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 9th August 2016, 08:59 AM   #121
benthamitemetric
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 535
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post

indeed

If Tony were really serious about this, he would be talking with leading researchers and organizations and collaborating with them to reach a better understanding. Take a guy like Dr. Asif Usmani, who did a lot of the fire modeling research and work for NIST re the WTC complex. That man has published more papers on the topic of fire science than Tony or anyone here has ever even read. He's even the world's foremost expert in computer interpretation and simulation of the Cardington test results. If Tony had a serious, definable issue with the fire modeling that NIST did, wouldn't the obvious thing to do be to shoot Dr. Usmani an email and ask for his thoughts? That's how experts deal with issues in my professional field--exchange some emails and jump on a quick call if necessary. Yet, since Tony knows he cannot articulate the supposed issues he's found with such models in sufficient detail to actually have a meaningful conversation with an expert (he struggles to make detailed and consistent arguments here in a forum of non-experts, after all) about these subjects, he instead just bounces half baked theories off of us.

Moreover, as the 2015 ACEC grand award to WAI shows, there is great interest in the professional engineering community in understanding the myriad issues involved in the WTC 7 collapse. There are many people who take understanding these issues very seriously because they need to make design choices every day on structures that are susceptible to the same types of failures. You can see this keen interest even if you just read through the NIST report public comments. There are hundreds of professional engineers and firms represented in those comments. (Truther types should know this, given that they often cite David Chandler's questions from that record. Do they even realize the question before his came from an Arup expert?) And the professional conversation about these issues has continued for years in academic journals and trade publications. Last night I even stumbled upon the fact that Arup has even independently modeled and studied the twin tower collapses as well and participated in the conversation over appropriate design and code improvements. (See, e.g., http://www.controleng.com/single-art...5e3d75732.html, http://mosenltd.com/wp-content/uploa...n-years-on.pdf, https://www.iccsafe.org/cs/codes/Doc...-G163-G167.pdf)

Why don't Tony and Richard Gage et al ever start the conversation from an honest place and share with their fellow travelers all of the massive amount of professional opinion that exists re the fire induced collapse hypotheses?

Last edited by benthamitemetric; 9th August 2016 at 09:14 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 9th August 2016, 09:01 AM   #122
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
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...
Yes I am happy we have your experience as well as Ozzie's.

Tony can't possibly have accomplished what he claims to have.
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, 09:23 AM   #123
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,080
15 years - no evidence for CD = infinite failure

Fantasy CD proponents with more BS about rational studies to cover their failure, they have zero evidence for CD.

What is the next tangent for failed CD claim pushers?

Why has 9/11 truth CD fantasy pushers failed to present evidence for CD? There is no evidence.

Can't provide evidence for CD, so attack other studies... 9/11 truth logic failure
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2016, 12:16 PM   #124
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,637
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post

Why don't Tony and Richard Gage et al ever start the conversation from an honest place and share with their fellow travelers all of the massive amount of professional opinion that exists re the fire induced collapse hypotheses?
At this point a question that doesn't need to be asked.............
__________________
"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 9th August 2016, 01:17 PM   #125
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,261
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Are you actually saying you can't figure out what the Weidlinger report means when it says " 4.5 hours of fire exposure" in the figures on page B-83 and B-84?

Oystein is either very confused because he is commenting too fast or he is asking intentionally ridiculous and inane questions, in an attempt to pretend I am holding something back, because he has nothing else to counter what I am saying.
Haha that's damned right: I have nothing to counter - because you made no claim that could be countered.
Why do you even suppose I wanted to counter anything?

I merely asked you to start off your thread by
FIRST: Citing properly the information you wish to debate (Author; Title; Year; Publisher; URL; ...) - ideally provide quotes.
SECONDLY: Explaining what the relevance of the cited information is
THIRDLY: Presenting a well-formed claim or argument, or asking a specific question (or several)

You had a bad start on first, and had totally failed at second and third.
This is embarrassing for someone professing to be an engineer.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Maybe he was confused by page 20. That is the pdf page. The page number at the bottom of the page I mean is page 18.
Hahaha YOU made this mistake, but I am the one confused? You are such a darling - never failing to be malevolently dishonest!

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Figure 7 on page 18 (pdf 20) says

Steel temperature distribution (degrees C) prior to connection failure initiation on the east portion of the 10th floor. This occurs after 4.5 hours of continual heating due to fire.

Figure 60 on page B-85 says

Vertical velocity (in/msec) after 4.5 hours of heating. Peak velocity at the secondary beam south of column 80 illustrates that failure initiates here.

I think it is pretty clear what they mean.
Then say it - what, specifically, has been heated for 4.5 hours, and how? And where does this duration come from?

In other words: Summarize, for the benefit of those you want to pose questions to, the methodology of the WAI report. Not so much because we (e.g. I) can't figure it out, and more because we need to checl whether you understand it.

You see, you apparently insinuate that 4.5 hours of heating is somehow too long. So we must know what process thise number actually measures. You must know it. If you can't explain it, then I guess you don't understand it. Your question then should be "can anyone explain this to me, please?"

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
If you still aren't sure maybe you guys/gals should take some classes from Crazy Chainsaw on thermal terms.
It's your thread. YOU should define context and terms. You weasle.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein 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, 01:19 PM   #126
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
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.

It simply amazes me to think that despite WTC 7 burning for hours and the major impact damage imflicted on its southern wall, Truthers believe that explosives were used
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 9th August 2016, 01:39 PM   #127
Dog Town
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
It simply amazes me to think that despite WTC 7 burning for hours and the major impact damage imflicted on its southern wall, Truthers believe that explosives were used
Indeed!

Dog Town 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, 01:41 PM   #128
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,261
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
NIST uses 4 hours of heating and Weidlinger uses 4.5 hours.
This is actually WRONG.
They "use" more hours of heating, it's just that 4/4.5 hours into simulated heating scenario, something of interest happened.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
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.
What is "a local area"?
Do the 4/4.5 hours you refer to in the NIST/WAI report pertain to "fuel to burn hot in a local area" as per the Cardington test?

You ought to answer: "Clearly NOT!"

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
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.
Please provide and explain the context.
Do these 4 hours describe "fuel to burn hot in a local area" as per the Cardington test?

You ought to answer: "Clearly NOT!"
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein 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, 01:53 PM   #129
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,261
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
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.
Where have I heard this before...

...ah yes! Danny Jowenko said this, 10 years ago, on Dutch TV, when he explained why WTC1+2 could not possibly have been explosive demolitions!

Tony, you are aware that Danny Jowenko explained 10 years ago that WTC1+2 could not possibly have been explosive demolitions, and why, right? RIGHT, Tony?

So since you heard Jowenko explain that fires destroy demo charges at temps under 300 C - where would you have placed the demo charges in WTC7?

(Prediction: Tony will totally ignore this question in order to not acknowledge he knows that Jowenko truly said the above. No truther ever does. They are mortally afraid of the truth)
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)

Last edited by Oystein; 9th August 2016 at 01:57 PM.
Oystein 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, 04:09 PM   #130
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by Dog Town View Post

I like that photo. Notice the debris reaching the ground while the collapse of the WTC Tower is still in progress many stories above ground level.

That photo clearly debunks the Truther claim that the WTC Tower collapsed at free fall or near-free fall speed.
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 9th August 2016, 05:02 PM   #131
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,491
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
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).
Tony, girders ARE beams!

Quote:
A girder is a support beam used in construction.[1] It is the main horizontal support of a structure which supports smaller beams.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girder

BTW, when are you going to demonstrate that a standing building is being accelerated to the Earth?
Redwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2016, 05:16 PM   #132
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,491
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
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.
And, believe it or not, you actually get more energy by burning most high explosives like TNT than by detonating them! (But not more power.)

According to lore, C-4 was widely used by G.I.s in Vietnam as fuel in cookstoves.
Redwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2016, 05:23 PM   #133
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
And, believe it or not, you actually get more energy by burning most high explosives like TNT than by detonating them! (But not more power.)

According to lore, C-4 was widely used by G.I.s in Vietnam as fuel in cookstoves.
That is not correct it was used to cook food, when it was to wet to light the normal fuel, do to the monsoon like rains.
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, 05:34 PM   #134
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,637
Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
And, believe it or not, you actually get more energy by burning most high explosives like TNT than by detonating them! (But not more power.)

According to lore, C-4 was widely used by G.I.s in Vietnam as fuel in cookstoves.
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
That is not correct it was used to cook food, when it was to wet to light the normal fuel, do to the monsoon like rains.

I think you guys just claimed the same thing............
__________________
"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 9th August 2016, 08:15 PM   #135
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,422
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I think you guys just claimed the same thing............
Spoilsport - we could have seen a three page multi post "tit-for-tat"


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 10th August 2016, 02:22 AM   #136
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I think you guys just claimed the same thing............
It was used in the field, not in a stove, it doesn't smoke, so it wouldn't give away the GI's position.
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 10th August 2016, 05:24 AM   #137
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,599
Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
And, believe it or not, you actually get more energy by burning most high explosives like TNT than by detonating them! (But not more power.)

