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 23rd February 2014, 07:39 AM   #281
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,638
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
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".
NIST claims it was fire. How did they get that 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 23rd February 2014, 07:44 AM   #282
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
NIST claims it was fire. How did they get that wrong?
They stated that the beams could expand to the extent that they would push the girder spanning columns 79 and 44, 5.5" and then 6.25". That's wrong, and even if that were possible, the inclusion of the plates woud mean a walk off distance even greater would be required.
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, 07:47 AM   #283
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,638
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
They stated that the beams could expand to the extent that they would push the girder spanning columns 79 and 44, 5.5" and then 6.25". That's wrong, and even if that were possible, the inclusion of the plates woud mean a walk off distance even greater would be required.
That explains why fire could not be the root cause? Do tell.
__________________
"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, 07:49 AM   #284
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
That explains why fire could not be the root cause? Do tell.
Where did I say that fire was not the root cause?
What I am quite clearly saying is that NISTs analysis is wrong, and whatever did initiate the collapse, it was not as they supposed in that analysis, which is now invalidated.
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, 07:52 AM   #285
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,638
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Where did I say that fire was not the root cause?
What I am quite clearly saying is that NISTs analysis is wrong, and whatever did initiate the collapse, it was not as they supposed in that analysis, which is now invalidated.
You didn't. Why did you post what you did in answer to my question?
__________________
"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, 07:54 AM   #286
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
You didn't. Why did you post what you did in answer to my question?
Look, when asked about the detail of the PDF in the OP, you reply "who cares", presumably because you cannot address the issue. Maybe we could move this discussion to another thread?
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, 07:57 AM   #287
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
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?
...and there go the goalposts.

The last hope of a dying argument. You were proved wrong with your own link. A truther hallmark.
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 23rd February 2014, 07:59 AM   #288
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
...and there go the goalposts.

The last hope of a dying argument. You were proved wrong with your own link. A truther hallmark.
Not at all. If it wasn't in their charter, I can accept that. What are your views on the stiffener plate issue brought up in the PDF attached to 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 23rd February 2014, 07:59 AM   #289
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,638
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Look, when asked about the detail of the PDF in the OP, you reply "who cares", presumably because you cannot address the issue. Maybe we could move this discussion to another thread?
You shouldn't presume.

I did address the issue. In fact I did it just a little while ago. You chose to stare at the "tree" again.

You fail to notice the "trees" been cut down and dragged off to the mill. It is that bad.
__________________
"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, 08:03 AM   #290
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
You shouldn't presume.

I did address the issue. In fact I did it just a little while ago. You chose to stare at the "tree" again.

You fail to notice the "trees" been cut down and dragged off to the mill. It is that bad.
Why not just state clearly if you think that the beams could expand to the extent that the girder will be pushed 6.25"? It's a straight enough question.
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, 08:08 AM   #291
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,638
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Why not just state clearly if you think that the beams could expand to the extent that the girder will be pushed 6.25"? It's a straight enough question.
Because the question has no meaning?

You want me to address the argument in the OP. OK

The argument has no merit because it ignores the whole of the problem in favor of focusing on one detail that is meaningless when viewed in isolation.

Refute that.
__________________
"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, 08:15 AM   #292
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
The argument has no merit because it ignores the whole of the problem in favor of focusing on one detail that is meaningless when viewed in isolation.

Refute that.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/f..._qa_082108.cfm
"How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?

The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.

According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.

Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.."

Above is NISTs analysis. When scrutinised it is impossible as shown in the PDF. If the initiating event cannot occur in the way that they suppose, neither can the events that occurred as a result of that supposed initiation.
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, 08:21 AM   #293
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,638
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/f..._qa_082108.cfm
"How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?

The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.

According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.

Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.."

Above is NISTs analysis. When scrutinised it is impossible as shown in the PDF. If the initiating event cannot occur in the way that they suppose, neither can the events that occurred as a result of that supposed initiation.
Funny how you quote things but fail to understand the meaning. What do you think the bold means?
__________________
"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, 08:30 AM   #294
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Funny how you quote things but fail to understand the meaning. What do you think the bold means?
That would most likely be the beams to the NE of the girder. What do you think it is referring to?
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, 08:33 AM   #295
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,638
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
That would most likely be the beams to the NE of the girder. What do you think it is referring to?
Everything else too..........

Stop looking at the problem with a microscope and get the big picture. There's a reason the report was not two pages long.

Wake me when you 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

Last edited by DGM; 23rd February 2014 at 08:34 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, 08:39 AM   #296
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Everything else too..........

Stop looking at the problem with a microscope and get the big picture. There's a reason the report was not two pages long.

Wake me when you do.
No, NIST were very specific in what they said in the actual report. And what they said has subsequently been proven to be false. They omitted crucial structural elements in their analysis. Do you think it is okay to do 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, 08:47 AM   #297
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,638
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
No, NIST were very specific in what they said in the actual report. And what they said has subsequently been proven to be false. They omitted crucial structural elements in their analysis. Do you think it is okay to do that?
Repeating this does not make it true.

Prove their hypothesis in not possible. Don't forget the big picture.

Bet you can't.
__________________
"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, 08:51 AM   #298
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Repeating this does not make it true.

Prove their hypothesis in not possible. Don't forget the big picture.

Bet you can't.
You clearly cannot deal with the fact that NIST omitted structural elements from their analysis. There is no justification for 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, 08:56 AM   #299
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,422
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Funny how you quote things but fail to understand the meaning. What do you think the bold means?
This entrenched denialism is part of why I wont waste time with gerrycan (and Tony Szamboti's) ridiculous claims. They have been shown to be wrong so many times. The Szamboti version years before gerrycan appeared on the scene. We are only discussing it now because it is used in the silly dishonest letter by Pepper. A waste of time other than the fun of proving yet another truther wrong which is not my idea of "sport".

Their tactic of making a bold and broad based claim - essentially the "NIST explanation is totally wrong" which they falsely base on an alleged "proof" that one minor detail is wrong - is simply false logic. They are wrong on the claim at detail level AND they are wrong in how they relate that detail to the overall situation. They could probably be "wronger" ( ) but those two errors are fatal to their claim

The EPH fell because Col 79 and associated support structures fell because somethings failed. NIST says "girder walk-off was probably an initiating "something" among other factors.

That is where gc and T Sz play their first bit of mendacious trickery. Whether or not NIST got it right or even used the right words to explain it doesn't change what happened. They claim that if NIST explained the detail wrong then the rest of the big picture couldn't have happened..... That was the type of dishonesty I identified in the first days of my internet posting back in 2007. Something didn't happen because NIST explained it wrong. That foundation for an argument is false whether or not NIST's explanation is in fact wrong.

So gerrycan and Tony Sz make two dishonest claims viz:
That "probably" means "must and only" AND
(the big one) their undeclared and unsupported assumption that an "X" wide end has to move "Y" to clear a support "Z" wide when they cannot prove that the "Z" wide support stayed in its original position for a pristine undamaged frame.

The base concept that in a fire ravaged building a girder would move as result of heat effects whilst the remainder of the structure would be totally unaffected is - to be polite - either astonishingly naive OR devious mendacity.

Whatever their motivation the assumed context for all the detailed end condition claims is UNPROVEN therefore the detail level basis of their hypothesis is false AND the relationship of that detail to the overall scenario is false. BOTH those failings are "jointly and severally" fatal to their claim.

And I have no intention of chasing gerrycan's leading/loaded questions as he attempts to force fit a false conclusion which he has pre-determined.
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, 08:56 AM   #300
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
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.
Fire weakens steel.
tsig 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, 08:57 AM   #301
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,638
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
You clearly cannot deal with the fact that NIST omitted structural elements from their analysis. There is no justification for that.
There's nothing to deal with until it is shown to be a critical issue. You have failed to do this.

We keep telling you this and you go back to "tree".
__________________
"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, 08:57 AM   #302
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Fire weakens steel.
I agree, yes it does. It also causes it to expand.
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, 08:59 AM   #303
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
There's nothing to deal with until it is shown to be a critical issue. You have failed to do this.

We keep telling you this and you go back to "tree".
NIST saw fit to include similar elements elsewhere in the model - so why leave them off at the critical connection? Inexcusable.
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, 08:59 AM   #304
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,343
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
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".
Why all that fuss?

This is a map of all the pages in NIST's conclusions (chapters 4, titled "Principal findings", and 5, titled "Recommendations") of NCSTAR 1A:



This is the part affected by your claim:



"Who cares" is a perfectly valid answer.

Can you tell us why should we care even assuming NIST got that part wrong?
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno 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, 09:01 AM   #305
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Why all that fuss?

This is a map of all the pages in NIST's conclusions (chapters 4, titled "Principal findings", and 5, titled "Recommendations") of NCSTAR 1A:

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgim...-5-collage.jpg

This is the part affected by your claim:

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgim...ghlighted1.jpg

"Who cares" is a perfectly valid answer.

Can you tell us why should we care even assuming NIST got that part wrong?
Because this was their supposed initiating event that left the column unsupported.
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, 09:04 AM   #306
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,343
And that invalidates the rest, how?
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno 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, 09:04 AM   #307
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
I agree, yes it does. It also causes it to expand.
And when the steel gets so weak it cannot support the load, the steel fails and the building falls down.
tsig 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, 09:06 AM   #308
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,422
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
You clearly cannot deal with the fact that NIST omitted structural elements from their analysis. There is no justification for that.
Repeating that bit of false argument is actually irrelevant evasion.

1) The "omitted" could be reasonable as simple oversight of details AND is reasonable unless the details can be shown to be relevant with significant impact. You have claimed but not proven "significant impact'.

2) The "no justification" is an unsupported presumption until and unless the previous points are addressed

But the important issue is your implication that these claims of minor error validly rebut the remainder of the NIST claims.

They don't. And your (Szamboti's, Pepper's) house of cards "argument" built on that false foundation is nonsense.
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, 09:07 AM   #309
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,638
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
And when the steel gets so weak it cannot support the load, the steel fails and the building falls down.
More important is the fact that as the fire moves the structure does not return to how it was before (even if it didn't fail).
__________________
"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, 09:07 AM   #310
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
And when the steel gets so weak it cannot
push girders off their seat.
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, 09:07 AM   #311
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,422
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
And that invalidates the rest, how?
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
More important is the fact that as the fire moves the structure does not return to how it was before.

Exactly.
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, 09:09 AM   #312
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
More important is the fact that as the fire moves the structure does not return to how it was before.
Steel does move when heated - it expands. But only up to a point, and the beams in question cannot expand to the extent that would cause the girder between columns 44 and 79 to fail.
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, 09:15 AM   #313
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,422
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Steel does move when heated - it expands. But only up to a point, and the beams in question cannot expand to the extent that would cause the girder between columns 44 and 79 to fail.
Repeating that unproven claim does not make it correct.

Start from known facts - The girder did fail.

Now determine if "why it failed" matters to support the gross claims of the Pepper letter. (Clue: - it doesn't)

So ask "Why am I, gerrycan, building a house of cards on a foundation that I cannot prove, that is irrelevant and that is almost certainly not true?"

Last edited by ozeco41; 23rd February 2014 at 09:16 AM. Reason: spelling
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, 09:16 AM   #314
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,638
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
I worked on a building years ago that was involved in a fairly large fire. At first they thought it could be saved until we opened up the walls and discovered pieces of broken bolts. The deeper we looked the more we found. These bolts came from the connection between the columns and the floor beams. None of the original holes lined up. This was my first encounter with "creep". The building ended up being a total loss.
__________________
"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, 09:22 AM   #315
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Repeating that unproven claim does not make it correct.
Disprove it then. I am saying that the maximum expansion that can be experienced by any of the beams in question is 5.5".

Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Start from known facts - The girder did fail.
The whole building failed - that isn't in question. What is in question is NISTs analysis.

Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Now determine if "why it failed" matters to support the gross claims of the Pepper letter. (Clue: - it doesn't)
You should get one before you start to give them away (clues)

Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
So ask "Why am I, gerrycan, building a house of cards on a foundation that I cannot prove, that is irrelevant and that is almost certainly not true?"
"almost certainly" ?? So where are you doubting that the claim is not true exactly? I am sure of what I am saying - the beams can expand to 5.5" max. Do you think that they can expand more?
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, 09:24 AM   #316
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I worked on a building years ago that was involved in a fairly large fire. At first they thought it could be saved until we opened up the walls and discovered pieces of broken bolts. The deeper we looked the more we found. These bolts came from the connection between the columns and the floor beams. None of the original holes lined up. This was my first encounter with "creep". The building ended up being a total loss.
Which building? Was it a high rise?
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, 09:26 AM   #317
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,094
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Disprove it then. I am saying that the maximum expansion that can be experienced by any of the beams in question is 5.5".
Actually the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the other way around.
Animal 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, 09:28 AM   #318
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,094
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Which building? Was it a high rise?
You think steel in a high rise will react and respond differently in a high rise than a low rise? Where do you find that in the AISC manual?
Animal 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, 09:28 AM   #319
AZCat
Graduate Poster
 
AZCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Disprove it then. I am saying that the maximum expansion that can be experienced by any of the beams in question is 5.5".
I'd love to see your calculations for this claim. You've probably provided them (or a link before) but if you would do so again I'd appreciate it. Then, perhaps, we can evaluate whether your claim has merit rather than just talking past each other.
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 23rd February 2014, 09:31 AM   #320
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Steel does move when heated - it expands. But only up to a point, and the beams in question cannot expand to the extent that would cause the girder between columns 44 and 79 to fail.
Are the girders not made of steel as well? It sounds to me like you're trying to say the beams (made of steel) would act different from the girders (also made of steel).
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
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 AM.
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.