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.
Reply
Old 8th August 2016, 05:08 AM   #81
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
No one knowledeable about explosives would have dared used explosives to demolish the WTC buidlings during the 9/11 attack because explosives leave behind lots of evidence that can be traced.

I might further add that a number of foreign intelligence sources including the Taliban and Russia have pointed their fingers at Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, not at the Bush Administration. After 9/11, Osama bin Laden admitted that he was responsible, which confirms an earlier warning from the Taliban of Afghanistan to the United States that he was planning such an attack. That was underlined by al-Qaeda when they posted martyr videos of the 9/11 hijackers.

.

Not to mention the failed 1993 attempt at taking them down. Truthers live in an absurd bubble.
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 8th August 2016, 05:10 AM   #82
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
When I listen to Tony's fire knowledge, I think about this case in Texas.
Did Texas Execute an Innocent Man? Death by Fire …: http://youtu.be/FavPZqlVL-s

Tony has no knowledge. in the behavior of fires.
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 8th August 2016, 05:13 AM   #83
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
...but what Tony needs is to keep his name in the lights with lots of people debating him and stroking his ego

......on things that do not make any difference to Tony's real claims.

............AND making sure that Tony's two or three real claims are not put under scrutiny.


He is winning at that game.
...which is why he'll be too cowardly to debate someone who doesn't have any interest in entertaining his life in the minutiae. Just like the rest of them.
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 8th August 2016, 06:04 AM   #84
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,141
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The NIST WTC 7 report was shown to be invalid by the ARUP analyses, since the NIST push off can't work due to girder trapping. The ARUP analyses were then shown themselves to contain fatal errors by me and the Weidlinger report.
Can you explain something please?

How in the world can you say this abpout the ARUP report:
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I also have my doubts that the girder would have been pulled off its seat but that is made moot by the fact that even if it did it could not cause a floor cascade and loss of lateral support for column 79. Therefore, it never buckles.

You don't even have a point when things are put in context.
...then this:
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The ARUP analyses were then shown themselves to contain fatal errors by me and the Weidlinger report.

We are now looking at the Weidlinger report (October 2010) to see if it shows fire could have caused the collapse without any of the fatal flaws exhibited in the other two reports (NIST in November 2008 and ARUP in April 2010).
...and then turn around and use the ARUP report, a report you have admitted to having doubts about AND supposeldy contains FATAL (your words) errors, to use as proof that NIST was wrong?

Are you kidding me?
Gamolon 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 8th August 2016, 06:25 AM   #85
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
Can you explain something please?

How in the world can you say this abpout the ARUP report:


...then this:


...and then turn around and use the ARUP report, a report you have admitted to having doubts about AND supposeldy contains FATAL (your words) errors, to use as proof that NIST was wrong?

Are you kidding me?
It's all just Tony saying that he and he alone, among thousands of engineers has managed to destroy the conclusions of three highly respected engineering firms. Tony is in fact a vastly superior engineer than almost anyone in the pe in the profession will give him credit for. It is that which has allowed him to utterly destroy NIST, Nordenson, Weidlinger, and ARUP.
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 8th August 2016, 07:16 AM   #86
benthamitemetric
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 535
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Engineers have a better way to remove uncertainty where we look to see if a worst or best case are impossible.

The NIST WTC 7 analysis is not valid in even the best case for their contention. It can simply never work because there will never be a situation where 600 degree C beams framing into it are pushing it while the girder remains near room temperature, so as to avoid the column 79 side plate.

It is as sure as saying no human being will ever walk on the sun. There is no need to do millions of calculations to show that to be true.
What was the worst case scenario for WTC 7 and how did you assess what was possible in that scenario? None of NIST, ARUP, Bailey, or WAI were looking at "worst case scenarios" and they all concluded there various fire induced collapse modes that could have initiated anyway. I somehow doubt that the building would have faired better under even worse fire scenarios. It seems, however, there is, at minimum, an ACEC grand award waiting for you if you have actually done the analysis necessary to show that.

Last edited by benthamitemetric; 8th August 2016 at 07:18 AM.
benthamitemetric 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 8th August 2016, 08:13 AM   #87
WilliamSeger
Illuminator
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,964
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
Can you explain something please?

How in the world can you say this abpout the ARUP report:


...then this:


...and then turn around and use the ARUP report, a report you have admitted to having doubts about AND supposeldy contains FATAL (your words) errors, to use as proof that NIST was wrong?

Are you kidding me?
Tony illustrates "confirmation bias" like Donald Trump illustrates "Narcissistic Personality Disorder" -- basket textbook cases.

Last edited by WilliamSeger; 8th August 2016 at 08:29 AM.
WilliamSeger 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 8th August 2016, 02:46 PM   #88
HotRodDeluxe
Muse
 
HotRodDeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 688
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
It is the single most insanely stupid theory in human history.
Agreed. There is no logic or reason behind the claims. They are simply insane.
HotRodDeluxe 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 8th August 2016, 05:41 PM   #89
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
It is the single most insanely stupid theory in human history.
Then why are so many of you opposed to a new investigation?
FalseFlag 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 8th August 2016, 05:42 PM   #90
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by HotRodDeluxe View Post
Agreed. There is no logic or reason behind the claims. They are simply insane.
Don't be so hard on the skeptics here. I mean, I know they are crazy, but be nice.
FalseFlag 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 8th August 2016, 06:10 PM   #91
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Then why are so many of you opposed to a new investigation?

Because it is a waste of time and money considering that it has been determined by experts, the WTC buildings collapsed due to fire, in conjunction with impact damage.
skyeagle409 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 8th August 2016, 06:21 PM   #92
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
it has been determined by experts,
What experts? Where in the NIST report does it say that the WTC7 collapse was due to impact damage?
FalseFlag 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 8th August 2016, 06:23 PM   #93
AJM8125
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 20,208
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Then why are so many of you opposed to a new investigation?
Why is Gage opposed to one?
__________________
AJM8125 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 8th August 2016, 06:33 PM   #94
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by AJM8125 View Post
Why is Gage opposed to one?
Source?
FalseFlag 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 8th August 2016, 06:35 PM   #95
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,637
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Then why are so many of you opposed to a new investigation?
I'm not apposed to a new investigation. I've never once fought to prevent all the ones to date. In fact, if you want to do one, go for it with my blessing.
__________________
"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 8th August 2016, 06:36 PM   #96
AJM8125
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 20,208
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Source?
AE911Truth.org.
__________________
AJM8125 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 8th August 2016, 06:51 PM   #97
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,637
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Source?
After 10 years he has not submitted his petition. Why do you think that would be?
__________________
"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 8th August 2016, 06:55 PM   #98
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
What experts? Where in the NIST report does it say that the WTC7 collapse was due to impact damage?

Structural and civil engineers, demolition experts, firefighters, and even seismograph experts whose seismographs were in operation that day.

They have stated for the record that their seismographs did not detect CD explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed and confirmed on a number of videos.

Last edited by skyeagle409; 8th August 2016 at 06:57 PM.
skyeagle409 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 8th August 2016, 07:42 PM   #99
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
What was the worst case scenario for WTC 7 and how did you assess what was possible in that scenario? None of NIST, ARUP, Bailey, or WAI were looking at "worst case scenarios" and they all concluded there various fire induced collapse modes that could have initiated anyway. I somehow doubt that the building would have faired better under even worse fire scenarios. It seems, however, there is, at minimum, an ACEC grand award waiting for you if you have actually done the analysis necessary to show that.
NIST uses 4 hours of heating and Weidlinger uses 4.5 hours. I would call those durations worst case based on the reality that office fires don't contain enough fuel to burn hot in a local area for more than 2 hours. This is what the Cardington tests showed.

Additionally, one poster on here had been questioning where NIST says 4 hour heating. It is mentioned several times in NIST NCSTAR 1-9 chapters 11.3 and 11.4.

I think you generally want to believe what you were told, Unfortunately, what you were told was impossible but I doubt you can be brought to that realization.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 8th August 2016 at 07:57 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 8th August 2016, 07:52 PM   #100
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I think you generally want to believe what you were told, unfortunately what you were told was impossible.

Your CD theory in reference to WTC 7 is impossible.
skyeagle409 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 8th August 2016, 07:54 PM   #101
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
Can you explain something please?

How in the world can you say this abpout the ARUP report:


...then this:


...and then turn around and use the ARUP report, a report you have admitted to having doubts about AND supposeldy contains FATAL (your words) errors, to use as proof that NIST was wrong?

Are you kidding me?
Wait a minute, aren't you the guy who was saying on the Political forum that ARUP and NIST both said the beam came off its seat here http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/4...covery-9.html?

Of course, it was the girder that they both say came off its seat, one says it was pushed to the west (NIST) and the other says it was pulled to the east (ARUP).

However, ARUP did show the NIST push-off to the west could not have occurred due to girder trapping behind column 79's side plate. You obviously have the ARUP analysis, so the question is how did you miss that?

Neither can provide an analysis that shows that even if the girder fell that it could break through the next floor down. I showed that could not happen and you know it. You sound like somebody that is just trying to confuse and give somebody else a hard time.

Goodbye Gamolon. You should have a little more respect for others than you do.

Edited by Agatha:  Do not alter members' usernames

Last edited by Agatha; 9th August 2016 at 07:29 AM.
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 8th August 2016, 07:56 PM   #102
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
Your CD theory in reference to WTC 7 is impossible.
Flying high there aren't we skyeagle409?

Edited by Agatha:  Do not alter members' usernames.

Last edited by Agatha; 9th August 2016 at 07:25 AM.
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 8th August 2016, 08:05 PM   #103
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 14,152
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
... that ARUP and NIST both said the beam came off its seat here…

Of course, it was the girder that they both say came off its seat…
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad 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 8th August 2016, 08:09 PM   #104
benthamitemetric
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 535
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
NIST uses 4 hours of heating and Weidlinger uses 4.5 hours. I would call those durations worst case based on the reality that office fires don't contain enough fuel to burn hot in a local area for more than 2 hours. This is what the Cardington tests showed.

Additionally, one poster on here had been questioning where NIST says 4 hour heating. It is mentioned several times in NIST NCSTAR 1-9 chapters 11.3 and 11.4.

I think you generally want to believe what you were told, unfortunately what you were told was impossible.
Can you provide a source re the appropriate burn time for fires in an unfought office fire in a building the size of WTC 7 that contained the fire loads of WTC 7? I won't simply suppose that the chairman of the International Association for Fire Safety Science was completely off the mark in his assessment just on your say so and your laughable misapplication of the Cardington test results. For example, can you quote me where the Cardington test designers concluded they had deduced some sort of universal rule applicable to all types of office fires? It's funny how, after I pointed out on the first page of this thread how the Cardington tests showed that, even in that limited test environment, office fires could heat structural elements far hotter than was necessary to fail the elements in the ARUP, NIST or WAI models, you stopped trying to be specific about what you thought those tests showed with respect to whatever argument you think you are trying to make.

Also, it is worth pointing out how, if you look at the the actual temperature curves in the WAI paper, you will see that characterizing the fire as a "4.5 hour burn in a single location" is something you have simply spun up on your own. Those are the temperature curves of traveling fires that only reached peak intensity at the collapse areas within the hour or so before collapse initiated. You do see the hockey stick, yes?

Finally, I let you get away with dodging a lot of points in these back-and-forths, but I will continue to emphasize that you have not shown what would happen to the NIST model under ARUPs temperature assumptions, what would happen to the ARUP model under NIST's temperature assumptions, or anything else that would approach what would be necessary to actually compare the two head-to-head from a mechanic perspective. You are supposedly an engineer and yet you offer nothing more than a cartoon response based on an unproven assertion that, in a model with millions of variables, only one--the expansion of a single girder (under the ridiculous assumption that said girder would have a uniform temperature)--would trump the way all other elements behaved. It's a bridge too far and it's extremely dishonest for you to keep trying to walk across that bridge.

Re impossibility--not only have you not shown fire induced collapse to be impossible, you have not shown a single one of the fulsome finite element modeled collapse scenarios (Bailey, ARUP, NIST, or WAI) that are now publicly available to be impossible. And you certainly haven't shown controlled demolition to be possible. NIST gets published in JSE, WAI gets a prestigious engineering award from ACEC, ARUP continues to be the leader in the field of forensic engineering, and Bailey's career has flourished (as have the careers of nearly all the NIST authors and the other Aegis plaintiff experts). Have you and your fellow travelers received any accolades or other recognition from your peers for your engineering work re WTC 7? It looks like the professionals have spoken, no?

Last edited by benthamitemetric; 8th August 2016 at 08:24 PM.
benthamitemetric 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 8th August 2016, 08:13 PM   #105
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,319
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Then why are so many of you opposed to a new investigation?
It's a waste of money.

Money we can use for schools, infrastructure, libraries, parks, healthcare, and dozens of other things.

Seriously, investigating the collapse of a building that killed no one in an during an event which occurred on live TV, in front of thousands of FDNY, NYPD, & other federal and state law enforcement personnel has been a waste of time. The NIST report didn't satisfy the kooks, and there is no reason that a new investigation would change their minds based on the simple fact that it will not reveal CD or any nefarious actions beyond the hijacking of commercial jets and the murder of 3000 people.

This thread is yet another example of nitpicking and goal-post moving by TS. He's talks about an office fire as if it is on par with a bonfire. What happened in the NIST simulations ultimately doesn't matter, only what happened inside #7 matters. While there are many serious debates among engineering professionals, none centers around CD.

Last edited by Axxman300; 8th August 2016 at 08:15 PM.
Axxman300 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 8th August 2016, 08:37 PM   #106
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Flying high there aren't we skybeagle409?
Flying high in the sky of reality, and it is apparent that you havne't a clue as to what it takes to bring down a steel frame building with explosives.

Once again, I will pose this question to you. Have you ever wondered why a huge bomb failed to bring down WTC 1 in 1993? Think about it!
skyeagle409 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 8th August 2016, 09:51 PM   #107
WilliamSeger
Illuminator
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,964
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I think you generally want to believe what you were told, Unfortunately, what you were told was impossible but I doubt you can be brought to that realization.
I doubt that you can be brought to the realization that there are no magical silent, fireproof explosives, and no black ops ninjas wearing invisibility cloaks to plant them anyway. If you want to bring me to the realization that such things must exist, I'm afraid you'll need to eliminate virtually all other possibilities. And I'm afraid that will take much more than your own half-baked analysis and bare assertions. All that those really show is that you weren't "brought to that realization"; you started there.
WilliamSeger 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 9th August 2016, 12:07 AM   #108
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,343
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
it has been determined by experts,
What experts? Where in the NIST report does it say that the WTC7 collapse was due to impact damage?
I see what you did there.
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
Because it is a waste of time and money considering that it has been determined by experts, the WTC buildings collapsed due to fire, in conjunction with impact damage.
__________________
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 9th August 2016, 01:15 AM   #109
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
NIST uses 4 hours of heating and Weidlinger uses 4.5 hours. I would call those durations worst case based on the reality that office fires don't contain enough fuel to burn hot in a local area for more than 2 hours. This is what the Cardington tests showed.

Additionally, one poster on here had been questioning where NIST says 4 hour heating. It is mentioned several times in NIST NCSTAR 1-9 chapters 11.3 and 11.4.

I think you generally want to believe what you were told, Unfortunately, what you were told was impossible but I doubt you can be brought to that realization.
Most offices are not City emergency management centers with tons of supplies stored in the buildings for that purpose.
That give additional fuel loading, in addition the fires in all the world trade center buildings were hot fuel rich fires, the intense black smoke and strong air currents points that out.
Looking at WT7 as a standard office building is the first lie you told.
You have no leg to stand on offering a limited case FEA, when NIST used super computer modeling.
You are essentially comparing mice to elephants Tony.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 9th August 2016, 01:47 AM   #110
Dave_46
Graduate Poster
 
Dave_46's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK (south Bucks)
Posts: 1,022
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
... office fires don't contain enough fuel to burn hot in a local area for more than 2 hours. This is what the Cardington tests showed.

<snip>
No. The fires in the Cardington did not show that office fires last a certain time. The fires in the Cardington tests were designed to last ("burn hot in a local area") for a specific time. This time would vary with the test being performed.

I worked with the people who performed those tests. They knew how to design the fire load (Hell, I've done similar things myself, on a smaller scale), it's not difficult with a timber crib. I assisted them with some of the instrumentation on some of the tests. I witnessed a couple of the tests.

(Note. I retired from working at the Fire Research Station/BRE ten years ago, so unfortunately I have no access to data now)

Dave Smit

Last edited by Dave_46; 9th August 2016 at 01:50 AM. Reason: Sentence added for clarification
Dave_46 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 9th August 2016, 02:37 AM   #111
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by Dave_46 View Post
No. The fires in the Cardington did not show that office fires last a certain time. The fires in the Cardington tests were designed to last ("burn hot in a local area") for a specific time. This time would vary with the test being performed.

I worked with the people who performed those tests. They knew how to design the fire load (Hell, I've done similar things myself, on a smaller scale), it's not difficult with a timber crib. I assisted them with some of the instrumentation on some of the tests. I witnessed a couple of the tests.

(Note. I retired from working at the Fire Research Station/BRE ten years ago, so unfortunately I have no access to data now)

Dave Smit
Yes they were highly controlled experiments designed for a specific type of burn at a given burn rate.
What I am trying to get Tony to understand is he is scientificly and engineeringly making false and inaccurate claims that falsify his assumptions.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 9th August 2016, 04:06 AM   #112
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Hey Tony have you read this?
http://www.spartaengineering.com/the...ment-analysis/
Crazy Chainsaw 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 9th August 2016, 06:48 AM   #113
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Then why are so many of you opposed to a new investigation?
I'm not opposed to a new investigation. However, I would require that reasoning for this large expenditure be cogently expressed and formally submitted to the proper authorities.
Why don't you want to do that? Why doesn't AE911T want to do that?

You seem to think all that need be done is to figuratively yell and pout ion the internet and voila, a new investigation will be formed by someone. Then all will be sweetness and light.
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 9th August 2016, 06:51 AM   #114
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
When components fail might there be the creation of such non-linear stress concentrations?

rhetorical question.

Yet AE911T and TSz wonder why the WTC7 sim gets further away from what actually happened the longer the sim runs.................
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 9th August 2016, 06:56 AM   #115
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
................
Re impossibility--not only have you not shown fire induced collapse to be impossible, you have not shown a single one of the fulsome finite element modeled collapse scenarios (Bailey, ARUP, NIST, or WAI) that are now publicly available to be impossible. And you certainly haven't shown controlled demolition to be possible. NIST gets published in JSE, WAI gets a prestigious engineering award from ACEC, ARUP continues to be the leader in the field of forensic engineering, and Bailey's career has flourished (as have the careers of nearly all the NIST authors and the other Aegis plaintiff experts). Have you and your fellow travelers received any accolades or other recognition from your peers for your engineering work re WTC 7? It looks like the professionals have spoken, no?
As I said:
Quote:
It's all just Tony saying that he and he alone, among thousands of engineers has managed to destroy the conclusions of three highly respected engineering firms. Tony is in fact a vastly superior engineer than almost anyone in the in the profession will give him credit for. It is that which has allowed him to utterly destroy NIST, Nordenson & Bailey, Weidlinger, and ARUP.
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 9th August 2016, 07:15 AM   #116
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
When components fail might there be the creation of such non-linear stress concentrations?

rhetorical question.

Yet AE911T and TSz wonder why the WTC7 sim gets further away from what actually happened the longer the sim runs.................
Yes that's why Tony's FEA is BS, even the people who wrote the FEA program, have stated that, it can not and should not be applied in the manor he applies it.

A weld can induce nonlinear stress as can heat effects, tony is using the wrong computer model to begin with.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 9th August 2016, 07:24 AM   #117
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,599
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
No one knowledeable about explosives would have dared used explosives to demolish the WTC buidlings during the 9/11 attack because explosives leave behind lots of evidence that can be traced.

I might further add that a number of foreign intelligence sources including the Taliban and Russia have pointed their fingers at Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, not at the Bush Administration. After 9/11, Osama bin Laden admitted that he was responsible, which confirms an earlier warning from the Taliban of Afghanistan to the United States that he was planning such an attack. That was underlined by al-Qaeda when they posted martyr videos of the 9/11 hijackers.

.
Not only that.

The method we use for safe destruction of HE stocks that are expired (believe it or not, explosive materials and many devices have expiration dates) is burning.

Any explosives that were waiting in the impact zone would have been burned off pretty quick.

Exposure to fire will often initiate conflagration in an explosive device before the detonator can do it's job.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong 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 9th August 2016, 07:37 AM   #118
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
Yes that's why Tony's FEA is BS, even the people who wrote the FEA program, have stated that, it can not and should not be applied in the manor he applies it.

A weld can induce nonlinear stress as can heat effects, tony is using the wrong computer model to begin with.
Linear FEAs do have their use of course. They do offer a good idea of what the reaction of a structure will be to a loss of a component. In the structural response FEAs that NIST and the others did, its the cumulative effects of the margins of error, and minor effects that are not modeled, and the introduction of non-linear effects over the course of the run, that cause the diversion from what we actually saw occur.

Yes, in the heated portions, your link specifically mentions that plastic realm includes non-linear effects.. Therefore a linear analysis will likely be off the mark.
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 9th August 2016, 08:46 AM   #119
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,097
Linear analysis is great UP TO YIELD.
However, yield in compression is a different value than yield in tension, which is different from yield in shear, and yield in bearing is a totally different breed of cat. All of these change with temperature.
So at that point you have to go nonlinear in material. But because the deflections start increasing, you also need to go nonlinear geometry.
Steel is tricky, because of the "knee" in the modulus value (FEM falls apart with negative slope) so you have to split it up a lot.
Last one of those I did required 18 hours of computation on a small model. (Like "only" 30000 degrees of freedom)(5000 nodes) I had to ignore local buckling effects to get that few...
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn 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 9th August 2016, 08:59 AM   #120
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Linear FEAs do have their use of course. They do offer a good idea of what the reaction of a structure will be to a loss of a component. In the structural response FEAs that NIST and the others did, its the cumulative effects of the margins of error, and minor effects that are not modeled, and the introduction of non-linear effects over the course of the run, that cause the diversion from what we actually saw occur.

Yes, in the heated portions, your link specifically mentions that plastic realm includes non-linear effects.. Therefore a linear analysis will likely be off the mark.
Yes so Tony could not have possibly, falsified NIST with just one simple FEA.
NIST was a super computer best fit model, not just a simple FEA, Tony doesn't even have the computing power to come close to it.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 12:32 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.