Page 13 of 42 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 415

Thread: Bazant Misconduct website is launched[W:111]

  1. #121
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Last Seen
    08-03-16 @ 02:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    178

    Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

    Quote Originally Posted by Fledermaus View Post
    Micah,

    You do realize there were literally hundreds of papers and pieces written in the years after 9/11 discussing various aspects..... Right?
    And a whole lot of them are known to be wrong. The con-ed substation, the fuel oil tank, the superficial damage from North Tower rubble, early reports of a possible gas leak from Building 7, experts lying to our faces on television that Building 7 did not fall at freefall...

  2. #122
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Last Seen
    08-03-16 @ 02:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    178

    Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

    Quote Originally Posted by Fledermaus View Post
    Will you quit with the "psychic" nonsense?
    Nope.



    What did they read? Probably the various reports and fire and engineering publications that discussed 9/11. All the non-government writings that corroborate the government writings.
    Like I said, the official verdicts on the collapse of WTC 7 changed over time and it will probably continue to change in the future. If the supreme government-endorsed scientific literature on how Building 7 collapsed has been shown to be fraudulent, what can you trust? Do you think that the experts who rubber-stamped the NIST WTC 7 reports knew that they omitted important elements to the Building in their computer model? Or that their computer model for the fires don't match the photographic evidence? Or any of the million reasons why it is simply wrong?

    And "cognitive dissonance"? Really? Not that canard. No, just no.
    What are your reasons for thinking that WTC 7 didn't look like a demolition at all?

    Why do you suppose practically every fire and engineer related organization believes fire was at fault?
    AE911TRUTH doesn't, and it's partially because they examined the issues raised above.

  3. #123
    Sage
    Fledermaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Peoples Republic of California AKA Taxifornia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,411

    Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

    Quote Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
    No human being can simply predict when a skyscraper will collapse from fire. This is such a fundamental fact. If all of the United States knew all of the available information about the foreknowledge of Building 7, you would get a lot more people thinking it was a controlled demolition. There would be people who share your view and there would be people thinking it might just be a wild coincidence, but there would be a lot more people asking questions and there would be a lot more people (including experts) asking for new investigations. Nothing about WTC 7's foreknowledge was normal. When you tried to provide a similar example, you gave one quote from somebody who wasn't even there saying that firefighters were concerned about the structural stability of one small steel-framed building. Then you gave a contradicting source saying that the investigators were concerned about the structural stability the morning after the fire. You said that it doesn't matter that it wasn't a tall building, even though tall steel-framed buildings are a lot stronger than smaller ones. I'm sorry, this does not parallel the amazing display of precise foreknowledge for such an unprecedented event. It doesn't matter if the magic OEM engineer said the conclusion was based on the severity of the fires or the damage from falling debris, he was probably lying. You can bet that bulge didn't do much, either.



    I explained to you, literally like you were five, evidence that the East Penthouse was not the first sign of collapse. In fact, the sharpprintinginc website provided photographic evidence that the entire building literally rocked slightly about 90 seconds before the East Penthouse dropped: Accurate Collapse History of WTC7 - World Trade Center Evidence-Based Research
    No human being can predict whether a building will collapse due to fire?

    REALLY?

    What rule book is that from?

    Please. Do tell.

    The engineer did it that day.

    The firefighters did it that day.

    They were right.

    And explosions happen in fires.

    You do know that.... Right?

    And a building as it fails internally will make noise. Hell, it was making noises noted by the firefighters hours before the final collapse.

    And please share... Who are the experts asking for a new investigation?

    It isn't the ASCE.
    It isn't the CTBUH.
    It isn't AIA.
    It isn't the firefighters.

    Who are the experts?

    AE911TRUTH?

    The fraction of a percentage group?
    “All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.”
    ― Douglas Adams

  4. #124
    Sage
    Fledermaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Peoples Republic of California AKA Taxifornia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,411

    Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

    Quote Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
    Nope.





    Like I said, the official verdicts on the collapse of WTC 7 changed over time and it will probably continue to change in the future. If the supreme government-endorsed scientific literature on how Building 7 collapsed has been shown to be fraudulent, what can you trust? Do you think that the experts who rubber-stamped the NIST WTC 7 reports knew that they omitted important elements to the Building in their computer model? Or that their computer model for the fires don't match the photographic evidence? Or any of the million reasons why it is simply wrong?



    What are your reasons for thinking that WTC 7 didn't look like a demolition at all?



