babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Activists & Alternative Media v 9/11 Truth Movement? III

102 replies [Last post]

Comments

HeywoodFloyd
Offline
Joined: Jun 26 2003

HeywoodFloyd wrote:

Fidel wrote:

 You can't fill in missing facts or explain away bullshit physics with Occam's razor.

 

So Fidel...just to be clear:

Do you consider the following to be bullshit physics?

Quote:

.Rather, the ball will possess a velocity of v1 = 1/2(v2) + 9.8t. Where v1 is the final velocity of the ball being collided into, and v2 is the velocity of the first ball the instant before it collides with the second. Basically, the idea is that when one ball strikes the second ball, the whole unit will still be moving at 1/2 the speed the one ball was moving before contact was make.

The answer folks was yes. He considers Physics to be BS.


Snert
Offline
Joined: Nov 4 2008

I have to wonder if, ten years from now, we'll still be going all the way back to first principles to try to satisfy the nutters.

This all reminds me of a case study from my first year Psychology elective, concerning a man whose hippocampus had been damaged, and who therefore had short term memory, but could not move short term memories to long term.  As a result, he asked the same questions over and over again, believing them to be a new question each time.

And I can picture him in my mind's eye asking "What about WTC  7????" over and over and over and over.


jas
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2005

West Coast Greeny wrote:

Jas, when I say the phase "velocities of zero", I want you to take a look at the chart in Case III posted (and actually Case II as well). The charts appear to make the assumption that once one floor runs into another, the downwards velocity of the collapsing building is reset to zero. Basic physics holds this isn't the case. Do you understand where I'm getting at? 

Thanks, WCG. I don't actually see what you are saying. The diagram made sense to me, but I admit it was the explanation that made the most sense. She is describing a hypothetical situation, which attempts to describe symmetrical collapse based on the force of gravity alone. She doesn't pretend to say it is the model for the actual collapse: "Minimum time for the collapse, if every floor collapsed like dominos." She is saying that, under the assumptions of the official theory, the collapse was triggered by the progressive failing of upper floors moving from the top down, (and not, for example, the failing of lower floors, since they did not sustain any damage from the plane impact), and she is assuming no resistance, which is extremely generous to the actual situation.

In other words, we can't have floor 40 beginning its descent at the same time as floor 70 (as you might have more closely occurring in a controlled demolition). Each floor has to "wait" for the floor above it to collapse before it can begin its descent, which, if you think about it, makes no sense. Again, these are the assumptions of the "progressive collapse" theory. So either I am misunderstanding the mechanics of the progressive collapse theory and how she is interpreting it, or the progressive collapse theory makes no sense. Since this author is an engineer, and since there are 1,000+ other architects and engineers also saying it's bogus, I am guessing it's the latter. But please, obviously, let me know if I've misunderstood what you're saying. Where, for example does the diagram assume a velocity of zero at each step of collapse, and how is this relevant to your argument? Thanks.

Quote:
I take the same approach with 9/11 as I do with climate change - I appeal to a judicious combination of authority and my own intuition.

I like the way you put this, and I completely agree. This is exactly the way I am approaching this issue.


Salsa
Offline
Joined: Dec 14 2008

Jas

Appealing to your own intuition on things like buildings collapsing probably isn't the best way to go unless you have some serious prior experience in building demolitions. As a for instance, the truth movement quite often state's that Silverstein's comment "pull it" meant it was time to set off the charges in WTC 7 and claim that is a common term used in the demolition industry. It's not, and never has been, the truth movement made that up as part of their sales pitch.

THE best way to get to the bottom of this is to not only read the information , but to search out critiques of that information as well. Is the billiard ball analogy even revalent to building collapses? That's what you need to find out.

Yes, Richard Gage has *cough a thousand cough* architects and engineers on his list of supporters but so what ? Does he vet these supporters, or will he take anyone who submits their ( or somebody else's ) name. One thing to keep in mind is Gage does this for a living, see his 24 hour a day telethon website or put yourself on his mailing list. He's got motivations other than "truth" for keeping up this show of his.

Then there's Judy Wood. She of the Directed Energy Weapons school of thought on what "really" happened on 911, the person who purports that Steven Jones is a government agent to "discredit free energy in the public eye, and to mislead the 9/11 Truth Movement with deceitful research." ( from her website )

 

She's either A Batshit crazy or B Making stuff up.

 

If you're really interested in following up the science behind 911, I suggest the forums over at The James Randi Educational Foundation. They have literally hundreds of 911 threads including this currently active one on Judy Wood

 

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=169385


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

But Randi is a retired clown. And crazy George Bush is, well, still crazier than ten barrels of monkey poo


Snert
Offline
Joined: Nov 4 2008

I seem to recall you having harsh words for Randi in other contexts as well.  Too much debunking of that paranormal nonsense that enchants you, Fidel?  Is he pointing out the hidden trap door and wrecking all the magic?


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

I think Randi did a stint on "the magic clown" some years ago. Like most uncritical,  pro-crazy George non-truthers, Randi is not a scientist either.

BBC now admits Al Qaeda never existed

Al-Qa'eda = Al-CIA'duh


jas
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2005

Salsa, just about anyone has the ability to intuitively understand that 110-storey buildings cannot symmetrically collapse to the ground in the time that everyone witnessed them to (9-13 seconds) if you factor in resistance that each floor must provide. People understand this because it's a common sense thing to understand, like an apple falling to the ground.

So, yes, I do trust my intuition on it, and I trust the science that qualified people are presenting to explain it. Mainly because they're using the science that we all know. It's not some kind of made-up fairy-tale accounting designed to explain what in reality is not explainable by those means. Whatever other theories Judy Wood has do not discredit her qualifications in engineering and materials engineering science or her explanation of how the progressive collapse theory does not explain the collapse of the WTC.

Now, if we can get back to the question at hand.


Salsa
Offline
Joined: Dec 14 2008

Fidel

The forums and the 911 stuff have nothing to do with Randi personally. if you'd been there, you'd know this. It's more of a one stop shop that tries to get to the factuality of all that crap you read on truther sites.


HeywoodFloyd
Offline
Joined: Jun 26 2003

Fidel wrote:

Why don't you post something of your own so we can examine how much you know about not just basic physics but as it applies to the actual problem at hand?

The problem at hand, Fidel Von Daniken, is a problem of basic physics. If the speed of the fall of the building can be explained through basic physics, then we can move past the "near free fall" issue that Jas and I were discussing.

 


Salsa
Offline
Joined: Dec 14 2008

Jas

You saw the buildings fall, so you do know that buildings can and do fall like that. Are you asserting that they couldn't have fallen like they did without some help like a controlled demolition? Based on CD's you seen either live or on television, intuitively you should know that Cd are loud..really. really loud and intuitively, you should be wondering why the sounds of the demolitions weren't picked up by any microphones recording the events. Sure, there were "explosions" but nothing of the magnitude of what a CD would produce, nor were they times with the 'squibs" that truthers are so fond of.

Sometimes we need to question out intuition, and ask, does it reflect reality ? You also have to question the motives of the people who are giving you the information. What's in it for them? Money? Fame? Attention? and even if they're qualified in their fields on paper, are there any problems with the information they're putting out?

Sure, we all like to favour the underdog, the rebel, the one with the courage to stand up to the status quo, but that's not a reason to simply believe someone when there's other sources dealing with the same information. As  a for instance, suppose I told you I was out hiking in the woods and I had a conversation with a burning bush. You might just believe me, you've heard about someone else having the same thing, right. Now suppose I told you I had a conversation with a burning bush on a street corner in downtown Vancouver, at noon. You're going to doubt me and probably search for news articles about burning bushes in downtown Vancouver. Intuition would lead you to doubt my story in the second scenario.

So, the science. We all like dealing with things we "know" about and we all like analogies we can relate to. Just because someone presents information in a format you think you can understand doesn't mean it's correct. Buildings collapsing is a horrifically complicated scenario, the information is all out there for your perusal, it's just going to take considerably more time and effort to "understand" than the billiard ball scenario.

The question at hand? Why doesn't alternative media devote more space to the truth movement ? That's easy. The truth movement is, for all intents and purposes. dead and devoting valuable space to it is simply bad PR.


jas
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2005

Salsa, everyone, even NIST, even scientists and engineers that support progressive collapse theory, admit that the collapse of the WTC was out of the ordinary. Explanations were commissioned rather than investigated. FEMA could not come up with an explanation. NIST confirms that even seismic reports of that event "cannot be trusted" due to the general noise and rumble caused by the collapsing of the buildings. Eyewitnesses and firefighters report hearing explosions. According to firefighters the lobbies had been blown out  - what caused this? Kerosene fuel?

The science we know cannot explain the descent of the buildings. Scientists are pointing this out. I am trying to bring the discussion of the buildings' collapses into a common sense, plain language understanding using physical concepts that everyone can agree on. If you want to participate in this discussion, that's great, if not, I don't want to get into an discussion with you that doesn't actually serve to explain the collapses.


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

HeywoodFloyd wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Why don't you post something of your own so we can examine how much you know about not just basic physics but as it applies to the actual problem at hand?

The problem at hand, Fidel Von Daniken, is a problem of basic physics. If the speed of the fall of the building can be explained through basic physics, then we can move past the "near free fall" issue that Jas and I were discussing.

I have no problem with believing that at least five of the hijackers trained in terrorism by the US military had something to do with it. How bout you, inspector HeywoodFloyd?


HeywoodFloyd
Offline
Joined: Jun 26 2003

We aren't (GLADIO) talking about the hijackers, Erich Von Fidel. You might be but you're the only one doing so (INFANT MORTALITY RATE).


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

I think you were done before you even started. HeyWoodFloyd, could you please stop derailing this thread with juvenile personal attacks?


HeywoodFloyd
Offline
Joined: Jun 26 2003

Derailing threads? You've been attempting (BANANADA) that for this whole thread. Am I stepping on your toes?


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

HeywoodFloyd wrote:

Derailing threads? You've been attempting (BANANADA) that for this whole thread. Am I stepping on your toes?

Is "Bananada" such a terrible personal insult for you? I am referring to a country as in vegetable and mineral not you personally. I'm not calling you a blithering idiot or anything, as much as I'd like to. But that's besides the point, and no barb intended with respect to the shape of your head.


HeywoodFloyd
Offline
Joined: Jun 26 2003

Fidel, I really have (FROZEN PUERTO RICO DU NORD) no idea what you're talking about. Which puts me in the same company as 99% of Babblers.


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

Did you do a babble survey or something, mr thread d'railer? Why does every thread you post in have to be about you and your feelings? Why not think about someone else for a change, like the 3000 people murdered on 9/11? Remember that one?


Salsa
Offline
Joined: Dec 14 2008

Jas. all I'm suggesting is that if you want to get to the issue of the collapses is do some more research. I know I can't convince you in my own words that the collapse couldn't have happened without a CD, all I'm suggesting is that the sources that you're getting your information from are crap. It's like going to whale.to for medical information. There's no shortage of people on the internet who will gleefully lie to you about pretty much anything and it's up to you to make the determination whether you're being fed a line by researching both sides of the argument.

If you don't want to, that's up to you, there's nothing at stake with 911 in the way peoples quality of life is at stake with all the antivax misinformation. Here's a place to start re the collapse.

http://911myths.com/html/wtc__demolition_.html


HeywoodFloyd
Offline
Joined: Jun 26 2003

Fidel wrote:

Did you do a babble survey or something, mr thread d'railer? Why does every thread you post in have to be about you and your feelings? Why not think about someone else for a change, like the 3000 people murdered on 9/11? Remember that one?

Ok little man (pats Fidel on the head). You can have the last word on this, cause I'm bored with you now. You should take your cues from Jas, who knows how to stay on topic.


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

The A&Es for truth are basically saying that too many of the variables NIST scientists plug into the physics equations describing near free fall collapse require certain leaps of faith to be believed. A slightest angle of degree difference in floors tilting throws their elapsed time out of whack. They say that vibration in the building caused way too much fire proofing material to fall away from structural beams to be believable.  They have at least one scientist from Lawrence Livermore who has put together a sequence of events contributing to structural failure of the towers that requires other engineers to assume too far much to be believed without hard evidence. And that same scientist works at a university where military grade explosive thermite was developed with public funding. The truthers tell us that if we use Occam's philosophy for least number of assumptions, controlled demolition is the simplest and most believable explanation there is without jumping to so many conclusions required by NIST static models more useful for explaining initiation of collapse but not a great deal about the sequence of events after that point. Occam says the simplest explanation is the most likely not the convoluted snakes and ladders physics equations used by a handful of government scientists who simply wanted to keep their jobs during what was a crazy George dubya Bush decade of bad science in America.


contrarianna
Offline
Joined: Aug 15 2006

jas wrote:

Do these values seem reasonable? Let's calculate a few values we can use as a reference...

Quote:
If there was enough kinetic energy for pulverization, ...

The fact that the person writing these "calculations" has also calculated that the towers were destroyed by "energy beam weapons" (Star Wars) ought to  give one pause.


jas
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2005

Salsa, with all due respect, I think you could benefit from your own advice. You may not like Judy Wood, but I don't think the AEfortruth site is "crap", as you say. Nor do I think any of the other articles I've cited are crap. Maybe there are different, scientifically valid, competing theories (I doubt it), but let's see which ones bears out. I'm interested in seeing WCG's answer to my reply upthread.

As for the 911mtyhs.com, I've seen it already. We hacked through that stuff in much earlier threads. I'm not going back to argue the same crap. If you can't explain to me how 75 to 90 floors offer virtually no resistance in a top-down, near free-fall collapse, then, I'm sorry, but I can't take seriously your evaluation of the information used here.


