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.
Reply
Old 6th January 2017, 01:22 AM   #1
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Can the Weidlinger WTC 7 report replace the NIST WTC 7 report?

The NIST WTC 7 report has been shown to be invalid due to the omission, distortion, or ignoring of pertinent structural features which would have precluded its claimed failure initiation mechanisms. It has also been shown that its alleged floor cascade could not have occurred due to a paucity of impact force required to shear the seat of the girder below if a girder had fallen from the 13th floor in the northeast corner of the building.

The ARUP experts report, done for the plaintiffs in the Aegis Insurance Co. v. WTC 7 Properties court case, suffers from the same paucity of impact force required to shear the seat of the girder below. This is true even if the girder below was heated to 500 C (932 F), as claimed in the NIST WTC 7 report.

The report done by Weidlinger Associates, for the defendants in the Aegis Insurance Co. v. WTC 7 Properties case, claims that while the ARUP case for floor cascade cannot occur at 500 C (932 F) it could occur if the steel framing of the floor below was extremely hot, such as in the 800 C (1,472 F) range. The report references a thermal analysis done in 2010 by Craig Beyler of Hughes Associates. The problem is that the Weidlinger report was never entered into the court record, and while it has been made public, the thermal analysis on which it depends for its conclusions has not. It thus appears that the extraordinary steel temperatures claimed in the Weidlinger report are essentially unsupported. This would preclude the Weidlinger report from being considered a valid replacement for the now discredited NIST WTC 7 report, at least until the thermal analysis it depends on for its conclusions has been made public and shown to be valid itself.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 6th January 2017 at 02:17 AM.
Tony Szamboti 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 6th January 2017, 01:39 AM   #2
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 17,814
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
........has been shown to be invalid due to the omission, distortion, or ignoring of pertinent structural features.....
Hasn't stopped you posting spurious claims for the last god knows how many years.
__________________
After a while you can work on points for style
Like the club tie, and the firm handshake,
A certain look in the eye and an easy smile
MikeG 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 6th January 2017, 02:57 AM   #3
Reactor drone
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,058
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
This is true even if the girder below was heated to 500 C (932 F), as claimed in the NIST WTC 7 report.
The NIST model had some girders over 650C
Reactor drone 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 6th January 2017, 03:39 AM   #4
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by Reactor drone View Post
The NIST model had some girders over 650C
Not those claimed to have been involved in the alleged floor cascade. One needs to be specific in these matters.

I would also bet you are thinking about the smaller and lighter beams framing into girders, and not the larger and more massive girders. The mass of an item, such as steel structural members above a fire, matters when talking about the energy required to heat it to a specific temperature and the time at specific external gas and flame temperatures required to heat it by convection, radiation, and conduction to a specific internal temperature.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 6th January 2017 at 04:34 AM.
Tony Szamboti 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 6th January 2017, 05:26 AM   #5
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,686
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Not those claimed to have been involved in the alleged floor cascade. One needs to be specific in these matters.

I would also bet you are thinking about the smaller and lighter beams framing into girders, and not the larger and more massive girders. The mass of an item, such as steel structural members above a fire, matters when talking about the energy required to heat it to a specific temperature and the time at specific external gas and flame temperatures required to heat it by convection, radiation, and conduction to a specific internal temperature.
NIST temperatures are easy to teach in the type of large surface area stack effect fires,
That were seen in building 7.

It is the surface area of the fires and the generation of flow transportable solids and gases that will cause high temperatures when ignited on a hot surface, in the presence of an oxygant.

If you had read the studies I posted in the other thread you would already know that.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 6th January 2017, 05:29 AM   #6
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,686
Sorry I ment to say Weidlinger temperatures, not NIST early in the morning no coffee yet.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 6th January 2017, 05:46 AM   #7
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,204
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The NIST WTC 7 report has been shown to be invalid
No it has not. Even if your claim that their probable (hint! hint!) collapse sequence had errors were correct, the rest of the report would still stand, as it hasn't been shown to be invalid.

So, at worst it would be a problem of NIST having made one or two building safety recommendations that are not fully justified. We don't need any new investigation to amend that, as the recommendations are sane and reasonable anyway, and they are not laws so constructors are free to ignore them.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno 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 6th January 2017, 06:08 AM   #8
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,686
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
No it has not. Even if your claim that their probable (hint! hint!) collapse sequence had errors were correct, the rest of the report would still stand, as it hasn't been shown to be invalid.

So, at worst it would be a problem of NIST having made one or two building safety recommendations that are not fully justified. We don't need any new investigation to amend that, as the recommendations are sane and reasonable anyway, and they are not laws so constructors are free to ignore them.
Plus the NIST investigation was never ment to be a criminal investigation, only a structural academic investigation to determine probable cause of failure.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 6th January 2017, 06:23 AM   #9
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,108
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The NIST WTC 7 report has been shown to be invalid due to the omission, distortion, or ignoring of pertinent structural features which would have precluded its claimed failure initiation mechanisms. It has also been shown that its alleged floor cascade could not have occurred due to a paucity of impact force required to shear the seat of the girder below if a girder had fallen from the 13th floor in the northeast corner of the building.

The ARUP experts report, done for the plaintiffs in the Aegis Insurance Co. v. WTC 7 Properties court case, suffers from the same paucity of impact force required to shear the seat of the girder below. This is true even if the girder below was heated to 500 C (932 F), as claimed in the NIST WTC 7 report.

The report done by Weidlinger Associates, for the defendants in the Aegis Insurance Co. v. WTC 7 Properties case, claims that while the ARUP case for floor cascade cannot occur at 500 C (932 F) it could occur if the steel framing of the floor below was extremely hot, such as in the 800 C (1,472 F) range. The report references a thermal analysis done in 2010 by Craig Beyler of Hughes Associates. The problem is that the Weidlinger report was never entered into the court record, and while it has been made public, the thermal analysis on which it depends for its conclusions has not. It thus appears that the extraordinary steel temperatures claimed in the Weidlinger report are essentially unsupported. This would preclude the Weidlinger report from being considered a valid replacement for the now discredited NIST WTC 7 report, at least until the thermal analysis it depends on for its conclusions has been made public and shown to be valid itself.
What does any of this have to do with 9/11 Conspiracy theories? If you don't think unfought fires and damage brought the building down, what did?

Please be specific and provide evidence along with a coherent explanation that ties together the events of that day. I mean you've been asked this several times on this forum and the fact you continue to dodge these questions is very telling.
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag
ProBonoShill 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 6th January 2017, 06:38 AM   #10
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,024
And here we go again,...
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F 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 6th January 2017, 06:50 AM   #11
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,686
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
And here we go again,...
I am still waiting for his nessisary experimental evidence to prove his claim.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 6th January 2017, 06:58 AM   #12
Sceptic-PK
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,569
Jeez, this is even worse than your last poem.
Sceptic-PK 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 6th January 2017, 07:57 AM   #13
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,755
Quote:
Can the Weidlinger WTC 7 report replace the NIST WTC 7 report?
False Dichotomy

While you wish to invalidate any and all reports on WTC 7 due to details around the initial failure, the fact remains that all reports identify fire as the cause of initial failures which then lead to progressive global collapse.

In fact positively identifying the first major failure is impractical. The reports attempt to find a "probable" initiating event within the constraints of known factors. Absolutely, positively identifying the first major failure initiating global collapse sequence is NOT required.

BECAUSE

The absolute simple TRUTH of the matter is that there is NO other identifiable driver of initial failures other than impact damage, which was determined to not be extensive enough to directly cause an initial failure in the global collapse progression, or fire.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 6th January 2017 at 08:01 AM.
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 6th January 2017, 08:24 AM   #14
FFTR
Student
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 44
No, NIST report is not invalid. If anything AE911T reports are invalid "due to the omission, distortion, or ignoring of pertinent" data.

NIST made it quite clear it was a "probable" explanation. Tony, when can we expect to see the concise detailed report on how WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition? You keep ignoring the question.

Where would charges need to be placed to produce the results we have seen regarding WTC7?
FFTR 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 6th January 2017, 08:29 AM   #15
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,755
Originally Posted by FFTR View Post
No, NIST report is not invalid. If anything AE911T reports are invalid "due to the omission, distortion, or ignoring of pertinent" data.
By that you mean the utter omission of producing any competing report?
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 6th January 2017, 09:28 AM   #16
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,855
I do not bother reading the OP - the thread title suffices, for it is stupid.

Tony asks: "Can the Weidlinger WTC 7 report replace the NIST WTC 7 report?"

The answer is: Of course not!

The reason for the answer is simple, easy, and it boggles the mind why Tony is not perfectly aware of it: The reports served completely different purposes.


However, it is rather obvious that both reports, as well as the studies by ARUP, FEMA and others, augment the growing understanding of building performance.
__________________
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 6th January 2017, 09:33 AM   #17
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,686
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
By that you mean the utter omission of producing any competing report?
Tony needs to take this before a congressional panel, and testify under oath, that he is doing competent forensic engineering, when they let him out of what ever hole they put him in in a few years he can come back and tell US all about the adventure standing up for justice!
Crazy Chainsaw 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 6th January 2017, 09:37 AM   #18
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 23,420
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I do not bother reading the OP - the thread title suffices,
...or, indeed, the identity of the thread starter, as this identifies beyond doubt the intended strategy of the thread.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 6th January 2017, 09:37 AM   #19
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 16,376
This will end well
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped 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 6th January 2017, 09:38 AM   #20
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 23,420
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
This will end well
You think it'll end?

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 6th January 2017, 09:47 AM   #21
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,686
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
You think it'll end?

Dave
With a truther like Tony, who makes a claim, then posts links debunking said claim in
The same post why would you want it too end?
He always is good for a laugh.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 6th January 2017, 09:56 AM   #22
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,024
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
I am still waiting for his nessisary experimental evidence to prove his claim.
Doesn't matter.

Tony can claim these reports are false and he's the only person who has figured it out (without evidence) all he wants.

Even without any of those reports the only extant possible culprit for the loss of 7 WTC is fire. Any amount of chasing tiny unprovable details in any of these reports doesn't change what has already happened.

Time for Tony to start displaying some honesty and make an affirmative, prima facie case for CD since we know he doesn't give a flying flea about fire safety. Anything short of that is not worth discussing. Continuing the discussion just gives Tony exactly what he wants and removes his obligation to do what he actually needs to do.

Don't indulge him.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F 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 6th January 2017, 10:08 AM   #23
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,755
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
Time for Tony to start displaying some honesty and make an affirmative, prima facie case for CD since we know he doesn't give a flying flea about fire safety.
Oh I think Tony does have some concern for fire safety. In the case of the WTC structures though, it runs a very distant second to furthering his political world view motivated agenda.
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 6th January 2017, 10:13 AM   #24
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,663
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The NIST WTC 7 report has been shown to be invalid due to the omission, distortion, or ignoring of pertinent structural features. ...
By who? Nobody. The big lie of 9/11 truth, use bash NIST and all rational studies, and back in the fantasy of CD, the inside job.

Got some evidence for the CD, No, you are stuck with bashing studies. How does bashing NIST and other studies help support the lie of CD based on a paranoid fantasy.

Why would an engineer resort to this behavior for a fantasy of CD? To get on CNN? Are we shills for the NWO?
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut 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 6th January 2017, 10:16 AM   #25
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 19,850
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The NIST WTC 7 report has been shown to be invalid due to the omission, distortion, or ignoring of pertinent structural features which would have precluded its claimed failure initiation mechanisms. It has also been shown that its alleged floor cascade could not have occurred due to a paucity of impact force required to shear the seat of the girder below if a girder had fallen from the 13th floor in the northeast corner of the building.

The ARUP experts report, done for the plaintiffs in the Aegis Insurance Co. v. WTC 7 Properties court case, suffers from the same paucity of impact force required to shear the seat of the girder below. This is true even if the girder below was heated to 500 C (932 F), as claimed in the NIST WTC 7 report.

The report done by Weidlinger Associates, for the defendants in the Aegis Insurance Co. v. WTC 7 Properties case, claims that while the ARUP case for floor cascade cannot occur at 500 C (932 F) it could occur if the steel framing of the floor below was extremely hot, such as in the 800 C (1,472 F) range. The report references a thermal analysis done in 2010 by Craig Beyler of Hughes Associates. The problem is that the Weidlinger report was never entered into the court record, and while it has been made public, the thermal analysis on which it depends for its conclusions has not. It thus appears that the extraordinary steel temperatures claimed in the Weidlinger report are essentially unsupported. This would preclude the Weidlinger report from being considered a valid replacement for the now discredited NIST WTC 7 report, at least until the thermal analysis it depends on for its conclusions has been made public and shown to be valid itself.
Time to first lie - first sentence.

Welcome back!

