Reply With Quote
On a further related note:
Discovered this local Austin band by surfing at random on youtube. Fascinating group.
If you liked that, I would highly recommend one of their other songs:
Sorry. just riffing on a saturday with too much coffee. whoot.
At the risk of getting all ADD:
I love youtube. Found that bit at random, and it seems the guy and his relatives seem to have some talent.
... and now back to your regularly scheduled pissing contest about 9-11.
On a further related note:
Discovered this local Austin band by surfing at random on youtube. Fascinating group.
If you liked that, I would highly recommend one of their other songs:
Sorry. just riffing on a saturday with too much coffee. whoot.
Based on all the qualifications, it was as accurate as it was really going to get.
Just admit you don't have one. You're avoiding the question.An alternate theory has no bearing on what I am saying. I do not have to come up with an alternate theory to say that the NIST report is inadequate.
Now you're butthurt.Say you say you are not butthurt. You do not have to claim that you are happy or any other particular to prove that you are not butthurt.
I don't really think it is thoroughgoing. I just like to get down to what I think are brass tacks.I realize you think your question is somehow thoroughgoing in terms of the discussion as much as you parrot it but you suck at the socratic method. That last one IS an ad hominem.
I looked it up.Oh and look up ad hominem. You have to link the personal observation to an argument. Me saying that is funny is nothing like an actual ad hominem where for example I say you are going to argue a particular way because you are butthurt.
It fits.
I think it's funny you basically agree with me and all you can say is I'm butthurt that you agree with me so much.It is funny. If I thought you actually knew anyone who died that day I might care but I just think its funny.
Give me something else to believe and I'll consider it.
That is the bottom line with me.
You can throw all the ad hominems and insults at me you want, but in the end you have nothing else, so don't get butthurt about that.
Thanks.
Gone for the day. I'll come back to see if anyone has the balls to come up with an alternate theory.
Confidence is low.
Ahh yes the Chump world famous socratic method you really agree with me defense. Look at the silly monkey.
Look it up again:
I linked it to my thinking its funny not the discussion at hand.argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.
You did not look up .
You still did not answer my question. I did not ask whether or not it could be more accurate.
I did not avoid your question. I said that your question is immaterial. Its a red herring.
And fine there is no alternate model being presented so you do not care. Why are you still acting so butthurt?
Not so much in my opinion. Hey if you're satisfied with what they did then thats cool.Fairly certain is close to definitive, especially when you get that much brainpower and expertise on a subject together.
That was easy.
I do have background in thermodynamics, materials science, spectrum analysis, digital signal processing and computer modeling.
I think they would have done a better job given more time. Thats okay too.
I want to repeat that I do not think that NIST acted in bad faith.
I understand how the model would predict a major deformation of the exterior face at the top of WTC7 given the damage to the exterior of the building. I just do not think it meets observed fact.
Does that mean that it was a controlled demolition? Of course not. What it does mean is that there were variables not considered or incorrectly considered in the model.
I have just seen too many rushed projects.
There we go. You are talking about, specifically, Blg 7. I was not.
That might color the conversation a bit differently.
I don't think that they got nearly as close to figuring out that collapse as they did for 1 + 2. They had a lot less budget, mostly because it wasn't quite as important (except to conspiracy theorists, of course).
See this is where I strongly disgree. In 1 and 2 huge firestarting objects were propelled at very high speeds into the central columns. The mechanism is fairly straightforward.
WTC7 is clearly not as obvious because it was thought that a a fire induced fall was not possible. Thats what all the conspiracy people point to. Ithas not happened elsewhere ever. NIST contends they came up with a way that it could happen. The only problem is their model did not work.
The conclusions of the NIST report were not as much how it happened but instead of how buildings can be built in the future to prevent like this happening again. They made recommendations on future building codes.
Well those recommendations are based on bad models and did not address the actual cause of the collapse because they never figured out what it was.
So not only do you have the greatest tragedy in American history in 60 years not getting the full and complete attention that it deserved but the safety ramifications of these falls were discarded for political expediency.
Its a disgrace.
No one died in WTC7.
It clearly wasn't as important.
Why are you so butthurt about it?
Observation does not match theory, allegedly.
The theory (I take it) is that no steel skyscraper ever fell down before because of a fire. I see no reason why new outcomes need be prohibited in theory, but there it is...
...but perhaps this take was always meant to be a more subterfuge of rhetoric rather than a description of reality, but perhaps Fuzzy thinks it's a description of reality, when in essence and effect it is merely a description of the past.
Of course I did. Now you're butthurt that I did.
I know of no new information regarding the factors you were butthurt about, so I can only conclude you want NIST to keep guessing and spending money until they get something that looks more like the one or two angles of video that exist of the collapse of a building in which no one died.You still did not answer my question. I did not ask whether or not it could be more accurate.
Ah, the old "I'm afraid to answer so I'll say it doesn't matter."I did not avoid your question. I said that your question is immaterial. Its a red herring.
Why isn't there? All the data is there. All the great minds of the movement for truth should be able to pool their resources and vast intellects to some up with some models of their own.And fine there is no alternate model being presented so you do not care. Why are you still acting so butthurt?
So far, this is the closest I have seen:
WTC7 was hit by one of the tallest buildings in the world and was burned by unfought fires for several hours. No attempt was made to fight the fires when some meager resources became available because the FDNY measured the deformation of the building and concluded there was a good chance it would collapse.
And it collapsed.
No one died and no one really cared about the exact initiation and mechanism of collapse, with good reason. The building was obviously severely ed up and looked like it was going to collapse for hours.
The WTC7 investigation did not start until the investigation into the twin towers was complete, and it lasted about three years.
I don't understand why a model necessarily based on so many assumptions should be criticized so heavily for not looking exactly like two videos of the north facing top floors of the building during the collapse. You claim to want more accuracy but concede there is no actual known information that would make it more accurate.
You just want more guessing. Or just a chance to be butthurt that they decided to stop guessing. Since you know there will be no more guessing, one can only conclude you enjoy being butthurt about it.
oh building 7 really gets chumpdumper lost in a sea on confusion, rofl
hey chumpdumper i was wondering how a building (7) could collapse in the manner that we all watched on video? this thread is called real 9/11 research right?
now first of all we ALL KNOW its not in the 9/11 commission report, that would be foolish to expect that. these are things we know. building 7 being left out of the 9/11 commission report is something we know. Like Hubie Brown would say
You already know where the explanations can be found. You have been told several times. You choose not to read them.
Ever.
The St. Nicolas Church isn't in the 9/11 Commission Report either.now first of all we ALL KNOW its not in the 9/11 commission report, that would be foolish to expect that. these are things we know. building 7 being left out of the 9/11 commission report is something we know. Like Hubie Brown would say
You are a fool to expect the 9/11 Commission to produce a scientific engineering report. Repeating your expectation and ignoring actual scientific engineering reports makes you a bigger fool.
These are things we know.
There is no report regarding the complete collapse mechanisms of WTC buildings 3, 4, 5 or 6 anywhere.
It must be a conspiracy!
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 10-24-2010 at 02:18 PM.
So your argument is basically that while it does not accurately reflect what actually happened I should just not care. Thats nice. People clearly did care about the mechanism as they gave recommendations on building codes.Of course I did. Now you're butthurt that I did.
I know of no new information regarding the factors you were butthurt about, so I can only conclude you want NIST to keep guessing and spending money until they get something that looks more like the one or two angles of video that exist of the collapse of a building in which no one died.
Ah, the old "I'm afraid to answer so I'll say it doesn't matter."
Why isn't there? All the data is there. All the great minds of the movement for truth should be able to pool their resources and vast intellects to some up with some models of their own.
So far, this is the closest I have seen:
WTC7 was hit by one of the tallest buildings in the world and was burned by unfought fires for several hours. No attempt was made to fight the fires when some meager resources became available because the FDNY measured the deformation of the building and concluded there was a good chance it would collapse.
And it collapsed.
No one died and no one really cared about the exact initiation and mechanism of collapse, with good reason. The building was obviously severely ed up and looked like it was going to collapse for hours.
The WTC7 investigation did not start until the investigation into the twin towers was complete, and it lasted about three years.
I don't understand why a model necessarily based on so many assumptions should be criticized so heavily for not looking exactly like two videos of the north facing top floors of the building during the collapse. You claim to want more accuracy but concede there is no actual known information that would make it more accurate.
You just want more guessing. Or just a chance to be butthurt that they decided to stop guessing. Since you know there will be no more guessing, one can only conclude you enjoy being butthurt about it.
Nice reverse face on all of your arguments up to this point though.
You also clearly do not know about modelling. You might as well say the climate modelers should stop and we should be fine with their inaccurate climate models too.
The only thing here is that YOU do not care. It does not preclude you rolling out the tin foil hat youtubes so you can measure your epeen. To me, however, it is very important that they make recommendations on future buildings be made with the best possible information.
You are so hung up on arguing the tin hat crew on this subject, all you do is regurgitate your same old bull .
Tell me why I should care more.
Tell me why there is so much more I should know about modeling.
I really don't give a about non-binding building code recommendations.
Quit being so butthurt about your epeen and tell us all why you care so much.
More socratic bull ?
This may be a revelation to you but the discussion does not center around you and what you care about.
You gave up trying to argue the point to now saying you do not care. Whatevs.
Fine you do not care so I am not going to continue to bother.
Now it revolves around what you care about:
Non-binding building code recommendations.
The point to me is not non-binding building code recommendations.You gave up trying to argue the point to now saying you do not care. Whatevs.
You gave up trying to argue the point to now saying you are not going to continue to bother. Whatevs.Fine you do not care so I am not going to continue to bother.
What do you think the point of the studies was? Do you think that it was to answer the tinfoil hat squad?
I want to expand on this a little bit.
Chump spent this entire thread parroting 'give a better theory' ad nauseum.
He now has gone from that to saying that it does not matter that the model is because the recommendations they made off of them were just that: recommendations.
I just want to point out that because the model is ANY theory is just as valid. But hey at least its not legally binding.
You can say that you shot blue elephants out of your ass the day before weakening supports on all sides and it has just as much proof as the mechanism NIST put out.
In part, it most definitely was.
What do you think the point of the studies was? Do you think that it was to answer the tinfoil hat squad?
Anyone who read the report would know that.
Maybe you just skipped right to the non-binding building code recommendations. Sure, they seem to make sense, but to me the combination of factors that brought down WTC 7 were rare enough that I simply wouldn't worry if I entered a building that was constructed exactly the same way.
If I were designing or building or insuring a building now, it would be of greater interest to me. I'm not, so it isn't.
No one gave me a better theory.
Do you have a better theory?
This is what would interest me.
Any mechanism is at least as valid as the one put forth by NIST. The NIST model is clearly not what happened.
You sure are trying to have it both ways.
Nah, my way is wanting a theory.
NIST gave me one.
You failed to.
Straight from NIST:
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTCplan_new.htmGoals:
To investigate the building construction, the materials used, and the technical conditions that contributed to the outcome of the World Trade Center (WTC) disaster.
To serve as the basis for:
Improvements in the way buildings are designed, constructed, maintained, and used;
Improved tools, guidance for industry and safety officials;
Revisions to codes, standards, and practices; and
Improved public safety.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
