Discussions in this thread have proceeded at two levels viz:
1) Lots of discussion at the level of technical detail; AND
2) (Mostly my contributions) at the level of the errors in Tony's overall logic.
My commendation to all those members taking Tony et al on at the technical level. This post goes to those criticisms of overall logic which I have addressed many times.
He never proved he was right. He never justified his constraints allowing him to take a linear approach. Want to do that for him?
That is precisely the situation.
My position is quite clear as are the arguments I have posted several times.
Tony's ongoing pretence that he does not understand does nothing to address the simple facts as I have posted them.
Nor does C7 weighing in to support Tony every time Tony is shown to be wrong.
And this bit of misrepresentation is simply more of Tony circling in untruths as he avoids the inevitable that his claim is not established:
Your arguments are clearly nonsense and akin to saying that the earth's plates could have moved and had an effect which I am not taking into account and asking me to prove they didn't....
False analogy. There are several problems but the big one is that Tony has it arse backwards. The closer analogy (not perfect - I only use it to illustrate one aspect of what is wrong with Tony's analogy) is that Tony presumes no tectonic plate movement. I have said two things - and the two are independent of each other. First the logical point that if Tony claims no movement it is his burden of proof absolutely to prove the assumption. Independent of any probabilities applying to the issue. AND Second, independent of the first as I said, It is highly unlikely that "no tectonic plate movement" would apply. Just as it is highly unlikely that the Col79-Col44 end conditions were unchanged. Using analogies which don't fit is risky tactics Tony.
...You people have no argument.
False claim. The "argument" referred to is my criticism which has been fully elaborated and supported and goes to the simple fact that Tony has not proven his foundation assumption.
... It can be discerned by inspection that the columns could not move relative to each other in any significant way....
..what a little gem this is. Having said that I have no argument he proves that I have by trying to respond to my criticism. AND by using a bold assertion. Laughable and pathetic.
For the benefit of those who are not sure about the issue in this part of the debate it is that I have criticised Tony's claim that the NIST explanation of walk-off is impossible.
My criticism rests on factors such as these:
1) Tony has made the claim;
2) The claim relies on an assumption;
3) The assumption is that the column end conditions have not changed;
4) Since Tony's claim relies on that assumption it is his burden of proof to support or "prove" the assumption (and by reasoning better than his attempted "bold assertion".)
5) Tony has denied his burden of proof and not attempted to properly support his assumption;
THEREFORE the status of his claim is "UNPROVEN" - which is all that I need to demonstrate AT THIS STAGE.
There are multiple further barriers ahead of Tony given that he has attempted to use his claim as support for CD. And he knows that if he can get past this starting point barrier it will do him no good because I will be waiting to take on the next stage of his nonsense.
...and Ozeco hasn't even been able to articulate what he thinks is necessary to show that.
Two reasons for that refusal:
A) It is Tony's burden of proof and I will not do his job for him. I am aware that many members here are prepared to respond to "reversed burden of proof" trickery. Mainly because they find the technical issues interesting and beyond the apparent skills of the truthers. Not me on this one. It is Tony's problem. AND
B) I doubt that anyone can "prove" what happened to the Col79-col44 gap despite all the faith people have in FEA. Remember the steel frame has been subject to a complex set of fire induced temperature changes which have varied massively across the members of the steel frame. What price anyone knowing all of those temperature effects? The analysis based on presumed static temperature is complex but possible. Not so I suggest for the temperature affected situation which really happened. AND that is still Tony's problem not mine. His choice to make a claim which he cannot support. One which I doubt anyone could support. BUT it was not my choice. And it does not become my burden of proof simply because Tony cannot support his assumption.
And that had better be the last time that I need to spell out the issue.
So members are now well placed to see:
1) What my criticism is and that I have supported it - see my previous posts for fuller details; AND
2) That Tony's evasions and C7's "tag team" support trying to make it an argument over mathematics and details are simply dishonest tricks.
...It is obvious that you are trying to put up a shunt to quantifying the situation.
"quantifying" does not apply to a logical situation. Stop misrepresenting your logical error as if it was a matter of calculations and mathematics.
BTW - if we ever do get past this point which Tony refuses to address one of the big ones lying in wait is the fact that whether or not NIST was right is irrelevant.
Why is it irrelevant? Recall that Tony has clearly stated his view that some CD or "human intervention' was needed. The question of CD at WTC7 is an issue of fact which is totally unrelated to whether NIST got the explanation right or wrong. So Tony cannot get to the CD question whilst tied into his bit of falsely limited objective working within the NIST assumptions.
(And Ergo that is why I didn't bother responding to your failed bit of "tag team" support for Tony. Your "help" actually hinders Tony because the only comment you made which was of slightest value reveals the next stage of weaknesses in Tony's position.)
...after we get off the starting line and Tony admits that his "NIST was wrong - it is impossible" claim is not proven....
Meanwhile I will not follow C7 et al round in evasive circles.
Just talk, no data.
