NoahFence
Banned
Photoshop.
WTC7 and the girder walk-off between column 79 and 44
- Thread starter Gamolon
- Start date
- Status
I can only imagine that you think live debate is somehow superior to the written word? If so, why would that be? Live debate is basically equivalent to a fist-fight to settle a legal dispute. The best fighter wins and the best debater wins. Whoopeee, but so what?
And why are you intending to submit your findings to YouTube rather than a professional journal?
By whom, and on what authority? Who would issue the supoenas?
Gerry,
So you want to debate me…
Let's see if you've earned that right.
In four posts to you, i asked the following questions & got the following responses.
1. How many people are in your group that produced these videos? Answered
2. Person 1 has been a [profession] for [xx] years. Not Answered
3. Person 2 has been a [profession] for [xx] years. Not Answered
4. Person 3 has been a [profession] for [xx] years. Not Answered
5. Person 4 has been a [profession] for [xx] years. Not Answered
6. Person 5 has been a [profession] for [xx] years. Not Answered
7. Could you please post a sample of one of your typical communications to them. Not Answered
8. if you [were a NIST engineer &] had devoted several years of your life, …, would you feel "positively inclined to help them part the clouds of their ignorance"? Not Answered
9. How about if you had tried to do exactly this, say, 50 times…? Not Answered
10. Or would you simply say "enough", & ignore the morons? Not Answered
11. I assume that you are members of ae911t? Not Answered
12. Are you the narrator for those videos? Answered
13. Is your group centered in the UK, or spread about? Not Answered
14. Have you taken your questions to local experienced structural engineers in industry or academia & listened carefully, respectfully to their answers? Not Answered
15. Why haven't you tried [asking independent structural engineers]? Not Answered
16. Is Chris7 one of the members of your group? Not Answered
17. Did Chris7 ask you to come here & start posting? Answered, but psssst I don't believe you.
18. what do you do for a living & how long have you been doing it? Not Answered
19. what background do you have that bears on the questions and (MUCH more important) the answers that you are offering? Answered "I have some engineering qualifications". At this point, a clear lie.
20. Please answer my questions about your experience. Nobody's asking anything traceable. Not Answered
21. have [you] produced your version of an FMEA Not Answered
22. Can you tell me which component [is the weakest link], why it's the weakest link and tell us its likely failure mode? Not Answered
23. Should NIST engineers be expected to continue to reply to accusatory know-nothings? Not Answered
24. Did you want to have that discussion? Answered "You [tom] do all the work, I'll just sit back & pitch comments from the peanut gallery"
25. Would you answer the questions that I asked you? Not Answered
26. [Please cite] exactly what your field is (big hint, it's exactly what someone gives you a paycheck to do), and exactly how long you've been doing it. Not Answered
27. Do you realize now that things AFTER the impact from WTC1 debris may not have been exactly like the drawings showed in the "as built" condition? Even far away from the debris impact sites? Not Answered
28. Tell me again, please, why you put stock into the opinions of this proven liar [Gage]? Not Answered
29. Did you even watch the 5 minutes of video that I cued up for you? Not Answered
___
So, you've answered 5 out of 29 questions that I asked you.
At least one (possibly two) of your 5 answers were lies.
___
Next, I watched all 3 of your videos & then spent about 3 hours digging up video that addressed some specific issues associated with this debate.
I cued up the videos to jump right to the pertinent quotations (all by experts).
Your response: Silence
When I asked you if you'd watched them: Silence
You ain't doing very well here.
___
Now, let's look at it the other way.
You asked me:
[have] these videos have at all clarified the position that NIST take on wtc7 to you?Answered
1 for 1.
___
And now you want me to participate in a verbal debate...????
Sorry, kid.
If there were the SLIGHTEST indication that you were in this for honest debate, if there were the SLIGHTEST indication that you were willing to even acknowledge anyone else's arguments, if there were the SLIGHTEST indication that you were an honest person …
… then I'd be happy to debate you.
But you have proven the exact opposite.
Honesty earns the right to a debate.
You haven't earned the right to a debate.
I have no interest in spending all of my free time for 2 weeks going thru sketches, drawings & details. All so that you can take whatever I say & torque it up to suit your dishonest purposes.
BTW, you don't want to debate me (biomechanical engineer). You don't want to debate physicists, or aerodynamics engineers, architects or religious studies professors.
IF YOU REALLY WANT ANSWERS (god forbid), you want to debate one of the structural engineers at NIST who produced the analysis.
Why do you clowns always deal with amateurs?
