If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II

MileHighMadness said:
Yes...

Other things I'm sure about:

Richard Gage is a lying POS.

Richard Gage doesn't want a new investigation, he doesn't care about the truth, he just wants your money.
Click to expand...

What is he lying about?

Please provide proof to support your claim that he only wants money.
 
MicahJava said:
... Jim Hoffman is the same way...
Click to expand...
Jim Hoffman is open loop BS flowing with no corrections made to his massive pile of BS which has references and information which debunk your delusional inside job, and fantasy base CD.

Jim Hoffman fantasy extends to insane claims...
The new ceiling tiles with embedded thin-film explosives and wireless detonators are installed throughout every other floor of the Tower. In all, each Tower gets 500,000 of the large tiles and 400,000 of the small tiles. http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/blasting_scenario.html
Click to expand...
Is Jim Hoffman insane, or are his claim insane?

Referencing Jim Hoffman as an expert for your fantasy version of 9/11 you can't explain; overwhelming failure. Not sure if you can best Jim for complete fantasy to help mock the murdered of 9/11 with more disrespect.
 
MicahJava said:
If it was so obvious and predictable, then why do both the NIST and ARUP report use the rare and unpredictable event of thermal expansion to explain how the collapse initiated? They should've just tried to find the Jesus engineer and he would tell them all the answers.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's because the understanding of fires in structures has only really developed in the last 20 years and Arup were one of the leading engineers in publishing multiple papers. It could be that the fire experts at Nist understood these papers

Or maybe it could be that thermal expansion explains why a major beam failed. But I agree it could have been a construction defect such as lack of fire protection, or a poor bolt/weld. Or it could have been a beam failure due to an overload from debris or from fire or from any combination of the above. Of course it could also have been a single explosive device that survived the fires.

And of course the single beam failure led to column failure and progressed to the collapse of the internal structure which caused the penthouse to fail. And then some 10 seconds later the perimeter collapsed.

Or it could be that they are like you and just made it up
 
Last edited:
FalseFlag said:
Must you argue about everything, even when you are clearly wrong.

If someone gets a BSE, what does the "S" stand for? What does the "E" stand for?

Here, let me help you. The "S" stands for science, and the "E" stands for engineering.
Click to expand...

I see.
You've neither read nor understood what I explained. And you're going to "instruct" me on my profession. A profession at which you've spent not one minute of your life.

Determined ignorance + unbridled arrogance = typical twoofer.

What did you say you do for a living?
"Not an expert"?
Not an answer, either.

Did you bother to look at the % of NIST authors who are "scientists" vs. "engineers"? No, of course you didn't.

Tell you what. You try to get the building department in your city to accept a physicist's signature in the "plans approved by: Structural Engineer" block of a building design. Be sure to explain to the clerk that "Engineers have the word 'science' on their degrees, and so does my physicist."

Let me know how that works for you.
 
FalseFlag said:
Must you argue about everything, even when you are clearly wrong.
Click to expand...

Aren't you the self-admitted non-expert who argues everything...especially when you are clearly wrong?

By the way, if you check you may find that many engineering schools do not offer BSE degrees. MIT, for example, offers the BS degree.

If someone gets a BSE, what does the "S" stand for? What does the "E" stand for?

Here, let me help you. The "S" stands for science, and the "E" stands for engineering.
Click to expand...

Yes, and so? Did you ignore the rest of my post for a specific reason? It is a Science degree as apposed to an Arts degree. Bachelor of Science.

And again, now that we've cleared up some basic information about the name of a degree, what point would you like to make? Or did you just want to conflate things?
 
MicahJava said:
If it was so obvious and predictable, then why do both the NIST and ARUP report use the rare and unpredictable event of thermal expansion to explain how the collapse initiated?
Click to expand...

What precisely is either rare or unpredictable about thermal expansion, a process that is always occurring whenever the temperature of anything changes, and in a way precisely described and predicted by well-understood principles of the physics of materials?

Dave
 
tfk said:
Thanks for that background. I had no idea some of those guys were doing that work so early on.

My history was obtained on the job, with guidance from older engineers.
Click to expand...
There's no other substitute. We stand on the shoulders of engineers and it's engineers all the way down! Most truthers have no understanding of the work previously carried out and continued to this day in the subjects they try to comment on.

Jon Cole is a classic example. It's why his experiments are null and void. However, I've always said that I give him credit for actually doing something. Unfortunately he gets it wrong on so many fronts because he hasn't undergone the extensive learning process required to understand such subjects.

tfk said:
Twice, I had to build test fixtures to measure real-world fatigue life for thin wires used in medical devices. Ever since some infamous fatigue failures of some heart valves, fatigue has been of extraordinary interest to the FDA.
Click to expand...
Wow, that's interesting. I had no idea that fatigue would have been a problem in such devices. Before I did my degree, my A-level Physics teacher gave me a whole load of information on biomedical technology and the materials used therein, but that was more to do with 'passivity' and materials applications interacting with the body.[/QUOTE]

tfk said:
The lasting tidbit of data that resulted from my experience is the immediate knowledge that 1 million seconds is 11+ days, and that 1 billion seconds is 32 years. That puts a very pragmatic bound on how many cycles you can test for, how many cycles/sec you need to run your experiments & how many samples you have to run simultaneously. Because nobody in upper management is willing to wait for comprehensive fatigue testing to be done before finalizing design. But god forbid you have a failure ...
Click to expand...
Fortunately for me, fatigue behaviour had to be understood for the material being used. It's essential for design. Materials testing is very expensive. I was once upon a time managing around a million pounds worth of materials testing including fatigue testing on a well known defence project. Luckily the fatigue testing was 'in-house' and I had a good rapport with the department performing it. Due to the expense and nature of the tests, it was very important to be conducting the tests with the right parameters to get the best output for the budget and the limited number of test specimens. Sometimes I'd have specimens on test for 3 months, with the proviso that they call me ASAP when failure occurred, so I could get the provisional data out.

Proper experimentation requires carefully designed experiments and defined parameters, usually accompanied by a god bit of tinkering, so that they can be useful in gaining better understanding or to demonstrate principles.

In order to understand what is useful and applicable then one has to have an understanding of the subject. Jon Cole fails in this respect. As does FalseFlag along with other truthers.
 
tfk said:
LoL.
...................

You have zero engineering degree or experience. But you’ve decided that, because engineering degrees have the word “science” in them, that there is no difference between science & engineering.

You’re going to tell me about my profession for, likely, longer than you’ve been on the planet.

LMFAO.

Once again, right on schedule, a clueless amateur steps in, and not letting utter ignorance slow him down, makes brain-dead, wrong assertions.

Zero knowledge.
Zero doubt.

Unbridled arrogance, supported by boundless ignorance.
Click to expand...

Sunstealer said:
There's no other substitute. We stand on the shoulders of engineers and it's engineers all the way down! Most truthers have no understanding of the work previously carried out and continued to this day in the subjects they try to comment on.

Jon Cole is a classic example. It's why his experiments are null and void. However, I've always said that I give him credit for actually doing something. Unfortunately he gets it wrong on so many fronts because he hasn't undergone the extensive learning process required to understand such subjects.

............
Click to expand...

......

In order to understand what is useful and applicable then one has to have an understanding of the subject. Jon Cole fails in this respect. As does FalseFlag along with other truthers.
Click to expand...

Very informative riff fellas.
Of course FF would say you're just trying to confuse him by falsifying his English prose claims with engineering facts.

Your statement is proof that you don't understand Newton's third law of motion. You are a victim of the tricks that the "experts" have done. They have intentionally over-complicated things so that it is easier to get concepts confused.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom