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 2nd December 2015, 03:46 PM   #321
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,764
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
At best, any other failure mechanism would have inherent delays which would cause a major topple or a dramatic gradually distorted building failure.
As i remarked on another snippet. You basically don't know what you're talking about. The transition from localized failure to global failure of the structural system isn't time dependent. Its load dependent, and that dependency further breaks down to load type, path, and magnitude and they're interelated. These factors rely on understanding how the design works which youre completely skipping in your effort to rationalize "CD" as the only explainable mechanism
__________________
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 2nd December 2015, 03:57 PM   #322
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,417
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
Did he now?



Freefall, no freefall, freefall.
Is that Chandler's best graph? What point is he tracking there?
Source?
Thx.


ETA: Answering my own question: Yes. David Chandler's most recent (5 years ago) video with original work analysing the WTC7 descent starts off with that graphic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP4_8s-2Gmc&t=5

And this is the video where he shows how he derived that graph:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCDpL4Ax7I
He measured the NW corner (the bit that started to descend last and thus accelerated the most)

Indeed he has about 0.8 seconds of descent at considerably less than g. That's roughly 24 frames. The effect I described in my previous post does not work for that many frames.

Chandler's data shows that the fall did not start with immediate freefall. Tony Szamboti lied when he wrote this:
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Chandler's graph for WTC 7 shows a short flat line of zero velocity because he started the program before the building started coming down so he would not miss anything.

Once the building is moving in his measurement it is in free fall right from the start.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)

Last edited by Oystein; 2nd December 2015 at 04:26 PM. Reason: ETA
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 2nd December 2015, 04:21 PM   #323
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,373
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Is that Chandler's best graph? What point is he tracking there?
Source?
Thx.
Aren't we revisiting old ground?

Why review the Chandler data yet again? Especially when we are familiar with femr2's higher quality work?
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 2nd December 2015, 04:26 PM   #324
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,417
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Aren't we revisiting old ground?

Why review the Chandler data yet again? Especially when we are familiar with femr2's higher quality work?
To show evidence in place right here that Tony Szamboti lied to us. See the ETA to my last post.
__________________
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 2nd December 2015, 04:27 PM   #325
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,183
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
To show evidence in place right here that Tony Szamboti lied to us. See the ETA to my last post.
Again............why are we going over this old ground...
__________________
"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 2nd December 2015, 04:30 PM   #326
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,417
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Again............why are we going over this old ground...
Everything has been said, but not yet by everyone
__________________
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 2nd December 2015, 05:35 PM   #327
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,373
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
To show evidence in place right here that Tony Szamboti lied to us. See the ETA to my last post.
I understand now where you are coming from. IMO the more important issue is not the accusation of explicit lie - rather Tony's avoidance of the main thrust of Gamolon's question which was:
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
Can you explain something.

How come freefall acceleration did not start immediately upon this supposed simultaneous/synchronized/8 floor demolition? Chandler's graph shows a short period of non-freefall right before the actual freefall.
That - IMO - is the key question which Tony avoided.

And "early motion" was clearly demonstrated by femr's work.
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 2nd December 2015, 07:24 PM   #328
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,764
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Add to this they choose to start "questioning" the collapse half way through while ignoring what has already happened. It's like I cut the legs off the table and they only look with wonder after I drop it. How could it fall so fast.....................
Not quite. They're specific about claiming that fire/debris damage was too small and sporadic to be fatal. That's how they "skip" half of the past tense; they don't think it's relevant. They assess severity by external appearance, and don't have the mentality to evaluate the circumstances from a design/engineering philosophy; that's all.

Speaking of cause/effect - there's been a distinct lack of comprehending the relationship for many years. Case in point, we're still dealing with the squibs argument; apparently it's insane to think that air could be forced out by pressure imposed by the falling mass inside the building yet it's still perfectly sane to conclude that explosive devices attached to the structural elements detonating were ejecting material but producing no characteristic sounds that every other controlled demolition in history (using explosives) exhibits, and apparently being "damage-less" because there is absolutely no visual record showing connection failures consistent with explosive impulse to the scale that "CD" advocates claim were implemented. There's no video or sound record corresponding with the collapse times to associate the ejecta with either.

Enough commentary of course.
__________________

Last edited by Grizzly Bear; 2nd December 2015 at 07:26 PM.
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 2nd December 2015, 08:35 PM   #329
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,373
Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post
Not quite. They're specific about claiming that fire/debris damage was too small and sporadic to be fatal. That's how they "skip" half of the past tense; they don't think it's relevant. They assess severity by external appearance, and don't have the mentality to evaluate the circumstances from a design/engineering philosophy; that's all.
Mentality OR motive I suggest. Whether WTC7 or WTC1/WTC2 any understanding what really happened works strongly against their need to assume that there was CD.

Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post
Speaking of cause/effect - there's been a distinct lack of comprehending the relationship for many years. Case in point, we're still dealing with the squibs argument; apparently it's insane to think that air could be forced out by pressure imposed by the falling mass...
Yes BUT... at least in that situation there is little misunderstanding from the debunker side. Squibs remain a truther fantasy NOT shared by debunkers

Two other big issues show lack of comprehending on both sides - and lengthy tedious debates with both sides accepting the truther false or unproven false scenario. They are:

1) For WTC1/2 - whilst debunkers generally are clear that Bazant and Zhou's Limit Case mechanism was not real and could not be applied literally - many still accept the "drop to impact" concept - even tho that did not happen - it was "scrunch down and keep going into ROOSD".

2) Specific to this thread on WTC7 - the Szamboti arguments about girder walk off are premised on an assumption that the columns and wider structure were "pristine" - not affected by heat. Status of that assumption remains "unproven" and almost certainly wrong AFAIK. Even tho a lot of debate has accepted the Szamboti assumption.

That is one aspect where I will be interested to see if Hulsey et al avoid the trap.

Last edited by ozeco41; 2nd December 2015 at 08:37 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 2nd December 2015, 09:13 PM   #330
HotRodDeluxe
Muse
 
HotRodDeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 688
I welcome this initiative, but I don't trust AE911T to present the findings accurately.
HotRodDeluxe 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 2nd December 2015, 10:28 PM   #331
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,791
Originally Posted by HotRodDeluxe View Post
I welcome this initiative, but I don't trust AE911T to present the findings accurately.
Pretty much my thoughts as well.
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 3rd December 2015, 01:25 AM   #332
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,417
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
I understand now where you are coming from. IMO the more important issue is not the accusation of explicit lie - rather Tony's avoidance of the main thrust of Gamolon's question which was:
Originally Posted by Gamolon
How come freefall acceleration did not start immediately upon this supposed simultaneous/synchronized/8 floor demolition? Chandler's graph shows a short period of non-freefall right before the actual freefall.
That - IMO - is the key question which Tony avoided.
Tony did not avoid that question - he denied its premise, contrary to fact, by pointing very specifically to a detail of the data in question - and misrepresenting it. It is difficult to see how he could not be very much aware of the fact that Chandler had almost a second of non-freefall after all these years. I conclude a very deliberate and malevolent act of conscious misrepresentation, a.k.a. "lie".
__________________
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 3rd December 2015, 03:09 AM   #333
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post

That - IMO - is the key question which Tony avoided.

.
You need to remember that in Tony and AE911truths world they start with the conclusion that explosives were present. The evidence of explosives should be the starting point which of course is the part being avoided.

The mechanism of the collapse is pointless until you have found the cause, fire doesn't even enter into it when it is the most clearly visible aspect to look into.
Spanx 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 3rd December 2015, 06:47 AM   #334
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,665
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
You need to remember that in Tony and AE911truths world they start with the conclusion that explosives were present. The evidence of explosives should be the starting point which of course is the part being avoided.

