What is progressive about 9/11 conspiracy threads?
Scientific fraud? The failure of NIST's progressive collapse theory to explain WTC collapses
Mon, 2010-03-29 10:15
#52
Mon, 2010-03-29 11:10
#53
Plus you were claiming that the building pancaked when not even NIST suggests this anymore.
Heywood is correct. NIST only studied up until collapse initiation and retracted their hypothesis that pancaking occurred BEFORE collapse initiation. Pancaking did occur during the collapse.
Mon, 2010-03-29 11:16
#54
Timebandit
What is progressive about 9/11 conspiracy threads?
Not a damn thing. They just up the crazy and lower the credibility.
Mon, 2010-03-29 11:19
#55
Think of it this way: if mere weakening of a section of a building (a top section, no less) were all that were sufficient to bring down a highrise, why is there even a demolition industry? If all you have to do is knock out an upper floor of a building, and it pulverizes into itself, why set charges all up and down the length of a building in real life controlled demolition?
Are you suggesting all high rises are constructed in an identical manner here and this collapse scenario would apply to all buildings? Please tell me you're not.
Mon, 2010-03-29 11:29
#56
Journal of Engineering Mechanics(pdf) March 2007, Vol. 133, No. 3, pp. 308-319.
That's strange, when I click on the link it goes straight to Bazant's refutation of Gourley's discussion. That was just too easy.
Mon, 2010-03-29 11:53
#57
Heywood. The "fuck yous" are not okay and you know it. Knock it off.
Don't worry, I'm done with the whacko theorists.
And, just for the public record, I didn't go whining to the mods.
Mon, 2010-03-29 12:19
#58
No Yards
Heywood, you do realise that the this "progressive pancaking" theory also lends credence to a far easier "controlled implosion" theory as well.
The criticism of the controlled demolition theory is that it would have required far too much explosives to be snuck into and planted on dozens of WTC floors ... but if it is possible that one floor collapsing can then pancake the building all the way down to the ground, then you don't need a lot of explosives to take out several floors .. you just need to take out one floor somewhere near the top and gravity will do the rest.
The building did collapse, and if pancaking was the reason, then it shouldn't matter what started the pancake ... a plane crash, explosives, or a hacksaw and enough times, or a combination of "tools" could all be used to the same effect.
So while there was indeed a plane hitting the building, that might be the most obvious cause of a "first cause" of the single collapsing floor ... but the NIST report does make it pretty clear that heat could have caused the initial failure, they also stated that they couldn't replicate the required heat levels with the materials available for fuel.
As I recall, in both WTC1 and WTC2, there were computer rooms (using nearly the complete floor) among the floors where the planes hit ... a secured, controlled, low traffic, area where major construction (ie: possibly planting explosives) could take place with little suspicion.
That's not to say this is what happened, and it may actually explain the molten material flowing from the building before it fell (the UPS batteries may have shorted and melted) but the point being is that there are still questions that need to be answered.
Mon, 2010-03-29 12:41
#59
So are you a climate science denier like NIST was under Dubya?
Not that I have any desire to wade into these threads of insanity, but what proof do you have that NIST was a climate science denier under Dubya? And by the way the founding father of 9/11 troof conspiracy ridiculousness is also a prominent and aggressive climate change denier who spews completely bat shit crazy lies denying climate change (Alex Jones), Jessse Ventura is also a climate change denier and troofer, and the few people I know in real life who actively express troofer positions are also climate change deniers along with denying lots of other scientific knownledge and reality. Not surprising really, when you start to reject reason, reality and evidence in favor of a fantasy world view then there is no need to stop at just one crazy idea.
Mon, 2010-03-29 13:01
#60
Heywood, you do realise that the this "progressive pancaking" theory also lends credence to a far easier "controlled implosion" theory as well.
The criticism of the controlled demolition theory is that it would have required far too much explosives to be snuck into and planted on dozens of WTC floors ... but if it is possible that one floor collapsing can then pancake the building all the way down to the ground, then you don't need a lot of explosives to take out several floors .. you just need to take out one floor somewhere near the top and gravity will do the rest.
I absolutely agree NY. What's pathetic is that none of the "twoofers" figured that out. Going on about space rays and the like.
Once those buildings started going, that was it. They were on the way.
But that isn't what these threads were about. They were (or were supposed to be) about how the progressive collapse theory doesn't explain the collapse of the buildings. So there we stayed, with other nonsense thrown in just to bloat the thread.
Mon, 2010-03-29 13:03
#61
No Yards
So are you a climate science denier like NIST was under Dubya?Not that I have any desire to wade into these threads of insanity, but what proof do you have that NIST was a climate science denier under Dubya? And by the way the founding father of 9/11 troof conspiracy ridiculousness is also a prominent and aggressive climate change denier who spews completely bat shit crazy lies denying climate change (Alex Jones), Jessse Ventura is also a climate change denier and troofer, and the few people I know in real life who actively express troofer positions are also climate change deniers along with denying lots of other scientific knownledge and reality. Not surprising really, when you start to reject reason, reality and evidence in favor of a fantasy world view then there is no need to stop at just one crazy idea.
And then there are those who refuse to question authority ... yes, there are some (lots of some) nutters that refuse to believe the government's official 9/11 story, but there are also people who refuse to question anything about it at all, which I find just as "nutty".
There are still some questions as to what really happened that day that doesn't seem to add up. That doesn't mean that Cheny drove the planes by remote control into the building while Bush pushed the big red button that set off the hidden explosions, but between the official story and the "truthers" story, there are a lot of missing pieces.
Take a look at the 9/11 commission report. Look specifically at the part where they investigate the unusual large shorting of airline stocks just before 9/11. The report simply dismisses this by saying they could not trace any of this activity to anyone connected with Al Qaeda ... the assumption being that Al Qaeda, and only Al Qaeda could have known about this and purposely benefited from shorting airline stocks ... a very suspicious assumption ... normally if you have a rather obvious clue and it leads to someone you didn't originally suspect, you should really reconsider that you may have the wrong suspect, or more than one suspect and not just dismiss the rather obvious clue.
This doesn't mean that Cheny or Bush were involved ... maybe it's nothing, but maybe some CIA agent knew something and gave some 3rd party investors some "insider information".
I'm really amazed how incurious so many people are on the little pieces of 9/11 details that just don't make any sense and rush to call anyone raising any questions what so ever as nuts.
Mon, 2010-03-29 13:21
#62
the point being is that there are still questions that need to be answered.
This is the oldest trick in the truther book, the just asking questions approach followed by "questions" about topics that have been addressed long ago.
Only have to take out one floor ? Like they knew exactly where the planes were going to hit ? I agree it sure would have looked suspicious if the collapse had started 40 or so floors above the impact area, but it didn't so there goes that one.
Nist "replicate the required heat levels with the materials available for fuel.". what does that even mean ? Where, exactly do they say that?
The molten metal flowing out of the 80th floor of WTC 2 ? That' was addressed long ago and had nothing to do with batteries.
GIYF
Mon, 2010-03-29 13:50
#63
remind
Agree No Yards, this whole throwing out of mental disability invectives, on the parts of some, really indicates a lack of progressive credibility, as it points to a sense of superiority, that allows the disparaging of those who should definitely not be used in this manner.
Should we all be running around this forum too, making comments like; "how gay was that comment" or "feminist stormtrooper thinking". As that is the exact equivalent of those foisting "crazy" labels upon others.
It really needs to stop.
The intolerance that it indicates in the larger social arena is quite ugly as a matter of fact.
Mon, 2010-03-29 14:45
#64
What is progressive about 9/11 conspiracy threads?
What's progressive about not opposing a phony global war on terror and the genesis fable at the root cause for waging it?
Tonkin Gulf was a lie.
The doctor and madman lied about bombing Cambodia and Laos.
Crazy George lied about "Nurse Nayirah"
They lied about Osamagate.
Crazy George II lied about "WMD" in Iraq.
They coerced NIST to lie about climate science.
And Crazy George II and war crims lied about 9/11.
In fact, we've been lied to constantly.
This is a phony global war on terror, and there are even some US hawks saying now that America needs a sustainable national energy policy that is not as reliant on foreign oil sources not wars for resource grabs. And a few of them have stated publicly that Dubya's war on terror is a phony war and working to destabilize both US economy and security. There is division in America and Canada wrt phony war and the cause behind it, and anti-war advocates need to exploit this rift for the sake of global peace and working to end this colder war on democracy.
Mon, 2010-03-29 15:03
#65
Snert
While the term "crazy" does have a history as a slang term for someone with a mental illness, it's also a common term for anyone who is irrational or who appears divorced from reality. Likewise the term "nuts".
Perhaps we should try to favour the term "kook" whenever possible, as it carries the same implications of irrationality and delusional thinking, without the same allusion to mental health.
That said, is there really a better or more fitting term than "crazy" for someone who believes that the towers were taken down by magical laser beams that haven't been invented yet? I mean, at a certain point you just have to call a spade a spade. And I've yet to hear any complaints over suggestions that climate change deniers might be a few bricks shy of a hod.
Mon, 2010-03-29 15:53
#66
And I've yet to hear any complaints over suggestions that climate change deniers might be a few bricks shy of a hod.
Climate change denial is not at the forefront of mainstream science. It's more popular among corporate-sponsored science and the hired bs.
NIST's versions of climate science and 9/11 have faced serious challenges by independent scientific and academic inquiries all over the world.
Personally I find the number of US whistleblowers compelling enough to warrant a real investigation. There is much evidence that US Feds were lying to the hand-picked bipartisan 9/11 Commission panelists, and in fact several panelists have said so themselves.
Truthers in this thread aren't using profane language and off-topic nonsense. Gutter language and off-topic rants are for those who are less well informed and finding it difficult to make convincing arguments. It's a sign of frustration, and I think deniers should recognize why they are frustrated. And it's because there was an obvious lack of legal evidence for 9/11 guilt presented to the public by the former Bush administration. 9/11 Commissioners and government whistleblowers themselves have called it a coverup. In fact, the former Bush administration did not pull it off. Too many people around the world refuse to believe the war criminals version of 9/11 events.
Mon, 2010-03-29 15:58
#67
Snert
Personally I find the number of US whistleblowers
We determined a few threads ago that there are no real "whistleblowers" for 9/11. Yes, there are people with strong opinions, but thus far nobody directly, personally involved in any kind of government conspiracy has stepped forward. Unless you have a link to something now that you didn't have back when I asked you about fifty times.
If not, it's intentionally dishonest of you to keep claiming there are whistleblowers. Show us.
Mon, 2010-03-29 16:34
#68
Personally I find the number of US whistleblowersWe determined a few threads ago that there are no real "whistleblowers" for 9/11. Yes, there are people with strong opinions, but thus far nobody directly, personally involved in any kind of government conspiracy has stepped forward.
Why would war criminals move to declare themselves exempt from prosecution of war crimes if they thought it wasn't possible in the first place? The 9/11 inside job wasn't even that original. They copy-katted [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident]Himmler's false flag attack at Gleiwitz[/url] as a ruse for invading Poland in 1939. In fact, the OSS-CIA [url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14708]worked closely with many of Heinrich Himmler's SS[/url] during the cold war years and developed strategies for torture and terrorism during the cold war years.
[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/SCO409A.html]Five of the 9/11 hijackers[/url] were trained in terrorism on US soil during the years of anticommunist jihad in Afghanistan. They were provided with US entry visas by the US Government. The perps were known to the accused orchestrators of 9/11.
