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, 09:32 AM   #321
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
Which building? Was it a high rise?
It was an apartment building with 6 floors. Conventional steel frame with masonry exterior walls.
__________________
"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 online now   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, 09:32 AM   #322
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by AZCat View Post
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.
What to do is show what the maximum expansion would be in the beams in question. I think 5.5 is actually on the high side, and there are other 'issues' that would require an even greater increase in the required walk off distance.
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, 09:35 AM   #323
AZCat
Graduate Poster
 
AZCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
What to do is show what the maximum expansion would be in the beams in question. I think 5.5 is actually on the high side, and there are other 'issues' that would require an even greater increase in the required walk off distance.
Yes - have you done that? I'd love to see your calcs, then we can get into the details and maybe reach an agreement on what is a reasonable assessment of the behavior.
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, 09:42 AM   #324
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,857
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.
This how connections failed in the cores... pushed and warped members sheared the bolts.. KAPUT
__________________
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, 09:44 AM   #325
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,857
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
push girders off their seat.
That's probably the wrong failure mode... sheared bolts I would guess.
__________________
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, 09:45 AM   #326
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by AZCat View Post
Yes - have you done that? I'd love to see your calcs, then we can get into the details and maybe reach an agreement on what is a reasonable assessment of the behavior.
For the purpose of this thread, I will happily agree with NIST that the beams in question can expand to 5.5". The question is where did the extra 3/4" that their erratum states come from?
It's actually 5.49" maximum, and like I said, I think that is an exaggerated distance, but it doesn't matter for the purposes of this 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, 09:50 AM   #327
AZCat
Graduate Poster
 
AZCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
For the purpose of this thread, I will happily agree with NIST that the beams in question can expand to 5.5". The question is where did the extra 3/4" that their erratum states come from?
It's actually 5.49" maximum, and like I said, I think that is an exaggerated distance, but it doesn't matter for the purposes of this thread.
If you're willing to accept their first claim without any support, why are you questioning the second? Did you perform calculations that have confirmed your suspicion? If not, then you really don't have a basis for accepting one number and rejecting the 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, 09:53 AM   #328
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by AZCat View Post
If you're willing to accept their first claim without any support, why are you questioning the second? Did you perform calculations that have confirmed your suspicion? If not, then you really don't have a basis for accepting one number and rejecting the other.
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101022
pages 104 and 105. When these are applied to the beams in question the max comes out to be 5.49".
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, 09:58 AM   #329
AZCat
Graduate Poster
 
AZCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101022
pages 104 and 105. When these are applied to the beams in question the max comes out to be 5.49".
Hmm... I'd love to actually see your calcs. If NIST revised their expansion then it's possible you've replicated the same error they originally made. Can you supply them?
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, 10:02 AM   #330
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
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.
No, that was not what I referred to and I suspect you know that.

Where is the analysis of the collapse of WTC7 by AE911T?
Where is their fea, where even is their description of the observed collapse beginning with the line of window breakage then the sink of the EPH?

There is NOTHING
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 23rd February 2014, 10:05 AM   #331
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
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.
Seeing thosr bolts must have also evoked the other connatation of the word 'creep'.
Bit spooky being in that building?
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 23rd February 2014, 10:09 AM   #332
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by AZCat View Post
Hmm... I'd love to actually see your calcs. If NIST revised their expansion then it's possible you've replicated the same error they originally made. Can you supply them?
I need to ask the group about, but personally I would prefer if you did a calc of your own independently so we can compare what figures we arrive at.
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, 10:11 AM   #333
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,857
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
No, that was not what I referred to and I suspect you know that.

Where is the analysis of the collapse of WTC7 by AE911T?
Where is their fea, where even is their description of the observed collapse beginning with the line of window breakage then the sink of the EPH?

There is NOTHING
Never get it.
__________________
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, 10:14 AM   #334
MileHighMadness
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 648
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
That's probably the wrong failure mode... sheared bolts I would guess.
My profession opinion, the 7/8" diameter bolts probably ripped thru the bottom flange, taken a small piece of the web with it. This connection came apart like a bomb, releasing large amounts of strain energy.
__________________
I dont look forward to heaven, it sounds as boring as hell. Lord Postsettle
MileHighMadness 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, 10:15 AM   #335
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
An around we go.
Yep

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cr4QQ...eature=youtube
Spanx 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, 10:15 AM   #336
AZCat
Graduate Poster
 
AZCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
I need to ask the group about, but personally I would prefer if you did a calc of your own independently so we can compare what figures we arrive at.
Let's see what your group comes up with first. I suspect there's more than one methodology available, and perhaps your group has used a different one from the NIST method listed in their report. I've seen vast differences in results of thermal expansion/stress calculation methods myself (on the order of 5 to 10-fold) depending on the level of linearization or the assumptions made.
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, 10:18 AM   #337
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
I need to ask the group about, but personally I would prefer if you did a calc of your own independently so we can compare what figures we arrive at.
You'd like someone to put effort into something, so you can try to pick it apart later?
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, 10:21 AM   #338
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
I think that the report should be right no matter what, and it clearly is not in terms of the elements that were omitted. They do make a difference to what NIST are saying and I want to get to the truth, and I want to do that for the right reasons and that is what is important to me.
If you were a teacher, would you fail students who got 99% in an exam?

