IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 23rd March 2007, 03:24 PM   #81
Golden Bear
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 109
As I'm sure you are already aware, many of your questions are already addressed by my statement that I don't know the logistics. And knowing none of my answers will be adequate for you, I will briefly respond to some of them.

Quote:
WTC 1 and 2

1. Where were the explosives planted?
2. How much was used?
3. What type of explosives was used?
These all go to logistics, which you can't expect anyone without much more access to evidence than I have to answer.

Quote:
4. Why were there no tracers of explosives found in the debris?
NIST wasn't looking for traces of explosives in the debris. See their FAQ (which I can't link to until I have 15 posts) "NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel." Hmmm... Seems like an extremely simple chemical test could have put to rest this pesky explosive residue question. I guess NIST probably ran out of money before they could perform this simple chemical analysis. That works for you guys, right?

Quote:
5. Why do the seismic records indicate there were no secondary explosions?
I will admit that I don't understand enough about seismic records to decide who to believe on this one. Good papers have been written on both sides, and, as this is a highly specialized field, I don't know who is right. However, I can surmise that Evil Genius would have rigged the explosives to detonate within fractions of a second of each other, thereby creating one constant seismic signal (if, in fact, the explosions were capable of contributing to the seismic signal, which I'm also not sure of).

Quote:
6. Why did both towers start to collapse at the precise point of the planes impact?
Seriously? Because Evil Genius either (1) knew where the airplanes would impact the buildings and planned the explosive progression accordingly, or (2) knew the planes would impact the buildings somewhere and wrote a computer program to control the detonation accordingly, starting the explosives at the impacting floors first (which the user would input).

Side note - I also love the argument that because it didn't start at the bottom and work its way up that it couldn't possibly have been controlled demolition. Like Evil Genius wouldn't know to start the demolition at the impact zone to make the entire operation look legitimate. This an argument that is used particularly well by the ostensibly authoritative NIST. From the NIST FAQ: "NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that: the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else..." - a clearly spurious argument.

Quote:
7. How did the explosives survive the planes impact?
I don't know what explosive was used, so I can't answer this. I do know that many high powered explosives require an extremely high temperature detonator to start the reaction - higher even than burning jet fuel temperatures. Furthermore, many of these materials are shock insensitive. I believe an electrical charge is typically used to detonate them. Also, the risk of one or more of them being detonated in the impact is one that Evil Genius may have taken. In an attempt to keep this thread on topic, another characteristic of an Evil Genius that attempts to pull off 9/11 would be that he wouldn't necessarily be risk averse (at least not as risk averse as a rational person). Perhaps the calculated risk of having one of them going off accidentally was reduced to a level which, in Evil Genius's mind, was acceptable.

Quote:
8. How did they survive the fires?
See above. Very high temperatures are needed to detonate many high powered explosives. TNT for example can be melted and cast without detonating, and it is shock and friction insensitive (no, I'm not saying TNT was used, this is just an example).

Quote:
9. Why are there no clear audible records of explosives charges going off before or as the towers collapse?
See above regarding seismic records. Closely spaced explosions would sound more like a continuous roar than separate explosions. Also, credible evidence of explosions taking place already exists: numerous eyewitness reports of "huge" explosions, and firefighters using the words "boom boom boom" to describe the noises taking place during the collapse. I would actually love to get the raw feed data (or at least HD quality data) from news agencies' footage from that day and take a hard look at the video and audio record. I think it would be very interesting. Those news reporter microphones are set up to record the things the reporters are saying and not pick up background noises - that's why they talk directly in to the microphone, then hold it near the mouth of the person they are interviewing. Picking up the sound of a distant explosion on a microphone so configured would probably require some isolation and amplification using computers.

Quote:
10. Why are there no clear flashes of explosive charges going of as the towers collapse?
Evil Genius would know that explosive flashes would be a dead giveaway and make sure that the explosive charges would not be visible through the windows. In many classic CD jobs, the CD itself is like a show, so flashes are probably preferred. The opposite is true here. Additionally, hiding the flashes wouldn't be particularly difficult in the Twin Towers because of the exterior columns and panelling which obscure most views into the buildings. Probably most importantly, Evil Genius also may have created the huge dust cloud to help obscure the flashes. Again, visible flashes would be one more element in the risk equation. Evil Genius must have been reasonably comfortable that this risk had been sharply reduced or eliminated.

Quote:
11. How much of the buildings fell outside their own footprint, and why?
I don't know exactly how much of the buildings fell outside their own footprint. However, the fact that some of the buildings did fall outside their own footprint is unsurprising, even if it was a classic bottom up CD, because the height to width/length ratio is far larger than your typical CDed building. The debris simply wouldn't fit inside the footprint. More importantly, in the case of the Twin Towers, the aforementioned dust cloud (which was likely created to hide what was going on underneath) would have to be created by using a large amount of explosives - much more than would be used in a traditional CD. The larger amount of explosives actually blew quite a bit of material, dust and debris outside the footprint of the building. Again, this is unsurprising and fits reasonably well within Evil Genius's plan.

Quote:
12. When was the explosives planted and how much time did it take?
Logistics - I have no idea.

Quote:
13. Why did the Towers not split as they collapsed?
I'm not sure I understand why you think this would happen and I've never heard this suggested. Perhaps you can elaborate.

Quote:
14. Were the explosives in the core or the outer columns or both?
Again with the logistics? Probably most of the explosives were in the core columns (which were thicker than the outer columns), but the outer columns needed to be severed too, so both. The outer columns were smaller than the core columns, so the outer columns presumably required a smaller amount of explosives.

Quote:
15. Why were both tower pre rigged with explosives beforehand?
Is this a serious question? So the entire building would be brought down - psychological effects plus avoiding the expensive task of dismantling the building after the jet impacts rendered the building unusable. Who in their right mind would rent out any space in the WTC after both buildings were hit by airplanes? Even if the building was fully repaired after the jet impacts, they would be completely empty (except perhaps the bottom few floors). As I stated in my original reply to Mackey, Evil Genius would probably assume (although he would not know for sure) that the impact of an airplane would not cause the building to collapse due to statements made before 9/11 by the construction manager that the building could withstand multiple jet liner impacts and the highly redundant structure would remain standing. Bringing the entire buildings down was a ket part of Evil Genius's plan.

WTC 7 isn't even worth discussing. It is so obviously a CD, and a classic bottom up CD at that, that if you can't see it, I can't help you.

Your request for me to provide a summary of what happened on 9/11 is curious in light of the fact that I already said I don't know what happened. There, I said it again, is everything clear now?
Golden Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2007, 03:37 PM   #82
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,078
Originally Posted by Golden Bear View Post
I've seen how debates with you people go, and I will not be a part of it.
Yes, here's how they go:

CT makes claim.
JREFER refutes claim with verifiable evidence.
CT calls JREFer a Bush-lover and storms off in a huff.
Repeat ad nauseum.

Quote:
Gravy has over 6,000 posts here. I don't know if I've written that much in the last year at the job I get paid for (and I write a lot!). He's probably got form responses ready (he obviously does for the Silverstein/insurance idea) for anything that has ever been said in support of the inside job theory. Why would I waste my time with that? More importantly, why would Gravy waste his time with that?
I presented evidence that absolutely refutes an very serious accusation that you, GoldenBear, made.

And your response is that reading it is a waste of your time? That's quite astonishing, Mr. "scientist."

Just what is it about evidence that you're afraid of?

Quote:
Regarding Building 7 and the WTC, there are no debunking materials you can point to that I haven't already read.
Then you know there is absolutely zero evidence to support your your claim of demolitons explosives in the buildings. If you knew differently, you'd present such evidence. Try to take a scientific approach to these problems, okay?

Quote:
As a scientist, these aspects of 9/11 have been the most interesting to me personally. So, once I was exposed to the idea that they may have been brought down by explosives, I spent years looking at it in my spare time - reading materials arguing for and against and looking at the raw data - and I'm convinced it was explosives.
Did you lose the evidence, or what???

Quote:
And nothing anyone here can say will convince me otherwise, just like nothing I can say will convince anyone here otherwise.
Since your belief is unfalsifiable, it is not based on science. Please think about that.

Quote:
Again, it would be a pointless waste of time for both sides to debate the issue. Why would any of you want to re-hash all of the old arguments over and over again? Doesn't that ever get boring?
It is you who brought up a multitude of "rehashed" claims. The the facts that refute those claims have been readily available for a long time, but you haven't bothered to look for them. When we presented evidence to you, you stuck your fingers in your ears and sang "LalalalalalalaICan'tHearYou." That's immature.

On the other hand, many people who were "on the fence" or were "inside jobbers" have looked at the evidence that we've organized and the arguments that we've made, and decided that the 9/11 conspiracy claims are unsupportable. I get several emails a week thanking me for taking the time to do this. I don't call that a waste of time.

Again, I don't think you understand at all how serious your accusations are. You made positive claims. Whining will never advance them. Don't care about evidence? You came to the wrong place.

And please don't ever serve on a jury.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

Last edited by Gravy; 23rd March 2007 at 03:39 PM.
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2007, 03:44 PM   #83
Golden Bear
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 109
@The Almond

I'm not saying that a PhD in physics is a know it all and can immediately tell you about the materials sciences, building codes, etc. that are involved in structural engineering. I'm saying it is not an outlandish proposition that they would be able to learn (and I would argue easily learn) the principles involved by spending some time studying. Yes, my comment that they could sleep through a graduate program is over the top, with the point being that if you have a PhD in physics (taking and passing courses like quantum mechanics) you can probably learn structural engineering principles without straining your brain too much.

Also, I wouldn't have to be so critical of structural engineers if you all didn't overestimate their importance to such a degree. Obviously they are very smart people, but they are not the only ones that can understand the problem presented here. One of my friends in college was in the civil engineering program, and I helped him with his homework in his classes on several occasions. He went on to do post graduate work at MIT (although we lost contact after he left to go study there and I don't know if he actually obtained a graduate degree from MIT). I'm not presenting this example to say I'm smarter than him. I'm merely saying that I, for one, am a non-civil engineer that is capable of understanding civil engineering principles. Someone with a PhD in physics is probably even more likely than me to be able to understand the principles involved.
Golden Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2007, 03:48 PM   #84
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,078
Originally Posted by Golden Bear View Post
@The Almond

I'm not saying that a PhD in physics is a know it all and can immediately tell you about the materials sciences, building codes, etc. that are involved in structural engineering. I'm saying it is not an outlandish proposition that they would be able to learn (and I would argue easily learn) the principles involved by spending some time studying. Yes, my comment that they could sleep through a graduate program is over the top, with the point being that if you have a PhD in physics (taking and passing courses like quantum mechanics) you can probably learn structural engineering principles without straining your brain too much.

Also, I wouldn't have to be so critical of structural engineers if you all didn't overestimate their importance to such a degree. Obviously they are very smart people, but they are not the only ones that can understand the problem presented here. One of my friends in college was in the civil engineering program, and I helped him with his homework in his classes on several occasions. He went on to do post graduate work at MIT (although we lost contact after he left to go study there and I don't know if he actually obtained a graduate degree from MIT). I'm not presenting this example to say I'm smarter than him. I'm merely saying that I, for one, am a non-civil engineer that is capable of understanding civil engineering principles. Someone with a PhD in physics is probably even more likely than me to be able to understand the principles involved.
Yet no one has written a paper that refutes the official version of the WTC collapses that can stand up to any scrutiny, much less to peer review in a science/engineering journal. If you think you know people who are capable of doing so, why not encourage them to look into this?
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2007, 03:54 PM   #85
Golden Bear
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 109
Quote:
And please don't ever serve on a jury.
Ok. I'll just spend my time arguing cases to a judge and jury. I won the very first summary judgment motion I ever drafted, and that was while I was still in law school. Where did you go to law school again, Gravy? I don't need some smug a**hole telling me I'm "immature". Can we please keep this discussion at a little bit higher level?
Golden Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2007, 04:00 PM   #86
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,078
Originally Posted by Golden Bear View Post
Ok. I'll just spend my time arguing cases to a judge and jury. I won the very first summary judgment motion I ever drafted, and that was while I was still in law school. Where did you go to law school again, Gravy? I don't need some smug a**hole telling me I'm "immature". Can we please keep this discussion at a little bit higher level?
Well, Mr. lawyer/scientist, I'm just a tour guide.

A tour guide with evidence.

In a debate, I'll choose a tour guide with evidence over a lawyer/scientist with no evidence, every time. You?

As for keeping this discussion at a higher level, please review your incredibly childish responses when confronted with evidence. Have you forgotten? Then let's try again, for the fourth time:

What was Larry Silverstein to have "gotten away with," when the insurance and loan contracts were in writing and were legally binding?

This isn't complicated. Just answer the question, which is in response to a positive claim that you made.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2007, 04:38 PM   #87
stateofgrace
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,843
Originally Posted by Golden Bear View Post
As I'm sure you are already aware, many of your questions are already addressed by my statement that I don't know the logistics. And knowing none of my answers will be adequate for you, I will briefly respond to some of them.

These all go to logistics, which you can't expect anyone without much more access to evidence than I have to answer.
So even though you are convinced that explosives were used, you have no idea where they were placed, which type were used and how much?
Quote:
NIST wasn't looking for traces of explosives in the debris. See their FAQ (which I can't link to until I have 15 posts) "NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel." Hmmm... Seems like an extremely simple chemical test could have put to rest this pesky explosive residue question. I guess NIST probably ran out of money before they could perform this simple chemical analysis. That works for you guys, right?
Why would they not look for explosives?

Are you suggesting that NIST purposefully ignored this?

Are you accusing NIST of being involved in a mass murder plot?

Quote:
I will admit that I don't understand enough about seismic records to decide who to believe on this one. Good papers have been written on both sides, and, as this is a highly specialized field, I don't know who is right. However, I can surmise that Evil Genius would have rigged the explosives to detonate within fractions of a second of each other, thereby creating one constant seismic signal (if, in fact, the explosions were capable of contributing to the seismic signal, which I'm also not sure of).
You don’t understand? But I thought you said you knew explosives were used.

you know the towers were brought down by explosives, yet you don’t understand that seismic records don’t back your case?

Were they silent explosives?

Are the people who recorded the seismic activity involved?
Quote:
Seriously? Because Evil Genius either (1) knew where the airplanes would impact the buildings and planned the explosive progression accordingly, or (2) knew the planes would impact the buildings somewhere and wrote a computer program to control the detonation accordingly, starting the explosives at the impacting floors first (which the user would input).
So somebody planned one plane to fly into the 80th floor of WTC 2 and the the other into the 95th floor of WTC 1?

How did they do this?

What would have happened if the planes had missed the pre determined floors?
Would there be a secondary plan?

Does this plan rely on two suicide pilots hitting the precise floors for it to succeed?

Oh I see you think maybe that a computer program controlled it all yes?

So you reckon somebody pre rigged the Towers with loads and lots of explosives and a super duper computer program controlled the detonation sequence yes?

How did the computer rely the commands to the detonators? Was it wireless? Was it hard wired to the explosives?

What happens if the wires got damaged?

What happens if the receivers on the detonators got damaged?

How did the receivers survive the plane crash?

How did the wires survive the plane crash?

How did they survive the fires?

Quote:
Side note - I also love the argument that because it didn't start at the bottom and work its way up that it couldn't possibly have been controlled demolition. Like Evil Genius wouldn't know to start the demolition at the impact zone to make the entire operation look legitimate. This an argument that is used particularly well by the ostensibly authoritative NIST. From the NIST FAQ: "NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that: the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else..." - a clearly spurious argument.
It is strange that the demolition didn’t start at ground level isn’t it?

Can you name any other controlled demolitions that start at the top of buildings?

Can you name any other controlled demolitions that start with a plane crashing into a building and massive fires?

Can you name a single building that has had a 767 flown into to it, suffered massive fires and survived?

Quote:
I don't know what explosive was used, so I can't answer this. I do know that many high powered explosives require an extremely high temperature detonator to start the reaction - higher even than burning jet fuel temperatures. Furthermore, many of these materials are shock insensitive. I believe an electrical charge is typically used to detonate them. Also, the risk of one or more of them being detonated in the impact is one that Evil Genius may have taken. In an attempt to keep this thread on topic, another characteristic of an Evil Genius that attempts to pull off 9/11 would be that he wouldn't necessarily be risk averse (at least not as risk averse as a rational person). Perhaps the calculated risk of having one of them going off accidentally was reduced to a level which, in Evil Genius's mind, was acceptable.
An Electrical Charge? Wow any idea what type?

This the same electrical charge that was wired to the super duper computer that was controlling it all?

How did the electrical charge survive?

How did the circuits survive? Why they were not burnt?

How did the electrical charge prime the primers?

Did the electrical Charge use battery? Was it plugged into the mains?

How did the battery survive?

How did the wiring into the mains survive?
Quote:
See above. Very high temperatures are needed to detonate many high powered explosives. TNT for example can be melted and cast without detonating, and it is shock and friction insensitive (no, I'm not saying TNT was used, this is just an example).
See above.
Quote:

See above regarding seismic records. Closely spaced explosions would sound more like a continuous roar than separate explosions. Also, credible evidence of explosions taking place already exists: numerous eyewitness reports of "huge" explosions, and firefighters using the words "boom boom boom" to describe the noises taking place during the collapse. I would actually love to get the raw feed data (or at least HD quality data) from news agencies' footage from that day and take a hard look at the video and audio record. I think it would be very interesting. Those news reporter microphones are set up to record the things the reporters are saying and not pick up background noises - that's why they talk directly in to the microphone, then hold it near the mouth of the person they are interviewing. Picking up the sound of a distant explosion on a microphone so configured would probably require some isolation and amplification using computers.
Really so the fire-fighters are now in on it are they?

The boom, boom ,boom was the sound of the floors collapsing was it not ?

Why are you suggesting it was the sounds of explosive devises?
Are you accusing the fireman who made this statement of lying?

Have you got a single witness who said they heard an explosive devise go off?

Have you got a single witness who reported seeing an explosive devise?
Do things inside burning building explode?

Does everything that sounds like an explosion come from explosive devises?

Quote:
Evil Genius would know that explosive flashes would be a dead giveaway and make sure that the explosive charges would not be visible through the windows. In many classic CD jobs, the CD itself is like a show, so flashes are probably preferred. The opposite is true here. Additionally, hiding the flashes wouldn't be particularly difficult in the Twin Towers because of the exterior columns and panelling which obscure most views into the buildings. Probably most importantly, Evil Genius also may have created the huge dust cloud to help obscure the flashes. Again, visible flashes would be one more element in the risk equation. Evil Genius must have been reasonably comfortable that this risk had been sharply reduced or eliminated.
So how did they hide the flashes?

There was no dust cloud below as the towers collpasedhow did they hide the flashes?

Did they use non flashing explosives?

Quote:
I don't know exactly how much of the buildings fell outside their own footprint. However, the fact that some of the buildings did fall outside their own footprint is unsurprising, even if it was a classic bottom up CD, because the height to width/length ratio is far larger than your typical CDed building. The debris simply wouldn't fit inside the footprint. More importantly, in the case of the Twin Towers, the aforementioned dust cloud (which was likely created to hide what was going on underneath) would have to be created by using a large amount of explosives - much more than would be used in a traditional CD. The larger amount of explosives actually blew quite a bit of material, dust and debris outside the footprint of the building. Again, this is unsurprising and fits reasonably well within Evil Genius's plan.
You don’t know how much fell outside its own footprint? Don’t controlled demotions fall a building into its own footprint?

Some of the Building? I thought you said you didn’t know? How much of the building?

The dust cloud was created by the explosives yes? But the dust cloud was above the collapse point was it not?

A large amount of explosives blow tons of steel outside the towers footprint yes? How much explosives would have to use to blow tons of steel beams hundreds of feet outside the footprint ?

Please offer up your calculations for a/ the amount of explosives to eject this steel, b/ the amount of explosives used to create the dust cloud.

If large amounts of explosives were used then why they were not clearly recorded?

Why did seismic records fail to pick them up?

How much is large amounts of explosives? Pounds? Tons? Calculations please.
Quote:
Logistics - I have no idea.
Indeed.

Quote:
I'm not sure I understand why you think this would happen and I've never heard this suggested. Perhaps you can elaborate.
You have never seen a real controlled demolition then have you? Many buildings that are brought down by controlled demolition spilt as they fall, ensuring they fall into their own footprint.

Since you are not sure, you should maybe found out, you should maybe research. You should stop making silly and unfounded accusations.

Quote:
Again with the logistics? Probably most of the explosives were in the core columns (which were thicker than the outer columns), but the outer columns needed to be severed too, so both. The outer columns were smaller than the core columns, so the outer columns presumably required a smaller amount of explosives.
Most were in the core? Then why did the core still stand after the towers collapsed?

Oh so they were in the core and the external columns yes? Which ones were exploded first by your super duper computer program? The external columns or the internal core?

The outer columns were smaller than the core were they? They didn’t carry as much load as the inner core? Are you sure?

I thought the towers were a tube in tube design, you have heard of this yes?

How did the floors brace the inner core top the external columns any idea?

Any idea what happens to the outer columns and the inner core if you remove the floors?


Quote:
Is this a serious question? So the entire building would be brought down - psychological effects plus avoiding the expensive task of dismantling the building after the jet impacts rendered the building unusable. Who in their right mind would rent out any space in the WTC after both buildings were hit by airplanes? Even if the building was fully repaired after the jet impacts, they would be completely empty (except perhaps the bottom few floors). As I stated in my original reply to Mackey, Evil Genius would probably assume (although he would not know for sure) that the impact of an airplane would not cause the building to collapse due to statements made before 9/11 by the construction manager that the building could withstand multiple jet liner impacts and the highly redundant structure would remain standing. Bringing the entire buildings down was a ket part of Evil Genius's plan.
Oh I see so they pre rigged both towers with explosives and killed thousands of people because they wouldn’t be able to rent them afterwards?

Was it not a massive psychological effect just having passenger planes slam into the buildings?

Why has the added psychological effect? Why go to all the risk of pre rigging the Towers with explosives beforehand, why go to all the trouble?

So they assumed the building would not collapse? They based there master plan on an assumption?

They got a super duper computer hooked up to super duper non destructive explosive charges, which were wired into lots of lots explosives inside the core and the external columns. These super duper explosives went off and were not recorded on any seismic records .the same super duper explosives that did not bring down the core but left it stand. They did all this on an assumption?
Quote:
WTC 7 isn't even worth discussing. It is so obviously a CD, and a classic bottom up CD at that, that if you can't see it, I can't help you.
No you cannot help me, because you are making up garbage as you go along.

Quote:
Your request for me to provide a summary of what happened on 9/11 is curious in light of the fact that I already said I don't know what happened. There, I said it again, is everything clear now?
No nothing is clear, please answer my questions and provide your summary.

ETA I await your answers to these questions also.

WTC 7.

1. How much explosives were used?
2. Where was it planted?
3. How did they survive the damage caused by the collapse of the Towers?
4. How did they survive the fires?
5. Why did the fireman pull the fire fighting operation?
6. Why did they say the building was unsafe?
7. How did explosives, primers and detonators survive the fires for some six hours?
8. Why do seismic records show no secondary explosions inside WTC 7?
9. Why was WTC 7 left to stand for some six hours before being demolished?
10. Why did they not demolish under cover of the giant dust cloud?
11. Why did they tell the worlds media the building was about to collapse?
12. Why did they want the words media to broadcast such a clear demolition to the entire planet?
13. How did they know there would be not enough damage to WTC 7 from the collapse of the Towers to cause it to collapse immediately?
14. How did they know the fires would not cause the building to collapse?
15. When, and who planted the explosives?
16. Why was it necessary to demolish WTC 7?

Hey just asking questions.

Last edited by stateofgrace; 23rd March 2007 at 04:50 PM. Reason: typos
stateofgrace is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2007, 05:11 PM   #88
Golden Bear
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 109
Quote:
Hey just asking questions.
Yes, and offering little in the way of substantive rebuttal (unless of course calling a rather simple computer program "super duper" to make it sound difficult is what you "critical thinkers" call substantive).

Many of your questions were already answered in the sections you quoted. The answers to others are simple if you would think before you type. For example:

Quote:
It is strange that the demolition didn’t start at ground level isn’t it?
No, actually it's not strange. If I wanted to destroy a building and make it look like an airplane did it, I would probably start the demolition right about where the planes hit the buildings. You know, so it wouldn't be completely obvious it was destroyed using explosives.

Quote:
Can you name any other controlled demolitions that start at the top of buildings?
No, because I can't name any other buildings that needed to be demolished in such a way that it looked like airplanes were the cause.

Please stop clinging to this ridiculous argument that since it didn't start at ground level, it wasn't CD. You're making your friends look foolish.
Golden Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2007, 05:20 PM   #89
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 10,493
You know what's foolish Mr. Law School Scientist. This comment of yours.
Originally Posted by Golden Bear View Post
I honestly don't know what happened on 9/11 except this: the WTC Towers and Building 7 were brought down with explosives. I don't know who knew about it, who planned it, or how the logistics of it were accomplished, but I know it happened.
If you are as educated as you claim, then perhaps I will join those who loudly proclaim how horrible our education system is.
__________________
For 15 years I never put anyone on ignore. I felt it important to see everyone's view point. Finally I realized the value of some views can be measured in negative terms and were personally destructive.
DavidJames is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2007, 05:43 PM   #90
stateofgrace
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,843
Quote:
Yes, and offering little in the way of substantive rebuttal (unless of course calling a rather simple computer program "super duper" to make it sound difficult is what you "critical thinkers" call substantive).

I do not need to offer anything in substantial rebuttal. You have to offer up facts and evidence to back up your pre determined conclusion. As yet you have failed to do so.

Many of your questions were already answered in the sections you quoted. The answers to others are simple if you would think before you type.
That is why I am now asking you more questions. I ask questions, you answer, and I ask more questions.

You have stated for the record that explosives brought down three buildings in the centre of New York on 911. To date you have failed to substantiate that claim. You have skirted around the issues and offered nothing in the form of evidence.

Just because you keep saying over and over again will not make it fact. You have to offer facts, you have to answer questions, and you have to prove your case.

You are on an internet forum, you do not have convinced me, even though you have not, you have to convince the entire scientific and engineering community. Do you think they will simply accept it when you say the towers were brought down by explosives, “oh and I’m not sure what type or how much or exactly what type of charges were used. I’m not too sure why seismic records don’t back me up and again I don’t understand why they never found any explosive residue, but please be assured Mr Engineer, them towers were demolished.”
Quote:

No, actually it's not strange. If I wanted to destroy a building and make it look like an airplane did it, I would probably start the demolition right about where the planes hit the buildings. You know, so it wouldn't be completely obvious it was destroyed using explosives.


No, because I can't name any other buildings that needed to be demolished in such a way that it looked like airplanes were the cause.
Of course the blindingly obvious is far too easy isn’t it? A very large passenger plane slams into a building at high speed, which then suffers massive fires and later collapses. This is far too easy isn’t it? Far better to have secret death squads planting tons of non volatile explosives with magical none combustible electrical charges that survived it all and magically went of in perfect order. All controlled by some body’s laptop.

You have absolutely no idea how these buildings were constructed and have absolutely no idea why the fell. So you have simply made up these ridiculous theories to hide you failings.

The floors, my friend,braced the external columns to the core. They were there as a brace to hold the two supporting structures together, the internal core and the external columns. The static weight above becomes dynamic (I take you do know the difference between a static and dynamic weight). It falls on the floor trusses. They are none supporting braces and simply collapse. The external columns peel away as the floors continue to collapsed. The floors get ripped away from the internal core and the external columns now no longer exist. The core stands momentary and then collapses. It is that simple pal. No death squads, no super duper computers, no explosives, no magic electrical charges nothing other than logic and physics.
Quote:
Please stop clinging to this ridiculous argument that since it didn't start at ground level, it wasn't CD. You're making your friends look foolish.
The only fool around here is you, clinging to your make belief fantasies about the above.

Yours is the most ridiculous argument, backed by not a single fact or piece of evidence.
stateofgrace is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2007, 06:03 PM   #91
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,078
Originally Posted by Golden Bear View Post
NIST wasn't looking for traces of explosives in the debris.
False. They didn't test the steel for explosive residue, because there was no evidence of explosives being used. NIST and FEMA engineers were looking specifically for steel that failed in unusual ways, and most importantly, steel that had been affected by the aircraft impact, blast, and subsequent fires.

Of the thousands of people who examined steel and debris from the WTC, including the FBI Evidence Response Teams, NYPD CSU teams, ATF, NYPD detectives, Fire Marshals, hundreds of firefighters, hundreds of ironworkers, and dozens of engineers, none reported seeing the affects of explosives on a single piece of steel. Zero.

In addition, not a single trace of an explosive or incendiary device was found in the debris that was sorted and sifted for evidence at Fresh kills. Zero.

In addition, not a single sign of the use of explosives is evident in any photograph or video of WTC debris. Zero.

In addition, not a single sign of explosives use is evident in seismic and audiovisual recordings. Zero.

In addition, explosive demolitions experts who witnessed WTC 7's collapse state that no sign of demolition devices was seen or heard. Zero.

That leaves you with an uninformed opinion backed with zero evidence. How do you intend to prove that this crime occurred, Mr. scientist-lawyer?
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

Last edited by Gravy; 23rd March 2007 at 06:05 PM. Reason: typo
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2007, 06:19 PM   #92
Golden Bear
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 109
Quote:
I don’t understand why they never found any explosive residue...
No, I understand quite well why they never found any explosive residue: They didn't test for it. It's pretty easy to not find something you aren't looking for.

Quote:
the external columns now no longer exist
Do you actually re-read anything you type before you click the post button? What magical force caused them to cease to exist?

Quote:
The floors, my friend,braced the external columns to the core. They were there as a brace to hold the two supporting structures together, the internal core and the external columns. The static weight above becomes dynamic (I take you do know the difference between a static and dynamic weight). It falls on the floor trusses. They are none supporting braces and simply collapse. The external columns peel away as the floors continue to collapsed. The floors get ripped away from the internal core and the external columns now no longer exist. The core stands momentary and then collapses.
If what you are trying to describe is NIST's explanation, you have done a horrible job. What you have written sounds more like the explanation given in the NOVA documentary. NIST says the trusses pulled the external columns inwards because the trusses were sagging (somehow the computer models predicted more than 40 inches of truss sagging, when NIST's own physical tests only resulted in about 3-4 inches of sagging after about two hours of fire, and not more than about 15 inches of sagging after several more hours of fire, but that's another issue for another day. The NIST report also says the trusses were pulling inward on the exterior columns, but then in other parts of the report states that the trusses were detached from the exterior columns, so they had to insert a phantom force pushing inwards on the column to simulate the force that would have been present had the truss been attached). Of course, NIST didn't explain anything that happened after "collapse initiation", so none of you really have an authoritative report to rely on that explains what happened after collapse initiation. Well, NIST did devote about one quarter of one page (out of a total 10,000) to the events after collapse initiation, so I guess you could refer to that. Unfortunately that tiny section contains nothing but circular logic and conclusory statements that aren't even supported by a single calculation.
Golden Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2007, 06:27 PM   #93
Augustine
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 995
I am just marvelling at the mighty intellect of these chemical engineers who become patent attorneys who dismiss physical models with half-baked criticisms and dream up alternatives without spending an ounce of effort exploring whether it has any basis in reality.
Augustine is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2007, 06:32 PM   #94
stateofgrace
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,843
Originally Posted by Golden Bear View Post

Do you actually re-read anything you type before you click the post button? What magical force caused them to cease to exist?
Read what I wrote, they were flung outwards as the floors collapsed. Stop trying to be clever and twist words, you are failing miserably.
Quote:
If what you are trying to describe is NIST's explanation, you have done a horrible job. What you have written sounds more like the explanation given in the NOVA documentary. NIST says the trusses pulled the external columns inwards because the trusses were sagging (somehow the computer models predicted more than 40 inches of truss sagging, when NIST's own physical tests only resulted in about 3-4 inches of sagging after about two hours of fire, and not more than about 15 inches of sagging after several more hours of fire, but that's another issue for another day. The NIST report also says the trusses were pulling inward on the exterior columns, but then in other parts of the report states that the trusses were detached from the exterior columns, so they had to insert a phantom force pushing inwards on the column to simulate the force that would have been present had the truss been attached). Of course, NIST didn't explain anything that happened after "collapse initiation", so none of you really have an authoritative report to rely on that explains what happened after collapse initiation. Well, NIST did devote about one quarter of one page (out of a total 10,000) to the events after collapse initiation, so I guess you could refer to that. Unfortunately that tiny section contains nothing but circular logic and conclusory statements that aren't even supported by a single calculation.
I am not describing the initiation again read what I wrote.

I KNOW the floors pulled the external columns in, I know this started the collapse.

So since we have now sorted that, what in your opinion happened after the collapse started?

Since there is no report and you have failed to grasp what I have said to you.

The floor is yours, proceed.
stateofgrace is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2007, 06:38 PM   #95
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,078
Originally Posted by Golden Bear View Post
NIST says the trusses pulled the external columns inwards because the trusses were sagging (somehow the computer models predicted more than 40 inches of truss sagging, when NIST's own physical tests only resulted in about 3-4 inches of sagging after about two hours of fire, and not more than about 15 inches of sagging after several more hours of fire, but that's another issue for another day.

No, it's an issue for today. NIST and UL tested intact 17-foot and 35-foot scale floor assemblies with intact SFRM coating. Their testing could not exactly mimic the heating and cooling, or the severity, of the actual tower fires, much less any structural damage. They did not test any 60-foot floor sections, because they had no facility to do so. One of the 35-foot sections showed shorter-than predicted failure time: 1.5 hours. This led to a reexamination of fire testing of structural assemblies.
Quote:
The NIST report also says the trusses were pulling inward on the exterior columns, but then in other parts of the report states that the trusses were detached from the exterior columns, so they had to insert a phantom force pushing inwards on the column to simulate the force that would have been present had the truss been attached).
False. NIST takes into account where the floors appeared to be intact, and where they appeared to have failed. Did the bowing actually occur? We know it did. It appears in the photographs and videos, and was reported by helicopter pilots.



Quote:
Of course, NIST didn't explain anything that happened after "collapse initiation", so none of you really have an authoritative report to rely on that explains what happened after collapse initiation. Well, NIST did devote about one quarter of one page (out of a total 10,000) to the events after collapse initiation, so I guess you could refer to that. Unfortunately that tiny section contains nothing but circular logic and conclusory statements that aren't even supported by a single calculation.
Second time: when can we expect your – or anyone's – technical paper on this subject?

Quote:
NIST NCSTAR 1-6 section 9.3.3:

Failure of the south wall in WTC 1 and east wall in WTC 2 caused the portion of the building above to tilt in the direction of the failed wall. The tilting was accompanied by a downward movement. The story immediately below the stories in which the columns failed was not able to arrest this initial movement as evidenced by videos from several vantage points.

The structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.

The falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it, much like the action of a piston, forcing material, such as smoke and debris, out the windows as seen in several videos.

NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives panted prior to Sep 11,2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.


NIST FAQ:


2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
diagram of composite wtc floor system


NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

* the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

* the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.
For an in-depth look at this subject, I recommend structural engineer Zdenek Bazant's (2005 Von Karman Award winner) paper on the progressive collapse of tall buildings, with a focus on the WTC tower collapses: http://www.debunking911.com/Progress...-6-23-2006.pdf
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

Last edited by Gravy; 23rd March 2007 at 06:44 PM. Reason: corrected FAQ quote
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2007, 07:01 PM   #96
qwrty
New Blood
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 22
maybe it's just a love for fiction?

Mackey, I'm quite impressed. Very thorough work!

but is it necessary to spend so much effort to analyze and debunk? I think many conspiracy theorists only half-believe their own theories at most. It's all just for entertainment. At least, that's me.

Or else, in the case of other people, since they are predisposed to (e.g. hate the US government/ believe everything is a Jewish plot), all the debunking won't stop them from finding a new theory to latch on.
qwrty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2007, 07:09 PM   #97
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Welcome qwrty to the JREF subforum on CTs. I hope you find what you are looking for here (if you are in fact looking for anything...lol).

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2007, 07:33 PM   #98
William Rea
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 983
Originally Posted by Golden Bear View Post
No, I understand quite well why they never found any explosive residue: They didn't test for it. It's pretty easy to not find something you aren't looking for...Well, NIST did devote about one quarter of one page (out of a total 10,000) to the events after collapse initiation, so I guess you could refer to that. Unfortunately that tiny section contains nothing but circular logic and conclusory statements that aren't even supported by a single calculation.
It's good to have another Engineer on here who also doesn't tow the orthodox line. I don't believe in the controlled demolition theory but I'm finding your posts interesting nonetheless.

Your a Newbie and the pack have smelt fresh meat and are wanting some chunks of you to devour.

I can see that the impolite and irrelevant posting probably won't get to you too much but if I might offer some advice. Obfuscation is pretty much a way of life here so reduce your topic into bite size chunks and stick firmly to your own agenda on it.

I also have a no first strike policy. If someone posts to me in a civil manner then the reply is civil. The alternative is a barrage of return fire until they no longer interest me.

Good to have you around.
William Rea is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2007, 07:43 PM   #99
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 10,493
Originally Posted by William Rea View Post
It's good to have another tin hatter on here who also doesn't have any evidence but still accuses innocent people of murder.
There, I made that more accurate for ya.

Mod Warning
Do not alter quotes in the future, DavidJames.
Responding to this mod box in thread will be off topic Posted By:jmercer
__________________
For 15 years I never put anyone on ignore. I felt it important to see everyone's view point. Finally I realized the value of some views can be measured in negative terms and were personally destructive.

Last edited by jmercer; 24th March 2007 at 03:37 AM.
DavidJames is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2007, 07:47 PM   #100
William Rea
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 983
Originally Posted by DavidJames View Post
There, I made that more accurate for ya.
Thanks, for your trouble I rewarded you with a bad post report for editing a quote.
William Rea is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2007, 07:54 PM   #101
The Almond
Graduate Poster
 
The Almond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,015
Originally Posted by Golden Bear View Post
@The Almond

I'm not saying that a PhD in physics is a know it all and can immediately tell you about the materials sciences, building codes, etc. that are involved in structural engineering.
You did say that, but it's nice that you're willing to retract such a statement as an absurdity.
Quote:
I'm saying it is not an outlandish proposition that they would be able to learn (and I would argue easily learn) the principles involved by spending some time studying.
You're probably right that a physicist is capable of learning, but I would argue conversely that a structural engineer is capable of learning quantum mechanics. Your proposition relies on the rather unfounded statement that all physicists are smarter than all structural engineers. That's not supported by any evidence, and it nothing short of a below-the-belt jab at structural engineers.

Quote:
Also, I wouldn't have to be so critical of structural engineers if you all didn't overestimate their importance to such a degree.
Every single structural drawing and plan in the United States bears the signature of a structural engineer. Yes, they're important. Yes they know things. Yes they're professionals.
Quote:
Obviously they are very smart people, but they are not the only ones that can understand the problem presented here. One of my friends in college was in the civil engineering program, and I helped him with his homework in his classes on several occasions. He went on to do post graduate work at MIT (although we lost contact after he left to go study there and I don't know if he actually obtained a graduate degree from MIT). I'm not presenting this example to say I'm smarter than him. I'm merely saying that I, for one, am a non-civil engineer that is capable of understanding civil engineering principles.
Anecdotal evidence really doesn't help your case here.
Quote:
Someone with a PhD in physics is probably even more likely than me to be able to understand the principles involved.
So, the hundreds of PhDs who reviewed or contributed to the NCSTAR, who by your own admission are more capable of understanding the physics involved than you are, are not viable resources because...?
__________________
"Perfection, even in stupidity, is difficult to achieve without a conscious effort."--pomeroo, JREF Forum Member
The Almond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2007, 07:56 PM   #102
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,078
Originally Posted by William Rea View Post
It's good to have another Engineer on here who also doesn't tow the orthodox line.
Ah, the pesky orthodoxy of research and reliance on evidence over completely uninformed opinion! The orthodoxy of being able to say, "Oops, I got that wrong. Thanks for your correction."

William, when you are able to demonstrate how this "orthodoxy" has led us astray, please do so. Until then, it's just an empty accusation.

Fair enough?
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2007, 07:59 PM   #103
The Almond
Graduate Poster
 
The Almond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,015
Originally Posted by Golden Bear View Post
Of course, NIST didn't explain anything that happened after "collapse initiation", so none of you really have an authoritative report to rely on that explains what happened after collapse initiation. Well, NIST did devote about one quarter of one page (out of a total 10,000) to the events after collapse initiation, so I guess you could refer to that. Unfortunately that tiny section contains nothing but circular logic and conclusory statements that aren't even supported by a single calculation.
I think Gravy did a great job of responding to much of your post, but I wanted to mention that the entirety of the National Construction Safety Team Act is reprinted at the end of NCSTAR 1. If you could please point out to me the section where the Congress directs NIST to study events after collapse initiation, I would greatly appreciate it.
__________________
"Perfection, even in stupidity, is difficult to achieve without a conscious effort."--pomeroo, JREF Forum Member
The Almond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2007, 07:59 PM   #104
William Rea
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 983
Originally Posted by The Almond View Post
Your proposition relies on the rather unfounded statement that all physicists are smarter than all structural engineers. That's not supported by any evidence, and it nothing short of a below-the-belt jab at structural engineers.
Pssst, Golden Bear, he's a Structural Engineer!

Don't make him mad, have you seen what these guys get like when they're mad!

Just Kidding.
William Rea is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2007, 08:03 PM   #105
William Rea
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 983
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
Ah, the pesky orthodoxy of research and reliance on evidence over completely uninformed opinion! The orthodoxy of being able to say, "Oops, I got that wrong. Thanks for your correction."

William, when you are able to demonstrate how this "orthodoxy" has led us astray, please do so. Until then, it's just an empty accusation.

Fair enough?
I have outlined my position on both of these points this in several of my posts now Gravy. I don't want to take over another thread with discussions about me. Despite my egomaniac tendencies I do rather think I'm hogging the limelight too much now.
William Rea is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2007, 08:06 PM   #106
The Almond
Graduate Poster
 
The Almond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,015
Originally Posted by William Rea View Post
Pssst, Golden Bear, he's a Structural Engineer!

Don't make him mad, have you seen what these guys get like when they're mad!

Just Kidding.
Come come now! You'll notice that the entirety of my statements on this forum make no insinuations or accusations against chemical engineers as a whole. I can see no reason why Golden Bear should make such insinuations against civil engineers.

And technically, I'm not a structural engineer. I'm a civil engineer who specializes in concrete and masonry design. Those people get to write SE after their names, and my business cards got lost in the mail.
__________________
"Perfection, even in stupidity, is difficult to achieve without a conscious effort."--pomeroo, JREF Forum Member
The Almond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2007, 08:11 PM   #107
William Rea
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 983
Originally Posted by The Almond View Post
Come come now! You'll notice that the entirety of my statements on this forum make no insinuations or accusations against chemical engineers as a whole. I can see no reason why Golden Bear should make such insinuations against civil engineers.

And technically, I'm not a structural engineer. I'm a civil engineer who specializes in concrete and masonry design. Those people get to write SE after their names, and my business cards got lost in the mail.
It's a moot point because everyone knows that Mechanical Engineers are superior to both.

I'm a civil engineer also, except when I get mad.
William Rea is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2007, 08:29 PM   #108
Golden Bear
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 109
Ok, Gravy. What exactly does having one of the trusses fail after 1.5 hours prove, in your mind anyway? And how does 3 or 4 inches of sagging magically become more than 40 inches of sagging? I recognize that a longer truss will sag more, but that is a bit extreme. Also, if you look at the graph showing the sagging truss, most of the sagging occurs very close to one side of the truss, instead of the middle of the truss where you would expect. I'm not suggesting the maximum sag should be right in the middle, but reasonably close to the middle, and certainly not all off to one side.

In any event, the inward pulling forces on the exterior columns could just as easily been caused by explosives. If the core columns are cut just below the impact floor, the still attached core structure will no longer have any support underneath it, fall downwards, and pull the outer columns (which it is still attached to via the trusses) inward as seen in the pictures in your post.

Finally, thank you for proving my point and providing the entirety of NIST's analysis after collapse initiation. I like this one in particular: "The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that through energy of deformation." A few calculations to support this bald assertion would be nice. Maybe even an estimate of the potential energy released or the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb the energy? No? Now that's what I call an authoritative report.

Here's another good one: "The story immediately below the stories in which the columns failed was not able to arrest this initial movement as evidenced by videos from several vantage points." If I were being paid to investigate this disaster, I would definitely wonder why the intact columns underneath the impact zone, undamaged by fire or impact mind you, "failed to arrest [or even resist] this initial movement". The statement "as evidenced by videos" is superflous and merely tells us what we already knew: what happened. It does nothing to tell us why it happened.

NIST ignored everything after collapse (again, except for these few conclusory unsupported statements) because they knew they couldn't explain it using fire and damage plus gravity alone.

It is axiomatic in physics that a falling body will follow the path of least resistance. Which would resist the falling block of upper stories the most, the intact steel structure beneath the impact zone or the air surrounding the building? The only possible way the upper block of stories would fall down through any of the lower structure is if it fell perfectly symetrically and straight down on top of the lower structure. (Even if this extremely improbable event of perfectly symetrical falling did occur, it is likely that the intact lower structure would provide enough resistance to arrest the downward movement of the upper floors.) Any irregularity in the resistance provided by the intact lower stories would cause the building to fall off to one side because the air around the falling upper floors would provide very little resistance - certainly not enough resistance to keep the upper stories upright and falling straight down. (Side note - We can all at least agree that the lower intact structure would provide much more resistance to movement of the upper floors than air would provide, right? Or do I need to provide calculations for that one?)

The probability that asymetrical damage and asymetrical fire would cause perfectly symetrical downward movement of the upper floors to occur is beyond any rational belief. In fact, we know it didn't. The upper block of floors on one of the towers started to tilt before or during its fall, which means it certainly could not have fallen straight down, perfectly symetrically onto the lower structure beneath. This irregularity in resistance between the lower structure and the air around the upper floors would have expressed itself and the upper block of stories would have continued to tilt, fall off to one side, through the air, which provided the path of least resistance. Think about it - a falling block of floors which is tilted when it impacts the lower structure has part of the floor block hanging out over the edge of the intact structure below at impact. This means that air is the only thing resisting the fall of this overhanging portion of the upper floors. The portion of the floor block encountering more resistance from the intact structure will fall slower than the portion of the floor block encountering less resistance from the air, which will cause the floor block to tilt even more, and fall off to the side through the air.

Of course, in reality the upper floors did follow the path of least resistance: The lower intact structure didn't provide any resistance because the columns were being progressively cut using explosives. It is the only logical explanation as to why the upper floors didn't fall off to the side through the air.
Golden Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2007, 08:57 PM   #109
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Golden Bear View Post
Ok, Gravy. What exactly does having one of the trusses fail after 1.5 hours prove, in your mind anyway? And how does 3 or 4 inches of sagging magically become more than 40 inches of sagging? I recognize that a longer truss will sag more, but that is a bit extreme. Also, if you look at the graph showing the sagging truss, most of the sagging occurs very close to one side of the truss, instead of the middle of the truss where you would expect. I'm not suggesting the maximum sag should be right in the middle, but reasonably close to the middle, and certainly not all off to one side.

In any event, the inward pulling forces on the exterior columns could just as easily been caused by explosives. If the core columns are cut just below the impact floor, the still attached core structure will no longer have any support underneath it, fall downwards, and pull the outer columns (which it is still attached to via the trusses) inward as seen in the pictures in your post.

Finally, thank you for proving my point and providing the entirety of NIST's analysis after collapse initiation. I like this one in particular: "The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that through energy of deformation." A few calculations to support this bald assertion would be nice. Maybe even an estimate of the potential energy released or the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb the energy? No? Now that's what I call an authoritative report.

Here's another good one: "The story immediately below the stories in which the columns failed was not able to arrest this initial movement as evidenced by videos from several vantage points." If I were being paid to investigate this disaster, I would definitely wonder why the intact columns underneath the impact zone, undamaged by fire or impact mind you, "failed to arrest [or even resist] this initial movement". The statement "as evidenced by videos" is superflous and merely tells us what we already knew: what happened. It does nothing to tell us why it happened.

NIST ignored everything after collapse (again, except for these few conclusory unsupported statements) because they knew they couldn't explain it using fire and damage plus gravity alone.

It is axiomatic in physics that a falling body will follow the path of least resistance. Which would resist the falling block of upper stories the most, the intact steel structure beneath the impact zone or the air surrounding the building? The only possible way the upper block of stories would fall down through any of the lower structure is if it fell perfectly symetrically and straight down on top of the lower structure. (Even if this extremely improbable event of perfectly symetrical falling did occur, it is likely that the intact lower structure would provide enough resistance to arrest the downward movement of the upper floors.) Any irregularity in the resistance provided by the intact lower stories would cause the building to fall off to one side because the air around the falling upper floors would provide very little resistance - certainly not enough resistance to keep the upper stories upright and falling straight down. (Side note - We can all at least agree that the lower intact structure would provide much more resistance to movement of the upper floors than air would provide, right? Or do I need to provide calculations for that one?)

The probability that asymetrical damage and asymetrical fire would cause perfectly symetrical downward movement of the upper floors to occur is beyond any rational belief. In fact, we know it didn't. The upper block of floors on one of the towers started to tilt before or during its fall, which means it certainly could not have fallen straight down, perfectly symetrically onto the lower structure beneath. This irregularity in resistance between the lower structure and the air around the upper floors would have expressed itself and the upper block of stories would have continued to tilt, fall off to one side, through the air, which provided the path of least resistance. Think about it - a falling block of floors which is tilted when it impacts the lower structure has part of the floor block hanging out over the edge of the intact structure below at impact. This means that air is the only thing resisting the fall of this overhanging portion of the upper floors. The portion of the floor block encountering more resistance from the intact structure will fall slower than the portion of the floor block encountering less resistance from the air, which will cause the floor block to tilt even more, and fall off to the side through the air.

Of course, in reality the upper floors did follow the path of least resistance: The lower intact structure didn't provide any resistance because the columns were being progressively cut using explosives. It is the only logical explanation as to why the upper floors didn't fall off to the side through the air.
And when will you be publishing your earth-shattering paper in a lowly engineering journal to wow all those intellectually inferior structural and civil engineers? You have all the answers, right?

eta: "perfectly symetrically and straight down" - you really don't know much about this subject, do you?

Last edited by WildCat; 23rd March 2007 at 08:59 PM.
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2007, 09:11 PM   #110
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,078
Back it up, GoldenBear. You want to move to yet another subject, without showing any ability to deal with the claims you've already made? That's a common conspiracist tactic that we reject here.

Fifth time: What did Larry Silverstein hope to "get away with," when the insurance and loan contracts were in writing and were legally enforceable?

Answer the question, GB. You brought it up.

Then we'll move to the next topic. I'm not going to engage with you if you can't support your claims.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2007, 09:26 PM   #111
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,078
I will, however, respond to this. Sometimes things catch my eye and I can't resist.

Originally Posted by GoldenBear
In any event, the inward pulling forces on the exterior columns could just as easily been caused by explosives. If the core columns are cut just below the impact floor, the still attached core structure will no longer have any support underneath it, fall downwards, and pull the outer columns (which it is still attached to via the trusses) inward as seen in the pictures in your post.

The inward bowing of the exterior columns on both towers took place gradually, over many minutes. The problems with the south side of the north tower were reported by a NYPD aviation unit 20 minutes before collapse.

Is any of this sinking in, GB?
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

Last edited by Gravy; 23rd March 2007 at 09:28 PM.
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2007, 09:28 PM   #112
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,959
Having read this entire thread, I completely understand why any skeptic would take issue with Golden Bear's posts. What kind of a critical and rational thinker declares that nothing will ever convince him that his unsubstantiated beliefs might be wrong?

If Golden Bear is really a "scientist" as he claims, the prior point is even more clearly made by the engineers and scientists among the membership here as Golden Bear could and would legitimately be viewed as an embarrassment to your professions in light of his declaration that nothing will convince him that his unsubstantiated beliefs may require modification. What kind of scientist would ascribe to such a ridiculous position?

I have to add, regrettably, that if Golden Bear is really a lawyer as he claims, he could and would legitimately be viewed as an embarrassment to my profession as well, in light of his declaration that nothing will convince him that his unsubstantiated beliefs are wrong. That's tantamount to saying that no manner and no amount of evidence would ever convince him that his existing view of the strength or weakness of his case may require modification. What kind of lawyer would ascribe to such a ridiculous position?
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2007, 09:53 PM   #113
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by LashL View Post
What kind of lawyer would ascribe to such a ridiculous position?
I suspect GB isn't really a scientist or a lawyer, he just plays one on the internet. Thus his reluctance to actually discuss anything in detail.
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2007, 10:43 PM   #114
apathoid
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,918
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
I suspect GB isn't really a scientist or a lawyer, he just plays one on the internet. Thus his reluctance to actually discuss anything in detail.
Anyone else think that his nick(sock?) was specifically chosen to annoy(mock?) Gravy?
apathoid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2007, 10:43 PM   #115
Golden Bear
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 109
Quote:
I suspect GB isn't really a scientist or a lawyer, he just plays one on the internet.
Ouch. Ad hominems with no substantive rebuttal. Can you seriously not tell from the quality of my writing that I'm a lawyer? Very few of you have found the time to respond substantively, but instead lob ad hominems my way at will. Great job on the "critical thinking" everyone. Gravy is the only one that even takes a shot substantively, and I very much appreciate that compared to the rest of you. Why would I come on here and just make up my credentials? Fine - those of you that don't believe my credentials, just think that I'm a car salesman that happens to be a good writer.

@Wildcat - My reluctance to discuss anything in detail? Why don't you try responding substantively instead of accusing me of lying about who I am. Yeah, you're right, I flip burgers at McDonald's. Can't you tell.

@LashL - I would never call another lawyer an embarassment to the profession for believing or not believing in the so called "conspiracy theories". There are several lawyers at my firm whom I greatly respect, and who I think are great lawyers, that don't believe these theories have any credence. Again, I say that's fine with me. But to call me an embarrassment to the profession for coming here and presenting my views in a coherent, succinct fashion is itself an embarrassment to the profession. Shame on you.

I guess the ad hominems never stop around here, and the substantive discussion rarely gets any traction.

@Gravy - I don't care whether you are right or wrong about Larry Silverstein benefitting personally. Let's assume for purposes of this discussion that you are right - I honestly haven't looked into it enough to try and debate you about it. Can we move on to the WTC please? Although I don't agree with your calling me "childish" or an "intellectual coward", you at least offer some substance to your posts, which is more than can be said for most here. I guess they leave the real debating to you.
Golden Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2007, 10:55 PM   #116
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by Golden Bear View Post
To get a couple of matters out of the way at the outset: Yes, I believe 9/11 was likely an inside job perpetrated by criminal elements of the U.S. government. No, I will not marshal any evidence to support my belief, so don’t ask (or waste your breath asking, I don’t care).


I only have one question I'd like to ask. I hope you'd be kind enough to answer.

If you do not have evidence that 9/11 was carried out by elements of the US Government, why do you believe it was?

And welcome to the forums.

-Gumboot
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2007, 10:57 PM   #117
332nd
Penultimate Amazing
 
332nd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,278
Originally Posted by Golden Bear View Post



Seriously? Because Evil Genius either (1) knew where the airplanes would impact the buildings and planned the explosive progression accordingly, or (2) knew the planes would impact the buildings somewhere and wrote a computer program to control the detonation accordingly, starting the explosives at the impacting floors first (which the user would input).
So the explosives survived the impact of the planes?
__________________
The poster formerly known as Redtail
332nd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2007, 11:05 PM   #118
Golden Bear
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 109
Quote:
If you do not have evidence that 9/11 was carried out by elements of the US Government, why do you believe it was?
I didn't say I had no evidence; I said I wouldn't marshal it for you folks. You all have access to the same information that I do. Like I've said before: if you have looked at the available materials, both for and against the so called conspiracy theories, and you still believe airplane damage plus fire completely destroyed the Twin Towers and Building 7, that's fine by me. Nothing I can refer to outside my own head will change your mind. I can only give you my own take on what happened. The data is the same, the evidence is the same. It's just how you interpret it that matters.
Golden Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2007, 11:12 PM   #119
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,078
Originally Posted by apathoid View Post
Anyone else think that his nick(sock?) was specifically chosen to annoy(mock?) Gravy?
That would be difficult, since I don't care a fig about the team. I just wear the hat because it fits and isn't filthy.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2007, 11:14 PM   #120
Golden Bear
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 109
@William Rea - I appreciate your comments. I wasn't trying to bash civil engineers or structural engineers, just trying to bring them back down here with the rest of us. A little hyperbole was necessary to check the undeserved angelic halo attributed to them by most here.
Golden Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:24 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.