The mechanism of the collapse is pointless until you have found the cause, fire doesn't even enter into it when it is the most clearly visible aspect to look into.
This may be true... but they also have asserted that the twins were destroyed by CD all the way down... not just the initiation.

They still can't accept that the lightweight concrete slabs and the drywall in a huge building collapse would be rendered to dust... along with most "weak" materials. They expect to see a messy pile of building materials and contents if a building collapses.
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 3rd December 2015, 07:37 AM   #335
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 447
Originally Posted by HotRodDeluxe View Post
I welcome this initiative, but I don't trust AE911T to present the findings accurately.
Trust is a rare commodity when you are on the opposite side of a serious argument.

Hopefully Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey, knowing that the details of his WTC7 collapse simulation must be transparent and subjected to intense scrutiny, will carefully oversee how AE911T presents his findings.

I am sure you and others will have ample opportunity to jump all over any significant mistakes, if he makes any.

Hopefully you will also give credit where credit is due, if you find his work to be beyond reproach.
Criteria 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 3rd December 2015, 07:54 AM   #336
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Trust is a rare commodity when you are on the opposite side of a serious argument.

Hopefully Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey, knowing that the details of his WTC7 collapse simulation must be transparent and subjected to intense scrutiny, will carefully oversee how AE911T presents his findings.


I am sure you and others will have ample opportunity to jump all over any significant mistakes, if he makes any.

Hopefully you will also give credit where credit is due, if you find his work to be beyond reproach.
Which make you wonder why he needs to team up with AE911 truth to present his findings ? And how he will have any control over how AE911 truth will present his findings.

There seems to be so many versions of events from no planes to the occurrence of iron microspheres..........etc
Spanx 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 3rd December 2015, 08:16 AM   #337
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,054
Can someone explain something to me please?

Here is a quote from Tony:
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
You cannot have a natural collapse without deceleration.
If I look at the individual points in Chandler's graph I posted above, I see both an increase and decrease between plotted points. Is Tony ignoring the fact that at some points the roofline SLOWED down compared to some of the previous plotted points? Is this why he and others insists on using the AVERAGE of those points in order to avoid the truth hidden in the graph?
Gamolon 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 3rd December 2015, 08:49 AM   #338
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,791
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
Can someone explain something to me please?

Here is a quote from Tony:


If I look at the individual points in Chandler's graph I posted above, I see both an increase and decrease between plotted points. Is Tony ignoring the fact that at some points the roofline SLOWED down compared to some of the previous plotted points? Is this why he and others insists on using the AVERAGE of those points in order to avoid the truth hidden in the graph?
Free fall is a bumpy ride?
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 3rd December 2015, 08:52 AM   #339
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 447
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
Which make you wonder why he needs to team up with AE911 truth to present his findings ? And how he will have any control over how AE911 truth will present his findings.

There seems to be so many versions of events from no planes to the occurrence of iron microspheres..........etc
Not everyone has deep pockets like yourself.
Criteria 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 3rd December 2015, 08:53 AM   #340
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: 24,070
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
Can someone explain something to me please?

Here is a quote from Tony:


If I look at the individual points in Chandler's graph I posted above, I see both an increase and decrease between plotted points. Is Tony ignoring the fact that at some points the roofline SLOWED down compared to some of the previous plotted points? Is this why he and others insists on using the AVERAGE of those points in order to avoid the truth hidden in the graph?
The graph is of velocity against time, so a deceleration would show as a point being above the previous point. So far as I can see (show me an example if I'm wrong, please) each point is either at the same level or at a lower level than the previous point, so there is no actual deceleration, though the acceleration (given by how much each point is below the one before it) varies quite a bit, particularly at the beginning of the graph where Tony claimed the acceleration was constant.

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 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 3rd December 2015, 09:01 AM   #341
GlennB
In search of pi(e)
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 20,370
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
The graph is of velocity against time, so a deceleration would show as a point being above the previous point. So far as I can see (show me an example if I'm wrong, please) each point is either at the same level or at a lower level than the previous point, so there is no actual deceleration, though the acceleration (given by how much each point is below the one before it) varies quite a bit, particularly at the beginning of the graph where Tony claimed the acceleration was constant.

Dave
Same story with the NIST graph, apart from a single point at 1.75secs
GlennB 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 3rd December 2015, 09:04 AM   #342
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,054
In regards to my post above, why does Tony choose the average of the plotted points as shown here...



...but chooses to ignore the individual points in the graph showing deceleration here with the red lines?

Gamolon 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 3rd December 2015, 09:11 AM   #343
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 447
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
Can someone explain something to me please?

Here is a quote from Tony:


If I look at the individual points in Chandler's graph I posted not posted above, I see both an increase and decrease between plotted points.

Is Tony ignoring the fact that at some points the roofline SLOWED down compared to some of the previous plotted points?

Is this why he and others insists on using the AVERAGE of those points in order to avoid the truth hidden in the graph?
FTFY

And what possible significance can you place on extremely minor measurement variations recorded for that non-laboratory timed event, which had a total span of only a few seconds?
Criteria 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 3rd December 2015, 09:23 AM   #344
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: 24,070
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
In regards to my post above, why does Tony choose the average of the plotted points as shown here...
...but chooses to ignore the individual points in the graph showing deceleration here with the red lines?
The regions you're talking about don't show deceleration; they show acceleration, but less than the steeper sections. And, to be fair, the fact that they're all about the same slope suggests to me that this is a mix of noise and discretisation error. If Chandler's counting pixels, his approach may only measure velocity in steps, in which case you'd expect some variation if the velocity change isn't an exact number of steps for each point. But it's certainly a stretch, to put it mildly, to say that this graph shows constant acceleration from the moment of collapse initiation; it obviously doesn't.

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 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 3rd December 2015, 09:26 AM   #345
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: 24,070
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
And what possible significance can you place on extremely minor measurement variations recorded for that non-laboratory timed event, which had a total span of only a few seconds?
Ask Tony. He's the one claiming that the absence of these minor variations is evidence of explosives, despite the fact that he can see them right under his nose. As usual, he's pretending evidence isn't there because he thinks it weakens his case if he admits it exists.

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 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 3rd December 2015, 09:28 AM   #346
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Not everyone has deep pockets like yourself.
All those fundraisers produced nothing or at least nothing towards an investigation ? I am happy to be corrected on that if you can produce evidence.
Spanx 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 3rd December 2015, 10:25 AM   #347
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 447
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
And what possible significance can you place on extremely minor measurement variations recorded for that non-laboratory timed event, which had a total span of only a few seconds?
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Ask Tony. He's the one claiming that the absence of these minor variations is evidence of explosives, despite the fact that he can see them right under his nose.

As usual, he's pretending evidence isn't there because he thinks it weakens his case if he admits it exists.

Dave
I’ve looked through this thread and have not found any post by Mr. Szamboti that matches your spin.

What I see are plot variations which are so minor, that they are not worthy of consideration.

There are certainly no time deviations dramatic enough to suggest that WTC7 was meeting enough resistance to argue against freefall.
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
”..And, to be fair, the fact that they're all about the same slope suggests to me that this is a mix of noise and discretisation error… “
Surely Mister Rogers you are not back to disputing both Mr. Szamboti and the NIST regarding the proof that WTC7 sustained 8 storeys of freefall?
Criteria 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 3rd December 2015, 10:35 AM   #348
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,791
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
FTFY

And what possible significance can you place on extremely minor measurement variations recorded for that non-laboratory timed event, which had a total span of only a few seconds?
Not sure what that means. Are you complaining about the quality of the recorded measurements?
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 3rd December 2015, 11:00 AM   #349
WilliamSeger
Master Poster
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,124
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
FTFY
I don't know about anyone else, but I've long since stopped wasting time trying to figure out what you "fixed" when you do that, much less why. Surely there's a clearer way to express yourself, but if you're gonna do it, please at least strike out what you're "fixing."
WilliamSeger 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 3rd December 2015, 11:39 AM   #350
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: 24,070
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
I’ve looked through this thread and have not found any post by Mr. Szamboti that matches your spin.
Well, the best way not to find what you don't want to find is not to look all that hard.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Chandler's graph for WTC 7 shows a short flat line of zero velocity because he started the program before the building started coming down so he would not miss anything.

