Can anyone produce instances of "pseudoscience" in these reports on WTC7?

[MervinFerd]

It is alleged that these reports are "pseudoscience" and "fantasy". Can anyone actually produce (and defend rationally) any instances of fantasy or pseudoscience in these reports?

The NIST interim reports on WTC7:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf
The CounterPunch article
http://www.counterpunch.org/darkfire11282006.html

Hint: Asserting that the reports are "junk" or "nonsense" is not a rational defense of the proposition that they are "pseudoscience". For any credit at all you will need to find instances in which the reports are contrary to known facts or the expert opinion. or instances of faulty logic or mathematics.

Good Luck. You have 1 day per report.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

2. So Hamden says he can't. Anyone else? n/t

[greyl]

3. He's asking a valid question. It's no straw argument or distraction.

Apparently, you are lacking a substantial reply to the topic.

[Twist_U_Up]

4. WTC 7-

Not hit by a plane
limited fire famage
limited debris damage
fell totally symmetric
freefall speed
demoliton charges easily seen
crimp easily seen
fell in its own footprint
small rubble pile
illegal steel removal
owner saying he had it "pulled"
Controlled Demolition!
what more do you need?

[Bolo Boffin]

5. Perhaps you didn't understand the OP.

Go find an example of pseudoscience in any of those three reports. Now would be good.

[Twist_U_Up]

6. bolo.bolo,bolo

It is suggested that those who have trouble with this revisit 10th grade physics

[Bolo Boffin]

7. Trot your "10th grade physics" out and apply it to those reports, then.

If they are so simple to prove to be psuedoscience, do it.

Now would be good.

[Twist_U_Up]

8. NIST ? *snicker*

I honestly have better things to do than waste my time typing to people who won't listen. I'd rather just pick a subject and get some research done on it.

[Bolo Boffin]

11. So that's Twist_U_Up who can't do it either. Anyone else? n/t

[greyl]

Try the LooseChange forum, your arguments won't be intelligently scrutinized over there.nt

[MervinFerd]

10. Why don't you tutor us and explain the instances of invalid physics?

10th grade or higher.

[Twist_U_Up]

12. 1 name

John Gross you do the research

[MervinFerd]

13. Nope. No points for a name. I need facts and arguments.

[AZCat]

32. Luckily, a number of the regulars here in this forum...

have had considerable exposure to physics beyond the 10th grade, so explicating your issues should present little or no problem. Fire away!

[MervinFerd]

9. So, you find no instance of pseudoscience in these reports. Correct?

You provide a list, but it has nothing to do with the OP, or with the collapse of WTC7.

Feel free to keep trying, though.

[greyl]

14. I dub thee correct. nt

[Twist_U_Up]

15. From the NIST FAQ

13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?

"The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing."

Ahh, the power of words .....

[greyl]

16. Uh, the FAQ isn't what MF was asking about.

And 2, you haven't explained what is pseudoscientific about that statement. "...does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing"

Typically, pseudoscience makes conclusive claims which are not supported by evidence, not the other way around.

[The Lone Groover]

17. Did I miss the picture of the massive impact damage on the South side?

This building was standing for 6 hours after WTC 1 and 2 collapse.

No one got a good picture? Bloody hell - enough people were supposedly predicting it's collapse.

Some nice graphics of horizonal progression... based on what evidence? "Splices fail in bending"... someone got the splices we can look at?

How much of this is imaginings?

[MervinFerd]

18. Do you have any --reason-- to believe there was --not-- damage?

Were the firefighters lying? Is it at all improbable that massive debris travelling at nearly 200 mph could cause extensive damage?

Nice try, but no points.

[The Lone Groover]

19. Nobody took a picture in 6 hours?

Do me a favor.

Which firefighter testimony are you referring to?

This report is full of imaginings. The OCT and OCTers are big on imaginings.

[MervinFerd]

20. So, you do NOT have a rational basis for questioning the reports.

That's what I thought.

You know very well which firefighter testimony I refer to.

If the report is full of "imaginings", please identify them.

No points.

[The Lone Groover]

21. Are you referring to the contradictory firefighter testimony?

Good luck reconciling it.

The hole is imagined, the horizontal progression is imagined.

My rational basis for questioning the report is that its not based on any physical evidence. Where did the evidence go?

Edited: Oh... and where is the hole in the Steve Spak miracle photo?

[Kingshakabobo]

22. Here's a picture of the imaginary hole.

[The Lone Groover]

24. Page 16 in the report in the OP.

Enjoy yourself.
Somethings not right.
Imaginings.

[MervinFerd]

27. There are 3 reports in the OP. And, what is "not right"?

We need specificity for full credit.

[The Lone Groover]

29. 1st report page 16.

Something's not right.
Enjoy yourself.
Imaginings.

[MervinFerd]

30. Is this a riddle? That's a picture of the roof? ----What's "not right"?

No points unless you can explain your case.

[The Lone Groover]

33. Yes it's a riddle.

Can you crack it?

Ok... it's a spot the difference competition then.

Enjoy yourself.

Something's not right.

(There's a prize for the winner).

[MervinFerd]

35. Then I decline to play.

[The Lone Groover]

37. Did you spot the difference?

Something's not right.

Tell your friends.

[greyl]

31. Are you trying to discourage people from communicating with you? nt

[MervinFerd]

28. "The damage is hidden by the smoke from the gaping hole."

Truther Logic can be fun.

[MervinFerd]

23. "not based on any physical evidence"--That's what I thought.

So, you don't have any rational basis for your opinions.

The evidence is reviewed in the three assigned documents. You are unable to point to any flaw in their evidence or arguments.

QED.

[The Lone Groover]

25. Who needs physical evidence when you have imaginings? nt

[MervinFerd]

26. Please name the imaginings. nt

[The Lone Groover]

34. Where is the physical evidence? nt

[MervinFerd]

36. You are unable to offer a rational criticism of the reports.

The reports are based a variety of evidence. What's wrong with it?

[The Lone Groover]

38. The reports are not based on physical evidence...

...how does one criticise imaginings?

[MervinFerd]

39. You speak nonsense. The reports contain abundant physical evidence.

Which part of that evidence is "imaginings"?

[The Lone Groover]

40. Horizontal progression?

Imaginings.

[MervinFerd]

41. Horizontal progression? Yes, ---it's a perfectly reasonable concept.

I presume you do not understand it?

Study.


No points.

[The Lone Groover]

42. It's an imagining. Admit it. There is no proof for it. nt

[MervinFerd]

43. Sir! I despair of thy wit.

You continually speak nonsense and expect to be understood.

In what way is 'horizontal progression" unclear, unlikely, or not supported by the arguments in the text?

Simply asserting that it is "imagining" or that "there is no proof" is not an argument at all. It's just noise.


Study.

[The Lone Groover]

44. It's unsupported by any physical evidence.

It's an imagining.
I know OCTer's are pretty fond of imaginings - but imaginings are not science.
When did a steel framed building ever collapse like that?
Hummm?
Did you spot the difference yet?

[MervinFerd]

47. Repeating nonsense will not make it sense.

The reports very carefully lay out the available physical evidence and analyze various collapse scenarios. What part of this is "pseudoscience" or "imaginings"?

"When did a steel framed building ever collapse like that?"
Besides the Titanic, what steel hulled ship has been sunk by an iceberg?
The question is irrelevant: WTC7 was a unique design and collapsed in a unique way.

"Did you spot the difference yet?"
Can you hear the sound of one hand clapping?
I declined to participate in that game. If you want comment on that picture, tell me what is your problem with it.

[The Lone Groover]

55. Ah.. the Titanic shit again.. as if anyone cares.

The horizontal progression is an imagining. Pure and simple. Unless you care to demonstrate the physical evidence for it presented in the Nist report.

Spot the difference? Oh you don't do amateur photo interpretation. I forgot.

[MervinFerd]

58. Whatever, Mr. Groovy.

You clearly have no point to make.

If you actually have something to say, say it now or go away.

[The Lone Groover]

63. My point is very clear.

That NIST report presents imaginings as science.

[Bolo Boffin]

66. Then you won't have any trouble producing evidence to support your point.

Thus far, you have not.

[MervinFerd]

69. Then you won't have any trouble presenting evidence of your conclusions.

Will you?

[The Lone Groover]

79. I'm not the one claiming "solid science".

Am I?

[The Lone Groover]

45. Spot the difference competition.

Something's not right.

[Bolo Boffin]

46. When were those pictures taken, respective of each other? n/t

[The Lone Groover]

48. I have no idea.

What do you imagine?

[Bolo Boffin]

51. Spot the difference...

[The Lone Groover]

52. Ah.. diversion.. go to jail.. do not pass go.

no cigar!

[Bolo Boffin]

53. No, not a diversion at all.

A riddle.

With the same solution as yours.

[The Lone Groover]

54. Yep diversion... naughty boy! No milk and cookies for you tonight!

I have no opinion about the Pentagon...

..however I'm sure you have plenty to say about WTC7 (as usual).

Do you not find it strange?

[Bolo Boffin]

56. The answer to both riddles: before and after. n/t

[MervinFerd]

49. No. And just so you know...

I will not engage in any amateur photo interpretation.

Rational thought requires consideration and synthesis of all available evidence. Single photos of unknown ancestry are of very little value.

[The Lone Groover]

50. Unknown ancestry!!!

You guys just get funnier and funnier!!

UNKNOWN ANCESTRY!!!

The first is from the NIST report and the second was supplied by a lovable OCTer in this very thread. I didn't hear anyone questioning it's ancestry then!

Too much... too much... it's all too much.



Edited: Merve me ol' bamboo... you must have engaged in some amateur photo interpretation in the past... say pod pictures or something. Go on.. tell us what you think.

[MervinFerd]

57. Whatever, Mr. Groovy.

I'll take the NIST photo as illustrative of the point the authors wished to make; their conclusions are based on the available evidence, not on this one photo. I will take the second photo as a quick rebuttal of the absurd claim that "there are no photos of damage". What I will not do is to participate in a tendentious comparison of the two, as I (personally) have no knowledge of their time, position, post-processing or camera settings. Nor am I intimately familiar with the structure of WTC7. Nor am I an expert at photo interpretation. Nor am I intimately familiar with all the available evidence and photography.

Now, if you actually have a point to make, would you please do so?

I weary of this.

[The Lone Groover]

62. "I will not do is to participate in a tendentious comparison of the two"

Of course not. Oh well.

The second picture didn't make it into the NIST report for some reason - although you would think it would be very useful. Hmmm. But you didn't question it's ancestry until I used it... ok!

You're "weary of this"? Of course you are - I'm running circles around you.

But you don't know what weary really is. The families of victims of 9/11 are weary of the bullshit and want proper answers.

[MervinFerd]

68. Mr. Groovy, until you have produced argument and evidence, you are...

not to be taken seriously.

Do you claim there is some sinister motive in not using "the second picture" in the NIST report? What?

I decline to engage in tendentious analysis of this photo; as a refutation to your inane claim, it is entirely adequate.



edit: to remove "buffoon".
edit" to remove "a"

[The Lone Groover]

78. "Do you claim there is some sinister motive in not using "the second picture"

Did you write that with a straight face?

I think people can see the game being played.

[greyl]

81. The second picture is a screen grab from a recordedTV show, which was first posted on this forum.

I don't think it would have added anything to the quality of the investigations because there is so much other photographic evidence and data gathered on the scene.

Btw, the 2 pictures are complimentary evidence of severe damage to WTC 7.

[Bolo Boffin]

84. Evidence of severe and progressive damage. n/t

[The Lone Groover]

85. "I don't think it would have added anything to the quality of the investigations"

You can say that with a straight face?

A screen grab?

From what pray tell?

[Bolo Boffin]

86. Here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51FIPMlrFf4

[The Lone Groover]

89. OK I see why NIST ignored it.

It doesn't show extensive damage that's why.
The screen grab is a bit disingenuous don't you think.
How about a screen grab just as the camera starts to zoom back. Oh I know why! The smoke has moved.

[Bolo Boffin]

100. How do you know NIST ignored it? n/t

[greyl]

87. You're saying it would? Has it added anything to your non-scientific investigation?

And recently a thread at the Democratic Underground message board revealed a new TV clip showing damage high on the the south face of WTC7:



The author of the original post kindly sent us a copy, which you can download here, although beware: it’s a chunky 24MB and adds little further detail. If you’re short on bandwidth then take a look at the slightly smaller YouTube version, instead.
www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

[mhatrw]

59. You already did. Just click on any of those links. n/t

[MervinFerd]

60. Do you have anything rational to say? Or is your unsupported opinion...

supposed to be of interest?

[mhatrw]

77. Show me something in ANY of those links that is not pseudo-science.

Where is the analysis of the physical evidence of WTC-7's collapse?

Hard science = metallurgical analysis of the physical steel remains of WTC-7 that was just lying on the ground and that would have been carefully and exhaustively forensically analyzed in any other criminal or catastrophic domestic US building collapse investigation.

Soft science = comprehensive analysis of all extant video and photographic evidence.

Pseudo-science = the links in your OP.

[MervinFerd]

96. You make assertions with no attempt at rational argument.

Analysis of photographic, video, and eyewitness evidence, combined with computer modeling of the structure is very most certainly "hard science". The absence of any particular technique does not invalidate the study; NIST sought to find the most plausible collapse scenario; metallurgical analysis was not necessary to that objective. You demonstrate only your ignorance of scientific method.

There are hundreds of possible "metallurgical analyses". Just which "metallurgical analysis" of WTC7 steel would you propose? And what do you expect that it would prove? What hypothesis would it test?

What is the metallurgical test for the effects of a "dustification" beam from space?


As has been exhaustively explained previously, the steel was in a jumbled mess; its original location could not be determined; it had been exposed to heat, fire and contaminants. Analysis would be useless; there is no way to tell when contamination or physical changes occurred.

We -know- of one instance in which a piece of steel was analyzed because of its unusual appearance; the result is unclear for the very reasons stated above. Presumably much of the steel was examined visually; very probably, other samples were also analyzed in some way; very probably those analyses showed nothing remarkable and were never published.

[MervinFerd]

97. ...and you provide no examples of "pseudoscience" or "fantasy". QED.

[mhatrw]

140. Speculative computer models developed from cherry-picked

eyewitness reports. This is what you are defending a "science."

Any other criminal investigation in which a building was destroyed OR any other investigation of a catastrophic building collapse would have relied on extensive forensic examination of the hard physical evidence (the steel) to determine the cause. Your denial of this fact is astounding.

[AZCat]

157. You might not be aware of this...

partly because it's one of the "dirty secrets" of engineering, but pretty much all computer models (at least on this level) are speculative. That's why it is imperative to build actual prototypes of whatever is being modelled, but unfortunately that isn't feasible in this situation (at least on a whole building scale).

[BuyingThyme]

176. Moot point, since the NIST hasn't published ANY conclusions

as to why WTC7 imploded.

[AZCat]

185. It isn't a moot point at all...

when the poster is making the claim that the computer models used by the NIST were speculative. You probably need to back up a few posts upthread to get the gist of the conversation.

[MervinFerd]

160. The models are the same ones used to -design- buildings.

Those models are good enough to justify the investment of 100s of millions of dollars and to risk the lives of 1000s of occupants.

The work done is not invalidated by the absence of some analysis that -you- would like to see. The distinguished engineers at NIST had perhaps a better grasp of their task than you.

Steel is an alloy of iron and carbon. It's pretty much -all- iron and carbon. "Forensic analysis" of "steel" from those buildings is going to demonstrate the presence of iron and carbon, together with whatever contaminants were picked up during months of exposure to fire, smoke and other contaminants.

The truth, however, is that there -was- extensive forensic study of the debris. From a post below (#104), quoting a previous thread:
Quote:
--
54. Did they get rid of all the evidence?

There were roughly 2 million tons of rubble, steel and debris at ground zero. Most of it was removed and sorted through, over the clock, for months on end, at Fresh Kills Landfill by thousands of forensic specialists, firemen and detectives, down to the smallest pea-sized concrete chunk in the largest recovery operations in world history.

http://www.wtc7.net/cache/hsy77747_0.htm

Teams of forensic engineers from several agencies and organizations have been granted access to the steel at ground zero, at recycling facilities and at the Fresh Kills sorting site. They were free to pick up anything they deemed worthy of further analysis. Did they salvage everything that would have been of interest? Certainly not. There has been organizational and political shortcomings and impediments in the beginning. *Some* evidence has been lost.

http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/exhibits/longterm/documents/recovery.pdf

In spite of all that, NIST directed the most thorough and extensive investigation ever made of a disaster, natural or man provoked. Hundred of scientists and engineers from the agency, and from several universities and private labs participated to the reconstruction the events based on thousands of photographs and video footages. They performed life sized simulation of the fires in order to tune up the fire dynamics models. They conducted nearly 1200 firt-person interviews of survivors and emergency responders. They performed mechanical and metallurgical testings on hundreds of structural steel components. They produces draft reports of the ongoing invetigation that were made available for public scrutiny and that attracted comments and constructive criticism from scientists and engineers around the world.

http://www.arup.com/DOWNLOADBANK/download353.pdf

The final report is over 10000 pages long. Please, have a look at the short executive summaries of the main sections and then share your worries as to what crucial information seems to be missing.

http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs /

My own puzzlement is why so many people discount so easily all the mass of available evidence yet claim to be starved for more.

[mhatrw]

165. There is a clear evidentiary hierarchy.

It goes:

1) hard, tangible physical evidence

2) authenticated video, audio and photographic evidence

3) eyewitness evidence

4) computer models with speculative input parameters

Your continued refusal to accept this fact is telling.

[AZCat]

171. That's not how I see it.

I think of it more like a cycle - physical evidence is used to develop computer models which then are used to simulate events where the physical evidence is again compared to the simulation (see, for example, the Controlled Impact Demonstration from 1984 which validated some of the software used in the NIST investigation). In the case of the NIST investigation, we have evidence that was used to "calibrate" the models of the WTC towers. The initial inputs, though, had to be "speculative" in order to have output that could be compared with the physical evidence. The NIST settled on a particular set of initial conditions because they were the ones that produced output most similar to the physical evidence.

Your beef probably isn't about this, but rather the NIST assumptions about the collapse initiation.

[mhatrw]

231. My beef is that the actual physical evidence (the steel on the ground) was ignored

in favor of pseudo-scientific computer models fed a bunch of parameters reverse engineered to achieve the desired results.

[MervinFerd]

232. So, you don't have any actual criticism of the referenced reports?

Calling them "pseudoscience" doesn't make them pseudoscience. It just makes you look foolish.

As we have explained numerous times, there was -massive- forensic examination of the material from the site. -Your- only complaint is that they did not do some undefined metallurgical analysis of the steel. You cannot state the analysis you would have done, nor can you explain what hypothesis this analysis could test.

You look foolish.

[MervinFerd]

61. QED: The reports are sound science.

So...we've been at this enterprise for almost a day with nary a rational answer to the OP. The reports have been called various names. Claims have been asserted without attempt of rational support. I, myself, have been called a few names.

But, no meaningful criticicsms of the reports have been posted.

The reports are sound science.

QED.

There are two more days for rebuttals to appear.

[The Lone Groover]

64. Imaginings are not sound science.

Unless you can show me the physical evidence for horizontal progression.

Also there seems to be some debate about the roof photo.. can we trust it in light of other OCT produced photos?

Thanks.

[Bolo Boffin]

65. You have yet to prove any imaginings or pseudoscience in the above reports.

There is no debate about the roof photos. The riddle has been solved.

[The Lone Groover]

80. The riddle has been solved?

I've seen diversion. Perhaps diversion is the solution to the riddle.

[Bolo Boffin]

83. Indulge me.

Tell me the differences in the Pentagon pictures.

I assure you the differences in the picture of WTC 7 you have provided are the same.

[The Lone Groover]

88. Diversion.

NIST seems to have ignored the "screen grab" (and the video it came from)?

Why?

[Bolo Boffin]

101. You are ignoring your own riddle. Was it meant to be a diversion?

Here's one of the answers to the riddle:

Camera angle. The two pictures of the Pentagon have different camera angles, although they are similar. Your two pictures of 7 are also different camera angles of the same building.

There is another difference in the Pentagon pictures, which is similar to the WTC 7 pictures. Can you tell what it is?

[MervinFerd]

67. You have produced no argument and no evidence; your statement is ...

without merit.


I have no intention in participating in your picture riddle. Should you wish to explain yourself, we can discuss it.

[BuyingThyme]

70. MervinFerd is once again busted.

He again decided to pretend that the NIST reports come to conclusions about how WTC7 imploded.

But, in reality, the NIST reports only offer data and hypotheses for analysis. Those hypotheses, by the way, include the possibility of controlled demolition.

MervinFerd has been caught doing this over and over and over. He apparently has no threshold of embarrassment.

As for the Manuel Garcia piece, it's meant to be authoritarian, thus the silly calculations, un-applied data, etc. But after you dig through the extraneous softcore nonsense, which is intended to intimidate, the hardcore nonsense begins with the following insane assumption:

"thermal weakening of Truss 2 leads to its failure"

Confused? Don't worry; he summarizes for you slow folk:

"The blast of hot debris from WTC 1 kindled fires in WTC 7 and caused an emergency power system to feed the burning to the point of building collapse."

That's it. That's the cause. Do yo believe it? If so, you're an idiot (no offense).

He made it up out of thin air. He has NO evidence to support his conclusion. NONE.

DEBUNKED!

[MervinFerd]

71. Do you have evidence or argument to support -your- conclusions?

Or do you just pull this crap out of your anus?

You claim complete certainty that perfectly reasonable statements are nonsense; you label as "idiot" anyone who disagrees with you; you claim there is "no evidence" while looking at a whole report of it.

And you present no evidence or argument in favor of your extreme positions.

Is there any reason, Sir, under Moon or Sun, that any person should regard you as a reasonable and intelligent person?



edited: to remove "Fool and Buffoon".

[BuyingThyme]

73. Thank you for admitting that you do not understand the NIST

reports, or the fact that Garcia made up his "conclusion" solely on the basis that the NIST said that a particular truss may have failed.

I'm glad we're getting a chance to do this.

As for your attempt to change the subject, why do you need to run away from your own thread?

And, while we're at it, why do you keep accusing people of failing to understand the NIST reports when you are clearly unable to understand what they say?

[MervinFerd]

75. Where are the examples of "pseudoscience" and "fantasy" in these reports?

If there you cannot support your claims with arguments, is there any reason anyone should take you seriously?

-You- plainly do not understand the NIST report; my understanding is not of present concern: I am making no criticism of it.

[BuyingThyme]

105. Again, you have made up the conclusions.

No conclusions about the cause of the WTC7 implosion appear in any of the NIST reports.

You made them up out of thin air.

This is a special kind of pseudoscience, reaching into the realm of messiah complex.

In other words, the only reason you believe that what you're saying is true is because you're the one making it up.

[MervinFerd]

126. "Messiah complex"??? WTF?

So, you have no examples of "pseudoscience" in the listed reports.

No --definitive-- conclusions appear in the NIST reports. Both are -labeled- Progress Reports. The Garcia piece certainly reaches a conclusion. WTF are you talking about?

Do you even know?

[BuyingThyme]

129. What I'm saying is over your head.

[MervinFerd]

72. We begin now, the Second Day.

No refutation appears.

[BuyingThyme]

74. MervinFerd decided to add another post so people

won't notice that his nonsense has been debunked.

He talks of pseudoscience, but doesn't even understand what science is. That is not a shot; it is a fact that MervinFerd has proven over and over.

Why does he do this?

[MervinFerd]

76. Please identify the Post in which my "nonsense has been debunked".

And while you are at it, please identify the instances of "pseudoscience" and "fantasy" in the listed reports.

[The Lone Groover]

82. Merve me ol' mate.

The ball is in in your court. You're the one defending NIST.

Is there any physical evidence for horizontal progression in the WTC7 collapse or did someone make it up?

Everytime you avoid this question you look sillier.

Just admit - it's imaginings.

[MervinFerd]

90. You continue to speak nonsense.

You assert that the conclusions of distinguished and highly qualified engineers are "imaginings". Yet you provide no argument and no statement of your own qualifications.

The reports are -based- on physical evidence: WTF are you talking about?

It is not I who is looking silly.

[The Lone Groover]

91. Merve, Merve...

..Horizontal progression. Where is the physical evidence?

If there is none then it's pure imaginings.

Deal with it.

[MervinFerd]

92. The End.

Dude, you embarrass yourself.

"Horizontal progression" is a perfectly simple and reasonable concept. Have you never lined dominoes up and knocked down the first?

What, fer' God's sake, would you consider physical evidence? The reports -are- analysis and interpretation of the available physical evidence. The investigators followed the usual and necessary scientific method: they gathered evidence, formed hypotheses, and tested those hypotheses against the observed facts. That's how it works. That -is- science.

CAN YOU IDENTIFY SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF "PSEUDOSCIENCE" OR "FANTASY" IN THESE REPORTS? YES OR NO?

I will not respond to additional immature, juvenile nonsense.

Run along now.

[The Lone Groover]

93. Nope...

..""Horizontal progression" is a perfectly simple and reasonable concept."

What is this based on? Previous global collapses of steel framed buildings?

It was made up without any physical evidence - as an attempt to explain WTC7 collapse with no reference to CD.

The "failed splices" would have been nice.

Pure imaginings.

[MervinFerd]

94. No comment necessary.

[The Lone Groover]

95. none taken.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[greyl]

106. MervinFerd didn't write the scientific reports in the OP that you are trying

to distract from. Is it just to bolster your own self-confidence?

[BuyingThyme]

107. MervinFerd keeps getting caught referring to the NIST

hypotheses as conclusions.

That's very inconvenient, but it's not my problem.

Welcome to Debunkedville.

[greyl]

109. What a lame post. I'd love to catch YOU referring to the NIST,

but all you can do is try to change the subject of the OP by launching paltry personal attacks.
Your posts can't be taken seriously.

[BuyingThyme]

112. I dare you to make sense of your post (#107).

[MervinFerd]

110. WTF are you babbling about?

The NIST report is labeled as a Progress Report. The --conclusion-- of that Progress Report is that several hypotheses are incompatible with observed facts and can be rejected, that some hypotheses are plausible, and that further work is needed.

This is irrelevant to the present question: " What are the examples of "pseudoscience" or "fantasy" in the listed reports?"

You obviously have no answer to that question; therefore, you attack me.

That is irrational, pitiful, and it won't work.

[BuyingThyme]

113. So, am I supposed to pretend that you don't spend your time

here trying to convince people that the NIST reports come to conclusions about the cause of the WTC7 implosion?

Don't you think it's a little late for that?

Find that threshold, MervinFerd.

[MervinFerd]

115. So, you have no examples of "pseudoscience" in the listed reports.

My activities and intentions of not of relevance to this task.

[BuyingThyme]

118. Well, I've already proven pseudoscience in the Garcia article.

I have no idea why you would call that thing a report though.

As for the NIST work in regards to WTC7, no scientific process has been completed, no conclusions have been reached, so your question only further exposes your inability to comprehend what the reports say.

I again suggest that you take some time to learn what science is.

[greyl]

122. That isn't true.

I don't think you understand what "proven" means, and I'm totally convinced that you haven't bothered to read what you're supposedly condemning.

[BuyingThyme]

124. If you would like to tell me what you're referring to, I'd be happy

to respond. But, as usual, I suspect you're just making it up.

[MervinFerd]

108. So, you have no examples of "pseudoscience" in the listed reports.

That's what I thought at the outset.

It is not I who needs to "learn what science is". Frankly, I have no idea what you are babbling about. I did not claim that an hypothesis is a conclusion. I said hypotheses are tested against available facts. One may then draw the appropriate conclusion.

[BuyingThyme]

111. You've given the sane people a false choice.

You repeatedly claim that the NIST reports contain conclusions about the WTC7 implosion, and then you ask people to point to the pseudoscience in those reports which debunks those conclusions.

The only problem, of course, is that you made up the conclusions, thus there's no reason to expect that one can find pseudoscience which falsely supports those conclusions.

You're asking people to find the Easter Bunny.

[MervinFerd]

114. WTF are you babbling about?

I asked for examples of "pseudoscience" or "fantasy" in the listed reports. I said nothing whatever about the location.

Find the "pseudoscience" anywhere in the text you can find it. Search in the 'References cited' if that pleases you.

Numerous posters, on this thread and others, have labelled these entire reports as "pseudoscience". I merely called their bluff and asked for specific examples. None are forthcoming.

"You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em."

[BuyingThyme]

125. Pseudoscience is what YOU practiced when you told those posters

that the NIST reports contain conclusions about the WTC7 implosion.

Don't blame the NIST for your misdeeds.

[greyl]

98. A general response to a couple dozen posts in here:

...First you must learn a little about the claims and argument advanced by people that do not share your inexpert point of view. Then you have to provide arguments when you disagree. It is not sufficient to simply dismiss anything that is deemed "official". Structural and civil engineers and forensic investigators worldwide have discussed the NIST findings. Many in the US have no government affiliations. They agree with the NIST finding that airplanes and fires alone brought down WTC1 and WTC2.
Carefulplease

[The Lone Groover]

99. Words... some people know the difference between facts and imaginings.

Others don't like that pointed out.

[MervinFerd]

102. And some people have a wildly exaggerated assessment of their own..

intellectual capacities.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

117. some people know the difference between facts and imaginings.....

Please note that greyl was talking about WTC ! and 2 but did not include WTC 7. The 2 year old Interim Report Was Then Just Untested Theory When Written, according to their own words the scientific work had not been done. A year after that the head of the project said he still couldn't get a handle around WTC 7. That was a year ago and still no final report. So to rely on the NIST's Interim Report is if it were a finalized report is not relying upon proven facts.

L.3.6 Technical Approach for Analysis of the Working Collapse Hypothesis
There are many possible collapse scenarios that have been postulated in the preceding section. Many of
the scenarios will not produce the observed sequence of global collapse events and can be classified as
unlikely. Likely collapse scenarios will be identified through analyses that test the postulated phases of
collapse against observations. It is equally important to test scenarios that are not predicted to match the
observed data. The testing of the postulated collapse scenarios will be conducted through hand
calculations, simplified nonlinear thermal-structural analysis, and full nonlinear thermal analysis.

Small wonder then that the head of the WTC project for NIST, Dr Shyam Sunder, stated in a March 2006 New York Magazine interview, "But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7".

