ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

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


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags nist , william pepper , wtc7

Reply
Old 22nd February 2014, 06:53 PM   #241
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,640
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Sorry, I was confusing you with Noah, I apologise. Do you have any engineering ability?
No problem.

Yes, more practical then text book. I'm a builder and yes, I can read technical drawings.
__________________
"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 22nd February 2014, 06:54 PM   #242
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
gerrycan it is time to stop this stupid playing with leading/loaded questions, drop the evasive derail into details taken out of context and either put up or shut up.
I am not playing around here at all. I am asking a very pertinent and straight question. One you can/will not answer - Does the inclusion of the stiffener plates that NIST omitted from their analysis increase the required walk off distance for the girder spanning columns 79 and 44? I say that they do, because they widen the bearing capability of the girder by increasing transfer of load along the bottom flange. This is demonstrated in the attached pdf referred to in the OP.
gerrycan 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 22nd February 2014, 07:02 PM   #243
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,424
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
But there is new evidence. It is of fraudulent omissions in the NIST WTC 7 report that make its conclusions impossible and thus invalidate it.

It is hard to understand why you and some others here don't get that that means a new investigation is warranted.
That is not evidence of fraud. The null hypothesis is an error was found, so an error was made. Proof of fraud involves proof of intent to defraud, I do believe. Your reading into what happened is evidence of nothing except your belief.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

Last edited by LSSBB; 22nd February 2014 at 07:35 PM.
LSSBB 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 22nd February 2014, 07:02 PM   #244
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
I suppose they would be, if needed.

Oh look

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi...mbing_1995.cfm

Dude, you're making this way too easy. You need to READ.

A trick I learned a long time ago was never to open my mouth unless i knew what I was talking about. Makes you seem smarter than you really are, because it makes it so you're wrong much less.

What you're presenting as "evidence of NIST's Charter" (lol) is their charter for a 2-day conference specifically dealing with fire induced collapses:
No, NIST were tasked with finding out how this building collapsed due to fire. Shyam Sunder said this in the WTC7 technical briefing. It was not within their charter to investigate a progressive collapse not due to fire. Although, this does bring up an interesting point about why they would include a "hypothetical blast scenario" where they demonstrated a lack of understanding of the dB scale.
gerrycan 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 22nd February 2014, 07:07 PM   #245
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
No problem.

Yes, more practical then text book. I'm a builder and yes, I can read technical drawings.
So what is your honest opinion of the stiffener plate issue. Why would NIST deliberately omit them from their analysis. I accept that their intended purpose is to prevent web crippling, but they also do transfer load to a greater area of the lower flange. Similar plates were included elsewhere in the model, so why not at this, the most critical of connections in NISTs analysis?
The fact is, these plates would increase the required distance for walk off failure to occur. If you haven't seen the specific drawings, I would be happy to provide you with them.
gerrycan 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 22nd February 2014, 07:11 PM   #246
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,640
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
So what is your honest opinion of the stiffener plate issue. Why would NIST deliberately omit them from their analysis. I accept that their intended purpose is to prevent web crippling, but they also do transfer load to a greater area of the lower flange. Similar plates were included elsewhere in the model, so why not at this, the most critical of connections in NISTs analysis?
The fact is, these plates would increase the required distance for walk off failure to occur. If you haven't seen the specific drawings, I would be happy to provide you with them.
I have no opinion on it. You wouldn't either if you understood the collapse hypothesis.

I noticed you won't address ozeco41 post. He does understand the hypothesis.

Give it a try.
__________________
"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 22nd February 2014, 07:12 PM   #247
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
No, NIST were tasked with finding out how this building collapsed due to fire. Shyam Sunder said this in the WTC7 technical briefing. It was not within their charter to investigate a progressive collapse not due to fire. Although, this does bring up an interesting point about why they would include a "hypothetical blast scenario" where they demonstrated a lack of understanding of the dB scale.


I just gave you two examples of NIST investigating something other than fire-induced collapse.

I also proved that the charter you claim is NISTs charter was actually their charter for a 2-day conference, not their overall charter. I did this by simply requesting you read the top of the page where you took that screen grab instead of the bottom. This behavior is so predictable that I even called it before I did the research, and it took LESS than 1 minute to see how you've willfully misrepresented what that screen cap actually is from.


Are you going to acknowledge your error or not?
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 22nd February 2014, 07:18 PM   #248
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
That is not evidence f fraud. The null hypothesis is an error was found, so an error was made. Proof of fraud involves proof of intent to defraud, I do believe. Your reading into what happened is evidence of nothing except your belief.
I am sure a jury wouldn't look at a scenario where several items, which would nullify the publicly presented theory, were secretly omitted, as just errors.
Tony Szamboti 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 22nd February 2014, 07:21 PM   #249
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,422
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
I am not playing around here at all. I am asking a very pertinent and straight question. One you can/will not answer - Does the inclusion of the stiffener plates that NIST omitted from their analysis increase the required walk off distance for the girder spanning columns 79 and 44? I say that they do, because they widen the bearing capability of the girder by increasing transfer of load along the bottom flange. This is demonstrated in the attached pdf referred to in the OP.
Patronising me with kindergarten engineering will not influence me in the slightest.

Now here is a free clue. You are saying that an "X" inch wide something needs to be pushed "Y" inches to clear a "Z" inches wide support...

Are you familiar with "alligators and swamps" or "forest v trees"? Try backing off and thinking.

...how do you know that the support is stationary and stays put?

Now that is a clue to what is wrong with all this detail stuff.

The errors in logic applying the bits of detail to the bigger picture are equally fatal to your claim. And I've also outlined for you the key factors at that higher level.

Keep circling in the details if you enjoy the fun. I won't join in. I'll wait till you decide to think about the real issues.
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 22nd February 2014, 07:25 PM   #250
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,491
Thumbs up

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerrycan
So are you saying that building collapses initiated by explosives were within NISTs charter? The URL is there for you to type in and go and read the slide from the source - feel free to do so and get back to me.
http://imageshack.com/a/img62/7463/kyyw.jpg
Interestingly, you must have surely seen the whole slide to know that this is just a screen cap of a portion of it. So why don't you just post the whole slide if it does indeed support your assertion?? Strange indeed.


Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
I suppose they would be, if needed.

Oh look

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi...mbing_1995.cfm

Dude, you're making this way too easy. You need to READ.

A trick I learned a long time ago was never to open my mouth unless i knew what I was talking about. Makes you seem smarter than you really are, because it makes it so you're wrong much less.

What you're presenting as "evidence of NIST's Charter" (lol) is their charter for a 2-day conference specifically dealing with fire induced collapses:

Quote:
Quote:
Fire Resistance Determination and Performance Prediction Research Needs Workshop: Proceedings. February 19-20, 2002. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
WHAT? A truther LIED?

I am SHOCKED! SHOCKED! That's what I am, SHOCKED! (Now, where are my winnings? )
Redwood 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 22nd February 2014, 07:26 PM   #251
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,422
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
...I noticed you won't address ozeco41 post. He does understand the hypothesis. ..
.
And he (they??) cannot try the "You're not an engineer - you know nothing" ploy against me.


BTW DGM I'll take your true statements anyday in preference to false statements by any engineer.
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 22nd February 2014, 07:33 PM   #252
AZCat
Graduate Poster
 
AZCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
So are you saying that building collapses initiated by explosives were within NISTs charter? The URL is there for you to type in and go and read the slide from the source - feel free to do so and get back to me.
http://imageshack.com/a/img62/7463/kyyw.jpg
Interestingly, you must have surely seen the whole slide to know that this is just a screen cap of a portion of it. So why don't you just post the whole slide if it does indeed support your assertion?? Strange indeed.
Gosh that might mean something if it wasn't out of date. The National Construction Safety Act was approved in October 2002, after the date shown on your slide.
AZCat 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 22nd February 2014, 07:38 PM   #253
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,424
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I am sure a jury wouldn't look at a scenario where several items, which would nullify the publicly presented theory, were secretly omitted, as just errors.
What do you mean secretly? And you still haven't shown it would nullify any theory. That's still your opinion.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB 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 22nd February 2014, 07:39 PM   #254
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,640
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
BTW DGM I'll take your true statements anyday in preference to false statements by any engineer. http://conleys.com.au/smilies/thumbup.gif
And I also have no problem being corrected when I'm wrong.
__________________
"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 22nd February 2014, 07:42 PM   #255
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,422
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
And I also have no problem being corrected when I'm wrong.
nor me - but IIRC neither of us gets much practice at it...



ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2014, 07:45 PM   #256
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
What do you mean secretly? And you still haven't shown it would nullify any theory. That's still your opinion.
It was secret as the drawings were not released when the report was issued, so nobody could discern that the seat was actually 12 inches wide, and that the stiffeners were missing.

In fact, as far as the stiffeners are concerned the girder shop drawing has still not been released. The stiffeners were found on an assembly drawing showing the side and top views of the girder connection to the column.

When NIST was notified in March 2012 about these omissions, and the seat length error, they ignored the omissions and only discussed the seat length as an alleged typo.

It is not opinion that the stiffeners would prevent a girder walk-off. It is a structural reality and it is beyond a reasonable doubt that it is why they were left off in the report.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 22nd February 2014 at 08:31 PM.
Tony Szamboti 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 22nd February 2014, 09:50 PM   #257
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
If you were to run an analysis to investigate such a collapse. Given that similar elements are included elsewhere in the analysis, would you include them in that analysis, or omit them?
Gee, is there a group of engineers with the impetus and knowledge to perform an analysis of WTC7 besides the govt agency known as NIST?

Maybe they have taken advantage of the last 10+ years and done so?
jaydeehess 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 22nd February 2014, 11:01 PM   #258
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,422
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Gee, is there a group of engineers with the impetus and knowledge to perform an analysis of WTC7 besides the govt agency known as NIST?

Maybe they have taken advantage of the last 10+ years and done so?
They don't have to go that far.

If they could only specify what their problem is AND

outline some credible reasons why the rest of the community needs to do something about it.


...it would be one "giant leap for mankind"

(Excuse the non PC language - the source was 1969)
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 23rd February 2014, 04:00 AM   #259
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,082
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
... It is not opinion that the stiffeners would prevent a girder walk-off. It is a structural reality and it is beyond a reasonable doubt that it is why they were left off in the report.
Prove it.

But the best part; you can't prove fire did not cause the collapse. And after 12 years, you are failing to make a valid point.

It is sad when non-engineers are beating engineers at engineering. I always knew being an engineer does not mean I was better than a layperson, and 911 truth insists, no they prove I was right, and you and your fellow conspiracy theorists 911 truth engineers prove it, every time you guys post. 12 years of failure, is 911 truth legacy for eternity.


Fire beats steel, and 911 truth has failed to present anything of value.


What engineering school did Pepper get his degree? oh man
beachnut 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 23rd February 2014, 04:08 AM   #260
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Prove it.

But the best part; you can't prove fire did not cause the collapse. And after 12 years, you are failing to make a valid point.

It is sad when non-engineers are beating engineers at engineering. I always knew being an engineer does not mean I was better than a layperson, and 911 truth insists, no they prove I was right, and you and your fellow conspiracy theorists 911 truth engineers prove it, every time you guys post. 12 years of failure, is 911 truth legacy for eternity.


Fire beats steel, and 911 truth has failed to present anything of value.


What engineering school did Pepper get his degree? oh man
The reality that the stiffeners would prevent the girder flange from folding when the girder's web was beyond the seat has been proven. Do your own analysis if you don't believe it.

Additionally, the web could never even get past a 12 inch wide seat since the maximum expansion of the beams to the east is 5.5 inches and that isn't enough with a 12 inch wide seat. Of course, this is obviously why the report had originally said the seat was 11 inches wide. The erratum said it was a typo and that the girder would be pushed 6.25 inches but never showed where the extra 3/4 of an inch would come from. That is because it is impossible.

However, the stiffeners make the travel distance an absolute no contest.

The story is actually in the ridiculous range now and the only reason nothing has been done thus far is politics. That will soon change. I think it is time for those holding this back to give it up. It will be easier on them in the long run.
Tony Szamboti 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 23rd February 2014, 04:20 AM   #261
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,857
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
I suppose they would be, if needed.

Oh look

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi...mbing_1995.cfm
Supports my hunch that there was no load redistribution but a progressive collapse from "sink holing" which rapidly propagated from a failed column gutting the interior. This column failure from sink holing was less likely beam walk off then it was heat elongated beams pushing columns out of axial alignment causing web crippling of the columns and dropping of everything above... rinse wash and repeat.

Good catch!
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
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 23rd February 2014, 05:07 AM   #262
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,082
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The reality ...
... fire did it. No CD, no thermite.

When will 911 truth use reality based engineering vs opinion?

Has anyone answered Pepper's engineering degree is from what school? Why can't 911 truth get something right?
beachnut 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 23rd February 2014, 05:35 AM   #263
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Supports my hunch ...
Hunch?

No longer a hypothesis?

And never a theory.

MM
Miragememories 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 23rd February 2014, 05:43 AM   #264
MarkLindeman
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 493
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Has anyone answered Pepper's engineering degree is from what school?
Well, it shouldn't matter, but it is pretty weird to have an 11-page "Technical Discussion" that no one is given credit for writing or reviewing. Also weird is Dr. Pepper's dire threat:

Originally Posted by Dr. Pepper
The detailed information and evidence possessed by my clients (I enclose herewith a detailed, technical narrative, graphics, and a DVD prepared for your further review) would be examined closely by their European structural engineering colleagues at Cambridge University and elsewhere.
Are we supposed to believe that Dr. Pepper is so far withholding this analysis from competent European scholars to spare NIST from embarrassment? And yet it's being discussed on JREF? Makes no sense.
MarkLindeman 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 23rd February 2014, 05:58 AM   #265
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post


I just gave you two examples of NIST investigating something other than fire-induced collapse.

I also proved that the charter you claim is NISTs charter was actually their charter for a 2-day conference, not their overall charter. I did this by simply requesting you read the top of the page where you took that screen grab instead of the bottom. This behavior is so predictable that I even called it before I did the research, and it took LESS than 1 minute to see how you've willfully misrepresented what that screen cap actually is from.


Are you going to acknowledge your error or not?
No problem, I will fully accept the it was within NISTs charter to investigate a collapse NOT due to fire.
So why didn't they?
gerrycan 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 23rd February 2014, 06:03 AM   #266
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Gee, is there a group of engineers with the impetus and knowledge to perform an analysis of WTC7 besides the govt agency known as NIST?

Maybe they have taken advantage of the last 10+ years and done so?
The analysis of NISTs collapse initiation event has been done, and it has been found to have omitted stiffener plates and beam stubs which would have prevented the kind of failure that NIST specified.
gerrycan 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 23rd February 2014, 06:06 AM   #267
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,640
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
No problem, I will fully accept the it was within NISTs charter to investigate a collapse NOT due to fire.
So why didn't they?
They did and found no evidence.

Do you have evidence it wasn't fire? Or it that why you need a "new investigation", to find some.
__________________
"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; 23rd February 2014 at 06:08 AM.
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 23rd February 2014, 06:11 AM   #268
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
They did and found no evidence.

Do you have evidence it wasn't fire?
I haven't said that it wasn't fire. What I HAVE said is that fire could not have caused the type of failure that NIST supposed. Explain how it could have if you believe that.
gerrycan 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 23rd February 2014, 06:17 AM   #269
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,640
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
I haven't said that it wasn't fire. What I HAVE said is that fire could not have caused the type of failure that NIST supposed. Explain how it could have if you believe that.
An around we go.

BTW: Why do you think NIST felt the need to fake this? What good would it do?
__________________
"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 23rd February 2014, 06:20 AM   #270
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
An around we go.
Do you agree that the inclusion of the stiffener plates would increase the walk off distance required for the girder to fail?

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
BTW: Why do you think NIST felt the need to fake this? What good would it do?
I really don't know. I just know that they did not include elements which can clearly be seen in the drawings that they released. The same drawings that they said they based their analysis on.
gerrycan 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 23rd February 2014, 06:24 AM   #271
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,640
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Do you agree that the inclusion of the stiffener plates would increase the walk off distance required for the girder to fail?
Don't know or care. Funny thing is, you don't either.


Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
I really don't know. I just know that they did not include elements which can clearly be seen in the drawings that they released. The same drawings that they said they based their analysis on.
Why do you avoid ozeco41 post.
__________________
"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 23rd February 2014, 06:29 AM   #272
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Don't know or care. Funny thing is, you don't either.
I am saying quite clearly that they would increase the required walk off distance to over 8 inches. This is supported in the analysis attached to William Peppers letter. At least you can admit that the technical nature of it is something that you can't understand. I can respect that.




Why do you avoid ozeco41 post.[/quote]
I'll go look at it.
edit - which post specifically?

Last edited by gerrycan; 23rd February 2014 at 06:30 AM.
gerrycan 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 23rd February 2014, 06:33 AM   #273
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,640
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
I am saying quite clearly that they would increase the required walk off distance to over 8 inches. This is supported in the analysis attached to William Peppers letter. At least you can admit that the technical nature of it is something that you can't understand. I can respect that.




Why do you avoid ozeco41 post.
I'll go look at it.
edit - which post specifically?
Start here and work up to the big picture.
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Now here is a free clue. You are saying that an "X" inch wide something needs to be pushed "Y" inches to clear a "Z" inches wide support...

...how do you know that the support is stationary and stays put?
__________________
"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; 23rd February 2014 at 06:36 AM.
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 23rd February 2014, 06:39 AM   #274
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Originally Posted by ozeco41
Now here is a free clue. You are saying that an "X" inch wide something needs to be pushed "Y" inches to clear a "Z" inches wide support...

...how do you know that the support is stationary and stays put?
In NISTs analysis, the support (column79) does not become laterally unsupported until "X" is pushed "Y" inches to clear "Z". If you or ozeco disagree with NISTs analysis then we have that in common.
Do you understand NISTs analysis? I know you have admitted that you do not understand the analysis in the OP, and I would suggest that you get to grips with NISTs analysis first before you try to deal with one that invalidates it.
gerrycan 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 23rd February 2014, 06:41 AM   #275
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,640
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
In NISTs analysis, the support (column79) does not become laterally unsupported until "X" is pushed "Y" inches to clear "Z". If you or ozeco disagree with NISTs analysis then we have that in common.
Do you understand NISTs analysis? I know you have admitted that you do not understand the analysis in the OP, and I would suggest that you get to grips with NISTs analysis first before you try to deal with one that invalidates it.
Yes I do.

Food for thought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creep_(deformation)
__________________
"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 23rd February 2014, 06:45 AM   #276
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
okay so let's presume that you do. What is the maximum expansion that the beams in the NE of the building, East of the girder can experience at 600 degrees? I would say around 5.5" is the absolute maximum.
gerrycan 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 23rd February 2014, 06:51 AM   #277
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,640
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
okay so let's presume that you do. What is the maximum expansion that the beams in the NE of the building, East of the girder can experience at 600 degrees? I would say around 5.5" is the absolute maximum.
Who cares? This is where you fail to see the forest through the trees.

Why do you think NIST spent so much effort looking at fire duration, movement and intensity. Personally, I think it failed as the area began to cool a little.

It's all related to the same problem structural steel structures have in fires.
__________________
"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 23rd February 2014, 06:56 AM   #278
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Who cares? This is where you fail to see the forest through the trees.
NIST care enough to have released an errata statement addressing the issue which changes their analysis. They, or you haven't explained where they got an extra 3/4" from though. Feel free to explain this.

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Why do you think NIST spent so much effort looking at fire duration, movement and intensity. Personally, I think it failed as the area began to cool a little.
So you think that NISTs estimate of 600 degrees in the girder was a little high? I agree. This makes 5.5" impossible, let alone 6.25"

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
It's all related to the same problem structural steel structures have in fires.
So why did this particular one collapse in an "unprecedented event"?
gerrycan 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 23rd February 2014, 07:05 AM   #279
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,640
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
So why did this particular one collapse in an "unprecedented event"?
Because we usually don't see the building totally collapse from it. Do you think building 7 didn't endure a "unprecedented event" starting from the time of the first collapse? Why would the result not also be "unprecedented"?
__________________
"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 23rd February 2014, 07:31 AM   #280
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Because we usually don't see the building totally collapse from it. Do you think building 7 didn't endure a "unprecedented event" starting from the time of the first collapse? Why would the result not also be "unprecedented"?
I am not disputing the unprecedented nature of the collapse. I am disputing the initiating event that caused it. NIST got this wrong and when asked your view on this you reply "who cares".
gerrycan 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 04:11 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.