|
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. |
9th December 2015, 12:31 PM | #641 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Memory says BasqueArch is right on the principle. IIRC the argument was about 11/2 or 12/2 so it would be 5.5" or 6.0" BUT NEITHER THE PRECISE VALUE NOR THE DIFFERENCE MATTERS.
Arguing that level of detail is falling for the trap of false context which T Sz et all play repeatedly. Particularly if we fall for the second part of his trap and get NIST's reasoning arse about. Even going up one layer of argument taxonomy the NIST argument was that the beam walked off the girder AND it would take - in their approximation - HALF the width of support before "girder [came] off the seat by lateral-torsional buckling." Note the reversal of "cause - effect". I've made that comment several times over the years but I don't keep indexes of details of wasted discussions playing WITHIN Tony (or anyone else's) false scenarios. Give me a couple of hours and I'll search my posts for references to where I pointed out the error - there will be NIST quote references ifI can back track the 3-4-5 years. BUT - whatever the numbers the claims of "beam expansion ALONE pushed" are BOTH arse about misrepresentations of NIST AND errant focus on an out of context single issue located in an unproven scenario. Hence my multi-year challenge to Tony to prove his assumed scenario. He cannot - that also explained years back as he is well aware. |
9th December 2015, 12:40 PM | #642 |
このマスクによっ
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
|
The simple way to prove "CD" would be to provide evidence of their [explosive device] remains and residual damage to the structural elements that were recovered. None of this nonsense. I count ZERO such presentations that i can recall from resident CD advocates.
|
__________________
Current Set:http://i.imgur.com/IoqiUdK.jpg |
|
9th December 2015, 01:47 PM | #643 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
9th December 2015, 02:45 PM | #644 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
|
|
__________________
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. |
|
9th December 2015, 02:54 PM | #645 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
Yes, and even those were never commented upon by the dozens(hundreds??) of workers at GZ.
"Hey Jimmy, look at this honking big chunk of steel in the rubble of WTC 7, melted/blasted/cut(take your pick) right through. Geez there's another one over here, and there, and there, and there. Oh well funny things happen sometimes" |
9th December 2015, 03:35 PM | #646 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
AFAIK no truther has ever presented a viable coherent claim supporting CD.
They assert CD THEN demand disproof. Reversing burden of proof. And debunkers - including me - happily enjoyed showing them where they were wrong - because it was relatively easy with the Twin Towers. So - having trained us to play "accept burden of disproof" - truthers were quick to take on WTC7 because disproof is a lot harder - the evidence is hidden. THEN many debunkers are also happy to play argue the details even when the details have zero foundation. Look at how many debunkers assert that Bazant's limit case was not meant to be taken literally THEN accept the Szamboti false premise of "drop to impact" when they try to explain "Missing Jolt". Truthers set the trap - but why should debunkers play along? I don't and it is that aspect that obviously irritates Tony into his insults and evasions of my comments. He enjoys playing his silly game(s) and I refuse to play inside his false playpen(s). Everyone of his main claim topics is set in a false scenario. It is his "trademark". Whether WTC1/2 initiation, Missing Jolts, axial contact OR WTC7 Col79 fail - I see no value in arguing within the various false scenarios defined by Tony. For WTC7 the false scenario is the assumption that all the structure EXCEPT the girder and beams in question - remained in pristine locations. In a steel framed building ravaged by fire that has to be one of the silliest assumptions ever made if presented without rigorous proof. It is not something that can be proved positively but I recall debating the probabilistic logic a few years back (We are recycling and nothing new is being raised). "Pristine" is so highly improbable as to be impossible in lay person language. AND it is still Tony's burden of proof to prove the pristine status he relies on - to the extent necessary to support his reliance on it. And that is ONLY debating his "girder walk-off" denials - remember that he has three or for other bits of nonsense built on top of that unproven claim. |
9th December 2015, 03:54 PM | #647 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
|
My usual response to that particular claim is to show the shots of GZ before those particular columns were cut to clear them, then a picture of the workmen with Thermal Lances making the cuts and finally the after shot with the columns removed.
Somehow the topic always seems to change at that point |
__________________
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. |
|
9th December 2015, 07:19 PM | #648 |
このマスクによっ
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
|
"What failed first, and what order failed" mostly... I don't care about means and methods so long as they can cover the most basic evidence; I.E. can they show ANYTHING that shows a failure of some of structural columns that resembles damage consistent with something initiated by "cutting" or blast trauma. If they could show that some parts of the structure failed in this manner, then there's no need to nit pick at every half-inch increment of the thermal expansion of a beam.
