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

reply to post by bsbray11

Don't get too ahead of yourself putting words in my mouth yet. I know it must be hard not to.

I'll take that to mean that in fact the NIST has never said that the conclusions in their report are a hypothesis. But you seem to think they did, why? I know you added the link for the NIST report, but thats a couple thousand pages, could you maybe point to the place where they called the whole thing a hypothesis?

Originally posted by bsbray11
They recreated the entire perimeter-truss set up, and put it under megawatt burners and other uncontrolled fires for periods of time, measured the temperatures reached, deflections, etc. It did not validate their hypothesis. What they said collapsed the WTC, did not happen in the lab.

The bottom line is that they never proved it, and they don't even claim that they proved it. It started a hypothesis and remained a hypothesis when the investigation was complete.

No they didn't, you have clearly made up some of this from your imagination, as while NIST did similar tests, in no way are your conclusions accurate.

Please detail your complaints so that we can actually look them up, rather than just having you tell us that's the case.

Originally posted by hooper
I'll take that to mean that in fact the NIST has never said that the conclusions in their report are a hypothesis. But you seem to think they did, why? I know you added the link for the NIST report, but thats a couple thousand pages, could you maybe point to the place where they called the whole thing a hypothesis?

What I linked to was not a couple thousand pages. I linked to specific parts. The title of one even says right off the bat, "probable collapse sequence," which is still misleading however because they only actually give a hypothesis for how a collapse initiated, and didn't try to explain everything came after that in any detail Does "probable" sound like something that's proven to you? That sounds like a statistical word to me. Like "maybe." Definitely not "proven."

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by bsbray11
They recreated the entire perimeter-truss set up, and put it under megawatt burners and other uncontrolled fires for periods of time, measured the temperatures reached, deflections, etc. It did not validate their hypothesis. What they said collapsed the WTC, did not happen in the lab.

The bottom line is that they never proved it, and they don't even claim that they proved it. It started a hypothesis and remained a hypothesis when the investigation was complete.

No they didn't, you have clearly made up some of this from your imagination, as while NIST did similar tests, in no way are your conclusions accurate.

Wrong. Here is the link again: wtc.nist.gov...

WTC Steel Truss Burn Experiment

Uninsulated steel truss (black parallel beams with triangular connections) similar, but not exactly the same as those used in the towers. The burn experiments of this truss type and the one below were used to validate the ability of computer models to predict the temperature rise of uninsulated structural steel elements.

(click on image to see high resolution version).

And before you complain about them saying "similar, but not exactly the same as those used in the towers," remember, this is also what calibrated their computer models. They don't give you temperature data directly on their site, but if you read their report it tells you they heated the truss until it was a consistent 700 C, and it still wasn't demonstrating the mechanism they were hypothesizing.

reply to post by hooper

Well, I can't seem to find a single report, letter, or publication from any of them announcing it is a fraud.

Just because you can’t find any report it doesn’t mean all these institutions supports NIST. This is your “assumptions” nothing more.
I haven’t found any reports from any of theses institutions making any claim that NIST science is correct?
Just because these organization sit silent on the matter it doesn’t suggest they support NIST pseudo science.

ergo they do support it. Sorry, thats just the way it is.

Wrong, the fact is this is your “assumption” nothing more.

ae911truth.org

Is a conspiracy website, plain and simple. Conspiracy is their bread and butter.

Wrong! ATS, by its own “About Statement” welcomes conspiracy theories. I do not see any such description on the A&E website

AboveTopSecret.com is the Internet's largest and most popular discussion board community dedicated to the intelligent exchange of ideas and debate on a wide range of "alternative topics" such as [color=gold]conspiracies, UFO's, paranormal, secret societies, political scandals, new world order, terrorism, and dozens of related topics with a diverse mix of users from all over the world.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Unlike yourself and most ATS members, A&E website members do not hide behind avatars and in fact, freely post their real names, location, education, and often their license numbers. Here is an example. Please point out the conspiracy theory aspect of this to us.

SEPTEMBER 9, 2010
RE: 1,000 ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS CALL
FOR NEW INVESTIGATION OF DESTRUCTION OF
THE 3 WORLD TRADE CENTER SKYSCRAPERS ON 9/11/01
_________________________________________________________________
The AE911Truth Petition
[color=gold]TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND
OF THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

www2.ae911truth.org...&Names.pdf

It has never been proven a fraud. At least not in the real world.

Yes it has, “in the real world” by experts in their field
www.ae911truth.org...

NIST said they never consider looking into demolition.

We are here to deny ignorance, not to wallow in it.

