Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Professional engineer Jon Cole cuts steel columns with thermate, debunks Nat Geo & unexpectedly repr

page: 84
417
<< 81  82  83    85 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
I notice you ignored this in your response, but did you at least check up on it, exponent?



Originally posted by bsbray11
Here's a pretty diagram for you, showing you the common connections between FEMA and NIST, amongst others:



Look the names up and see for yourself.

More background information on all of it here: stj911.org...




Here's something else showing accusations of corruption spreading all the way back to the ASCE's initial "findings":


Engineer Society Accused of Cover-Ups

By CAIN BURDEAU

Associated Press Writer

The professional organization for engineers who build the nation's roads, dams and bridges has been accused by fellow engineers of covering up catastrophic design flaws while investigating national disasters. ...

In 2002, the society's report on the World Trade Center praised the buildings for remaining standing long enough to allow tens thousands of people to flee.

But, the report said, skyscrapers are not typically designed to withstand airplane impacts. Instead of hardening buildings against such impacts, it recommended improving aviation security and fire protection.

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, a structural engineer and forensics expert, contends his computer simulations disprove the society's findings that skyscrapers could not be designed to withstand the impact of a jetliner.

Astaneh-Asl, who received money from the National Science Foundation to investigate the collapse, insisted most New York skyscrapers built with traditional designs would survive such an impact and prevent the kind of fires that brought down the twin towers.

He also questioned the makeup of the society's investigation team. On the team were the wife of the trade center's structural engineer and a representative of the buildings' original design team.

"I call this moral corruption," said Astaneh-Asl, who is on the faculty at the University of California, Berkeley.


seattletimes.nwsource.com...




posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
And you haven't provided one that shows it as a "theory," which was your argument,

No it wasn't. How many times do I have to tell you this, you asked for my opinion, and my opinion is that NISTs theory is indeed that, a theory. It is the most probable candidate supported by their experimentation and modelling. It fits a large amount of the visual evidence and surpasses any other hypothesis or theory that has been put forward.


No, but because you were pretending to defend NIST's report, while being willing to use words to describe their work that they didn't even use, and then when called on it you simply said you didn't care.

Do you think "defending NISTs report" means "repeating their words explicitly"? You're arguing that I should just quote the NIST report, which is obviously pointless. I voice my opinion as well as refer to the facts.


So you're saying they did an even worse job testing their hypothesis than I even thought. I won't contest that.

No, I'm saying you were making things up, aka lying for the purposes of bolstering your case. How can anyone trust what you say if it's evident you just make things up with no regard to their veracity?


These images were already discussed at length.

Last I read from you, you were still trying to argue that the aluminum panels were all still fitted exactly over the columns after the impacts, and anywhere you see aluminum cladding, a steel column is necessarily still behind it. That's what you were arguing, right? Even after I showed pictures with aluminum cladding freely hanging out horizontally from the building?

Yes, I was arguing that the aluminium cladding being in-place gives the minimal deflection measurement. You were arguing it was displaced outward meaning the inward deflection would be more. It's rather telling that you can't even keep your own arguments straight in your mind.


And that was just one issue. The main problem being that they aren't showing you enough buckling to justify a collapse in the first place given their own admitted reserve capacity of the perimeter columns that morning, which you also confused with live load capacity.

This is just fantasy. You think that columns can deflect inwards by several feet and not suffer severe buckling effects from it? What structural textbooks have you been reading?

It's also quite notable that you failed to provide any sufficient explanation for the images, and yet you claim there is 'no evidence'. You don't think that is duplicitous? Purposefully ignoring information you know is available?


I'd like to know what tests you're referring to, because the only "closer tests" I know of all contradict NIST by showing that the expansion forces of expanding steel are even greater, and happen at even lower temperatures.

I think I'll take your attitude here. It's not my job to educate you. You've had nearly a decade to become educated on the towers, and half that time to read and understand the NIST report. If you can't even get their tests straight even though many people including me have corrected you, then that's your own problem.


Where, and about what?

Throughout your last several posts, and you have lied about what NIST tested, what the test results are, and the evidence available.


Same, since you already said you don't care what NIST actually said when you're arguing on their behalf. That says a lot, you know?

Yep, it says that you're still desperately trying to twist my personal opinion which you asked for into some sort of trap.


If you don't have numbers, that's NIST's fault, and your fault for taking their argument upon yourself, not mine. All I have to do is point out what you don't have. I don't have to fill in your own blanks for you. That's giving you too much help with your own arguments, which I have nothing to do with in the first place.

I see, so you don't actually have any criteria for acceptance either, so your complaint was utterly pointless.

It seems sad that you have all this opportunity to learn and to gain new understanding, and instead you use it to try and feel superior to someone who's genuinely just trying to come to some agreement.

I don't think I'll bother responding to much else unless you start addressing issues rather than flat out lying or twisting my own words.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


It is the most probable candidate supported by their experimentation and modelling. It fits a large amount of the visual evidence and surpasses any other hypothesis or theory that has been put forward.


This is absolutely false; the fact is NIST conspiracy theory does not fit the visual evidences.

The fact is NIST hypothesis is not accepted by the scientific community because it was proven a fraud.
Experts were able to prove that the NIST science was made up and can not stand up to real science.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by bsbray11
And you haven't provided one that shows it as a "theory," which was your argument,

No it wasn't. How many times do I have to tell you this, you asked for my opinion, and my opinion is that NISTs theory is indeed that, a theory.


Then that's your argument, is it not? Now you're going to tell me I can't call an opinion an argument, and call me a liar based on that I guess. Oh well.



It is the most probable candidate


And the only candidate NIST "investigated."


supported by their experimentation and modelling.


Their hypothesis that the trusses pulled the perimeter columns inward? No, that wasn't supported by any experiment.




No, but because you were pretending to defend NIST's report, while being willing to use words to describe their work that they didn't even use, and then when called on it you simply said you didn't care.

Do you think "defending NISTs report" means "repeating their words explicitly"?


If you differ from their report, then I wouldn't consider that defending it, no. I would consider that disagreeing with it. But I believe we are already in agreement that they proved nothing, at least.



So you're saying they did an even worse job testing their hypothesis than I even thought. I won't contest that.

No, I'm saying you were making things up, aka lying for the purposes of bolstering your case. How can anyone trust what you say if it's evident you just make things up with no regard to their veracity?


A lie is when you knowingly post something that is false. I admit that I didn't realize the trusses they were testing weren't even connected to the simulated perimeter columns. I was under the impression they were actually recreating a more realistic set-up. Apparently they were not. Again, this is hardly a point to orgasm over, considering it only proves that they did a worse job testing their hypothesis than I even originally thought.



These images were already discussed at length.

Last I read from you, you were still trying to argue that the aluminum panels were all still fitted exactly over the columns after the impacts, and anywhere you see aluminum cladding, a steel column is necessarily still behind it. That's what you were arguing, right? Even after I showed pictures with aluminum cladding freely hanging out horizontally from the building?

Yes, I was arguing that the aluminium cladding being in-place gives the minimal deflection measurement.


The problem is that the aluminum cladding is not all in place. That is a proven fact, for anyone with eyeballs and some photos in front of them.

Might as well go ahead and dig up the photos again for convenience...






This aluminum cladding is "in-place"? Of course not. The plane impacts had everything to do with that.


You were arguing it was displaced outward meaning the inward deflection would be more. It's rather telling that you can't even keep your own arguments straight in your mind.


My arguments are perfectly straight in my own mind, but when you repeat them back to me they seem to suddenly become very confused. I'm sure that the confusion you perceive in me is really all your own.

I never said that an outward deflection would somehow mean the inward deflection is "more." That doesn't even make sense. If the expansion force is greater, then the outward deflection is greater, period. And, it happens at lower temperatures. So if you were going to argue that deflection caused so many perimeter columns to buckle and eventually fail, why would you say it was caused by the weaker force that required higher temperatures? Just to confuse people and hope they wouldn't think about it? (Looks like they succeeded if that was the idea.
)




And that was just one issue. The main problem being that they aren't showing you enough buckling to justify a collapse in the first place given their own admitted reserve capacity of the perimeter columns that morning, which you also confused with live load capacity.

This is just fantasy. You think that columns can deflect inwards by several feet and not suffer severe buckling effects from it? What structural textbooks have you been reading?


You've already misrepresented what I'm saying... again. And this is something we already talked about at length before. Sad.

One column buckling is not going to cause any collapse. That was proven by the plane impacts. So that's fact #1 for you, alright?

Second of all.. read what I said again. This part:


The main problem being that they aren't showing you enough buckling to justify a collapse



That means... total buckling... not just the buckling of one arbitrary column you've picked at random. And I don't see any columns pulled in for a number of feet. But even if there were, you would need a certain number of them to fail before the whole damned building is going to start exploding in all directions, even according to NIST, and that's where the reserve capacities come in. Because the reserve capacity is how much additional loading each column could take before reaching its yield strength and beginning to permanently deform. That capacity has already been discussed.

How many columns do you think it would take to buckle, before a tower starts exploding everywhere? It has to be more than 1 column buckling to start a "collapse," and it's apparently an idea you share with NIST, so what number do you think it would take, and why?


It's also quite notable that you failed to provide any sufficient explanation for the images, and yet you claim there is 'no evidence'. You don't think that is duplicitous? Purposefully ignoring information you know is available?


I could say the exact same to you. I have responded to these images at length, even in this same freaking thread. And you apparently ignored all that, as if I had never even posted it. And then I repeated it all back to you, and you are STILL ignoring me. Purposefully ignoring information you know is available.. yes, there is something wrong with that. So when are you going to start paying attention, or stop lying for once?




I'd like to know what tests you're referring to, because the only "closer tests" I know of all contradict NIST by showing that the expansion forces of expanding steel are even greater, and happen at even lower temperatures.

I think I'll take your attitude here. It's not my job to educate you. You've had nearly a decade to become educated on the towers, and half that time to read and understand the NIST report. If you can't even get their tests straight even though many people including me have corrected you, then that's your own problem.


The problem is that you haven't actually corrected me. Take this as one case in point. I ask you what "closer tests" you're talking about, and you take a cop-out and project it onto me instead. You utterly failed to support your own claims, and utterly failed to show what tests you are referring to. Because there are none that validate NIST's hypothesis. It's that simple. And you can't show them.



Where, and about what?

Throughout your last several posts, and you have lied about what NIST tested, what the test results are, and the evidence available.


Oh, okay, so now you're going to accuse me of lying based on your claim that there was physical testing, even though you can't post it.


I already know there wasn't physical testing of their hypothesis, chief. And your inability to show any only proves my point. That would make you the liar. Or just blissfully ignorant. Take your pick.



Same, since you already said you don't care what NIST actually said when you're arguing on their behalf. That says a lot, you know?

Yep, it says that you're still desperately trying to twist my personal opinion which you asked for into some sort of trap.


Yes, me asking you about the NIST report is a trap.


You're not far off, but not for the reasons you think.




If you don't have numbers, that's NIST's fault, and your fault for taking their argument upon yourself, not mine. All I have to do is point out what you don't have. I don't have to fill in your own blanks for you. That's giving you too much help with your own arguments, which I have nothing to do with in the first place.

I see, so you don't actually have any criteria for acceptance either, so your complaint was utterly pointless.


My "criteria for acceptance" is that you follow a logical sequence in your arguments, which you are unable to do. Again, that's not my fault. If you don't know what numbers you need to prove your case, then you obviously aren't able to prove your case. Not -- my -- problem.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
This is absolutely false; the fact is NIST conspiracy theory does not fit the visual evidences.

The fact is NIST hypothesis is not accepted by the scientific community because it was proven a fraud.
Experts were able to prove that the NIST science was made up and can not stand up to real science.

This is just fantasy, NISTs recommendations have been published for some time and industry groups like the CTBUH have accepted many of these. If the NIST report was considered unsound science by major engineering groups, then please list them here.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Then that's your argument, is it not? Now you're going to tell me I can't call an opinion an argument, and call me a liar based on that I guess. Oh well.

Oh no, I don't need to call you a liar for that, just wrong. An opinion is not an argument. If I was saying "NISTs report should say 'theory'", then that is an opinion and an argument. You asked me for an opinion, which is all you got.


If you differ from their report, then I wouldn't consider that defending it, no. I would consider that disagreeing with it. But I believe we are already in agreement that they proved nothing, at least.

'proved nothing' are nice weasel words you've found, even though it's utter rubbish. Remember you have still produced exactly 0 quotes from NIST to prove me wrong. You're acting as if you have, and I need to point this out otherwise I fear you'll run with it despite the nonexistence of evidence.


A lie is when you knowingly post something that is false. I admit that I didn't realize the trusses they were testing weren't even connected to the simulated perimeter columns. I was under the impression they were actually recreating a more realistic set-up. Apparently they were not. Again, this is hardly a point to orgasm over, considering it only proves that they did a worse job testing their hypothesis than I even originally thought.

You're still approaching this with absolute ignorance.
  • They weren't validation experiments, so they cannot be testing their hypothesis
  • You've had 6 years to read the reports, and you still can't figure out what experiments test what
  • There were no simulated perimeter columns, the trusses were supported by a couple of beams attached to columns, all fireproofed and purely designed for support, not for any sort of perimeter modelling



The problem is that the aluminum cladding is not all in place. That is a proven fact, for anyone with eyeballs and some photos in front of them.
...
This aluminum cladding is "in-place"? Of course not. The plane impacts had everything to do with that.
...
My arguments are perfectly straight in my own mind, but when you repeat them back to me they seem to suddenly become very confused. I'm sure that the confusion you perceive in me is really all your own.

Let me put this simply then, so no confusion can be had.

1. NIST measured the deflection of perimeter columns
2. The further away the cladding was from the steel, the greater the deflection produced by those measurements
3. You claim that the cladding could have been displaced outward from the steel
4. That would result in greater deflection, not less

I don't see how you can't understand that, it is not exactly rocket science.


That means... total buckling... not just the buckling of one arbitrary column you've picked at random. And I don't see any columns pulled in for a number of feet. But even if there were, you would need a certain number of them to fail before the whole damned building is going to start exploding in all directions, even according to NIST, and that's where the reserve capacities come in. Because the reserve capacity is how much additional loading each column could take before reaching its yield strength and beginning to permanently deform. That capacity has already been discussed.

This all seems reasonable actually, other than the "I don't see any". Are you blind? They're right in front of you, you can do the measurements yourself and you will not come out with any other answer than 'yep, thats inward buckling alright'.


How many columns do you think it would take to buckle, before a tower starts exploding everywhere? It has to be more than 1 column buckling to start a "collapse," and it's apparently an idea you share with NIST, so what number do you think it would take, and why?

A tough one to speculate, I'd say the vast majority of columns along one side would probably need to bow inwards to reduce capacity enough, it might have to be combined with some effects of the core sagging under increased temperature load etc.


I could say the exact same to you. I have responded to these images at length, even in this same freaking thread. And you apparently ignored all that, as if I had never even posted it.

Not at all! I replied in depth to your comments, and you proceeded to ignore me: www.abovetopsecret.com...

If any of your comments could possibly have helped, then I would discuss them, but nothing you said is going to affect the pictures in any way, they're almost self-evident, in that as soon as you realise what you're looking at, it's quite hard to deny.


The problem is that you haven't actually corrected me. Take this as one case in point. I ask you what "closer tests" you're talking about, and you take a cop-out and project it onto me instead. You utterly failed to support your own claims, and utterly failed to show what tests you are referring to.

I was taking your attitude, now you know what it feels like to debate yourself.


Oh, okay, so now you're going to accuse me of lying based on your claim that there was physical testing, even though you can't post it.

Anyone can post it, it's in NCSTAR 1-6. I just thought I would let you do your own research for once.


My "criteria for acceptance" is that you follow a logical sequence in your arguments, which you are unable to do. Again, that's not my fault. If you don't know what numbers you need to prove your case, then you obviously aren't able to prove your case. Not -- my -- problem.

You're the one who demanded stricter error margins. I'm more than happy to accomodate you, but I'm not willing to play 'pick bsbrays favourite number'. If you require that temperatures get within 50C and stay that way for 10 Minutes, then say so. If you don't have any specific requirements then why did you request some?
edit on 19/4/11 by exponent because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
If I was saying "NISTs report should say 'theory'", then that is an opinion and an argument. You asked me for an opinion, which is all you got.


Then I guess you realize your definition of "theory" must not mean a hypothesis that was actually tested huh?


'proved nothing' are nice weasel words you've found, even though it's utter rubbish.


In terms of determining what caused the Twin Towers to explode in all directions, no it isn't. Because they didn't prove how that happened. They offered a hypothesis for the initiation sequence, and then just said the rest was therefore inevitable. All based on their word "probably."


Remember you have still produced exactly 0 quotes from NIST to prove me wrong.


That's because one of us would have to search through the entire NIST report to prove you wrong, and I already told you it wasn't going to be me, because I already know that they didn't physically reproduce their hypothesis and that's all they had in the end.


You're still approaching this with absolute ignorance.
  • They weren't validation experiments, so they cannot be testing their hypothesis


I never claimed they were. The only thing I ever said was that it's the closest NIST got to proving their hypothesis could actually happen, and you even wanted to argue with that. So far you haven't shown anything from the NIST report at all.


  • You've had 6 years to read the reports, and you still can't figure out what experiments test what


  • Does that have something to do with you not being able to show where NIST physically tested their hypothesis and showed it was possible?


  • There were no simulated perimeter columns



  • WTC Fire Experiment #6 shortly after initiation of fire

    Multiple (three) typical WTC North Tower workstation cubicles with Jet A fuel sprayed on them are inside this experimental setup. Left side of enclosure front has glass wall. Right side of enclosure front has simulated exterior columns without glass (the space between the "columns" is the same distance apart as the actual columns in the WTC North Tower).


    wtc.nist.gov...

    You're right, the trusses don't appear to be attached to them, and no one ever claimed they were the same dimensions as the real WTC columns or anything like that either. It just looks like they were trying to simulate ventilation conditions.



    1. NIST measured the deflection of perimeter columns
    2. The further away the cladding was from the steel, the greater the deflection produced by those measurements


    You're still not fully accepting a very simple point. There was aluminum cladding hanging horizontally off from the buildings. There were no steel columns behind it. It was not any quantitative indicator whatsoever of how much anything behind it was deflected. And there are plenty of other examples of cladding being knocked away from their columns in the photos, and where the columns are still intact behind them.


    3. You claim that the cladding could have been displaced outward from the steel


    I don't "claim" that, I showed you a freaking picture that proved it.


    4. That would result in greater deflection, not less


    The aluminum cladding is what deflected the perimeter columns now?


    I thought it was the heated trusses? The aluminum cladding was not that firmly attached to the steel. Their connections could break for any number of reasons and give no information of what state the column is in behind them. Look at your diagrams for how they were connected again.



    That means... total buckling... not just the buckling of one arbitrary column you've picked at random. And I don't see any columns pulled in for a number of feet. But even if there were, you would need a certain number of them to fail before the whole damned building is going to start exploding in all directions, even according to NIST, and that's where the reserve capacities come in. Because the reserve capacity is how much additional loading each column could take before reaching its yield strength and beginning to permanently deform. That capacity has already been discussed.

    This all seems reasonable actually, other than the "I don't see any". Are you blind?


    Stop taking my words out of context. What I said was "I don't see any columns pulled in for a number of feet," which was in response to you claiming that trusses had actually pulled perimeter columns inward for a several feet.


    They're right in front of you, you can do the measurements yourself and you will not come out with any other answer than 'yep, thats inward buckling alright'.['/quote]

    I can do it, but you can't do it?

    I'd love to see how you measure the deflection in the photographs.




    How many columns do you think it would take to buckle, before a tower starts exploding everywhere? It has to be more than 1 column buckling to start a "collapse," and it's apparently an idea you share with NIST, so what number do you think it would take, and why?

    A tough one to speculate, I'd say the vast majority of columns along one side would probably need to bow inwards to reduce capacity enough, it might have to be combined with some effects of the core sagging under increased temperature load etc.


    "core sagging under increase temperature load"? Care to explain what exactly you mean by core sagging?



    I could say the exact same to you. I have responded to these images at length, even in this same freaking thread. And you apparently ignored all that, as if I had never even posted it.

    Not at all! I replied in depth to your comments, and you proceeded to ignore me: www.abovetopsecret.com...


    This is obviously an on-going "discussion" then. You showed above you're still unwilling to accept the fact that you can't measure deflection by measuring the aluminum panels, when the photos all show there is no reliable correlation at all, especially the closer you get to the impact holes.



    The problem is that you haven't actually corrected me. Take this as one case in point. I ask you what "closer tests" you're talking about, and you take a cop-out and project it onto me instead. You utterly failed to support your own claims, and utterly failed to show what tests you are referring to.

    I was taking your attitude, now you know what it feels like to debate yourself.


    I'm not trying to prove anything about NIST, except that they did no tests and had no proof for their hypothesis. By not posting evidence, you're only proving me right.

    It's not my problem if you're the one trying to prove they did test or prove their hypothesis. That's your burden of proof. My "attitude" is not to make you prove a negative instead of trying to justify my own argument. I'm asking for a positive, provable event to back NIST's case, and you're refusing.



    Oh, okay, so now you're going to accuse me of lying based on your claim that there was physical testing, even though you can't post it.

    Anyone can post it, it's in NCSTAR 1-6. I just thought I would let you do your own research for once.


    What NIST shows in that section doesn't even come close to justifying their hypothesis. For one thing they ramp the temperatures up with a controlled heat source to the maximum temperatures they think were possible at the WTC. None of this data has anything to do with the over-all behavior of the fires in the Twin Towers. For another they don't even discuss what kind of "pulling" forces you'd be looking at on a perimeter column, and how this would affect its moment of inertia once you take into consideration the spandrel plates and dampers and all the rest.



    My "criteria for acceptance" is that you follow a logical sequence in your arguments, which you are unable to do. Again, that's not my fault. If you don't know what numbers you need to prove your case, then you obviously aren't able to prove your case. Not -- my -- problem.

    You're the one who demanded stricter error margins. I'm more than happy to accomodate you, but I'm not willing to play 'pick bsbrays favourite number'.


    Stricter error margins? So you're saying not even knowing how many total columns would have to buckle is fine with you, and presents no problem for you to believe NIST's hypothesis? Alright, cool.



    If you require that temperatures get within 50C and stay that way for 10 Minutes, then say so.


    Stop whining man, it's not my burden to be the one making any specific claims, except that NIST didn't validate their hypothesis. It's not a trivial difference, they just straight up didn't do it, and you can't show anywhere in their report where they did. And all I have to do... is point out that you don't the data to be so sure of your own claims. It really is that easy. Because they weren't my claims in the first place. What is so hard to understand about that?



    posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 08:28 PM
    link   
    reply to post by exponent
     


    This is just fantasy,


    No it is a proven fact; you’re just ignorant to the facts.


    NISTs recommendations have been published for some time and industry groups like the CTBUH have accepted many of these.


    Prove it? Prove that all of these industry groups support NIST 911 report, please show all their comments saying it?


    If the NIST report was considered unsound science by major engineering groups, then please list them here.


    Here are a thousand Architects and Engineers who work with many major groups.


    1,000 ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS
    CALL FOR NEW INVESTIGATION OF
    DESTRUCTION OF THE 3 WORLD TRADE
    CENTER SKYSCRAPERS ON 9/11/01


    www2.ae911truth.org...&Names-TO-PRINT.pdf

    Please list all the major engineering groups that support the OS, here?



    posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 06:49 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by bsbray11
    Then I guess you realize your definition of "theory" must not mean a hypothesis that was actually tested huh?

    I guess that you have not thought this through. I wonder how you would refer to the principle hypothesis in any investigation? When aircraft crash and they are reconstructed, is that not hypothesis instead of theory in your eyes then? As unless they re-crash the same plane they haven't tested it!


    That's because one of us would have to search through the entire NIST report to prove you wrong, and I already told you it wasn't going to be me

    This is the very essence of your reply, you're absolutely confident you're right but you are not willing to do any actual work to prove it. No wonder you've been posting pointlessly on a forum for years and the truth movement hasn't advanced one iota. It's this attitude that is to blame.


    I never claimed they were. The only thing I ever said was that it's the closest NIST got to proving their hypothesis could actually happen, and you even wanted to argue with that. So far you haven't shown anything from the NIST report at all.

    I find it hilarious that you can type this and not realise how badly it reflects upon yourself. You've criticised the NIST report and attempted to reference it, but failed miserably, and now it's my fault for not leading you by the hand to the sections you need.


    Does that have something to do with you not being able to show where NIST physically tested their hypothesis and showed it was possible?

    Nope, it has quite a lot to do with me mocking you for your complete ignorance on a subject you profess to be an expert on. What sort of 'physical test' are you looking for? I'll remind you again of the plane crash analogy, if your tests require them to crash another few planes it's probably not going to happen. Same for NIST.


    You're still not fully accepting a very simple point. There was aluminum cladding hanging horizontally off from the buildings. There were no steel columns behind it. It was not any quantitative indicator whatsoever of how much anything behind it was deflected. And there are plenty of other examples of cladding being knocked away from their columns in the photos, and where the columns are still intact behind them.
    ...
    I thought it was the heated trusses? The aluminum cladding was not that firmly attached to the steel. Their connections could break for any number of reasons and give no information of what state the column is in behind them. Look at your diagrams for how they were connected again.

    This is utterly incomprehensibly illogical. Let me put this as simply as I would for a child, because I find it hard to believe you still don't get this, and so I think you're probably trying to muddy the waters as otherwise it would show you up.

    The WTC outside was constructed of steel columns. These columns were then wrapped on 3 sides in aluminium, there was essentially no room for them to move closer to the columns.

    You've pointed out how many of the aluminium fronts were knocked off and pushed outward.



    NIST measured this picture by continuing the line of the columns from the lower unaffected structure, and measured how many pixels they were pushed in. The columns NIST are measuring appear to have intact aluminium cladding.

    Assuming for a minute though that they don't, the only way that they could measure the same large deflections if the aluminium wasn't properly connected, is if the steel beams were further back as the aluminium would now be sticking out of the front.