There are engineers that believe that there was another underlying issue to the collapse without their concluding that the proximate cause of collapse wasn't related to the fires, which makes this dribbled down exchange even more wasteful. Tony requires distorting Bazant's limit case through what I consider borderline professional misconduct to make his "jolt" theories work by stripping from his interpretation the provision that the work WAS a limiting case, and claims that the fires in WTC 7 were arson, and that the "CD" discussion rests on the NIST being 100% correct on their conclusions regarding the straw that broke the camel's back. Ziggi has stated in the past that there is no interest in proving the use of explosives so much as trying to persuade critics to accept that the entire fire-induced collapse is invalidated by the refutation of column #79 - AKA whether a beam thermally expanded 5 inches or 6.25. And criteria's repeating oft' vague points of "molten steel" (that he can't find direct evidence of) and "squibs" (which have an easily explained and VISIBLE mechanism from the collapse itself). Maybe someone from the movement will look into this finally. I have my doubts. There are several interpretations to this issue. They include this, but going by the context, the idea is essentially that "NIST got a micro detail wrong, fire didn't cause the collapse, that means we must consider explosives". Of course irrespective of practicality, means and methods, or otherwise. I've seen three different people posting here coming from three different interpretations of how to arrive at the same conclusion though. |
__________________
Current Set:http://i.imgur.com/IoqiUdK.jpg |
|
9th December 2015, 08:33 PM | #649 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Agreed - tho' I state it more broadly it is the same theme "If they can prove CD" ..then... is my version. You are asking for a specific item of CD supporting evidence - I would also accept that path - actually the START of a path from where THEY could build a more complete argument. It is still their burden of proof - not my, your, our burden of disproof. They get two things consistently "arse about" viz : their logic - starting from the unknown detail when they should start from the known truths of bigger picture; AND burden of proof where they demand and many debunkers accept "burden of disproof" - wrong process allocated to the wrong party.
NIST's explanation is plausible and "they" haven't put a dint in the plausibility whilst ever Tony relies on his unproven starting assumption. He can play all the mendacious games he wants dealing with a typical Internet forum group. On the surface Sander's Transfer Truss hypothesis is - could be - plausible. There could be more. The truthers confused objective makes them keep focus on NIST - not the real event - they are trying to discredit NIST rather than prove what really happened. With discredit NIST as the objective they cannot afford to accept "plausible" or give credence to other plausible hypotheses.
Tony's "Jolt" stuff is nonsense. The bigger problem adding to confusion for these discussions is the number of debunkers who don't realise that they are still holding on to the Tony 'drop to impact' paradigm. Didn't happen - is was "scrunch downwards as a continuous action" (Plus some sequencing errors inherited from that false application of Bazant) So we end up with blind leading partially unsighted discussions.
Merely another version of "focus on these details because we cannot prove our claim so we want the discussion going round in circles and it is easier if we dig more and more rabbit burrows - lets try microspheres the latest side burrow." They have ZERO intention of reasoned debate. We used to call it trolling.
Just a more obvious playing of games.
From the truth movement side:
1) They dare not because they are wrong; 2) They cannot because they do not have people with the reasoning/explaining skills; 3) The current objective/motivation is in two parts viz keep discussion circling to drag out the alleged controversies - in order to satisfy two main goals - game playing ego or making money out of gullible people. (Or a mix of both.) Sure. The base fact is that it (CD) didn't happen and even if NIST got a detail wrong it makes no difference to the overall NIST position. Do you notice that Tony has backed off referring to his "bigger picture" claims - starting with "if NIST got one detail wrong that falsifies the NIST report 100%." He has most members stuck down in the details where he wants them. Its probably time to remind Tony about those "bigger picture" bits of nonsense he has claimed. |
9th December 2015, 08:38 PM | #650 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 344
|
|
10th December 2015, 04:18 AM | #651 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
|
10th December 2015, 07:03 AM | #652 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
10th December 2015, 07:11 AM | #653 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 7,895
|
|
10th December 2015, 08:51 AM | #654 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
All a moot point as we are living in a machine generated world, a Matrix if you will, that was created when Colossus merged with Skynet. Even that will end when the Borg come to assimilate everything. Unless of course, enough Spice remains to allow the navigators to whisk some of us off to Arrakis
|
10th December 2015, 12:36 PM | #655 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,092
|
|
10th December 2015, 01:19 PM | #656 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
|
Marvelous work.
As soon as you finish your "book", I'll award you an honorary PhD in structural engineering. PS, did you note that the buildin also apparently "lost" its angular velocity (& angular momentum) towards the rear, and suddenly translated into straight downward motion. Hmmmm, must have violated the laws of physics...!! |
12th December 2015, 05:46 AM | #657 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
|
|
__________________
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. |
|
12th December 2015, 06:38 AM | #658 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,232
|
Anyone care to predict the results of this "study"?
|
12th December 2015, 06:59 AM | #659 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 7,895
|
|
12th December 2015, 07:19 AM | #660 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Nah!
In broad outline the odds have to be that: 1) they will complete FEA's with the same false limitations as the Szamboti arguments; AND 2) Whatever the "results" AE911 will spin them as "success". Lack of veracity has never concerned AE911, nor Szamboti who persists in returning here to repeat his denials - 5 or 6 YEARS after he was first shown the true status. Why should that change? Why should honesty become a feature of their claims? So that is broad outline. Your guess is as good as mine on the exact details. |
12th December 2015, 08:22 AM | #661 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
|
12th December 2015, 08:29 AM | #662 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
|
12th December 2015, 08:59 AM | #663 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
A better question would be:
Does gerrycan claim CD with explosive charges? Does AE911Truth claim CD with explosive charges? When I asked Tony Szamboti, he refused to admit that he claims CD with explosive charges, pleading that "we can never know"[1] - a stance he derided when he false attributed it to ozeco41. We are dealing here with no-claimers: Because they make no claims, every experimental result, and its opposite, support what they claim. Remember: Statements about the members of an empty set are true by definition! [1]"...unless a new investigation, the object, scope, funding, participation etc. I better not state lest a debunker holds me to my words" |
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote) The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. (Gilbert Keith Chesterton) |
|
12th December 2015, 09:02 AM | #664 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
|
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote) The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. (Gilbert Keith Chesterton) |
|
12th December 2015, 09:02 AM | #665 |
このマスクによっ
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
|
|
__________________
Current Set:http://i.imgur.com/IoqiUdK.jpg |
|
12th December 2015, 09:07 AM | #666 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
|
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote) The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. (Gilbert Keith Chesterton) |
|
12th December 2015, 09:44 AM | #667 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
|
12th December 2015, 10:06 AM | #668 |
このマスクによっ
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
|
I'll forward you some stuff gravy sent me a couple years ago. TZ's stuff used to be a lot more direct on this. Gerrys i have to locate. It was on 911blogger and someone else posted it in the past too.
Edit: LOL i quoted the wrong post. I was writing to Oystein. Gerry i may have a question for you later on a semi unrelated topic. Will let you know if i get to that one, nothing major |
__________________
Current Set:http://i.imgur.com/IoqiUdK.jpg |
|
12th December 2015, 10:38 AM | #669 |
Muse
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 694
|
My prediction...
The new computer model will show that the building could not have been bought down by fire alone. However, will stop short of explosives and CD. The truth...the new computer model is just another money making scheme by Dicky Gage. |
__________________
Conspiracy theories are for morons, who like to feel they are smarter than everyone else… |
|
12th December 2015, 10:42 AM | #670 |
Muse
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 694
|
|
__________________
Conspiracy theories are for morons, who like to feel they are smarter than everyone else… |
|
12th December 2015, 10:48 AM | #671 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
|
12th December 2015, 10:55 AM | #672 |
Muse
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 694
|
|
__________________
Conspiracy theories are for morons, who like to feel they are smarter than everyone else… |
|
12th December 2015, 10:59 AM | #673 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
So if a world expert in composite flooring systems was giving evidence in a court about wtc7 and he suddenly realised afterwards that the girder spanning 79 and 44 had shear studs on every floor, would he bother to change his evidence to reflect that?
I say he would 100%. You say he wouldn't because shear studs are "a minor detail". Is that a fair summation of where we are? |
12th December 2015, 11:04 AM | #674 |
Muse
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 694
|
|
__________________
Conspiracy theories are for morons, who like to feel they are smarter than everyone else… |
|
12th December 2015, 11:18 AM | #675 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,702
|
|
12th December 2015, 11:31 AM | #676 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
I quoted testimony not drawings. You've looked at the drawings and it's well known that you are of the opinion that there are no studs on the girder, even though you were repeatedly told that it would be stupid not to put them on there. Your position is clear enough regardless of drawings Gamelon.
I actually remembered how arrogant you were in making this claim as I read the change of statement in the court record. |
12th December 2015, 11:31 AM | #677 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,702
|
|
12th December 2015, 11:35 AM | #678 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,702
|
|
12th December 2015, 11:36 AM | #679 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,702
|
|
12th December 2015, 11:39 AM | #680 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
Gamelon, you were repeatedly told that there were studs on that beam. It's an obvious one.
You were so sure it was almost funny. It's a matter of court record now, so you can go and make your case to some of the worlds experts. Let me know how you get on with telling them there are no shear studs on that girder. They won't suffer you as long as I did. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|