That is what you're doing here.
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, 10:21 AM   #339
MileHighMadness
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 648
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
For the purpose of this thread, I will happily agree with NIST that the beams in question can expand to 5.5". The question is where did the extra 3/4" that their erratum states come from?
It's actually 5.49" maximum, and like I said, I think that is an exaggerated distance, but it doesn't matter for the purposes of this thread.
If this information is based on Tony's computer model...it needs to be fixed...Tony's computer model is full of fatal errors and omissions.
__________________
I dont look forward to heaven, it sounds as boring as hell. Lord Postsettle
MileHighMadness 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, 10:22 AM   #340
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by AZCat View Post
Let's see what your group comes up with first. I suspect there's more than one methodology available, and perhaps your group has used a different one from the NIST method listed in their report. I've seen vast differences in results of thermal expansion/stress calculation methods myself (on the order of 5 to 10-fold) depending on the level of linearization or the assumptions made.
Yes, there are different methods, averages etc. Even the NIST report makes that point. However, 5.5" is max and as i said there are other 'issues' around the NE of the building that would require even more than the 8" movement that the stiffener plates would require the girder to undergo once included in the analysis.
At least you are being reasonable about this because you apparently understand that it isn't just as easy as putting a few figures into an equation and pressing the equals button.
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, 10:24 AM   #341
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,640
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Seeing thosr bolts must have also evoked the other connatation of the word 'creep'.
Bit spooky being in that building?
The scary part was this was a couple days after the fire and the owner was in there with his people cleaning up and tearing things apart. I got there with the building inspector to determine if the building was still safe. The two of us noticed the bolts at the same time and started looking for where they came from. We quickly discover where they came from and after seeing one beam just hanging in midair both of us couldn't get out of there fast enough.
__________________
"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 online now   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, 10:33 AM   #342
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
At least you are being reasonable about this because you apparently understand that it isn't just as easy as putting a few figures into an equation and pressing the equals button.
Isn't that what your doing when you say it's been proven impossible?
__________________
"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 10:35 AM.
DGM is online now   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, 10:33 AM   #343
AZCat
Graduate Poster
 
AZCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Yes, there are different methods, averages etc. Even the NIST report makes that point. However, 5.5" is max and as i said there are other 'issues' around the NE of the building that would require even more than the 8" movement that the stiffener plates would require the girder to undergo once included in the analysis.
At least you are being reasonable about this because you apparently understand that it isn't just as easy as putting a few figures into an equation and pressing the equals button.
Again - you claim that the expansion is 5.5" max, but what methodology and assumptions is that based on? It's a bit early to call something the maximum when we haven't yet established the basis.

Of course I'm reasonable - I do this every day with a team of hundreds of engineers. I have lots of practice!
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, 10:52 AM   #344
Porkpie Hat
Critical Thinker
 
Porkpie Hat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 406
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.
It expands, then contracts and if the heating is uneven it won't be the same shape it was in the as built condition.

I had to inspect a skid built by a subvendor about a month ago where an inexperienced welder welded the drip lip (2"x1/8" flat bar) by starting at one corner then just welding his way around the entire perimeter of the skid base. The result was a skid that was 5/8" too short (18' datum to end) and something that more resembled a see saw.

I told the foreman to fix it or use it as a boat anchor.

Guess what he did?

He heated the I beam in a diamond pattern (from the flange midway into the web) to "pull" the skid back into shape gaining back the 5/8" lost to deformation.

But that's just a real world scenario and has nothing to do with the mythology 911 "truth" has been flouting for 12 years now with no real world effect.
Porkpie Hat 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, 11:01 AM   #345
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by AZCat View Post
Again - you claim that the expansion is 5.5" max, but what methodology and assumptions is that based on? It's a bit early to call something the maximum when we haven't yet established the basis.

Of course I'm reasonable - I do this every day with a team of hundreds of engineers. I have lots of practice!
.00850984*644 = 5.48"
You are free to work out your own calculation to dispute this. As you say, you have had lots of practice.
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, 11:06 AM   #346
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
.00850984*644 = 5.48"
You are free to work out your own calculation to dispute this. As you say, you have had lots of practice.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/the...rmal-exp.2557/

It's only fair that AZcat has the chance to read this

Last edited by Spanx; 23rd February 2014 at 11:07 AM.
Spanx 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, 11:06 AM   #347
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by Porkpie Hat View Post
It expands, then contracts and if the heating is uneven it won't be the same shape it was in the as built condition.

I had to inspect a skid built by a subvendor about a month ago where an inexperienced welder welded the drip lip (2"x1/8" flat bar) by starting at one corner then just welding his way around the entire perimeter of the skid base. The result was a skid that was 5/8" too short (18' datum to end) and something that more resembled a see saw.

I told the foreman to fix it or use it as a boat anchor.

Guess what he did?

He heated the I beam in a diamond pattern (from the flange midway into the web) to "pull" the skid back into shape gaining back the 5/8" lost to deformation.

But that's just a real world scenario and has nothing to do with the mythology 911 "truth" has been flouting for 12 years now with no real world effect.
Yeah, if it sags for example, which it would above 600 or so degrees, it won't magically defy gravity and return to its former shape, but it will return to a similar tensile strength, i agree.
Maybe you could tell us another fishing story now...........
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, 11:08 AM   #348
AZCat
Graduate Poster
 
AZCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
.00850984*644 = 5.48"
You are free to work out your own calculation to dispute this. As you say, you have had lots of practice.
I think that's a bit truncated. Care to provide the supporting calculations for the values used in this equation? I suspect that will illuminate a little more than the abbreviated (and incorrectly stated, I might add) information you've provided.
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, 11:14 AM   #349
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by AZCat View Post
I think that's a bit truncated. Care to provide the supporting calculations for the values used in this equation? I suspect that will illuminate a little more than the abbreviated (and incorrectly stated, I might add) information you've provided.
Are you talking about the CTE value? If so what value are you using?
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, 11:15 AM   #350
AZCat
Graduate Poster
 
AZCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Are you talking about the CTE value? If so what value are you using?
Yes. I think it's important to see how you've calculated the coefficient of thermal expansion. Let's not worry about what I will use yet - you still haven't fully supported your calculations.
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, 11:16 AM   #351
AZCat
Graduate Poster
 
AZCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/the...rmal-exp.2557/

It's only fair that AZcat has the chance to read this
Interesting. I'll have to take some time to read through this thoroughly.
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, 11:16 AM   #352
MileHighMadness
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 648
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
.00850984*644 = 5.48"
You are free to work out your own calculation to dispute this. As you say, you have had lots of practice.
Again...this movement is meaningless...this connection probably ripped apart like a small bomb.
__________________
I dont look forward to heaven, it sounds as boring as hell. Lord Postsettle
MileHighMadness 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, 11:16 AM   #353
Porkpie Hat
Critical Thinker
 
Porkpie Hat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 406
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Yeah, if it sags for example, which it would above 600 or so degrees, it won't magically defy gravity and return to its former shape, but it will return to a similar tensile strength, i agree.
Maybe you could tell us another fishing story now...........
You have a column and a beam being unevenly heated then cooled. I'm willing to bet real world money they didn't return to their as built shapes during the cooling phase meaning the as built dimensions are meaningless and your entire argument is based on a fallacy which is not applicable to the real world.

The only way you could successfully argue your case is if there was monitoring of all aspects of both the column and the beam for dimension and attitude about their respective axis as they heated then cooled.

In short, your argument is a dud.
Porkpie Hat 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, 11:20 AM   #354
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by Porkpie Hat View Post
You have a column and a beam being unevenly heated then cooled. I'm willing to bet real world money they didn't return to their as built shapes during the cooling phase meaning the as built dimensions are meaningless and your entire argument is based on a fallacy which is not applicable to the real world.

The only way you could successfully argue your case is if there was monitoring of all aspects of both the column and the beam for dimension and attitude about their respective axis as they heated then cooled.

In short, your argument is a dud.
We are talking about NISTs analysis which heated the girder to 500 and the beams to 600 in a matter of a second or so. Although I agree that this is unrealistic, it is what they did. Are you suggesting that we change the parameters of their analysis to make a comparison?
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, 11:22 AM   #355
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by MileHighMadness View Post
Again...this movement is meaningless...this connection probably ripped apart like a small bomb.
You need to show your work for that allowing for column 38 also.
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, 11:26 AM   #356
MileHighMadness
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 648
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
You need to show your work for that allowing for column 38 also.
I don't need to show you krap...the burden of prove is on you.
__________________
I dont look forward to heaven, it sounds as boring as hell. Lord Postsettle
MileHighMadness 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, 11:27 AM   #357
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by AZCat View Post
Interesting. I'll have to take some time to read through this thoroughly.
Yes, I am happy with the values there. 5.5"
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, 11:30 AM   #358
AZCat
Graduate Poster
 
AZCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Yes, I am happy with the values there. 5.5"
There doesn't seem to be consensus in that thread, so your statement isn't particularly useful.
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, 11:33 AM   #359
Porkpie Hat
Critical Thinker
 
Porkpie Hat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 406
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
We are talking about NISTs analysis which heated the girder to 500 and the beams to 600 in a matter of a second or so. Although I agree that this is unrealistic, it is what they did. Are you suggesting that we change the parameters of their analysis to make a comparison?
What I'm saying is that a hypothetical scenario does not have to match a real world scenario in terms of accuracy.

Most people take reports such as NIST as being hypothetical but "truthers" are so stuck on proving it wrong they forget that and try to take it as a literal interpretation of what happened.

Your argument has failed and will only continue to fail regardless of how badly you want it to mean something.
Porkpie Hat 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, 11:34 AM   #360
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by AZCat View Post
There doesn't seem to be consensus in that thread, so your statement isn't particularly useful.
for the purposes of this thread 5.5 is fine. Are you saying it could be 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
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 03:47 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.