NIST 9/11 Sussudio-science?- Truth deniers v Isaac Newton II

111 posts / 0 new
Last post
Fidel
NIST 9/11 Sussudio-science?- Truth deniers v Isaac Newton II

[url=http://rabble.ca/babble/humanities-science/nist-911-pseudo-science-truth...'t from here[/url]

Truth deniers vs Jas and Sir Isaac,  round number 36, I think. To your corners and come out debating at the bell. And break it up on mods' say so.  Ding-ding!

jas

vs. Jas?!!?

Fidel, your physics and math is probably better than mine! :)

Plus I'm behind on homework. But yes, we definitely need to get back to that question of free fall which NIST confirms, and Trevor's math from the last thread.

Fidel

I'm rusty on the math and fizzics. Trevor charged in like a lion who greets with fire and made some good comments, but I thought you owned the previous thread and uno before that. However, homework is way more important than the 9/11 cold case for sure. Cheers

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Wben I read "Sussudio science", I was wondering if somebody is now blaming Phil Collins for 9/11?  If so, I'm down with that!

 

Fidel

I always thought he as kind of shifty since he made that movie about the big bank heist.

NDPP

Who's Afraid of 9/11 Conspiracy Theories?

http://www.countercurrents.org/ocathail030410.htm

"Whenever someone insists too strongly about something not being true, we tend to suspect that maybe it is. In their denials of involvement in 9/11, do Israel's apologists 'protest too much'?

Dr. Alan Sabrosky, former director of studies of the Strategic Studies Institute at the US Army War College has recently stated that

'It is 100 percent certain that 9/11 was a Mossad operation. Period.'"

NorthReport

True dat!

Debunkers of Fictions Sift the Net

 

"When you're looking at truth versus gossip, truth doesn't stand a chance."

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/05/technology/05snopes.html?src=me&ref=ge...

Fidel

Oh gawd not the highschool psych evaluators again.

If a government of war criminals and thieves tried to [url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml]re... climate science[/url], then why should we believe they wouldn't try to rewrite 9/11 science, too, and bullying scientists working for the same federal agency?  Are we to believe that there exists no [url=http://www.ucsusa.org/]union of scientists[/url] concerned about political interference in their field of expertise?

Salsa

So what have we got so far ?

Both jas and Fidel saying they're not up on the whole math and physics of the collapse yet creating threads that claim that those collapses somehow violate the laws of physics. Why ? Because their cult leader tells them so. Then we have that constant reassertion that the towers came down at free fall speed, which anyone who reads the whole question 6 and applies a little critical thinking has to come to the conclusion that NIST was talking about the first pieces of debris to hit the ground when they said 9 and 13 seconds.

I mean really, do some research, you see countless videos of the towers coming down and debris falling faster than the mass of the buildings, yet truthers repeat the free fall mantra, just like their leaders tell them to.

Then we have Phil Collins, who was excellent when he was with genesis, yet somehow lost it on the solo career path. Just where, exactly, was HE on 911, enquiring minds want to know.

Then we have Dr. Alan Sabrosky, Mr. Impressive Credentials. You figure with the info that this guy must have had access to he'd have something of substance to say, names, dates, and maybe even a confession as to the part he played in the attack. But noooooooooooo, all he can do is repeat the old truther canard

 

"The Jews did it"

 

Then we have an excellent article on Snopes

 

And a typical Fidel diversion.

 

Come on guys, where's the smoking gun ?

Fidel

Come on, Salsa? I thought we were good from the last thread? What happy'd? Salsa, read the last post of the previous thread. Dr Manuel Garcia for the guvmint version of events pulls a few numbers from his secret shoe compartment. Then below that is a rebuke from Dr. Dave, a former project manager with DARPA no less, explaining how Garcia's force balance equation doesn't add up. And even it it did, Garcia's 600% momentary load increase on the lower block should have been easily contained by the massive, simply massive steel columns and outer floor beams designed to withstand a 2000% increase in live load momentarily.

According to Doc Garcia, ALL of the 250 massive, simply massive steel columns and beams failed at the exact same time over an instantaneous time interval of just 0.01 seconds! Incredible you say? Not even the NIST lackies claimed such a tiny fraction of time for complete failure. Can you believe those whackos and their anti-Newtonian fizzics? We knew you'd agree.

al-Qa'bong

Quote:

Then we have Phil Collins, who was excellent when he was with genesis, yet somehow lost it on the solo career path. Just where, exactly, was HE on 911, enquiring minds want to know.

 

The Collins reference is a diversion, like the airliner holograms that distracted the eye from the cruise missiles that did the damage.

 

The real culprit was Peter Gabriel.

 

Sledgehammer.

 

Check out those eerie, CIA-generated effects.

Fidel

What in hell are you on aboot now, Qa-bong? Can't you see we're discussing whacky fizzics according to the crazy George dubya 9/11ers? What would Randi the clownish climate change denier say? Have NISTers ever denied climate change in-line with political views of crazy dubya and neocons? Ya? YEEHAW!

Salsa

Fidel, we were cool on LiHOP, which was a topic you briefly diverted into. This is, again, MiHOP which, as I said, is a completely different animal than LiHOP.

So David L Griscom and the 2000%. What he's not telling you here is the difference between live load and dead weight, Nor is he mentioning that that 2000% "overbuild only applies on windless days and only applies to the perimiter colums.

Wonder why he left that information out ? See Ryan MacKey's whitepaper, pages 12 and 13 for elaboration on this issue.

 

David L Griscom, he's the guy that came up with this gem

 

Dr. Dave's website wrote:
An underlying postulate, or working hypothesis, of my earlier Pentagon model was that the passengers on AA-77 volunteered to feign their deaths in return for cushy "witness protection" programs. This concept is not original to me. It was explored by the CIA in the early 60s as a component of a scheme to fake the shoot-down of an American airliner over international waters as a justification for invading Castro's Cuba. "The plan [Project Northwoods] was to replace said aircraft with an identical drone, flown by remote control, and land the original plane at an [Air Force] base where passengers, boarded under prepared aliases, would be evacuated. The drone would then fly the route and when over Cuba, emit a distress signal before being destroyed by radio signal."

I envision a similar 9/11 scheme, but one where the passengers boarded under their true names. Indeed, the seat occupancies on all four aircraft allegedly hijacked on 9/11 were very much lower that industry average (averaging 26% of capacity vis-à-vis 71% for all domestic flights in July 2001). So, here I extend my "all passengers survived" postulate to all four 9/11 "hijacked" flights on the notion that this small number of passengers might have been considered by conspirators as the minimum number for public credulity, while at the same time not exceeding the maximum number of "true believers in the cause" willing to accept long separations from their loved ones (sweetened by handsome Swiss bank accounts).

 

He's saying the passengers are still alive and enjoying a life of luxury in some unknown location

 

Still want to cite him as a reliable source?

Snert Snert's picture

You'd think that there would have to be all kinds of people who, when approached with the offer of $1M (or whatever) to pretend to die and to never see their loved ones again (oh, and of course to help perpetrate evil against their country and aid in the actual murder of a few thousand office workers!) might have said "no thanks".

You'd also think that some of those people might have later said to a friend, relative or co-worker "Guess what *I* got offered today..."

Unless of course Rumsfeld just ordered them murdered.  I mean, we're considering anything, no matter how plainly stupid, yes?

Michelle

Actually, I find the latter more believable than the former, Snert!  (Of course, this is on a scale of "unbelievable" to "fantastically, super-unbelievable".)

Salsa

Yes, it's interesting how "truthers" can switch between ordinary, everyday stupid like insisting the towers came down at free fall speed by mangling a NIST FAQ quote and ignoring the collapse videos hosted on truther sites showing this is clearly not the case and weapons grade stupid like the Griscom quote above.

al-Qa'bong

Fidel wrote:

What in hell are you on aboot now, Qa-bong? Can't you see we're discussing whacky fizzics according to the crazy George dubya 9/11ers? What would Randi the clownish climate change denier say? Have NISTers ever denied climate change in-line with political views of crazy dubya and neocons? Ya? YEEHAW!

If I read you correctly, you're trying to demonstrate that someone else is batty?

jas

Salsa wrote:
Yes, it's interesting how "truthers" can switch between ordinary, everyday stupid like insisting the towers came down at free fall speed by mangling a NIST FAQ quote and ignoring the collapse videos hosted on truther sites showing this is clearly not the case and weapons grade stupid like the Griscom quote above.

Apparently Salsa has nothing better to do. Wants to get his fight back on. 

Stupid is a pretty strong word for someone to be using who's already demonstrated that he can't read or understand a scientific paper.

As for NIST's confirmation of free fall, I've already provided the source, from the horse's mouth. You can continue to ignore that or call it "lying" but we all know who's the stupid here.

Perhaps Salsa would like to answer the question, however, how this equation 

Trevormkidd wrote:
(0.5)x(1000)x(0)

represents the resistance of 75 and 91 intact floors of the WTC and where upward normal force is represented; as well as how the rest of Trevor's math from the last thread works in any case, and expecially without the accumulation of floors, which is not confirmed by either NIST or the truth scientists. 

If he's not able to do this, maybe Salsa could go find some other thread in which to get his ya-yas out.  

Fidel

Salsa wrote:
Fidel, we were cool on LiHOP, which was a topic you briefly diverted into. This is, again, MiHOP which, as I said, is a completely different animal than LiHOP.

Imagine that your wife is murdered. There was a five million dollar life insurance policy with you as the benefactor. And during the kangaroo trial, you say nothing to the jury that you and the perps are not only well acquainted, you did business together on a number of occasions. Do you see anything wrong with this scenario? Would it be possible, and especially now that you're richer as a result of a probable false flag job on your wife,  that you were trying to hide something during the kangaroo trial? What's wrong with failing to act to save your wife from being murdered by people you knew were going to murder her?

Salsa wrote:
So David L Griscom and the 2000%. What he's not telling you here is the difference between live load and dead weight, Nor is he mentioning that that 2000% "overbuild only applies on windless days and only applies to the perimiter colums.

Wonder why he left that information out ? See Ryan MacKey's whitepaper, pages 12 and 13 for elaboration on this issue.

9/11 was a bright sunny day. and the buildings were designed to withstand 140 mph winds and jumbo jet collisions. Jas mentioned this before. And yes, the massive outer columns alone were designed to withstand a 2000% increase in live load. The inner steel columns were even more massive. They eventually backed off the pancake theory, and the latest Bushism from NIST is that connections to the outer support columns held during impact in order that outer walls were pulled inward during collapse.

What Garcia and Griscom are describing is the instantaneous time interval during which there was total failure of the 250 massive inner core columns and out support beams. This is directly related to the overall calculations for collapse time.And they are describing the force balance that was applied to the top floor of the lower block on impact. Do you believe that ALL 250 massive support columns and outer beams failed simultaneously in 1/100th of a second? Are you really that gullible?

Remember, the goal is to describe in technical terms why the buildings collapsed as fast into their own footprints as they did not why they werent still standing. Garcia's factor of 6.1 and instantaneous time interval for total collapse are pulled out of thin air and make little sense to me nor Griscom, and it makes no sense for more than 1000 architects and engineers with a combined 25,000 years of on the job experience. This is why the feds came out later with a propaganda piece in "Popular Mechanics", a magazine that has nothing to do with peer reviewed science and is still owned by a family of warfiteers.

Salsa wrote:
David L Griscom, he's the guy that came up with this gem

He's saying the passengers are still alive and enjoying a life of luxury in some unknown location

Still want to cite him as a reliable source?

Why not? Can you prove him wrong?

Can you tell us where Al-CIA'da hijacking specialist [url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3422]Ali Mohamed[/url] is today? I didn't think so. His wife says she's been instructed not to speak to the press concerning his whereabouts. He's probably been erased and offered federal witness protection. And I think the feds have opened themselves up to all kinds of conspiracy theories as a result. The war criminals surely will not appreciate wild conspiracy theories like Griscom's, and they would surely love to be able to cough up evidence that they have no connections whatsoever to five 9/11 hijackers who were granted entry visas into the US by CIA officials, trained in terrorism at secure military facilities on US soil etc.

Griscom was an engineering project manager for DARPA. I still don't see anyone here is challenging his credentials

prisonernumberone prisonernumberone's picture

For an examination of the absurd idea that the destruction of the twin towers should be described as a collapse or even that they could have collapsed  [sic]  at all or even more absurdly due to reasons outlined in the official 911 lie there is an interesting presentation recently posted by Jim Fetzer and Chuck Boldwyn. 

I find audio presentations which talks one through web pages particularly effective to convey understanding.

http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/

http://911scholars.ning.com/photo

cheers

bc

Salsa

It's OK jas, there's no need to throw all the toys out of the pram.

I understand, we all want to believe in something, something we saw, something we heard, something we learned, something we read and then along comes science and reason with it's hobnailed jackboots and crushes those beliefs. We've all been there, we've been through the lemmings thing, the bumblebees can't fly thing, the you only use 10% of your brain thing.... and quite often we've repeated those things only to find out we've been fostering untruths, sometimes for years.

The world is full of scams and full of gullible people. I know, it's disheartening to propose a view on a topic only to be shown again and again that that view is a falsehood. We tend to dig in our heels and even venture into the absurd like taking figurative language about the buildings essentially falling at free fall speed and interpret it literally in order to reassure ourselves that events that didn't happen must have happened. Sometimes, this is called religious fundamentalism.

But if you're happy espousing a worldview about events that literally millions of scientists, engineers and architects have explored and found lacking in credibility and using that worldview to hurl accusations of mass murder, then I think it's only fair to have that worldview called into question....don't you ? 

Salsa

Fidel

We've covered this ground before.

The towers survived the impact, an impact at speeds much faster than they were engineered for.

Do you know what "live load" means ?

NIST backed off the pancake theory but only up until collapse initiation. That's all they were tasked to analyse, not the collapse itself and certainly not the aftermath.

When you're out walking in the woods and you step on a twig, how long does it take to fail ? Why should scale have anything to do with speed of failure?

Those cough1000cough A&E's aren't making much noise are they ? It's all Gage and given the epic failure of his press conference last month, he'll only be going as long as the donations keep coming in. What about the millions of A&Es that don't support Gage.

No, Popular Mechanics isn't peer reviewed, why should it be. The NIST report was and lest we forget, it's the truth movement that's making the accusations and they're the ones that need to come out with the proper peer reviewed science if they want to sell their ideas to people who know their fields. It's simple really, you make the accusation, you provide the evidence as to why that accusation should be taken seriously. If the truth movement wants to use science and engineering to prove their case, then use science and engineering that's not being laughed at by millions of their peers.

The war criminals will continue to laugh at conspiracy theorists until they get it right.

mmphosis

Motive.

I am not going to be distracted by conspiracy theories, the official one, the one about aliens, Popular Mechanics be damned, the replaying over and over and over again by the msm of two planes hitting two towers and cutting quickly to two towers falling into their footprint.  Yes, the idea that lots of people would need to be paid off, murdered, or silenced is "unbelievable" to "fantastically, super-unbelievable".  Whether it was LiHOP or MiHOP or whatever, look at motive.

Motive.  Look at motive.

December 2000.  George W. Bush under bright lights on TV declares himself president.  Oops.

December 2000/January 2001.  The Vice President watches every republican refuse to let him become president.  Watch the clip in Michael Moore's movie Fahreinheit 911.

January 2001.  The US supreme court assigns George W. Bush the presidency even though Al Gore got more votes.

February/March 2001.  George W. Bush cuts funds to employing people in Dot Com.

March 2001.  Dot Com crashes.  The bubble bursts.

Spring 2001.  US militars threaten to bomb Afghanistan into oblivion.

Summer 2001.  "Pearl Harbor" the movie comes out.  Lame duck president George W. Bush hangs out at his ranch, ignores intelligence reports, and the stock market continues to take a huge plunge.  Larry Silverstein buys the asbestos filled WTC and a huge insurance policy.

September 2001, prior to 9/11.  The stock market is collapsing.  The unlocked towers get some network infrastructure installed.

9/11.  Boom!  Lots of unanswered questions.  But the msm plays the same video over and over and over again.

Three weeks later, the US invades Afghanistan.

At the command of Prime Minister Paul Martin and some committees stacked with militars, Canada follows the US into Afghanistan even though the majority of Canadians are opposed to this act.  It's 2010, and the majority of Canadians are still opposed to the so-called mission. But, the Canadian government is still committed to whatever it is we are doing in Afghanistan.  $20,000,000,000 a year for the Canadian military.  An executive minority government trying to prorogue away any idea that something is amiss.

Motive.  Follow the money.

 

Fidel

Salsa wrote:
Fidel

We've covered this ground before.

The towers survived the impact, an impact at speeds much faster than they were engineered for.

Do you know what "live load" means ?

NIST backed off the pancake theory but only up until collapse initiation. That's all they were tasked to analyse, not the collapse itself and certainly not the aftermath.

I think you're trying to suggest that planes caused far more damage to the towers than meets the eye. Yes, and the official conspiracy says that "vibrations" knocked off all of the fire-proofing cladding steel beams and support columns. Even if steel could be weakened by fire alone, it would take a lot longer than what the official conspiracy mongers have suggested. And why should anyone believe that sooner than the simpler explanation requiring far fewer assumptions that the steel columns and beams were cut using nano-thermite? There is evidence for unreacted thermite at ground zero, whereas numerous wild assumptions become less likely the more of them that are proposed by official conspiracy theorists.

Garcia and Griscom are actually describing collapse initiation. Garcia says that the upper block descent of 3 metres was unimpeded whatsoever. None of the massive floor beams or support columns so much as twistedm bent, contorted, or resisted a downward force balance that was, according to his own figures pulled out of thin air, several times less than what was pre-engineered for. And the lower block's massive, simply massive steel support structure was designed to withstand a 2000% increase in live load not just the 600% doctor Garcia insists was the case. And, no, there were no hurricane winds that day or anything close to a sudden 2000 percent increase in live load on the lower block. 

And given that, dr Garcia says that ALL 250 massive inner core support columns, as well as the lighter outer support beams over-designed to withstand a 2000% increase in live load, failed instantaneously inside of a whiplash 1/100th of a second - the other variable in his force calculation pulled from thin air. 

Not only does Garcia's force balance calculations make no sense to a former engineering manager for DARPA, Griscom says that Garcia's attempt to provide a reasonable explanation for collapse initiation is flawed from the beginning. We can only assume that Garcia himself must have understood what kind of target readership in general he intended to convince with his fluff piece on collapse initiation.

Salsa wrote:
When you're out walking in the woods and you step on a twig, how long does it take to fail ? Why should scale have anything to do with speed of failure?

I suppose that if I step on a twig designed to snap sometime after a downward force balance of 2000% over and above load(dead load+live load) is applied, then we should not be surprised when it does snap. But certainly not with just a 600% increase, even if that was the case. And least of all, the over-designed twig should not fail with a downward force of anything less than 600% increase in live load(dead load+live), which was far more likely the case according to that former DARPA engineering manager and Fox Mulder wannabe Dave Griscom. 

Salsa

Fidel wrote:
the official conspiracy says that "vibrations" knocked off all of the fire-proofing cladding steel beams and support columns

Yes, we know this, are you suggesting this didn't happen?

 

 

Quote:
Even if steel could be weakened by fire alone,

 

Are you saying it can't ?

 

Quote:
 it would take a lot longer than what the official conspiracy mongers have suggested

 

How do you know this?

 

Quote:
And why should anyone believe that sooner than the simpler explanation requiring far fewer assumptions that the steel columns and beams were cut using nano-thermite?

 

Wrong, the truther theory requires far more assumptions.

 

 

Quote:
There is evidence for unreacted thermite at ground zero

 

No there isn't Jones found rust and red paint flecks.

 

Quote:
 Garcia says that the upper block descent of 3 metres was unimpeded whatsoever

 

Does he...where?  

 

Quote:
designed to withstand a 2000% increase in live load

 

Have you figured out what the term "live load" means in this instance ? Yet ?

 

Quote:
failed instantaneously inside of a whiplash 1/100th of a second - the other variable in his force calculation pulled from thin air.

 

this is the speed at which the fasteners attaching the floor to the columns failed, prove that he pulled this figure from "thin air"  

 

Quote:
Griscom says that Garcia's attempt to provide a reasonable explanation for collapse initiation is flawed from the beginning

 

And the reason you trust Griscom, the man who published the idea that the plane passengers didn't die but were paid off to take one for the team and accept a cash payout, which is nothing more than an insulting slap in the face to the grieving families, is what, exactly. Need I post that No One Died on 911 video again ?

Fidel

Snert wrote:
You'd also think that some of those people might have later said to a friend, relative or co-worker "Guess what *I* got offered today..."

I think it's probably a case that the guvmint understands, as does Griscom, that certain percentage of the population will glom onto this conspiracy theory and begin questioning the official version. Meanwhile the feds become more and more irritated by the fact that so many people don't believe the 9/11 whitewash.

The feds would love to put all of these conspiracy theories to rest once and for all. The problem is...

THEY CAN'T! Not without more government accountability and transparency needed for a real investigation. They know people like Griscom are fanning the flames of discontent over 9/11. And they can not or do not want to do anything about it for reasons of "national security." They can't produce any legal evidence regarding 9/11 guilt or why two steel towers(heavily insured white elephants) fell down that day, or why their own investigators ignored completely a third WTC building that fell down from fright that day. 9/11 has been a total sham from the beginning, and half the world knows it.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Salsa wrote:

And the reason you trust Griscom, the man who published the idea that the plane passengers didn't die but were paid off to take one for the team and accept a cash payout, which is nothing more than an insulting slap in the face to the grieving families, is what, exactly. Need I post that No One Died on 911 video again ?

You know I find it interesting that so few people ever put forward the hypothesis that in the final construction phase of the building (which was way way over due for completion) pressured contractors cut corners to get the job done, and hence the buildings did not even have the structural integrity that they were theoretically supposed to have. This is not unheard of. Indeed inferior grade materials, and shoddy construction practices have been the cause of many serious structural failures in buildings, even without outside factors.

This is as likely as anything else, and also, worthy of a significant cover-up.

Its also far more "real world" than most of the theories out there.

Salsa

Fidel wrote:
THEY CAN'T!

 

Sure they can, after all this is the gubbmint that apparently murdered 3000 of it's own citizens ( except the passengers on the planes, for some reason they decided to spare them ) so why not a few "black bag" type raids, some trumped up terrorism charges a serious "othering" campaign against truthers. Easy Peasy.

Salsa

Cueball wrote:
This is as likely as anything else, and also, worthy of a significant cover-up.

 

Interesting, I've never run across that theory before, I'll look into it.

Fidel

Salsa wrote:

Fidel wrote:
the official conspiracy says that "vibrations" knocked off all of the fire-proofing cladding steel beams and support columns

Yes, we know this, are you suggesting this didn't happen?

What truthers are saying is that there is no physical proof that this or very many of the other official conspiracy theorists' wild assumptions needed for their collapse initiation scenarios actually occurred. 

These wild assumptions amount to leaps of faith, Salsa. That you have faith in their wild assumptions is what they are asking of you and millions of other people. As far as official conspiracy theorists are concerned, they don't have to fool everyone for the official conspiracy theory to be effective.  

 

Salsa wrote:
Fidel wrote:
Even if steel could be weakened by fire alone,

Are you saying it can't ?

I'm saying there were eye witnesses who saw large amounts of molten steel in all of the trade centre basements in the weeks after. Video footage shows what looks a lot like orange to white-hot molten steel pouring out the side of the south tower. The official conspiracy theorists and newz media all ignored those eye witnesses and first responders - everyone from construction workers to engineers on-sight.

Fidel wrote:
And why should anyone believe that sooner than the simpler explanation requiring far fewer assumptions that the steel columns and beams were cut using nano-thermite?

Salsa wrote:
Wrong, the truther theory requires far more assumptions.

How do you know that? I was somewhat neutral before reading about it myself. Everything I've read says it was a coverup. People have been coerced, threatened and bullied into accepting a pack of lies regarding 9/11. 

Fidel wrote:
There is evidence for unreacted thermite at ground zero

Salsa wrote:
No there isn't Jones found rust and red paint flecks.

Nano-chemistry expert [url=http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/000000... Harrit[/url] said there were highly energetic red and grey chips that when ignited produce iron-rich metallic balls. Are you familiar with nano-chemistry? Not many civilian engineers and chemists are according to Harrit. Nano explosives are a specialty item in military applications. Our 9/11 debunker friend Dr Manuel Garcia works at a university where nano-thermitic materials are developed for military and other applications.

Fidel wrote:
 Garcia says that the upper block descent of 3 metres was unimpeded whatsoever

Salsa wrote:
Does he...where?

Ah, so you  haven't read Griscom's essay. Griscom wrote:

Quote:
 Well, Dr. Garcia’s dynamic-force calculation assumes the “upper block” to have been in [url=http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/e/hand-waving-the%20physics-o... free-fall(pdf)[/url] for the full 3 meter drop, whereas if some steel columns simply refused to bend or break at the same time, the “upper block” would have descended those 3 meters without picking up nearly as much speed.

In fact, Dr. Garcia’s concealed assumption that all support columns lost ALL of their strength – from floor to ceiling – at a single instant in time (much shorter than the 0.78-second 3-meter free-fall time) is unsupported by any evidence, or even by any claim made by NIST.

Fidel wrote:
failed instantaneously inside of a whiplash 1/100th of a second - the other variable in his force calculation pulled from thin air.

Salsa wrote:
this is the speed at which the fasteners attaching the floor to the columns failed, prove that he pulled this figure from "thin air"

Eh? No. 0.01 second is an instantaneous time interval(calculus), the derivative d with respect to t which Garcia pulls out of thin air in order to account for his upper block descent rate of 7.7m/s. What Garcia is describing is the time interval that ALL 250 inner steel core columns and outer columns and beams failed in less than the blink of an eye! - which is a lot more incredible than apparently youre understanding. The latest official conspiracy theory has "the fasteners" holding in order to pull outer walls inward and down.

In fact, Griscom goes on to say that any tilting of a 63.4-meters-square WTC floor by mere 1 degree would increase dt from Garcia's guesstimate of dt = 0.01 second all the way to dt = 0.14 second, "giving the instantaneous total force of the falling “upper block” on the lower structure of just 1.3 times the static weight of the “upper block” instead of the 6.1 times as estimated in his “example.” And from video footage it's clear that the upper block did tilt as much as 23 degrees! So Garcia's calculations are way off.

jas

Fidel wrote:

Quote:
There is evidence for unreacted thermite at ground zero

Salsa wrote:
No there isn't Jones found rust and red paint flecks.

Nano-chemistry expert [url=http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/000000... Harrit[/url] said there were highly energetic red and grey chips that when ignited produce iron-rich metallic balls. Are you familiar with nano-chemistry? Not many civilian engineers and chemists are according to Harrit. Nano explosives are a specialty item in military applications. Our 9/11 debunker friend Dr Manuel Garcia works at a university where nano-thermitic materials are developed for military and other applications.

Judging by how Salsa handles obvious, publicly available contradictions to his completely self-invented assertions, I am guessing he will completely ignore this and come back tomorrow with some new tirade.