Debate (not debase) a Truther

[carlitos]

Ah, my apologies. For the record, I loves me some poutine. I will be enjoying some this July ... up there.

 

[ImANiceGuy]

Tell us on what page NIST uses the phrase "unprecedented phenomena."

I believe it was in the WTC7 Q & A brief, which I cannot find the link to anymore.

I'm certain that Shyam(sp?) described the event as a "phenomena" as well as "the first ever fire induced progressive collapse".

Point being that the rarity of such an event in context of the 9/11 attacks adds fuel to the fires (pun intended).

I'll try to find the exact quote.....combing NCSTAR is a time-consuming process as it will not let me search metadata nor copy and paste text.

 

[BigAl]

I believe it was in the WTC7 Q & A brief, which I cannot find the link to anymore.

I'm certain that Shyam(sp?) described the event as a "phenomena" as well as "the first ever fire induced progressive collapse".

Right guy. Now find out precisely what was unprecedented.

 

[ImANiceGuy]

well that would be the fire induced progressive collapse (first ever = unprecedented)

I'll find the quotes so you aren't forced to take me at my word!

I feel as though you're getting at something though........thoughts?

 

[beachnut]

Beachnut drops "delusion" 3 times in this post.....turns out I can read minds!

Explain my delusion to me Beachnut, please. Quote me early and often if youd like...

How can you tell me that my mind is made up?

You seem to be stuck on a fence in the pit of ignorance known as 911 truth. … you are a proxy for 911 truth, here to ask questions because you are a nice guy. nice...

… you don't have substantial 911 knowledge and can't support 911 truth. Not sure if you share Jones insanity on thermite; guess you don't and can't support it better than the noncommittal posts you have made. Where have you been for months, climbing back on the fence in 911 truth fantasyland?

Why does no one publish a rebuttal to the Jones/Haritt paper in the journal of their own choice?

...

How is reading NIST coming along?

No support for Kevin. I assume with zero evidence and facts (and messing up the facts) to help Kevin you don't support his failed ideas.

...

I understand that Kevin Ryan has made some pretty interesting claims, not all of which are true, probably not most of all are true. ...

Guess it is out of the question to ask what the heck melted metals have to do with 19 terrorists doing 911. You offered zero rational ideas on why you bring up the subject; except to ask questions. Why the tangential junk? (are you trying to support thermite?)

... Flowing molten metals, weeks after the collapses; many, many witnesses. ...

Why does 911 truth bring this up? Are they nuts?

...

There is a difference between the CIA running Al-Queda, and a sasquatch piloting soda machines, when it comes to making a stretch. ...

Yes, and you have the evidence to not prove it. lol

... It is, however, well documented that Al-Qaeda members received training from the CIA during the Mujahadeen guerilla war in Afghanistan, to fight the soviets. Duh.

No real sources yet? Do you still stand by this one, or you are going with Bigfoot flying jets dumping tons of Coca Cola?

Good luck with NIST and being a proxy to the 911 cult question asking club. Why are you a proxy for the moronic claims of 911 truth? You are such a nice guy, supporting terrorist apologists.

 

[T.A.M.]

I did download the .pdf's, and as far as I can tell, there is a security setting which does not allow text to be copied and pasted...

I might be a truther, but I'm not an imbicile. (that should elicit some stupid useless comments)

There are programs out there that can remove the security...of course I do not endorse such

TAM

 

[funk de fino]

well that would be the fire induced progressive collapse (first ever = unprecedented)

I'll find the quotes so you aren't forced to take me at my word!

I feel as though you're getting at something though........thoughts?

I think you are wrong on this. There have been many fire induced progressive collapses.

Unprecedented was the thermal creep at lower temperatures than had been seen previously I believe.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Right guy. Now find out precisely what was unprecedented.

well that would be the fire induced progressive collapse (first ever = unprecedented)

Can I suggest that you consider the complete set of unprecedented events that occurred on 9/11, rather than cherry-picking one in isolation and neglecting the causal connection from earlier unprecedented events whose validity is not in question unless you're Jammonius? For example, it was unprecedented for a 110 storey building to collapse close enough to a 47-storey building to cause widespread structural damage from debris impact. It was unprecedented for a 47-storey building to experience simultaneous initiation of multiple fires at multiple locations on multiple floors (two 110 storey buildings had also experienced simultaneous multiple floor fire initiations, but both of those had also collapsed). It was unprecedented for no effective firefighting effort to be possible due to a rupture of the water main to the area. Given all these pre-conditions, yet another unprecedented occurrance is rather less than striking.

Context is everything. Neglect it at your peril.

Dave

 

[BigAl]

well that would be the fire induced progressive collapse (first ever = unprecedented)

Stop guessing.

I feel as though you're getting at something though........thoughts?

Of course I am.

 

[Architect]

Iamaniceguy,

There's a book you should read called "Why Buildings Fall Down". It doesn't actually cover fire induced collapse, IIRC, but it does give you a feel for just how complex building failure analysis can be.

I can't speak for engineers, but in the UK architects usually study in the first year or two of their courses.

 

[RedIbis]

For example, it was unprecedented for a 110 storey building to collapse close enough to a 47-storey building to cause widespread structural damage from debris impact.

And yet that structural damage is not what caused the bldg to collapse. You already know this, so why are you perpetuating this misconception?

 

[240-185]

I'm sure, not knowing any French, a lot of them were impressed; but any French national would have been LOLing to death.

See a French dinosaur LOLing to death:

p.p.s It can also be n'est pas.

No, nah, nope, never. Mince has carefully explained what is wrong with this. And "n'est pas" is NOT grammatically correct in French, therefore NOBODY says incorrect bullfeces like this. If even somebody spoke really like this, he would be considered as a retarded guy.

Now the best part:

J'suis (1) sur (2) que votre francais (3) vient du France (4) par ce que (5) votre grammaire n'est pas assez mal que la plupart du Quebec (6). Fait que (7)....

(1) Contracted forms are not correct in written French. Writing "J'suis" may give you some cool attitude, but that is all.

(2) We have two words written in almost identical form: "sur" and "sûr". The first word means "above", the second "sure". The point is: accents on letters are important.

(3) Cedillas are important too. If you do not know how to write it, just copy and paste it: "ç"

(4) Incorrect again. In French, the grammatical gender of words matters. "France" is a feminine word. So the right thing is: "de la France".

(5) Spelling error. It is written "parce que".

(6) What the hell? This is complete nonsense! Perhaps you wanted to write "Your grammar is not as bad as in most part of the Québec". "Mal" must be followed by an adjective, not a pronoun. The right sentence should be: "Votre grammaire n'est pas aussi mauvaise que ce qu'on trouve dans la plupart du Québec".

(7) Complete garbage here. I do not see what you wanted to write by putting alone a verb and a pronoun.

So, do not EVER use French again, or I will have to correct it, showing how poor your level is. And I am afraid I have to say that either Ontarians' French is HORRIBLE, either you are LEARNING French. Even kiddies from Québec do not write such a terrible way!

 

[Dave Rogers]

And yet that structural damage is not what caused the bldg to collapse. You already know this, so why are you perpetuating this misconception?

I'd just like to point out exactly how and why RedIbis is lying here, because it may not be clear. Firstly, NIST found that their models predicted that the building would have collapsed from the fire alone, but that the collapse progressed differently when the structural damage was included. Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude (unless you're deliberately lying to further a dishonest agenda) that a combination of structural damage and fire damage caused the collapse. Secondly, the structural damage opened large areas of wall in the building, resulting in better ventilation for the fires; therefore, the structural damage contributed to the spread of the fires, and therefore even if the fires had been the sole cause of collapse, the unprecedented structural damage was still a contributory factor to the unprecedented scale of those fires; when we're looking at why one specific unprecedented event happened, all the prior unprecedented events that are connected by a chain of causality to that event are relevant to consider, and that causal connection is well established. And finally, nothing in my post perpetuated the misconception that the structural damage caused the building to collapse.

