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
 

Notices


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 24th August 2015, 12:01 AM   #241
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 22,830
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
A claim was made that only a minor percentage of core columns would be accessible from the elevator shafts, and I haven't looked into this in detail. I bet an examination of the floor plans would reveal that stairwells and other internal building compartments would yield access to the remaining majority of columns.
Probably best if you look at the plans before making such claims, eh?

However, your claim was that the work could be carried out in relative secrecy by using the shafts, but now you're adding open areas such as offices and stairwells? As already mentioned, it would then be impossible to cover the charges without major structural alterations to the drywall panels, panels that were - in case you were unaware - mesh-reinforced. Hammer drill? Have you ever drilled metal? Done any DIY at all?

Basically, you're making up stuff on the fly to cover the multiple mistakes you make along the way, while leaving a trail of rebutted claims behind you. Try tidying them up before moving on to new mistakes
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 24th August 2015, 12:28 AM   #242
WilliamSeger
Illuminator
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,113
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
At the point of impact, it doesn't matter that the lower section (upon checking, part "A" in the Bazant work) is stationary. That's like saying driving into a wall won't hurt you because the wall's not moving.

All of that momentum created by release of the gravitational PE destroys floor 79 in your example, but it also necessarily destroys floor 81. The KE is dispersed into deformation in both Z vectors, satisfying conservation of momentum. This decreases velocity. Bazant wants you to believe that floor 80 is accreted and would have the mass of Part A increase, but Part B is an illusion, a trick if you will. After the first impact of floors, Part A AND Part C consume Part B. If there is a "Part B" at all, it's makeup is then composed of floors 78 and 82. The next areas to be "crushed" are 77 and 83, with velocity decreasing after each impact until the collapse is quickly stalled.
This is as simple as rocks: Part B is all the debris from all the destroyed floors, minus whatever fell over the side. It's mass and momentum don't disappear by simply declaring it "consumed" and the continued acceleration of gravity after each collision doesn't disappear by simply ignoring it. Such magic tricks wouldn't fool a six-year-old. (But if you find such a 6-year-old, he'll probably buy the magic explosives bit, too.)
WilliamSeger is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2015, 03:01 AM   #243
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,403
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
But I take "the original basis of 'official explanations'" to be the "limit case" that you just said was valid, not any "later papers," so I believe they were right for the right reason: inabsorbable energy.
I comprehend your position and your reasoning. My purpose in posting was to provide a comment for Notconvinced on this statement of his:

Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
... where would categorically disproving Bazant's explanation leave the official story?
..to which my response was:
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Unchanged.
I'll wait to see if he wants to discuss the details...and suggest a more appropriate thread if he does.

Last edited by ozeco41; 24th August 2015 at 03:18 AM.
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 24th August 2015, 03:13 AM   #244
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,837
Truthers make the mistake that colliding floors "destroy" each other and the cease to exist... or perhaps their mass can no longer respond to gravity and be destructive.

If you take a sack of dishes and drop them they will break and if you drop the bag they broken dishes will break into smaller pieces and if you drop it again they will break into smaller pieces. This is how a commercial tumbler turns granite. or stone or concrete into dust.. repeated collisions cause communition of the large pieces into equally massive amount of dust.
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 24th August 2015, 03:46 AM   #245
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,837
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...
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 24th August 2015, 04:50 AM   #246
Major_Tom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,960
Originally Posted by Bravin Neff View Post
I appreciate your answers to questions I didn't ask. The video record you point to is impressive.
Far better than the patched, shabby one to which you linked. You can match video for video and verify that for yourself. No belief is required.



Originally Posted by Bravin Neff View Post
I didn't catch if you retracted this yet. Is that up thread? I looked, but I will admit I didn't find it.
You linked to a very poor collection of videos released years after their reports, and only because they were forced to release them. Again, verifiable.

Originally Posted by Bravin Neff View Post
Anyway, getting back to the questions I DID ask, in that webpage you originally pointed to, when you said: "In reality, the building leaned less than 1 degree... as demonstrated in this section." Did your calculation appear somewhere else? I never found it in the section.
So of your earlier comments that is the only one left unaddressed?

Ozeco, you were explaining on another forum (metabunk.org) that the mappings of WTC1 early motion were correct and that no subpixel measurements were required to make the case.

Bravin Neff is still quite attached to the NIST descriptions of the same motion. Could you please explain to him that the femr2 work on the subject is much more accurate that what the NIST provided?

Others from the JREF/ISF debunking community, didn't we already discuss this a few years back? Could you please inform Bravin that he may want to update his thinking at this point?

If you are sincere in your debunking, why ignore the NIST mistakes and only focus on truthers? How can you support and defend Bazantian block mechanics, and then criticize the truther version of block mechanics?
__________________
Website
Major_Tom 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 24th August 2015, 05:04 AM   #247
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,837
Tom has identified, yet again the false dichotomy in the 9/11 wtc collapse discussion which include the entire spectrum of positions.. dividing them into OCT and "truther". Admittedly the truther camp has proposed all sorts of CD scenarios and the OCT side has pretty much fallen in line behind NIST's work. And neither side seems to be able to either see mistakes on their side.. or acknowledge valid points on the other side. Two sides talking past one another and not listening. Pretty stupid behavior.

It's easier to see the myriad of errors in truther "thinking" (if it could be called "thinking") but there are also problems with the OCT side with concepts like "pancakes" and blocks and even inapplicable "limit cases".

Almost 15 years and there is hardly any convergence toward the truth. And there won't be. Neither side is interested in what actually happened in detail. OCTers because it doesn't seem to matter in the scheme of things. And truthers because it would take the wind from their sails.
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 24th August 2015, 05:17 AM   #248
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 72,392
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
I'm glad you are new here. New, fresh, and stunningly though predictably naive.
You still haven't answered me what you mean by this.

Presumably, you think anyone who concludes differently from you is naive, but that would be tremendously silly.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... 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 24th August 2015, 05:28 AM   #249
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 21,826
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Tom has identified, yet again the false dichotomy in the 9/11 wtc collapse discussion which include the entire spectrum of positions.. dividing them into OCT and "truther". Admittedly the truther camp has proposed all sorts of CD scenarios and the OCT side has pretty much fallen in line behind NIST's work. And neither side seems to be able to either see mistakes on their side.. or acknowledge valid points on the other side. Two sides talking past one another and not listening. Pretty stupid behavior.

It's easier to see the myriad of errors in truther "thinking" (if it could be called "thinking") but there are also problems with the OCT side with concepts like "pancakes" and blocks and even inapplicable "limit cases".

Almost 15 years and there is hardly any convergence toward the truth. And there won't be. Neither side is interested in what actually happened in detail. OCTers because it doesn't seem to matter in the scheme of things. And truthers because it would take the wind from their sails.
Most "debunkers" could successfully debunk all manner of CD even if NIST never existed. If the government spent a total of 10 dollars and .25 man hours, it would be enough to disprove literally ALL of the theories spewed by idiotic truthers.

Most people in hindsight now realize they knew what took the towers down before the 2nd one even fell. It was that obvious.
__________________
"We found no evidence that the conclusions by Department prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations; rather, we determined that they were based on the prosecutors' assessment of the facts, the law, and past Department practice”
NoahFence 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 24th August 2015, 06:43 AM   #250
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,837
The response to the collapse is pretty much a gut reaction... people with science and engineering backgrounds will think "un assisted by CD/ natural building collapse" and those in the politically disgruntled class of people have a gut reaction based on mickey mouse understanding of engineering and physics that building can't collapse as we saw... ergo it was a CD and the entire 9/11 was a staged event for some ulterior motive. The funny stuff is to see / read 9/11 truther science and engineering... and how they try to fool and manage to fool the naive...
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 24th August 2015, 08:50 AM   #251
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
Far better than the patched, shabby one to which you linked.
Are you talking about my links that you couldn't be bothered the first time to check, the same ones that contradict your statement "The following sequences of images from NIST NCSTAR 1-6 show the entirety of the visual evidence..." (3.2)?

Agreed - your link looks nicely unpatched and unshabby.

Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
So of your earlier comments that is the only one left unaddressed?
Yes, minus the other ones.

Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
...why ignore the NIST blah blah blah, how can you support and defend the blah blah blah
I have no idea what you're talking about. A bit projecting, are we? Ignoring/supporting/defending... what? Are you saying I did that here? In retrospect, it appears your obstacle here is your own head-strong vanity which led to premature states of false certainty.*

Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
Others from the JREF/ISF debunking community, didn't we already discuss this a few years back? Could you please inform Bravin that he may want to update his thinking at this point?
Why the emotional bidding of others to do what is clearly work you have been challenged to within your own work? You may want to update your expectation of the free work you ask of others.

Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
...and you cannot provide any video evidence whatsoever that you previously claimed is cataloged at the NIST site.
I didn't catch if you retracted this yet. Is that up thread? I looked, but I will admit I didn't find it.

Anyway, getting back to the questions I DID ask, in that webpage you originally pointed to, when you said: "In reality, the building leaned less than 1 degree... as demonstrated in this section." Did your demonstration appear somewhere else? I never found it in the section.

Is there some other section you demonstrate this? Your paper says it is demonstrated in that section.

*Said someone once.

Last edited by Bravin Neff; 24th August 2015 at 08:55 AM. Reason: Couldn't let the joke stand on its own. LOL.
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 24th August 2015, 09:04 AM   #252
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Major_Tom, by the way, I have been reading your book. I enjoy your mappings and wanted you to 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 24th August 2015, 09:16 AM   #253
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Probably best if you look at the plans before making such claims, eh?

However, your claim was that the work could be carried out in relative secrecy by using the shafts, but now you're adding open areas such as offices and stairwells? As already mentioned, it would then be impossible to cover the charges without major structural alterations to the drywall panels, panels that were - in case you were unaware - mesh-reinforced. Hammer drill? Have you ever drilled metal? Done any DIY at all?

Basically, you're making up stuff on the fly to cover the multiple mistakes you make along the way, while leaving a trail of rebutted claims behind you. Try tidying them up before moving on to new mistakes
GennB, I would be interested to know where I can find the plans you mention. My thinking is this:

The original premise of this thread is the probability a conspirator would succeed is unreasonably low. My estimates rely on variables grossly simplified and with low precision (which is why I have tried always to err on the side of the conspiracy theorist).

Such an estimate would benefit greatly from greater precision on some of the variables. For example, the time it takes to plant a single explosive charge is fundamentally knowable and testable. E.g., it might turn out planting one charge takes 12 minutes. Multiply that by a reasonable estimate of the number of charges required, and the entire probability calculation gets much more precise.
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 24th August 2015, 09:29 AM   #254
waypastvne
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 398
Originally Posted by Bravin Neff View Post
GennB, I would be interested to know where I can find the plans you mention. My thinking is this:

The original premise of this thread is the probability a conspirator would succeed is unreasonably low. My estimates rely on variables grossly simplified and with low precision (which is why I have tried always to err on the side of the conspiracy theorist).

Such an estimate would benefit greatly from greater precision on some of the variables. For example, the time it takes to plant a single explosive charge is fundamentally knowable and testable. E.g., it might turn out planting one charge takes 12 minutes. Multiply that by a reasonable estimate of the number of charges required, and the entire probability calculation gets much more precise.

http://www2.ae911truth.org/WTC1_blueprints.php
waypastvne 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 24th August 2015, 09:31 AM   #255
fagin
Philosopher
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 5,816
I think it may have been mentioned before but the probability of something that didn't happen is zero.

The only mistake is taking truthers seriously. Remove their oxygen and one day they might be snuffed out.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin 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 24th August 2015, 11:27 AM   #256
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 22,830
Originally Posted by Bravin Neff View Post
GennB, I would be interested to know where I can find the plans you mention. My thinking is this:

The original premise of this thread is the probability a conspirator would succeed is unreasonably low. My estimates rely on variables grossly simplified and with low precision (which is why I have tried always to err on the side of the conspiracy theorist).

Such an estimate would benefit greatly from greater precision on some of the variables. For example, the time it takes to plant a single explosive charge is fundamentally knowable and testable. E.g., it might turn out planting one charge takes 12 minutes. Multiply that by a reasonable estimate of the number of charges required, and the entire probability calculation gets much more precise.
A sample, with thanks to waypastvne for more detail. Note how many column surfaces abut office, corridor etc space :


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 24th August 2015, 11:35 AM   #257
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,837
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
A sample, with thanks to waypastvne for more detail. Note how many column surfaces abut office, corridor etc space :


http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/g...itecture-1.jpg
this plan is from a lower floor... not one where the plane hit wtc 1.

The bank of express elevators which served the top 1/3 of the tower... the zones stuck by the planes terminate at the 2nd sky lobby at floor 78. There were only local elevators from their up plus the elevators which went to the WOW and car 55 a freight car in the center of the core under the antenna.

The real estate above those shafts which at the level in the plan above filled almost the entire space between rows 500 and 600 and rows 900 and 1000 with the exception of 2 corridors.

People who make claims about placing explosive without being seen in elevator shafts because of an elevator upgrade program should realize that only a handful at MOST of the columns where accessible from the local shafts and they were located inside the core where the columns where not supporting floor loads IN ANY CASE... those would be the perimeter columns and there were not accessible from elevator shafts above floor 78.

Last edited by JSanderO; 24th August 2015 at 11:46 AM.
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 24th August 2015, 11:52 AM   #258
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 22,830
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
People who make claims about placing explosive without being seen in elevator shafts because of an elevator upgrade program should realize that only a handful at MOST of the columns where accessible from the local shafts and they were located inside the core where the columns where not supporting floor loads IN ANY CASE... those would be the perimeter columns and there were not accessible from elevator shafts above floor 78.
It would be helpful if you rephrase that in English.
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 24th August 2015, 12:00 PM   #259
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by fagin View Post
I think it may have been mentioned before but the probability of something that didn't happen is zero.

The only mistake is taking truthers seriously. Remove their oxygen and one day they might be snuffed out.
I appreciate your point, and I certainly agree with the spirit of your position.

However, I think you confuse two separate areas: the metaphysics of events and epistemological justification. It is a metaphysical claim - and I believe a correct one - to say the probability of an event that didn't happen is zero.

But that is not the nature of my question, which is epistemological. Every conclusion one is capable of drawing, regarding the WTC, is epistemological in nature and therefore subject to being challenged as to its justification (and probability of being true). That's where my interest in this thread lies.
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 24th August 2015, 12:06 PM   #260
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,837
have a look at see which columns were accessible from the shafts. In the local shafts there were only 10 columns accessible in the plane strike floors. #s indicate the highest floor that elevator served.

I don't believe the express elevators were part of the upgrade program.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg core braces.jpg (128.7 KB, 7 views)

Last edited by JSanderO; 24th August 2015 at 12:14 PM.
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 24th August 2015, 12:25 PM   #261
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,582
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
I concede, upon looking I cannot locate this in an official report. I do find of course numerous instances of the ASCE endorsing Bazant's "upper block" scenario, and as this is the predominate "expert" explanation, I conflated it with the "official" explanation.
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.

Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
It is the case however, that the the 911 commission report references a "pancake collapse" of the North Tower on page 308. It's curious that the only "official" explanation of the collapse itself is one that has since been disproven.
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.

Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
So.... "officially" there remains a void.

I find it a fair assessment however to say that Bazant's thesis remains the most widely accepted explanation for the progressive collapse. Do you agree? And if so... where would categorically disproving Bazant's explanation leave the official story?
This is a yes and no question. I think a very large number of people don't know where to separate the world from model when it comes to all of Bazants et al papers. I only read the first one and saw no reason to read the rest.

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.

Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
I'm specifically concerned with WTC1, and refer to the upper section as the 10 or so floors that began their descent after collapse initiation.
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?


Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
You've definitely twisted both of those notions. The first meant molecules aligned proximal to one another so that the distance between them was on the nanoscale, or comparable to the proximity achieved by chemical bonds. The other idea I was exploring was utilizing Si to increase the total density and thereby increase the detonation wave of an otherwise LE. I'm thinking that this detonation wave would not have quite the same ""crack" as an HE but would still impart damage to the concrete and potentially degrade the steel in some manner at 3200fps. And though I speculate such an explosion would be "softer" than a HE, I never said "subsonic".
I'm sorry but this is wrong on many levels. I'm not going to derail this any further here.

Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
The comminution observed on 911 can so far only be explained by Bazant's crushing front, but that explanation is invalid, so this leaves a huge hole in the story which is readily explained by explosives.
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.
__________________
"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; 24th August 2015 at 12:31 PM. Reason: spelling
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 24th August 2015, 01:14 PM   #262
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,422
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Without even considering the witness testimony or the evidence for thermitics, I watch the video and SEE controlled demolition. I look to official sources for a verified explanation and I SEE fraud and obfuscation.
So is that a you problem or a reality problem? Or in other words, either your perceptions are wrong or reality is wrong.

Quote:
NIST cannot explain the collapse, only the initiation, and their explanation of the initiation itself is wraught with problems.
Not a true statement. NIST was only interested in collapse initiation for the purpose of improving building safety. Once the collapse initiated what was going to happen was going to happen.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2015, 02:20 PM   #263
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,582
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
DGM will no doubt comment. I'm pressed for time so here are my brief comments.

I agree Bazant's explanation is the most widely accepted BUT it is also the most widely misunderstood. There are broadly two schools of thought. The probable minority including me who assert specifically:
a) Bazant as per B&Z 2001/2 presented a valid "limit case" (It has two dubious premises we can let pass for now);
b) The Bazant modeling when applied by Bazant in later papers to the actual WTC Twin Towers collapses is - IMNSHO - unequivocally wrong.
I can live with this.

Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
The majority of loyal to Bazant supporters would agree with me on "a)" and strongly disagree with me on "b) - they present present apologetic "mix and match both models" conflations disagreeing with my "b). Multiple threads we can reference if you are interested.
Personally, I think when discussions are started on this topic being in the conspiracy realm is the wrong forum. I think we've had this conversation before but, I think you need to leave conspiracy out to really discuss the whole works of Bazant et al.

Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Unchanged. Whilst the original basis of "official explanations" was probably wrong later research on a different approach reaches the same conclusion. So NIST et al were IMO probably "right for the wrong reasons". Explanation later if you need it.
I know what you mean but, no way in hell will Notconvinced. He hasn't even an idea of conditions at time of collapse.
__________________
"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 24th August 2015, 05:11 PM   #264
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,403
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I can live with this.
I thought you would - otherwise I would have waited courteously for you to respond first.
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Personally, I think when discussions are started on this topic being in the conspiracy realm is the wrong forum. I think we've had this conversation before but, I think you need to leave conspiracy out to really discuss the whole works of Bazant et al.
We have discussed it previously several times. Your idea is a valid alternate policy - my version is correct in forum history. No point derailing here - nothing hinges on the distinction.

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I know what you mean but, no way in hell will Notconvinced. He hasn't even an idea of conditions at time of collapse.
This graphic I posted explains the interactions between top portion and lower tower:

The yellow arrows hitting the blue lines show what really happened. It wasn't "block on block" PLUS that image is sufficient to rebut "block on block" nonsense.

However let's pre-empt the inevitable evasion since it is WTC2. The mechanism for WTC 1 was the same in principle - only details differed. NEITHER of the "Twins" collapsed by "block on block" mechanisms.
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 24th August 2015, 05:24 PM   #265
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,582
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post

This graphic I posted explains the interactions between top portion and lower tower:
http://conleys.com.au/webpics/ArrowedROOSD.jpg
The yellow arrows hitting the blue lines show what really happened. It wasn't "block on block" PLUS that image is sufficient to rebut "block on block" nonsense.

However let's pre-empt the inevitable evasion since it is WTC2. The mechanism for WTC 1 was the same in principle - only details differed. NEITHER of the "Twins" collapsed by "block on block" mechanisms.
I can only add to this the obvious avalanche of floors and contents would only contribute to the stripping of exterior/interior column support.

Wait.........did I just describe pancake/ ROOSD?
__________________
"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 24th August 2015, 05:52 PM   #266
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,403
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I can only add to this the obvious avalanche of floors and contents would only contribute to the stripping of exterior/interior column support.

Wait.........did I just describe pancake/ ROOSD?
My failure at self marketing. I've never given my explanations any acronyms.

I first posted on an Internet forum 13/14 Nov 2007 - I chose to explain Twin Towers progression and used this graphic:

File creation date 26 Nov 2007 - a year or two before I heard of "ROOSD"

No prizes for graphic artistry - but it is technically good enough.



PS - to avoid any C7 comparisons - I did NOT use MSPaint.

...It was Paint.NET

Last edited by ozeco41; 24th August 2015 at 05:57 PM.
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 24th August 2015, 06:04 PM   #267
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,582
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
My failure at self marketing. I've never given my explanations any acronyms.

I first posted on an Internet forum 13/14 Nov 2007 - I chose to explain Twin Towers progression and used this graphic:
http://conleys.com.au/webjref/003.jpg
File creation date 26 Nov 2007 - a year or two before I heard of "ROOSD"

No prizes for graphic artistry - but it is technically good enough.



PS - to avoid any C7 comparisons - I did NOT use MSPaint.

...It was Paint.NET
I think this describes nicely what was thought to be the failure mechanism from the get go. FEMA and the NIST documented truss seats bent over very early on.

If memory serves, the NISTs primary reason or dismissing this as the "initiating factor" was they found less of this effect in the impact zone. They also needed to consider the column "pull in" which needed the floor trusses to remain attached along with the added load due to other structural damage*.

* a factor "truthers" glaze over when arguing the trusses ability to pull in the columns.
__________________
"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; 24th August 2015 at 06:05 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 24th August 2015, 06:38 PM   #268
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,403
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I think this describes nicely what was thought to be the failure mechanism from the get go.
Take care to distinguish the two key stages viz:
1) "Initiation" which was a cascade failure and described by me in that thread for Jango; AND
2) "Progression" which was by three mechanisms - driven by "ROOSD" then perimeter peel off and core strip down.

I used to include a transition stage BUT it is not needed. Except as a possible mental "prop" for people who haven't quite got the two distinctly separate mechanisms clear in their mind.

At the time of that graphic the "Top Block" is descending - cascade failure has occurred - and it is primarily a failure of columns in axial overload.

And the graphic shows that ROOSD is already underway - i.e. the floors are being sheared off by the falling perimeter columns NOT (yet) by accumulated floor debris tho' debris is no doubt a (secondary) contributor to overload.

So no need for a "transition" stage. Cascade failure and resulting dropping of top block directly caused ROOSD. And it was structural elements which interacted NOT "block on block".
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
If memory serves, the NISTs primary reason or dismissing this as the "initiating factor" was they found less of this effect in the impact zone. They also needed to consider the column "pull in" which needed the floor trusses to remain attached along with the added load due to other structural damage*.
I rarely consider NIST reasoning - better to work direct with the engineering physics without the confusion of "was NIST right or wrong". It doesn't matter if NIST was wrong - cannot change history in years later hindsight. What happened is what happened and that is what needs explaining/understanding.
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
* a factor "truthers" glaze over when arguing the trusses ability to pull in the columns.
Don't be too hard on truthers. Debunkers also get the engineering wrong. On that one I once butted in on a truther v debunker debate where BOTH of them had lost the plot. Took discussion with the truther to another forum where he eventually recognised that my criticism was correct. We parted friends. Don't ask the obvious question about the debunker.
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 24th August 2015, 08:15 PM   #269
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,403
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
...Ozeco, you were explaining on another forum (metabunk.org) that the mappings of WTC1 early motion were correct and that no subpixel measurements were required to make the case.

Bravin Neff is still quite attached to the NIST descriptions of the same motion. Could you please explain to him that the femr2 work on the subject is much more accurate that what the NIST provided?
I could do so Major_Tom but I don't perceive that Bravin Neff is interested in serious discussion - especially of any focused and rigorously argued topic. Consider his latest resort to "big words" as an evasion ploy:

Originally Posted by Bravin Neff View Post
Originally Posted by fagin View Post
I think it may have been mentioned before but the probability of something that didn't happen is zero....
I think you confuse two separate areas: the metaphysics of events and epistemological justification. It is a metaphysical claim - and I believe a correct one - to say the probability of an event that didn't happen is zero.

But that is not the nature of my question, which is epistemological.[Edited more of the same evasive misuse of "big words"]
Whether or not he understands the "big words" matters not. He is misusing them. And I will not be falling for the derail to explain exactly why. I'll use a "big word" myself. He is posting gobbledygook. And - unlike Bravin Neff - I am using that word correctly.

His probabilities exercise could be a valid assessment tool for anyone planning the 9/11 strikes on WTC Towers. But everything that happened on 9/11 now has probability ONE and everything that did not happen has probability ZERO. And any person posting with claimed expertise in probabilities MUST know those two facts.

That misunderstanding of the application of probabilities is fatal to his OP as was explained for him in the first 20 or so posts.

Until he defines his objective without resorting to mendacious use of "big words" there is no point in further discussion. If he cannot or will not define what he wants to discuss there is little point me or you demonstrating how femr2's measurements are superior to NIST an any specific situation.

Last edited by ozeco41; 24th August 2015 at 08:16 PM.
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 24th August 2015, 09:24 PM   #270
BadBoy
Graduate Poster
 
BadBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,222
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Extreme forces like those that would have been imposed on the upper section by that VERY LARGE OBJECT which was the remaining 80+ floors?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm a bit behind but wanted to reply to this:

The difference is those 80+ floors also had gravity working on them.
__________________
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 24th August 2015, 09:31 PM   #271
BadBoy
Graduate Poster
 
BadBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,222
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Crushed doesn't mean vanished.
I have been reading this thread and am staggered by their (toofers) inability to:

1. Understand some basic physics. Its like they are living in cartoon land.
2. Understand how unlikely and idiotic it would be to even attempt a CD on the buildings for so many obvious reasons - especially if it was meant to be a government conspiracy. The evidence of such an event would be everywhere.

Quite funny 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 24th August 2015, 09:34 PM   #272
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 341
Originally Posted by Sherman Bay View Post
OK, but both floors are going to go DOWN, not UP. Now you have doubled the mass, and looking at the videos, I'd say that the velocity wasn't decreased by much. We now have increased velocity, increased mass, and a gravity assist. You are expecting a single lower floor to stop the falling upper ones, but it wasn't designed to do that, and it didn't. The more floors that fell, the less likely the next one would stop them.
You are deceived because your eyes have shown you increasing velocity, and your heart cannot accept the alternative. If you back out of the screening room for a moment, and just look at the basic physics involved, irrespective of all of their implications, you will see:

The kinetic energy of an impacting floor upon the floor below it will decrease velocity and channel the energy of momentum into deformation of the colliding bodies. Bazan't model does not account for the energy of deformation in the floor(s) above impact. The mass is essentially the same (actually diminishing a bit through ejection and comminution) and as the velocity must decrease through impact and deformation, the momentum decreases. Bazant's model only considers energy loss in the story below "the crushing front", but wants to increase the mass with each iteration. By accurately and homogeneously applying the energy dissipation in the first impact and subsequent impacts to both the floor below AND above the "Part B", the reaction quickly runs out of energy and fails to crush half of the building, let alone all of it.

We saw the velocity of the tower's destruction increasing because the collapse was facilitated with the addition of energy in the form of explosives. The addition of energy into the system is the only way to satisfy the mathematics of the observables of the day, i.e. explosives.
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 24th August 2015, 10:01 PM   #273
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 341
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Probably best if you look at the plans before making such claims, eh?
I've definitely seen them before, I just didn't have them handy at the time.

I think the first time I saw a schematic was during the NOVA presentation in 2001/2002. You know, the one where they show a huge steel column completely deformed by an explosive pressure wave and they say "this must have come from the floor where the airplane hit".... smh @FAE

What I remember of the schematics meshes with the lower third plans that somebody else has added to the thread, and there are so many access points to core columns it's ridiculous. Over two thirds of the building could readily be structurally degraded by placement of materiel during the elevator renovation project. Additional core columns in the upper third could also be accessed at that time. The fireproofing upgrades that occurred in the impact floors could have facilitated the thermitic sol gel application, and charges around the perimeter columns could have been placed during the security black out in the weeks before the event.

The more I look at it, the easier the job gets.

Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
However, your claim was that the work could be carried out in relative secrecy by using the shafts, but now you're adding open areas such as offices and stairwells?
The majority of those columns could be accessed on at least one face from the service areas of the building.

Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
As already mentioned, it would then be impossible to cover the charges without major structural alterations to the drywall panels, panels that were - in case you were unaware - mesh-reinforced. Hammer drill? Have you ever drilled metal? Done any DIY at all?
Dude, smashing and patching and painting drywall is a snap, and yes... it happens in my house all the time. The last time I drilled metal was when I welded my front yard fence together out of square tubing. I used my 3/4in drill, and I honestly don't remember if it was spun into hammer mode or not, because it's the tip that does the trick.

Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Basically, you're making up stuff on the fly to cover the multiple mistakes you make along the way, while leaving a trail of rebutted claims behind you. Try tidying them up before moving on to new mistakes
I'll be the first to admit that it's challenging keeping up with this and other threads whilst working two jobs and keeping a family. I still want to throw some new numbers back at Bravin but your challenge to my DIY skills was a worthy distraction. If a claim has legitimately been rebutted, Ill be the first to own it.
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 24th August 2015, 10:05 PM   #274
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 341
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
I'll wait to see if he wants to discuss the details...and suggest a more appropriate thread if he does.
Point the way.
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 24th August 2015, 10:25 PM   #275
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 341
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Wow.... thanks for helping me make my case! From your link....

The collapse of top WTC1 as an inelastic collision with an underlying mass in rest. Why kinetic energy is always decreasing, and the bogus theory of
“pancaking” (i.e. “progressive column failure”).

In the collapse of WTC1, from a physical standpoint, we have an upper mass m1 – top 12 stories of building – suddenly moving, and falling onto the lower
– and much bigger, almost 90% of total skyscraper - mass m2 of building in rest.

This is clearly an inelastic collision, where the two masses m1 + m2 are sticking and traveling together at a common speed, after the impact, or stopping, if m2 can totally “absorb” the energy received by m1

This postulate, coupled with that of momentum conservation can be expressed as follows:

(2)
(m1 + m2)vf= m1v1i+ m2v2i
where:
m1 = mass of falling top WTC1
m2 = mass of 98 stories below in rest
vf = final velocity of two masses after impact
v1i = initial velocity of top WTC1
v2i = initial velocity of 98 stories below, before impact = 0

After collision they are both moving at the same velocity. We can write the initial kinetic energy of m1 as:

(3)
Kei = ½ m1 v1i²

And after re-arranging by multiplying for m1/ m1, in order to extrapolate momentum (p = mv), we have:

(4)
Kei= (m1 v1i)²/2m1= p²/2m1

Since momentum is conserved after impact, and it is equal to (4) , the only difference being mass, which is now m1 + m2, we can write down the final kinetic energy as:

(5)
Kef=p²/2 (m1+ m2)

Now, if we compare eq. (4) and (5), we can clearly find out that final energy is mathematically lower than initial energy , being the ratio between the two energies:

(6)
Kef/ Kei= m1/(m1+ m2)

Of course this equation can be found in any physics textbooks [7], [8], [9], and it is a total debunking of the concept expressed by Bazant et al., namely that the collapsing 12 floors of top WTC1 were acquiring “a much higher kinetic energy”.


Or to put in simpler terms... the collapse cannot proceed.
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 24th August 2015, 11:01 PM   #276
BadBoy
Graduate Poster
 
BadBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,222
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
have a look at see which columns were accessible from the shafts. In the local shafts there were only 10 columns accessible in the plane strike floors. #s indicate the highest floor that elevator served.

I don't believe the express elevators were part of the upgrade program.
Just to be completely understood I think the CD idea is completely nuts, however...

If the CD'ers premise is a non CD collapse could have happened, then I assume they would be saying all the floors below the impact site were prepared for CD, not above, and all the way down as well. So your point is mute?
__________________
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 24th August 2015, 11:21 PM   #277
waypastvne
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 398
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
This postulate, coupled with that of momentum conservation can be expressed as follows:

(2)
(m1 + m2)vf= m1v1i+ m2v2i
where:
m1 = mass of falling top WTC1
m2 = mass of 98 stories below in rest
vf = final velocity of two masses after impact
v1i = initial velocity of top WTC1
v2i = initial velocity of 98 stories below, before impact = 0

After collision they are both moving at the same velocity. We can write the initial kinetic energy of m1 as:

(3)
Kei = ½ m1 v1i²

And after re-arranging by multiplying for m1/ m1, in order to extrapolate momentum (p = mv), we have:

(4)
Kei= (m1 v1i)²/2m1= p²/2m1

Since momentum is conserved after impact, and it is equal to (4) , the only difference being mass, which is now m1 + m2, we can write down the final kinetic energy as:

(5)
Kef=p²/2 (m1+ m2)

Now, if we compare eq. (4) and (5), we can clearly find out that final energy is mathematically lower than initial energy , being the ratio between the two energies:

(6)
Kef/ Kei= m1/(m1+ m2)

Of course this equation can be found in any physics textbooks [7], [8], [9], and it is a total debunking of the concept expressed by Bazant et al., namely that the collapsing 12 floors of top WTC1 were acquiring “a much higher kinetic energy”.[/b][/i]

Or to put in simpler terms... the collapse cannot proceed.


+G

Last edited by waypastvne; 24th August 2015 at 11:24 PM.
waypastvne 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 24th August 2015, 11:32 PM   #278
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 22,830
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Wow.... thanks for helping me make my case! From your link....

<snip gibberish>

Or to put in simpler terms... the collapse cannot proceed.
You do realise that JSanderO was, quite rightly, poking fun at the piece you repeated there?
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 24th August 2015, 11:39 PM   #279
waypastvne
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 398
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
If a claim has legitimately been rebutted, Ill be the first to own it.
This is a Truss Seat:




They are located here:




You are going to need to know this in the coming days.
waypastvne 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 25th August 2015, 12:10 AM   #280
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
...Consider his latest resort to "big words" as an evasion ploy...
Ozeco41, honestly, that was quite unexpected and caught me off guard. You are suggesting my statement:

"But that is not the nature of my question, which is epistemological. Every conclusion one is capable of drawing, regarding the WTC, is epistemological in nature and therefore subject to being challenged as to its justification (and probability of being true). That's where my interest in this thread lies."

Was (1) mendacious, (2) an abuse of words, presumably 'metaphysical' and 'epistemological' and (3) an evasion.

It was none of the above. And here I thought I was giving a straightforward, non-evasive, honest answer to Fagin! Epistemology is the study of what justifies knowledge, and probabilities enter into that realm. Hence the entire purpose of this thread is a "probabilistic exam" for justifying a certain theory. You acknowledge this yourself with the following statement:

Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
His probabilities exercise could be a valid assessment tool for anyone planning the 9/11 strikes on WTC Towers.
But it is also a valid exercise for a past event as long as it is presumed what explains the past event is not settled. How else does one interpret statements like "what's the likelihood that happened?" But here you mischaracterize my position:

Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
But everything that happened on 9/11 now has probability ONE and everything that did not happen has probability ZERO. And any person posting with claimed expertise in probabilities MUST know those two facts.
Not only have I never disputed that fact, I explicitly acknowledged it in the very quote of mine you labelled with "big words" (I said 'It is a metaphysical claim - and I believe a correct one - to say the probability of an event that didn't happen is zero.'). I simply gave it a word, and a precise one: "metaphysical." The claim that probabilities of the past are 1 and 0 is a metaphysical claim - and a correct one, and to which you and I obviously agree, although you seem uncomfortable with the word. This is not evasive, it is not untrue, nor is it an abuse of a word. It is a precise application of the correct word for the subject matter.

And it also wasn't my objective...

Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Until he defines his objective without resorting to mendacious use of "big words"...
So it bears repeating. The objective you ask for was already given: an examination of the probability of a theory having been true (presuming it is unsettled), which is a question of how much justification one has in believing it. In the very first paragraph of my essay, I said: the more likely the success, the more plausible the theory.

Consider an event that already happened - the probabilities are now all anchored to 1's and 0's as you will say - but no one can agree what happened, so a detective *after the fact* assesses the probabilities of each event, in order to assess the merit a certain theory has explaining it. THAT is my objective, apparently unclear. You seem to think such a project is incoherent since the event being studied is in the past - that would be untrue.

And don't fall for Major_Tom's diversion as to whether FEMR2's mappings are superior to NISTS: he was never challenged on that point. He was challenged specifically on this [me asking Major_Tom]:

"...in that webpage you originally pointed to, when you said: 'In reality, the building leaned less than 1 degree... as demonstrated in this section."

That demonstration never appeared in the section, and he was asked for it. He still has not produced it, apparently requiring you to do an expose on FEMR2.

Last edited by Bravin Neff; 25th August 2015 at 01:22 AM.
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
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 04:52 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.