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.
Reply
Old 28th August 2015, 06:57 AM   #361
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,108
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
I've been unsatisfied with NIST's explanations
How does YOU being unsatisfied with what YOU believe SHOULD have been included in the reports lead you to make comments like these below?

Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Doesn't it seem that it is mission critical to examine, present and analyze the actual plans, the actual connections and so forth?
Are you suggesting that the NIST did not examine and analyze the actual plans? Seems like it to me.

Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
You don't find this a bizarre commission? substituting their cartoons?
Subsituting "cartoons". Are you suggesting that the drawings the NIST created in their reports or not based on actual drawings and are filled with made up fluff? What difference does it make if they present the actual drawings or their own drawings BASED on the actual drawings?
Gamolon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2015, 07:00 AM   #362
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,108
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
You betcha...
You betcha?

I'll ask again. What specific details were ignored?
Gamolon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2015, 08:34 AM   #363
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,828
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
How does YOU being unsatisfied with what YOU believe SHOULD have been included in the reports lead you to make comments like these below?


Are you suggesting that the NIST did not examine and analyze the actual plans? Seems like it to me.

Subsituting "cartoons". Are you suggesting that the drawings the NIST created in their reports or not based on actual drawings and are filled with made up fluff? What difference does it make if they present the actual drawings or their own drawings BASED on the actual drawings?
I am not going to beat a dead horse. You don't get it... fine. The actual details are important and should be included in the report... It's like a surgeon showing a cartoon of plaque in a cartoon drawing to someone instead of their MRI...

And I have no idea what NIST did... I can only see what they published. I find it lacking.. You are OK with it...
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 28th August 2015, 09:34 AM   #364
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,108
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
It's like a surgeon showing a cartoon of plaque in a cartoon drawing to someone instead of their MRI...
Not even close to the same thing.
Gamolon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2015, 09:50 AM   #365
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,828
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
Not even close to the same thing.
to me it's close... to you it's not...

What is your profession if I may ask?
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 28th August 2015, 10:39 AM   #366
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 22,412
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
I am not going to beat a dead horse. You don't get it... fine. The actual details are important and should be included in the report... It's like a surgeon showing a cartoon of plaque in a cartoon drawing to someone instead of their MRI...

And I have no idea what NIST did... I can only see what they published. I find it lacking.. You are OK with it...
Firstly, please stop using the word 'cartoon'. It does nothing but demean the discussion.

Secondly, whether they use schematics or original technical drawings to illustrate their points depends on the intended audience, no? From what I've seen of the engineering drawings (if that's the right phrase) they'd be of nearly zero use as illustrations in reports such as NIST's in this case.
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2015, 11:27 AM   #367
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
From what I've seen of the engineering drawings (if that's the right phrase) they'd be of nearly zero use as illustrations in reports such as NIST's in this case.
I really suck at getting that point across!! LOL. But I keep trying.

For those familiar with CAD and how layers work, imagine a drawing that has 20 layers. Each layer has different things, like dimensions on 1, material specs on 2, etc. Except in 1965 there was no such thing as CAD, so you had to either cram all this crap into prints with ridiculous amounts of info, or you had tons and tons of different drawings with various levels of sub-information, each serving different purposes.

Now imagine a modern group (NIST?) comes along, using CAD, and they want to show you some "cartoon" about whatever they happen to be talking about in that section - like where these certain steel specimens came from. What do they do?

They turn off all the unrelated layers. They hide all the extraneous stuff that for the present discussion is just a distraction. Or they export a 2D print with just the stuff they happen to be talking about, or something like that. Isn't that what they did? Isn't that what *everyone* does?

Someone please tell me where my thinking has gone astray.
Bravin Neff 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 28th August 2015, 11:57 AM   #368
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,828
Originally Posted by Bravin Neff View Post
I really suck at getting that point across!! LOL. But I keep trying.

For those familiar with CAD and how layers work, imagine a drawing that has 20 layers. Each layer has different things, like dimensions on 1, material specs on 2, etc. Except in 1965 there was no such thing as CAD, so you had to either cram all this crap into prints with ridiculous amounts of info, or you had tons and tons of different drawings with various levels of sub-information, each serving different purposes.

Now imagine a modern group (NIST?) comes along, using CAD, and they want to show you some "cartoon" about whatever they happen to be talking about in that section - like where these certain steel specimens came from. What do they do?

They turn off all the unrelated layers. They hide all the extraneous stuff that for the present discussion is just a distraction. Or they export a 2D print with just the stuff they happen to be talking about, or something like that. Isn't that what they did? Isn't that what *everyone* does?

Someone please tell me where my thinking has gone astray.
Not very sensible. I began working with old style paper and pencil drawings... and I know how the information is organized. I know about CAD and use it now... and dimensions are not on a separate "layer" they are a separate "class" which can be made visible or not.

I have no problem with some simple didactic diagrams and cartoons. But in a technical report the underlying documents should be in the addenda or accessible. They were not. And they are still not available IIRC. I think this was a mistake and I don't get or like it.

Who knows what someone could find studying this information???
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 28th August 2015, 12:04 PM   #369
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
... and dimensions are not on a separate "layer" they are a separate "class" which can be made visible or not.
I appreciate the correction.

Quote:
Who knows what someone could find studying this information???
Thermitic bolts?

I jest! Okay, bad joke, I know.
Bravin Neff 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 28th August 2015, 01:05 PM   #370
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 22,790
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
.........I know about CAD and use it now... and dimensions are not on a separate "layer" they are a separate "class" which can be made visible or not........
Sorry, what?

Autocad doesn't have classes, and dimensions can be put on one or many different layers, entirely within the control of the user. Dimensions, therefore, can be made visible or invisible, just like any other layer. As Autocad is far and away the market leader, I suspect that you are working on a different and more minor programme, and extrapolating.
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG 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 28th August 2015, 01:07 PM   #371
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,529
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
I have no problem with some simple didactic diagrams and cartoons.
Could you post an example of these "cartoons"? I've read the reports and I don't remember seeing any (unless your definition of cartoon is something I'm not familiar with).
__________________
"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 28th August 2015, 01:18 PM   #372
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Autocad doesn't have classes, and dimensions can be put on one or many different layers, entirely within the control of the user...
Not trying to answer for JSO, but he is an architect and I assume there is a convention the architectural world follows, maybe centered on some other software.

(irrelevant info: in manufacturing acad was superceded years ago except for dxf files that are still considered base currency for 2D...)
Bravin Neff 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 28th August 2015, 01:32 PM   #373
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,828
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Sorry, what?

Autocad doesn't have classes, and dimensions can be put on one or many different layers, entirely within the control of the user. Dimensions, therefore, can be made visible or invisible, just like any other layer. As Autocad is far and away the market leader, I suspect that you are working on a different and more minor programme, and extrapolating.
The term layer literally means layers like stacks of paper one on top of the other. This is the true meaning of layer... and layer order can be changed and visibility turned on and off and so forth... lines and object in a CAD (the platfrom I use) are placed on layers.. layers have a scale which can be changed... object / lines can be moved between layers and all objects and lines can be assigned a class and that can have visibility or not. AutoCad uses only "layers" which are actually classes... It may be the most popular but it is not necessarily superior.

Minor?
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 28th August 2015, 01:35 PM   #374
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,828
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Could you post an example of these "cartoons"? I've read the reports and I don't remember seeing any (unless your definition of cartoon is something I'm not familiar with).
A "cartoon" to me is a simplified non technical drawing... such as the attached (mine)
Attached Files
File Type: pdf FRAMING.pdf (69.5 KB, 25 views)
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 28th August 2015, 01:49 PM   #375
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,529
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
A "cartoon" to me is a simplified non technical drawing... such as the attached (mine)
I think you need to publish a complete glossary of terms along with your posts. After all, there's no way to get a complete understanding using language not released and as far as I know, never has.
__________________
"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 28th August 2015, 01:58 PM   #376
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 22,412
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
A "cartoon" to me is a simplified non technical drawing... such as the attached (mine)
For a fair few days now it has seemed to me that you're just looking for something to squabble about. The diagrams you linked are much clearer that the kind of originals we've seen in WTC7 threads. Not "cartoons" by any stretch.
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2015, 02:09 PM   #377
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,828
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
For a fair few days now it has seemed to me that you're just looking for something to squabble about. The diagrams you linked are much clearer that the kind of originals we've seen in WTC7 threads. Not "cartoons" by any stretch.
There is no technical information on the "cartoon" I attached... Apparently my concerns do not resonate with posters to this forum. I am not terribly surprised either.
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 28th August 2015, 02:14 PM   #378
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,529
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
There is no technical information on the "cartoon" I attached... Apparently my concerns do not resonate with posters to this forum. I am not terribly surprised either.
Why?
__________________
"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 28th August 2015, 02:17 PM   #379
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Apparently my concerns do not resonate with posters to this forum. I am not terribly surprised either.
I sympathize. You have handled objections to your complaints reasonably well by my lights. I can't say I share your concerns, but I'm not an architect or structural engineer.
Bravin Neff 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 28th August 2015, 02:22 PM   #380
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,828
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Why?
Honestly... there appears to be lots of posters who who are inflexible to anything new... and anyone who raises an issues is "treated" as a "truther" and suspect.
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 28th August 2015, 02:29 PM   #381
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,529
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Honestly... there appears to be lots of posters who who are inflexible to anything new... and anyone who raises an issues is "treated" as a "truther" and suspect.
I hope you're not including me. I personally don't think they needed to include the whole set of drawings. In fact I doubt they could (they are not their property). The Individual diagrams are sufficient to show the case they are trying to make. Past that, they give a reference to those needing more.
__________________
"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 28th August 2015, 03:00 PM   #382
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,395
This discussion is circling - no surprise in that. And it is circling because the main proponent won't define the key parameters.

Those include:
A) What audience are the drawings serving. Simplified versions at varying levels of simplification are valid, appropriate, realistic for differing audiences. Whether or not Sander disparages drawing for lay persons because they do not meet his personal demand for an undefined higher level of perfection of all details.

B) The issues of standing and entitlement or expectation which also differ by class of audience.

If we don't define who is the target, what their needs are, and what expectations or entitlements they can legitimately have we will keep circling.
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 28th August 2015, 03:08 PM   #383
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,529
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post

If we don't define who is the target, what their needs are, and what expectations or entitlements they can legitimately have we will keep circling.
I would also add. Has any constructive criticism actually come from the drawings that were released by the FOIA requests? I don't remember seeing any from legitimate organisations.
__________________
"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 28th August 2015, 03:13 PM   #384
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,395
Originally Posted by Bravin Neff View Post
Not trying to answer for JSO, but he is an architect and I assume there is a convention the architectural world follows, maybe centered on some other software.

(irrelevant info: in manufacturing acad was superceded years ago except for dxf files that are still considered base currency for 2D...)
My last full time job was as boss of engineering for a local government council.

The engineers used a simple form of "roadsandstructuresCAD" - used Autocad to produce the drawings but did not need all the "bells and whistles" for the design work.

My daughter is an interior designer/project manager and uses a simple form of "furnitureandofficelayoutCAD" - also using AutoCad to print the drawings. (She also uses autocad on a laptop - I cannot work in the limited desktop space )

The male engineers in the very male chauvinist council were having computer usage problems - I introduced daughter (female by definition). She fixed their problems THEN did an ergonomic redesign of the office and workstation layout.

Sure knocked some of the male bias attitudes sideways when she could talk their language...
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 28th August 2015, 03:20 PM   #385
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,395
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I would also add. Has any constructive criticism actually come from the drawings that were released by the FOIA requests? I don't remember seeing any from legitimate organisations.
Agreed - it is a multi facet issue to define "entitlement". I was only picking a few bits of examples.

I've seen no legitimate criticisms or legitimate expressions of need. Mostly truther rants or Sanders so far unfocused "I need it for my personal interest needs".

Sander as a US citizen architect MAY have a legitimate issue of concern. He isn't explaining it or demonstrating legitimacy. Hence my recent comments - as an AU engineer I am sure my needs are less legitimate than Sander's.
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 28th August 2015, 03:23 PM   #386
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,828
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
This discussion is circling - no surprise in that. And it is circling because the main proponent won't define the key parameters.

Those include:
A) What audience are the drawings serving. Simplified versions at varying levels of simplification are valid, appropriate, realistic for differing audiences. Whether or not Sander disparages drawing for lay persons because they do not meet his personal demand for an undefined higher level of perfection of all details.

B) The issues of standing and entitlement or expectation which also differ by class of audience.

If we don't define who is the target, what their needs are, and what expectations or entitlements they can legitimately have we will keep circling.
I am not opposed to simplified drawings... but I think the report should have included the real stuff.

I am done.
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 28th August 2015, 06:15 PM   #387
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
...The engineers used a simple form of "roadsandstructuresCAD"... My daughter is an interior designer/project manager and uses a simple form of "furnitureandofficelayoutCAD"...
Ozeco41, sounds like you have a highly technical daughter! But talking about CAD, wow, I almost feel like we are talking different languages. I have never heard of that stuff.

In my tiny corner of the planet, the convention in the 80s and 90s was autocad, but has moved to Inventor vs. Solidworks at the lower budget levels, and Catia vs. NX (for years called Unigraphics) at the higher levels.

The differences as I understand them largely amount to how many independent parts the software can maintain at once in the virtual world with potentially dozens (if not hundreds) of people working on different things simultaneously.

For example, a firm working on a product like furniture or consumer products could easily be served by Inventor (same co. as Autocad) or Solidworks. A company like Boeing can have an entire 777, with its bajillion different parts, modeled in Catia.

My personal choice is Solidworks, but they all kind of work the same way.
Bravin Neff 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 28th August 2015, 06:23 PM   #388
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,529
Originally Posted by Bravin Neff View Post
Ozeco41, sounds like you have a highly technical daughter! But talking about CAD, wow, I almost feel like we are talking different languages. I have never heard of that stuff.
Me, I'm on the other side of the page. I get the drawings and "build this".
__________________
"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 28th August 2015, 06:57 PM   #389
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,395
Originally Posted by Bravin Neff View Post
Ozeco41, sounds like you have a highly technical daughter! But talking about CAD, wow, I almost feel like we are talking different languages. I have never heard of that stuff.
She would have made a great engineer but her artistic and aesthetic skills not needed in engineering - more suited to architecture.

I'm a slide rule era engineer - the era when you had to have your brain in gear - keeping track of all the assumptions you had to make. The unrecognised by many hazard of the FEA era - the machine does so much for you it is much easier to lose the plot when the situation moves beyond the normal range.

Remainder of your post noted - I've never operated there EXCEPT for the odd training example to see if I could do it.
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 28th August 2015, 07:05 PM   #390
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,395
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Me, I'm on the other side of the page. I get the drawings and "build this".
Me 2. Plus identifying when engineers and other professionals go off the rails (worrying about alligators or the second scenario in your sig.)

I guess you have also met examples of when "this" cannot be "built"

A road engineering example - when the office theory and computer said "a bus can get around a corner of this radius"...

...three problems:
1) Nobody told the bus;
2) The computer didn't have a bus driving licence; AND
3) The human bus drivers couldn't do it. (And - before anyone asks - I had the three best drivers in town. )
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 30th August 2015, 07:59 PM   #391
Fonebone
persona non grata
 
Fonebone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 481
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
There are two ways to determine the position of the WTC1 upper section at the time all columns have already failed: one is by using the naked eye and the other, more precise method, is by subpixel object tracking the upper northwest corner of the building from the Sauret viewpoint.


Anyone, using the information given at this link: 2.4: WTC1 Accurate Collapse History, can verify the tilt angle and early motion of the WTC1 upper portion is quite different from what the NIST claimed within their reports.

The less accurate but much easier method shows that all WTC1 columns have already failed by the moment the WTC1 upper portion was in this position:






The more accurate method shows that even this extremely small tilt angle is exaggerated. The actual tilt angle is even smaller than the one shown in the images.



Every quote and supporting image the NIST uses to describe the early motion of the WTC1 upper portion within their reports is reproduced in this link: NIST WTC1 Misrepresentations.

They are obviously very wrong, and that is not hard to show. What is nearly impossible to do is to get this verifiable information past the mental barriers of the true believers, the NISTians.


The reason why I posted this information within this thread or in this forum, an environment which I find utterly anti-intellectual and repulsive (with the exception of very few posters), is because of this comment by Bravin Neff:







The post is religious in nature. It is a bizarre but not unpredicted statement that in 2015 is as worn out as it gets. The comment is a form of worship, and has no connection whatsoever to skeptical or critical thought. It is a standard JREF/ISF meme, a type of robotic regurgitation which goes unchallenged within this environment.


I wanted to see if Bravin was capable of critical thought as directed toward his own beliefs or if he only applies critical thought toward others who do not share his unwavering faith in official reports.


I don't wish to pick on you personally since you are just one more victim of the environment which both the NIST and the JREF/ISF forum actively helped to create. The original creators of this extremely bias, church-like environment are to blame much more than their many victims, but I collect and document examples of this type of thinking and your quote and follow-up comments were a great example of this mindset in action.


So, Bravin, are you capable of viewing the NIST reports critically or will you entrench yourself in your beliefs even further? And on the subject of probability, what is the probablility that the NIST can release verifiably incorrect information to the public such as this extreme misrepresentation of the WTC1 collapse initiation process and such information goes virtually unchallenged by ASCE publications like the Journal of Engineering Mechanics for a decade?

What is the probability of so many people being so, so wrong for so long?


The WTC tower schematic shown in the 1st graphic from the post below
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...9#post10683679
reveals each tower consisted of two hundred and forty exterior columns
and the core contained an additional forty seven columns.


The second graphic reveals the method used to support the "hat truss " of
the tower on the core columns and the outrigger beams (red and blue)
that connect the hat truss to the exterior column structure.
The antenna gravity load rested on the core column structure and the
outriggers on the hat truss braced the hat truss and the exterior column structure together.
Total number of columns of the interior core and the exterior columns totaled two hundred and eighty seven.

Now , in order to have the hat truss and antenna structure fail at the exact time as the exterior column structure
every one of those interior core and exterior box columns would have to be neutralized at the
exact same moment as seen in the graphic below.
Note the antenna and exterior roof line fall symmetrically in unison
on all four tower faces.



All two hundred and eighty seven columns buckled symmetrically at the exact instant
of collapse ?
__________________
Truth, like the sun, allows itself to be obscured;
but, like the sun, only for a time __Bovee

Truth once elicited never dies -Bancroft

twoofers versus twidiots , twaitors , twusters and boil-thuckers

Last edited by Fonebone; 30th August 2015 at 08:17 PM. Reason: add clarification
Fonebone 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 30th August 2015, 09:13 PM   #392
BadBoy
Graduate Poster
 
BadBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,168
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
I am not opposed to simplified drawings... but I think the report should have included the real stuff.

I am done.
IMHO, I'm not sure it really matters. What matters is the content of the report and if it was correct and useful to the extend that it would be used to hopefully prevent such collapses in the future (is that even possible?)
__________________
Go sell crazy someplace else we're all stocked up here
BadBoy 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 30th August 2015, 09:28 PM   #393
BadBoy
Graduate Poster
 
BadBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,168
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
All two hundred and eighty seven columns buckled symmetrically at the exact instant
of collapse ?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4c6c4d7266.gif
That was a long involved post for what? to suggest what exactly?

From what I understand from this thread, many of them (columns) had been weakened by fire and impact damage, after all it did fail at the point of impact and fire did it not? Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Once the load on the remaining columns becomes too much they fail, all at once. I don't see the problem. The forces involved are immense. Just because some of the remaining columns were intact doesn't mean they can still support the building above all on their own.

correct?
__________________
Go sell crazy someplace else we're all stocked up here

Last edited by BadBoy; 30th August 2015 at 09:30 PM.
BadBoy 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 30th August 2015, 10:12 PM   #394
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 341
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
And you have manner of jerks such as Miatello... writing nonsense which truthers eat up...

https://www.academia.edu/13907138/Wo...ass_in_Physics

This is laughable...
What's funnier is that I walked right into your pitfall. Grumbles....

I definitely got excited reading "The collapse cannot proceed", which I maintain is true, but not for the rationale expressed above. The math was wrong. I didn't catch it. Good one!
Notconvinced 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 30th August 2015, 10:46 PM   #395
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 341
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Could you show the context of these endorsements? Bazants models (even with some faults) do show conclusively that the only way to stop a progressive (global) collapse is not to let it get started in the first place. The NIST understood this and this is reflected in their recommendation for code changes.
The context is that ASCE has published his theories. Progressive collapse is typically driven by the sorts of systemic failure you would find in an earthquake or CD. This is acknowledged in the Bazant papers, and though he referenced some other limited examples of prior progressive collapses from other causes in his 2007 paper, their lack of similarity is not compelling.

We didn't need NIST to tell progressive collapses are bad. We needed them to prove that WTC 1&2 were progressive collapses, and they didn't do that. They explained how a group of floors could fail, which is substantially different than explaining how 1/10th of a building could crush the remaining 9/10ths.


Originally Posted by DGM View Post
This is wrong. Only the theory of "pancake collapse" for initiation was shown wrong by the NIST (with some gray area they likely did get exactly right). There is little to no doubt the building actually did pancake their way down after initiation.
There is not only doubt, it can be shown to be impossible. Conservation of momentum alone disqualifies it, not to mention the pictorial evidence of the collapse initiation as well as the view from above.


Originally Posted by DGM View Post
As far as disproving Bazant goes, it wouldn't change a thing. Funny thing is, "truthers" spend a lot of time disproving something that can easily be shown never actually happened (the model). The works of Tony Sz is a prime example.
Inevitably disproving Bazant will again open the door to understanding the mechanics of the collapse, and further push for understanding will continue. This is humanity's nature.

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Doesn't really answer my question. If you mean this literally you are way off as to how intact the structure around the collapse zone was. Would you think it can be safely said there were local floor failures both above and below the impact zones?
Yes, I think there were cut stairwells and the intermittent degradation of structural support below the impact zone.

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I'm sorry but this is wrong on many levels. I'm not going to derail this any further here.
Thank you because it's OT for this thread and I think we're addressing well in the part 23 one.

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Wrong. The loss of floor slab in the "pancake" or "ROOSD" explanations do this far better while still covering all the observable evidence. Explosives simply were not needed.
I've been looking into ROOSD (don't have the luxury of having been 'here' for 9 years) and it still seems to have the problem of internal core stability. The internal core still must collide with itself, and this deformation arrests the fall. The comminution is shown to be in the micrometer range iirc, and the buildings begin particle expulsion within the first several stories of destruction. It's just not reasonable to expect that level of diminution from the first few floor impacts.
Notconvinced 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 30th August 2015, 11:28 PM   #396
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 341
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
a floor of the WTC can only hold 29,000,000 pounds
So that means the first falling floor can only sustain about 120,000,000 N before failing.

Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
How much do the 12 floors weigh?
Probably about the same as the 12 below them.

Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
lol, they don't have to have any KE, they can just sit on the lower floor, carefully placed softly without velocity;
And an invisible hand can push them all the way down after placing them there, right?
Notconvinced 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 31st August 2015, 12:26 AM   #397
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 22,412
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
The comminution is shown to be in the micrometer range iirc, and the buildings begin particle expulsion within the first several stories of destruction. It's just not reasonable to expect that level of diminution from the first few floor impacts.
Another junk factoid you read on a Truther website? That was on oft-repeated bit of Truther deception back in the day, but was invented by the serial liar Jim Hoffman. He took the particle size of lightweight dust that had settled under cover, downwind, and extrapolated those particle sizes to the entire concrete content of the Towers. You appear to be sucking up uncritically whatever bilge you read that happens to suit your belief. Meanwhile ...

GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2015, 02:43 AM   #398
BadBoy
Graduate Poster
 
BadBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,168
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
So that means the first falling floor can only sustain about 120,000,000 N before failing.
Exactly. Though its mass doesn't change, even if its broken.

Also, the mass above is hitting the floor below, not the weight bearing pillars.

Quote:
And an invisible hand can push them all the way down after placing them there, right?
Is that another Truther claim, would not surprise me at all. The floor below the falling mass gave way, adding to the falling mass, hitting the next floor, which also gave way. Its not that difficult to comprehend, actually.
__________________
Go sell crazy someplace else we're all stocked up here
BadBoy 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 31st August 2015, 02:51 AM   #399
BadBoy
Graduate Poster
 
BadBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,168
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
There is not only doubt, it can be shown to be impossible. Conservation of momentum alone disqualifies it, not to mention the pictorial evidence of the collapse initiation as well as the view from above.
Ah good. Please present your proofs that it is impossible here.

Er, we do have an example that disproves you rather strongly though.

__________________
Go sell crazy someplace else we're all stocked up here
BadBoy 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 31st August 2015, 03:56 AM   #400
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,828
Notconvinced doesn't seem to understand that there was a limit to how much a typical twin tower floor could support before breaking apart and free from the columns which supported it. The mass of the dropping floors exceeded the yield strength of the slab. If the dropping mass was in chunks or sections of floor it hardly matters... the local area would yield and break. The slabs lost their integrity and from falling chunks of slabs and this went "runaway" and a sort of vertical avalanche of floor materials ensued... all by passing the columns and leaving the columns unstable with bracing from the floor system.

We've been over this for years. If the mass of the floors is removed from the axial load paths... it will collapse onto the floors below and destroy them... freeing them from the axial load paths and so on.
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
Reply

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

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:02 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

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