Monday, July 24, 2006

Glasgow Towers to Simulate 9-11 Fire

Here's a pretty interesting story about an experiment that promises to have a little more validity than one of Spooked911's attempts.

The disused tower block is at Millerfield Place in the Dalmarnock area of Glasgow. It was built in 1964 but has lain disused for more than a decade.

The Peruvian-born academic is one of a number of experts across the world who believes that the Twin Towers should have stayed up after they were hit by hijacked airliners on September 11 2001.

Torero believes that by studying why the buildings did collapse, future structures can be made safer.

He said: "Those buildings should have withstood burnout. From my perspective, those buildings were designed to last structurally for between three to four hours, enough time to get everyone out who had survived. At least that's what you expect."


The amusing thing, as pointed out by Reality Bites at the JREF forum, is that the 9-11 Deniers are hoping for the experiment to prove that the WTC towers could not have come down the way the official story says.

20 Comments:

At 24 July, 2006 13:53, Blogger Chad said...

I read the article that was linked in the LC forum and found this to be interesting:

The Peruvian-born academic is one of a number of experts across the world who believes that the Twin Towers should have stayed up after they were hit by hijacked airliners on September 11 2001.

I wonder how much that belief will effect the results of his experiment.

 
At 24 July, 2006 14:00, Blogger Manny said...

Google Map search for Millerfield Place, Glasgow.

 
At 24 July, 2006 14:47, Blogger default.xbe said...

I wonder how much that belief will effect the results of his experiment.

that doesnt necessaryly make him a CTer

look at the next statement:

Torero believes that by studying why the buildings did collapse, future structures can be made safer.

this seems to indicate he feels the buildings fell due to poor design, not CD

 
At 24 July, 2006 14:50, Blogger Chad said...

I know it doesn't necessarily make him a CTer, but I believe there's a phenomenon out there (how credible it is, I don't know) that states that scientific research done with a preconceived outcome will most likely reflect that outcome.

So if you're doing an experiment and you think X will happen, then there's a 90% chance that you'll find that X happens.

 
At 24 July, 2006 15:38, Blogger debunking911 said...

Pat, don't buy into the "Official story" terminology. It's the NIST report. :)

If the tower isn't constructed with a tube in a tube design and hit with an airliner at 500 miles an hour the test means nothing. It's a stupid stunt.

 
At 24 July, 2006 16:09, Blogger BG said...

Can't believe you guys didn't accept my GSS (Govt. Story Skeptic) designation!

Here's a good article about Morgan Reynolds

 
At 24 July, 2006 16:45, Blogger BG said...

How about an Intelligence Test that is aeronautical, yet not related to 9/11.

My answer: plane does not fly, unless there the head wind speed > maybe 120 mph. No wind, no lift.

 
At 24 July, 2006 16:49, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Results are results, but the interpretation of the results, the statistics produced by them, these are often in favour of the pov of the experimenter.

That is why, in the scientific community, a study has no value until it is peer reviewed and critically analyzed, and then, and only then, if it passes mustard, do we consider it solid evidence.

 
At 24 July, 2006 17:07, Blogger default.xbe said...

How about an Intelligence Test that is aeronautical, yet not related to 9/11.

well the real question here is whether a conveyor belt like that will actually be able to limit the planes forward motion, i dont think it would (since the forward motion comes directly from the engines, not the wheels) so the plane will take off just fine

now alternatively, if there was a rope tied to the plane that actually would provent it from moving forward, then it would not take off

 
At 24 July, 2006 17:14, Blogger shawn said...

BG, you're not a skeptic. A skeptic would accept the "official story".

 
At 24 July, 2006 17:14, Blogger Avery Dylan said...

"The Peruvian-born academic is one of a number of experts across the world who believes that the Twin Towers should have stayed up after they were hit by hijacked airliners on September 11 2001."

But they did stay up after the planes hit them.

They collapsed after a FIRE.


(or maybe it was the CT that did it.)
Wasn't he paying attention?

But hey man, I was just asking questions

 
At 24 July, 2006 17:14, Blogger BG said...

The Artistic Macrophage,

The expression is: passes MUSTER!

 
At 24 July, 2006 17:18, Blogger BG said...

Shawn,

I agree with you (about the GSS designation). I was once a skeptic and am now truly demanding further investigation.

 
At 24 July, 2006 17:18, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

I never was fond of that expression anyway...lol

thanks BG :)

(35 years old and still doesn't know that expression correctly...jeez)

 
At 24 July, 2006 17:32, Blogger apathoid said...

Unless its a simulation that takes into account the structural damage of a 150 ton projectile travelling 90% of the speed of sound as well as taking into account the sheer mass (150,000 tons) that the damaged area was holding up - it cannot be a vaild simulation in my very humble opinion...

 
At 24 July, 2006 17:37, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

Here's a good article about Morgan Reynolds

BG proves himself wrong once again.

There's nothing "good" in that article. It's just a fawning ass-kissing binge between two tinfoil turbans sitting around agreeing with eachother and putting words (and possibly other objects) into each others mouths.

LSI: “What about the light posts? Wouldn’t a plane’s wing get ripped off from hitting just one of those?”

Could the interviewer have been more blatant about his bias?

 
At 24 July, 2006 18:53, Blogger jackhanyes said...

I know it doesn't necessarily make him a CTer, but I believe there's a phenomenon out there (how credible it is, I don't know) that states that scientific research done with a preconceived outcome will most likely reflect that outcome.

So if you're doing an experiment and you think X will happen, then there's a 90% chance that you'll find that X happens.


Shit chad, which step would they be on?

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.


Oh shit step four! Those dirty bastards! How the hell did they jump pass step 1,2 and 3!!

 
At 24 July, 2006 18:58, Blogger BG said...

default.xbe said..

about the coveyer bet.

I see you point. I was hoping that we could manage to agree on something, if it was not 9/11.

 
At 24 July, 2006 20:14, Blogger CHF said...

BG,

had enough time to think about that whole phone call issue?

Did you ask Reynolds what to say?

 
At 24 July, 2006 22:53, Blogger Pat said...

Reynolds is one of the nuttiest guys out there. Get this quote from the end of the piece:

The plane did not leave a scar on the building where the wings would have been, period. If I put my arms out, and come walking toward you at a fairly fast pace, and then bump into you, my arms move forward.

Uh, you know, that's not going to happen if I'm 991 feet wide. And the notion that there's no scar where the wings would have been is typical 9-11 denial.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home