[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!
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.
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
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!
I always thought he as kind of shifty since he made that movie about the big bank heist.
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.'"
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...
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?
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 ?
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 [u]2000%[/u] 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.
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.
Check out those eerie, CIA-generated effects.
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!
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
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?
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?
Actually, I find the latter more believable than the former, Snert! (Of course, this is on a scale of "unbelievable" to "fantastically, super-unbelievable".)
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.
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?
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
(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, 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?
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.[/quote]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.
David L Griscom, he's the guy that came up with this gemHe'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][color=red]Ali Mohamed[/color][/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
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
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 ?
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.
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.
FidelWe'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.
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.
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?
Even if steel could be weakened by fire alone,
Are you saying it can't ?
it would take a lot longer than what the official conspiracy mongers have suggested
How do you know this?
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.
There is evidence for unreacted thermite at ground zero
No there isn't Jones found rust and red paint flecks.
Garcia says that the upper block descent of 3 metres was unimpeded whatsoever
Does he...where?
designed to withstand a 2000% increase in live load
Have you figured out what the term "live load" means in this instance ? Yet ?
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"
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
the official conspiracy says that "vibrations" knocked off all of the fire-proofing cladding steel beams and support columnsYes, 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.
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.
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.
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.
There is evidence for unreacted thermite at ground zero
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.
Garcia says that the upper block descent of 3 metres was unimpeded whatsoever
Does he...where?
Ah, so you haven't read Griscom's essay. Griscom wrote:
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.
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"
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.
[/quote]There is evidence for unreacted thermite at ground zeroNo 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.
What truthers are saying is that there is no physical proof that this
I'm saying there were eye witnesses who saw large amounts of molten steel
How do you know that?
Well, Dr. Garcia's dynamic-force calculation assumes
What leads you to believe that the impacts didn't wreck havoc with the fireproofing ?
I'm saying there were eye witnesses who saw large amounts of molten steel
How do you know that?
Easy, think about it. Why would the towers actually NEED to come down ? The American viewing public would be just as pissed off that there was an attack on their soil regardless ( irregardless? ) of whether the buildings collapsed? Why needlessly complicate things by involving what amounts to a huge "payroll" I know, I've been here before but once we assume that the media, FDNY, Silverstein yada yada are all somehow "in on it" the list of assumptions far outpaces that of the official theory. Also, why does the truth movement claim ethical superiority in the CD theory by assuming anyone and everyone assumedly involved would keep their mouths shut for either cash or fear for their jobs ? What would you do " Why would you assume that everyone else would do the opposite ?
Yes, nano-thermite, that needed to be invented because Jones and his thermite were at odds with Avery et al over the method of demolition. Thermite in itself isn't an explosive and not that much is known about the super secret nono variety, but at least it sounds good. The chemistry involved is over my head, as it is for most people 911 myths has a good expose on thermite.
Well, Dr. Garcia's dynamic-force calculation assumes
You're linking to Griscom, where does Garcia say the drop is unimpeded?
Average blink of an eye? 0.3 - 0.4 seconds. Had there been video cameras installed at every one of the 250 points of failure, we would miss every instance of it happening if we blinked.
Unless, of course, one of us is Harry Potter or "the amazing Randi", then we might observe it happening.
Personally, I think the odds for them sending me the 6/49 jackpot money in the mail by mistake are about the same.
Lousy BBS software lag problem.
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?
Both. The original planning phase would include the issue of the payouts. That would be in the intitial stages, when it was still being vetted for basic approval. Once approved for consideration, and adoption, the plan was sifted for weak points the obvious objections you have just raised would come to light, and in the balance, in the final stages of the planning, Rumsfeld, who a friend of mine once described as someone who just "looks through you" and who Henry Kissinger described as the "most ruthless man" he had ever met, would be given the "legal" option, and the more "difficult" proposition and approve the latter, calling it a "hard" but necessary decision.
He might even describe it as "unfortunate".
The fundamental operative principle here, is that once you have gone through the whole process of justifying, researching and planning how to fake such a thing, which is already extremely illegal, murderous (people will be killed in the Pentagon, almost certainly) and politically dangerous there is no reason to fake anything at all.
Notably, you are also rubbing out all the witnesses.
If you are asking "Who did it?" I don't know.
Terrorists did it! This was reported on September 11, 2001. Not sure where the people in the media got that information -- this was more like someone's initial opinion. The msm now calls 9/11, the "9/11 Attacks" to try to drive home the point that this was an attack. I have yet to see any evidence that 9/11 was an attack or not. Yes, seeing the video played over and over and over again of two planes crashing into two towers and quickly cutting to the two towers collapsing into their footprint certainly looks like "an attack" but it doesn't prove anything.
The hijackers (assuming they were hijackers) are all dead, conveniently dead. (Well, as far as we know they are all dead. There is the odd report that some of the 19 men on the planes are alive which implies that the person was not on the plane.) It's easy to blame the dead people. ie. Lee Harvey Oswald.
Osama Bin Laden. As much as he might like to claim that he did it, according to the FBI, he is no longer a suspect.
That guy with the hairy back that we keep seeing the same picture of in the msm.
Apparently, some people in Afghanistan that used to be funded by the USA when the USSR had their invasion.
OK where were we? Oh yes Niels Harrit.
Niels Harrit: Actually, within this group of authors behind this paper, which we published in April, there are diverging opinions about what this nano-thermite was used for. And my opinion is: we should not speculate on a scenario for the demolition. There is no doubt that the three towers were demolished on 9/11. But beyond that there is very solid evidence that some thermite has been used for melting the steel beams. We do not know if the thermite that we have found is the same thermite which has been used for melting the beams. It's very, very possible that different varieties were used, and I personally am certain that conventional explosives were used too, in abundance.RT: When you say "in abundance," how much do you mean?
Niels Harrit: Tons! Hundreds of tons! Many, many, many tons!
RT: So we are not just talking about nano-thermite. In fact, we are talking about both nano-thermite and conventional explosives used in large quantities...
Niels Harrit: We have not found remains or traces of conventional explosives. Actually, we've suggested and recommended to NIST, which is the National Institute of Standards and Technology, that they should look for remains or traces of explosives, and they have refused to do that every time. They have not investigated it.
What a goofball, the new sooper seekret large shock wave but small sound wave, explosive thermite wasn't enough to do the job on it's own and needed TONS of conventional explosives to get the job done. OK now. NIST did consider the CD theory, Neils, they found no evidence.
No, it's an assumption to say that all fire cladding miraculously fell away from key points along all 250 massive, simply massive steel inner columns, and fell away from the massive outer support beams
What are you saying here, that spray on fireproofing can somehow withstand a high sppe collision ? Do you have any reason for believing this or are you just trying to raise doubts by suggesting the implausible ?
Have you checked into what a live load is yet ? Seriously once you do you'll find out that 2000% over design isn't as impressive as it sounds.
Meanwhile there is visual evidence of molten steel from video footage. And there are eye witness testimonies of liquid steel pooling in the basements of all three WTC buildings demolished on 9/11. And not only that, several diferent video recordings corroborate the others as to molten steel pouring out of the walls of the trade tower.
Yes, thermite is capable of cutting through massive steel columns unlike a flaming hot flame fuelled by "carpet and office furniture" And contrary to what 911 debunker sites claim, thermite can slice through steel sideways. Like butter.
The incredibly small time interval is implied in Garcia's -7.7m/s descent calculation for the upper block over -3 metres
No, that is the time it took for the materials to fail. Yes, the tops of the towers did tilt, but they tilted back again at collapse initiation, they even twisted a little.
Terrorists did it! This was reported on September 11, 2001. Not sure where the people in the media got that information -- this was more like someone's initial opinion. The msm now calls 9/11, the "9/11 Attacks" to try to drive home the point that this was an attack. I have yet to see any evidence that 9/11 was an attack or not. Yes, seeing the video played over and over and over again of two planes crashing into two towers and quickly cutting to the two towers collapsing into their footprint certainly looks like "an attack" but it doesn't prove anything.
This is either nonsense or gibberish or maybe a melding of the two. What are you trying to say here ?
The hijackers (assuming they were hijackers) are all dead, conveniently dead
Yes, that happens in suicide missions, see "occupational hazard"
Osama Bin Laden. As much as he might like to claim that he did it, according to the FBI, he is no longer a suspect.
Can you prove that he's no longer a suspect. With something revalent I mean like a quote from the FBI saying they no longer suspect OBL, not something lame like pointing out that 911 isn't listed on OBL's FBI wanted poster.
Apparently, some people in Afghanistan that used to be funded by the USA when the USSR had their invasion
Yes, we know and this is proof of MiHOP how ?
A part of me almost wishes the U.S. government would say "OK, it's true, it wasn't the jets, but we're not going to tell you what it really was; we're going to let the Truthers do that".
We'd be here another ten years, but at least we'd have the fun of watching all of the various flakes going for each other's jugulars.
"It was alien lazer beams! Clearly!"
"Are you on crack? It was thermite!!"
"Thermite isn't hot enough, quisling. It was a special Super Thermite, evidence of which has been carefully supressed!!!"
"Only a lazer could have made the building fall at 3X freefall. Morons."
"You must be watching the doctored tape, you Useful Idiot."
... and so on. Is burning jet fuel hot enough to pop popcorn?
Ho hum.
All this jibber jabber and some of you apparently still believe that 75 and 91 floors of the WTC can collapse to the ground in under 15 seconds from gravity alone. Some of you still believe that buildings will collapse top down from upper floor fires.
Not much to discuss with the likes of you, as far as I'm concerned.
I'm actually leaning really strongly toward the laser beam theory. Clearly that would change the acceleration due to gravity (actually, acceleration due to gravity PLUS LASERS!).
I haven't made up my mind about the missing airplane and passengers though. I'm kind of liking the idea that they were all paid actors who were later murdered to ensure their silence.
If I don't post again at babble within the hour, assume they came for me for "getting too close to the truth".
But honestly, this is all an embarrassment to the Left, and sadly the Left are such numpties about anything that purports to challenge Empire that most of them won't say anything. But that's where the thread(s) began, if anyone remembers: with the Truthers all sulky that the Left isn't behind them 100%. They should be delighted that the left tolerates them 10%, because I think it costs the Left a hell of a lot of credibility to keep humouring you. You're a Teabagger, with delusions of thermite.
After a thorough evaluation of the discussion here, one must ascertain that gravity played an insignificant rôle in the buildings' collapse.
I'm sticking with the "Ann Coulter's stare wilted the twin towers" theory. Ann Coulter was a minor figure before September, 2001. Afterwards she was considered a leading pundit.
Think about it...
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 ?
Right. So, first of all, I'd like to point out that all three of those myths you've pointed out were actually not caused by SCIENCE, but by people's misunderstanding of science...not on the part of the scientist, but on the part of the populace who twisted the information through a series of telephone games.
While I'll admit the same is true for the 'truthers' as you so charmingly call them (Comon, 9/11 passengers faking death and living in some far off country with quiet money. It'd be cheaper to kill them!), surely you must concede that based on the evidence presented there must have been something else at work, even if you don't carry it to the (intirely logical) conclusion of mass murder.
We have two buildings over 100 stories tall collapse into their own footprints. One, okay, still a stretch...but two!? Two buildings the size of the WTCs go down, from being hit by a PLANE, and the part of New York they would have crushed if they fell sideways (like buildings hit by planes are supposed to) is spared, and this is some kind of divine accident? What about WTC 7? How does a building go down that fast when it isn't hit by a plane, or on fire, or anything?
We have three buildings which collapsed entirely into their own footprint. I challenge you to find me video edvidence of ONE other building that has gone down like that when it wasn't a result of controlled demolition.
Then there's this.
A freaking high-school physics teacher can figure this out. Even if you don't subscribe to the whole conspiracy mess, something isn't right here. Al-Queda agents working as covert sappers with Dubya's brother's construction company makes more sense than "planes hit them, they caved in".
I challenge you to find me video edvidence of ONE other building that has gone down like that when it wasn't a result of controlled demolition.
For added bonus points, find video of the FIRST building to do so, which, by this sad logic, must have been an impossibility, since by definition it had never happened before. But at any rate, do search through all of the readily available video footage of giant buildings being hit by fuel-laden jets and see what you can find. Sure, it'll be days and days poring through all those videos, but surely there's something in there.
Also, thank you for resurrecting the idea that buildings that size should topple from their base. I love that one.
We have two buildings over 100 stories tall collapse into their own footprints. One, okay, still a stretch...but two!? Two buildings the size of the WTCs go down, from being hit by a PLANE, and the part of New York they would have crushed if they fell sideways (like buildings hit by planes are supposed to)...
Supposed to? Oh right, we've all seen those images from the sieges of Stalingrad and Berlin where buildings hit by flat-trajectory artillery fire tipped over onto their sides, regardless of how many storeys tall they were.
Actually, they're right. I reproduced the events of the day using a fairly accurate scale model of a WTC building (a Cap'n Crunch box, with 2,973 pieces of cereal, for authenticity) and a substitute 767 (my index finger) and sure enough, when the "767" hit "WTC1" just a little bit above the Cap'n's hat, it did NOT collapse into its own footprint but in fact toppled onto the placemat.
It doesn't need to be hit by a fuel-laden jet, Snert. I could be hit by a car, a train, anything. And, unless you're willing to subscribe to the thermite theory (and I take it you aren't) you'll have to rely on the NIST's official stance that they have no fucking idea how the steel in these buildings melted when the same steel which they tested in flames which burned hotter than anything jet fuel could produce, did not.
Also, thank you for resurrecting the idea that buildings that size should topple from their base. I love that one.
Actually, the idea is that buildings which are not demolished professionally collapse in various ways depending on point of impact, but always in irregular staggers caused by the resistance posed by the lower floors vs. the force of gravity, not just OMG*fwoosh!* Into themselves.
Unless of course this is more common than I have been led to believe. If so, you're free to woo me with your evidence.
[/quote]No, it's an assumption to say that all fire cladding miraculously fell away from key points along all 250 massive, simply massive steel inner columns, and fell away from the massive outer support beams
What are you saying here, that spray on fireproofing can somehow withstand a high sppe collision ? Do you have any reason for believing this or are you just trying to raise doubts by suggesting the implausible ?
I'll admit I can't be sure. Were you there? I think the question that stands out in everyone's mind concerning the fireproof cladding theory is, how many Cornish pixies would it take to flit around the building and loosen fireproofing on ALL 250 beams and massive, simply massive steel columns the nutters claim were slain by rilly-rilly hot flaming-flames that were aflame that day.
Have you checked into what a live load is yet ? Seriously once you do you'll find out that 2000% over design isn't as impressive as it sounds.
We know. They handed out engineering degrees in those days as if they were Sears credit cards. Everyone and their dog had one. And 2000% over-design would be no match for Cornish pixies on 9/11.
On with the steel again huh ? We've covered this before. How, exactly do you know it was steel ? How can you look at a molten blob, 80 stories in the air and determine exactly what it's made of ? Nobody else can do that, except, obviously, you. You wouldn't happen to be making this up would you, or simply parroting the truth movement sites. Pay attention, jas, you're being schooled here in why I'm saying truthers like to lie to make their case.
I don't know with certainty, but I have more clues to point to than nutty truth deniers who try to tell us that the molten metal was aluminum with no corroborating eye witness testimony. In fact, the FEMA report referred to the pools of molten metal briefly as something like "mysterious corroded iron" or "mysteriously decomposed iron" pools in the basements, or something like that. They said nothing about aluminum. And first responders all described what they saw as molten steel. One engineer quoted in the NY Times described steel beams in rubble that were partially VAPORIZED. And he used that word. This is big dodge on your part and by whacko truth deniers in general who simply refuse to suggest a real investigation is what's needed. Big dodge - wild assumption. Now it's become Newton AND Occam versus wingnut truth deniers.
Are you trying to imply that the fires melted the steel here...
Can you point to one example anywhere in history of modern building design when flaming-flames aflame caused a steel frame building to collapse into its own footprint? We didn't think so. And you still haven't provided a dodge as to why first responders reported seeing pools of liquid [s]aluminum[/s] I mean, molten steel in the basement of that WTC building which dodged all planes on 9/11. BIG DODGE!! Of course, Cornish pixes will whisper tee-hee in your ear to assume all first responders were paid by agents of KAOS to lie their heads off in order to make trubble for crazy-crazy Jorge de la yeyo and his gubmint.
The incredibly small time interval is implied in Garcia's -7.7m/s descent calculation for the upper block over -3 metres
No, that is the time it took for the materials to fail. Yes, the tops of the towers did tilt, but they tilted back again at collapse initiation, they even twisted a little.
No? Do you understand what instantaneous time interval is? Velocity is the first derivative of distance with respect to time. Acceleration is the second derivative of distance wrt time. The first is a derivative of a function. The second is a derivative of a derivative of a function. And somewhere above you referred to Garcia's 0.01s time interval as "speed" at which "the fasteners" failed, which makes me believe that you could possibly be a Cornish pixie yourself. Aha! So now we know. We need a head-flip smiley. I mean rrrrreally.
We have two buildings over 100 stories tall collapse into their own footprints. One, okay, still a stretch...but two!? Two buildings the size of the WTCs go down, from being hit by a PLANE, and the part of New York they would have crushed if they fell sideways (like buildings hit by planes are supposed to)...
Supposed to? Oh right, we've all seen those images from the sieges of Stalingrad and Berlin where buildings hit by flat-trajectory artillery fire tipped over onto their sides, regardless of how many storeys tall they were.
It's not like the planes were aimed at the base. If they caused significant damage to the floors they hit to cause the collapse of the structure, it seems odd that it would all go down at once, and not say, with the top stories kiltering and falling of their own accord before the rest of the structure.
Whatever those other buildings did, they didn't collapse into themselves within 2 seconds.
