Official story: why believe it?

[The Almond]

Your opinion is your opinion. I think Jones work has been solid, and his methods scientific.

Do you understand why this statement is an opinion? Dave Rogers, Ryan Mackey, Newton's Bit and myself have all pointed out enormous errors in Jones's work. We have supported our opinions with facts. What facts have you supported your opinion with?

I have read Jone's papers and I can not find anything wrong with them.

What makes you qualified to determine the validity of Jones's argument?

Jones does specify that he has a working hypothesis now, but it could change as more evidence is found. From his writting Jones is being very carefull.

No, he isn't. He hasn't even bothered to determine a proper chain of custody for his magic "WTC Dust" sample. That's why he's the laughing stock of the legitimate scientific community.

I have read most of nist & I have found issues: Physical evidence not supporting their findings. Useing computer simulations and not showing the data used, useing simulations in ways they were not meant to be used. Saying fire proofing was knocked off steel coulmns with no evidence of that, except at impact areas. A scientific investigation looks at all availble evidence, nist was confined from the beginning to look at only certain things & up to a certain point. Not scientific at all.

I can assure you that all of what you've mentioned here has been discussed ad nauseum on this forum, and that none of these opinions hold up to any form of scrutiny.

 

[Belz...]

you are posting personal opinions.

How can facts be opinions ?

I disagree

Yes, that seem to be all you're doing.

 

[lisabob2]

"which is for a pinned connection, when you should have used .5 to .65 for fixed both ends connections for the tower columns."

that issue was never answered in your response. Was he wrong? Is ratio different for pinned or fixed ends?

"The 1.0 gave you larger slenderness ratios and they still weren't greater than 40."
Well how about a test case were an I beam with a slenderness ratio of 20 or lower failed due to inelastic buckling. Do you have any test cases? "

another issue not answered it seems like He was saying even with your numbers it still doesn't add up. What was the 40 ratio he was talking about?
What about any cases at ratio of 20 or lower? seems like important issues.
It seems like he could be wrong at reading graph but 40 ratio is not even close, or 20 for that matter.

 

[Good Lt]

another issue not answered it seems like He was saying even with your numbers it still doesn't add up. What was the 40 ratio he was talking about?
What about any cases at ratio of 20 or lower? seems like important issues.
It seems like he could be wrong at reading graph but 40 ratio is not even close, or 20 for that matter.

More of your meaningless opinions?

Another issue not addressed by you, lisabob2, is the lack of citations of actual evidence that 9-11 was an inside job and that the WTC was destroyed in a controlled demolition.

You have done nothing to prove these assertions by the Troof movement correct. You have offered your unqualified opinions as to why reality isn't reality, but have presented no evidence supporting them, nor have you laid out a plausible or coherent alternative theory or timeline to the "official story."

Please do this. You're just stalling because you have no evidence to present.

 

[lisabob2]

"Do you understand why this statement is an opinion? Dave Rogers, Ryan Mackey, Newton's Bit and myself have all pointed out enormous errors in Jones's work. We have supported our opinions with facts. What facts have you supported your opinion with?"

I have only seen newton show a graph that may show Szamboti read how to attain a certain ratio wrong. But ratio was nowhere near the 40 ration mentioned.
As for everything else it seems to be all opinions, or a one sided look at availble evidence.
As for whats been posted before, if the past post are anything like the current posts, then I stick by my opinion of the nist report because nothing here has shown ot to be scientific. Seems that by discounting the other side you think nist report is valid.
I believe if a independent review of the nist investigation is done like Quintiere wants, it will be exposed for what it is.

 

[lisabob2]

More of your meaningless opinions?

Another issue not addressed by you, lisabob2, is the lack of citations of actual evidence that 9-11 was an inside job and that the WTC was destroyed in a controlled demolition.

