27 of 91
27
Any scientific evidence to support official WTC 7 fall theory?
Posted: 13 May 2013 09:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 391 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  429
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 13 May 2013 09:14 AM

I reject your claim it hasn’t been done therefore means it cannot be done.

Perhaps technology will have advanced enough in the next couple of decades to allow anyone who is still curious about this awesome gravity effect you believe in to vindicate your faith on a regular basis using their home computers. What do you think?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 May 2013 09:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 392 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  475
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 13 May 2013 09:23 AM
Robert Walper - 13 May 2013 09:14 AM

I reject your claim it hasn’t been done therefore means it cannot be done.

Perhaps technology will have advanced enough in the next couple of decades to allow anyone who is still curious about this awesome gravity effect you believe in to vindicate your faith on a regular basis using their home computers. What do you think?

I reject your implicit claim modern day technology cannot demostrate what is necessary.

I find your claim gravity is a matter of faith quite amusing however. LOL

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 May 2013 10:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 393 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  429
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 13 May 2013 09:30 AM

I reject your implicit claim modern day technology cannot demostrate what is necessary.

Good. Given what is possible with computers, whatever is demonstrated should always be fully and independently verified before being presented as science, would you agree?

I find your claim gravity is a matter of faith quite amusing however. LOL

Your ridicule is most predictable, Vader. You are not a master of misrepresentation yet.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 May 2013 10:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 394 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  475
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 13 May 2013 10:00 AM
Robert Walper - 13 May 2013 09:30 AM

I reject your implicit claim modern day technology cannot demostrate what is necessary.

Good. Given what is possible with computers, whatever is demonstrated should always be fully and independently verified before being presented as science, would you agree?

If necessary, sure. I’ve already pointed out I don’t see the necessity of proving a structure can yield to the forces of gravity if sufficiently damaged. I assert that as an axiom. Next?

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 May 2013 10:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 395 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  429
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 13 May 2013 10:07 AM
jomper - 13 May 2013 10:00 AM
Robert Walper - 13 May 2013 09:30 AM

I reject your implicit claim modern day technology cannot demostrate what is necessary.

Good. Given what is possible with computers, whatever is demonstrated should always be fully and independently verified before being presented as science, would you agree?

If necessary, sure. I’ve already pointed out I don’t see the necessity of proving a structure can yield to the forces of gravity if sufficiently damaged. I assert that as an axiom. Next?

I’d just like to clarify how important you feel the verification principle is in computer modelling. In principle 3D computer models can be made to do pretty much anything, I’m sure you’d agree. So if a computer model is being presented as a scientifically accurate presentation of something that happened in reality, how important do you think it is that the computer model in question is fully and completely available for independent verification and testing? You would ridicule it, would you not, if this was not the case? And even if you did not, you would not say it represented genuine science, would you?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 May 2013 10:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 396 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  475
Joined  2012-07-02

I’d just like to clarify how important you feel the verification principle is in computer modelling. In principle 3D computer models can be made to do pretty much anything, I’m sure you’d agree.

Correct.

So if a computer model is being presented as a scientifically accurate presentation of something that happened in reality, how important do you think it is that the computer model in question is fully and completely available for independent verification and testing?

I think it would be extremely important that it is available for independent verification and testing to those qualified to make such assessments. Note the latter part of my assertion, which is suspiciously absent from yours.

You would ridicule it, would you not, if this was not the case? And even if you did not, you would not say it represented genuine science, would you?

I would not ridicule a computer model simply because I do not have access to it. Nor would I claim it is either scientific or unscientific, since by definition I cannot confirm either assertion in ignorance. Next?

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 May 2013 10:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 397 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  429
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 13 May 2013 10:39 AM

I think it would be extremely important that it is available for independent verification and testing to those qualified to make such assessments.

Yes, exactly. I’m talking about fully qualified, credible independent experts. So if a computer model was not made available for verification—by which I mean, full and complete peer review by credible and independent experts—would you accept it as scientifically credible? Can you imagine a situation where a computer model could possibly be called scientifically credible, but where independent experts are not allowed to examine and verify it?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 May 2013 11:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 398 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  475
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 13 May 2013 10:52 AM
Robert Walper - 13 May 2013 10:39 AM

I think it would be extremely important that it is available for independent verification and testing to those qualified to make such assessments.

Yes, exactly. I’m talking about fully qualified, credible independent experts. So if a computer model was not made available for verification—by which I mean, full and complete peer review by credible and independent experts—would you accept it as scientifically credible?

If such a computer model actually existed and was deemed necessary to make specific conclusions but not subject to peer review, I would indeed regard such a model with great suspicion.

Can you imagine a situation where a computer model could possibly be called scientifically credible, but where independent experts are not allowed to examine and verify it?

Not at all, although that begs the question why any such model is of any concern whatsoever at that point. Simply make an another independent one and then peer review it, if a computer model is actually necessary at all. Problem solved. Next?

