The TruthSeeker1234 $1000.00 Challenge

[tsig]

Fool said

No "official" story??? Is this true?? No, I didn't know that. I thought there was an official story. What is it you guys believe in then? Do you each have your own individual pet theroies? Or what?

No wonder nobody will present the postive case. According to Fool, there isn't one to present. Hmmmmmmm. No wonder this is so difficult.

Still writing the victory speech are we?

The positive case is gravity.

 

[tsig]

State of Grace trolled

Then please stay off of this thread. THis thread is for people interested in a one on one debate with me.

I guess the sun and the moon also rise and fall from your *******?

BS549 JREF moderator!

 

[R.Mackey]

Yes, the challenge is to explain NIST to me, in around 10-20 pages with pictures. The total debate will be around 100 pages, 50 by each side.

This doesn't sound like any debate I've ever heard of.

If you want NIST explained, why don't you just read the thing?

If you don't mind it summarized, why are you putting a minimum page size on it? The summary is actually quite simple... (a) aircraft hit the towers, (b) huge fires resulted, (c) structural collapse occurred after the buildings could no longer support their own weight.

Notice I'm leaving out WTC 7 from this summary, and that's because you're asking us to explain NIST to you, and NIST hasn't released its final on WTC 7 yet (at least they hadn't last time I checked). But the prelim results on WTC 7 are also easy to summarize.

C'mon, dude, you're just being difficult. Fine with me, because it sure looks like I'm going to win my bet at this point.

 

[tsig]

OK. Rebuttal of LashL.

LashL has offered no explanation, no evidence no recounting of events, no indication that he even knows what the subject is. He has offered none of his own words.

As evidence, he has offered a single link to a government homepage. Please see the following homepage, please read every linked article, and every article linked within every linked article.

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

Clearly everything cited in the NIST report has been shown to be either false or irrelevant. Furthermore, the most interesting observations were not accounted for at all. Thus NIST is in gross violation of the scientific method, which requires that all relevant observations and data are accounted for.

THus we must reject LashL. QED.

When there is nothing to refute, it does not satisfy the terms. You guys know what I want, your'e being silly.

We know what you want, we just aren't into hand-jobs.

 

[rwguinn]

Go with that. It's not just me. It is the general audience. Assume an intelligent payperson who has time to read a book, but not a 10,000 page cross-referenced treatise. Assume you were explaining the collapse to someone who had never heard any collapse theroy one way or the other. Use whatever quotes and pictures are needed, from sources you consider to be reliable. Explain it with sufficient detail to satisfy the curious layperson. Account for all of what you consider to be the relevant evidence.

I would estimate that a decent job of the first positive case could be done in around 10-20 pages perhaps. Less? Maybe, I don't know. Try it! If you guys are so invested in this belief, why not write it down?

Yes, the challenge is to explain NIST to me, in around 10-20 pages with pictures. The total debate will be around 100 pages, 50 by each side.

Ah, yes--the old "Dilbert" cartoon:
"Teach me how to bean engineer. I don't care if it takes all afternoon"

It takes 4-5 years MINIMUM to get an engineering degree. At that point, youare ready to start learning.
And you want it done in 20 pages...
sigh...

 

[DavidJames]

Ah, yes--the old "Dilbert" cartoon:
"Teach me how to bean engineer. I don't care if it takes all afternoon"

It takes 4-5 years MINIMUM to get an engineering degree. At that point, youare ready to start learning.
And you want it done in 20 pages...
sigh...

That last thing he wants is a discussion based on engineering and facts. He want's one based on rhetoric and style. Oh, and pictures, lots of pictures.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

If you don't mind it summarized, why are you putting a minimum page size on it? The summary is actually quite simple... (a) aircraft hit the towers, (b) huge fires resulted, (c) structural collapse occurred after the buildings could no longer support their own weight.

Mackey, are you accepting the challenge? Do you feel this is sufficient information to make the case? Tell you what, I'll accept this if you allow me to waive the "equal space" requirement. My rebuttal will run pages.

Even if you lose your bet, you'll still be $900 up.

Send me an email Mackey if you are interested in accepting the challenge.

[email protected]

 

[Oliver]

Yeah - send him an email and let him claim retrospectively that he never recieved it...

 

[R.Mackey]

Mackey, are you accepting the challenge? Do you feel this is sufficient information to make the case? Tell you what, I'll accept this if you allow me to waive the "equal space" requirement. My rebuttal will run pages.

Even if you lose your bet, you'll still be $900 up.

Send me an email Mackey if you are interested in accepting the challenge.

[email protected]

I've already made it clear as crystal why I will not debate you, and that was before you changed the terms over and over again. I don't need your money, either. However, if other people want to debate you, I have no problem with that. Let's get it started already!

You didn't answer my questions. Is the very brief summary I presented too little information to start this "debate" you have in mind? It seems, from your answer above, like the answer is no.

I suggest you get back to Chipmunk Stew's thread. I will not speak for him, but I strongly feel that he would agree, that nobody would mind if your rebuttal went for pages and pages. Bring all the facts you have. Why not?

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

A lot of you seem to be saying this: "I don't really understand what the official story is, or what NIST actually says. But they are qualified to report on such things, and I am not. They say impact and fire did it, therefore, I accept what they say."

This is fine, but it is not sufficient to respond to my challenge. I am looking for an individual who does understand, and can explain it to the lay-audience. You must be willing to do so. The page requirements are dictated by what has become a more-or-less standard size for a popular book. A ten page summary would condense the government report by about a 1000:1 ratio. That's a good level of detail. 3 short sentences is not enough.

I have already started an outline that the challenger can follow.
Here is another interesting point that should be covered in the positive case.

Please explain how heat applied to a floor truss lead to an inward pulling force on the perimeter and core columns.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

You didn't answer my questions. Is the very brief summary I presented too little information to start this "debate" you have in mind? It seems, from your answer above, like the answer is no.

Three sentences is not enough. You have presented no evidence and no logic, just three assertions. It would thus be trivial to destroy your non-argument, but as such would not make for an informative or entertaining exercise.

Plus, you have declined to debate. You cannot debate and not debate at the same time.

The goal is a book-length debate, about 100 pages, 50/50. It is not a debate with all of you. It is a debate with one of you. Thusfar no one has come forward.

 

[David Wong]

A lot of you seem to be saying this: "I don't really understand what the official story is, or what NIST actually says. But they are qualified to report on such things, and I am not. They say impact and fire did it, therefore, I accept what they say."

This is fine, but it is not sufficient to respond to my challenge. I am looking for an individual who does understand, and can explain it to the lay-audience.

Will you accept a prescription from your doctor without him first explaining how the viruses multiply on a cellular level? Or do you accept the word of experts on the subject and trust the medication will work? Do you make him show you photographs first, to explain it to you in laymen terms?

See, any lay explanation of the official story will sound like this:

"Virtually all experts in the field, including private ones with no attachment to the federal government or George Bush, agree that planes and fires could and did cause the towers to collapse, and I agree that they have the expertise to make that judgment."

We have to be willing to accept the words of experts or else resign ourselves to know nothing. There are not enough years in a human life to become an expert in every subject. If you therefore refuse to ever take what 99% of experts on a subject are saying as truth, then you cannot accept even the most basic principles on which society functions.

After all, how do we know the sun is 93 million miles away? Have we measured it ourselves? How do we know how far it is to Tokyo? Have we gone out with a ruler and walked off the distance?

No. For everything we know, we rely on experts. Education itself is nothing but an absorption of what other experts have learned. To say you refuse expert testimony because it is from experts and thus relying on language and data too complex for you to understand is expressing an active devotion to ignorance that can never be broken.

 

[T.A.M.]

You continue to move the goal posts for this debate. You are being rediculous. We are talking about a debate, not a teaching session on the NIST report any other such nonsense. Yes I agree that to simply say "See NIST" is a weak argument, but if you bring up something, and your opponent counters with a specific page reference to the NIST report that refutes your point, it is fair.

Give up your crap and just get on with it. You can't expect to make up all the rules for the debate. Are you afraid to debate with such references. I feel you are because when you compare the references you can use, compared to those others can use, there is no question who has the stronger evidence and opinion behind them, and you know most fence sitters and the GP will feel the same way.

You have disappointed me, and I know you could care less, but I actually thought we had found someone brave enough to debate the issues. Now you want to argue over the minutia of various reports and blah blah blah.

Just go away or start damn it.

TAM

 

[R.Mackey]

This is fine, but it is not sufficient to respond to my challenge. I am looking for an individual who does understand, and can explain it to the lay-audience.

Changing the rules again? I thought you wanted someone to explain it to you. That might be a debate. The terms you just listed above are not well-defined, and thus a lousy requirement.

I have already started an outline that the challenger can follow.
Here is another interesting point that should be covered in the positive case.

Please explain how heat applied to a floor truss lead to an inward pulling force on the perimeter and core columns.

Heck, that's easy, I'll answer that for free.

Suppose you have two columns, and between them is a horizontal truss, acting as a beam. Heat is applied under the truss.

Two things happen. (1) The truss expands, and yes, I know this is counter-intuitive for inward stress, but bear with me; and (2) the truss yield strength decreases. If enough heat is applied, the yield strength will decrease to zero, but other things will happen before this takes place.

The initial reaction is an outward deformation of the columns, along with a deflection in the truss. The truss will bow downward, initially assuming a more-or-less circular, shallow arc. How much of the expansion is taken up by the columns deflecting outward and how much is taken up by the truss bowing downward depend on the relative strength of the columns and trusses. In the WTC cases, the columns are relatively strong compared to the truss.

Heat is still applied. The truss continues to expand and continues to lose yield strength, tilting the balance of deformation increasingly towards the truss. While the columns will continue to be pushed outward, the bow in the truss will increase more and more.

More heat is applied. Now the weight of the truss becomes an important factor. Now that the truss is no longer horizontal, the truss weight induces an inward pull on the two columns, that will eventually overtake the outward push caused by the truss expansion.

More heat is applied. The truss yield strength drops to a point that the outward push it can sustain is equal to the inward pull from its weight. From this point on, there is no more outward push. The force on the column tops is inward from now until failure.

More heat is applied. At some point, either (a) the truss will simply break, or (b) the columns will reach their plastic limits and fail. This depends on lots of things, like how much else the columns are supporting and how it's distributed. In the WTC case, the columns are also being heated and losing their strength as well.

Regardless of which scenario you follow, at the moment of failure, you have an inward pull on the columns.

Basic strength of materials.

 

[tsig]

Mackey, are you accepting the challenge? Do you feel this is sufficient information to make the case? Tell you what, I'll accept this if you allow me to waive the "equal space" requirement. My rebuttal will run pages.

Even if you lose your bet, you'll still be $900 up.

Send me an email Mackey if you are interested in accepting the challenge.

[email protected]

You never had $900 on your best day.

Have you read the mod comment about money and the forum?

 

[Kent1]

Changing the rules again? I thought you wanted someone to explain it to you. That might be a debate. The terms you just listed above are not well-defined, and thus a lousy requirement.


Heck, that's easy, I'll answer that for free.

Suppose you have two columns, and between them is a horizontal truss, acting as a beam. Heat is applied under the truss.

Two things happen. (1) The truss expands, and yes, I know this is counter-intuitive for inward stress, but bear with me; and (2) the truss yield strength decreases. If enough heat is applied, the yield strength will decrease to zero, but other things will happen before this takes place.

The initial reaction is an outward deformation of the columns, along with a deflection in the truss. The truss will bow downward, initially assuming a more-or-less circular, shallow arc. How much of the expansion is taken up by the columns deflecting outward and how much is taken up by the truss bowing downward depend on the relative strength of the columns and trusses. In the WTC cases, the columns are relatively strong compared to the truss.

Heat is still applied. The truss continues to expand and continues to lose yield strength, tilting the balance of deformation increasingly towards the truss. While the columns will continue to be pushed outward, the bow in the truss will increase more and more.

More heat is applied. Now the weight of the truss becomes an important factor. Now that the truss is no longer horizontal, the truss weight induces an inward pull on the two columns, that will eventually overtake the outward push caused by the truss expansion.

More heat is applied. The truss yield strength drops to a point that the outward push it can sustain is equal to the inward pull from its weight. From this point on, there is no more outward push. The force on the column tops is inward from now until failure.

More heat is applied. At some point, either (a) the truss will simply break, or (b) the columns will reach their plastic limits and fail. This depends on lots of things, like how much else the columns are supporting and how it's distributed. In the WTC case, the columns are also being heated and losing their strength as well.

Regardless of which scenario you follow, at the moment of failure, you have an inward pull on the columns.

Basic strength of materials.

I would like to mention (from my understanding) as the fires moved on to find new sources of fuel in some areas the trusses cooled causing the expanded trusses to contract, further causing the perimeter columns to pull in. One you hit a certain point of sagging, your screwed.
Also an important video to check out is on biography
http://www.biography.com/listings/episode_details.do?episodeid=164291&airingid=184111
They have helicoper police audio and video with the officers stating that the building was leaning to the southwest. Then also stated that the tower was starting to buckle.
They stated:
"It appears to be buckling in the southwest corner pull out!"

 

[R.Mackey]

I would like to mention (from my understanding) as the fires moved on to find new sources of fuel in some areas the trusses cooled causing the expanded trusses to contract, further causing the perimeter columns to pull in. One you hit a certain point of sagging, your screwed.

That's correct. Also differential heating, where some parts expand and others don't, creates complicated and significant strain. And heating followed by cooling leads to annealing, which can profoundly alter the properties of the materials. Since this annealing would take place as part of a standing structure, and not under controlled conditions, the effects are only going to lead to further problems.

In my explanation I wanted to describe the process in the simplest possible scenario. The inward force is absolutely normal and expected. I take the fact that TruthSeeker1234 singled this out as an "interesting" point, worthy of his farcical debate, as evidence that he has virtually no experience with structural mechanics.

 

[Gravy]

Good, simple explanations, Mackey and Kent1. This seems to be the kind of thing TS1234 is looking for. The problem? The NIST report, especially the Executive Summaries, describes these conditions in exactly the same way: easy for the layman to understand. The fact that TS needs this to be further simplified tells me that he hasn't read the NIST report and/or or he has trouble understanding simple concepts. As I've said several times, he needs help, not someone to argue with.

 

[LashL]

OK. Rebuttal of LashL.

LashL has offered no explanation, no evidence no recounting of events, no indication that he even knows what the subject is. He has offered none of his own words.

As evidence, he has offered a single link to a government homepage. Please see the following Exciehomepage, please read every linked article, and every article linked within every linked article.

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

Clearly everything cited in the NIST report has been shown to be either false or irrelevant. Furthermore, the most interesting observations were not accounted for at all. Thus NIST is in gross violation of the scientific method, which requires that all relevant observations and data are accounted for.

THus we must reject LashL. QED.

When there is nothing to refute, it does not satisfy the terms. You guys know what I want, your'e being silly.

Response by LashL:

Excuse me, but please provide a link to the post of mine that you purport to be refuting.

You claim to be quoting or citing me but you have not linked to or quoted my post and I do not know what post you're talking about. I suspect that, though, given your history, that if it exists, you have taken it entirely out of context.

You have shown yourself to be a fraud and a liar repeatedly. I suspect that you're just doing the same tap dance that you do whenever you find yourself in a corner and when you hope that your tinhat friends won't notice how badly you're representing them here.

But, back to the main point. Please post a link to the post of mine that you are purporting to rebut. I have no idea what post you're talking about.


And for future reference, here's a Message Board 101 hint: any time you are purporting to 'rebut' someone's post, you should actually cite it.

Once again,
Please provide a link to the post of mine that you are purporting to rebut.

And after you do that, don't forget that the debate you asked for, nigh begged for, is still waiting for you:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65027

You still have not responded to point out what post of mine you purport to be rebutting.

I'm waiting.

 

[T.A.M.]

I think the idea of posting a link to an entire paper or an entire site, either, is not a very strong argument, regardless of which side is doing it. I agree it was the weakest part of my response to Fetzer's 15 points. For me though, I felt Fetzer and I about equally unqualified to speak on the minutia of the facts of the collapses, so I simply sited the experts, and said, "go read what the experts say".

In this case, I think what is needed is for someone to summarize our overall concensus on what we feel happened on 9/11 wrt the collapses, and then use references to certain pages or areas of the NIST report that support each of our assertations. If he does not like this way of doing things, than he is not actually looking for a debate.

TAM