And it's ironic, though hardly unexpected given his record of blatant misrepresentation on this forum, that RedIbis should have looked at a post which stressed the importance of context, then quote-mined a small section of it to give a misleading impression of the general tenor of the post.

RedIbis, ImANiceGuy requested a serious debate, not a truther lie-fest. Kindly stop *********** in the pool.

Dave

 

[WildCat]

Question #1

Did NIST accurately input the thermal conductivity of steel in their computer collapse scenario? Did NIST account for the concrete floors resting/attached to the steel-constructed floors? What effect would this have on the collapse simulation?

In what engineering journal was this truther rebuttal posted in?

 

[WildCat]

Gee, almost every PDF I have you simply outline the text, right click and copy it, then paste it in notepad or Word.
If you are doing from a website, you might want to try dowloading it.......

Careful... I once broke a thread here by pasting from a pdf that had a lot of formatting tags. It made the thread impossible to view!

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Does anyoen know how to bypass the security settings for the .pdf's in order to copy and paste portions of text?

Its probably a scan of a document in pdf form not an original pdf. If you have a OCR you can probably pull out the text.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

well that would be the fire induced progressive collapse (first ever = unprecedented)

I'll find the quotes so you aren't forced to take me at my word!

I feel as though you're getting at something though........thoughts?

WTC7 was the third that day, so no it was hardly unprecedented.......now maybe one could call the collapse of WTC1 "unprecedented" because of its scale and initial cause of the fire but steel buildings failing in fires was nothing new.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

No, nah, nope, never. Mince has carefully explained what is wrong with this. And "n'est pas" is NOT grammatically correct in French, therefore NOBODY says incorrect bullfeces like this. If even somebody spoke really like this, he would be considered as a retarded guy.



Actually in my schooldays, long ago, in Scotland it was written as "n'est pas"
and I got a C in my O level

 

[sheeplesnshills]

And yet that structural damage is not what caused the bldg to collapse. You already know this, so why are you perpetuating this misconception?

Details of the damage were not available to NIST so it was not included in the calcs. They showed that fire alone could cause the failure, not that there was no damage.
Are you saying that building damage would have helped it stay up or burn slower?

 

[RedIbis]

I'd just like to point out exactly how and why RedIbis is lying here, because it may not be clear. Firstly, NIST found that their models predicted that the building would have collapsed from the fire alone, but that the collapse progressed differently when the structural damage was included. Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude (unless you're deliberately lying to further a dishonest agenda) that a combination of structural damage and fire damage caused the collapse. Secondly, the structural damage opened large areas of wall in the building, resulting in better ventilation for the fires; therefore, the structural damage contributed to the spread of the fires, and therefore even if the fires had been the sole cause of collapse, the unprecedented structural damage was still a contributory factor to the unprecedented scale of those fires; when we're looking at why one specific unprecedented event happened, all the prior unprecedented events that are connected by a chain of causality to that event are relevant to consider, and that causal connection is well established. And finally, nothing in my post perpetuated the misconception that the structural damage caused the building to collapse.

And it's ironic, though hardly unexpected given his record of blatant misrepresentation on this forum, that RedIbis should have looked at a post which stressed the importance of context, then quote-mined a small section of it to give a misleading impression of the general tenor of the post.

RedIbis, ImANiceGuy requested a serious debate, not a truther lie-fest. Kindly stop *********** in the pool.

Dave

Well there will certainly never be any kind of honest debate if you yell, liar liar pants on fire every time you're called on your exaggerations and misrepresentations.

I have quotes from NIST to back up where they said structural damage had little effect on initiating the collapse. The reason you're being petulant is because you know you have to defend NIST's preposterous fire theory and are trying to shoehorn structural damage into the discussion.

It would be nice to see some kind of civil debate take place here for once, but regardless of what debate transpires you'll be forced to defend a fire theory. I can understand why you're trying to avoid it.