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 24th November 2015, 02:12 PM   #81
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Can't wait to read the results. Will there be a tie into explosives if you succeed in showing the NIST hypothesis wrong? If so, will there be any supporting evidence (besides "it could only be because it looks like it")?
I also look forward to seeing the results. That the NIST hypothesis is wrong is proven already, in the context of the specifics of the beam expansion that they claimed.
Personally, I would like to see a set of conditions imposed that would replicate what NIST supposed re the girder walk off, though it is hard to imagine what those conditions could be given that the column retains enough lateral support to prevent the seat moving East.
Usmani managed to dance around the issue in Glasgow a few months back. The prospect of defending NISTs explanation against a model whos inputs are known is not something so easily danced around.
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 24th November 2015, 02:33 PM   #82
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,379
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
I also look forward to seeing the results. That the NIST hypothesis is wrong is proven already, in the context of the specifics of the beam expansion that they claimed.
You really need to stop saying this. Where is this "proven"?
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Personally, I would like to see a set of conditions imposed that would replicate what NIST supposed re the girder walk off, though it is hard to imagine what those conditions could be given that the column retains enough lateral support to prevent the seat moving East.
Usmani managed to dance around the issue in Glasgow a few months back. The prospect of defending NISTs explanation against a model whos inputs are known is not something so easily danced around.
Why do you only focus on this one area where the NIST clearly does not?

Was the rest of the floor area structure pristine?

Obviously column 79 failed. Why do you think it did? This is how you form a hypothesis. When are you guys going to do it? I'll read it if you ever do. Stop trying to prove you're right by showing some point of the NIST wrong. It's childish when you have no coherent hypothesis of your own. .
__________________
"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; 24th November 2015 at 02:36 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 24th November 2015, 03:21 PM   #83
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
You really need to stop saying this. Where is this "proven"?
The erratums NIST were forced to issue speak directly to the accuracy of their analysis.

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Why do you only focus on this one area where the NIST clearly does not?
Sunder stated quite clearly that this was NISTs position re the c79 connection in his tech briefing. And that area interests me so I would like to see the model results wrt that area. Is that okay with ya?

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Was the rest of the floor area structure pristine?
Dumb question.

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Obviously column 79 failed.
Yes. And obviously there was an initiating factor in that failure ie the girder failure, which followed the supposed expansion of the beam.
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Why do you think it did?
I don't know. But it wasn't thermal expansion as per NISTs analysis.
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
This is how you form a hypothesis. When are you guys going to do it? I'll read it if you ever do.
Okay then. How much does the 53ft beam expand at the given temp?
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Stop trying to prove you're right by showing some point of the NIST wrong.
The assertion is that NIST are wrong. How should we go about proving that this assertion is correct without proving that NIST are wrong?
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
It's childish when you have no coherent hypothesis of your own. .
NO, What would be childish is to accept an invalidated NIST hypothesis just because of the absence of an alternative.
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 24th November 2015, 03:40 PM   #84
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,379
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
The erratums NIST were forced to issue speak directly to the accuracy of their analysis.
"Forced"? You imply guilt where none is shown.


Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Sunder stated quite clearly that this was NISTs position re the c79 connection in his tech briefing. And that area interests me so I would like to see the model results wrt that area. Is that okay with ya?
Sure


Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Dumb question.
.

I known. It's only asked because you seem to focus on only one aspect/area where the NIST did not.


Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Yes. And obviously there was an initiating factor in that failure ie the girder failure, which followed the supposed expansion of the beam.
Plus other factors according to the NIST. Obviously you also consider these factors (see my stupid question)

Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
I don't know. But it wasn't thermal expansion as per NISTs analysis.
You have not shown this to be true using all of the conditions outlined by the NIST

Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Okay then. How much does the 53ft beam expand at the given temp?
There you go again taking one element in isolation. Stop.

Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
The assertion is that NIST are wrong. How should we go about proving that this assertion is correct without proving that NIST are wrong?
By developing an independent hypothesis. I thought I explained this.

Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
NO, What would be childish is to accept an invalidated NIST hypothesis just because of the absence of an alternative.
It has not be "invalidated". That's your claim and it has never been supported and has nothing to do with the fact you have not been able to produce a better hypothesis.
__________________
"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; 24th November 2015 at 03:41 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 24th November 2015, 03:50 PM   #85
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
"Forced"? You imply guilt where none is shown.
I implied error - the erratum statements show error. The clue is in the name.

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I known. It's only asked because you seem to focus on only one aspect/area where the NIST did not.
The column 79 connection is exactly where NIST focused. Moreso in the tech briefing than the report, granted.

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Plus other factors according to the NIST. Obviously you also consider these factors (see my stupid question)
Which one?

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
There you go again taking one element in isolation. Stop.
And there you go again telling people to stop.

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
It has not be "invalidated". That's your claim and it has never been supported and has nothing to do with the fact you have not been able to produce a better hypothesis.
So you reckon NIST modeled the connection correctly. You're entitled to that opinion, but it remains just that - your barely asserted opinion.
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 24th November 2015, 03:55 PM   #86
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,383
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Ok so AE911T will show its work. Its work though is limited to girder walk off. The least certain of all NIST's hypotheses. What happened to AE911T's contention that a single column failure cannot lead to global collapse or that the collapse seen cannot occur without explosives?
Says who? You have a vivid imagination.
It will be a big step forward if AE911 does go outside that false limitation.

To date that Szamboti imposed nonsense has limited debate of WTC7 initiation including the flow on AE911 initiatives such as those by Pepper.

Once they move outside of that false limit it means that they are abandoning most of Szamboti's nonsense.

It would be "One small step for 9/11 debate. One giant leap for AE911 kind."
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 24th November 2015, 04:16 PM   #87
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,379
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
I implied error - the erratum statements show error. The clue is in the name.
Sorry, I took "forced" to mean they did not do this willingly.


Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
The column 79 connection is exactly where NIST focused. Moreso in the tech briefing than the report, granted.
Exactly.They did not attibute the failure to that one connection in isolation.


Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Which one?
There is no "one". This is where you go wrong.

Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
And there you go again telling people to stop.
Yes, stop looking at a complex problem in the eyes of only one aspect.


Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
So you reckon NIST modeled the connection correctly. You're entitled to that opinion, but it remains just that - your barely asserted opinion.
They modeled it the way they saw fit and published their reasoning. It maters very little to me in the broad scheme because I've not seen anyone present a better hypothesis.

Do you guys plan to some day or are you happy trying to show some aspect of the NIST wrong?
__________________
"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; 24th November 2015 at 04:18 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 24th November 2015, 04:24 PM   #88
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
It will be a big step forward if AE911 does go outside that false limitation.

To date that Szamboti imposed nonsense has limited debate of WTC7 initiation including the flow on AE911 initiatives such as those by Pepper.

Once they move outside of that false limit it means that they are abandoning most of Szamboti's nonsense.

It would be "One small step for 9/11 debate. One giant leap for AE911 kind."
No. You're underestimating the importance of what Tony and others found. Even the FEAs done in Edinburgh for WTC7 tried removing various elements to try to induce failure and failed to do so. They also looked at detailed areas in isolation.
While it is certainly valid to take this connection in isolation and examine the effects of heat induced expansion on it, I don't get the impression that the FEA being discussed here will stop at that. Far from it.
You should ask at the site given when you are able, to ask about the scope of the analysis. I will wait with interest to see what you are told.
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 24th November 2015, 04:35 PM   #89
Trojan
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 483
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Video published
Trojan 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 24th November 2015, 04:40 PM   #90
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,379
Originally Posted by Trojan View Post
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Video published
Gerrycan:

Do you agree that steel is a "very fire resistant material"?

Does this statement and the one where he state that "the building was not hit by an airplane" not raise red flags as to his objectivity?
__________________
"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; 24th November 2015 at 05:18 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 24th November 2015, 04:42 PM   #91
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
There is no "one". This is where you go wrong.
When I said which one, I meant which silly question.

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
stop looking at a complex problem in the eyes of only one aspect.
I agree that this is a load of complex problems and that the connection at c79 is one of many.

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
They modeled it the way they saw fit and published their reasoning.
They made an absolute mess of it and did not publish their input data. What little they did release in terms of element dimensions etc was just plain wrong hence the erratum statements.
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I've not seen anyone present a better hypothesis.
The absence of an alternative hypothesis does not validate NISTs hypothesis in any way shape or form.

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Do you guys plan to some day or are you happy trying to show some aspect of the NIST wrong?
That depends who you mean by "you guys". I don't speak for ae911 if that's who you are referring to, but good on them for doing what your govt didn't.
The group that I helped form was put together to research the structural drawings of the building. We studied the drawings and published what we found. We approached NIST initially with regard to some serious errors that we found, also, AE911 and others showed an interest and appear to be driving the issue forward. That would have been far outwith the means and scope of the research group that I was in.
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 24th November 2015, 04:56 PM   #92
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,379
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post

That depends who you mean by "you guys". I don't speak for ae911 if that's who you are referring to, but good on them for doing what your govt didn't.
The group that I helped form was put together to research the structural drawings of the building. We studied the drawings and published what we found. We approached NIST initially with regard to some serious errors that we found, also, AE911 and others showed an interest and appear to be driving the issue forward. That would have been far outwith the means and scope of the research group that I was in.
That would be anyone. The NIST likely didn't get it perfect. I can't see why it maters that much.

Unless you are arguing that fire did not cause it their recommendations are still sound. Bottom line. To make a building safer, protect it from fires by protecting it systems and make it faster and easier for everyone to get out.

Understand?
__________________
"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; 24th November 2015 at 04:59 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 24th November 2015, 05:15 PM   #93
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,815
From the e-mail quoted in post #1
Quote:
With the models now partly developed, Dr. Hulsey and his team have begun to analyze how the building responds to various conditions. Eventually they will examine the fire-based scenario put forward by NIST, which involves the thermal expansion of long-span beams near WTC 7’s column 79:.
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post

Ok so AE911T will show its work. Its work though is limited to girder walk off. The least certain of all NIST's hypotheses. What happened to AE911T's contention that a single column failure cannot lead to global collapse or that the collapse seen cannot occur without explosives?

.
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Says who? You have a vivid imagination.
Apparently says AE911T. I see little to indicate they will do anything more than col79/girder44

Last edited by jaydeehess; 24th November 2015 at 05:17 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 24th November 2015, 05:18 PM   #94
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
That would be anyone. The NIST likely didn't get it perfect. I can't see why it maters that much.
If by "didn't get it perfect" you mean can't tell the difference between 11 and 12 inches than yes. That you can't see why this kind of detail matters is not surprising.

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Unless you are arguing that fire did not cause it their recommendations are still sound.
Look, I know you'd love to move the goalposts here by getting me to offer an alternative hypothesis to fire, but that's not gonna happen. I am arguing that NIST got it wrong and crucially so.
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Bottom line. To make a building safer, protect it from fires by protecting it systems and make it faster and easier for everyone to get out.
In the "protect it from fires" category, would you include the allowance for thermal expansion of elements by ensuring that the gaps in the connections can accommodate the maximum expansion potential of the element?

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Understand?
I understand perfectly thanks.
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 24th November 2015, 05:22 PM   #95
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
From the e-mail quoted in post #1



Apparently says AE911T. I see little to indicate they will do anything more than col79/girder44
You see what you want to see apparently.
It describes what NIST did and this is an attempt to replicate it. Apparently you see much more. As has been said, these guys are being very open about what they are doing. Maybe you should just ask them?
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 24th November 2015, 05:23 PM   #96
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,815
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
It will be a big step forward if AE911 does go outside that false limitation.

To date that Szamboti imposed nonsense has limited debate of WTC7 initiation including the flow on AE911 initiatives such as those by Pepper.

Once they move outside of that false limit it means that they are abandoning most of Szamboti's nonsense.

It would be "One small step for 9/11 debate. One giant leap for AE911 kind."
History is another factor that causes me to doubt this new research will go further than girder walk off.
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 24th November 2015, 05:26 PM   #97
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
History is another factor that causes me to doubt this new research will go further than girder walk off.
So you object to the scope of an analysis who's scope you are unaware of ?
Describe the deficiency in the scope and point out where NIST went with their analysis that is outwith that scope. You do that and I will try to get you an answer.
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 24th November 2015, 05:30 PM   #98
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,379
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
If by "didn't get it perfect" you mean can't tell the difference between 11 and 12 inches than yes. That you can't see why this kind of detail matters is not surprising.
Does this detail mean it could not fail due to fire?


Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Look, I know you'd love to move the goalposts here by getting me to offer an alternative hypothesis to fire, but that's not gonna happen.
Because it's a position you can't support. I'm not moving any goal post, I'm trying to get you to state your objectives for proving this point you claim the NIST got wrong.


Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
In the "protect it from fires" category, would you include the allowance for thermal expansion of elements by ensuring that the gaps in the connections can accommodate the maximum expansion potential of the element?
No. I would protect the suppression systems so the steel never gets to this extreme. If it does the building is already in serious trouble.


Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
I understand perfectly thanks.
I doubt it. If you did you wouldn't be posting in 9/11 conspiracies.
__________________
"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 24th November 2015, 05:34 PM   #99
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,815
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
You see what you want to see apparently.
It describes what NIST did and this is an attempt to replicate it. Apparently you see much more. As has been said, these guys are being very open about what they are doing. Maybe you should just ask them?
It describes one thing NIST did and that they will eventually get around to modelling it themselves as well. It.
Please point out where it describes anything other than that. I am currently only using my phone. Might have missed something on the small screen.
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 24th November 2015, 05:37 PM   #100
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,815
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
So you object to the scope of an analysis who's scope you are unaware of ?
Describe the deficiency in the scope and point out where NIST went with their analysis that is outwith that scope. You do that and I will try to get you an answer.
Post 31 & 33

Last edited by jaydeehess; 24th November 2015 at 05:38 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 24th November 2015, 05:40 PM   #101
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,383
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
No. You're underestimating the importance of what Tony and others found...
I doubt it. In regard to his WTC7 claims he asserts that NIST was wrong in some details - which is a "so what?" even if he is correct. He has never AFAIK "proved" his starting scenario - and I am well aware that false starting assumptions is Tony's most consistent bit of error or trickery. But the "so what's?" in the broader picture are what matter. Even if anyone produces an alternate failure initiation mechanism for the failure of Col79 - so what?.

Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Even the FEAs done in Edinburgh for WTC7 tried removing various elements to try to induce failure and failed to do so...
And.....?

Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
They also looked at detailed areas in isolation...
By "they" do you mean Edinburgh? Are you saying that they made the same errors as Tony? I don't have academics on a high pedestal. Look at the series of papers Bazant collaborated in following Bazant and Zhou. Very much the same problems as I identified with T Szamboti's paper back in 2007:
Originally Posted by me-another forum Nov 2007
The paper referenced as Engineering Reality by Tony Szamboti is typical of many which look impressive in detail to the non-engineer. The complex calculations may even be correct but the base premises are faulty and the resulting conclusions can readily be demonstrated to be totally wrong.
Same issue - lots of confusing looking details and maths when the starting foundation is wrong. And a lot of debunkers also fall for it.
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
While it is certainly valid to take this connection in isolation and examine the effects of heat induced expansion on it,...
Not "certainly" - "can be valid" - provided the system boundaries are clearly and validly identified AND any vectors crossing those boundaries are properly dealt with.
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
I don't get the impression that the FEA being discussed here will stop at that. Far from it.
You could be right - I've seen nothing defining the scope at this stage - and undefined scope is SOP for truther initiatives. Hence my previous post comment - IF AE911 does it legitimately it will be a big step forward for them.
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
You should ask at the site given when you are able, to ask about the scope of the analysis.
I'll wait and see. I rarely waste energy chasing "reversed burden of proof" when challenged to do so in a forum by the usual run of truther/troll. I'm certainly not into chasing every rumour looking to see if someone has a valid argument. The big issues still raised by trutherdom are "CD" and "Inside job" - the former nonsense and the latter as usually presented is also nonsense.
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
I will wait with interest to see what you are told.
Don't hold your breath.
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 24th November 2015, 05:47 PM   #102
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,965
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Good and valid points.
Now c79 was not a corner column, and thus the framing from west and south was not necessarily dimensioned to be sufficient in the anbsence of the northern girder and the eastern beams - it was, or perhaps wasn't, I can't tell.


I am indeed not aware that "NIST had to do some additional juggling to get the west side girders to fail". Can you direct me to the sub-section that explains this juggling?

So the 11th floor girder to the west did not fail in their model?
But all of the north girders from f13 down to f6 did, right?

There is another effect that I think played a role: The collapse of 8 floors adjacent to c79 wasn't clean and trouble free - no doubt some of their mass kicked laterally into c79 with large force.


May all these factors be as they are - in the end, the NIST-model ran, and it resulted in the buckling of c79.
And perhaps it is unfortunate that we don't have the details of the model input to scrutinze (frankly, I would very much lack the ability and capacity to do scrutinizing on that level anyway).


Now as for the UAF study - what would we expect them to model to resolve these questions?
Column 79 was a corner column of the central core in WTC 7.

You may not know that the lateral support at each story to keep a column from buckling only needs to be about 0.6% of the axial load on the column. So the east and west girders were more than sufficient to laterally support column 79 and keep it from buckling.

You may also not know that the NIST model was manually manipulated by removing things when they felt the item would have failed.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 24th November 2015 at 06:06 PM.
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 24th November 2015, 05:50 PM   #103
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,383
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
It will be a big step forward if AE911 does go outside that false limitation.

To date that Szamboti imposed nonsense has limited debate of WTC7 initiation including the flow on AE911 initiatives such as those by Pepper.

Once they move outside of that false limit it means that they are abandoning most of Szamboti's nonsense.

It would be "One small step for 9/11 debate. One giant leap for AE911 kind."
History is another factor that causes me to doubt this new research will go further than girder walk off.
Don't I know it.

The bit of amusement is in guessing whether they are as incompetent as the stuff they publish OR do understand and are simply dishonest.
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 24th November 2015, 05:50 PM   #104
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
By "they" do you mean Edinburgh? Are you saying that they made the same errors as Tony? I don't have academics on a high pedestal.
No. The work done in Edinburgh was used by NIST and carried out on behalf of AEGIS insurance. Usmani.
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 24th November 2015, 05:52 PM   #105
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,965
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Obviously column 79 failed. Why do you think it did? This is how you form a hypothesis. When are you guys going to do it? I'll read it if you ever do. Stop trying to prove you're right by showing some point of the NIST wrong. It's childish when you have no coherent hypothesis of your own. .
Every column in WTC 7 failed. Why do you think they did?

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
No. I would protect the suppression systems so the steel never gets to this extreme. If it does the building is already in serious trouble.
Really? What would give you this impression? There are no historic examples of steel framed high rises collapsing to the ground due to fire before spray on fireproofing and sprinkler systems were the norm.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 24th November 2015 at 06:12 PM.
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 24th November 2015, 05:57 PM   #106
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,383
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
No. The work done in Edinburgh was used by NIST and carried out on behalf of AEGIS insurance. Usmani.

Gotcha. Memory failed.
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 24th November 2015, 05:58 PM   #107
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,379
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Every column in WTC 7 failed. Why do you think they did?
Overload due to gravity.
__________________
"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 24th November 2015, 06:13 PM   #108
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,965
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Overload due to gravity.
How can that happen?
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 24th November 2015, 06:19 PM   #109
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,379
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
How can that happen?
Broadly put. It's when the redistributor of loads from fire and other damage cause overload of the remaining. Unless your asking how gravity can happen.
__________________
"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 24th November 2015, 06:32 PM   #110
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,965
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Broadly put. It's when the redistributor of loads from fire and other damage cause overload of the remaining. Unless your asking how gravity can happen.
Wouldn't the fire need to cause a structural failure first before any loads were redistributed?
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 24th November 2015, 06:47 PM   #111
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,379
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Wouldn't the fire need to cause a structural failure first before any loads were redistributed?
What makes you think it wouldn't. It had all day to do the job.
__________________
"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 24th November 2015, 06:52 PM   #112
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,814
Quote:
... That the NIST hypothesis is wrong is proven already, ...
LOL, why lie about this. Who proved it wrong? Some 911 truth failed engineers, or a theologian. The only thing proved by 911 is overwhelming massive ignorance of 911 truth followers.

Fire did it, guess NIST got the big picture right, and 911 truth remains with CD, an evidence free BS claim born in ignorance and paranoia.

What did the FBI say about the idiotic claims of CD and inside job? Why have these 911 truth follower failed to present their CD evidence to the FBI? They do crime, NIST does not do crime. 911 truth is confused on who does what. FBI does crime, why can't these 911 truth followers go to the FBI?

Have you identified who did your inside job? Got any evidence for CD yet?

Hulsey, is he a paranoid conspiracy theorist? Why would anyone trust a study by a 911 truth nut, some dolt who joined AE911T CD thermite fantasy BS movement of woo?
__________________
"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 24th November 2015, 07:04 PM   #113
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,965
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
What makes you think it wouldn't. It had all day to do the job.
Because it never happened before. Structural steel in high rises is massive and takes a significant amount of heat and time to weaken. There usually isn't enough fuel in a given area of an office fire to heat the large pieces of steel in that area enough to cause weakening to the point of failure. That is most likely why it hasn't happened before.

The fires in WTC 7 did not burn all day in a specific area. They burned out when the fuel was used up in a specific area and there are photos of plenty of burned out areas and no hint of a collapse. Not surprising as this was the norm.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 24th November 2015 at 07:09 PM.
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 24th November 2015, 07:06 PM   #114
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,965
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Fire did it, guess NIST got the big picture right, and 911 truth remains with CD, an evidence free BS claim born in ignorance and paranoia.
What makes you say this?
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 24th November 2015, 07:11 PM   #115
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,379
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Because it never happened before. Structural steel in high rises is massive and takes a significant amount of heat and time to weaken. There usually isn't enough fuel in a given area of an office fire to cause much weakening. That is most likely why it hasn't happened before.

The fires in WTC 7 did not burn all day in a specific area. They burned out when the fuel was used up in a specific area
This from an engineer...............

My GF and I watched the Wizard of Oz the other day.........pay no attention to what's behind the curtain.
__________________
"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 24th November 2015, 07:12 PM   #116
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,769
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Because it never happened before.
So? What significance should this have?
__________________
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 24th November 2015, 07:15 PM   #117
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,379
Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post
So? What significance should this have?
..............You dare to doubt the great and powerful Wizard of Truth...........................<cue fire and stuff>


__________________
"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 24th November 2015, 07:18 PM   #118
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,965
Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post
So? What significance should this have?
There is a paradigm in engineering called "heritage". Historical data means something.
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 24th November 2015, 07:19 PM   #119
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,965
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
This from an engineer...............

My GF and I watched the Wizard of Oz the other day.........pay no attention to what's behind the curtain.
Is this all you can say?

It is obvious that you can't support the "fire did it" theory with anything of substance. It sounds like you just want to believe it no matter what evidence you are shown that the NIST theory has not been proven and that their analysis is fatally flawed.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 24th November 2015 at 07:21 PM.
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 24th November 2015, 07:25 PM   #120
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,379
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Is this all you can say?
It's all I need to say. I think just quoting you is enough but, I can't resist leaving a comment.........
__________________
"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
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 12:29 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.