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

I wonder how many more of the Bush-con fairy tales they were sucked-in to believing? "Oh they would have found WMD" sold to Saddam by the west eventually. Some people want to be fooled. It's in their nature. I imagine anyone could sell them a bridge over the Hudson, and they wouldnt even ask for a receipt.


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

This is for those lefty babblers who don't believe that 9/11 was an inside job. And that's okay according to Canadian Peter Dale Scott who does believe 9/11 was a "deep state" event carried out at arm's length from the cosmetic leadership in America and with both bipartisan party war criminals deeply involved from the time of Ronald Reagan. This rift between the left, and PDS says it does exist as it does between the US ruling class and ruling elite, needs some healing.

9/11, Deep Events, and the Curtailment of U.S. Freedoms
A talk delivered to the New England Antiwar Conference, MIT, January 30, 2010.

by Prof Peter Dale Scott

Quote:
Perhaps many of you in this room know that there was disagreement between Noam Chomsky and myself in our analysis of how America entered the Vietnam War. This did not stop Noam and I from speaking out on the same platform against the war, or remaining friends, even after our public disagreements. There was too much on which we agreed.

Let me turn to today’s topic, the war on terror, by reading a long quote from Noam Chomsky in 2002, with which I fully agree:

"the war on terrorism was not declared on September 11 [2001]; rather, it was redeclared, using the same rhetoric as the first declaration twenty years earlier. The Reagan administration, as you know, I'm sure, came into office announcing that a war on terrorism would be the core of U.S. foreign policy, and it condemned what the president called the "evil scourge of terrorism. " …. International terrorism was described as a plague spread by "depraved opponents of civilization itself," in "a return to barbarism in the modern age.”"[2]

Today it is easy to see the falsehood of the government rhetoric in the 1980s about heroic freedom fighters fighting the “evil scourge of terrorism.” Most of the CIA money in the 1980s went to the terrorist drug trafficker Gulbeddin Hekmatyar, remembered for his habit of throwing acid in the faces of women not wearing burkas. Hekmatyar did not represent Afghan aspirations for freedom, but the interests of the U.S. ally Pakistan. As a true Afghan leader said in 1994, “We didn't choose [him]. The United States made Hekmatyar by giving him his weapons.”[3] To describe Hekmatyar’s men as freedom fighters was a fraud. ...

There are even hand-picked bipartisan 9/11 Commissioners who've stated that government agencies deliberately lied to them and are embroiled in a coverup.


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

jas wrote:
As for the 911mtyhs.com, I've seen it already. We hacked through that stuff in much earlier threads. I'm not going back to argue the same crap. If you can't explain to me how 75 to 90 floors offer virtually no resistance in a top-down, near free-fall collapse, then, I'm sorry, but I can't take seriously your evaluation of the information used here.

Whatever you do, don't ask deniers these questions:

 1./ Two 20-something story buildings of the same dimensions, volume, and mass are suspended in the air at same height above the ground. One building has nothing between it and the ground but clean air. Below the other is a high-rise extension of the same building but with five times the mass of the building suspended directly overhead. Both suspended buildings are dropped at the same time. Which hits the ground first?

Because until 9/11, most scientists unafraid of losing their government jobs and highschool grads would have said the building with nothing but fresh air beneath it would hit the ground first.

2./ Who met with the alleged head hijacker's bagman for breakfast on 9-11? Because they'll tend to shy away from answering that it was US intelligence officials who met for toast and cereal with the same bagman who wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta prior to 9/11. The 9/11 report stated that discovering who financed the hijackers is unimportant as will most serious deniers.


Salsa
Offline
Joined: Dec 14 2008

Jas. It sounds like you've already made up your mind about the CD scenario and an appeal to reason isn't going to sway you. If you've hacked through all the 911 myths stuff, and all the other "debunker" stuff and found it wanting then all that's left is a belief system.

Fair enough,  You want to wait and see, give it another 10 years, see what happens and I'll do the same.


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

Jas, at some point they might even figure out that this thread isn't about 9/11 denial and start one that is.


prisonernumberone
Offline
Joined: Feb 18 2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGDA2P0ImNQ

Mr. David Ray Griffin gives a talk entitled "Time for second look"

The english portion starts at ten minutes. David Ray Griffin in Germany May 9th of last year.

Mr. Griffin's audience is primarily "english as an additional language" individuals so he purposely speaks clearly and slowly, perhaps that might help out some of our babblers here.Wink

cheers

bc


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments