Sunday, July 02, 2006

Even the Sanes Ones Are Crazy

The physics professor Steven Jones, seems to be portrayed as the more conservative sane one of the 9/11 “truth” movement. If you listen to him he is always going on about how this is just “science” and he isn’t speculating, just letting the physics make the argument. Even he buys into the unsubstantiated rumors in their community though. This is how it works, one member of the community distorts a story, someone else changes it a bit more, and before you know it, all of them believe something which couldn’t be further from the truth. From an interview on Alex Jones’ show at the 48 minute mark:

Steven: To suggest that Arabs had access to these buildings, particularly building 7, which housed a secret CIA office is ridiculous in the extreme.

Alex: Well it was Defense Intelligence, the Port Authority, the city police, I mean, everybody was there.

Steve: I know. You are right. It was a very secure building. I know that their security, who was in charge of the security at the towers? He would be offended to have the suggestion? Who was that?

Alex: MARVIN BUSH! Yes!

Steve: Oh yes, Marvin BUSH! I mean he would be offended to find out somehow these guys slipped by them.

(both laugh)


OK, for the last time guys, Marvin Bush was not in charge of security at the towers on September 11th, 2001. In fact he was NEVER head of security at the towers. He never had anything to do with the operational aspects of security there at all. Just because you keep on repeating this, does not make it true.

On a related note, Alex Jones argues right before this segment that "neo-cons" are now arguing that Arabs put bombs in the towers. Huh? Where is he getting this from? I have never heard of anyone making claims of bombs but the conspiracy theorists.

60 Comments:

At 02 July, 2006 12:15, Blogger JoanBasil said...

I'll listen to the show later but just from your transcript, it sounds like Prof. Jones is not so much endorsing the Marvin Bush angle as acknowledging that he's heard about it.

Gee whiz, how about getting upset about the distortions and lies of the evil vampires running this country: How recently did Cheney and Perle reaffirm that they still believe Mohammed Atta met with one of Saddam's agents in Prague? How about that buck-toothed vampire Rice saying no one ever thought planes would be flown into buildings? That was a lie. Or Bush and the Niger uranium lies? (And, yes, I don't care what they say about getting that from the British because they are liars and it defies credulity that the source of the lies that circled through the British wasn't the same as the source of the lies that they got elsewhere.)

 
At 02 July, 2006 12:16, Blogger Avery Dylan said...

Like, Hey man, you know, I think that the Mormons were in on it, 'cause I mean, Steven Jones, like he's from Brigham Young U., and they're Mormons, and Sept. 11 is a big day for the Mornons like you could look this up and stuff, and like my man Jason, was going to do it, but I got tired of waiting but you should like look it up:


On Sept. 11, 1857, in southwestern Utah, a militiaof Mormons, attacked a wagon train bound for California. After a five-day siege, the militia persuaded the families to surrender under a flag of truce and a pledge of safe passage. Then, in the worst butchery in the entire colonization of America, approximately 140 men, women and children were slaughtered. Only 17 children under the age of 8 - were spared.

So it had to be the Mormons. I mean I can see thru it. We should ask them some Questions.

 
At 02 July, 2006 12:50, Blogger BG said...

Great comments,Joan!

Here's a link to Kevin Barrett behaving admirably and sanely in the presence of a not so same interviewer.

 
At 02 July, 2006 13:10, Blogger shawn said...

buck-toothed vampire Rice

Racism - alive and well.

Or Bush and the Niger uranium lies?

Blame Italy for the documents.

As I've explained to you before - a LIE is when you know something to be untrue. You guys would all be liars if you said things that were untrue but believed were factual.

 
At 02 July, 2006 13:23, Blogger roger_sq said...

what does the term 'buck toothed vampire' have to do with racism?

Token nigger for the white elite to trot out on TV, that would be racist. Buck tooth vampire is just derrogatory and insulting. And mean. Not racist.

Alex Jones has a fine piece on his website debunking the Perntagon no-plane theory by the way.

 
At 02 July, 2006 13:39, Blogger shawn said...

Token nigger for the white elite to trot out on TV, that would be racist.

From the Ted Rall school of liberalism.

And buck-toothed is one of the aspects of caricatures of blacks. Big-tooth, big-lipped with the ridiculous accent.

Alex Jones has a fine piece on his website debunking the Perntagon no-plane theory by the way.


Christ, Alex Jones isn't totally insane?

 
At 02 July, 2006 13:49, Blogger James B. said...

OK, so Alex Jones is the idiot, and Steven Jones is the idiot who agrees with him. Makes no difference to me, one Jones is as good as another.

 
At 02 July, 2006 14:35, Blogger BG said...

James,

Just for a moment, would you consider that it's possible that some of the questions and assertions of the GSS'er are valid. Would that, in fact make you, and all the others who defend with smear tactics disguised as honesty and supporting your sad tripe parading as logic... wouldn't that make you the idiots?

 
At 02 July, 2006 14:41, Blogger MarkyX said...

OMG THEY MUST BE COUSINS BECAUSE THEIR LAST NAMES ARE THE SAME.

 
At 02 July, 2006 14:41, Blogger James B. said...

Sure, some of their questions are valid, it is not hard to come up with a valid question, but as we have pointed out, they lie every chance they get.

I can pick out any article or speech by any conspiracy theorist at random and easily pick out 2-3 lies. Not just disagreements with interpretations or opinions, flat out lies.

On the other hand, I have asked you several times to point out even a single lie, in the nearly 300 posts that Pat and I have made, and you can't find a single one.

Why is this? Is this purely coincidental?

 
At 02 July, 2006 15:25, Blogger roger_sq said...

And buck-toothed is one of the aspects of caricatures of blacks. Big-tooth, big-lipped with the ridiculous accent.

So now you're saying if I call a white person buck tooth it is racist? And I suppose if I said shawn is a watermelon eatin' jungle bunny then that would be 'racist' too eh?

Christ, Alex Jones isn't totally insane?

No, he's a disinformation shill for the CIA. He has been all along. The objective to get enough support behind him so there can be a military coup to "round up the neocon traitors".

Alex Jones will be appointed as Information minister for the military rulers, to quell the right wing from concerns about suspending the constitution "temporarily" while the revolution takes hold. Of course, the emergency state will never be rescinded, as the revolution carries on indefinitely a la Cuba.

clever bastards, aren't they!

oh, and Condi has buck teeth, no reason you can't call a spade a spade.

 
At 02 July, 2006 15:43, Blogger BG said...

"On the other hand, I have asked you several times to point out even a single lie, in the nearly 300 posts that Pat and I have made, and you can't find a single one."

James,

You are fibbing here. I have indeed pointed out facts and conclusions in your posts here that are unsupported, incorrect, misleading, ad hominem, and just plain glib without honoring the exercise of honest debate. By virtue of your insistence, and Pat's insistence to continue your hard line, I have decided not be spend the time to prepare a comprehensive rebuttal. I have been posting individual rebuttals every few days. And, of course, it's not only me that find this blog's approach wrong.

What you have, basicly, is the talent of you and Pat, which is not to be underestimated, along with a few cronies and cheerleaders.

It is telling that your entry into this debate is not about getting the truth. It's about getting the makers of Loose Change. These are two different things. I'm glad to see that you have for the most part stopped dealing with Loose Change. However, your snarky attitude remains and is not helpful to finding the truth.

 
At 02 July, 2006 16:00, Blogger Richard said...

What you have, basicly, is the talent of you and Pat, which is not to be underestimated, along with a few cronies and cheerleaders.

So am I one of the cronies or am I a cheerleader? When exactly has this blog lied about anything? I'd like to know that.

 
At 02 July, 2006 16:13, Blogger BG said...

I have linking a video of the collapse of the 2nd Tower.

I would love to know:

1) Do you dispute the authenicity of this video?

2) Do you relize that this shows what other videos show? There may be other video that are higher resolution, I'm not sure. I don't have a cross reference to all the vids and their sources.

Based on this and other vids: What part of "explosives pulverizing concrete" do you not understand?

Do you realise that there is nothing in MIT Professor Eagar's original scientific explanation of the collapse that even begins to account for what is seen in the video? If Prof. Eagar view videos of this type, he, in fact, chose to ignor them in his analysis.

The same is true of NIST, as we have asserted over and over here in this blog, as well as elsewhere.

Do you not agree that the TV news media has almost totally ignored or manipulated coverage of WTC 7?

The TV news manipulation is so obvious that if you deny it, you are simply showing your lack of willingness to engage in honest debate.

Vid
>Here

 
At 02 July, 2006 16:15, Blogger BG said...

Richard,

I would like to know who you are.

 
At 02 July, 2006 17:01, Blogger shawn said...

So now you're saying if I call a white person buck tooth it is racist?

How the hell do you come to that conclusion? I state the caricature for blacks, Race is black.

No, he's a disinformation shill for the CIA.

Shame you have zero evidence for this or the rest of your post. Now the fucking "truth" folks are part of the conspiracy.

 
At 02 July, 2006 17:24, Blogger apathoid said...

Based on this and other vids: What part of "explosives pulverizing concrete" do you not understand?

Good grief!!
bg, do you understand that:

1) If it was a CD, the explosives were placed in the pre-drilled columns to cut them in half, not literally blow the building the Smithereens..
2) Do you have ANY idea how much energy the collapse contained? I'll tell you - the grand total was something like a low yield nuke. Thats what caused alot of the "pulverization"

You guys don't have a clue, period. This is not an opinion. You seriously need to pick up a book based on science and give the conspiracies a frickin' break for 5 minutes to do some REAL actual research. Some of your little theories are insulting to the intelligence of a slightly retarded chimpanzee..

Do you realise that there is nothing in MIT Professor Eagar's original scientific explanation of the collapse that even begins to account for what is seen in the video? If Prof. Eagar view videos of this type, he, in fact, chose to ignor them in his analysis.

Wow, the Lord of Material Sciences at the most prestigious Engineering Institute on the face of the Earth is wrong because some guy on the internet has it all figured out because he watched a video.........sheesh.

I'll await your paper with proper references debunking Dr Eager.

 
At 02 July, 2006 17:41, Blogger apathoid said...

Do you not agree that the TV news media has almost totally ignored or manipulated coverage of WTC 7?

There is no nice way to say this, so I'll just come right out with out. Nobody gives a bloody rats ass about WTC7 but conspiracy nuts. It was empty and noone was killed when it came down. I remember watching all day on 9/11 and they knew hours beforehand that it was in danger of collapse, thats why noone was within 500 meters of it when it came down.

Its your opinion that it was demolished because thats where the Secret Service and the Mayors Emergency Management Offices were, meaning planning documents were in the building , ergo it was vital to the plan that it be destroyed.
But, if you guys had an ounce of common sense in your collective intellect- you'd figure out that there are these handy little devices called paper shredders that can destroy documents without looking suspicious. Blowing the building up would actually make it much more probable the the documents were recovered. Remember the tons of paper raining down on lower Manhatten for hours after the collapses....

 
At 02 July, 2006 17:56, Blogger James B. said...

But you are confusing conspiracy theory logic with normal logic. WTC7 was blown up to destroy documents, not because that makes sense, but because they need to create a reason why it should be blown up.

The conspirators went to great risk and expense to wire thousands of explosions into the towers to create a controlled demolition, not because this was actually needed to carry out their plot, but because the conspiracy theorists need them to have done that so that they would have evidence of a controlled demolition to point to.

The conspirators made 4 planes dissappear, just so they could crash one of them in a field, run two other converted 767 refuelers, which didn't even exist yet, disguised as commericial airplanes in the towers, and a cruise missile disguised as a 757 into the Pentagon, not because any of this makes sense, but because this is the only way they can fit this into their theory.

 
At 02 July, 2006 17:57, Blogger James B. said...

Err, that should say explosives, not explosions. Now I am starting to talk like Fetzer.

 
At 02 July, 2006 18:12, Blogger Richard said...

Richard,

I would like to know who you are.


I work for the CIA err I mean Post Office, yeah that's it....

I'm just a guy who thinks that the 9/11 CT is bunk and I care about it enough to throw in my $0.02 every once in a while. I also felt that having served in the Army it would be helpful for me to speak up on things every once in a while like thermate and pimped out javelins.

 
At 02 July, 2006 19:52, Blogger apathoid said...

But you are confusing conspiracy theory logic with normal logic

Conspiracy theory logic. Heh. Is that something like virtual reality or Military Intelligence?!

WTC7 was blown up to destroy documents, not because that makes sense, but because they need to create a reason why it should be blown up.

Yeah, I guess your right. Its the bizarro world scientific method in action. The funny thing is, the CTers just cant figure out why noone else thinks its suspicious!!

 
At 02 July, 2006 20:31, Blogger undense said...

Just for a moment, would you consider that it's possible that some of the questions and assertions of the GSS'er are valid. Would that, in fact make you, and all the others who defend with smear tactics disguised as honesty and supporting your sad tripe parading as logic... wouldn't that make you the idiots?

Sure bg. Those questions would be considered as soon as you start responding to all the bullshit you're called on in here. You post links, primarily videos, from complete whackjob and, then when someone begins asking questions you ignore them and pretend your trash links weren't debunked.

When you start playing fair and answering all the questions asked of you then you can begin to ask questions. Until then you're nothing but a linkbot hack practicing your own smear tactics that have little basis in reality or validity.

 
At 02 July, 2006 21:50, Blogger nesNYC said...

This is how it works, one member of the community distorts a story, someone else changes it a bit more, and before you know it, all of them believe something which couldn’t be further from the truth.

This is the exact mechanism of the Osama lie.

 
At 02 July, 2006 22:09, Blogger BoggleHead said...

I just want to be clear about this. This blog isn't supporting the official version, right?

They're just saying it's unlikely any of the major details require drastic clarification?

What's the rationale for the lack of transparency?

What would have to be present to show a conspiracy that specifically relates to ascertainable facts about this particular case (9/11)?

Does this blog intend to show, in light of what would be necessary, that none of the requirements are met or that one of them can't be met?

I'd be pretty interested in that.

 
At 02 July, 2006 22:47, Blogger Pat said...

Bogglehead, we agree in general with the official version, yes. Nineteen hijackers operating under orders from Osama, no CD at the WTC, AA 77 at the Pentagon, UA 93 down in Shanksville as a result of a battle between the hijackers and the passengers. Not to say there isn't more to be learned from that day, just that none of it is likely to change those conclusions.

 
At 02 July, 2006 23:39, Blogger jackhanyes said...

I would really like to see the government use they huge super out in New Mexico to model in detail exactly how the WTC 1, 2, and 7 fell due tio fire. Of course we won't see that because FEMA couldn't explain it and NIST down sized the columns.

The TV news manipulation is so obvious that if you deny it, you are simply showing your lack of willingness to engage in honest debate.

Pat, James, undense, shawn, or any one else wouldn't touch this in a million years. And if they did they would insult you right after denying it. Then they would ask you to provide evidence which they would again deny and insult you some more. Then they would toss in some sort of crazy idea that all the news agents are in the plot. To finish up, then would insult everyone that agree with you for good measure. Their comment would be structure something like this:

There is no news manipulation of wtc 7 you nutjob. Where's your evidence! You're a stupid guilable buck tooth hill billy with smelly feet. Do you really believe they every joe reporter at NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, and FOX are in the plot too? Are all CT so stupid to believe that all the news agents are working together to hind the truth from the public?

 
At 03 July, 2006 08:00, Blogger shawn said...

Pat, James, undense, shawn, or any one else wouldn't touch this in a million years.

You do realize that unlike you guys, we destroy your points, then when you repeat them we insult you? There hasn't been an honest debate because you folks are so intellectually dishonest. We're not the ones using faulty physics, quote mining, and leading videos/pictures.

 
At 03 July, 2006 08:05, Blogger shawn said...

This is the exact mechanism of the Osama lie.

See that guys? Newspeak, alive and well.

This blog isn't supporting the official version, right?

Well, besides the fact it's not the official version, but what actually happened, yes it does support what actually happened. Some of us choose to live in the real world.

Does this blog intend to show, in light of what would be necessary, that none of the requirements are met or that one of them can't be met?

First, they haven't come close to meeting the burden of proof. Second, they cannot because it isn't what happened, and you can't find evidence for something that did not happen.

 
At 03 July, 2006 09:07, Blogger undense said...

I would really like to see the government use they huge super out in New Mexico to model in detail exactly how the WTC 1, 2, and 7 fell due tio fire. Of course we won't see that because FEMA couldn't explain it and NIST down sized the columns.

I assume your stilted reply was actually referring to supercomputers? Let me explain how your supercomputer theory makes jumps to conclusions:

Weather forecasters have been trying to model weather for years and years on supercomputers. Since they have tried and failed to reproduce what actually happens with any degree of perfection, this is an obvious indication that the government is involved in controlling the weather.

Sounds stupid, right? So does your complaint about a modeling of the towers. The simple fact is that all we could ever so is make educated guesses on how the structural integrity was affected by the airplanes crashing into the buildings and how the fire subsequently caused the structure to fail. It's impossible to know because we don't know the initial conditions with any certainty. So to assume that any computer model could be or should be perfectly correct is nothing short of assinine as well as a red herring.

Besides that, even if a computer model could perfectly model the fall of the towers, people like you and nesnyc would deny that the model was correct, even though you know little to nothing about structures or computer modeling.

 
At 03 July, 2006 11:44, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"Besides that, even if a computer model could perfectly model the fall of the towers, people like you and nesnyc would deny that the model was correct, even though you know little to nothing about structures or computer modeling."

Parts like this (on both sides) are gratuitous and uninteresting.

It seems logical that to know what happened in a complex system like this we need to know what was going on inside the building.

I'm not a CD supporter but I think the reason there are unanswered questions stem from how both sides claim to "know" what would have to happen only by assuming various things that aren't being disclosed one way or the other.

It's not immediately apparent to me why someone wouldn't disclose the plans to buildings that no longer exist. If they did, it might resolve a lot of doubts just like that excellent computer model of the Pentagon.

 
At 03 July, 2006 11:44, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"Besides that, even if a computer model could perfectly model the fall of the towers, people like you and nesnyc would deny that the model was correct, even though you know little to nothing about structures or computer modeling."

Parts like this (on both sides) are gratuitous and uninteresting.

It seems logical that to know what happened in a complex system like this we need to know what was going on inside the building.

I'm not a CD supporter but I think the reason there are unanswered questions stem from how both sides claim to "know" what would have to happen only by assuming various things that aren't being disclosed one way or the other.

It's not immediately apparent to me why someone wouldn't disclose the plans to buildings that no longer exist. If they did, it might resolve a lot of doubts just like that excellent computer model of the Pentagon.

 
At 03 July, 2006 11:45, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"Besides that, even if a computer model could perfectly model the fall of the towers, people like you and nesnyc would deny that the model was correct, even though you know little to nothing about structures or computer modeling."

Parts like this (on both sides) are gratuitous and uninteresting.

It seems logical that to know what happened in a complex system like this we need to know what was going on inside the building.

I'm not a CD supporter but I think the reason there are unanswered questions stem from how both sides claim to "know" what would have to happen only by assuming various things that aren't being disclosed one way or the other.

It's not immediately apparent to me why someone wouldn't disclose the plans to buildings that no longer exist. If they did, it might resolve a lot of doubts just like that excellent computer model of the Pentagon.

 
At 03 July, 2006 11:47, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"Besides that, even if a computer model could perfectly model the fall of the towers, people like you and nesnyc would deny that the model was correct, even though you know little to nothing about structures or computer modeling."

This seems gratuitous and unnecessary. There's so much information between the various inputs for the model of the collapse (although the model itself is perhaps too complex) and the building plans themselves that I have no doubt that their release would add a lot to the understanding on both sides of this debate.

 
At 03 July, 2006 12:28, Blogger undense said...

This seems gratuitous and unnecessary. There's so much information between the various inputs for the model of the collapse (although the model itself is perhaps too complex) and the building plans themselves that I have no doubt that their release would add a lot to the understanding on both sides of this debate.

First, how is my post gratuitous? Are you using that word in the context of beig unjustified? If so you are simply wrong because we've seen nesnyc and other CTs in here brush away valid evidence that blows their beliefs out of the water with a wave of their hand time and time again. They don't provide any counter argumnt other than "Well, the NIST report is BS." Oh, really? Care to explain why? *crickets* There was nothing unjustified whatsoever about my statement. It's simply the plain truth.

Second, have you ever bothered to verify the CT claims concerning the building plans and documentation? I suggest you check the NIST report, where not only do they make references the original WTC design drawings, they also include some of the original design specs right in their reports.

Third, if my post was so uninteresting, what prompted you to reply to it 4 separate times?

 
At 03 July, 2006 14:17, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"First, how is my post gratuitous? Are you using that word in the context of beig unjustified?"

Gratuitous and unnecessary in the sense that even if you can justify the claim about certain people, it doesn't hold for everyone.

I'm not saying one way or another whether you've justified that your comment is true in the case(s) you allege.

But it certainly doesn't further the claim that there's nothing of interest in whatever's not being disclosed, for the reasons I described.

"Second, have you ever bothered to verify the CT claims concerning the building plans and documentation? I suggest you check the NIST report, where not only do they make references the original WTC design drawings, they also include some of the original design specs right in their reports."

I've seen enough WTC 1+2 (+7) analysis to know that specific assumptions, for example, about the applicability of fire experiments to the temperature fields used in WTC models must be more specifically detailed in the models and analysis that went on behind the scenes at NIST than is apparent from merely reading the report.

I'm unaware of NIST releasing to the public the original WTC design specs. These pictures in the NIST report that you speak of. I believe I've seen the ones you're talking about.

You wouldn't happen to be able to determine the load bearing strength of each floor from them would you? It just happens to be a question I've been wondering about for some time because I've seen people on both sides seemingly just make up values.

At least from my limited knowledge I would tend to think you could determine the load bearing strength this way. If I'm wrong please correct me. Notice that I didn't ask whether NIST had any comment on the load bearing strength of the floors, because that's not really the issue here is it.

 
At 03 July, 2006 14:24, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"Third, if my post was so uninteresting, what prompted you to reply to it 4 separate times?"

My post wasn't working and I clicked it three times (I'm new to this forum btw).

So I tried to just put down a summary version "instead"---but it turned out to be my fourth post.

Technical difficulties aside, I agree that the most time should be spent on the major issues.

 
At 03 July, 2006 14:45, Blogger undense said...

Gratuitous and unnecessary in the sense that even if you can justify the claim about certain people, it doesn't hold for everyone.

K. Considering it wasn't a blaknet statement applied to "everyone," what is your point?

I've seen enough WTC 1+2 (+7) analysis to know that specific assumptions, for example, about the applicability of fire experiments to the temperature fields used in WTC models must be more specifically detailed in the models and analysis that went on behind the scenes at NIST than is apparent from merely reading the report.

Really?

I know a bit about engineering since that's where I work, so why don't you expand on where the models were deficient? I'd be interested in hearing your analysis.

 
At 03 July, 2006 19:47, Blogger undense said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 03 July, 2006 19:49, Blogger undense said...

I know a bit about engineering since that's where I work, so why don't you expand on where the models were deficient? I'd be interested in hearing your analysis.

As I thought. The CTs (And yes, Bogglehead, you are a CT despite your protestations to the contrary. I am not fooled.) talk a big game about analysis and the specifics of engineering, but when asked to provide details of their analysis they disappear into the CT ether. Go figure.

It's not as if you haven't been posting comments on this blog for the last 5 hours either, Bogglehead.

 
At 03 July, 2006 20:22, Blogger BoggleHead said...

Joy to the blog.

The Boggle is come.

"I know a bit about engineering since that's where I work, so why don't you expand on where the models were deficient? I'd be interested in hearing your analysis."

Well on a purely superficial level it would appear that in an investigation you would like to correlate your model with the observed empirical evidence.

A good example of this was the Pentagon computer model.

So the load bearing weight of each floor might be good to know. How much of the building (and where) was pulverized and how finely and how much energy would this take.

Conservation of momentum and energy of the collapse of 1 2 and 7, in light of these assumptions.

When these assumptions to some extent come from observation, it would be good to cross-analyze with the building plans.

When they come from the building plans, it would be good to cross-analyze with what's observed.

On the forum I posted an algorithm (if taken in conjunction with the equation of motion for objects in free-fall) for several models.

The first would assume floors are released from free-fall as soon as they are hit.

The next would take into account the load bearing strength of each floor (a step I would have skipped to if I thought it would yield as precise a lower value for the time of the collapse as the first model).

The next would start making assumptions about how much of the mass of the towers was ejected in the form of debris and also would input various assumptions about the energy that went into pulverizing such and such an amount of debris into such and such a fineness of powder.

 
At 03 July, 2006 21:36, Blogger undense said...

Well on a purely superficial level it would appear that in an investigation you would like to correlate your model with the observed empirical evidence.

A good example of this was the Pentagon computer model.

So the load bearing weight of each floor might be good to know. How much of the building (and where) was pulverized and how finely and how much energy would this take.

Conservation of momentum and energy of the collapse of 1 2 and 7, in light of these assumptions.

When these assumptions to some extent come from observation, it would be good to cross-analyze with the building plans.

When they come from the building plans, it would be good to cross-analyze with what's observed.

On the forum I posted an algorithm (if taken in conjunction with the equation of motion for objects in free-fall) for several models.

The first would assume floors are released from free-fall as soon as they are hit.

The next would take into account the load bearing strength of each floor (a step I would have skipped to if I thought it would yield as precise a lower value for the time of the collapse as the first model).

The next would start making assumptions about how much of the mass of the towers was ejected in the form of debris and also would input various assumptions about the energy that went into pulverizing such and such an amount of debris into such and such a fineness of powder.


Thanks. That's all I needed to know from or about you. No other comments are required. It speaks for itself.

 
At 03 July, 2006 21:56, Blogger BoggleHead said...

Don't worry dude, you're still cool.

By the way, I meant one algorithm and proposals for what someone would do if they knew the load-bearing strength of each floor.

By the way, I thought civil engineers couldn't do anything other than solve for static forces.

Great you can solve for static forces. How does that qualify you to say that my algorithm for the equation of motion or conservation of momentum are irrelevant to modelling the collapse rather than just "collapse initiation"?

Not so smart now, tough guy.

 
At 03 July, 2006 22:09, Blogger BoggleHead said...

Why do you quote my big long post just to place three or four lines of sarcasm under it?

You could have at least singled out a part that merited the most sarcasm.

You're apparently of the opinion that it should be obvious to everyone that your being a structural engineer allows you to make sweeping dismissals in the absence of any reasoning behind them.

Just admit that it takes dynamics, as opposed to the statics a structural engineer learns, to determine how quickly a building should collapse.

 
At 04 July, 2006 04:03, Blogger Alex said...

Just admit that it takes dynamics, as opposed to the statics a structural engineer learns, to determine how quickly a building should collapse.

Irrelevant. We know exactly "how quickly a building should collapse". We saw it live on TV. Unless you're suggesting that C4 was used (which, up untill now, you have denied) your math is unneccesary. If it keeps you amused, then sure, go calculate to your hearts content, but when your calculations don't match the real-world result I hope you'll have the constitution to admit it's YOU that's wrong.

 
At 04 July, 2006 07:36, Blogger undense said...

bogglehead,

You should quit while you're only a little bit behind. Every time you post you dig that hole a bit deeper.

First of all, you seem to be under some impression that engineering design or architectural design involves static forces. That couldn't be more wrong. A building, particularly one 110 stories tall and designed as a tube in tube steel frame structure, is full of dynamic forces. The entire idea of the design was to manage those dynamic forces which were constantly at play between the lateral wind loading of exterior tube framework, which supported some of the gravitational load and all of the lateral load, and the interior tube structure which was purely intended to support the remaining gravitational load.

The load bearing strength of the floors had very little to do with any of that. The structural framework of the floors, primarily the support trusses, did have some impact in that they sort of acted like stiffeners and shock absorbers. In a strong wind the WTC towers would sway as much as 8 inches off center. Now imagine in your mind an external tube that is rocking gently back and forth while the interior core is rigid and not designed for lateral motion. (Lateral motion of the core columns would have wreaked havoc with the elevators.) The two tubes are interconnected by horizontal trusses that also support the floors. If the exterior is swaying but the interior is rigid, how do you abbrogate (prevent) that lateral force from being transmitted from the exterior tube to the interior tube?

You use dampers. Each floor truss sat on top of a specially designed visco-elastic damper. As the exterior tube swayed, the force from that lateral motion was transmitted through the trusses to the dampers where that mechanical force was dissapated as heat energy. In fact, so much heat energy was generated in the dampers that they were partially used to provide heat to the buildings.

The floor trusses and dampers were supported by angle clips mounted to the periphery and core columns. Those are also potential failure points and that's where some of the attention should be focused whne developing a model. The load bearing strength of the floor itself is pretty much a red herring. More important is the weight of each floor and the cumulative weight of the structure above the point of collapse. Then you also have to know how the heat would have caused the floors in the impact zone to have sagged due to the load bearing capacity of the steel trusses being diminished. Additionally you would have to calculate the tensile and yield strength of the clips supporting the trusses and calculate the variation of those properties due to localized temperature differences. Because the trusses were bolted to the clips another consideration would be the shear strength of those bolts, both normally and across a range of localized temperatures, because the sagging floor trusses would be placing a pretty significant shear load on the bolts.

Going further you would also have to calculate the effect that the sagging floors had on the exterior and core columns, one of the more significant considerations of the model. During normal operation the floors would impart primarily a gravitational load on the columns. As the floors sagged there would be an increased lateral load on the exterior and core columns. Due to heat affecting their normal load bearing properties the weigh of the floors would begin to have the effect of causing the exterior columns to bow inward and the core columns to bow outwards, iow they bowed towards each other. The bowing further decreases their capaility to support the gravitaional load, not to mention that which has already been lost due to heat. In fact, if you watch some of the WTC videos closely you can plainly see the effect of the exterior columns bowing inwards at the initial point of collapse.

As the columns began to bow inwards it changed the loading forces on the entire framework. The gravity load dynamically shifted as it was designed to do. But eventually the failure of enough exterior columns put too great a load on the remaining columns and a progressive collapse was initiated. No matter how well the floors were designed they were not going to be able to withstand the weight of 20 to 30+ floors above it crashing down. So the first floor gives way and adds to the total collapse mass, which crashes down on another floor and adds to the total mass, and so on. Progressive collapse. If you'd like I can give you the math, but it's droll and I suspect would be meaningless to you. Just look at it this way - The floors were bound to fail since they were not designed to support any great gravity load themselves. That's what the columns were for and enough columns had already failed to allow the gravitational load of the structure to overcome their support capabilities.

So you're wasting your time droning on about the load-bearing capabiliies of each floor. Floors are designed to distribute loads to the framework that provides the actual structural load bearing support and, in this case, transmit lateral forces to the dampers. When that column support framework fails the load-bearing support of the floors has no real meaning.

Besides that, it very plain that you picked up a very little bit of engineering jargon and not much else and try to throw it around to impress. You're not fooling anyone by throwing around words without a grasp of the basic concepts involved and I really resent the piss-poor attempt at BSing me.

 
At 04 July, 2006 11:27, Blogger BoggleHead said...

I'm a physics major. I don't use engineering terms I use physics terms.

 
At 04 July, 2006 11:30, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"When that column support framework fails the load-bearing support of the floors has no real meaning."

But do the columns twist and fall over or do they break apart?

I already see you're inclined to say "whatever did happen would have happened" but you seemingly fail to understand the scientific method.

Precise but inaccurate theoretical modeling can be a big help before contaminating the model by saying "the video of the collapse IS the model"

 
At 04 July, 2006 11:31, Blogger BoggleHead said...

By the way, the last two "quotes" aren't supposed to be passing for actual quotes of yours, just to clarify.

 
At 04 July, 2006 12:30, Blogger BoggleHead said...

As for "digging deep holes" I don't care. I see no honor in being "right" in the pejorative, only in learning.

"But eventually the failure of enough exterior columns put too great a load on the remaining columns and a progressive collapse was initiated."

Then the collapse mechanism was opposite in the other tower, where the antenna sagged before any visible bowing in the exterior columns. This effect was noted in official reports.

But it's good that you make it all sound so simple.

I'd be surprised if Engineering didn't "involve" static forces, not all the time, but often, as a sufficient approximation.

Granted. The claim is trivially true that dynamic forces are heavily involved in the case of say, catastrophic failure. Although this is not typically considered a "feat of engineering"

It's not apparent to me that we should be interested in any lateral wind loading or other lateral loading resulting from the crash, including weight redistribution of the building.

Presumably you could convince me otherwise but I'm guessing we're in agreement from elsewhere in your post. The non-negligible lateral loading comes from sagging from the fires.

Sounds like the dampers are springs of some sort attached to trusses which I am rightly or wrongly envisioning as filaments all attached to clips that have some rotational freedom. All very fascinating.

Seeing if the trusses failed sounds like (approximately) a statics problem in conjunction with some empirical data from materials science.

It's my understanding that this is no longer en vogue as an explanation. I wonder what all the people who adopted that explanation are now saying?

Your current explanation is multi-disciplinary and requires inputs about materials science. And physics remains, in my mind, the only way to go beyond collapse initiation.

My mistake about load bearing weight. It wasn't part of my mathematical model, which is a conservation of momentum algorithm, but was a suggestion for what someone else would try to account for in an improved model.

If it's not an improvement, so be it. But "droning on" is not what I was doing.

It just so happens that that part was all you wanted to comment on, being a structural engineer.

So to repeat, one of my goals is to model the collapse in terms of momentum and energy whereas you seem content with collapse initiation.

Appeals to cross-reference the models with the empirical evidence where there is an orgy of empirical evidence seem to have fallen on deaf ears. "Black box" vague rumblings of truss failure that to my knowledge are not supported by NIST would seem to miss this particular point.

Not least when freeze frame analysis of the video tape reveals core failure prior to external tube structure bowing if indeed you agree we can so infer from the evidence and the fact that this was noted in official reports.

I'd be happy to have a discussion rather than a debate but it's hard when you're trying to pull rank to preclude both.

 
At 04 July, 2006 18:24, Blogger Richard said...

So to repeat, one of my goals is to model the collapse in terms of momentum and energy whereas you seem content with collapse initiation.

After that let me know if you agree that the collapse had enough energy to sustain fires underground or if there just happened to be a lot of left over thermate. If you run some figures and can blow away the official report with a detailed report of your own that shows there had to be bombs etc, then I might start beleving. If your here to point out errors in the report that's fine but I'm more concerned about the actual cause. Something tells me it wasn't CD. I don't need physics to tell me that.

 
At 04 July, 2006 20:09, Blogger undense said...

But do the columns twist and fall over or do they break apart?

I already see you're inclined to say "whatever did happen would have happened" but you seemingly fail to understand the scientific method.

Precise but inaccurate theoretical modeling can be a big help before contaminating the model by saying "the video of the collapse IS the model"


As I already explained, there are numerous potential methods of failure. The bolts retaining the floor trusses to the angle clips could have sheared. The bolts retaining the angle clips to the columns could have sheared. The angle clips could have failed. The core columns were only tack-welded as they were only meant to take compression loads, not lateral loads. They would easily come apart under stress and distorsions All the above were potential failure points and, imo, the failure likely involved some combination of all those and probably others that I haven't considered at the moment.

The simple fact is that all the theoretical modeling in the world can be done, but since we don't specifically know how each floor subsequently failed or what the initial conditions of failure were, it doesn't matter. You are never going to get a precise model because the variables are unknown and always will be.

iow, you're chasing your tail on this model business.

 
At 04 July, 2006 20:28, Blogger undense said...

Then the collapse mechanism was opposite in the other tower, where the antenna sagged before any visible bowing in the exterior columns. This effect was noted in official reports.

But it's good that you make it all sound so simple.

I'd be surprised if Engineering didn't "involve" static forces, not all the time, but often, as a sufficient approximation.

Granted. The claim is trivially true that dynamic forces are heavily involved in the case of say, catastrophic failure. Although this is not typically considered a "feat of engineering"

It's not apparent to me that we should be interested in any lateral wind loading or other lateral loading resulting from the crash, including weight redistribution of the building.

Presumably you could convince me otherwise but I'm guessing we're in agreement from elsewhere in your post. The non-negligible lateral loading comes from sagging from the fires.


The information on the lateral loading was included because it was relevant to understanding the overall structure of the towers.

Why is it not apparent to you that lateral loading and weight distribution were a factor in play? When you remove a few columns from an area the load they used to support must be redistributed through the remaining support structure. It doesn't just magincally go away. Then there is the localized heating eefect which is also going to cause localized distorsions that place even further stress on the columns. These stresses are no equalized throughout the structure either. Some portions of the support structure will take a far greater percentage of the weight redistribution that others. Soon one or two of the most stressed components gives way redistributing even more of the structural load. It's a dominoe effect that progressively leads to collapse.

I'd be happy to have a discussion rather than a debate but it's hard when you're trying to pull rank to preclude both.

It's difficult to have a discussion with you because you are thinking purely in a physics context with, admittedly, no engineering knowledge. Engineers have the advantage in that they understand both physics and engineering principles. I'm not trying to pull rank. It's just that my head spins when people begin talking about models. Models are great for design and preliminary analysis. Sometimes they are valuable in forensic testing. But in this case a model is completely useless. The number of factors to reproduce is virtually endless and even if a model could perfectly replicate the collapse you could still never be sure it's correct.

We simply have to accept that the towers fell because we all saw them fall. There was no CD or anything of the sort. What happened, happened, and it's time to move on.

 
At 05 July, 2006 01:23, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"Why is it not apparent to you that lateral loading and weight distribution were a factor in play?"

You haven't made it apparent yet.

"When you remove a few columns from an area the load they used to support must be redistributed through the remaining support structure. It doesn't just magincally go away."

Who cares? Maybe you misunderstood my praise for the Pentagon model. THAT model focused on the important points, which is why it was so good.

"Then there is the localized heating eefect which is also going to cause localized distorsions that place even further stress on the columns. These stresses are no equalized throughout the structure either."

I understand the concept of a net lateral force. Did I look like I was disputing that there are net lateral forces resultant from the crash?

"Some portions of the support structure will take a far greater percentage of the weight redistribution that others."

Since you ridiculed me earlier, I'd like to make your ridicule more effective for next time...

Remember to tell the next guy that a qualitative assessment of a quantitative measurement can't make the measurement's significance apparent unless there's either a shared subjectivity or you kindly share that measurement.

"Soon one or two of the most stressed components gives way redistributing even more of the structural load. It's a dominoe effect that progressively leads to collapse."

A plausibility argument in the absence any of the overt quantitative assumptions that would go towards showing it's actually true.

And I'm not necessarily convinced I'm on the right side. I have plausibility arguments too.

It's merely the side I'm debating because---and call me crazy, or something harsher if that's your pleasure---but despite all the evidence in the secret models, I just want to be sure one way or the other.

So burden shifting aside, I think I'd like to take a look at all that math you said would bore me.

"It's difficult to have a discussion with you because you are thinking purely in a physics context with, admittedly, no engineering knowledge. Engineers have the advantage in that they understand both physics and engineering principles. I'm not trying to pull rank. It's just that my head spins when people begin talking about models. Models are great for design and preliminary analysis. Sometimes they are valuable in forensic testing. But in this case a model is completely useless. The number of factors to reproduce is virtually endless and even if a model could perfectly replicate the collapse you could still never be sure it's correct."

And it's difficult to have a discussion with you because for all your engineering expertise, you fail to understand what we can know with certainty from physics despite an arbitrary level of complexity.

We can know a lot.

Such as, for example, that momentum is conserved, energy is conserved.

What drives us as physicists is the knowledge that no matter how complex the system, if we can show that any of these are not conserved, we become instant Nobel Prize recipients, like Lotto attracts problem gamblers, but worse.

No matter your theory of that day, some of the energy and momentum is accounted for either by

1) controlled demolition
2) a lack thereof

"What happened, happened" and "Move along, nothing to see here" beg the question of how you would know a controlled demolition from a progressive collapse if you were looking at a controlled demolition.

 
At 05 July, 2006 01:44, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"What happened, happened" and "Move along, nothing to see here" beg the question of how you would know a controlled demolition from a progressive collapse if you were looking at a controlled demolition.

Just to add to this...

I'm not a conspiracy theorist. But let's take up strategy as a hobby for a second.

If all I have to do is eject debris indiscriminantly from a building in order to get a structural engineer to find the building's weakest link and say it MUST have failed because there's no other explanation and no way to prove it even if you had one.....

then that fact should become apparent (at least to anyone interested in warfare or strategy) from your next post.

A plausibility argument, for sure.

But plausibility arguments make things plausible with varying degrees of convincingness.

 
At 05 July, 2006 06:51, Blogger undense said...

bogglehead,

It's impossible to have a discussion with you because you make absolutely no sense whatsoever. You somehow believe that tossing around a bit of jargon makes you sound as if you know what you're talking about, but it's plainly obvious you don't. Then you pretend not to be a CT while espousing theories about CD and the hijackers still being alive.

Stop jerking people around, please. You really look foolish doing it.

 
At 05 July, 2006 11:33, Blogger Alex said...

Exactly. You're not fooling anyone. This "I just want to be absolutely sure" stuff has gotta go. You ARE absolutely sure. If you hadn't already convinced yourself that the whole thing was a CT, you wouldn't be so goddamn militant about your arguments, and so stubborn in the face of evidence and expert testemony. You base your entire beleif structure on "missing pieces" instead of actual evidence, and then claim to be a scientist. More importantly, when presented with new information your first thought is to try and find ways to discredit it, even when it's clear that you don't even understand it.

If you're a scientist, I'm a japanese jet pilot. How about actually showing us some of the physics behind your claims, since you claim that's where your area of expertise lies. So far all I've seen out of you is pseudo-scientific explanations, and your tendancy to string together unrelated facts and suppositions in order to suggest some weird connections and conspiracies. If you're a friggin' physicist, let's see some goddamn physics instead.

 
At 05 July, 2006 12:33, Blogger undense said...

He also doesn't seem to realize that HE is the one making the "plausibility" argument as I've already tried to explain to him a couple of times. Unfortunately he remains convinced of the mistaken believe that a model can prove anything in this case when it is only not plausible to know the initial conditions and collapse sequence, it's impossible to reconstruct that information with any degree of certainty.

Without certainty, all you're left with is "What if?" So all sorts of different scenarios can be run but even one that exactly reflected the actual collapse would be no guarantee that all of the variables are correct and true. So ultimately a model is meaningless.

Unfortunately bogglehead seems as attached to his model as Christophera is to his non-existent concrete core.

 
At 05 July, 2006 14:07, Blogger BoggleHead said...

nMV + MV(=0) = (n+1)MV_final
V = (n+1)/n * V_final
s = s_0 + V_initial*t + (1/2)gt^2
V_initial = gt

(I made all the signs positive, but in real physics we don't use signs)

What happens is the V_final in the conservation of momentum becomes the new V_initial

This is just conservation of momentum and the equation of motion.

According to this, in an algorithm for the time of collapse that assumes that a few (n) floors hits the next to make (n+1) floors falling, the mass cancels out.

So all that matters is how many floors are falling together and far apart any two given floors are.

Since it's an algorithm, we're given answers without knowing how tall the entire building it----we just get the answer for the next floor the falling mass hits.

From what I can tell, for a building the size of 7 falling the first 300 feet (since that's about how much we can see clearly) you can't have a "pancake" or "progressive" collapse because the building is falling all at once, not one floor at a time, even though empirically from the video we see the top parts collapse first.

Welcome to physics, where we can actually make models and talk about them.

 
At 05 July, 2006 15:31, Blogger undense said...

Uh huh.

First of all, mass and velocity are represented by the lowercase m and v, respectively. Even a basic physics student knows that.

Second of all, your formula appears to be for an elastic collision, whereas the WTC was a non-elastic collision. (Each floor basically merged with the next on the way down). I'm not positive though because I use a calculator these days when one is required, haven't done a calculation by hand in years, and don't care to verify it.

Third, you don't even bother to mention how you come about solving initially for v, or V in your case, so you can plug that into the equation.

Where is acceleration (a) in your equation of motion?

Where's your factor for kinetic energy?

Besides that, I never said you couldn't make a model. What I have been trying to get through to you is that any model for the WTC is useless because not enough is known or can be known about the initial conditions or collapse to have any validity.

Make all the simplistic models you want if that makes you happy. But you aren't proving a thing.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home