lol...it's like all of you are waiting for the others to make the thread :D
Light weight on 911, generally speaking of course!
Tue, 2010-07-20 11:31
#52
Tue, 2010-07-20 11:34
#53
Then it must have been a refreshing change when I actually did the math and examined the science behind the 9/11 collapse.Maybe you could explain Garcia's duration of collapse again. Because it went right over my head last time.
Sure. As soon as another collapse thread is started.
Perhaps in the new one we can also critically analyse the controlled demolition hypothesis.
Tue, 2010-07-20 11:56
#54
"It seems like there are a lot of people who feel like they are being attacked. Is this normal for babble discourse on WTC?"
Sadly, this is normal for babble discourse, period. There have been times when it seems that's all that gets talked about.
"Perhaps in the new one we can also critically analyse the controlled demolition hypothesis."
That would be cool. As far as I know, this has never happened, because the bulk (not all, of course) of the opposition to the sceptic's position has been "Shut up. You're crazy". If you look back through old WTC attack threads, you'll see that they are rife with derailing, mockery, and outright hostility from a number of regulars who believed that nobody anywhere should be discussing this, and felt it was their duty to keep repeating this until the conversation stopped or was rendered useless. This latest round that you've been involved in was mercifully free of such.
Tue, 2010-07-20 11:57
#55
That should prove to be interesting. And I replied to you [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/humanities-science/how-facts-backfire#comment-11..., slippery.
Tue, 2010-07-20 12:33
#56
Pants, your math depends on the crushed floors having the same mass as intact floors. It depends on rubble being able to remain vertically intact through all this crushing. It depends on thick layers of rubble being able to crush through 287 structural steel columns, floor by floor, for 80 and 90 floors in under 13 seconds, without falling outside the crush zone. It depends on the existence of a piledriver that is shown in the video evidence to be crushing itself before the building begins to fall. It depends on a number of hypotheticals that need to happen and have never been shown to have happened. Your math, Bazant's math, has been shown to be hypothetical and, with all these factors and more to consider, incorrect.
Tue, 2010-07-20 12:34
#57
Sadly, this is normal for babble discourse, period. There have been times when it seems that's all that gets talked about.....
That would be cool. As far as I know, this has never happened, because the bulk (not all, of course) of the opposition to the sceptic's position has been "Shut up. You're crazy". If you look back through old WTC attack threads, you'll see that they are rife with derailing, mockery, and outright hostility from a number of regulars who believed that nobody anywhere should be discussing this, and felt it was their duty to keep repeating this until the conversation stopped or was rendered useless. This latest round that you've been involved in was mercifully free of such.
I shall try to include a critical analysis of the controlled demolition hypothesis in the next thread. The first issue with that, of course, is to ask what the CD hypothesis is, and I honestly doubt that there is a concensus on that among "truthers", or even among the "truthers" on babble.
And I will endeavour to do so in a polite and impersonal manner.
EDIT:
That should prove to be interesting. And I replied to you [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/humanities-science/how-facts-backfire#comment-11..., slippery.
There are two reasons why I have yet to reply to that post. One of them being the fact that the thread was locked immediately afterwards. The second is that the thread in which you posted that is not a discussion on the WTC collapses.
Tue, 2010-07-20 12:37
#58
And don't forget to explain the new math on [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/humanities-science/how-facts-backfire#comment-11... of collapse[/url] according to Pants.
Tue, 2010-07-20 12:39
#59
That should prove to be interesting. And I replied to you [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/humanities-science/how-facts-backfire#comment-11..., slippery.
There are two reasons why I have yet to reply to that post. One of them being the fact that the thread was locked immediately afterwards. The second is that the thread in which you posted that is not a discussion on the WTC collapses.
Sure-sure ya-ya. Lots of space left in this thread. 
<--winky face
Tue, 2010-07-20 12:44
#60
As I have been pointing out, others do not agree that you have proven anything beyond a reasonable doubt.
Others do not agree because they misunderstand the theory they pretend to support.
Tue, 2010-07-20 12:44
#61
That should prove to be interesting. And I replied to you [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/humanities-science/how-facts-backfire#comment-11..., slippery.
Is that little bit of name-calling really necessary?
Tue, 2010-07-20 12:45
#62
Pants, your math depends on the crushed floors having the same mass as intact floors. It depends on rubble being able to remain vertically intact through all this crushing. It depends on thick layers of rubble being able to crush through 287 structural steel columns, floor by floor, for 80 and 90 floors in under 13 seconds, without falling outside the crush zone. It depends on the existence of a piledriver that is shown in the video evidence to be crushing itself before the building begins to fall. It depends on a number of hypotheticals that need to happen and have never been shown to have happened. Your math, Bazant's math, has been shown to be hypothetical and, with all these factors and more to consider, incorrect.
There are several misunderstandings you have of the model that I am proposing.
This is one of the problems of the WTC collapse debates. I spend a great deal of time disabusing you of faulty notions concerning the model as I understand it. The bulk of your criticisms are actually criticisms of your own faulty assumptions rather than valid criticisms of the model itself.
For example, your very first claim above about the official model ("your math depends on the crushed floors having the same mass as intact floors") is incorrect in that even if all the mass of the lower floor was there to slow down the upper block, then absorbed an incredible amount of kinetic energy such that it was all ejected laterally, and did not add to the mass of the falling upper block, there would probably still have been enough energy to continue the collapse.
This is probably due to several things, not the least of which is a lack of clarity considering the relative importance of mass and velocity to kinetic energy. However, the main point is that my model does not depend on the mass added to the upper block, as you claim. As you can see, your criticism simply does not apply to my model. You are arguing against a model that you built.
Tue, 2010-07-20 12:48
#63
And don't forget to explain the new math on [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/humanities-science/how-facts-backfire#comment-11... of collapse[/url] according to Pants.
This is not an argument, nor is it even pertinent to the meta-discussion on the WTC threads.
Sure-sure ya-ya. Lots of space left in this thread.
This thread is not a continuation of the collapse threads. Nor is this the first time I have mentioned this.
Tue, 2010-07-20 12:48
#64
As I have been pointing out, others do not agree that you have proven anything beyond a reasonable doubt.
Others do not agree because they misunderstand the theory they pretend to support.
Shockingly, my position is actually that the position you claim to support has not been presented very well. I don't come into this with a theory I support...I simply question your claims about having proven something 'beyond a reasonable doubt' when the doubt I've seen appears to be quite reasonable indeed.
Which, if you'll note, is quite different than 'having made up [our] minds'.
Tue, 2010-07-20 12:50
#65
As I have been pointing out, others do not agree that you have proven anything beyond a reasonable doubt.
Others do not agree because they misunderstand the theory they pretend to support.
Are you suggesting that I do not understand the theory I support?
Or that I am only pretending to support it?
Tue, 2010-07-20 12:56
#66
And Pants, as we've said elsewhere, it was a refreshing change to argue with you, because you actually attempt to deal with the argument rather than merely discredit (without proof) the "truther" argument or "truthers" themselves. That was refreshing.
Your argument itself, however, wasn't that refreshing, as I've pointed out before, because you spent three threads arguing a position I had already outlined in the OP of the thread in which you first appeared. You also tended not to deal with valid criticism, saying things like "I have already explained that" and telling us to go back to the post in which you "explained" it, or where you cited Bazant, very much like a broken record, when in fact, others were pointing out to you that that explanation was faulty to begin with. You also tended to scatter the focus of the discussion by replying on long, loaded posts covering numerous details that were not essential to the argument, as if you found it difficult to answer in a simple way very basic questions.
Tue, 2010-07-20 12:57
#67
remind
But again it goes back to my point, that all 911 threads should be linked, that way, continuity occurs and things formerly posted can easily verified, or debunked.
The reality is people do try and slip away from their own comments and others observations, all the time, both here and elsewhere on the net. from any given position. They start their premise all over again, as if the prior threads, if they are not linked, do not exist.
Tue, 2010-07-20 13:00
#68
Are you suggesting that I do not understand the theory I support?
Or that I am only pretending to support it?
No, you seem to be one of the few who understands what it is you're arguing. Perhaps the first. At least in my time here.
I just think your argument is disingenuous.
Tue, 2010-07-20 13:00
#69
- actually, for the mind unfuzzed by the massive media / government propaganda blitz following the great crime of 911, controlled demolition was the observed reality, based on the knowledge and observation of any number of prior similar building collapses. In the sane world, which must be around here somewhere said Alice as the Red Queen once again started screaming, it is thus not up to me or anyone else to explain any 'hypothesis' of controlled demolition, it is up to those who believe in the official theory to explain how it actually explains the collapses of those three buildings without the use of explosives, which nobody has yet come close to doing in any believable fashion. There are many, many videos out there of the WTC collapses, and other CDs for comparison - here is one just as a quick refresher course: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo . If we get back into this somewhere on another thread, we really need to try to establish some kind of parameters for 'quality of evidence' or something - simply waving around a paper by somebody that SAYS it proves something does not mean something is proved. Simply making some facile comment and SAYING that explains something does not mean something is explained. I'm more than happy to engage in any serious discussions along these lines, because everything of importance is perfectly obvious to me - but to have to keep explaining obvious things over and over again to people who keep refusing to acknowledge something when they're obviously in the wrong gets pretty frustrating after awhile.
Tue, 2010-07-20 13:05
#70
For example, your very first claim above about the official model ("your math depends on the crushed floors having the same mass as intact floors") is incorrect in that even if all the mass of the lower floor was there to slow down the upper block, then absorbed an incredible amount of kinetic energy such that it was all ejected laterally, and did not add to the mass of the falling upper block, there would probably still have been enough energy to continue the collapse.
Would "probably" still have been enough?
And that reminds me. Your math only explained the hypothetical collapse of the first floor. It doesn't bother to explain the rest. That in itself shows its invalidity.
Tue, 2010-07-20 13:10
#71
....it is thus not up to me or anyone else to explain any 'hypothesis' of controlled demolition...
So, does that mean I can go and pick any controlled demolition hypothesis at random, or even make up one of my own? If that is so, that will make my job of disproving it far easier.
If we get back into this somewhere on another thread, we really need to try to establish some kind of parameters for 'quality of evidence' or something - simply waving around a paper by somebody that SAYS it proves something does not mean something is proved.
I completely agree.
Tue, 2010-07-20 13:13
#72
Pants, if you want to examine the controlled demolition theory, go ahead and start a thread on it. The threads examining the NIST theory are not for that purpose. I think you can understand that.
Tue, 2010-07-20 13:19
#73
For example, your very first claim above about the official model ("your math depends on the crushed floors having the same mass as intact floors") is incorrect in that even if all the mass of the lower floor was there to slow down the upper block, then absorbed an incredible amount of kinetic energy such that it was all ejected laterally, and did not add to the mass of the falling upper block, there would probably still have been enough energy to continue the collapse.
Would "probably" still have been enough?
And that reminds me. Your math only explained the hypothetical collapse of the first floor. It doesn't bother to explain the rest. That in itself shows its invalidity.
It is interesting that you focus on the word probably rather than the fact that the extreme model I describe in the post would be far more favorable to arresting collapse than what is consistent with reality. It is, for your argument, a best case scenario, and it would proabaly still fail.
Let us say "probably" is not enough. I would then simply do the math again with reasonable numbers that actually correspond to reality. in that case, I am certain (because of the math that I have done) the KE would be enough.
And your final paragraph illustrates exactly why I say "things like "I have already explained that" and tell [you] to go back to the post in which [I] "explained" it". Because I have already explained it. Several times.
Tue, 2010-07-20 13:21
#74
Pants, we don't have to prove anything about the demolitions of 9/11. And neither do A&Es for 9/11 truth.
However, NIST is obligated by law to investigate further and reveal to the public a credible theory as to what caused collapse intitiation. You can reproduce all the Bazant and Greening and NIST material here for us if you want to. But that won't change the fact that the people you swear blind allegiance to are still weak on [u]collapse initiation.[/u]
Tue, 2010-07-20 13:23
#75
Pants, if you want to examine the controlled demolition theory, go ahead and start a thread on it. The threads examining the NIST theory are not for that purpose. I think you can understand that.
