Wednesday, November 29, 2006

The Physics of 9/11

Once again showing this is a non-partisan issue, the left-of-center site "Counterpunch" runs an excellent article on the Physics of 9/11 by engineering PhD, Manuel Garcia. It is too long to excerpt in any meaningful way here, but it is well worth reading.

For some odd reason he didn't go with the Star Wars death beam theory...

107 Comments:

At 29 November, 2006 21:39, Blogger remdem said...

Obviously, they're using the wrong science if they disagree with the truth!

 
At 29 November, 2006 22:19, Anonymous Anonymous said...

remdem, and everyone,

You are correct. The quality of the this is shockingly bad.

 
At 29 November, 2006 22:21, Blogger James B. said...

Specific examples please. You were the one bragging about how you were here keeping us honest.

And no, I don't want an irrelevent link to a Webster Tarpley video, please provide examples from the linked article, along with your counter-argument as to why they are wrong.

If you can't put up, shut up.

 
At 30 November, 2006 04:59, Blogger Alex said...

Don't worry BG, I got your back:

They forgot to take into account the quantum permutations of the flux capacitors nano-crystals. As soon as you account for those variables, it becomes clear that the NYFD shot down a space shuttle into the pentagon.

 
At 30 November, 2006 06:42, Blogger Stevew said...

Notice that the whaks never compare the qualifications of their so called experts with real experts. Saying it is wrong is very different than proving it wrong

 
At 30 November, 2006 07:01, Blogger troy said...

Anybody listen to Fetzer and Wood yesterday?

I want to see Fetzer punched in the face and Wood emerged in water.

Off topic, but Fetzer says moderate space age weoponry was used to disable Paul Wellstone's plane.

I guess you don't want to piss the government off.

If your Wellstone they just won't kill you. They'll kill your family and a couple of pilots.

 
At 30 November, 2006 07:02, Anonymous Anonymous said...

James,

On WTC7:

The mechanism that is being promoted to account for the unprecedented collapse is a mechanism of hydrocarbon (diesel fuel) combustion.

This cause/effect fails in two areas:

1) There is no way for the fire to create temperatures and heating that would have a result of failure as witnessed. The uniqueness of the particular design of wtc7, nor the recounting of the particular details of that construction in no way change the basic impossibility of the alleged explanation.

2) Even if (1) had any credence, the uniformity and speed of the collapse is not consistent with the failure mechanism.

 
At 30 November, 2006 07:31, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Notice how BG tries to give an explanation but it is really not an explanation more of an "Well I just know it did".

I wonder how many people in his persoal life that he has run off with his bullshit

KOO KOO

 
At 30 November, 2006 07:53, Blogger default.xbe said...

1) There is no way for the fire to create temperatures and heating that would have a result of failure as witnessed.

evidence?

2) Even if (1) had any credence, the uniformity and speed of the collapse is not consistent with the failure mechanism.

evidence?



saying things are impossible doesnt make them so

 
At 30 November, 2006 07:54, Blogger Jujigatami said...

I wonder how many people in his persoal life that he has run off with his bullshit

My guess is most of them, but he probably doesn't even realize it.

My crazy cousin will make a toast at any family event that he gets a chance to. He will get up there and prattle on and on about how happy he is that we have such a close family and how happy he is to be such an part of it. He'll talk on and on about how close he is with everyone there.

Truth is, the whole family avoids him like the plague. We only see him at major family events we can't keep secret from him. I have 2 other cousins that have changed their phone #'s to avoid him.

Its sad, actually. But in his fantasy world, even on heavy meds, he truly believes that he is close to the family.

BG isn't even on meds.

 
At 30 November, 2006 07:55, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lying_Dylan said...,

If you don't understand my argument, which you clearly don't, you are welcome to throw in that you think I rape children.

I believe James and Pat are aiming at a higher level of discourse.

 
At 30 November, 2006 08:02, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You guys are being a tad disingenuous when you say: we demand the evidence and the reasoning.

The reasoning has been provided any many places including the writing of Steven Jones. I can cite other support, if you would like.

The sad thing about your tact here, those of you bashing me, is that you think your argument is with me. Another sad thing is that you think the article (and other articles by Garcia) to which this refers somehow move the ball or take the debate to a difference level. The idea that Garcia's explanation of WTC 7 offers any new evidence or new argument is laughable.

Any of you who are paying attention know that my argument has been the consistent argument about wtc 7 from most skeptics since 9/11/2001.

 
At 30 November, 2006 08:05, Blogger CHF said...

BG,

Stephen Jones refuses to submit his "research" for peer review. Care to guess why?

He also once wrote a paper on how Jesus visted America.

The guy's a quack! Stop acting as if he's a reliable source.

 
At 30 November, 2006 08:10, Blogger CHF said...

Just look at the bumbling idiot when asked about his "peer review"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=lVlMonWMMzg&eurl=

 
At 30 November, 2006 08:12, Anonymous Anonymous said...

chf,

I agree with you to some extent, even though your argument about the Jones' Morman beliefs is ad homimen.

I admit that I'm in a bind in finding PHD Physicists to refer to, which (in addition to Engineers, specifically structural engineers) would logically be the walk of life of those that would be expert witneses.

 
At 30 November, 2006 08:15, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You link doesn't seem complete.
(it did work).

Please post the url of the youtube again, possibly as an "a href" link.

 
At 30 November, 2006 08:15, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You link doesn't seem complete.
(it didn't work).

Please post the url of the youtube again, possibly as an "a href" link.

 
At 30 November, 2006 08:17, Anonymous Anonymous said...

My bad,

link works when entered correctly.

 
At 30 November, 2006 08:20, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Youtube Clickable Link

My take away from the Jones response (shown in the video) is that he has utterly failed to obtain support in the Scientific Community and he is trying to avoid admitting that clear failure.

 
At 30 November, 2006 08:24, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

If you don't understand my argument, which you clearly don't, you are welcome to throw in that you think I rape children.

You rape children?

 
At 30 November, 2006 08:40, Blogger Alex said...

My take away from the Jones response (shown in the video) is that he has utterly failed to obtain support in the Scientific Community and he is trying to avoid admitting that clear failure.

Ya think? Wow. Well that's a shocker.

It's ok though, I'm sure Judy Wood's death star laser theory will be much better accepted.

Face it BG, all your "evidence" come from lunatics. You don't have a single credible source, nor a single logical explanation for how your ideas fit together. In other words, you have absolutely nothing. Why don't you just admit defeat already, and go get yourself a xanax prescription.

 
At 30 November, 2006 09:24, Blogger James B. said...

BG, unless you have some specific qualification in this area, you are going to have to come up with something better than "uh uh". I might as well argue that the world is flat, because I looked out the window this morning and it looked flat.

 
At 30 November, 2006 10:01, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Here you go James, specific enough?

Problem 1:
The columns along one face of the building were sheared for a height of several floors, as were many of the columns at the core.
There is no evidence of the condition of the internal core colums, only speculation.

Problem 2:
The exploding fuel from the airliner ignited fires throughout the levels within the impact zone, as well as dropping fire down the stairwells and elevator shafts at the building's core.. There is no evidence of fuel pouring down the elevator shafts, especially since firefighters were able to travel up said shafts. This is used to try to explain the janitor's testimony, marble knocked off the wall, testimony of explosions etc.,and white smoke billowing from the base of the towers prior to collapse. Some victims exited the elevator shafts with no burns at all.

Problem 3:
The shocks of impact and detonation loosened the "fire protection" thermal insulation on steel beams in the impact zone.
Pure speculation without evidence used to explain how the steel was weakened by fire that wasn't hot enough to weaken it.

Problem 4:
The added compression of the perimeter columns could only be distributed to the three undamaged faces, and because of the irregularity of the damage one face assumed a much higher load than the other two. Perhaps true, but does not account for a symmetrical collapse. Based upon this statement the collapse should have been assymetrical. No reason is given for the discrepency.

Problem 5:
The fuel fire burned up to 1,100 degrees C (2,000 degrees F) for perhaps 10 minutes. In each case the fuel exploded in a massive fireball upon impact. In perfect conditions the maximum temperature that can be reached by hydrocarbons such as jet fuel burning in air is 1520° F (825° C) not 2000 F. Melting Point of Iron: 1535.0 °C (1808.15 K, 2795.0 °F) This explanation does not account for the steel flowing like lava in the debris pile. In fact, nothing about the OS can be attributed to the liquid steel.

To judge the effects of a fire on structural steel, it is necessary to consider what happens in such an exposure. Peculiarities of this exposure are : (1)temperature attained by the steel can only be estimated, (2)time of exposure at any given temperature is unknown, (3)heating is uneven, (4)cooling rates vary and can only be estimated, and (5)the steel is usually under load , and is sometimes restrained from normal expansion. (source: Manual of Steel Construction, 8th editionPage 6-5)

Problem 6:
The NIST response is that the lower structure was only designed to hold up the weight above any given floor statically, not dynamically. This is highly doubtful. If true, the designers of the building should be held responsible. If true, they knowingly designed a building that would collapse to the ground based upon the assymetrical collapse of *drum roll please* 1 FLOOR!

Problem 7:
The sudden shifts in the volume of rooms and office spaces being compressed and twisted by the elastic wave trains can easily expel jets of air and dust out of windows A subtle theory on the ejected debris squibs. But it doens't answer why the squibs took place in random spots not uniformly and at random times not in sequence.

Problem 8:
Sprey's comments on CD
First assumption is that terrorist using planes and CD would plant explosives in a traditional CD manner. He cleverly avoids other evidence that might lead to CD conventional or unconventional.

Problem 9:It is noted that the time to reach critical temperature for bare columns is less than the one hour period during which the buildings withstood intense fires. The buildings indeed did not have intense fires in them. Madrid on the other hand did have intense fires. (Fire behavior and appearance not collapse comparisons.)

Problem 10:
Airplane impact sheared columns along one face and at the building's core. Again speculation as to the core's condition.

Problem 11:
Let us pretend that the framework of the building is made of "ironcrete," I stopped at this point with the section HOW HOT... I'm not interested in pretending but this 'expert' is.

Problem 12:
Within minutes, the aviation fuel was largely burned off, and the oxygen in the impact zone depleted. The minutes timeframe is debateable. Which leads to office fires melting steel and 1/2 of the equation for collapse. Riiighhttt.. This still does not account for steel flowing like rivers of lava.


Problem 13:
This process of "preheating the oven" would slowly raise the average temperature in the impact zone while narrowing the range of extremes in temperature. Within half an hour, heat had penetrated to the interior of the concrete, and the temperature everywhere in the impact zone was between 200 C and 700 C, away from sites of active burning.
Sounds plausible until you consider the photographs of survivors on the edge of the 'pre-heated' oven and stories of survivors in and around the impact zone.

Problem 14:
Thermal Decomposition -- "Cracking" Littered with 'might' do this, 'might' do that. Again speculation used to justify how office fires contributed to the collapse.

Problem 15:
Smoldering Rubble Does not explain how said items and temps could reach a point to cause steel to flow like lava. Why? Because it could not get that hot. The author again litters his explanation with speculation to support the facts.

Problem 16:
...that DNA was formed. This guy goes on to claim that it was possible for the building blocks of life to form at the bottom of the ruble pile! LOL! Now I've never heard that one before. Hell that should have been left in place for biologists to study it.

 
At 30 November, 2006 10:12, Blogger Stevew said...

BG
"1) There is no way for the fire to create temperatures and heating that would have a result of failure as witnessed. The uniqueness of the particular design of wtc7, nor the recounting of the particular details of that construction in no way change the basic impossibility of the alleged explanation.

2) Even if (1) had any credence, the uniformity and speed of the collapse is not consistent with the failure mechanism."

Both these statments are false and have been proven such and you have given no hard evidence to back this up. BTW you give opinions as if they were absolute truth. Do you have the background or are you qualified to do this? If so what are your qualifications? Are you qualified in Mechanical design,,Building design, Building demolition, Building construction, Aircraft crashes?

Because WTC7 was built over a substation, the main support trusses for the whole building and right above the fire that burned for 7hrs more than enough time for the steel to loose strength and with 47 stories pushing down on top, it had no chance. Trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities. Look at aircraft hangers in the aftermath of pearl Harbor and you can see bent steel that bent under its own weight, there are many examples of this. I have seen a steen oil derrik bend into a pile of spaggetti in an oil fire, steel oil tanks bend as well.
Look at these piks if you dare
http://www.debunking911.com/truck.htm
WTC 7 did not fall straight down, it fell to the southwest. On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 20 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out.
Steven Jones is a whak that has been discredited by real experts and you have been shown this time and time again.

Swing all your so called problems are either lies or have been answered many many times

How about a detailed explaination to back up your claims and back it up with real experts and scientific evidence that is equal to what has been put fourth by the real experts?

How giving us some of your qualifications in building design and destruction?
How giving us some of your qualifications in aircraft investigations and what crashes you have investigated?

 
At 30 November, 2006 10:29, Blogger Alex said...

It's amazing. Every single one of those points has been torn apart because he's brought them all up before! Yet once again, here he is "asking questions" as if they were brand new. Like someone said earlier:

ASK QUESTIONS! DEMAND ANSWERS! If you don't like the answers....DEMAND DIFFERENT ANSWERS!

 
At 30 November, 2006 10:35, Blogger Stevew said...

Very true Alex, he is like a broken record that says nothing in 5000 words

 
At 30 November, 2006 10:43, Blogger CHF said...

Swing,

please direct me to a report by structural engineers that outlines all these 13 "problems."

Frankly, I'm sick of hearing uneducated conjecture from internet space cadets.

Got any experts to back you up?

 
At 30 November, 2006 10:44, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Stevew What are you qualifications for making such statements? Do you have a degree on how to copy and paste other peoples materials? Do you have a degree in Journalism which qualifies you to post on said subjects or to even type on a blog? I mean really your response are so predictable and old that I sometimes think you take no time at all on anything other than copy and pasting. Better yet, you probably have a typed up response that you can cut and paste for every post you make. If you don't, get one because you will save a lot of time and effort retyping the same stuff.

You use that tactic everytime. Hell based upon that logic none of us on either side should be posting. If I'm not mistaken, isn't that an appeal to authority?
Oh and I do like your avoidance with the blanket statements of 'lies' and 'covered before'. Excellent response!
----
Alex, why as a Canadian do you care?
Liquid steel fact torn apart? Really is that so?
My short critique of the article linked to in the post has be done before? Please. The only question I posed, why? I answered. So what the fuck are you referring to Alex?

 
At 30 November, 2006 10:49, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Chf Which point would you be referring to? I know you picked all of them but narrow it down a bit please.

 
At 30 November, 2006 10:56, Blogger CHF said...

All of em!

For example:

Problem 2: There is no evidence of fuel pouring down the elevator shafts

So why did people smell kerosene at ground level?

Why were people horribly burned?

PLEASE Swing, direct me to a paper by a STRUCTURAL ENGINEER that outlines all these problems that you identify.

In other words - I don't care if YOU find problems. You're just some guy on the net. I want a QUALIFIED person to back you up.

If you can't find one then just say so.

 
At 30 November, 2006 10:58, Blogger Stevew said...

Thanks for the Tapdance swing. I use it because you, like all the toofer's like to sound like experts but never back it up with anyting of substance.

Much of what I say is my own interpration but when posting others material a link is required. Unlike you I understand what I post.

Now why don't you give us your qualifications whan you do I will be very happy to give mine?

 
At 30 November, 2006 11:22, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Explosions in the sublevels caused the burns. See Rodriguez, firefighters, etc.
CHF
Can you link to the testimony of kerosene smell at ground level please? I haven't heard that story and would like to read it.

Stevew Speaking of broken records and experts. How are you qualified to speak on the issue? Now if you can answer that, then lets chat. If not, stop cut and pasting the same tired shit. Keep appealing to authority to discount my list because it certainly is a fallacy.

James asked for specific examples from the article and a counter-arguement. I don't recall James ever asking for degrees and creditials. That is the only thing you guys use to try to discredit anomalies in the OS. If that were the case, James wouldn't have a popularity contest going on.

Experts: NIST for one. Is that a good start?

 
At 30 November, 2006 11:22, Blogger Alex said...

Alex, why as a Canadian do you care?

Because I'm also a human being, and your tap-dancing on the graves of the victims truly disgusts me.

Liquid steel fact torn apart? Really is that so?

Yes. Your entire evidence for the very existence of this "liquid steel" is the videotaped statement of two firefighters. Not exactly conclusive. Even if we accept the premise, nothing about molten steel suggests CD, since demolitions depend on concussion, generating kinetic energy, and do not create much in the way of thermal energy. No matter how you look at it, your "liquid steel" nonsense has nothing to do with your theories. You simply refuse to let go of it because you think it makes you sound like you know what you're talking about. It doesn't. Clinging to it so fiercely makes you seem like a kid hugging his security blanket. Let it go swinger. Either provide solid evidence of "liquid steel" AND explain how it ties into your theory, or stop bringing it up.

 
At 30 November, 2006 11:32, Blogger CHF said...

Swing,

what would be the bloody point of these "explosions in the sublevels" given that the towers fell from the top-down and not bottom-up?

Can you link to the testimony of kerosene smell at ground level please?

Do a simple search.

Here's one such story http://www.booknoise.net/americana/
excerpts/index.html

From the chapter “Points of Impact,” about survivors of the World Trade Center attacks:

Around 8:45 Ronnie Clifford walked into the lobby of the World Trade Center Marriott, which was connected to the north tower by a revolving door. He checked his yellow silk tie in a mirror and took a deep breath, preparing himself to take the elevator up. Then he felt a massive explosion, followed several seconds later by a kind of reverberation, a strange warping effect that Ronnie describes as “the harmonic tolerances of a building that’s shaking like a tuning fork." Baffled, Ronnie peered through the revolving door into the lobby of the north tower. He could see it was filling with black haze. People were scurrying to escape what had become an “incredible hurricane of flying debris.”
Yet Ronnie remained untouched. It was as though the revolving door were a glass portal to another realm, a world of chaos and soot just inches away. The Marriott lobby was calm, the marble surfaces polished and antiseptic. For a few seconds, the two adjacent worlds did not meet.

Then the revolving door turned with a suctioning sound followed by a sudden burst of hot wind, and out came a mannequin of the future. A woman, naked, dazed, her arms outstretched, her hands swollen and blistered beyond recognition. She was so badly burned Ronnie had no idea what race she was or how old she might be. She clawed the air with long warped fingernails turned porcelain white. Her skin was black and glistening red. The zipper of what was once a sweater had melted into her chest, as though it were the zipper to her own body. The woman’s hair was singed to a crisp steel wool, and her barrette was pressed into the back of her head. Her blackened eyes were welded shut. With her, in the warm gust of the revolving door, came a pungent odor, the smell of kerosene or paraffin, Ronnie thought.

Pretty odd bomb, eh?

 
At 30 November, 2006 11:42, Blogger Stevew said...

Tapdancing like all you toofers do. If you would answer the question I would not have to keep asking? I have given some of my qualifications before. You are the one that is makeing all the silly claims so it is not un reasonable to ask for qualifications. Most everything I post is in response to your nonsense. You can play this silly game if you wish but it does not help your creditibilty. I would think that if you were really qualified even in a field that is close you would shout it from the roof tops so you don't look the fool

 
At 30 November, 2006 11:46, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Alex Now you doubt the firefighters reports??
Let me ask you something, Alex. If the OS doesn't account for the flowing steel, what does? That is what I'm trying to figure out. My theory: something other than hydrocarbon/office fires and a plane impact caused the destruction. What else was involved? I have no idea, which is why I want to know what caused the steel to turn into flowing lava; why did the firefighters describe it as a foundry? Maybe that picture we discussed a few weeks ago that Jones and others use is correct.

Why use explosives at the sublevels? To assist the gravitational collapse.

 
At 30 November, 2006 12:01, Blogger CHF said...

Why use explosives at the sublevels? To assist the gravitational collapse.

How does blowing the sublevels assist in a top-to-bottom collapse?

And what kind of "bomb" reeks of kerosene?

 
At 30 November, 2006 12:09, Blogger James B. said...

And what kind of "bomb" reeks of kerosene?

Amazingly by conspiracy theory logic (and I use the term loosely),the smell of cordite, which is not used in explosives proves the use of explosives at the Pentagon, but the smell of kerosene, the major component of jetfuel, does not prove the presence of jetfuel in the basement of the WTC.

Maybe thousands of Keebler Elves were throwing Molotov Cocktails?

