|
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. |
12th December 2015, 03:32 PM | #721 |
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, 03:41 PM | #722 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
12th December 2015, 03:50 PM | #723 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
12th December 2015, 03:57 PM | #724 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
12th December 2015, 04:03 PM | #725 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
So gerrycan is ignoring the the conclusion of the court and saying that since, in his opinion, there were studs on the girder, that, in his opinion, girder 44 could not walk off as per NIST's " most probable" scenario of collapse initiation, and that therefore the court's conclusion must be wrong.
Am I getting this right, gerry? |
12th December 2015, 04:09 PM | #726 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
That's it.
Short story. The insurance companies and some of their principles looked to get back some of their losses. If the building was found to be deficient they would have a case. The case was dismissed and "official" cause was found to be within design, with no negligence. ETA: The case is not hard to follow from here. http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/...72/255001/468/ |
__________________
"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 |
|
12th December 2015, 04:25 PM | #727 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
No. I am saying that the girder had shear studs on it, and this was not apparent to the expert giving his first statement. When it did become apparent to him, he felt it was important enough to warrant going back to the court and changing his statement to that effect.
As far as NISTs list of omitted elements go, I wouldn't put shear studs at the top of the list, and have never stated that as my opinion, but I do think that they should be considered in an analysis that seeks to truly represent the building. Are you saying that the shear studs make no difference to a composite floor system such as this? |
12th December 2015, 04:28 PM | #728 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
12th December 2015, 04:43 PM | #729 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
|
12th December 2015, 04:48 PM | #730 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
12th December 2015, 04:54 PM | #731 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
And you're not refuting it either. Usually what would happen is you would go and get your guy with a few dozen letters after his name to comment on it, but that's not going to happen is it.
No, the statement's on the court record. The ball is firmly in NISTs court. |
12th December 2015, 04:58 PM | #732 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
12th December 2015, 05:04 PM | #733 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
No, I'm not saying anything about the cause. I am commenting on the accuracy of NISTs model, and the possibility of evidence having come to light since it was released that could mean that many elements were not accounted for in their analysis. Some may have been more important than others, some may have contributed less to the ability of the building to resist failure, but they should have been included.
You're surely not saying that elements that were present in the building shouldn't be accounted for in the analysis of that building? |
12th December 2015, 05:13 PM | #734 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
12th December 2015, 05:16 PM | #735 |
このマスクによっ
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
|
Found it...
Quote:
|
__________________
Current Set:http://i.imgur.com/IoqiUdK.jpg |
|
12th December 2015, 05:17 PM | #736 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
|
They sure would have prevented the girder walk-off as the math shows the expanding beams framing in from the east would have buckled before shearing the studs on the girder.
Of course, the omitted girder stiffeners would have prevented walk-off even if there were no shear studs. The NIST WTC 7 report is a joke that should be dismissed as a fraud, since it is completely implausible with these items included. |
12th December 2015, 05:21 PM | #737 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
12th December 2015, 05:22 PM | #738 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
|
|
12th December 2015, 05:25 PM | #739 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
12th December 2015, 05:26 PM | #740 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
So we agree that there were shear studs on the girder?
NIST made a judgement call that there were no shear studs on the girder. They got that wrong. Given the amount of drawings that remain unreleased, who can say just what else NIST have made a mess of at this connection, which is the very part of the building that they would have looked at closest. The only thing that the WTC7 report and NISTs models prove is that their judgement is not reliable, and neither can it be checked properly because of their reluctance to release data and drawings. |
12th December 2015, 05:34 PM | #741 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
I don't know for sure or have found a reason to care.
So your proof is based on unreleased drawings? Where is your proof this judgement call matters in the end? All opinions you don't seem to support. What part of their conclusion did they get wrong? |
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
12th December 2015, 05:43 PM | #742 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
They didn't include shear studs on the girder spanning C79 and 44.
They messed up the seat and underseat detail. They did not account for stiffener plates that are shown in the drawings at the C79 connection, They omitted the beam stubs from the NE of the building. That's not even them all just for this one connection. Maybe it would be more expedient to make a list of what they got right. Who knows what effect these details and whatever else NIST left out will have. I guess we will know when an accurate model emerges. NIST didn't come to a conclusion. They started with one. |
12th December 2015, 05:52 PM | #743 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
12th December 2015, 06:06 PM | #744 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
What I am arguing here is that shear studs should be included in a model that seeks to represent the building fairly wrt the girder that failed.
NIST were tasked with finding out how and why the building collapsed. They failed to account for key elements in their analysis. If the experiment is wrong, the conclusion is wrong. NIST did not account for key structural elements in and around the very connection that they looked at closest. I have to add in fairness to NIST that the court record indicates that the presence of these elements did not come to the attention of the expert until after such times as the NIST model was released. NIST might not have been aware of that particular detail either at that time, or any of the rest of the elements that they omitted. ie stiffener plates, beam stubs etc. If NIST were aware of any of these elements at the time of constructing their model, do you think they should have accounted for them ? |
12th December 2015, 06:11 PM | #745 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
|
It is hard to believe but maybe they weren't aware of the errors you mention when they did the WTC 7 report. However, they have certainly been made aware since. Amazingly, the NIST management response to that was only that they stand by their work and refused to redo their analysis.
This stonewalling type of behavior, when clear and certain errors which would change outcomes are brought up, inevitably leads to mistrust and ultimately accusations of a cover-up. |
12th December 2015, 06:17 PM | #746 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
Noted
Not true. Their mission is to protect public safety and make recommendations to this end. And it has never been shown that it effected the overall scope of their task. Sure, why not. It doesn't lead to a conclusion that their conclusion and recommendations are wrong. Do you agree? You didn't address my question about CD being off the table, you can't depute this considering there is no evidence in support. |
__________________
"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 |
|
12th December 2015, 06:21 PM | #747 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
|
|
12th December 2015, 06:24 PM | #748 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
12th December 2015, 06:26 PM | #749 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
|
|
12th December 2015, 06:29 PM | #750 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
12th December 2015, 06:29 PM | #751 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
And neither YOU nor Szamboti or any other of the tag team supporters of Szamboti's nonsense have shown that those alleged errors are relevant and result in significant effects. That despite all the "debunker" members who are prepared to follow you into your derailments and circling evasions.
You are parroting the Szamboti nonsense and have not supported the claim - whether you attribute it to him or adopt it as your own. FATAL ERROR #1 Szamboti and followers including you have not shown that EITHER the alleged errors make any difference OR that the difference would be significant; FATAL ERROR #2 - It is not our burden of disproof to rebut the claim which you have failed to either put legitimately in context OR support. FATAL ERROR #3 - the original Szamboti false assumption - neither you nor he have shown that the assumptions about the structures surrounding the relevant beams and girder remained in their original as built pristine status despite the fires which occurred. And all those assertions you make about movements and end conditions are moot UNTIL you prove the so far unsupported assumption. Prove that one - stop your silly chasing down more and more remote evasive rabbit burrows after details that you have not demonstrated to be relevant and significant. Do that and you may be able to make a claim that is worthy of discussion. There are many more BUT a waste of time playing your evasive games until YOU address the foundation issues: 1) Make your claim explicit - linked to a significant output conclusion; 2) Support YOUR claim by reasoned argument; 3) Stop running away; 4) Stop playing reversed burden of proof. It would be more expedient if YOU made your claim explicit and supported it with debatable reasoning. You tell us - NIST's explanation is the extant hypothesis under discussion. You are claiming it is wrong AND - in this sentence - admitting that you don't know why - don't know what you are claiming. [/EndOfDiscusion] - until you make your mind up. At this stage - thanks for telling us you cannot support your claim. Lies like this - and denial of the scientific method - impress no one. Especially when you are parroting T Szamboti - the proven master of starting with a conclusion AND faking the starting scenario to support his pre-determined false conclusion. |
12th December 2015, 06:40 PM | #752 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
|
|
12th December 2015, 06:43 PM | #753 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
12th December 2015, 06:44 PM | #754 |
このマスクによっ
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
|
ETA: nevermind... beaten to it
|
__________________
Current Set:http://i.imgur.com/IoqiUdK.jpg |
|
12th December 2015, 06:45 PM | #755 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
|
|
12th December 2015, 06:49 PM | #756 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
12th December 2015, 07:18 PM | #757 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
|
|
12th December 2015, 07:20 PM | #758 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
And what exactly do you have to fall back on? An analysis that excludes elements that you assert proves that the elements that it didn't use wouldn't have made a difference anyhow? Really. It would in fact be best to include them in the analysis (seeing as they were there in the building and on the drawings) in order to actually know what difference they would have made. These elements have a purpose, they're not just extra bits to make up the weight.
I haven't seen you post any sums. As for the errors that NIST made with dimensions - they are not in dispute. They were also asked about end fin plates on the girder by experts, and now you can see an expert citing evidence that has come to his attention after NISTs report was written telling him that shear studs were present on the C79-44 girder throughout. All details apparent on the drawings from NIST but not accounted for in their analysis. The beam stubs are on drawing E12/13 I think, from memory the stiffener plates are on FRNK9114. That I came to a conclusion all by myself that concurs with respect to the column 79 connection with Tony's is something I am comfortable with. You don't think that stiffener plates make a difference? ok But the damage progression and state of each element is quite clearly stated in NISTs scenarios. Nobody is objecting to replicating the conditions that NIST applied to their analysis. Out of interest, how far would you say the girder needed to be displaced to the west in order to be deemed to have failed in an analysis? NIST started out saying 5.5" You still never said that you thought the shear studs should have been included in the analysis. No, this is just one more load of additions to the list of elements that NIST omitted from their analysis. This is the cream of US forensic engineering and they got 11" mixed up with 12". It's hardly surprising that the list of omissions grows. In response to (1) above, my claim is that there were shear studs on the girder spanning C79-44. So far your response amounts to " I don't care until someone tells me what my opinion on it is. " I am not parroting Tony or anyone else here but if I were I would check they were correct first. You should go try to find someone to parrot who can at least address the issue. |
12th December 2015, 07:37 PM | #759 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
12th December 2015, 07:40 PM | #760 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|