Is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative*?

[Spanx]

Does this mean you've given up? Are there no more attempts to show how the NIST theory of collapse has any real-world corroboration whatsoever?

I suppose this means you've decided to join the twoofer camp and call for a new, independent investigation? Glad to know you've been able to tell the difference between data and a salesman's interpretation of data.

Nope, I'm asking you if it's the kind of research you are looking for.

 

[jay howard]

No rush, take your time.

I'm not ignoring you. It takes time to sift through all these messy thought-processes and non-sequitors.

No, of course heat was not the only factor in the simulations. But according to the NIST authors, heat from office fires was the reason the members failed. In their words (paraphrased), "The buildings would likely not have collapsed from the impacts alone." The NIST investigation did not attempt to incorporate the aircraft damage into the collapses. You may disagree with this approach, but it's not mine. Take it up with NIST.

According to NIST, the buildings fell because of heat from office fires on exposed steel members.

 

[DGM]

I'm not ignoring you. It takes time to sift through all these messy thought-processes and non-sequitors.

No, of course heat was not the only factor in the simulations. But according to the NIST authors, heat from office fires was the reason the members failed. In their words (paraphrased), "The buildings would likely not have collapsed from the impacts alone." The NIST investigation did not attempt to incorporate the aircraft damage into the collapses. You may disagree with this approach, but it's not mine. Take it up with NIST.

According to NIST, the buildings fell because of heat from office fires on exposed steel members.

So, why would you argue that the trusses sagged 40" in the simulation and only state heat as the contributing cause? That seems dishonest on your part.

Are you looking for the truth or are you arguing it?

 

[jaydeehess]

My message board posting history reflects that. I've argued against many of the "nukes went off on 9/11" theorists as well the "there were no victims they were all fake" kind of people too. Believe it or not, but I don't believe every conspiracy that comes down the pike.

Well good to know you can weed out the lunatic fringe.

What I referred to was whether or not you apply the same standards and burden of proof for official narrative as you do for 911truth narratives?

Your posting history seems to reflect that you hold the official narrative to a higher burden of proof.

ETA: for instance while you pressed for more and more detail re: the fire intensity on pages 5,6,7 etc. in this thread, for which I thought I managed to explain quite well that Palmer reached only the very lowest and least affected impact/fire floors, I have not seen you press Tony for more detail on any of the , what i consider ludicrous, contentions about gypsum dust coating and EPH demolitions.

 

[Jango]

Well good to know you can weed out the lunatic fringe.

What I referred to was whether or not you apply the same standards and burden of proof for official narrative as you do for 911truth narratives?

Your posting history seems to reflect that you hold the official narrative to a higher burden of proof.

ETA: for instance while you pressed for more and more detail re: the fire intensity on pages 5,6,7 etc. in this thread, for which I thought I managed to explain quite well that Palmer reached only the very lowest and least affected impact/fire floors, I have not seen you press Tony for more detail on any of the , what i consider ludicrous, contentions about gypsum dust coating and EPH demolitions.

IIRC, he told me to "**** off" in a PM at another board when I asked him follow-up questions to something he had said.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I have more "fun" with the explanation of what actually happened which was the bulk of that post and another equally explicit recent one.

Sadly, not new... very bluntly I'd be more into it if the claims weren't repetitive, like I was in '08 when all of this was "fresh discussion" to me. I have no real qualms with your being thorough, but on that note.... this is an individual who has participated longer than me (and thus upwards of 9 - 10 years now). If the guy can't be bothered to read a direct quote that states the purpose of a limiting case model... in almost a decade, there's really nothing to discuss... I don't think any leeway for excuses is justified for them.

And it's not that he gets this interpretation wrong that gives me such a low optimism of any discussion... it's the fact that the "focal point" or "fulcrum" distinguishing between "error" and legit critique is hinged on a couple of lines that are not simply blatantly ignored, but takes two seconds to locate and is easily resolved.

That error does take quite a few variations throught this thread... It's not TS-centric.

Though I've explained the cascade process numerous times over the years for Tony who has taken to ignoring me as you will have noticed.

BUT the amusing thing is the way debunkers pay it no attention. And I don't think it is simply that they are still Bazant loyalists.

Recall that era when there was a battle over whether tilt could or could not prevent the falling ends of columns impacting. Tony usually saying missing impact was impossible. And he made silly false references to the massive horizontal force needed to move the top block far enough for columns to miss. Totally missing the point that each column was failing in buckling and the processes involved in buckling: (1) Were large enough for each and every column as it failed to push the falling top bit out of line with the bottom bit; AND (2) The fact that the top of column was falling PROVED that the two "ends" had already passed each other. Talk about engineers losing the plot.

So we had everyone - both sides - madly calculating away and missing the bleeding obvious. Too late. Once tilt has occurred the low side of the tilt has already failed the columns and the column ends have already missed. Failing columns allowing dropping of one side is what created the ruddy tilt in the first place.

Talk about crazy anachronisms. Waiting for the race to finish so it can be started.

Because the way a column fails IS that the ends fold over OR break OR...whatever ----and miss. The scenario for "impact" NEVER arose.

And again... reality is... the jolt issue and tilt was always a prima fascia derail. WTC 1 is almost exclusively the focus of this, and whereas WTC 2 shows the same mechanisms in a much more visible manner because it's conditions were a bit more spectacular, yet ignored.

In the latter, you visibly see the way the tilt and displacement effect the structure. WTC 1's effects were the same, just slightly less spectacular and somewhat varied due to the way it was hit and the higher impact.

I'm more of a get to the point person... Bazants' stuff for better or worst was a limited model. Those who understand the limits of its applicability can safely show skepticism and critique it properly.... but he was very straight forward it was not a literal application... the cause of this error with his work permeates in many other facets of the CT's... and the wrong starting premise, renders the complete argument bunk because those errors exponentially compound.

 

[jaydeehess]

IIRC, he told me to "**** off" in a PM at another board when I asked him follow-up questions to something he had said.

OK, I hope that the debunker side has been , at least generally, less,,,,, dismissive.

 

[Oystein]

...
"Is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative*? "

The answer must be* "YES" because to answer "NO!" means that there cannot be any fault in the "official narrative. A demand for unattainable perfection.
...

I feel the answer "YES" may imply a demand for unattainable perfection.

 

[Redwood]

The official narrative is made up of many claims, like the buildings falling at near free fall speed, or the identities of 19 hijackers being known, or a plane hitting the pentagon, or the same planes that were labeled hijacked being the same ones that hit the targets, or the government lacking foreknowledge of a plan to attack the WTC on that date, or many other claims. To find a legitimate reason to question the narrative made up of all these claims, all you need to do is find a legitimate reason to question one of these many official claims, not to accept or reject the official narrative.

So this is a simple question. The BBC reported that several people with names and identities that are listed as those of the hijackers are alive and have contacted authorities asking to be taken off the official list of attackers. A BBC report is definitely a legitimate reason to question whether in fact the official list is correct, because the BBC is a reputable news source. You don't have to accept the BBC as ultimate truth to question the narrative on the attackers' identities, all you need to do is accept that it's a legitimate news source giving a report that contradicts the official narrative in order for you to ask the question.

And in fact there are many more news reports that give claims of fact that contradict the official narrative on many issues like those I listed. The existence of such reports is grounds to question that narrative, since contradictions are grounds for questioning things.

First quick point: In any catastrophic situation, one should expect contradictory, erroneous, and anomalous reports. The lack of such would be very suspicious indeed, not merely because one always does get such, but it would be like a controlled experiment where the data are just too perfect. (There have been cases of this, and experimenters have been suspected of fraud based upon it.)

So mere anomalies, in and of themselves, are insufficient to raise suspicion. (I can show you such things as a person, obviously fairly knowledgeable about aircraft, describe the impact of UA 175 on the South Tower as being that of a propeller plane.)

But here's the big problem with conspiracists: The never state what evidence would meet their burden of proof. Take the "hijackers are alive" story - 99+% of those who have looked into it accept it as a case of mistaken identity based upon similar names. Yet it's still repeated ad nauseam by conspiracists. But what would satisfy them? Suppose that the relevant UA personnel signed sworn affidavits that the falsely identified persons were not the ones they saw on 9/11, but the persons in the "official story" were.

Why wouldn't conspiracists simply dismiss them as lies? But why should anyone else feel compelled to pander to a handful of conspiracists?

 

[Animal]

If all you have to say is a bunch of vacuous unsubstantiations, bare assertions and irrelevancies, .

Troofer projection.....never seen that before,,,,,,,,,

 

[ozeco41]

The first thread I posted was from Steven Dusterwald - I wanted to know what qualified people thought about his claims. I was patiently led through why they were invalid, mainly by ozeco41. I now understand why his claims were invalid and said so.

Ooops - Edited to remove ozeco red face nonsense.
misread Georgio Thought he was saying I was wrong. I interpreted it as "now" (== current) understand why "his" (==0zeco's counter) claims were invalid.

My excuse - it was a bit ambiguous OR it could be 2015-1941==too many.

The last thing I remember Georgio saying to me was:

ozeco41, thank you so much for taking the time to write those two posts. Absolutely brilliant. Clear as crystal - I really feel like I understand why Steven Dusterwald's objections are not valid now.
{Edited where he fed back his understanding of what I said}
Thank you again - this is what I joined the JREF forum for.

That doesn't look like he thought I was wrong.

 

[ozeco41]

Troofer projection.....never seen that before,,,,,,,,,

Sad thing is that each one who comes along and tries it seems to think it is a new trick, never been tried before AND that he personally invented it.

 

[Georgio]

That doesn't look like he thought I was wrong.

Indeed not. In the above post I should have said, 'I now understand why Dusterwald's claims were invalid.'

 

[ozeco41]

... "Is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative*? "

The answer must be* "YES" because to answer "NO!" means that there cannot be any fault in the "official narrative. A demand for unattainable perfection.

I feel the answer "YES" may imply a demand for unattainable perfection.

I got that message the first time around. I do not see the logic HOWEVER I suspect you are seeing my claim as more complicated than it is - and possibly bringing in loaded presumptions about "legitimate reason". In whose judgement is "legitimate" determined?

 

[ozeco41]

Indeed not. In the above post I should have said, 'I now understand why Dusterwald's claims were invalid.'

Thanks.

 

[DGM]

I feel the answer "YES" may imply a demand for unattainable perfection.

I see no demand, just the acknowledgment that there was no perfection (or a claim of perfection).

I laughed when the first reply to my answering yes was, "what questions do I have". They just don't get it.

 

[DGM]

The part "truthers" got to accept. Building 7 had nothing to do with the events of 9/11. It was a casualty, nothing more.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Yes you are. Materials are not divided into two distinct classes; rather, they fail in different ways according to the way excessive force is applied. If steel is loaded quickly enough, it can snap rather than bending. You might also want to consider the behaviour at the various bolted and welded connections, which can also fail very quickly. And, finally, you're pulling a good old Unevaluated Inequality Fallacy; you say the propagation was too fast, but you're not giving numbers for how fast it should have been, or even how fast it was. In effect, you're claiming I should accept an argument you haven't even articulated.

You have no idea what you are talking about with brittle vs. ductile failure. Ductile materials actually get stronger with a high strain rate. It is called dynamic strength and they don't snap like brittle materials no matter how fast they are loaded. The loading in the towers was not fast to begin with so that is another problem with your insidious argument. The bolts and welds are ductile also. Your argument is nothing but spin. There is no science behind it.

Look at some videos. The whole point of the technique is to remove any structures that prevent shear failure of a floor, then induce that shear failure with hydraulics. Large amounts of the structure are removed, so that an entire floor's worth of columns fail simultaneously, leading to a well-defined drop.

But actually, your whole argument here is quite hilarious. You say that an aspect of the WTC collapses doesn't resemble an aspect of a type of controlled demolition, therefore the WTC collapses must have been a controlled demolition. Let's look at the logic:

P1: If a subset of A, then B (Verinage, a form of CD, produces a deceleration).
P2: Not B (no deceleration was seen).
C: Therefore A (the collapse was a CD).

I don't think there's even a name for that fallacy. Congratulations, you've invented a new way of being wrong.

Here you go again with your nonsensical spin. I have said that a natural collapse propagation requires deceleration and the Verinage demolitions use a natural collapse propagation after being instigated artificially. They were also done on masonary structures (brittle materials) and even there they showed a velocity loss, which means deceleration.

Tony, I can re-post your data, and everyone can work out the deceleration for themselves. And once you corrected it for the smoothing - not, of course, a typo, this was a major error in interpretation - then as expected it gets less smooth, and the type of excursion you're looking for becomes visible.

What the hell, let's look at it. Here's your data, with accelerations calculated from it.


Here's a plot of the accelerations, not smoothed.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/147644c07b7c655b3f.bmp[/qimg]

Look at all those jolts in your data. That's why you had to pretend that a 31G deceleration was expected, possibly the most bizarre suggestion you've ever made.

All these years. You learn nothing.

Dave

The graph you show is fluctuating accelerations which would still increase the velocity. They are not decelerations which have the opposite sign and produce a velocity loss. You are really showing yourself to have a lack of understanding of an impulsive load or that you are nothing but a spin artist willing to be disingenuous here. I really don't have time for this type of nonsense but did want to tell you what I think of it.

 

[JayUtah]

You have no idea what you are talking about with brittle vs. ductile failure. Ductile materials actually get stronger with a high strain rate.

Guess again. Shall I post references to the papers?

Considering that 99.5 (or 99.7, depending on how you compute it) of the relevant qualified professionals disagree with you, I don't think you'll get much mileage out of trying to call all your critics ignorant.

 

[DGM]

Guess again. Shall I post references to the papers?

Why bother? He won't read them. His followers are only reading his preaching.

Naturally, that represents the fringe of the fringe.

The bottom line is he's fighting the infidels (us) that are preventing him from spreading his message to the world.