 
At 30 November, 2006 12:11, Blogger Stevew said...

here are all the Firefighter transcripts

http://jay-911.blogspot.com/

 
At 30 November, 2006 12:24, Blogger CHF said...

You watch: rather than re-examine his own beliefs in light of this new information, Swing will cling to his "basement bombs" and will either dismiss witness testimony or will come up with a really lame reason as to why bombs contained kerosene.

Or maybe the guv planted some kerosene in the lobby just to confuse people. Yeah, that's the ticket!

 
At 30 November, 2006 12:31, Blogger Stevew said...

The Paladian extraterrestrials were in on this too. They know that if all humanity is not soon brought under one world government, the onrushing AI singularity will spin out of control, and then the Galactic Watcher squadron charged with the preservation of the cosmic order of the heavens would have to step in and sterilize the planet. Then there would be no hominid slaves to dig the Anunnaki gold when the 12th planet approaches, and the Anunnaki atmosphere would breakdown and the sun would go supernova. The Paladians are working with the Bilderburgers and the Bushes and Bill Gates to create fake security emergencies that will justify mandatory universal chip implants and mind-control of the masses. Under the guise of TV camera traffic signal monitors, they are already installing death ray machines at most major intersections for the non-implant holdouts. Don't worry, the destiny of mankind is in good, but very deliberate, hands. To survive the coming rough transition to the Illuminati/Jesuit/Masonic/Gates governed age, however, you will need to report for chip implanting, biometric scanning, and taking the number of the beast.
It's simple; the Paladians replicated the 757 landing gear and beamed it into the Global Hawk that crashed into the Pentagon to lend authenticity to the deception. The actual 757 and all the passengers were beamed aboard the giant Paladian mother ship, where they have been placed into secure an comfortable stasis until the new world order is established. Almost nothing is as simple as it seems. Abandon the false logic of Occam's razor and live by Yomama's unshaved beard.

 
At 30 November, 2006 13:17, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thx for linking to my Blog SteveW.

Im still very busy going through all the transcripts, because there are 520 of em. I got through a few interesting ones around 350, where several firefighters say they saw burned people in the lobby just a few minutes after the first plane hit. This was caused by a huge fireball that traveled through the elevator shafts. All the high rise elevators had dropped cause of the sheering of the cables.
Also interestinsting is that firefighters in the north tower on the 20+ floors felt a blast of air as soon as the other tower started to come down. So if a blast of air can reach the 20th floor of the other building, its not that hard to understand that the puffs we see in the towers when they come down, are from the air forced down.

 
At 30 November, 2006 13:43, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

You are a hero Jay!!

 
At 30 November, 2006 13:48, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thx Dylan ;)

Its actually very hard to go through all those transcripts because the stories that the firefighters tell are really frightening sometimes. U really get a good idea how they got through that day. I tried to leave out all the gruesome stuff, because they get very graphic at some points. And i dont want to disrespect all the people that lost their lives that day. So i only paste the parts that are interesting to understand what happened that day.

 
At 30 November, 2006 13:49, Blogger Stevew said...

Most welcome Jay
The whaks love to quote this and that so with the transcripts there that are the real deal and they can't hide from the real truth
Thanks for makeint this available
S

 
At 30 November, 2006 13:58, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeh if all the troothers read all the transcripts, and then still thought it was controlled demolition or no planes, then they really need to get themselves of the face of the planet. because then they dont deserve to live....

There is also a video on the net where u see a couple of firefighters at a building when they get told to move because there is a bomb in the building. Well i hate to say it, but there were numerous bomb threats that day as u can see in the transcripts, well after both buildings had come down. Theres also alot of cars exploding when the towers come down, and ambulances, and firefigter engines with oxygen tanks in em.
Believe me, u can find alot of evidence just going though the transcripts alone.

 
At 30 November, 2006 13:59, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anyway, im of to bed, cause its getting late over here in good old Holland :)

 
At 30 November, 2006 14:15, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Yeh if all the troothers read all the transcripts, and then still thought it was controlled demolition or no planes, then they really need to get themselves of the face of the planet. because then they dont deserve to live....

Sadly I think that none of the ones who are vocal on this borad or the other Nutjob boards would read that and change their nutty beliefs.

The outspoken ones are like drug dealers trying to keep the young ones "hooked" on the bullshit belief that the government murdered 3000+ people.

 
At 30 November, 2006 16:51, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Swing:

Do you think only americans died in the 9/11 attacks. I am Canadian, and I am insulted that you think that Canadians shouldnt really care about this. We lost people in the WTCs also.

That said, I will try to give you my take, on your take:


Problem 1:
The columns along one face of the building were sheared for a height of several floors, as were many of the columns at the core.

There is no evidence of the condition of the internal core colums, only speculation.


They are likely basing their comments on the computer models. This is not direct physical evidence, but is detailed, well constructed "reinactment". Beyond that, they may have determined the severing of internal columns based on some of the metal they examined at GZ. I mean, for starters, the internal columns, I believe were made of a different steel type than the external columns, so they could seperate the two this way. Then, by examining the sites of sheering, perhaps, as qualified professionals in that area, the NIST scientists were able to determine that the aircraft was the causeof the sheering. I am not an expert in this...are you.


Problem 2:
The exploding fuel from the airliner ignited fires throughout the levels within the impact zone, as well as dropping fire down the stairwells and elevator shafts at the building's core..

There is no evidence of fuel pouring down the elevator shafts, especially since firefighters were able to travel up said shafts. This is used to try to explain the janitor's testimony, marble knocked off the wall, testimony of explosions etc.,and white smoke billowing from the base of the towers prior to collapse. Some victims exited the elevator shafts with no burns at all.


Noone said all the elevators had fuel come down them. Also, the man who did exit, had physical damage to his body (skin falling off) that was consistent with burning from fire, rather than a blast explosion event. Of course there is no physical evidence of fuel going down...how could there be, unless a video tape that captured said fuel pouring down was available.


Problem 3:
The shocks of impact and detonation loosened the "fire protection" thermal insulation on steel beams in the impact zone.

Pure speculation without evidence used to explain how the steel was weakened by fire that wasn't hot enough to weaken it.


1. Given the insulation was "spray on" and could be removed with a firm brush of the hand, it is GOOD Speculation, that a 757 passing through the building could rip a fair bit of it off.

2. The Certification Testing of the Steel, that was done for safety, was done on, according to one of the original architects/engineers of the WTC, Steel that HAD the fireproofing on it.

3. If Kerosene was the ONLY thing to burn in the fire, than I would agree, it would likely not have been hot enough for long enough to weaken the steel considerably. Carpet, Curtains, Plastics, Furniture, Aluminum, and many other things, were also within the buildings and burned in the fires, making them much hotter than simple "Hydrocarbon" fires.


Problem 4:
The added compression of the perimeter columns could only be distributed to the three undamaged faces, and because of the irregularity of the damage one face assumed a much higher load than the other two.

Perhaps true, but does not account for a symmetrical collapse. Based upon this statement the collapse should have been assymetrical. No reason is given for the discrepency.


Not true. The initiation may have had a higher tendancy to be asymetrical due to these factors, but once collapse was initiated, the overwhelming energy from the "in motion" weight of the floors above, would have insured and essentially "symmetrical" collapse of the entire building.


Problem 5:
The fuel fire burned up to 1,100 degrees C (2,000 degrees F) for perhaps 10 minutes. In each case the fuel exploded in a massive fireball upon impact.

In perfect conditions the maximum temperature that can be reached by hydrocarbons such as jet fuel burning in air is 1520° F (825° C) not 2000 F. Melting Point of Iron: 1535.0 °C (1808.15 K, 2795.0 °F) This explanation does not account for the steel flowing like lava in the debris pile. In fact, nothing about the OS can be attributed to the liquid steel.


1. NO, I repeat, NO proof that the metal in question was STEEL. Grainy photos, easily photoshopped, showing orange and yellow, or purple and pokadots, for that matter, is not evidence of STEEL.

2. One only needs to reach temps of 600-700 C to SIGNIFICANTLY weaken Steel.

3. To reach temps required to melt Aluminum or Copper or Iron (all found in debris of GZ) Fuel initiated fires, sustained via building components, and maintained for prolonged time via insulation from debris pile, as well as extra heat disipated from friction of collapse, could easily resulted in the scenario you describe.


To judge the effects of a fire on structural steel, it is necessary to consider what happens in such an exposure. Peculiarities of this exposure are : (1)temperature attained by the steel can only be estimated, (2)time of exposure at any given temperature is unknown, (3)heating is uneven, (4)cooling rates vary and can only be estimated, and (5)the steel is usually under load , and is sometimes restrained from normal expansion. (source: Manual of Steel Construction, 8th editionPage 6-5)


I do not disagree, but you are talking about what "most likely happened" given the overwhelming evidence, and based on the EXPERT opinions of the civil engineers that investigated the attakcs for NIST.


Problem 6:
The NIST response is that the lower structure was only designed to hold up the weight above any given floor statically, not dynamically. This is highly doubtful. If true, the designers of the building should be held responsible. If true, they knowingly designed a building that would collapse to the ground based upon the assymetrical collapse of *drum roll please* 1 FLOOR!


1. The amount of money that would have to be added to building costs to hold up such an enormous dynamic load, would make skyscrapers non-feasable.

2. the impact zones were multiple floors, and collapse likely occured/initiated over several floors, not one floor.


Problem 7:
The sudden shifts in the volume of rooms and office spaces being compressed and twisted by the elastic wave trains can easily expel jets of air and dust out of windows A subtle theory on the ejected debris squibs. But it doens't answer why the squibs took place in random spots not uniformly and at random times not in sequence.


That is the whole point. In a CD, as is proposed by the CTers, the squibs would have come out in a sequential, uniform sequence, not in a random fashion as they did. The "squibs occured as they did, likely froma a complex number of reasons, which I do not have the skill to explain.


Problem 8:
Sprey's comments on CD
First assumption is that terrorist using planes and CD would plant explosives in a traditional CD manner. He cleverly avoids other evidence that might lead to CD conventional or unconventional.


The alternative is that the evil Cabal went WAY, WAY, WAY out on a limb and planted the alleged explosives in an unconventional, UNPROVEN fashion, and then just ...HOPED IT WORKED. Come on.


Problem 9:It is noted that the time to reach critical temperature for bare columns is less than the one hour period during which the buildings withstood intense fires.

