[Ed]Hardfire with Mark Roberts and Arthur Scheuerman

[RedIbis]

Now, RedIbis, we have made peace and I don't want to initiate hostilities, but please do not cite Swing Dangler's nonsense. To people in the demolition industry, "pull" has nothing to with explosives--nothing.

I'm glad you've accepted my olive branch and maybe one day we'll get to sit down have that drink, but I do think Swing's list is appropriate for this discussion. I know you saw it. If you'd like me to repost it I will, but pull is used in the context of using explosives to pull columns inwards and pull bldgs down.

As far as baseball is concerned, I'm in a difficult position since I have to contend with the current World Champions and the fact that the Mets have one hell of a good young team.

 

[GStan]

I'm glad you've accepted my olive branch and maybe one day we'll get to sit down have that drink, but I do think Swing's list is appropriate for this discussion. I know you saw it. If you'd like me to repost it I will, but pull is used in the context of using explosives to pull columns inwards and pull bldgs down.

Red, I've seen you state in a number of threads that you think LS is a liar. Why do you use his statement in support of your theory if you do not trust what he says? All Swing showed was that people who work in demolitions have used the English word 'pull' at work, not that it is industry slang for blowing up a building with explosives. And neither LS nor the fire commander he was referring to are demolition professionals, so why would they use 'pull' in this way anyway? Is there some other way in which firefighting professionals use the term 'pull' in conjunction with their profession?

Question 9/11. Be skeptical of and question authority. These are intellectually healthy things to do. Stop embarrassing yourself with illogical justifications of either your unwillingness or inability to grasp the reality of the answers to your questions. You're smarter than this.

 

[RedIbis]

Red, I've seen you state in a number of threads that you think LS is a liar. Why do you use his statement in support of your theory if you do not trust what he says? All Swing showed was that people who work in demolitions have used the English word 'pull' at work, not that it is industry slang for blowing up a building with explosives. And neither LS nor the fire commander he was referring to are demolition professionals, so why would they use 'pull' in this way anyway? Is there some other way in which firefighting professionals use the term 'pull' in conjunction with their profession?

Question 9/11. Be skeptical of and question authority. These are intellectually healthy things to do. Stop embarrassing yourself with illogical justifications of either your unwillingness or inability to grasp the reality of the answers to your questions. You're smarter than this.

I have no problem reposting the list if you doubt that the word is used in conjunction with implosion.

 

[DGM]

I have no problem reposting the list if you doubt that the word is used in conjunction with implosion.

Don't bother. Silverstein's use of the word is what doesn't fit. The whole argument doesn't make any sense. Why is it that the people with the most to lose have no problem with him? How did he gain?

Red; really how does he fit this evil plan?

 

[GStan]

I have no problem reposting the list if you doubt that the word is used in conjunction with implosion.

I don't see any point in it. It will still only show that people who work in demolitions have used the word pull; it does not show that it is used in the manner in which your theory requires.

 

[RedIbis]

I consider some of your questions and obsevations to be nitpicks, but on the whole, a well-presented post. Let me address some of the salient points:

Appreciated.

Some of the civil engineers here can add detail to this, but it's basically true. It's also explored in NCSTAR1-1 in discussion of WTC 1 and WTC 2. The Port Authority was a unique political entity, and as a result was not strictly beholden to New York City and New York State building code. The Port Authority instead derived its own building code, which was mostly cut-and-paste from existing building standards, but this process invariably creates loopholes. Again, please see NCSTAR1-1 for a more thorough discussion.

Your description is more logical and plausible than the codes were described on the show.

This is the best we can tell from the periodic updates. NIST has argued that the diesel fuel would probably have exhausted well before the collapse, and so the actual critical mechanism was something different. The diesel fuel could still be a contributor.

Sunder described them as normal office fires.

Likewise, the debris impacts may have contributed in terms of opening the building envelope and ventilating the fire. It's also true that the fires may not have started without the impacts in the first place. But it appears that the collapse mechanism was separate from the impacts.

The impacts of debris? Then you're left with core column failure due to normal office bldg fires.

This is somewhat intuitive. The fact that the structure stood so long, and collapsed all at once, suggests the structure remained totally connected, if weakened by the impacts. The alternative is for the impacts to destroy connections making a partial collapse a possibility, but also perhaps making the structure unstable sooner. This is speculation so I'll leave it at this.

Fair enough.

We'll wait for NIST. It's not easy to tell. The 12th and 8th floor were of similar construction and similarly exposed to fire, so the failure mode could be the same regardless of the precise floor. If we can identify this mode and prevent it in the future, it doesn't really matter.

Bolding to emphasize that it matters entirely how and where the collapse was initiated. It appears collapse hypotheses are being reduced to a very improbable single column, comprehensive central failure, that appears similar if not characteristic of a controlled demo.

Well, this is just wrong. Listen to the fireman saying otherwise.

My observation might not have come across clear. I was quoting Ron who was proposing the position of some conspiracy theorist.

Apart from this simple error, a useful post, and I thank you for raising the SNR coming from the opposition. It would be quite useful if the other doubters followed your example.

I appreciate that. I'm not responsible for any other researcher here, regardless of position. And I wouldn't hold incivility and inaccuracy coming from some leading voices here against your thorough and persuasive research.

I look forward to more productive discussions when NIST does release their final report on 7.

 

[RedIbis]

I don't see any point in it. It will still only show that people who work in demolitions have used the word pull; it does not show that it is used in the manner in which your theory requires.

Care to wager on that? It appears you are not familiar with the previously discussed list.

 

[GStan]

Bolding to emphasize that it matters entirely to conspiracy theorists how and where the collapse was initiated. It appears to conspiracy theorists that collapse hypotheses are being reduced to a very improbable single column, comprehensive central failure, that appears, to conspiracy theorists, similar if not characteristic of a controlled demo.

My additions.

By the way, in the spirit of continuing to foster a civil debate environment, your original post in this thread was, at least, well thought out and clearly presented. There are many points I disagree with you on, but you are miles ahead of LastChild and JHarrow in stimulating meaningful discussion.

 

[GStan]

Care to wager on that? It appears you are not familiar with the previously discussed list.

I've read Swing's list. I'm not impressed with his examples. They just don't prove what you need them to prove to fit into your theory. They don't disprove it, but they are miles away from giving any meaningful support to the theory.

 

[DGM]

Bolding to emphasize that it matters entirely how and where the collapse was initiated. It appears collapse hypotheses are being reduced to a very improbable single column, comprehensive central failure, that appears similar if not characteristic of a controlled demo.

Not improbable but designed in flaw. As building materials become more reliable and predictable the chances of design with "single point" failure modes increase. Costs and needs for open plan buildings put more load on certain key areas of buildings. They touched on the open plan aiding in the spread of fires.

i think you will find that the final NIST report will be more with dealing with what developers want and what is actually safe to build. I believe this is what's causing most of the delay in the report. This would not be a particularly popular thing with the people that hold the purse strings of the building industry, The developers.

 

[RedIbis]

Not improbable but designed in flaw. As building materials become more reliable and predictable the chances of design with "single point" failure modes increase. Costs and needs for open plan buildings put more load on certain key areas of buildings. They touched on the open plan aiding in the spread of fires.

i think you will find that the final NIST report will be more with dealing with what developers want and what is actually safe to build. I believe this is what's causing most of the delay in the report. This would not be a particularly popular thing with the people that hold the purse strings of the building industry, The developers.

I agree completely. Probably the most informative and impressive part of the show was the brief exchange between Mark and Scheuerman discussing this.

I also agree with what you predict for the final NIST report, but I suspect for different reasons. Justified concern and analysis of bldg codes is going to be a way for NIST to disengage from the CD debate. Dare I say, this is a trend?

 

[RedIbis]

My additions.

By the way, in the spirit of continuing to foster a civil debate environment, your original post in this thread was, at least, well thought out and clearly presented. There are many points I disagree with you on, but you are miles ahead of LastChild and JHarrow in stimulating meaningful discussion.

Obviously, I appreciate that as well. Like I said earlier, I don't hold the calmer, more persuasive posters on your side of the debate responsible for the irrational nature of some others.

 

[GStan]

I agree completely. Probably the most informative and impressive part of the show was the brief exchange between Mark and Scheuerman discussing this.

I also agree with what you predict for the final NIST report, but I suspect for different reasons. Justified concern and analysis of bldg codes is going to be a way for NIST to disengage from the CD debate. Dare I say, this is a trend?

Just out of curiosity, do you believe that if NIST investigators did find some physical evidence that suggested CD, that they would willfully (and quite criminally) ignore or bury such evidence to disengage from the debate?

 

[DGM]

I agree completely. Probably the most informative and impressive part of the show was the brief exchange between Mark and Scheuerman discussing this.

I also agree with what you predict for the final NIST report, but I suspect for different reasons. Justified concern and analysis of bldg codes is going to be a way for NIST to disengage from the CD debate. Dare I say, this is a trend?

Not that I think that there is any chance that WTC 7 was a CD I do believe it showed a vulnerability in modern construction/design. Wide open floor spaces lead to high point loading which makes destabilizing a building easier for someone that may wish to do so. This makes buildings less safe in regards to terrorist activity.

 

[RedIbis]

Just out of curiosity, do you believe that if NIST investigators did find some physical evidence that suggested CD, that they would willfully (and quite criminally) ignore or bury such evidence to disengage from the debate?

Reading how thoroughly the 9/11 Commission was undermined, I'd say absolutely. And I say that with sincere regret.

ETA: I answered this valid question for the sake of curiosity and discussion. I do not have evidence that any NIST investigator has done this only that it is possible.

 

[DGM]

Reading how thoroughly the 9/11 Commission was undermined, I'd say absolutely. And I say that with sincere regret.

ETA: I answered this valid question for the sake of curiosity and discussion. I do not have evidence that any NIST investigator has done this only that it is possible.

As the number of people involved in the conspiracy gets even larger.

 

[Belz...]

Was he the head of the FDNY that morning? No.

Therefore he was under orders from somebody in charge. That alone tells you he was told by somebody else.

How does that follow ?

 

[R.Mackey]

I'm not sure whether this is a variant on the Jowenko fallacy, or a different one; I suspect the latter. The form is quite distinct:

• An uninformed poster states that a particular event could not have happened.
• Expert testimony is produced that the event could, in fact, have happened.
• The uninformed poster argues that the expert was unable to make a definite statement that the event could have happened.

The only conclusion to be drawn from this is that an uninformed individual does not agree with the informed one. However, the conspiracist somehow infers the conclusion that the original hypothesis, that the event could not have happened, is either proven, or at least in some way supported.

It's partly an argument from incredulity, but that's only the first stage, and the second and third stages are a common characteristic. Anyone want to suggest a name for this one?

Dave

Given your "Unevaluated Inequality Fallacy," it's clear I cannot compete, so I may as well help you...

I would call this one a "Qualitative -- Quantitative Fallacy." The false argument goes that, given experts who agree on the qualitative outcome of an event, but differ on the quantitative aspects, doubt in the latter implies doubt in the former. In fact, it does not.

In this example, fire experts agree that fire could topple WTC 7. They disagree or cannot converge quantitatively, i.e. how likely WTC 7 was to topple, when, or how remains imprecise. The Truth Movement then argues that, since they can't answer this detail, they must be wrong in general, even though the two have nothing to do with each other.

We also see this with respect to NIST and the WTC Towers collapses. NIST cannot provide a simulation of the collapses themselves. Nobody can. NIST therefore cannot quantify the collapse. However, NIST can prove that, qualitatively, the expected behavior is that of a total collapse. All NIST has to do is point to Bazant & Zhou for that. Yet the Truth Movement argues that the two positions are inconsistent, when they are not.

In some ways this is a False Dilemma, in others it is False Precision, and it resembles Equivocation. But it turns up so frequently, and not just in the Truth Movement -- the Evolution deniers do the same thing.

 

[Totovader]

How does that follow ?

In the world of silly conspiracy theories, only people who are the head of something get to understand, measure, predict, or make decisions based on any information. Everyone else falls under people who are the head of something, and they blindly do what they're told without question.

It is only through accepting the power of conspiracism that the pitiful state of humanity can be vanquished by... listening to what the heads of the conspiracism movement tell others to think...

 

[aggle-rithm]

Do ever wonder if just possibly you might be missing something?

LastChild is one of the best posters I have ever seen on any CT forum.

I think that answers your question. He's DEFINITELY missing something.