IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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 12th December 2015, 03:32 PM   #721
MileHighMadness
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 694
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
I wonder why someone might avoid engaging that lol
Again....avoiding the question!

Why are the shear studs so important?

Show us your evidence, show as your math...
__________________
Conspiracy theories are for morons, who like to feel they are smarter than everyone else…
MileHighMadness 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 12th December 2015, 03:41 PM   #722
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by MileHighMadness View Post
Again....avoiding the question!

Why are the shear studs so important?

Show us your evidence, show as your math...
It appears that his experts testimony proved just that. The building was not poorly designed and it would have collapsed regardless (by the methods mentioned, Fire and damage).

Odd gerrycan would use a case that does not support his view.
__________________
"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 12th December 2015, 03:50 PM   #723
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Prof Colin Bailey (FREng, BEng, PhD, CEng, FICE, FIStructE, MIFireE) says
"evidence discovered after June 15th 2009 revealed that, contrary to the information that I had reviewed prior to that date, some shear studs were ultimately installed ON EACH FLOOR on the girder running between columns 79 and 44."
Expert heresay until one posts the new evidence.

Anyone have a link to this court case?
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 12th December 2015, 03:57 PM   #724
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Expert heresay until one posts the new evidence.

Anyone have a link to this court case?
The thing is this court case does not support what gerrycan is asserting. The case is about design negligence not about cause. The case was dismissed and the cause was fire and damage. The building design was not at fault.
__________________
"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 12th December 2015, 04:03 PM   #725
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
The thing is this court case does not support what gerrycan is asserting. The case is about design negligence not about cause. The case was dismissed and the cause was fire and damage. The building design was not at fault.
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?
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 12th December 2015, 04:09 PM   #726
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
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?
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

Last edited by DGM; 12th December 2015 at 04:15 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 12th December 2015, 04:25 PM   #727
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
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?
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?
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 12th December 2015, 04:28 PM   #728
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
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?
What does this expert have to say about how you view the event? That's really what matters, right? Can you admit he has never expressed a similar opinion?
__________________
"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; 12th December 2015 at 04:30 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 12th December 2015, 04:43 PM   #729
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
What does this expert have to say about how you view the event? That's really what matters, right? Can you admit he has never expressed a similar opinion?
What does he have to say about your theory? Do you agree with him that there were studs on the girders between C79 and 44? While you're at it, ask him if he thinks those shear studs should be considered in an analysis of the building.
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 12th December 2015, 04:48 PM   #730
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
What does he have to say about your theory? Do you agree with him that there were studs on the girders between C79 and 44? While you're at it, ask him if he thinks those shear studs should be considered in an analysis of the building.
Why would I ask him anything? I'm not using his testimony to support my view. The ball is in your court. From the case you quoted he clearly has no problems with the cause.
__________________
"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; 12th December 2015 at 04:51 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 12th December 2015, 04:54 PM   #731
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Why would I ask him anything? I'm not using his testimony to support my view.
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.

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
The ball is in your court.
No, the statement's on the court record. The ball is firmly in NISTs court.
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 12th December 2015, 04:58 PM   #732
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
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.
What would I be "refuting"? I don't care about the sheer studs and apparently neither does your star witness when it comes to cause. Are you saying he disputes the cause?
__________________
"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 12th December 2015, 05:04 PM   #733
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Post

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
What would I be "refuting"? I don't care about the sheer studs and apparently neither does your star witness when it comes to cause. Are you saying he disputes the cause?
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?
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 12th December 2015, 05:13 PM   #734
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
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?
So you really have nothing and are just looking for some reason to discredit the NIST (or improve on their model).

What are you hoping to achieve? You can't be supporting a CD scenario. A better understanding of the collapse I can understand.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

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

Last edited by DGM; 12th December 2015 at 05:15 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 12th December 2015, 05:16 PM   #735
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
It would be cool to have an original, unambiguous claim. My perception is that AE and TSz stay sufficiently vague to preserve plausible deniability. As for gerrycan, I can't say.
Found it...

Quote:
I believe it is now time to change the game plan and to use the numbers that these pertinent and relevant issues have helped gain for our cause. And I am convinced that the way to do this is to ask people to take that first step of entertaining the possibility that the WTC7 report is provably false, and allow them to draw their own conclusions rather than ask them to step straight to the finish line of "911 was an inside job". This approach has to date opened up a dialogue with both NIST and the Office of the Inspector General. I dare say that these people would rather not be talking to us, but the fact that we are focusing on the provable errors and not widening out the issue doe not afford them that option to dismiss and ignore us.
How bogging the discussion down to particular studs accomplishes this? I don't know. Most people are willing to accept when the NIST has missed something but the issues in question have not disproven the proximate cause - fire, nor provided evidence of any other mechanism that cannot be tied in one way or another to the fires. I do owe a small retraction to gerrycan though as my off-hand recollection was incorrect. His "affirmative claim" in the post is "inside job", not "CD" in particular. Maybe he said it some other time, but I'm not inclined to perv through years of history to find a track record
__________________
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 12th December 2015, 05:17 PM   #736
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by MileHighMadness View Post
You are avoiding the question. I believe they are a minor detail, and would have not prevented the global collapse of WTC 7, or the girder walk off.

What do you believe they are so important?
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.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 12th December 2015 at 05:21 PM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2015, 05:21 PM   #737
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
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.
You have shown your calculations on this?

Where? Naturally they were in context with the rest of the structure?
__________________
"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; 12th December 2015 at 05:23 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 12th December 2015, 05:22 PM   #738
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
You have shown your calculations on this?

Where?
I did several years ago. I think even on this forum.
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 12th December 2015, 05:25 PM   #739
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I did several years ago. I think even on this forum.
I have no doubt you showed calculations in isolation. Now step up and show how it relates to the real world. I know how much you hate that.
__________________
"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 12th December 2015, 05:26 PM   #740
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
So you really have nothing and are just looking for some reason to discredit the NIST.

What are you hoping to achieve? Surly you can't be supporting a CD scenario. A better understanding of the collapse I can understand.
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.
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 12th December 2015, 05:34 PM   #741
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
So we agree that there were shear studs on the girder?
I don't know for sure or have found a reason to care.

Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
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.
So your proof is based on unreleased drawings? Where is your proof this judgement call matters in the end?

Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
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.
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

Last edited by DGM; 12th December 2015 at 05:35 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 12th December 2015, 05:43 PM   #742
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
What part of their conclusion did they get wrong?
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.
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 12th December 2015, 05:52 PM   #743
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
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.
So you argue that it was not damage and fire? That's all that was documented on 9/11/01. The NIST conclusion was that the collapse was due to fire and damage. They made recommendations to prevent it and to protect the ocupants in the future, that was their task.
__________________
"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; 12th December 2015 at 05:55 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 12th December 2015, 06:06 PM   #744
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
So you argue that it was not damage and fire? That's all that was documented on 9/11/01.
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.
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
The NIST conclusion was that the collapse was due to fire and damage. They made recommendations to prevent it and to protect the ocupants in the future, that was their task.
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 ?
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 12th December 2015, 06:11 PM   #745
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
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 ?
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.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 12th December 2015 at 06:20 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 12th December 2015, 06:17 PM   #746
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
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.
Noted

Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
NIST were tasked with finding out how and why the building collapsed.
Not true. Their mission is to protect public safety and make recommendations to this end.

Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
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.
And it has never been shown that it effected the overall scope of their task.

Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
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 ?
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

Last edited by DGM; 12th December 2015 at 06:21 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 12th December 2015, 06:21 PM   #747
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Noted



Not true. They're 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.
The NIST WTC 7 report contains major errors and omissions that would invalidate the conclusions they had if corrected and you simply indulge in saying it wouldn't change their conclusion! It is hard to take what you say seriously.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 12th December 2015 at 06:24 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 12th December 2015, 06:24 PM   #748
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The NIST WTC 7 report contains major errors and omissions that would invalidate the conclusions they had if corrected and you simply indulge in saying it wouldn't change their conclusion! It is hard to take what you say seriously.
No one takes you seriously. There is no evidence of explosive demolition at the WTC site. I know, all contrary evidence is fake..................
__________________
"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 12th December 2015, 06:26 PM   #749
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
No one takes you seriously. There is no evidence of explosive demolition at the WTC site. I know, all contrary evidence is fake..................
The above statements by you aren't true either. You seem to live in a fact free zone where you simply say whatever suits you with no regard for reality.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 12th December 2015 at 06:38 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 12th December 2015, 06:29 PM   #750
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The above statement by you aren't true either. You seem to live in a fact free zone where you simply say whatever suits you with no regard for reality.
Unfortunately for you it's also the world 99% of the world lives in. Makes you wonder who's reality is actually real.............
__________________
"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 12th December 2015, 06:29 PM   #751
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
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.
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.

Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Maybe it would be more expedient to make a list of what they got right.
It would be more expedient if YOU made your claim explicit and supported it with debatable reasoning.
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Who knows what effect these details and whatever else NIST left out will have.
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.
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
I guess we will know when an accurate model emerges. NIST didn't come to a conclusion. They started with one.
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.
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 12th December 2015, 06:40 PM   #752
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
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.
I never started with a conclusion. The evidence led me to a conclusion. The fact that the NIST report on WTC 7 needed to omit pertinent structural features to say fire did it means it needs to be dismissed and redone.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 12th December 2015 at 06:42 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 12th December 2015, 06:43 PM   #753
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I never started with a conclusion. The evidence led me to a conclusion. The fact that the NIST report on WTC 7 needed to omit pertinent structural features to say fire did it means it needs to be dismissed and redone.
You also make up evidence of explosives, where no evidence exists. You also deny evidence that has been conclusively shown.
__________________
"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 12th December 2015, 06:44 PM   #754
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
ETA: nevermind... beaten to it
__________________
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 12th December 2015, 06:45 PM   #755
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
You also make up evidence of explosives, where no evidence exists.
The symmetric free fall of WTC 7 for eight stories would certainly lead any rational investigator to consider that demolition devices were possibly used.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 12th December 2015 at 06:47 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 12th December 2015, 06:49 PM   #756
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The symmetric free fall of WTC 7 for eight stories would certainly lead any rational investigator to consider that demolition devices were possibly used.
Sure, if they were deaf and knew nothing about the events leading up to it.
__________________
"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 12th December 2015, 07:18 PM   #757
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Sure, if they were deaf and knew nothing about the events leading up to it.
There are people who have publicly said they heard sounds of explosions when WTC 7 came down. Craig Bartmer and Kevin McPadden are two of them. Didn't you know this?

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 12th December 2015 at 07:19 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 12th December 2015, 07:20 PM   #758
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
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.
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.

Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
You are parroting the Szamboti nonsense and have not supported the claim - whether you attribute it to him or adopt it as your own.
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.


Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
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;
You don't think that stiffener plates make a difference?

Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
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.
ok

Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
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.
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"


Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
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.
You still never said that you thought the shear studs should have been included in the analysis.

Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
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.
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.

Last edited by gerrycan; 12th December 2015 at 07:30 PM.
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 12th December 2015, 07:37 PM   #759
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
There are people who have publicly said they heard sounds of explosions when WTC 7 came down. Craig Bartmer and Kevin McPadden are two of them. Didn't you know this?
Yes I do. Wasn't Keven the one that also claimed he heard the Red Cross transmit the count down to the demolition? Didn't he also "run for his life" after that, although he was several blocks away?
__________________
"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; 12th December 2015 at 07:38 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 12th December 2015, 07:40 PM   #760
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Yes I do. Wasn't Keven the one that also claimed he heard the Red Cross transmit the count down to the demolition? Didn't he also "run for his life" after that, although he was several blocks away?
The important part is he says he heard sounds of explosions when WTC 7 was coming down. Do you think he is somehow mistaken? How about Craig Bartmer?
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
Reply

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

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 04:19 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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.