|
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. |
8th December 2015, 12:51 AM | #601 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
|
8th December 2015, 02:49 AM | #602 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
|
Yes Ozeco, we know you subscribe to the "we can never know because the building wasn't pristine and anything could have happened" theory.
Sorry, but that kind of blow off doesn't work and can't be tolerated when discussing the catastrophic failure of an enormous building like WTC 7. Actual failure mechanisms can be discerned which cause the observables. The NIST WTC 7 report did not do that, so it is as non-explanatory as your "we can never know" theory. |
8th December 2015, 02:51 AM | #603 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
|
Yes Ozeco, we know you subscribe to the "we can never know because the building wasn't pristine and anything could have happened" theory and it seems some others have taken to it when they can't answer the problems with the NIST WTC 7 report. Your theory (or lack of one) seems to have become popular here among those who support the NIST explanation.
Sorry, but that kind of blow off doesn't work and can't be tolerated when discussing the catastrophic failure of an enormous building like WTC 7. Actual failure mechanisms can be discerned which cause the observables. The NIST WTC 7 report did not do that, so it is as non-explanatory as your "we can never know" theory. Sitting there and claiming victory, like you are, while saying virtually nothing, is lowbrow behavior. |
8th December 2015, 03:07 AM | #604 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
Hi Tony,
interesting that you would bemoan the "no-claimer" stance when others utters it, but yourself pleaded ignorance while trying your best to avoid and dodge my questions: I had a few questions to that: [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, 04:26 AM | #605 |
このマスクによっ
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
|
|
__________________
Current Set:http://i.imgur.com/IoqiUdK.jpg |
|
8th December 2015, 05:19 AM | #606 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,232
|
Before the moment frame and the attached curtain wall drops... we know the EPH at the roof drops (and seems to be atop a region of collapse right down through the entire building) and the there appears to be a PROGRESSIVE east to west collapse of the OTHER roof structures until the WPH disappears "into the building"... and THE the moment frame and curtain wall descend... developing a huge multi story high kink where the N-S girder at cols 73 and col 48... and rotating counter clockwise AND translating to the east. The movement was not AT free fall acceleration, was NOT symmetrical and STRONGLY suggests that the core failure was progressive east to west not a single event in time. The lateral movement and rotation accounts for the mis alignment of the moment frame with the columns supporting it below (floor 8) and explain why its motion shows no "axial resistance". Columns were not crushed... not CD over 8 floors in an instant... but BY PASSED or "missed" by the descending moment frame and attached curtain wall. Further the breaking of the windows strongly suggest that the NE quadrant was under tortional stress from the collapse or the floor areas behind those windows.
|
8th December 2015, 06:17 AM | #607 | |||
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
Perhaps this is a good a time as any to remind ourselves - and particularly the believers of CD at WTC7 - that apparent symmetry and even corner-to-corner collapse DOES in fact happen occasionally from natural causes, without the need to attack several or all supports simultaneously:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwQS8xnaPe4
|
|||
__________________
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, 06:24 AM | #608 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
|
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
8th December 2015, 06:30 AM | #609 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
The video info says:
"Karaganda. 10:55 a.m. Friday, 06.04.2012Amazing - authorities predicted collapse before it happened!! |
__________________
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, 07:25 AM | #610 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 470
|
This sounds so not like WTC7.
http://en.tengrinews.kz/emergencies/...f-uneven-9948/ Karaganda apartment building collapsed because of uneven settlement of foundation “According to the statements of the expert organizations, the main reasons of the building's collapse were: 1. Lack of measures to prevent swelling of soils from affecting the building’s steadiness, 2. Development of unacceptable uneven settlements of the foundation because of the soil swelling caused by lack of water retaining activities. 3. Insufficient hardness and load bearing capacity of the en bloc reinforced concrete framework of the building in the actual engineering-geological conditions,” the act states. The experts also tagged several additional reasons that accelerated the collapse of the building in Bessoba complex: - First of all, this is low concrete strength in 74 columns and 59 beams at the basement, 14 columns and 12 beams of upper floors. - The second reason is lack of due transversely stiffness of the building, because the actual construction solution of the second block of building No.7 does not fully comply with the design. - The third reason is in low-quality joints of the bearing structures of the basement: most of them were made in violation of the technological rules of concrete casting. In particular, longitudinal reinforcement joints have not been coated with concrete and the concrete mass contains different foreign agents like expanded foam, pieces of timber and rocks. - The forth reason lays in the outside drainage pit along the G axis on the outside of the second block of building No.7. This pit facilitated the seasonal frosts in penetration of the soil and boosted the impact of flood and technogenic waters on the foundation’s bottom. [url]http://en.tengrinews.kz/emergencies/Another-5-storey-Bessoba-building-collapsing-in-Karaganda-11705/[/urll] Another 5-storey Bessoba building collapsing in Karaganda “The building was tilting one one side from 12:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Monday; the crack has reached 18 cm. It will collapse today or tomorrow,” the locals told Interfax-Kazakhstan. A resident of one of the neighboring buildings Sergey Abayev told that the crack had reached 10-12 cm during that day. The building started lurching in the evening and the crack has now reached 18 cm. “Nobody lives in this building. It’s construction is not completed. This is one of the last buildings constructed in Bessoba,” he said." Again. This sounds so not like WTC7. |
8th December 2015, 07:41 AM | #611 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
Hello Criteria, I thought you had put me on ignore because you ignore my qiuestions to you. Well good to see you are really dodging them and running away scared
Now as for the point I made when I posted the Karaganda video - can you rephrase, in your own words, what my argument was? Then we shall analyse whether and how your reply addresses my argument. |
__________________
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, 08:10 AM | #612 | ||
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 470
|
I do not put members on ignore.
...snip...
Regarding your post, any building that is so badly founded and constructed is likely to meet a calamitous ending. WTC7 was not such a building. |
||
8th December 2015, 08:43 AM | #613 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
That still doesn't address my argument.
Try again - I'll help you - here's what I wrote regfarding the Karaganda collapse: "apparent symmetry and even corner-to-corner collapse DOES in fact happen occasionally from natural causes, without the need to attack several or all supports simultaneously"Can you parse this and express, in your own word, what my argument is? It's only one sentence, this can't be too hard |
__________________
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, 09:44 AM | #614 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
The CD delusion believers will be upset when Hulsey visuals for the mathematical collapse model don't look like a the real collapse caused by fire.
Why are CD cult followers unable to provide evidence? 14 years, and they are stuck with BS. |
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein "... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK |
|
8th December 2015, 10:10 AM | #615 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 470
|
I addressed your post (read between the lines);
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=612 For your point to have any relevance with respect to WTC7, other than being a further exercise for your own amusement, it needs to represent a valid comparison. What your video shows is an implosive CD accomplished by terrible construction. The two front corners appear to have fallen in sync. The rear of the building cannot be seen, though initial backward tilt suggests that it was likely leading the collapse, hence the alternate corner, unlike the SW corner of WTC7, was not also falling in sync. Have fun using that example as your flagship case to prove the collapse of WTC7 could have been a natural event. |
8th December 2015, 12:40 PM | #616 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
You did not address the actual argument spelled out clearly in my words.
Can you spell it out on the lines? ("Can" as in "are you able to") What IS my point? Please say it in your own words, straight, courageous and honest, not cowardly and hidden "between the lines". I really want to determine if you are at least able to read and correctly parse a single sentence in English language: Holy crap, Criteria, did you not even understand your own words?!?!? http://www.internationalskeptics.com...9#post11019459 Can you quote the bit that tells you this was "implosive CD"? Do you not know what "CD" means? Because the Karaganda collapse was not CD - particularly not according to the info that YOU posted. Oh the rear was surely leading the collapse - just as the core was leading the WTC7 collapse. In both cases, progressive collape of the structure behind the facade led to the facade itself collapsing evenly and symmetrically. I am glad that you saw this, even tough you play dumb. |
__________________
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, 12:52 PM | #617 |
このマスクによっ
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
|
There is no qualifier for it. The only reason CD's have a set of known traits is that each case is studied and engineered to cause failures in just the right places so that the building comes down in a "controlled" manner - usually to avoid damage to other buildings and cause minimal disturbance to the surrounding area. Outside of the engineered intent, the initiating failure locations decide where the fall is symmetrical, asymmetrical, a mix of the two, and which direction the collapse progresses.
And whilst Criteria will bring up the fact that building 7 complied with codes at the time it was constructed, it was not operating that way when the towers collapsed and reaped havoc on all of the infrastructure and the building itself. The sprinklers were crippled, and the damage done by falling debris very likely compromised the fire separations inside the building to a degree allowing them to spread more easily. In all, a properly constructed building will ensure the proper evacuation and delay of collapse (of any degree) long enough to get people out. Most competent engineering will account for the expected things that can realistically happen in the life cycle of the building... Buildings code though don't have provisions that account for 110 story skyscrapers collapsing a few hundred feet away and the debris, and infrastructural damage that comes with. If Criteria would like to argue otherwise to any of that it is his prerogative but nothing I've seen posted has indicated anything other than that he can only associate building collapse scenarios with CD or "very poorly designed buildings". Engineers understand that properly design buildings will do what they're supposed to do, but it is not out of the question that any properly designed building can succumb if subjected to the correct circumstances irrespective of "CD", Fire, or otherwise. But the ones participating on behalf of the TM are making claims contrary to what their experience should tell them and they limit themselves to one and only one item. |
__________________
Current Set:http://i.imgur.com/IoqiUdK.jpg |
|
8th December 2015, 01:05 PM | #618 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
I was actually impressed with how far the building in the video leaned back before it failed. The main structure was not weak by any standards.
|
__________________
"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 |
|
8th December 2015, 01:48 PM | #619 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
Arrgh
Wifi is down so I am on a slow data link with my phone and youtube just won't launch. I understand that without explosive assistance a building with assymettric damage fell with corner to corner synchronicity. Do I understand correctly? |
8th December 2015, 02:05 PM | #620 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
|
|
8th December 2015, 02:09 PM | #621 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
A newly-built apartment complex in Karaganda, Russia: four of the eight 5-story buildings, all in a row with a continuous facade, were already leaning somewhat (not really obvious at the start of the video) due to problems and weaknesses described above.
Then, within less than 1 second, the entire roofline of the four buildings starts moving back and down. After 2-3 seconds, the supports low in the facade start breaking (again, within fractions of a second across the entire width), and within 5 seconds since first motion, the entire row of buildings is down. |
__________________
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, 03:03 PM | #622 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 470
|
|
8th December 2015, 03:06 PM | #623 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
You liked this post so much you posted it twice?
As to your point,, your characterization of what is being said is not correct. We can ascertain many things about the collapse. We cannot ascertain a lot of specifics though. WRT fire spread/duration computer sims for instance, the condition of room doors affects the results.( Open, closed , partially open ) That information is not known or knowable. The sim NIST used, as input data points, that the doors were all open. WRT your personal bugaboo, beam expansion and girder walk off, we can run calculations but it IS necessary to start with some assumptions such as that col 79 does not itself move. That no expansion of other nearby structure was taking place, that no cooling contraction of previously hot and deformed structure was taking place, that none of the more distant fires and impact damage was stressing structural components joining to either girder 44, or col 79 itself, how much did girder flange deform in the heat as the girder web approached the end of the seat. Those assumptions are all wrong in a binary yes/no sense, but they are more minor players. What can be determined is that beam expansion alone , with all other assumptions set to zero effect, could bring the girder close to total walk off. But this all pertains to the collapse sequence detail that is the most hidden from view. What did NIST do in getting down to that level? What forensic technique was employed? They began with what could be observed. 1) - EPH falls into a hole in the roof. --- They ran sims on building behaviour for several different column failures as to how the EPH would behave. ------Best fit to observables was col 79 failure 2)- Next observed are window and structural deformations that suggest col 79 failed low in the structure. 3)- Next observed was a extension of the rooftop crater and subsequent fall of more western rooftop structures. 4)- A vertical line of failure occurs described as a kink in the north face approximately in line with col 79. 5) - only after all floors along kink begin moving down, does the rest of the structure also move. So, now we know the sequence that led up to global collapse. The first visible sign in this sequence was the EPH falling, and best forensic fit for that is a failure of col 79. Other observation indicate a western progression from the location of column 79. Forensically the next step is to determine what factors were observed which could affect the steel support. Large area fires were burning and had been burning for hours, with no active suppression. Fire is a well known danger to structural integrity of steel. So, were any of the observed fires near col 79? Yes, the 12 the floor. This fits two items already forensically deduced, col 79 failure and its doing so relatively low in the building. Investigation of how much the direct heating of col 79 would affect its ability to withstand the expected load at this location determines that it is insufficient to directly fail col 79. Now did this heating have zero effect on the structural capability of col 79? No, just not enough to be a major issue, ie: "critical". Columns are also known to require Lateral Support to check long column instability. Forensically the next step is then to investigate the structure joining col 79. Here it is noted that the beams intersecting the major girder are assymettrically placed. Beams on one side do not have in line counterparts on the other side. Beam expansion on those orthogonal to the girder would not be opposed by beams on the other side. Investigation determines that a large amount of Lateral movement would bring the girder very close to full drop off from its seat on col 79. Other stresses on col 79 would, it is found, moved/deform col 79 in the opposite direction. Nowhere in this logical forensic sequence of investigation was any condition with no evidence utilised such as high explosives. |
8th December 2015, 03:20 PM | #624 |
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 |
|
8th December 2015, 03:25 PM | #625 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,214
|
|
8th December 2015, 03:38 PM | #626 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
|
|
8th December 2015, 03:55 PM | #627 |
The Clarity Is Devastating
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 20,891
|
Yep, another clear case of PFPHEC. That stands for Progressive Failure Propagating Horizontally Early in Collapse. I |
__________________
"*Except Myriad. Even Cthulhu would give him a pat on the head and an ice cream and send him to the movies while he ended the rest of the world." - Foster Zygote |
|
8th December 2015, 04:04 PM | #628 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
|
__________________
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, 04:26 PM | #629 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Tony Szamboti continues his practice of dishonest misrepresentation whenever he is faced by arguments he cannot rebut. Take this latest example - DGM asked gerrycan a simple question:
...which - with DGM's usual accuracy in getting straight to the key point - targets the Szamboti unsupported assumption which leaves his WTC claims unproven. So I responded: Tony is well aware of that false foundation - actually a missing foundation - with his "Girder Walk Off" "Arguments". I have advised him many times and he has not corrected his error. Once again he cannot respond so he misrepresents with this load of nonsense. I'll only comment on the main points of explicit overt untruth: 1 Outright deliberate untruth. Reality is that I have identified and advised Tony of the main error which leaves Tony's claim unproven - till he fixes the error. He continues to deny or evade the error. 2 Presumption - Tony is assuming errors with the NIST report which he has failed to prove and which are subject of the ongoing discussion. My assertion of fact - which he refuses to address - demonstrates that he has not proved his claim. 3 Three separate untruths - parse them for yourself. 4 True actually - but the implication that he correctly "discerns" is not true - and it is the same presumption of the same "truth" which he continues to fail to support by reasoned argument. Typical SOP/MO for Tony - predetermine his conclusion THEN pretends that he has proved it when he hasn't even got close. 5 Another triumvirate of self serving bits of dishonesty - parse them for yourself. 6 No claim of victory - I'm not claiming anything OTHER THAN pointing out the error under Tony's unproven claim. 7 "saying virtually nothing" is yet another Tony speak euphemism for "Gee I stuffed up again and I cannot respond to your argument." And the snide put down is like unto the probability of aqueous penetration of duck feathers. He knows they don't influence me - and better trolls than he have tried. For The Record - Status of ozeco v T Sz - his three big claims: 1) Missing Jolt I have both rebutted his claim AND on many occasions explained what really happened; 2) On his claims about "axial impact" same status; WHILST 3) With WTC7 I've left the detailed debate to others - content myself to demonstrate that his primary assumption is unproven. That is the one he continues to tell fibs about. |
8th December 2015, 08:02 PM | #630 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
8th December 2015, 09:02 PM | #631 |
Muse
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 694
|
|
__________________
Conspiracy theories are for morons, who like to feel they are smarter than everyone else… |
|
8th December 2015, 10:41 PM | #632 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
|
|
9th December 2015, 12:41 AM | #633 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
He dare not address what I actually have said - because if he does his house of cards claims re WTC7 will collapse. Just as I said in the post he misrepresents AND did not address.
Your summary is spot on - concise and accurate: That is the fantasy scenario he adopts - SOP for Tony - adopt a fantasy starting point scenario which pre-sets the predetermined conclusion of "CD". Never respond with reasoned argument and misrepresent, insult or personally attack those members who post reasoning which destroys his claims. He did the same with "Missing Jolt" AND with his false assertions about "axial contact" and the need for a massive horizontal force to make column ends miss. All utter nonsense as I and others have shown him many times. With WTC7 I decided long ago to not enter into the detailed debate because it is IMO an irrelevant waste of time when Tony cannot even support his claim with valid starting assumptions and scenarios. I am aware that many members have repeatedly shown him wrong in detail - so no point me entering the discussion at that detailed level. At least not until Tony decides to get serious. And that event will be preceded by porcine aeronautics IMO - and heralded by fanfares of trumpets. |
9th December 2015, 01:56 AM | #634 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
|
All I see you do is make unsubstantiated claims that you and others here have somehow refuted the points made showing the NIST WTC 7 report to be non-explanatory by saying we can't know what was happening in WTC 7.
There is actually nothing to address in what you have said and the "we will never know" mantra is generally the last bastion of a cover-up that is falling apart. |
9th December 2015, 02:25 AM | #635 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Repeating your untruths will fool no-one Tony. I wont waste effort parsing and responding to the 7 untruths in that brief bit of evasive dishonesty. (Sure astute members may identify more than 7 - no problem. My point still stands.)
We all know that you dare not address the technical explanations which prove you wrong. So I may as well repeat the process assertions which you also dare not address: ..prove me wrong on that one Tony - stop the process dishonesty of misrepresenting me and face up to the technical assertion that you have not proved that your base assumption for WTC7 is correct. And drop all the evasive BS - that ONE point is ALL I am holding you to at this stage. YOUR starting point is not proven. So cut the dodging and prove it. Your foundation premise for your WTC 7 nonsense claims is not proven Tony. When will you prove it? I doubt you can - BUT if you do we can them move on to the other dishonest claims you base on that dubious foundation. BUT - prove it first. |
9th December 2015, 02:37 AM | #636 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
Interesting this, coming from the man who also wrote:
Now, I think the highlighted bit is actually just another dishonesty - you have made quite specific claims already - and so I had devised a few questions for you, which everyone here can see you evading: [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
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti
Or don't you consider the "we cannot know" mantra to generally be the last bastion of a cover-up that is falling apart? |
__________________
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) |
|
9th December 2015, 07:44 AM | #637 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
Geez Tony, I posted a summary of the sequence of the forensic investigation that builds on what was known, aided by 100 years of fire science and structural engineering.
POINT IS that the deeper one goes the less precise the results of the calculations. THEREFORE if one gets results that show, for eg. , that the girder was moved by beam expansion alone to within an inch of full walk off, then its a good call to say that the girder/seat connection failed. As for not making claims: who was it again who states that col 79 was demo'd just a few floors below the rooftop in order to lower the CoG of the building? |
9th December 2015, 10:07 AM | #638 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,871
|
|
__________________
In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.There's a sucker born every minute-Barnum |
|
9th December 2015, 10:59 AM | #639 |
The Clarity Is Devastating
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 20,891
|
|
__________________
"*Except Myriad. Even Cthulhu would give him a pat on the head and an ice cream and send him to the movies while he ended the rest of the world." - Foster Zygote |
|
9th December 2015, 11:57 AM | #640 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|