Continuation: 'What about building 7?'

[LSSBB]

@ozeco41 - Is it right to say that faster than free-fall does not disprove controlled demolition? I read your post as basically saying that any analysis of building accelerations during collapse really tells us nothing about how the collapse was initiated - is that right?

That's correct. Refer to my thread "Free fall is not evidence of controlled demolition" for the extended discussion.

 

[jaydeehess]

@ozeco41 - Is it right to say that faster than free-fall does not disprove controlled demolition? I read your post as basically saying that any analysis of building accelerations during collapse really tells us nothing about how the collapse was initiated - is that right?

ETA:The short story, iirc, from the thread LSSB links to:
The truther stance has been that free fall can only be attained if all columns are removed all at once. That implies that the only forces involved are straight line gravitational forces. If faster than free fall is introduced then it acknowledges that additional forces are in play such as brought about by leveraging. If these are in play then peak acceleration tells you nothing at all about what initiated collapse.
IOW if other mechanisms are operating such as to cause faster than free fall there is no reason why they must be present only in a controlled demolition.

 

[ozeco41]

@ozeco41 - Is it right to say that faster than free-fall does not disprove controlled demolition?

Correct. Accelerations are almost certainly neutral to whether or not CD was involved. Forgive the cop out "almost certainly" - I am trying rigorously to avoid the errors of false generalising which often spoil arguments from either "side".

I read your post as basically saying that any analysis of building accelerations during collapse really tells us nothing about how the collapse was initiated - is that right?

Yes. Measuring the accelerations alone tells you nothing about initiation.

However if you extend the analysis to look at the mechanism and parts of mechanism which cause the accelerations you will get into the territory that I am advocating.

The underlying issue of engineering forensic logic is that to prove CD you must prove that CD initiated the mechanism - and the acceleration does not prove the initiation. To prove CD you have to prove the mechanism. Acceleration of itself will never give that proof.

Excuse the quick response. Ask if you want further explanation.

 

[GlennB]

Furgawdssake that material reaches WTC 7 in under 8-10 seconds. (1000 foot drop at free fall) Is 8-10 seconds enough time to suppress combustion and reduce material temperature below the ignition temp of common office materials?

No, it isn't. TS is fixated on flames, and I don't know why. Basically, he is clueless on the subject.

 

[jaydeehess]

No, it isn't. TS is fixated on flames, and I don't know why. Basically, he is clueless on the subject.

Those trick birthday candles must confound him to no end.

 

[DGM]

Yes. Measuring the accelerations alone tells you nothing about initiation.

"Alone" being the operative word here.

 

[ozeco41]

"Alone" being the operative word here.

Yes.

To prove CD you have to eliminate the alternates. To do that means show that the initiation mechanism could not have been "natural" (horrible term) i.e. fire, motor vehicle impact, something falling on etc etc.

And IF you can prove the mechanism then the acceleration resulting from it is irrelevant. (To be pedantic it could be a point of argument to support proof of the mechanism - but let's not complicate with logical pedantry) (Yet) (before we need to. )

My "cop out" of "almost certainly" in previous posts was to ease my way around two obvious "yes buts":

1) "What if CD was the only thing that could cut those initiating members?" - well prove that is true and you don't need acceleration. Circles back to my main point - you have to prove the mechanism was CDed.

2) the possibility of "staged" devices firing during the collapse...a complication I could deal with but no point complicating the simple explanation until someone raises that specific "yes but".

 

[pgimeno]

@ozeco41 - Is it right to say that faster than free-fall does not disprove controlled demolition? I read your post as basically saying that any analysis of building accelerations during collapse really tells us nothing about how the collapse was initiated - is that right?

It doesn't prove or disprove it. It disproves "free-fall means that the supporting columns were removed", which is the usual reasoning of truthers who prop it. No free-fall means the premise fails.

 

[chrismohr]

Reverend Chris Mohr is not merely reporting studies as a journalist, he is pretending to debunk scientific reports by truthers and NIST! A couple of days ago he was parading on this forum saying he has debunked NIST´s account of the fires in WTC7. And as we know Chris tried to debunk NIST´s free fall admition in one of the silliest YouTube videos ever made, because he could not understand a 2-d graph!

NIST and truthers happen to agree on these two points, but oh now here comes Reverend Mohr and thinks he knows better. And if any person confronts the good Rev. about being a little bit arrogant and confused about his abilities, he gets all offended and stops talking to that person.

Ziggi you want me to talk to you I'll talk to you.... on second thought, I won't talk to you. I wrote up a whole letter but now I think better of it and am erasing it. Bye.

 

[chrismohr]

@ozeco41 - Is it right to say that faster than free-fall does not disprove controlled demolition? I read your post as basically saying that any analysis of building accelerations during collapse really tells us nothing about how the collapse was initiated - is that right?

Georgio, yes this is true. However, Richard Gage has said there are only two forces at play in a collapse: gravity and resistance. To him, freefall means all supports must be knocked out simultaneously and he claims zero resistance and this is evidence of freefall. >g collapse means that we have to allow for a third force to enter the equation, such as torquing or leveraging. And then we COULD have gravity PLUS leveraging MINUS resistance PLUS torquing. Not such a simple formula any more. It's a response to a Richard Gage claim and why I consider it an important rebuttal to the evidence he offers for CD.

 

[Oystein]

Those trick birthday candles must confound him to no end.

They confound me, I admit.
But when the candles are back on, I realize I am confounded and do not claim with perfect assuredness that "everybody agrees" blown-out candles cannot possibly continue burning and instead someone stealthily lit them with a lighter, nor do I start fabulating about thermite.

 

[Ziggi]

Your focus on attacking the person is strong indication that you cannot or dare not address the issues of fact.

Why not "put up or shut up" and address one issue of fact..

Pointing out that a person like Chris who cannot understand a 2-d graph does not have the skills to engage in such a technical debate is not attacking Chris personally, and none of you lot in particular can make that claim, because you as a matter of std MO demand that any truther prove his credentials in the relevant field and publish his claims before considering any points from said truther. So stop the hypocritical non-sense, its pathetic.

And about your flatulent claims about "facts": There is no substance behind those claims; only empty statements from a person who thinks that his declaration of something being a fact makes it a fact. I have already answered you and that still stands:

...and to showoff your grandiose view of yourself.

 

[Ziggi]

Ziggi you want me to talk to you I'll talk to you.... on second thought, I won't talk to you. I wrote up a whole letter but now I think better of it and am erasing it. Bye.

Yes Chris, you making this declaration was just a matter of formality, because I knew this would happen, as this ALWAYS happens as a matter of rule, and the very post you responded to had this prediction for that very reason:

And if any person confronts the good Rev. about being a little bit arrogant and confused about his abilities, he gets all offended and stops talking to that person.

This is how you act every single time you are confronted with realities that you do not like and could not respond to honestly without changing your mind/challenging your faith.

This is a product of denial.

And oh Chris, do you want to repeat that "free speech hawk" declaration here, since its so convincing coming from you. Maybe add a bit about hypocrisy

 

[JayUtah]

...because you as a matter of std MO demand that any truther prove his credentials in the relevant field...

Since the claims in question involve knowledge of specialized scientific and professional fields, it is entirely reasonable to expect a foundation of relevant knowledge.

The premise of AE911T is precisely that expertise should afford greater credibility. In order to be one of the hallowed few that Richard Gage cites as applicably qualified supporters, a signatory must meet a reasonable standard of licensing or certification. So kindly do not pooh-pooh the idea of necessary expertise. Your organization also believes and attempts to enforce it.

...and publish his claims before considering any points from said truther.

We note simply that the typical procedure for making or contesting claims in a scientific or technically professional field is the publication of it, along with suitable supporting data, in a peer-reviewed journal. This procedure is valuable in that it enforces gatekeeper criteria for weeding out insubstantial claims and a review mechanism to test the putative a priori strength of the claims. Truthers by and large eschew these methods, and I believe it is because they know they cannot meet either the gatekeeper criteria or the review criteria.

Some Truthers recognize the importance of this method, as evidenced by their practice of growing parallel organizations and protocols that mimic the rigor of professional and academic publication, but do not ensure or provide it. Again, do not pooh-pooh the notion of rigorous testing of ideas, because you're trying to convey the illusion of it.

So stop the hypocritical non-sense, its pathetic.

You cite specific individuals favorable to your belief and expect us to accept them as authorities, even if we have reasons not to, and even when we point out that they are singular exceptions to a general rule of expressed information and belief. Conversely, you focus on a single critic whom you wrongly characterize as the leader and exemplar of those who disbelieve you. You're here in this "disgraced forum" to obtain the attention you cannot in the real world. Why are you so selective now about what attention you get?

 

[DGM]

Pointing out that a person like Chris who cannot understand a 2-d graph does not have the skills to engage in such a technical debate is not attacking Chris personally, and none of you lot in particular can make that claim, because you as a matter of std MO demand that any truther prove his credentials in the relevant field and publish his claims before considering any points from said truther. So stop the hypocritical non-sense, its pathetic.

You never get tired of being wrong? We consider the points, they're just wrong.

Got something that not wrong?

 

[Ziggi]

It doesn't prove or disprove it. It disproves "free-fall means that the supporting columns were removed", which is the usual reasoning of truthers who prop it. No free-fall means the premise fails.

JHC, what a revelation, about you that is. You people actually thought you could disprove no resisting structure by claiming faster than free fall

 

[JayUtah]

This is how you act every single time you are confronted with realities that you do not like and could not respond to honestly without changing your mind/challenging your faith.

No, you won't convince anyone by suggesting that your critics are ideologically entrenched, inveterate liars, or otherwise irretrievably biased. People are telling you exactly why, in factual and logical terms, they don't find your claims convincing. Your inability to address that is why I believe the vast majority of people write you off. And they do. That's why I think you have to slum it in "disgraced forums." No one else will listen anymore.

This is a product of denial.

So 99.5 percent of the relevant qualified professionals are in denial according to you?

 

[JayUtah]

JHC, what a revelation, about you that is. You people actually thought you could disprove no resisting structure by claiming faster than free fall

Your model allows only for gravity and thus only for accelerations up to but not exceeding g₀. If we observe data that your model can't explain, it means that your model is too simple. There are significant elements present in the real world that aren't predicted by your model. If your model doesn't accurately predict the real world then how can it be the basis for saying that some other model is wrong?

 

[Ziggi]

Since the claims in question involve knowledge of specialized scientific and professional fields, it is entirely reasonable to expect a foundation of relevant knowledge.

Cut the crap Jay. Either 1) you endorse the view that laymen like Chris and anonymous forum posters can prove NIST and other scientific reports wrong with their forum posts and YouTube videos, or 2) you do not as you have insisted up to this point.

Either option puts you in a tight spot since 1) would ruin all of your old replies to gerrycan and other truthers on this forum, and 2) would mean telling Chris his 238 points and YouTube videos are crap.

 

[ozeco41]

Pointing out that a person like Chris who cannot understand a 2-d graph does not have the skills to engage in such a technical debate is not attacking Chris personally, and none of you lot in particular can make that claim, because you as a matter of std MO demand that any truther prove his credentials in the relevant field and publish his claims before considering any points from said truther. So stop the hypocritical non-sense, its pathetic.

Continuing evasion noted.

And about your flatulent claims about "facts": There is no substance behind those claims;

again your evasion noted. You dare not even quote the ONE claim of fact that I challenged you with.

Why not "put up or shut up" and address one issue of fact. Try this one:

The occurrence of free fall acceleration during a building collapse is NOT proof of CD.

Time to stop evading, emoting and insulting Ziggi. Is that statement:
A) A statement of FACT?
B) Is the asserted FACT true or false Ziggi.

And - if you want to assert that it is false:
C) PROVE your assertion of "false".

Meanwhile you may as well stop the deliberate untruths when addressing me. I will not fall for - I won't even be influenced by - evasions, insults OR lies. Like this one:

I have already answered you and that still stands:

You haven't addressed my assertions;
That linked post doesn't address my claims NOR
Does it still stand as anything other than your mendacious evasions.