Once the building is moving in his measurement it is in free fall right from the start.
Whereas we actually see (a) the building has an initial, and apparently significant, period of constant velocity fall, and (b) the acceleration appears on the graph to vary quite considerably rather than being "in free fall right from the start".

Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
What I see are plot variations which are so minor, that they are not worthy of consideration.

There are certainly no time deviations dramatic enough to suggest that WTC7 was meeting enough resistance to argue against freefall.
It's painfully obvious from the graph that Tony's claims about what the graph says are wrong. As usual with Tony's lies, he doesn't actually need to tell them, because they don't help his case; but he lied, not about the actual movement of WTC7, but about what the graph shows.

Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Surely Mister Rogers you are not back to disputing both Mr. Szamboti and the NIST regarding the proof that WTC7 sustained 8 storeys of freefall?
The fact that you reached the above conclusion from a statement that basically agreed with a part of your original point, specifically that the later deviations from linearity are not significant, indicates that you don't have the faintest clue what's going on here. I don't feel like explaining it to you yet, so please give me a good laugh with your next statement of indignant misunderstanding.

Dave

ETA: I think I've found a new way to confuse truthers. Agree with a minor and insignificant point they've made, and they'll be so obsessed with disagreeing with debunkers that they'll immediately disagree with themselves. Try it, folks!
__________________
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; 3rd December 2015 at 11:42 AM.
Dave Rogers 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 3rd December 2015, 12:34 PM   #351
GlennB
In search of pi(e)
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 20,370
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
ETA: I think I've found a new way to confuse truthers. Agree with a minor and insignificant point they've made, and they'll be so obsessed with disagreeing with debunkers that they'll immediately disagree with themselves. Try it, folks!
I saw a chance for that earlier, with Criteria, but I lost my nerve. That's the kind of thing that can cause an implosion of space-time.
GlennB 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 3rd December 2015, 02:00 PM   #352
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,211
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
WTC 7 had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns.

Freefall as observed in the video record showed the NE corner dropping in sync with the SW and NW corners. 83 columns do not ’snap’ at the same time unless they all face an overwhelming lateral or vertical force at the same time.
They didn't. Core fell first, so about 58 failed at about the same time (or about 21 if we follow JSanderO's explanation). And FTFY, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bgucy_b5FKk for an example of simultaneous or near-simultaneous failure due to vertical overload.

The core pulled from the perimeter as it fell, causing it to overload and causing the "kink" (which is mostly north-south and a little up-down). Pretty basic.

Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
There is nothing desperate about arguing that CD was the cause. It is the only logical explanation.
There's flawed logic in your 'logical' explanation.
__________________
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 3rd December 2015, 02:25 PM   #353
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,183
Does anyone know what kind of hardware the university has available to run a FEA that is "more complete" then the NIST?

I know we've come a long way in the 10 years since the NIST did theirs but, it's still a very big job.

I've looked through the study site but, haven't found any specifics.
__________________
"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 3rd December 2015, 02:31 PM   #354
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,183
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
I am sure you and others will have ample opportunity to jump all over any significant mistakes, if he makes any.
Actually he already has. Do you agree with his statement that "steel is a very fire resistant material" in the context of building structure?

Also his comment about building seven "not being hit by a plane". Who cares about this fact when starting a forensic collapse study? You don't find this to indicate a bias on his part?
__________________
"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 3rd December 2015, 03:14 PM   #355
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,373
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Does anyone know what kind of hardware the university has available to run a FEA that is "more complete" then the NIST?

I know we've come a long way in the 10 years since the NIST did theirs but, it's still a very big job.

I've looked through the study site but, haven't found any specifics.
Neither hardware nor software are likely to set the limits.

IMNSHO the limiting factors will be ability to define loads and temperatures. The temperature prediction stuff probably an order of magnitude less reliable than the loading and redistribution aspects - the "conventional engineering" stuff before the temperature effects are overlaid.

I doubt we will ever get anything MORE plausible than what NIST did. And certainly not on a "Two PhD students' dissertations" level of resourcing. We may see alternate plausibles identified.

Since the AE911Truth assertions are pure nonsense the outcomes will either indicate that NIST was plausible and/or identify some other plausibles OR agree with AE911. I cannot see any university process following the latter.

And none of that will matter - AE911 will spin it dishonestly no matter what the findings.
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 3rd December 2015, 03:27 PM   #356
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,183
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Neither hardware nor software are likely to set the limits.
I understand that but, do they have the capabilities if they somehow do have the abilities to enter equal or greater data than the NIST?

Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
IMNSHO the limiting factors will be ability to define loads and temperatures. The temperature prediction stuff probably an order of magnitude less reliable than the loading and redistribution aspects - the "conventional engineering" stuff before the temperature effects are overlaid.
Most of this can be taken from the NIST reports (yes it's all there). As far as fire damage goes the NIST inputs were always seen as conservative by relevant professionals or seen as far too conservative by many (James Quintiere being the most vocal).
__________________
"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 3rd December 2015, 03:29 PM   #357
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17,509
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Not odd JD, I work approx 60hrs a week consistently, the majority in a field where my focus is necessarily elsewhere. I'll post some video when I carve out the time.
As for the first and third parts, I simply don't believe you. I don't believe that you work 60 hours and I don't believe that you will ever post a video to back your claims.

As for the highlighted part, what exactly are you trying to say? You work the majority of your 60 hours in a field where your focus is ... where?
carlitos 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 3rd December 2015, 05:24 PM   #358
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 447
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
”If I look at the individual points in Chandler's graph I posted not posted above, I see both an increase and decrease between plotted points.

Is Tony ignoring the fact that at some points the roofline SLOWED down compared to some of the previous plotted points?

Is this why he and others insists on using the AVERAGE of those points in order to avoid the truth hidden in the graph?
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
And what possible significance can you place on extremely minor measurement variations recorded for that non-laboratory timed event, which had a total span of only a few seconds?
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Ask Tony. He's the one claiming that the absence of these minor variations is evidence of explosives, despite the fact that he can see them right under his nose.

As usual, he's pretending evidence isn't there because he thinks it weakens his case if he admits it exists.

Dave
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
I’ve looked through this thread and have not found any post by Mr. Szamboti that matches your spin.
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Well, the best way not to find what you don't want to find is not to look all that hard.
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Chandler's graph for WTC 7 shows a short flat line of zero velocity because he started the program before the building started coming down so he would not miss anything.

Once the building is moving in his measurement it is in free fall right from the start.
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Whereas we actually see (a) the building has an initial, and apparently significant, period of constant velocity fall, and (b) the acceleration appears on the graph to vary quite considerably rather than being "in free fall right from the start”.
Sorry about all the re-quoting but the context is important. The original poster Gamolon, failed to include the graph he was referring to. I presumed he was talking about the primary data points, and particularly those that clearly showed the seconds of freefall.

Mr. Szamboti explained that the program was placed in run mode before Mr. Chandler starts the video. The video was parked at the point closest to where WTC7 began to drop. The data that you and Gamolon are so intrigued by is just the program free-running while it awaits the change from FREEZE to PLAY of the incoming video.




The magenta vertical line shows the start point where the video went into PLAY.


Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
What I see are plot variations which are so minor, that they are not worthy of consideration.

There are certainly no time deviations dramatic enough to suggest that WTC7 was meeting enough resistance to argue against freefall.
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
It's painfully obvious from the graph that Tony's claims about what the graph says are wrong. As usual with Tony's lies, he doesn't actually need to tell them, because they don't help his case; but he lied, not about the actual movement of WTC7, but about what the graph shows.
You clearly do not have a clue as to how the Physics Toolkit software functions.

I know it would pain you to do so, but I suggest you watch his video;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkqL...Q&spfreload=10

Start around 10:10.



Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Surely Mr. Rogers you are not back to disputing both Mr. Szamboti and the NIST regarding the proof that WTC7 sustained 8 storeys of freefall?
The fact that you reached the above conclusion from a statement that basically agreed with a part of your original point, specifically that the later deviations from linearity are not significant, indicates that you don't have the faintest clue what's going on here. I don't feel like explaining it to you yet, so please give me a good laugh with your next statement of indignant misunderstanding.

Dave

ETA: I think I've found a new way to confuse truthers. Agree with a minor and insignificant point they've made, and they'll be so obsessed with disagreeing with debunkers that they'll immediately disagree with themselves. Try it, folks![/quote]

Even the NIST was forced to agree with the free fall conclusion derived from that chart. You should be embarrassed by your lack of understanding Mr. Rogers.
Criteria 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 3rd December 2015, 05:25 PM   #359
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,373
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I understand that but, do they have the capabilities if they somehow do have the abilities to enter equal or greater data than the NIST?
I'm not sure we are on exactly the same track. BUT conceptual brainpower IMO will be the limiting resource - long before the hardware or software cuts in as a limit. And the validity of the existing data is IMO another real limit...we are on different perspectives with that one - see my comments on your next bit.

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Most of this can be taken from the NIST reports (yes it's all there). As far as fire damage goes the NIST inputs were always seen as conservative by relevant professionals or seen as far too conservative by many (James Quintiere being the most vocal).
That is one aspect of the issue of definition that I am suggesting is the problem. Is the NIST "data" good enough as a basis for seeking alternative explanations? I seriously doubt it - and tho you express it differently - I think your comments about "conservative" are pointing at the same area as I am trying to explain.

Keeping it as simple as I can for purposes of explanation only - IF they take a less conservative approach to the temperature dynamics - will it lead to a different mode of structural failure?

That could well be true - wouldn't surprise me if it did. It is a sort of "sensitivity analysis" review.

And the difference needed to get to that point is in the level of applied brainpower making the choices on conservatism. That is a layer or two higher up the issue taxonomy than crunching the numbers. And picking the right numbers to crunch lies intermediate between them. Problem definition - and failure to identify errant definitions - is an ongoing issue causing confusion in WTC collapse debate. Look how many times debunkers have chased truthers - esp T Sz - down rabbit burrows following his false definition of problem. And PA'ed persons like me who dare to suggest "you are falling for his trap" OR "he has falsely defined the starting scenario - why follow his error?".

So put very simply (I think ) are they clever enough to validly redefine the problem RATHER than simply and blindly redoing a few FEA's? We've seen a lot of "Blind application of FEA" on these forums - It would be great If we saw fundamental reviews of the problem. Revisiting "Drain the Swamp" - even asking "Why Drain the Swamp" - instead of tit-for-tat reacting to alligators teeth.

And I know the risk of using that pair of analogies
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 3rd December 2015, 05:46 PM   #360
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,744
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Even the NIST was forced to agree with the free fall conclusion derived from that chart. ... ]
NIST was not forced to agree with anything; it was in their data. 911 truth, makes up BS like forced NIST, and other silly BS.

The lack of understanding is found with 911 truth, no math, no physics, just BS. With the interior collapsing 16 to 12 second prior to the facade falling, and the tracking of a single point; a single point, is not the system falling for WTC 7. Big fail. The near free-fall segment is used by 911 truth support the insane claim of CD, it proves the interior had failed many seconds before.

Like Bigfoot, CD has no evidence, only illusions which are no in the delusional stage of BS based on woo. Got some evidence for CD? No, 911 truth has no evidence for any claims; never will.
__________________
"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
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 06:36 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.