Steel failing in hydrocarbon fires.

[RedIbis]

OK, so which bit were you contesting? I summarised Frank Greening's position as a request to NIST to check their working. He didn't appear to contest that because he didn't reply. I didn't have anything else to say so I left the thread. In what way is any of that "hardly what happened"?

When you want to tell somebody they've got something wrong, it's a good idea to wait till they actually get something wrong first.

Dave

You didn't summarize Greening's position in a single sentence. You didn't address the many valid criticisms that he raised in his post. You took one pot shot and ran back to the comfy confines of jref, where personal attacks pass as discourse.

Did you notice how productive and thorough that discussion was, even though it wasn't a consensus?

Here's a summary of what you avoided and Greening proposes:

Several aspects of NIST’s simulation “appear to be quite arbitrary and unphysical,” specifically, ignition time of the fire on floor 12; fire intensities and duration; overestimation of the heating of the structural steel; the low temps at which structural steel failures occur; the disparity between actual video images of the final moments of WTC 7 and Fig. 12-69 of NCSTAR 1-9, which, according to Greening, “look nothing like the video images of the real thing.”

Concluding, Greening suggests that NIST’s collapse hypothesis is “not physically realistic and is not well supported by observations of the behavior of Building 7 during its collapse,” and he calls for an alternative hypothesis.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Concluding, Greening suggests that NIST’s collapse hypothesis is “not physically realistic and is not well supported by observations of the behavior of Building 7 during its collapse,” and he calls for an alternative hypothesis.

In other words, he calls for them to check their working.

Dave

 

[RedIbis]

In other words, he calls for them to check their working.

Dave

Right, if by "check their working" you mean scrap the entire collapse hypothesis and start over.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Right, if by "check their working" you mean scrap the entire collapse hypothesis and start over.

If they find their working to be in error. That's the scientific method in action. Alternatively, they could check their working, find that the errors he perceived don't exist, and explain to him why he's wrong. Either way, an honest self-appraisal is what Greening was asking for, not that NIST bow down and worship his superior intellect.

Dave

 

[RedIbis]

If they find their working to be in error. That's the scientific method in action. Alternatively, they could check their working, find that the errors he perceived don't exist, and explain to him why he's wrong. Either way, an honest self-appraisal is what Greening was asking for, not that NIST bow down and worship his superior intellect.

Dave

Why don't you tell us what he got wrong.

 

[The Platypus]

jref, where personal attacks pass as discourse.

Oh give the BS a rest...

Like noone ever has seen the overwhelming amount of personal attacking and other immature behavior on the vast majority of '911 truth' and other conspiracy kook sites, forums and message boards and comment sections all over the place. Who do you think your fooling with the finger pointing at jref...seriously...

Besides, you take plenty of pot shots at everyone and the forum yourself, as you did right there, and it's obvious why. Most of the people here are "skeptics" and they aren't buying your BS or the BS from your cult. Religions and cults always hate "non-believers" the most because we hurt those snake oil sales based on myth and delusion without a shred of evidence.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Why don't you tell us what he got wrong.

Since I haven't claimed he did get anything wrong, why would I want to do that? I suggest you look up the meaning of the word "if".

It's interesting that RedIbis is hinting that I'm unable to engage in scientific debates with him like the ones on the 9/11 Forum, when the very debates he's talking about are ones I contributed to and he didn't. Perhaps it's not me that's the problem here...

Dave

 

[dtugg]

Has RedIbis provided evidence that NIST deliberately overestimated the inputs in order to achieve the desired results yet?

 

[BenBurch]

Has RedIbis provided evidence that NIST deliberately overestimated the inputs in order to achieve the desired results yet?

No, and the lack of such proof is a tacit admission that he was laying.

 

[TSR]

No, and the lack of such proof is a tacit admission that he was laying.

.
Sure, zie did: it was the same post in which he gave us the numbers which showed that Silverstein made out like a bandit...
.

 

[RedIbis]

Since I haven't claimed he did get anything wrong, why would I want to do that? I suggest you look up the meaning of the word "if".

It's interesting that RedIbis is hinting that I'm unable to engage in scientific debates with him like the ones on the 9/11 Forum, when the very debates he's talking about are ones I contributed to and he didn't. Perhaps it's not me that's the problem here...

Dave

You call that a contribution?

 

[dtugg]

No, and the lack of such proof is a tacit admission that he was laying.

Agreed. I think it is very safe to say that it is established beyond any doubt whatsoever that RedIbis is a liar (not that this has not already been established).

Unless, RedIbis, who is online right now can prove that NIST committed fraud. lol

 

[beachnut]

Has RedIbis provided evidence that NIST deliberately overestimated the inputs in order to achieve the desired results yet?

No.

He presents evidence he is obsessed with Gravy...
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)

... 911 truth does the only thing 911 truth is qualified for besides spewing lies and failing to understand fire...

For exercise they need to join Bigfoot clubs; they can make fake foot casts and search for Bigfoot in the forest.

 

[dtugg]

Sorry to RedIbis. My above statement precluded the possibility that he is mentally ill and/or extremely stupid in which case he may believe that everything he says is true. In which case, he may not be lying.

 

[RedIbis]

Sorry to RedIbis. My above statement precluded the possibility that he is mentally ill and/or extremely stupid in which case he may believe that everything he says is true. In which case, he may not be lying.

Drop the nonsense and tell me what is wrong with Greening's assessment of the following:


Several aspects of NIST’s simulation “appear to be quite arbitrary and unphysical,” specifically, ignition time of the fire on floor 12; fire intensities and duration; overestimation of the heating of the structural steel; the low temps at which structural steel failures occur; the disparity between actual video images of the final moments of WTC 7 and Fig. 12-69 of NCSTAR 1-9, which, according to Greening, “look nothing like the video images of the real thing.”

Concluding, Greening suggests that NIST’s collapse hypothesis is “not physically realistic and is not well supported by observations of the behavior of Building 7 during its collapse,” and he calls for an alternative hypothesis.

 

[funk de fino]

Drop the nonsense and tell me what is wrong with Greening's assessment of the following:

You have got some nerve acting like this. You are the worst poster on here for refusing to answer direct questions and fleeing threads when you have backed yourself into a corner. There is no limit to your hypocrisy is there?

Several aspects of NIST’s simulation “appear to be quite arbitrary and unphysical,” specifically, ignition time of the fire on floor 12; fire intensities and duration; overestimation of the heating of the structural steel; the low temps at which structural steel failures occur; the disparity between actual video images of the final moments of WTC 7 and Fig. 12-69 of NCSTAR 1-9, which, according to Greening, “look nothing like the video images of the real thing.”

Concluding, Greening suggests that NIST’s collapse hypothesis is “not physically realistic and is not well supported by observations of the behavior of Building 7 during its collapse,” and he calls for an alternative hypothesis.

Why doesnt Greening take it to NIST?

 

[RedIbis]

You have got some nerve acting like this. You are the worst poster on here for refusing to answer direct questions and fleeing threads when you have backed yourself into a corner. There is no limit to your hypocrisy is there?




Why doesnt Greening take it to NIST?

You're just mad because I don't fall your stupid debunker carousel tricks.

Like your second question. Instead of just addressing Greening's point you use the debunker's last gasp, but you're so ill informed and didn't even bother to read through that thread to find out that his paper was published in the Comments section for the NIST WTC 7 report.

 

[twinstead]

I wonder if Greening's alternative hypothesis would include an 'inside job'.

 

[TexasJack]

You're just mad because I don't fall (sic) your stupid debunker carousel tricks.

So, not answering direct questions is a trick?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

You're just mad because I don't fall your stupid debunker carousel tricks.

Like your second question. Instead of just addressing Greening's point you use the debunker's last gasp, but you're so ill informed and didn't even bother to read through that thread to find out that his paper was published in the Comments section for the NIST WTC 7 report.

For someone (RedIbis) who hasn't really researched squat about 9/11 sure does like to brag alot & make him/herself look like a total fool online.

You're a typical Truther Red, sure you can deny all you want but the evidence that people look at makes you look like a total jerk.