Too bad.
But it seems to be the rule that the only way that one can still remain a truther is to surround themselves with castle walls & moats of ignorance & defend that ignorance at all costs.
tom
PS. This is the forum that I've chosen to debate. If you ever want to really say something, you merely have to type on your keyboard.
Thus far, I see you not willing to put out the effort.
So you want to debate me…
Let's see if you've earned that right.
In four posts to you, i asked the following questions & got the following responses.
1. How many people are in your group that produced these videos? Answered
2. Person 1 has been a [profession] for [xx] years. Not Answered
3. Person 2 has been a [profession] for [xx] years. Not Answered
4. Person 3 has been a [profession] for [xx] years. Not Answered
5. Person 4 has been a [profession] for [xx] years. Not Answered
6. Person 5 has been a [profession] for [xx] years. Not Answered
7. Could you please post a sample of one of your typical communications to them. Not Answered
8. if you [were a NIST engineer &] had devoted several years of your life, …, would you feel "positively inclined to help them part the clouds of their ignorance"? Not Answered
9. How about if you had tried to do exactly this, say, 50 times…? Not Answered
10. Or would you simply say "enough", & ignore the morons? Not Answered
11. I assume that you are members of ae911t? Not Answered
12. Are you the narrator for those videos? Answered
13. Is your group centered in the UK, or spread about? Not Answered
14. Have you taken your questions to local experienced structural engineers in industry or academia & listened carefully, respectfully to their answers? Not Answered
15. Why haven't you tried [asking independent structural engineers]? Not Answered
16. Is Chris7 one of the members of your group? Not Answered
17. Did Chris7 ask you to come here & start posting? Answered, but psssst I don't believe you.
18. what do you do for a living & how long have you been doing it? Not Answered
19. what background do you have that bears on the questions and (MUCH more important) the answers that you are offering? Answered "I have some engineering qualifications". At this point, a clear lie.
20. Please answer my questions about your experience. Nobody's asking anything traceable. Not Answered
21. have [you] produced your version of an FMEA Not Answered
22. Can you tell me which component [is the weakest link], why it's the weakest link and tell us its likely failure mode? Not Answered
23. Should NIST engineers be expected to continue to reply to accusatory know-nothings? Not Answered
24. Did you want to have that discussion? Answered "You [tom] do all the work, I'll just sit back & pitch comments from the peanut gallery"
25. Would you answer the questions that I asked you? Not Answered
26. [Please cite] exactly what your field is (big hint, it's exactly what someone gives you a paycheck to do), and exactly how long you've been doing it. Not Answered
27. Do you realize now that things AFTER the impact from WTC1 debris may not have been exactly like the drawings showed in the "as built" condition? Even far away from the debris impact sites? Not Answered
28. Tell me again, please, why you put stock into the opinions of this proven liar [Gage]? Not Answered
29. Did you even watch the 5 minutes of video that I cued up for you? Not Answered
___
So, you've answered 5 out of 29 questions that I asked you.
At least one (possibly two) of your 5 answers were lies.
___
Next, I watched all 3 of your videos & then spent about 3 hours digging up video that addressed some specific issues associated with this debate.
I cued up the videos to jump right to the pertinent quotations (all by experts).
Your response: Silence
When I asked you if you'd watched them: Silence
You ain't doing very well here.
___
Now, let's look at it the other way.
You asked me:
[have] these videos have at all clarified the position that NIST take on wtc7 to you?Answered
1 for 1.
___
And now you want me to participate in a verbal debate...????
Sorry, kid.
If there were the SLIGHTEST indication that you were in this for honest debate, if there were the SLIGHTEST indication that you were willing to even acknowledge anyone else's arguments, if there were the SLIGHTEST indication that you were an honest person …
… then I'd be happy to debate you.
But you have proven the exact opposite.
Honesty earns the right to a debate.
You haven't earned the right to a debate.
I have no interest in spending all of my free time for 2 weeks going thru sketches, drawings & details. All so that you can take whatever I say & torque it up to suit your dishonest purposes.
BTW, you don't want to debate me (biomechanical engineer). You don't want to debate physicists, or aerodynamics engineers, architects or religious studies professors.
IF YOU REALLY WANT ANSWERS (god forbid), you want to debate one of the structural engineers at NIST who produced the analysis.
Why do you clowns always deal with amateurs?
Too bad.
But it seems to be the rule that the only way that one can still remain a truther is to surround themselves with castle walls & moats of ignorance & defend that ignorance at all costs.
tom
PS. This is the forum that I've chosen to debate. If you ever want to really say something, you merely have to type on your keyboard.
Thus far, I see you not willing to put out the effort.
Last edited:
I think you can tell a lot about somebody by listening to their voice inflection, and in a fair and well moderated debate, the person who knows the subject best, and has the truth on their side usually wins. And you have no clue where or to whom i intend submitting any findings. I responded to being called ignorant by challenging someone to a live debate, and the room also caters for text, maybe you could join in and back up your friend in text or in voice. Im sure it would be a learning experience for us all. Now where's that gum shield. lol
MarkLindeman
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2012
- Messages
- 493
Really, you're doing yourself no favors, taking this line (no pun intended). Well, I suppose that depends on your objectives.
Creationists notoriously crave "live debates." They're far from the ideal venue for evaluating technical arguments.
The longer this thread extends, the farther we seem to be from establishing or even discussing any possible relevance. I'm interested in attempts to explain events, but not very interested in attempts to unexplain events, a la Intelligent Design, except from a social psych standpoint.
Maybe you could answer the question of how far the girder has to walk in order to fail.
Gamolon
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2006
- Messages
- 2,702
Two questions for you gerrycan.
1. You state in your first video that NIST omitted shear studs from their collapse analysis. My question to you is, are you saying that NIST never mentioned anything pertaining to shear studs in their report and never explained what part they played in the structural elements/thermal expansion?
2. Here is a calculation you provided me from another forum.
Are you suggesting that the shear studs would have resisted the thermal expansion of the floor beams because they made the beams composite with the concrete slab?
Where is your paper filled with facts?
The cool part, it does not matter if NIST got it right, the building still fell due to fire. What is your conclusion? What caused the collapse in your theory? Got any ideas? No? Maybe? Cat got your tongue?
Do you work with A&E? With over 1600 great minds, why not put your analysis on paper and publish it!? 1600 peer review! You could go on Coast to Coast AM.
Last edited:
Just a personal anecdote for you, for consideration. I know someone that was interviewing a surgeon for an important operation. She thought that the guy was a big arrogant. My reply - you would prefer someone less sure of himself to cut you open and move stuff around?
When you build a high rise, would you prefer your engineers to be arrogant or questioning in their own abilities?
I don't think that you have thought this through.
NoahFence
Banned
Maybe you could answer the question on how explosives can get into WTC 7 undetected, and explode undetected in front of thousands of people.
What i am saying is that a differential expansion was set up in NISTs FEA model that bore no resemblence to reality. I seem to remember you responded by asking if concrete expanded thermally at all. Enough said.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Do you think you need to earn the right to tell NIST they are wrong?
If not, GO FOR IT!
Uh, yeah you do.
See, I put in the time & effort to EARN my way into an Ivy League engineering program.
I put in the time & effort while there to understand math, physics, mechanics, etc. and EARN my diploma.
I put in >35 years of accepting responsibility to get things accomplished in order to EARN my titles of Design Engineer, Project Engineer, Principle Engineer & CTO.
I have put in the BRUTAL hours required to make multiple start-up companies successful, and EARNED the right to keep my job & continue to get my ridiculously fat pay-checks.
I have EARNED the right to out-snob world famous electrophysiologists who think that, because they use the catheters that I've designed, they therefore know how to design them.
And I have certainly EARNED the right to out-snob, and snub, some kid on the internet who (what? stuffs PC boards?) and plays games of refusing to answer questions.
As little as 3/4".
___
See, that's how one answers a question.
Now, why don't YOU answer some of MY questions??
tk
Correct. I am debating people in forums who are discussing the videos. I am genuinley interested in their response to the content, regardless of their opinions on 911. And note that you have at least remained polite and measured in your debates with me, i do respect that. However, given the content of the videos and NISTs analysis, it is strange that no-one seems to want to answer the question of how far the girder had to walk in order to fail. And further, given the clarity of NISTs opinion on this, and the fact that most people on here seem to agree with them, i am fast coming to the conclusion that many of you may have serious doubts about their explanation.
Gamolon
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2006
- Messages
- 2,702
Tell you what.
Go read section 8.7.4 of NCSTAR 1-9, starting on page 346, which is titled Absence of Shear Studs on Girders. Then come back here and tell me with a straight face that NIST OMITTED shear studs in their calculations.
Furthermore, compare your "engineer's" calculations leading you to believe that the shear studs on the floor beams would have resisted ANY thermal expansion and then compare them to the calculations and explanation in the above sited section. Please explain why NIST is wrong and your "engineer" is right.
- Status