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 May 2013 11:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 399 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  429
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 13 May 2013 11:03 AM

If such a computer model actually existed and was deemed necessary to make specific conclusions but not subject to peer review, I would indeed regard such a model with great suspicion.

Do you regard the NIST computer sims of WTC 7 with great suspicion? If not, why not? They were made at great expense and are very important to NIST’s conclusions about the building’s collapse. However, they are not available for independent peer review.

http://cryptome.org/wtc-nist-wtc7-no.pdf

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 May 2013 11:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 400 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  475
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 13 May 2013 11:25 AM
Robert Walper - 13 May 2013 11:03 AM

If such a computer model actually existed and was deemed necessary to make specific conclusions but not subject to peer review, I would indeed regard such a model with great suspicion.

Do you regard the NIST computer sims of WTC 7 with great suspicion? If not, why not? They were made at great expense and are very important to NIST’s conclusions about the building’s collapse. However, they are not available for independent peer review.

http://cryptome.org/wtc-nist-wtc7-no.pdf

NIST computer simulations are not necessary to establish that a sufficiently damaged structure will yield to the force of gravity, thus failing one of the primary criteria I repeatedly asserted. Ergo, the simulations were done, but not necessary to establish basic physics. Your link also mentions they withhold certain types of information for public safety purposes, which I accept at face value and I could come up with a half dozen such examples myself, although that’s just idle speculation and therefore useless.

In other words, I trust the experts and their conclusions, every piece of data and conclusion I’ve examined has held up to my scrutiny. So, anything else?

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 May 2013 02:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 401 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  475
Joined  2012-07-02

Incidently, I should point out that the claimed fact NIST didn’t release all their data with regards to computer simulations is actually reassuring. This indicates to me that on top of merely confirming their conclusions about the events leading to the collapse of the WTC towers, they also discovered additional weak points and vulnerabilities that could be exploited by any would be terrorists to bring down additional large structures and kill thousands more innocent people. Releasing that information publicly would be criminal and gross incompetence from supposed experts concerned with public safety and well being. Especially since their simulations would only verify their findings, not be the sole piece of evidence by which they make their conclusions.

Had they come forward with every piece of data about their investigation and a declaration their findings did not include one single piece of evidence or data revealing additional vulnerabilities and information that could prove most useful to future attacks, that would be disconcerting. Any implication that they couldn’t find new points of attack during their extremely extensive analysis of the case strains credibility, or at least implies they didn’t look thus implying incompetence. This is consistent with my own findings where other experts have asserted fires alone could have collapsed the WTC towers, never mind slamming aircraft into them.

Publicly releasing information that makes detailed explanations showing how you only need well placed fires to bring down even well built large skyscrapers? You’d be hard pressed to argue with a public reaction of wanting to lynch those doing such a thing.

Damned if they do, damned if they don’t. Although in the latter case they’re only pissing off crackpot conspiracy theorists, so that cost is really negligible.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 May 2013 03:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 402 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  429
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 13 May 2013 02:59 PM

Publicly releasing information that makes detailed explanations showing how you only need well placed fires to bring down even well built large skyscrapers?

Yes, how could letting structural engineers understand this possibly be in the public interest?

“Hey, Mohammed. Run that LS-DYNA WTC 7 simulation again on your laptop: I think we might need to light another fire over here.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 May 2013 03:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 403 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  475
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 13 May 2013 03:11 PM
Robert Walper - 13 May 2013 02:59 PM

Publicly releasing information that makes detailed explanations showing how you only need well placed fires to bring down even well built large skyscrapers?

Yes, how could letting structural engineers understand this possibly be in the public interest?

“Hey, Mohammed. Run that LS-DYNA WTC 7 simulation again on your laptop: I think we might need to light another fire over here.”

Who claimed structural engineers were being kept in the dark on this issue? All I’ve speculated on is there could be excellent reasons for not going public with this kind of knowledge. This doesn’t mean engineering principles and safety issues weren’t quietly updated without the need of blatantly pointing out they are responses to potential terrorist attack methods.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 May 2013 03:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 404 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  429
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 13 May 2013 03:19 PM

Who claimed structural engineers were being kept in the dark on this issue?

That is merely the fact of the matter http://cryptome.org/wtc-nist-wtc7-no.pdf

“I don’t know, Abdul. This isn’t the same building as WTC 7 and the laptop’s going to take another three weeks to do the simulation. If you light a fire over there the building might not fall down straight.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 May 2013 03:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 405 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  475
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 13 May 2013 03:28 PM
Robert Walper - 13 May 2013 03:19 PM

Who claimed structural engineers were being kept in the dark on this issue?

That is merely the fact of the matter http://cryptome.org/wtc-nist-wtc7-no.pdf

“I don’t know, Abdul. This isn’t the same building as WTC 7 and the laptop’s going to take another three weeks to do the simulation. If you light a fire over there the building might not fall down straight.”

Reposting your link does not refute nor stand as an argument against my speculation which was in response to you posting it the first time. I specifically made the disclaimer I was speculating on the issue.

So unless you’re going to change tactics and submit evidence and arguments…

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
   
27 of 91
27