Split Thread The Towers should not hve collapsed (split from Gravysites)

Grizzly Bear said:
Well hey, supposedly the core columns would have been cut in order to progress the collapse according to you, surely given that a significant portion of the core collapsed after the rest of the building something is lacking on your end...
Click to expand...
You seem to be under the impression that all core columns would have to be cut the entire length to make the building collapse. And then again you argue that it collapsed all on its own. Which is it? Didn't we have Newtons bit previously arguing that it'd suffice to create a piledriver - which could reliably be done with thermate?
 
AZCat said:
There are quite a few threads here about Mr. Ryan. Perusing them is interesting, if you can separate grain from chaff. To be brief, he was fired for misrepresenting his company, not for his views on September 11th. His subsequent lawsuit over his termination was thrown out of court.
Click to expand...
Right. Sounds perfectly plausible. Right.

You do know that you can't fire anyone because of his beliefs. I mean legally, you can't do that. Do you know that?
 
Last edited:
Dabljuh said:
Right. Sounds perfectly plausible. Right.
Click to expand...

It is plausible. Mr. Ryan does not appear to be the brightest of people. In his initial letter to NIST he made a number of errors that would have been easy to avoid had he done a little research first. These have not (as far as I know) been amended or retracted in the years since.
 
AZCat said:
It is plausible. Mr. Ryan does not appear to be the brightest of people. In his initial letter to NIST he made a number of errors that would have been easy to avoid had he done a little research first. These have not (as far as I know) been amended or retracted in the years since.
Click to expand...
Wait now, you're implying he was fired for incompetence, or was incompetent. Funny that this didn't seem to be a problem with UL before he made a fuss.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Unfortunately, we'll never really know what they did. I do know that most techniques and research for analyzing failed columns in structures weren't available to civil engineers at the time as they were still classified. And at the time, there were really only two types of engineers: civil and military.

Blast design, analyzing the structure to resist the massive explosive force of the fuel igniting, wouldn't have been available to civilians at all. That information was developed and closely guarded by the DoD, as they didn't want the Soviets access to the information of how we were protecting military installations from their weaponry, both conventional and nuclear.

They didn't have the knowledge to know how the structure would behave from a blast event, nor did they have the tools to even correctly analyze the forces in indeterminate structures like the exterior moment frames. The methods for analyzing forces in moment frames at the time were extremely approximate, they had errors of up to 25%. Finite Element Modeling was still in it's infancy, though if it had been developed, they wouldn't have had the computing power to effectively use it in the 60's.

The idea that they performed an accurate and truly representative analysis just seems absurd to me.
Click to expand...

Quite interesting. Thanks for posting! I didn't realize FEA had such an early genesis, but I guess it makes sense when one thinks about the development of linear algebra. Once the theoretical foundations for solving systems of simultaneous equations were in place, it only required application to particular problems (and the requisite computing power, of course).
 
Dabljuh said:
Wait now, you're implying he was fired for incompetence, or was incompetent. Funny that this didn't seem to be a problem with UL before he made a fuss.
Click to expand...

No, he wasn't fired for incompetence (although I have no idea how good he was at his job) - he was fired for misrepresenting UL. He does, however, not appear to be very bright. Stupid people tend to do stupid things, and misrepresenting your employer is a stupid thing, especially when you've made several mistakes in the process. It sucks to be fired, but I bet it sucks more to be fired while looking like an idiot.

This is why I think is dismissal is "plausible".
 
AZCat said:
No, he wasn't fired for incompetence (although I have no idea how good he was at his job) - he was fired for misrepresenting UL. He does, however, not appear to be very bright. Stupid people tend to do stupid things, and misrepresenting your employer is a stupid thing, especially when you've made several mistakes in the process. It sucks to be fired, but I bet it sucks more to be fired while looking like an idiot.

This is why I think is dismissal is "plausible".
Click to expand...
How exactly did he misrepresent UL?
 
Dabljuh said:
How exactly did he misrepresent UL?
Click to expand...
There are plenty of threads out there about Mr. Ryan (and quite a bit of non-essential discussion). Here are the ones that specifically concern Mr. Ryan's suit:

Kevin Ryan's lawsuit - Update and Court documents here

Kevin Ryan - All Claims against UL Dismissed - with prejudice

Kevin Ryan v. UL - the legal saga continues

Case Dismissed - Kevin Ryan v. Underwriters Labs

If you don't find the answer to your questions there, please continue the discussion in one of these or any of the other Kevin Ryan threads.
 
AZCat said:
If you don't find the answer to your questions there, please continue the discussion in one of these or any of the other Kevin Ryan threads.
Click to expand...
No, just like I thought.

