ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


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.
Tags ae911truth , J. Leroy Hulsey , wtc 7

Reply
Old 7th December 2015, 08:53 PM   #561
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
You are looking at it with too narrow of a focus. The NIST did not claim any of these were a singular cause. They never present this as a case. If they did show where they did.
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?
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 08:57 PM   #562
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,709
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
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?
Are you arguing it was not a critical factor? You do know that a "factor" does not imply sole cause? I don't see a specific distance noted.

Try again...........
__________________
"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

Last edited by DGM; 7th December 2015 at 08:58 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 09:08 PM   #563
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,843
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
What context do you claim I am ignoring?
That failure of col 79 and collapse due to fire is not dependant on NIST's "most probable" scenario of girder walk off being correct.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 09:12 PM   #564
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Are you arguing it was not a critical factor? You do know that a "factor" does not imply sole cause? I don't see a specific distance noted.

Try again...........
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 6.25 5.5 in. along the axis of the beam and 5.5 6.25 in. lateral to the beam"

"The bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 12 in. wide. Thus, when the girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5 6.25 in., it was no longer supported by the bearing seat"
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 09:13 PM   #565
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
That failure of col 79 and collapse due to fire is not dependant on NIST's "most probable" scenario of girder walk off being correct.
I agree. But they still said that it did fail and it was pushed by the beams. That should be easy to replicate in an FEA should it not?
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 09:16 PM   #566
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,709
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
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 6.25 5.5 in. along the axis of the beam and 5.5 6.25 in. lateral to the beam"

"The bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 12 in. wide. Thus, when the girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5 6.25 in., it was no longer supported by the bearing seat"
And you claim this was the sole cause, this point in isolation. The NIST does not claim this as the sole cause. You do know what the word "factor" means?
__________________
"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
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 09:18 PM   #567
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
And you claim this was the sole cause, this point in isolation. The NIST does not claim this as the sole cause. You do know what the word "factor" means?
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."

Last edited by gerrycan; 7th December 2015 at 09:19 PM.
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 09:20 PM   #568
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,709
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
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."
I can read, I can also comprehend. Where did they say it was that one element and that one only?
__________________
"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
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 09:22 PM   #569
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I can read, I can also comprehend. Where did they say it was that one element and that one only?
Shyam Sunder. NISTs lead investigator said it was CRITICAL.
That means that without it there would have been no collapse as per NISTs hypothesis.
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 09:24 PM   #570
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,843
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
I agree. But they still said that it did fail and it was pushed by the beams. That should be easy to replicate in an FEA should it not?
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?

Last edited by jaydeehess; 7th December 2015 at 09:28 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 09:26 PM   #571
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,843
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Shyam Sunder. NISTs lead investigator said it was CRITICAL.
That means that without it there would have been no collapse as per NISTs hypothesis.
If it changed the relative location of the girder and seat by 5 inches and other factors contributed 2 inches, tell me which of these would be described properly as "critical"?
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 09:26 PM   #572
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
If strict expansion alonbe 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?
Yeah that's a great idea. Go do it and let's see the results.
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 09:27 PM   #573
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,709
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Shyam Sunder. NISTs lead investigator said it was CRITICAL.
That means that without it there would have been no collapse as per NISTs hypothesis.
Yes he did. He also did not specify which connection or a specific element. He saw the problem as a whole, something you fail to 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
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 09:29 PM   #574
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,843
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Yeah that's a great idea. Go do it and let's see the results.
You must have missed that first word in my above post.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 09:31 PM   #575
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,843
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
........
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?
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Yeah that's a great idea. Go do it and let's see the results.
No answer?
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 09:31 PM   #576
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
If it changed the relative location of the girder and seat by 5 inches and other factors contributed 2 inches, tell me which of these would be described properly as "critical"?
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.
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 09:34 PM   #577
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Yes he did. He also did not specify which connection or a specific element. He saw the problem as a whole, something you fail to do.
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 ?

Edited by Locknar:  Please let Otto does his job; do not attempt to by-pass him by partially masking profanity (rule 10).

Last edited by Locknar; 8th December 2015 at 06:12 AM.
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 09:34 PM   #578
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,709
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
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 09:39 PM   #579
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
gerrycan:

Simple question, was the rest of the building pristine in your opinion (or the NIST's)? A simple yes or no will do.
No.
Now your turn. Which specific connection were NISt talking about when they referred to thermal expansion in the erratum statement?

