|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
 Posted - 11/01/2006 : 02:04:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
ergo123 wrote: quote:
Like I said--and you completely avoided addressing...
Of course if the architects were tasked with building a giant heat sink they might have chosen a different, cheaper material. BUT THEY WERE TASKED WITH BUILDING A SKYSCRAPER! The thermal conductivity of steel might not make it the ideal heat sink, but its primary role was to hold up the fcuknig building, and aluminum and copper just don't do as good a job...
Does that make sense to you that the designers of the building were looking for a structure that would stand? That the steel acts as a heat sink is a bonus--but it still acts as a heat sink even if not designed for expressly that purpose.
quote:
Just how many strawmen do you have in that bag of yours, ergo?
How is that a strawman?
quote:
I'm not the one calling the steel a "heat sink," ergo, you are.
Right--because the steel is a heat sink. It takes heat and conducts it away from the source and through its structure. Was it designed as a heat sink? No. It was designed to hold up the building. Does it still perform the function of a heat sink? Yes. Even though it was not designed to be a heat sink, the steel still acts like steel and conducts any heat applied to it throughout its structure. In your mind, can things made for a given purpose not fill the role of something it was not designed for?
quote:
You are trying that because you need it to be an excellent heat sink, for the purpose of refuting the evidence that the steel lost strength due to the fires.
No, it doesn't need to be an "excellent" heat sink. But it apparently did pretty good because none of the steel NIST tested reached over 250*C. And that's a fact NIST admits. So how does that make the heat sink a strawman. If the fires were as hot as NIST estimated and the steel never got over 250*C, then the steel acted as a good heat sink. The only other explanation is that the fires were not hot enough to damage the steel in the first place. But in either case, the steel didn't get hot enough to loose a significant amount of its strength. And that is the bottom line issue here. And either way you slice it, the official story crumbles. I'm not sure if you suffer from some sort of brain deficit that keeps you from seeing that or what. Maybe god told you to believe in the official story...
quote:
Nor, I suspect, did the architects even consider a "heat sink" effect when designing the WTC. I never suggested they did.
Strawman!
No. But since I don't know what the designers had in mind, I don't want to assume it was not thought of...like you seem comfortable doing.
quote:
Interesting how you go so ballistically ape-shit when it is merely pointed out that steel conducts heat poorly. I'm guessing this "heat sink" fallacy was absolutely central to the "theory" you were constructing. It must really hurt to have a major part of your theory demolished even before you reveal the theory!
No, moonie. I went ballistic because it is so frustrating dealing with you. You can't see a fact if it is on the tip of your nose. You can't see a steel frame acting as a heat sink because it wasn't designed to be a heat sink. My 8-year old HP 1X CD writer was not designed to be a paper weight, but that's what it acts like today.
You can't see that no matter why the steel in the wtc didn't get over 250*C doesn't matter. What matters is that if the max temp of the steel was 250*C, the floors would not have failed and the building would not have collapsed.
You are starting to sound like filth--unable to think creatively and stuck on what you believe to be true in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. That doesn't make you a bad person--but it does make you a frustrating person to deal with. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2006 : 03:06:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
ergo123 wrote: quote:
Like I said--and you completely avoided addressing...
Of course if the architects were tasked with building a giant heat sink they might have chosen a different, cheaper material. BUT THEY WERE TASKED WITH BUILDING A SKYSCRAPER! The thermal conductivity of steel might not make it the ideal heat sink, but its primary role was to hold up the fcuknig building, and aluminum and copper just don't do as good a job...
Does that make sense to you that the designers of the building were looking for a structure that would stand? That the steel acts as a heat sink is a bonus--but it still acts as a heat sink even if not designed for expressly that purpose.
quote:
Just how many strawmen do you have in that bag of yours, ergo?
How is that a strawman?
quote:
I'm not the one calling the steel a "heat sink," ergo, you are.
Right--because the steel is a heat sink. It takes heat and conducts it away from the source and through its structure. Was it designed as a heat sink? No. It was designed to hold up the building. Does it still perform the function of a heat sink? Yes. Even though it was not designed to be a heat sink, the steel still acts like steel and conducts any heat applied to it throughout its structure. In your mind, can things made for a given purpose not fill the role of something it was not designed for?
quote:
You are trying that because you need it to be an excellent heat sink, for the purpose of refuting the evidence that the steel lost strength due to the fires.
No, it doesn't need to be an "excellent" heat sink. But it apparently did pretty good because none of the steel NIST tested reached over 250*C. And that's a fact NIST admits. So how does that make the heat sink a strawman. If the fires were as hot as NIST estimated and the steel never got over 250*C, then the steel acted as a good heat sink. The only other explanation is that the fires were not hot enough to damage the steel in the first place. But in either case, the steel didn't get hot enough to loose a significant amount of its strength. And that is the bottom line issue here. And either way you slice it, the official story crumbles. I'm not sure if you suffer from some sort of brain deficit that keeps you from seeing that or what. Maybe god told you to believe in the official story...
quote:
Nor, I suspect, did the architects even consider a "heat sink" effect when designing the WTC. I never suggested they did.
Strawman!
No. But since I don't know what the designers had in mind, I don't want to assume it was not thought of...like you seem comfortable doing.
quote:
Interesting how you go so ballistically ape-shit when it is merely pointed out that steel conducts heat poorly. I'm guessing this "heat sink" fallacy was absolutely central to the "theory" you were constructing. It must really hurt to have a major part of your theory demolished even before you reveal the theory!
No, moonie. I went ballistic because it is so frustrating dealing with you. You can't see a fact if it is on the tip of your nose. You can't see a steel frame acting as a heat sink because it wasn't designed to be a heat sink. My 8-year old HP 1X CD writer was not designed to be a paper weight, but that's what it acts like today.
You can't see that no matter why the steel in the wtc didn't get over 250*C doesn't matter. What matters is that if the max temp of the steel was 250*C, the floors would not have failed and the building would not have collapsed.
You are starting to sound like filth--unable to think creatively and stuck on what you believe to be true in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. That doesn't make you a bad person--but it does make you a frustrating person to deal with.
You even make a strawman to attack in lieu of my actual exposure of your previous "strawman" argument! If your idea is to nest enough strawmen recursively within other strawmen, in order to put up a thick smokescreen, I have to admit the tactic may be working. It's certainly getting difficult even to reply to your obfuscations.
Now to clarify for you: The "strawman" argument I was referring to, and that you chose to be confused about, was your attempt to make it appear that I was saying that since the steel of the WTC wasn't intended to be a heat sink, it therefor could not be one.
I never said that. What I actually pointed out is simply that steel is a lousy conductor of heat. You haven't yet refuted that clear fact of materials science. But unfazed, you continue merrily referring to the entire steel framework of those buildings as a giant heat sink -- a fallacy you desperately need to establish in order to eliminate the main rational alternative to your unevidenced CD nonsense.
You need that heat sink, but it's just not there. Just as you need, but lack, evidence of CD.
Have you even researched the thermal conductivity of iron and steel? By its innate physical nature, the steel framework of the WTC can't serve your need for a "heat sink." An area on one beam can be cherry-red from the heat of fire, while just inches or feet away on the same beam it can be cool enough to touch. This hardly makes for the entire framework of a modern building acting as a "heat sink."
Show me where I'm wrong about the poor thermal conductivity of steel.
Your "heat sink" just sank.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2006 : 13:45:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
You even make a strawman to attack in lieu of my actual exposure of your previous "strawman" argument! If your idea is to nest enough strawmen recursively within other strawmen, in order to put up a thick smokescreen, I have to admit the tactic may be working. It's certainly getting difficult even to reply to your obfuscations.
No, the difficulty you are having addressing my points is that it requires you to acknowledge what you don't want to face--namely, that the official story of the wtc collapses is a lie.
quote:
Now to clarify for you: The "strawman" argument I was referring to, and that you chose to be confused about, was your attempt to make it appear that I was saying that since the steel of the WTC wasn't intended to be a heat sink, it therefor could not be one.
I never said that. What I actually pointed out is simply that steel is a lousy conductor of heat.
