Yet More Scientific Method
It turns out our regular CT commenter, Democrat, has also done some seminal work in modeling the towers.
posted by Pat @ 12:50 PM
40 comments
As Seen in Vanity Fair's August 2006 Issue!
As Seen in US News & World Report's September 11 Fifth Anniversary Issue!
As Seen in Time Magazine's September 11, 2006 Issue!
As Seen in Phoenix New Times' August 9, 2007 Issue!
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Previous Posts
- More On the Scientific Method
- I Guess This Means No Christmas Card
- Showtime Mocks Deniers
- The BG Mystery!
- NY Critics Pick Best Film of 2006
- Another Caption Contest?
- Neo-Nazis Posting at Looser Forum
- Clunkity Clunk
- Another Fish in the Barrel
- The Fetzer-Jones Love Spat Continues
View My Stats
Allies:
40 Comments:
For some reason... I can't quite figure out why.... But when I look at the pictures of this wholly scientific experiment, that song pops in my head.
The wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round
'Round and 'round
'Round and 'round
I keep waiting for the Energizer Bunny to start going across some of the images.
troy said...
I can't believe what I just saw.
I can't believe what I just heard. (Troy on Fetzer's show as "Sarah from Utah")
Wait, didn't he just prove:
- Freefall time is possible, even when an impressive structure is in the way of your bucket, without CD.
- The weight will end up in (or very near) the footprint of the very impressive structure, without CD.
Darn, too of the truthers main points shot down. Now if only this had any relevance to 9/11 we might have something.
DKK
Democrat, this is from a different post, but it's about this subject so I thought I'd bring it up here.
"SD, I wanted the tower to be less than overdesigned to make it easier for total collapse to occur.
Unfortunately, paper is stronger than one think. I guess the theory did not apply that day for me."
This was in regards to SD's question about why you didn't "reinforce" the entire structure.
I'd like to point out that paper is not as strong than one would think. You wrapped the entire structure in tape. In packing tape. What did you think was going to happen? That the force of a bucket of dirt was going to cause paper to push through packing tape?
Scott, we linked it this summer but I have to admit, I was leery of the possibility that it was a parody, so I didn't play it up. Looks like he's got a nice house with some nice grounds, though.
Democrat says, "I'm smarter than a computer!"
This ranks right up there with the Rabbit Cage "Scientific" Experiment.
Engineering is truly beyond the mental capacity of these people. The real problem, though, is that they don't even realize it.
I have absolutely no problem admitting that I have only have vague knowledge of the concepts of engineering and even less knowledge of the hard science of engineering, which is why I defer to the experts.
Basically, I tend to feel I know just enough to detect the smell of BS. For instance, from the first page: "These towers were built extremely rigid."
No they weren't. No skyscraper is built "extremely rigid", because it's friggin' retarded. Skyscrapers need to have a certain amount of flexibility to dissipate the force of wind acting upon them. You can find numerous accounts of the buildings swaying noticeably on windy days, and at least account from a survivor of one the towers, where, when the plane impacted, the building swayed for so long he thought the building would topple over.
Hell... the building I work in is only 51 stories and there are times when the wind comes whippin' down Broadway that the building sways so much, the door to my office will rock back and forth.
This is quite illustrative of the CT approach to "Da Twooth". First he starts builds a tower. Then, halfway through the build process, he discovers it won't be strong enough, so he adds cross bracing. Then after finishing it he has more doubts about it's strength, so he wraps the whole thing in packing tape. Basically, he keeps modifying variable until he gets the result he wanted. That's just like the CT movement as a whole. If one aspect of the theory doesn't make sense, they don't go back and re-consider their theory, instead they just patch it up with whatever new "evidence" they can invent.
But Wait!, There's more...
The Lexington Comair Crash, Part 29: A World of Illusion – Turn to the Rain and the Wind
But Wait!, There's more...
Yeah! Not only are you bat-shit crazy, you also like to change the subject! Amazing...
...even though there's already a blog thread devoted to that very subject, in which BG has not replied.
I call troll.
Triterope said...
...even though there's already a blog thread devoted to that very subject, in which BG has not replied.
I call troll.
Triterope,
I didn't take your comment seriously because you were making an unsubstantiated allegation:
"When you assume that a random person sharing your (common) name is part of a government psyop against you."
In direct contradiction to your words here, I have already said:
1) I don't see enough evidence to support any conclusions in the Alex C. stories.
2) I in no way am assuming anything like what you attribute to me.
Love You
Rather than rant at any of you here, let me share my douche bag Truther of the day award: David Slesinger
Coming in a close second to David S. was Les Jamison for his support of Ward Churchill.
BG, yeah, I was disgusted at Jamieson (and Churchill too). BTW, the prior link for David Sclesinger is bad.
Pat,
Thanks for pointing out my mistake on David Slesinger
Triterope, I didn't take your comment seriously because you were making an unsubstantiated allegation
If I may quote a line from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something more bizarrely inexplicable.
This is what talking to you is like. Just when I think I understand you well enough to argue a point, you morph into something even more bizarrely inexplicable.
I've dealt with a lot of incomprehensible people in my life, but you have me completely baffled. Seriously. You go from Point A to Point 73.9 to Point Q in a manner that seems absolutely random to me.
I was going to point out that this article you're now disavowing any agreement with was initially posted by you, on another completely unrelated thread, along with a comment that you were throwing meat to the wolves, in hopes of attracting additional inquiries into your mental stability. But I'm afraid you'll reply to that with something that makes even less sense. In fact, this whole episode reminds me of the Louis Freeh thing in the Streisand post.
I need a drink.
I have a question for Democrat:
Have you ever read a book?
riterope said...
I'm willing to work with you and help you understand.
If you aren't understanding, I don't appreciate you saying it because I'm incomprehensible.
Alex Constantine has published books about conspiracies and possible US Govt involvement. My point in posting his blog entry that included my name was:
1) create more general interest, especially from those of you who seem to have not spent much time looking into details of events which should receive more scrutiny.
For example, I thought some of you would review the numerous other blog posts on Constantine's blog. The fact that Constantine is posting Nico entries there probably means something.
Is Constantine an "infiltrator"? Is he just a publicity hound?
I don't expect that you'll spend a significant portion of your life pondering these questions, but if you are commenting here, I think it fair to ask you to take some time to review the post I linked to.
As surprising as it may seem, I would appreciate your reasoned and honest feedback, which is in short supply.
Hey no one has a right to critique the experiment unless you are an expert in structural engineeering or controlled demolition and write a rebuttal that is peer reviewed. Isn't that how it works here?
If you aren't understanding, I don't appreciate you saying it because I'm incomprehensible.
So what you're saying, Bill, is you can't handle the truth? :D
Alex,
Love you.
And to the OS community who still want to equate Democrats expermient with the WTC and the truth-
From Democrats site:
This site is dedicated to an _one_time_only experiment regarding basic physics of free falling objects (numbers), the construction of a paper tower and the subsequent destruction thereof with a heavy weight.
Flaggers, get over yourselves already.
That's fine Bill, just remember, I'm a giver not a taker.
True: your idea of the 911 events is fixed in government paper
This MIGHT be a legitimate point...IF it weren't coming from someone whose "idea of the 911 events is fixed AGAINST the government paper". The in itself invalidates most of your arguments. You've already decided that the accepted explanation cannot be correct, even though you have absolutely no evidence to support an alternate explanation. Hell you don't even HAVE an alternate explanation! Let alone evidence to support it. When you come up with a n actual scenario, come back and we'll discuss why it is or isn't feasible. Right now you clowns can't even decide between controlled demolition, missiles, thermite, and Star Wars lasers. How is anyone supposed to take you seriously when the only thing you DO agree on is that you think the government is evil?
Hey, if all that packing tape is on scale (strength-vs-weight-wise), his will be the most stable skyscraper ever built!
This MIGHT be a legitimate point...IF it weren't coming from someone whose "idea of the 911 events is fixed AGAINST the government paper".
BEEP BEEP BEEP This is the AFA Network. The Argument Fallacy Alert Network would like to warn you of Alex's attacking the messenger fallacy. By using this tactic, Alex invalidates anything else he states. Thankyou and we return you to normal programming.
How is anyone supposed to take you seriously when the only thing you DO agree on is that you think the government is evil?
Correction Alex, "your goverment is evil." The government is the Canadian government in regards to you, Alex.
And as a citizen of the United States, you can't get more evil than starting a war based on lies, allowing 3000+ honorable soldiers to die 1000's more maimed, and be held responsible for untold numbers of Iraqi deaths. Again, all based upon lies.
....
Well, I guess someone had to take over for nesnyc....
As surprising as it may seem, I would appreciate your reasoned and honest feedback, which is in short supply.
Very well, BG. I will try to provide this. But I'll do it on the "BG Mystery" thread, where it logically belongs.
more evil than starting a war based on lies
Then LBJ is the most evil president ever.
Thank you, SD, for pointing out the errors in alex's reasoning.
Now I KNOW you're living in a different universe. The guy's practically free-associating, and you're congratulating him. That's pathetic.
So, OS credible or do guys have a point that the OS seems to be way off?
That wasn't even a sentence....
Democrat Great quote. That pretty much sums it up. Don't be bothered by Alex, that is one of his 3 debating tactics. Attack the person, attack the grammar, and provide an elementary examples.
Yeah I type quickly and don't catch all the mistakes, sorry to all.
Just me Thanks for not calling me retarded. That is refreshing.
Two, I will never disclose my degrees or the relevant fields that I'm competent in. I don't enjoy proving myself correct, I do enjoy proving others wrong and I don't need to wave diplomas in anyone's face. And as you probably me know, that doesn't make a difference to the 99% of the people who post here. No, OSers as far as I know, accept anything the Scholars say, so why should I use my degrees? And actually it would be just an attempt to argue style over substance, anyway. Which is a major arguement fallacy used throughout this blog. And I try to avoid those.
Suffice to say you can assume to things. If I did have the degrees in the specialist fields of structural engineering and/or CD, I wouldn't wave them in your face at all. That only opens up the door for more intense character hits. Two, if I did, I wouldn't spend the time here debating, I would be vigoursly at work pointing out the fine details of the NIST report as true or untrue, etc.
It sounds like you have been following my comments for a bit, if so, you probably already know I don't have degrees in that area, nor does anyone here for that mater. I do work with friends who do have degrees in construction/structural engineering from Purdue University. Suffice to say, she has never heard of some of the information I've quoted regarding the possible CD of WTC 1,2, and 7.
She was not aware of the collapse of 7 at all. She was not aware of the molten steel flowing like lava that was found by the firefighters. She was not aware of the time frame of the collapse, etc. She repeated exactly the official story prior to my discussing the issue with her.
"That brings up some interesting problems." Was her last quote to me regarding some of the information.
That alone makes me wonder if the FEMA, NIST, etc have all of the information surrounding the event itself.
She provided me with a manual on steel construction to look into heat and its effects on steel.
Can I work the equations found in different sections of the manual? No, not with out further self-study.
Do I have to be able to understand said equations in the different chapters? Of course in certain chapters it would help, but mostly no, not really, especialy in regards to steel and heat.
Then LBJ is the most evil president ever. We will only know when Bush is out of office! But up to this point, I would agree. Although, after studying that event, I'm not so sure he was just going with the motion that had already been in place since the end of WW2.
The link went bad on 'these'. Moreover, who is interested in an argument if you can attack grammar?
It's got nothing to do with grammar - it's got to do with the fact that your sentence was so badly phrased as to be nonsensical. If your grammar is faulty but you can make yourself understood, I'll address your statement. On the other hand, when I can't even understand your statement, I can't very well respond to it now can I? Maybe you're just too "educated" for me, eh?
"just me", thermite doesn't explode at all. That's a red herring that the twoofers keep bringing up. The biggest problem with the melted-steel-due-to-thermite argument is that it would have taken absurdly large quantities of thermite to create the effect on the scale claimed by the twoofers. The other big problem is that there's really no reason for ANY thermite to be used. So basically, you have to accept the idea that the government dumped and ignited hundreds of tonnes of thermite for no reason other than to melt steel and keep it molten for weeks on end. I shouldn't have to point out why such a theory deserves only laugher.
Boom boom, and when the demolition part stopped, the tower stopped falling, not disintegration by the upper part or crushing down because ‘when it started moving, it could not be stopped by any means’. Whas this tower more a superstructure than the Twin Towers?
If I didn't know you were being serious, I'd say that your a comedic genius.
What are you suggesting exactly? That the demolition company which was demolishing that tower wanted to fail? That they didn't actually want to demolish it? Let me set you straight here, numbnuts. If the tower didn't come down, it's a freak occurrence, and a miscalculation on the part of the people doing the demolition. The fact that this building DIDN'T come down tells you that design plays a big difference in how buildings collapse. It SHOULD tell you that this tower WAS in fact stronger than most buildings, since the standard demolition method failed to bring it down.
*sigh*
Then how do you account for the fact that most demolitions are done in the exact same way, and are almost always successful?
Oh, I see. No, the demo charges didn't fail. They only wired up a small portion of the building. That's how these things are generally done.
Ofcourse, if you can prove that there were more charges planted, and that they failed to go off, I'd be quite interested in that. I won't hold my breath though.
Post a Comment
<< Home