- so Ryan wrote to NIST to repeat the tinhat conspiracy theories,
and to accuse NIST of doing a crappy job in its investigation and
report, to accuse NIST of failing to "identify the truth about what
really happened", and suggesting that "criminal elements within the
U.S. government" may have planted explosives in the buildings, etc.;

- Ryan admits that he sent the letter from UL, using UL email address,
using his UL title, but says that he was stating his own opinion,
not UL's, and says that UL allowed him to use UL email for personal
email, and that the email program "automatically added the UL title
of Mr. Ryan to his email";

- Ryan also wrote to some tinhat troofer organization and they posted
his letter on the internet;

- UL fired Ryan as a result, saying that it was because he misrepresented
UL by writing as though it was UL's opinion and not his personal opinion;

- UL used this as a pretext to fire him "in retaliation for Mr. Ryan
exercising his rights and acting to fulfill his duties under the U.S.
constitution, the constitution of Indiana, and under federal and
state laws";
Click to expand...
So he didn't misrepresent anything, but did indeed get fired because of his support for tinfoil hat conspiracy theories. End of that discussion.

Of course, you might be right about the guy not being the brightest bulb, what with essentially asking NIST for help to uncover the apparent government conspiracy.
 
Dabljuh said:
Wrong. Theories are meant to describe existing phenomena. If we explain phenomenas that don't exist, that means we cannot test for the viability of the theory, negating its status as a theory and turning it into fiction.
Click to expand...


Funny, when you used the word "wrong" it sounded like you intended to disagree with my point, but then you proceeded to agree with it. Okay, as long as it's clear in the end that when you say "wrong" you actually mean "correct," no problem, we're still communicating.

Wrong: Not better-supported theories, but better theories. Theories that explain more, explain more more accurately, can make more accurate predictions.
Click to expand...


And explaining more, explaining more accurately, and making accurate predictions are all things that support theories, so better theories are better-supported theories. Oh, wait, that's you using "wrong" to mean "correct" again. Okay, cool. Understood.

Your logic is flawed, as you're already assuming a much better theory is dominating the science.
Click to expand...


I'm not assuming it, I'm pointing it out. The properties of steel are well known. The analysis of stresses in moment frames is a well-developed practice. The mechanisms of combustion and heat transfer are well understood; so much so that I was able to develop my own computer simulations of fire propagation as a high school student. Structural engineers must know how to determine when buildings will collapse in order to design buildings that don't, with great reliability.

Meanwhile, no building of significant size has ever been caused to collapse by the use of thermite. Not one.

It's quite fair to say that the science is, therefore, dominated by the major well-established disciplines whose analysis supports collapse by impact damage and fire.


If we don't know the "well understood and thoroughly documented processes" how would you reject the "Moon is shy" theory? How would intelligent cavemen do it? We note the moon goes up and down every day. And we note he gets thicker and thinner throughout the month. Now you propose the "moon is shy" theory - Could I assess it, could I reject it knowing only the most basic of lunar observations?

Yes I could. For the simple reason that the "Moon is shy" theory does not have an explanatory or predictive value. As a consequence, it cannot be falsified with evidence, and thus does not even qualify as a scientific theory.
Click to expand...


Ah, very good. You've correctly perceived the gist of my analogy. Your thermite theory cannot be falsified with evidence, and thus does not even qualify as a scientific theory.

You can prove me wrong about that, of course, by pointing out evidence that you would accept that would falsify your theory.

I've still not found a better explanation for the hot liquid that can be seen on the notorious video. So it IS necessary to explain all of the phenomena it purports to explain.
Click to expand...


Do you own a digital camera or a video camera? If so, try this experiment: aim your TV remote control at the camera, and look at the LCD viewfinder while pushing buttons on the remote.

My Canon digital camera, which uses similar color mosaic filters and CCDs to most video cameras, easily "sees" the infrared dot projected by remote controls. In fact, it displays the dot as white, meaning it's seeing it on all three color channels, not just the red one.

The CCDs are sensitive to infrared light. Digital cameras and video cameras are supposed to filter out infrared light, in order to have a similar color response to the human eye. But guess what? The filters don't work perfectly. Who'd'a thought? When I heat a steel wire up to bright red-hot (about 800 degrees C), my camera records it as yellow-white (falsely indicating well over 1200 degrees C).

Of course, someone else's camera might produce different results than my camera. Which is the point. Remember the part about the phenomena a theory being necessary to explain must first actually exist?

No, it's not. Office fires don't melt steel. Office fires physically cannot heat anything to a higher temperature than their own.
Click to expand...


Take a close look at a candle flame. What colors do you see? Now, what is that temperature that office fires cannot heat anything to a higher temperature than?

Most organics including wood burn with a maximum flame temperature of about 1,970 degrees C. That's with no pre-heating of the reagents. Of course, in a large sustained fire, pre-heating of the reagents would be expected. So, you were saying?

But that's the world we live in. Irrefutable proof is not relevant if you have enough people (and the right ones) shouting all the same thing. But that's another discussion.
Click to expand...


Everyone? Universities in foreign countries hostile to the U.S.? Insurance companies that would stand to recover billions of dollars if a 9/11 inside job were proven? Eager young reporters dreaming of being the next Woodward and Bernstein? Democratic leaders whose influence would multiply by removing the Republican party as a political force for the foreseeable future? They're all ignoring your irrefutable proof why, exactly?

The theory is not irrefutable in the sense of infallibilism, that no evidence on earth could refute it. It simply HASNT been refuted. Making it by a wide margin the best theory about the collapse of the WTC on 9/11.
Click to expand...


See, this would have been the perfect place to give an example of evidence that would falsify your thermite theory...

Or consider the negation - "Thermite was not used on 9/11" can be refuted easily by showing that there's nothing that can explain certain phenomena.
Click to expand...


... but oooh, you changed the subject instead! What a pity.

And not even to say something remotely sensible. If there's nothing that can explain certain phenomena, then thermite cannot explain those phenomena. Perhaps you meant to say "there's nothing besides thermite that can explain certain phenomena," but I can see why you would be reluctant to make such a statement, knowing you'd be asked to support it and cannot.

Just face it. The WTC was brought down with thermite, and I can say that with scientific certainty. All you can do about it is protest but you can't show any evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...


And I can say with scientific certainty that monkeys will fly out of my butt. Anyone can say anything. It's what you can support with evidence that matters, not what you say or how certainly you say it.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Dabljuh said:
No, just like I thought.

So he didn't misrepresent anything, but did indeed get fired because of his support for tinfoil hat conspiracy theories. End of that discussion.

Of course, you might be right about the guy not being the brightest bulb, what with essentially asking NIST for help to uncover the apparent government conspiracy.
Click to expand...

It is the end of that discussion, because this is the wrong thread. Mr. Ryan's theories about the collapse of the towers would be relevant, but not discussion about Mr. Ryan himself (and therefore his termination from UL).
 
As far as I can tell, we (the entire construction industry) are waiting to hear about how all this fireproofing is unneccessary.

I would like to know in particular because i just spent most of my day trying to figure out how to properly fire-rate some vertical circulation that had recently changed, given that the steel for the structure had already been fabricated.
 
Dabljuh said:
You should see what I do to doctors.
Click to expand...
I would imagine you have them on the floor laughing at you.

And yes Ryan most certainly did misrepresent himself. There is no question about that. And he IS a tinfoil head himself. There seems to be a common theme amongst you for misrepresenting things and being dishonest.
 
Last edited:
Myriad: That is AWESOME ****** Applause. It'll take me a bit to write a proper reply to that.

AZCat said:
It is the end of that discussion, because this is the wrong thread. Mr. Ryan's theories about the collapse of the towers would be relevant, but not discussion about Mr. Ryan himself (and therefore his termination from UL).
Click to expand...
You asked for evidence of discrimination against scientists, engineers etc - here you go. That's discrimination. Some guy lost his job. That's your discirimination right there. You asked for proof. I showed it to you.
 
Dabljuh said:
You asked for evidence of discrimination against scientists, engineers etc - here you go. That's discrimination. Some guy lost his job. That's your discirimination right there. You asked for proof. I showed it to you.
Click to expand...

Take it to another (hopefully more relevant) thread. This tangent has gone on long enough.


On Edit: I have kicked one of the relevant threads. If you want to continue to discuss Mr. Ryan's dismissal (about which we do not seem to have reached an agreement), please post there.
 
Last edited:
Dabljuh said:
Myriad: That is AWESOME ****** Applause. It'll take me a bit to write a proper reply to that.

You asked for evidence of discrimination against scientists, engineers etc - here you go. That's discrimination. Some guy lost his job. That's your discirimination right there. You asked for proof. I showed it to you.
Click to expand...

Another perfect example of your vast incompetence. That's absolutely NOT an example of discrimination. It's a perfect example of a bad employee deservedly getting fired for stupidity. You showed nothing as always. And you wonder why you get laughed at? It's this kind of nonsense kid. I'm sure next you're going to start claiming that the reason the media and the court systems all disagree with you is because they are all controlled by NWO too.
 
Dabljuh said:
Myriad: That is AWESOME ****** Applause. It'll take me a bit to write a proper reply to that.
Click to expand...


I don't understand why it should take long at all. Since I've gone ahead and called your bluff fallen into your trap by calling your thermite theory unfalsifiable, you can make me look really silly, with hardly any effort at all, by simply giving some examples of evidence you'd accept as refuting your thermite theory.

However, I'm going to sleep now, so I'll be blissfully unaware of my impending humiliation until tomorrow morning.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom