Yet more proof.

[BeElBeeBub]

How do you explain the fact 31,000, yes 31,000 scientists sign a petition denying AGW.
Do you think this number of PHD's are insane?
Scientists sign petition denying man-made global warming

More than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition denying that man is responsible for global warming.

The link is Here

A telegraph article from 2008 about a petition from 1998,

The names and qualifications were unverified and *even if* every single name and qualification were true (Dr Geri Halliwell was a signatory) the list contains less than 500 people claiming to have a relevant qualification (climatology, atmospheric science and meteorology)

The meteorologists (the bulk of the 500) are out outnumbered by the Metallurgists.

[papasmurf]

He probably has some conspiracy theory about them all misleading us.  🤣

Look at the date.

[Scott777]

How do you explain the fact 31,000, yes 31,000 scientists sign a petition denying AGW.
Do you think this number of PHD's are insane?
Scientists sign petition denying man-made global warming

More than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition denying that man is responsible for global warming.

The link is Here

He probably has some conspiracy theory about them all misleading us.  🤣

[Nick]

Again we drift away from the original topic.

None of the discussion about GPS signal degradation or the investigation affects our ability to rely on historic temperature measurements.

In particular because those functions are nothing to do with the main job of the NIST - providing measurement services and also because the UKs NPL.has nothing to do with either GPS or the WTC attacks.

This thread branch is an ad-homine attack to distract from the fact "climate change is just measurement error" is failed argument.

How do you explain the fact 31,000, yes 31,000 scientists sign a petition denying AGW.
Do you think this number of PHD's are insane?
Scientists sign petition denying man-made global warming

More than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition denying that man is responsible for global warming.

The link is Here

[Scott777]

Gonna ignore you 'til you drift back to topic

Of course you will ignore it, because you can't justify using NIST as a source of your climate bollox.  Same goes for the IPCC, but I notice you also ignored their bollox, as shown in post #268, showing they misrepresented data.

[BeElBeeBub]

Oh, sure.  That's all it was.  It was "different".  In your imagination, that counts as an explanation.  Seriously, if that's all NIST can tell you, then they are dunces.  🤣

What was so different that Grenfell had no floor failures, after burning for 60 hours?  Was WTC7 engineered by clowns?

Gonna ignore you 'til you drift back to topic 

[Scott777]

Grenfell was a different construction and had no floor failures.

Oh, sure.  That's all it was.  It was "different".  In your imagination, that counts as an explanation.  Seriously, if that's all NIST can tell you, then they are dunces.  🤣

What was so different that Grenfell had no floor failures, after burning for 60 hours?  Was WTC7 engineered by clowns?

[BeElBeeBub]

Again we drift away from the original topic.

None of the discussion about GPS signal degradation or the investigation affects our ability to rely on historic temperature measurements.

In particular because those functions are nothing to do with the main job of the NIST - providing measurement services and also because the UKs NPL.has nothing to do with either GPS or the WTC attacks.

This thread branch is an ad-homine attack to distract from the fact "climate change is just measurement error" is failed argument.

[BeElBeeBub]

Showing your ignorance again.  WTC7 had reinforced concrete cores.  So then, by your own statement, they were resistant to fire.  So you have failed to show that NIST gave an explanation for complete collapse of WTC7, and yet Grenfell never did collapse at all.  And that's why NIST is BS, and cannot tell you anything about the climate bollox.

Just read the flipping report 

"The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.
According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.
Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories

The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line—involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, and 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.
The probable collapse sequence is described in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, Section 2.4 and NIST NCSTAR Report 1-9, Chapter 13."

Grenfell was a different construction and had no floor failures.

[Scott777]

Grenfell was (again) a reinforced concrete column structure IE the compression loads were carried by concrete columns with steel reinforcement.

WTC7 was a steel framed external structure - the compression loads were carried by steel columns with a concrete core.

They're totally different constructions with different fire responses (a reinforced concrete column being very resistant to fire.

You started this banging on about steel beams not melting - a fundamental misconception. Steel does not need to be heated to anywhere near melting point to lose the majority of it's strength.

Repeating that melting mantra is an indication of ignorance about the subject.

Plus it adds nothing to the discussion about how we can be sure historical temperature readings were accurate

Showing your ignorance again.  WTC7 had reinforced concrete cores.  So then, by your own statement, they were resistant to fire.  So you have failed to show that NIST gave an explanation for complete collapse of WTC7, and yet Grenfell never did collapse at all.  And that's why NIST is BS, and cannot tell you anything about the climate bollox.

[BeElBeeBub]

I understand that the official line it was removed, but my experience tells me it is still alive and kicking. Why would they not deploy something that makes the job harder for Russia?