__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence is online now   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 6th January 2017, 10:24 AM   #26
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 23,420
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
Even without any of those reports the only extant possible culprit for the loss of 7 WTC is fire. Any amount of chasing tiny unprovable details in any of these reports doesn't change what has already happened.
Quite. Since Tony abandoned the affirmative proof strategy embodied in the Missing Jolt nonsense - possibly because on some level he's realized it's nonsense, but more likely because for some unfathomable reason the world has failed to acknowledge his genius on this specific occasion so he needs to demonstrate it some other way - he's focused on a mixture of affirming the consequent, reversal of the burden of proof, appeal to incredulity, well-poisoning, and proof by assertion, to say that he doesn't believe certain temperatures could be reached therefore they weren't, that his expertise on this as an engineer over-rides anyone else's whatever their qualifications, that this demonstrates that none of the WTC reports are valid, that if none of them are valid then the collapse can only have been due to explosives, and that anybody disagreeing this is both an idiot and a paid disinformation agent. It's a heady cocktail of fallacies, and I think we all find it very entertaining.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right

Last edited by Dave Rogers; 6th January 2017 at 10:25 AM. Reason: It really needed an Oxford comma.
Dave Rogers 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 6th January 2017, 10:44 AM   #27
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,755
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Quite. Since Tony abandoned the affirmative proof strategy embodied in the Missing Jolt nonsense.......he needs to demonstrate it some other way - he's focused on a mixture of affirming the consequent, reversal of the burden of proof, appeal to incredulity, well-poisoning, and proof by assertion, to say that he doesn't believe certain temperatures could be reached therefore they weren't, that his expertise on this as an engineer over-rides anyone else's whatever their qualifications, that this demonstrates that none of the WTC reports are valid, that if none of them are valid then the collapse can only have been due to explosives, and that anybody disagreeing this is both an idiot and a paid disinformation agent........

Dave
That's a good, concise summary
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 6th January 2017, 10:44 AM   #28
benthamitemetric
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 432
Now that you've had a week off to re-read things and think them through, do you still want to defend Korol's clearly erroneous heating theory as an alternative to NIST's and WAI's, or are we beyond that and you just want to understand how and why NIST and WAI wound up with different outcomes given their different assumptions about unknowable variables?

The latter conversation is one that we've also already had (scroll down for the whole back-and-forth), by the way.

Last edited by benthamitemetric; 6th January 2017 at 10:45 AM.
benthamitemetric 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 6th January 2017, 10:45 AM   #29
FFTR
Student
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 44
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
By that you mean the utter omission of producing any competing report?
Pretty much. I have asked Tony numerous times to point to a site that has a detailed CD report. The non response means non exists.

If it was CD, I would like to know where the charges would have to be placed to provide the collapse that happened. What type of charges used, how they survived the fires, etc. Of course all of this would have to be backed with evidence.

One truther on another site came back with an answer of the charges would be placed where NIST stated the building failed. Yet, no evidence of explosives, etc was presented. It was laughable.
FFTR 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 6th January 2017, 10:47 AM   #30
FFTR
Student
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 44
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Oh I think Tony does have some concern for fire safety. In the case of the WTC structures though, it runs a very distant second to furthering his political world view motivated agenda.
Why would he have any concerns regarding fire safety? According to Tony, WTC7 was brought down by CD. I have asked him what safety rules need to be developed to stop future buildings from being demolished by CD. No reply.
FFTR 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 6th January 2017, 10:54 AM   #31
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 14,445
Can tomatoes replace coffee?
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)
LSSBB 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 6th January 2017, 11:05 AM   #32
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,024
Originally Posted by FFTR View Post
One truther on another site came back with an answer of the charges would be placed where NIST stated the building failed. Yet, no evidence of explosives, etc was presented. It was laughable.
Yet CT's often claim either Col. 79 did not fail or its failure would not have resulted in the collapse of the building
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F 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 6th January 2017, 12:38 PM   #33
traxy
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 135
Why would one "replace" the other? Why wouldn't you gather all of the available studies (NIST, FEMA, ARUP, Weidlinger and the Aegis reports) and use them as an amalgamation of information?
traxy 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 6th January 2017, 01:08 PM   #34
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,755
Originally Posted by FFTR View Post
One truther on another site came back with an answer of the charges would be placed where NIST stated the building failed. Yet, no evidence of explosives, etc was presented. It was laughable.
I have often stated that the truth movement would have been better served to claim something like that.
However Tony is an example of the common truther in the regard that he will not allow NIST to be correct about much of anything beyond the date and time of the events. It just goes against his very soul.