The bipartisan war parties are both guilty of creating "Al-Qa'eda" Very little of this was mentioned in the 9/11 Commission report, just a vague reference to Ali Mohammed, one of their superstars of terrorism and hijacking specialists whom they arrested and released, and now no one knows where he is. [url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3422]How the FBI (and Canada's RCMP) protected Al Qaeda’s 9/11 Hijacking Trainer[/url]
[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17961]A Guide to the 9/11 Whistleblowers[/url]
Courageous insiders, gagged, hounded and ignored
Snert you've given it your all. You haven't convinced me, and I'm sorry but that's just the way it is. And I think we should let someone else try at this point.
Mon, 2010-03-29 16:41
#69
Snert
Snert you've given it your all. You haven't convinced me, and I'm sorry but that's just the way it is.
This isn't for you. This is for the Unknown Reader. If you're going to keep pretending there are actual whistleblowers, at least send [i]them[/i] the link, or they might think you're just making it up!
Mon, 2010-03-29 16:54
#70
I think Ann Coulter stared at the buildings, and they collapsed out of fear.
Mon, 2010-03-29 16:56
#71
Take a look at the 9/11 commission report. Look specifically at the part where they investigate the unusual large shorting of airline stocks just before 9/11. The report simply dismisses this by saying they could not trace any of this activity to anyone connected with Al Qaeda ... the assumption being that Al Qaeda, and only Al Qaeda could have known about this and purposely benefited from shorting airline stocks ... a very suspicious assumption ... normally if you have a rather obvious clue and it leads to someone you didn't originally suspect, you should really reconsider that you may have the wrong suspect, or more than one suspect and not just dismiss the rather obvious clue.
I looked into that many moons ago. I have no expertise or even a desire to know much about the financial system, but the idea that large amounts of people were informed of this before hand and took advantage of the situation financially, yet there are still no whistle-blowers makes it highly unlikely. Nor do I think that the shorts are close to as unusual as the troofers make them out to be. I think that United had around 3000 shorts on the 6th of September. Unusual? Yes. Really unusual? No. There had been days in March and April of the same year where the puts were above 8000. Maybe those were trial runs. And news coming out about united in August and September had not been great. The share price had been steadily falling so I don't see why "puts" would be surprising. In the case of American I think that it was on September 10th that there was a high number of puts, but the day before that a magazine had recommended such based on the string of bad news about American. And the 9/11 commission piece about the lack of connection to Al Qaeda was I believe specifically about a single organization that bought most of the September 6th United puts, but also bought a ton of shares in American at the same time which would have cancelled out most of the gains from the former, so if they had received insider information they completely fucked it up. But maybe they were getting the information from John Edwards talking to the dead. "What I am getting sounds like it starts with the letter u....could be union, could be unicorn" Is it united? Yes, put options on united. Now I am hearing that you should buy stocks in a company that starts with the letter a...could be apple... Is it American? Yup thats it.
Mon, 2010-03-29 16:59
#72
I absolutely agree NY. What's pathetic is that none of the "twoofers" figured that out. Going on about space rays and the like.
Once those buildings started going, that was it. They were on the way.
But that isn't what these threads were about. They were (or were supposed to be) about how the progressive collapse theory doesn't explain the collapse of the buildings. So there we stayed, with other nonsense thrown in just to bloat the thread.
I think you're misunderstanding what No Yards was saying. It was the same question I had upthread: if all you ever need to do to collapse a highrise is take out one of the top floors and allow "gravity" to do the rest, why have controlled demolition ever? A: because gravity doesn't bring down buildings like that.
Mon, 2010-03-29 17:00
#73
This isn't for you. This is for the Unknown Reader. If you're going to keep pretending there are actual whistleblowers, at least send [i]them[/i] the link, or they might think you're just making it up!
The best things about Fidels "whistleblowers" is that he is using people who are complaining about the administration attempting to coverup their extreme incompetence on 9/11 to support a position that administration was extremely competent enough to have pulled off 9/11. The two are polar opposites.
Mon, 2010-03-29 17:04
#74
People like Jas remind me of people who when watching the very first projected movies ran away screaming as the train came toward them on the screen. They can't trust their own eyes.
Mon, 2010-03-29 17:18
#75
So.....
The morning after.
jas, you started it way back at post 11 with this:
It might also be useful to discuss why certain Babble posters are blatantly lying or disregarding obvious facts in this issue.That's baiting. Don't do it.
Thanks, Maysie. I will certainly abide by any decisions you make in moderating, but I would just point out that the above is merely a rhetorical tool used commonly in argument to draw attention to weaknesses in an opponent's argument. On Babble we debate and we use rhetoric to our best advantage. I see what I said as a truthful statement--one that raises a subject that does indeed, imo, need examining, especially with the number of Babblers here who claim to be defenders of science! The statement I made was intended to elicit a response but was not designed as a personal attack. I consider it fair game in an argument, if someone is claiming to be a defender of science but then refuses to back up of their statements with any recognizable science, to call absolute bullshit on it, which I am doing.
But, as I said, I will do my best to heed your warning.
Mon, 2010-03-29 17:20
#76
Comment on the articles, please, Van Gogh. Thanks.
Mon, 2010-03-29 17:21
#77
This isn't for you. This is for the Unknown Reader. If you're going to keep pretending there are actual whistleblowers, at least send [i]them[/i] the link, or they might think you're just making it up!The best things about Fidels "whistleblowers" is that he is using people who are complaining about the administration attempting to coverup their extreme incompetence on 9/11 to support a position that administration was extremely competent enough to have pulled off 9/11. The two are polar opposites.
They only pulled off 9/11 in the confines of your mind and the minds of other deniers. Don't count me as either a climate change denier or 9/11 truth denier in support of war criminals. War crims are scum, and I have nothing in common with those who should be behind bars not warfiteering.
Mon, 2010-03-29 17:32
#78
Maysie
Hey Van Gogh's Ear. You're new. Stay on topic and don't do drive by personal attacks.
If you don't want to engage in the topic of the thread, then don't! It's like magic!
....
And if people could avoid insulting descriptors such as "crazy" in this thread and in babble in general, I would be beyond thrilled.
Thanks.
Mon, 2010-03-29 17:32
#79
The height of the South Tower is 1362 feet. I calculated that from that height, freefall in a vacuum (read, absolutely no resistance on earth) is 9.2 seconds. According to testimony provided to the 9-11 Commission, the tower fell in 10 seconds. Other data shows it took closer to 14 seconds. So the towers fell within 0.8-4.8 seconds of freefall in a vacuum. Just like WTC7, this speed seemed impossible if each of the 110 floors had to fail individually.Yet another observation one makes in watching the collapsing towers is the huge dust clouds and debris, including steel beams, that were thrown hundreds of feet out horizontally from the towers as they fell. If we are to believe the pancake theory, this amount of scattering debris, fine pulverized concrete dust, and sheetrock powder would clearly indicate massive resistance to the vertical collapse. So there is an impossible conflict. You either have a miraculous, historical, instantaneous, catastrophic failure that occurs within a fraction of a second of freefall and that kicks out little dust, or you have a solid, hefty building that remains virtually unaffected after a massive, speeding projectile hits it. You either have a house of cards or a house of bricks. The building either resists its collapse or it doesn’t.
http://physics911.net/closerlook
And indeed, NIST does confirm a "miracle". From Griffin:
But then in November, while still defending the same theory, which rules out explosives and thereby rules out free fall, NIST admitted that, as an empirical fact, free fall happened. For a period of 2 and a fourth seconds, NIST admitted, the descent of WTC 7 was characterized by “gravitational acceleration (free fall).”Knowing that it had thereby affirmed a miracle, meaning a violation of a law of physics, NIST no longer claimed that its analysis was consistent with the physical principles. In its Draft put out in August, NIST had repeatedly said that its analysis of the collapse was “consistent with physical principles.” One encountered this phrase time and time again. In its final report, however, this phrase is no more to be found.
Mon, 2010-03-29 17:59
#80
but the idea that large amounts of people were informed of this before hand and took advantage of the situation financially
As it turns out, it was just one guy trying to speculate on the ailing airlines industry, there were no "groups" involved.
Mon, 2010-03-29 18:14
#81
if someone is claiming to be a defender of science but then refuses to back up of their statements with any recognizable science, to call absolute bullshit on it, which I am doing.
Bullshit jas, every point you've tried to make has been countered with proper s science, and science presented in a way that you wanted. Do you really want the Bazant paper on the collapse ? It's not written for someone who want's a plain, everyday ordinary layman's education of how the buildings came down. If, go get it.
You act more like someone who not only doesn't understand science, but fears it because it stomps on your valued "intuition" on how things in the real world should work. In short, it pees on your parade. So if all you got is Jones, Wood, and Gage, who've been proven frauds by REAL scientists, then there's really nothing anyone can do to help you out in your understanding.
Instead of your flawed "book on a table" analogy, try something a little more appropriate, like a fully loaded Chevy Tahoe, black, all windows blacked out, filled with guys wearing black suits and wrap around sunglasses, dropped on a table. Then you'll be closer to what actually happened during the collapse.
Mon, 2010-03-29 18:19
#82
They copy-katted Himmler's false flag attack at Gleiwitz
Psssssst...it's all about using Pear Harbour as an example of a false flag attack or haven't you read one of DRG's latest books ? But I suppose when you have to Goodwin, you have to Goodwin.
Mon, 2010-03-29 18:27
#83
Bullshit jas, every point you've tried to make has been countered with proper s science, and science presented in a way that you wanted.
Really? Where? Seriously, this is news to me. Nobody here has yet explained, using known principles of physics, the lack of resistance of 90 and 70 floors in the Twin Towers. If I'm wrong, point me to the post.
Do you really want the Bazant paper on the collapse ? It's not written for someone who want's a plain, everyday ordinary layman's education of how the buildings came down. If, go get it.
We've seen the Bazant paper. Jones, Ryan, et al. debunk it. That was in the first thread, I think. But feel free to post it again if you feel it is saying something that Jones et al. specifically miss.
Mon, 2010-03-29 18:53
#84
They copy-katted Himmler's false flag attack at Gleiwitz
Psssssst...it's all about using Pear Harbour as an example of a false flag attack or haven't you read one of DRG's latest books ? But I suppose when you have to Goodwin, you have to Goodwin.
That's Godwin fyi. In fact, PNAC mentioned a "new Pearl Habor" as a unifying event for increased taxpayer spending on all things military. And there are more examples than that.
Deniers in denial have denied truth since long before the Tonkin Gulf big lie used to send 58,000 US troops to their deaths in VietNam. Deniers of truth aren't concerned with facts as was true of the mass hysteria surrounding Hitler and the Nazis in Europe. No matter how many times they were lied to, supporters of the fascist regime were loyal to the end. Historians say that those loyal to any outgoing regime will vary in numbers. In Tsarist Russia, they were several hundred thousand core suppporters and bureaucrats. In China their numbers were in the few millions. They had something to protect from truth and the relentless march of history.
The last century saw the end to several empires: the Ottoman empire, Austro-Hungarian, Japanese imperialism, Chinese imperialism ended, imperialist Russia, the Soviets, British empire etc.
9/11 is just another pitiful lie used to prop-up American empire on the wane. This USSA is the last empire, and it, too, will become but a footnote in the history of empires lost.
Mon, 2010-03-29 19:18
#85
Really? Where? Seriously, this is news to me. Nobody here has yet explained, using known principles of physics, the lack of resistance of 90 and 70 floors in the Twin Towers. If I'm wrong, point me to the post.
Pretty much everywhere. The key issue being the resistance was nowhere near what you intuit it it be, really it's that simple, yet you refuse to consider it.
We've seen the Bazant paper. Jones, Ryan, et al. debunk it. That was in the first thread, I think. But feel free to post it again if you feel it is saying something that Jones et al. specifically miss.
We're way past that now, and on to discussing what's wrong with Jones's, Wood's etc. "debunking"
Mon, 2010-03-29 20:05
#86
Pretty much everywhere. The key issue being the resistance was nowhere near what you intuit it it be, really it's that simple, yet you refuse to consider it.
"Pretty much everywhere", eh? Could you maybe give me one instance of where this is explained in any of these threads? I'd appreciate it.
But thank you, Salsa. You are confirming that there was no resistance, unlike some others here. Now, the question I'm asking (actually the scientists, engineers and researchers investigating this are asking) about that is: how can there be no resistance?
We're way past that now, and on to discussing what's wrong with Jones's, Wood's etc. "debunking"
Oh, we are, are we? I'm afraid you'll have to start your own thread on that. This one here is on examining the lack of credibility of the progressive collapse theory. But, you know, if you find it helps your "argument", go ahead. Debunk. But please do so using recognized scientific principles.
Mon, 2010-03-29 20:32
#87
But I may have miscredited the authors (below) who debunk the Seffen and the Bazant articles. They appear on the Journal of 9/11 Studies site (Jones, Ryan et al) but are written by different researchers, one of them being high school physics teacher David Chandler who publicly challenged Shyam Sunder and NIST on their statements about free fall of WTC7, which David Ray Griffin notes.
Discussion of "Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Center: A Simple Analysis" by K.A. Seffen (Grabbe)
Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics (Chandler)
The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis (McQueen and Szamboti)
Mon, 2010-03-29 21:32
#88
Jas, do you ever read these links that you post, or do you just go out and grab 'em ?
For instance...Chandler's paper states, this, just above the summary.
Therefore, perhaps counter-intuitively, any accreted material reduces the effectiveness of an assumed pile driver. This result may become reasonably....
This is like saying F=ma doesn't exist. so this is yet another self debunking paper.
Is this what you call "science" ?
Mon, 2010-03-29 22:00
#89
But the lower section of the building was designed to carry three to five times the mass of the section that fell on it. And the section that fell was pulverized and dispersing the downward force to something less than Bazant and Verdure claim was true in their pseudo-scientific analysis of collapse theory. Somewhere along the way the lower section of the building lost 90% of it's strength. Occam says least assumptions.
Bazant and Verdure's lengthy list of wild assumptions goes against the grain of Occam's philosophy.
Bazant and Verdure's argument is not with Chandler or Gourley or any of the more than one-thousand A&Es for truth.
Bazant and Verdure's argument is with Isaac Newton.
Mon, 2010-03-29 22:04
#90
But the lower section of the building was designed to carry three to five times the mass of the section that fell on it. And the section that fell was pulverized and dispersing the downward force to something less than Bazant and Verdure claim was true in their pseudo-scientific analysis of collapse theory. Somewhere along the way the lower section of the building lost 90% of it's strength. Occam says least assumptions.
Alright. Show me the math. Show me that your assertions are true.
Simple request.
Mon, 2010-03-29 22:18
#91
Lol. Suddenly Salsa speaks physics! Don't you love how they never answer our questions?
Mon, 2010-03-29 22:21
#92
Salsa, I don't think you've understood what Chandler is saying.
Mon, 2010-03-29 22:28
#93
The next sentence in that paragraph that Salsa pretends to understand is:
This result may become reasonably intuitive once one recognizes that the falling block must
transfer some of its momentum to the accreted mass to bring it up to speed.
Mon, 2010-03-29 22:32
#94
I believe he's also saying that the accretion of material works against the pile-driver effect. Which means that the argument that the floors pressing down from above act as a pile driver doesn't hold.
Mon, 2010-03-29 22:57
#95
I would also add that the particular argument above is easily understood the way we understand physics in everyday life: you don't even need high school physics to understand that a build-up of matter is going to slow something (a "pile driver") down.They are providing the math merely to show that the obvious can be proven mathematically, and probably also so that no one coming across the article can pretend to debunk them without showing some math.
Mon, 2010-03-29 23:05
#96
Alright. Show me the math. Show me that your assertions are true.Simple request.
Why should I have to reproduce someone else's work? People are defending their own work and challenging the afterthought theories on collapse and doing so in peer-reviewed scientific journals for the public to read. This is happening because the "official" 9/11 report produced by a group of non-scientists was so slip-shod in the first place.
The feds didnt just say that discovering who financed 9/11 is unimportant to the investigation and conclusions, they also said they didn't even consider searching for evidence of explosives.
What part of the denier's bad science are you having trouble with? Maybe we can work through it together? I've taken a full year course in physics at the university level, but it was years ago. I might even remember some of it.
Tue, 2010-03-30 00:31
#97
The molten metal flowing out of the 80th floor of WTC 2 ? That' was addressed long ago and had nothing to do with batteries.
Ya one of the first things they question at debunking911.com is how thermite could possibly cut sideways through steel. And yet [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRMG2HSMozA]this video demonstrates how it's done[/url] And it looks a lot like molten metal pouring out of the side of the south tower before collapsing symmetrically into a pile at ground zero. Firefighters reported observing what was [u]molten steel[/u] not molten aluminum or any other type of metal in three of the basements.
Tue, 2010-03-30 14:05
#98
Molten Metal: In addition to the ignored evidence already pointed out, NIST also, in its investigation of the WTC, ignored reports that the rubble contained lots of molten metal - which most people described as molten steel. For example, firefighter Philip Ruvolo, speaking of the Twin Towers, said: "You'd get down below and you'd see molten steel, molten steel, running down the channel rails, like you're in a foundry, like lava." [31]
Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction, which was involved in the clean-up operation, said that he saw pools of "literally molten steel." [32]
However, when John Gross, one of the main authors of NIST's reports, was asked about the molten steel, he said to the questioner: I challenge your "basic premise that there was a pool of molten steel," adding: "I know of absolutely no . . . eyewitness who has said so."[33]
However, in addition to Ruvolo and Tully, the eyewitnesses who said so included:
• Leslie Robertson, a member of the engineering firm that designed the Twin Towers. [34]
• Dr. Ronald Burger of the National Center for Environmental Health. [35]
• Dr. Alison Geyh of The Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, who headed up a scientific team that went to the site shortly after 9/11 at the request of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. [36]
• Finally, the fact that "molten steel was also found at WTC 7" was added by Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., which was involved in the clean-up. [37]
Tue, 2010-03-30 14:13
#99
But I may have miscredited the authors (below) who debunk the Seffen and the Bazant articles. They appear on the Journal of 9/11 Studies site ...
Hahaha (really - I laughed aloud when I saw this), that's a good one.
I cite a scholarly article from an engineering journal that's listed in a reputable engineering database and you mock my choice of authority, and yet you actually say in public that you rely on this place as a source? Sure, they call themselves "peer-reviewed" as if a circle jerk of crackpots and nutters constitutes legitimate scholarly rigour.
Oh, and since you asked, I have taught in a college of engineering and still teach engineering technologists. One thing we stress is to cite credible sources in our research. If a student were to cite The Journal of 9/11 Studies in a report, her work would be received in much the same manner as if she had cited Mad Magazine, but for different reasons.
Tue, 2010-03-30 14:21
#100
8. WTC Fires Did Not Melt SteelNIST: "In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, figure 6-36)" [3].
Agreed. We also find agreement with Prof. Thomas Eagar on this point: "The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.... The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel "[18].
We are in remarkable agreement, then: the WTC fires were not capable of melting steel. Of course, NIST then may have trouble explaining the molten material flowing out of the South Tower just before its collapse, as well as evidence for temperatures much higher than NIST's reported 1,100 °C [13]. We offer to discuss explanations for the observed high temperatures.
The Open Civil Engineering Journal, 2008, Volume 2 Jones et al.
Tue, 2010-03-30 14:23
#101
Oh, and since you asked, I have taught in a college of engineering and still teach engineering technologists. One thing we stress is to cite credible sources in our research. If a student were to cite The Journal of 9/11 Studies in a report, her work would be received in much the same manner as if she had cited Mad Magazine, but for different reasons.
If this is even remotely true, you sure don't show it. You should also be ashamed of yourself for supporting such absurd theories.