    Please, if it's possible any other way then draw me a picture to show it. I would love to see what you can come up with to show how damaged aluminium cladding showed this level of inward bowing.


    Stop taking my words out of context. What I said was "I don't see any columns pulled in for a number of feet," which was in response to you claiming that trusses had actually pulled perimeter columns inward for a several feet.

    That '55' number you see in the image above. That's inches. 55 inches is 'a number of feet'.


    I can do it, but you can't do it?

    I'd love to see how you measure the deflection in the photographs.

    It's not rocket science. We know the dimensions of the tower, so you can work out the dimension of a pixel. It's funny how you deflect any analysis off to me though. No, you claimed that the aluminium could make those results unreliable, please show how.


    "core sagging under increase temperature load"? Care to explain what exactly you mean by core sagging?

    As sections of the core heat up, their modulus of elasticity is lowered, resulting in the steel becoming softer and sagging. This is a general downward deflection, rather than the same mechanism as the trusses. I can't remember NISTs predictions, it was no more than a few inches though at max, but even that can have an effect.


    What NIST shows in that section doesn't even come close to justifying their hypothesis. For one thing they ramp the temperatures up with a controlled heat source to the maximum temperatures they think were possible at the WTC.

    Dear lord man why is this so hard to get into your head. These experiments were to model the WTC, not to somehow reproduce the effects. They are an engineering group, not a play-school group.


    Stricter error margins? So you're saying not even knowing how many total columns would have to buckle is fine with you, and presents no problem for you to believe NIST's hypothesis? Alright, cool.

    The idea that there's a number of columns which must buckle under all scenarios shows your ignorance of structures of this size. Why do you think they used a simulation rather than manually testing?


    Stop whining man, it's not my burden to be the one making any specific claims, except that NIST didn't validate their hypothesis. It's not a trivial difference, they just straight up didn't do it, and you can't show anywhere in their report where they did. And all I have to do... is point out that you don't the data to be so sure of your own claims. It really is that easy. Because they weren't my claims in the first place. What is so hard to understand about that?

    What is hard to understand is how you can demand that there are numerical error margins, then demand that you have no obligation to provide them or to discuss them in any way.

    Essentially you're now trolling, you're not going to do any research, produce any of your own evidence, calculations or information. You just sit back insulting people and twisting their words in order to try and throw Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt at the NIST report.

    A report you've never even read.
    edit on 20/4/11 by exponent because: (no reason given)



    posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 06:57 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by impressme
    No it is a proven fact; you’re just ignorant to the facts.

    I don't see any proof being posted here. Feel free to show some.


    Prove it? Prove that all of these industry groups support NIST 911 report, please show all their comments saying it?

    Here's the comments of the CTBUH on NISTs WTC7 report for example: wtc.nist.gov...

    The Council believes that the NIST report is a responsible attempt to find the
    cause of the failure, and finds that the report has investigated many of the
    probable causes. The Council has several technical questions about details of
    the modeling; but we would not expect that to change the conclusions: that
    the floor beams failed due to fire, which led to buckling of the internal columns
    resulting in global failure.


    There's many more I could go find if I could be bothered.


    Here are a thousand Architects and Engineers who work with many major groups.

    Architects are irrelevant unless they are structurally qualified, tell me, how many structural engineers in this list and where can I find a list of their publications?

    Last time I checked it was under 50 structural engineers, and under 200 mechanical/civil/structural engineers, most without any publication critical of the NIST report, and many disagreeing with each other.

    That's not particularly convincing is it when you consider that organisations like the ASCE were involved from the start, that NISTs recommendations for changes to building regulations have been discussed and accepted within many engineering groups.

    I guess none of that matters to you though.



    posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 06:58 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by exponent

    Originally posted by bsbray11
    Then I guess you realize your definition of "theory" must not mean a hypothesis that was actually tested huh?

    I guess that you have not thought this through. I wonder how you would refer to the principle hypothesis in any investigation? When aircraft crash and they are reconstructed, is that not hypothesis instead of theory in your eyes then? As unless they re-crash the same plane they haven't tested it!


    Unless the working hypothesis is, "the plane crashed," then that part wouldn't need to be tested. As far as I know, all plane crashes are meant to investigate more than whether or not the plane crashed, like why the plane crashed. Or why a building was destroyed and sent flying in every direction. Then you have a hypothesis that actually deserves testing.

    So now that I have thought this out for you (doesn't mean you're actually going to do any thinking yourself), would you like to comment on where NIST tested their hypothesis, in order to make it the theory you pretend it is?



    That's because one of us would have to search through the entire NIST report to prove you wrong, and I already told you it wasn't going to be me

    This is the very essence of your reply, you're absolutely confident you're right but you are not willing to do any actual work to prove it.


    NIST's hypothesis isn't my burden to prove in the first place, so of course I'm not going to do any work to prove anything they did or didn't do.


    No wonder you've been posting pointlessly on a forum for years and the truth movement hasn't advanced one iota. It's this attitude that is to blame.


    No kidding. It's called projection, and all your weaknesses and problems, you just project onto "truthers" to make it their responsibility, so you don't have to worry about it. You just keep having faith in the government and pretending that truthers are the ones who are supposed to prove everything to you.

    And btw, "hasn't advanced one iota" doesn't make sense considering what has been advanced since 2001 in these regards, including thousands of engineers signing their names to petitions, and all the other efforts real people and professionals have gone through. In the mean time you just sit on your ass and proclaim NIST got everything right while being unwilling to show where and how, and demanding truthers explain NIST to you so you can tell them why it's right.




    I never claimed they were. The only thing I ever said was that it's the closest NIST got to proving their hypothesis could actually happen, and you even wanted to argue with that. So far you haven't shown anything from the NIST report at all.

    I find it hilarious that you can type this and not realise how badly it reflects upon yourself. You've criticised the NIST report and attempted to reference it, but failed miserably, and now it's my fault for not leading you by the hand to the sections you need.


    I'm glad you find it hilarious, because you still aren't able to show where NIST proved anything, and that's what's even funnier about the whole situation. It's no joke that he who laughs last laughs best you know.


    Notice how when any time I ask you to show what NIST proved, you just come up with cute little responses like "oh that's so hilarious" and etc. etc.

    Yeah, that speaks for itself too.



    Does that have something to do with you not being able to show where NIST physically tested their hypothesis and showed it was possible?

    Nope, it has quite a lot to do with me mocking you for your complete ignorance on a subject you profess to be an expert on.


    How many times have I heard this? "Nope, I'm right, I just refuse to prove it because it's too funny that you're wrong." Yeah, right. The only reason you seem to come here at all is to bicker, and if you actually thought there were proof for any of the bull crap you spew you would have been rubbing my face in it pages ago.



    You're still not fully accepting a very simple point. There was aluminum cladding hanging horizontally off from the buildings. There were no steel columns behind it. It was not any quantitative indicator whatsoever of how much anything behind it was deflected. And there are plenty of other examples of cladding being knocked away from their columns in the photos, and where the columns are still intact behind them.
    ...
    I thought it was the heated trusses? The aluminum cladding was not that firmly attached to the steel. Their connections could break for any number of reasons and give no information of what state the column is in behind them. Look at your diagrams for how they were connected again.

    This is utterly incomprehensibly illogical. Let me put this as simply as I would for a child, because I find it hard to believe you still don't get this, and so I think you're probably trying to muddy the waters as otherwise it would show you up.


    I thought looking at a photograph was simple enough for even a small child, but you proved me wrong there.

    Don't even start like you're so smart that you can see things in photos that no one else can. I made a simple point and you're being stubborn and thick-headed about it. That's all there is to it. The aluminum cladding means nothing about where a column is behind it. Period. If you want proof, I keep posting these images:



    You'd rather ignore them and lecture me on how to be too stupid to interpret photos. No thanks, you can keep that to yourself.



    The WTC outside was constructed of steel columns. These columns were then wrapped on 3 sides in aluminium, there was essentially no room for them to move closer to the columns.


    I knew that years ago. You've posted it multiple times. Now here's where the stupidity comes in on your part. A plane hit those buildings, and it dislodged lots of aluminum cladding from the columns.

    I know that seems as impenetrable as rocket science to you, and you've called it "illogical" and all kinds of other unjustified, pompous crap, but the cladding was still knocked loose by the impacts. You can see this in photos. There really is no arguing with a photograph, unless your next claim is that they're all photoshopped, or you're too brilliant to look at photographs, or some equally charming "argument."


    You've pointed out how many of the aluminium fronts were knocked off and pushed outward.


    Yes, and you are arguing with me about it. Which is what I don't understand. They are clearly dislodged.


    Assuming for a minute though that they don't, the only way that they could measure the same large deflections if the aluminium wasn't properly connected, is if the steel beams were further back as the aluminium would now be sticking out of the front.

    Please, if it's possible any other way then draw me a picture to show it. I would love to see what you can come up with to show how damaged aluminium cladding showed this level of inward bowing.


    I'm not going to draw you a picture for what you can already see in photographs. That is beyond asinine. NIST is showing a building face at a distance, through heat waves, where you can't even see the shape that the cladding is in, let alone what the columns look like behind that cladding. If you can't do better than this, then your best just isn't good enough. And again this is only one problem with their "evidence" for trusses-pulling-in-perimeter columns that you have chosen to obsess on, I guess because you thought it was the weakest and easiest to ridicule. It is still a major issue, but not even the most important with NIST's work.



    Stop taking my words out of context. What I said was "I don't see any columns pulled in for a number of feet," which was in response to you claiming that trusses had actually pulled perimeter columns inward for a several feet.

    That '55' number you see in the image above. That's inches. 55 inches is 'a number of feet'.


    I realize that, and I still say "I don't see any columns pulled in for a number of feet." What NIST claims is erroneous given the nature of their analysis.



    I can do it, but you can't do it?

    I'd love to see how you measure the deflection in the photographs.

    It's not rocket science. We know the dimensions of the tower, so you can work out the dimension of a pixel. It's funny how you deflect any analysis off to me though.


    Well you were offering me do it, so I assumed only naturally that you wouldn't be a hypocrite.



    "core sagging under increase temperature load"? Care to explain what exactly you mean by core sagging?

    As sections of the core heat up, their modulus of elasticity is lowered, resulting in the steel becoming softer and sagging. This is a general downward deflection, rather than the same mechanism as the trusses. I can't remember NISTs predictions, it was no more than a few inches though at max, but even that can have an effect.


    I believe what you are referring to is "creep" and it was a load of bullocks.



    What NIST shows in that section doesn't even come close to justifying their hypothesis. For one thing they ramp the temperatures up with a controlled heat source to the maximum temperatures they think were possible at the WTC.

    Dear lord man why is this so hard to get into your head. These experiments were to model the WTC, not to somehow reproduce the effects. They are an engineering group, not a play-school group.


    We already established this, but you refuse to show any more relevant "testing" of their hypothesis, and yet you seem to believe they had a theory, which means testing. So what other testing you could be referring to, I still have no clue, and you refuse to say.



    Stricter error margins? So you're saying not even knowing how many total columns would have to buckle is fine with you, and presents no problem for you to believe NIST's hypothesis? Alright, cool.

    The idea that there's a number of columns which must buckle under all scenarios shows your ignorance of structures of this size. Why do you think they used a simulation rather than manually testing?


    That's not a reasonable addressing of my question in any way. Maybe I should just call you ignorant in all my responses and leave it at that. It's not my fault if you don't understand your own argument, or what it's based on.






    Stop whining man, it's not my burden to be the one making any specific claims, except that NIST didn't validate their hypothesis. It's not a trivial difference, they just straight up didn't do it, and you can't show anywhere in their report where they did. And all I have to do... is point out that you don't the data to be so sure of your own claims. It really is that easy. Because they weren't my claims in the first place. What is so hard to understand about that?

    What is hard to understand is how you can demand that there are numerical error margins, then demand that you have no obligation to provide them or to discuss them in any way.


    I didn't demand "numerical error margins," that's the crap you came up with by yourself. I just asked how many columns would have to be buckled according to NIST's hypothesis. Maybe we both already understand that they weren't that specific.


    Essentially you're now trolling, you're not going to do any research, produce any of your own evidence


    Still you are whining about the fact that I don't have to prove anything, in order for NIST to prove something.

    But NIST didn't prove anything.

    So you can't show where the proved anything.

    Yes, too bad, have to keep crying, because through all of this, the burden of proof is not mine. So sad.



    posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 07:01 AM
    link   
    There's pretty much nothing for me to bother replying to in that huge post.

    You've once again failed to raise any specific points, use any logic at any point, and are just denying and deriding anything you disagree with.

    I'm interested in discussion, not "This magical effect explains away all of the evidence I want to ignore!"

    Eventually you'll manage to use a ruler on that image and discover that in fact there is significant inward deflection I wonder if you will still try to explain it away by the most insane proposition that somehow magically the steel was perfectly fine.

    Let me know when you come up with some actual questions or answers.



    posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 03:45 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by exponent
    Eventually you'll manage to use a ruler on that image and discover that in fact there is significant inward deflection I wonder if you will still try to explain it away by the most insane proposition that somehow magically the steel was perfectly fine.


