in-progress, appropriately named truther site

[beachnut]

I have posted links showing that the NFPA 921, on many occasions, eerily describes the case of the WTC destruction and that these descriptions are signs of foul play. Also, I have posted links showing that "people who think it might've been a demolition are creating peer-reviewed papers". That was my purpose.

The 9/11 truth papers are not peer reviewed, they are reviewed by 9/11 truth nuts, idiots for 9/11 truth; big fail for 14 years.

The WTC towers were foul play by terrorists in two planes. You have proved it was an act of terrorism, it is in NFPA 921, terrorists did. 19 terrorists did all the damage on 9/11, if you disagree, you are wrong.

All the other BS you posted related to NFPA 921 reflects a great ignorance of steel, fire, physics, and science in general.

 

[ozeco41]

If you post serious attempts as discussing the issues - referencing such papers - I am likely to give you a serious response. BUT not whilst you persist in trolling trickery. Try me. Make a serious reasoned argument for some significant point.

Try responding to my recent post #53 as a first step. I'm the closest you are likely to get to support for further investigation of political mis/mal/nonfeasance.

I have posted links showing that the NFPA 921, on many occasions, eerily describes the case of the WTC destruction and that these descriptions are signs of foul play. Also, I have posted links showing that "people who think it might've been a demolition are creating peer-reviewed papers". That was my purpose.

No problem. If ever you decide to get serious and drop the evasive nonsense - let me know.

I'm not interested in troll feeding - many other members will do that for you.

Cheers.

 

[DGM]

No problem. If ever you decide to get serious and drop the evasive nonsense - let me know.

I'm not interested in troll feeding - many other members will do that for you.

Cheers.

 

[ProBonoShill]

"Believe"? The authors are skeptics. I don't think either of them except for Szamboti have come right out and said that they have no doubt the WTC was a CD.

"Our conclusion suggests that Newton’s laws of motion and energy conservation considerations would have had to have been violated to explain that building’s total collapse within a debris pile several storeys high."

"Based on the parametric study undertaken, our findings were that the fire-protected steel floor beam, identified as the initiator of the cascade of events that followed, could not have done so, virtually under any circumstance."

Those are fighting words around these parts.



I'm not entertaining the rest of the childish BS in this thread, using every foolish forum debating trick in the book. I do not "believe" in CD, but I do believe that inside job should be investigated and should have from day 1. I have already asked many genuinely good questions relating to the foreknowledge of WTC 7 in the other thread, and none of them were adequately answered. So, I know what responses to skip and ignore.

That's nice, so if you don't believe in CD, what brought the buildings down then?
No wonder truthers have had so much fail in 15 years.

 

[MicahJava]

The 9/11 truth papers are not peer reviewed, they are reviewed by 9/11 truth nuts, idiots for 9/11 truth; big fail for 14 years.

The WTC towers were foul play by terrorists in two planes. You have proved it was an act of terrorism, it is in NFPA 921, terrorists did. 19 terrorists did all the damage on 9/11, if you disagree, you are wrong.

All the other BS you posted related to NFPA 921 reflects a great ignorance of steel, fire, physics, and science in general.

You think the International Journal of Protective Structures and the Challenge Journal of Structural Mechanics have been infiltrated by truthers? I think you have a problem with conspiratorial thinking.

 

[MicahJava]

You turn to an ex-Theology teacher as your engineering “expert”.
LMAO.
You just refuse to learn.



You “strongly disagree with him on most things”, but you cite his trashy books.
Wow.
Confused much?

“his WTC 7 book is his best”
LoL.
What, it’s “only” 95% wrong, as opposed to the others being 98% wrong?
That’s called “damned by faint praise.”

I was not the one who brought up the name of DRG, nor did I cite him for anything. Is your attention span so deteriorated that you can't even process the comment which you have quoted in your actual reply? Perhaps you should stop calling others "junior" and others should start calling you "old-timer".

Wrong.

• He speaks outside of his field of expertise = Charlatan.
  (He PROPERLY should lose his license for this.)
• He throws the imprimatur of the AIA on everything he can … until he gets caught, again, & is forced to remove it = Charlatan.
• He refuses to bring his trash to real, independent experts (structural engineers) = Charlatan.
• He brings his trash to amateurs (college kids, architects, etc.) without first having it reviewed by real experts = Charlatan.
• He has 95% of his trash prepared by clueless amateurs (Sarns, Adam Taylor, Jonathan Cole, etc.) = Charlatan.
• He asks for donations at every opportunity = Charlatan.

I'm sure that there are a dozen other things that could be added. These are just the first that came to mind.

Almost all the talking points Gage brings up in his presentations are and have always been considered evidence of arson. The NFPA 921 passages I have quoted a few times confirm that.

 

[beachnut]

... Almost every talking point Gage brings up in his presentations are and have always been considered evidence of arson. The NFPA 921 passages I have quoted a few times confirm that.

The only evidence for arson is Flight 11 and 175 each having 66,000 pounds of jet fuel ignited by their impact from active engines.

There is no evidence for arson except that done by 10 terrorists in two planes. Your NFPA 921 card fails to support anything but terrorism.

Your inside job fantasy, and Gage's CD fantasy, self-debunking claptrap.

No evidence after 14 years, poor showing = failure

 

[MicahJava]

The only evidence for arson is Flight 11 and 175 each having 66,000 pounds of jet fuel ignited by their impact from active engines.

There is no evidence for arson except that done by 10 terrorists in two planes. Your NFPA 921 card fails to support anything but terrorism.

Your inside job fantasy, and Gage's CD fantasy, self-debunking claptrap.

No evidence after 14 years, poor showing = failure

What is your evidence that IJoPS and CJoSM is infiltrated by malicious truther peer-reviewers?

 

[beachnut]

What is your evidence that IJoPS and CJoSM is infiltrated by malicious truther peer-reviewers?

Which papers do you think have valid conclusions? List them. The papers by 9/11 truth are great examples of nuts waving their hands wildly and making up nonsensical conclusions which paranoid conspiracy theorists fall for. Lies of an inside job fool a fringe few who fail to do reality based research.

The peer review of 9/11 truth papers, reviewed by 9/11 truth nuts. The conclusion in the papers, the false conclusions of CD and thermite are certified by 9/11 truth nuts to be 9/11 truth lies dumbed down to fool the gullible inside job faith based believers. It must be the pattern of thinking, the failed logic which fools the faith based followers in the 9/11 truth church of overwhelming woo. 911TCoOWW

14 years with zero evidence of the inside job, is evidence of fantasy.

 

[MicahJava]

Which papers do you think have valid conclusions? List them. The papers by 9/11 truth are great examples of nuts waving their hands wildly and making up nonsensical conclusions which paranoid conspiracy theorists fall for. Lies of an inside job fool a fringe few who fail to do reality based research.

The peer review of 9/11 truth papers, reviewed by 9/11 truth nuts. The conclusion in the papers, the false conclusions of CD and thermite are certified by 9/11 truth nuts to be 9/11 truth lies dumbed down to fool the gullible inside job faith based believers. It must be the pattern of thinking, the failed logic which fools the faith based followers in the 9/11 truth church of overwhelming woo. 911TCoOWW

14 years with zero evidence of the inside job, is evidence of fantasy.

I already listed three peer-reviewed papers from the last five years that aren't discussion papers. Explain your conspiracy theory about how truthers have infiltrated mid-tier engineering journals.

 

[DGM]

I already listed three peer-reviewed papers from the last five years that aren't discussion papers. Explain your conspiracy theory about how truthers have infiltrated mid-tier engineering journals.

Overall, how well do these papers represent the "truth movement"?

Do they make a definitive case for controlled demolition (if yes, please explain how)?

 

[ozeco41]

I already listed three peer-reviewed papers from the last five years that aren't discussion papers.

Did you? Where? The only reference in this thread is to three books.

Do you mean books or papers?

 

[ProBonoShill]

Overall, how well do these papers represent the "truth movement"?

Do they make a definitive case for controlled demolition (if yes, please explain how)?

The authors don't believe in CD, except for Tony Sz who has about as much credibility as used car salesman.

 

[MicahJava]

The authors don't believe in CD,

"Believe"? The authors are skeptics. I don't think either of them except for Szamboti have come right out and said that they have no doubt the WTC was a CD.

"Our conclusion suggests that Newton’s laws of motion and energy conservation considerations would have had to have been violated to explain that building’s total collapse within a debris pile several storeys high."

"Based on the parametric study undertaken, our findings were that the fire-protected steel floor beam, identified as the initiator of the cascade of events that followed, could not have done so, virtually under any circumstance."

Those are fighting words around these parts.

except for Tony Sz who has about as much credibility as used car salesman.

Where's your peer-reviewed paper?

Also, if he wasn't competent, then ASCE could have came up with a better reason to not accept his discussion paper. I guess the CD theorists could consider that "the one that got away", but the silver lining is a straightforward example of how the mainstream engineering community wants to actively censor criticism the official explanations.

 

[beachnut]

I already listed three peer-reviewed papers from the last five years that aren't discussion papers. Explain your conspiracy theory about how truthers have infiltrated mid-tier engineering journals.

Which papers? You lost them again? 9/11 truth's CD claims, or is it the inside job for you? Which fantasy do you have, and why have you failed to get a Pulitzer for all your evidence to support your claim? You don't have evidence.
You lost it with the three paper you can't remember.

Which papers, which journals? Did they pay to publish?

 

[ProBonoShill]

Where's your peer-reviewed paper?

Also, if he wasn't competent, then ASCE could have came up with a better reason to not accept his discussion paper. I guess the CD theorists could consider that "the one that got away", but the silver lining is a straightforward example of how the mainstream engineering community wants to actively censor criticism the official explanations.

LOL, Why would I need any papers? I'm not one of the mentally challenged dolts that believes in CD.

You've had 15 years of failure, why can't you do better?

 

[Stamuel]

http://www.challengejournal.com/index.php/cjsmec/article/view/50 (read for free on page)

http://www.challengejournal.com/index.php/cjsmec/article/view/36 (read for free on page)

http://prs.sagepub.com/content/4/2/117.abstract (read for free here)

For those who are interested, I read the first linked paper. The authors argue that WTC 7 did not have enough gravitational potential energy to crush all the concrete floors (they use what they argue is a conservative assumption about the distribution of chunk/particle size after crushing) and bend all the columns on every floor through 0.9pi radians of plastic hinge rotation.

Since we already know that nothing remotely like this happened to building 7, even if the calculations are right, they are of little significance to discussions of how building 7 collapsed.

 

[pgimeno]

And I've taken a look at the second one. It makes the same mistake as truthers here have made, namely that it focuses on the beams' maximum elongations, failing to consider column displacement and geometry factors that a FEA like the one NIST carried out did consider.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Yuk, just read the abstract of the first one. Every time a truther says he's applying Newton's Laws in what purports to be a serious scientific discussion, an alarm bell rings. It's like citing Darwin in a biology paper, or Euclid in a maths paper - knowledge so basic that it's assumed that it's universally known within the subject and so doesn't need to be referenced, but used by people ignorant of the field as an attempt to appeal to the ultimate authority.

Dave

 

[GlennB]

For those who are interested, I read the first linked paper. The authors argue that WTC 7 did not have enough gravitational potential energy to crush all the concrete floors (they use what they argue is a conservative assumption about the distribution of chunk/particle size after crushing) and bend all the columns on every floor through 0.9pi radians of plastic hinge rotation.

Since we already know that nothing remotely like this happened to building 7, even if the calculations are right, they are of little significance to discussions of how building 7 collapsed.

Exactly. Crushing the concrete to their chosen range of particle sizes is an arbitrary requirement that they've imposed in order to demonstrate the lack of sufficient PE to do that much crushing. If the floor connections fail at each impact then the concrete could theoretically have ended up lying there relatively unscathed.

A house of cards springs to mind - it isn't necessary to shred the cards to get the structure to collapse.

In short, they're trying to give the impression of doing proper science.