51 of 91
51
Any scientific evidence to support official WTC 7 fall theory?
Posted: 11 November 2013 11:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 751 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  475
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 11 November 2013 11:28 AM

Lol. I’ve been asking various forum members if they understand the relevance of falsificationism to this topic for pages.

As I said, this is basic stuff. Once I’m sure you’ve got the basics, we can proceed. Why are you playing dumb? Surely we can agree on fundamental principles of the modern scientific method.

I don’t care what you’ve been asking various forum members. Yes, we can agree on modern scientific method.

So now you can go onto proving your claim. One more evasion on your part and I will take that as a concession you cannot actually prove your claim and therfore it will be dismissed as a dishonest claim.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 November 2013 01:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 752 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2425
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 10 November 2013 09:47 AM

Wrong. Lower supports were being knocked out, damaged and weakened by the interior stuctures and flooring falling first. They didn’t all fail at once. Only when enough supports had been damaged and knocked out of alignment did the entire building come down.

But we are supposed to believe that random fire and debris damage could cause the 300 foot roof line to come down straight all of the way across.

ROFLMAO

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 November 2013 02:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 753 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  475
Joined  2012-07-02
psikeyhackr - 11 November 2013 01:36 PM
Robert Walper - 10 November 2013 09:47 AM

Wrong. Lower supports were being knocked out, damaged and weakened by the interior stuctures and flooring falling first. They didn’t all fail at once. Only when enough supports had been damaged and knocked out of alignment did the entire building come down.

But we are supposed to believe that random fire and debris damage could cause the 300 foot roof line to come down straight all of the way across.

ROFLMAO

psik

Yes. And I explained previously why.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 November 2013 03:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 754 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  429
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 11 November 2013 11:49 AM

I don’t care what you’ve been asking various forum members.

One of them actually said this:

DarronS - 08 November 2013 08:59 AM

And the fact remains you cannot refute [the NIST report] with scientific evidence, so what is your point?

That remark shows exactly what is wrong with the NIST report: it is unfalsifiable pseudoscience.

Yes, we can agree on modern scientific method.

Then you will agree with me that the NIST report is pseudoscience.

So now you can go onto proving your claim.

As I said, NIST states that it examined no physical evidence from WTC 7 in the production of its final report and attempts to excuse this in its FAQ.

It also attempts to excuse its failure to follow forensic fire investigation codes, so this is not in question either.

One more evasion on your part and I will take that as a concession you cannot actually prove your claim and therfore it will be dismissed as a dishonest claim.

I’ve already shown that you were lying when you claimed that

None of the information or analysis is hidden from scientific peers

...so I really don’t think you’re in a position to judge questions of honesty.

[ Edited: 11 November 2013 03:29 PM by jomper ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 November 2013 03:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 755 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  429
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 11 November 2013 02:49 PM
psikeyhackr - 11 November 2013 01:36 PM
Robert Walper - 10 November 2013 09:47 AM

Wrong. Lower supports were being knocked out, damaged and weakened by the interior stuctures and flooring falling first. They didn’t all fail at once. Only when enough supports had been damaged and knocked out of alignment did the entire building come down.

But we are supposed to believe that random fire and debris damage could cause the 300 foot roof line to come down straight all of the way across.

ROFLMAO

psik

Yes. And I explained previously why.

But your explanation does not account for the horizontal descent of the roofline. The computer “model” does not represent anything like the video evidence in this respect.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 November 2013 04:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 756 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1471
Joined  2009-10-21
jomper - 11 November 2013 12:45 AM
Lausten - 10 November 2013 07:09 PM

The NIST did not claim to discover a new phenomenon.

Sunder said that NIST’s study “identified thermal expansion as a new phenomenon that can cause structural collapse. For the first time we have shown that fire can induce a progressive collapse.”

I know, I found the quote, and told you I found it, and told you why I thought you misinterpreted it. So, let’s go real slow. This is why people aren’t responding the way you think they should. It has little to do with the facts you think you have, it’s how well you read the posts, consider them, and respond to what they actually say.

This quote is from a speech introducing the report. Spoken word is very different from written word. When you write down spoken word, it looks even funnier. So this is not an official statement in the report. It is a summary, an introduction, telling what the report WILL tell you in greater detail. Also, and this is way more important, even though the words say “identified thermal expansion as a new phenomenon”, he did not mean that thermal expansion is a new phenomenon that has been identified. He assumes you know what thermal expansion is and that it already exists. Yes he also says “for the first time”, but that is very different than a new scientific theory. We are still talking about fire, buildings, structures and the affects of heat, all known phenomenon and principles that are being applied.

You can explain to me how I’m wrong in what I said above, or you can keep doing the childish stuff you’ve been doing and attack my character, tell me about what I don’t know or haven’t done, or do one of your bizarre changes in direction.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 November 2013 06:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 757 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  429
Joined  2013-02-16
Lausten - 11 November 2013 04:26 PM
jomper - 11 November 2013 12:45 AM
Lausten - 10 November 2013 07:09 PM

The NIST did not claim to discover a new phenomenon.