It's "the gov't lies, so anything at all that the a gov't agency puts out is lies all the way down"
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 6th January 2017, 01:23 PM   #35
skyeagle409
Graduate Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,561
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
ders. The mass of an item, such as steel structural members above a fire, matters when talking about the energy required to heat it to a specific temperature and the time at specific external gas and flame temperatures required to heat it by convection, radiation, and conduction to a specific internal temperature.

Let's take a look at what fire did to WTC structural steel.







Last edited by skyeagle409; 6th January 2017 at 01:41 PM.
skyeagle409 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 6th January 2017, 01:56 PM   #36
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,024
Originally Posted by traxy View Post
Why would one "replace" the other? Why wouldn't you gather all of the available studies (NIST, FEMA, ARUP, Weidlinger and the Aegis reports) and use them as an amalgamation of information?
Makes sense. After all, every one of them deals with a healthy amount of assumptions and unknowables so that one can not possibly replace any other.

But it is because that makes sense - and because CT's are black-and-white thinkers - that it has to be either/or. Otherwise it becomes harder for them to win.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F 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 6th January 2017, 01:59 PM   #37
traxy
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 135
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
Makes sense. After all, every one of them deals with a healthy amount of assumptions and unknowables so that one can not possibly replace any other.

But it is because that makes sense - and because CT's are black-and-white thinkers - that it has to be either/or. Otherwise it becomes harder for them to win.
I'm sure none of the studies are 100% accurate. You're dealing with thousands of variables and simulations. The chances that any of the studies got the failure sequence completely correct down to every last rivet are probably nil.

The most important thing to draw from this is could the building plausibly collapse due to internal failures induced by office fires. So far every single study has concluded that it certainly could.
traxy 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 6th January 2017, 02:32 PM   #38
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,755
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I would also bet you are thinking about the smaller and lighter beams framing into girders, and not the larger and more massive girders. The mass of an item, such as steel structural members above a fire, matters when talking about the energy required to heat it to a specific temperature and the time at specific external gas and flame temperatures required to heat it by convection, radiation, and conduction to a specific internal temperature.
I do find it interesting how such things morph in the mind of the truth movement.
The first few years of all this, I recall being told over and over again that fire could not bring down a steel building because steel conducted heat so well that it would transport the heat of the fire to floors that did not have fire and dissipate the heat there.
Of course pointing out that this was wrong, that there would be a temp gradient (and a few other factors) made me and others just shills for the Official Story.
Tony is correct of course in the regard that there are several factors involved in raising the temp of a steel structural member and that a gradient will be established between surface and inner volume.

I don't recall Tony Szamboti being there correcting the truthers putting forth the above fantasy though.
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 6th January 2017, 03:06 PM   #39
benthamitemetric
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 432
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Not those claimed to have been involved in the alleged floor cascade. One needs to be specific in these matters.

I would also bet you are thinking about the smaller and lighter beams framing into girders, and not the larger and more massive girders. The mass of an item, such as steel structural members above a fire, matters when talking about the energy required to heat it to a specific temperature and the time at specific external gas and flame temperatures required to heat it by convection, radiation, and conduction to a specific internal temperature.
Tony--why are you so often just factually wrong?

Look at page B-83 of the WAI report. The maximum temperature a structural element is shown to have reached is "792 C +", and that beam was not one of the major girders (screenshot of the relevant graphic attached for reference). In contrast, the maximum temperature similar beams reached in the NIST simulation was "675 C +". There is a potential discrepancy there, but it is neither as large nor of the type that you as you seek to portray in this thread.

EDIT: it's also worth noting that the beam with the hottest temperature in the attached chart was not the likely locus of the failure in WAI's estimation. Don't take my word for it--just keep reading the report beyond pg. B-83.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg WAI WTC7 report pg B83.jpg (42.5 KB, 5 views)

Last edited by benthamitemetric; 6th January 2017 at 03:18 PM.
benthamitemetric 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 6th January 2017, 03:11 PM   #40
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 14,445
Originally Posted by traxy View Post
Why would one "replace" the other? Why wouldn't you gather all of the available studies (NIST, FEMA, ARUP, Weidlinger and the Aegis reports) and use them as an amalgamation of information?
Conspiricists and other woo lovers avoid consilience like the plague, because it is the end of the line for them. Compare: Holocaust denial, anti-vaxxers.

Changing their mind on a conclusion is hard, change is scary.
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)
LSSBB 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 07:32 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.