|
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. |
2nd December 2015, 03:46 PM | #321 |
このマスクによっ
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
|
As i remarked on another snippet. You basically don't know what you're talking about. The transition from localized failure to global failure of the structural system isn't time dependent. Its load dependent, and that dependency further breaks down to load type, path, and magnitude and they're interelated. These factors rely on understanding how the design works which youre completely skipping in your effort to rationalize "CD" as the only explainable mechanism
|
__________________
Current Set:http://i.imgur.com/IoqiUdK.jpg |
|
2nd December 2015, 03:57 PM | #322 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
Is that Chandler's best graph? What point is he tracking there?
Source? Thx. ETA: Answering my own question: Yes. David Chandler's most recent (5 years ago) video with original work analysing the WTC7 descent starts off with that graphic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP4_8s-2Gmc&t=5 And this is the video where he shows how he derived that graph: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCDpL4Ax7I He measured the NW corner (the bit that started to descend last and thus accelerated the most) Indeed he has about 0.8 seconds of descent at considerably less than g. That's roughly 24 frames. The effect I described in my previous post does not work for that many frames. Chandler's data shows that the fall did not start with immediate freefall. Tony Szamboti lied when he wrote this: |
__________________
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) |
|
2nd December 2015, 04:21 PM | #323 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
|
2nd December 2015, 04:26 PM | #324 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
|
__________________
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) |
|
2nd December 2015, 04:27 PM | #325 |
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 |
|
2nd December 2015, 04:30 PM | #326 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
|
__________________
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) |
|
2nd December 2015, 05:35 PM | #327 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
I understand now where you are coming from. IMO the more important issue is not the accusation of explicit lie - rather Tony's avoidance of the main thrust of Gamolon's question which was:
That - IMO - is the key question which Tony avoided. And "early motion" was clearly demonstrated by femr's work. |
2nd December 2015, 07:24 PM | #328 |
このマスクによっ
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
|
Not quite. They're specific about claiming that fire/debris damage was too small and sporadic to be fatal. That's how they "skip" half of the past tense; they don't think it's relevant. They assess severity by external appearance, and don't have the mentality to evaluate the circumstances from a design/engineering philosophy; that's all.
Speaking of cause/effect - there's been a distinct lack of comprehending the relationship for many years. Case in point, we're still dealing with the squibs argument; apparently it's insane to think that air could be forced out by pressure imposed by the falling mass inside the building yet it's still perfectly sane to conclude that explosive devices attached to the structural elements detonating were ejecting material but producing no characteristic sounds that every other controlled demolition in history (using explosives) exhibits, and apparently being "damage-less" because there is absolutely no visual record showing connection failures consistent with explosive impulse to the scale that "CD" advocates claim were implemented. There's no video or sound record corresponding with the collapse times to associate the ejecta with either. Enough commentary of course. |
__________________
Current Set:http://i.imgur.com/IoqiUdK.jpg |
|
2nd December 2015, 08:35 PM | #329 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Mentality OR motive I suggest. Whether WTC7 or WTC1/WTC2 any understanding what really happened works strongly against their need to assume that there was CD.
Yes BUT... at least in that situation there is little misunderstanding from the debunker side. Squibs remain a truther fantasy NOT shared by debunkers Two other big issues show lack of comprehending on both sides - and lengthy tedious debates with both sides accepting the truther false or unproven false scenario. They are: 1) For WTC1/2 - whilst debunkers generally are clear that Bazant and Zhou's Limit Case mechanism was not real and could not be applied literally - many still accept the "drop to impact" concept - even tho that did not happen - it was "scrunch down and keep going into ROOSD". 2) Specific to this thread on WTC7 - the Szamboti arguments about girder walk off are premised on an assumption that the columns and wider structure were "pristine" - not affected by heat. Status of that assumption remains "unproven" and almost certainly wrong AFAIK. Even tho a lot of debate has accepted the Szamboti assumption. That is one aspect where I will be interested to see if Hulsey et al avoid the trap. |
2nd December 2015, 09:13 PM | #330 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 692
|
I welcome this initiative, but I don't trust AE911T to present the findings accurately.
|
2nd December 2015, 10:28 PM | #331 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
3rd December 2015, 01:25 AM | #332 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
Tony did not avoid that question - he denied its premise, contrary to fact, by pointing very specifically to a detail of the data in question - and misrepresenting it. It is difficult to see how he could not be very much aware of the fact that Chandler had almost a second of non-freefall after all these years. I conclude a very deliberate and malevolent act of conscious misrepresentation, a.k.a. "lie".
|
__________________
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) |
|
3rd December 2015, 03:09 AM | #333 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
You need to remember that in Tony and AE911truths world they start with the conclusion that explosives were present. The evidence of explosives should be the starting point which of course is the part being avoided.
The mechanism of the collapse is pointless until you have found the cause, fire doesn't even enter into it when it is the most clearly visible aspect to look into. |
3rd December 2015, 06:47 AM | #334 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,232
|
This may be true... but they also have asserted that the twins were destroyed by CD all the way down... not just the initiation.
They still can't accept that the lightweight concrete slabs and the drywall in a huge building collapse would be rendered to dust... along with most "weak" materials. They expect to see a messy pile of building materials and contents if a building collapses. |
3rd December 2015, 07:37 AM | #335 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 470
|
Trust is a rare commodity when you are on the opposite side of a serious argument.
Hopefully Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey, knowing that the details of his WTC7 collapse simulation must be transparent and subjected to intense scrutiny, will carefully oversee how AE911T presents his findings. I am sure you and others will have ample opportunity to jump all over any significant mistakes, if he makes any. Hopefully you will also give credit where credit is due, if you find his work to be beyond reproach. |
3rd December 2015, 07:54 AM | #336 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
Which make you wonder why he needs to team up with AE911 truth to present his findings ? And how he will have any control over how AE911 truth will present his findings.
There seems to be so many versions of events from no planes to the occurrence of iron microspheres..........etc |
3rd December 2015, 08:16 AM | #337 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,702
|
Can someone explain something to me please?
Here is a quote from Tony: If I look at the individual points in Chandler's graph I posted above, I see both an increase and decrease between plotted points. Is Tony ignoring the fact that at some points the roofline SLOWED down compared to some of the previous plotted points? Is this why he and others insists on using the AVERAGE of those points in order to avoid the truth hidden in the graph? |
3rd December 2015, 08:49 AM | #338 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
3rd December 2015, 08:52 AM | #339 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 470
|
|
3rd December 2015, 08:53 AM | #340 |
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
|
The graph is of velocity against time, so a deceleration would show as a point being above the previous point. So far as I can see (show me an example if I'm wrong, please) each point is either at the same level or at a lower level than the previous point, so there is no actual deceleration, though the acceleration (given by how much each point is below the one before it) varies quite a bit, particularly at the beginning of the graph where Tony claimed the acceleration was constant.
Dave |
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
3rd December 2015, 09:01 AM | #341 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
|
|
3rd December 2015, 09:04 AM | #342 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,702
|
|
3rd December 2015, 09:11 AM | #343 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 470
|
|
3rd December 2015, 09:23 AM | #344 |
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
|
The regions you're talking about don't show deceleration; they show acceleration, but less than the steeper sections. And, to be fair, the fact that they're all about the same slope suggests to me that this is a mix of noise and discretisation error. If Chandler's counting pixels, his approach may only measure velocity in steps, in which case you'd expect some variation if the velocity change isn't an exact number of steps for each point. But it's certainly a stretch, to put it mildly, to say that this graph shows constant acceleration from the moment of collapse initiation; it obviously doesn't.
Dave |
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
3rd December 2015, 09:26 AM | #345 |
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
|
Ask Tony. He's the one claiming that the absence of these minor variations is evidence of explosives, despite the fact that he can see them right under his nose. As usual, he's pretending evidence isn't there because he thinks it weakens his case if he admits it exists.
Dave |
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
3rd December 2015, 09:28 AM | #346 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
|
3rd December 2015, 10:25 AM | #347 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 470
|
I’ve looked through this thread and have not found any post by Mr. Szamboti that matches your spin.
What I see are plot variations which are so minor, that they are not worthy of consideration. There are certainly no time deviations dramatic enough to suggest that WTC7 was meeting enough resistance to argue against freefall. Surely Mister Rogers you are not back to disputing both Mr. Szamboti and the NIST regarding the proof that WTC7 sustained 8 storeys of freefall? |
3rd December 2015, 10:35 AM | #348 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
3rd December 2015, 11:00 AM | #349 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,092
|
|
3rd December 2015, 11:39 AM | #350 |
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
|
Well, the best way not to find what you don't want to find is not to look all that hard.
Whereas we actually see (a) the building has an initial, and apparently significant, period of constant velocity fall, and (b) the acceleration appears on the graph to vary quite considerably rather than being "in free fall right from the start". It's painfully obvious from the graph that Tony's claims about what the graph says are wrong. As usual with Tony's lies, he doesn't actually need to tell them, because they don't help his case; but he lied, not about the actual movement of WTC7, but about what the graph shows. The fact that you reached the above conclusion from a statement that basically agreed with a part of your original point, specifically that the later deviations from linearity are not significant, indicates that you don't have the faintest clue what's going on here. I don't feel like explaining it to you yet, so please give me a good laugh with your next statement of indignant misunderstanding. Dave ETA: I think I've found a new way to confuse truthers. Agree with a minor and insignificant point they've made, and they'll be so obsessed with disagreeing with debunkers that they'll immediately disagree with themselves. Try it, folks! |
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
3rd December 2015, 12:34 PM | #351 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
|
|
3rd December 2015, 02:00 PM | #352 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
|
They didn't. Core fell first, so about 58 failed at about the same time (or about 21 if we follow JSanderO's explanation). And FTFY, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bgucy_b5FKk for an example of simultaneous or near-simultaneous failure due to vertical overload.
The core pulled from the perimeter as it fell, causing it to overload and causing the "kink" (which is mostly north-south and a little up-down). Pretty basic. There's flawed logic in your 'logical' explanation. |
3rd December 2015, 02:25 PM | #353 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
Does anyone know what kind of hardware the university has available to run a FEA that is "more complete" then the NIST?
I know we've come a long way in the 10 years since the NIST did theirs but, it's still a very big job. I've looked through the study site but, haven't found any specifics. |
__________________
"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 |
|
3rd December 2015, 02:31 PM | #354 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
Actually he already has. Do you agree with his statement that "steel is a very fire resistant material" in the context of building structure?
Also his comment about building seven "not being hit by a plane". Who cares about this fact when starting a forensic collapse study? You don't find this to indicate a bias on his part? |
__________________
"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 |
|
3rd December 2015, 03:14 PM | #355 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Neither hardware nor software are likely to set the limits.
IMNSHO the limiting factors will be ability to define loads and temperatures. The temperature prediction stuff probably an order of magnitude less reliable than the loading and redistribution aspects - the "conventional engineering" stuff before the temperature effects are overlaid. I doubt we will ever get anything MORE plausible than what NIST did. And certainly not on a "Two PhD students' dissertations" level of resourcing. We may see alternate plausibles identified. Since the AE911Truth assertions are pure nonsense the outcomes will either indicate that NIST was plausible and/or identify some other plausibles OR agree with AE911. I cannot see any university process following the latter. And none of that will matter - AE911 will spin it dishonestly no matter what the findings. |
3rd December 2015, 03:27 PM | #356 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
I understand that but, do they have the capabilities if they somehow do have the abilities to enter equal or greater data than the NIST?
Most of this can be taken from the NIST reports (yes it's all there). As far as fire damage goes the NIST inputs were always seen as conservative by relevant professionals or seen as far too conservative by many (James Quintiere being the most vocal). |
__________________
"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 |
|
3rd December 2015, 03:29 PM | #357 |
"más divertido"
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 24,384
|
As for the first and third parts, I simply don't believe you. I don't believe that you work 60 hours and I don't believe that you will ever post a video to back your claims.
As for the highlighted part, what exactly are you trying to say? You work the majority of your 60 hours in a field where your focus is ... where? |
3rd December 2015, 05:24 PM | #358 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 470
|
Sorry about all the re-quoting but the context is important. The original poster Gamolon, failed to include the graph he was referring to. I presumed he was talking about the primary data points, and particularly those that clearly showed the seconds of freefall. Mr. Szamboti explained that the program was placed in run mode before Mr. Chandler starts the video. The video was parked at the point closest to where WTC7 began to drop. The data that you and Gamolon are so intrigued by is just the program free-running while it awaits the change from FREEZE to PLAY of the incoming video.  The magenta vertical line shows the start point where the video went into PLAY. You clearly do not have a clue as to how the Physics Toolkit software functions. I know it would pain you to do so, but I suggest you watch his video; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkqL...Q&spfreload=10 Start around 10:10. The fact that you reached the above conclusion from a statement that basically agreed with a part of your original point, specifically that the later deviations from linearity are not significant, indicates that you don't have the faintest clue what's going on here. I don't feel like explaining it to you yet, so please give me a good laugh with your next statement of indignant misunderstanding. Dave ETA: I think I've found a new way to confuse truthers. Agree with a minor and insignificant point they've made, and they'll be so obsessed with disagreeing with debunkers that they'll immediately disagree with themselves. Try it, folks![/quote] Even the NIST was forced to agree with the free fall conclusion derived from that chart. You should be embarrassed by your lack of understanding Mr. Rogers. |
3rd December 2015, 05:25 PM | #359 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
I'm not sure we are on exactly the same track. BUT conceptual brainpower IMO will be the limiting resource - long before the hardware or software cuts in as a limit. And the validity of the existing data is IMO another real limit...we are on different perspectives with that one - see my comments on your next bit.
That is one aspect of the issue of definition that I am suggesting is the problem. Is the NIST "data" good enough as a basis for seeking alternative explanations? I seriously doubt it - and tho you express it differently - I think your comments about "conservative" are pointing at the same area as I am trying to explain. Keeping it as simple as I can for purposes of explanation only - IF they take a less conservative approach to the temperature dynamics - will it lead to a different mode of structural failure? That could well be true - wouldn't surprise me if it did. It is a sort of "sensitivity analysis" review. And the difference needed to get to that point is in the level of applied brainpower making the choices on conservatism. That is a layer or two higher up the issue taxonomy than crunching the numbers. And picking the right numbers to crunch lies intermediate between them. Problem definition - and failure to identify errant definitions - is an ongoing issue causing confusion in WTC collapse debate. Look how many times debunkers have chased truthers - esp T Sz - down rabbit burrows following his false definition of problem. And PA'ed persons like me who dare to suggest "you are falling for his trap" OR "he has falsely defined the starting scenario - why follow his error?". So put very simply (I think ) are they clever enough to validly redefine the problem RATHER than simply and blindly redoing a few FEA's? We've seen a lot of "Blind application of FEA" on these forums - It would be great If we saw fundamental reviews of the problem. Revisiting "Drain the Swamp" - even asking "Why Drain the Swamp" - instead of tit-for-tat reacting to alligators teeth. And I know the risk of using that pair of analogies |
3rd December 2015, 05:46 PM | #360 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
NIST was not forced to agree with anything; it was in their data. 911 truth, makes up BS like forced NIST, and other silly BS.
The lack of understanding is found with 911 truth, no math, no physics, just BS. With the interior collapsing 16 to 12 second prior to the facade falling, and the tracking of a single point; a single point, is not the system falling for WTC 7. Big fail. The near free-fall segment is used by 911 truth support the insane claim of CD, it proves the interior had failed many seconds before. Like Bigfoot, CD has no evidence, only illusions which are no in the delusional stage of BS based on woo. Got some evidence for CD? No, 911 truth has no evidence for any claims; never will. |
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein "... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|