Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Possibly the Most Optimistic 9/11 Denial Group Ever



His use of the plural might be a bit of an overstatement, but you have to admire his optimism. Under "About Us" it simply reads, "Coming Soon".

Yeah, good luck with that membership drive...

42 Comments:

At 28 March, 2007 19:39, Blogger texasjack said...

The website states "And we'll be in full swing ... in May!" I could have sworn that I saw this website yesterday saying that they would "be in full swing in April." I'll check back tomorrow to see if it's June.

 
At 28 March, 2007 20:10, Blogger Mark said...

How much do you want to bet it will wind up being a bunch of software architects and engineers?

 
At 29 March, 2007 00:01, Blogger Pat said...

He's even gotta work on the singular as far as "engineers" goes.

 
At 29 March, 2007 05:19, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Geez guys why the outlash?
Maybe all they want to know is

1)Why the NIST "adjusted the innput" that deviated from the "photographic evidence" data from one extreme to the other but remain within the realm of physical reality?

2)Why the NIST only modeled up to collapse initiation?

3)Why the NIST didn't model the undamaged portion of the buildings?

4)Or maybe why the NIST report left no recommendations to prevent global progressive collapse in the future?

5)Why gravity was so much stronger on 9/11 than prior to Jeff Skilling's death.

6)Why NIST didn't explain the symmetrically of the collapses despite non-symmetrical impact damage and fires.

7)Why the NIST won't release the computer models or their full set of blueprints and historical evidence from the day?

You know, all those things that would help to save human life in steel framed high rise structures presently and in the future!

 
At 29 March, 2007 06:29, Blogger Alex said...

Geez guys why the outlash?

"Outlash" isn't a real word. I know that you're basically a micro-cephalic, but there's no need to invent your own vocabulary.

You know, all those things that would help to save human life in steel framed high rise structures presently and in the future!

Nonsense.

 
At 29 March, 2007 06:36, Blogger James B. said...

"Outlash"? I am assuming that you mean some type of anger. There is none of that. I am looking forward to the truthers recruiting all of those MIT trained engineers (snicker snicker).

Why the NIST only modeled up to collapse initiation?


Feel free to call up NIST, or any college structural engineering department and ask them this.

Here, I have a question for you. When the NTSB investigates an airplane crash, why do they focus on what happened prior to it striking the ground? Are they not concerned about saving lives?

 
At 29 March, 2007 06:44, Blogger texasjack said...

Maybe all they want to know is

Who is they? They don't have anybody. This sight has been under construction for months, and he keeps pushing back the debut. So our so called "outlash" (whatever that means) is actually demonstrating the difficulty he must be having in the recruiting process. Maybe you should recommend your anonymous friend, Ted the Engineer.

 
At 29 March, 2007 06:58, Blogger Triterope said...

Hey, what would be some other unlikely twoofer organizations?

Pentagon Workers For 9/11 Truth

Abnormal Psychologists For 9/11 Truth

People For 9/11 Truth Who Aren't Promoting A Movie, Book, Website, or CD About It

Non-Conspiracy Theorists Over Age 26 For 9/11 Truth

Employed People For 9/11 Truth

Academics In Relevant Fields For 9/11 Truth

Non-Internet Users For 9/11 Truth

People You Can Stand Being Around For 9/11 Truth

 
At 29 March, 2007 07:24, Blogger James B. said...

According to whois, Gage, the only guy listed on the site, registered the domain clear back in September. Not very impressive growth. He is also listed on Jones' scholars group.

Richard Gage Bachelor of Architecture Architect

 
At 29 March, 2007 08:55, Blogger Der Bruno Stroszek said...

Ha! Some really good ones there, triterope. Let's see what else they could have... Political Centrists for 9/11 Truth, maybe? Friends of Israel for 9/11 Truth? Given some of the posts we get here, I'd personally welcome Spelling Bee Champions for 9/11 Truth.

 
At 29 March, 2007 08:58, Blogger Alex said...

It's the same Richard Gage who said:

"You could never get a collapse event of that speed through 80 floors of intact steel structure. The laws of physics simply don't allow it."

Obviously he's more than a little ... "out there".

 
At 29 March, 2007 09:09, Blogger Jay said...

4)Or maybe why the NIST report left no recommendations to prevent global progressive collapse in the future?

Recommendation 1. NIST recommends that: (1) progressive collapse be prevented in buildings through the development and nationwide adoption of consensus standards and code provisions, along with the tools and guidelines needed for their use in practice; and (2) a standard methodology be developed—supported by analytical design tools and practical design.

http://wtc.nist.gov/recommendations/recommendations.htm

I guess you missed that one SD.

 
At 29 March, 2007 09:12, Blogger Jay said...

6)Why NIST didn't explain the symmetrically of the collapses despite non-symmetrical impact damage and fires.

The only symmetrical part of the collapses is the part where they collapsed to the ground.

 
At 29 March, 2007 09:24, Blogger Jay said...

Another fine remark by Gage.

Interestingly, one of the most popular pieces of evidence was the clip from 911 Mysteries which documents the 74 (now 300!) centimeter sized bone fragments found up on top of the Deutch Bank building! Think about it! “How did they get up there?...And why were they so small”! I highly recommend this evidence for your use in speaking to others.

 
At 29 March, 2007 09:30, Blogger Jay said...

3)Why the NIST didn't model the undamaged portion of the buildings?

They modelled the building from below the impact zone right up to the hat truss. Just check out NISTNCSTAR1-6D

 
At 29 March, 2007 09:42, Blogger Jay said...

For a more detailed look at recommendation 1 see NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers

Page 205(255)-206(256)

 
At 29 March, 2007 10:12, Blogger CHF said...

Swing,

did you present your questions to engineers yet?

What are you waiting for?

 
At 29 March, 2007 11:03, Blogger Triterope said...

Bruno, those are great additions. I love the spelling bee one. That paints quite a mental picture. A Twoofer spelling bee. "Zionist. Z, I, O..."

 
At 29 March, 2007 13:41, Blogger Newtons Bit said...

Hey, I'm a structural engineer chf, I'll answer his questions!

1) The photography I've seen directly correlates the reasons why the building failed.

2) The software they used can't model the collapse itself, only to the point of failure. The only thing that can do that is AnSys, and it's not built to do "big picture" items like that. See my previous post on this which YOU READ.

3) Wasn't necessary to model the rest of the undamaged building from a boundary conditions point of view. It's just excess cpu-time. When you learn the definition of boundary condition, you'll see why.

4) There's not much that can be done to prevent this sort of collapse except more fire-protection. The FEMA report already outlined that there should have been protected routes to all floors so that firefighters could get to the fires.

5) While g is not really a constant, it generally remains roughly the same everywhere all the time. For those that are interested, the stations that are used as reference points for GPS actually record gravity in different areas and it is different (though by very very very small amounts). I think USGS has data on it from when you really really need to know what that a in F=ma is. (end tangent)

6) It's an interesting question that can't really be addressed. See 2)

7) The records are accessible, you just have to ask the right people in the right manner and have the right credentials. Ask your local engineering professor to get them for you.

End: No building will ever be designed to resist that kind of damage. The fact that the building took that long is a testament to the engineering skills of the designers. Two courses of action can be taken to prevent that damage, designing blast engineered walls such that a plane won't penetrate (too costly and heavy for a building that sized) and national-defense.

Cheers.

 
At 29 March, 2007 14:56, Blogger Stevew said...

Hey Newton
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html
Chk out the guy who prints in RED if you want a good laugh

 
At 29 March, 2007 14:56, Blogger Stevew said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 29 March, 2007 16:06, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 29 March, 2007 17:31, Blogger James B. said...

If you haven't noticed, we have expanded beyond just that movie. Someday we will have to get around changing the tagline. Maybe we could hold a contest or something.

 
At 29 March, 2007 19:16, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

When the NTSB investigates an airplane crash, why do they focus on what happened prior to it striking the ground?
No offense, but were talking about the NIST. Of course your elementary analogy is an elementary fallacy.

Are they not concerned about saving lives?
The NTSB investigates accidents, correct? The NIST investigated the WTC collapse, correct? What were there recommendations:
1)Better fireproofing
2)Better escape routes
So where does the improvement to existing and future highrise structures fall into place there?


Newton,End: No building will ever be designed to resist that kind of damage.
Have you ever read Jeff Skilling's own comments on his buildings?
They were designed to survive that kind of damage.

Can I ask you as a SE, what would be the point in blowing out the subbasement levels surrounding the core structure?

CHF, did you publish that list for me?

 
At 29 March, 2007 19:25, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Newton, how can the photography that you have seen, correlate with question 6?

Thanks Newton, I understand boundry condition now thanks to your reference, however, why is "excess CPU" time considered a reason not to model it? Isn't that sort of a 'cop out' reason not to model it?

Isn't question 6 perhaps the one question that would help prevent further global collapses? For 6 to occur, all internal core members would have to fail at the exact same moment and time as observed, correct? From an engineering pov, how is that possible with assymetrical damage?
In laymans terms, how would you describe the answer?

 
At 29 March, 2007 19:45, Blogger CHF said...

CHF, did you publish that list for me?

Sure did, kiddo.

You'll find plenty of engineers at these engineering departments:

http://www.shef.ac.uk/civil/
http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/
http://www.eng.ox.ac.uk/
http://www.engg.le.ac.uk/
http://www.eng.abdn.ac.uk/
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/esbe/about/depeng.shtml
http://www.liv.ac.uk/engdept/
http://www.swan.ac.uk/engineering/
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/civileng/

http://www.enfp.umd.edu/
http://www.ce.ksu.edu/
http://www.matsceng.ohio-state.edu/
http://www.ce.jhu.edu/
http://ase.tufts.edu/cee/
http://www.ce.clemson.edu/
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/
http://cee.mit.edu/
http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/

Want specific names? Tell me where you're located and I'll find you a few in your area.

Think all the engineers in the UK and US are paid off? Intimidated into silence perhaps?

No prob!

Civil engineering department for a university in Venezuela:
http://www.une.edu.ve/civil/

Here's a Chinese civil engineering website:
http://www.cbw.com/company/ccecc/index.html

Just think, Swing: you could be the first twoofer to actually contact experts. You'll be a hero! This is your big chance!

Now get to work.

 
At 29 March, 2007 19:45, Blogger CHF said...

Have you ever read Jeff Skilling's own comments on his buildings?
They were designed to survive that kind of damage.


He died in 1998, Swing. Let it go!

 
At 29 March, 2007 19:47, Blogger Triterope said...

why is "excess CPU" time considered a reason not to model it? Isn't that sort of a 'cop out' reason not to model it?

I'm pretty sure Newton meant "it's just excess CPU time" in the sense of "it wouldn't tell you anything useful."

 
At 29 March, 2007 20:33, Blogger Newtons Bit said...

To be legal, I am not an SE. SE is usually an ancronym for someone who has a structural engineering liscense. It requires 8 years of engineering expierence and most engineers who work in the architectural field don't get them. There are 11 engineers in my office, all of whom are "structural engineers", however only 1 has an SE. And he's not the boss. I am however someone who does structural engineering as a living and hence, "structural engineer". It's a point to be made in the spirit of full disclosure.

Just because JOHN Skilling (Jeff Skilling is the former CEO of Enron) designed a big building that stood up to alot doesn't mean he knows everything. He's still very good. Secondly, his own analysis assumed a plane moving around three times slower than what actually impacted the building. He also never included the impact of the fire on the structure. All Skilling calculated was the dynamic response of the structure itself to a point load. This is a point that you have made that has been debunked before. Stop using it, it's old. I'm starting to wonder if you're just trolling now. To PROOF as everyone wants here, read this:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/custom/attack/bal-te.architect13sep13,0,4261351.story?coll=bal-attack-utility


Can I ask you as a SE, what would be the point in blowing out the subbasement levels surrounding the core structure?

I'm not completly following you. Are you talking about terrorists blowing it out? Are you talking about retaining walls? Please elaborate.

Here's an example for modelling purposes, one of the projects I'm currently working on is an ambulance facility (garage and dispatch/office) that's part of a hospital network. This is a small single story building around 10,000 square feet. We're currently analyzing it with a computer program for lateral forces (earthquake). It takes 2 minutes for my computer to run through the analysis, and this is a simplified earthquake analysis. The towers are infinitely more complicated, one single iteration of the analysis would take days. This is one thing I mean by "cpu time". The other is engineering time. The people who were working on this probably bill out from between 100 to 200 dollars an hour. This is a mid-level of engineering fees, by the way. It is bad economics to have them do massive amounts of modelling on the structure that can be easily represents by having spring reactions at the base of the columns below the impact zone. A third reason that is in conjunction with the first is excessive data. When problems arise in the modelling, it's easier to find them and fix them if the model is smaller.

Few buildings are designed such that removal of more than one column will not result in progressive failure. Most buildings are designed such that if a SINGLE column is removed that the progressive collapse will be ductile, meaning that the people inside have time to get out before the building eventually does suffer a progressive collapse. This is a fact of engineering. WTC1&2 were extremely redundant, likely due to the time period in which they were engineered in. The further back you go in engineering, the more redundant skyscrapers were. As we go forward in time, engineers take more and more risks with making buildings cheaper until we reach a point like the Tacoma Narrows Bridge failure which causes us to rethink a few things and change the design procedures and maybe learn something about the world around us (yay for run-on sentences). Hopefully no person or dogs die in the resulting failure.


Isn't question 6 perhaps the one question that would help prevent further global collapses? For 6 to occur, all internal core members would have to fail at the exact same moment and time as observed, correct? From an engineering pov, how is that possible with assymetrical damage?
In laymans terms, how would you describe the answer?


The columns did not fail all at the same time. The failed at roughly the same time. One column failed (probably to fire effects), the load was redistributed to other columns, these columns failed milliseconds later. Floor joists were falling, there was massive amounts of impact loads, etc. The resistance provided by the columns that did not fail immediately was not very much compared to the massive forces that were caushing them to failure. Hence why I personally don't think it's suprising that there was that much of a "tilt" as the top of the towers fail. I personally can't explain it any better than that, what happened during the collapse of the building itself has just as much to do with chaos theory as engineering. It's something that would be interesting to learn more about, but the money and technology and information simply don't exist.

 
At 29 March, 2007 22:36, Blogger Jay said...

They did model the entire length of the WTC btw for the baseline performance analyses of the WTC global models. They used SAP2000 to model it.

See NISTNCSTAR1-2A chapter 5. They even explain what kind of PC they used to anylise the model and it took 15 hours to anylise it.

 
At 29 March, 2007 22:46, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 30 March, 2007 05:52, Blogger Newtons Bit said...

I thought they had done that for looking at the building pre-damage Jay. And I fear that too. I looaaathe SAP.

 
At 30 March, 2007 06:35, Blogger Triterope said...

Someday we will have to get around changing the tagline.

"Dedicated to Exposing The Lies, Distortions And Myths in the Movie Loose Change, and Elsewhere In The the 9-11 Truth Movement."

 
At 30 March, 2007 08:07, Blogger Jay said...

Yes that is true Newton, for the damage they did not model the entire building. I dont think any processor can handle the collapse model of the entire tower.

 
At 30 March, 2007 12:31, Blogger Alex said...

It doesn't have much to do with processors - computers are pretty powerful these days so the only limitation is time, and if you really wanted the result fast you could always rent some time on a super-computer, or even build your own beuwolf cluster out of old PS2's or something. The big problem is that, from what I understand, most of todays engineering software wouldn't be capable of accurately modelling all aspects of the collapse. We'd have no way of knowing whether the resulting model would accurately reflect the real-world situation. And ofcourse, the biggest stumbling block is simply that it's utterly useless. We won't learn anything from it, so why waste the time and money?

Although my offer still stands. Since the twoofers are so convinced that they're right, let them put up the money for the study. Get together $10 mil, and I'll put together a team of structural engineers and programmers to get you as accurate a model as is possible with current technology. Just don't expect us to pay for it, and don't expect taxpayer funds to be wasted on it.

 
At 30 March, 2007 12:58, Blogger CHF said...

I've never understand what twoofers expect to learn from a collapse model.

It's as if they think engineers who agree that jet impact and fires downed the towers will put together a collapse model and will suddenly find themselves saying "oh my God, it shows bombs going off!"

 
At 30 March, 2007 13:07, Blogger Alex said...

They won't specify, ofcourse, but listening to their rhetoric it's obvious they expect one of three things to happen. They either expect the model to stop collapsing part way, or they expect it to collapse at a slower speed (2 minute collapse time?), or they expect it to fall over sideways. Ofcourse, it doesn't take a model to know that these things are impossible, but these collapse models seem to be the holy grail of the twoof movement, and nothing will dissuade them from looking for it.

 
At 30 March, 2007 17:28, Blogger Triterope said...

I've never understand what twoofers expect to learn from a collapse model.

I get the feeling they want to see a computer simulation where the pieces of the building all fall the same way the did in the live video. They are a visual lot, after all.

Plus, this avenue will always leave them gaps to play God of the Gaps with. If a team of scientists built Deep Thought and gave it seven and a half million years to model the exact behavior of every piece of WTC cinder to nine decimal places, the Twoofers would demand to know why it wasn't ten decimal places, and speculate about what nefarious factors were obscured in the rounding.

 
At 31 March, 2007 16:53, Blogger Thomas said...

Newtons Bit FTW.

I had an architect stand next to me on 9/11 on Kenmare and Lafayette Sts. We looked at the burning North Tower about 9:20am and he said: "This building is going to fall." I didn't believe him, but that's the thing with us laymen.

It's time you kooks forget about the CD bullshit. There is zero evidence and it doesn't even make any sense.

 
At 02 April, 2007 08:19, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

There is zero evidence and it doesn't even make any sense.

Zero evidence?? Are you a late comer to this blog or what? I've referenced tons of evidence to explosive devices being used in the sublevels.

Newton Not the bathtub, but the internal core that traveled down to the subbasements of the tower. What would be the point in terrorists destroying the core at that location?

Secondly, his own analysis assumed a plane moving around three times slower than what actually impacted the building. He also never included the impact of the fire on the structure.

Perhaps you should update your research..
The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact
Source:City in the Sky, Times Books page 131

From John Skilling, "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."
I'm very certain he took into consideration the damage from fire upon the structure. To even consider that is really an attack on this expert's knowledge base about his own towers.

Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load.According to the calculations of engineers who worked on the Towers' design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind. Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs." How Columns Will Be Designed for 110-Story Buildings, ENR, 4/2/1964

"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."
"However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage.
"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it." Seattle Times 2/27/93

Of course I'm not an expert, but I'm not sure how the Engineering community can ignore the above facts coupled with the overwhelming evidence of explosive devices used by the terrorists in the sublevels of the WTC complex. I also have a scan of the Whitepaper that was produced as a result of a potential lawsuit against Skilling's firm stating the above speed of the aircraft.


He died in 1998, Swing. Let it go! Yeah when did Issac Newton die? We don't let what he said go do we? Stop using his death as excuse to ignore what he said about his own towers. That sir is foolish. If that were the line of logic, history itself would have no meaning because it would be reinterpeted and reinvented with the passing of the wind.

 
At 02 April, 2007 19:51, Blogger Newtons Bit said...

Aiee, stealth reply! In regards to the fire, all engineers assume that on a building of that scale, firefighters will arrive and fight the fire. This is ultimately the last line of defense against fires in buildings and the primary line of defense against a large fire. Sprinkler systems are effective at putting out small fires before they get big, and firewalls and fireprotection on steel increases the amount of time that the firefighters have to arrive on site, but they still have to get there. On 9/11, all but one of the six routes into both towers were severed. One had all routes severed, one had one route remaining - if my memory serves. No firefighters to put out the fire means that the fire will either cause the building to fail completly, or run out of fuel. The former happened in this event. I may have misread that article I posted, seeing:

"Engineers from the firm said eight years ago that the World Trade Center was designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 crash, because they knew a smaller plane had crashed into the Empire State Building. But even then, they warned that it wouldn't be safe from a subsequent fire."

And translating that directly into what Skilling said. In any event, the primary method for putting out a large fire was blocked from ever arriving. In regards to the airplane speed, the only thing I have seen is that they looked at approach speeds.

I have not heard of anything suggesting that there were explosives used at the base of the tower, nor seen anything to suggest that.

Looking at the actual structural damage (without the fire), I'm suprised that the building stood that long. Buildings do not react well when columns go missing.

 
At 26 July, 2008 13:28, Blogger Chuck Boldwyn said...

It is, according to Basic High School Newtonian Physics, impossible for a WTC block of 15 Floors to accelerate after colliding with a WTC block of 95 floors of high-propertied powerful steel anchored into bedrock.
Upon collision, the smaller 15 floor block, will immediately decelerate, transfering all of it's momentum and energy to the much larger 95 floor block. Since it is falling only one floor it cannot gain much momentum and therefore will be decelerated to zero meters/second in a very short time. All of momentus, force and energy is transferred through the entire 95 floors and down into the solid bedrock, completely dissapated. The biggest mistake most people are making is that all of the force, momentum, and energy is placed only on the top floor of the 95 floor block. The force, momentum, and energy is very evenly distributer throughout the entire building, including the all trusses, all the core columns, and all the external columns and down into the bedrock.
The 95 floors anchored in bedrock can resist or support 20 times its live load, where the live load is 3 to 5 times it's dead load(empty building). Therefore the 95 floors can resist or support 120 times the weight of the falling 15 floors block of the WTC.
(20)*(5)(dead load).
The gravitational collision force of the 15 Floors Block is miniscule compared to the upward support or resistance force, which is called the Normal Force in Physics classes on Mechanics.
The upward support forces are at least 120 time greater than the downward gravity force of the 15 floor block.
Therefore the 15 floor block will decelerate to 0 m/s within the first or first few floors fall once the collision commences.

A lot of professional people and many, many amatuer want-to-be scientists have made a lot of errors in thier understanding of this issue, which includes all of NIST and other outstanding University and College and Professional Engineer professionals and also Demolitions Experts who need to learn some basic, yes , very basic Physics.

A lot of these supposed Pros will be "eating crow" it is hoped sooner than later, once a real and unbiased non-government sponsored investigation can be permitted or allowed to begin.
I see in the news that Bush is preparing for his "getaway" to his newly purchased 100,000 acre ranch located in Paraguay, South America. Why would a President of the USA want to retire to another country? That is what many of the Nazi war criminals did to escape the post WWII War Crimes Tribunals.

The lawyer who tried the Charles Manson Case has just published a new book entitled "The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder".
The author is Vincent Bugliosi, he wrote Helter Skelter......

Chuck Boldwyn
retired Physics and Chemistry Teacher
cboldwyn@bellsouth.net

Please respond if you are competent enough to understand what I have stated above and went back to your high school physics book for your educated evaluation of my presentation or discussion....

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home