If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II
- Thread starter Seymour Butz
- Start date
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
A little bunny Rabbit must have told him so, he is not allowed to read anything not published by Gage and company.
NoahFence
Banned
That's some high quality twoofering you have there. Keep that up and you'll get that new investigation in no time!
Do you think if I take the cover of the report and photoshop a new date onto it, FF will accept it as the new investigation they've been asking for?
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 69,026
Well, as he hasn't read the original how could he say otherwise?
And comments like this, highlighted, are the ones that demonstrate what a disrespectful, ignorant, arrogant little punk you really are.
And that Gage, & Cole, & Szamboti, & Chandler, etc. are.
Because you clowns, ALL of you, are utterly clueless about structural engineering, you assert that the hundreds of knowledgeable structural engineers who wrote the NIST Report were "bought off (or intimidated) by the government".
These were / are some of the best engineering minds in the country (& the world), who did set aside the projects that they were working on in order to come to the aid of this country in the darkest hour in my 63 years, and you throw baseless insults like this at them ... purely, solely because of your own clueless, stupid, incompetent ignorance.
Allow me to give you a perfect example of this, taken from Gage's first webinar (which, yes, I forced myself to listen to).
Gage asserts, explicitly, that "NIST lied in their FEA model of WTC 7 by applying heat only to the beams & girders, and not to the concrete, and this is what caused the shear studs to fail."
This assertion is massively insulting. It is solely a product of Gage's own ignorance. And it is simply, completely wrong.
I am quite certain that you, like Gage, have zero understanding of:
a) what NIST's engineers really did in their analysis,
b) WHY they did what they did,
c) why it was the CORRECT thing to do, or
d) why Gage's assertion is completely wrong.
Yet, like an ignorant punk (just like Gage & Szamboti & Cole & Chandler), you parrot Gage's assertions that "NIST's engineers lied", "were bought off" or "were intimidated".b) WHY they did what they did,
c) why it was the CORRECT thing to do, or
d) why Gage's assertion is completely wrong.
Your disrespect is matched in size only by your ignorance.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
OMG - did he really?!?
A couple of months ago, someone posted a similar assertion, or perhaps it was veiled as a question, in a "9/11 debate" Facebok group (one not censored heavily by truther admins), and I spent time teaching that person what NIST did and didn't. I wasn't aware that this particular bit of stupidity is the AE911T party line
OMG - did he really?!?
A couple of months ago, someone posted a similar assertion, or perhaps it was veiled as a question, in a "9/11 debate" Facebok group (one not censored heavily by truther admins), and I spent time teaching that person what NIST did and didn't. I wasn't aware that this particular bit of stupidity is the AE911T party line
Here's the link:
The audio show, hosted by andrew Steele, talks about 2 subjects:
- his reception on his last trip to Europe, and
- his response to being shot down by AIA by such an overwhelming margin.
Right below the "9/11 Free Fall" Banner, where it says:
This show was broadcast on May 28, 2015.
It is now archived here — Use Player
click on the Play control. It is now archived here — Use Player
Skip forward to around 21:15 to get to the AiA part.
Some highlights, Gage comments:
(24:00) Gage believes "the AIA president & other officials lied in the discussion of putting his petition on the AIA ballot."
(26:40) "NIST report found to be fraudulent."
“NIST report threw out FEMA Appendix C” (No, they did not.!!)
“Swiss cheese steel can’t be explained without 2800°F” (Dr. Biederman & Sisson disagree completely.)
(27:50) “NIST lied. Said they looked for explosives. But when pressed, said that they didn’t look for explosives.”
Pretty funny, since NIST's NCSTAR panel did not exist until after all the debris was cleared away. Pretty hard for them to search for something, when they (as an organization) didn't exist.
(28:20) "NIST lied about free fall. When pressed by Chandler. Did not acknowledge implications."
(29:00) "Bald face lie"
(29:15) "NIST lied in their computer modeling"
(30:00) "NIST’s theory is that “fire brought WTC7 down.”
(31:15) "Fires were out 1 hour before collapse on 12th floor."
"Building was fire proof."
"Beams / girders couldn’t have expanded because of shear studs."
(31:50 to 32:30) "Didn’t apply heat to concrete, only to beams."
This last one is the one that you want.
I think most everyone here knows why this is false. I'll wait for FF's response to my last post to him before we clarify Gage's error for anyone else.
OMG - did he really?!?
A couple of months ago, someone posted a similar assertion, or perhaps it was veiled as a question, in a "9/11 debate" Facebok group (one not censored heavily by truther admins), and I spent time teaching that person what NIST did and didn't. I wasn't aware that this particular bit of stupidity is the AE911T party line
Correction: Note that this is not Gage's "first Webinar" (as I originally misstated), but from his interview on "No Lies Radio" (what irony..!) on May 28, 2015.
Here's the link:
The audio show, hosted by andrew Steele, talks about 2 subjects:
- his reception on his last trip to Europe, and
- his response to being shot down by AIA by such an overwhelming margin.
Right below the "9/11 Free Fall" Banner, where it says:
This show was broadcast on May 28, 2015.
It is now archived here — Use Player
click on the Play control. It is now archived here — Use Player
Skip forward to around 21:15 to get to the AiA part.
Some highlights, Gage comments:
(24:00) Gage believes "the AIA president & other officials lied in the discussion of putting his petition on the AIA ballot."
(26:40) "NIST report found to be fraudulent."
“NIST report threw out FEMA Appendix C” (No, they did not.!!)
“Swiss cheese steel can’t be explained without 2800°F” (Dr. Biederman & Sisson disagree completely.)
(27:50) “NIST lied. Said they looked for explosives. But when pressed, said that they didn’t look for explosives.”
Pretty funny, since NIST's NCSTAR panel did not exist until after all the debris was cleared away. Pretty hard for them to search for something, when they (as an organization) didn't exist.
(28:20) "NIST lied about free fall. When pressed by Chandler. Did not acknowledge implications."
(29:00) "Bald face lie"
(29:15) "NIST lied in their computer modeling"
(30:00) "NIST’s theory is that “fire brought WTC7 down.”
(31:15) "Fires were out 1 hour before collapse on 12th floor."
"Building was fire proof."
"Beams / girders couldn’t have expanded because of shear studs."
(31:50 to 32:30) "Didn’t apply heat to concrete, only to beams."
This last one is the one that you want.
I think most everyone here knows why this is false. I'll wait for FF's response to my last post to him before we clarify Gage's error for anyone else.
Redwood
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 9, 2012
- Messages
- 1,557
There's your problem, FF. All the experts are on the side of the "Official Story". The "experts" on the Truther side might as well be some skid-row drunk, for all the influence they have.
No, really: Who is the most professionally qualified Truther, IYO? What are his credentials? What projects has he been responsible for? What professional papers has he had published?
Redwood
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 9, 2012
- Messages
- 1,557
Pretty much S.O.P. for Truthers. On one of the Facebook 9-11 pages, I recently found out that a guy who has been touting 9/11 conspiracism since at least 2008, especially re WTC 7, had no idea who Dr. Cantor is (meaning he couldn't possibly have read NCSTAR 1-9), had no idea what LIHOP refers to, had never heard of CTBUH, ARUP, or the work of Dr. Quintiere.
This is esoterica for the average person, but you'd think that a guy who's been involved in "The Truth Movement" for 8 years would know about it. But it seems they never read anything outside their little Truther echo chamber.
That's why my irony meter pegs out every time I see a Truther post this:
Attachments
Axxman300
Philosopher
The idea that because an engineer, physist, or scientist can't be trusted due to working currently, or at some time in the past for the government somehow invalidates their credibility ridiculous. The concept shows great ignorance of how things work in the real world.
In the U.S. a student coming out of college with one with a new MA in one of those fields is up to his or her neck in debt, and Uncle Sam is usually hiring. It pays the bills and experience in gained for that private sector job. Thing is that all of the great paying jobs are usually with companies that have government contracts, and while that new job might not have anything to do with those contracted projects, some CT nutjob will still question any work done.
Just because Engineer A worked for the US Government, say overseeing a Tennessee Valley Authority project in 1994 does not make their work with NIST suspect.
In the U.S. a student coming out of college with one with a new MA in one of those fields is up to his or her neck in debt, and Uncle Sam is usually hiring. It pays the bills and experience in gained for that private sector job. Thing is that all of the great paying jobs are usually with companies that have government contracts, and while that new job might not have anything to do with those contracted projects, some CT nutjob will still question any work done.
Just because Engineer A worked for the US Government, say overseeing a Tennessee Valley Authority project in 1994 does not make their work with NIST suspect.
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Doesn't matter. It's just another convenient excuse to desperately keep the conversation going way past the point the shark has been leapt.
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Don't care.
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
Yes I did years ago what of it you already admitted energy values matter, Cole has scewed the
Energy values of the experiment to produce the Intellectually dishonest result he wishes,
That makes Cole a huckster and a fraud.
Redwood
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 9, 2012
- Messages
- 1,557
It's been repeatedly explained to you why Cole's "experiments" are crap from their inception. Since his "experiment" is crap, his conclusions are, too. You don't need to do an experiment to demonstrate this. You can just go Pt. 1 of this thread and this time read it for understanding.
If you don't understand something, you can come here and ask for help, or consult a local engineer or engineering professor. Unless you live in the Sahara Desert, there's got to be a competent professional nearby, and he's certainly more competent than Cole.
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
He won't even listen to the engineers on this very forum. There's always an excuse to not have to give up your cherished beliefs.
Mentalpygmy
Student
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2016
- Messages
- 35
How would this hypothetical experiment look like?
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
Yes the Woo is very strong in this one.
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
As you may have seen on the Cheney thread, the expert FF selected as reliable also works for a US govt. contractor (McDonnell Douglas). He doesn't even trust his own experts!
You have to wonder how any new investigation would work. The truthers would tear themselves to pieces arguing over who was reliable and who wasn't. I can't see any respectable engineer putting up with the kind of responses we've seen here for any length of time. Anyone they chose would leave again before long, once they grew tired of debating with bigoted amateurs who only accept support for their own theories. If it ever did get up and running, it would quickly collapse in infighting and mutual recriminations.
Would be good fun to watch, though.