    AE911TRUTH doesn't, and it's partially because they examined the issues raised above.
    Wow, just wow.
    “All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.”
    ― Douglas Adams

  5. #125
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Last Seen
    08-03-16 @ 02:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    178

    Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

    Quote Originally Posted by Fledermaus View Post
    No human being can predict whether a building will collapse due to fire?

    REALLY?

    What rule book is that from?

    Please. Do tell.

    The engineer did it that day.

    The firefighters did it that day.

    They were right.

    Okay, apparently you won't give up faith that the WTC 7 foreknowledge is normal. I don't think that's wise, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

    And explosions happen in fires.

    You do know that.... Right?
    We're talking about the sounds of explosions that happened prior and after the East Penthouse caved in, not the ones that occurred through the afternoon.

    And a building as it fails internally will make noise. Hell, it was making noises noted by the firefighters hours before the final collapse.
    I guess you won't truly answer my question on the actual loudness of the noises that occurred before the building fell. Okay.



    And please share... Who are the experts asking for a new investigation?

    It isn't the ASCE.
    It isn't the CTBUH.
    It isn't AIA.
    It isn't the firefighters.

    Who are the experts?

    AE911TRUTH?

    The fraction of a percentage group?
    I gave you good reasons to think that anybody who doesn't think a new investigation is warranted for the WTC destruction is either uninformed or delusional. The NFPA 921, and almost any other scientific literature on arson/explosion investigation, is enough expert consensus to warrant a new investigation. The question doesn't have to apply to 9/11 specifically. In fact, that's a better standard because sources like the NFPA 921 are objective and not blinded by denial or cognitive dissonance. It seems you give human beings too much credit, like how you believe an engineer can just waltz in two hours after the North Tower collapsed and declare that Building 7 will also collapse in 5 hours.

    By the way, you never explained that elevator car in the hallway of the WTC 7 lobby that at least two sources said existed. Do you think that was normal or do you think it wasn't true?
    Last edited by MicahJava; 04-19-16 at 02:34 AM. Reason: clarification

  6. #126
    Educator

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Philadelphia, Pa metropolitan area
    Last Seen
    12-30-16 @ 08:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    1,017

    Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

    Quote Originally Posted by Fledermaus View Post
    Your OPINION that people cannot make intelligent predictions without precedent is noted. And laughed at.

    Your OPINION that a bulge would not show instability is too noted. And laughed at as well.

    So, intelligent CD theory yet?

    The alleged bulge on one wall on one side of a building as large as a football field would have been insignificant and certainly not have indicated an instability that would take down the entire structure. It is obvious that anyone who thinks it would has no capacity to think about how structures behave under load. Nobody who brings up this bulge ever even says what caused it and whether it was actually due to structure deformation or just the non-structural curtain wall. It sounds like nothing more than the curtain wall being bowed outward due to thermal expansion.

    You seem to be either a little bit of a kooky person who has no clue or a shill who just keeps throwing crap at the wall about how everyone but a few conspiracy theorists thinks WTC 7 came down by fire. That is far from true. The NIST WTC 7 report has been completely discredited.

    Here are a couple of recent papers by civil engineering professors showing the NIST WTC 7 report is non-explanatory

    The collapse of WTC 7: A re-examination of the ?simple analysis? approach | Korol | Challenge Journal of Structural Mechanics

    Performance-based fire protection of office buildings: A case study based on the collapse of WTC 7 | Korol | Challenge Journal of Structural Mechanics
    Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 04-19-16 at 03:21 AM.

  7. #127
    Sage
    Fledermaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Peoples Republic of California AKA Taxifornia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,411

    Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

    Quote Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
    And a whole lot of them are known to be wrong. The con-ed substation, the fuel oil tank, the superficial damage from North Tower rubble, early reports of a possible gas leak from Building 7, experts lying to our faces on television that Building 7 did not fall at freefall...
    Some may be wrong in the details...

    But not in the overall concept.
    “All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.”
    ― Douglas Adams

  8. #128
    Professor
    SanderO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    NYC
    Last Seen
    08-21-17 @ 06:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    2,493

    Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

    Quote Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
    Hit me with your best shot: What was there in the core structure to feed a fire?

    EDIT: Oh wait, you just linked to the government report which said the combustible load in the few storage rooms was small, meaning that there was no way a fire could have a fighting chance of weakening anything.
    The core area was 3/10 of an acre. There were elevator and mech shafts inside the core... express, freight and local. The area devoted to shafts depends on which floor you look at. At the top of each of the 3 stacks there were only the local and express shafts. We can ignore the lower floors up to the crash zone to determine how much available space there was for other uses... toilet rooms, mechanical closets and stairs... and of course office uses... conference rooms or storage.

    The higher floors above 78... had only the 2 WOW express shafts in the center of tow 900-1000, 3 freight shafts and the following

    above floor 101 there were 6 local shafts
    from floor 94- 100 there were 12 local shafts
    from floor 87-93 there were 18 local shafts
    from 79-86 there were 24 local shafts

    Each set of 6 elevators shafts has an elevator lobby

    In the plane strike zone on floor 95 of 1wtc there were

    6 local shafts
    3 freight shafts
    2 WOW shafts

    at approximately 100 sf per shaft you would have 1100 SF of the 12,000 SF of the core. Of course the columns take up less than 25 SF... stairs another 200 SF, You have mech shafts, risers and bathrooms

    The VAST majority of the core was for office use and storage which would contain combustible contents.
    Nothing is as it appears.

  9. #129
    Sage
    Fledermaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Peoples Republic of California AKA Taxifornia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,411

    Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

    Quote Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
    Okay, apparently you won't give up faith that the WTC 7 foreknowledge is normal. I don't think that's wise, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
    You still have not explained why an intelligent prediction is not normal.

    Quote Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
    We're talking about the sounds of explosions that happened prior and after the East Penthouse caved in, not the ones that occurred through the afternoon.
    And collapses are silent... Right?


    Quote Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
    I guess you won't truly answer my question on the actual loudness of the noises that occurred before the building fell. Okay.
    What loudness? Decibels? Is it a loudness consistent with explosives?

    Quote Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
    I gave you good reasons to think that anybody who doesn't think a new investigation is warranted for the WTC destruction is either uninformed or delusional.
    No, you gave a cockeyed OPINION.

    Quote Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
    The NFPA 921, and almost any other scientific literature on arson/explosion investigation, is enough expert consensus to warrant a new investigation.
    No. Just no. They know the overall cause of the collapse.... Fire. The is no logical reason to investigate arson. The fires were started by the collapse of the towers. No need to look at explosives. There were none.

    What they investigated was how fire led to the collapse.

    What "expert consensus" are you talking about? AE911(everything but)TRUTH?

    Quote Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
    The question doesn't have to apply to 9/11 specifically.
    We are talking about 9/11.

    Quote Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
    In fact, that's a better standard because sources like the NFPA 921 are objective and not blinded by denial or cognitive dissonance.
    Why? There was no arson. There were no explosives.

    The only "cognitive dissonance" on display is on the Truthers.

    Quote Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
    It seems you give human beings too much credit, like how you believe an engineer can just waltz in two hours after the North Tower collapsed and declare that Building 7 will also collapse in 5 hours.
    He made an educated guess. Educated people can do that.

    Why do you have such an inability to understand that?

    Quote Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
    By the way, you never explained that elevator car in the hallway of the WTC 7 lobby that at least two sources said existed. Do you think that was normal or do you think it wasn't true?
    Don't know. Don't care.... Is there some relevance? Or just another rabbit hole you would like to delve into?
    “All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.”
    ― Douglas Adams

  10. #130
    Sage
    Fledermaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Peoples Republic of California AKA Taxifornia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,411

    Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
    The alleged bulge on one wall on one side of a building as large as a football field would have been insignificant and certainly not have indicated an instability that would take down the entire structure. It is obvious that anyone who thinks it would has no capacity to think about how structures behave under load. Nobody who brings up this bulge ever even says what caused it and whether it was actually due to structure deformation or just the non-structural curtain wall. It sounds like nothing more than the curtain wall being bowed outward due to thermal expansion.

    You seem to be either a little bit of a kooky person who has no clue or a shill who just keeps throwing crap at the wall about how everyone but a few conspiracy theorists thinks WTC 7 came down by fire. That is far from true. The NIST WTC 7 report has been completely discredited.

    Here are a couple of recent papers by civil engineering professors showing the NIST WTC 7 report is non-explanatory

    The collapse of WTC 7: A re-examination of the ?simple analysis? approach | Korol | Challenge Journal of Structural Mechanics

    Performance-based fire protection of office buildings: A case study based on the collapse of WTC 7 | Korol | Challenge Journal of Structural Mechanics
    There was no "alleged bulge". Stop it.

    There was a bulge.

    The firefighters observed it and put a transit to it.

    Unless of course you are calling the firefighters liars. Is that it?

    And does it or does it not indicate instability? Yes? No?

    And you will note the instability was noted early in the afternoon... Well, we all know the building condition got better as the fires burned... Right?

    And the shill card? Really? That nonsense? That is just childish....

    So, have you an intelligent CD theory yet?
    “All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.”
    ― Douglas Adams

Page 13 of 42 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •