TAM 2011 WTC 7 debate

I'm most likely on ignore so if someone wants to quote me


cmatrix:
How about a debate with femr2 (if it's OK with him)? Your both on "the other side".
 
DGM said:
Tends to happen when you look at the facts*...............................
Click to expand...
The classic had to be when femr2 identified flexure of the building façade as shown by reflected light and the response intended as rebuttal was "its only light reflecting off the windows" .....

Then the circular arguments "we know it fell from fire damage so we don't need any more evidence...." Change both the "we"s to "I" and it's valid.

DGM said:
...* I'm not saying I agree with every minute aspect of their investigation.


:)
Click to expand...
...but you would wait till you saw the detail before judging whether to agree or not. :boxedin:
 
DGM said:
Funny thing is.........the older I get the more I wish they'd just get to the ******** point!


:)
Click to expand...
Sure. When analysing any complex problem I automatically start from the potential global scope of the outcomes. And that, for WTC 9/11, includes the possibilities of human assistance in the collapses. Just because you "already know the answers" is not legitimate grounds for eliminating some possibilities from the outset when you are constructing a logical argument or explanation. Nor, by my standards, when we already know that human assistance must be in the potential mix can we pretend "green field" that we do not know the existence of that option.

You will see where that stance places me relative to several types of players on this forum. :rolleyes:

Whilst being an old fart has something to do with it my approach probably the result on many years in conflict resolution roles - mainly Customer v Organisation and Worker/Union V Management plus managing a variety of staff v organisation issues.

I tend to see the range of alternates and where the other players are coming from quite quickly - then need patience to wait till some or all of them catch up. Lack of patience the failure point on some occasions.
 
ozeco41 said:
Sure. When analysing any complex problem I automatically start from the potential global scope of the outcomes. And that, for WTC 9/11, includes the possibilities of human assistance in the collapses. Just because you "already know the answers" is not legitimate grounds for eliminating some possibilities from the outset when you are constructing a logical argument or explanation. Nor, by my standards, when we already know that human assistance must be in the potential mix can we pretend "green field" that we do not know the existence of that option.

You will see where that stance places me relative to several types of players on this forum. :rolleyes:

Whilst being an old fart has something to do with it my approach probably the result on many years in conflict resolution roles - mainly Customer v Organisation and Worker/Union V Management plus managing a variety of staff v organisation issues.

I tend to see the range of alternates and where the other players are coming from quite quickly - then need patience to wait till some or all of them catch up. Lack of patience the failure point on some occasions.
Click to expand...
I know what you're saying. I recently completed an addition on a garage for a homeowner that was unfortunately the abutter to an abutter to a historic district AND a wet lands. After countless meetings and endless revisions to the plans everyone finally agreed to the plan (unchanged) that I originally proposed. In the end, a beautiful garage that cost 3X what I originally bid.
 
DGM said:
I know what you're saying. I recently completed an addition on a garage for a homeowner that was unfortunately the abutter to an abutter to a historic district AND a wet lands. After countless meetings and endless revisions to the plans everyone finally agreed to the plan (unchanged) that I originally proposed. In the end, a beautiful garage that cost 3X what I originally bid.
Click to expand...

Well those few posts have quite a few points of direct relevance to the problems facing this proposed debate.

(There, that does it - we are still on topic. :D )
 
cmatrix said:
I have completely debunked the crackpot pseudo-science NIST theory on WTC 7 and outlined a scientific CD theory in its stead. In the sane world of science and reason that should make me a distinguished person. In the bizzarro JREF world of pseudo-science and pseudo-skepticism it does not seem to.
Click to expand...

Should don't pay the rent my friend. I've noticed that the worthies on the TAM guest list all have some financial heft to accompany their notoriety, and in our society that seems to command the ticket prices asked.

However, I look forward to seeing your theory.
 
cmatrix said:
The NIST WTC 7 theory is crackpot faith-based pseudo-science.

I can prove that in one but preferably two sentences.
Click to expand...
Please state those two sentences.
Please state your impression of the NIST WTC7 theory.

I asked you...
femr2 said:
How does your two sentence theory of WTC7 handle movement of the structure 100s in advance of descent ?
Click to expand...
...and you responded with...
cmatrix said:
I don't have a two sentence theory of WTC7 and any such movement is completely irrelevant to the theory.
Click to expand...

You don't have a two sentence theory, but what I'm pointing out is irrelevant to that theory that you just said you didn't have ? Slightly bizarre. I suggest proof-reading your posts before hitting submit.

I have no idea what your theory for WTC7 is. Indulge me...

Maybe if I ask you a couple of questions, it can become clear...

1) Does it involve explosives going off followed immediately by the building going down ?
 
Sunstealer said:
Great. Where can I read it? Are you published?
Click to expand...

Cmatrix seems reluctant to tell us his theories on the WTC 7 collapse. He did, however, publish an article in February of this year entitled A Scientific Theory of the WTC 7 Collapse. You can read it here.

Edit:

Actually the article is very short and he doesn't really give much of a theory expect to say than NIST was wrong and the collapse was a CD using "explosive nano-thermite."

The seven footnotes are interesting. Three of them are to online videos (two of them on You Tube) and the nono-thermite claim is sourced by a link to a Benthan Open Journal pay-for-publish article by Niels H. Harrit, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, et al.
 
Last edited:
Walter Ego said:
He did, however, publish an article in February of this year entitled A Scientific Theory of the WTC 7 Collapse. You can read it here.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. A few points for cmatrix from that link...

A major piece of evidence in the WTC 7 collapse is the fact that WTC 7 underwent free-fall acceleration for a period of at least 2.25 seconds.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. NIST was wrong.

I've performed a more detailed determination of the acceleration profile for WTC7 which shows the assertion to be false.

Firstly, their assertion is based upon a single point and not applicable to the entire facade behaviour.

Secondly, their method suffers from a low quality method and is inaccurate.

Thirdly, if data is taken from the NW corner, freefall was achieved for probably 2 very small moments in time, with over a second being over-g. Beforehand acceleration quite rapidly ramped up, and afterwards ramped down rather more slowly...

408829093.gif

Acceleration (ft/s^2) / Time (s)
Each frame shows the effect on profile for increase in the poly-fit order (steps of 2 per frame)

if their theory is to believed, the 2.25 seconds of free fall must have resulted from near-simultaneous buckling and breaking of the 58 perimeter columns and most of the 25 core columns over eight stories.
Click to expand...
Incorrect(ish). See above. There was no instantaneous entrance into freefall. Rather, there was a period of near-to-over-g behaviour of parts of the facade that can be observed during the global descent.

Another requisite for a scientific theory is that the empirical data the theory is based on must be reproducible by others. Other scientists must be able to perform the exact same experiments and obtain the exact same results.
Click to expand...
I've repeated the production of empirical data, and whilst I have, imo, proven NIST wrong (by low accuracy), that doesn't mean you are right.

Once you get past these simple points, I will ask you again to consider the importance of 100 seconds worth of movement of the facade in advance of descent.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
Funny thing is.........the older I get the more I wish they'd just get to the ******** point!


:)
Click to expand...

Truthers never get to the point. I 've been following these threads for four years now and no truther has ever come within a country mile of making a point.
 
Walter Ego said:
Cmatrix seems reluctant to tell us his theories on the WTC 7 collapse. He did, however, publish an article in February of this year entitled A Scientific Theory of the WTC 7 Collapse. You can read it here.

Edit:

Actually the article is very short and he doesn't really give much of a theory expect to say than NIST was wrong and the collapse was a CD using "explosive nano-thermite."

The seven footnotes are interesting. Three of them are to online videos (two of them on You Tube) and the nono-thermite claim is sourced by a link to a Benthan Open Journal pay-for-publish article by Niels H. Harrit, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, et al.
Click to expand...

I presume that the use of the word scientific in the title was a joke.
 
femr2 said:
Hmmm. A few points for cmatrix from that link...


Incorrect. NIST was wrong.

I've performed a more detailed determination of the acceleration profile for WTC7 which shows the assertion to be false.

Firstly, their assertion is based upon a single point and not applicable to the entire facade behaviour.

Secondly, their method suffers from a low quality method and is inaccurate.

Thirdly, if data is taken from the NW corner, freefall was achieved for probably 2 very small moments in time, with over a second being over-g. Beforehand acceleration quite rapidly ramped up, and afterwards ramped down rather more slowly...

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/408829093.gif[/qimg]
Acceleration (ft/s^2) / Time (s)
Each frame shows the effect on profile for increase in the poly-fit order (steps of 2 per frame)


Incorrect(ish). See above. There was no instantaneous entrance into freefall. Rather, there was a period of near-to-over-g behaviour of parts of the facade that can be observed during the global descent.


I've repeated the production of empirical data, and whilst I have, imo, proven NIST wrong (by low accuracy), that doesn't mean you are right.

Once you get past these simple points, I will ask you again to consider the importance of 100 seconds worth of movement of the facade in advance of descent.
Click to expand...

I would rather consider how the explosives were planted,who planted them,who gave the orders,were the NYFD in on it,etc. You never seem to consider these matters and I know why.
 
dafydd said:
femr2 said:
.....consider the importance of 100 seconds worth of movement of the facade in advance of descent.
Click to expand...
I would rather consider how the explosives were planted,who planted them,who gave the orders,were the NYFD in on it,etc. You never seem to consider these matters and I know why.
Click to expand...
Isn't that a funny point to try and introduce explosives?

...right after femr2's last sentence which talks about movement before the descent. :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom