Weigh in on the 9/11 threads

116 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Thu, 2010-07-15 12:45

Yiwah

Quote:

Pants-of-dog wrote:

I would like to knwo why you are participating in this debate. By now, you should understand (as I do) that neither of us are going to convince the other.

So, why do you do it, jas? Why do you keep responding?

Quote:
Jas wrote:"That should be obvious. So that people like you don't get to pretend that you know what's what, and continue to mislead others about teh cause of collapse. So that Babblers who hurl insults at "Truthers" can finally understand that the theory that they think they're supporting is based on fantasies. Your piledriver does not exist. I have said this all along. Many, many others have said this all along. Here is the proof."

You have never provided a theory respecting the cause of collapse.

You have never disproven any of the theories discussed respecting the cause of collapse.

All you have done is say "Nu-uh! You're wrong!" while claiming your position is an accepted truth here on Babble that shouldn't be questioned.

Pants-of-Dog has approached this debate with patience, and an honest attempt to answer your questions and get a straight answer out of you. Reading this threads, I see his position as this:

"The official theory, while there may be slight errors that need accounting for, is not scientifically impossible."

He then asks, basically, "What is your problem with the theory?"

To which you reply, "It's impossible!" (this appears to be your overall position)

To which he responds, "Well here's the math which proves it is possible, show me how it's impossible."

To which you come back with, "I don't need math to know it's impossible!"

So I ask Babblers to weigh in. Is Jas/Fidel's position an accepted truth here on Babble?

Thu, 2010-07-15 12:51

Kaspar Hauser

Nope. Not for me, not by a long shot.

Thu, 2010-07-15 12:53

Caissa

I wish the Rabble editorial board would outlaw 9/11 in thread titles.

Thu, 2010-07-15 12:56

Boom Boom

Caissa wrote:

I wish the Rabble editorial board would outlaw 9/11 in thread titles.

Seconded!

Thu, 2010-07-15 13:02

Yiwah

Lol, would outlawing 9/11 in the titles change the content of the threads?

Though perhaps I'm missing an argument against the term itself?

Thu, 2010-07-15 13:04

jas

I'm not sure I should bother responding to anything the Yiwah pretends is "analysis", but her summary of the discussion with pants that spanned five threads is obviously missing about 95% of the content. Which tells me she doesn't have a grasp of the discussion at all, and was not able to follow it logically.

As I already explained, the stated purpose of the threads I started was to examine the accepted conspiracy theory, i.e., progressive collapse. Not to examine the alternate theories - at this point. I'm sorry that she still doesn't seem to grasp this basic point.

As far as the others posting here: do you understand what it was that you were being asked to show? I don't think you do. If you don't even understand the argument, what qualifies you to pass judgment on it? Isn't that the exact opposite of what open inquiry should do?

Thu, 2010-07-15 13:16

siamdave

Boom Boom wrote:

Caissa wrote:

I wish the Rabble editorial board would outlaw 9/11 in thread titles.

Seconded!

- the thing is, there are dozens of disucssions going on, not to mention endless distractions in capitalistland out there, and it's summertime to boot - if the 911 stuff doesn't interest you, what are you doing here?!?!

Thu, 2010-07-15 13:25

Yiwah

Jacob Two-Two had [url=http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1154310/If-I-surmise-you-are]this[/url] to say:

"The threads were started specifically to evaluate the NIST claim that the collapse of the towers happened in a certain way, as outlined in their report. The initiator of the thread is sceptical of this explanation and is offering a space for those who support it to defend the premise.

Hence, those who are backing up the report are the ones making the de facto assertion by agreeing with the official explanation and must defend their decision to stand behind the report. At least that's how the thread was set up."

Except Jas is not evaluating, he is simply rejecting.

From [url=http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1155577/Yiwah-blog-you-quote]this[/url] post:

Quote:
Jas wrote:

......

When I say the offical theory is not supported by science, I mean it is not proven or even somewhat supported by any known principles of physics.....

When that statement is challenged again and again with known principles of physics, and the scientific support is provided over and over, Jas and Fidel continue to claim they've already proven their point. Their point again is "the NIST theory is impossible".

Which they have NOT proven. It's a ridiculous claim to make in the first place ("it's impossible!"), but it's being stuck to.

Once more. Is this idea that the NIST theroy is IMPOSSIBLE an accepted Babble truth?

Thu, 2010-07-15 13:29

Yiwah

siamdave wrote:

- the thing is, there are dozens of disucssions going on, not to mention endless distractions in capitalistland out there, and it's summertime to boot - if the 911 stuff doesn't interest you, what are you doing here?!?!

If I may answer this as to my motivations...

I can't pull my horrified eyes away, however mind-numbingly boring this topic is...the social interplay is absolutely fascinating. I suppose it's the constant crowing of 'we win!' that keeps me coming back for more...since claiming victory seems so hilarious considering the context.

Thu, 2010-07-15 13:37

#10

Pants-of-dog

I am particpating in the 9/11 threads because I am immensely enjoying the process of learning how so much of the physics that I learnt can actually be applied. Consequently, I am learning an incredible amount about building failure.

I do not care if people believe me or not. If I was attempting to actually change someone's mind, I would not have used a strategy that so obviously backfired.

Thu, 2010-07-15 13:41

#11

siamdave

Yiwah wrote:

siamdave wrote:

- the thing is, there are dozens of disucssions going on, not to mention endless distractions in capitalistland out there, and it's summertime to boot - if the 911 stuff doesn't interest you, what are you doing here?!?!

If I may answer this as to my motivations...

I can't pull my horrified eyes away, however mind-numbingly boring this topic is...the social interplay is absolutely fascinating. I suppose it's the constant crowing of 'we win!' that keeps me coming back for more...since claiming victory seems so hilarious considering the context.

- well, that certainly enlightens me and informs the conversation.

As to your question about the NIST conspiracy theory being 'accepted dogma' on Babble - what is your point here? Do you think everybody should have the same opinion about things, or that Babble should have an 'official' position on this and bar all others (not an unreasonable question, they seem to do this with some things) - and if that is so, where do you see yourself? Brown-nosing for a promotion with the thought police or what?

If you are really in the dark about 911 and have some time to kill, as you seem to, these might be of some interest - that is, if you really have an 'open mind' -

http://themurkynews.blogspot.com/2008/04/chapter-three-closer-look-at-91...
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

Careful. It's blue pill stuff - you go here, there's no turning back. Many people want nothing to do with unpleasant truths ...

Thu, 2010-07-15 13:42

#12

jas

Yiwah wrote:

When that statement is challenged again and again with known principles of physics, and the scientific support is provided over and over, Jas and Fidel continue to claim they've already proven their point. Their point again is "the NIST theory is impossible".

Which they have NOT proven. It's a ridiculous claim to make in the first place ("it's impossible!"), but it's being stuck to

Re: the bolded: It's not, though. We went through the steps that show that the "scientific" support is not scientific and it's not support. No.1, by being designed to arrive at a foregone conclusion, rather than ask the questions that real scientists would ask, and No. 2, in its unwillingness to complete its own scenario (i.e., all the collapse that occurs after the alleged first floor), and therefore ignore most of the visual evidence.

So not only has the piledriver theory been debunked theoretically (by others, long before these discussions on Babble) but, since you didn't understand this or didn't want to accept it, we had to resort to pictures. Luckily, I found one that shows that the upper block is crushing itself against the intact building below.

Thu, 2010-07-15 13:48

#13

VanGoghs Ear

yiwah

see here

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/humanities-science/how-facts-backfire

Most of us like to believe that our opinions have been formed over time by careful, rational consideration of facts and ideas, and that the decisions based on those opinions, therefore, have the ring of soundness and intelligence. In reality, we often base our opinions on our beliefs, which can have an uneasy relationship with facts. And rather than facts driving beliefs, our beliefs can dictate the facts we chose to accept. They can cause us to twist facts so they fit better with our preconceived notions. Worst of all, they can lead us to uncritically accept bad information just because it reinforces our beliefs.

... it's never been easier for people to be wrong, and at the same time feel more certain that they're right.

Thu, 2010-07-15 13:54

#14

Yiwah

siamdave wrote:

- well, that certainly enlightens me and informs the conversation.

As to your question about the NIST conspiracy theory being 'accepted dogma' on Babble - what is your point here? Do you think everybody should have the same opinion about things, or that Babble should have an 'official' position on this and bar all others (not an unreasonable question, they seem to do this with some things)

My point is, Jas has repeatedly claimed victory, and has gone on and on about how all this has been proven before. He is appealing to his position as accepted dogma. I think it's a silly claim, since the proliferation of the threads clearly shows that his position is not as 'immediately obvious and clearly true' as he keeps saying it is. There is nothing obvious and clearly true about the subject.

And that's really my only point. The discussion could do without the constant self-aggrandizement and referrals to supposed victories. Continually claiming the discussion is over/proven/etc gets in the way of actually answering the questions of the people who are trying to figure out how Jas justifies his claims about the NIST report being 'impossible'.

One wonders why the topic is still open if Jas truly thinks the topic is already proven/over. From the quote in the OP, it seems he isn't actually interested in having a discussion:

Jas wrote:"That should be obvious. So that people like you don't get to pretend that you know what's what, and continue to mislead others about teh cause of collapse. So that Babblers who hurl insults at "Truthers" can finally understand that the theory that they think they're supporting is based on fantasies. Your piledriver does not exist. I have said this all along. Many, many others have said this all along. Here is the proof."

To paraphrase, it seems as though he's saying, "I've already proven you wrong, and I only discuss this to remind you that you're wrong".

Which is an incredibly dishonest position to be debating from.

siamdave wrote:
and if that is so, where do you see yourself? Brown-nosing for a promotion with the thought police or what?

And you were doing so good with the legitimate questions until the personal attack...but that's okay, I've seen you call Pants-of-Dog deceitful and such. Avoiding the personal attacks would help to stop drawing attention away from the substantive points you're making btw, but I'm certainly not the boss of you.

Thu, 2010-07-15 13:57

#15

bagkitty

Yiwah wrote:

Lol, would outlawing 9/11 in the titles change the content of the threads?

Though perhaps I'm missing an argument against the term itself?

Well it is inaccurate to start with. I am trying to think of anyone, other than the Americans and their immediate colonies and possessions, who habitually records dates numerically in any fashion other than ascending from smallest to largest (i.e., date, month, year) - well anyone other than the Ottawa bureaucrats who insist on descending order rather than change the software they use. But the Americans are pretty much unique in their scattered approach of month, day, year. I am sure Mr. Spock would raise an eyebrow in there general direction were they to try and explain why.

[ETA and yes, I maintain that the new century/new millennium started on 01/01/2001, not 01/01/2000... and I am positive Mr. Spock would back me up on that. "Live long and prosper"]

Thu, 2010-07-15 13:58

#16

Yiwah

jas wrote:

Re: the bolded: It's not, though. We went through the steps that show that the "scientific" support is not scientific and it's not support. No.1, by being designed to arrive at a foregone conclusion, rather than ask the questions that real scientists would ask, and No. 2, in its unwillingness to complete its own scenario (i.e., all the collapse that occurs after the alleged first floor), and therefore ignore most of the visual evidence.

So not only has the piledriver theory been debunked theoretically (by others, long before these discussions on Babble) but, since you didn't understand this or didn't want to accept it, we had to resort to pictures. Luckily, I found one that shows that the upper block is crushing itself against the intact building below.

Frankly, I'm uninterested in how you think your argument looks...it's quite apparent you believe you 'won' long ago.

I'd like to know if anyone else agrees that you have. I certainly don't.

Thu, 2010-07-15 14:05

#17

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Re: the OP - No, jas and Fidel's position is not accepted dogma. Further, I think the threads going on and on and on with pseudoscience and wacky theories about the politics surrounding 9/11 actually make babble a less credible board. But it's the mods' call whether or not to let them carry on, and I respect that.

Thu, 2010-07-15 14:09

#18

Caissa

Maybe the Rabble Board will begin to worry about its credibility as the titles keep appearing on the homepage.

Thu, 2010-07-15 14:18

#19

jas

bagkitty wrote:

[ETA and yes, I maintain that the new century/new millennium started on 01/01/2001, not 01/01/2000... and I am positive Mr. Spock would back me up on that. "Live long and prosper"]

LOL, bagkitty. Still not happy with that, huh?

A number marks a fullness or a completion of a value, not the beginning of one. A child turns 1 year old after it has lived one year. Not when it is born. Would you say that child "doesn't exist" until he or she turns 1?

Thu, 2010-07-15 14:21

#20

jas

Timebandit wrote:

Re: the OP - No, jas and Fidel's position is not accepted dogma.

I don't know that Fidel and I have a common "position" regarding the collapse of the towers beyond that we both agree, along with thousands of others, that the accepted theory cannot explain them. And yes, we know that's not accepted dogma. We are trying to change that.

Thu, 2010-07-15 14:22

#21

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Just because a delusion is shared by many does not make it credible.

Thu, 2010-07-15 14:32

#22

jas

Speaking of delusions, TB, where is the "piledriver" in the theory you support? Can you show us? Do you understand why you need to before you continue to insult me? If you don't, I would suggest you gracefully bow out of the discussion.

Thu, 2010-07-15 14:38

#23

Yiwah

. (edit, wacky formatting)

Thu, 2010-07-15 14:40

#24

Yiwah

jas wrote:

Speaking of delusions, TB, where is the "piledriver" in the theory you support? Can you show us? Do you understand why you need to before you continue to insult me? If you don't, I would suggest you gracefully bow out of the discussion.

Sorry, this isn't a WTC collapse theory thread, it's one of those wacky meta threads.

You've already asked people to [url=http://rabble.ca/comment/1163162/Yiwah-wrote-burden-you]apologise[/url] for daring to find your 'proof' less than definitive in the face of counter-arguments. Now you're telling people they have no right to look at your debating 'methods' unless they engage in debating you? Not all of us have the patience of a saint...Pants-of-dog seems fairly unique in that sense.

I'm not sure why you don't just pat yourself on the back and go on your merry way since you believe you've already 'won'. What's the point of this farce of a debate?

Thu, 2010-07-15 14:48

#25

jas

I'm trying to point out to you that if you don't understand the argument we are/I am presenting, you can't possibly make the kind of judgments you're making about it.

But you're right. I will go on my merry way. You seem to have some kind of hate-on for me and hope to completely discredit me while conveniently not having to deal with the argument. I think intelligent people will recognize the illegitimacy in this.

Thu, 2010-07-15 14:58

#26

Sineed

Timebandit wrote:

Re: the OP - No, jas and Fidel's position is not accepted dogma. Further, I think the threads going on and on and on with pseudoscience and wacky theories about the politics surrounding 9/11 actually make babble a less credible board. But it's the mods' call whether or not to let them carry on, and I respect that.

My opinion exactly, and I'd add that babble is in general rather too tolerant of wacky science. In the name of open-mindedness, babble has ended up with links to pages that also link to Holocaust denial, for instance, and this has happened more than once.

Thu, 2010-07-15 15:00

#27

Yiwah

I don't actually think you understand the arguments you are making (certainly not the physics involved), much less the arguments others are making.

It's nothing personal though. I just find the entire situation to be like something out of the Twilight Zone, and wonder where it is that tactics like yours (constantly claiming victory and asking everything to be dumbed down to a nearly pointless level) are actually considered legitimate.

Thu, 2010-07-15 15:04

#28

jas

Because I admit to not being up on physics terminology, others who, themselves, haven't participated in the discussion pick on that in an attempt to discredit my arguments. If you were able to follow the discussion you would see I have more than adequate understanding, as most of us do, of basic physical concepts. Possibly more so, at times, that your friend Pants, judging by some of the silliness he has been trying to pass off.

So I can see this debate indeed will never end on Babble, because many Babblers don't want it to. They are unwilling to recognize evidence when they see it.

Thu, 2010-07-15 15:18

#29

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Sineed wrote:

Timebandit wrote:

Re: the OP - No, jas and Fidel's position is not accepted dogma. Further, I think the threads going on and on and on with pseudoscience and wacky theories about the politics surrounding 9/11 actually make babble a less credible board. But it's the mods' call whether or not to let them carry on, and I respect that.

My opinion exactly, and I'd add that babble is in general rather too tolerant of wacky science. In the name of open-mindedness, babble has ended up with links to pages that also link to Holocaust denial, for instance, and this has happened more than once.

Good to have an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out...

Thu, 2010-07-15 15:27

#30

bagkitty

jas wrote:

bagkitty wrote:

[ETA and yes, I maintain that the new century/new millennium started on 01/01/2001, not 01/01/2000... and I am positive Mr. Spock would back me up on that. "Live long and prosper"]

LOL, bagkitty. Still not happy with that, huh?

A number marks a fullness or a completion of a value, not the beginning of one. A child turns 1 year old after it has lived one year. Not when it is born. Would you say that child "doesn't exist" until he or she turns 1?

Like many curmudgeons before me, I do my utmost to deny the existence of children for as long as possible. Unfortunately, most of them end up being both ambulatory and verbal and this tends to frustrate my attempts to deny their existence.

Thu, 2010-07-15 15:29

#31

Fidel

Yiwah wrote:
So I ask Babblers to weigh in. Is Jas/Fidel's position an accepted truth here on Babble?

We aren't suggesting we know exactly how the buildings collapsed. Or rather I should say, more than 1200 licenced architects and engineers for truth aren't suggesting they know. What they are saying is that the US Government side of the issue have not done their jobs to investigate the exact reasons why three white real estate elephants collapsed in the heart of a densely populated city after only two planes collided with two of three. There is a professional responsibility for those professionals to understand in detail what caused collapse initiation. And collapse initiation is the weakest part of the government's official conspiracy theory. It wouldn't be a controversial report if they'd done their jobs to the best of their abilities and simply reported that certain aspects of the collapses are a complete mystery to them. But when they simply ignored collapse initiation for the most part, more than 900 egineers began to question that explanation. Why? Because its their jobs to do so. Many architects and engineers don't really care whether it was an inside job or not. What they are looking for is transparency and accountability in a few US Government agencies and no more than that.

Thu, 2010-07-15 15:34

#32

jas

bagkitty wrote:

Like many curmudgeons before me, I do my utmost to deny the existence of children for as long as possible. Unfortunately, most of them end up being both ambulatory and verbal and this tends to frustrate my attempts to deny their existence.

[returning to going about my merry way...]

Thu, 2010-07-15 15:37

#33

Pope Teddywang Pope Teddywang's picture

As a longtime lurker, i have to interject to say i am disgusted with rabble over this issue.

I never bought the official hooey for a second, for what were at the time purely intuitive reasons.

I subsequently found my way to the 9-11 Truth Movement by way of links found on rabble.ca.

That the issue now has to be kept alive by posters rather than by feature articles is deplorable.

I kind of think Iggy has weighed in recently as well, or am I reaching ?

“You know you smell the whiff of sulfur coming off the guy (Harper) — we know how right wing these guys really are.”

Nano-thermite or "super thermite" is classed as an explosive. A mixture of thermite and SULFUR produces thermate which lowers the melting point of the iron it contacts when reacting by forming a eutectic system. This is useful in cutting through steel.

See:

http://rt.com/Politics/2009-07-09/Did_nano-thermite_take_down_the_WTC.ht...

[edit] "

Thu, 2010-07-15 15:43

#34

remind

Yiwah wrote:
So I ask Babblers to weigh in. Is Jas/Fidel's position an accepted truth here on Babble?

Frankly, I find this appeal to some "babbler" authority greatly disquieting...on many levels.

Thu, 2010-07-15 15:50

#35

Yiwah

remind wrote:

Yiwah wrote:
So I ask Babblers to weigh in. Is Jas/Fidel's position an accepted truth here on Babble?

Frankly, I find this appeal to some "babbler" authority greatly disquieting...on many levels.

Which...Jas' appeal to it, or my questioning of there being any such Babbler authority?

Thu, 2010-07-15 15:50

#36

Pants-of-dog

This is not a continuation of the 9/11 collapse thread.

Please stop hijacking the thread.

Thu, 2010-07-15 15:51

#37

Fidel

Right on, Pope Teddywang! I pointed us to a Counterpunch essay written by Dr Manuel Garcia and critiqued by David Griscom, both US citizens. And so people might wonder why a competent physicist such as Garcia might be supporting a crazy government conspiracy theory. As it turns out, Garcia is a professor at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, one of the academic wings of the US Military-industrial complex which consumer advocate and Green Party leader, Ralph Nader, says has been contracted by the US Military-i-c to do basic research and development of what will probably become the most deadly biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction ever conceived.

911blogger.com wrote:
It turns out that explosive, sol-gel nano-thermites were developed by US government scientists, at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories (LLNL) (Tillitson et al 1998, Gash et al 2000, Gash et al 2002). These LLNL scientists reported that --

"The sol-gel process is very amenable to dip-, spin-, and spray-coating technologies to coat surfaces. We have utilized this property to dip-coat various substrates to make sol-gel Fe,O,/ Al / Viton coatings. The energetic coating dries to give a nice adherent film. Preliminary experiments indicate that films of the hybrid material are self-propagating when ignited by thermal stimulus"
(Gash et al 2002).

If they want these very real public suspicions to go away, then it's time they said, simply, let's have a real investigation this time. Let's spend at least as many resources on a 9/11 investigation as what was allocated to the Clinton-Lewsinksy affair or even Whitewater investigation.

Thu, 2010-07-15 15:52

#38

Yiwah

Edit:

eep...even I'm doing it!

Thu, 2010-07-15 15:55

#39

Yiwah

The concept of 'wacky science' has been brought up though. How would that be defined?

Thu, 2010-07-15 15:55

#40

remind

You appealed to it yaweh, as you can see right there in my quote of yours.

Thu, 2010-07-15 15:59

#41

Yiwah

remind wrote:

You appealed to it yaweh, as you can see right there in my quote of yours.

Yaweh...that's an amusing spelling.

I guess you missed the part where there was a claim made that Jas' position is a settled fact on Babble. Which is a direct appeal to some sort of Babble authority.

One which, btw, you actually support in the feminism forum. There are certain foundational principles in this forum which allow us to avoid rehashing settled arguments. The claim was made that this is akin to one of those foundational principles.

So I ask. Is it?

Thu, 2010-07-15 16:29

#42

Fidel

Sineed wrote:
My opinion exactly, and I'd add that babble is in general rather too tolerant of wacky science. In the name of open-mindedness, babble has ended up with links to pages that also link to Holocaust denial, for instance, and this has happened more than once.

Ya, I can remember when Leslie Hughes was smeared with the anti-semitic label in order to shut her up. Her writings on 9/11 crimethink was doubleplusungood apparently.

[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 by the American Inquisition

Thu, 2010-07-15 17:04

#43

PB66

I found the arguments against the "official theory" particularly weak. Several babblers claimed that this video or that made it clear to any honest observer that the official story must be fraudulent. Well, I consider myself to be an honest observer, and I didn't see any reason why what I thought the official story was must be false. In the 24 hours I followed the previous thread, there were claims about an elementary rebutal using Newton's third law which seemed very suspiscious, there was a counter-argument about energy loss which seemed to confuse one change in time with another, and there were claims that there had been no studies of the amount of jet fuel consumed in the original fireball, and that wood and paper fires couldn't reach tempertaures that would weaken steel, but a few minutes research on wikipedia and google gave estimates on the amount of fuel in the fireballs, that regular fires are at 700-900c, and that steel can lose 90% of its strength at those temperatures. When one theory -e.g. the official 9/11 story or what I thought it said- provides a description of the world and others -e.g. some babblers- provide an alternate description that differs on points x,y, and z, and then it turns out the critics were wrong, that leaves me with more faith in the original argument.

As it turns out, a remark of siamdave lead me to learn that the "office fire leads to pancaking" theory, which I thought was the "official theory" and which I think was the conclusion of the 9/11 commission, is not the conclusion reached by NIST. I'm quite willing to accept that there may also be flaws in the NIST conclusion, but, if so, they are somewhat subtle. I'd be willing to accept that the critics have valid points if there was a willingness to criticise other critics for claiming that the flaws are subtle and not immediately obvious.The incoherent arguments of some critics led me to be more willing to accept a description which even NIST concedes is wrong.

The reports have been out for several years. If there were genuine flaws in them, I'd expect the community of critics to be more-or-less on the same page about those flaws and to have a better explanation of them.

Internet posting rarely brings out the best in people, but I feel I should say that several of the critics are, on the whole, arguing honestly.

Thu, 2010-07-15 18:44

#44

Fidel

PB66 wrote:
I followed the previous thread, there were claims about an elementary rebutal using Newton's third law which seemed very suspiscious, there was a counter-argument about energy loss which seemed to confuse one change in time with another, and there were claims that there had been no studies of the amount of jet fuel consumed in the original fireball, and that wood and paper fires couldn't reach tempertaures that would weaken steel, but a few minutes research on wikipedia and google gave estimates on the amount of fuel in the fireballs, that regular fires are at 700-900c, and that steel can lose 90% of its strength at those temperatures.

[url=http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/SzambotiSustainabilityo... Szamboti(pdf)[/url] disagrees and says that fires and plane impacts can only account for as much as 20% of columns losing significant amounts of their strength:

Quote:
...it cannot be shown that any more than 20% of the columns, in either tower, had their strength significantly affected by the aircraft impacts and fire. That leaves approximately 80% of the columns, in both cases, with their full strength intact. Grid like structures, such as the twin towers, redistribute loads when individual columns or beams are damaged. This occurs in a bridge like fashion, since the columns are interconnected horizontally at every floor. In the reference section of this article, it is shown that if 20% of the perimeter and central core columns were totally incapacitated, 48 perimeter columns and 9 central core columns, the perimeter wall and central core would have maintained factors of safety of at least 4.00 and 2.40, respectively. This means that for the buckling stress of the core columns to be reached, and collapse to even be possible, the actual steel in all of the remaining 38 core columns would need to reach 650° C (1202° F), to lose 60% of their strength. This is not a likely scenario and, as stated earlier, there is no physical evidence for these very high steel temperatures. [u]It would appear that the initiation of a collapse, due to fire weakening, was improbable.[/u]

[url=http://cms.ae911truth.org/news/41-articles/239-former-chief-of-nists-fir... Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation[/url] Quintiere should start his own truther group, NIST Whistleblowers for 9/11 Truth.

Fri, 2010-07-16 02:55

#45