Sunder said that NIST’s study “identified thermal expansion as a new phenomenon that can cause structural collapse. For the first time we have shown that fire can induce a progressive collapse.”

I know, I found the quote, and told you I found it, and told you why I thought you misinterpreted it. So, let’s go real slow. This is why people aren’t responding the way you think they should. It has little to do with the facts you think you have, it’s how well you read the posts, consider them, and respond to what they actually say.

This quote is from a speech introducing the report. Spoken word is very different from written word. When you write down spoken word, it looks even funnier. So this is not an official statement in the report. It is a summary, an introduction, telling what the report WILL tell you in greater detail. Also, and this is way more important, even though the words say “identified thermal expansion as a new phenomenon”, he did not mean that thermal expansion is a new phenomenon that has been identified. He assumes you know what thermal expansion is and that it already exists. Yes he also says “for the first time”, but that is very different than a new scientific theory. We are still talking about fire, buildings, structures and the affects of heat, all known phenomenon and principles that are being applied.

You can explain to me how I’m wrong in what I said above, or you can keep doing the childish stuff you’ve been doing and attack my character, tell me about what I don’t know or haven’t done, or do one of your bizarre changes in direction.

You’re quibbling. He said it was a new phenomenon *that can cause the collapse of buildings*. Yes it was a summary; it was published as a written statement as well as a spoken one and it was certainly written first. It doesn’t follow from anything you say that the report should not have been independently verified or that independent experts can be legitimately refused access to key parts of the data.

This was a publicly-funded report and structural models of buildings are not legitimately classified in the way that, say, counter-terrorism operations may be legitimately hidden from the public that pays for them. In fact there is an obvious public safety interest in letting qualified experts from around the world examine these models if they explain a new phenomenon that can cause the collapse of buildings, particularly if the collapse is sudden, symmetrical and at free-fall acceleration (not that any of these features of the collapse are in fact successfully explained).

I apologise if you feel your character was attacked in some way. The fact that you are attempting to split hairs here does not in any way make you a hair-splitter by definition.

[ Edited: 11 November 2013 06:46 PM by jomper ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 November 2013 08:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 758 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1471
Joined  2009-10-21
jomper - 11 November 2013 06:43 PM

You’re quibbling.

Apology accepted.

Extremely strange that you would accuse me of quibbling. You are the one who quote mined this and kept insisting that it said this they had a new scientific theory and should be treated as such. You did not supply the original link to the statement, because you wanted me to see it out of context and be suspicious of it. That’s the definition of how a conspiracy theory with no real basis in fact is built. You finally give in because I kept after you. If you think I will now engage with you on this new interpretation, fuhgetaboudit.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 November 2013 08:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 759 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4400
Joined  2010-08-15

Speaking of quibbling
why shouldn’t the following be seen as a completely reasonable, believable explanation?

NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc

Uploaded on Jan 28, 2009
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conducted an extensive three-year scientific and technical investigation of the Sept. 11, 2001, collapse of the 47-story World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City. This video describes the results of this study, which concluded that fires on multiple floors in WTC 7—which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings—caused an extraordinary event. Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.

For more info visit:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 November 2013 11:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 760 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  429
Joined  2013-02-16
Lausten - 11 November 2013 08:19 PM
jomper - 11 November 2013 06:43 PM

You’re quibbling.

Apology accepted.

Extremely strange that you would accuse me of quibbling. You are the one who quote mined this and kept insisting that it said this they had a new scientific theory and should be treated as such. You did not supply the original link to the statement, because you wanted me to see it out of context and be suspicious of it. That’s the definition of how a conspiracy theory with no real basis in fact is built. You finally give in because I kept after you. If you think I will now engage with you on this new interpretation, fuhgetaboudit.

Nope. You said peer review was for new phenomena so I gave you the quote showing that NIST claimed the collapse was due to a new phenomenon. Then you got irritated. Happened to be on my smartphone which doesn’t make it easy to link. That’s it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 November 2013 12:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 761 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6192
Joined  2006-12-20
citizenschallenge.pm - 11 November 2013 08:50 PM

Speaking of quibbling
why shouldn’t the following be seen as a completely reasonable, believable explanation?

NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc

Uploaded on Jan 28, 2009
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conducted an extensive three-year scientific and technical investigation of the Sept. 11, 2001, collapse of the 47-story World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City. This video describes the results of this study, which concluded that fires on multiple floors in WTC 7—which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings—caused an extraordinary event. Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.

For more info visit:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

I dunno but perhaps there are problems with the NIST report.

The thing is this isn’t the big deal Jomper wants to make of it even if true. It would just be that no one knows exactly what happened, hardly surprising at all.

We still have the two competing theories “knock on effects” V “conspiracy theories” and nothing to raise the probabilty of some conspiracy theory being correct except Jomper’s judgment about physical laws.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 November 2013 05:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 762 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  429
Joined  2013-02-16
citizenschallenge.pm - 11 November 2013 08:50 PM

Speaking of quibbling
why shouldn’t the following be seen as a completely reasonable, believable explanation?

NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc]

The criticisms of this video in the YouTube comments it has attracted are largely apposite (for once).

0.30 A “comprehensive” investigation. But not comprehensive enough to examine any of the available physical evidence, particularly not the steel examined by FEMA in 2002 which had been subjected to a “mysterious” eutectic attack, or follow the court-approved forensic fire investigation codes which naturally demand testing for residue of accelerants as a matter of course in the event of high order damage (which in this case resembled a controlled demolition).

0.45 “A new kind of progressive collapse that we have discovered here.” Remarkable—but this is not the kind of discovery that independent experts are allowed to examine.

0.51 “We have shown for the first time that fire can induce a progressive collapse.” Meaning: we have produced an independently unverifiable computer animation of something that has never happened before and are presenting it as fact.

1.00 “The most complex computer simulation of a structure collapse ever made.” Unverifiable computer simulations, however complex, are not acceptable as evidence in court. The computer animation NIST produced does not represent the whole of the collapse event—and fails to model the key features of the collapse that make it reminiscent of a controlled demolition, such as the horizontal descent of the roofline, and the period of the freefall acceleration. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XujahQ9yNiM

1.27 “The NIST computer model was validated” ...by no independent expert authority and was not subject to peer review.

1.40 “Column 79 is going to buckle” ...in an unvalidated computer animation only, and only if critical structural elements are left out of the analysis. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz7v8EgCzJM

2.07 “The NIST team found no evidence of explosives.” The NIST team did not look for evidence of explosives. That could have something to do with not finding any. Is this good forensic science?

2.29 “...that sound was not picked up.” NIST imagines that a sufficient exploration of alternative hypotheses is to suppose that high explosive was used to take out the very same column it says buckled, ignoring the fact that this buckling does not in fact produce a sequence of events that accurately models the video evidence of the collapse of the building, however it is said to fail.

On the sole basis that the imaginary high explosive used to do this would make a loud explosion, it rules out the possibility of any accelerants being involved and looks no further.

Of course there were explosions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg and of course the leading alternative hypothesis does not involve high explosives. In any case, is it good forensic science to rule out accelerants on the basis that you can’t find audio evidence of explosions after seven years have passed, given that the visual aspect of the video evidence we do have is strongly reminiscent of controlled demolition?

2.48 “A very rare event.” In fact an event that has never happened before or since, despite many fires in steel-framed high-rise buildings that have, of course, not induced total collapse in a manner that resembles a controlled demolition.

All very reasonable and believable? Do you think Occam is on your side here?

[ Edited: 15 November 2013 03:03 PM by jomper ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 November 2013 06:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 763 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27

Jomper: “2.48 “A very rare event.” In fact an event that has never happened before or since, despite many fires in steel-framed high-rise buildings that have, of course, not induced total collapse in a manner that resembles a controlled demolition.”

How many steel-framed high rise buildings have had flying jets rammed into them?

You have no idea what chain of events such a phenomenon would cause.

And, I might point out, you have offered not one scintilla of evidence that a controlled demolition took place.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 November 2013 07:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 764 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1471
Joined  2009-10-21
jomper - 11 November 2013 11:33 PM
Lausten - 11 November 2013 08:19 PM
jomper - 11 November 2013 06:43 PM

You’re quibbling.

Apology accepted.

Extremely strange that you would accuse me of quibbling. You are the one who quote mined this and kept insisting that it said this they had a new scientific theory and should be treated as such. You did not supply the original link to the statement, because you wanted me to see it out of context and be suspicious of it. That’s the definition of how a conspiracy theory with no real basis in fact is built. You finally give in because I kept after you. If you think I will now engage with you on this new interpretation, fuhgetaboudit.

Nope. You said peer review was for new phenomena so I gave you the quote showing that NIST claimed the collapse was due to a new phenomenon. Then you got irritated. Happened to be on my smartphone which doesn’t make it easy to link. That’s it.

I took the time to explain written vs spoken language, but now I feel like I need to explain what words are and how context is important when using them so we can come to some understanding about just what we are trying to say here. It would be easier for me to conclude that you have come unglued from a sense of reality. You should get away from the computer, get out of your mother’s basement, go for a walk, see a good play, read a book or something. Then maybe we can talk like normal people.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 November 2013 07:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 765 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  429
Joined  2013-02-16
Lois - 12 November 2013 06:14 AM

How many steel-framed high rise buildings have had flying jets rammed into them?

How many times do you have to have it pointed out to you that WTC 7 was not hit by a plane?

You seem perpetually confused on this point.

It’s even made clear in the NIST video above that office fires alone are hypothesised to be the cause of the controlled demolition-like collapse of building 7.

Once you’ve accepted this fundamental fact, perhaps we can move on.

Profile
 
 
   
51 of 91
51