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

[cntdrv55]

...and wondered if I had missed a post where he actually used numbers and possibly combined them to form equations then drew conclusions...

 

[LSSBB]

Careful! Tony sometimes (not in this thread, but there is precedent elsewhere) indeed uses numbers and combines them to form equations then draws conclusions - but having failed to use technical arguments and rational thinking to come up with a reasonable, realistic model to apply those equations to, he produces GIGO.

You mean his strawman attacking paper? Everything he posts is tightly locked down inside of walls made of Bazantium and NISTite.

 

[abaddon]

d'you mean like sort of an anti-explosive which sucks rather than blows?

No, no. CD theories simultaneously suck AND blow.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Careful! Tony sometimes (not in this thread, but there is precedent elsewhere) indeed uses numbers and combines them to form equations then draws conclusions - but having failed to use technical arguments and rational thinking to come up with a reasonable, realistic model to apply those equations to, he produces GIGO.

You are talking trash here. You have no basis for saying my equations produce GIGO.

 

[jaydeehess]

You are talking trash here. You have no basis for saying my equations produce GIGO.

Perhaps you managed to prove Bazant wrong in your quayshuns, but Bazant does not model reality anyway. In that respect if Bazant is incorrect then proving him wrong cannot be used to conclude anything about the reality of the event.

 

[Dave Rogers]

You are talking trash here. You have no basis for saying my equations produce GIGO.

Don't sell yourself short, Tony. Your Journal of Protective Structures paper is practically a genre defining piece of GIGO. You make an observation about the collapse dynamics, assume a structural resistance that disagrees with that observation, demonstrate that your assumption doesn't describe the subsequent collapse dynamics, and conclude that the collapse must have involved something that invalidated your assumption, which you very coyly pretend isn't an argument in favour of CD because that might have made the reviewers look a little harder at your reasoning. It's a breathtaking achievement to come up with an argument that manages to be circular and self-contradictory at the same time, but somehow you pulled it off.

Dave

 

[jaydeehess]

Don't sell yourself short, Tony. Your Journal of Protective Structures paper is practically a genre defining piece of GIGO. You make an observation about the collapse dynamics, assume a structural resistance that disagrees with that observation, demonstrate that your assumption doesn't describe the subsequent collapse dynamics, and conclude that the collapse must have involved something that invalidated your assumption, which you very coyly pretend isn't an argument in favour of CD because that might have made the reviewers look a little harder at your reasoning. It's a breathtaking achievement to come up with an argument that manages to be circular and self-contradictory at the same time, but somehow you pulled it off.

Dave

Actually its one of the things TSz gets right, and wrong at the same time. He makes the assumption that the official scenario is that the towers failed by Progressive Column Failure. That's incorrect.

He knows that the most likely scenario is that of massive overload of floors, trusses/beams, and connections to the columns.

OTOH he makes a good case that the towers did not fail due primarily to column failure. Something many of us agree with, and have not argued for.

 

[ozeco41]

Careful! Tony sometimes (not in this thread, but there is precedent elsewhere) indeed uses numbers and combines them to form equations then draws conclusions - but having failed to use technical arguments and rational thinking to come up with a reasonable, realistic model to apply those equations to, he produces GIGO.

You are talking trash here. You have no basis for saying my equations produce GIGO.

Cue: Stage set for personal attacks based on "not an engineer" and "anonymous poster". AND ignoring the real situation "You are right Oystein" - anonymous non-engineer notwithstanding.

You are talking trash here. You have no basis for saying my equations produce GIGO.

Don't sell yourself short, Tony. Your Journal of Protective Structures paper is practically a genre defining piece of GIGO. You make an observation about the collapse dynamics, assume a structural resistance that disagrees with that observation, demonstrate that your assumption doesn't describe the subsequent collapse dynamics, and conclude that the collapse must have involved something that invalidated your assumption, which you very coyly pretend isn't an argument in favour of CD because that might have made the reviewers look a little harder at your reasoning. It's a breathtaking achievement to come up with an argument that manages to be circular and self-contradictory at the same time, but somehow you pulled it off.

Dave

THEN don’t overlook the bits the paper got right. The consequences are even funnier.
Don't forget my first internet post which said this as the opening fanfare:

The supporters of 9/11 conspiracies build on the same foundation as the creationists - poor logic, worse science together with distortions, lies and deliberate deceptions.

The paper referenced as Engineering Reality by Tony Szamboti is typical of many which look impressive in detail to the non-engineer. The complex calculations may even be correct but the base premises are faulty and the resulting conclusions can readily be demonstrated to be totally wrong.

Using complicated looking maths build on false foundations has remained Tony's preferred SOP.

I've long forgotten what was wrong with "Engineering Reality" and the version I read is no longer available. BUT "Missing Jolt" played the same game of false starting assumptions and self circling logic to prove the original assumptions. All of Tony's arguments and claims about axial impact of columns - same errors - whatever his maths it was based on false assumptions. And Tony's WTC 7 Girder walk off claims stood detailed calculations on unproven premise assumptions plus a few other fatal errors.

His "core led CD" explanations have no supporting engineering or physics rationale despite the humour that he started out relying on "Delayed Action Gravity" and is now desperately trying to deny the time sequence to distance himself from his earlier gaffe.

Tony's trademarks. False assumptions supporting blustering "engineering looking details" which are not valid engineering. Plus his claims for his "arguments" when he means his unsupported bare assertions and he rigorously avoids engaging in argument or reasoned discussion.

 

[ozeco41]

Actually its one of the things TSz gets right, and wrong at the same time. He makes the assumption that the official scenario is that the towers failed by Progressive Column Failure. That's incorrect.

He knows that the most likely scenario is that of massive overload of floors, trusses/beams, and connections to the columns.

OTOH he makes a good case that the towers did not fail due primarily to column failure. Something many of us agree with, and have not argued for.

Take care with the "double negative" construction of the paper. Or was it triple negative - I'd have to re-read it.

I liked the paper for other reasons. "Too little - too late" - the main pity is that it wasn't published in 2002. The era of misunderstandings resulting - rightly or wrongly - from Bazant and Zhou would surely have taken some different paths.

Maybe we would have avoided those all pervading errors resulting from 1D false premises - hard to say - even now there seem to be few serious attempts to treat the twin towers failures as 3D.

 

[jay howard]

Not quite Nist never tested the effect of the
Giant smoke plume.

http://dustexplosions.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-csb-investigating-printing-ink.html?m=1

But they did test the effects of heat. And they turned out to be negligible at the intensity and rate available in the official narrative.

Does this mean you're done trying to defend the official story? If I were you, I'd rather chew rust than apologize for NIST's ****** attempt at explaining the collapses.

The facts remain: there are numerous high temperature phenomena in need of explanation. As it stands, NIST considers all these bodies of evidence insignificant or just dismissed altogether.

The questions remain:

• If the peak temperatures of about 1100C lasted only 20 minutes, how hot could bare steel have gotten?
  
• If heat caused the "cascade failure" we saw on 9/11, why can't more intense heat cause this effect to manifest on identical structures tested in the lab?
  
  and after 3 seconds of deliberation, we come to the most important takeaway from the failure of the NIST explanation:
  
• If office fires couldn't have caused the destruction of the towers, what did?

The NIST explanation, as it's vaguely set out in the report, is inadequate by any measure available. The dyed-in-the-wool defenders cannot reference the theory to answer the most basic questions of how hot it got or by what mechanisms this "cascade effect" took hold. These are not "givens". This, as you point out when it's convenient, was an unprecedented event at this scale.

But not only do you take NIST's word for what happened, in contradiction to their own lab tests, you want everyone else to take their word (and yours by proxy) for the truth.

Even people who are not by nature skeptical should feel a little uneasy about this logical progression. But here we are, being SOLD a lump of poop, with zero corroborative testing, by a group of self-proclaimed "skeptics."

You are defending pure pseudoscience. And you don't even deny it. Plenty of misleading, ("they measured the temps of the SFRM, not the steel"--Dave), denying, ("NIST doesn't need a theory"--NoahFence), and straight lying, ("the fire got to 800C in the lab tests, not the steel"--GlennB).

I will keep pointing out how useless the NIST theory is until someone can show me otherwise. And I suppose you will keep plying your grift in hopes that the readers will stay uneducated about this topic.

 

[jay howard]

Careful! Tony sometimes (not in this thread, but there is precedent elsewhere) indeed uses numbers and combines them to form equations then draws conclusions - but having failed to use technical arguments and rational thinking to come up with a reasonable, realistic model to apply those equations to, he produces GIGO.

How is it you're familiar with this concept, yet when it comes to the official theory, you have no problem accepting the results? And to be clear, it's not garbage in. The official theory, any way you cut it, cannot explain steel failures.

Ideally, it works like this:

Good data in---> valid theory ---> sound conclusion that we have confidence in.

But in this case, we have good data, but not a valid theory. That is, even if you put in good data, there's no guarantee that it will produce a sound conclusion. In fact, the only way you get a sound conclusion from an invalid theory is by accident.

Good data in---> invalid theory ---> no guarantee of soundness

This is where we are with the NIST explanation. This is the epistemic stance by which the entire apologist movement pivots, yet you cannot get yourself to admit the theory can't produce sound conclusions because it's not valid.

In fact, it's contradicted by its own data. We can pretty much guarantee that any conclusions drawn from it are wrong. You see this, right?


.

 

[MileHighMadness]

How is it you're familiar with this concept, yet when it comes to the official theory, you have no problem accepting the results? And to be clear, it's not garbage in. The official theory, any way you cut it, cannot explain steel failures.
Ideally, it works like this:

Good data in---> valid theory ---> sound conclusion that we have confidence in.

But in this case, we have good data, but not a valid theory. That is, even if you put in good data, there's no guarantee that it will produce a sound conclusion. In fact, the only way you get a sound conclusion from an invalid theory is by accident.

Good data in---> invalid theory ---> no guarantee of soundness

This is where we are with the NIST explanation. This is the epistemic stance by which the entire apologist movement pivots, yet you cannot get yourself to admit the theory can't produce sound conclusions because it's not valid.

In fact, it's contradicted by its own data. We can pretty much guarantee that any conclusions drawn from it are wrong. You see this, right?


.

Unfortunately, 99.9% of Structural Engineers will disagree with you.

 

[carlitos]

Another non-technical post to a technical discussion.

Another non-technical argument offered against my technical argument. This is getting pathetic.

The obvious reality is that you can't answer my argument.

Do you have a technical background?

You clearly are not a technical person and have no place in the argument as you apparently can't understand it.

Hi Tony. I think that you forgot what thread you are in. This one is not a "technical argument." It's:

* = Official narrative being the 9/11 Commission Report, the 2002 Joint Congressional Investigation Report, the F.B.I.'s investigation, NIST's reports, etc etc other government sponsored reports and/or investigations as well the statements of government workers and the leadership.

So, in your opinion, is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative?


1. Yes
2. No
3. Undecided

PS - how is that new investigation coming along?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

But they did test the effects of heat. And they turned out to be negligible
nient, was an unprecedented event at this scale.

Still having trouble with telling the difference between baseline testing and reality?

 

[jay howard]

Still having trouble with telling the difference between baseline testing and reality?

Still think a person's intent can keep a structure from failing? That's the most literal version of a wishful thinking fallacy I've ever seen. And you all keep repeating it over and over as if doing so would make it true.

Magical thinking has no place in a crash investigation.

 

[jay howard]

Unfortunately, 99.9% of Structural Engineers will disagree with you.

Fortunately, the amount of people who think 1+1=3 does not change the answer to it.

 

[LSSBB]

Fortunately, the amount of people who think 1+1=3 does not change the answer to it.

Yes, good thing they are the .1% of structural engineers.

 

[JayUtah]

Fortunately, the amount of people who think 1+1=3 does not change the answer to it.

You beg the question of your own correctness. Despite your bluster, the expectations and assumptions upon which you've based your conclusions are not self-evident fact, and you have failed to establish them as vital and valid.

This is not a "majority rules" argument. You are making claims in a specialized field that requires education, licensing, and experience. You demonstrate no stature in or mastery of that field. Hence you force the reader to choose between two alternatives: (1) at least ninety-nine percent of the properly educated and experienced professionals are either lying or incompetent, or (2) some blowhard on the Internet is wrong.

Which answer is the most parsimonious?

 

[MileHighMadness]

Fortunately, the amount of people who think 1+1=3 does not change the answer to it.

Fortunately, most structural engineers and architects who design high rise steel buildings for a living understand they are very vulnerable to collapse due to fire. That’s why they put fire proofing on the steel members, and install sprinkler systems throughout the building.

Over 21,000 professionals worked on the NIST reports for WTC 1, 2 & 7. While the reports are not perfect (and never will be) they pretty much nail the cause of the collapse.

The truth movement is pretty much dead, long live logic and reason...

 

[beachnut]

Fortunately, the amount of people who think 1+1=3 does not change the answer to it.

For 911 truth followers it does, in the fertile minds of CTers committed to the lies of 911 truth.

LOL, a perfect summation of the silent explosives 911 truth CD fantasy. Have you told the FBI you have overwhelming evidence for CD? What did the FBI say?