I found the missing Jolt.

[ozeco41]

..."truther logic" 101..........

The logistic consequences of "truther logic" - à la FF - every diaper taken off a baby has to be chemically tested. Whether soiled, wetted or still pristine dry. Because by FF's version of truther logic you cannot determine whether soiled or wet by either sight or touch.

That - in "proper logic" - is a direct consequence of FF's redefining "testing" to mean ONLY "Confirmatory Chemical Testing" ["CCT"]. (He limits the set or scope of "testing" to only one subset - CCT.)

The other consequence of proper logic applied to the two sets of "truther logic" - FF's and T Sz's - is that by posting the diaper nonsense T Sz has effectively rebutted FF's silly claims for "testing" when he really is referring to CCT.

So Tony is arguing against FF. Should we retire and leave them to see who backs off first?

And that should be enough of me having fun with truther logic....

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

There had to be a smell, it's the only way this one person could be correct. Since "they" did not save the diaper you can only conclude "they" are covering up for the baby and the one person that detected the odor must be correct........Everyone else in the room was a paid shill..........

"truther logic" 101..........

If the truthers checked the diaper, and found that it was not soiled they would dissect the baby to find out if it was full of invisible feces. That is how truther logic works.

 

[DGM]

Should we retire and leave them to see who backs off first?

This falls into the subset "truther logic 101a". In this class they are taught to never argue within their own ranks and claim this is yet another reason to want another investigation. FF being the subordinate to TSz would never break rank. What Tony says is rule.

 

[tfk]

Painfully easy. They did test for them.
With their eyes. Didn't find any.

And with their ears.
And, most importantly, with their brains.

Truthers, like FF, consistently come up short on that last one.

 

[tfk]

... everybody knows it is time for a new investigation, regardless of the weird and disingenuous protestations of a few who for some reason don't mind smelling it.

You know, Tony, you've morphed, in the year or so that I've been away from this.

Before, you actually used to try to make arguments.

Now, just like FalseFlag, you abandoned that & merely make baseless assertions.
And, just like FF, you bring no evidence to back up this constant barrage of silly assertions.

I sure hope that you're not going to try to get away with nonsense like "... everybody knows ..." in our debate.

Are structural engineers part of your "everybody"?

If so, where are their publications?

If so, if they all secretly agree with you, then there should be not one bit of hesitation for you & Gage to take your silliness to a panel of independent, experienced structural engineers. If you are right, they'll leap at the opportunity to say, "You know, they're right about this."

So, Tony, when should I expect you guys to appear before the SEAoNY?

 

[Axxman300]

NO engineer, who ever commits fraud one single time in his career, will ever be considered “expert” ever again. No competent engineers would ever commit the fraud that you are suggesting, even ignoring the ethical aspects that so elude you.

You should take some time to reflect on that.

This ^

 

[Myriad]

The NIST WTC reports tend to fit the baby's diaper smells scenario and everybody knows it is time for a new investigation, regardless of <snip>

There have been plenty of new investigations. Just like changing diapers on a baby.

The problem is that diapers always smell again after a while. Why is that? Is it some defect in the diapers?

Of course not. It's because the baby (the truth movement, in case you're not following the analogy) just keeps ******** in them.

This baby's well into its teens now. What it's time for is for potty training to finally kick in.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

There have been plenty of new investigations. Just like changing diapers on a baby.

The problem is that diapers always smell again after a while. Why is that? Is it some defect in the diapers?

Of course not. It's because the baby (the truth movement, in case you're not following the analogy) just keeps ******** in them.

This baby's well into its teens now. What it's time for is for potty training to finally kick in.

The diaper I was referring to quite clearly is the NIST WTC report and it certainly smells and needs changing. If you deny it, as many on this forum do for some strange reason, then you are trying to force everybody else to just put up with the stench instead of doing the right thing and changing it. It is hard to understand why you would do that.

 

[skyeagle409]

The diaper I was referring to quite clearly is the NIST WTC report and it certainly smells and needs changing. If you deny it, as many on this forum do for some strange reason, then you are trying to force everybody else to just put up with the stench instead of doing the right thing and changing it. It is hard to understand why you would do that.

No further investigation of WTC 7 is warranted, and here's why.


WTC 7 Investiation

http://www.thorntontomasetti.com/projects/world_trade_center_7_collapse_investigation/

http://s3.amazonaws.com/tt_assets/pdf/WTC_7_Collapse_Analysis_and_Assessment_Report.pdf

 

[ozeco41]

Nah - forget it.

 

[skyeagle409]

That much is true.

BUT take care with the rationale - this bit:

You are playing the same structure of argument that Tony has played on another forum.

Demonstrating that "...further investigation of WTC 7 is warranted" requires affirmative proof to at least prima facie standard of the proposition that it is warranted. NOT any one or more assertions that further investigations are NOT warranted - however professionally credible they may appear.

Tony has argued with apparent success that the Nordenson Report is flawed and does not validly explain the WTC7 collapse.

Tony relies on the false dichotomy "if this report is false my assertions are true". Hogwash when a truther like Tony asserts it. So - in the interests of fair and honest "play" - debunkers should not play the same debating trick in the reverse direction. (...unless the objective is to "beat the truthers at their own game of debating trickery".)

There are dozens of professional explanations of the WTC 7 collapse and without doubt many of them are flawed. BUT no matter how many flawed reports Tony can produce the burden stays with him (et al those of similar CT opinion) to provide affirmative proof of the need for a New Investigation.

(And once he manages that first step he faces his second and far bigger problem - he needs to gain critical political mass of support. He is not even near the starting gate without the affirmative prima facie argument. )

And it is his burden of proof which he fails to meet.

One only has to look at the facts surrounding WTC 7.

First of all, WTC7 suffered massive impact damage to its southern wall from the collapse of WTC 1, and secondly, fire raged within the building for hours. Thirdly, the upper Penthouse collapsed before total collapse of WTC 7 occurred, and finally, WTC 7 had tilted toward the south in the final seconds of its collapse and remember, the southern wall had a huge gouge that spanned several stories as witnessed by firefighters and others.

At no time did WTC 7 totally collapse at free fall speed, which is evident by the fact that total collapse time was at least 17 seconds. It is well known that explosives were not used, which is no problem to prove using facts and evidence.

The buckling observed on WTC 7 just before the building collapsed was an indication that fire was slowly weakening its steel structure, and that is confirmed by the fact that witnesses could hear structural stress indications from within the building.

To sum it up, no further investigation of WTC 7 is warranted.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

No further investigation of WTC 7 is warranted, and here's why.


WTC 7 Investiation

http://www.thorntontomasetti.com/projects/world_trade_center_7_collapse_investigation/

http://s3.amazonaws.com/tt_assets/pdf/WTC_7_Collapse_Analysis_and_Assessment_Report.pdf

Providing more smelly things doesn't convince anyone that the original and biggest smelly item doesn't smell.

 

[skyeagle409]

Providing more smelly things doesn't convince anyone that the original smelly item doesn't smell.

Structural experience allows me to know when to change 'em and when no change is required.

A clear-cut case where knowledge and experience overrides ignorance.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Structural experience allows me to know when to change 'em and when no change is required.

A clear-cut case where knowledge and experience overrides ignorance.

What structural experience do you have?

 

[skyeagle409]

What structural experience do you have?

49 years aircraft structural experience and 46 years as a pilot and leader of two aviation-related chapters, one of which involves the building of homebuilt aircraft.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

49 years aircraft structural experience and 46 years as a pilot and leader of two aviation-related chapters, one of which involves the building homebuilt aircraft.

Did you have any schooling in structural science like courses in statics, dynamics, strength of materials, and stress analysis?

 

[ozeco41]

....experience allows me to know when to change 'em and when no change is required.

A clear-cut case where knowledge and experience overrides ignorance.

Agreed.

In my case the relevant experience includes three kids of our own plus two of the four grandkids.

PLUS - as a sewage engineer - I can recognise faecal material.

I come from the era of cloth "nappies" and can still fold:
1) Small triangles;
2) Medium "kites"; AND
3) Large triangles.

AND affix same using either one or two safety pins as needed by the fold.

PLUS experienced exploring with pointed finger through extruded/escaped faeces to locate safety pins which had become "covered".

THEN - by the time the grandkids arrived I was introduced to the modern disposable technlogy. Less fun - they don't leak as much.

 

[skyeagle409]

Did you have any schooling in structural science like courses in strength of materials and stress analysis?

Why of course! My experience involves working with aerospace metals, such as aluminum, titanium and steel, heat-treating and annealing processes, cold-working and engineering. In fact, some of my inventions are in use by the U.S. Air Force, which includes snap-on flapper valves now used on Air Force C-5 transports.

In addition, I was sent to Pensacola, Florida by the U.S. Air Force and Raytheon Aerospace to develop a new structural repair manual for the TF-39C engine inlet for the Air Force and I was supervisor/inspector for the U.S. Air Force and for L3 Communications, structural component section at Travis AFB, CA.

I have also invented special aircraft structural tools for the USAF and for helicopters of the U.S. Army at Corpus Christi Army Depot, which is located on Corpus Christ Naval Air Station, Texas.

It is no mystery to me that fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible for the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Why of course! My experience involves working with aerospace metals, such as aluminum, titanium and steel, heat-treating and annealing processes, cold-working and engineering. In fact, some of my inventions are in use by the U.S. Air Force, which includes snap-on flapper valves now used on Air Force C-5 transports.

In addition, I was sent to Pensacola, Florida by the U.S. Air Force and Raytheon Aerospace to develop a new structural repair manual for the TF-39C engine inlet for the Air Force and I was supervisor/inspector for the U.S. Air Force and for L3 Communications, structural component section at Travis AFB, CA.

I have also invented special aircraft structural tools for the USAF and for helicopters of the U.S. Army at Corpus Christi Army Depot, which is located on Corpus Christ Naval Air Station, Texas.

It is no mystery to me that fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible for the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7.

You really didn't answer my question. Have you ever taken formal courses in statics, dynamics, strength of materials, and stress analysis?

Additionally, do you have a degree in either civil or mechanical engineering?

 

[skyeagle409]

You really didn't answer my question. Have you ever taken formal courses in statics, dynamics, strength of materials, and stress analysis?

Additionally, do you have a degree in either civil or mechanical engineering?

I took additional Air Force structural courses, which do not come with a degree.