10 story hole in WTC 7 - Part II

[GStan]

My mistake.

Many truthers, or if you prefer, people who doubt the prevailing explanation of 9/11, would never so bluntly admit to making a mistake. Kudos to you for doing so.

In consideration of that, you might want to think about where you got that information from. Is the source of this information a primary source of information for your misgivings about the generally accepted theories of 9/11? You might want to re-evaluate any other information you got from this source with a skeptical eye. Ask yourself, what is the credibility of a source that could make such a fundamental error? An error that a ten year old with an internet connection could spot with about 60 seconds of research?

And as long as you're polite, and display at least of hint of willingness to learn (admission of the aforementioned mistake will probably suffice for now) there are plenty of people here willing to share their knowledge on relevant topics.

 

[jaydeehess]

Ah, Richter scales. Throw em all out.

Pay no attention to science that doesn't adhere to the official story.

I get it now. Thank you for clarifying.

No, you do not 'get it' that much is obvious. Thank you for removing all doubt.

I said that the accuracy of the least significant digit in a richter scale measurement is only precise to +/-0.3 The most significant digit is fine and one can expect that the actual amount of energy released is within 0.3 of the reading. Trying to say that it is accurate to +/- 0.0 , which is what you have been doing demonstrates your scientific illteracy. Yet you continue to pound away at it.

 

[Slayhamlet]

Your answer is lame.

Try again.

[Edited to remove a brief lapse in judgment. Apologies to the mods.]

 

[A W Smith]

Your answer is lame.

Try again.

Lecture 01: Powers of Ten - Units - Dimensions - Measurements - Uncertainties - Dimensional Analysis - Scaling Arguments

MIT Professor Walter Lewin states after 10 mins in this video

Whenever you make a measurement you must know the uncertainty, otherwise the measurement is meaningless.

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

 

[KreeL]

So let's have a bit of fun with this. Are you saying that the margin of error being +/-.2 for a Richter scale reading at the distance of 21 miles the measurement could actually be:

ST NT

A) 2.1 - 2.3 {no margin change}

B) 2.3 - 2.5 {margin change is positive for both}

C) 1.9 - 2.1 {margin change is negative for both}

D) 1.9 - 2.5 {margin one negative, one positive}

E) 2.3 - 2.1 {margin one positive, one negative}

The question is would the margin of error apply to both readings at same distance, same equipment?...or would the margin of error be irrespective of same distance, same equipment?

 

[GStan]

So let's have a bit of fun with this. Are you saying that the margin of error being +/-.2 for a Richter scale reading at the distance of 21 miles the measurement could actually be:

ST NT

A) 2.1 - 2.3 {no margin change}

B) 2.3 - 2.5 {margin change is positive for both}

C) 1.9 - 2.1 {margin change is negative for both}

D) 1.9 - 2.5 {margin one negative, one positive}

E) 2.3 - 2.1 {margin one positive, one negative}

The question is would the margin of error apply to both readings at same distance, same equipment?...or would the margin of error be irrespective of same distance, same equipment?

It could be positive or negative for same equipment, same distance. You just can't predict which one of those options is correct. If you could predict it, consistently, there wouldn't be a margin of error now would there?

 

[GlennB]

So let's have a bit of fun with this. Are you saying that the margin of error ......?

So why don't you firstly answer some of the many good points made to you elsewhere in this thread?
For example, it was pointed out that the duration as well as peak reading is essential in calculating energy output. You haven't even waved this away, you've plain ignored it despite the point being bumped. You do this all the time. Why?

 

[1337m4n]

So let's have a bit of fun with this. Are you saying that the margin of error being +/-.2 for a Richter scale reading at the distance of 21 miles the measurement could actually be:

ST NT

A) 2.1 - 2.3 {no margin change}

B) 2.3 - 2.5 {margin change is positive for both}

C) 1.9 - 2.1 {margin change is negative for both}

D) 1.9 - 2.5 {margin one negative, one positive}

E) 2.3 - 2.1 {margin one positive, one negative}

The question is would the margin of error apply to both readings at same distance, same equipment?...or would the margin of error be irrespective of same distance, same equipment?

Your question is lame.

Try again.

 

[stateofgrace]

So let's have a bit of fun with this. Are you saying that the margin of error being +/-.2 for a Richter scale reading at the distance of 21 miles the measurement could actually be:

ST NT

A) 2.1 - 2.3 {no margin change}

B) 2.3 - 2.5 {margin change is positive for both}

C) 1.9 - 2.1 {margin change is negative for both}

D) 1.9 - 2.5 {margin one negative, one positive}

E) 2.3 - 2.1 {margin one positive, one negative}

The question is would the margin of error apply to both readings at same distance, same equipment?...or would the margin of error be irrespective of same distance, same equipment?

Is it me? Or does this make no sense whatsoever?

Margin of error, it is a common engineering term that applies to most engineering projects, well at least the one I have worked on. What exactly is difficult to understand about it?

A tool we used recently was required to apply a torque of 6800NM (Newton Meters) it has a margin of error of 200 NM. That means it could apply torque up to 7000 NM or down to 6600NM. Any torque between these two was considered acceptable, because it was within the margin of error.

That is all the margin is, a feedback reading that, all be it is not perfect it is well within the specifications of the kit.

 

[A W Smith]

you forgot or willfully omitted four other Uncertainties

f) 2.1 - 2.5 {no margin change and + .2}

g) 2.3 - 2.3 {+ .2 and no margin change}

h) 2.1 - 2.1 {no margin change and - .2}

I) 1.9 - 2.3 { - .2 and no margin change}

 

[GStan]

you forgot or willfully omitted four other Uncertainties

f) 2.1 - 2.5 {no margin change and + .2}

g) 2.3 - 2.3 {+ .2 and no margin change}

h) 2.1 - 2.1 {no margin change and - .2}

I) 1.9 - 2.3 { - .2 and no margin change}

...and of course all the variations in between 0.0 and 0.2 which obviously can't be detected on something with presumed margin of error of +/- 0.2.

Kreel, I forget, why are we talking about this again? What was your point?

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

Why don't we just cut to the chase as far as this thread goes?

I mean it is into it's Part II.

Why were all the debunkers wrong about what caused WTC-7 to collapse for all the years leading up to the NIST WTC-7 report? According to the NIST report was it really the 10 story gash caused by the tower falling on it or was it just building content fire and thermal expansion? Funny I never heard thermal expansion uttered anywhere here before the release of the NIST report on WTC-7. Were all you geniuses asleep on that one?

Why did you all abandon all of your many theories on what caused the WTC-7 to collapse immediately following the release of the NIST report?

What else are you all wrong about that a government report might sooth all of your doubts on?

 

[GStan]

Why don't we just cut to the chase as far as this thread goes?

I mean it is into it's Part II.

Why were all the debunkers wrong about what caused WTC-7 to collapse for all the years leading up to the NIST WTC-7 report?

Because the investigation into what actually caused it was not completed. During the years leading up to the report, the only definitive position debunkers were taking was that truther claims were inaccurate. So far, not a single truther claim has come close to proving debunkers wrong on that issue.

According to the NIST report was it really the 10 story gash caused by the tower falling on it

I think you'll have difficult time finding any assertion that the 10 story gash, whether it proved to be accurately described or not, was the cause of the collapse.

or was it just building content fire and thermal expansion?

Yes.

Funny I never heard thermal expansion uttered anywhere here before the release of the NIST report on WTC-7. Were all you geniuses asleep on that one?

Do you not find it appropriate to wait until an investigation is actually completed before trying to claim what the results of it are?

Why did you all abandon all of your many theories on what caused the WTC-7 to collapse immediately following the release of the NIST report?

Because some very intelligent people, trained in such areas of expertise, spent thousands of hours researching what actually caused the collapse. (What a bunch of dummies. To think they could have done the whole thing in a couple weeks with google and youtube.)

What else are you all wrong about that a government report might sooth all of your doubts on?

That truthers are capable of learning.

 

[Baylor]

Funny I never heard thermal expansion uttered anywhere here before the release of the NIST report on WTC-7.

I have.

Yes, the exterior columns were covered with SFRM beneath the aluminum cladding (this also helped reduce thermal expansion from the sun). On the interior they were covered with SFRM and gypsum wallboard.

Note the rating on the trusses: 1/2" = 3 hours? Not quite.

12th January 2008, 10:25 AM

 

[TJM]

Why don't we just cut to the chase as far as this thread goes?

I mean it is into it's Part II.

Why were all the debunkers wrong about what caused WTC-7 to collapse for all the years leading up to the NIST WTC-7 report? According to the NIST report was it really the 10 story gash caused by the tower falling on it or was it just building content fire and thermal expansion? Funny I never heard thermal expansion uttered anywhere here before the release of the NIST report on WTC-7. Were all you geniuses asleep on that one?

Why did you all abandon all of your many theories on what caused the WTC-7 to collapse immediately following the release of the NIST report?

What else are you all wrong about that a government report might sooth all of your doubts on?

From the 1991 FEMA report on One Meridian Plaza:

Structural Conditions Observed Prior to deciding to evacuate the building, firefighters noticed significant structural displacement occurring in the stair enclosures. A command officer indicated that cracks large enough to place a man’s fist through developed at one point. One of the granite exterior wall panels on the east stair enclosure was dislodged by the thermal expansion of the steel framing behind it. After the fire, there was evident significant structural damage to horizontal steel members and floor sections on most of the fire damaged floors. Beams and girders sagged and twisted--some as much as three feet--under severe fire exposures, and fissures developed in the reinforced concrete floor assemblies in many places. Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage

Link

Fail.

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

Because the investigation into what actually caused it was not completed. During the years leading up to the report, the only definitive position debunkers were taking was that truther claims were inaccurate. So far, not a single truther claim has come close to proving debunkers wrong on that issue.

Oh stop with your lies. It's embarrassing. For you not me.

I think you'll have difficult time finding any assertion that the 10 story gash, whether it proved to be accurately described or not, was the cause of the collapse.

Oh please. Go back and look. Why did you even bother with this response?

Yes.

Of course. Now it is. Because the Government report told you so. No other reason.

Do you not find it appropriate to wait until an investigation is actually completed before trying to claim what the results of it are?

But debunkers didn't wait. They declared to know why it fell before the report came out. And they were wrong. They make a habit of being wrong.

Because some very intelligent people, trained in such areas of expertise, spent thousands of hours researching what actually caused the collapse. (What a bunch of dummies. To think they could have done the whole thing in a couple weeks with google and youtube.)

Well I guess none of these very intelligent people were here at JREF for seven years huh? Maybe someday you can be a "very intelligent" person with a mandate to tell people what to believe. Keep praying.

That truthers are capable of learning.

If you got something for me to learn junior then spit it out. Or do you need a Government report before you open your mouth anymore?

Maybe you did learn something debunker.

 

[TheRedWorm]

So, what do you think happened, HI?

 

[GStan]

Oh stop with your lies. It's embarrassing. For you not me.

Oh please. Go back and look. Why did you even bother with this response?

Its your claim. You think debunkers asserted that the hole was the cause of the collapse. Link please.

Of course. Now it is. Because the Government report told you so. No other reason.

Argument from authority. Worthless.

But debunkers didn't wait. They declared to know why it fell before the report came out. And they were wrong. They make a habit of being wrong.

Everyone is wrong some of the time. What separates us from truthers is that we can recognize and admit our mistakes. Its part of learning.

Well I guess none of these very intelligent people were here at JREF for seven years huh? Maybe someday you can be a "very intelligent" person with a mandate to tell people what to believe. Keep praying.

Maybe, but its clear that you are not headed in that direction.

If you got something for me to learn junior then spit it out. Or do you need a Government report before you open your mouth anymore?

Maybe you did learn something debunker.

 

[A W Smith]

Homeland insurgency, debunked yet again

Oh stop with your lies. It's embarrassing. For you not me.



Oh please. Go back and look. Why did you even bother with this response?



Of course. Now it is. Because the Government report told you so. No other reason.

But debunkers didn't wait. They declared to know why it fell before the report came out. And they were wrong. They make a habit of being wrong.

Well I guess none of these very intelligent people were here at JREF for seven years huh? Maybe someday you can be a "very intelligent" person with a mandate to tell people what to believe. Keep praying.

If you got something for me to learn junior then spit it out. Or do you need a Government report before you open your mouth anymore?

Maybe you did learn something debunker.

heres something you can learn Paul

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2344306&postcount=892

Originally Posted by Gravy

Originally Posted by Pardalis
Chris, why don't you wait for the final report?

That question occurs to rational people, but Chris is not rational. He made up his mind about this stuff before reading any reports, and the reports he's read since haven't changed his uninformed, kooky opinions. He's only interested in reports for the "anomalies" he can fixate on and fetishize. He's a true woo believer.

 

[KreeL]

Would not measurement error be applied equally to both measurements? I fail to see how one could logically argue that 2.3 is MINUS .2 and the 2.1 is PLUS the .2 MofE. That is, unless the difference would be damning evidence against the impossible gravity driven progressive collapse. It was measured with the same equipment at the same distance +/-50M.

If you measured two bowls of sugar with the same measuring cup that was off .25 - would both bowls of sugar be off the same difference?

2.3 vs 2.1 is double the magnitude. To the naked eye it certainly appears that the north tower explodes with more robustness.