If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II

benthamitemetric said:
You are a sad person playing sad games for attention. You claim we need a "new investigation" and yet will not even read what those who have rigorously investigated have already found. Even worse than remaining ignorant, you actively disparage the work of those who have investigated, despite not even reading it. For $30, you could have learned a great deal about how the floor system in the WTC would have reacted to the fires observed that day based on real scale model testing by expert fire scientists. That you incessantly post but will not pay even a trifling fee learn anything demonstrates very clearly that you neither value your own time nor the time of those who engage with you.
Click to expand...

OK. Maybe the paper is legit. I'm still not paying for it.

You forget that it does not matter how the damaged floors behaved. The building collapsed. We know that. The issue is how it collapsed, and at what rate. Does the paper you refer to discuss any of that?
 
Bitca said:
He has nothing to contribute. Worse, he's sufficiently annoying to drive people away, which is presumably his real purpose. It certainly isn't to shed light on anything.

I've responded myself. Although I had an ulterior motive, I shouldn't have. I know how hard it is to refrain from trying to swat a noisome fly:dragonfly, but we really all should try. We all can ignore him with a click of a button, after all.
Click to expand...

Is your ignore filter broken?
 
DGM said:
Easy. Some times I get bored and watching him dig his holes is entertaining.

Is there anything else going on in this subforum? 9/11 "truth" is dead.
Click to expand...

Well, at least this good has come out of this thread.
Cole proved that the towers progressively collapsed conventionally and not by CD.
His 5 foot weight drop broke the boards floor, proving that the 12 foot drops of each of the Tower floors broke the remaining floors, progressively collapsing till the end.
 
FalseFlag said:
OK. Maybe the paper is legit. I'm still not paying for it.

You forget that it does not matter how the damaged floors behaved. The building collapsed. We know that. The issue is how it collapsed, and at what rate. Does the paper you refer to discuss any of that?
Click to expand...


Structural experts and others have ruled out explosives and yet, there's documented structural damage and uncontrolled fires raging at temperatures high enough to weaken steel.
 
FalseFlag said:
Wow.

It's like Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Billions of people have the vision implanted in their brains (video of the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2). Only a small portion of those billions saw the next part (WTC 7). Only a small fraction of those that saw all three collapses have been told what they all meant or have figured it out on their own.
Click to expand...


And yet, not one single person heard the sound of CD explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed.
 
FalseFlag said:
OK. Maybe the paper is legit. I'm still not paying for it.

You forget that it does not matter how the damaged floors behaved. The building collapsed. We know that. The issue is how it collapsed, and at what rate. Does the paper you refer to discuss any of that?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how the floors behaved? Are you saying you don't believe the floors provided lateral support for the columns?

The paper does not discuss the rate of the collapse of the buildings after the initiation of the collapse. Given that this counts as your most substantive response to date, I'll give you a treat and point out that I excerpted the conclusions of the paper verbatim for all to see about over a year ago: https://www.metabunk.org/use-of-sca...or-investigating-9-11-collapses.t3828/page-18

1. Fire was spread from the north to the south. The hot gas temperature reached a peak at 65 minutes in the north area and 110 min in the south area.
2. The peak hot gas temperature in the model reached 1,000 ° C.
3. The peak temperature of trusses reached 900 ° C and the peak temperature of exterior columns is about 600 ° C.
4. The time to reach the maximum steel temperature in the truss with 25.4 mm thick insulation is delayed about 10 min com-paring to the truss with 12.7 mm insulation. However, the peak steel temperature in both trusses is similar.
5. The scale experiment result reproduced a timeline of the pro-totype. Along with the numerical simulation results con-ducted by NIST2005[1], the scale experiment results indicate that the long-span floor trusses at the southwest corner would begin sagging significantly at 80 – 90 minprototype time[1]. This corresponds to the visual record which shows that the inward bowing of the south exterior wall was first observed at 96 min from the airplane impact. The scale experiment result indicates that the long-span floor trusses at the south-west corner would begin falling off the truss seats at around 85 – 95 min and the instability of the exterior columns could therefore occur at around 95 min. This matches the fact that WTC1 collapsed at 102 min.
6. A better understanding of the fire spreading and fire tempera-ture profiles at different locations of the 96th floor has been built based on the scale experiment results.
7. The results show that the testing of the scale model can rep-licate the prototype behavior in a satisfactory manner.
Click to expand...

You should seriously buy the paper and learn from this peer reviewed experiment what 911truth is afraid to teach you.
 
ozeco41 said:
...
One of our regulars persuaded me to go to Facebook where a truther was wanting an engineer to debate WTC collapses. I outlined my Forum CV and suggested ROEs for the debate - and the truther couldn't be seen for dust as he headed over the horizon.

BUT I've been filling in time revisiting 2006-7-8 Facebook style.

And the short post quick response ethos plus the technology does NOT suit my ponderous pedantic purist pontificating preferred prose style. :mad:
Click to expand...

Saw that :D
Quite a disappointment, that truther engineer. Right around that time I couldn't even make him accept a simple matter of observation, obviously because it might be a fact that gets in the way of his delusions.
In short order, your "regular" abandonded FB almost entirely, having better things to do in his now more limited online time. ;)
 
Oystein said:
Saw that :D
Quite a disappointment, that truther engineer. Right around that time I couldn't even make him accept a simple matter of observation, obviously because it might be a fact that gets in the way of his delusions....
Click to expand...
That was how I saw it.
Oystein said:
In short order, your "regular" abandonded FB almost entirely, having better things to do in his now more limited online time. ;)
Click to expand...
I realised the trend of lower time commitment. And was playing safe with the overlapping of different user names.

Despite my deliberate self deprecating alliteration of "p" ponderous pedant comment the FB situation is not my scene for the two related reasons. (a) my remaining interest in WTC is with issues a level or two above tit-for-tat of recycled canards from 2006-7-8 AND (b) The intended for social media chatting software of FB is not well suited to more serious discussions IMO. At least for someone biased to the "p-p-p----" style I parodied previously.

:runaway
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
Easy. Some times I get bored and watching him dig his holes is entertaining.

Is there anything else going on in this subforum? 9/11 "truth" is dead.
Click to expand...

I arrived too late for the interesting discussions, I guess. I've read a number of them, but it's different when you can't participate.:(
 
Last edited:
Bitca said:
I arrived too late for the interesting discussions, I guess. I've read a number of them, but it's different when you can't participate.:(
Click to expand...
It was quite lively here back when "truthers" were a thing. It took hours sometimes to catch up on all the threads.

I don't put anyone on ignore unless they are racist, antisemite or "no planers". ;)
 
DGM said:
It was quite lively here back when "truthers" were a thing. It took hours sometimes to catch up on all the threads.

I don't put anyone on ignore unless they are racist, antisemite or "no planers". ;)
Click to expand...

I almost never ignore/block/whatever people. When I do it's either for similar reasons or because I find myself wanting to bitch-slap someone a bit too often. Or, occasionally, because they're just tooooooo boring.

Tony is another story. He's very entertaining.

Oh, and I lurked here for a few months before peeping up.
 
Bitca said:
Tony is another story.
Click to expand...

He is unusual in that IMO he truly believes the core of his obsession. The unusual aspect is that the obsession seems to be in the area where he works as a professional.

I easily understand how people can hold obsessions in a separate part of their life - compartmented off in thought processes. "Non-overlapping magisteria" in S Gould's language/concept.

But I cannot comprehend how anyone can hold false views about engineering principles when in "obsessed mode" and do the exact opposite when in "real life". The "magisteria" must overlap.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
It was quite lively here back when "truthers" were a thing. It took hours sometimes to catch up on all the threads.

I don't put anyone on ignore unless they are racist, antisemite or "no planers". ;)
Click to expand...

Oh the old Gravy Years, wonder how he is doing now?
 
ozeco41 said:
He is unusual in that IMO he truly believes the core of his obsession. The unusual aspect is that the obsession seems to be in the area where he works as a professional.

I easily understand how people can hold obsessions in a separate part of their life - compartmented off in thought processes. "Non-overlapping magisteria" in S Gould's language/concept.

But I cannot comprehend how anyone can hold false views about engineering principles when in "obsessed mode" and do the exact opposite when in "real life". The "magisteria" must overlap.
Click to expand...
I have, during my long career, met several of these types, including a "flat earther".
Within the confines of a "cookbook" analysis, they can be very competent and possibly even excel at their job. All they are doing is following the process, because that is what they do. They can, and do, deny the actual meaning and end result of that process, and on the job, simply humor us on our delusions.
The flat earthen was doing payload integration and dynamic loading on the Titan rocket/missile, and had done the same for Skylab
 
rwguinn said:
I have, during my long career, met several of these types, including a "flat earther".
Within the confines of a "cookbook" analysis, they can be very competent and possibly even excel at their job. All they are doing is following the process, because that is what they do. They can, and do, deny the actual meaning and end result of that process, and on the job, simply humor us on our delusions.
The flat earthen was doing payload integration and dynamic loading on the Titan rocket/missile, and had done the same for Skylab
Click to expand...

clap.gif
clap.gif


YES. And concisely stated in the hilited bit. We could spend time sharing "war stories"

And I also use "flat earther" as a metaphor for one shortcoming in reasoning.

Another group we see a lot of are the "Divergent Thinkers" - many CTs including truthers are "Divergers".

I once in RL asked one "Divergent Thinker" to sort things into "need to act now" and "can delay" (There were about 80 issues and we couldn't solve them all immediately.)

So - in a full management team meeting where he was procrastinating and frustrating he whole group - I suggested he take the list - grab a green and a red pencil and mark the two categories green - can wait or red - do NOW - then bring it back tomorrow. Two days later I checked progress. "You don't understand Eric - there are many more colours of pencils than red and green in the stationery cupboard."

He was a valuable member of the team - great socialiser and good for group harmony. BUT put him on a routine fill in the numbers and tick the boxes job otherwise.....
 
Last edited:
rwguinn said:
Within the confines of a "cookbook" analysis, they can be very competent and possibly even excel at their job. All they are doing is following the process, because that is what they do.
Click to expand...



Sounds a bit like the "photocopy club" guys we used to have in University. If someone showed them how to work through a problem, they could remember, and reproduce, the result accurately, but I don't think we ever saw them come up with a new solution on their own. Just no skill or talent in applying the underlying principles to new problems.
 
Disbelief said:
That's impossible, as you would be clearly on the "truther" side according to FF...
Click to expand...

Quite the opposite. FF converted me the other way.
:D
:D
:D
:D
:D
:D
:D
:D
:D
:D

Just joking. But his vapid content would have done that had I started out as merely a curious person. It would have shown me that truthers having nothing but lies and nonsense.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom