Merged Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world

[femr2]

there is more thean enough information, for anyone interested in this thread or the other threads, to show that no one has disproven Bazant or NIST in any way.

Looks like you have zero understanding of the scope of the original thread topic.

There's nowt about NIST and the intent is not to prove nor disprove Bazant *in any way*.

The point is to ensure that the energetics based limiting case calculation is not misapplied, either by Bazant and co, or others.

This thread has indeed shown numerous instances by numerous folk who have misapplied the base premise, namely that given the stated initial state that there was enough energy available for propogation to ground.

Doesn't prove what did happen.

Doesn't prove what didn't.

Simply confirms that there was enough energy available.

Your statement above indicates you don't grasp that simple point.

So, yes, have a nice day.

 

[newton3376]

Looks like you have zero understanding of the scope of the original thread topic.

Incorrect....not surprising given the fact that you are not an engineer and are attempting to tackle a complicated topic....but incorrect regardless.

There's nowt about NIST and the intent is not to prove nor disprove Bazant *in any way*.

The point is to ensure that the energetics based limiting case calculation is not misapplied, either by Bazant and co, or others.

1. You failed to show anything was misapplied.

2. Notice I referenced "other threads" in the comment....thus my comment included NIST along with Bazant in the reference.

This thread has indeed shown numerous instances by numerous folk who have misapplied the base premise, namely that given the stated initial state that there was enough energy available for propogation to ground.

It seems rather obvious that there was enough energy available for propogation to ground....a basics physics/mathematical model as simple as what Dave Thomas has done confirms that.

As does the more complex model by Bazant.

And then of course there is the fact that the building actually collapsed....that kind of makes it obvious that there was enough evergy.

Doesn't prove what did happen.

The building collapsed....that's what happened.

Plenty of proof that the impacts+fire caused local failures that eventually led to global failure causing the building to come down.

Big plane + multi-story unfought fires = Building goes boom.

Doesn't prove what didn't.

It wasn't explosives Femr2....there isn't some great mystery here....you can post as many gyrating photographs as you like and make up as many incorrect physics terms as you want to. You can misunderstand the conservation of momentum all over again...it will never = explosives.

What didn't happen?

1. A conspiracy
2. Explosives
3. Nano/super/seekrit thermite

Simply confirms that there was enough energy available.

Seems rather obvious to those who watched the buildings come down.....one doesnt need any mathematical or physical models to understand that basic point.

Your statement above indicates you don't grasp that simple point.

Incorrect.

You fail to grasp math, physics, and engineering...which is okay on the surface...no one if faulting you for that. But when you act like you know more that actual Engineers and make errors in math/physics/engineering and then post a gyrating photo and say "HA! See that? That proves.....um......something....." THAT is when people get a bit tired of dealing with the charade.

So, yes, have a nice day.

I always do...

This will be my last post in this thread so you can have the last word......that seems to be all you are interested in anyway.

So go ahead....have the last word.....it doesn't make a damn bit of difference anyway....at the end of the day you have proven nothing except your own lack of knowledge.

Have a nice day.

 

[femr2]

the fact that you are not an engineer

You can assume whatever you please.

1. You failed to show anything was misapplied.

Again you simply show you don't get the scope of the thread. Numerous instances have been highlighted where both the authors and others make statements and conclusions beyond the valid scope of applicability of the mathematical model.

2. Notice I referenced "other threads" in the comment....thus my comment included NIST along with Bazant in the reference.

Yup, noticed that. NIST have been shown to be wrong on numerous counts.

It seems rather obvious that there was enough energy available for propogation to ground....a basics physics/mathematical model as simple as what Dave Thomas has done confirms that.

That is the only real valid output from the Bazant model.

It wasn't explosives Femr2....there isn't some great mystery here....you can post as many gyrating photographs as you like and make up as many incorrect physics terms as you want to. You can misunderstand the conservation of momentum all over again...it will never = explosives.

Did I say it was ?

You fail to grasp math, physics, and engineering...which is okay on the surface...no one if faulting you for that.

You sound like beachnut. Baseless assertions galore

But when you act like you know more that actual Engineers and make errors in math/physics/engineering and then post a gyrating photo and say "HA! See that? That proves.....um......something....." THAT is when people get a bit tired of dealing with the charade.

Be specific.

This will be my last post in this thread so you can have the last word......that seems to be all you are interested in anyway.

Oh goody.

So go ahead....have the last word.....it doesn't make a damn bit of difference anyway....

Okay. Word.

at the end of the day you have proven nothing except your own lack of knowledge.

If that's what you choose to believe, be my guest.

Have a nice day.

You too. x

 

[ozeco41]

Looks like you have zero understanding of the scope of the original thread topic.

There's nowt about NIST and the intent is not to prove nor disprove Bazant *in any way*.

The point is to ensure that the energetics based limiting case calculation is not misapplied, either by Bazant and co, or others.

This thread has indeed shown numerous instances by numerous folk who have misapplied the base premise, namely that given the stated initial state that there was enough energy available for propogation to ground.

Doesn't prove what did happen.

Doesn't prove what didn't.

Simply confirms that there was enough energy available.

Your statement above indicates you don't grasp that simple point.

So, yes, have a nice day.

Concisely put as far as you went.

We actually got a bit further in the brief bit of "on topic" discussion. I even gave partial support to pgimeno's bit of finessing in an attempt to extend the debate...But that was before "needle the truther" became more important that reasoned objectivity.

Cheers.

 

[tfk]

Hey Newt,

I think one part of your post pretty much sums up this entire thread and indeed several threads on this website...

One of us is a mechanical engineer. One is not.
etc.

That pretty much sums up the entire issue with conversations like this....we are usually talking to truthers with no engineering background. That makes the conversations frustrating.

The problem is that you are discussing Engineering with someone who is not an Engineer and is not listening to your advice, is not evaluating your analysis, and is focusing on minute details that do not change the overall conclusion.

Respectfully, I disagree. I don't believe the problem is that femr isn't an engineer.

There have been lots of non-engineers (including truther non-engineers) with whom I've been able to have respectful conversations.

The fundamental, over-arching problem between femr & me is that …

One person speaks plainly & clearly, answers questions, attempts to find & unravel points of confusion so that key points can be mutually understood & examined.
And the other person speaks in riddles, refuses to answer questions, uses sloppy & constantly changing terminology, and wallows in mudholes of self-created confusion so that the issues stay as murky as possible.

That's his only refuge, after 9 years of failure. With zippo to show for it.
The Soverign State of Confusion.

There were more than a few posters here who were a little annoyed with me because of the constant, juvenile bickering between the two of us. (Frankly, I'm more than a little annoyed myself. My new resolution: he ain't worth time I don't have.)

They were annoyed at me right up UNTIL they got into a discussion with him on their own, and ran into the same gamesmanship that I did. Now they mostly just avoid him.

The problem is encapsulated right here:

the fact that you are not an engineer

You can assume whatever you please.

Zero content.
An endless litany of "I didn't say that". Without seldom a clear statement of what he does assert.

The problem is that femr is a master at NOT saying much of anything.
Splitting irrelevant hairs 8 ways to Sunday.
And intentionally using inaccurate, sloppy, inconsistent terminology.

*creep* vs. creep.
frame vs. frame
and 100 other examples.

And one topic derail after another.

He's so incredibly dishonest that he won't even fess up to being a truther.

Yeah, sure. Femr is honest & straightforward in his discussions, motives & perspectives. Nobody's noticed that he spends virtually every day posting here, AND rah-rahing with the other truthers at the911forum, AND maintaining his truther website.

His agenda is a real secret.

Nobody's caught on…


tom

 

[tfk]

Concisely put as far as you went.

We actually got a bit further in the brief bit of "on topic" discussion. I even gave partial support to pgimeno's bit of finessing in an attempt to extend the debate...But that was before "needle the truther" became more important that reasoned objectivity.

Cheers.

Oz,

"Needle the truther" ain't the game. It ain't the purpose.

It's an ugly, annoying waste of time.

You can't have "reasoned discussion" (much less "reasoned objectivity") if one side doesn't use terms accurately or consistently. Or doesn't answer questions. Or doesn't say much of anything, other than "I didn't say that".


tom

PS. You'll excuse my bluntness, but the constant disconnect between your claims of being an "unbiased non-truther" and your litany of posts has pushed my BS meter to stun.

 

[femr2]

The fundamental, over-arching problem between femr & me is that …

One person speaks plainly & clearly, answers questions, attempts to find & unravel points of confusion so that key points can be mutually understood & examined.
And the other person speaks in riddles, refuses to answer questions, uses sloppy & constantly changing terminology, and wallows in mudholes of self-created confusion so that the issues stay as murky as possible.

Nonsense.

The problem is your unending banal penchant to create *non-argument* about your own pathetic misinterpretation and bizarre scope-creep of blindingly simple statements, from the original words into something you have created all by yourself in your own little private world.

As a recent example...

the enormously increased rate of creep because of the high stress levels

...my response...

So, do you think the the enormously increased rate of creep applies only from 9.5s in advance of release ?

...and yours...

I'm not incompetent.
I know the time scales over which creep operates.
I wouldn't confuse "creep" for "yield".

...which unsurprisingly led me to say...

Not an answer to the question tom.

Movement of WTC1 features transitions from *none* to *significant* ~9.5s in advance of release.

3) Do you think the the enormously increased rate of creep you stated applies only from 9.5s in advance of release of WTC1 ?

...within which I have repeated the question, giving you clear indication of the scope of the question, namely that I've detected motion only from ~9.5s prior to release, and I'm basically asking you about the timeframe of your stated enourmously increased rate of creep.

I think that's fairly clear. You could say *no, about an hour, from impact to release*, but you don't, you say...

Yeah, it is an answer to the question. You're not competent enough to understand it.

...and...

No, I stand by my previous statement.

You don't know what creep is.
You don't know how to measure it.

Prove me wrong. Post your crap, uh excuse me, your "creep" data.

...something is starting to creep, but it's not me. I'm still in the same place I was to begin with...

You keep avoiding the question...

Motion of features on WTC1 transitions from *none* to *significant* roughly 9.5s in advance of release.

So lets try and get some kind of an answer from you...

You stated enormously increased rate of creep...

When does that apply from ? A time after impact fro WTC1, or a time before release is fine.

What scale is your suggested enormously increased rate of creep over ?

(NIST have some disgrams you will probably want to refer to ?)

...so again, I'm restating my original question, adding yet more detail to TRY and get you to understand how very simple it is. Do you *click* ? ...

blah, blah, blah…

I know what you're going to say. It's irrelevant.

Post your creep curves, please.

...oh. Now where in the dialogue have I said anything about creep curves ? You do that a lot. You don't seem able to keep track of the simplest of dialogue elements. As you quickly confirm in the same post...

You creep curves, please.
Or be shown to be a) a liar or not having the data, or b) totally incompetent, because the data will have nothing to do with creep.

...and so the original question has been lost from your limited view of *da reel wurld*, and what you're actually trying to do is turn the onus of the discussion around on me.

Remember, very simple question asked tom.

I reply...

I've repeatedly mentioned some NIST diagrams to you tfk. Now, bearing in mind that if they didn't write it, you don't know about it, no, you can do without my data for now.

The only claim I've made is about movement becoming easily detectable 9.5s in advance of release. You have a problem with that ? Well, boo hoo I can confirm the assertion, what's your problem ?

At what timeframe are you stating this enormously increased rate of creep began ?

...yet again, original question being the focus, namely, enourmously increased rate of creep....from what point in time...

You start to realise you've been throwing your toys out the cot, and we get to this point...

I was talking to P4T about creep.
When I say "creep", I mean "creep". Real creep, the way that any engineer or dictionary would define the word.
I don't mean "asterisk creep".

Therefore your new dance begs one point.

Since only you know that "asterisk creep" is different than "real creep", then WHY THE HELL did you bring "asterisk creep" into my discussion with P4T about real creep?

...bizarre. There's no dancing going on here tom, and you still haven't managed to answer my original question...

NIST predict traceable levels of displacement, like...

...and with long timescale traces I have found no gradual motion until the final 9.5s.

Soooo....

Do you think that the enormously increased rate of creep you mentioned applies only from 9.5s in advance of release ?

Or at what point do you suggest the enourmously increased rate of creep began ?

(It's not difficult, unless you don't want to answer for some reason

...how clear can I be ? How inept would you have to be to think I'm asking anything other than...

At what point do you suggest the enourmously increased rate of creep began ?

Are we there yet ? ...

The "enormously increased rate of creep" that I was referring to in my post to P4T is simple & clear in the post. It was the greatly increased amount of creep that Bazant described that results from increased stress levels and modest temperature rises.
...
Plus I consider a creep rate that produces a buckling failure in 1 hour instead of 2400 to be "enormously increased".

...ye gads. It's like cutting teeth man. Requiring yet another response...

Not the question asked, but to interpret...

You think the period of enourmously increased creep applies to...the hour before release ?

...that's the end of it, surely...

I answered PRECISELY the question that you asked.

You askedme what "enormous increase in creep" that I meant when I answered P4T.

I answered you, carefully, precisely, accurately.

...what's the phrase...O. M. G. Precisely eh ? In WHAT WAY did I ask you what *"enormous increase in creep" that you meant* ? An absolute shambles tom. Can we get there, ever ? ...

You think the period of enourmously increased creep applies to...the hour before release ?

Yes, I do.

...WAHOO ! A miracle !

...and in the same post...

You are the undisputed CHAMP when it comes to "not saying things".

You "don't say things" every time you post. When people plead with you to "say something", you say nothing.

You leave others to flounder around, trying to figure out what the hell you are saying.

You provide one-word, "Nope" type answers when others honestly try to figure out what the hell you are trying to say.

Then you whine … and whine … and whine …and whine … that "I didn't say that", when someone misinterprets what you write.

The sum of things that "you didn't say" is a mountain.
The list of things that "you did say" is a tiny, steaming molehill.

There are 3 factors, and only one person, to blame when your nonsense gets misinterpreted. You, your careless sloppiness with the language & your secretiveness.

...now, given the conversation trail I've just wasted some of my time posting above, I have to say I find it rather amusing that you can actually let yourself make such ridiculous statements.

Surely you're done...

So, you did NOT literally "ask me what I meant by the term". You simply twisted my statement & incompetently misapplied it to the 9.5 seconds of time before the collapse.

Nothing surprising about that. It's your constant style.

And, as usual, I wouldn't let you get away with it. That's my style.

In correcting your error, I have repeatedly (perhaps a dozen times) informed you that there is zero significant creep that occurs in 9.5 seconds in steel at any plausible temperature seen by the WTC columns.

You've ignored my correction of your error each & every time.

...nope, you're not done. You're deflecting the discussion away from your own several week incompetence. Others may be fooled by it, but I'm not. I asked you the original question. I know it was very simple. I didn't get confused along the way. That's why I ROFL quite a lot. It's some funny excrement tom.

STOP making assumptions.
START asking questions if the meaning is not obvious to you.

You won't end up looking so silly.

Yeah, sure. Femr is honest & straightforward in his discussions, motives & perspectives.

Absolutely. It's all set in stone after all.

Have a nice day.

 

[tfk]

... blah, blah, blah ...
... *creep*, creep, *creep*, creep, *creep*, ...
... blah, blah, blah ...

How much creep, or *creep*, do you think NIST calculated?

[... crickets ...]

How much creep, or *creep*, did you calculate?

I'm not going to answer. That's a leading question.

I spent a lot of time measuring *creep*. I found [blah, blah] 9.5 seconds.

Please show your curves.

...oh. Now where in the dialogue have I said anything about creep curves ?

… blah, blah, blah …]

Go pester someone else with your games.
For another 9 years.

I'll be the one laughing in the background.

Have a nice [pointless] decade.

 

[newton3376]

Hey Newt,

Respectfully, I disagree. I don't believe the problem is that femr isn't an engineer.

There have been lots of non-engineers (including truther non-engineers) with whom I've been able to have respectful conversations.

The fundamental, over-arching problem between femr & me is that …

One person speaks plainly & clearly, answers questions, attempts to find & unravel points of confusion so that key points can be mutually understood & examined.
And the other person speaks in riddles, refuses to answer questions, uses sloppy & constantly changing terminology, and wallows in mudholes of self-created confusion so that the issues stay as murky as possible.

That's his only refuge, after 9 years of failure. With zippo to show for it.
The Soverign State of Confusion.

There were more than a few posters here who were a little annoyed with me because of the constant, juvenile bickering between the two of us. (Frankly, I'm more than a little annoyed myself. My new resolution: he ain't worth time I don't have.)

They were annoyed at me right up UNTIL they got into a discussion with him on their own, and ran into the same gamesmanship that I did. Now they mostly just avoid him.

The problem is encapsulated right here:



Zero content.
An endless litany of "I didn't say that". Without seldom a clear statement of what he does assert.

The problem is that femr is a master at NOT saying much of anything.
Splitting irrelevant hairs 8 ways to Sunday.
And intentionally using inaccurate, sloppy, inconsistent terminology.

*creep* vs. creep.
frame vs. frame
and 100 other examples.

And one topic derail after another.

He's so incredibly dishonest that he won't even fess up to being a truther.

Yeah, sure. Femr is honest & straightforward in his discussions, motives & perspectives. Nobody's noticed that he spends virtually every day posting here, AND rah-rahing with the other truthers at the911forum, AND maintaining his truther website.

His agenda is a real secret.

Nobody's caught on…


tom

Fair enough....perhaps my comment was too general....I was not trying to paint with a broad brush and insult those who are not Engineers....there are many VERY intelligent posters on this site who are not Engineers and understand the Engineering better then many "truther" Engineers...

After defending Femr2 in one thread...I have been very frustrated with him in this thread and have simply given up expecting a reasonable discussion from him...

So I posted with a bit of frustration and I made a comment that was painting with too broad of a brush...

 

[tfk]

Oz,

Speaking of unanswered questions …

There is a trap for learners and skim readers in that quoted section tfk. Nearly caught me

Bazant labels what he is discussing as "gravity-driven progressive collapse". Many of us posting here divide the WTC Twin Towers collapses into (at least) two stages and label them "initiation" and "collapse progression" or similar words. What Bazant is discussing (and you and Patriots) is the initiation phase - quite clear in the context of his paper and your recent posts. But when I first read the quotation in your post I saw "progressive collapse" linked to columns affected by temperature which nearly threw me till I re-read the quote and checked back to the source. Because there was no columns affected by heat aspect in the "global collapse" OR "collapse progression" stage.

There is no trap. There is no deception.
You are about 89/95ths (94%) correct in your observation [about "non-fire weakened floors". -tk] for WTC1.

…

C'mon, oz. Start acting like a real engineer, willya?

... start putting a few numbers (or at least quantitative estimates) to things.

The two principle failure modes were buckled columns & snapped connections (bolts & welds).

1. Of those two, which was the "best case" failure mode (favoring collapse halt)?

2. For each of these failure modes, what was the "vertical unit of failure"? (measured in "floors")

3. Just for yuks & giggles (& to save you some time) assume that 25% of the existent perimeter columns buckled, and 75% had their connections snapped. (Feel free to offer any differing numbers, or to research this yourself for better numbers.)

4. Using 2 & 3 above, how many floors of the building "promptly" lost their supports during collapse initiation?

Call this number "A".

5. How many floor were on fire at, or immediately before, the time of collapse?
Call this "B".

6. What is B - A?

7 After a fall of how many floors MUST the collapse have stopped if it was going to stop at all?

8. Still think that "heated elements" played a role only in collapse initiation & no role in collapse progression?
tk

Providing answers ...

1. Of those two, which was the "best case" failure mode (favoring collapse halt)?

During collapse initiation, the failure modes were a combination of column buckling and fractured connections. Very, very quickly, during collapse progression, the predominant failure mode was connection fracture or pull-out.

Column buckling would absorb a LOT more energy than connection fracture, and therefore calculations based on this failure mode would significantly err on the side of collapse arrest, compared to the real situation (during collapse progression) of "disassembly by connection failure".

2. For each of these failure modes, what was the "vertical unit of failure"? (measured in "floors")

The unit of failure was "the columns". That is, 3 floors.

3. Just for yuks & giggles (& to save you some time) assume that 25% of the existent perimeter columns buckled, and 75% had their connections snapped. (Feel free to offer any differing numbers, or to research this yourself for better numbers.)

OK, 25% / 75%.

4. Using 2 & 3 above, how many floors of the building "promptly" lost their supports during collapse initiation?

Call this number "A".

1 floor lost 100% of its support.
2 floors lost 67% of its support.
2 floors lost 33% of its support.

1(1) + 2(.67) + 2(.33) = 3.

A = 3 floors.

5. How many floor were on fire at, or immediately before, the time of collapse?
Call this "B".

B = 6 floors had fires on them, and had weakened columns.

6. What is B - A?

The 3-story collapse happened near the top of the 6 stories of fire-weakened floors.

B - A = 3 floors below the collapse initiation floors that were weakened by having fires.

7 After a fall of how many floors MUST the collapse have stopped if it was going to stop at all?

Either:
1 story of collapse, in which 2 fire weakened stories which have both lost 2/3rds of their supports collide.

or (less likely to arrest)
2. 3 stories of collapse, in which one fire weakened & one non-fire weakened floor, both of which have lost 2/3rds of their supports, collide.

8. Still think that "heated elements" played a role only in collapse initiation & no role in collapse progression?

In both cases, if there was to be any chance of collapse arrest, one or both of the floors stopping the collapse were fire-weakened.

After 6 stories of collapse, the amount necessary to clear the fire damaged floors, there was zero hope of stopping the collapse.

Still think that "there was no columns affected by heat aspect in the "global collapse" OR "collapse progression" stage"?

tk

 

[newton3376]

Concisely put as far as you went.

We actually got a bit further in the brief bit of "on topic" discussion. I even gave partial support to pgimeno's bit of finessing in an attempt to extend the debate...But that was before "needle the truther" became more important that reasoned objectivity.

Cheers.

Color me unimpressed Oz.....

It's not about "needling" anyone....it's about getting straight answers instead of gyrating photographs, misunderstandings of conservation of momentum (see the thread that THAT fiasco was in), and not-so-thinly velied attempts to introduce some kind of controlled demolition into the collapses.

That's what this game is all about....it has NOTHING to do with attempting to understand the nitty gritty details of what happened...it's an attempt to find some fault...ANY fault with either Bazant and/or NIST and then claim..

"Ah ha! I knew it! It's possible they were wrong about this minor detail and therefore the buildings were brought down in a controlled demolition by super nano thermite! Inside jobby job!!!!!!!11111 eleventy!!!!!"

That is the game people play here....after all this is the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories sub forum.

Otherwise people should bring their "arguments" up in a more scientific venue....like a journal.

Or maybe another section of this forum or perhaps an entirely differnt forum alltogether....maybe physicsfourms or something like that. See what kind of a response such posts will get over there.

That's my problem Oz....it gets tiring watching people continue to play these silly games after 9+ years. And sometimes my frustration is reflected in my posts despite my best efforts to contain it.

 

[ozeco41]

...otherwise people should bring their "arguments" up in a more scientific venue....like a journal....

I think that most times the "publish in a journal" suggestion is made it is either losing the context or an attempt at evasion. As far as context goes this is an Internet forum with a central aim of "discussion" and the discussion stands or falls in this context. If people want to go the track of academic/professional publishing so be it.
But "publish it" is not an answer to discussion in this forum.

...Or maybe another section of this forum or perhaps an entirely differnt forum alltogether....maybe physicsfourms or something like that. See what kind of a response such posts will get over there...

I have noticed a few members suggesting that one or other of femr2, Major_Tom et al should be censored by the ploy of a strict reading of the "conspiracy" part of the forum title. A cute move which I could not object to - provided it applied to everyone and every thread. Some hope of that so when played against femr, M_T is amounts to a "special pleading" - "let's have strict rules so we can banish them but not apply those rules so strictly to the rest of us".

...That's my problem Oz....it gets tiring watching people continue to play these silly games after 9+ years. And sometimes my frustration is reflected in my posts despite my best efforts to contain it.

Understood. I spent much of my 9/11 posting career on another forum where 9/11 was one thread under the Politics and Current Affairs sub forum and where the rules against personal attack were stricter than here - little of the personalisations tolerated here in 9/11 forum would be allowed. And I was the sub forum moderator which ties your hands somewhat.

I try to stay close to the topic here without letting the irritations show too often. That said I copped a formal warning in one of my first posts. Used the "Australian adjective" or some such word hat is "part of normal language for an Aussie" and the nanny filter ********** me out. So I commented.

 

[rwguinn]

I think that most times the "publish in a journal" suggestion is made it is either losing the context or an attempt at evasion. As far as context goes this is an Internet forum with a central aim of "discussion" and the discussion stands or falls in this context. If people want to go the track of academic/professional publishing so be it.
But "publish it" is not an answer to discussion in this forum.

I have noticed a few members suggesting that one or other of femr2, Major_Tom et al should be censored by the ploy of a strict reading of the "conspiracy" part of the forum title. A cute move which I could not object to - provided it applied to everyone and every thread. Some hope of that so when played against femr, M_T is amounts to a "special pleading" - "let's have strict rules so we can banish them but not apply those rules so strictly to the rest of us".

Understood. I spent much of my 9/11 posting career on another forum where 9/11 was one thread under the Politics and Current Affairs sub forum and where the rules against personal attack were stricter than here - little of the personalisations tolerated here in 9/11 forum would be allowed. And I was the sub forum moderator which ties your hands somewhat.

I try to stay close to the topic here without letting the irritations show too often. That said I copped a formal warning in one of my first posts. Used the "Australian adjective" or some such word hat is "part of normal language for an Aussie" and the nanny filter ********** me out. So I commented.

Most of the truther's ploys are of the sort "You used 10.1E6 for the modulus of aluminum. It's actually 10,101,321.78596, so your results are totally invalid."
After 9 years of the same damn thing, over and over, we do tend to get snarky.
Especially when the tactic is to shut up after a month or so of being bombarded with facts and actual engineering, only to start up again 6 moths later, hoping we have forgotten...

 

[ozeco41]

Most of the truther's ploys are of the sort "You used 10.1E6 for the modulus of aluminum. It's actually 10,101,321.78596, so your results are totally invalid."
After 9 years of the same damn thing, over and over, we do tend to get snarky.
Especially when the tactic is to shut up after a month or so of being bombarded with facts and actual engineering, only to start up again 6 moths later, hoping we have forgotten...

Understood.

I am currently involved in a series of exchanges where my "opponent" keeps making those false global claims "...so your results are totally invalid...."

The false logic comes in many flavours "Detail 'X' is wrong so 'everything NIST says is totally wrong'"
....when at best/worst it could be partially wrong BUT often, as per your example, the "error" has no effect whatsoever.

 

[rwguinn]

Understood.

I am currently involved in a series of exchanges where my "opponent" keeps making those false global claims "...so your results are totally invalid...."

The false logic comes in many flavours "Detail 'X' is wrong so 'everything NIST says is totally wrong'"
....when at best/worst it could be partially wrong BUT often, as per your example, the "error" has no effect whatsoever.

It's worse-
it's not "Detail 'X' is wrong so 'everything NIST says is totally wrong'"
it's
"Detail 'X' may be inaccurate/doesn't jibe with my interpretation, so 'everything NIST says is totally wrong'"

 

[ozeco41]

It's worse-
it's not "Detail 'X' is wrong so 'everything NIST says is totally wrong'"
it's
"Detail 'X' may be inaccurate/doesn't jibe with my interpretation, so 'everything NIST says is totally wrong'"

Touché.

You are right - I need to be more careful to "cover" the potential scope of my comments - even the light hearted ones.

 

[AZCat]

It's worse-
it's not "Detail 'X' is wrong so 'everything NIST says is totally wrong'"
it's
"Detail 'X' may be inaccurate/doesn't jibe with my interpretation, so 'everything NIST says is totally wrong'"

Or even worse -
"Some guy on a website says Detail 'X' is inaccurate or wrong (but I didn't bother to go check the NIST reports myself because that would take actual work) so everything NIST says is totally wrong."

At least the guys who read the NIST reports have some credibility, even if we disagree with their methods and/or conclusions.

 

[newton3376]

I think that most times the "publish in a journal" suggestion is made it is either losing the context or an attempt at evasion. As far as context goes this is an Internet forum with a central aim of "discussion" and the discussion stands or falls in this context. If people want to go the track of academic/professional publishing so be it.
But "publish it" is not an answer to discussion in this forum.

I have noticed a few members suggesting that one or other of femr2, Major_Tom et al should be censored by the ploy of a strict reading of the "conspiracy" part of the forum title. A cute move which I could not object to - provided it applied to everyone and every thread. Some hope of that so when played against femr, M_T is amounts to a "special pleading" - "let's have strict rules so we can banish them but not apply those rules so strictly to the rest of us".

Understood. I spent much of my 9/11 posting career on another forum where 9/11 was one thread under the Politics and Current Affairs sub forum and where the rules against personal attack were stricter than here - little of the personalisations tolerated here in 9/11 forum would be allowed. And I was the sub forum moderator which ties your hands somewhat.

I try to stay close to the topic here without letting the irritations show too often. That said I copped a formal warning in one of my first posts. Used the "Australian adjective" or some such word hat is "part of normal language for an Aussie" and the nanny filter ********** me out. So I commented.

In the future I will attempt to control my irritation more when posting.

That way I can avoid making statements that are too general and broad in scope.....

 

[tfk]

I think that most times the "publish in a journal" suggestion is made it is either losing the context or an attempt at evasion. As far as context goes this is an Internet forum with a central aim of "discussion" and the discussion stands or falls in this context. If people want to go the track of academic/professional publishing so be it.
But "publish it" is not an answer to discussion in this forum.

I disagree 100%.

Many people posting here have some expertise in a particular field. If so inclined, those folks could take on the role of snake-oil salesmen, baffling the others with bs.

The less knowledgeable would be at the mercy of the more knowledgeable. In each & every subject.

Publishing some analysis buys an insurance policy against that. It gives some nonspecific level of assurance that the analysis will be reviewed by others with comparable levels of expertise.

Herein lies the specific difference between peer-reviewed & non-peer-reviewed journals: in peer-reviewed journals, the assurance level of a competent review is much, much higher.

Perhaps most important, knowing that your work will undergo expert scrutiny keeps everyone (amateurs & experts alike) who values their reputation honest & rigorous.

People throw around opinions as facts here with reckless abandon. There is a lot less of that in reviewed writing.

Truthers, Conspiracy Theorists, iconoclasts, snake-oil salesmen & Angry Young Boys constantly advocate that it is a flaw, laziness or naive credulousness to listen to, and give extra weight to, the opinions of experts.

NOT leveraging the knowlegde of experts is ludicrous. It is also brain-dead stupid.

Note well the words "opinionS" & " expertS" in the sentence above. Security & assurance of a correct answer is a direct result of a plurality of expert opinions.

This is probably the single most significant divergence between the attitudes & epistemologies of debunkers & CTers.

Debunkers advocate listening to, & giving greater credibility to, the opinions of experts.
CTers & Truthers disdain the same.


tk

 

[ozeco41]

...That way I can avoid making statements that are too general and broad in scope.....

Did you spot the irony?

The statement I made and rwquinn "nailed" me for was actually too narrow not too broad.

And rwq got nailed in turn by AZCat who made it even broader.