You have done nothing to prove these assertions by the Troof movement correct. You have offered your unqualified opinions as to why reality isn't reality, but have presented no evidence supporting them, nor have you laid out a plausible or coherent alternative theory or timeline to the "official story."

Please do this. You're just stalling because you have no evidence to present.

my only claim is that all official investigations so far are not good scientific investigations. I have made no claims to anything else except that I believe one side has science more on their side. It is my opinion.
The fact & evidence so far can be disputed, but no side can be proven wrong yet.
To try to dismiss opposing view by insults & opinions is not very persuasive.

 

[Drudgewire]

I believe if a independent review of the nist investigation is done like Quintiere wants, it will be exposed for what it is.

A report that isn't perfect but certainly gets the big picture right?

Because that's what Quintere believes despite being the victim of a lot of twoofer quote mining.

 

[lisabob2]

How can facts be opinions ?



Yes, that seem to be all you're doing.

is that called cherry picking? or avoiding the issues?

 

[Good Lt]

my only claim is that all official investigations so far are not good scientific investigations.

And you have no evidence to support this opinion. What qualifies you to decide which investigations are "bad" scientific investigations and which are "good" ones? Aren't you the one touting the Urinal of 9-11 "Studies" as a peer reviewed, reputable "journal?"

LOL

I have made no claims to anything else except that I believe one side has science more on their side.

Right - we know we have the science and evidence on our side. And what have you got? Your opinions and suspicions?

It is my opinion.

REALLY? No kidding!

The fact & evidence so far can be disputed, but no side can be proven wrong yet.

Bzzt. Your side is wrong.

To try to dismiss opposing view by insults & opinions is not very persuasive

Your opinions have been shown repeatedly to be nonsense and are not based in science, fact or objective reality.

You aren't persuading anyone with your opinions. Try citing some evidence to back up your opinions.

Thanks.

 

[realitybites]

Your opinion is your opinion. I think Jones work has been solid, and his methods scientific.

And that is your OPINION.

 

[realitybites]

Lisabob. I emplore you.

If you're so stuck on Jones' theories and all the various truther "journals", petition them to submit their work to legitmate peer-review so we can end this debate. If they do that, and their work holds up, you can consider me the newest member of the truth movement.

Sound like a plan?

 

[lisabob2]

A report that isn't perfect but certainly gets the big picture right?

Because that's what Quintere believes despite being the victim of a lot of twoofer quote mining.

Quintiere is quoted as saying nist investigation needs to be independently reviewed.
thats a fact.
Quintiere does not believe in cd: Fact
Quintiere distances himself from truth movement: Fact
Quintiere points out obvious issues with nist report: Fact
Because Quintiere shares some of my beliefs does not mean he shares all of them, and the reverse is true.
What he has gone on record as saying supports my view of unscientific investigation.
Just because he MAY think otherwise does not change anything. Jonathan Barnett is another fire expert who raises questions.

 

[DGM]

Yes my opinions are affected by scientist & experts with very good qualifications & history of doing excellent scientific work. Jones has a excellent history and just because he has done a paper on Jesus & the mayan(whatever) doesn't mean it wasn't done with the proper scientific method. Disagreeing with Jones does not make his work unscientific.
Gordon Ross has qualifications & good history, as does Tony Szamboti.Even David Ray Griffin who is a PhD in theology has had his work noted as being very sound and well sourced by David Griscom.

LisaBob:

Why do you think Tony Szamboti has any qualifications to discuss structural issues? I've had private email exchanges with him and let's just say we have agreed to disagree. He seems like a nice enough person but he is not a qualified structural or architectural engineer. What do you base your faith in him on?

 

[lisabob2]

And you have no evidence to support this opinion. What qualifies you to decide which investigations are "bad" scientific investigations and which are "good" ones? Aren't you the one touting the Urinal of 9-11 "Studies" as a peer reviewed, reputable "journal?"

LOL



Right - we know we have the science and evidence on our side. And what have you got? Your opinions and suspicions?



REALLY? No kidding!



Bzzt. Your side is wrong.



Your opinions have been shown repeatedly to be nonsense and are not based in science, fact or objective reality.

You aren't persuading anyone with your opinions. Try citing some evidence to back up your opinions.

Thanks.

nothing you just posted is anything but a opinion.
I keep asking for specific things to discuss.
What specifically can you pointout that is bad science at journalof911studies.com?

 

[lisabob2]

LisaBob:

Why do you think Tony Szamboti has any qualifications to discuss structural issues? I've had private email exchanges with him and let's just say we have agreed to disagree. He seems like a nice enough person but he is not a qualified structural or architectural engineer. What do you base your faith in him on?

What I have read by him at journalof911studies.com is well sourced and seems to make sense. Every link he provides for a source checks out. I have yet to find a source turn out to be wrong at journalof911studies.com

 

[DavidJames]

What I have read by him at journalof911studies.com is well sourced and seems to make sense. Every link he provides for a source checks out. I have yet to find a source turn out to be wrong at journalof911studies.com

Please provide your qualifications to determine if a source is right or wrong.

 

[rwguinn]

"which is for a pinned connection, when you should have used .5 to .65 for fixed both ends connections for the tower columns."

that issue was never answered in your response. Was he wrong? Is ratio different for pinned or fixed ends?

"The 1.0 gave you larger slenderness ratios and they still weren't greater than 40."
Well how about a test case were an I beam with a slenderness ratio of 20 or lower failed due to inelastic buckling. Do you have any test cases? "

another issue not answered it seems like He was saying even with your numbers it still doesn't add up. What was the 40 ratio he was talking about?
What about any cases at ratio of 20 or lower? seems like important issues.
It seems like he could be wrong at reading graph but 40 ratio is not even close, or 20 for that matter.

So tell us, lisabob2:
What is the significance of the slenderness ratios of 40 or 20?
Can you even define "Pinned" and "fixed" conditions?

 

[lisabob2]

Lisabob. I emplore you.

If you're so stuck on Jones' theories and all the various truther "journals", petition them to submit their work to legitmate peer-review so we can end this debate. If they do that, and their work holds up, you can consider me the newest member of the truth movement.

Sound like a plan?

It doesn't matter to me what you do. It doesn't matter to me if a journal you approve of peer reviews Jone's paper.
What matter to me is that there hasn't been a good scientific investigation so far and many qualified highly educated people are pointing this out.
How about this.
giver me any good reason investigations started over a year later?
tell me if Quintiere says:
"had high hopes" that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. "They're the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it's the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything."

Why should I trust the investigation when a former nist investigator says that? very crucial Quintiere says "blocked everything" does that sound like a proper investigation or ones that is hiding something?

 

[DGM]

What I have read by him at journalof911studies.com is well sourced and seems to make sense. Every link he provides for a source checks out. I have yet to find a source turn out to be wrong at journalof911studies.com

Unfortunately your reason breaks down to 'he's smarter that you'. You really need to look at your "hero's" with a more critical eye.

You asked where Jones fails in scientific method. That's easy if you look without "starry eyes". Is it proper to publish your finding before you have looked for alternative meanings? His "spheres" have been shown to have many different possible origins but he makes no mention or any attempt to justify these concerns. Do you consider this to be proper method?

 

[lisabob2]

So tell us, lisabob2:
What is the significance of the slenderness ratios of 40 or 20?
Can you even define "Pinned" and "fixed" conditions?

it sure seems that 20 or 40 ratio is much higher than 1. Am I wrong that a 1 ratio compared to a 20 ratio is very different and significant?
As I was pointing out some issues I thought might be relevant, maybe you can answer those questions? Is a 40 ratio a significant issue over a 1 ratio?
I would guess that it is, am I wrong?
If I knew what the difference between pinned & fixed I probably wouldn't have to ask you if there is a difference in the way their ratio's are calculated.