Pardalis
25th November 2008, 07:52 PM
Since Red refuses to answer our questions asked in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=129292&page=3), seemingly because they were off topic, then why not start a thread where the topic itself is the questions?
So here are the ones I want him to answer:
1)
Red-Ibis , you might have missed this question.
What would you expect to find on col 79 that would support or refute the NIST hypothesis, or for that matter a CD hypothesis?
2)
What physical evidence would prove controlled demolition?
3)
Let's see, then. Physical evidence of controlled demolition of the towers? Nope. Physical evidence of faking of airfone calls? Nope. Physical evidence of remote controlled takeover of airliners? Nope. Physical evidence of a missile at the Pentagon? Nope. Physical evidence of a shoot-down at Shanksville? Nope. Physical evidence of a NORAD stand-down? Nope. Physical evidence of CIA control of al-Qaeda? Nope.
Should I go on?
Dave
4)
In other words the evidence you apparently expect from "debunkers" is not the same standard you hold for yourself. What about these? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4225233&postcount=82)
You claim column 79 and the lack of a physical sample of the said column is sufficient evidence to conclude an "unnatural" collapse. I'm rather curious if you have more than that as a basis for your position, a collective body of evidence that indicates the claim you're implying
5)
Ok then, back on the topic you brought up
Actually col 79 failed due to loss of lateral bracing. It was the lateral bracing that failed due to fire damage. Loss of col 79 then led to further collapses and, ultimately, global collapse.
So all one would actually expect from col 79 would be that it buckled and failed. Now you might get some information from the girder seat or the girder itself that spanned col 79 to exterior 41(IIRC, I might have that number incorrect and its lunch time and I don't have time to check it).
However, as mentioned before that would require that the specific structural members involved be uniquely stamped and that the stamp be readable after years in use and the damage wrought by fire and physical damage on Sept 11/01.
Unless those specific structural members can be positivly identified one simply cannot gain any information from them, obviously.
Furthermore the debris itself was subjected to fire over several weeks and one could expect these particular structural members to not be on the outside or top of the debris pile. They were, except for the exterior column, well inside the building. Thus no one would be able to discern whether fire damage to that steel occured on, or after, Sept 11/01.
Now, I did ask you to be specific and instead you just through out an offhand remark. If you indeed do think things through then you must be able to put into words just what you could expect to glean from the very specific structural member(s) involved. By that I mean not only what would be looked for on the member but also how it would be positively identified and why you believe that it certainly could be positively identified.
Furthermore the above only deals with looking for physical evidence to back up the NIST computer sim. You also cast a skeptical eye at the computer sim itself yet computer sims are used in a vast array of applications in modern engineering.
If you need to cast doubt on the sim then you again will have to be more specific. Otherwise your recalcitrance to accept the NIST sim will be seen to be driven by your own personal prejudices rather than based upon any technical details.
Finally, you have your own pet theory about how the collapse of WTC 7 came about. If thermite or explosives were used you need to explain where they were placed in order to bring about the collapse that was observed to occur on Sept 11/01. I postulate that if explosives severed the connection between the girder running from col 79 to the exterior column, that global collapse would have occured in the same fashion that the NIST computer sim illustrates. If you would agree with that then you are agreeing that the loss of that girder and subsequent damage brought down WTC 7. This is the only senario in which examination of those specific structural members could bolster the contention of the use of explosives(or thermite).
If you contend that in order to get the same global collapse that explosives must have been used elsewhere in the building then have at it Red, let's see the modelling of that senario. Where were the explosives, how powerful were they, how closely does the model match the collapse seen in the videos?
So far you argue solely from incredulity and personal political prejudice. At least so far as you have shown in any post you have made here on JREF.
Thanks
So here are the ones I want him to answer:
1)
Red-Ibis , you might have missed this question.
What would you expect to find on col 79 that would support or refute the NIST hypothesis, or for that matter a CD hypothesis?
2)
What physical evidence would prove controlled demolition?
3)
Let's see, then. Physical evidence of controlled demolition of the towers? Nope. Physical evidence of faking of airfone calls? Nope. Physical evidence of remote controlled takeover of airliners? Nope. Physical evidence of a missile at the Pentagon? Nope. Physical evidence of a shoot-down at Shanksville? Nope. Physical evidence of a NORAD stand-down? Nope. Physical evidence of CIA control of al-Qaeda? Nope.
Should I go on?
Dave
4)
In other words the evidence you apparently expect from "debunkers" is not the same standard you hold for yourself. What about these? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4225233&postcount=82)
You claim column 79 and the lack of a physical sample of the said column is sufficient evidence to conclude an "unnatural" collapse. I'm rather curious if you have more than that as a basis for your position, a collective body of evidence that indicates the claim you're implying
5)
Ok then, back on the topic you brought up
Actually col 79 failed due to loss of lateral bracing. It was the lateral bracing that failed due to fire damage. Loss of col 79 then led to further collapses and, ultimately, global collapse.
So all one would actually expect from col 79 would be that it buckled and failed. Now you might get some information from the girder seat or the girder itself that spanned col 79 to exterior 41(IIRC, I might have that number incorrect and its lunch time and I don't have time to check it).
However, as mentioned before that would require that the specific structural members involved be uniquely stamped and that the stamp be readable after years in use and the damage wrought by fire and physical damage on Sept 11/01.
Unless those specific structural members can be positivly identified one simply cannot gain any information from them, obviously.
Furthermore the debris itself was subjected to fire over several weeks and one could expect these particular structural members to not be on the outside or top of the debris pile. They were, except for the exterior column, well inside the building. Thus no one would be able to discern whether fire damage to that steel occured on, or after, Sept 11/01.
Now, I did ask you to be specific and instead you just through out an offhand remark. If you indeed do think things through then you must be able to put into words just what you could expect to glean from the very specific structural member(s) involved. By that I mean not only what would be looked for on the member but also how it would be positively identified and why you believe that it certainly could be positively identified.
Furthermore the above only deals with looking for physical evidence to back up the NIST computer sim. You also cast a skeptical eye at the computer sim itself yet computer sims are used in a vast array of applications in modern engineering.
If you need to cast doubt on the sim then you again will have to be more specific. Otherwise your recalcitrance to accept the NIST sim will be seen to be driven by your own personal prejudices rather than based upon any technical details.
Finally, you have your own pet theory about how the collapse of WTC 7 came about. If thermite or explosives were used you need to explain where they were placed in order to bring about the collapse that was observed to occur on Sept 11/01. I postulate that if explosives severed the connection between the girder running from col 79 to the exterior column, that global collapse would have occured in the same fashion that the NIST computer sim illustrates. If you would agree with that then you are agreeing that the loss of that girder and subsequent damage brought down WTC 7. This is the only senario in which examination of those specific structural members could bolster the contention of the use of explosives(or thermite).
If you contend that in order to get the same global collapse that explosives must have been used elsewhere in the building then have at it Red, let's see the modelling of that senario. Where were the explosives, how powerful were they, how closely does the model match the collapse seen in the videos?
So far you argue solely from incredulity and personal political prejudice. At least so far as you have shown in any post you have made here on JREF.
Thanks