ISF Logo   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 6th November 2012, 09:14 PM   #1
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Debunking the Debunker Debunkers

Someone named John-Michael Talboo has offered his considered opinion on the merits of Crockett Grabbe's discussion ( not "paper") reply to Bazant's reply (i.e., closure) to several truther critics, including Gourley, McQueen, Szamboti, Bjorkman. Mr. Grabbe also invokes the calculations of Jim Hoffman, which Mr. Talboo parrots.


One Thing Wrong and A Lot of Things Right
Posted by John-Michael P. Talboo
http://911debunkers.blogspot.de/2012...ngs-right.html

First question: Who is JM Talboo? More specific & pertinent, what are his qualifications?

He offers no info in any of the bios that I was able to find, other than to assert that others think that he is a good-guy (a "mensch"). It's a good thing to be a good guy. It is utterly irrelevant to the weight behind his assertions.

In Mr. Talboo's bio on AE911T, his Degree & Title fields are blank and he is listed in the "A&E student or other supporters" category. I believe that it is safe to assume he has no relevant experience to make structural engineering assertions.

One might, at this juncture, save a lot of time by dismissing his opinions as those of an abject amateur. And one would be correct to do so.

But it would be more rigorous to examine his key claims, and where they fall on their face. I'll get to only the first claims here, and follow up with the remainder over the next several days.

To be clear, I am not discussing the Grabbe paper directly. I am discussing Mr. Talboo's comments about Grabbe, McQueen & Szamboti, Bjorkman & Hoffman's critiques of Bazant's various papers, as well as Mr. Talboo's own assertions about Bazant's "errors".

Originally Posted by JM Talboo
One reason I bring this up, is to express my agreement with debunkers that [Grabbe's] claim that the South Tower's "top segment... initially collapses at an acceleration rate more than four as large as that of gravity," is untenable.
This statement happens to be true.
It is not only "untenable", it is "wrong". Which is a much bigger problem for Grabbe.

However, Mr. Talboo gives absolutely zero argument or rationale or evidence to back up his assertion that Grabbe's claim is wrong.

This is the start of a long lineup of baseless assertions by Mr. Talboo.


Originally Posted by JM Talboo
That said, Grabbe's stated goals in his paper includes three other solid points.
We'll see that Mr. Talboo offers no valid support for the adjective "solid", either.


Originally Posted by JM Talboo
Outlining his goals, Grabbe writes:

Originally Posted by Grabbe
First is their assertion about implications of their collapse model for the South Tower. Second is the very inadequate amount of energy expended in their gravitational collapse model, including the claimed ease of breaking through and demolishing each floor that they assert in explaining the smooth collapse, in contrast to independent calculations of the total energy expended in the observed collapses. Third is an underlying 1-dimensional (1D) assumption in the equations used to model the collapse in this paper and in previous papers it references. Shortcomings of this 1D model seriously challenge its validity, and thus that of the "crush-down, crush-up" model of gravitational collapse for the calculations they present. Fourth is a challenge to their broad claim that all objections have been shown invalid.
Before getting into his other three points, I think it important to note that "debunkers" who bashed the Bentham journal for bad peer-review, should be doing the same here if they don't want to be hypocritical.
Once again, Grabbe did not write a paper, he wrote a discussion. The peer review process is very different & far less stringent.

And a point that seems eternally lost on those unfamiliar with scientific publishing: a passed peer review does NOT mean that the the paper's conclusions are correct, does not even mean that the reviewers think that the paper's conclusions are correct.

Apparently, Mr. Talboo wishes us to castigate JEM for publishing Grabbe's letter. I could not disagree more. I enthusiastically applaud their publication of not only Grabbe's letter, but also Szudalinski, Gourley, Bjorkman, McQueen & Szamboti and now Grabbe. By publishing these papers, they show exactly what a bunch of incompetent boobs the Conspiracy Theorists are.

Of course, many Conspiracy Theorists, like Mr. Talboo, are so clueless that they don't get the conclusion that is so apparent to all with competent knowledge of the field.

Originally Posted by JM Talboo
As Jim Hoffman at the website 911research.wtc7.net pointed out, "Bazant must be a super-genius to understand how two skyscrapers could crush themselves to rubble, a newly observed behaviour for steel structures, and write a paper about it in just two days."
This statement, with its dripping sarcasm, is PRECISELY the equivalent of someone getting onto some prominent stage & proclaiming, "You must think that I'm an idiot to believe your claim that some guy named Michael Jordan stepped onto a court & led his team to multiple NBA championships." And then stepping back from the mike and smiling smugly, as if they had made a compelling point.

The one & only thing that such a statement would demonstrate is how clueless the speaker was regarding American basketball, MJ & MJ's body of work.

Just as Mr. Hoffman & Mr. Talboo are clueless regarding structural engineering, Dr. Bazant & Dr. Bazant's body of work.

A one minute google search for Dr. Bazant's Bio/CV, plus about 45 minutes actually reading it, would have demonstrated to both Mr. Hoffman & Mr. Talboo how utterly moronic their statements are.

Mr. Talboo would have been well advised to check Mr. Hoffman's resume as well. Especially for key words, such as "structural engineering" or "mechanical engineering". He would have come up with a big, fat goose egg. Mr Hoffman's expertise: Computer Graphics.

Originally Posted by JM Talboo
In doing so, however, does that not put the peer-review of Bazant's papers in question as well? … This paper was also published, and apparently reviewed, in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics during those 48 hours.
Mr. Talboo is undoubtably repeating something that he's been told. The fact is that the statement is wrong. As about 2 minutes of research will show.

(Mr. Talboo doesn't do "research" very we'll. Perhaps not at all.)

Nothing in JEM was reviewed in 48 hours. Nothing was published in JEM in 48 hours.

The Bazant Zhou article's origin & evolution is described on the article's front page.

Originally Posted by Bazant
The original version with equations (1) and (2) was originally submitted to ASCE on September 13, and an expanded version with equation (3) was submitted to ASCE on September 22. Appendix II was added on September 28, and I and III on October 5. The basic points of this paper, submitted to SIAM, M.I.T., on September 14, were incorporated in Baˇzant (2001a,b). Posted with updates since September 14 at http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/news, http://www3.tam.uiuc.edu/news/200109wtc/, and http://math.mit.edu/ ̃bazant.
The early submittals were not to JEM, but to a NEWS article (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics @ M.I.T.) & a Czech Tech journal.

Bazant, Z.P. (2001a). ”Why did the World Trade Center collapse?” SIAM News (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, M.I.T., Cambridge), 34 (8), October (submitted Sept. 14).

Bazant, Z.P. (2001b). “Anatomy of Twin Towers Collapse.” Science and Technology (part of Hospodarske Noviny, Prague) No. 186, Sept. 25, p.1.

Two more minutes of investigoogling would have turned up the fact that the paper was SUBMITTED to JEM, starting on 9/13, modified over the next 3 weeks, reviewed & then published in January 2002, giving 3.5 months for peer review, not 48 hours.

Now, I strongly suspect that JEM was/is inclined to give Dr. Bazant a certain amount of slack that they would not give complete unknowns like, oh, say, Szudalinski, Gourley, Bjorkman, McQueen & Szamboti, for example, because of his experience & status...

… which includes, as Hoffman & Talboo would have discovered reading Bazant's CV, 8 years as an associate editor of, & 7 years ('88 - '94) as Editor in Chief of, …

... The Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Editors in Chief (even retired ones) get a couple of perks. They deserve them. They've earned them.

Originally Posted by JM Talboo
Juxtapose this with the fact that Bazant's theory has been challenged, not once, twice, but three times, and likely a fourth time, with a paper coming from mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti, in that same journal and you have a good a priori case that Bazant is wrong, but we won't rely on that, just saying.
No, Mr. Talboo, you do not have a a prioi case that Bazant is wrong. Neither do you have an a posteriori case that he is wrong.

You have nothing.
"Just saying."

Darwinism has been attacked dozens of times by experts in the field, hundreds of times in print by amateurs (before the internet) & thousands of times by the clueless (since the internet).

And yet, Darwinism stands, comfortable, serenely untroubled by the "debunking of the clueless."

Bazant is a world-class, renowned expert.
He produced the heart of the paper in 2 days, and expanded over the course of the next 3 weeks. Bazant was able to do this for one reason: it is right down the middle of his professional experience.
He knew what he was doing.
He was right.

Szudalinski, Gourley, Bjorkman, McQueen, Szamboti & Grabbe are amateurs. They are, in order, a homeland security consultant, patent lawyer, navel insurance adjuster, religious studies professor, incompetent mechanical engineer & one-time physicist**.
They don't know what they're doing. None of them have ANY academic or practical experience in structural engineering or any related field.
They are wrong.

** Now internet huckster. See his www.sealane.org/writesnew/weblist.html website for "enlightening" samples of his offerings. Don't miss "Celebrity blogging", "Mastering Facebook" & "Top 10 traffic methods"! There's some real, hard core physics for ya!).

And the cluelessly clueless, such as yourself, Mr. Talboo, can't tell the difference between "world's expert on collapse of huge structures" and "utterly clueless amateurs", EVEN THOUGH Dr. Bazant has explained in fine detail exactly what their mistakes are.

You, Mr Talboo, are holding yourself up as a "9/11 pundit" when, as a "basketball pundit", you don't know the difference between Michael Jordan & Gary Coleman.

"Just sayin"

More on Mr. Talboo's post later.
I'm kinda curious to see who is going to sit in the Oval Office for the next four years …


Tom
tfk 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 6th November 2012, 09:55 PM   #2
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,470
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
Someone named John-Michael Talboo has offered his considered opinion on the merits of Crockett Grabbe's discussion ( not "paper") reply to Bazant's reply (i.e., closure) to several truther critics, including Gourley, McQueen, Szamboti, Bjorkman. Mr. Grabbe also invokes the calculations of Jim Hoffman, which Mr. Talboo parrots.


One Thing Wrong and A Lot of Things Right
Posted by John-Michael P. Talboo
http://911debunkers.blogspot.de/2012...ngs-right.html

First question: Who is JM Talboo? More specific & pertinent, what are his qualifications?

He offers no info in any of the bios that I was able to find, other than to assert that others think that he is a good-guy (a "mensch"). It's a good thing to be a good guy. It is utterly irrelevant to the weight behind his assertions.

In Mr. Talboo's bio on AE911T, his Degree & Title fields are blank and he is listed in the "A&E student or other supporters" category. I believe that it is safe to assume he has no relevant experience to make structural engineering assertions.

One might, at this juncture, save a lot of time by dismissing his opinions as those of an abject amateur. And one would be correct to do so.

But it would be more rigorous to examine his key claims, and where they fall on their face. I'll get to only the first claims here, and follow up with the remainder over the next several days.

To be clear, I am not discussing the Grabbe paper directly. I am discussing Mr. Talboo's comments about Grabbe, McQueen & Szamboti, Bjorkman & Hoffman's critiques of Bazant's various papers, as well as Mr. Talboo's own assertions about Bazant's "errors".



This statement happens to be true.
It is not only "untenable", it is "wrong". Which is a much bigger problem for Grabbe.

However, Mr. Talboo gives absolutely zero argument or rationale or evidence to back up his assertion that Grabbe's claim is wrong.

This is the start of a long lineup of baseless assertions by Mr. Talboo.




We'll see that Mr. Talboo offers no valid support for the adjective "solid", either.




Once again, Grabbe did not write a paper, he wrote a discussion. The peer review process is very different & far less stringent.

And a point that seems eternally lost on those unfamiliar with scientific publishing: a passed peer review does NOT mean that the the paper's conclusions are correct, does not even mean that the reviewers think that the paper's conclusions are correct.

Apparently, Mr. Talboo wishes us to castigate JEM for publishing Grabbe's letter. I could not disagree more. I enthusiastically applaud their publication of not only Grabbe's letter, but also Szudalinski, Gourley, Bjorkman, McQueen & Szamboti and now Grabbe. By publishing these papers, they show exactly what a bunch of incompetent boobs the Conspiracy Theorists are.

Of course, many Conspiracy Theorists, like Mr. Talboo, are so clueless that they don't get the conclusion that is so apparent to all with competent knowledge of the field.



This statement, with its dripping sarcasm, is PRECISELY the equivalent of someone getting onto some prominent stage & proclaiming, "You must think that I'm an idiot to believe your claim that some guy named Michael Jordan stepped onto a court & led his team to multiple NBA championships." And then stepping back from the mike and smiling smugly, as if they had made a compelling point.

The one & only thing that such a statement would demonstrate is how clueless the speaker was regarding American basketball, MJ & MJ's body of work.

Just as Mr. Hoffman & Mr. Talboo are clueless regarding structural engineering, Dr. Bazant & Dr. Bazant's body of work.

A one minute google search for Dr. Bazant's Bio/CV, plus about 45 minutes actually reading it, would have demonstrated to both Mr. Hoffman & Mr. Talboo how utterly moronic their statements are.

Mr. Talboo would have been well advised to check Mr. Hoffman's resume as well. Especially for key words, such as "structural engineering" or "mechanical engineering". He would have come up with a big, fat goose egg. Mr Hoffman's expertise: Computer Graphics.



Mr. Talboo is undoubtably repeating something that he's been told. The fact is that the statement is wrong. As about 2 minutes of research will show.

(Mr. Talboo doesn't do "research" very we'll. Perhaps not at all.)

Nothing in JEM was reviewed in 48 hours. Nothing was published in JEM in 48 hours.

The Bazant Zhou article's origin & evolution is described on the article's front page.



The early submittals were not to JEM, but to a NEWS article (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics @ M.I.T.) & a Czech Tech journal.

Bazant, Z.P. (2001a). ”Why did the World Trade Center collapse?” SIAM News (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, M.I.T., Cambridge), 34 (8), October (submitted Sept. 14).

Bazant, Z.P. (2001b). “Anatomy of Twin Towers Collapse.” Science and Technology (part of Hospodarske Noviny, Prague) No. 186, Sept. 25, p.1.

Two more minutes of investigoogling would have turned up the fact that the paper was SUBMITTED to JEM, starting on 9/13, modified over the next 3 weeks, reviewed & then published in January 2002, giving 3.5 months for peer review, not 48 hours.

Now, I strongly suspect that JEM was/is inclined to give Dr. Bazant a certain amount of slack that they would not give complete unknowns like, oh, say, Szudalinski, Gourley, Bjorkman, McQueen & Szamboti, for example, because of his experience & status...

… which includes, as Hoffman & Talboo would have discovered reading Bazant's CV, 8 years as an associate editor of, & 7 years ('88 - '94) as Editor in Chief of, …

... The Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Editors in Chief (even retired ones) get a couple of perks. They deserve them. They've earned them.



No, Mr. Talboo, you do not have a a prioi case that Bazant is wrong. Neither do you have an a posteriori case that he is wrong.

You have nothing.
"Just saying."

Darwinism has been attacked dozens of times by experts in the field, hundreds of times in print by amateurs (before the internet) & thousands of times by the clueless (since the internet).

And yet, Darwinism stands, comfortable, serenely untroubled by the "debunking of the clueless."

Bazant is a world-class, renowned expert.
He produced the heart of the paper in 2 days, and expanded over the course of the next 3 weeks. Bazant was able to do this for one reason: it is right down the middle of his professional experience.
He knew what he was doing.
He was right.

Szudalinski, Gourley, Bjorkman, McQueen, Szamboti & Grabbe are amateurs. They are, in order, a homeland security consultant, patent lawyer, navel insurance adjuster, religious studies professor, incompetent mechanical engineer & one-time physicist**.
They don't know what they're doing. None of them have ANY academic or practical experience in structural engineering or any related field.
They are wrong.

** Now internet huckster. See his www.sealane.org/writesnew/weblist.html website for "enlightening" samples of his offerings. Don't miss "Celebrity blogging", "Mastering Facebook" & "Top 10 traffic methods"! There's some real, hard core physics for ya!).

And the cluelessly clueless, such as yourself, Mr. Talboo, can't tell the difference between "world's expert on collapse of huge structures" and "utterly clueless amateurs", EVEN THOUGH Dr. Bazant has explained in fine detail exactly what their mistakes are.

You, Mr Talboo, are holding yourself up as a "9/11 pundit" when, as a "basketball pundit", you don't know the difference between Michael Jordan & Gary Coleman.

"Just sayin"

More on Mr. Talboo's post later.
I'm kinda curious to see who is going to sit in the Oval Office for the next four years …


Tom
Looks like he really raised your blood pressure! Me, I was laughing so hard I could barely breathe when I got to his linked video on The Great Eggsperiment.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5&d=1352258738

One thing, though. The term "Darwinism" has always bugged me, as it's usually used by the Duane Gish crowd. Nobody calls classical mechanics "Newtonism". I'd just use "Darwinian Evolution" to distinguish it from Lamarck.
Redwood 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 7th November 2012, 05:10 AM   #3
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,812
@ tfk,
I have recently, since september 30th, exchanged quite a number of emails with John-Michael Talboo. He is one of the few folling my blog, and has on occasion refered to it, or JREF posts of mine, on Debunking the Debunkers.

I don't recall at this time if I ever knew his educational or professional background, but it surely isn't any natural science or engineering. Which I consider not a big problem on the level that he and are operating - after all, my own background is neither any natural science nor engineering. What matters in the end is
a) Are the arguments right or wrong
b) Who are he and I convincing


Our exchanges have been friendly and civil, and I would like to keep it that way, so I am not going to pile up on your MJ-like dunks.


JM is a guy who can be reasoned with, and who can revisit and change a conclusion - he isn't totally committed to everything any truther claims. Case in point is Grabbe's 4g-claim: I pointed out to JM that, and why, it is madness (explosives don't suck, they push; the additional energy required in Garbbe's scenario is outlandish; there is no explanation for what equal force opposes that which causes the alleged downward acceleration beyond g), and he quickly conceded that it is indeed "untenable". He is aware of the arguments against that nonesense that I, and others, posted on that over in the Grabbe thread.


Yesterday I wrote to him that Hoffman has been debunked long ago, and brutally, and offered a couple of quick-to-catch glaring gaffes in his cloud-expansion madness.


So that's where I stand with him. Again, I plan to play it nice and civil. But looking forward to your coming series of posts!
Oystein 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 7th November 2012, 12:09 PM   #4
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,788
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
Someone named John-Michael Talboo has offered his considered opinion on the merits of Crockett Grabbe's discussion ... Tom
When will he discover his failure? What will he do when/if he wakes up? Delete his delusions?

What happen to SPreston and Swing Dangler (Where R they Now)? Are they selling woo, super activist changing the world for truth? Poor oneslice short, still here, debunking the debunkers, rehashing failed CIT fake investigating nonsense, pushing multiple flight paths, unable to see the fraud he freely dishes out. John-Michael Talboo offers no math, no physics; a lot of copy and paste junk earning him the respect of his peers; a fringe few nuts who believe 911 was an inside job, full of stand downs and MIB running the world, stealing my walnuts, disguised as skunks, birds, and raccoons. John-Michael Talboo, the yes man for 911 truth.

What do Bigfoot believers do when they wake up to the illusion? Last night the g-kids finished Kuk Sool Won, a kid overheard a Bigfoot comment; he proclaimed Bigfoot was not real, it was fantasy; he is 7. Are 911 truthers smarter than a 7 year old? No
beachnut 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 8th November 2012, 04:49 AM   #5
Starving for Truth
Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 194
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
What do Bigfoot believers do when they wake up to the illusion? Last night the g-kids finished Kuk Sool Won, a kid overheard a Bigfoot comment; he proclaimed Bigfoot was not real, it was fantasy; he is 7. Are 911 truthers smarter than a 7 year old? No


Are you saying that 1700 experts, architects & engineers are dumber than a 7 year-old?
Starving for Truth 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 8th November 2012, 04:52 AM   #6
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,812
beachnut,

Talboo does not endorse CIT, quite the contrary! A blog post of his (and ScootleRoyale's) from July 2009:
Originally Posted by Talboo and Scootle
Browsing the Screw Loose Change blog earlier we were somewhat alarmed to learn that David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage are endorsing the work of the Citizen Investigation Team.
...
In all fairness however, we admit that years ago, we too were convinced by the Pentagon no-jetliner claims, ...
...
In a previous post it was argued that CIT & Pilots for 9/11 Truth are promoting disinformation and after a long debate on the Prison Planet forum it is clear that some uninformed judgments were made, and arguments put forward that they had already countered. However, we are now even more convinced that they are disinformation artists.
...
Ockham's razor dictates that indeed a Boeing 757 did hit the Pentagon
So there. I guess that shows that Talboo (and Scootle) can correct at least some errors in judgment, given proper evidence and logic
I propose tackling them not antagonistically but in a constructive spirit. (Same goes to tfk - I enjoy your sharp, witty and very controlled demoltions, but please try to demolish the arguments; and the arguers only insofar as they might base claims in their own persons, such as incredulity or assertions of having "researched" stuff since so and so many years ago)


And a video (which I haven't watched - JM asked me to pass it on):
Debunking the Citizen Investigation Team in 11 Minutes

Last edited by Oystein; 8th November 2012 at 04:58 AM.
Oystein 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 8th November 2012, 05:02 AM   #7
Starving for Truth
Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 194
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
And a video (which I haven't watched - JM asked me to pass it on):
Debunking the Citizen Investigation Team in 11 Minutes
Thanks for pointing more truth seekers to John Talboo's youtube channel.

You are doing great in spreading the truth so far, whether you're aware of it or not.

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I propose tackling them not antagonistically but in a constructive spirit.

Last edited by Starving for Truth; 8th November 2012 at 05:13 AM.
Starving for Truth 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 8th November 2012, 05:08 AM   #8
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,812
@ tfk:
By the way: Talboo has added some content, for example this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLY6cUFGwQE - it relates to the fast falling beam and without it his point might seem like a bare assertion.

Also, some changes apparently in the section of Hoffman (don't know which).

So before you post the next slam dunk, please check if you base it on a current version of Talboo's post. (Should be interesting how much it will have changed by the time you're done )
Oystein 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 8th November 2012, 07:47 AM   #9
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Oy,

Been traveling. Not much time to post. Why don't you invite JM to come over here & join us. (Or I can do that.) I'd much rather engage him directly, rather than post without giving him an opportunity to respond.

And don't worry, I'll play nice.
tfk 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 8th November 2012, 08:55 AM   #10
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,812
I already did invite him here, earlier today.
Oystein 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 8th November 2012, 09:56 AM   #11
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by Starving for Truth View Post


Are you saying that 1700 experts, architects & engineers are dumber than a 7 year-old?
Mmm. Close, but a bit too direct. Real Truthers try to distort the statement somehow, so they're responding to something that looks like what was said. Try "Are you saying that 1700 experts, architects & engineers can't figure out something that a 7 year-old could?" Or just disparage the comparison to a 7-year old as ridiculous. Or mentioning Bigfoot. Really, sardonism is your most potent weapon, albeit among weapons that are all impotent.

Last edited by 000063; 8th November 2012 at 10:02 AM.
000063 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 8th November 2012, 10:15 AM   #12
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,788
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
beachnut,

Talboo does not endorse CIT, quite the contrary! A blog post of his (and ScootleRoyale's) from July 2009:


So there. I guess that shows that Talboo (and Scootle) can correct at least some errors in judgment, given proper evidence and logic ...
And a video (which I haven't watched - JM asked me to pass it on):
Debunking the Citizen Investigation Team in 11 Minutes
I never said he supported the idiotic CIT claims, onesliceshort does. My poor writing skills are showing. I spent some time yesterday following the crazy (stuff) Talboo puts out, and he seems to be on the anti-CIT side of crazy 911 truth claims. Sad for me, the best I can come-up with is that poor post. Mowing the lawn, and cleaning the yard win, as does trouble shooting my dual core slow poke computer, which I spent loading with 6 drives, 2x2TB, 4x1TB, left over from upgrades to my wifes computer 1x2TB, 4x3TB. ... better clean the pond filter now. Was scanning old photos too...

However, Talboo blasting CIT, which I did see and read some, is cool. I love crazy 911 truthers busting crazy 911 truthers. It is funny watching someone who believes in CD without evidence expose CIT as nuts. What will Talboo do with his blogs when he wakes up to reality, to comprehend he has been fooled by others, and himself?

I found it ironic to see truthers around the internet using jeff hill and jimd3100 stuff to support lies and fantasy. The silly shoot-down, stand-down 911 truth evidence for woo, lives on in the minds of the gullible and easy to mislead.

Anyone, even CD nuts, can see CIT witnesses drawing different flight paths is nonsense.

Talboo has no knowledge to support his CD claims, but he sees CIT lies. Sad he can't apply the same skepticism, logic, knowledge, and reality to himself.
Quote:
Ockham's razor dictates that indeed a Boeing 757 did hit the Pentagon
Occam's razor would dictate the WTC towers fell due to gravity after impacts and fires - how does logic and knowledge fail on your own claims, when you can see the lies of CIT and Balsamo's non-theory theories?

Last edited by beachnut; 8th November 2012 at 10:54 AM.
beachnut 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 8th November 2012, 02:31 PM   #13
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
OY,

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
@ tfk,
I have recently, since september 30th, exchanged quite a number of emails with John-Michael Talboo. He is one of the few folling my blog, and has on occasion refered to it, or JREF posts of mine, on Debunking the Debunkers.
I've seen the DRG book, but I just found the "Debunking the Debunkers" website.

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I don't recall at this time if I ever knew his educational or professional background, but it surely isn't any natural science or engineering. Which I consider not a big problem on the level that he and are operating - after all, my own background is neither any natural science nor engineering.
There are two distinct roles of people who publish conclusions about any technical topic: 1) the expert, and 2) the reporter. Each role utilize different skills when they are doing their job competently.

The expert sets aside his/her ego & makes absolutely certain that they really, really know what they are talking about. They don't wander outside of their narrow field of expertise. This is exactly the gross error made by Steven Jones, Harrit, Ferrar, Chandler, Szamboti, etc. (Note that any one of these guys has every right to ask hard, demanding questions. Then, being amateurs, they all need to listen very carefully to the answers of real experts, like Bazant, Sunder, Gross, Corley, McAllister, etc., rather than misleading non-tech people about their amateur status & posting ignorant crap.

Then we come to the reporters, like Mr. Talboo or our own Chris Mohr (and in a real sense, almost all of us posters who do not have specific, professional expertise in a pertinent field). They are not expected to provide any technical answers themselves, but are absolutely required to be able to distinguish true answers from BS. And their principle tool for doing this, the specific trait that reporters are required to bring to their profession, is a very highly developed epistemology & BS detector.

This is what really distinguishes you (& Chris M & me) from Mr. Talboo: the knowledge that one should question everyone, but that, when it comes to technical, objective questions, one should put a very high value in the consensus assessment of hundreds of real experts, and a very low level of trust in the assessment of abject amateurs.

Further, Mr. Talboo demonstrates that he possesses virtually zero knowledge about how engineers work & behave. This silly man thinks that engineers - at the top of their profession, with the ability to change high paying jobs at the drop of a hat because they've proven themselves - would kowtow to politicians or lawyers or even to their bureaucratic bosses on issues of engineering. I can not tell you how ludicrous this idea is, not only for seasoned engineers, but for anybody who has had an extended career in a high pressure, performance demanding job. Seasoned, hard bit fire fighters, soldiers, cops, engineers ALL would relish the opportunity to have some pencil-neck bureaucrat come TELL us to falsify some aspect of a report for the pure pleasure of going in front of a press conference & explaining the pathetic attempt at manipulation.

Famous examples:
The commander & crew of the Liberty never shut up or changed their story. And "screw the consequences"

The engineers at Morton Thiokol explained, in detail, that the bureaucrats told them to leave the meeting when the engineers would not sign off on the launch authorization of Challenger.

The engineers at NASA were incredibly blunt & accusatorial against their own bosses & the lax culture of safety that had developed in the lead up to the Columbia disaster.

When OKC bombing first happened, a lot of people across the country believed it might have been done by Islamic terrorists. Right up to the point that the evidence pointed at a couple of Americans. Nobody attempted to sweep that story under the rug, or manipulate it into a "New Pearl Harbor" excuse to go invade some country. And the investigators would never have stood for it.

Some pencil neck policy punk in the Bush admin tried to tell GW scientists how to present their conclusions. The scientists told the punk, and the Bush admin, to go screw themselves. Didn't work out too well for the punk or the admin, and the scientists became heroes in their field.

There are hundreds of famous similar cases, including a couple in my own career.

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
What matters in the end is
a) Are the arguments right or wrong
b) Who are he and I convincing
I agree wholeheartedly with a). But the two epistemologies under examination are not likely to be equally capable of determining the right answer.

I'm afraid that the most likely answer to b) is "nobody".

I've said before that my involvement in this is due to the fact that I believe that the engineers who won't give the truthers the time of day have abandoned the young & impressionable to Gage & his ilk. I don't expect to convince anyone, but maybe just give the young ones some real skeptical tools with which they can defend themselves against snake oil salesmen.

More later.

Tom
tfk 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 8th November 2012, 03:42 PM   #14
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Oy,

I just sent an email to JM Talboo, inviting him to come here & discuss with us.

We'll see how that works out.


Tom
tfk 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 8th November 2012, 08:52 PM   #15
Dog Town
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
Oy,

I just sent an email to JM Talboo, inviting him to come here & discuss with us.

We'll see how that works out.


Tom
Dog Town 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 11th November 2012, 01:58 AM   #16
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
tfk, the Bazantian nonsense has been thoroughly debunked. Get over it. Not only that, but it's become entirely irrelevant.

You also have been debunked, right here on JREF, several times over, by Tony Szamboti. That you don't realize it is not really anyone else's problem.

This forum seems to be dead. I guess the intelligent posters here realize the futility of arguing with people who beliebe either that a) steel-framed highrises routinely plummet to the street from upper floor damage, or b) that there was something really special about the plane crashes and the terrorists and the fires on 9/11 that caused this special and unusual destruction of not two, but three buildings, and it would probably only happen again if it involved just that unique combination. (It's a crap shoot as to which argument you'll get on any given day... )
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo 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 11th November 2012, 09:24 AM   #17
MileHighMadness
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 629
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
tfk, the Bazantian nonsense has been thoroughly debunked. Get over it. Not only that, but it's become entirely irrelevant.

You also have been debunked, right here on JREF, several times over, by Tony Szamboti. That you don't realize it is not really anyone else's problem.

This forum seems to be dead. I guess the intelligent posters here realize the futility of arguing with people who beliebe either that a) steel-framed highrises routinely plummet to the street from upper floor damage, or b) that there was something really special about the plane crashes and the terrorists and the fires on 9/11 that caused this special and unusual destruction of not two, but three buildings, and it would probably only happen again if it involved just that unique combination. (It's a crap shoot as to which argument you'll get on any given day... )

Tony's computer model is greatly flawed, it doesn't prove anything.

egro...evidence? Oh, that's right you don't have anything.
MileHighMadness 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 11th November 2012, 10:32 AM   #18
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,788
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
tfk, the Bazantian nonsense has been thoroughly debunked. Get over it. Not only that, but it's become entirely irrelevant.
Bazant's model, not debunked, you are debunked, stuck spreading weak lies? No links, no sources, for a failed claim; it remains a lie.

The best attempt to debunk Bazant, nonsense. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=621
Quote:
I'm not sure even a moon-sized field or mountain of rubble, dropped from a height of 12 feet would entirely crush the WTC.
Have you had time to do the math? This is the best 911 truth can do, and it appears you are here to make silly posts, a parody of 911 truth. You are doing a good job.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
You also have been debunked, right here on JREF, several times over, by Tony Szamboti. That you don't realize it is not really anyone else's problem.
Tony, thinks CD, he has no evidence. 911 truth, failed fantasy.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
This forum seems to be dead.
JREF? Your claims are dead, stillborn on 911. Failure is 911 truth. Nonsense is 911 truth. The best 911 truth can do is make up fantasy and post silly comments at a skeptic forum.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I guess the intelligent posters here realize the futility of arguing with people who beliebe either that
Guess, is the best 911 truth has.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
a) steel-framed highrises routinely plummet to the street from upper floor damage, or
When fire systems are destroyed, and KE (physics stuff you have to willfully ignore to have your fantasy) impact damage is equal to 1300 and 2000 pounds of TNT. 911 truth has no physics, they make up lies. Lacking knowledge to know better, 911 truth followers blindly repeat lies.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
b) that there was something really special about the plane crashes and the terrorists and the fires on 9/11 that caused this special and unusual destruction of not two, but three buildings, and it would probably only happen again if it involved just that unique combination.
Nope, 911 truth can't comprehend fire, structural engineering, physics, and more. Not a surprise, lies of 911 truth are backed with complete and willful ignorance.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
(It's a crap shoot as to which argument you'll get on any given day... )
It is a crap shoot, what crazy claim will you post next? With your understanding of physics, it is not news you support nonsense made up out of thin air by nuts in 911 truth.
For 911 truth is it destiny, repeat lies, fail, and repeat when they find their password, out on bail...

Where is your evidence to support your claims? You lost it? The dog ate it?

The debunking the debunker web site debunks himself, like all of 911 truth. No evidence, just nonsense talk. He can't do physics, like the rest of 911 truth.

Where is your debunking of Bazant's model? You lost it? Where?

Last edited by beachnut; 11th November 2012 at 10:54 AM.
beachnut 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 11th November 2012, 10:47 AM   #19
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
 
Alt+F4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,997
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
Who is JM Talboo?
Just another 9/11 conspiracy nut.
__________________
"My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky
Alt+F4 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 11th November 2012, 11:36 AM   #20
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 15,280
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
tfk, the Bazantian nonsense has been thoroughly debunked. Get over it. Not only that, but it's become entirely irrelevant.

You also have been debunked, right here on JREF, several times over, by Tony Szamboti. That you don't realize it is not really anyone else's problem.

This forum seems to be dead. I guess the intelligent posters here realize the futility of arguing with people who beliebe either that a) steel-framed highrises routinely plummet to the street from upper floor damage, or b) that there was something really special about the plane crashes and the terrorists and the fires on 9/11 that caused this special and unusual destruction of not two, but three buildings, and it would probably only happen again if it involved just that unique combination. (It's a crap shoot as to which argument you'll get on any given day... )
Fringe reset cycle up already?
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)
LSSBB 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 11th November 2012, 11:59 AM   #21
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
tfk,
Oh, yawwwwwnnnn...

What's the nonsense gonna be this time...?

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
the Bazantian nonsense has been thoroughly debunked. Get over it. Not only that, but it's become entirely irrelevant.
The angry little truthers, not ONE of whom has taken his/her very first freshman structural engineering class, have "thoroughly debunked" one of the most experienced, most accomplished structural engineers in the world on the topic of structural engineering...

Sure thing, ergo. And you also kicked LeBron James' ass in basketball, whipped Mike Tyson's ass, and taught John Bacher everything he knew about climbing.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
You also have been debunked, right here on JREF, several times over, by Tony Szamboti. That you don't realize it is not really anyone else's problem.
Yep. Sure thing.

I've been debunked by Tony ...

"... a stationary object has accelerated to near-light speed ..."
"... multiplying by the length is the same as dividing by the width ..."
"... the Factor of Safety of a building is the same in its 'as built' state as it is after a passenger jet flies into it, & even after it starts to collapse ..."
"... A decrease in velocity is not an acceleration ..."

... Szamboti.

And verified as debunked by an expert like you.

How will I ever get over the shame ...?!

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
This forum seems to be dead.
Yup, that seems to be true.

Truthers haven't brought one new thing in about 3 years, and not a single NIST conclusion has been refuted in the same amount of time.

I'd say "dead as a door nail".

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I guess the intelligent posters here realize the futility of arguing with people who beliebe either that ..."
Your "beliebes" are and amusing combination of a) your own business, b) q bunch of laughable, wild speculation unsubstantiated by any facts, and c) paranoia.

You're welcome to them.
tfk 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 11th November 2012, 01:17 PM   #22
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
tfk, the Bazantian nonsense has been thoroughly debunked. Get over it. Not only that, but it's become entirely irrelevant.

You also have been debunked, right here on JREF, several times over, by Tony Szamboti. That you don't realize it is not really anyone else's problem.

This forum seems to be dead. I guess the intelligent posters here realize the futility of arguing with people who beliebe either that a) steel-framed highrises routinely plummet to the street from upper floor damage, or b) that there was something really special about the plane crashes and the terrorists and the fires on 9/11 that caused this special and unusual destruction of not two, but three buildings, and it would probably only happen again if it involved just that unique combination. (It's a crap shoot as to which argument you'll get on any given day... )
Oh, good, you're back. Did you bring usanything ne-

Oh.

Baseless incredulity, unbacked claims, straw men, and fifth-grade sardonicism.

So "no", then.
000063 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 11th November 2012, 01:19 PM   #23
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by tfk View Post

Sure thing, ergo. And you also kicked LeBron James' ass in basketball, whipped Mike Tyson's ass, and taught John Bacher everything he knew about climbing.
Not LeBron. Shaq.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
000063 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 11th November 2012, 07:22 PM   #24
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
JM has written that he wants our communication to be confidential. That way he doesn't have to worry about insulting people. I told him to not write anything that he wouldn't want the other person to hear.

I do this to pass on info, so all of the 9/11 stuff we discuss will get posted. I will strip out all personal info.

One very pertinent piece of info is that, as expected, JM has no engineering background.

Another is that he is polite, and I will reciprocate.

Here is my reply to his posting re: Grabbe's letter to JEM and Bazant.

My comments are in bold.

My abject apologies for the length horrible readability. iPads are not meant for text composition.
.


TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2012
[Saturday, Nov. 10, 2012]

One Thing Wrong and A Lot of Things Right
[Almost everything wrong]
Posted by John-Michael P. Talboo

PhD Physicist Crockett Grabbe was recently published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Engineering Mechanics, disputing the the pile-driver or crush-down theory in which the tops of the Towers act as giant sledgehammers [No, simply a large amounts of mass] put forward by engineer Zdenek Bazant. One reason I bring this up, is to express my agreement with debunkers that his claim that the South Tower's "top segment... initially collapses at an acceleration rate more than four as large as that of gravity," is untenable. [This is simply an assertion, which happens to be correct. Nonetheless, you need to provide a reason for it.] That said, Grabbe's stated goals in his paper includes three other solid points [Nope. Erroneous points.]. Outlining his goals, Grabbe writes:

First is their assertion about implications of their collapse model for the South Tower. [Incomplete thought makes no sense.] Second is the very inadequate amount of energy expended in their gravitational collapse model, including the claimed ease of breaking through and demolishing each floor that they assert in explaining the smooth collapse, in contrast to independent calculations of the total energy expended in the observed collapses. [B&Z are right. The only components that need to be fractured in order to collapse each floor are around 1000 5/8" - 1" diameter bolts & about 500 small welds. Very little energy required, compared to that available.] Third is an underlying 1-dimensional (1D) assumption in the equations used to model the collapse in this paper and in previous papers it references. Shortcomings of this 1D model seriously challenge its validity, and thus that of the "crush-down, crush-up" model of gravitational collapse for the calculations they present. [Wrong. My sense of the magnitude of the various effects tells me that the 1D model is perfectly satisfactory. If the Gravitational Potential energy (GPE) available was on the order only of 1 - 3 times required to cause collapse, then I'd say that a 2D or 3D model might be required. But the available energies are on the order of 30 times greater than what is required. There might be a 10 - 50% energy loss in mass tilted out of plumb with footprint of towers. Other losses are accounted for in B&Z's model, as they explain in their response.] Fourth is a challenge to their broad claim that all objections have been shown invalid. [Wrong. B&Z have addressed all the challenges that have been posted to them.]