[MervinFerd]

104. Another post to that thread....Same poster.

Quote:

54. Did they get rid of all the evidence?

There were roughly 2 million tons of rubble, steel and debris at ground zero. Most of it was removed and sorted through, over the clock, for months on end, at Fresh Kills Landfill by thousands of forensic specialists, firemen and detectives, down to the smallest pea-sized concrete chunk in the largest recovery operations in world history.

http://www.wtc7.net/cache/hsy77747_0.htm

Teams of forensic engineers from several agencies and organizations have been granted access to the steel at ground zero, at recycling facilities and at the Fresh Kills sorting site. They were free to pick up anything they deemed worthy of further analysis. Did they salvage everything that would have been of interest? Certainly not. There has been organizational and political shortcomings and impediments in the beginning. *Some* evidence has been lost.

http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/exhibits/longterm/documents/recovery.pdf

In spite of all that, NIST directed the most thorough and extensive investigation ever made of a disaster, natural or man provoked. Hundred of scientists and engineers from the agency, and from several universities and private labs participated to the reconstruction the events based on thousands of photographs and video footages. They performed life sized simulation of the fires in order to tune up the fire dynamics models. They conducted nearly 1200 firt-person interviews of survivors and emergency responders. They performed mechanical and metallurgical testings on hundreds of structural steel components. They produces draft reports of the ongoing invetigation that were made available for public scrutiny and that attracted comments and constructive criticism from scientists and engineers around the world.

http://www.arup.com/DOWNLOADBANK/download353.pdf

The final report is over 10000 pages long. Please, have a look at the short executive summaries of the main sections and then share your worries as to what crucial information seems to be missing.

http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs /

My own puzzlement is why so many people discount so easily all the mass of available evidence yet claim to be starved for more.

[BuyingThyme]

116. Allow me to explain something to you.

WTC7 is neither WTC1 nor WTC2.

Let me know if you have any questions.

[greyl]

119. It's a general response to posts like yours about the NIST.

I'm sure you're not trying to distract from the rest of the post.

[BuyingThyme]

120. All I've said about the NIST reports is that people like you

have gone out of your ways to misrepresent what they say.

It's called debunking the bunkies.

[greyl]

121. Prove that you comprehend the science and math

by explaining the faults you've found with the reports in the OP.
Otherwise, your "arguments" are nothing more than fallacious drama.

[BuyingThyme]

123. The Garcia article just makes up a failure of a truss by

taking an element of a hypothesis which is contained in one of the NIST reports. That is not science; it's something we call pseudoscience. (The article is not a "report," by the way.)

As for the NIST reports, they don't come to any scientific conclusions about the WTC7 implosion.

DEBUNKED AGAIN!!

[greyl]

127. Give a direct quote with the Hour and Time,

with your superior explanation.

[BuyingThyme]

128. Is this your new strategy? To post random words?

[greyl]

132. I think that's evidence that you haven't read the Garcia article.

If you had, you'd know what Hour and Time refer to.

Listen, person. Your posts on this topic are ridiculous distractions devoid of substance. I can't believe you think they're persuasive to anyones intellect.
That is all.

[BuyingThyme]

133. Look, you clearly are unable or unwilling to understand

any of this.

I stated facts about the Garcia article. Specifically, the author made up the failure of a truss. He fabricated it. He lied.

If you continue to have trouble with this, ask somebody to help you read the article.

[greyl]

135. Nope, sorry, you've been busted hard, BT.

I'll be ignoring your posts.

[BuyingThyme]

136. Me busted? Wow! That's quite a projection.

There should be a prize.

[BuyingThyme]

134. Look, you clearly are unable or unwilling to understand

any of this.

I stated facts about the Garcia article. Specifically, the author made up the failure of a truss. He fabricated it. He lied.

If you continue to have trouble with this, ask somebody to help you read the article.

[MervinFerd]

156. "the author made up the failure of a truss" ----NO!-----

The author ----HYPOTHESIZED------ the failure of a truss and tested the predictions against observation.

Jeebus H Chryst!

[BuyingThyme]

175. Not true at all. You clearly haven't read the article or are

unable to comprehend what it says.

He just snatched an element of a hypothesis from an NIST report and decided to pretend it was a conclusion. That's commonly known as pseudoscience.

And, by the way, this is the exact nonsense you keep pulling.

DEBUNKED AGAIN!

[MervinFerd]

130. Is the failure of that truss improbable? ---NO Are there reasons to suspect..

the failure of that truss?--YES. Are the consequences of that failure consistent with observed facts?---YES

The Garcia article is a summary and review of the NIST reports. Garcia makes no claim of original research. Garcia is more speculative and makes more definite conclusions than does NIST. But he states his facts and sources and explains his reasoning and the remaining uncertainties.

By what bizarre criterion do you label this "pseudoscience"?

You are welcome to point out errors in his piece. However, should you wish to be regarded as other than a fool and buffoon, you are not free to label it "pseudoscience" and consider that a rational response.

[BuyingThyme]

131. Look, to take an element of a hypothesis as fact is

pseudoscience.

Is it the word pseudoscience that's giving you trouble?

Why don't you look it up?

[The Lone Groover]

137. "Look, to take an element of a hypothesis as fact is pseudoscience"

Absolutely bang on!

Well done BT.

Illegitimi nil carborundum.

Why do they do it? Why do they put SO much energy into this?

[BuyingThyme]

138. Whoa! Illegitimi nil carborundum?

That's way over my head.

I don't know why they do it, but it's sure fun.

[The Lone Groover]

139. Oops...

Illegitimi nil carborundum one.

It's a soccer score.

[greyl]

141. Absolutely wrong. That post ALSO shows a serious misunderstanding of science.

Scientific method:
• Observation (gathering facts)
• Hypothesis
• Prediction
• Experimentation
• Conclusion

It also looks like you're unaware that hypotheses can be disproven. Yours sounds like the same ignorant argument creationists use when they say evolution is only a theory.

[The Lone Groover]

142. Where is..

...the observation and experimentation part of horizontal progression?

Huh?

All you got is hypothesis and prediction - i.e. imaginings.

It's pseudoscience.

Thanks for playing.

[greyl]

144. Pathetic. You're trying to change the subject from the fact that

your statement: "to take an element of a hypothesis as fact is pseudoscience" is bullshit.
I can't take you seriously until you admit it.

You haven't disputed any specific facts in the above reports and you haven't disproven any of the hypotheses. You haven't even cast doubt upon them, for that matter.
Furthermore, you haven't provided any alternative hypotheses or conclusions of your own.
I'm convinced you haven't read the reports or the article.

[The Lone Groover]

145. By your own definiton of science this is not science!!!

It's imaginings.

Furthermore, you haven't provided any alternative hypotheses or conclusions of your own.

Ah - that old chestnut. I don't want to and you can't make me.

That doesn't however diminish in anyway the fact that you are wrong by your own definition.

[MervinFerd]

155. By his definition it --IS-- science. Jeez, what a bunch of tendentious

horseshit.

---HAVE--- you actually read the reports at issue?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

143. greyl, the problem with the INTERIM Report on WTC 7 is that there is no Experimentation

or a Conclusion yet, and until these are published, isn't it all just supposition? The Interim Report is 2 years old and the head of the project up to a year ago was still having difficulty with what actually happened.

Do you think that this Interim Report should be treated as gospel?

[MervinFerd]

151. Nobody suggested the Interim report be "treated as gospel".

It -is- an interim report and it will be revised. That is the way professional scientific and engineering studies work.

The OP asked for instance in which the NIST report is "pseudoscience" or "fantasy"; it is neither of those. It is an -interim- report, but it is not "just supposition". The reports collect and present known facts about the damage to the building and the collapse; they discusses possible collapse mechanisms and assess the probability of each; they describe the work still to be done. This --IS-- science.

There is a global point to this: the theories about WTC7 dissolve "like a dandelion in a breeze" with even minimal actual facts. Much -is- known about the collapse. There --ARE-- plausible collapse scenarios which do not require thermite or dustification laser beams.

[The Lone Groover]

152. It's not science.

Being charitable you could call it hypothosis. But that is still another word for imaginings.

Greyl can fill you in on what science is.

[MervinFerd]

154. Ahhhhhhheeeeeee aaaaaaa. Jesus--- protect us....

Please check with Greyl on this one.

[BuyingThyme]

178. Look, we're all very happy that you finally took the time to

learn what the word science means (if even at the most basic level).

Now explain why you annoyingly and endlessly pretend that the NIST reports contain scientific conclusions about the cause of the WTC7 implosion.

Don't you understand that you, like Mr. Garcia, are practicing pseudoscience? (Look it up again.)

[BuyingThyme]

179. Wow!

Now that you've learned that hypotheses can be disproven, explain to us why you keep insisting that the NIST hypotheses are conclusions.

DEBUNKED AGAIN!!

[MervinFerd]

148. You idea of the scientific process is completely wrong.

No element of the hypothisis is "taken as fact".

The hypothesis is tested against observation and rejected if its predictions are incorrect.

In this case, the hypothesis of a failed truss correctly predicts much of subsequent events; hence, the hypothesis is not rejected.

The hypothesis is NOT proved; hypotheses are NEVER proved; hypotheses are continually tested until they fail in some way; then, the hypothesis is replaced with a better one. That's why NIST is continuing its studies.

[The Lone Groover]

150. Hey Merve... you need to bone up on Greyl's definition of science.

Observation and experimentation are definitely missing from this pseudo-scientific report.

[MervinFerd]

153. In this case, the "experimentation" is conducted with computer calculations,

it being infeasible to construct multiple WTC7s and collapse them in various ways. Hypotheses are formed; their predictions are tested against observation. That's what NIST did; that's what science is.

There are no laboratory experiments in geology, astronomy, or evolutionary biology; they are still science.

[The Lone Groover]

167. Computers? Shit in - Shit out!

I program them for a living.
Don't tell me about computers proving anything - they'll prove anything you like.

All this NIST report has is hypothesis and prediction - i.e. Imaginings.

[AZCat]

169. Oh, so because you program computers for a living...

you're an expert on the NIST simulation?

[The Lone Groover]

170. No - I'm an expert on computers.

Shit in - shit out.
Ask anyone who knows.

[AZCat]

172. So is your point that...

the models were wrong or that the inputs were wrong, or are you not sure?

[The Lone Groover]

173. My point is you can get a computer to tell you anything you want and then call it science. nt

[AZCat]

184. So your only complaint is that they used computers in the investigation?

What would you prefer - that they did all the calculations by hand? I hope you realize how stupid such a proposition is - the computer is an indespensable tool for modern-day engineering analysis. Anyone professing otherwise simply doesn't understand either the scale of the calculations required nor the methods used for these calculations.

[MervinFerd]

188. Slide Rule. Lots of KE Versalog slide rules. Laminated bamboo. Brown ..

leather case that you can hook to your belt and look like a Nerd for sure.

Not that anybody remembers how to use one anymore.

[The Lone Groover]

191. You obviously don't program them.

Shit in - shit out.

It's well known in the IT industry.

Oh.. but it's a com-pu-ter.. it must be true.. it must be scientic.

There's lies, damn lies, staistics and computer analyses.

A computer only does what a human being tells it to do!

[greyl]

193. I suspect you don't. nt

[AZCat]

195. Except that you're wrong...

so whatever criteria you use for "obvious" things is flawed.

You, on the other hand, don't seem to ever have worked as an engineer, because the computer is (as I said before) an essential tool for engineering analysis. While it certainly is possible for a program to produce incorrect output either because of flawed input or flawed programming, you have produced no evidence of such in the NIST investigation, instead relying on a repetition of your "shit in - shit out" chant to write off any claims they make that happen to use computers as part of the analysis. Nowhere have I claimed (as you insinuate) that using a computer automatically validates something.

[The Lone Groover]

197. That's better!

Nowhere have I claimed (as you insinuate) that using a computer automatically validates something.

Good... you're learning.

Work in computers long enough and you realise "constants aren't and variables don't" and "garbage in garbage out" (or its more colorful version).

You can wrap if up how you like... the input to any computer model of WTC7 is going to be imagined... all you have to do is imagine enough and tweak the parameters enough until you get the result you want.

That is not science.

Shit in shit out. It proves nothing.

[Bolo Boffin]

198. Get busy proving the "shit in."

Then your claims of "shit out" might be more plausible.

There are three reports up there. Start showing the "shit in."

Or shut up.

[The Lone Groover]

199. I'm merely letting you know how the IT world works.

Imaginings in Imaginings out.
Is that more understandable?

[Bolo Boffin]

201. The OP is requesting you to start showing the "shit in".

I understand the principle.

For example, an OP requests a certain kind of response. A poster in that thread continues to post again and again, but does not provide these responses. This is called "shit in." The "shit out" is that poster thinking that his or her position is being advanced by continuing to provide these "shit in" posts. However, the truth is, by continuing to not provide examples of pseudoscience in those three reports, LG, you are proving the point of the OP - that the reports are quite scientific.

So start providing examples of "shit in" contained in those reports, LG, or shut up.

[The Lone Groover]

203. Were the truss failures observed or imagined?

Shit in shit out.

[MervinFerd]

218. The truss failures are --hypothesized--.

The correct prediction of subsequent -observed- events is the evidence of the failures.

You don't understand things very well.

[AZCat]

202. Your ignorance of how these simulations are run is astounding...

for someone with such strongly held opinions about them.

[MervinFerd]

187. Your computer was designed with a computer. And, better not go into..

a highrise--because that building was designed with the same computers programs as the NIST study.

Is it possibly ---YOUR--- computer programs that give unreliable outputs?

[The Lone Groover]

192. Meanlingless drivel.

Computers will tell you anything you want them to.

They can even tell you election results.

But you know that.

[MervinFerd]

222. -Your- computer was designed with a slide rule?

I'd like to see that.

Could you post a picture?

[The Lone Groover]

223. Star Wars III was made on a computer.

Hey - computers create fantasy too.

Your argument is?

[BuyingThyme]

174. It's very nice that you took the time to look up the word

hypothesis in the dictionary, but it's beyond silly that you would have the gall to try to explain it to me as if you had any clue what you were talking about.

[govegan]

146. Absolute nonsense

Fires burned in sections of Floors 6 through 30 at different times, and they migrated along their floors independently, seeking new sources of fuel. -- from counterpunch nonsense


More appropriately: the fascists migrated from Europe independently joining forces with the fascists in the new world. the fascists were seeking new peoples to dupe, mislead and perform their heinous crimes against.

Fire does not migrate.

Fire does not seek anything.

Fascists propagandize.

Scientists seek recognition and funds. They do things like rationalize gas chambers, suspension of habeas corpus to provide subjects to torture, build weapons of destruction, program computers to track political opponents & mistabulate votes, etc.

More appropriate title "Lonely Fire Seeking Hot Scientist for Pseudo Relations"

[MervinFerd]

147. "fires migrated": You've never heard of "figure of speech"?

Jeezus Peter Paul and Mary!

The fires moved to different places as fuel was exhausted in one place and ignited in others.

Holy Jeebus!

[Bolo Boffin]

162. Perhaps this forum should be renamed the "Calvinball Forum." n/t

[Twist_U_Up]

149. "Lonely Fire Seeking Hot Scientist for Pseudo Relations" *snicker*

Clever. I like

[Fainter]

189. Hammer, Don't Hurt Them n/t

[Contrite]

158. Only one day? Gee, NIST had four years.

Edited to add: you are ignoring the rebuttals to these reports that are already out there. Why is that?

[MervinFerd]

159. You have 2 more days; one day for each report. Edit: OOPs 1 day left.

If you know of rebuttals to these reports, please bring to the class' attention; however, the assigned task was to find instances of "pseudoscience" or "fantasy" in the reports.

[Name removed]

161. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Contrite]

166. The rebuttals have been posted before.

All anyone needs to do is Google them. I would like to know why you continue to discount them. Do you find them full of pseudoscience or fantasy? If so, please explain where for "the class".

The NIST reports are problematic in the main because they do not address or prove adequately several critical points, such as "sagging trusses", collapse speed, full collapse, molten metal in the basements, etc.

Morgan Reynolds has some excellent articles:

http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=we_have_holes

[mmmlink]

163. Go to page 28 of the WTC7 report

And look at the temperature distribution of the "Column 79 at floors 5-7", the red beam. It talks about a "temperature distribution". What they are showing is a beam cross section with a heat source on the left side (brighter red) and a heat sink on the right (darker red). The large picture shows higher temperature in the center and cooler on the edges. The two pictures obviously contradict each other. And they don't draw any serious conclusions. We are to believe, in their own words on the right hand side, that we have Axial thermal expansion and Thermal softening at the same time.

Now let us go to picture "Horizon Progression Truss #1", page 34, Column 79 isn't even included in the photo analysis, they show column 76 instead. It also isn't included in the analysis on page 34. In fact it isn't even included on Truss #1 (see page 20). Let's look at page 31, the red dotted line drawn by any amateur using paintbrush is suppose to represent which beam? Column 79? I talked about the error on page 11, but you brush it off even though on page 4 NIST states they are "committed to putting accuracy, quality, and completeness ahead of schedule, taking whatever time is required to do the job right." Let's hope they do fix that picture once the final draft is released. Figure L-13 in your 2004 progress report doesn't even show a connection between column 79 and column 76 for floor 7, but this contradicts page 34 of the WTC7 report which shows a connection and on page 27 of the WTC7 report, requires failure of column 79 as an initiating event.

Now let us return to that red beam. The description talks about a temperature gradiant which occurs when we either have a temperature/time dependent profile (unlikely) or as I mention earlier, a high heat source (maybe fire) in the center and a heat sink (maybe conduction to other steel beam members) on the ends. In reality, we are looking at a "pretty picture" that doesn't have any engineering basis for what they are trying to imply.

Finally, look at Figure L-18 in your June 04 progress report and compare it to Figure 5-5 in the FEMA403 Chapter 5 report (or can't I include that one?) Notice the difference between Truss 2 between the two pictures? You keep talking about the folks that wrote these as being experts, I haven't seen much (if anything) that justifies that conclusion. Can you provide the names and credentials (except for Shyam Sunder)? I can't seem to find any at the end of the reports, only three references at the end of the progress report. I don't even include Garcia's article because he works at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory which relys on money from the Government and he doesn't include pretty pictures for me.

[MervinFerd]

164. Which of these are "pseudoscience" or "fantasy"?

This document is a Powerpoint presentation, illustrative of the methods and conclusions of the study. Diagrams are simplified for pedagogical purposes. It is, to some extent, "pretty pictures", yes.

More detailed documents available, if you wish to delve into the details. You will find these listed on the NIST site. I refer you to one of the several engineers populating this Board for further guidance.

The Principal Investigators of the study are nefariously hidden on the NIST site under a tab deceptively entitled: Investigation Team.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/

Regarding Garcia, you resort to the argument ad hominem. Garcia's employer is of no relevance (though he wrote the article in the pay of the Leftist journal CounterPunch).

So, you have --possibly-- errors in a PowerPoint presentation. Not "pseudoscience" or "fantasy".

[mmmlink]

180. You provided the links...

and the challange. If you wanted me to show mistakes in more detailed documents listed on the NIST website, then you should have provided them instead. I provided areas of concern in the documents you presented, why don't you go ahead and tell me why the points I listed are not errors. Also please provide a little bit about your background (in case I missed it on some other post). Do you have an engineering degree? More importantly, do you have an engineering license so that you could actually be called upon in a court of law, under oath, to defend your position, and then be cross-examined? Do you work for the Federal Government?

The individuals/investigators you send me to are employed by NIST which is a Federally Funded Technology Agency. None have come forward to defend their portion of the NIST report even though quite a few of them have the credentials to do so.

[MervinFerd]

182. You misinterpret the purpose and content of the documents.

The "first NIST document" is a summary and explanation of the research underway. It is not an error that this document leaves out details; those details are available elsewhere. Or will be, with release of a draft final report.

My credentials are irrelevant; the authors of these documents -are- professional engineers and they have placed their professional reputations behind these conclusions.

"None have come forward to defend..." WTF! Their names are on the document. I imagine they have better things to do than debate arrogant and ignorant fools on Truther websites.

[mmmlink]

196. Actually...

only three of them are listed as Professional Engineers (Lew, Gross, and McAllister). In that respect I can only assume they were professional in their portions of the analysis and were not part of the overall conclusions reached by their leader, Shyam Sunder. In fact, I have reviewed the NIST report on WTC1 and WTC2 several times. If you look closely, it is a large collection of individual facts that can be easily verified, but then there is a giant leap of faith to their final conclusion. That fires heated the the trusses to the point they pulled in the outer perimeter walls causing instability and collapse initiation.

I would have preferred you could have supported your original post with more than repeating the conclusions of others. I find this is quite common in those that supports the Government's conclusions.

Do you know if one of the posters on this site is a Professional Engineer that supports the conclusions of WTC #7?

[MervinFerd]

204. So, you have no examples of "pseudoscience" in the listed reports.

"Only three" are Professional Engineers? That's a high honor, btw. For what reason do you assume "they were professional in their portions of the analysis"? Professionals at this level --do not-- allow their names to be attached to documents that are not technically sound.

Do you think the credentials of the others are peanut butter? These are people with advanced degrees from elite universities and many years of experience.

You have "reviewed" the NIST reports; did you read the whole text? Is there not just the -tiniest- possibility that the great leap from data to conclusions is your own lack of understanding of the methods used?

Can you name a single Professional Engineer who --does not-- support the findings of the NIST studies? More importantly, can you name a single person of any credentials who can dispute those conclusions rationally? ("Rationally" means significant criticism of the data, methods or reasoning, not nitpicking crap about which beams are listed in a summary document.)

[mmmlink]

205. Yes

one.

[The Lone Groover]

200. Trust me I'm a Doctor...

"those details are available elsewhere. Or will be, with release of a draft final report."

How do you know Merve me ol' cock-sparra?

You are privy to this information?

[The Lone Groover]

168. mmmlink.. no.. no.. you can't say things like that...

..NIST used science - we all know that - it can't be wrong - it certainly can't be deceitful. Oh no...

[Fainter]

190. Down To Brass Tacks; This Post Should Have Its Own Thread

and all scientific methodists, reading comprehensionists, and anti-anti-ism-ites should chime in and explain to mmmlink what is wrong with his analysis and why NIST's apparent mistakes don't undermine the credibility of their provisional findings. And don't bother trying to draw me into this, because I have no idea what I am talking about, and more importantly, even less idea what you'll be talking about.

[William Seger]

207. You're confusing artwork with analysis

> We are to believe, in their own words on the right hand side, that we have Axial thermal expansion and Thermal softening at the same time.

Well, let's see: heat causes steel to expand, and heat causes steel to soften. So yes, I believe that both would happen at the same time the heat was applied. Which one do you think is in error or psuedoscience or fantasy?

> Now let us go to picture "Horizon Progression Truss #1", page 34, Column 79 isn't even included in the photo analysis, they show column 76 instead. It also isn't included in the analysis on page 34. In fact it isn't even included on Truss #1 (see page 20). Let's look at page 31, the red dotted line drawn by any amateur using paintbrush is suppose to represent which beam? Column 79?

Page 27: "First exterior sign of failure was at the east penthouse roofline, aligned with interior columns 79, 80, and 81. Postulated initiating events include the failure of these columns." Page 29: "NIST continues to evaluate the factors that could have caused column 79, 80, or 81 to fail." (Followed by list of possible causes.) But the picture on page 34 is entitled "Horizontal Progression -- Truss #1." Column 79 is not a component of Truss #1, so why would you expect it to be included in that diagram? That diagram, and the one on page 35, are simply describing the progressive failure of the trusses, after the postulated failure along the 79-80-81 column line. I see no error or pseudoscience or fantasy in them.

> Now let us return to that red beam. The description talks about a temperature gradiant which occurs when we either have a temperature/time dependent profile (unlikely) or as I mention earlier, a high heat source (maybe fire) in the center and a heat sink (maybe conduction to other steel beam members) on the ends. In reality, we are looking at a "pretty picture" that doesn't have any engineering basis for what they are trying to imply.

Strange assertion, since you just stated the engineering basis: a heat source in the center and heat sinks at the ends. It's a "pretty picture" that illustrates an important concept. Which are you claiming is error or pseudoscience or fantasy: fire in the center or connections at the ends?

> Finally, look at Figure L-18 in your June 04 progress report and compare it to Figure 5-5 in the FEMA403 Chapter 5 report (or can't I include that one?) Notice the difference between Truss 2 between the two pictures?

Figure 5-5 is titled "3D diagram showing relation of trusses and transfer girders." I don't see any indication that the diagram was intended to be any more than what that title says, so I don't see any reason to think that the representation of Truss 2 in that diagram played any role in the analysis. You make several criticisms of the diagrams in the reports which imply that you believe the analysis was done from those diagrams. I rather suspect the diagrams were prepared by someone else after the analysis, and even so, I don't see any errors of any real significance. In any event, you would need to find an actual error in the analysis -- not the artwork -- to substantiate a claim that the analysis was either error or pseudoscience or fantasy.

[MervinFerd]

221. Thanks.

[BuyingThyme]

177. Why do you continue to pretend that

the NIST reports offers conclusions about the implosion of WTC7?

And why do you continue to pretend that the Garcia article isn't pseudoscience? You can't just take an element of a hypothesis, make it the key element of an conclusion, and call it science.

Why do you keep doing this to yourself?

Do you think I and othes are eventually going to let you get away with misleading people this way?

[MervinFerd]

181. So, you have no examples of "pseudoscience" in the listed reports.

If I am misleading people, it will be very simple to provide examples of "pseudoscience" and "fantasy".

The NIST reports are Progress Reports; what's your problem understanding that?

Garcia's piece is a popular exegesis of the NIST reports; what's your problem understanding that?

You can repeat claims 'til the cows come home; they won't become true.

[BuyingThyme]

183. No offense, but do you really think people

won't be able to see what you're doing?

I mean, I've proven pseudoscience over and over and over in regards to Garcia's misuse of an element of a hypothesis, and your false statements about NIST conclusions, and you keep responding with nonsense.

Stop pretending. It's getting to be ridiculous.

DEBUNKED YET AGAIN!!!!

[MervinFerd]

186. In your own mind, Dude. In your own mind, only.

[The Lone Groover]

194. QED.

By Greyl's definition...

Observation and experimentation are missing.

That leaves hypothesis and prediction. That's imaginings in normal language.

Ask Greyl.. he'll tell you.

Pseudoscience.

[William Seger]

208. Baloney

> Observation and experimentation are missing.

The hypothesis is based on close observation of all available evidence, and computer simulation is a valid form of experimentation when reconstructing the building is not a viable option.

[The Lone Groover]

210. And the truss failure that horizontal progression is based on ...

...was observed? Or imagined?

The failed splices? Observed or imagined?

Observation and experimentation are missing.

Computer modelling based on imaginings is not experimentation. Computers will tell you anything you want. Shit in shit out.

[Bolo Boffin]

211. ...was part of several tested hypotheses.

They built a model of 7 in the computer. They damaged that computer model as closely to known conditions as possible. They then tried several different scenarios.

Oddly enough, it is the failure of those two trusses that reproduce the observed collapse closest. In fact, one truss failure reproduces the observed collapse pretty well. That is what you are calling "shit in shit out." There is everything scientific about these reports so far. You need to find something else to attack. This attack of yours is just goofy.

Or is that Dopey?

[William Seger]

212. Inferred -- from the observation that the building fell down

... and the lack of any observation indicating explosives caused it.

The CD hypothesis infers explosives were used from the observation that the building fell down and an inability to understand progressive failure. "Shit in shit out" isn't limited to computer analysis.

[The Lone Groover]

213. Did they model a CD explosion as well?

You know.. imagine explosives were placed at various points of the building and see if you get the same results?

Your faith in computers, the people who program them, the people who set the parameters, the people who run the software, the people who pay them, the interpretation of the results, is touching.

However, in the real IT world everyone knows that you can get a computer to tell you anything you want and because it's from a computer it is given a false kudos.

Star Wars is real you know, Jar Jar Binks really exists. He must do, a computer modelled him.

Any REAL evidence which could be REALLY observed was removed from the crime scene and destroyed. Criminal.

[William Seger]

214. So, you would prefer a report that was based on imaginary evidence?

... and a description of the collapse that wasn't based on calculations?

Fascinating.

[The Lone Groover]

215. I would prefer a report based on real evidence.

One-off situation computer modelling based on imaginings is bogus.

But hey.. it's from a computer... it must be right.

[William Seger]

216. No, you've already rejected the interim report based on real evidence

... so don't now claim that that's what you prefer. You want a report that concludes what you already fantasize, even if they have to use imaginary evidence of explosives to reach it.

[The Lone Groover]

217. What real evidence?

Computer simulations are not real evidence!

Here's one for you.

public void getEarthInformation(char inChar) {
if (inChar == 'A') {
System.out.printline("The earth is a sphere");
return;
}
if (inChar == 'B') {
System.out.printline("The earth is flat");
return;
}
System.out.printline("I'm sorry I haven't a clue");
return.
}

Sometimes the Earth can be flat if you want it to. That's the way the IT world works.

[Bolo Boffin]

219. So in a very shallow roundabout way, you are questioning how NIST built its computer model.

Fine. Show us some examples from the reports of programming similar to the example you composed. Yes, I'm aware that the actual program is not contained in the report. However, key details of it are there. Show us which ones of those are programmed to deliver the required result.

[The Lone Groover]

224. You miss the point.

The program only does what its told.
You can get them to tell you anything - it depends on the constraints and parameters set by the person shoveling imaginings in.

Computer simulation is total psuedoscience.

But I understand that people get blinded by the false kudos a computer analysis can give.

[AZCat]

227. Except engineers actually validate their models.

Unlike the programs it appears you write, engineers care about authentic output so they go to great lengths to test their algorithms for validity. Your resistance to this basic understanding of procedure leads me to believe that you don't really care about the NIST models and their accuracy - you just want to continue railing against them with your strawman of a "point".

[Bolo Boffin]

228. "Computer simulation is total psuedoscience."

That is complete and utter bullshit, and a copout on fulfilling the terms of the OP.

"Shit in shit out" doesn't mean computer simulation is total pseudoscience. It means if you program bad info in, you get bad info out. You have YET to demonstrate bad info in. Either initial inputs or programming will do.

Get busy or shut up with your overloading lies.

[MervinFerd]

220. IF (PROGRAMMER == IDIOT(COMPLETE)) THEN

(PROGRAM := NONSENSE).

STOP
END.

[The Lone Groover]

225. Futile. nt

[AZCat]

226. I am continually amazed at your posts.

Do you think that just because you have done some programming that you have any clue about how the NIST created their simulations? Yes, we all agree that computers can be used to produce false results, but any tool can - that doesn't invalidate it as a tool. You need to produce actual evidence to support your point instead of flogging this poor dead horse.

[MervinFerd]

229. I think he's ridden this dead horse into the ground. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

230. Oh, no. Not Lone Groover.

Once he finishes riding "ausrottung" into the ground, he'll be back. Count on it.

[oblivious]

206. Have these reports been submitted for and undergone peer review?

[MervinFerd]

209. Yes, for the NIST documents. No, for the Garcia article.

Peer review is built into the process of creating the NIST final reports. The two interim NIST documents are part of the review process. The Twin Towers reports are finished and have been through the process.


The Investigation Team consists of 13 distinguished people (peers) whose names will be on the report. Interim reports are posted for comment. A draft final report will be posted on the Internet and available as hardcopy to anyone who asks. Comments will be collected and addressed. Portions of the reports will be published in appropriate technical journals.

The process is not the same as used for publication of research articles in a scientific journal, but it is quite rigorous.

The Garcia article is a popular explanation by a knowledgeable person of the NIST investigation to date. Take it for what it is.