According to lore, C-4 was widely used by G.I.s in Vietnam as fuel in cookstoves.
That's why they're disposed of in small batches as opposed to stacking up large quantities and putting the torch to 'em.

I've cooked with C4, brewed coffee w/ C4 and have heated meals on the exhaust manifolds of trucks.

It's the trifecta of improvised cooking techniques.
__________________
"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 10th August 2016, 05:51 AM   #138
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,141
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
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?
Yup, that was me. Your attention to detail is just amazing Tony!



Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
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).
Really? So you were confused when I said "beam" instead of "girder" when I posted a screenshot of ARUP's conclusion or when I said "the beam between column 79 and 44"? A girder is a type of beam is it not? Nice semantics game you play when cornered.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
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.
Yet you don't trust ARUP's report AND said you found fatal errors in it? How can you sit there and say that ARUP proved NIST wrong when you don't believe them AND found fatal errors in that report!

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
You obviously have the ARUP analysis, so the question is how did you miss that?
See above. You like ARUP's report when it agrees with you, but don't like it when it goes against you. What a joke.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
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.
You've showed nothing Tony. That's why people here are clamoring for your models and analysis right? "You showed"... What a bunch of crap. All you have is a couple of "back of the napkin" calculations. What about your detailed explanation on how controlled demolition brought down WTC7 Tony? You won't present one because you KNOW it will be dismantled.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Goodbye Gamolon.
Typical truther tactic. When cornered, just leave.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
You should have a little more respect for others than you do.
Oh I do have respect for others Tony. When they deserve it. You don't deserve it.
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 10th August 2016, 08:19 AM   #139
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Are 4 to 4.5 hour office fire simulations valid?

It strikes me that this is a definitive yes.

There are many examples of office fires lasting more than 4.5 hours including Delft University fire and the Windsor.

Many of these fires were investigated using a fire spread/intensity computer simulations.

Now what Tony actually means is "Is it valid to expect an office fire to burn, in one area, in a simulation, for 4.5 hours?"
However, do the NIST fire sims programs actually show any fire burning in ONE area for 4.5 hours? I don't think so. IIRC the graphics show the gas temps in the areas studied.
Seems to me, non-expert that I am, that this does not equate to something "burning" at any one spot, that the gas temp is affected by the gas/air/smoke currents in the room, by radiative effects from that matter which is burning, and by flashover at ceiling level as opposed to what is combusting at floor level.
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 10th August 2016, 03:52 PM   #140
Gorgonian
Thinker
 
Gorgonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 201
Originally Posted by Dog Town View Post
double indeed

Gorgonian 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 10th August 2016, 08:14 PM   #141
benthamitemetric
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 535
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
At this point a question that doesn't need to be asked.............
With Gage, I tend to assume the worst re lying for profit. With someone like Tony? I honestly don't know. I think he's more an example of confirmation bias an sunk cost fallacy run amok than the sort of naked con man that Gage represents. Of course, Tony himself can be deliberately deceptive at times. Is that a conscious choice to maximize his "internet fame and credibility" among the truther lot? Or is it really the result of a pathological obsession with a (false) cause to which he has devoted so many years of his life?

I bet its more the latter than the former, though I reckon the two are in a battle of sorts at the edges of his mind. I still think he is capable of having an "ah-ha!" moment where he realizes the error of his ways, and that this is reflected in his comments when he is pushed to focus on a given issue. Whenever he comes close to an epiphany, however, his pathological need to be right in his initial (now demonstrably silly) theory forces him to back away from the cognitive dissonance and refortify his beliefs in the truther bubble, where the echo chamber is more than happy to reassure (and even exalt) him. Eventually, as others have observed, he'll come back when he's comfortable that he does not have to immediately address the biggest holes in his arguments and claims.

It's fascinating, if somewhat sad, to watch it all unfold in real time, in any event.

Last edited by benthamitemetric; 10th August 2016 at 08:23 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 11th August 2016, 05:00 AM   #142
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Gorgonian View Post
I don't think these morons in 9/11 twoof understand that giant gash in the center of the building wasn't there before the north tower collapsed into it.
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 11th August 2016, 06:56 AM   #143
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,097
It's amazing that when we started pushing to see his "analysis" and he couldn't even produce a free body of the beam, he immediately shifted to the fire simulations...
__________________
"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 11th August 2016, 07:30 AM   #144
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
The whole question is ridiculous.

WTC7 fire sims modeled the fire spread over an entire floor space of a very large building.
While it is common for material in any office cubicle to be exhausted within an hour, it is quite uncommon for a large office area to exhaust all its fuel in less than better part of a day----WITH active fire fighting!
It should be a no brainer to note that fire 'moves', spreads throughout an office floor as well as vertically through the structure. It should also be a no brainer for anyone with a bit of technical knowledge, that as it spreads it would be common for ceiling level gas temps to remain high in areas where the fuel directly below have actually exhausted the fuel.
-where are the hot gases flowing? how is turbulence affecting flow and ignition? are there places where gases will collect?(for eg. at the column connections to support girders?)
-how much drop ceiling is still intact?
-when did those ceiling level hot gases ignite in a flashover? are hot gases from newly ignited fuel flowing into the volume of combusting ceiling level gases?

Now that's just me, a most certain non-expert in fire science. I tend to feel that proven fire sim programs, written BY experts in the field would take these factors into consideration as well as fuel load and type, air ingest and flow etc.

However, Tony, following the "expert" analysis of Chris Sarns, takes into account ONE averaged aspect of office fires, that fuel in any particular office cubicle will tend to burn out within an hour.

Apparently now that Tony has destroyed the structural response analysis by several leading forensic engineering firms, he is moving on to destroy the analysis done by leading fire science experts.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 11th August 2016 at 07:32 AM.
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 11th August 2016, 07:52 AM   #145
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,898
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
The whole question is ridiculous.
Which is, of course, the general case.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 11th August 2016, 08:03 AM   #146
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,709
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
The whole question is ridiculous.

WTC7 fire sims modeled the fire spread over an entire floor space of a very large building.
While it is common for material in any office cubicle to be exhausted within an hour, it is quite uncommon for a large office area to exhaust all its fuel in less than better part of a day----WITH active fire fighting!
It should be a no brainer to note that fire 'moves', spreads throughout an office floor as well as vertically through the structure. It should also be a no brainer for anyone with a bit of technical knowledge, that as it spreads it would be common for ceiling level gas temps to remain high in areas where the fuel directly below have actually exhausted the fuel.
-where are the hot gases flowing? how is turbulence affecting flow and ignition? are there places where gases will collect?(for eg. at the column connections to support girders?)
-how much drop ceiling is still intact?
-when did those ceiling level hot gases ignite in a flashover? are hot gases from newly ignited fuel flowing into the volume of combusting ceiling level gases?
It gets worse, as the highlighted bit isn't quite true (actually, sometimes it isn't at all true ). Lack of flames can simply indicate that all the volatile compounds - the ones that produce easily visible flames - have been driven off, while the carbonised remains are generating heat quite happily.

Think charcoal on a bbq, where the fuel starts off relatively clean of complex volatiles - it will still cook the food, though pure charcoal flames are only visible in dark conditions.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB 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 11th August 2016, 08:30 AM   #147
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,422
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
The whole question is ridiculous.
Which is, of course, the general case.

Dave
More than the question is ridiculous. It is the wrong question(s) about an irrelevant derail topic.

Tony is once again succeeding at avoiding the real question by erecting red herrings which people willingly follow.

Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Apparently now that Tony has destroyed the structural response analysis by several leading forensic engineering firms, he is moving on to destroy the analysis done by leading fire science experts.
Begging the question as to whether he has in reality "destroyed" any of those papers...."destruction" is not his objective. His objective is to keep discussion in the details of the wrong topic. There is a potentially unlimited source of professional papers which Tony can "destroy" seriatem - so bleeding what? No matter how many papers he "proves wrong" does not make hs own claims right. And he has been playing that false dichotomy - successfully - for several months. A shift of his mendacious tactics which should allow him to keep discussion going nowhere for at least another couple of years.

He continues to succeed at his tricks.

Do we congratulate Tony? Or those who are willing to play his mendacious game?
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 11th August 2016, 08:46 AM   #148
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
It gets worse, as the highlighted bit isn't quite true (actually, sometimes it isn't at all true ). Lack of flames can simply indicate that all the volatile compounds - the ones that produce easily visible flames - have been driven off, while the carbonised remains are generating heat quite happily.

Think charcoal on a bbq, where the fuel starts off relatively clean of complex volatiles - it will still cook the food, though pure charcoal flames are only visible in dark conditions.
Certainly,,,,

Actually I was referring to the point in time after even the last of the carbonized material has fully turned to ash. Its quite possible (again in my non-expert opinion) that at ceiling level gases from other areas are happily gathering and igniting. Turbulence creating ceiling structure could create eddies in gas flow and a concentration of hot gases irrespective of what is happening directly below at floor level.
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 11th August 2016, 08:49 AM   #149
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
More than the question is ridiculous. It is the wrong question(s) about an irrelevant derail topic.
Granted


Quote:
Begging the question as to whether he has in reality "destroyed" any of those papers...."destruction" is not his objective.
I trust you did not miss the facetious tone of my post.
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 11th August 2016, 08:51 AM   #150
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Do we congratulate Tony? Or those who are willing to play his mendacious game?
A mental 'oops' had me read that as "pay for his mendacious game.".
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 11th August 2016, 05:06 PM   #151
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,379
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
More than the question is ridiculous. It is the wrong question(s) about an irrelevant derail topic.

Tony is once again succeeding at avoiding the real question by erecting red herrings which people willingly follow.

Begging the question as to whether he has in reality "destroyed" any of those papers...."destruction" is not his objective. His objective is to keep discussion in the details of the wrong topic. There is a potentially unlimited source of professional papers which Tony can "destroy" seriatem - so bleeding what? No matter how many papers he "proves wrong" does not make hs own claims right. And he has been playing that false dichotomy - successfully - for several months. A shift of his mendacious tactics which should allow him to keep discussion going nowhere for at least another couple of years.

He continues to succeed at his tricks.

Do we congratulate Tony? Or those who are willing to play his mendacious game?
"Teach the controversy "
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2016, 08:02 PM   #152
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,422
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
A mental 'oops' had me read that as "pay for his mendacious game.".
Both work.
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 11th August 2016, 08:03 PM   #153
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,422
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
"Teach the controversy "
Provided it is the same controversy.

as per DGM's "sig":
"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest:



For those who like metaphor or analogy - Tony is in effect claiming:

"the third tree in row four of Forest A is NOT an OAK -- THEREFORE -- the second tree in row five of MY Forest B MUST be an oak."

Last edited by ozeco41; 11th August 2016 at 08:09 PM.
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 11th August 2016, 08:47 PM   #154
HotRodDeluxe
Muse
 
HotRodDeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 688
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
Why don't Tony and Richard Gage et al ever start the conversation from an honest place and share with their fellow travelers all of the massive amount of professional opinion that exists re the fire induced collapse hypotheses?
That would require professional integrity.
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 12th August 2016, 04:53 AM   #155
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by HotRodDeluxe View Post
That would require professional integrity.
It would require intellectual integrity beyond what any true twoofer has shown.
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 12th August 2016, 04:29 PM   #156
HotRodDeluxe
Muse
 
HotRodDeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 688
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Don't be so hard on the skeptics here. I mean, I know they are crazy, but be nice.
Please don't employ that sort of puerile comment in response to my posts. Your misrepresentation is mendacious and I have no time for such dishonesty.

Just don't...ok? There is no need for such lowbrow tactics if you have a decent case.
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 12th August 2016, 07:46 PM   #157
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,209
Originally Posted by HotRodDeluxe View Post
Please don't employ that sort of puerile comment in response to my posts. Your misrepresentation is mendacious and I have no time for such dishonesty.

Just don't...ok? There is no need for such lowbrow tactics if you have a decent case.
The coward got himself banned, so no need to worry.
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag
ProBonoShill 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 13th August 2016, 09:10 AM   #158
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,379
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Provided it is the same controversy.

as per DGM's "sig":
"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest:



For those who like metaphor or analogy - Tony is in effect claiming:

"the third tree in row four of Forest A is NOT an OAK -- THEREFORE -- the second tree in row five of MY Forest B MUST be an oak."
AND that tree is a whole half an inch off, so there is NO way its branches could hit the other tree's branches.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2016, 02:35 PM   #159
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
AND that tree is a whole half an inch off, so there is NO way its branches could hit the other tree's branches.
Well, with all the rain and wind lately is it possible that some ground movement or changes to the angle of the tree pushed a branch or two closer to touching another tree?

Just asking, I am neither a forester nor an aborist.
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 13th August 2016, 04:09 PM   #160
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,379
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Well, with all the rain and wind lately is it possible that some ground movement or changes to the angle of the tree pushed a branch or two closer to touching another tree?

Just asking, I am neither a forester nor an aborist.
NO! All tree parts must only be AS PLANTED. No variations. No shifting.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
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 10:55 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.