Originally posted by bsbray11
And before you complain about them saying "similar, but not exactly the same as those used in the towers," remember, this is also what calibrated their computer models. They don't give you temperature data directly on their site, but if you read their report it tells you they heated the truss until it was a consistent 700 C, and it still wasn't demonstrating the mechanism they were hypothesizing.

What I am complaining about is the fact that you've lied multiple times.

Originally posted by bsbray11
They recreated the entire perimeter-truss set up

Clearly they didn't, unless you think the entire perimeter truss setup consisted of 10ft of one truss.

Originally posted by bsbray11
It did not validate their hypothesis

This was used to create their hypothesis.

Originally posted by bsbray11
measured the temperatures reached, deflections, etc

No inward deflection was measured.

You should feel ashamed that you're willing to flat out lie to people to try and get them to agree with you. You are wrong about this test and have been every time you've been corrected on it and the other tests. The reality is of course that they used this model to understand the behaviour of the towers, it very much confirmed the hypothesis.

I mean for god sake you underlines uninsulated truss but then somehow managed to provide a picture of one that is clearly insulated.

Your dishonesty is quite devastating to your case.

reply to post by bsbray11

What I linked to was not a couple thousand pages. I linked to specific parts. The title of one even says right off the bat, "probable collapse sequence," which is still misleading however because they only actually give a hypothesis for how a collapse initiated, and didn't try to explain everything came after that in any detail Does "probable" sound like something that's proven to you? That sounds like a statistical word to me. Like "maybe." Definitely not "proven."

Yet in none of those pages did I see anywhere that the NIST stipulate that the conclusions in their report are only a hypothesis, as you have stated many times. Are you know willing to admit that the NIST never said that their conclusions are only a hypothesis?

Why is using the word "probable" misleading? In fact, compared to language of the conspiracist it is refreshingly honest. You are conflating proven and probable. The NIST presented their case with their observations, tests and research. I am taking that as sufficient proof. You aren't because your too invested in there having been a complex conspiracy, thats your burden. You have nothing to support your conspiracy except doubt in reasonable, scientific explanation.

Originally posted by hooper
Yet in none of those pages did I see anywhere that the NIST stipulate that the conclusions in their report are only a hypothesis, as you have stated many times. Are you know willing to admit that the NIST never said that their conclusions are only a hypothesis?

Just because they didn't say it was a hypothesis it doesn't mean it wasn't.

For it to be a theory it has to be testable in a lab. For it to be fact it needs to indisputable. It was neither, so it is automatically a hypothesis.

Why is using the word "probable" misleading? In fact, compared to language of the conspiracist it is refreshingly honest. You are conflating proven and probable. The NIST presented their case with their observations, tests and research. I am taking that as sufficient proof. You aren't because your too invested in there having been a complex conspiracy, thats your burden. You have nothing to support your conspiracy except doubt in reasonable, scientific explanation.

Probable is not theory or fact it is speculation.

1prob·a·ble
adj ˈprä-bə-bəl, ˈprä(b)-bəl
Definition of PROBABLE
1: supported by evidence strong enough to establish presumption but not proof

2: establishing a probability

3: likely to be or become true or real

www.merriam-webster.com...

Probable is not fact, and you are right they were being honest in that respect, I find it ironic though that when they admit the OS is only a probable hypothesis, not fact, you praise them for honesty, but miss that the arguments you have been making as fact are in fact admitted to be not fact by those you are supporting.

Your whole argument falls flat on its face, and you praise the statement that did it. LOL anything to deny the fact that the OS is a lie.

"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse". NIST

www.911proof.com...

reply to post by ANOK

Just because they didn't say it was a hypothesis it doesn't mean it wasn't.

That wasn't the point. The point was the poster kept insisting that the NIST said their conclusions were only a hypothesis. They didn't. So why lie?

For it to be a theory it has to be testable in a lab. For it to be fact it needs to indisputable. It was neither, so it is automatically a hypothesis.

That's not necessarily true. It can still be consider a theory, as it is in this case, when perfect reproduction is not possible. We can't reproduce the twin towers and crash planes into them. Either way the point is the hypothesis, theory, wild ass guess or whatever label that makes YOU comfortable is irrelevant. The conclusions in the NIST report are based on solid, rational investigation and examination. I know the agenda here is to attempt to downgrade the NIST report so it can be argued that all the wild conspiracy fantasies need to be equally "investigated". It hasn't happened in 10 years because I, and no one else, is buying the argument.

Originally posted by hooper
Yet in none of those pages did I see anywhere that the NIST stipulate that the conclusions in their report are only a hypothesis, as you have stated many times. Are you know willing to admit that the NIST never said that their conclusions are only a hypothesis?

Considering that they only had a hypothesis, after everything was said and done, no! That would be lying. Come on, man. You didn't even look through what I linked you to. Don't lie. You obviously didn't even read the title of the relevant section, because it says "probable collapse sequence." "Probable," according to NIST. Does "probably" mean "proven" to you? Yes or no?

Why is using the word "probable" misleading? In fact, compared to language of the conspiracist it is refreshingly honest. You are conflating proven and probable.

Okay, so then you admit they only had a hypothesis in the end. You can't have it both ways. They had no proof, they didn't even pretend to have proof. That's not "proven" like you were claiming earlier.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by bsbray11
And before you complain about them saying "similar, but not exactly the same as those used in the towers," remember, this is also what calibrated their computer models. They don't give you temperature data directly on their site, but if you read their report it tells you they heated the truss until it was a consistent 700 C, and it still wasn't demonstrating the mechanism they were hypothesizing.

What I am complaining about is the fact that you've lied multiple times.

That must be awfully easy to say for someone who change's NIST's own words around at his leisure.

Originally posted by bsbray11
They recreated the entire perimeter-truss set up

Clearly they didn't, unless you think the entire perimeter truss setup consisted of 10ft of one truss.

Wow, so now you think they would have had to recreate the entire towers to demonstrate a phenomena that's only relevant to one truss at a time, huh? Grow up man and learn to realize when you don't have an argument. Anyone can make lame excuses. The fact is you have trusses, you have perimeter columns, and you have heat, all simulated. And what happened?.....

Originally posted by bsbray11
It did not validate their hypothesis

This was used to create their hypothesis.

How in the hell could that be the case when it completely contradicted them by proving the mechanism did not happen??

Originally posted by bsbray11
measured the temperatures reached, deflections, etc

No inward deflection was measured.

Oh, so you think the deflections were actually there, and the perimeter columns were actually pulled inward, and they just forgot to mention it, right?

Look at the pictures. Do you see any evidence of deflection anywhere? NIST would be incompetent just to physically reproduce their mechanism and then utterly fail to document it. It's infinitely more likely they didn't document it because it blew them out of the water.

And no, it wasn't for creating their hypothesis, because they already had it going in from the FEMA report! They even tell you themselves that this was for calibrating computer simulations to test their hypothesis. Whenever you are ready to stop making things up and lying, please, by all means, stop.

You should feel ashamed that you're willing to flat out lie to people to try and get them to agree with you.

Right back at you. You already admitted earlier that you "don't care" when you misrepresent the NIST report, so the real question is why I'm even putting up with this kind of abuse from the likes of you.

I mean for god sake you underlines uninsulated truss but then somehow managed to provide a picture of one that is clearly insulated.

My bad, wrong picture:



Happy now?


So I guess you still have no intention of trying to show where NIST proved a damned thing. Because you know they didn't. But you want to perpetuate the lie that they did, huh?

reply to post by bsbray11

Considering that they only had a hypothesis, after everything was said and done, no! That would be lying. Come on, man. You didn't even look through what I linked you to. Don't lie. You obviously didn't even read the title of the relevant section, because it says "probable collapse sequence." "Probable," according to NIST. Does "probably" mean "proven" to you? Yes or no?

So it would be "lying" to admit that you stated someone or some group said something when they clearly didn't? You really got to look into what a constitutes a lie. You stated plainly that the NIST admitted themselves that it was a hypothesis. Now if you want to play around with the meaning of "it" go ahead. But the NIST did not call their conclusions a hypothesis because it was not.

Originally posted by hooper
So it would be "lying" to admit that you stated someone or some group said something when they clearly didn't?

Only if you had knowledge of it beforehand. In your case I think it's simple ignorance because I don't think you ever actually looked at the relevant parts of the NIST report, even though I just posted them for you.

But the NIST did not call their conclusions a hypothesis because it was not.

They do call it a hypothesis, and I've read them use the word themselves when referring to their own work. On the other hand, nowhere do they say they proved what happened. I might even scour the entire 10,000+ pages of report for you if I hadn't already showed you where they admit they only had a "probable" collapse sequence, according to them, and you still want to argue that they proved something anyway. That's not proof and you know it. And I'm not even going to ask you what you think they proved and where, because I've asked you that already plenty of times before and you've only proven yourself completely unable to handle the question at all and all you know how to do is try to shift the burden instead. Which is why I started by asking you, do you think NIST had the original burden, or not?


But I know how complicated and confusing all this must be for you, especially when you're asked to show what NIST actually proved. It blows your mind, I know. That's okay. But you already agreed with me that it was NIST's burden to establish what happened at the WTC, as commissioned by Congress. So no more weaseling out of your own burden now, if you want to defend NIST's version of what happened. I'm not telling anyone what happened, and it was never my job. It was NIST's. And they didn't do it.

Originally posted by bsbray11
That must be awfully easy to say for someone who change's NIST's own words around at his leisure.

I'm beginning to think you have some sort of memory disorder. Hooper showed that in fact this is not "NIST's own words". In fact NIST apparently has not said this, and only you have.

It is pretty crazy now that you are speaking for NIST, even though you fail constantly on understanding or quoting the report.

In fact if we read a little further in, we find what's actually going on:

Originally posted by bsbray11
They do call it a hypothesis, and I've read them use the word themselves when referring to their own work. On the other hand, nowhere do they say they proved what happened.

This makes a lot more sense, at one point you saw the word "hypothesis" in the NIST report, and from that memory you're sure they referred to their own theory. From this you have accused people of disagreeing with the NIST report, but when challenged you have been unable to locate this quote.

Instead of admitting as much though, you have gone on a rampage of accusations, claiming that their use of the word probable is sufficient to justify you speaking for them, and that we have no complaint if you just invent parts of the NIST report.

Stop applying such a ridiculous double standard. If you can't find the quote you believe in there, admit as much and apologise to us for accusing us of twisting words, when in fact we apparently haven't.

Wow, so now you think they would have had to recreate the entire towers to demonstrate a phenomena that's only relevant to one truss at a time, huh? Grow up man and learn to realize when you don't have an argument. Anyone can make lame excuses. The fact is you have trusses, you have perimeter columns, and you have heat, all simulated. And what happened?.....

You had a 10ft section of a single truss, with no perimeter columns. What happened? The truss heated up. If you want to talk about truss failures that would be a different experiment. What's with the arrogance? You clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about, but why the need to try and act as if you are superior and have analysed this thoroughly?

How in the hell could that be the case when it completely contradicted them by proving the mechanism did not happen??

You have not read the report thoroughly enough, it in no way contradicted their report. If you can not accept that sometimes you are wrong (especially when it comes to things you haven't read) then you have some bigger problems than believing in NIST.

Oh, so you think the deflections were actually there, and the perimeter columns were actually pulled inward, and they just forgot to mention it, right?

Look at the pictures. Do you see any evidence of deflection anywhere? NIST would be incompetent just to physically reproduce their mechanism and then utterly fail to document it. It's infinitely more likely they didn't document it because it blew them out of the water.

Haha oh man, this is the best absolute stretching in the world. You didn't bother to read experimental criteria, or even look at the pictures properly, because you would notice there were no perimeter columns.

Accusing NIST scientists of lying just because you're making claims about things you are completely ignorant on is so arrogant I cannot describe it briefly. Grow the hell up.

And no, it wasn't for creating their hypothesis, because they already had it going in from the FEMA report! They even tell you themselves that this was for calibrating computer simulations to test their hypothesis. Whenever you are ready to stop making things up and lying, please, by all means, stop.

I have never lied on ATS, not once. It is a record you should look into. Furthermore, FEMAs conclusion differed significantly from NISTs. Once again another paragraph full of ignorance by someone who assumes they know the NIST report well enough to speak on its behalf.

Right back at you. You already admitted earlier that you "don't care" when you misrepresent the NIST report, so the real question is why I'm even putting up with this kind of abuse from the likes of you.

Because you utterly failed in any way to quote the NIST report to show that I was misrepresenting them. In fact I gave an honest personal opinion, and you're desperately trying to find a way to use it to attack me.

Happy now?

So I guess you still have no intention of trying to show where NIST proved a damned thing. Because you know they didn't. But you want to perpetuate the lie that they did, huh?

edit on 17-4-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)

They proved at least:

• WTC workstations would readily burn and produce temperatures significant enough to damage steel
  
• These temperatures were maintained for a long enough period to affect the steel
  
• Steel with damaged insulation would heat up very quickly
  
• Insulation damage was very likely

How do I know this? I gave you and ANOK the chance to challenge this and list facts which made it unlikely. You both failed to raise any valid issues, and the results from tests you claim disagree were posted and clearly they do agree with the NIST report.

You're stretching further and further to appear authorititive and informed bsbray. I won't hold anything against you if you're honest, but you will certainly lose some credibility with conspiracists. I guess your choice is to keep inventing things you wished were true and getting proven wrong, or to admit your ignorance and be accepted for it.

I would love to show you why NISTs theory is the most reliable, but any time I attempt that you

• Invent quotes from the NIST report you can't cite
  
• Invent tests and test parameters that you cannot cite
  
• Invent motives for concealing test parameters that you have no evidence of
  
• Dictate the results of tests with publicly available data

This is not a winning strategy.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by bsbray11
That must be awfully easy to say for someone who change's NIST's own words around at his leisure.

I'm beginning to think you have some sort of memory disorder. Hooper showed that in fact this is not "NIST's own words". In fact NIST apparently has not said this, and only you have.

Hooper didn't show any such thing. I'm convinced he never even clicked the links I posted. Try to come up with your own arguments. You're a big boy aren't you?


Did you not post this earlier?

Originally posted by exponent

That's not what NIST called it.

I don't care?

Sorry, too late, you did post that. Your attitudes here have already been revealed.

So take a minute to reflect on that before the next time you call me a liar or a troll. You said you didn't even care that your opinion of NIST's report doesn't even agree with NIST's own statements.

This makes a lot more sense, at one point you saw the word "hypothesis" in the NIST report, and from that memory you're sure they referred to their own theory. From this you have accused people of disagreeing with the NIST report, but when challenged you have been unable to locate this quote.

If you haven't read the NIST report, then that's not my fault. I still know what it says. You claimed you'd call it a theory. Well where does NIST say that? The problem isn't that I don't know what they said, the problem is that they published a monster of a report with mostly erroneous information, disabled copying and pasting from the PDF and all kinds of other nonsense just to make it hard to find anything within a reasonable period of time. I have no intention of spending an hour digging through it just to prove to you conclusively that you're wrong, when I've already seen what it says.

Again, they even use the word "probable" in the name of that whole section of the report. Does that sound like anything that was proven to you? Yes, of course "probable" means "proof" to you. Because otherwise you'd have lost your argument.

Wow, so now you think they would have had to recreate the entire towers to demonstrate a phenomena that's only relevant to one truss at a time, huh? Grow up man and learn to realize when you don't have an argument. Anyone can make lame excuses. The fact is you have trusses, you have perimeter columns, and you have heat, all simulated. And what happened?.....

You had a 10ft section of a single truss, with no perimeter columns. What happened? The truss heated up. If you want to talk about truss failures that would be a different experiment.

Why? What else do you need besides a truss, heat, and a connection to a perimeter column? That's is the basis of their hypothesis: the truss got hot, and *somehow* pulled the perimeter column inward despite there being no evidence of this happening whatsoever. That's why it is only a hypothesis. That's why it's not proven, and they have to use words like "probable." I'm not even saying they're wrong, I'm just asking for proof, or trying to show you that they had none. It would be very simple to admit all this, and yet at the same time, it's very hard for you isn't it?

How in the hell could that be the case when it completely contradicted them by proving the mechanism did not happen??

You have not read the report thoroughly enough, it in no way contradicted their report. If you can not accept that sometimes you are wrong (especially when it comes to things you haven't read) then you have some bigger problems than believing in NIST.

Read what you're responding to again. I asked you a question that you dodged. You won't even try to explain how this set-up would not have confirmed their hypothesis, if their hypothesis had any validity to it. Is NIST's hypothesis really that picky, that you can have a virtually identical set-up, and nothing even remotely similar happens? Why don't you stop and think about that for 3 seconds?

Look at the pictures. Do you see any evidence of deflection anywhere? NIST would be incompetent just to physically reproduce their mechanism and then utterly fail to document it. It's infinitely more likely they didn't document it because it blew them out of the water.

Haha oh man, this is the best absolute stretching in the world. You didn't bother to read experimental criteria, or even look at the pictures properly, because you would notice there were no perimeter columns.

You must not be looking at the same pictures I am. They clearly show columns. They don't even have to be the same strength as the WTC columns, or even made out of steel, if the trusses simply have to be shown to exert a pull force on them. Let me guess, this makes too much sense for you too?

Accusing NIST scientists of lying just because you're making claims about things you are completely ignorant on is so arrogant I cannot describe it briefly. Grow the hell up.

They've already been caught lying. Just check out the videos of John Gross denying molten steel while turning red in the face. Molten steel was confirmed in the FEMA report, appendix C, by the way. Not to mention all the eyewitness testimonies. Whether or not the witnesses were actually looking at molten steel can be debated, but I find it difficult to believe John Gross heard no mention of this whatsoever during his "investigation." NIST is a federal agency. What federal agency do you know of that isn't susceptible to corruption? You're the one that needs to grow up. The disinformation and lies are in your face and you refuse to even consider it.

And no, it wasn't for creating their hypothesis, because they already had it going in from the FEMA report! They even tell you themselves that this was for calibrating computer simulations to test their hypothesis. Whenever you are ready to stop making things up and lying, please, by all means, stop.

I have never lied on ATS, not once. It is a record you should look into.

Neither have I, but that's never stopped you from accusing me, so why shouldn't I return the favor when you post things that are blatantly wrong?

Furthermore, FEMAs conclusion differed significantly from NISTs. Once again another paragraph full of ignorance by someone who assumes they know the NIST report well enough to speak on its behalf.

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...

The initial "investigation" was done by some ASCE panel that engineering professor Dr. Astaneh-Asl later accused of "moral corruption" to the Associated Press and claimed he had only been able to contradict their findings. Too late, though. The ASCE's work was handed to FEMA, which was in turn the "preliminary" investigation that was used as a backbone for NIST going in. To pretend like NIST was an isolated investigation, all done from scratch, is delusion. All of this garbage was generated from 2001 in a continuous fashion, though you're right that in the end FEMA and NIST's reports ended up contradicting each other.

Right back at you. You already admitted earlier that you "don't care" when you misrepresent the NIST report, so the real question is why I'm even putting up with this kind of abuse from the likes of you.

Because you utterly failed in any way to quote the NIST report to show that I was misrepresenting them. In fact I gave an honest personal opinion, and you're desperately trying to find a way to use it to attack me.

No, you're just backpeddling now. You said nothing even close to any of that. Your exact words were, "I don't care?" That sounds awfully damned sincere, doesn't it? That's all you said when you were informed that your opinions of NIST's report, contradict NIST's own opinions of NIST's report.

Happy now?

So I guess you still have no intention of trying to show where NIST proved a damned thing. Because you know they didn't. But you want to perpetuate the lie that they did, huh?

edit on 17-4-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)

They proved at least:

• WTC workstations would readily burn and produce temperatures significant enough to damage steel
  
• These temperatures were maintained for a long enough period to affect the steel
  
• Steel with damaged insulation would heat up very quickly
  
• Insulation damage was very likely

This is a load of scientific garbage simply because "very quickly," "long enough period to affect," "significant enough to damage," aren't even quantified or compared in any way to what would have to happen in order to cause a total "collapse" (read: exploding in all directions) to the ground. So this is all meaningless.

Based on what you just posted, you know that NIST didn't prove why the towers came down. So this whole epic rant of a post you just spent whining, is totally pointless. You already agree with me, but you can't act like it, because you want to pretend that it's insignificant that they didn't actually prove anything. Keep deluding yourself man. It's no skin off my back whether your head is in the ground or not.

Originally posted by ANOK
For it to be a theory it has to be testable in a lab. For it to be fact it needs to indisputable. It was neither, so it is automatically a hypothesis.

This is an interesting quote. Of course it's true, but I'm interested in how a model of the collapse of the WTC would ever qualify as a theory under your terms.

It seems to me that you're discrediting a report because it can't provide you with proof, when in fact such proof is not attainable. Can you give me an example of circumstances in which you would accept "proof" of what happened at the WTC?

Because if you can't then you're just going to allow yourself to reject any hypothesis you don't particularly like. And that's the definition of bias.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
This is an interesting quote. Of course it's true, but I'm interested in how a model of the collapse of the WTC would ever qualify as a theory under your terms.

Huh? Who said anything about a model of the WTC? All you need to do is demonstrate in a lab that trusses can pull in the columns they are attached to. They don't have to be the same as the WTC.

Do you know anything about how components, or systems, are tested in a lab?

It seems to me that you're discrediting a report because it can't provide you with proof, when in fact such proof is not attainable. Can you give me an example of circumstances in which you would accept "proof" of what happened at the WTC?

If that proof is not attainable, then why do you argue for it?

If you can show using the laws of motion that the WTC buildings can completely collapse from the failure of floor trusses I'll listen. Not proof that fires can cause steel to sag, or that room fire can get hot enough to cause steel to fail. None of those prove that complete global collapse is inevitable once initiated.

Where is the official explanation of the collapses? There isn't one, and you keep making things up in order to dance around that fact. You all argue for pancake/progressive collapse when NIST themselves don't even support it, because physics doesn't support it.

You can argue that the collapse initiation was possible, it was, but probable? No. But you can not prove, or even explain, how that initiation would continue and cause the complete collapse through the path of most resistance.

