|
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. |
27th February 2008, 09:18 AM | #281 |
0.25 short of being half-witted
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,282
|
Good, Lord, this thread needs to be closed.
Astaneh-Asl's comments reflect the engineering consensus: Impacts plus fires led to the collapses. He's had ample time to voice opinions over the state of the steel not reflecting this paradigm, but instead, he's chosen to concentrate his efforts on other issues (namely, the issue of construction codes). His observations regarding the steel components are consistent with exposure to the heat and chemical reactions in the debris pile and whatever was done to the steel during the debris recovery/recycling. The only way to think his observations mean anything different are to blatantly ignore the fact that he was observing post-recovered steel, and to presume that anything he's observed was due to pre-collapse events. That's a two-step method of selective memory and is not conducive to understanding the truth. As R.Mackey pointed out, there's not only no way for Dr. Astaneh-Asl to know if what he's seeing took place prior to collapse or not, there happens to be a mountain of a reason to accept that what he observed stemmed from exposure to the post collapse environment. And that mountain of a reason is his postion in the recovery chain: He was viewing post-collapse, post-recovery-process steel. If you ignore that, you are ignoring the reality of what the steel went through before Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw it. There is nothing left here to discuss. There certainly is nothing about Astaneh-Asl's work that needs to be debunked. The doctor's observations support the narrative of impacts plus fires equals collapse. The only thing left to debunk are conspiracy fantasists misinterpretations of his statements, and that's been done over and over already. |
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once." |
|
27th February 2008, 10:07 AM | #282 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
|
|
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts) |
|
27th February 2008, 10:16 AM | #283 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,244
|
Red I., just so I understand: you would argue that his observations weaken or debunk the "official theory;" and that they are also open to serious question.
That's somewhat self-contradictory, but hey, whatever. |
27th February 2008, 10:20 AM | #284 |
Ardent Formulist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
|
|
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens. |
|
27th February 2008, 10:34 AM | #285 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 10,493
|
Ignorance and arrogance.
RedIbis, who is not an engineer, thinks he is better able to analyze the engineer's analysis then the engineer. Oh, and did I mention, Red provides no data, no analysis of his own as he presents his conclusion. Ignorance and arrogance. |
27th February 2008, 11:48 AM | #286 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
|
|
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts) |
|
27th February 2008, 12:15 PM | #287 |
Drunken Shikigami
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,474
|
|
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein |
|
27th February 2008, 02:08 PM | #288 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,786
|
|
27th February 2008, 02:10 PM | #289 |
Dreaming of unicorns
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 11,938
|
|
__________________
Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. |
|
27th February 2008, 02:21 PM | #290 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
|
Well, don't hesitate to enlighten me. I'll go over this one last time:
"1/ His observations disprove the "official theory," or at least weaken it;" I'm going with weakens, despite whatever conclusions he might draw about anything else. We're talking about his observations, quotes. "2/ His observations are open to serious question;" Absolutely, as would be anyone else's. "or 3/ Something else? " Sure, it's not a false dichotomy. |
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts) |
|
27th February 2008, 02:30 PM | #291 |
Dreaming of unicorns
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 11,938
|
The way I read it, if you go with 2 at all then you cannot weaken the "official theory"
Could be wrong but I guess we need the qustioner to clarify what he meant? Poor thread BTW Red, debunk a debunker? |
__________________
Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. |
|
27th February 2008, 02:37 PM | #292 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,244
|
Red I., I think you did misunderstand me/ interpret my comments in a way I didn't intend.
#1 meant his observations weakened /debunked the "official theory." I'd expect you'd agree with that, at least to some degree. #2 was meant to be an alternative, and as I see now, it was ill phrased. It was not meant to overlap with #1. This is because, as far as I understand, his observations in fact strongly support the "official theory" when properly interpreted. So I was asking if you thought his presentation of the elements supporting the "official theory" was wrong. And #3 was just a grab bag of anything else you want to mention, like Flying Monkeys or whatever. So #1 and #2 were, in my mind, mutually exclusive. Personally, I hate questionnaires because I have a bad habit of over-interpreting the questions ("but what did they really mean??"). Perhaps you have the same habit. |
27th February 2008, 02:49 PM | #293 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
|
As for your last point, I think this is the price of doing business on an internet forum. It's difficult to detect important inflections and other signifiers that would make the debate more clear.
I think I get where you're coming from. Your point (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that if the Dr. accepts the official story, why would I point to his observations, which would seem to undermine my position? Because his unadulterated observations are distinct from any general opinions he might form years after the fact. The bottom line is that his observations have to be addressed. If for no other reason than the phenomena are corroborated by other accounts. |
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts) |
|
27th February 2008, 03:28 PM | #294 |
Alphanumeric Anonymous Stick Man
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,510
|
They've been addressed, dozens of times in this thread.
The Man himself has been sent emails and links to this thread. He presumably still stands by the "official story"; still thinks you are nuts. Why would he not change his mind. Unless he believes you are cherrypicking his quotes and taking them to mean something he did not mean. Oh wait, you are. |
27th February 2008, 03:34 PM | #295 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
|
|
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts) |
|
27th February 2008, 04:31 PM | #296 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
|
They can be, and they are. WPI, for instance, is continuing its investigation of the sulfidized steel. Purdue is still investigating from first principles under an NSF grant.
Like I mentioned last night on "Hardfire," the Truth Movement keeps calling for an "independent investigation," but somehow fails to recognize that the efforts of people like Mr. Scheuerman and the various university projects are exactly that. If you want to get involved, join a research group and get to work, or form your own. It takes some doing, but many are doing it. |
27th February 2008, 06:20 PM | #297 |
Muse
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 709
|
|
__________________
"Another super dumb post! How can you be so consistently wrong with the real dumb posts? BUSTED, your posts are all totally wrong. The dumbest collection of stupid posts ever, by you. How are you so good at getting every single fact wrong." - beachnut "If you torture data sufficiently, it will confess to almost anything." - Fred Menger |
|
27th February 2008, 08:39 PM | #298 |
Goddess of Legaltainment™
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 36,472
|
Actually, 911blogger put quotation marks around certain sentences to give the impression that they were direct quotes of what Mr. Astaneh-Asl said, but if you check the original article, that is not the case at all. Specifically, 911blogger gives the erroneous impression that it is quoting Mr. Astaneh-Asl when it writes [eta: my bolding]:
Originally Posted by some random twoofer at 911blogger
In the original article, however, the "quoted" words attributed to Mr. Astaneh-Asl above were actually the words of the reporter, and were not a quote from Mr. Astaneh-Asl at all. In the original, it looks like this. Pay attention to the placement of the quotation marks:
Originally Posted by the original article
That is very dishonest behaviour by 911blogger. Sadly, such behaviour is not at all surprising among members of the inaptly self-titled truth™ movement. Again, you are citing as a quote something that was not, in fact, a quote by Mr. Astaneh-Asl at all. You should have checked the sources cited in the article you posted in your opening post before repeating a dishonestly attributed quote. I guess you weren't having a good night. Again, see above. |
27th February 2008, 09:26 PM | #299 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
|
|
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts) |
|
27th February 2008, 09:39 PM | #300 |
ETcorngods survivor
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 24,328
|
|
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost |
|
27th February 2008, 09:43 PM | #301 |
Goddess of Legaltainment™
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 36,472
|
Nor should you have done so. Fair enough. The story that 911blogger linked to (and that you didn't bother to check before repeating the twoofer version of it as gospel here) is more than six years old. However, the reporter's name is right there in the byline, and it is not terribly difficult to locate contact information for the NY Times. In fact, I checked and the reporter is still writing for the NY Times. Here's a novel idea: why don't you call or write to the man and ask him? |
27th February 2008, 11:13 PM | #302 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
|
Is this another James Glanz misquoting spectacular? If it is, he did the same "vaporizing" thing when he quoted Dr. Barnett, if I recall correctly.
