you think they did?
Really? What would give you this impression? There are no historic examples of steel framed high rises collapsing to the ground due to fire before spray on fireproofing and sprinkler systems were the norm. |
24th November 2015, 05:57 PM | #106 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
|
24th November 2015, 05:58 PM | #107 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
24th November 2015, 06:13 PM | #108 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
|
|
24th November 2015, 06:19 PM | #109 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
24th November 2015, 06:32 PM | #110 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
|
|
24th November 2015, 06:47 PM | #111 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
24th November 2015, 06:52 PM | #112 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
Quote:
Fire did it, guess NIST got the big picture right, and 911 truth remains with CD, an evidence free BS claim born in ignorance and paranoia. What did the FBI say about the idiotic claims of CD and inside job? Why have these 911 truth follower failed to present their CD evidence to the FBI? They do crime, NIST does not do crime. 911 truth is confused on who does what. FBI does crime, why can't these 911 truth followers go to the FBI? Have you identified who did your inside job? Got any evidence for CD yet? Hulsey, is he a paranoid conspiracy theorist? Why would anyone trust a study by a 911 truth nut, some dolt who joined AE911T CD thermite fantasy BS movement of woo? |
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein "... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK |
|
24th November 2015, 07:04 PM | #113 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
|
Because it never happened before. Structural steel in high rises is massive and takes a significant amount of heat and time to weaken. There usually isn't enough fuel in a given area of an office fire to heat the large pieces of steel in that area enough to cause weakening to the point of failure. That is most likely why it hasn't happened before.
The fires in WTC 7 did not burn all day in a specific area. They burned out when the fuel was used up in a specific area and there are photos of plenty of burned out areas and no hint of a collapse. Not surprising as this was the norm. |
24th November 2015, 07:06 PM | #114 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
|
|
24th November 2015, 07:11 PM | #115 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
24th November 2015, 07:12 PM | #116 |
このマスクによっ
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
|
|
__________________
Current Set:http://i.imgur.com/IoqiUdK.jpg |
|
24th November 2015, 07:15 PM | #117 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
24th November 2015, 07:18 PM | #118 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
|
|
24th November 2015, 07:19 PM | #119 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
|
Is this all you can say?
It is obvious that you can't support the "fire did it" theory with anything of substance. It sounds like you just want to believe it no matter what evidence you are shown that the NIST theory has not been proven and that their analysis is fatally flawed. |
24th November 2015, 07:25 PM | #120 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|