Because if you can't then you're just going to allow yourself to reject any hypothesis you don't particularly like. And that's the definition of bias.

I reject hypothesis that make no sense physically. The whole reason it is a hypothesis is because it is not provable, and you've had 10 years to do that.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Hooper didn't show any such thing. I'm convinced he never even clicked the links I posted. Try to come up with your own arguments. You're a big boy aren't you?

I have no idea what exactly this is supposed to mean, you linked NCSTAR 1-6 and the subreports, the only relevant section in that report would be the summary of collapse hypotheses over the course of the investigation. However, if you had read this, then you would know that there wasn't just a single hypothesis the entire time, which you claimed here:

And no, it wasn't for creating their hypothesis, because they already had it going in from the FEMA report!

None of this makes sense, you're still unable to produce a quote of NIST saying their Probable Collapse Sequence (if you're referring to NCSTAR 1-6) was 'just a hypothesis'.

Sorry, too late, you did post that. Your attitudes here have already been revealed.

So take a minute to reflect on that before the next time you call me a liar or a troll. You said you didn't even care that your opinion of NIST's report doesn't even agree with NIST's own statements.

Wait, let me get this straight. You're having a go at me because I disagree with the 'Official Story'?!. Isn't that what everyone is doing including you? You asked me for my opinion, I gave you my opinion. I couldn't give a damn whether my opinion differs with NIST about the particular classification of their report.

If you haven't read the NIST report, then that's not my fault. I still know what it says. You claimed you'd call it a theory. Well where does NIST say that?

I have no clue, you asked what I would call it.

I have no intention of spending an hour digging through it just to prove to you conclusively that you're wrong, when I've already seen what it says.

Why don't you try and approximate the quote, I can happily search the reports for you.

Why? What else do you need besides a truss, heat, and a connection to a perimeter column? That's is the basis of their hypothesis: the truss got hot, and *somehow* pulled the perimeter column inward despite there being no evidence of this happening whatsoever.

They didn't even have a connection to a perimeter column in this test, and if you don't realise that truss deflection depends on length and load then I don't think I can teach you.

You also lied again here, you say "no evidence" but I have shown you the images proving this occurred. You denied it and refused to answer questions put to you. I'll happily post them again:

Read what you're responding to again. I asked you a question that you dodged. You won't even try to explain how this set-up would not have confirmed their hypothesis, if their hypothesis had any validity to it. Is NIST's hypothesis really that picky, that you can have a virtually identical set-up, and nothing even remotely similar happens? Why don't you stop and think about that for 3 seconds?

More nonsense, what virtually identical set-up are you talking about? The one you posted was a very small section of truss with no load or perimeter column connections. The funny thing is that there are closer tests, but you don't mention those as they show some of the features you'd like to pretend don't exist.

You must not be looking at the same pictures I am. They clearly show columns. They don't even have to be the same strength as the WTC columns, or even made out of steel, if the trusses simply have to be shown to exert a pull force on them. Let me guess, this makes too much sense for you too?

This would make absolute sense, if only one thing was different: If they actually measured this force at all.

You claim they did, but that they didn't publish the results as they didn't support them. Please show me the evidence you have used to come to this conclusion.

Neither have I, but that's never stopped you from accusing me, so why shouldn't I return the favor when you post things that are blatantly wrong?

It was easy to prove you lied, and it doesn't take much reading to understand it. I leave it up to the reader to decide whether this ruins your credibility even more.

This is a load of scientific garbage simply because "very quickly," "long enough period to affect," "significant enough to damage," aren't even quantified or compared in any way to what would have to happen in order to cause a total "collapse" (read: exploding in all directions) to the ground. So this is all meaningless.

Please give me numbers you'd find acceptable, you've failed to provide a single specific complaint with the facts I posted, so why not engage and actually debate something?

Originally posted by ANOK

Huh? Who said anything about a model of the WTC? All you need to do is demonstrate in a lab that trusses can pull in the columns they are attached to. They don't have to be the same as the WTC.

Do you know anything about how components, or systems, are tested in a lab?

So you acknowledge that ther will never be anything that constitutes "proof" in this instance? Because a complete model of the collapse is not possible?

If that proof is not attainable, then why do you argue for it?

Where do I do that? Show me.

Where is the official explanation of the collapses? There isn't one, and you keep making things up in order to dance around that fact. You all argue for pancake/progressive collapse when NIST themselves don't even support it, because physics doesn't support it.

You're very eager to put words in my mouth. But that's fine - show me where I "argue" this and I'll concede.

You can argue that the collapse initiation was possible, it was, but probable? No.

So you have some more probable hypothesis?

I reject hypothesis that make no sense physically. The whole reason it is a hypothesis is because it is not provable, and you've had 10 years to do that.

edit on 4/18/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

But that's my point. Show me a way in which it could ever be provable. You're asking for a collapse mechanism that is wholly repeatable in a lab. And that's never going to happen. You've set your bar impossibly high in order to maintain your position of disdain.

And while that keeps you bathed in the warm glow of superiority, it doesn't actually further your cause.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by bsbray11
Hooper didn't show any such thing. I'm convinced he never even clicked the links I posted. Try to come up with your own arguments. You're a big boy aren't you?

I have no idea what exactly this is supposed to mean, you linked NCSTAR 1-6 and the subreports, the only relevant section in that report would be the summary of collapse hypotheses over the course of the investigation. However, if you had read this, then you would know that there wasn't just a single hypothesis the entire time, which you claimed here:

And no, it wasn't for creating their hypothesis, because they already had it going in from the FEMA report!

None of this makes sense, you're still unable to produce a quote of NIST saying their Probable Collapse Sequence (if you're referring to NCSTAR 1-6) was 'just a hypothesis'.

And you haven't provided one that shows it as a "theory," which was your argument, so that puts us in the same boat doesn't it? Except I clearly remember NIST referring to their own work as a hypothesis. And specifically I'm referring to the hypothesis regarding a heated, sagging trusses being able to pull a perimeter column inward. You know that's the hypothesis I've been referring to.

Sorry, too late, you did post that. Your attitudes here have already been revealed.

So take a minute to reflect on that before the next time you call me a liar or a troll. You said you didn't even care that your opinion of NIST's report doesn't even agree with NIST's own statements.

Wait, let me get this straight. You're having a go at me because I disagree with the 'Official Story'?!.

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. So you're apathetic when you make up stuff about their report, while pretending to defend it. That's the attitude I'm referring to, that doesn't really even deserve a response.

If you haven't read the NIST report, then that's not my fault. I still know what it says. You claimed you'd call it a theory. Well where does NIST say that?

I have no clue, you asked what I would call it.

Here's an article from about.com that might help shed some light on the difference you are proposing here:

Words have precise meanings in science. For example, 'theory', 'law', and 'hypothesis' don't all mean the same thing. ...

Hypothesis

A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. ...

Theory

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it.

chemistry.about.com...


So according to these definitions, you are proposing that NIST's hypothesis (you know, the one about trusses pulling perimeter columns inward?) has "been supported with repeated testing."

Is that really what you're trying to argue, or would you like a chance to rephrase? You know I'm going to ask to see where NIST tested their truss failure hypothesis repeatedly, if you really think it has graduated to the level of "theory."

Why? What else do you need besides a truss, heat, and a connection to a perimeter column? That's is the basis of their hypothesis: the truss got hot, and *somehow* pulled the perimeter column inward despite there being no evidence of this happening whatsoever.

They didn't even have a connection to a perimeter column in this test, and if you don't realise that truss deflection depends on length and load then I don't think I can teach you.

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

You also lied again here, you say "no evidence" but I have shown you the images proving this occurred. You denied it and refused to answer questions put to you. I'll happily post them again:

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? 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.

We can go back all over all of this if you really need to. And again you call me a liar I see. Then you shouldn't complain when I call you a liar back, when you ignore all this stuff I post and come back a week later like I never said anything about it.

More nonsense, what virtually identical set-up are you talking about? The one you posted was a very small section of truss with no load or perimeter column connections. The funny thing is that there are closer tests, but you don't mention those as they show some of the features you'd like to pretend don't exist.

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.

This would make absolute sense, if only one thing was different: If they actually measured this force at all.

You claim they did, but that they didn't publish the results as they didn't support them. Please show me the evidence you have used to come to this conclusion.

I didn't claim they measured; I said if they didn't then it was probably because it contradicted their main hypothesis. I am perfectly fine to qualify that as my opinion.

Neither have I, but that's never stopped you from accusing me, so why shouldn't I return the favor when you post things that are blatantly wrong?

It was easy to prove you lied

Where, and about what?

I leave it up to the reader to decide whether this ruins your credibility even more.

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?

This is a load of scientific garbage simply because "very quickly," "long enough period to affect," "significant enough to damage," aren't even quantified or compared in any way to what would have to happen in order to cause a total "collapse" (read: exploding in all directions) to the ground. So this is all meaningless.

Please give me numbers you'd find acceptable, you've failed to provide a single specific complaint with the facts I posted, so why not engage and actually debate something?

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.