'What about building 7'?

[GlennB]

You are trying to dis people like Tony who are experienced engineers for making calculations that contradict NIST, ...

Tony who once claimed that WTC1+2, standing there happily for years, had been accelerating at g for all that time?

Tony who believes the WTC7 EMP was CD'd in advance to "stop it flying off the side"?

Tony who thinks there was no extremely hot material in the N side of WTC1 that might have set fires when it hit WTC7?

You really look to such a person as an authority on engineering? Really?

 

[Spanx]

No one else posting here is an experienced engineer?

Who says Chris is the leader of this forum

News to me and suspect news to Chris.

Any comments on that Chris ?

 

[gerrycan]

Do the members of this "independent group of researchers" have names? Are you one of those people?

Yes they have names. And yes I am in that group.
It really isn't relevant to this thread though.

 

[Ziggi]

Did anyone else get a blast of 2006 nostalgia from this post? "You find my arguments unsupported and unconvincing here, but they're convincing everyone somewhere else where it really matters. I only discuss it here to strategically spy out the weaknesses of skeptical arguments."

By now, the file on the flaws in skeptical arguments must be enormous, and the ground swell of public support for a new 9/11 investigation and impeaching George W. Bush must be truly immense. No doubt the repercussions (mass demonstrations, new pro-Truth candidates swept into the highest offices, denunciation of NCSTAR by the engineering faculties of Russian and Chinese universities eager to undermine American credibility) will be appearing any time now.

Have you people not figured out why we are posting here? Really? When we try to recruit people to the Truth Movement we do get asked about counter points to our arguments, and we keep saying there are no legitimate counter points.

Skeptics still want to see proof of that, BUT there are no scientists willing to defend your faith in NIST by name in public, so it is not possible to point to any real debates..

Then we get asked about discussions on the internet...and we keep saying those people do not know what they are talking about..

and then we are asked to demonstrate..

so we make you into posterboys and girls for "the debunkers"..

and you are doing a wonderful job.

The problem is that this forum has lost most of its credibility since JREF got rid of you lot, so we may have to move on.

 

[LSSBB]

Have you people not figured out why we are posting here? Really? When we try to recruit people to the Truth Movement we do get asked about counter points to our arguments, and we keep saying there are no legitimate counter points.

Skeptics still want to see proof of that, BUT there are no scientists willing to defend your faith in NIST by name in public, so it is not possible to point to any real debates..

Then we get asked about discussions on the internet...and we keep saying those people do not know what they are talking about..

and then we are asked to demonstrate..

so we make you into posterboys and girls for "the debunkers"..

and you are doing a wonderful job.

The problem is that this forum has lost most of its credibility since JREF got rid of you lot, so we may have to move on.

See, that's the problem. You are framing skeptics as your opposition to mock, instead of critics who are pointing out how unconvincing your arguments are.

 

[DGM]

The problem is that this forum has lost most of its credibility since JREF got rid of you lot, so we may have to move on.

To where? We're the only ones still entertained enough by you to respond. I suspect you are considering the engineering think tanks of Facebook and YouTube.

 

[Spanx]

There's a surprise, the truth movement needing to recruit people, having to come to conspiracy forums to encourage them to join.

And there's me thinking they had all the evidence needed.

 

[Nonpareil]

Skeptics still want to see proof of that, BUT there are no scientists willing to defend your faith in NIST by name in public, so it is not possible to point to any real debates..

Scientists generally have better things to do with their time than faff about "defending" things that have long since been confirmed and weren't particularly earth-shattering the day it happened.

"Hey guys. Turns out, if you smack a skyscraper really hard, then set it on fire, it might fall over."

"You don't say."

 

[gerrycan]

"Hey guys. Turns out, if you smack a skyscraper really hard, then set it on fire, it might fall over."

You think John Skilling would endorse that statement? It disagrees with every calculation that he did wrt aircraft impacts and fire in the twin towers.

 

[JayUtah]

...BUT there are no scientists willing to defend your faith in NIST by name in public, so it is not possible to point to any real debates...

Or seen from a different perspective, you can't attract the attention of anyone who matters.

They don't need you in order to maintain credibility and relevance. But you need them. When you can satisfy the gatekeeper criteria, then perhaps you will be relevant.

...and then we are asked to demonstrate..

Well yes, you claim you are serious and sincere so we do generally expect you to behave as such. There are a few ways in serious science to demonstrate sincerity and competence. To my knowledge, the Truth movement has attempted little or none of it. Hence I see a different reason why you fail to attract the attention of the relevant disciplines and industries.

so we make you into posterboys and girls for "the debunkers"...

Or seen from a different perspective, since the people who matter won't pay any attention to you, you seek whatever audience and opposition will, and you expect them to take up the mantle of the evil organizations you have railed against. When in fact, we simply want to see the same kinds of demonstrations of competence and sincerity that the rest of the world would expect.

 

[Reactor drone]

No, you are not comprehending what is being said to you.
There was no accounting for the connection at the east end of K3004. Are you trying to say that this connection would not fail like the connection at the west end?
It is almost amusing watching you and your ilk trying to avoid any discussion of this connection like the plague. You realise what it does to NISTs story and the validity of their model.
Don't you think that the connection at C38 would fail?

So, what is your opinion on the C38 connection?
I must have missed the part where you commented on that.

NIST have published no data to confirm this no.
Should the expansion to the East that would have broken the C38 connection been accounted for when the criteria was set ? Of course it should have been. Was it? NO

I thought we'd already done this. You claimed that NIST had made the outer column connections infinitely strong and I pointed out that there was a partial failure in one case and no failure in another. The logical conclusion was that the connections weren't infinitely strong and that the FEA was modelling damage but there wasn't enough to destroy the connection.

The trouble is that the FEA shows only partial damage to that connection in case C and none at all in case B.

 

[gerrycan]

I thought we'd already done this. You claimed that NIST had made the outer column connections infinitely strong and I pointed out that there was a partial failure in one case and no failure in another. The logical conclusion was that the connections weren't infinitely strong and that the FEA was modelling damage but there wasn't enough to destroy the connection.

Like I said. You're not comprehending what's being said to you.

 

[Nonpareil]

You think John Skilling would endorse that statement? It disagrees with every calculation that he did wrt aircraft impacts and fire in the twin towers.

Don't know. Don't care. Not relevant.

Whether or not John Skilling would calculated collapse under 9/11 circumstances - which he probably would have, as they are not equivalent to the circumstances he did his calculations for - doesn't matter. Others have. The results are not in question.

At best for your side, John Skilling was one man who was wrong. In reality, he simply calculated a stress threshold that was higher than his hypothetical scenario, but was then exceeded on 9/11.

Or do you claim that a skyscraper outright cannot be hit hard enough, then set on fire long enough, to fall down? If so, I'd like to know when in engineering school they teach you to be a goddamned wizard.

 

[gerrycan]

Don't know. Don't care.

You were accurate up to this point.

 

[Reactor drone]

Like I said. You're not comprehending what's being said to you.

Well, lets have a look then.

No, you are not comprehending what is being said to you.
There was no accounting for the connection at the east end of K3004. Are you trying to say that this connection would not fail like the connection at the west end?

This is incorrect. There was an accounting for the connection at the east end of K3004. It was modelled in the FEA and shown to have suffered a partial failure in case C and no failure in case B. The FEA that we're discusiing shows the west end failing and the east end not failing.

It is almost amusing watching you and your ilk trying to avoid any discussion of this connection like the plague. You realise what it does to NISTs story and the validity of their model.
Don't you think that the connection at C38 would fail?

Again, the connection didn't fail in the model and you haven't provided any evidence or analysis showing that it should fail.

So, what is your opinion on the C38 connection?
I must have missed the part where you commented on that.

Yes, you did miss that part.

NIST have published no data to confirm this no.

Apart from the FEA results you mean?

Should the expansion to the East that would have broken the C38 connection been accounted for when the criteria was set ? Of course it should have been. Was it? NO

Bare assertion phrased as a question followed by a lie.

 

[gerrycan]

Well, lets have a look then.



This is incorrect. There was an accounting for the connection at the east end of K3004. It was modelled in the FEA and shown to have suffered a partial failure in case C and no failure in case B. The FEA that we're discusiing shows the west end failing and the east end not failing.



Again, the connection didn't fail in the model and you haven't provided any evidence or analysis showing that it should fail.



Yes, you did miss that part.



Apart from the FEA results you mean?



Bare assertion phrased as a question followed by a lie.

So in your world k3004 doesn't expand to the east. And you have the audacity to call me a liar.
You haven't even clapped eyes on the connection that you are talking about. You don't even understand the lie you're telling.

 

[Nonpareil]

You were accurate up to this point.

Ah. So you claim he was a wizard, then.

Well, I can't argue with that.

 

[000063]

Sure Noah, sparks from metal impacting metal caused the fires in WTC 7 and on the vehicles. Cows must be able to jump over the moon too in Noahfence world.

Now for a well deserved reaction to your remarkable notion.

Appeal to Personal Incredulity, Dodge.

...
Again, are you proposing your makeshift stove element effect is what happened to cause fires on ten floors in WTC 7?

I like how you're foisting a hypothetical you came up with onto DGM, who has explicitly claimed that such a hypothetical isn't necessary to start a fire. No wonder you seem to have so much trouble.

Hot things from where? The few fire floors at least 350 feet away in the North Tower,

The North Tower that was over a thousand feet tall, which you conveniently keep forgetting to mention?

where the majority of the fire was even further away on the side opposite WTC 7? Get real GlennB. This is nothing but straw groping too and its likelihood is as low as those proposed by Noahfence and DGM.
...

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

He licked a finger, stuck it in the air, and detected 100% certainty of the need to say something.

I was thinking of another short word starting with A.

I have to comment on this again in case you try to remove it.
This is probably the single most ridiculous response that I have seen so far on here, and that's saying something.

Have you been reading Tony's posts?

 

[Myriad]

Have you people not figured out why we are posting here? Really? When we try to recruit people to the Truth Movement we do get asked about counter points to our arguments, and we keep saying there are no legitimate counter points.

Skeptics still want to see proof of that, BUT there are no scientists willing to defend your faith in NIST by name in public, so it is not possible to point to any real debates..

Then we get asked about discussions on the internet...and we keep saying those people do not know what they are talking about..

and then we are asked to demonstrate..

so we make you into posterboys and girls for "the debunkers"..

and you are doing a wonderful job.

The problem is that this forum has lost most of its credibility since JREF got rid of you lot, so we may have to move on.

So, you tell them things like "'more than one thing at a time moves in a finite element model' is not a legitimate counter point to 'one beam didn't expand enough to cause a failure all by itself'" and that makes them believe you and trust you more?

I guess that's what you'd like me to believe, but the ground swell of support for 9/11 Truth that would be corollary to the tale you've spun just keeps on not appearing, year after year after weary year.

I have a different hypothesis that explains why 9/11 conspiracy theorists keep posting here, that is far more consistent with all such observations. I first articulated it over six years ago, and it's even more clear today. Attention Soup Kitchen.

 

[Nonpareil]

So, you tell them things like "'more than one thing at a time moves in a finite element model' is not a legitimate counter point to 'one beam didn't expand enough to cause a failure all by itself'" and that makes them believe you and trust you more?

I guess that's what you'd like me to believe, but the ground swell of support for 9/11 Truth that would be corollary to the tale you've spun just keeps on not appearing, year after year after weary year.

I have a different hypothesis that explains why 9/11 conspiracy theorists keep posting here, that is far more consistent with all such observations. I first articulated it over six years ago, and it's even more clear today. Attention Soup Kitchen.

And those of us who reject their ramblings keep coming because we are all, essentially, Michael Palin during the Argument Clinic Sketch.