I find it highly interesting that "truthers" are so interested in criticisng only one possible hypothesis, rather than criticising all of them and finding out the truth.
Pants, we don't have to prove anything about the demolitions of 9/11. And neither do A&Es for 9/11 truth.
However, NIST is obligared by law to investigate further and reveal to the public a credible theory as to what caused collapse intitiation. You can reproduce all the Bazant and Greening and NIST material here for us if you want to. But that won't change the fact that the people you swear blind allegiance to are still weak on [u]collapse initiation.[/u]
So, do the two of you then agree with siamdave that I should go and find (or come up with) a CD hypothesis to demolish? Please say yes.
Tue, 2010-07-20 13:24
#76
And don't forget to refer to someone with a male moniker as "he or she" for low cal filler.
Tue, 2010-07-20 13:26
#77
You still haven't demonstrated for us that you understand Garcia's duration of collapse, so I'm not sure why you would want to jump to conclusions as to how demolitions might have happened.
Tue, 2010-07-20 13:27
#78
And don't forget to refer to someone with a male moniker as "he or she" for low cal filler.
Do you like George Sands? Personally, I find him to be a little dry, as a writer. What about George Eliot, or George Egerton?
Tue, 2010-07-20 13:29
#79
You still haven't demonstrated for us that you understand Garcia's duration of collapse, so I'm not sure why you would want to jump to conclusions as to how demolitions might have happened.
Can I infer from this that you have no real idea as to what the CD hypothesis actually is?
Tue, 2010-07-20 13:33
#80
Can I infer from this that you have no real idea as to what the CD hypothesis actually is?
Yes, you can. There is no one, unified CD hypothesis.
Tue, 2010-07-20 13:33
#81
Pants, are you capable of making your argument without resorting to Bazant's math? When you say you can "prove" there's enough kinetic energy to explain the collapse initiation, I don't believe you, and I believe others have shown why this is not true. I also don't believe that your calculations can explain the speed of descent. I think they are just some trickery and I think you resort to math to pull the discussion away from common sense understanding.
If you understand the math, you should be able to present your argument in non-mathematical terms. Otherwise, maybe you should be arguing with others who understand the math. For example, on the more technical forums. Wouldn't you find that more satisfying?
If some of you want to have an argument based on the math, that's fine. I will bow out. But since babble is not a math nerds board, I think it would behoove Pants to make an attempt to present Bazant's argument in commonly understood terms. It would certainly be much more persuasive if he could. However, I will add that no amount of math can resurrect your non-existent upper block piledriver, so I'll be here when you get to that part.
Tue, 2010-07-20 13:35
#82
I don't think somone like Jim Hoffman is a repressed female femnist writing under a male name. That was something femnists did long ago to hide their gender from male chauvinists in the extreme.
Tue, 2010-07-20 13:37
#83
Pants, are you capable of making your argument without resorting to Bazant's math? When you say you can "prove" there's enough kinetic energy to explain the collapse initiation, I don't believe you, and I believe others have shown why this is not true. I also don't believe that your calculations can explain the speed of descent. I think they are just some trickery and I think you resort to math to pull the discussion away from common sense understanding.
If you think my math is some sort of trickery, please show where it is wrong. That is the beauty of math. It is either correct or it is not. And it can be verified by anyone who is actually capable of doing the math.
If you understand the math, you should be able to present your argument in non-mathematical terms. Otherwise, maybe you should be arguing with others who understand the math. For example, on the more technical forums. Wouldn't you find that more satisfying?If some of you want to have an argument based on the math, that's fine. I will bow out. But since babble is not a math nerds board, I think it would behoove Pants to make an attempt to present Bazant's argument in commonly understood terms. It would certainly be much more persuasive if he could. However, I will add that no amount of math can resurrect up your non-existent upper block piledriver, so I'll be here when you get to that part.
I can present my argument in non-mathematical terms, and have done so.
Tue, 2010-07-20 13:39
#84
You still haven't demonstrated for us that you understand Garcia's duration of collapse, so I'm not sure why you would want to jump to conclusions as to how demolitions might have happened.
Can I infer from this that you have no real idea as to what the CD hypothesis actually is?
Yes, and you can infer that I think you have no idea what the expression delta t represents at the same time.
Tue, 2010-07-20 13:39
#85
If you have done so, then I have already presented my objections.
Tue, 2010-07-20 13:39
#86
Can I infer from this that you have no real idea as to what the CD hypothesis actually is?
Yes, you can. There is no one, unified CD hypothesis.
I see. Do you believe in a particualr CD hypothesis? If not, what do you believe happened?
Tue, 2010-07-20 13:40
#87
Can I infer from this that you have no real idea as to what the CD hypothesis actually is?
Yes, and you can infer that I think you have no idea what the expression delta t represents at the same time.
Do you believe in a particular CD hypothesis? If not, what do you believe happened?
Tue, 2010-07-20 13:42
#88
I don't know yet. I think the thermite/thermate evidence is compelling. I think there may be other things going on as well. I have't read a lot on it.
Tue, 2010-07-20 13:46
#89
I don't know yet. I think the thermite/thermate evidence is compelling. I think there may be other things going on as well. I have't read a lot on it.
So, you have not read up on it, you have difficulty with the math and more technical explanations, you don't know what you yourself believe, and yet you are certain the gravitational collapse theory is incorrect.
Tue, 2010-07-20 13:47
#90
Well since Pants (and NIST, Bazant and Greening by wild coincidence) are simply skipping over "CI" so conveniently, I think they used either a military grade spray-on nanothermite on the steel columns, or they used hydraulics as per the ABC building demo in France. One of those two methods or perhaps even a combination.
Tue, 2010-07-20 13:48
#91
I have read a lot on the gravitational collapse theory. I have not read a lot on the CD theory. The two theories are not linked, and you don't need to support one to dismantle the other. Are you having difficulties understanding that?
Tue, 2010-07-20 13:52
#92
Please don't pretend to tell us about math, Pants, You don't know your a## from your elbow when it comes to the calculus you cut and paste for us here. You're a fly weight.
Tue, 2010-07-20 13:52
#93
I have read a lot on the gravitational collapse theory. I have not read a lot on the CD theory. The two theories are not linked, and you don't need to support one to dismantle the other. Are you having difficulties understanding that?
No. I understand perfectly.
Don't pretend to tell us about math, Pants, You don't know your a## from your elbow when it comes to calculus.
Seeing as how I have yet to need any calculus in any discussion on babble, I have no idea how you came to this conclusion. Nor do I see what purpose this comment serves.
Tue, 2010-07-20 13:55
#94
Well you certainly saw yourself fit to comment on the calculus Garcia and Griscom have discussed and telling me I am wrong about duration of collapse. Charade you are.
Tue, 2010-07-20 13:58
#95
No. I understand perfectly.
Good to hear. Maybe you could explain this to Yiwah some time.
Tue, 2010-07-20 14:00
#96
....Charade you are.
I'm finding the little insults tiring this afternoon. I will return later to continue the debate. Please have a pleasant afternon, Fidel, and to everyone participating in this thread.
Tue, 2010-07-20 14:25
#97
And don't forget to refer to someone with a male moniker as "he or she" for low cal filler.
Yes, because making sexist assumptions is for the win!
Tue, 2010-07-20 14:28
#98
But, you have to admit that you've been fairly condescending and somewhat insulting toward us in a number of posts before and suggesting we didn't understand the math you were cutting and pasting. That's called "proof by intimidation." And so, well, some of us do understand some math. Maybe not on the level that mechanical engineers and architects understand and use every day. Don't take it so hard Pants.
Tue, 2010-07-20 15:21
#99
And don't forget to refer to someone with a male moniker as "he or she" for low cal filler.
Do you like George Sand? Personally, I find him to be a little dry, as a writer. What about George Eliot, or George Egerton?
How about Evelyn Waugh?
Tue, 2010-07-20 15:43
#100
And [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/humanities-science/weigh-911-threads#comment... Nenonen[/url], too.
Tue, 2010-07-20 15:46
#101
Assuming someone's gender based on their screen name is presumptuous at best.