tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
The bonds are bogus and the stock has tanked.
Continuation: 'What about building 7?'
- Thread starter jaydeehess
- Start date
-
- Tags
- wtc7
The bonds are bogus and the stock has tanked.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Now you're just being shilly
I shally not justify that with an answer.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Or Gage's peripatetic ignorance.
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
Then you actually mentioned the column side plates were 26" long?
What good would a 26" side plate do?
ozeco41
Philosopher
Tony your blatant dishonesty and evasions become boring.
I am aware that you have difficulties in presenting reasoned argument but resorting to falsely based personal attacks and snide comments is not the way to go. If you are unable to respond rationally to true and reasoned arguments put to you why do you even go through the motions? If you want to engage in discussion it is time to learn how to do it - time to learn how to present - or in this case respond to reasoning - with counter REASONING - time for you to either get serious OR leave the scene.
Let's look at the example of nonsense you give:
Now that contains two examples of untruths which you deliberately wrote. And there is a blunt word for the process of deliberately telling truths. Why do you do tell deliberate untruths Tony?
The first is a "lie by innuendo" when you say "Yours are not the only examples Ozeco..." The inference being that there are multiple examples where my posts are "incoherent and blithering". Put up or shut up time Tony. Prove the plural examples of my posts being incoherent Tony. Link and quote TWO of them to prove they exist AND in the plural. I'll even let you off half your claim - the bit about "...and blithering" unless you want to define what you mean by that AND produce proof.
The next is an explicit lie with two embedded "lies by innuendo" - so a Tony give away three for the price of one deal. Better than the local supermarket.
You say "on the part of those trying to defend the defenseless "fire did it" theory." The embedded "lies by innuendo" are the false assertion that the "fire did it theory" is defenceless AND the implication that I am one taking part in the alleged "defence".
The explicit lie is that I defend the explanations which you oppose.
I would be the last person posting on this forum to fall for a "reversed burden of DISproof" trap. I am pedantically insistent on correctly identifying where the burden of proof lies when confronted by debating tricks of the type that you routinely engage in. There is a default explanation - the extant hypothesis varioulsy labelled "the official version" OR "the accepted narratives".
YOU and your tag team clone followers are the ones making the claims. YOU are asserting that aspects of "the official version" OR "the accepted narratives" are wrong. Your claims are unproven. It is your burden of proof. I have many times told you what is wrong with your claims. I do not need to defend any theory including the (allegedly) '...defenseless "fire did it" theory.'
It is pathetic that after so many years making your false claims in these arenas you still do not comprehend the basic rules of the game. You make claims - you prove them. I'm not aware of a single significant claim that you have ever substantiated. "Engineering Reality" back in 2007, "Missing Jolt", all your silly claims about tilt and axial impact and more recently your so far unproven claims about WTC7 collapse initiation AND significance. Not one of them survives examination.
I am unlikely to make errors when critiquing your claims Tony. So you have two viable options:
1) Correct your errors to reflect the valid criticisms I (and many others) have identified; OR
2) Save the potential embarrassment for another time - don't respond because you simply dig yourself in deeper.
The only change evident is you change to "incoherence and blithering" as your code words. for years your standard code for "your argument is too good for me so I will not respond" was "blah, blah, blah, blah.....(repeated)"
Your change to using those bigger words doesn't change the meaning - it is still "I am not going to counter our arguments". Why admit it in public?
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Are you saying we should dismiss the testimony of fire fighters if their accounts are not corroborated by clear, legitimate data?
Oh, and are you saying we should reject Danny Jowenko's expert opinion on the twin towers because he lacked information about them?
I am asking this to figure out the standards of evidence that are acceptable for you, vs. those that are not acceptable to you.
Like, if you don't have photos of arsonists, what shalll we make of that?
ozeco41
Philosopher
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
In this instance I'd argue that they've overshot the runway (and overshot themselves in the foot).
Tony in particular has shown a streak of paranoia that further undermines his position, whilst providing a rich new seam of material for folk like myself who enjoy riffing on the comedic value of truthers.
Gerry continues to show neither desire nor ability to make the crucial case for CD that he needs to do in order to convince the lay public, and will go "blah blah stiffener blah flange blah width" until he's the only chap left in the room, having convinced nobody of anything other than his determination to focus on the mindbendingly irrelevant.
For my part: since posting this morning I've been on a bike ride with Mrs Ape, planted potatoes, shallots and onions on my allotment, prepared a slow roast Moroccan Lamb in red wine and dates for later, and now we're off to the coast for a couple of hours to do some fossil hunting. When we return, this thread will have accrued a couple more pages of circular pish for me to enjoy after my meal, and that feels strangely fine to me, like everything's alright with the world (The birds are singing, the seeds are sprouting, the truthers are truthing, the Earth continues to revolve around the Sun...)
Long may this daft thread continue, I say
I approve of this thoroughly heart-warming and enjoyable post
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
He figures no one would notice the fact his claim of "no gash" is based on the fact the NIST did not use it in the model. They didn't use any part of the exterior in the model. Did the NIST also think the building didn't have an exterior?
He claims there were no fires before 2 hours after the collapses because the NIST used only video evidence that could be confirmed (very conservative). He ignores eye-witnesses he uses to back his "explosions" when it's suits his agenda.
The only part of this that bothers me is, he now thinks everyone is so stupid we don't see the tricks he's been pulling for years.
Last edited:
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
I never really read the Sections in the NIST report dealing with the 47-story dynamic model of collapse progression, only looked at the pictures, read some captions, and the occasional paragraph describing a Figure.
So I may be quite mistaken here, but: Didn't NIST use the Gash in one model run - the one that produced an outward appearence of the global collapse that is clearly closer to the videos than the other sim they did without that damage? The clear and large differences in results seem to indicate that the collapse dynamics are rather sensitive to damage level input.