The buildings indeed did not have intense fires in them. Madrid on the other hand did have intense fires. (Fire behavior and appearance not collapse comparisons.)


The video and Photographic evidence I have seen, shows 8-10 floors afire, with huge seering flames through out. This, in comparison to the one reference comment from a fireman, several floors away, who said they could manage the fires...the one comment all the CTers cling on to for this entire point of contention.


Problem 10:
Airplane impact sheared columns along one face and at the building's core. Again speculation as to the core's condition.


See my comments on this from earlier.


Problem 11:
Let us pretend that the framework of the building is made of "ironcrete," I stopped at this point with the section HOW HOT... I'm not interested in pretending but this 'expert' is.


ok...whatever.


Problem 12:
Within minutes, the aviation fuel was largely burned off, and the oxygen in the impact zone depleted.

The minutes timeframe is debateable. Which leads to office fires melting steel and 1/2 of the equation for collapse. Riiighhttt.. This still does not account for steel flowing like rivers of lava.


Where, on gods earth, do you see "rivers of flowing steel" prior to building collapse? the only video I have seen of "liquid metal" prior to collapse are some sparks and melted bits flowing from one side of the impact zone, that could have been, and likely was, aluminum siding.

As to rivers of molten steel after the collapse, see my comments above.


Problem 13:
This process of "preheating the oven" would slowly raise the average temperature in the impact zone while narrowing the range of extremes in temperature. Within half an hour, heat had penetrated to the interior of the concrete, and the temperature everywhere in the impact zone was between 200 C and 700 C, away from sites of active burning.

Sounds plausible until you consider the photographs of survivors on the edge of the 'pre-heated' oven and stories of survivors in and around the impact zone.


I am not an expert, but it seems plausible that there would be some pockets of lower temps, especially where the impact zones were openly exposed to, and adjacent to the open air.


Problem 14:
Thermal Decomposition -- "Cracking" Littered with 'might' do this, 'might' do that. Again speculation used to justify how office fires contributed to the collapse.


Short of having tools to measure it at the actual event, of course there is an element of "educated" speculation, which I would trust much more than "CT-uneducated" speculation.


Problem 15:
Smoldering Rubble Does not explain how said items and temps could reach a point to cause steel to flow like lava. Why? Because it could not get that hot. The author again litters his explanation with speculation to support the facts.


You have stated, as a fact, that it could not have gotten that hot, so where is your proof of this "fact" you have spued?


Problem 16:
...that DNA was formed. This guy goes on to claim that it was possible for the building blocks of life to form at the bottom of the ruble pile! LOL! Now I've never heard that one before. Hell that should have been left in place for biologists to study it.


No idea what this is all about, I will leave it.

TAM

 
At 30 November, 2006 16:53, Blogger pomeroo said...

It's comical when the conspiracy liars pretend to know what they're talking about.

"A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again."
--Alexander Pope

Bg engages in verbal flim-flam while ignoring the straightforward explanation of WTC 7's collapse presented in the Popular Mechanics book, as recounted by stevew.

Swing Dangler is merely pulling our legs. "The NIST report states that pockets of fire hit 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,832 degrees Fahrenheit). Steel begins to lose strength at temperatures as low as about 400 degrees Celsius (750 degrees Fahrenheit) and loses roughly 50 percent of its strength at approximately 600 degrees Celsius (1,100 degrees Fahrenheit). At 980 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit), it retains less than 10 percent, says Farid Alfawakhari, the senior engineer of construction codes and standards at the American Iron and Steel Institute, an industry group in Washington D.C." Debunking 9/11 Myths (Popular Mechanics)

Tell us, is Alfawakhari "lying"? Odd that no scientist anywhere thinks so.
Have the loons invented new scientific principles that make the old ones obsolete? What are they?

The planes slashed through several floors and caused long-lasting, widespread fires. The steel weakened and the supports gave way. Again, the liars have failed to come up with anything that challenges the conclusions reached by the real scientists and engineers.

Why Swing Dangler wants to make himself look ridiculous by posting such thoroughly debunked rubbish is his problem.

 
At 30 November, 2006 17:19, Blogger Stevew said...

Tam
As you know It is possible that the fire created its own wind and the severed the walls,allowed air to rush in acting like a bellows on a forge, thus increasing the heat substantialy.
There have never been buildings destroyed in the way that happened on 911 so there is nothing to gage from. I have seen steel storage tanks bend like beer cans in an oil fire and that is half inch steel. I witnessed an oil derrik fire once from half a mile or so away, it made noises and shook the ground like a train and in 30 min the steel structure had bent and colapsed. If you look at some of the steel buildings that were burnt after the Pearl Harbor attack you can see hundreds of steel girders that weakened and bent from the heat of the fires.

We don't know what other types of combustable materials were in the towers but there had to be plenty in buildings this large.
A million tons of steel and concrete falling at over 100 mph would tend to flatten and spread after hitting the ground and would make a lot of noise that sounds like explosions. The breaking of the joints in the outer load bearing members could easily sound like explosions.
None of these people understand the construction of the towers, if they did their questions would all be answered. For example, the core girders were bolted together in 36' sections creating weak spots. There are piks of the core girders with 4 holes in them where they were bolted together and it also shows the bent bolts that tied them together.
The insulation was to be 39mm but on the upper floors it was 19mm and has been well known since the buildings were built.
There are many times pockets where people survive like the firemen that were found in the towers after the collapse

 
At 30 November, 2006 17:28, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kevin Ryan speaks:

A Quick Review of Manuel Garcia’s article “We See Conspiracies That Don’t Exist: The Physics of 9/11”

 
At 30 November, 2006 17:38, Anonymous Anonymous said...

More Kevin Ryan:

Video: A New Standard for Deception by Kevin Ryan

 
At 30 November, 2006 17:47, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stevew,

Until you wrote this entry beginning:

As you know It is possible that the fire created its own wind ....

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

My mistake.

 
At 30 November, 2006 17:50, Blogger Stevew said...

Kevin Ryan is brilliant at how to say nothing in 5000 words

FACT... Not a single Institute of Civil Engineers on the Planet agrees with the controlled demolition theory.

FACT...Not a single of Institute Structural Engineers on the Planet agree with the controlled demolition theory.

FACT...Not a single Institute of Fire and Safety Engineers on the Planet agree with the controlled demolition theory.

FACT...Not a single Institute of Demolition Engineers on the Planet agrees with the controlled demolition theory.

FACT...Not a single Institute of Architects on the Planet agrees with the controlled demolition theory.

FACT...Not a single Institute of Engineers in any field on the Planet agrees with the controlled demolition theory.

Nobody, not a single institute of engineers in the world agrees with the controlled demolition theory, Every single professional institute of Engineers from everywhere, including Russia, China, Germany, the rest of Europe, the entire planet agree with NIST.

How about a detailed explaination to back up claims and back it up with real experts and scientific evidence that is equal to what has been put fourth by the real experts?

 
At 30 November, 2006 17:56, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Actually, I would guess that through the movement of air from the outside, inward, to source the fires, from the outside, a wind, could in fact, be created by the fires BG.

But I am not a "wind" specialist...lol

TAM

 
At 30 November, 2006 17:57, Blogger Stevew said...

BG
As far as creating its own wind, that hs a documented fact. Ever hear of a firestorm. I live in so cal and brush fires are the norm and I have seen this with my own eyes, ask any fireman if you don't believe me. Ever hear of a forge or blow on BBQ bricketts? It does not take much of a breeze to raise the temp. With the huge holes in the side of the building and the fire creating its updrafts it is entirely possible to increase the temp several hundred degrees not to mention what else there was in the building. Why don't you address anything I post? Are you ever going to give us your qualifications

 
At 30 November, 2006 18:08, Anonymous Anonymous said...

TAM,

I wasn't disputing that stevew words about fire weren't true.

Yes, fire definitely can create wind (currents of air).

I should have made it more clear that my qualm is how even massive fire winds explain the CD. They don't.

So matter how much heat, no matter how much wind, I content that you would see a completely different partial collapse sequence rather than what we see.

 
At 30 November, 2006 18:09, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stevew,

My plan is mostly to ignore you.

 
At 30 November, 2006 18:17, Blogger Alex said...

Maybe it's time for you to consider the idea that, when none of the facts "explain the CD", maybe that's because there was no CD.

Radical idea, I know, but worth considering. Especially considering the fact that no CD company supports your ideas, and several have put out papers debunking your claims.

You really DO remind me of a lunatic, with your "everyone is wrong except me" mindset.

 
At 30 November, 2006 19:47, Blogger CHF said...

So BG ignores the findings of structural engineers in favour of Kevin Water Boy Ryan.

This kid is beyond all hope. A true religious zealot.

 
At 30 November, 2006 19:54, Blogger Crungy said...

Ryan is a complete knob who prefaces every argument with irrelevant "And this company/person once worked on a government project..." with the implication that none of their findings could be objective. Way to debate the facts Waterboy!

The small dumpling of man even verbally slandered my coworker and company. Yeah, we're in on the conspiracy dumbass!!!

 
At 01 December, 2006 02:29, Blogger Bubbers said...

BG said...
Stevew,

My plan is mostly to ignore you
======================================================================


Anybody else not the least but surprised by this? Hey when you act like you know everything and people prove that you don't, just stop addressing their questions, and act like you are ignoring them because you are smarter, and can't be bothered by us shills. For some reason, I don't think BG's fooling anyone.

 
At 01 December, 2006 02:31, Blogger Bubbers said...

CHF said...
So BG ignores the findings of structural engineers in favour of Kevin Water Boy Ryan.

This kid is beyond all hope. A true religious zealot
==================================================================

Nice. Before you know it, we're gonna have a nickname for all of these idiots.

 
At 01 December, 2006 06:56, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Hey Mac!
They are likely basing their comments on the computer models. This is not direct physical evidence, but is detailed, well constructed "reinactment".
Yes true it could be a reininactment from a computer model. If that is the case, lets get the NIST to release the computer model to the public. If that is the case, lets get the law changed so the NIST can be used in a court of law.

Also, the man who did exit, had physical damage to his body (skin falling off) that was consistent with burning from fire, rather than a blast explosion event.
I've seen victims of blast explosions and fire victims. Can a person be burnt from a blast scenario? Sure! I'm not sure that one witness proves beyound a doubt kerosene fell down the shafts. Two, if it had, wouldn't we have more documented evidence and wouldn't there be dark smoke pouring from the elevators shafts, ground floor, sublevels, and reports of firefighters putting out fires on those levels as well as above? Wasn't it the firefighters who began to ascend the wells to the top to put out those small pockets of fire? Why not the 'fuel fires' if that is what it was in the basement first? Seems to me that would lead to a fire entrapment for the firefighters to let a fire exist below rescue operations.

1. NO, I repeat, NO proof that the metal in question was STEEL. Grainy photos, easily photoshopped, showing orange and yellow, or purple and pokadots, for that matter, is not evidence of STEEL. Now I'm thinking tha firefighrers make a living dealing with things on fire, building materials and how they react to fire, etc. Why isn't the firefighter's testimony accepted by you as proof? Yet when it comes to other events of 9/11 testimony is accepted as truth.

Not true. The initiation may have had a higher tendancy to be asymetrical due to these factors, but once collapse was initiated, the overwhelming energy from the "in motion" weight of the floors above, would have insured and essentially "symmetrical" collapse of the entire building.

If that is the case, why was the intial collapse symetrical instead of asymetrical according to the visual damage and the speculative damage?

1. The amount of money that would have to be added to building costs to hold up such an enormous dynamic load, would make skyscrapers non-feasable.
Unrelated comment. Other skyscrapers that have had floors collapse did not suffer a total collapse.

That is the whole point. In a CD, as is proposed by the CTers, the squibs would have come out in a sequential, uniform sequence, not in a random fashion as they did. True but then that is in a traditional controlled demolition. Could it have been explosives placed in some other manner to help with the collapse? Sure. Why not?

The alternative is that the evil Cabal went WAY, WAY, WAY out on a limb and planted the alleged explosives in an unconventional, UNPROVEN fashion, and then just ...HOPED IT WORKED. Come on.
Hey Mac, didn't terrorists try to blow up the building through an unconventioal demolition a few years ago? Nevermind the fact the FBI had an informant in the mix who was ordered not to replace the materials with 'duds'.

Where, on gods earth, do you see "rivers of flowing steel" prior to building collapse?
Not prior, Mac, but during the rescue operation. Firefigther's commented on film about said steel flowing like rivers of lava and it looking like a foundry.

Short of having tools to measure it at the actual event, of course there is an element of "educated" speculation, which I would trust much more than "CT-uneducated" speculation.
Still Mac it is speculation used to support a theory which shouldn't be included.

Next the hypocracy of Alex..Because I'm also a human being, and your tap-dancing on the graves of the victims truly disgusts me.
Yep but you have no problem joining the military whose job is to kill people. Gotcha.

 
At 01 December, 2006 07:16, Blogger Stevew said...

BG
Ignore me if you wish, thats fine but all you have done is divert and tapdance. You have yet to counter anything with hard facts
That has been the pattern of all the toofers. Their motto should be: if you can't beat them with facts then try and baffle them with Bull Shit. I admit that many of the toofers would make good fiction writers

 
At 01 December, 2006 07:20, Blogger Stevew said...

bubbers
These conspiracy theorists have taken fact out of context and turned it to fiction, they have carefully selected random clippings which were the extreme end of the spectrum not the mean average of the time, meaning it is a very skewed view of what we saw and heard during our present period.

There questions have multiple meanings so they choose one that fits their agenda.

It is so funny they keep makeing the CD claim when there was no CD

 
At 01 December, 2006 09:29, Blogger Alex said...

Now I'm thinking tha firefighrers make a living dealing with things on fire, building materials and how they react to fire, etc. Why isn't the firefighter's testimony accepted by you as proof?

Let's see, your logic goes something like this:

1) Building fires are never hot enough to melt steel.

2) Because firefighters fight fires, they must know what liquid steel looks like.

Notice a discrepancy there swinger boy? No? Didn't think so. That'd require an IQ of at least 90 or so. However, rest assured that everyone else can see the flaw in your logic, and they're all laughing at you right now.

Next the hypocracy of Alex..Because I'm also a human being, and your tap-dancing on the graves of the victims truly disgusts me.
Yep but you have no problem joining the military whose job is to kill people. Gotcha.


Let me get this straight, you're trying to equate the murder of 3,000 innocent civilians to the selective elimination of terrorists and combatants? Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you? This has gone beyond just your lack of intelligence. You can't even blame this one on your mental disorder. You're just totally fucked up in every way possible.

 
At 01 December, 2006 11:16, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Swing:


Hey Mac!
Yes true it could be a reininactment from a computer model. If that is the case, lets get the NIST to release the computer model to the public. If that is the case, lets get the law changed so the NIST can be used in a court of law.


1. Agreed, the models should be released, if it will help answer questions.
2. The NIST report is likely usable in a criminal case. Their clause states it cannot be used in a case where DAMAGES are being sought!!!


I've seen victims of blast explosions and fire victims. Can a person be burnt from a blast scenario? Sure!


agreed, but most blast scenarios would not likely produce the same effects. It is not the norm, but possible.

I'm not sure that one witness proves beyound a doubt kerosene fell down the shafts.

agreed


Two, if it had, wouldn't we have more documented evidence and wouldn't there be dark smoke pouring from the elevators shafts, ground floor, sublevels, and reports of firefighters putting out fires on those levels as well as above? Wasn't it the firefighters who began to ascend the wells to the top to put out those small pockets of fire? Why not the 'fuel fires' if that is what it was in the basement first? Seems to me that would lead to a fire entrapment for the firefighters to let a fire exist below rescue operations.


If the fuel spilled out to various floors on the way down the shafts, then yes you would expect fires on multiple floors below, but I am suspecting that the fuel passed all the way down. I will plead lack of knowledge, off the top of my head, to respond beyond what I have said (so many areas of research, so little time). As to why we havent heard as such, i am not sure, but the collapse of the entire building within an hour may have had something to do with it.


Now I'm thinking tha firefighrers make a living dealing with things on fire, building materials and how they react to fire, etc. Why isn't the firefighter's testimony accepted by you as proof? Yet when it comes to other events of 9/11 testimony is accepted as truth.


I would guess firefighters are trained as you said, but I doubt they are trained, like a metalurgist, and able to tell what type of metal the molten metal was when they saw it. DO you have testimony from a firefighter telling you that he can distinuish, at a glance, the difference between molten steel and molten copper, or molten aluminum?

If that is the case, why was the intial collapse symetrical instead of asymetrical according to the visual damage and the speculative damage?

depends on the building in question. One tower collapse was significantly assymetrical, causing the top section to initially tilt, but then once the collapse progressed, it fell essentially symmetrically. The other tower fell much more symmetrically, and likely this was due to a more symmpetrical collapse initiation, due to the area of impact damage.

Unrelated comment. Other skyscrapers that have had floors collapse did not suffer a total collapse.

not unrelated, as you were commenting that the buildings should have been able to withstand such a dynamic load, and that there should have been repercussions if they were not (designers should have been held responsible). My point was that to design a building able to withstand such a huge dynamic load (multiple floor collapse, the impact zones were multiple floors in height) would be outrageously expensive, to the point of making their construction unfeasable.


True but then that is in a traditional controlled demolition. Could it have been explosives placed in some other manner to help with the collapse? Sure. Why not?


see my comments on taking chances that things might blow up.


Hey Mac, didn't terrorists try to blow up the building through an unconventioal demolition a few years ago? Nevermind the fact the FBI had an informant in the mix who was ordered not to replace the materials with 'duds'.


Be more specific. As for your reference, you are talking terrorist mentality versus super powerful, super smart evil cabal mentality.


Not prior, Mac, but during the rescue operation. Firefigther's commented on film about said steel flowing like rivers of lava and it looking like a foundry.


I have commented on the findings of molten STEEL versus METAL.


Still Mac it is speculation used to support a theory which shouldn't be included.


Speculation is weaker than solid physical evidence, yes, but it is still evidence, and if that is all we have, in a particular area of concern, I would much rather it be educated opinion, than uneducated. In medicine, we consider this evidence to be level/grad E (the least desirable, weakest).

TAM

 
At 01 December, 2006 12:28, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Isn't Garcia saying that the "hammer" of the upper block of the building got heavier and heavier as the collapse proceeded? That does not comport with the videos that seem to show the upper blocks disintegrating, at least in part, before or at least faster than the collapse of the building.

It also does not explain the dust clouds -- if that is the result of compression at the collapse front and not explosives or other added energy, then the expulsion of materials must mean that the lower block is providing lots of resistance. I read someone explaining this as similar to the expulsion of materials by the impact of a collapsing building with the ground.

It was here:

http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm

specifically here:

http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm#_Toc144445995

This writer was saying this to disprove the explosives thesis, saying as follows:

"This ejection [of steel beams and debris plumes] is not caused by explosion but by the huge pneumatic overpressures of the descending building. The Towers, unusually, had a crumple zone very high up, making the horizontal ejection of material uniquely visible. While explosives could have caused this, so could the pneumatic pressure of descent of the upper floors. In WTC 1 there were between 12 and 18 stories collapsing onto the impact area between floors 94 and 98, while in WTC 2 there were between 26 and 32 stories collapsing onto the impact area between floors 78 and 84. If one views the base of a 12-18 story building or a 26-32 story building being demolition in a traditional bottom-up demolition, vast amounts of debris are ejected at this point."

Then this guy goes on to say here:

http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm#_Toc144445996

"The fact is that the near free-fall-speed of collapse of buildings in controlled demolition is entirely due to gravity, and not to explosives. The question of course remains, how come that buildings, impeded by their intact lower floors, collapse so fast? (Though of course, this is not a question with any direct relevance to 9/11.) Put this way, the question conveys the essential fact of controlled demolition: that the only floors effectively ‘removed’ from the building are the lowest."

This writer apparently does not see the fundamental contradiction here -- if the impact area is resistant enough to eject steel beams and debris as observed, then it must be providing much resistance that would slow the collapse. This writer gets around this by ignoring the contradiction, saying that buildings fall fast in controlled demolitions because of gravity, not explosives.

But at least you can see the contradiction in King's paper -- Garcia just ignores the expulsion of steel beams and debris plumes.

This I think is the "resistance paradox" described here:

http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/2006/08/jeff-strahl-mechanical-enginee...

 
At 01 December, 2006 12:31, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Garcia's article screams subjectivity. The beginning of the article is a bunch of pompous, illogical psychobabble.

In the part where he purports to do physics, I noticed that he has the stress waves going up from the collision front into the upper block. He is trying to explain why the videos show it disintegrating. This shows even on his own terms that the lower 3/4 of the building was offering tremendous resistance, which contradicts his argument that the upper block was an ever-growing hammer.

And how does he treat each floor as falling at free-fall speed?

And since he says in this and other papers that steel was heated to various temperatures, how does it fail symmetrically?

 
At 01 December, 2006 12:37, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Artisitc Macrophage, you recognize that the initiation might have been assymetrical, but then say that after initiation the force would be symmetrical. How does it change -- Garcia assumes the initial floor collapse is 3 meters, at free fall speeds, and symmetrical. Ok, assume it is a 3-meter drop, free-fall, assymetrical. How does that force not continue in the same direction?

 
At 01 December, 2006 12:39, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alex, if you want to go ad hominem, Garcia supports the social goals of the Cuban Revolution being spread worldwide, and Cockburn thinks we should be reading Marx in Trotskyite groups. What do you think of that?

 
At 01 December, 2006 12:48, Anonymous Anonymous said...

SteveW says:

"Are you qualified in Mechanical design,,Building design, Building demolition, Building construction, Aircraft crashes?"

Are you, SteveW? If not, how can you judge this paper? Is a PhD, some formulas, and the conclusion you want enough to convince you. That goes both ways.

You also ask:

"How giving us some of your qualifications in building design and destruction?
How giving us some of your qualifications in aircraft investigations and what crashes you have investigated?"

Garcia is trained as an aerospace engineer, and has experience in energy and fluid physics. Pierre Sprey, who Garcia and Cockburn cite for "The Absurdity of "Controlled Demolition," is an aerospace engineer. Clearly, both these guys have intellectual tools that I do not have, so the fact that they are not structural engineers or demolition experts does not mean I can ignore what they say for that reason alone.

We all have to think for ourselves, as best we can. Garcia does not convince me. Call me what you will -- that sure as hell won't convince me.

 
At 01 December, 2006 12:51, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let me clarify - Garcia does not convince me because he makes assumptions or omissions that I believe I can recognize, even if I cannot do all the math.

 
At 01 December, 2006 13:25, Blogger Stevew said...

Ningen
I have been an Aerospace engineer for over 40 years and you?

 
At 01 December, 2006 14:01, Blogger Alex said...

Alex, if you want to go ad hominem, Garcia supports the social goals of the Cuban Revolution being spread worldwide, and Cockburn thinks we should be reading Marx in Trotskyite groups. What do you think of that?

Why the fuck would I care what their political views are? It's their skills in physics that I'm interested in. Besides which, if you're right about their political affiliations that would only give them more reason to HATE the US government. Want to explain to me why you think Communists are defending the Bush administration?

This writer apparently does not see the fundamental contradiction here -- if the impact area is resistant enough to eject steel beams and debris as observed, then it must be providing much resistance that would slow the collapse.

What? Buddy, pneumatic force isn't generated when one concrete floor hits another, it's generated between the time when the upper floor starts falling, and the time it strikes the lower floor. The amount of pneumatic force is dependant mainly on the volume of air and the speed of the collapse. How much resistance is provided by the lower floor is utterly irrelevant: as long as the floor provides more resistance than the air, the air will be expelled sideways. I think it's pretty reasonable to expect each floor to offer more resistance than air, don't you? On the other hand, it's quite obvious that they didn't offer enough resistance to significantly slow the collapse. The two are NOT mutually exclusive. You'd have to have a pretty shitty understanding of science to try and make such a silly argument.

 
At 01 December, 2006 14:19, Blogger Stevew said...

Alex
You forgot to mention that the building was basically hollow and the floors were not designed to be self standing and the floors were bolted together. The sound of a huge bolt breaking could sound like an explosion especially with the other noises of the collapse

These people should study the construction of the towers, they were unique and no one could predict how they would react in a collapse no matter what caused it. What appear to be anomolies are just the way the building collapsed as there are no benchmarks for this

 
At 01 December, 2006 16:52, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

ningen:

my physics is only a little better than intro college level, and I havent used it in the last 10-15 years, so i am gonna plead ignorance on your question. My suggestion, an honest one, is pose your qquestions to Garcia, and see if he gives you an honest answer.

TAM

 
At 01 December, 2006 18:09, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Swing Dangler said:

"Problem 2:
The exploding fuel from the airliner ignited fires throughout the levels within the impact zone, as well as dropping fire down the stairwells and elevator shafts at the building's core.. There is no evidence of fuel pouring down the elevator shafts, especially since firefighters were able to travel up said shafts. This is used to try to explain the janitor's testimony, marble knocked off the wall, testimony of explosions etc.,and white smoke billowing from the base of the towers prior to collapse. Some victims exited the elevator shafts with no burns at all."

It gets even weirder. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, a fireball shot down the North Tower to the 22nd Floor, where the security command center for both towers just happened to be. This apparently broke the software enabling unlocking of the roof doors on both towers. Who knows what else was going on on the 22nd Floor - the Report talks about people trapped there. I also find it strange that the plane impacts supposedly took out all but 1 of 99 elevators in each tower, even though many of the elevators only went up to the 40th floors.

These precision fireballs are another incredible coincidence.

 
At 01 December, 2006 18:11, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Notice that the whaks never compare the qualifications of their so called experts with real experts. Saying it is wrong is very different than proving it wrong."

Garcia and Sprey are neither structural engineers or demolition experts, yet they comment on both.

 
At 01 December, 2006 18:21, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Alex, why as a Canadian do you care?

Because I'm also a human being, and your tap-dancing on the graves of the victims truly disgusts me."

You are wrong about this. Even if we are wrong, we are sincere and believe that real perpetrators must be found. And this is about more than the victims - it is about all those being killed in the wars after 9/11, and about all the war profiteering that has gone on since then, which is creating huge deficits and preventing us from dealing with other problems. That is what is disgusting, in my opinion. You have a different opinion. Please keep it to yourself and address the topic of this post -- the article Physics of 9/11.

 
At 01 December, 2006 18:30, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Ningen
I have been an Aerospace engineer for over 40 years and you?"

I'm a lawyer who dropped calculus in college because I couldn't handle it, or was too lazy to handle it anyway. Haven't had a physics class since high school.

OK? Now, care to address what I wrote?

 
At 01 December, 2006 18:45, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alex said:

"Why the fuck would I care what their political views are? It's their skills in physics that I'm interested in."

You're right. That's the point I was trying to make.

SteveW:

I apologize, you were responding to my question. Anyway, now you know I know little about science. Obviously, you would be more qualified than me on any scientific issue, even if you are not that specific type of engineer. My point was that we often here from our side that so-and-so is a physicist not a structural engineer, or works on oil rigs not skyscrapers, or went to a third-rate school, and so on. I was simply trying to say that we should be looking at the argument, not the qualification.

Let me ask you what you think of this, from a debate on whether common sense has a place in science:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/horgan05/horgan05_index.html

"Evolution wired us with both hardware and software that would allow us to easily "grock" concepts like force, acceleration, and temperature, but only over the limited range that applies to our daily lives — concepts that are needed for our physical survival. But it simply did not provide us with wiring to intuit the quantum behavior of an electron, or velocities near the speed of light, or the powerful gravitational fields of black holes, or a universe that closes back on itself like the surface of the Earth."

I am operating under the assumption that I can "grok" this, because a skyscraper is closer to the me banging my elbow on the desk than to a black hole. I think I can read what the arguments are -- Garcia says he is explaining in non-technical language --- and judge the assumptions and conclusions he made.

Whether or not I personally can do this, would you agree that this is a valid endeavor for someone, to use whatever intellectual tools he has to draw his own conclusions?

 
At 01 December, 2006 19:18, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stevew -

I meant "we often hear from our side . . ."

Alex - I'm not your buddy. Learn some manners. You're right,though, my understanding of science is "shitty." Seeing how much science has been corrupted by 9/11, I now wish I had studied harder when I was young.

Now let me see if I agree with your argument.

"pneumatic force isn't generated when one concrete floor hits another, it's generated between the time when the upper floor starts falling, and the time it strikes the lower floor."

I'm talking about the pulverization of the material, and it's expulsion to the side. My understanding of pneumatic force is that this is compression of air that caused the "squibs" down-building that the moonbats say is a sign of controlled demolition. Is that right?

It may be pneumatic force that expels the materials to the sides, but it is the resistance of the lower building that pulverizes the materials in the first place, assuming there is no added energy beyond gravity. I may not be saying it right, but what I mean is that all that pulverization cannot take place without the collapse being slowed.

This was a response to the King article I linked to, which said the pulverization was similar to the pulverization that would take place at the ground level in a gravity-driven controlled demolition. My point was simply that you can't have it both ways -- if there is no resistance there would not be pulverization until the structure hit the ground.

"The amount of pneumatic force is dependant mainly on the volume of air and the speed of the collapse. How much resistance is provided by the lower floor is utterly irrelevant: as long as the floor provides more resistance than the air, the air will be expelled sideways."

What I am saying is that the floors, and the external and core columns between the floors, would provide more resistance than air. So we agree. Garcia, as far as I can read, models a series of floors spaced 3 meters apart that collapse downward at free fall speed, slowed incrementally by a slight delay by the mass of each floor, but falling at free-fall velocity between each floor.

"I think it's pretty reasonable to expect each floor to offer more resistance than air, don't you?"

Yes, of course. That is the point.I saw Garcia and King to be ignoring this -- King wanted to have it both ways - resistance when explaining pulverization, no resistance when explaining speed of collapse. Garcia just ignored the pulverization altogether.

"On the other hand, it's quite obvious that they didn't offer enough resistance to significantly slow the collapse. The two are NOT mutually exclusive."

That's where we differ. It seems you have all the authorities on your side, but a tautology is a tautology, no matter who says it. As David Hume said in On Miracles:

"I should not believe such a story were it told me by Cato, was a proverbial saying in Rome, even during the lifetime of that philosophical patriot. The incredibility of a fact, it was allowed, might invalidate so great an authority."

"You'd have to have a pretty shitty understanding of science to try and make such a silly argument."

No offense, Alex, but NIST, FEMA, ASCE, and MIT and all their fancy GIGO models haven't convinced me that their arguments are not fundamentally and obviously illogical. You'll have to do better than sophomoric abuse. Please address what I said above -- I want to be convinced and trust you more than NIST, because I assume you are are speaking as an individual and not an institution.

 
At 01 December, 2006 19:25, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

SO you honestly believe that NIST, FEMA, MIT, and all of ASCE (thousands of members) are all collectively wrong and illogical, but a few left wing wing nuts, philosophy profs, and computer scientists etc...are right.

ok. You have ended any thoughts I had of discussing things on that thought alone.

TAM

 
At 01 December, 2006 19:37, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stevew, you asked us to address your arguments and state our qualifications. You were focusing on the fires, I believe. I have no qualifications -- it's just me grokking, aided by some facts I've learned that seem to be undisputed.

The main fact is that steel conducts heat well so the heat will be diffused away from the heat source.

My grok is that since NIST and Garcia say that the heat was not uniform, and there were areas of the floors where the ambient temperature never exceeded 20 C, while in other areas it got up to 200-1000 C temporarily, I don't see the columns heating in a symmetrical fashion. Because of diffusion, I don't see them getting very hot at all, so I wonder if they lost their redundant load capacity at all. I also don't see them suddenly collapsing. So what I grok is a slow, assymetrical collapse at the initiation floors, if there is any collapse at all.

What Garcia models is an instantaneous, symmetrical disappearance of all resistance between the upper and lower blocks, so the lower block slams down with tremendous kinetic energy, 6X the design load.

I can't grok that happening. Can you?

 
At 01 December, 2006 19:44, Anonymous Anonymous said...

ningen said:

I can't grok that happening. Can you?


stevew, and everyone else arguing against CD.

You've been pwned.

 
At 01 December, 2006 19:46, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, TAM, I made it very clear that I honestly believe that. Just to clarify, though, I think I am right, not Fetzer, Hoffman, and my fellow left-wing nuts. I've read their work and NIST's work, and drawn my own conclusions.

If you don't want to address my arguments, fine. It's a shame, though, as you seem like a bright guy who has thought a lot about this. That's why I can't understand why you would say such a thing.

 
At 01 December, 2006 21:51, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Oh but you see, you seem very intelligent as well, which is why I can't see how without solid evidence , nothing but conjecture and speculation, you condemn hundreds of my fellow scientists (as a physician I consider myself, at least in part, to be one) of complicity in the murder of thousands of their fellow americans. Seems harsh, but if you claim they are covering up, or ignoring evidence/fabricating facts, than this is in fact what you are claiming...complicity. If not blaming them of comlicity, you are atleast calling thousands of ASCE engineers, and hundreds of NIST Scientists stupid, or ignorant of their own sciences. Yet you put your faith in a single unknown physicist, a dental engineer, and a federal economist instead...well done.

You see, I see no evidence that anything they have said is wrong, or misleading. Not one "scientist" on behalf of the truthers has shown me one incorrect point within the NIST paper. When a point has been contested, what I have seen, is the dutiful scientists at NIST put out an FAQ to address some of the concerns.

Have things that the truthers want answered been over looked, or not addressed, perhaps, but were they negligent, misleading, or outside the mandate they were given when given the duty to investigate the various areas of the attacks...no, not that I have seen.

Why don't you point out a point or fact that a NIST scientist has placed in the NIST report that is wrong, and then perhaps someone can email him or write him a letter and ask him/her why they put this incorrect info in the report.

TAM

 
At 02 December, 2006 06:27, Blogger Stevew said...

Sorry BG but when a 20 year expert says there was no CD and CDI backs that up then I believe them. Perhaps if you would provide hadr proof of CD backed up by experts, people might believe you

 
At 02 December, 2006 06:37, Blogger Stevew said...

Ningen
As a lawyer I can see why you babble on so much but I am a simple man and the bottom line is:

You people should study the construction of the towers, they were unique and no one could predict how they would react in a collapse no matter what caused it. What appear to be anomolies are just the way the building collapsed as there are no benchmarks for this.

What you guys need is one solid conspiracy. Do you know why that will never happen? ITs because the 9/11 truth movement is filled with a bunch of nutjobs.
Nutjobs who believe no planes hit the towers.
Nutjobs who believe a cruise missle hit the pentagon.
Nutjobs who believe Pres. Bush is the stupidest and worst president ever, but somehow intelligent enough to cover up the biggest conspriacy in United States history.
Nutjobs who don't listen to reason and logic.
Nutjobs who dismiss any scientist who disproves thier arguments as being comprimised.
Nutjobs who will cling on to any bit of "evidence" no matter how irrelevant, no matter how outdated, no matter how credible the source is.
Nutjobs who make death threats at people who disagree with them. Nutjobs who who refute their opponents claims by calling them CIA or government agents.
Nutjobs will cause this movement to fail.

There are well over 300 qualified experts in the relative fields that have proven all this whaks claims to be 100% bogus, every real scientific, engineering and architectural publication agrees with the current findings, only the unqualified whaks do not believe and these are just a few who think the whaks are nuts

 
At 02 December, 2006 19:43, Anonymous Anonymous said...

SteveW said:

As a lawyer I can see why you babble on so much but I am a simple man and the bottom line is:

I too am a simple man. The bottom line is that I asked your opinion, and you responded by insulting me.

You people should study the construction of the towers, they were unique and no one could predict how they would react in a collapse no matter what caused it. What appear to be anomolies are just the way the building collapsed as there are no benchmarks for this.

"You people"? I am one man, asking other men some questions.

I have studied the construction of the towers. You say above that they are hollow, which is misleading.

As I stated in response to Alex, Garcia seems to be saying that the towers were constructed of floors 3 meters apart with nothing in between them. Should he study the contruction of the towers?

You are confusing everyone's surprise at the collapses, which no one foresaw, with the ability to look at the collapses after the fact and draw conclusions.

What you guys need is one solid conspiracy.

Why do I need one solid conspiracy? What does that have to do with the article we are discussing?

Let me make it simpler for you. Let's agree that Osama bin Ladin caused planes to be flown into the buildings, and that the US Government had absolutely no involvement whatsoever, either in allowing or making it happen.

Now: How did Osama make the buildings "collapse"? Is that not an important question to answer?

None of my questions depend on who did it. I’m just trying to figure out what “it” is.

Do you know why that will never happen?

We may not ever know everything about what happened, but I think we will learn how the towers were destroyed.

ITs because the 9/11 truth movement is filled with a bunch of nutjobs.

I am not part of any movement. I am not a nutjob. I am an individual citizen seeking answers from my public servants. Many of my fellow citizens have similar questions, and each is seeking their own anwers.

If I am in a "movement," you are in it with me. It's called the United States of America. In our movement, all political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

Nutjobs who believe no planes hit the towers.

I question whether Boeing 767s hit the towers, but am assuming they did for purposes of this discussion. Can you please stay on topic?

And what does that have to do with anything? Steven Jones wrote a paper saying Jesus Christ came to the Americas, and that this supports his Mormon faith.

I don’t judge his arguments about the WTC towers on that basis, and judge those arguments on their merits, and find them to be either lacking or unoriginal.

Nutjobs who believe a cruise missile hit the pentagon.

We are not discussing the Pentagon.

Nutjobs who believe Pres. Bush is the stupidest and worst president ever, but somehow intelligent enough to cover up the biggest conspriacy in United States history.

We are not discussing President Bush, we are discussing an article entitled "The Physics of 9/11." Have you read it?

I don't think President Bush is stupid, and my evaluation of his presidency has nothing to do with his intelligence.

Nutjobs who don't listen to reason and logic.

I will listen, if you give me some.

Nutjobs who dismiss any scientist who disproves thier arguments as being comprimised.

Not me. I evaluate arguments on the merits, not by who makes them.

If you disprove my arguments, I will not call you compromised, I will thank you profusely.

Nutjobs who will cling on to any bit of "evidence" no matter how irrelevant, no matter how outdated, no matter how credible the source is.

I think for myself. I question whether you do.

Nutjobs who make death threats at people who disagree with them.

People who question the government's story have also received death threats. What does that have to do with our discussion?

I have made no such threats. I have not even insulted you, even though you insult me.

Nutjobs who refute their opponents claims by calling them CIA or government agents.

I never called you an agent, and don’t care if you are. I asked your opinion as an engineer, based on your representation that you have been an aerospace engineer for 40 years, which I took at face value.

Given your stated profession, it would not surprise me if you work for the military or for a company with substantial military contracts. That does not make me question your objectivity. Your comments make me question your objectivity.

Nutjobs will cause this movement to fail.

Our movement won't fail unless we let it. I'm working to prevent that from happening, the only way I know how, which is hold my public servants accountable. I will not stop.

There are well over 300 qualified experts in the relative fields that have proven all this whaks claims to be 100% bogus, every real scientific, engineering and architectural publication agrees with the current findings, only the unqualified whaks do not believe and these are just a few who think the whaks are nuts

Again, I think for myself. I asked your opinion, SteveW, because you said you are an aerospace engineer. I did not think you were a "whak," but respected your training and experience by asking you questions.

 
At 02 December, 2006 21:08, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I response to TAM:

I am saying that NIST has not explained the collapses. That is all. I suppose you are right that I am implicitly accusing NIST of complicity in covering up the murders of thousands of my fellow Americans. I think it is much more complicated than that, as we are talking about an institution, which is more than the sum of its individuals. It is not clear to me that this is being done intentionally. Since you are a physician, I will explain that my world view is informed in part by my understanding of the sometimes corrupting influence of pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies on medicine.

But let’s say that I am accusing NIST, and each scientist involved, of intentional, cold-blooded complicity in mass murder. If it was just me doing that, you could ignore that. It is not. Isn’t that all the more reason to explain to us why we are wrong? That’s why I am here, and what I thought was the purpose of this website. I think my questions are eminently reasonable. I don’t have “faith” in anyone, including myself. I am simply using the reasoning abilities God gave me to draw my own conclusions.

I don’t know what dental engineer you are talking about. I assume the unknown physicist is Jones. As I stated above, I am not very impressed with his work, because he either states the obvious about the speed of collapse, or makes speculations about thermate that are think are questionable. The federal economist must be Morgan Reynolds. His arguments about the plane impacts spurred me to do my own research, and I now think he is correct. Some of his arguments about cloaking devices I find speculative though conceivable. His argument about the government hiring Manhattan actors I find far-fetched at best. The directed energy weapon argument with Judy Woods is also conceivable and worth considering.

