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, 03:44 PM   #41
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,755
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Conspiricists and other woo lovers avoid consilience like the plague, because it is the end of the line for them.
No better example than the CIT's "north of Citgo" idiocy.
Many of their own witnesses say the plane HIT the Pentagon, AND none of them describe the same path for the aircraft.
Consilience contradicting their conclusion AND no consilience between them on flight path other than end position.
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, 08:49 PM   #42
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,380
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
No better example than the CIT's "north of Citgo" idiocy.
Many of their own witnesses say the plane HIT the Pentagon, AND none of them describe the same path for the aircraft.
Consilience contradicting their conclusion AND no consilience between them on flight path other than end position.
And a good number of eyewitness statements were found that describe the south approach, right?
MicahJava 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, 09:22 PM   #43
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 14,445
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
And a good number of eyewitness statements were found that describe the south approach, right?
Point being? Did a plane hit the Pentagon, or did it just fly over your head?
__________________
"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, 09:32 PM   #44
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,380
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Point being? Did a plane hit the Pentagon, or did it just fly over your head?
Just a small number of witnesses describing a south side trajectory would certainly make nonsense out of any north side theory. From what I understand, that was the eventual downfall of Citizen Investigation Team.
MicahJava 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, 09:48 PM   #45
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,755
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
And a good number of eyewitness statements were found that describe the south approach, right?
No two witnesses, according to the CIT's own plots, puts the aircraft along the same path.
HOWEVER, now pay close attention MJ, every single witness who was in a position to see the apparent impact point, says the plane HIT the Pentagon.
Not a one of them so much as implies the aircraft hit upper floors let alone flew over the building. Several specifically say the aircraft hit a lower floor.

The point made above concerned consilience, the convergence of statements.

That is specifically what the CIT is aiming for with their "north of Citgo" yet in order to do that they must ignore several greater levels of consilience including the specific of witness descriptions of impact. THAT is a textbook case of cognitive dissonance.



That brings us back to the topic of this thread. (Though I know you dearly seem to dislike actually staying on a thread's topic).
We have here several engineering studies all of which conclude that WTC7 began it's collapse due to failures caused by the fires, AND that this led to a progression of failures eventually bringing the entire structure down.
That too is consilience.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 6th January 2017 at 10:02 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 6th January 2017, 09:56 PM   #46
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,371
Have we answered Tony Szamboti's OP question?

The answer should be "No!"

Did we give him the valid reasons which are in the domain of US Governance and constitutional due process?

Did Weidlinger's WTC 7 report falsify CIT at Pentagon?

Or have I missed something?



Last edited by ozeco41; 6th January 2017 at 09:58 PM.
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 6th January 2017, 10:08 PM   #47
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,755
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Just a small number of witnesses describing a south side trajectory would certainly make nonsense out of any north side theory. From what I understand, that was the eventual downfall of Citizen Investigation Team.
Well, that and their notion of agents running around, unnoticed, placing downed lamp posts, and the fact that there are absolutely no witnesses, from any angle, from any location, describing a fly over.
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, 10:10 PM   #48
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,755
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Have we answered Tony Szamboti's OP question?

The answer should be "No!"

Did we give him the valid reasons which are in the domain of US Governance and constitutional due process?

Did Weidlinger's WTC 7 report falsify CIT at Pentagon?

Or have I missed something?


As far as I know, no one has answered Tony's question in the affirmative.

The Pentagon was merely another example of the same cognitive dissonance that gives rise to the thread title question. I should have known it would be a derail that MJ could not resist.

"Squirrel"

Last edited by jaydeehess; 6th January 2017 at 10:15 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 January 2017, 01:39 AM   #49
skyeagle409
Graduate Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,566
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Just a small number of witnesses describing a south side trajectory would certainly make nonsense out of any north side theory. From what I understand, that was the eventual downfall of Citizen Investigation Team.
All they had to do was to following the path of destruction from the first light pole to the C-Ring exit hole to understand that American 77 flew south of the gas station.

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 7th January 2017, 02:52 AM   #50
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
All they had to do was to following the path of destruction from the first light pole to the C-Ring exit hole to understand that American 77 flew south of the gas station.

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam....head-poles.jpg
I don't usually complain about separate discussions if they have some significance to the topic of a thread, but you really shouldn't continue this discussion about the Pentagon here, as it is so thoroughly off topic that it is diminishing discussion about the actual topic.

I would suggest one of you involved start a separate thread about it and a moderator can then move the posts here about it there.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 7th January 2017 at 03:00 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 7th January 2017, 05:25 AM   #51
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,686
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I don't usually complain about separate discussions if they have some significance to the topic of a thread, but you really shouldn't continue this discussion about the Pentagon here, as it is so thoroughly off topic that it is diminishing discussion about the actual topic.

I would suggest one of you involved start a separate thread about it and a moderator can then move the posts here about it there.
I agree Tony we should stick to the OP, now what about the fantasy of you being a forensic engineer, or an expert on building fires was it you wanted.to discuss?
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 7th January 2017, 05:35 AM   #52
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
I agree Tony we should stick to the OP, now what about the fantasy of you being a forensic engineer, or an expert on building fires was it you wanted.to discuss?
Can you be specific as to what you think one would need to know to look into the collapses and make a determination that you don't think I do?
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 7th January 2017, 06:44 AM   #53
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,204
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Have we answered Tony Szamboti's OP question?

The answer should be "No!"
That sentence is ambiguous.

If you mean that the answer to the OP question should be "No!", then that's right, and Oystein already gave the same answer. If you mean the answer to the question "have we answered Tony Szamboti's OP question?" should be "No!" then that's wrong, as Oystein has already given one.
__________________
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 7th January 2017, 06:49 AM   #54
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: 23,425
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Can you be specific as to what you think one would need to know to look into the collapses and make a determination that you don't think I do?
How to reason critically and objectively.

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 7th January 2017, 06:49 AM   #55
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,650
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
This is a bit deceptive... there were other forces in play which caused those bizarre bending in the massive steel sections... you can name one can't you?
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO 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 January 2017, 07:09 AM   #56
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,686
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Can you be specific as to what you think one would need to know to look into the collapses and make a determination that you don't think I do?
First you have to understand the chemistry and physics as well as confront the lies the truth movement told especially Steven Jones.
Second you would have had to do experiments or have the experimental data to make your claims valid which you don't.
You haven't got a clue Tony not one freaking clue what went on inside those buildings.
Those type if fires where the fire retardants were quickly over whelmed by accelerants, then inhanced by increased oxidation from the safe guards designed to prevent stack effects being compromised.
Have never been seen before in human history, you have no accurate context on them from your point of reference.
Because you can't conceive of the complexity of those fires!

Magnetic Microspheres, printing Microspheres, Microspheres from cutting with Thermal Lances, and dirrect stupidity reducing paint chips in a DSC do not thermite or CD.

Make!

Temperature in a fire Tony is dirrectly affected by surface area, and oxygen flow rate, so small particle soot can reach very high temperatures, and be ignited via any surface over 600C or even on surfaces below 600C with NO2.

You have to understand the fires and the effects to understand the collapses, and at that you fail miserably.

Last edited by Crazy Chainsaw; 7th January 2017 at 07:20 AM.
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 7th January 2017, 07:22 AM   #57
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 14,445
Tony, no response regarding consilience?
__________________
"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 7th January 2017, 07:45 AM   #58
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
First you have to understand the chemistry and physics as well as confront the lies the truth movement told especially Steven Jones.
Second you would have had to do experiments or have the experimental data to make your claims valid which you don't.
You haven't got a clue Tony not one freaking clue what went on inside those buildings.
Those type if fires where the fire retardants were quickly over whelmed by accelerants, then inhanced by increased oxidation from the safe guards designed to prevent stack effects being compromised.
Have never been seen before in human history, you have no accurate context on them from your point of reference.
Because you can't conceive of the complexity of those fires!

Magnetic Microspheres, printing Microspheres, Microspheres from cutting with Thermal Lances, and dirrect stupidity reducing paint chips in a DSC do not thermite or CD.

Make!

Temperature in a fire Tony is dirrectly affected by surface area, and oxygen flow rate, so small particle soot can reach very high temperatures, and be ignited via any surface over 600C or even on surfaces below 600C with NO2.

You have to understand the fires and the effects to understand the collapses, and at that you fail miserably.
Thermodynamics, chemistry, heat transfer, physics, structural mechanics, and material science are what a study of a building collapse would involve. A mechanical engineer is trained in these subjects and allows one to scrutinize the reports. When certain previously withheld information was made available the below was the result of that scrutiny.

- The correction of the omissions, distortions, and ignoring of pertinent structural features in the NIST WTC 7 report has been shown in a clear way to preclude the report's hypothesized failure initiation mechanisms. The report has been unambiguously shown to be invalid.

- The ARUP experts report suffered from a fatal flaw which was unambiguously shown to preclude its collapse propagation. Thus making it invalid as an explanation also.

The Weidlinger report cannot be used, because the thermal analysis, that it depends on for its conclusions, has not been made public.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 7th January 2017 at 07:56 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 7th January 2017, 08:07 AM   #59
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,204
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
- The correction of the omissions, distortions, and ignoring of pertinent structural features in the NIST WTC 7 report has been shown in a clear way to preclude the report's hypothesized failure initiation mechanisms. The report has been unambiguously shown to be invalid.
Again, 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 7th January 2017, 08:16 AM   #60
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,686
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Thermodynamics, heat transfer, structural mechanics, and material science are what a study of a building collapse would involve. A mechanical engineer is trained in these subjects and allows one to scrutinize the reports. When certain previously withheld information was made available the below was the result of that scrutiny.

- The correction of the omissions, distortions, and ignoring of pertinent structural features in the NIST WTC 7 report has been shown in a clear way to preclude the report's hypothesized failure initiation mechanisms. The report has been unambiguously shown to be invalid.

- The ARUP experts report suffered from a fatal flaw which was unambiguously shown to preclude its collapse propagation. Thus making it invalid as an explanation also.

The Weidlinger report cannot be used, because the thermal analysis, that it depends on for its conclusions, has not been made public.
Experimental evidence please that shows your conjecture that the seat and girder will not experience thermally induces ductile tear, instead of the bolts shearing please, you should if you are correct find a number of papers available on line with all the available study's.
I am still looking for one that verifies your claims and I still haven't found it.
Do you agree that if the girder and seat tear out the stiffeners are rendered useless, as the girder no longer wedges in?
Girder wedge in is specifically Dependant on no girder or seat damage, and absolutely no stiffener damage.
Your obligation to prove your theory Tony where is the supporting evidence?
Give you a clue in a steedy long term heating, the bolts don't break, the girder and seat tear
The way the energy is applied, and how changes the dynamics of failure, fracture has a time energy component that you are not incorporating in your design FEAs.
That is clear from looking at the thousands of experimental studies Tony.
You need to find supporting evidence for your unsupported, unsubstantiated claims.
Making G!obal it's impossible claims with out significant supporting evidence based on the calculations of a design program, not tailor to determine the actual conditions shows only you are not qualified to make said statements.
If you wish to state that it is your opinion that the buildings will not fail, then that is your choice to make, however with out supporting evidence I have to give it as much respect as I would if Stundie were making the same claim.
Little, to none!
It has nothing to do with if you are a mechanical engineer, it has to do with if you are Right or wrong.
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 7th January 2017, 08:50 AM   #61
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,686
Tony do you agree that most of the glass Microspheres in the dust would form at 700-850c, and that the RJ. Lee report can not be used as an average for the concentration of iron rich Microspheres in the dust?

Do to the date the study was initiated, cutting well underway, and the fact it was a bank onto which the debris impacted, some of the debris being from printed documents?

Do you agree the RJ Lee report was a report on a specific building for an insurance 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 7th January 2017, 08:53 AM   #62
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 14,445
Still no discussion of consilience, Tony. Is that because it pulls the rug out from under you?
__________________
"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 7th January 2017, 09:03 AM   #63
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Still no discussion of consilience, Tony. Is that because it pulls the rug out from under you?
Hardly, both the NIST and ARUP WTC 7 reports have been shown to be fatally flawed in a major way and thus cannot be involved in any consilience.

The Weidlinger WTC 7 report has not divulged all of its analyses, and thus cannot be involved either.

I would say there is a dearth of consilience in this matter concerning these reports and how WTC 7 collapsed.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 7th January 2017 at 09:04 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 7th January 2017, 09:04 AM   #64
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,686
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Still no discussion of consilience, Tony. Is that because it pulls the rug out from under you?
It is at the heart of Tony's problems, there are no published experimental papers, that agree with Tony's conclusions, in forensic engineering.

All the published studies show Tony not to be correct in his FEA.
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 7th January 2017, 09:06 AM   #65
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
It is at the heart of Tony's problems, there are no published experimental papers, that agree with Tony's conclusions, in forensic engineering.

All the published studies show Tony not to be correct in his FEA.
Nobody has shown my FEAs to be incorrect. You are talking out of your hat here.
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 7th January 2017, 09:06 AM   #66
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,686
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Hardly, both the NIST and ARUP WTC 7 reports have been shown to be fatally flawed in a major way and thus cannot be involved in any consilience.

The Weidlinger WTC 7 report has not divulged all of its analyses, and thus cannot be involved either.

I would say there is a dearth of consilience in this matter concerning these reports and how WTC 7 collapsed.
Then please provide the experimential forensic studies that support your FEA's conclusions.

Given the amount of data easily available on line that shouldn't be a problem.
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 7th January 2017, 09:12 AM   #67
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
Then please provide the experimential forensic studies that support your FEA's conclusions.

Given the amount of data easily available on line that shouldn't be a problem.
Actually, FEA can be considered a virtual experiment and my analyses show there would be no collapse due to temporary heating from fire.

NIST did no physical experiments to support their analyses for WTC 7. The difference with their analysis is it omitted, distorted, or ignored pertinent structural features that would have given different results (no collapse) than what they claimed.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 7th January 2017 at 09:15 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 7th January 2017, 09:14 AM   #68
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 14,445
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Hardly, both the NIST and ARUP WTC 7 reports have been shown to be fatally flawed in a major way and thus cannot be involved in any consilience.

The Weidlinger WTC 7 report has not divulged all of its analyses, and thus cannot be involved either.

I would say there is a dearth of consilience in this matter concerning these reports and how WTC 7 collapsed.
"I would say" does not address consilience. Your lack of evidence of anything besides fire causing a collapse, in addition to all the other events of the day, still stands. All other evidence show ways a building can collapse due to fire, and there is NO other evidence that any other cause can be attributed. Consilience showing the events of the day solely being caused by terrorists hijacking airplanes still stands.

Once again, a words words words responsored from you, in lieu of a detailed evidence based counter argument.

Try Bigfoot, at least you'll make more money.
__________________
"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 7th January 2017, 09:17 AM   #69
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
"I would say" does not address consilience. Your lack of evidence of anything besides fire causing a collapse, in addition to all the other events of the day, still stands. All other evidence show ways a building can collapse due to fire, and there is NO other evidence that any other cause can be attributed. Consilience showing the events of the day solely being caused by terrorists hijacking airplanes still stands.

Once again, a words words words responsored from you, in lieu of a detailed evidence based counter argument.

Try Bigfoot, at least you'll make more money.
I have explained with scientific detail how the NIST and ARUP WTC 7 reports are invalid and why the Weidlinger WTC 7 report cannot be used, since it presently does not have a full scientific basis without the thermal analysis available for scrutiny.

It is you who needs to explain with scientific detail how you see consilience involving the NIST, ARUP, and Weidlinger WTC 7 reports supporting your contention that WTC 7 came down due to temporary heating from fire. I realize it might take you some time, as you only seem to generalize and do not get into the detail that is necessary, but you have been persistent with this and surely must have some idea of how to frame your scientific argument.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 7th January 2017 at 09:24 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 7th January 2017, 09:24 AM   #70
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 14,445
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
You need to explain in detail how you see consilience involving the NIST, ARUP, and Weidlinger WTC 7 reports supporting your contention that WTC 7 came down due to temporary heating from fire.

I realize it might take you some time, but you have been persistent with this and surely must have some idea of how to frame your argument.
The evidence presented all shows a building on fire affected by heat from the fire, and then collapsing. How it exactly happened inside is where you are living with your argument. What happened inside that building, unheard and unseen, can only be speculated. Including which beam, girder, or column failed first, and whether the heat in one spot caused it, or in another.

Stop living in speculation. There was a fire and a collapse. No explosives were recorded.
__________________
"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 7th January 2017, 09:26 AM   #71
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
The evidence presented all shows a building on fire affected by heat from the fire, and then collapsing. How it exactly happened inside is where you are living with your argument. What happened inside that building, unheard and unseen, can only be speculated. Including which beam, girder, or column failed first, and whether the heat in one spot caused it, or in another.

Stop living in speculation. There was a fire and a collapse. No explosives were recorded.
I did not say exactly what happened inside. I am saying the purported failures claimed by NIST and ARUP are impossible and that these impossibilities nullify their reports as explanations.

Imagine a scenario where a man smoking a cigarette suddenly collapses and one person claims that the cigarette must have done it and produces a report showing it could have, but the mechanism purported to be the cause in the report is later shown to be impossible when previously withheld information became available. Should we forego further investigation?

You appear to only be willing to say things in general and do not want to discuss specifics. Why not?

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 7th January 2017 at 09:31 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 7th January 2017, 09:44 AM   #72
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,686
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Actually, FEA can be considered a virtual experiment and my analyses show there would be no collapse due to temporary heating from fire.

NIST did no physical experiments to support their analyses for WTC 7. The difference with their analysis is it omitted, distorted, or ignored pertinent structural features that would have given different results (no collapse) than what they claimed.
NIST 1998 supports NIST failure mode.

Am I obligated to prove you wrong or are you obligated to substantiate your theories?

No an FEA can only be considered a mathematical model, a computer program to aid design to prevent failure.

It is not an Experiment, nor is it dirrect forensic evidence.
It was solely designed as a design tool, without support it represents only the opinion of the person imputing the data!

An FEA can be used to determine how failure occurred if sufficient forensic evidence of failure exists, or if experimental data verifies claims, it is not and can not be considered an experiment in and of itself!

Not even best fit computer models can be considered experimental evidence.
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 7th January 2017, 09:50 AM   #73
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,667
imagine? We don't have to, fire did it, the only evidence is for fire.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I did not say exactly what happened inside. I am saying the purported failures claimed by NIST and ARUP are impossible and that these impossibilities nullify their reports as explanations.

Imagine a scenario where a man smoking a cigarette suddenly collapses and one person claims that the cigarette must have done it and produces a report showing it could have, but the mechanism purported to be the cause in the report is later shown to be impossible when previously withheld information became available. Should we forego further investigation?

You appear to only be willing to say things in general and do not want to discuss specifics. Why not?
There is your problem, using imagination to explain what fire caused. You make up a lie of CD you have no evidence for, and can't say who did it.

15 years of the CD lie, and no evidence. You imagine CD, you can't name who did it.

You attack others, and can't produce evidence for the imagined CD. We don't have to imagine fire, it was real, you CD is like Bigfoot an illusion which has become your delusion. You use "sounded like", or "looked like", when you need to use engineering; you use imagination instead of examination using engineering. Big fail, 15 years of zero evidence for CD, and attacking others.
__________________
"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

Last edited by beachnut; 7th January 2017 at 09:53 AM.
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 7th January 2017, 10:42 AM   #74
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
There is your problem, using imagination to explain what fire caused. You make up a lie of CD you have no evidence for, and can't say who did it.

15 years of the CD lie, and no evidence. You imagine CD, you can't name who did it.

You attack others, and can't produce evidence for the imagined CD. We don't have to imagine fire, it was real, you CD is like Bigfoot an illusion which has become your delusion. You use "sounded like", or "looked like", when you need to use engineering; you use imagination instead of examination using engineering. Big fail, 15 years of zero evidence for CD, and attacking others.
Beachnut, the NIST WTC 7 report does not explain the collapse of the building.
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 7th January 2017, 10:54 AM   #75
benthamitemetric
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 432
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Beachnut, the NIST WTC 7 report does not explain the collapse of the building.
It provides a more plausible hypothesis for what likely happened than the clearly erroneous paper by Korol that you previously cited, touted and defended, and yet you still can't bring yourself to criticize Korol's paper. It's almost as if you don't actually care about understanding the details and scope of the literature on this subject unless it provides you with an avenue to assert fires could not have brought down the building. Funny that.

Last edited by benthamitemetric; 7th January 2017 at 11:12 AM.
benthamitemetric 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 7th January 2017, 11:20 AM   #76
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,686
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
It provides a more plausible hypothesis for what likely happened than the clearly erroneous paper by Korol that you previously cited, touted and defended, and yet you still can't bring yourself to criticize Korol's paper. It's almost as if you don't actually care about understanding the details and scope of the literature on this subject unless it provides you with an avenue to assert fires could not have brought down the building. Funny that.
Tony's FEA depends on bolt sheering to allow the stiffeners to wedge in and prevent walk off, neglecting that the stiffeners have the purpose also of preventing thermally induced bolt sheer.

I have two very good papers on the difference between using best fit models, vs FEA for forensic engineering.

Guess which is the perfered performance study program?
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 7th January 2017, 11:29 AM   #77
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,667
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Beachnut, the NIST WTC 7 report does not explain the collapse of the building.
Tony, your claims of CD do not have supporting evidence. You have failed to show the NIST WTC 7 report is invalid. Thus you start a thread with a tiny lie to support the lie of CD which you offer zero evidence for.

NIST has a report, you don't. 15 years of CD fantasy.
__________________
"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 7th January 2017, 11:40 AM   #78
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,686
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I did not say exactly what happened inside. I am saying the purported failures claimed by NIST and ARUP are impossible and that these impossibilities nullify their reports as explanations.

Imagine a scenario where a man smoking a cigarette suddenly collapses and one person claims that the cigarette must have done it and produces a report showing it could have, but the mechanism purported to be the cause in the report is later shown to be impossible when previously withheld information became available. Should we forego further investigation?

You appear to only be willing to say things in general and do not want to discuss specifics. Why not?
No one has a problem with an academic investigation of anything investigate anything you want acedemicly with your own money and materials, but don't expect the public sector, to give you supena powers or public funding.

Also don't expect people to take you seriously when you only express your opinion.
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 7th January 2017, 11:45 AM   #79
FFTR
Student
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 44
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Tony, your claims of CD do not have supporting evidence. You have failed to show the NIST WTC 7 report is invalid. Thus you start a thread with a tiny lie to support the lie of CD which you offer zero evidence for.

NIST has a report, you don't. 15 years of CD fantasy.
Even when asked Tony will not start a thread to discuss the CD explanation. He has failed to provide any source/report that proved CD. Seems his efforts should change and start to show the evidence of CD.

His only reply is that a new investigation is needed.
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 7th January 2017, 11:45 AM   #80
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,867
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
There was a fire and a collapse. No explosives were recorded.
Most concise summary of all necessary facts about WTC7 on 9/11.
__________________
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
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 05:08 PM.
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.