Last edited by gerrycan; 7th December 2015 at 09:40 PM.
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 09:40 PM   #580
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,709
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
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 ?
Edited by Locknar:  Moderated content removed.
I'm not falling for your desperate edits.......
__________________
"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

Last edited by Locknar; 8th December 2015 at 06:13 AM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 09:45 PM   #581
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,709
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
No.
Good, so what was the seat to seat distance at the time of failure on 9/11? Would that be controlled by only one element or maybe influenced by some others?
__________________
"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
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 09:45 PM   #582
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I'm not falling for your desperate edits.......
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.
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 09:47 PM   #583
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,843
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
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.
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?
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 09:49 PM   #584
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Good, so what was the seat to seat distance at the time of failure on 9/11? Would that be controlled by only one element or maybe influenced by some others?
On the day I suppose you could argue that it could.
However, it failed in NISTs model and that is actually the point, because those conditions are stated and therefor can be replicated.
The girder doesn't fail.
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 09:50 PM   #585
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,709
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
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.
Sorry but, you're wrong. You really need to learn to read for comprehension. Or actuyally read the reports.
__________________
"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
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 09:52 PM   #586
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
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?
NIST state that thermal expansion is "critical".
As for your remove column 79 idea, don't you think that Astaneh and the rest of them in Edinburgh did this already ??
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 09:52 PM   #587
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,843
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
On the day I suppose you could argue that it could.
However, it failed in NISTs model and that is actually the point, because those conditions are stated and therefor can be replicated.
The girder doesn't fail.
It doesn't bother me whether one calculation shows beam expansion alone is sufficient to effect walk off while someone else's show it cannot quote do so.

Why does it get your panties in such s bunch?
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 09:53 PM   #588
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Sorry but, you're wrong. You really need to learn to read for comprehension. Or actuyally read the reports.
Look, I have given you quotes from NISTs lead investigator stating the elements and distances. Maybe you should return once you have decided just what it is you believe about WTC7.
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 09:55 PM   #589
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,709
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
On the day I suppose you could argue that it could.
However, it failed in NISTs model and that is actually the point, because those conditions are stated and therefor can be replicated.
The girder doesn't fail.
So you have no problem with it in reality but argue it in model? The NIST did not model that connection in isolation.

It's late, good night.................
__________________
"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
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 09:55 PM   #590
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
It doesn't bother me whether one calculation shows beam expansion alone is sufficient to effect walk off while someone else's show it cannot quote do so.

Why does it get your panties in such s bunch?
It failed in their model. So if there were any other factors involved, don't you think that NIST would have mentioned them. If not initially, then as part of their erratum statement?
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 10:00 PM   #591
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
So you have no problem with it in reality but argue it in model? The NIST did not model that connection in isolation.

It's late, good night.................
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.
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 10:00 PM   #592
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,843
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
NIST state that thermal expansion is "critical".
As for your remove column 79 idea, don't you think that Astaneh and the rest of them in Edinburgh did this already ??
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?
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 10:01 PM   #593
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,843
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
It failed in their model. So if there were any other factors involved, don't you think that NIST would have mentioned them. If not initially, then as part of their erratum statement?
They did mention one other factor.
You did not answer my inquiry.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 10:05 PM   #594
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,843
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
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.
Will that upcoming FEA look for other possible contributing factors to changes in relative locations of girder and col seat? If not why not?

Is proving a strawman point that important?

Late,,,, bon nuit.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 10:09 PM   #595
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
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?
No. Would you say that a pass mark of at least 33% in your main exam was critical ?
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 10:52 PM   #596
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,800
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Are you ******* kidding? Seriously ???
Edited by Locknar:  Moderated content removed.
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...
__________________

Last edited by Locknar; 8th December 2015 at 06:14 AM.
Grizzly Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 11:36 PM   #597
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post
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...
Stop humping other people's strawmen and find one of your own.

I never said sole cause - you and your buddy did.

As for knowing which beam # snapped where in the model, you will find that it is well documented and available.
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2015, 12:26 AM   #598
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,706
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:
First, the central core in WTC 7 contained 24 columns.

Second, there isn't a need for five charges per story section. Two would work just fine.

So 24 x 8 x 2 = 384 charges. That doesn't sound like much of an issue.
if you now pretend you can't give any such answers? Were you trying to bamboozle us by pretending you have a theory?
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2015, 12:28 AM   #599
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,514
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Do you genuinely support that arse about and quote mined reasoning or are you simply trying to support T Szamboti's nonsense?

Put the issue in context - top down - and all factors NOT starting with a predetermined outcome and working upwards from partial details - ignoring inconvenient truth's and including only those details which support the false conclusion.
Just to confirm. You are talking about what happened in NISTs model here eh?
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.

Last edited by ozeco41; 8th December 2015 at 12:36 AM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2015, 12:31 AM   #600
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,514
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
if you now pretend you can't give any such answers? Were you trying to bamboozle us by pretending you have a theory?

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.

Last edited by ozeco41; 8th December 2015 at 12:34 AM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:39 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.