I was very disturbed to learn that Morgan Reynolds’ co-author Rick Rajter appears to have some unsavory views about Jews, as has been discussed here. It really bothers that I have something in common with someone that has those views, and I wonder about various possible hidden agendas. It took me a while to put that aside and look at their arguments on the merits. I hope Morgan Reynolds does not share those views, but even if he does, I will look at his arguments on their merits.

TAM said:

You see, I see no evidence that anything they have said is wrong, or misleading. Not one "scientist" on behalf of the truthers has shown me one incorrect point within the NIST paper. When a point has been contested, what I have seen, is the dutiful scientists at NIST put out an FAQ to address some of the concerns.

The NIST FAQ begs the most fundamental question – why the towers below offered so little resistance. If you cannot see the tautology in their argument, I don’t know if I will be able to convince you. Garcia’s article fails to resolve this issue, as I explained.

Have things that the truthers want answered been over looked, or not addressed, perhaps, but were they negligent, misleading, or outside the mandate they were given when given the duty to investigate the various areas of the attacks...no, not that I have seen.

I heard Les Robertson, who helped design the WTC towers, state in a radio debate with Steven Jones that not only did NIST not have a mandate from Congress to model past the point of collapse initiation, but that this is not important. I do not see how that can be. Many people died because those buildings collapsed much sooner than expected. Building codes and designs may be changed on that basis, although I would not be surprised if NIST’s work is quietly ignored by the code bodies. Decisions whether to pull firefighting and rescue teams from buildings will also be made based on NIST report. If NIST is wrong, people could be left to die in burning buildings based on an erroneous belief that eminent collapse is imminent.

Why don't you point out a point or fact that a NIST scientist has placed in the NIST report that is wrong, and then perhaps someone can email him or write him a letter and ask him/her why they put this incorrect info in the report.

That is a good suggestion. The FAQ begged the fundamental question, but I suppose we should not give up.

 
At 02 December, 2006 21:23, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What I feared has come to pass.

Avery Dylan has come and left a frivolous comment on my blog.

Oh well, I tried to engage you folks in honest debate. I laid out my arguments, and got nothing substantive in response.

Avery, you might try a new schtick -- I just got here and it's already old.

I will waste our time no more.

Goodbye.

 
At 02 December, 2006 21:37, Anonymous Anonymous said...

TAM --

Again, my apology. I replied without seeing your earlier response. You addressed my question, if only by saying you do not feel qualified to answer. I disagree that you are not qualified to answer, but you are right that I should ask Dr. Garcia. Best regards.

 
At 03 December, 2006 04:19, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Ningen:

I will apologize now for lumping you into the larger group of extremist "9/11 truth" CTers.

Here is what I would say in reply to some of the issues you responded to in my post.

Les Robertson is right. Once the collapse had started, the actual collapse of the building is not really relevent. As NIST has stated, the overwhelming energy/force created by the DYNAMIC load of 18-20 Storeys of building above the impact zone where collapse began, was of such a magnitude that the remaining building underneath would offer virtually no resistance...liken it to a nail trying to resist an hammer.

Now I am sure they have worked it out, but not presented it, in terms of the amount of energy or load that was offered above. If not, then I am sure they could calculate it.

What I have not seen is any engineer or scientist independently work it out, and come back and say NIST was wrong on this. If there is such a paper, than why is it not submitted for peer review and publication so that other scientists and engineers in america can read it and critique it. I am not sure how they do it in law, but that is how we do it in medicine.

As for your comments on insurance companies and pharmaceuticals, I would say this...

Is there corruption...of course. Are the companies inherently evil...I do not think so. Do both have an important role in the health care system...absolutely. Is the public perception that doctors are influenced by Pharmaceutical companies...depends, but certainly not much.

I personally prescribe based on my medical knowledge, and my careful analysis of peer reviewed papers on a particular drug.

TAM

 
At 03 December, 2006 04:21, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Correction:

"... Is the public perception true that doctors are influenced by Pharmaceutical companies..."

 
At 03 December, 2006 11:04, Blogger pomeroo said...

It is comical when irrational frauds like ningen pretend they are employing reasoning skills. Reasoning does not mean dismissing all evidence that is inconvenient to an insane fantasy that is supported by absolutely nothing.

He has found zero errors in the NIST report, but does not hesitate to accuse hundreds of researchers of complicity in mass murder.

He is, of course, lying when he pretends not to understand why the towers offered "so little" resistance. The collapse mechanism was explained by NIST quite clearly.

 
At 03 December, 2006 12:25, Blogger Stevew said...

Ningen
How did I insult you? You don't sound like your typ nut job. My comments were general.

Have you looked at some of the nutjobs in thin movement? One of their socalled experts said we are shooting antimatter weapons at Jupiter and another said that the towers were destroyed by a beam weapon form space, if this does not qualify as a nut job then what does?

Why don't you ask the nuts back their theories up in detail with hard evidence?
Why would you question the fact that 2 767's hit the towers?

The towers were designed to take a hit from a slow flying 707 lost in the fog. but were hit with many times the force they were designed to absorb

200mph=1x 330000# x 1 = 330,000# Towers designed for

490mph=5x 390000# x 5 =1,950,000# 1st crash

590mph=8+x 390000# x 8 =3,120,000# 2nd crash

What do you find lacking? This disscussion really covers more than this one topic

The truth is already out there, but people tend to deny the truth and only stick with people who agree with them, no matter if they are educated in the field or not. They ignore evidence and simply link to other conspiracy sites without their own thought.

They view experts like Structural Engineers or Fire Scientists or Pilots as the 'enemy' and 'paid off shill'. Why would they do this? Because it doesn't fit on how they want to see things. Just look at people who think Elvis is still alive.

When huge Forces strange things can happen that can't be predicted. have seen 2x4's go thru palm trees and sheet metal penitrate a foot into trees. Once the colapse started the building had too much inertia to fall only straight down.

First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and designed to withstand lateral loads, hence, can implode onto itself and the floor supports were on the perimeter attached to the load bearing outer girders. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure.

The floors were not designed to be self standing. The force pushed down colapsing the truss supports which were the only support for the floors to the outer walls so the weight of the concrete floors fell in the hollow section of the building with little of no restance one of the reasons the building was so light for its size, the only other floor support was from the core girders.

They never take into account the 50000-100000 tons of weight pushing straight down on the damaged sections.
The floor trusses [joists] were relatively flimsy and looklike they were made from 3/4" conduit. As the tower collapsed, the trusses just fell apart. In hind sight there were a number of flaws in the construction IMHO, that may have helped the colapse.I saw piks showing the shear pins but they were designed for lateral loads not vertical. The truss mounts were simple "L" brackets, a dia brace on each would have made them much stronger and heat resistant. Perhaps this was the real weakness? The floor joist trusses should have had vertical supports as well for stiffness.

The 24' sections were the outer girders that were bolted to gether in sections thus creating a weak point at the joint. Every one knows that joints are always weak points. I have seen piks of the rubble showing the 4 holes for the bolts and piks of the actual bolts that were bent

I worked for the Defense Dept in the late 60's and early 70's. How do my comments effect my objectivity? I have studied the collapse from both sides and the arguements the whaks make no sense and are not valid as I tried to explain above.

Everything I have said can and has been backed up with scientific facts not guesses and there were well over 300 experts in various fields. Now the whaks say the National Geographic, Popular Mechanics and Scientific American who have been around for a hunderd years or so and have been some of the primere publications for decades, all of a sudden are liers as well as the NIST, the society of civil engineers.

How about asking the whaks for a detailed explaination to back up their claims and back it up with real experts and scientific evidence that is equal to what has been put fourth by the real experts?

There is so much more there is not space to go into it now.

 
At 03 December, 2006 13:14, Blogger Alex said...

Don't bother Steve, Ningen gave himself away earlier when he said:


No offense, Alex, but NIST, FEMA, ASCE, and MIT and all their fancy GIGO models haven't convinced me that their arguments are not fundamentally and obviously illogical.


In other words, he decided ahead of time that their arguments were illogical, then sat there and waited for them to try and convince him otherwise. There's no point in trying to convince someone like that. Especially when he's already admitted to having a "shitty" grasp of physics, but then goes and challenges the explanations of others which rely heavily on a solid understanding of physics.

 
At 03 December, 2006 13:33, Blogger Stevew said...

Alex
When I disscuss these things with people I like to know who I am talking to and every time the toofers never give any information about their background. If I am talking to an engineer I can taylor responses as an engineer.

If I talk to someone who has no engineering background I can adjust accordingally. Thats why I like to know peoples qualifications and qualifications of those who write studies and if you notice all or most of the toofer's and their experts are not, most are just professional whiners

 
At 03 December, 2006 13:36, Blogger Stevew said...

Alex
Did you see this on another thread?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8&mode=related&search=

 
At 04 December, 2006 07:41, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

FACT... Not a single Institute of Civil Engineers on the Planet agrees with the controlled demolition theory.

FACT...Not a single of Institute Structural Engineers on the Planet agree with the controlled demolition theory.

FACT...Not a single Institute of Fire and Safety Engineers on the Planet agree with the controlled demolition theory.

FACT...Not a single Institute of Demolition Engineers on the Planet agrees with the controlled demolition theory.

FACT...Not a single Institute of Architects on the Planet agrees with the controlled demolition theory.


Bullshit Alert Meter On High!

The expert at all things for got to add in public. And it is quite certain he can't support the information he posts.

 
At 04 December, 2006 08:46, Blogger Stevew said...

Swing prove me wrong if you can but as usual you only try and address something you know nothing about but please whine on you get funnier every day

 
At 04 December, 2006 09:50, Blogger Alex said...

Yeah I saw that video on another thread Steve. Awesome simulation.

The expert at all things for got to add in public.

Slow down swinger. Not only have you lost your mind, you are now also losing your command of the English language. That sentence made no sense whatsoever.

 
At 04 December, 2006 10:21, Blogger Stevew said...

Mike used Solidworks and plugged in the flight path so the the plane would follow the exact route, then he overlayed actual piks to verify and they matched perfectly. I am a Solidworks user and have spoken to Mike and he is really good. The whaks will say" it is a computer sym, so what" I wonder how many of the whaks know or understand these programs? SW,Pro-E and CATIA are used to design the Seawolf class sub, the 787, Airbus and many other machines so they are as good of tools as there are

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home