|
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. |
25th May 2016, 04:26 PM | #41 |
"más divertido"
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 24,384
|
3/10 Needs more cowbell.
|
25th May 2016, 05:47 PM | #42 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
|
25th May 2016, 08:51 PM | #43 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
|
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein "... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK |
|
26th May 2016, 12:02 AM | #44 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,502
|
Strictly speaking it's more like 3/12 If it wasn't for his health problems I imagine there would be 5 or 6 more on the list by now. |
26th May 2016, 12:59 AM | #45 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
Thanks - interesting - buuut: These are on the domain of Barry Krusch, with no indication that DRG himself authorized this publication. The books aren't even linked from the http://www.krusch.com homepage
I was expecting you'd show me that DRG is giving his material out for free rather than seeking income from the sale of books. I just skimmed the WTC7 book. Dedicated to Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan - the most notorious liars of the TM - and Niels Harrit, the most deluded scientist they have. Didn't see anything that hasn't already been debunked, but several things that are irrelevant or misrepresented. It wasn't for several months! I don't believe that this is true. Not really - the website is pretty disorganized in that regard, and I think "BM" has a few slants added that Gage had not in his presentations previously. I understand that - they are asking for money so they can pay salaries and travel amenities. I don't claim that, but he is selling woo for a living and enjoys the applause - that is the definition of a charlatan: "A charlatan ... is a person practising quackery or some similar confidence trick in order to obtain money, fame or other advantages via some form of pretense or deception." No. It is full to the brim with lies, deceptions, misrepresentations, false logic and irrelevancies blown out of proportions. If anything, it warrants an investigation into to its eligibility for tax-exempt status. |
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote) The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. (Gilbert Keith Chesterton) |
|
26th May 2016, 08:11 AM | #46 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
Most of the evidence Richard Gage provides in his average presentation, to some extent, are legitimate reasons for an arson investigation. I disagree with some.
IMO it's silly not to have an investigation into inside job. In fact, IMO all catalyzing terrorist incidents should have an investigation into possible cover-up and inside job. |
26th May 2016, 09:17 AM | #47 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,323
|
No they aren't, Gage is a liar scamming the gullible out of money.
Quote:
Why should all terrorist incidents be investigated for being an inside job? Was the London bombing an inside job? How about the Boston Marathon? The Paris bombings? What about all the thwarted attacks, were they just inside jobs that went wrong? |
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag |
|
26th May 2016, 04:22 PM | #48 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
You know what, you're absolutely right. He's tricking the gullible into thinking the controlled demolition hypothesis extends to a bald gymnasium architect reciting rehearsed talking points. There are actually a few notable recent peer-reviewed papers he should point out more.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
26th May 2016, 04:37 PM | #49 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
26th May 2016, 06:39 PM | #50 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,323
|
Really? Which ones?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Please explain in detail how any of the above is debunked? Use the search function and find the appropriate threads, we can discuss there.
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag |
|
26th May 2016, 07:47 PM | #51 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
http://www.challengejournal.com/inde...rticle/view/50 (read for free on page)
http://www.challengejournal.com/inde...rticle/view/36 (read for free on page) http://prs.sagepub.com/content/4/2/117.abstract (read for free here) |
27th May 2016, 08:22 AM | #52 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
Stupid nonsense. *********** 767s flew into the towers with 10,000 gallons of accelerant. That's your arson right there. Open your eyes and your mind!
All of Gage's arguments are deceptive nonsense. I am glad you so openly admit that you don't want investigations to go where the evidence leads but to where your prejudice leads you. I am also glad you completely abandoned the fact that DRG and Gage are making money with their charlatanery. I think you accepted this fact eventually. |
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote) The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. (Gilbert Keith Chesterton) |
|
27th May 2016, 02:13 PM | #53 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
In strict legal pedantry you are partially correct.
The "Most" is wrong - but "Some" could be a partial truth. The real issue - from a legal perspective - is weight and status of evidence. The fact that a building had a fire is evidence which goes on the side of the balance saying "could be arson". BUT the other side of the balance is far too heavily loaded with reality. The reality of course - whether in a legal setting or talking to intelligent lay persons on the internet - is that there is simply overwhelming evidence for the primary reasons that an arson investigation would be conducted. Those are to (a) determine the cause of the fire and (b) the probable identity of the perpetrators. The first was known from the moment the events happened and preliminary investigation confirmed the second. Can you identify any valid reason for more investigation into arson - other than satisfying the whims of a minority lobby group which is both dishonest and cannot formulate a valid reason for further investigation? Whilst you persist in partial truth lies by innuendo and other debating tricks you will not persuade anyone here - let alone build a legitimate argument for further investigation. Agreed. And it happened in accordance with due process within the relevant jurisdictions of a country which operates under rule of law and the provisions of a Constitution. Whatever basis there may be for further investigation into mis/mal/nonfeasance by US persons or agencies you can be assured that such investigation will not happen whilst ever dishonest minority groups such as AE911 premise their call for further investigation on the easily proven lies about CD at WTC. IF truthers drop the lies about those major technical events - CD at WTC, not the plane at Pentagon and shoot down at Shanksville - there could be a basis for additional investigation. However I doubt that there is sufficient weight of evidence to garner the political critical mass for such a process. But present a politician with a demand that s/he investigate the behaviour of politicians based on lies such as CD at WTC and most politicians would show you the door. Get the truth movement to clean up its act and there may be a chance. I doubt it would work because the issues are essentially dead ...but it will not go forward hampered by technical lies. Personally I have zero doubt that there were lots of bits of LIHOOI, LIHOP and probably MIHOP at both agency and individual person level. Both "sides" of the debate have consistently failed to recognise the structure of such behaviours - most treating it a single control single homogeneous process of MIHOP or LIHOP. Totally at odds with reality which could not be "one single thing" BUT had to include lots of little and medium sized "bits". You can bet money that lots of individuals under pressure were victims of LIHOOI and that some agencies out of inter-agency rivalry or agency "arse protection" would LIHOP - maybe even MIHOP - BITS of the overall picture. |
27th May 2016, 09:48 PM | #54 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,323
|
|
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag |
|
27th May 2016, 10:33 PM | #55 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
"Believe"? The authors are skeptics. I don't think either of them except for Szamboti have come right out and said that they have no doubt the WTC was a CD.
"Our conclusion suggests that Newton’s laws of motion and energy conservation considerations would have had to have been violated to explain that building’s total collapse within a debris pile several storeys high." "Based on the parametric study undertaken, our findings were that the fire-protected steel floor beam, identified as the initiator of the cascade of events that followed, could not have done so, virtually under any circumstance." Those are fighting words around these parts.
Quote:
|
27th May 2016, 11:01 PM | #56 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
I took a very quick preliminary look at the three papers.
1) The first one is a collection of straw-man arguments including confusions as to which buildings it refers to and all the usual misunderstanding/misrepresentation of Bazant & Zhou. As usual with these sort of papers it would take a significant effort to parse, analyse and rebut/confirm the mass of confusions. 2) The second one pursues a single straw-man. 3) The third is one I have found interesting since it first appeared. It is the Szuladzinski, Szamboti and Johns paper which makes some interesting points. Two of them are: (a) They assert that Bazant and Zhou got the quantification sums wrong by an order of about two times. On the basis of that error if proven the original assertions that "global collapse was inevitable" were based on (b) The paper destroys one of the foundations of T Szamboti's infamous "Missing Jolt" (AKA "The Jolt that Never Could Be") - so once again we see T Sz self rebutting. If anyone wants a serious review of any of those papers ask and I may spend an hour or two and summarise the key issues - right or wrong. |
27th May 2016, 11:10 PM | #57 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
|
27th May 2016, 11:22 PM | #58 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Why?
My interest in 9/11 matters lies in explaining the engineering forensics of WTC collapse mechanisms to interested honest persons. Either in on-line forum discussions OR - occasionally - face to face. There are dozens of wrong papers out there. From both "sides" of the great divide. Why should I waste effort rebutting them? My only interest arises when someone in a forum such as this misuses or misunderstands the technical papers - or the paper is itself wrong. Either side BTW - there are more false explanations coming from the "debunker" or "official version favouring side" than from the truth movement. I've copped more flack in recent years from debunker side members who cannot even contemplate that Bazant may have made errors than from "Truthers". If you post serious attempts as discussing the issues - referencing such papers - I am likely to give you a serious response. BUT not whilst you persist in trolling trickery. Try me. Make a serious reasoned argument for some significant point. Try responding to my recent post #53 as a first step. I'm the closest you are likely to get to support for further investigation of political mis/mal/nonfeasance. |
28th May 2016, 09:54 AM | #59 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
I have posted links showing that the NFPA 921, on many occasions, eerily describes the case of the WTC destruction and that these descriptions are signs of foul play. Also, I have posted links showing that "people who think it might've been a demolition are creating peer-reviewed papers". That was my purpose.
|
28th May 2016, 10:33 AM | #60 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
|
You turn to an ex-Theology teacher as your engineering “expert”.
LMAO. You just refuse to learn. You “strongly disagree with him on most things”, but you cite his trashy books. Wow. Confused much? “his WTC 7 book is his best” LoL. What, it’s “only” 95% wrong, as opposed to the others being 98% wrong? That’s called “damned by faint praise.” Wrong.
|
28th May 2016, 10:34 AM | #61 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
The 9/11 truth papers are not peer reviewed, they are reviewed by 9/11 truth nuts, idiots for 9/11 truth; big fail for 14 years.
The WTC towers were foul play by terrorists in two planes. You have proved it was an act of terrorism, it is in NFPA 921, terrorists did. 19 terrorists did all the damage on 9/11, if you disagree, you are wrong. All the other BS you posted related to NFPA 921 reflects a great ignorance of steel, fire, physics, and science in general. |
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein "... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK |
|
28th May 2016, 10:52 AM | #62 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
|
28th May 2016, 11:57 AM | #63 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
29th May 2016, 04:19 PM | #64 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,323
|
|
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag |
|
30th May 2016, 06:25 PM | #65 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
|
30th May 2016, 06:32 PM | #66 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
I was not the one who brought up the name of DRG, nor did I cite him for anything. Is your attention span so deteriorated that you can't even process the comment which you have quoted in your actual reply? Perhaps you should stop calling others "junior" and others should start calling you "old-timer".
Quote:
|
30th May 2016, 06:56 PM | #67 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
The only evidence for arson is Flight 11 and 175 each having 66,000 pounds of jet fuel ignited by their impact from active engines.
There is no evidence for arson except that done by 10 terrorists in two planes. Your NFPA 921 card fails to support anything but terrorism. Your inside job fantasy, and Gage's CD fantasy, self-debunking claptrap. No evidence after 14 years, poor showing = failure |
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein "... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK |
|
30th May 2016, 07:23 PM | #68 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
|
31st May 2016, 09:13 AM | #69 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
Which papers do you think have valid conclusions? List them. The papers by 9/11 truth are great examples of nuts waving their hands wildly and making up nonsensical conclusions which paranoid conspiracy theorists fall for. Lies of an inside job fool a fringe few who fail to do reality based research.
The peer review of 9/11 truth papers, reviewed by 9/11 truth nuts. The conclusion in the papers, the false conclusions of CD and thermite are certified by 9/11 truth nuts to be 9/11 truth lies dumbed down to fool the gullible inside job faith based believers. It must be the pattern of thinking, the failed logic which fools the faith based followers in the 9/11 truth church of overwhelming woo. 911TCoOWW 14 years with zero evidence of the inside job, is evidence of fantasy. |
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein "... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK |
|
31st May 2016, 05:50 PM | #70 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
|
31st May 2016, 05:56 PM | #71 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
31st May 2016, 06:15 PM | #72 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
|
31st May 2016, 08:46 PM | #73 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,323
|
|
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag |
|
31st May 2016, 09:04 PM | #74 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
Quote:
Also, if he wasn't competent, then ASCE could have came up with a better reason to not accept his discussion paper. I guess the CD theorists could consider that "the one that got away", but the silver lining is a straightforward example of how the mainstream engineering community wants to actively censor criticism the official explanations. |
31st May 2016, 10:53 PM | #75 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
Which papers? You lost them again? 9/11 truth's CD claims, or is it the inside job for you? Which fantasy do you have, and why have you failed to get a Pulitzer for all your evidence to support your claim? You don't have evidence.
You lost it with the three paper you can't remember. Which papers, which journals? Did they pay to publish? |
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein "... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK |
|
1st June 2016, 04:44 AM | #76 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,323
|
|
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag |
|
1st June 2016, 04:49 AM | #77 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 594
|
For those who are interested, I read the first linked paper. The authors argue that WTC 7 did not have enough gravitational potential energy to crush all the concrete floors (they use what they argue is a conservative assumption about the distribution of chunk/particle size after crushing) and bend all the columns on every floor through 0.9pi radians of plastic hinge rotation.
Since we already know that nothing remotely like this happened to building 7, even if the calculations are right, they are of little significance to discussions of how building 7 collapsed. |
1st June 2016, 05:13 AM | #78 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
|
And I've taken a look at the second one. It makes the same mistake as truthers here have made, namely that it focuses on the beams' maximum elongations, failing to consider column displacement and geometry factors that a FEA like the one NIST carried out did consider.
|
1st June 2016, 05:16 AM | #79 |
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
|
Yuk, just read the abstract of the first one. Every time a truther says he's applying Newton's Laws in what purports to be a serious scientific discussion, an alarm bell rings. It's like citing Darwin in a biology paper, or Euclid in a maths paper - knowledge so basic that it's assumed that it's universally known within the subject and so doesn't need to be referenced, but used by people ignorant of the field as an attempt to appeal to the ultimate authority.
Dave |
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
1st June 2016, 05:50 AM | #80 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
|
Exactly. Crushing the concrete to their chosen range of particle sizes is an arbitrary requirement that they've imposed in order to demonstrate the lack of sufficient PE to do that much crushing. If the floor connections fail at each impact then the concrete could theoretically have ended up lying there relatively unscathed.
A house of cards springs to mind - it isn't necessary to shred the cards to get the structure to collapse. In short, they're trying to give the impression of doing proper science. |
__________________
"There ain't half been some clever bastards" - Ian Dury |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|