AE911Truth Watch

[Christopher7]

There sure is! Your "experts" had to create their own "journal" to publish their "scientific papers" in. What does that tell you Chris?

If it is published in a proper 'journal' it is acceptable, and if not, it's bunk.

What 'journal' or 'journals' would you consider acceptable?

 

[Christopher7]

"Thorin" Wolf?

We got dwarves petitioning for a new investigation now..?

Soon the elves will join us and then you will be so screwed.

 

[funk de fino]

Quite the contrary, thank you and LashL for the URL's
Thomas Chapin PhD General Manager, Fire and Construction SBU - UL Inc. to Kevin Ryan – 12-1-03
UL does not certify structural steel. Structural steel meeting the appropriate ASTM designations are* used as * component in assemblies tested by UL. The assemblies consist of a structural component protected with some type of fire resistant material.
i.e. an ‘assembly’ is a [singular] structural component protected with some type of fire resistant material.

Ryan used the word ‘components’ rather than the word ‘assemblies’ in his first sentence.
You ignored the qualifying statement later in the paragraph and called him a liar.

*incorrect word/phrase, should be: “Structural steel ……. is used as a component in assemblies”


For those of you with reading impairments;

“the samples we certified” modifies and clarifies the statement;

“the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings.”

***************************************************

Kevin Ryan to Dr. Gayle, 11-11-04
Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements.

Loring Knoblauch, CEO of UL, to Ryan 11-15-04
“We tested the steel with all the required fireproofing on and it did fine.”


It’s perfectly clear that Ryan and Knoblauch were referring to the steel samples/assemblies that UL tested.

quick revert to type and miss out stuff you cannot answer and pick out semantics again

well done C7, at least you are consistent

this is worse than the 10 storey thread

 

[Christopher7]

Anyway, back to the actual OP of this thread for an announcement:

Richard Gage has changed the slideshow available at his website AGAIN.

This is the third version, if you're keeping count. Several mistakes he had corrected in the second version, he has jumped back on board with in the third (most notably the "small fires in WTC 7").[1] I'm trying to make my way through the slideshow quickly, but the videos are being stored in a remarkably buggy way. Any video slide forces you to watch the entire video before proceeding.

So due to life and the various shenanigans at AE911Truth, a complete slide-by-slide debunking may prove to be impossible. I will move forward as I can. The slides I've done so far will still apply to the new slideshow. But when I get this thing finished is anybody's guess. I imagine we'll get three more slideshows before the end of the year at this rate.

Thank you for getting back to the subject of this thread.
I started thru the slide show [it's really long] and found several things that i think should be changed. But unlike you, i'm not getting my shorts in a knot about it.

For starters, .... well let's start at the beginning and proceed until we get to the end.
I did not find any problems in the first 28 pages, did you?

On pg 29 they say there were fires on eight floors.
In the AIE[Area of the Initiating Event] there were fires on five floors. [7,8,11,12 and 13]

At the south west corner there were fires on nine floors [6,7,8,10[or11]19,21,22,29 and 30]

In all, there were fires on Eleven, count them

Eleven floors!

How could he be so wrong!
What was he thinking?

It's been a long day.
Have you ever replaced the water bag inside a 65 gallon pressure tank for a well? [and then have nearly every barb/clamp fitting leak?]

Mañana

 

[Christopher7]

quick revert to type and miss out stuff you cannot answer and pick out semantics again

Originally Posted by Minadin
He's an ignorant, lying, liar. And what makes him a liar is that he knows that he's lying when he makes these ridiculous statements to Dr. Gayle.

It was Minadin the Merciless who used semantics to call Mr. Ryan a LIAR!

Very bad form.

I felt it necessary to clear up his misread and set the record straight before moving on to:

Kevin to Dr. Gayle 11-11-04
“They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year.
But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.

UL to Kevin 11-15-04
“ Sunder cautioned that NIST’s results were preliminary,but said

if those findings continue in further testing, that would rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse.”


I will address the other points later.

 

[Confuseling]

Please will you explain the answer Christopher?

You claim that there are only a few brave experts in America willing to speak out.

Most are too ideologically blinkered, or scared for their jobs or families. Or perhaps the journals just won't touch the truth with a barge pole.

Why does this apply to Iran, Syria, North Korea, China, Cuba, Venezuela?

Do you really believe the USA could convincingly threaten China into silence if they could prove this?

Do you really think it wouldn't be in China's interests to sing it from the rooftops, if it were true?

 

[WildCat]

If it is published in a proper 'journal' it is acceptable, and if not, it's bunk.

I don't know about you, but when people create their own journal specifically because they know thier "scientific" papers don't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting published in a real journal my BS meter pegs. How about you?

What 'journal' or 'journals' would you consider acceptable?

One that includes peer review by scientists who are recognized experts in the relevant fields. Hint: these rarely include theologians, physics professors, and ecomomists as their "experts" in, say, an engineering paper.

 

[WildCat]

Kevin to Dr. Gayle 11-11-04
“They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year.
But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.

You think jet fuel was the only thing burning in the towers? You wouldn't mind then if I splashed a quart of kerosene in your living room and threw a match on it? After all, surely a quart of kerosene doesn't have enough energy to destroy a house...

UL to Kevin 11-15-04
“ Sunder cautioned that NIST’s results were preliminary,but said

if those findings continue in further testing, that would rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse.”

I don't think you understand what that sentence means.

 

[boloboffin]

Does anyone else have trouble bringing up the AE911Truth PowerPoint today?

I go to the front page: http://www.ae911truth.org , click on the PowerPoint link, and get nothing. Perhaps they noticed what a craptacular experience it is now to follow that thing. Video slides force you to watch the entire clip before advancing. If you click the HiDef button, you can be arbitrarily thrown back to the first slide. There is no way to advance to different sections because you can't link to specific slides. It's a hopeless mess.

Yes, Christopher7, I found lots of problems in the first 28 slides. As I recall from yesterday, they are essentially unchanged from 2.0, and mostly unchanged from 1.0. Therefore, most mistakes already found still apply.

Check out my site, http://ae911truth.info , for more information.

 

[Minadin]

Originally Posted by Minadin
He's an ignorant, lying, liar. And what makes him a liar is that he knows that he's lying when he makes these ridiculous statements to Dr. Gayle.

It was Minadin the Merciless who used semantics to call Mr. Ryan a LIAR!

Very bad form.

I think it's quite clear that Mr. Chapin is talking about steel testing that UL did at the request of the NIST for the purposes of their investigation, which was quite obviously post-collapse. Mr. Ryan's suggestion that the UL certified steel that went into the towers has nothing to do with that whatsoever, and is in fact in direct contradiction with the statement he received from the head of the building safety and fire testing department.

It's not semantics. As I've said before, I don't think you're being completely honest with yourself when you perform these complicated mental gymnastics to resolve the two statements in an attempt to make Mr. Ryan's statement look like it might be correct at all.

In addition to being completely inappropriate, professionally, Kevin Ryan's letter to Dr. Gayle is wrong, factually. Based on the e-mail he had received, he should have known better. However, in order to not appear completely "merciless", I'll allow that there are a couple of additional options, mostly based on the fact that Kevin Ryan himself submitted the letter from Chapin into the court record:

1. Kevin Ryan is a liar.
2. Kevin Ryan is an idiot.
3. Kevin Ryan is both a liar and an idiot.

 

[AZCat]

I read somewhere that he had 2 PhD's. If he only has 1, it does not lessen his experience, expertise or credibility.
No one here is qualified to refute Prof. Jones or his findings.
but
Personal incredulity won't let you accept what any 'twoofer' expert says.
i.e. No matter how qualified or how many experts question the official story, I will NOT believe that Bush & Cheney are lying about 9/11 and the War on Terror.

Nice strawman. I assume you are familiar with this term? If not, go do some "research" (on second thought, don't. You'll just get all confused like you did with Jones' "2 PhD's(sic)").

So
Steven Benzley and Rick Balling both say:

“Professor Jones’s department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones.”

It appears that the someone [the administration?] did not approve of the post because they took it down.
How many of the structural engineering faculty and administrators besides Steve and Rick signed on to this post?

