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

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


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags ae911truth , J. Leroy Hulsey , wtc 7

Reply
Old 7th December 2015, 11:59 AM   #521
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 25,021
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
That's what he told me last year too.

They had no qualms about killing 3,000 people and levelling 16 acres of lower Manhattan but they had to make damn sure that the unknown and unimportant Building 7 fell symmetrically and in its own footprint so that no one else would get hurt and no other damage done.

Sure
Exactly. And ask Truthers "why WTC7?" and all the attempted answers don't even survive the 'finger in the air' test.
GlennB is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 12:17 PM   #522
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,835
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Exactly. And ask Truthers "why WTC7?" and all the attempted answers don't even survive the 'finger in the air' test.
The answers to that question are as far away from evidentiary as one can get, they are in the realm of pure fiction.

- Make Silverstein rich ( with the attendant multiple problems that engenders , as on example: the wisdom of bringing in a private individual to the single worst case of treasonous act in USA history.)
- Destroy paperwork and hardware pertaining to the vast evil plot that was afoot ( with all the attendant multiple problems that engenders , for instance the extremely uncontrolled and unreliable nature of such a method of destroying smaller objects)
-To cause greater fear in the public. ( by taking down a building that no one died in, that few people outside NYC knew existed, and which truthers proclaim, few people even knew about its demise)
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 12:35 PM   #523
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,466
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Exactly. And ask Truthers "why WTC7?" and all the attempted answers don't even survive the 'finger in the air' test.
Because their reason for focussing on WTC 7 is that they lost the battle trying to claim CD at WTC1 and WTC2.

They had established reliance on reversed burden of proof and had trained their opponents to adopt burden of disproof.

WTC 7 made it harder to disprove because all the evidence is hidden.

It was a tactic denying their own failure from the outset - merely an excuse to keep debating in ever more remote circles of irrelevancy - debunkers still obligingly debating thermXte and micro-spheres.

So they have ratcheted debunker interest in irrelevant science into a sustaining tactic of going nowhere debate with the illusion of being somehow relevant to their claims - CD at WTC.

AND the most obvious underlying factor - shared by most - they cannot think - cannot reason events which involve a complex of multiple factors. Look at their perrenial "single issue" focus and complete disregard of self contradiction when they give opposing answers to different aspects. Single issue brains - two or three issues at most. And little reasoning skill.

And that is probably why most of them become truthers - a life time of not understanding anything that is a bit complicated - and a defensive habit of resorting to "blame the man" whenever something is too complicated for limited reasoning skills.

In that scenario 9/11 is merely another complicated event which came on the scene and they couldn't understand so they "blame the man".

Which is probably the two main reasons that these discuss will keep circling - going nowhere.

They will never accept technicality reasoning because they lack the reasoning skills; AND
The technical issue is not their main problem - their motive is "blame the man" for anything they cannot understand.....and those two are self reinforcing.

And none of those are intended as global assertions - just observable behaviour for many - probably most active truthers.

Tho current behaviours are more associated with needling trolling - the "Genuine Truthers" having left the scene other than the few who are dug deep in denial of their obsession.

"the man" to cober for thier own intelectual reasoning fauresy are obseesed withthier politicalblasme
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 7th December 2015, 02:06 PM   #524
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,725
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
You cannot have 8 stories of synchronous corner-to-corner free fall unless all of the underlying perimeterís vertical resistance is no longer there.
Sure you can. Gravity is not the only factor in a complex collapse scenario - not that it matters since this still has nothing to do with why the building collapsed.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 02:13 PM   #525
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 458
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
For 8 stories of its descent, WTC7 was measured to have plummeted at free fall acceleration. Any +/- data acceleration deviations in the data plots would be perfectly in accordance with the recording accuracy limitations expected from using such a relatively low resolution video.

You cannot have 8 stories of synchronous corner-to-corner free fall unless all of the underlying perimeterís vertical resistance is no longer there.
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
The video quality was an obstacle that was overcome with careful analysis. Getting the best quality available, deinterlacing, taking fixed reference points, are all part of the treatment that it was subject to in order to obtain the most reliable data possible. The resulting data is far superior to what Chandler and NIST obtained, both of which counted whole pixels as far as I'm aware of (except for NIST's measurement of lateral movement using a moirť technique, which also tracked fractions of pixel, and was reproduced with enhanced precision by femr2 using the same software used to track the northwest corner movement).

So, once again you don't know what you're talking about. You badly want to handwave away the over-g fact now that you know that it's fatal to your claim of zero resistance, but something doesn't become real just for wishing it outside of Trutherland. Reality works differently.
You can process the video with every filter and permutation under the sun pgimeno, but you cannot make HQ image quality from LQ image quality unless you start manipulating its data (CGI).

The camera people on that day, were not shooting HD video and the NIST received only analog-sourced video copies, several generations away from the original archival footage.

No matter how hard you try and spin this, whether you use the NISTís, Mr. Chandlerís, or femrís plots, they do not, and cannot, produce a curve free from error. The mere fact of the long distance between the subject (WTC7) and the camera lens means that convection currents will introduce a certain amount of random distortion. When you are extracting plot points from a moving image only a few inches in height captured from an object dropping through a height of roughly 2,000 inches, it is absurd to belief you wonít get some non-linear deviation in your plot. We are not measuring a cut diamond.

The most useful reading obtainable comes from the plotted average, which clearly shows, the 2.5 seconds of free fall acceleration.
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 7th December 2015, 02:15 PM   #526
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: 29,428
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
Sure you can. Gravity is not the only factor in a complex collapse scenario - not that it matters since this still has nothing to do with why the building collapsed.
Don't try to stop them, the entertainment value of all this is incalculable. In the blue corner, we have Tony, who honestly believes that the rate of acceleration depends on the initiation mechanism, and that the precisely 1g acceleration (well, actually a bit over 1g if you read the actual numbers on Chandler's graph) is as conclusive a proof of demolition as the precisely about two-thirds of a g that WTC1 collapsed at, and therefore has to angrily deny any evidence that it was anything different. In the red corner, Criteria has just wandered in off the street and hasn't got a clue what's going on, but he can see Tony's arguing so he's damned well going to make something up to support him, knowing that however idiotic it is Tony will hide his embarrassment and pretend it's scientifically solid. And in the polka-dot corner, I'm sure notconvinced is working away with a dictionary and a dart board to rustle up another unanswerable argument, mainly because nobody will be able to tell what the question is. Who needs The X Factor, when there's so much anti-talent on display right here?

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
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 7th December 2015, 02:43 PM   #527
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 25,021
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
The most useful reading obtainable comes from the plotted average, which clearly shows, the 2.5 seconds of free fall acceleration.
Fair enough, as far as I'm concerned.

But do you believe that some hundreds of explosive charges (minimum - looking at actual CD technique on this scale puts it into the thousands despite TS's assertions), detonating over a period of a second or so, would have escaped attention?

This is where actual science gets in your way. You cannot have quick destruction without "loud bangs". Bottom line: proving a period of g acceleration does not prove CD. You need to demonstrate CD, and you've failed tragically.

While you're here - care to explain how a paint-thin layer of thermitic material might damage WTC structural steel?
GlennB is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 03:03 PM   #528
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,704
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post

The most useful reading obtainable comes from the plotted average, which clearly shows, the 2.5 seconds of free fall acceleration.
This would mean they plotted data that was greater than free-fall. If not they would have averaged less than free fall.

You really need to stop "helping"...............
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 03:20 PM   #529
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,466
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
Sure you can. Gravity is not the only factor in a complex collapse scenario - not that it matters since this still has nothing to do with why the building collapsed.
I do like the way you go directly to the single key factor "why".

And the building did not collapse because it knew that years later some truthers or trolls would not understand the physics.

...or would pretend that they didn't understand.
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 7th December 2015, 03:22 PM   #530
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,466
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
This would mean they plotted data that was greater than free-fall. If not they would have averaged less than free fall.

You really need to stop "helping"...............
It is "interesting" how many people miss that fundamental point.

Truther claims asserting "average = G" are in FACT asserting "bits over g".
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 7th December 2015, 03:24 PM   #531
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,704
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
It is "interesting" how many people miss that fundamental point.

Truther claims asserting "average = G" are in FACT asserting "bits over g".
Hey.....I got a B in high school math.......(actually, I think averaging is grade school)
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 04:24 PM   #532
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,897
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
I do like the way you go directly to the single key factor "why".

And the building did not collapse because it knew that years later some truthers or trolls would not understand the physics.

...or would pretend that they didn't understand.
In a sense the laws of physics and mechanics etc., are embedded in every building... in every structure... Buildings and structures simply follow the embedded rules. They have no choice ;-)
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 04:30 PM   #533
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,704
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
In a sense the laws of physics and mechanics etc., are embedded in every building... in every structure... Buildings and structures simply follow the embedded rules. They have no choice ;-)
This is without a doubt. The problems arise when some people use their on definition of the rules.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 04:47 PM   #534
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,835
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
In a sense the laws of physics and mechanics etc., are embedded in every building... in every structure... Buildings and structures simply follow the embedded rules. They have no choice ;-)
Inanimate objects generally lack free will, so yes, no choice.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 04:56 PM   #535
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,390
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
You can process the video with every filter and permutation under the sun pgimeno, but you cannot make HQ image quality from LQ image quality unless you start manipulating its data (CGI).
Even LQ video preserves enough information as to yield positions in fractions of a pixel. It's true that HQ video preserves more (as happened with the other view of WTC7). It's not about the image quality, it's about the feature position information as the feature moves between frames. There's no single pixel tracked. A whole block's movement is tracked. That's what makes it superior to pixel-precision tracking, and why despite the low quality of the video it yields good positional data.

I heard that the program that Chandler used incorporated in a later version, which he didn't use, sub-pixel feature tracking (the technique femr2 used with a different program)

Rough description of the technique here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...89#post6224789

Note that femr2's method was received with a lot of opposition. It took a while for him to convince many including me. Some members including the OP of that thread seemed to forget later that the technique tracks features rather than specific points, and that therefore there is no single point that can hide behind an interlace field. So keep that in mind before attempting any misguided criticism.


Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
No matter how hard you try and spin this, whether you use the NISTís, Mr. Chandlerís, or femrís plots, they do not, and cannot, produce a curve free from error.
Agreed. All things considered, error included, the movement still shows over-g acceleration pretty conclusively. I remained skeptical for a long while about the data being conclusive on that respect (several people confused that with me being skeptical about the fact that the data showed over-g but that's a different story). In the end, no one questioned the raw data, but many questioned the smoothing methods, so I used the raw data, rather than the processed data, to derive an acceleration, and that showed over-g, which was what proved it conclusively for me. Here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post10158943

Do you understand NIST's moirť technique explained in an appendix of their WTC7 report? Do you understand how it derived sub-pixel positional data from a feature of WTC7?

I describe the technique here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...61#post8291361

It would work equally well with a lower quality video. Just with more error, but it would still yield sub-pixel positional data.

Now extrapolate that same idea of tracking to general shapes rather than near-vertical lines, and you'll get a rough understanding on how SynthEyes (the program that femr2 used) works.


Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
The most useful reading obtainable comes from the plotted average, which clearly shows, the 2.5 seconds of free fall acceleration.
By "most useful" I guess you mean "least quality". Bad choice. It doesn't help your case to ignore the higher quality data. It makes you look like you want to be deliberately blind to facts that don't support you.

Last edited by pgimeno; 7th December 2015 at 04:59 PM.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 06:21 PM   #536
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
So anyway. How much will a 53ft beam expand at 600C ?
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 06:24 PM   #537
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,704
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
So anyway. How much will a 53ft beam expand at 600C ?
What context does this matter. Was it the only affected element?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 7th December 2015 at 06:26 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 06:29 PM   #538
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
What context does this matter. Was it the only affected element?
It's just a question. It's ok if you can't or don't want to answer it.
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 06:31 PM   #539
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,704
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
It's just a question. It's ok if you can't or don't want to answer it.
I asked what condition this mattered. The distance can be looked up easy enough (you know it). I asked about context.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 7th December 2015 at 06:32 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 06:33 PM   #540
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I asked what condition this mattered. The distance can be looked up easy enough (you know it).
So it's a fairly simple and basic calculation then ?
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 06:35 PM   #541
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,704
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
So it's a fairly simple and basic calculation then ?
Yes.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 06:40 PM   #542
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Yes.
No.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 06:43 PM   #543
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
No.
What if I changed the question to "what is the maximum expansion that can occur due to heat in a 53ft beam". Does that simplify it?
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 06:44 PM   #544
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,704
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
No.
Actually it is if taken in isolation. This was not the case but, it is the one that "truthers" like to claim. His statement is true (baring context).
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 06:48 PM   #545
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Actually it is if taken in isolation. This was not the case but, it is the one that "truthers" like to claim. His statement is true (baring context).
The context is world trade 7, with damage and fires, and the smaller the calculated unit, of expansion, the more accurate the calculation.

That's why it takes a computer, it is a very complex calculation.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 06:51 PM   #546
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,704
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
The context is world trade 7, with damage and fires, and the smaller the calculated unit, of expansion, the more accurate the calculation.

That's why it takes a computer, it is a very complex calculation.
I answered his simple question accurately. I'm not playing to the diversion that it applies to the WTC event. You did note that I asked about context?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 06:56 PM   #547
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
The context is world trade 7, with damage and fires, and the smaller the calculated unit, of expansion, the more accurate the calculation.

That's why it takes a computer, it is a very complex calculation.
But surely we could say, for example, that a 53ft beam shouldn't expand anything like 6 inches given a temp rise to 600C? That should be a fairly simple one shouldn't it? To put an upper limit on it.
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 07:00 PM   #548
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,704
Note how gerrycan now ignores context and view it in isolation. A one trick pony.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 07:05 PM   #549
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Note how gerrycan now ignores context and view it in isolation. A one trick pony.
So remind me, what were the stated conditions in NISTs model that may have affected the failure state of the beam in their analysis? Be interesting to see that.
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 07:08 PM   #550
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,704
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
So remind me, what were the stated conditions in NISTs model that may have affected the failure state of the beam in their analysis? Be interesting to see that.
That's a lot of conditions(I'm not going to quote the whole text). Do you think it was only the expansion of one element?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 07:17 PM   #551
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,835
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
That's a lot of conditions(I'm not going to quote the whole text). Do you think it was only the expansion of one element?
Only one element got heated, no stresses on the structure due to other area fires or south facade damage, just a few beams and a girder at the 12th floor.

Right?
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 07:38 PM   #552
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
That's a lot of conditions(I'm not going to quote the whole text). Do you think it was only the expansion of one element?
The point that I was trying to make before "crazy chainsaw" decided on the context of my question, was this. If this calculation was indeed a very complex one, then there would have been a lot of interest in the value. This was after all the point of the building that NIST were looking to for a collapse initiation. How could it then go unnoticed in the report when the totally wrong figure is used?

If on the other hand it was an easy calculation, is it less excusable for the totally wrong figure in the report to go unnoticed? Remember, this is a part of the building that they would have looked at very closely.

It does look very like NIST have taken the wrong seat plate width and divided it by 2 to arrive at their initial 5.5" expansion figure, later revised to 6.25" still with no calculations.
Given that a 53ft beam can expand by neither of these distances at 600C, surely you can't find it acceptable that NIST underestimated a seat width and overstated expansion due to heat - both of which made their hypothesis look more plausible?
After all, they just added 10% or so onto a very precise original claim of 5.5" expansion. With no calculations to back up either figure.
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 07:56 PM   #553
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Most reasonable people would agree with you on this Mr. Szamboti.

Bullying amateurs, only interested in provoking people such as yourself for sport and personal amusement, are little more than a test of your professional patience. I would compare the disingenuous content of their posts to the #^*# I occasionally have to scrape from the bottom of my shoe.

Whether we choose to speculate or not, the fact remains the observables cannot be denied. Others may choose to disagree with you about what happened to those 8 stories of the core. I do not.

What others cannot disagree with, is what we can clearly determine from the video record.


http://i64.tinypic.com/2iky0k.jpg

For 8 stories of its descent, WTC7 was measured to have plummeted at free fall acceleration. Any +/- data acceleration deviations in the data plots would be perfectly in accordance with the recording accuracy limitations expected from using such a relatively low resolution video.

You cannot have 8 stories of synchronous corner-to-corner free fall unless all of the underlying perimeter’s vertical resistance is no longer there.
Criteria, the symmetric nature of the fall shows that 8 stories of the entire core was removed nearly simultaneously, and this could not have been a result of an east to west progressive collapse.

The core was pulled starting a fraction of a second earlier in the center of the core to ensure an inward pull on the exterior throughout the building to keep the debris confined. It was a classic implosion and had the east penthouse not been taken down earlier it would have been very clear that the core was first removed in the center.

I am not sure if you are aware that there was no need for the exterior to have charges placed on its columns. The falling core would pull the exterior columns inward and cause them to buckle and at 8 stories of slenderness, while also being pulled inward, the resistance from the exterior columns would be essentially zero.

Danny Jowenko explains there was no need for charges on the exterior in his interview

at about 3: 10 in Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I

and again at about 3:40 in Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sep-HDZoEBM

The reason 8 stories needed to be removed was due to the 610 foot vertical height of the building to ensure there would be enough momentum in a traditional bottom up style demolition. The problem occurred because this decreased resistance of the exterior to near zero and allowed free fall, which caught people's attention.

The North Tower shows the towers were taken down the same way but from the top down by removing a few stories of the core to start the collapse and a few stories at a time at least multiple times again until there was enough debris to self-propagate (probably something like 20 stories or so). In this case, the exterior columns would still provide some resistance when they buckled since they would not be as slender. That is why the acceleration there is only about 2/3rds of gravity. This is still significant and a good analogy is to explain that it is the same acceleration needed for a car to do a 1/4 mile in 11.2 seconds. Your standard family car cannot come anywhere near that, with most not being any more capable than about 16 or 17 seconds with the pedal all the way to the floor.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 7th December 2015 at 08:26 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 7th December 2015, 08:06 PM   #554
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,704
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
The point that I was trying to make before "crazy chainsaw" decided on the context of my question, was this. If this calculation was indeed a very complex one, then there would have been a lot of interest in the value. This was after all the point of the building that NIST were looking to for a collapse initiation. How could it then go unnoticed in the report when the totally wrong figure is used?

If on the other hand it was an easy calculation, is it less excusable for the totally wrong figure in the report to go unnoticed? Remember, this is a part of the building that they would have looked at very closely.

It does look very like NIST have taken the wrong seat plate width and divided it by 2 to arrive at their initial 5.5" expansion figure, later revised to 6.25" still with no calculations.
Given that a 53ft beam can expand by neither of these distances at 600C, surely you can't find it acceptable that NIST underestimated a seat width and overstated expansion due to heat - both of which made their hypothesis look more plausible?
After all, they just added 10% or so onto a very precise original claim of 5.5" expansion. With no calculations to back up either figure.
You are looking at it with too narrow of a focus. The NIST did not claim any of these were a singular cause. They never present this as a case. If they did show where they did.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 08:11 PM   #555
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,466
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Hey.....I got a B in high school math.......(actually, I think averaging is grade school)
You probably have to be an engineer to get it wrong...

...or more likely to be so focused on the details that you miss the point.

'When up to your arse in alligators is is easy to forget the objective was "drain the swamp" '

AKA "lose the plot" or "lose the context" - or Gerrycan's current tactic - deliberately ignore the context to support the T Szamboti WTC7 Col 79 "argument" which is based on ignoring the context.
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 7th December 2015, 08:18 PM   #556
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,466
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
It does look very like NIST have taken the wrong seat plate width and divided it by 2 to arrive at their initial 5.5" expansion figure, later revised to 6.25" still with no calculations.
Given that a 53ft beam can expand by neither of these distances at 600C, surely you can't find it acceptable that NIST underestimated a seat width and overstated expansion due to heat - both of which made their hypothesis look more plausible?
Do you genuinely support that arse about and quote mined reasoning or are you simply trying to support T Szamboti's nonsense?

Put the issue in context - top down - and all factors NOT starting with a predetermined outcome and working upwards from partial details - ignoring inconvenient truth's and including only those details which support the false conclusion.
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 7th December 2015, 08:22 PM   #557
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
You probably have to be an engineer to get it wrong...

...or more likely to be so focused on the details that you miss the point.

'When up to your arse in alligators is is easy to forget the objective was "drain the swamp" '

AKA "lose the plot" or "lose the context" - or Gerrycan's current tactic - deliberately ignore the context to support the T Szamboti WTC7 Col 79 "argument" which is based on ignoring the context.
What context do you claim I am ignoring?
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 08:23 PM   #558
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Do you genuinely support that arse about and quote mined reasoning or are you simply trying to support T Szamboti's nonsense?

Put the issue in context - top down - and all factors NOT starting with a predetermined outcome and working upwards from partial details - ignoring inconvenient truth's and including only those details which support the false conclusion.
Just to confirm. You are talking about what happened in NISTs model here eh?
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 08:28 PM   #559
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,204
The big question; is Hulsey a funding hound, playing 911 truth for the funding? lol
Or is Halsey another failed dolt in 911 truth, going to make up BS to support the fantasy and insanity of CD by silent explosives, or no product, no damage thermite.

Which is it?

14 years of failed claims continue - is Hulsey a research funding hound, doing an end run for funds by tricking 911 truth... Follow the money, or is it woo


The big questions?
Where do we get silent explosives which don't cook off in fires?
Where do we get super duper nano nano thermite which leaves no damage to the steel?

Any takers for the logical questions based on the fantasy CD delusions?
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 7th December 2015 at 08:30 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 08:35 PM   #560
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,466
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Which is it?

14 years of failed claims continue - is Hulsey a research funding hound, doing an end run for funds by tricking 911 truth... Follow the money, or is it woo

That is currently the only question of interest IMO.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:10 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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

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