|
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, 07:34 PM | #121 |
このマスクによっ
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
|
Well, I'm a big believer in 'never say never' notwithstanding, the historical data on material properties is very relevant to complex assemblies and assessments of their performance. It was sort of an important concept in college studies on basic design theory. Carry on.
|
__________________
Current Set:http://i.imgur.com/IoqiUdK.jpg |
|
24th November 2015, 08:01 PM | #122 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
|
24th November 2015, 08:06 PM | #123 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
Its obvious that fires existed in WTC7. Absent any other proven driver of damage it stands as the null hypothesis that "fire did it".
There is a paradigm in science, as in law, known as evidence. It may be direct or circumstantial. In this case at least "fire did it" has that circumstantial evidence. No other hypothesis has even that. Furthermore, visible, thus documentary evidence, demonstrates that the first visible sign of collapse was the hole in the roof. It also indicates that this is a failure of col79. NIST ran FEAs on a failure of col79 based on that documentary evidence. Those FEAs indicated that , yes, a col 79 failure could progress to global collapse. In an effort to go deeper into the sequence of collapse NIST took the documented circumstantial evidence of fires in the building into account. Because there is no other driver of damage in any sort of evidence. The most probable fire location that could affect col 79 was that on floor 12. You see, that is how a forensic investigation is done. By gathering evidence and, in many cases, working backwards from what is best known. You otoh, deem it significant to attack the furthest point from what was best known. You also choose deliberately, to not bother detailing any other hypothesis , with evidence of any sort. Why do you choose to follow this path? Because you chose to immediately disbelieve that "fire did it" even despite no evidence tomthe contrary. You are on a witch hunt, pure and simple. Thermite? Certainly in dispute. Fires, not so much. High explosives? Certainly no definitive evidence of them. Fires, well yes, quite definite they were in existence. So you might be advised not to go pooh-poohing "fire did it", advice I would lay bets you will not heed. |
24th November 2015, 08:10 PM | #124 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
|
Who do you think you are kidding? When you have to leave pertinent structural features out of your analysis, to try and make your hypothesis work, you don't have a viable hypothesis. This is what was done with the NIST WTC 7 report.
Additionally, NIST tried to stay away from it but ultimately had to admit to the free fall. It is nothing short of amazing that they have thus far been able to wiggle out of having to explain how it could have occurred in their proposed fire initiated collapse. |
24th November 2015, 08:15 PM | #125 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Posted in Error.
...thanks Gerrycan True comments - wrong building. |
24th November 2015, 08:18 PM | #126 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
24th November 2015, 08:18 PM | #127 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 344
|
The hung structure was WTC7 after WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed; after explosives had cut the stairwells a few floors below B.Jennings, after charges had demolished substantial portions of the lobby, after thermate had weakened core columns and possibly started fires throughout. That was the hung structure. This left the cut out teams approx six hours to either re-rig portions or fix unreacted ordinance.
|
24th November 2015, 08:24 PM | #128 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
|
24th November 2015, 08:29 PM | #129 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
So, according to you this happened while a dozen people were still on the third floor, or while firefighters were walking through WTC7, or while J&H were on the eight, or while firefighters were talking to J&H at the NE corner window, or while firefighters were rescuing J&H. All these people in and around a building that is having high explosives going off, and large thematic burns occurring yet no one noticed!! oh, except for Jennings, Hess says no explosion.
Not to mention, as I mentioned to TSz, while there IS evidence of multiple fires in WTC7, there isn't for high explosives or therm?te. |
24th November 2015, 08:36 PM | #130 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
|
24th November 2015, 08:38 PM | #131 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 344
|
Sure, no problem. The evidence abounds at the entire WTC complex (all buildings) that the demolitions were carried out in an ordered, but chronologically dispersed manner.
Column 79 failed in some way, woohoo. It might have been previously degraded, it might have been blown out right then, it might have buckled due to other factors (I doubt this, but welcome FEA). What column 79 unequivocally didn't do, was cause simultaneous failure across 8 floors worth of other support columns resulting in free fall acceleration of that portion of the building. That required synchronized detonation, which even a casual observer can see occurring along the western edge of the north wall. |
24th November 2015, 08:42 PM | #132 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 344
|
|
24th November 2015, 08:52 PM | #133 |
このマスクによっ
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
|
Why would it not? If you show beyond a reasonable doubt they did falter seriously I'm willing to entertain the idea. But if you're going to argue that this leads to some degree of a controlled demolition conclusion, you'll have to elaborate both how the NIST's alleged negligence is linked to that and what supports that alternative conclusion. Tony's suggestions that no building has ever collapsed before doesn't cut it in either case... and to take it further the entire reason his point is a fallacy is because quite literally if nothing ever happened for the first time we'd still be in the stone age.
If you want the nerdy Architect's reasoning, his "first in history" argument fails on the grounds that you can't treat any one particular design the same, because virtually every structure in the built environment has a difference that limits how far you can go with direct comparisons. You literally have to know about the specific case you're dealing with to draw an appropriate assessment. The only feature buildings share in common is that they are built using materials that have been studied, but those areas of commonality have to be applied accordingly - something his fallacy also omits. Of course if you beg to differ you may want to explain why. |
__________________
Current Set:http://i.imgur.com/IoqiUdK.jpg |
|
24th November 2015, 09:00 PM | #134 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
What you call evidence is actually "opinion". That plus a few dollars will buy you a cup of coffee.
Quote:
Quote:
Column 79 fails, debris from 40+ floors and the mechanical penthouse comes down, floors are failing. Lower structure, transfer trusses fail, north side of core is now without its eastern anchor structures and the columns along the core fail. The now overloaded columns of the original Con-Ed building fail. This is pretty much what the FEA of collapse illustrates. You know the FEA that AE911T is deathly afraid of carrying out themselves.
Quote:
|
24th November 2015, 10:10 PM | #135 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,557
|
Quote:
Thanks! Lots of my friends and family say I missed my calling by not becoming a lawyer. But it seems that even TSz concedes that the immediate cause of the collapse of the East Penthouse is the failure of column 79, whether by failure initiated at the lower levels, again for whatever reason, or at at one of the top storeys of WTC 7, even if done by invisible, silent high explosives! That's Conspiracy super-competence! How could they ever have planned that long in advance? How did they even know WTC 7 would be hit by flaming debris? |
24th November 2015, 10:16 PM | #136 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
24th November 2015, 11:12 PM | #137 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
|
|
24th November 2015, 11:13 PM | #138 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,092
|
|
25th November 2015, 12:31 AM | #139 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
Gerrycan/Tonysz, this is a bit off topic for this thread. Assuming you are in contact with Richard Gage and AE911truth. Please can you confirm if Ziggi Zigum is acting on behalf of AE911truth with the Mark Basile "independent study"
It would be nice to get some clarity as to what is actually going on. |
25th November 2015, 12:32 AM | #140 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
That sounds like a sophist trick.
The design of course recognized that it was NOT a corner column at all. This was perhaps the case before WTC1 smashed into 7 and fires had raged for hours. I hope you don't mean to pretend that, after all that accumulated damage, such design figures were still applicable. I asked you to direct me to the subsection of the NIST report that explains such juggling. I ask again. Perhaps NIST provides good reasons, and by not directing me to that subsection, you hope to keep me from discovering the good reasons? |
__________________
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) |
|
25th November 2015, 12:53 AM | #141 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
|
|
25th November 2015, 01:28 AM | #142 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
Care to write an actual question?
Column 79 was not a corner column at all - it had bracing from all four sides (although only indirectly from the east). What's to question there? The southwest corner wasn't the only bit impacted and damaged when WTC1 fell. And you ignore the accumulated fire damage. Thanks. Later. |
__________________
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) |
|
25th November 2015, 03:22 AM | #143 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,232
|
That is a uninformed statement. Once the collapse was "progressing" any column above... that the coupling to the foundation was destroyed could not function as a column. It was simply falling and this would be MOST of the columns and they came apart at their joints from the dynamic load shearing those joints.
Only the columns which buckled or were misaligned can be thought of as failing... that is the were completely or partially coupled but there was inadequate capacity of the to carry axial loads. The WTC spire columns collapsed, breaking at their joints from Euler forces and from swaying which fractured the splices. |
25th November 2015, 03:30 AM | #144 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,232
|
That's an inaccurate description of what happened. There was a local collapse low in the tower in the NE region (interior) which propagated westward. As it did everything above collapsed down... leaving the moment frame of the exterior no support which then torqued, twisted, rotated and dropped. The proximate cause of it dropping was that all the support below it from the ground to floor 8 had collapsed as a result of the core down there pulling the perimeter columns inward. There were braced frames (trusses) on the east and west... an 8 columns on the north which were supported on the ends of cantilevers at floor 8. The lobby on the south spanned the entire width and was unbraced laterally for 5 stories. When axially coupling to the foundation was destroyed the facade dropped 8 stories with nothing to resist its descent.
|
25th November 2015, 09:13 AM | #145 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
25th November 2015, 09:22 AM | #146 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
For years now I have been preaching and proselytizing for a theory whereby platoons of midgets cut the columns with saws.
My evidence: Midgets exist, saws exist, steel can be sawed, midgets can saw. So disprove my theory! It is at least as plausible as the nanothermite theory! I never made any disciples, though. Needless to say, that leaves me feeling disappointed and slightly envious. |
__________________
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) |
|
25th November 2015, 09:40 AM | #147 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,092
|
Au contraire! It's a movement that's -- er -- growing bigger ever day, thanks to discovering the all-important qui bono question:
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=679705
Originally Posted by Flex500
|
25th November 2015, 09:55 AM | #148 |
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 |
|
25th November 2015, 10:00 AM | #149 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,092
|
|
25th November 2015, 10:11 AM | #150 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
WRONG - not really but your self assement is far too pessimistic.
Your hypothesis (not "theory") is more plausible than thermXte. Each of your four factors is demonstrably TRUE. Contrast with thermXte where each of the key factors is FALSE ThermXte was not present, steel was not cut by thermXte, there was no CD anyway. AND your logic combining the factors is no less valid than the logic for thermXte. THEREFORE your midgets hypothesis is far better than any thermXte hypothesis. Your situation is sad - nearly as sad as mine. My "Santa's Custard" hypothesis is based on both sound facts and irrefutable reasoning - must be - I developed the reasoned arguments. And I've also failed to attract proselytes to the cause. "A prophet is not without honour except....." |
25th November 2015, 10:18 AM | #151 |
Muse
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 634
|
Don't mean to spoil the fun but I don't think 'midget' is the preferred term nowadays, and joking about people with dwarfism is puerile.
Just my 2 cents. Not telling people what to do. |
25th November 2015, 10:24 AM | #152 |
Muse
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 694
|
I see our unlicensed mechanical engineer is still at at...
|
__________________
Conspiracy theories are for morons, who like to feel they are smarter than everyone else… |
|
25th November 2015, 10:28 AM | #153 |
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 |
|
25th November 2015, 10:45 AM | #154 |
Muse
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 634
|
|
25th November 2015, 10:52 AM | #155 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
I feel even worse now, seeing how this was revealed years before I even joined the NWO's 9/11 Disinfo Section. Why did nobody brief me on the confessions made in 2006??
Bulldozers are not known to swim particularly gracefully (Nor are bulldozer drivers known to look graceful in one-piece swimsuits) Okay okay - platoons of vertically challenged citizens with saws. Satisfied now? Well, I don't claim that midg... urrr vertically challenged people were present, merely that they exist! However, the chance of finding mortal remains of vertically challenged people in the rubble must be considered vastly greater than the chance of finding nanotherm... urrrr evidentiary challenged dust specimens. |
__________________
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) |
|
25th November 2015, 10:56 AM | #156 |
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) |
|
25th November 2015, 10:59 AM | #157 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,092
|
|
25th November 2015, 11:02 AM | #158 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
There was no testing for Custard. How can anyone assert that it wasn't Santa's custard when there were no tests performed?
I can understand that many of his fans would want to protect R Reindeer's reputation - he was the one who stumbled causing the custard spillage. Possibly due to over indulgence in the brandy sauce from the Xmas Pud*. BUT scientific rigour MUST take priority over any possible embarrassment to Rudolph. We demand a new investigation which must include tests for custard. * UK idiomatic usage - translation available on request. |
25th November 2015, 11:05 AM | #159 |
Muse
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 634
|
|
25th November 2015, 11:07 AM | #160 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
I was also concerned about the gender bias.
It sneaks in quite often - should references to "BS" be replaced by "CS"? OR is there a valid explanation that Cows do not spout nonsense and untruths whilst Bulls do? I'm not aware of any single example of female cattle demanding equality of treatment. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|