Um, maybe they removed it because it is no longer relevant? Jones hasn't worked for BYU in over a year, and you expect the College to leave their objection up on their homepage?

 

[AZCat]

1. Kevin Ryan is a liar.
2. Kevin Ryan is an idiot.
3. Kevin Ryan is both a liar and an idiot.

Hmmm. I think I'm going to have to go with #3.

 

[Blender Head]

It's a hopeless mess.

Their Powerpoint slide in particular, or their organization in general?

 

[AZCat]

Does anyone else have trouble bringing up the AE911Truth PowerPoint today?

I go to the front page: http://www.ae911truth.org , click on the PowerPoint link, and get nothing.

It worked for me.

 

[R.Mackey]

I read somewhere that he had 2 PhD's. If he only has 1, it does not lessen his experience, expertise or credibility.
No one here is qualified to refute Prof. Jones or his findings.
but
Personal incredulity won't let you accept what any 'twoofer' expert says.
i.e. No matter how qualified or how many experts question the official story, I will NOT believe that Bush & Cheney are lying about 9/11 and the War on Terror.

Total garbage. I for one am qualified to refute Dr. Jones -- I've peer-reveiwed several papers for real journals, and been on both ends of peer-review in many other settings. Dr. Jones refuses to participate, or even to appear at conferences.

His productions are mere whitepapers. Not all whitepapers are wrong, but his are.

We've found technical problems with his whitepapers. Nobody here is arguing from incredulity. This isn't a question of us not believing him because we don't want to, it's us not believing him because he's demonstrably and objectively wrong.

Pick a paper of his, any paper, and I'll destroy it for you. Odds are very high it's been done here already.

So
Steven Benzley and Rick Balling both say:

“Professor Jones’s department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones.”

It appears that the someone [the administration?] did not approve of the post because they took it down.
How many of the structural engineering faculty and administrators besides Steve and Rick signed on to this post?

So you're suggesting "the administration" actually supports Dr. Jones? That's quite a stretch.

Bottom line, you're arguing Dr. Jones's case from authority alone. The fact that the BYU structural engineering department rejected his ideas in toto is an argument to authority of equal or greater strength. Unless you want to tell me that they are "not qualified" or have a "credibility gap," then you have to accept their argument as equally persuasive as your own. If you do tell me that, you're a liar.

Soon the elves will join us and then you will be so screwed.

I'll keep an eye out for Gil-Galad and Círdan if you like, but you should be aware that they will never come, and the Truth Movement will never amount to anything.

 

[Christopher7]

You think jet fuel was the only thing burning in the towers?

No

UL to Kevin 11-15-04
“ Sunder cautioned that NIST’s results were preliminary,but said

if those findings continue in further testing, that would rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse.”

I don't think you understand what that sentence means.

The results of tests done by NIST rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse so they called them 'preliminary'.

Framing members from the area of the airplane impact show maximum temperatures of 250° C.

 

[AZCat]

Framing members from the area of the airplane impact show maximum temperatures of 250° C.

What do you mean by "framing members"? Because if you're referring to exterior panels, you're wrong; and if you're referring to core columns, you're wrong. Reference the NIST report (I assume you know where to find that).

 

[boloboffin]

It worked for me.

Ah. I surf with Firefox. Firefox hated it and won't display it anymore.

IE is doing OK, but at one point, it took a long time to load a slide, and I was able to jot down the actual address of the slide JPGs.

Result: I've downloaded all the small ones to my computer. The count is 348 slides now, which is an addition of 110 from version 2.0 (238 slides), and 70 from version 1.0 (278 slides).

So if you thought the was interminable before...

Oddly enough, I didn't see any notable addition of material to warrant that many new slides.

At this rate, I may finish this debunking about the time I pay off my student loans.

 

[Christopher7]

What do you mean by "framing members"? Because if you're referring to exterior panels, you're wrong; and if you're referring to core columns, you're wrong. Reference the NIST report (I assume you know where to find that).

I mean the framing members that Mr. Sunder was referring to, probably the trusses.
The point that you are avoiding is:

The tests Mr Sunder was referring to,
rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse.

If you want to know specifically what framing members were tested, look it up yourself. It will not change the results.

 

[applecorped]

You're right. it won't change the results.