How to shut the Truth Movement up

[BenBurch]

Alferd_Packer, thank you.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by damien pastaume

Thanks for your civil response.

Unlike a toothpick tower, the Twin Towers' 47 core box columns were roughly 6 inches wide at the top of the structure tapering out to 52 inches wide at the base. That's four-and-a-half feet thick. Consider this huge increase in resistance and watch the video of the collapses again. In order to achieve the speed of collapse observed, the falling mass has to greatly accelerate even as it meets this greatly increased resistance. It makes no sense.

You'd be right if that's what actually happened. But as those who've studied the collapses know, a large segment of the core (40-60 stories) of each building remained standing for a few seconds after the rest of the building had collapsed and then toppled over. No crushing of the 52 inch box columns at all.

Problem resolved?

[damien pastaume]

Originally Posted by Magenta

I know the TM isn't monolithic, but it's my impression that many of them seem to start with dissatisfaction with the Bush regime/Iraq/whatever and work backwards from there to find anything that might support their argument that 9/11 was inside job.

Except that some of them actually voted for George Bush. The Notorious Prof. Jones is one such obvious example.

I am yet to meet a single example of the kind of person claimed in your 'impression'.

[damien pastaume]

Originally Posted by ~enigma~

Doc...the cores of both towers remained standing for a time after each collapse. In order for his argument to have any validity whatsoever his 52 inch cores can't be standing. As soon as he admits they were, he shoots his argument in the foot. Why waste time on any other topic?

ETA - Damien, are you going to answer or do you prefer to run like a coward?

Nice, transparent baiting! No, Enigma - it's called 'bedtime'. Followed by 'work', which I am still currently engaged in. Hopefully, I'll have some more time to devote to this later on.

Any remnants of the core remained 'standing' for mere seconds. Given that they were set in 70 feet of bedrock, you're argument is weak, at best.

[damien pastaume]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

Bazant and Zhou state that the steel was exposed to temperatures over 800 degrees Celsius. Not that they reached it. This is true for any office fire. See the Cardington Experiments.

"causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800°C." (B&Z)

""These microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 °C for any significant time." (NIST)

Perhaps it's you who need to do some re-reading.

[strand]

The problem I find with teh "truthers" is that they first start with a conclusion (conspiracy) then they try to find facts to justify it. This alone takes away thier credability to me.

Besides. Loose change isnt the place that attracts rational people. It attracts "fight the power" anarchist wannabes who are searching for reasons to cause hell rather than the truth.

[volatile]

Originally Posted by damien pastaume

"causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800°C." (B&Z)

""These microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 °C for any significant time." (NIST)

Perhaps it's you who need to do some re-reading.

Even without checking the context, it's pretty obvious even to me that "microstructures" doesn't apply to structural columns in a sky-scraper. What's the context of the entire paragraph, Damien?

[damien pastaume]

Originally Posted by Reality Believer

Now you are getting into the realm of calculations. Gut impressions aside, the physical properties of the structure, the kinetic and potential energies have to be pumped into an equation. Personal beliefs and perceptions are not valid.

Except that they go to the very core of my OP. Those perceptions can be changed if an entirely cogent and easily grasped explanation can be disseminated. Those perceptions are not helped by 'pancake' type explanations which leave the core intact (as per Nova's graphic) - something which is bound to cause cognitive dissonance among those who know full well what they actually witnessed.

Originally Posted by Reality Believer

There are many things in the physical world that contradict human perceptions. These perceptions are based on personal experience and education, but when subject to the science of physics, they don't play out as one may anticipate.

Granted. However, ordinary folk have managed to have previous perceptions overturned through clear argument (the heliocentric system would be an obvious example) - this is what I'm calling for in my OP.

Here is an example: You have a BB gun, and a 30.06 high powered hunting rifle mounted at the exact same height - 3 feet from the ground. The barrels are aimed perfectly level. When fired simultaneously, which projectile hits the ground first?

Originally Posted by Reality Believer

The answer is: both projectiles hit the ground at the exact same moment. The BB gun and the 30.06 rifle. Did you expect that? It is easily proven with ballistic physics. This is the disconnect I perceive with reality vs. perception.

I appreciate the analogy. It would appear you appreciate the importance of curing that disconnect through cogent argument. This is all I'm really asking.

[R.Mackey]

Originally Posted by damien pastaume

"causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800°C." (B&Z)

""These microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 °C for any significant time." (NIST)

Perhaps it's you who need to do some re-reading.

Definitely not.

If you read NIST for content, instead of quote-mining it, you will see that the steel they collected and tested via the microstructure analysis was all at the perimeter, and all predicted not to reach those temperatures.

NIST declares that you cannot apply this temperature result on the steel sample to the overall volume of steel on the collapse floors. Right after the quote above, in fact. I'll let you find it, since you need to do some re-reading.

In other words, you are a cherry-picker. And, as before, this is why you will never shut up. It's another example of poor scholarship.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by A-Train

Your performance here has been excellent and most inspiring. This is the technique used here by Mackey and so many others: throw out some document and declare it as "proof," and assume your opponent will be too lazy to read through it.

What you must do, and what you have apparently done, is sit down and read through these, and they are quite debunkable. I recently went through the same process with a silly essay by a one Giuliu Bernauchi on a different thread regarding Hani Hanjour's alleged trajectory into the Pentagon.

Keep up the good work.

Translation:
You a parroting well don't stop now. Don't listen to or except any arguments based in science. Doing so will destroy the movement. Keep the propaganda flowing and try to sell a few more DVDs. Carry on.

[Alferd_Packer]

Damian, can you answer this hypothetical problem for me.

Let’s start with an intact tower. Lets then say that you had the capability of removing the perimeter walls and all of the floor slabs between the core and the exterior. Let’s also postulate that you could do this without damaging the core structure whatsoever.

The questions for you are thus: Would the core structure be able to stand on its own? If so, how stable would it be?

[SDC]

Originally Posted by damien pastaume

Having had a long look at both sides of this debate it has become quite obvious that each side is approaching the topic from entirely different directions.

Whilst those who support the official story entirely reasonably draw upon the reams of technical material assembled over the preceding six years, this side of the debate seems far less troubled by what the TM sees as the glaringly obvious problems with the OT. Both sides have entirely different forms of argument which, as things stand, cannot be reconciled.

So what are these problems that the skeptics cite? Regarding the collapse of the Towers, they often remark that despite its excellent pre-collapse analysis they feel cheated by the NIST report; that phrases such as 'global collapse was inevitable' are a cop-out.

...

It shouldn't be hard to shut the TM up. Just give them an entirely rational, scientific explanation which fully explains both the manner and speed of collapse of all three buildings. This explanation must completely concord with all observed events. No cop-outs. And then disseminate these unassailable conclusions widely throughout the media. Fail to do this and the issues will continue festering like an untreated wound.

Fair enough?

Sorry to quote so much of the OP, and sorry to leave so much out. My take on this OP is that it is disingenuous. Mr/ Ms Pastaume presents him/ herself as impartial, when in fact it's clear, by the 3rd paragraph, that he/ she has already decided that any "official" explanation, or even basic evidence supporting such an explanation, will be rejected.

So no, it's not "fair enough." It's more of the same. And your subsequent statements in the thread support it.

It's been said before but deserves restatement. Until and unless Trutherians (I like the word: I made it up: tough) actually present coherent explanations of their own, instead of nitpicking the gaps, or arguing from incredulity ("I don't care what expert A, Ph.D., says, I don't believe it"), then they will not convince anyone. Pure and simple, that is it.

(And you UK-onians out there: what's with "whilst"? Not to mention "amongst". You realize that's a dead giveaway, don't you; as sure as sibboleth/ shibboleth in Judges http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth. Where did you all pick that up?)

[damien pastaume]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

Definitely not.If you read NIST for content, instead of quote-mining it, you will see that the steel they collected and tested via the microstructure analysis was all at the perimeter, and all predicted not to reach those temperatures.

NIST declares that you cannot apply this temperature result on the steel sample to the overall volume of steel on the collapse floors. Right after the quote above, in fact. I'll let you find it, since you need to do some re-reading.

In other words, you are a cherry-picker. And, as before, this is why you will never shut up. It's another example of poor scholarship.

You referred me to the NIST paper which I have read twice. I don't essentially disagree with what you've written above. However, it certainly appeared from your original post that this would back up the claims made in the B&Z paper. It doesn't.

True, it leaves the door open for the possibility of higher temperatures absent from the steel actually examined by NIST. Yet the fact remains that the highest temperature stated anywhere in the NIST summary remains 600 °C.

Is there any NIST literature which makes strong, evidence-based arguments for B & Z's higher temperatures? If so, I'd be more than happy to review it. If not, I'll have to go with my earlier statement that the B & Z paper is simply making unsubstantiated temperature claims, as well as a whole slew of 'probables' and 'possibles' resulting in an unsatisfactory hypothesis.

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by damien pastaume

Having had a long look at both sides of this debate it has become quite obvious that each side is approaching the topic from entirely different directions.

Whilst those who support the official story entirely reasonably draw upon the reams of technical material assembled over the preceding six years, this side of the debate seems far less troubled by what the TM sees as the glaringly obvious problems with the OT. Both sides have entirely different forms of argument which, as things stand, cannot be reconciled.

So what are these problems that the skeptics cite? Regarding the collapse of the Towers, they often remark that despite its excellent pre-collapse analysis they feel cheated by the NIST report; that phrases such as 'global collapse was inevitable' are a cop-out.

"I'm being asked to believe that these two massively over-engineered structures pulverized themselves into their basements, through the path of maximum (and greatly increasing) resistance at barely above freefall speed", would be a typical summation.

The complete lack of any similar historical precedent only fuels this disbelief.

In the case of building 7, even Popular Mechanics have conceded that its collapse does look exactly like a controlled demolition. At the same time I'm annoyed by the ease with which the TM tends to gloss over the fact that WTC7 was built over an existing electrical substation. This is highly relevant, as it would go a long way to making the case that WTC7 was unconventionally constructed - and thus less susceptible to arguments regarding historical precedents, such as the oft-cited Windsor Building Fire in Madrid.

What the OT has so far not fully explained are the observed facts - a total, symmetrical collapse into its own basement at barely above freefall speed. This simply cannot happen unless the entire infrastructure fails simultaneously. Asymmetrical failure results in asymmetrical collapse. Would the fact it was built over an electrical substation explain this? We're still waiting to find out. The question is, does NIST's brief to their contract award recipient ARA show we are only likely to end up with another 'global collapse was inevitable' type conclusion? At first glance, yes:

"the ARA (1) shall conduct analyses of impact damage and fire effects to provide candidate initiating events which may lead to structural failures and global collapse"

However, in the following point we find this:

"(2) shall determine if there is any scenario of a hypothetical blast event or events that could have occurred in WTC 7 on September 11, 2001."

and:

"While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements as a result of blast."
http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/wtc_award0539.htm

Why have NIST included this in their contract modification? Is this a sincere attempt to put the CD theories either to rest or to confirm them?

It shouldn't be hard to shut the TM up. Just give them an entirely rational, scientific explanation which fully explains both the manner and speed of collapse of all three buildings. This explanation must completely concord with all observed events. No cop-outs. And then disseminate these unassailable conclusions widely throughout the media. Fail to do this and the issues will continue festering like an untreated wound.

Fair enough?

Nice preamble.

1. I doubt most here want to "Shut the TM up". I suspect most here just want to expose them for the frauds they are, to reveal to those who might buy their snake oil, that it is infact SNAKE OIL. Free speech is a right, who am I to deny them that.

2. There is no way to provide them with the proof they require, as their standards are much too unreasonable. Complete disclosure would not do it, as they would claim cover up anyway. Scientific validity certainly hasnt done it, as there is plenty of top notch science lending itself to the official story, and yet the movement pushes on.

3. Your suggestion at the end of your comments would not work, and here is why...(A) They claim the media to be "in on it", (B) they claim NIST to be "In on it", (C) A rational and scientifically sound (with some minor areas of weakness) has been provided for them, and they continue to not only call foul on it, but continue to slander and accuse others of causing the events without ANY PROOF.

TAM

[Alferd_Packer]

Damien, who cares what the temperature of the columns was? The key issue is what temprature the floor truses reached.

[Myriad]

Damien, here is a link to a thread that got into an interesting discussion of the difficulty of cogent explanations in the face of the failure of physical intuition when things are scaled up or down beyond common experience.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=76053

Please take a look at it and tell me if it touches on the issues you wish to raise here. (You can start with page 2, although page 1 isn't without value. It just took a while to get past the politics and focus on the actual desired explanations.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

[GregoryUrich]

Originally Posted by twinstead

Now I'm confused. If there are so many problems with theses papers, whose paper is out there that in your opinion has fewer problems and make more sense than for example Bazant's?

Wasn't his paper properly peer-reviewed? How can a paper with as you put it so many problems pass a real peer review? Why are these papers accepted so readily by the structural engineering and physics community?

To a laymen like me these are compelling arguments; you appear to denigrate an entire industry by suggesting they accept crap.

Let's get this straight. I'm talking about a (one) paper. You are talking about "these papers".

I'm not sure BLGB's latest paper has been or will be published. The only versions I have seen are marked with "submitted to the Journal of Engineering Mechanics" or something to that effect.

I haven't seen any analysis yet from either side that meet the basic requirement of not being able to be refuted by a software engineer with a bachelors degree in electrical engineering.

[GregoryUrich]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

The point is that these are all variations of similar magnitude to the original numbers. You're looking at a 0.2% effect, so you need something like two orders of magnitude more resistance to give a significant slowing of the fall, provided collapse is self-sustaining (which wasn't the point I was addressing). Increase the reserve capacity to 500% if you want and you're looking at a 1% slowing. It's all in the noise.

In that case, anyone with poor math skills will never be convinced otherwise by any means at all, because they won't understand the maths. I'm not quite prepared to give up that easily.

Dave

Dave,

I asked you about the 135%. Where did you get that?

Now I wonder where you get 0.2% and 500% = 1% slowing.

Are you doing the math, are you citing someone, or are you just making things up?

Ask Dr. Greening what the difference in collapse time is if the energy expended per floor goes up from 400 MJ to 800 MJ.

[CurtC]

Originally Posted by damien pastaume

Any remnants of the core remained 'standing' for mere seconds. Given that they were set in 70 feet of bedrock, you're argument is weak, at best.

So you think the core could remain standing indefinitely after the floors and perimeter columns collapsed? Yes or no.

[twinstead]

Originally Posted by GregoryUrich

Let's get this straight. I'm talking about a (one) paper. You are talking about "these papers".

I'm not sure BLGB's latest paper has been or will be published. The only versions I have seen are marked with "submitted to the Journal of Engineering Mechanics" or something to that effect.

I haven't seen any analysis yet from either side that meet the basic requirement of not being able to be refuted by a software engineer with a bachelors degree in electrical engineering.

I'll be frank; your software engineer's opinion means just about as much as mine--NOTHING.

Again, I'm a layman. I rely on experts. The general consensus among experts is that the official story, while not perfect, is the one that makes the most sense.

Until that consensus changes, you can parade software engineers 'till the cows come home.

[Anti-sophist]

Originally Posted by damien pastaume

You referred me to the NIST paper which I have read twice. I don't essentially disagree with what you've written above. However, it certainly appeared from your original post that this would back up the claims made in the B&Z paper. It doesn't.

True, it leaves the door open for the possibility of higher temperatures absent from the steel actually examined by NIST. Yet the fact remains that the highest temperature stated anywhere in the NIST summary remains 600 °C.

While you have not stated it, you have implied that the NIST report puts an upperbound on the temperature of 600-C. That implication is patently false.

The steel that NIST tested came from a particular part of the structure. A section that -everyone- agrees was substantially cooler than the primary areas in question. For some reason you believe this rather important bit of information isn't important and instead want to hammer on this "not-technically-incorrect yet entirely misleading" point of yours. Why?

What I find most curious is that it appears you actually already knew that. In other words, you knew what you were saying was technically true and was also implying something that was patently false. This means you are, in a sense, trying to deceive... albeit with the plausibly deniable card of "it was technically accurate".

It appears to me you are trying to pass off intentionally misleading evidence in support of a hypothesis that is actually contradicted by a proper interpretation of the evidence? It seems to me that you are perfectly happy wording your statements to be technically correct yet at the same time leave plenty of room for false inferences. It seems to me that this mistaken inferences are left there, intentionally. It seems to me that you are willing to play loose with the truth in order to advance one hypothesis over another? Why? Why does this particular issue seem to strike me much more of sophistry and politics than science?

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by damien pastaume

On the contrary - they are exactly what is observed.

Bzzzt, incorrect.

Let's look at the three and compare them to reality shall we?

The Bulidings were massively over-engineered structures

No so. Truthers often quote the 2000% figure, claiming that the buildings were designed to withstand 20 times their own weight. It's not true. The figure comes from the live loading from wind that would be applied laterally to the buildings, not to the amount of load the buildings could support. The load the buildings could support vertically was far less and NIST estimates that between the physical damage and the fires, the columns lost about 60-70% of their load capacity on the collapse floors.

The Buildings pulverized themselves into their basements

Again, not true. The building were not pulverised, large amounts of concrete, steel and even contents remained after the collapse. Estimates are that only about 20% of the building was pulverised with perhaps another 20% ejected. The rest of the material formed a pile that rose up to seven stories above street level.

They did this at barely above freefall speed

Again wrong. The tower collapses took between 16 and 18 seconds for WTC 2 and between 18 and 20 seconds for WTC 1. Freefall would have been 9 and 10 seconds respectively. This means the towers fell 80-100% slower than would be expected for freefall. This is not "barely above freefall." Video and photos clearly show the debries falling far faster then the collapse zone did. Anyone that persists with the "nearly freefall" meme is either an idiot or deliberately ignoring the facts.

Finally lets look at this one:

through the path of maximum (and greatly increasing) resistance

This makes the assumption that things should always take the path of least resistance. This is untrue as well. Objects take the path of least ENERGY change. Think about it for a moment. If you get hit by a bullet, does it follow the path of least resistance? Surely the path of least resistance is to divert around you through the air, not to pass through your body. Why does it pass through you if that is higher resistance? The answer is because it would require more enegy to deflect the bullet around you that it does to cause a plastic deformation and fracture of your body components. In the same way there is less energy reqyuired to plastically deform and fracture the building below the collapsing top that it would take to deflect that mass off to one side. Thus it is more energy effiecent to crush the building below, and it does. Simple 101 physics, I suggest you get a text book and start reading it.

Originally Posted by damien pastaume

You referred me to the NIST paper which I have read twice.... [snip]

True, it leaves the door open for the possibility of higher temperatures absent from the steel actually examined by NIST. Yet the fact remains that the highest temperature stated anywhere in the NIST summary remains 600 °C.

Is there any NIST literature which makes strong, evidence-based arguments for B & Z's higher temperatures? If so, I'd be more than happy to review it... [snip]

I suggest you go back and read it again instead of following the Truther flock baaaing. NISTs case for higher temperatures is in their fire models, models that correctly predicted the temperatures you mentioned. They also explain why they choice steel that would give lower temperatures (it has something to do with the methods they used to determine the temperatures, but since you have read the papers I'm sure you already know what so I don't need to explain that right?) and also were a reasonably good match to what was seen outside for the fire progression. If anything, NIST erred on the side of caution with most of the Engineers who have critised them so far claiming that they under estimated the fuel loading in the buildings and that the fires were likely hotter! Arup, Quintiere and co all claim that NIST relies too much on the fire protection being removed because of their lower temperature fires, and that with the greater fuel load and hotter fires, even with the fire protection the building would have fallen. It's really funny that the Truthers all want cooler fires when those in the industry that dispute NIST are all bashing them for not having hot enough ones.

[damien pastaume]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Nice preamble.

1. I doubt most here want to "Shut the TM up". I suspect most here just want to expose them for the frauds they are, to reveal to those who might buy their snake oil, that it is infact SNAKE OIL. Free speech is a right, who am I to deny them that.

2. There is no way to provide them with the proof they require, as their standards are much too unreasonable. Complete disclosure would not do it, as they would claim cover up anyway. Scientific validity certainly hasnt done it, as there is plenty of top notch science lending itself to the official story, and yet the movement pushes on.

3. Your suggestion at the end of your comments would not work, and here is why...(A) They claim the media to be "in on it", (B) they claim NIST to be "In on it", (C) A rational and scientifically sound (with some minor areas of weakness) has been provided for them, and they continue to not only call foul on it, but continue to slander and accuse others of causing the events without ANY PROOF.

TAM

Hello TAM -

It largely seems to hinge on the fact that although everything up to collapse initiation of WTC 1 & 2 has been explained, on the whole, quite plausibly by NIST, the collapse itself has not. This would appear to be Frank Greening's main bone of contention, too.

Now, I understand that this was never part of NIST's brief, thus no one can credibly criticise NIST themselves for not doing so. However, this does leave something of a vaccuum just waiting to be filled by all manner of outlandish theories.

The only way to avoid acknowledging this vaccuum appears to be by pretending that these events can be viewed in complete scientific isolation, void of any political context. For the more intelligent and informed (I don't necessarily mean scientifically) of the TM, this is not an acceptable option. The often-cited PNAC document admitting its military ambitions would likely remain unfulfilled bar a 'New Pearl Harbor' is simply the most obvious example of this.

From the three days I've spent on this forum, this would appear to be the most useful demarcation between two camps: those seeing the events of 9/11 as a purely scientific issue vs. those who insist on giving it a wider context. In the first camp, there's nothing left to explain as the bigger picture simply isn't relevant. In the second, the context is paramount - thus explanations built only on the need for improved building safety cannot possibly satisfy.

[damien pastaume]

Originally Posted by CurtC

So you think the core could remain standing indefinitely after the floors and perimeter columns collapsed? Yes or no.

All I know is that it didn't.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by damien pastaume

..... Yet the fact remains that the highest temperature stated anywhere in the NIST summary remains 600 °C....

As anti-sophist has pointed out, this statement smacks of sophism - in that it's vague and leaves so many opportunities for squirming and weaseling.

"NIST summary" ? Which NIST summary? The NISTNCSTAR1 Final Report? That has live workstation fire tests running at much higher temperatures, and WTC fire simulations also running at much higher temperatures.

It would appear that either you haven't read the report thoroughly (as you claim you have) or you are setting out to misinform and quote-mine while leaving yourself wriggle-room.

You're showing yourself to be the very epitome of why 9/11 "Truth" can never get along with the real world of science. Which, I believe, was the gist of your OP.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

This makes the assumption that things should always take the path of least resistance. This is untrue as well. Objects take the path of least ENERGY change. Think about it for a moment. If you get hit by a bullet, does it follow the path of least resistance? Surely the path of least resistance is to divert around you through the air, not to pass through your body. Why does it pass through you if that is higher resistance? The answer is because it would require more enegy to deflect the bullet around you that it does to cause a plastic deformation and fracture of your body components. In the same way there is less energy reqyuired to plastically deform and fracture the building below the collapsing top that it would take to deflect that mass off to one side. Thus it is more energy effiecent to crush the building below, and it does. Simple 101 physics, I suggest you get a text book and start reading it.

Ah, that was well-put! I'm going to quote that one on SLC (with a few spelling corrections).

[Slayhamlet]

Originally Posted by damien pastaume

Hello TAM -

It largely seems to hinge on the fact that although everything up to collapse initiation of WTC 1 & 2 has been explained, on the whole, quite plausibly by NIST, the collapse itself has not. This would appear to be Frank Greening's main bone of contention, too.

Now, I understand that this was never part of NIST's brief, thus no one can credibly criticise NIST themselves for not doing so. However, this does leave something of a vaccuum just waiting to be filled by all manner of outlandish theories.

The only way to avoid acknowledging this vaccuum appears to be by pretending that these events can be viewed in complete scientific isolation, void of any political context. For the more intelligent and informed (I don't necessarily mean scientifically) of the TM, this is not an acceptable option. The often-cited PNAC document admitting its military ambitions would likely remain unfulfilled bar a 'New Pearl Harbor' is simply the most obvious example of this.

From the three days I've spent on this forum, this would appear to be the most useful demarcation between two camps: those seeing the events of 9/11 as a purely scientific issue vs. those who insist on giving it a wider context. In the first camp, there's nothing left to explain as the bigger picture simply isn't relevant. In the second, the context is paramount - thus explanations built only on the need for improved building safety cannot possibly satisfy.

Thanks for admitting that you're not actually interested in the well-established scientific facts behind the events of 9/11 but rather in confirming a logistically and scientifically untenable conspiracy theory based on nothing more than your own ignorance and political agenda. If only all twoofers were so candid!

[GregoryUrich]

Originally Posted by twinstead

I'll be frank; your software engineer's opinion means just about as much as mine--NOTHING.

Again, I'm a layman. I rely on experts. The general consensus among experts is that the official story, while not perfect, is the one that makes the most sense.

Until that consensus changes, you can parade software engineers 'till the cows come home.

Why bother commenting if you don't understand the subject matter? I have already proved your experts wrong regarding the mass. You'll have to get down to facts and figures if you want to argue with me.

[Jonnyclueless]

Originally Posted by damien pastaume

Hello TAM -

It largely seems to hinge on the fact that although everything up to collapse initiation of WTC 1 & 2 has been explained, on the whole, quite plausibly by NIST, the collapse itself has not. This would appear to be Frank Greening's main bone of contention, too.

Now, I understand that this was never part of NIST's brief, thus no one can credibly criticise NIST themselves for not doing so. However, this does leave something of a vaccuum just waiting to be filled by all manner of outlandish theories.

The only way to avoid acknowledging this vaccuum appears to be by pretending that these events can be viewed in complete scientific isolation, void of any political context. For the more intelligent and informed (I don't necessarily mean scientifically) of the TM, this is not an acceptable option. The often-cited PNAC document admitting its military ambitions would likely remain unfulfilled bar a 'New Pearl Harbor' is simply the most obvious example of this.

From the three days I've spent on this forum, this would appear to be the most useful demarcation between two camps: those seeing the events of 9/11 as a purely scientific issue vs. those who insist on giving it a wider context. In the first camp, there's nothing left to explain as the bigger picture simply isn't relevant. In the second, the context is paramount - thus explanations built only on the need for improved building safety cannot possibly satisfy.

Greening isn't contesting that it couldn't have collapsed. What NIST showed proved the collapse. No further math or research is needed at that point to conclude a global collapse. That Geening wants is research on the actual collapse for the sake of research and study, not to prove it was possible. It's like me pushing you out of a plane and then having to try and prove that it was possible for you to make it to the ground. No explanation is needed to prove that pushing you out of the plane lead to you hitting the ground. But one could examine the process of the fall for the stake of scientific study.

What you Woo side claims is that unless it is proven scientifically, one cannot conclude that pushing someone out of a plane could lead to a person falling to the ground. That's how absolutely absurd the claim is and why it is often laughed at.

Had NIST wasted time and resources to do this just to appease Wooers, it would not change a thing. This notion that the only reason people are questioning it is because they left it open is completely false. Look at the Woo claim about the Pentagon video. It was claimed that if they would just release the gas station footage that the Wooers would be satisfied and it would end the debate, but since they refused, it proved guilt. So the footage was eventually released showing nothing as they had claimed. But then the Wooers moved to the hotel camera making identical claims. When that was released, they again moved on to another claim. So this kind of logic does not hold up.

The truth of the matter is you want a conspiracy no matter what and no amount of evidence will change that. What ever evidence you require now, you simply require ONLY because you think it is unobtainable and thus allowing you to sustain these fantasies. When they do get crushed, you move on to another one. Whatever it takes to sustain the fantasy.

The PNAC issue simply proves that you along with other Wooers don't understand what PNAC was saying. And this is another classic example of what I explained above. It's a tool you use to prolong your fantasy. You don't care that PNAC is long gone and never made the claims you say they did. But it's some text you can cherry pick out of context for your own needs.

The debate is a scientific on vs a conjecture and speculation one.

[Mr. Skinny]

Originally Posted by damien pastaume

(snip)
The only way to avoid acknowledging this vaccuum appears to be by pretending that these events can be viewed in complete scientific isolation, void of any political context. For the more intelligent and informed (I don't necessarily mean scientifically) of the TM, this is not an acceptable option. The often-cited PNAC document admitting its military ambitions would likely remain unfulfilled bar a 'New Pearl Harbor' is simply the most obvious example of this.

From the three days I've spent on this forum, this would appear to be the most useful demarcation between two camps: those seeing the events of 9/11 as a purely scientific issue vs. those who insist on giving it a wider context. In the first camp, there's nothing left to explain as the bigger picture simply isn't relevant. In the second, the context is paramount - thus explanations built only on the need for improved building safety cannot possibly satisfy.

Damien,

If you wish to explore possible political theories, can I suggest you post in the Politics subforum?

Most people here tend to focus on the scientific side (as you point out), and although there is no clear cut line, I think the preference is to stay away from politics in the CT sub forum.

If your intent is to explore possible political conspiracy theories, I suggest you open a thread in Politics. You'll probably get a much livlier discussion there.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Ah, that was well-put! I'm going to quote that one on SLC (with a few spelling corrections).

Be my guest. For anyone that disputes theory, I'd suggest a simple test. We get a bag of a low density material, say flour, of about 6% the weight of the twoofer in denial, suspend the material 3m above a high density material, such as the said twoofers head, and then allow it to drop at freefall to determine if the structure below will collapse in its own footprint on impact, or if the bag of flour will be deflected about the twoofer following the path of least resistance.

[Magenta]

Originally Posted by damien pastaume

I am yet to meet a single example of the kind of person claimed in your 'impression'.

Damien, if you’re not arguing against CTers and trying to understand where they’re coming from, it’s entirely possible you haven’t come across this. There’s an example on the thread Myriad linked to below at #105:

Quote:

I start with the assumption that the government tries at any possible way to make advantage out of us. What makes me hold for inside job is primarily WTC7. LIHOP comes right after.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...0&postcount=25

[PhantomWolf]

Quote:

The often-cited PNAC document admitting its military ambitions would likely remain unfulfilled bar a 'New Pearl Harbor' is simply the most obvious example of this.

No it didn't, it stated that the changes it wanted to see implimented would take a long time, in the order of decades to acomplish, short of a new Pearl Habor occuring. It then processed to outline how and why those changes needed to be made of the following decades. It's like me writting up a plan to improve the evacuation plans here in case the local volcano erputs and pointing out that we need to increase the number of bridges over the river to the north of the city and strengthen them against the possiblity of a laha destroying the two we have now, a plan that could easily take at least ten years or more, unless the volcano shows signs of activity. That doesn't mean I am wanting the volcano to wake up so we can get new bridges, it means that if the volcano woke up, then the job would become more important to those running the show and would get done faster. In the same way the PNAC wasn't calling for a new Pearl Harbor to occur, they were merely pointing out that in the event of one occuring, then those in charage of the military would decide that they would have to fast track the changes which would result in a compressd timetable that was being laid out in the rest of the document.

[Magenta]

I wonder how many CTers who use that line have read the whole document.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Originally Posted by einsteen

I disagree that there was totally no sound during the collapse. And the ultimate proof that there was sound follows from the simple fact that a lot of debunkers use sound of explosions do not imply explosives.

This is a stupendously weak counter-argument and, frankly, quite idiotic. You know damn well that the explosions associated with an actual controlled demolition are rapid, sequential, and immediately precede that actual collapse of the building.

And yet you counter with reports of a handful of explosions in the hours preceding the building's collapse, in a attempt to claim that, "See! There were explosions exactly like a CD!" That's both pathetic and laughable.

That you can't seem to understand the inherent stupidity in your counter-argument, which I quoted, absolutely boggles my mind.

[T.A.M.]

Thanks for the civil and intelligent response.

Originally Posted by damien pastaume

Hello TAM -

It largely seems to hinge on the fact that although everything up to collapse initiation of WTC 1 & 2 has been explained, on the whole, quite plausibly by NIST, the collapse itself has not. This would appear to be Frank Greening's main bone of contention, too.

I will grant this, wrt NIST the collapse itself has not been addressed with the same scientific investigation/calculation as the events leading up to the collapse, and the initiation itself. However, unless a scientist can produce a paper contradicting NIST's claim that the collapse, once initiated, was inevitable, and unstoppable, with solid science to back it up, then I have no reason to decline this explanation from these qualified scientists. Of course, such a paper would have to pass the rigors of peer review (scientific peer review) and publication in a respected scientific journal.

Quote:

Now, I understand that this was never part of NIST's brief, thus no one can credibly criticise NIST themselves for not doing so. However, this does leave something of a vaccuum just waiting to be filled by all manner of outlandish theories.

Yes, but who is to decide who the responsibility falls upon to fill this vacuum?

Quote:

The only way to avoid acknowledging this vaccuum appears to be by pretending that these events can be viewed in complete scientific isolation, void of any political context.

I do not see it that way. The events of collapse initiation and collapse itself are separate only in the sense that once the collapse was initiated, by whatever means, the collapse was going to occur, therefore, further investigation of the collapse itself is of little value in terms of building safety. There is a vacuum in this area ONLY for those who are looking for clues to an alternative to the "who dunnit" answer given by the USG.

Quote:

For the more intelligent and informed (I don't necessarily mean scientifically) of the TM, this is not an acceptable option. The often-cited PNAC document admitting its military ambitions would likely remain unfulfilled bar a 'New Pearl Harbor' is simply the most obvious example of this.

Mixing the "who had the motive" with "how it happened scientifically" is a huge conjoining that involves a tonne of speculation, a tonne and a half of accusation, and not an ounce of Scientific Methodization...

Quote:

From the three days I've spent on this forum, this would appear to be the most useful demarcation between two camps: those seeing the events of 9/11 as a purely scientific issue vs. those who insist on giving it a wider context. In the first camp, there's nothing left to explain as the bigger picture simply isn't relevant. In the second, the context is paramount - thus explanations built only on the need for improved building safety cannot possibly satisfy.

I agree that there are elements of both extreme factions you have exposed above, however, I would say in my 15 months here on the JREF CT subforum, the MAJORITY of posters mix the two a fair bit. The difference between the majority of DEBUNKERS here and the TRUTHERS here, is that one (the debunkers) regard both the political and the scientific as factors, but require solid evidence for both, where as the other (the truthers) seem to only require speculation, opinion, and an unhealthy degree of paranoia.

TAM

[TellyKNeasuss]

Originally Posted by damien pastaume

""These microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 °C for any significant time." (NIST)

FYI: 600C = 1112F, which is plenty sufficient to seriously weaken steel. And temperatures this hot won't only weaken steel, they will cause it to expand (IIRC, by about an inch per 10 feet).

[damien pastaume]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

No so. Truthers often quote the 2000% figure, claiming that the buildings were designed to withstand 20 times their own weight. It's not true. The figure comes from the live loading from wind that would be applied laterally to the buildings, not to the amount of load the buildings could support. The load the buildings could support vertically was far less and NIST estimates that between the physical damage and the fires, the columns lost about 60-70% of their load capacity on the collapse floors.

You may well be correct. I'll be studying this further in the course of the next few days and will let you know what my findings are.

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

The Buildings pulverized themselves into their basements

Again, not true. The building were not pulverised, large amounts of concrete, steel and even contents remained after the collapse. Estimates are that only about 20% of the building was pulverised with perhaps another 20% ejected. The rest of the material formed a pile that rose up to seven stories above street level.

That would not seem to conform to the video evidence. Or the images of Lower Manhattan in the aftermath. What are these estimates based on?

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

They did this at barely above freefall speed

Again wrong. The tower collapses took between 16 and 18 seconds for WTC 2 and between 18 and 20 seconds for WTC 1. Freefall would have been 9 and 10 seconds respectively. This means the towers fell 80-100% slower than would be expected for freefall. This is not "barely above freefall." Video and photos clearly show the debries falling far faster then the collapse zone did. Anyone that persists with the "nearly freefall" meme is either an idiot or deliberately ignoring the facts.

These are among the highest estimates I've seen and do not sit with the following:

"given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity" from "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?" by Thomas W. Eager and Christopher Musso
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html

"6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?"
NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A)."NIST faq http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

through the path of maximum (and greatly increasing) resistance

This makes the assumption that things should always take the path of least resistance. This is untrue as well. Objects take the path of least ENERGY change. Think about it for a moment. If you get hit by a bullet, does it follow the path of least resistance?

No - but its progress is certainly slowed/arrested.

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Surely the path of least resistance is to divert around you through the air, not to pass through your body. Why does it pass through you if that is higher resistance? The answer is because it would require more enegy to deflect the bullet around you that it does to cause a plastic deformation and fracture of your body components. In the same way there is less energy reqyuired to plastically deform and fracture the building below the collapsing top that it would take to deflect that mass off to one side. Thus it is more energy effiecent to crush the building below, and it does. Simple 101 physics, I suggest you get a text book and start reading it.

A falling object can either A: (in the case of insufficient momentum) have its trajectory altered by the resisting force or B: (in the case of sufficient momentum) have its trajectory slowed by the resisting force or C: completely overcome the resisting force.
You are obviously arguing for the third scenario. You also obviously feel this concords with what's observed. I don't.

[TellyKNeasuss]

Originally Posted by damien pastaume

"6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?"
NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A)."NIST faq

I took the liberty of highlighting important words that you seemed to have missed.

[Tbone]

Originally Posted by damien pastaume

These are among the highest estimates I've seen

Originally Posted by damien pastaume

A falling object can either A: (in the case of insufficient momentum) have its trajectory altered by the resisting force or B: (in the case of sufficient momentum) have its trajectory slowed by the resisting force or C: completely overcome the resisting force.
You are obviously arguing for the third scenario. You also obviously feel this concords with what's observed. I don't.

How do you recoincile the your two statements here? PW says the towers offer a large amount of resistance (and you acknowledge this) then say that PW thinks the intact towers offered no resistance.

He is quite obviously stating your (inaccurately phrased) B scenario.