NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable

Originally posted by Valhall

Let me give you the abstract of what you're missing:

A paper that does not address the behavior and reaction of the core columns before and during the collapse DOES NOT address the collapse at all.

It's always amusing to watch someone willfully stick his foot in his mouth by asserting that the observed behavior of WTC 2's top section cannot be explained since some unobserved component was impossible to see to begin with.

It's akin to a determination having been made from a mountain of evidence that a plane crashed "due to loss of control of the aircraft by the pilot" and then an amateur investigator declares that explanation is invalid because "no one observed the plane falling to the ground."

This kind of fallacious argument is common amongst 9/11 Deniers.

So much for rocket science.

Originally posted by seanm
It's always amusing to watch someone willfully stick his foot in his mouth by asserting that the observed behavior of WTC 2's top section cannot be explained since some unobserved component was impossible to see to begin with.

It has to be taken into the account by the model, not physically observed. The MODEL ignored it.

And your analogy was completely off from what's being pointed out.

And Val's female.

Originally posted by Valhall
Oh good gawd sean,

I have to always resort to enumeration to get you to follow:

1. the troll comment was about you, not some one else.

Because I quoted NIST. And others. Who say exactly what I wrote. And you refuse to admit it.

Gosh.

2. I'm not a 911 truther. I have no conspiracy theory involved in this. I'm an engineer that rejects the sloppy work of NIST.

It's a little late for excuses. I called you on statements you made, you were wrong, and you don't want to admit it.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by seanm
Poor kid. You really need to catch up:

That has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Unfortunately, it does. It was your reply to MY post that we were talking about and my post was clear:

"the energy was more than sufficient to ensure global collapse without modeling the collapse itself."

Try again.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by seanm
It's always amusing to watch someone willfully stick his foot in his mouth by asserting that the observed behavior of WTC 2's top section cannot be explained since some unobserved component was impossible to see to begin with.

It has to be taken into the account by the model, not physically observed. The MODEL ignored it.

Try again, bsbray1. Her statement is clear:

"A paper that does not address the behavior and reaction of the core columns before and during the collapse DOES NOT address the collapse at all.

The paper addresses the physical, observed evidence of the collapses of both towers and Valhalla's claim does not invalidate that.

Sorry, but her reasoning is fallacious.

Originally posted by seanm
Unfortunately, it does. It was your reply to MY post that we were talking about and my post was clear:

"the energy was more than sufficient to ensure global collapse without modeling the collapse itself."

Try again.

Lmmfao, are you trying to quantify the energy? That's what I'm talking about!

You didn't give me the numbers, you gave me ANOTHER QUOTE of NIST baldly asserting nonsense. WHERE ARE THE NUMBERS!?!?!?!?!

Jesus Christ dude, you don't even have sense enough to know what I'm posting about. Back off of your freaking ego and drop all the condescension so you stop going in confused circles. We CAN talk, believe it or not, but JESUS get off your f ------ high horse.

I don't post on forums to get emotional rushes, but that's the game you come here to play. STOP IT. If posting makes you FEEL something then STOP IT, you're an addict. Second-cousin to the adreno-junkie, the thrill seeker. Logically you translate to trash, because emotion and ego/power games are where your interests lie.

The paper addresses the physical, observed evidence of the collapses of both towers and Valhalla's claim does not invalidate that.

Like Val said, the author reduced this paper to an exercise in angular momentum by assuming nothing would have been there to get in the way.

The paper essentially says (mathematically), there's a tilt, and here's a formula that fits it. That's all. No causation, no kind of structural analysis whatsoever.

[edit on 1-11-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by seanm
The paper addresses the physical, observed evidence of the collapses of both towers and Valhalla's claim does not invalidate that.

Sorry, but her reasoning is fallacious.

My reasoning is not fallacious. What is fallacious is an argument that if you set up a model solely on SIMPLY reproducing the gross visual effects of a more complicated unseen failure process you have represented the causal failure mode. You have not, you are simply dabbling in child's play...not science or engineering.

I can reproduce the gross visual effects with two blocks of cheese and a good cheese knife, but that doesn't mean I modeled the complex failure mode behind the "envelope".

[edit on 11-1-2007 by Valhall]

seanm

Your engaging in heavy rhetoric and trying to take on Scientists and experts outside your field of expertise. Now there is nothing wrong with trying to engage people who are of another field, but generally you have to ask them to break down what they are saying to terms that can be understood and go from there.

For example, I totally disagree with John Lear and his hologram idea but I would be a complete idiot if I were to disagree with him on what he says about flying, I could offer what others say in the field and then argue from the differences but trying to break it down in to terms that can be argued.


Also as an example' the noted Theist Philosopher William Lane Craig, If I were to engage him in Philosophy I would be totally lost;

At the most, some defenders of tenselessness hold that an event at t may be past for some sentient subject at t'>t, present for such a subject at t, and future for such a subject at t*

I am quite clearly talking about the reality of what happened. Why don't you YET get it?

We are not discussing whether NIST did this or that, for God's sake. If you disagree with the conclusions of NIST and others, then refute it and stop the nonsense.

You don't get it. We're not talking about models. We're talking about reality and the fact that you have not yet refuted the conclusions of NIST nor anyone else.

If it finally sinks in, get back to us, otherwise you'll continue to deal in fallacious reasoning.

Originally posted by talisman
seanm

Your engaging in heavy rhetoric and trying to take on Scientists and experts outside your field of expertise. Now there is nothing wrong with trying to engage people who are of another field, but generally you have to ask them to break down what they are saying to terms that can be understood and go from there.

Step back a bit. This is not a "debate" between me and them. This is, and has been, an issue between "claims" made by Valhall and others against NIST and its conclusions.

The fallacious reasoning that "A paper that does not address the behavior and reaction of the core columns before and during the collapse DOES NOT address the collapse at all, does not, a priori, invalidate the conclusions reached by NIST and on the causes of the collapses of WTC 1 & 2.

Be my guest. Refute NIST's conclusions, but don't resort to logical fallacies and unfounded claims in the process. Bring evidence to the table.

sean,

At this point I'm being forced to openly charge you with knowingly making false accusations against me because I refuse to believe some one has the mental faculty to sign up for this board yet appear as stupid as you do in this thread.

You quoted my statement below:

"A paper that does not address the behavior and reaction of the core columns before and during the collapse DOES NOT address the collapse at all,

and then publically lied that I used that statement against NIST.

I DID NOT. And you can now openly admit you were wrong, or it will be assumed you meant to lie. At which point I'll report you.

That statement was made in reference to your mythbuster white paper which disregards the core column structure in its " hinge" model.

[edit on 11-2-2007 by Valhall]

[edit on 11-2-2007 by Valhall]

Originally posted by Valhall
sean,

And you can now openly admit you were wrong, or it will be assumed you meant to lie. At which point I'll report you.

Sorry Valhall, it's already been done to no avail obviously.

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

But, I guess ATS likes the fact that they have a member here knowingly posting false information and disregarding the #1 terms and conditions set forth by this board. But, I digress as I don't want to be called a whiner like I was in that thread.


[edit on 11/2/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by snoopy

Bottom line again: Stating there are 200 members (including dead people) on ae911 is not a valid argument.

Here's a good example. One of those expert listed as a member died on 9/11 in the attacks. Yet they list him as a member. That alone is flat out fraud. Even you cannot deny that.

snoopy snoopy snoopy,

Did you deliberately post misleading and false information in contravention of the sites T&C rules in the above captioned quotes of yours? Talk about fraud!

Please show me where Frank A. DeMartini is listed as a member of www.ae911truth.org...

Or please show me any other members listed on ae911 were in fact deceased prior to being listed as members on ae911 .

Is this your attempt again, in clear and obvious violation of T&C rules to mislead the members of this site by posting false and disingenuous information?

Its completely obvious to me you have no interest in finding out the truth of what happened on 9-11, especially when you will stoop so low as to lie in order to try and sway opinions.

May I please have your attention for a moment? ...Thanks.

Regardless of our beliefs on the events surrounding 9/11, we all share one thing in common. The truth! We are all in pursuit of the truth, and we would all love to know exactly what happened. We owe it to those who lost their lives on that day, and we owe it to their families. I also think we owe it to ourselves.

But if we are ever going to attain anything resemblent of the truth, we MUST check our ego's at the door.

Yes. Check your ego at the door!

Approach this collaboratively, not as an individual. If you feel inclined to insult someone else, it's apparent that you're experiencing some burn out. Take a step back, regroup, and then come back again with an open mind.

STOP with the personal commentary, and derogatory insults.

Please!

...Carry on.

Originally posted by Valhall
sean,

At this point I'm being forced to openly charge you with knowingly making false accusations against me because I refuse to believe some one has the mental faculty to sign up for this board yet appear as stupid as you do in this thread.

I'm quite intelligent, thank you, and I have made no false statements.

You quoted my statement below:

"A paper that does not address the behavior and reaction of the core columns before and during the collapse DOES NOT address the collapse at all,

and then publically lied that I used that statement against NIST.

On the contrary. You have made claims against NIST in this thread and you have resorted to fallacious reasoning. My statement is clear:

"Step back a bit. This is not a "debate" between me and them. This is, and has been, an issue between "claims" made by Valhall and others against NIST and its conclusions.

"The fallacious reasoning that "A paper that does not address the behavior and reaction of the core columns before and during the collapse DOES NOT address the collapse at all, does not, a priori, invalidate the conclusions reached by NIST and on the causes of the collapses of WTC 1 & 2."

So, let's review. I'll take your own statements at face value:

1. You assert that "...this letter alone...nullifies any value of the NIST results published to date.":

"For all intents and purposes, this letter alone - with no other discussion on myriad sites, by myriad groups, with conspiracy theories or without, with agendas or without, nullifies any value of the NIST results published to date. They confessed publicly and in writing they fixed the results and any signatory on the report should be brought before the applicable state board to have any engineering licenses revoked - immediately. Because not only did they violate the code of ethics for sound scientific methods and engineering practices - they have admitted to stacked report at the cost of the taxpayers' funds.

"They have admitted to be charlatans and thieves."
www.abovetopsecret.com...

2. You point out several times that a "...mythbuster paper didn't address it (what happened to the core columns) and neither did that other little jewel you threw up here."

3. You assert: "A paper that does not address the behavior and reaction of the core columns before and during the collapse DOES NOT address the collapse at all. PERIOD."

4. You demand that we "...be forewarned that I will not engage in any serious discussion or debate of an analysis that does not meet the 7 requirements above. Because the analysis is not only incomplete, it's worthless until those requirements are met."

Thus, contrary to your charges against me, a) you have indeed made claims against NIST in this very thread and that they are indeed at issue; b) you have referred to physical and video evidence used by NIST; c) you have asserted that any paper on the collapses must "...explain the behavior of the core columns at impact, pre-collapse and during collapse."

I stand by my statement that you engage in fallacious reasoning in claiming that "a paper that does not address the behavior and reaction of the core columns before and during the collapse DOES NOT address the collapse at all ."

You may now retract your charges, Valhall.

I think you're on suicide watch and the two-legged stool you're standing on is beginning to totter.

I'll repeat (in line with the subject of the thread)

NIST has admitted they will remove critical statements from the report because they don't want to be bothered with trying to answer questions about them. AND, they cherry picked the damage models they chose to report on based on whether those damage models would meet their a priori assumptions or not.

All participants in this thread, please read THIS now.

After a staff caution, we still have chaos. If it doesn't end following my post, we will remove posting privileges from your account.

Originally posted by seanm
Thus, contrary to your charges against me, a) you have indeed made claims against NIST in this very thread and that they are indeed at issue;

This is the problem. You don't justify what you say. You just say it, end of story. When we tell you you're wrong and try to explain why to you, you just ignore what we say and say "No", and repeat yourself. It's like there is absolutely no consideration, no thought whatsoever put into what any of us post towards you.

When you tried responding to me earlier, you kept posting things that were irrelevant to what I was talking about, and then you just kept repeatedly asserting that I was wrong, and posting more irrelevant information.

Really, what are your qualifications, that you can just straight tell me that I'm wrong, no reasoning given?


If any moderators want to actually tend to the heart of the issue, this is like a brick wall for anyone trying to actually discuss anything with seanm. He's just right. That's all there is to it. If he perceives that you disagree with NIST, something ticks in his head and you're just wrong, and then come the random quotes and "No, you're wrong" 's.

[edit on 2-11-2007 by bsbray11]