    So what IF there was deflection?

    You still can't explain how the deflection would cause complete global collapse.

    You still can't explain how the trusses managed to cause the deflection in the first place.

    Sagging trusses can not cause inward bowing of columns, this has been explained, and you keep ignoring it.
    It is simple physics, steel expands when hot. IF it could cause an inward bowing of the columns, it would have caused an outward bowing when they expanded from the heat, that caused the sagging. There is no difference in energy used to push out or pull in. Once the steel starts to sag it is no longer putting a pushing, or pulling, force on the columns, that is WHY it sags.

    And the nonsense about acting like a chain when sagging is stupid. A chain is not sagging from heat. You guys like to make the claim that steel loses 50% of it's strength at 800C, yet you think it can also put a pulling force on the much larger columns they were attached to?

    But of course you have to support that hypothesis because NIST said so, and without it you might have to actually, gosh, question the NIST report.


    edit on 4/22/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



    posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 11:05 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by ANOK
    Sagging trusses can not cause inward bowing of columns, this has been explained, and you keep ignoring it.
    It is simple physics, steel expands when hot. IF it could cause an inward bowing of the columns, it would have caused an outward bowing when they expanded from the heat, that caused the sagging. There is no difference in energy used to push out or pull in. Once the steel starts to sag it is no longer putting a pushing, or pulling, force on the columns, that is WHY it sags.

    This is a concentrated paragraph of ignorance. For a start, there is a huge difference in the force used between pulling in and pushing out.

    Pushing out is governed by the temperature and cross sectional steel area.
    Pulling in is determined by truss mass + load and the connection geometry.


    And the nonsense about acting like a chain when sagging is stupid. A chain is not sagging from heat. You guys like to make the claim that steel loses 50% of it's strength at 800C, yet you think it can also put a pulling force on the much larger columns they were attached to?

    A chain sags due to gravity, as a truss is weakened through fire, it also sags due to gravity. It is the geometry that matters.


    But of course you have to support that hypothesis because NIST said so, and without it you might have to actually, gosh, question the NIST report.

    Why if only truss deflection and the resultant forces were well covered in the literature and you could learn about them in only a few minutes by googling!

    If you do the research you will find all of your above claims are false, other than the fact trusses will push outwards. I don't see anyone ever denying this.



    posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 06:27 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by exponent
    There's pretty much nothing for me to bother replying to in that huge post.

    You've once again failed to raise any specific points, use any logic at any point, and are just denying and deriding anything you disagree with.



    Of course.


    The point is that you have failed to show where NIST proved what caused the Twin Towers to "collapse." Since you can't show any such proof, all other discussion is bound to be inconsequential to that fact anyway, and this is all I am pointing out to you in these posts.

    They become increasingly lengthy because your arguments become more and more convoluted, though the ultimate point remains the same.


    I can simply express the whole point in a single sentence: NIST did not prove why the Twin Towers came down. They also blatantly ignored lots of credible evidence, such as eyewitness accounts.


    All the rest is fluff, and I don't blame you for giving up.



    Let me know when you come up with some actual questions or answers.


    And you can let me know when the phrase "burden of proof" suddenly has a clear, logical meaning in your mind. You can refer to who Congress assigned the task of investigating the WTC "collapses" if you want. They never assigned any such responsibility to me. You can act like the fact that they didn't prove why the towers "collapsed" is trivial, or you can pretend that "secretly" they really did prove something and you just have to be a supergenius like yourself to see how no proof suddenly equates to proof. Either way, it's really not my problem.



    posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 07:26 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by bsbray11
    The point is that you have failed to show where NIST proved what caused the Twin Towers to "collapse." Since you can't show any such proof, all other discussion is bound to be inconsequential to that fact anyway, and this is all I am pointing out to you in these posts.

    I started a new thread specifically to discuss the NIST report as you seem unable to do anything but make vague criticisms.


    All the rest is fluff, and I don't blame you for giving up.

    I give up with you as you are incapable of admitting you are incorrect even in the face of a simple logical choice. You were presented with pictures and asked to explain them and you could not and instead denied the existence of simple logical explanations. This is not rational behaviour and so I cannot debate someone acting this way.


    And you can let me know when the phrase "burden of proof" suddenly has a clear, logical meaning in your mind. You can refer to who Congress assigned the task of investigating the WTC "collapses" if you want. They never assigned any such responsibility to me.

    I agree, you were never assigned any responsibility for explaining the collapses. However, NIST produced a coherent theory explaining the collapse and clearly their results have been adopted by engineering communities.

    You have criticisms of the report, and this is where the burden of proof falls upon you. If you want to criticise a section of the report, you have to provide some sort of evidence of the correct answer. It's reasonable enough to just show that they're wrong, but you don't even seem to be attempting that. In fact you flat out refused to even look through the report for a quote you're sure existed.

    If you don't want to read the NIST report, but you're still sure that they're wrong, then all you can do is continue posting unsupported assumptions and accusatoins, and I will continue to ignore them.



    posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 07:48 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by exponent

    Originally posted by bsbray11
    The point is that you have failed to show where NIST proved what caused the Twin Towers to "collapse." Since you can't show any such proof, all other discussion is bound to be inconsequential to that fact anyway, and this is all I am pointing out to you in these posts.

    I started a new thread specifically to discuss the NIST report as you seem unable to do anything but make vague criticisms.


    The word "proof" is not vague in scientific terms, and neither is my statement that "NIST did not prove why the Twin Towers collapsed."

    The "vague" part comes in when doublethink/your confusion/bias forces your "reasoning" to conclude that no proof = proof. That is confusing, and I don't understand it either. I don't think there is anything to understand about it.



    All the rest is fluff, and I don't blame you for giving up.

    I give up with you as you are incapable of admitting you are incorrect even in the face of a simple logical choice. You were presented with pictures and asked to explain them and you could not and instead denied the existence of simple logical explanations. This is not rational behaviour and so I cannot debate someone acting this way.


    The pictures in question are also not proof of why the Twin Towers collapsed in any sense of the word "proof." Maybe it's been too many years since you learned what the scientific method actually is.



    And you can let me know when the phrase "burden of proof" suddenly has a clear, logical meaning in your mind. You can refer to who Congress assigned the task of investigating the WTC "collapses" if you want. They never assigned any such responsibility to me.

    I agree, you were never assigned any responsibility for explaining the collapses. However, NIST produced a coherent theory explaining the collapse and clearly their results have been adopted by engineering communities.


    If the "engineering communities" who have taken NIST's work for granted are significant, then I wonder where is your mention of all the engineers who take issue with it. Of course they don't exist because you are suffering from confirmation bias.


    You have criticisms of the report, and this is where the burden of proof falls upon you.


    It would if you ever made it far enough to show proof of anything in the first place. You haven't. And I have clearly explained why multiple times. The photographs are one example, of something that is not proof of why the Twin Towers "collapsed." If you think the photos you posted are proof of trusses pulling in perimeter columns, that enough of them were buckled to initiate some hypothetical scenario, etc., then again, you are very confused about what constitutes the actual scientific method.


    If you want to criticise a section of the report, you have to provide some sort of evidence of the correct answer.


    "Correct answer"?


    No, I don't have to provide a "correct answer" in order to show what NIST didn't prove. Their report is not a high school quiz where some teacher has all the "correct answers" written down somewhere. This is hypothetical science that never even reached the testing stage. There is a saying, "not even wrong." I have to keep reminding myself that you intentionally stopped thinking pages ago to save yourself the suffering.



    If you don't want to read the NIST report, but you're still sure that they're wrong, then all you can do is continue posting unsupported assumptions and accusatoins, and I will continue to ignore them.


    Not proving anything is different than being "wrong." You can't even get that much straight.



    posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 08:20 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by bsbray11
    The word "proof" is not vague in scientific terms, and neither is my statement that "NIST did not prove why the Twin Towers collapsed."

    What are you talking about? "proof" is very vague outside of mathematics. If you think that there's a rigorous scientific definition of "proof" then post it. Surely it wouldn't be hard to find?


    The "vague" part comes in when doublethink/your confusion/bias forces your "reasoning" to conclude that no proof = proof. That is confusing, and I don't understand it either. I don't think there is anything to understand about it.

    This also does not make any sense. I have already explained that I believe NIST proved what happened to the towers within a reasonable level of accuracy because their theory is complete, coherent, and matches the available evidence to a very good degree.


    The pictures in question are also not proof of why the Twin Towers collapsed in any sense of the word "proof." Maybe it's been too many years since you learned what the scientific method actually is.

    No, they are not "proof", they are evidence, and you claimed that you had seen no evidence, even when presented with these pictures. You denying them does not mean they do not exist.


    If the "engineering communities" who have taken NIST's work for granted are significant, then I wonder where is your mention of all the engineers who take issue with it. Of course they don't exist because you are suffering from confirmation bias.

    There are engineers who disagree with it, both in a conspiratorial and non conspiratorial fashion, but if NISTs conclusions were so far off as you seem to think, then one would expect widespread disagreement. Many of the criticisms made are valid, and I won't be arguing against them in this thread or anywhere else.


    It would if you ever made it far enough to show proof of anything in the first place. You haven't.

    I am afraid this is where you need to research the burden of proof. Anyone making a positive claim has the burden of proof, and doubt is not proof.


    Not proving anything is different than being "wrong." You can't even get that much straight.

    So let me get this right, if we know for sure that something isn't absolutely correct, we can criticise it without having to provide any evidence? Sweet! I better start denying Gravity then, because as we know that's definitely imperfect.



    posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 09:33 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by exponent

    Originally posted by bsbray11
    The word "proof" is not vague in scientific terms, and neither is my statement that "NIST did not prove why the Twin Towers collapsed."

    What are you talking about? "proof" is very vague outside of mathematics. If you think that there's a rigorous scientific definition of "proof" then post it. Surely it wouldn't be hard to find?


    NIST did not verify their hypothesis with physical testing. That is my point. You already know this.




    The "vague" part comes in when doublethink/your confusion/bias forces your "reasoning" to conclude that no proof = proof. That is confusing, and I don't understand it either. I don't think there is anything to understand about it.

    This also does not make any sense. I have already explained that I believe NIST proved what happened to the towers within a reasonable level of accuracy because their theory is complete, coherent, and matches the available evidence to a very good degree.


    The standard definition of "theory" is a hypothesis that has been repeatedly experimentally validated. NIST did not do that. They do not have a "theory," and neither does their hypothesis match all the evidence.



    The pictures in question are also not proof of why the Twin Towers collapsed in any sense of the word "proof." Maybe it's been too many years since you learned what the scientific method actually is.

    No, they are not "proof", they are evidence


    They're not that either, sorry.


    You denying them does not mean they do not exist.


    I've already explained several times why those photos do not validate NIST's hypothesis, but you flail around with varying nonsense and finally just ignore those reasons every time I bring them up. Let's start with the fact that you can't even tell me how many columns would have to buckle, or by how much, to initiate NIST's hypothetical scenario. For that reason alone the photos are not evidence, but I have already given you more reasons than this repeatedly.



    If the "engineering communities" who have taken NIST's work for granted are significant, then I wonder where is your mention of all the engineers who take issue with it. Of course they don't exist because you are suffering from confirmation bias.

    There are engineers who disagree with it, both in a conspiratorial and non conspiratorial fashion, but if NISTs conclusions were so far off as you seem to think, then one would expect widespread disagreement.


    Your definition of "widespread disagreement" is obviously going to be an exercise of moving goalposts. There are more professionals who have put their name to calling for another investigation than any ever have in support of NIST's report. That's all you need to know.



    It would if you ever made it far enough to show proof of anything in the first place. You haven't.

    I am afraid this is where you need to research the burden of proof. Anyone making a positive claim has the burden of proof, and doubt is not proof.


    Proving that you have proved nothing would be trying to prove a negative. At the beginning of this post you withdrew your argument to claim no scientific proof of anything exists. Then by your own admission you admit you have not shown where NIST proved anything. There. I satisfied what little burden was mine.



    Not proving anything is different than being "wrong." You can't even get that much straight.

    So let me get this right, if we know for sure that something isn't absolutely correct, we can criticise it without having to provide any evidence? Sweet! I better start denying Gravity then, because as we know that's definitely imperfect.


    You very well could start criticizing the theory of gravity, because it is not complete in the sense of unifying it fundamentally with other forces of nature as many scientists are trying to do.

    The difference is that not everyone is completely ignorant about why NIST was such a failure of a report. The amount of information they neglected to address, but which obviously exists and is readily available even to civilians, is proof enough of what a poor job they did of "investigating" anything.



    posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 01:58 PM
    link   
    Interesting video. The guy created a linear thermal lance. This video did not prove the existance of thermate at the WTC collapse.
    It did prove the existance of small iron spheres which are a byproduct of a thermitic reaction. One small problem, these spheres are also a byproduct of thermal lances. Thermal lances were used during the rescue and clean up. You would expect to find these spheres all over the place.

    The main flaw in the CD theories is that the collapse started at the impact points. Anything placed there would have been destroyed or would have detonated by the aircraft impacts.





    new topics

    top topics



     
    417
    << 81  82  83    85 >>

    log in

    join