|
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. |
7th December 2015, 08:53 PM | #561 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
Shyam Sunder " A critical factor that led to the initiation of collapse was thermal expansion of long-span floor systems located on the east side of the building."
Shyam Sunder "Long-span steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of the building expanded significantly due to these fires, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors. Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical interior column that provided support for the long girder and other local -- the displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse. So this was the girder that failed, connecting Column 79 to Column 44. This began a cascading chain of failures of eight additional floors, many of which already had been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of the critical column. With the support of these floors gone, we now had Column 79 unsupported over multiple floors, and it buckled, which initiated the fire-induced progressive collapse of the building." Ok so you could argue that this isn't not a singular cause maybe, but without it there's no collapse according to NISTs lead investigator. Thermal expansion is "critical" to NISTs hypothesis. Without it, they have no hypothesis ie it is "critical" to their hypothesis. This is the cornerstone of their whole story re wtc7 and you are seriously taking them at their word, that of all the bits of the report to make a schoolboy howler of an error in they chose the one bit that was "crucial" to their hypothesis to make a "typo" error in. And not notice it? |
7th December 2015, 08:57 PM | #562 |
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 |
|
7th December 2015, 09:08 PM | #563 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
7th December 2015, 09:12 PM | #564 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
The distances were in the erratum statements that NIST released when it was pointed out to them that they had somehow got 11 inches mixed up with 12".
From http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=901225 "The travel distance for walk off was "The bearing seat at Column 79 was |
7th December 2015, 09:13 PM | #565 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
|
7th December 2015, 09:16 PM | #566 |
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 |
|
7th December 2015, 09:18 PM | #567 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
In NISTs own words thermal expansion was "critical" to their hypothesis. Can you not read?? Scroll up.
TRY AGAIN ETA quote in case you have a problem scrolling up "Ok so you could argue that this isn't not a singular cause maybe, but without it there's no collapse according to NISTs lead investigator. Thermal expansion is "critical" to NISTs hypothesis." |
7th December 2015, 09:20 PM | #568 |
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 |
|
7th December 2015, 09:22 PM | #569 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
|
7th December 2015, 09:24 PM | #570 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
If strict expansion alone is not quite sufficient it does come close. What are we talking about, one inch?
Need to do a more detailed FEA than NIST performed? How about calculating the effect of the fire on the entire 12th floor section that saw fire throughout the day, including both expansion/sagging during heating phase, and pulling due to contraction of components previously deformed in the heating phase. How about including stresses on the structure at the location of col 79, due to known damage to the south side perimeter( including 10+ storeys of the SW corner. Or are you fully confident that there were no other stresses that could affect a change of one inch in the relative locations of girder 44 and its seat on col 79? If so, why? |
7th December 2015, 09:26 PM | #571 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
7th December 2015, 09:26 PM | #572 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
|
7th December 2015, 09:27 PM | #573 |
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 |
|
7th December 2015, 09:29 PM | #574 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
7th December 2015, 09:31 PM | #575 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
7th December 2015, 09:31 PM | #576 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
What other factors? Remember that the column has not buckled at this point of NISTs analysis.
"other factors" did not get a mention when NIST further overstated the walk off distance to be 6.25" in their erratum. They only ever mention thermal expansion in that context. What "other factors" did they miss in your opinion? Even if they did miss these unspecified "other factors" that you imagine might have happened, THE GIRDER FAILED IN THEIR MODEL. NIST don't mention any "other factors". But you just did. Just like nobody said that thermal expansion was the "sole cause" of the collapse. But you seem to think that somebody did. Your problems appear to be deeper seated than comprehension. |
7th December 2015, 09:34 PM | #577 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
Are you ****** *kidding? Seriously ???
ETA show me where there's another seat plate that is 12" wide. From NISTs own erratum statement "In Chapter 11, page 482, Analytical Model for Seated Connection at Columns 79 and 81" See that bit where it says "SEATED CONNECTION AT COLUMN 79" ? What connection do you think they are talking about ?
|
||
7th December 2015, 09:34 PM | #578 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
gerrycan:
Simple question, was the rest of the building pristine in your opinion (or the NIST's)? A simple yes or no will do. |
__________________
"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 |
|
7th December 2015, 09:39 PM | #579 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
|
7th December 2015, 09:40 PM | #580 |
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 |
|
7th December 2015, 09:45 PM | #581 |
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 |
|
7th December 2015, 09:45 PM | #582 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
No desperation here. Just answer them specifically to avoid confusion.
Oh I forgot, you can't. Remember you are the guy who just stated re Shyam Sunder "He also did not specify which connection or a specific element" When he in fact specifies both. You don't even comprehend the story that you are trying to defend, never mind the facts that are being put to you. |
7th December 2015, 09:47 PM | #583 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
Actually iirc they did mention one other factor, movement in the opposite direction of col 79 itself due to heating of orthogonal girders.
Point is that while girder walk off is declared the , and please address the wording, " most probable" scenario and that beam expansion definitely would have supplied the greatest amount of movement, NIST never states it is THE one and only, definitive, no possible way it could be any other contributing factor, scenario. Yet you and Tony treat it as if disproving that beam expansion could contribute enough movement to effect walk off as if it invalidates all of NIST's work. THE most definitive statement NIST makes is that col 79 failure was the first visible sign of collapse and that their FEA showed a col 79 failure would lead to a progression of core failure and, eventually, to global collapse. Why is AE911T focued on the most strawman portion of the NIST report? Why not do an FEA on col 79 failure? Because finding out that a col 79 failure very well could progress to global collapse, would disrupt the many statements about dozens(hundreds) of simultaneous explosive severance of core column? |
7th December 2015, 09:49 PM | #584 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
|
7th December 2015, 09:50 PM | #585 |
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 |
|
7th December 2015, 09:52 PM | #586 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
|
7th December 2015, 09:52 PM | #587 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
7th December 2015, 09:53 PM | #588 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
|
7th December 2015, 09:55 PM | #589 |
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 |
|
7th December 2015, 09:55 PM | #590 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
|
7th December 2015, 10:00 PM | #591 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
I have a problem with it in the model and in reality. Whilst you can go and dream of "other factors", and imagine they might have existed, whatever they were, they would be apparent in NISTs model.
When an FEA comes out with data also provided, that questions NISTs FEA, the onus will be firmly on NIST to justify their conclusions by showing their work instead of just asking that we take it on trust. |
7th December 2015, 10:00 PM | #592 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
Yes, if one single factor can contribute 70-75% of full walk off then I'd say that one factor certainly is 'critical'.
Think back to your college courses. I took a History course. We wrote an exam that contributed 40% towards final marks. Out year end paper was worth 60%. . Doing well on the paper was critical to a good final mark. My first year physics the exam was 75% of final mark. Weekly assignments contributed 10% while mid term exam made up the last 15%.. Would you characterize the final as critical? |
7th December 2015, 10:01 PM | #593 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
7th December 2015, 10:05 PM | #594 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
7th December 2015, 10:09 PM | #595 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
|
7th December 2015, 10:52 PM | #596 |
このマスクによっ
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
|
No joke. Critical does not exclusively imply "sole cause". You can push for your own definitions all you want but it aint changing. It no one's responsibility here to follow a hyper focused detail level for which theres not enough information levels to properly discuss. Nobody knows which beam # snapped which bolt. It is an insane proposition to think that this level of information is required or available... or that the NIST made assumptuons in the microscopic scale...
|
__________________
Current Set:http://i.imgur.com/IoqiUdK.jpg |
|
7th December 2015, 11:36 PM | #597 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
|
8th December 2015, 12:26 AM | #598 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
Hi Tony,
you still need to work on your claims: [1] Do you claim that the core columns were "removed" in at least one place, or at least two places, or on each of 8 floors? [2] By "core" do you mean all 24 columns? Or could this imply "only 1 column" as a possible scenario? If neither "all 24" nor "perhaps just 1" applies, how many core columns do you claim must at least have been removed? [3] What is "quickly"? Within a short time interval? How short - can you give an upper limit? (I am asking because obviously that interval has to be shorter than the shortest time you think is required for a natural collapse to progress laterally and still look the way the real collapse looked) [4] So you do NOT claim that explosives were used? I wonder of course why you wrote earlier
Quote:
|
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote) The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. (Gilbert Keith Chesterton) |
|
8th December 2015, 12:28 AM | #599 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Yes and no - as you are fully aware if your debating trickery is deliberate. And if it isn't deliberate the game is above your head.
My comments were explicit: 1) Your logic - like T Szamboti's is "arse about" - backwards - coming from the wrong direction. I note that you do not address that aspect of my comments. 2) And I told you why it was "arse about" because the "arse about reasoning" it is the key to your lack of comprehension of the topic. AND I told you "Put the issue in context - top down..." I care not how high you go up the taxonomy of issues - provided you define the level and legitimately argue down from there. SO -for example only - IF you start from "WTC7 Collapsed on 9/11 - and some people claim it was helped by CD whilst the predominant and official view is 'no CD' " it doesn't faze me in the least. PROVIDED you set a legitimate context for YOUR claim. THEN structure the taxonomy of the issues. And your silly question "Just to confirm. You are talking about what happened in NIST's model here eh?" will fall neatly into place in proper relationship with all of the other issues. Whether you are engaging in intentional debate trickery OR revealing the limits of your reasoning I care not. You current approach is de facto debate trickery attempting to represent one or more details out of context as if they have significant meaning. By all means play that game. Play it to support T Szamboti. Remember - bottom line - I (and various others) have rigorously rebutted every one of T Sz's false claims. Of course I recognise NIST's model. And I can put it in context. AND in proper taxonomic relationship to the other relevant issues. Can you? Are you honest enough to either do it or admit that the discussion is beyond you? Or simply keep playing your games - Don't worry - I wont pester you if you decide to evade discussion at a serious level. |
8th December 2015, 12:31 AM | #600 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
That is the bottom line. Tony says "You are all wrong but I haven't a clue why I believe that." Whilst several of us - me included - have explained EXACTLY where his main claims are wrong and/or explained what really happened. So he cannot legitimately claim ignorance of the real events. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|