But it is a conductor of heat. So it does act as a heat sink. There are no two ways around that fact. It might not be a great heat sink, but according to various findings presented by NIST (although they don't connect the dots to reach this conclusion) it was an effective enough heat sink to keep the temperature of the steel from getting above 250*C. And you have presented no evidence to refute that conclusion.
quote:
You haven't yet refuted that clear fact of materials science.
I don't need to refute it. For the steel to act as an effective enough heat sink does not require it to ne a great heat sink or even a good heat sink. The fact is, it acted as a heat sink, and the steel tested by NIST either didn't reach temperatures over 250*C, or it failed to collapse (as in the UL tests). The quality of steel's heat sink properties are a non-issue given the evidence before us.
quote:
But unfazed, you continue merrily referring to the entire steel framework of those buildings as a giant heat sink -- a fallacy you desperately need to establish in order to eliminate the main rational alternative to your unevidenced CD nonsense.
But that the steel acted as a heat sink is not a fallacy. I never said it worked as an excellent heat sink. But from the evidence presented by NIST, it worked as an effective-enough heat sink. Are you claiming that the steel did not transfer any heat? Because if that's what you think, then why would companies manufacture, sell and/or buy heat sinks made of steel?
quote:
You need that heat sink, but it's just not there.
I'm just following the evidence, moonie. There are speculations that the fires were "intense" enough to significantly weaken steel. Yet the evidence points to "The steel never got hot enough to weaken significantly or fail." If the steel transfered zero heat, then the fires were not as "intense" as speculators speculated. More likely, is the fact that the steel did transfer some of the heat (i.e., acted as a heat sink) and allowed the steel to withstand whatever heat the fires were generating.
quote:
By its innate physical nature, the steel framework of the WTC can't serve your need for a "heat sink."
Got any evidence of that big guy?
quote:
An area on one beam can be cherry-red from the heat of fire, while just inches or feet away on the same beam it can be cool enough to touch. This hardly makes for the entire framework of a modern building acting as a "heat sink."
Think it through, moomie, from the beginning of that example. You start with a beam at room temperature. You start applying 1,800*F heat to the beam. Does the heat from the heat source immediately heat the area the heat is applied to? No! Why? Because the heat gets transferred to the rest of the beam. Is the transfer efficient? No. By the time the end you are heating gets close to 1,800*F, is the other end still at room temperature? No--it is hotter than it was originally.
quote:
Show me where I'm wrong about the poor thermal conductivity of steel.
You aren't wrong--but a poor heat sink is still a heat sink.
Why can't you accept that and move on?
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2006 : 18:17:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Show me where I'm wrong about the poor thermal conductivity of steel.
You aren't wrong--but a poor heat sink is still a heat sink.
Why can't you accept that and move on?
So there are, according to ergo, no materials which aren't heat sinks. Even my thermos, designed with materials specifically to keep my coffee hot for as long as possible, still allows it's temperature to drop by a degree or two on my trip to work.
I probably shouldn't worry too much about the timber frames in my housed should there be an oil fire either, I mean timber conducts heat at around 0.1 W/mK, so I expect the heat from the fire will be dissipated throughout the framework of my house before anything reaches the ignition temperature. Sure, structural timber is a poor heat sink, but it's still a heat sink.
I wonder, who's investigating all these false claims of timber based buildings burning down without controlled combustion (tm) techniques? The conspiracy deepens.
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2006 : 20:10:22 [Permalink]
|
Okay, here's the deal. Ergo's case revolves around a letter that Kevin R. Ryan from Underwriters Laboratories wrote to Frank Gayle, deputy chief of the institute's metallurgy division, which is not a division that Ryan even works for. Hmmmmmm… Ryan also sent his letter to people promoting a government conspiracy. Hmmmmmm…
Underwriters Laboratory fired him.
From the South Bend Tribune: Kevin R. Ryan Terminated at Underwriters Laboratories
quote:
Ryan declined to comment about his letter Thursday when reached at his South Bend home.
But his allegations drew a sharp rebuke from UL, which said Ryan wrote the letter "without UL's knowledge or authorization." The company told The Tribune "there is no evidence" that any firm tested the materials used to build the towers.
"UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center," said Paul M. Baker, the company's spokesman.
Ryan was fired, Baker said, because he "expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL."
"The contents of the argument itself are spurious at best, and frankly, they're just wrong," Baker said.
Seeking to head off controversy just months before its report is released, the National Institute of Standards and Technology issued its own statement Thursday.
Some steel recovered from the WTC was exposed to fires of only 400 to 600 degrees, the institute said, but computer modeling has shown higher temperatures of 1,100 to 1,300 degrees or greater were "likely" experienced by steel in regions directly affected by the fires.
The institute believes impact from the jets dislodged fireproofing surrounding some of the steel, and the higher temperatures led to the buckling of the towers' core columns.
Now, if you are into this conspiracy, then you probably would not believe Underwriters Laboratory's claim and would whole heartedly embrace Ryan's letter as proof of a conspiracy. But even Ryan admits that he is expressing his own opinion.
This difference of opinion was not mentioned by ergo. Hmmmm…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2006 : 20:57:46 [Permalink]
|
| How does my case revolve around Ryan's letter? Most of the evidence I've presented comes right from NIST! |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2006 : 21:00:33 [Permalink]
|
Thanks, kil!
That article demonstrates how just one irresponsible, careless person (who is in a position to know better) can spread misinformation that has a vast "validating" effect upon conspiracy buffs -- like ergo123 -- who are already primed to grasp every straw (and sometimes whole strawmen) that they can.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2006 : 21:29:12 [Permalink]
|
| What else do you have, kil. I made several points--all you've managed to refute is 1. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2006 : 21:30:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
What else do you have, kil. I made several points--all you've managed to refute is 1.
Well, actually, that was the first one I looked for... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2006 : 21:38:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
What else do you have, kil. I made several points--all you've managed to refute is 1.
Well, actually, that was the first one I looked for...
So, ergo, are you going to change your stance on the "evidence" you've presented on this matter thus far?
BTW, did you know about this before hand, or was Kil's discovery news to you, as it was to me and, I suspect, most people here?
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
| Edited by - JohnOAS on 11/01/2006 21:39:45 |
|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2006 : 21:41:24 [Permalink]
|
Okay, now that I've had some time with a high-speed Internet connection (those NIST pdfs are big mofos and I don't have them all saved at home), I think I can see some of ergo123's more egregious mistakes and misunderstandings.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123But after 120 minutes in the test with twice the load, the floor system did sag 3 inches (NCSTAR 1-6 Figure 3-11 (p 49).
First mistake. Figure 3-11 is a photo of one of the floor assemblies used in the fire tests after the test was over and the assembly had cooled. This figure gives no information at all about the deflections incurred during the test.
Second mistake. The "3 inches" figure is wrong. If ergo had consulted Table 3.1 Results of ASTM E119 Standard Fire Tests on the same page, s/he would be aware that while tests 1 and 4 were concluded because the assembly was at the point of imminent collapse, tests 2 and 3 were concluded because the deflections exceeded the capacity of the instrumentation to measure accurately. Consulting the text describing the results of the fire resitance rating tests, which is found on pp. 43-48, shows that deflections of up to 15 inches were measured.
quote:
Their computer result of 42 inches of sagging can be found in Chapter 9, Figure 9-6, p 297. But they don't say how they get 42 inches of sagging after 10 - 20 minutes (their estimate of the durration of the fires in the crash zone) from the 3 inches achieved in their test of 120 minutes at twice the floor loading.
Maybe I'm looking at this wrong, but it seems to me that if after 120 minutes with twice the floor load you get 3 inches of sagging, I would predict less sagging to occur after 20 minutes with the typical floor load.
Third mistake. ergo is indeed looking at it wrong, that is, trying to compare apples to bananas. In the fire resistance rating tests, heat was applied uniformly to test assemblies with completely intact insulation. In the global structural simulations done by NIST, the floor assemblies were subjected to temperatures which varied as a function of location and time, due to the fact that the fires changed in location and intensity as time went by, and the simulated floor assemblies had damage to insulation derived from the aircraft impact studies. Consequently, the behavior of a floor assembly in the standard fire resistance rating test can't be assumed to be predictive of its behavior under conditions different from those of the standard test.
quote:
Yours says "“The fire conditions in the towers on 9-11 were far more extreme than those to which floor systems in standard U.S. fire rating tests are subjected,” which is probably true. But UL didn't do these tests using "standard US fire ratings tests." UL conducted the tests to the temperature extremes NIST provided them based on their understanding of the heat of the fires in the WTC.
Fourth mistake. No evidence is given in support of this assertion, and it is contradicted by evidence which is readily available. From NIST NCSTAR 1-6(all bolding in quotes from NIST publications will be mine):
quote:
3.1.2 Purpose of the Standard Fire Tests
NIST conducted a series of four standard fire tests of the WTC floor system:
• to establish the baseline performance of the floor system of the WTC towers under thermal loading as they were originally built,
• to differentiate the factors that most influenced the response of the WTC floors to fires as they may relate to normal building and fire safety considerations and those unique to the events of September 11, 2001,
• to determine whether there was an adequate technical basis for the original fireproofing
specification, and
• to study the procedures and practices used to accept an innovative structural and fireproofing system.
These tests were conducted according to the standard ASTM E 119. NIST NCSTAR 1-6B, Section 2.1, General Description, p. 5, provides more information on testing under this standard:
quote:
The test methods described in ASTM E119 prescribe a standard fire exposure for comparing the test results of building construction assemblies. For the tests of floors and roofs, a test assembly is structurally loaded and the standard fire exposure is applied to the underside of the specimen. The assembly is evaluated for its ability to contain a fire by limiting passage of flame or hot gasses, and limiting heating of the unexposed surface, while maintaining the applied load. The assembly is given a rating, expressed in hours, based on these acceptance, or end-point, criteria. Revisions to the ASTM E 119 standard in 1971, introduced the concept of fire endurance classifications based on two conditions of support: restrained and unrestrained.
So why would NIST conduct standardized fire resistance rating tests when the results aren't directly useful in analyzing the behavior of the WTC towers after the airplane impacts?
This might be alien to patrons of the Alcoa Haberdashery Shoppe, but NIST's brief isn't to refute the fantasies of paranoid conspiracy theorists, nor to provide targets for our society's "sue the bastidges" instincts (in fact, if you read the disclaimers at the beginning of all of the NIST reports, you'll discover that the findings of their investigations into structural failures are specifically barred by law from being used as evidence in lawsuits). The purpose of their investigations is to develop information which will be useful to architects and engineers in designing safer structures. To that end, they took an interest in determining what fire resistance rating the floor assemblies of the WTC towers would have achieved in a standard test (which apparently was not done at the time of construction), and in the usefulness of such tests in predicting the actual endurance of "innovative" (i.e, new and nonstandard) building assemblies.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123NIST tested several pieces of steel from both the outer walls and the core collumns of the twin towers. The first test examined paint deformation on steel samples chosen specifically from the fire zones. Those tests showed less than 2% of the samples had reached temperatures above 250*C. Another test yielded the result that no steel samples saw temperatures above 600*C.
Fifth mistake: assuming that the small sampling tested by NIST is enough to make predictions about the temperatures reached by all of the structural steel. From NIST NCSTAR 1-3, Section 9.4.5, Fire Exposure and Temperatures Reached by the Steel p.132:
quote:
The pre-collapse photographic analysis showed that 16 of the 33 exterior panels recovered from WTC1 were exposed to fire prior to building collapse. None of the nine recovered panels from within the fire floors of WTC2 were observed to have been directly exposed.
It is difficult or impossible to determine if high-temperature exposure occurred prior to or after the collapse. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 21 exterior panels, only three locations had mud-cracking of the paint, indicating that the steel may have reached temperatures in excess of 250C. The 21 panels represent only 3 percent of all panels on the fire floors, however, and cannot be considered representative of other columns on these floors.
Annealing studies on recovered steels established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure. Based on the pre-collapse photographic evidence, the microstructures of steels known to have been exposed to fire were characterized. These microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600C for any significant time for the recovered pieces.
Perimeter columns exposed to fire had a great tendency for local buckling of the inner web; a similar correlation did not exist for weld failure.
Two of the core columns with as-built locations in the fire-affected floors were examined for paint cracking. The few areas with sufficient paint for analysis did not show mud cracking patterns, indicating the columns did not exceed 250C. (It must be recognized that the examined locations represent less than about one percent of the core columns located in the fire-exposed region, and thus these temperatures cannot be considered representative of general condidtions in the core).
And NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, Section 6.4 Summary p.235
quote:
NIST has documented approximately 3 percent of all perimeter columns and 1 percent of all core columns intersecting floors with pre-collapse fires. Thus, the preceding forensic analysis does not, and cannot, give a picture of temperatures seen by the vast majority of perimeter and core columns.
This assertion also reveals ergo123's sixth mistake, a lack of understanding of the concept of testing and validating a model. I'll try to give a simple example from my experience in using circuit simulation software.
If I design and model say, a simple two-transistor direct-coupled amplifier and then build and test the circuit, I don't need to measure the voltage at every node and the current in every branch to form an informed opinion of how well the model is reflecting reality. If I measure the collector voltage at the second transistor and find that the model predicted it within a reasonable error, I don't need to measure the collector current or the emitter voltage, because these latter are tightly coupled to the former, that is, if the one changes the others must also change and if I know the former I can accurately predict the latter with no need for a computer or a simulation.
In fact, all I need to get a good idea of how good my model is are comparisons between model and physical circuit at a few selected test points. If those are correct, I can have a high degree of confidence that other test points I might select will show a similar degree of correspondence. If the model accurately predicts the quiescent values at a few important test points and also accurately predicts some performance parameters like small-signal gain, total harmonic distortion and high-frequency rolloff, I can have an even higher degree of confidence in the fidelity of my model to reality. If it fails to correspond to measurement in one or more of these items, it shows that I need to refine the model and try again.
The data from analyzing a limited number of steel samples serves the same purpose in validating the fire dynamics and fire-structure interface models. If a piece of steel from a given location in the building is predicted to have reached a temperature not exceeding 250C and a sample of steel from that location is found not to have exceeded that temperature, it increases our confidence that the model will accurately predict the temperature histories of steel at locations from which we don't have a sample for forensic analysis. Similarly for steel found to have exceeded 250C but not 600C and so on.
In fact, if you examine the computer-generated global thermal response plots for the fire floors in NIST NCSTAR 1-6, it turns out that the models predicted temperatures over 250C for a relatively small number of columns (very few exterior columns for WTC 1; somewhat more for WTC 2, all concentrated on one side of the building) on specific floors.)
Since the probability of the small sampling obtained by NIST intersecting these limited number of hot locations is small, concluding that it falsifies the simulation results is unjustified; rather, it tends more to support the valididty of the simulations.
As far as I can see, the only thing which ergo123 has proved impossible is that s/he can manage even an informed layman's understanding of technical documents like the complex of NIST reports.
I therefore see no purpose whatsoever to continuing to argue technical minutiae with him/her.
I think I'm done with this subject. I only get two days off a week and now I've gone and pissed half of one away just to deal with a steaming load of tinfoil-hat Shinola.
|
"The Republican agenda is to turn the United States into a third-world shithole." -P.Z.Myers |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2006 : 22:17:48 [Permalink]
|
Thanks much, ktesibios, for taking time to supply the actual information that ergo123 and other CD woo-woos have so badly misrepresented. I read every word, with interest.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2006 : 00:12:23 [Permalink]
|
Great posts and nice work, ktesibios and kil.
I'm sure apologies from ergo for wasting your time will be shortly forthcoming.
P.S. What's the term for a person who turns out to be stupider than sheeple?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 11/02/2006 00:13:29 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 11/02/2006 : 02:56:20 [Permalink]
|
As my attention span is not up to slogging through a long, official document, I needed that. Thanks ktesibios!
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2006 : 06:00:48 [Permalink]
|
Wow! Thanks, ktesibios, for the careful and thorough post. And kil as well!
While the vast majority of reasonable people will appreciate and understand what you've done, I'm sure it will cause ego123 to respond with something along the lines of, "Did not!"
Good job though, and thanks for taking time to go through the mess of data. |
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
What did cause the Towers to collapse?