Am I correct to assume that the damage level NIST used as input to their first sim run was conservative, modelling damage only in those locations for which photo evidence exists?
If that is so, would I be too far out on a limb if I speculated that if the true damage extent were modeled, which certainly is larger than NIST's conservative estimate, that the simulation result would tend to show even less distortion of the upper corners of the building, and thus be even closer to the real thing?
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
This is all true to a degree. The NIST did not consider the whole "gash" as they documented in their models because much of it was outside their scope of interest.
Tony is trying to say it never happened using the fact the NIST didn't use it in their model, although they did document it. His entire argument is based on a model being an exact replica of reality.
He knows no bounds of dishonesty and expects we wouldn't notice.
Last edited:
ozeco41
Philosopher
Dunno. A lot of folks have looked at why NIST was right. I take the short cut - look at why Tony et al are wrong*. That is the way the burden of proof sits.
The starting point so simple:
Steel framed building;
On fire;
Fire not fought;
Building giving signs of distress;
Building falls.
End of story.
* OK - for the pedants - "Why they are not proven right."
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Curious, Where do you hope to go with this?
You really need to focus on defining a direction. Just trying to be helpful..........
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
DGM, ozeco,
I didn't ask the question as part of a debate with Tony. This means I do not seek to disprobe a claim he makes or prove a claim I address towards him. Hence no issue of "his burden of proof or mine?"
I asked to further my own understanding: Did NIST model the exterior wall damage in Section consistent with the conservative damage estimate derived earlier?
I can now answer my own question: YES. The conservative damage estimate that we have been talking about here is derived in Section 5.5.3
The LS-DYNA model im Chapter 12 does use it: "After gravity initialization, debris impact damage due to the collapse of WTC 1 (Section 5.5.3) was
applied to the global model instantaneously." (Section 12.3.2, page 564)
My second question was whether that damage estimate was in fact conservative; in other words: I want to know whether it is probable the actual debris impact damage was more than what NIST modeled in Section 12.
My third question is then a matter of engineering judgement: Would more extensive damage of the same sort tend to change th outcome in the same direction that changing from "no damage" to "conservative damage" does, or is that too far out on a limb? (And: Does NIST discuss this?)
I didn't ask the question as part of a debate with Tony. This means I do not seek to disprobe a claim he makes or prove a claim I address towards him. Hence no issue of "his burden of proof or mine?"
I asked to further my own understanding: Did NIST model the exterior wall damage in Section consistent with the conservative damage estimate derived earlier?
I can now answer my own question: YES. The conservative damage estimate that we have been talking about here is derived in Section 5.5.3
The LS-DYNA model im Chapter 12 does use it: "After gravity initialization, debris impact damage due to the collapse of WTC 1 (Section 5.5.3) was
applied to the global model instantaneously." (Section 12.3.2, page 564)
My second question was whether that damage estimate was in fact conservative; in other words: I want to know whether it is probable the actual debris impact damage was more than what NIST modeled in Section 12.
My third question is then a matter of engineering judgement: Would more extensive damage of the same sort tend to change th outcome in the same direction that changing from "no damage" to "conservative damage" does, or is that too far out on a limb? (And: Does NIST discuss this?)
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
It was conservative by nature considering the fact the NIST did not model elements of the exterior curtain wall.
They do discuss their decision to only use evidence that could be confirmed visually. It's a simplification that leans toward the conservative. They knew they would never know the exact conditions.
See, that's a sensible argument. I mean, you still have to deal with the fact that the building was destroyed just to cover the destruction of those documents, which exponentially increases complexity and risk of failure, but it's better than straight up ignoring it.
Blah blah moving goalposts blah.
Blah blah, Twin Towers over a thousand feet high, blah blah still desperately ignoring the possibility of electrical fires, blah blah handwave blah blah refusing to discuss your SEC theory blah.
Blah blah unbacked assertion blah.
Blah blah changing subject blah.
And your continued refusal to discuss your theories in detail and tendency to ignore posts with inconvenient arguments - such as most of mine - indicates what?
I love how folks like you assume an argument you personally can't - or rather won't - understand is necessarily nonsense. No Dunning-Kreuger here, no sir.
So you spend several posts talking about how the posts of you, Gerry, and others are unassailable beacons of light and logic, but when someone actually starts talking to Gerry about whether he agrees with you on something, you demand they stop picking on him.
Hm.
ozeco41
Philosopher
I understood that hence the answer in one word "Dunno"
The rest was merely explanation of my lack of interest - which has the consequence of "I dunno!" for WTC7.
Twin Towers technical explanations I will debate with anyone with a view to improving their understanding - at this stage I'm usually confident that I know the technical explain the collapse stuff - not necessarily the NIST report details. Bottom line for the Twins it is less likely that my own understanding would change through discussion tho' my clarity of explanation could.
I'm not all that interested in WTC7 given my low opinion of why truthers emphasise it and the lack of serious relevant argument.
And I'm rarely interested in "Prove NIST right/wrong" topics. Either way. Again my historic stance which both of you are aware of.
The general policy by NIST was "play safe/conservative" - whichever way that implies for any specific issue. My "knowledge" too vague to help you so I didn’t offer any comment given the either DGM would know or you would find the answer.
Similar comments for your remaining points. THEN
General comment only - it is rare for taking something further to change the direction of the effect. If the point is important to you and you get no answer I can do the reading needed to form a judgement. OR find and point me at the relevant bit of Gospel According to NIST and I'll give an engineering viewpoint.
ozeco41
Philosopher
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
I should do that reading first, and IF questions remain AND I find no one who [has read it already AND can give me an answer from the top of his head] THEN I might ask others to read and explain