Talk about a non-issue, guys. |
Last edited by R.Mackey; 27th February 2008 at 11:15 PM. Reason: Hey, if he misquotes people, I can misspell his name... grumble... |
|
28th February 2008, 01:29 AM | #303 |
... and your little dog too.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
|
Aaaaand that should just about do it for this thread.
Try not to get knocked over by rapidly fleeing CTers! |
28th February 2008, 02:16 AM | #304 |
Dreaming of unicorns
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 11,938
|
|
__________________
Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. |
|
28th February 2008, 06:13 AM | #305 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
|
|
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts) |
|
28th February 2008, 06:30 AM | #306 |
Dreaming of unicorns
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 11,938
|
|
__________________
Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. |
|
28th February 2008, 06:41 AM | #307 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,671
|
|
28th February 2008, 07:37 AM | #308 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
|
ummmmmmm....chocolate.....
|
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison |
|
28th February 2008, 07:40 AM | #309 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
|
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
28th February 2008, 10:14 AM | #310 |
Drunken Shikigami
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,474
|
|
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein |
|
28th February 2008, 10:15 AM | #311 |
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,986
|
Except that he didn't say that some was vaporized. That was the reporter talking.
|
28th February 2008, 10:40 AM | #312 |
0.25 short of being half-witted
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,282
|
Why in God's name is this subject still being beaten to death?
What matters is when he viewed the beams. Now merely what he saw. As Mackey pointed out, he did not get his eyes on them until after they had been recovered and removed from their place on the debris pile. They had been exposed not only to the heat and any reactions existant in the piles, but had also been subject to the processes taken during the recovery efforts. And that's the point where Astaneh-Asl saw them: After the members had been recovered and moved from the debris pile. The steel was exposed to the debris pile and recovery efforts for far longer (order of days to weeks) than it had been exposed to whatever conditions existed from the time of the impacts to the end of the collapse (under an hour and a half for WTC 1, around 50-some minutes for WTC 2). Why is it not obvious that whatever condition the steel was in was mostly due to the debris pile exposure and recovery efforts than it was due to the pre-collapse conditions? There is no "there" there. Any statement by Astaneh-Asl must be evaluated in the context in which he viewed the steel. And he viewed them post recovery. How can that not be taken into account? |
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once." |
|
28th February 2008, 12:09 PM | #313 |
... and your little dog too.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
|
|
28th February 2008, 09:10 PM | #314 |
Muse
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 709
|
|
__________________
"Another super dumb post! How can you be so consistently wrong with the real dumb posts? BUSTED, your posts are all totally wrong. The dumbest collection of stupid posts ever, by you. How are you so good at getting every single fact wrong." - beachnut "If you torture data sufficiently, it will confess to almost anything." - Fred Menger |
|
17th January 2010, 08:17 PM | #315 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 308
|
|
17th January 2010, 08:27 PM | #316 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
|
17th January 2010, 08:27 PM | #317 |
Nasty Brutish and Tall
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 17,691
|
If it is true, it does sound a bit like nepotism, but doesn't really help make a case for an inside job or bombs/thermite/whatever blowing up the towers.
If anything, it suggests that the WTC was in fact weaker than everyone says and therefore even more likely to collapse from impact damage and fires. I don't see why this would be exciting for Truthers. |
17th January 2010, 08:47 PM | #318 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 308
|
I agree with you, it does not improve the case for controlled demolition but it does IMO render the NIST report useless. People who designed the buildings should not be involved in the report on why they failed.
Did anyone get a definitive answer on Astaneh-Asl's opinion of the cause of collapse? |
17th January 2010, 08:59 PM | #319 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 7,032
|
How can you fail in two threads at once when you're not anywhere at all
Unless you can point out exactly how consulting the engineer who designed the buildings renders a report by NIST useless. This is nothing more than an example of Poisoning the well logical fallacy. |
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance. Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane? Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude. |
|
17th January 2010, 09:27 PM | #320 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
|
Who would know more about the building, than the people who ******* designed it!?!?!?
WHAT WHAT WHAT?!?!?!?! |
Thread Tools | |
|
|