I mean, the US retains the ability to switch off the civilian signal but the signal degradation is no longer there. The accuracy you can achieve is basically the physical limit of the system.  That's not to say the military don't have better accuracy (and certainly better jamming and spoofing resistance).

Every day, all around the world thousands of organisations rely on the accuracy being 3m and not 100m (as it was with degradation). Logistics tracking, fitness trackers, car navigation, air navigation, livestock tracking, geo fencing the list goes on.  None of this would be possible if the signal was drifting and had the 100m accuracy 

Have you cross checked your GPS receiver (say in your phone) against a known reference?  I regularly walk past an OS triangulation station (not this one)

And the GPS coordinates are pretty much bang on within a few meters.

Russia is definitely jamming GPS signals both within and without it's borders.


"Bad GPS when I went to Russia" is not evidence the US are fiddling.

The poor GPS performance in Russia is definitely something that favours Russia, if the GPS signal were clean, Ukraine would have a much easier job striking deep into Russia.

I had an existing contract with a German OEM who had a contract with a Russian manufacturer. I was asked to go and they made it worth my while.

What was your impression if how the regular Russians felt about things?

[Nick]

It was like that (and the error was randomised too) prior to 2000. It was called selective availability.

It was discontinued (as shown by the links in 2000. The current accuracy is about 3.5m (down from 100m previously) but that is obviously subject to good conditions.

I wasn't doubting that you went. I was just curious about going at all. The advice is (and has been afaik) not to go.

There seems to be a non-zero risk of being caught up in politics shenanigans eg Gershkovich, Griner etc

Was your assesment that was not a risk? Or that your trip was worth the risk?

I understand that the official line it was removed, but my experience tells me it is still alive and kicking. Why would they not deploy something that makes the job harder for Russia?

I had an existing contract with a German OEM who had a contract with a Russian manufacturer. I was asked to go and they made it worth my while.

[BeElBeeBub]

Thanks for clarifying that WTC1/2 did not contribute to collapse of WTC7.

#8 says nothing about structural damage.  #16 says  "The debris from WTC 1 caused structural damage to the southwest region of WTC 7—severing seven exterior columns—but this structural damage did not initiate the collapse.", and "The debris impact caused no damage to the spray-applied fire-resistive material that was applied to the steel columns, girders and beams except in the immediate vicinity of the severed columns."  NOTE, it doesn't say these severed columns were steel, or important for keeping the building up.

According to NIST, collapse was caused by office fires.  So remind me again, what was so remarkable about Grenfell?

Grenfell was (again) a reinforced concrete column structure IE the compression loads were carried by concrete columns with steel reinforcement.

WTC7 was a steel framed external structure - the compression loads were carried by steel columns with a concrete core. 

They're totally different constructions with different fire responses (a reinforced concrete column being very resistant to fire.

You started this banging on about steel beams not melting - a fundamental misconception. Steel does not need to be heated to anywhere near melting point to lose the majority of it's strength.

Repeating that melting mantra is an indication of ignorance about the subject.

Plus it adds nothing to the discussion about how we can be sure historical temperature readings were accurate 

[BeElBeeBub]

No, the system works by the US adding an error to GPS and they only issue the correction to allies, it's a very simple system.

It was like that (and the error was randomised too) prior to 2000. It was called selective availability.

It was discontinued (as shown by the links in 2000. The current accuracy is about 3.5m (down from 100m previously) but that is obviously subject to good conditions.

As for Russia, I went twice: once in Nov 2022 and again in January 2023. The proof is on this website in the form of a video.

 I wasn't doubting that you went. I was just curious about going at all. The advice is (and has been afaik) not to go.

There seems to be a non-zero risk of being caught up in politics shenanigans eg Gershkovich, Griner etc

Was your assesment that was not a risk? Or that your trip was worth the risk?

[Scott777]

Go read the summary faqs, in particular #8 and #16

https://www.nist.gov/world-trade-center-investigation/study-faqs/wtc-7-investigation#Collapse

Thanks for clarifying that WTC1/2 did not contribute to collapse of WTC7.

#8 says nothing about structural damage.  #16 says  "The debris from WTC 1 caused structural damage to the southwest region of WTC 7—severing seven exterior columns—but this structural damage did not initiate the collapse.", and "The debris impact caused no damage to the spray-applied fire-resistive material that was applied to the steel columns, girders and beams except in the immediate vicinity of the severed columns."  NOTE, it doesn't say these severed columns were steel, or important for keeping the building up.

According to NIST, collapse was caused by office fires.  So remind me again, what was so remarkable about Grenfell?