Before getting into his other three points, I think it important to note that "debunkers" who bashed the Bentham journal for bad peer-review, should be doing the same here if they don't want to be hypocritical. In doing so, however, does that not put the peer-review of Bazant's papers in question as well? As Jim Hoffman at the website 911research.wtc7.net pointed out, "Bazant must be a super-genius to understand how two skyscrapers could crush themselves to rubble, a newly observed behaviour for steel structures, and write a paper about it in just two days." [This comment makes Hoffman look like both a punk & an idiot. I invite you to review CAREFULLY Bazant's resume on his Northwestern U website. Read about his expertise. Hoffman has ZERO background in structural engineering. His is Computer Visualization. Hoffman don't know ****. Bazant is likely the world's foremost expert on very large structure collapse. Bazant didn't have to learn anything in those 48 hours. He had written many books on exactly this type of collapse over the course of about 30 years.] This paper was also published, and apparently reviewed, in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics during those 48 hours. [No it was not. Your research skill are "less than competent".] Juxtapose this with the fact that Bazant's theory has been challenged, not once, twice, but three times, and likely a fourth time, with a paper coming from mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti, [Szamboti is an incompetent boob, who has precisely zero experience as a structural engineer, in spite of what he'll claim. I'll tell you about some of the bonehead delusions if you want to know. And I'll show you EXACTLY where his "missing jolt" stupidity falls on its face. Just like I've told him a dozen times.] You will not in that same journal and you have a good a priori case that Bazant is wrong, but we won't rely on that, just saying. [You don't have anything of the sort. 5 incompetent amateurs versus the world's foremost authority. Your claim is beyond dumb.]

While addressing his second stated goal in the paper, Grabbe writes:
...Independent calculations of the energy expended in the collapses of the Towers have produced estimates of that expenditure to be at least 25MgH or more.[Hoffman, 1983] [Hoffman's calculations are wrong & incompetent.] This implies that the "crush-up, crush-down" model cannot begin to account for the energy expended in the WTC collapses -- indeed, from the maximum energy expenditure claimed in Le and Bazant's paper, over a factor of 100. [Laughably wrong. 3 orders of magnitude wrong.] Hoffman identified energy being expended for crushing the concrete. heating the concrete and the suspended gases, and vaporization of the water. [Vaporization of water did not happen. Proof: no parboiled New Yorkers on 9/11.] Any rough validity to these energy expenditure calculations would imply that these collapses cannot be caused by fire-induced gravitational collapse as Le and Bazant presume in this paper. [But there is no "rough validity". The calculations are ludicrous.]

Hoffman is arguably one of the most well respected 9/11 researchers ever ["Most respected 9/11 (CT) researcher"?? Respected by whom? Truthers?? That's the same as the "most respected flat earth geologist". It's called "damned by faint praise." Hoffman's an idiot by virtue of bloviating outside of his field, and is one of those consummately annoying individuals who thinks that talking fast means he's smart. Fast talking, while uttering stupid comments, equals not-particularly-bright person.] due to his careful nature, so there is indeed a reason to believe that there is at least a rough validity to his calculations [Nope, wrong. No validity whatsoever.], even though his work on this topic is incomplete. [Not "incomplete". "Wrong".] Hoffman's page "Volume of Dust Clouds Proves Demolition" notes:

At least one academic paper has attempted to explain the rapidity of the collapses by promoting a questionably applicable mathematical model alleged to predict a nearly frictionless total collapse. Since that model has each tower neatly pulling itself down at near the speed of free-fall, there would be very little heat produced to drive the dust cloud expansion.
The academic paper cited is by Bazant and is reproduced in full at that link with refutations added in red colored text throughout. [Bazant is an expert. Hoffman is an incompetent amateur. Why do you constantly believe amateurs over experts, JM? That ain't particularly smart.]

Addressing his third stated goal in the paper, Grabbe writes:
1D equation cannot model the Towers collapses correctly, because the horizontal dimension is very important in the physics of those collapses. [This is a completely BS argument. In innumerable areas of engineering, 1D models are used to simulate 2D & 3D objects, and those models frequently provide completely satisfactory (read "sufficiently accurate") results. Other times, 1D models fail. The proper way to determine whether or not the simpler model is adequate is to execute the 2D &/or 3D models, and to observe whether or not the predicted results change significantly.

My "feel for the magnitude of the effects" says Grabbe is full of crap on this claim, and that the models will not diverge significantly.

It's Grabbe's claim, so it's his job to produce the 2D or 3D models, submit it to some demonstratably competent, unbiased professional so that it gets examined in detail, and thereby SHOW that there is a difference in the results predicted by the 1D vs the 2D & 3D analyses.

Having seen Grabbe's offerings, I have zero expectation that he CAN do this, much less that he WILL do it.

Bazant says that the 1D model is sufficiently accurate. Since he has gone thru this same exercise hundreds of times, I'm inclined to trust his (and my) judgment.

Nonetheless, I'd be willing to bet that if he were able to produce a competent model, that it will show that the 2D & 3D results are minimally distinguishable from the 1D model. Meaning, all 3 models (1D, 2D & 3D) will show collapse with comparable energy margins.] This includes the squibs [They ain't "squibs". They are PROVABLY air overpressures
.] repeatedly shooting out in this horizontal dimension, the South Tower's top segment making a sudden shift in the horizontal direction in its collapse [I have massive doubts that Grabbe could possibly have proven this, due to obscuring debris clouds. But even if he did, 3 - 6 floors' columns buckled. There is absolutely nothing surprising about either the top tilting or the bottom of the upper block sliding to the side. And it would only a minuscule portion of the available GPE to do so], very large pieces hurled out from of both Towers having considerable momentum and kinetic energy in this horizontal dimension [This is largely wrong. The amount of energy required, after shearing their retaining bolts, by the vast majority of the outer columns that fell 100s of feet from the base of the tower was - are you ready? - ZERO. No energy at all. Do you know why? I do, because I understand mechanics, work & energy. Lacking that background, I'd bet that you do not understand why. Grabbe SHOULD understand. Apparently, he does not.]. There are large streams shooting out in the horizontal dimension with large debris coming out from the Towers -- not only with a downward component, but also an upward component in the case of the North Tower. [Upward component highly doubtful, and unproven by anything that I've seen from him.] These effects are all neglected in a 1D model [wrong. they are not neglected. In Bazant's BLGB paper, energy sinks for lateral ejections of both gas & materials was included. "The resisting upward forces due to pulverization and to ejection of air, dust and solid fragments, neglected in previous studies, are found to be indeed negligible during the first few seconds of collapse but not insignificant near the end of crush-down." - BLGB. Grabbe doesn't research or read very well.], yet they are very important processes in the Towers collapses. ["Imports]

"Debunkers" do not think these processes are important. Here is a page that I and a few others authored at AE911Truth debunking several claims of "debunkers" relating to squibs. [Who cares what a bunch of amateurs "author"?? No professionals care.] Included is the fact that calculations performed by Grabbe show that the horizontal ejection rate of the squibs is disproportional to the floor and debris descent speeds that are allegedly responsible for them. One point not in the article, is one made by blog contributor Adam Taylor. In his video, "9/11 Smoking Guns: The Squibs," he demonstrates that a squib in the South Tower that appears approximately 40 stories below the demolition wave, forms approximately 3 seconds into the collapse. If something was falling through the building to cause the squib, as "debunkers" have claimed, it would have to be falling faster than gravitational freefall, which is impossible. [Neither Taylor nor you, JM, have any clue about the processes involved. The pressure wave from the collapsing upper section travels at over 5000'/sec, even tho the upper block travels much, much slower. The pressure wave from the collapse of WTC2, flying thru underground tunnels connecting the two towers, blew fire fighters in the stairwells of WTC1 off of their feet & is seen to BLOW SMOKE out of the top floors of WTC1 during its collapse. If you'd bothered to read the NIST report, you would have seen this rather interesting fact.]

As to the South Tower's shift, Jim Hoffman writes:

The sudden slowing of the rotation of the South Tower's upper 30-story block as it disappeared into the burgeoning explosion is the basis for a particularly obvious disproof of the collapse theory. The top began to topple at an accelerating rate, rotating about 20 degrees in two seconds so that its roof overhung its base by at least 80 feet at one point. Why, instead of toppling off of the base, did it telescope into the base? [Hoffman doesn't understand the TRIVIALLY SIMPLE principle of mechanics explaining why the top didn't topple to the side. He is failing at high school level mechanics. And yet, he's got the misplaced temerity to think that he can "dismantle" either Bazant or Mackey. It'd be tragic if it weren't so darn funny.]

He then goes on to refute "debunker" Ryan Mackey on this point: [Hoffman couldn't refute Mackey's jockstrap. The only reason that Hoffman's sycophants believe that he possesses the knowledge to refute either Bazant or Mackey is that they (including you, JM) are even more clueless than Hoffman.]
In Mackey's tortured scenario, the columns on the east side of the Tower -- those directly under the center of mass of the rotating and falling top -- were somehow able to catch the top and impart the force necessary to reverse the rotation. [This is gibberish. A competent freshman calculus student understands that "slowing down the angular acceleration" is completely different than "revers[ing] the rotation", in the same way that "accelerating slower" means that a vehicle is still increasing in speed, not that it is slowing down.

Mackey's argument is valid. There is an obvious restoring force, but obvious only if you understand the difference between angular acceleration and angular velocity. Hoffman either doesn't understand it, or chooses to mis-portray it.

That said, all of this is utterly irrelevant. Hoffman's assertion that any aspect of the angular acceleration or angular velocity of the upper block can be used to distinguish a CD from a damage & fire based collapse is unsupported by any argument that he has provided. Like you, JM, he merely makes assertions. And this one is pretty damn funny.
] That implies that the columns on the far side and the core -- which, being offset from the top's center of mass, would apply increasing torque to accelerate the top's rotation as it toppled -- had somehow ceased to interact with the top. If that were true, why didn't the west perimeter wall, unscathed by the top, remain standing -- why was it erased like the rest of the Tower's base in such a systematic top-down fashion? [More gibberish. A reversing torque requires only that the integrated resisting force to the east of the CG be LARGER THAN the same force to the west of the CG, not that the resisting force of the west wall be zero.]

Mackey's theory, though incredibly far fetched [I have zero expectation, after my reading of Hoffman's attempt to debunk Mackey, that Hoffman understands Mackey's arguments, much less that he could state them accurately.], may be the best that collapse theory supporters can offer. The behavior of the South Tower's top so clearly reveals that the top and bottom sections were disconnected [Disconnected? The top & bottom sections of the building were trying to occupy the same 3D space. While the column assemblies were fractured, the crushed layer was intertwining with both the top block & the bottom one.] -- i.e., there was no crush zone [Of course there was a crush zone. What on earth makes you think that there possibly could NOT have been a crush zone??] -- that even grade-school children quickly grasp this proof of demolition. [Grade schoolers, truthers & ex-medical professionals may grasp what you say. Now lets see you convince some mechanical engineer other than the agenda-driven Tony Szamboti. I don't know … say … how about … uh, me.]

As to the "very large pieces hurled out from of both Towers having considerable momentum and kinetic energy"consider this beam: [You mean the beam that is dropping pretty much right beside the tower? The one that has, on first crude exam, about ZERO lateral velocity? Where did it's lateral velocity go, JM?]

As blog contributor Scootle Royale wrote:

...It was somewhere between 6.7 and 6.8 seconds. The north tower was 417 meters tall, and WTC7 was 186 meters tall, so the distance between the two roofs was about 230 meters. The amount of time it would take to freefall that distance in a vaccum is about 6.85 seconds. So even if this beam was dropped from the height of the roof of the north tower [What is Scootie's expertise, if you don't mind my asking. Regardless, ole Scottie sounds like a pretty dim bulb. You ain't exhibiting much luminosity yourself, JM, by being impressed by his nonsense. What on earth makes him think that the beam was dropped from "the roof of the North Tower"?? The destruction was happening about 12 - 18 floors below the roof. Why on earth is he pulling some wild assed guess as to where & when it started its fall, rather than doing a simple tracking of the CG of the object to see what it's height would have been if it had started at a zero vertical velocity. It ain't hard to calculate.] at the exact moment the tower started to collapse, it still wouldn't have reached the roof of WTC7 in under 6.8 seconds. Put simply, this steel beam had to have been falling significantly faster than freefall. [Wrong.] Obviously this is impossible unless it was launched downwards by something, such as an explosion. [Amazing. A silent explosion. Hush-a-booms. Nope, still wrong.]

Addressing his fourth stated goal, which relates to the third, Grabbe writes:
Finally, I challenge Le and Bazant's statement at the beginning of their paper where they say "All the objections of the proponents of the controlled-demolition hypothesis have been shown invalid." In particular, that is not correct in their response to the recent comment by Bjorkman (Bjorkman, 2010; Bazant et al, 2010). [Bjorkman…?? The insufferable fool who claims that, even if a moon sized object fell from 2 miles above the towers, they STILL would not have been crushed. The insufferable fool who is too cowardly to answer any direct questions. The Insurance Adjuster ho claims to be a mechanical engineer. Do yourselves a favor. Go for an upgrade. See if you can get Charlie Sheen instead of Bjorkman. Charlie may be exactly as clueless as Bjorkman, but he'd be a lot more fun to deal with.] Commentor Bjorkman challenges the validity of the 1D model based on observations, as well as on an earlier critique by MacQueen [Religious Studies Professor of Structural Engineering??] and Szamboti (2009) [Szamboti. A mechanical engineer who thinks that an object that has been sitting stationary for 30 years has really accelerated to near-light speed…!! A mechanical engineer who is SECOND AUTHOR to a Religious Studies professor on a paper whose subject is kinetics. Why do you choose to believe these clueless idiots??]. Bjorkman states that equations are not needed to see from observations that Le and Bazant's model is wrong. Le and Bazant disagree with that, responding that equations are vital. [Bjorkman is cluelessly wrong, and just plain clueless. B & L are right. Simple.] However, questions of the collapse of the Towers are at least 2D because of important features observed in the horizontal direction. Le and Bazant's 1D gravitational equations for that analysis are not adequate, and they cannot counter Bjorkman's objection unless they present a quantative model of the Tower that is at least 2D in their equations of motion. [Here, YOU don't know what you're talking about. If you are going to make this claim, then it's up to you to prove it. I'll give you a big hint. Bjorkman is no more able to prove it than you are.]

As to observations being sufficient to disprove the Bazant model, blog contributor Steve Weathers [and what, pray tell, is Steve's background & experience?], included the following picture in his partial repost of Bjorkman's page, "WTC 1 - The Obvious Case Against the Collapse/Crush Down Hypothesis - Debunking the Conspiracy Theories of Prof. Bazant and NIST." Steve notes that, "There is no upper block crushing the lower sections- it's been obliterated. [And please explain… What gives Steve the ability to see thru that opaque cloud of debris to see the "obliterated upper block". Is he really Superman? Does he have x-ray vision? PS. Mass is never "obliterated", except in nuclear explosions.] Furthermore gravity alone will not cause the debris to be thrown out laterally as is seen. [Correct, "gravity alone" will not do that. But gravity, combined with collisions with objects below, and hurricane force winds being ejected laterally will do EXACTLY what is seen there. Have you never seen the comedian Gallagher with his Sledge-o-matic? Gravity, breakable objects & collisions.] Where is that pile-driving mass ? [Right behind the opaque cloud that Steve pretends to see thru.] It does not exist. [Utterly laughable. The mass existed BEFORE the building began to collapse. The mass existed AFTER the building collapsed. (They had to truck it over to Fresh Kills.) But you assert that, while you can't see the mass behind a cloud, it suddenly ceases to exist. Pretty dang funny, JM.] The building here is being ripped apart by forces other than gravity."


Furthermore, Bjorkman provides the following: [Find somebody with some engineering credibility, wouldja, JM. Please. Paris Hilton would be a MAJOR step up compared to Bjorkman because Paris doesn't think she knows what she's talking about.]


Fig. 5 - from [2] - Upper part C roof line downward displacement versus time. The curve is very smooth. If Upper part C had really "crushed down" 9 or 13 intact storeys below into Part B - Rubble/debris, the curve should be staggered! The smooth curve suggests that Upper part C is simply removed in a computer animation.

Scootle affirmed the above point by making speed-time graphs of the motion of four different verinage demolitions, where the columns on the central floors are weakened to crush the bottom section. [Verinage of a 10 story, traditional construction (i.e., not 1 acre tube within tube skyscraper) building is completely irrelevant to the collapse of the twin towers. If Scootie had the slightest clue about structural engineering, he would IMMEDIATELY recognize this fact. Clearly, since he did NOT recognize this fact … well, I'll let you finish the thought.], The first three were tracked at an angle, however, he notes that "in all three cases there's an initial acceleration and then upon impact the acceleration abruptly ceases and a deceleration trend begins. This is exactly what we would expect using basic physics and common sense." The fourth was tracked from a great frontal view: [All irrelevant.]

And here's an After Effects speed-time plot...
[Wasted your time.]


Can't get much clearer than that really!
[I couldn't agree with you more. Totally clear. That neither you nor Scootie have a clue about structural load paths.]

In comparison Scootle mapped out the North Tower and provided the following:

Three points were tracked. This was a bit more difficult because of the smoke. The graph below is of all three tracks together.

I think that's pretty clear! Just like Chandlers' analysis and MacQueen & Szamboti's analysis, my tracks have produced a reasonably straight line. For at least two seconds the north tower accelerated constantly, further proof of the lack of jolt. [There are lots of little jolts that your techniques are simply far too crude to see. There is zero expectation that there would be any large jolts. Szamboti knows where he's screwing up. He's been told about 500 times. He simply refuses to admit it. Do YOU know where he's screwing up, JM?]

The three [four] Verinage demolitions are perhaps the closest real-world examples we have for comparison to the North Tower [LMAO. No They are not in the slightest appropriate real world comparisons to either Towers' collapse.], and they clearly behave differently. [Yep, they sure do. Because the structure of the buildings is different, the initiation is completely different, and the ratios of structural toughness to available impact energy is way, WAY different. Other than that…] The fact remains that what happened to the north tower was unprecedented, regardless of how much you wanna exaggerate the tilt! [No, what happened to the North Tower had a precedent right next door about 1/2 hour earlier. It now seems clear & consistent: in the only two examples of large passenger jets flown into steel tube-within-tube skyscrapers with blown on insulation, the buildings collapsed. That is exactly why we will never again see skyscrapers built in this fashion, with this inherent flaw vis a vis murderous terrorists. As a fine example, look at the completely different design of the Freedom Tower just constructed on the WTC7 site.]

Bazant et al. did author a Closure, which Bjorkman called "the most shameful Closure in structural damage analysis history" in his response. Is he right? [Bjorkman's a fool. Bazant is a world class engineer. One of the best. Why do you consort with fools, JM?] Well, his response also included a challenge that puts his money where his mouth is, offering 10,000 Euro to anyone who can "come up with some other type of structure that really can collapse from top down," when the mass of part C is 1/9 the mass of part A. [You're not very up on current events, are ya, JM? Bjorkman didn't originate this idea. He stole it from James Randi, who has had his "million dollar challenge" for about 30 years. Bjorkman decided to imitate Randi, and announced his million dollar wager 2.5 years ago. See "The Heiwa Challenge" over at randi.org. Randi put his money into a secure account outside of his own control, to be awarded on the objective completion of specific tasks. Bjorkman was asked to do the same. Bjorkman refused. There is zero evidence that he ever had that money to pay off the bet. It is certain that, as the only judge, he never had any intent of paying off. Now you're telling me that he has dropped the amount by a factor or 120?? He is 120x LESS SURE now than he was 2 years ago?? Some truther champion you got there.]


If his opponents cannot find a way to collect the money offered, [There is a massive flaw in Bjorkman's Challenge. Something that makes it crucially different than the towers when they collapsed. Lets see if you can figure it out.] then it is certainly possible that they have written "the most shameful Closure in structural damage analysis history." [Bazant wrote a simple, compelling reply to Bjorkman that dismantled Bjorkman's nonsense. The fact that you don't understand Bazant's points makes them not one iotsa less compelling.] Here is the only attempt I'm aware of thus far:

[Now let's see if you can pick out the errors in Cole's video. I can.
Let's see if you can pick out the absolutely ludicrous, disqualifying aspects of Cole's use of concrete blocks as a model for the Twin Towers. I can.
]

As Bjorkman noted, "A heavy disc on a pin that breaks the weak fastenings of other discs to same pin is not a collapse of anything. The only things broken are the weak fastenings while the discs and the pin remain intact, the discs having displaced a little. [Ummmm… as Bjorkman noted: "A moon size object falling from two miles could not have crushed the towers." So much for anything that Bjorkman "notes".]

This experiment with concrete blocks is much more representative:

Even this egg experiment is more representative than the first above:
[Perhaps concrete block & egg drop experiments are "representative of the Twin Towers collapses to you, an ex-medical professional. But I carry an extra burden that you do not: knowledge of fundamental mechanical engineering principles. This burden forces me to laugh uproariously when I see these "experiments". Perhaps you could tell me the simple principle which renders these models ludicrous, and renders the conclusions derived from them both wrong & absurd.]

It is not lost on me one iota that I have made a bunch of simple assertions in my reply to you. That was NOT an accident or an oversight.

Every single one of my statements above is exactly true. I've intentionally left out the "why", in imitation of YOUR style of "simply making assertions".

Annoying, ain't it?!!

The second reason that I did so is that I have no inclination to take you by the hand & walk you thru 11 years of CT conspiracy BS. That is NOT my job.

But here is the gift that I will offer you. You get to pick out any 3 items in my list above, and I will explain to you exactly where your CT source is wrong, and I am right. (I will give you an exact explanation, with the minimal amount of math required to get the explanation across. Whether you understand what I write or not is your problem, not mine. I will freely elaborate on any point with which you have a problem.

However, once you have chosen your 3, that decision is final. So choose carefully.

Now, you please explain to me what it means to you about ALL the CT BS that you've quoted, IF it turns out that 3 out of 3 of your "Debunking the Debunker" points turns out to be flat out wrong.

I won't provide you with ANY answers until you answer this question.

Regards,


Tom

Last edited by tfk; 11th November 2012 at 07:26 PM.
tfk 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 12th November 2012, 11:20 AM   #25
swright777
Muse
 
swright777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 897
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
...
Tony, thinks CD, he has no evidence. 911 truth, failed fantasy.
...
I think you're giving Tony too much credit.
swright777 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 12th November 2012, 01:08 PM   #26
Starving for Truth
Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 194
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
jm has written that he wants our communication to be confidential. That way he doesn't have to worry about insulting people. I told him to not write anything that he wouldn't want the other person to hear.

I do this to pass on info, so all of the 9/11 stuff we discuss will get posted. I will strip out all personal info.

One very pertinent piece of info is that, as expected, jm has no engineering background.

Another is that he is polite, and i will reciprocate.

Here is my reply to his posting re: Grabbe's letter to jem and bazant.

My comments are in bold.

My abject apologies for the length horrible readability. Ipads are not meant for text composition.
.


Tuesday, november 6, 2012
[saturday, nov. 10, 2012]

one thing wrong and a lot of things right
[almost everything wrong]
posted by john-michael p. Talboo

phd physicist crockett grabbe was recently published in the peer-reviewed journal of engineering mechanics, disputing the the pile-driver or crush-down theory in which the tops of the towers act as giant sledgehammers [no, simply a large amounts of mass] put forward by engineer zdenek bazant. One reason i bring this up, is to express my agreement with debunkers that his claim that the south tower's "top segment... Initially collapses at an acceleration rate more than four as large as that of gravity," is untenable. [this is simply an assertion, which happens to be correct. Nonetheless, you need to provide a reason for it.] that said, grabbe's stated goals in his paper includes three other solid points [nope. Erroneous points.]. Outlining his goals, grabbe writes:

First is their assertion about implications of their collapse model for the south tower. [incomplete thought makes no sense.] second is the very inadequate amount of energy expended in their gravitational collapse model, including the claimed ease of breaking through and demolishing each floor that they assert in explaining the smooth collapse, in contrast to independent calculations of the total energy expended in the observed collapses. [b&z are right. The only components that need to be fractured in order to collapse each floor are around 1000 5/8" - 1" diameter bolts & about 500 small welds. Very little energy required, compared to that available.] third is an underlying 1-dimensional (1d) assumption in the equations used to model the collapse in this paper and in previous papers it references. Shortcomings of this 1d model seriously challenge its validity, and thus that of the "crush-down, crush-up" model of gravitational collapse for the calculations they present. [wrong. My sense of the magnitude of the various effects tells me that the 1d model is perfectly satisfactory. If the gravitational potential energy (gpe) available was on the order only of 1 - 3 times required to cause collapse, then i'd say that a 2d or 3d model might be required. But the available energies are on the order of 30 times greater than what is required. There might be a 10 - 50% energy loss in mass tilted out of plumb with footprint of towers. Other losses are accounted for in b&z's model, as they explain in their response.] fourth is a challenge to their broad claim that all objections have been shown invalid. [wrong. B&z have addressed all the challenges that have been posted to them.]

before getting into his other three points, i think it important to note that "debunkers" who bashed the bentham journal for bad peer-review, should be doing the same here if they don't want to be hypocritical. In doing so, however, does that not put the peer-review of bazant's papers in question as well? As jim hoffman at the website 911research.wtc7.net pointed out, "bazant must be a super-genius to understand how two skyscrapers could crush themselves to rubble, a newly observed behaviour for steel structures, and write a paper about it in just two days." [this comment makes hoffman look like both a punk & an idiot. I invite you to review carefully bazant's resume on his northwestern u website. Read about his expertise. Hoffman has zero background in structural engineering. His is computer visualization. Hoffman don't know ****. Bazant is likely the world's foremost expert on very large structure collapse. Bazant didn't have to learn anything in those 48 hours. He had written many books on exactly this type of collapse over the course of about 30 years.] this paper was also published, and apparently reviewed, in the journal of engineering mechanics during those 48 hours. [no it was not. Your research skill are "less than competent".] juxtapose this with the fact that bazant's theory has been challenged, not once, twice, but three times, and likely a fourth time, with a paper coming from mechanical engineer tony szamboti, [szamboti is an incompetent boob, who has precisely zero experience as a structural engineer, in spite of what he'll claim. I'll tell you about some of the bonehead delusions if you want to know. And i'll show you exactly where his "missing jolt" stupidity falls on its face. Just like i've told him a dozen times.] you will not in that same journal and you have a good a priori case that bazant is wrong, but we won't rely on that, just saying. [you don't have anything of the sort. 5 incompetent amateurs versus the world's foremost authority. Your claim is beyond dumb.]

while addressing his second stated goal in the paper, grabbe writes:
...independent calculations of the energy expended in the collapses of the towers have produced estimates of that expenditure to be at least 25mgh or more.[hoffman, 1983] [hoffman's calculations are wrong & incompetent.] this implies that the "crush-up, crush-down" model cannot begin to account for the energy expended in the wtc collapses -- indeed, from the maximum energy expenditure claimed in le and bazant's paper, over a factor of 100. [laughably wrong. 3 orders of magnitude wrong.] hoffman identified energy being expended for crushing the concrete. Heating the concrete and the suspended gases, and vaporization of the water. [vaporization of water did not happen. Proof: No parboiled new yorkers on 9/11.] any rough validity to these energy expenditure calculations would imply that these collapses cannot be caused by fire-induced gravitational collapse as le and bazant presume in this paper. [but there is no "rough validity". The calculations are ludicrous.]

hoffman is arguably one of the most well respected 9/11 researchers ever ["most respected 9/11 (ct) researcher"?? Respected by whom? Truthers?? That's the same as the "most respected flat earth geologist". It's called "damned by faint praise." hoffman's an idiot by virtue of bloviating outside of his field, and is one of those consummately annoying individuals who thinks that talking fast means he's smart. Fast talking, while uttering stupid comments, equals not-particularly-bright person.] due to his careful nature, so there is indeed a reason to believe that there is at least a rough validity to his calculations [nope, wrong. No validity whatsoever.], even though his work on this topic is incomplete. [not "incomplete". "wrong".] hoffman's page "volume of dust clouds proves demolition" notes:

At least one academic paper has attempted to explain the rapidity of the collapses by promoting a questionably applicable mathematical model alleged to predict a nearly frictionless total collapse. Since that model has each tower neatly pulling itself down at near the speed of free-fall, there would be very little heat produced to drive the dust cloud expansion.
The academic paper cited is by bazant and is reproduced in full at that link with refutations added in red colored text throughout. [bazant is an expert. Hoffman is an incompetent amateur. Why do you constantly believe amateurs over experts, jm? That ain't particularly smart.]

addressing his third stated goal in the paper, grabbe writes:
1d equation cannot model the towers collapses correctly, because the horizontal dimension is very important in the physics of those collapses. [this is a completely bs argument. In innumerable areas of engineering, 1d models are used to simulate 2d & 3d objects, and those models frequently provide completely satisfactory (read "sufficiently accurate") results. Other times, 1d models fail. The proper way to determine whether or not the simpler model is adequate is to execute the 2d &/or 3d models, and to observe whether or not the predicted results change significantly.

My "feel for the magnitude of the effects" says grabbe is full of crap on this claim, and that the models will not diverge significantly.

It's grabbe's claim, so it's his job to produce the 2d or 3d models, submit it to some demonstratably competent, unbiased professional so that it gets examined in detail, and thereby show that there is a difference in the results predicted by the 1d vs the 2d & 3d analyses.

Having seen grabbe's offerings, i have zero expectation that he can do this, much less that he will do it.

Bazant says that the 1d model is sufficiently accurate. Since he has gone thru this same exercise hundreds of times, i'm inclined to trust his (and my) judgment.

Nonetheless, i'd be willing to bet that if he were able to produce a competent model, that it will show that the 2d & 3d results are minimally distinguishable from the 1d model. Meaning, all 3 models (1d, 2d & 3d) will show collapse with comparable energy margins.] this includes the squibs [they ain't "squibs". They are provably air overpressures
.] repeatedly shooting out in this horizontal dimension, the south tower's top segment making a sudden shift in the horizontal direction in its collapse [i have massive doubts that grabbe could possibly have proven this, due to obscuring debris clouds. But even if he did, 3 - 6 floors' columns buckled. There is absolutely nothing surprising about either the top tilting or the bottom of the upper block sliding to the side. And it would only a minuscule portion of the available gpe to do so], very large pieces hurled out from of both towers having considerable momentum and kinetic energy in this horizontal dimension [this is largely wrong. The amount of energy required, after shearing their retaining bolts, by the vast majority of the outer columns that fell 100s of feet from the base of the tower was - are you ready? - zero. No energy at all. Do you know why? I do, because i understand mechanics, work & energy. Lacking that background, i'd bet that you do not understand why. Grabbe should understand. Apparently, he does not.]. There are large streams shooting out in the horizontal dimension with large debris coming out from the towers -- not only with a downward component, but also an upward component in the case of the north tower. [upward component highly doubtful, and unproven by anything that i've seen from him.] these effects are all neglected in a 1d model [wrong. They are not neglected. In bazant's blgb paper, energy sinks for lateral ejections of both gas & materials was included. "the resisting upward forces due to pulverization and to ejection of air, dust and solid fragments, neglected in previous studies, are found to be indeed negligible during the first few seconds of collapse but not insignificant near the end of crush-down." - blgb. Grabbe doesn't research or read very well.], yet they are very important processes in the towers collapses. ["imports]

"debunkers" do not think these processes are important. Here is a page that i and a few others authored at ae911truth debunking several claims of "debunkers" relating to squibs. [who cares what a bunch of amateurs "author"?? No professionals care.] included is the fact that calculations performed by grabbe show that the horizontal ejection rate of the squibs is disproportional to the floor and debris descent speeds that are allegedly responsible for them. One point not in the article, is one made by blog contributor adam taylor. In his video, "9/11 smoking guns: The squibs," he demonstrates that a squib in the south tower that appears approximately 40 stories below the demolition wave, forms approximately 3 seconds into the collapse. If something was falling through the building to cause the squib, as "debunkers" have claimed, it would have to be falling faster than gravitational freefall, which is impossible. [neither taylor nor you, jm, have any clue about the processes involved. The pressure wave from the collapsing upper section travels at over 5000'/sec, even tho the upper block travels much, much slower. The pressure wave from the collapse of wtc2, flying thru underground tunnels connecting the two towers, blew fire fighters in the stairwells of wtc1 off of their feet & is seen to blow smoke out of the top floors of wtc1 during its collapse. If you'd bothered to read the nist report, you would have seen this rather interesting fact.]

as to the south tower's shift, jim hoffman writes:

The sudden slowing of the rotation of the south tower's upper 30-story block as it disappeared into the burgeoning explosion is the basis for a particularly obvious disproof of the collapse theory. The top began to topple at an accelerating rate, rotating about 20 degrees in two seconds so that its roof overhung its base by at least 80 feet at one point. Why, instead of toppling off of the base, did it telescope into the base? [hoffman doesn't understand the trivially simple principle of mechanics explaining why the top didn't topple to the side. He is failing at high school level mechanics. And yet, he's got the misplaced temerity to think that he can "dismantle" either bazant or mackey. It'd be tragic if it weren't so darn funny.]

he then goes on to refute "debunker" ryan mackey on this point: [hoffman couldn't refute mackey's jockstrap. The only reason that hoffman's sycophants believe that he possesses the knowledge to refute either bazant or mackey is that they (including you, jm) are even more clueless than hoffman.]
in mackey's tortured scenario, the columns on the east side of the tower -- those directly under the center of mass of the rotating and falling top -- were somehow able to catch the top and impart the force necessary to reverse the rotation. [this is gibberish. A competent freshman calculus student understands that "slowing down the angular acceleration" is completely different than "revers[ing] the rotation", in the same way that "accelerating slower" means that a vehicle is still increasing in speed, not that it is slowing down.

Mackey's argument is valid. There is an obvious restoring force, but obvious only if you understand the difference between angular acceleration and angular velocity. Hoffman either doesn't understand it, or chooses to mis-portray it.

That said, all of this is utterly irrelevant. Hoffman's assertion that any aspect of the angular acceleration or angular velocity of the upper block can be used to distinguish a cd from a damage & fire based collapse is unsupported by any argument that he has provided. Like you, jm, he merely makes assertions. And this one is pretty damn funny.
] that implies that the columns on the far side and the core -- which, being offset from the top's center of mass, would apply increasing torque to accelerate the top's rotation as it toppled -- had somehow ceased to interact with the top. If that were true, why didn't the west perimeter wall, unscathed by the top, remain standing -- why was it erased like the rest of the tower's base in such a systematic top-down fashion? [more gibberish. A reversing torque requires only that the integrated resisting force to the east of the cg be larger than the same force to the west of the cg, not that the resisting force of the west wall be zero.]

mackey's theory, though incredibly far fetched [i have zero expectation, after my reading of hoffman's attempt to debunk mackey, that hoffman understands mackey's arguments, much less that he could state them accurately.], may be the best that collapse theory supporters can offer. The behavior of the south tower's top so clearly reveals that the top and bottom sections were disconnected [disconnected? The top & bottom sections of the building were trying to occupy the same 3d space. While the column assemblies were fractured, the crushed layer was intertwining with both the top block & the bottom one.] -- i.e., there was no crush zone [of course there was a crush zone. What on earth makes you think that there possibly could not have been a crush zone??] -- that even grade-school children quickly grasp this proof of demolition. [grade schoolers, truthers & ex-medical professionals may grasp what you say. Now lets see you convince some mechanical engineer other than the agenda-driven tony szamboti. I don't know … say … how about … uh, me.]

as to the "very large pieces hurled out from of both towers having considerable momentum and kinetic energy"consider this beam: [you mean the beam that is dropping pretty much right beside the tower? The one that has, on first crude exam, about zero lateral velocity? Where did it's lateral velocity go, jm?]

as blog contributor scootle royale wrote:

...it was somewhere between 6.7 and 6.8 seconds. The north tower was 417 meters tall, and wtc7 was 186 meters tall, so the distance between the two roofs was about 230 meters. The amount of time it would take to freefall that distance in a vaccum is about 6.85 seconds. So even if this beam was dropped from the height of the roof of the north tower [what is scootie's expertise, if you don't mind my asking. Regardless, ole scottie sounds like a pretty dim bulb. You ain't exhibiting much luminosity yourself, jm, by being impressed by his nonsense. What on earth makes him think that the beam was dropped from "the roof of the north tower"?? The destruction was happening about 12 - 18 floors below the roof. Why on earth is he pulling some wild assed guess as to where & when it started its fall, rather than doing a simple tracking of the cg of the object to see what it's height would have been if it had started at a zero vertical velocity. It ain't hard to calculate.] at the exact moment the tower started to collapse, it still wouldn't have reached the roof of wtc7 in under 6.8 seconds. Put simply, this steel beam had to have been falling significantly faster than freefall. [wrong.] obviously this is impossible unless it was launched downwards by something, such as an explosion. [amazing. A silent explosion. Hush-a-booms. Nope, still wrong.]

addressing his fourth stated goal, which relates to the third, grabbe writes:
Finally, i challenge le and bazant's statement at the beginning of their paper where they say "all the objections of the proponents of the controlled-demolition hypothesis have been shown invalid." in particular, that is not correct in their response to the recent comment by bjorkman (bjorkman, 2010; bazant et al, 2010). [bjorkman…?? The insufferable fool who claims that, even if a moon sized object fell from 2 miles above the towers, they still would not have been crushed. The insufferable fool who is too cowardly to answer any direct questions. The insurance adjuster ho claims to be a mechanical engineer. Do yourselves a favor. Go for an upgrade. See if you can get charlie sheen instead of bjorkman. Charlie may be exactly as clueless as bjorkman, but he'd be a lot more fun to deal with.] commentor bjorkman challenges the validity of the 1d model based on observations, as well as on an earlier critique by macqueen [religious studies professor of structural engineering??] and szamboti (2009) [szamboti. A mechanical engineer who thinks that an object that has been sitting stationary for 30 years has really accelerated to near-light speed…!! A mechanical engineer who is second author to a religious studies professor on a paper whose subject is kinetics. Why do you choose to believe these clueless idiots??]. Bjorkman states that equations are not needed to see from observations that le and bazant's model is wrong. Le and bazant disagree with that, responding that equations are vital. [bjorkman is cluelessly wrong, and just plain clueless. B & l are right. Simple.] however, questions of the collapse of the towers are at least 2d because of important features observed in the horizontal direction. Le and bazant's 1d gravitational equations for that analysis are not adequate, and they cannot counter bjorkman's objection unless they present a quantative model of the tower that is at least 2d in their equations of motion. [here, you don't know what you're talking about. If you are going to make this claim, then it's up to you to prove it. I'll give you a big hint. Bjorkman is no more able to prove it than you are.]

as to observations being sufficient to disprove the bazant model, blog contributor steve weathers [and what, pray tell, is steve's background & experience?], included the following picture in his partial repost of bjorkman's page, "wtc 1 - the obvious case against the collapse/crush down hypothesis - debunking the conspiracy theories of prof. Bazant and nist." steve notes that, "there is no upper block crushing the lower sections- it's been obliterated. [and please explain… what gives steve the ability to see thru that opaque cloud of debris to see the "obliterated upper block". Is he really superman? Does he have x-ray vision? Ps. Mass is never "obliterated", except in nuclear explosions.] furthermore gravity alone will not cause the debris to be thrown out laterally as is seen. [correct, "gravity alone" will not do that. But gravity, combined with collisions with objects below, and hurricane force winds being ejected laterally will do exactly what is seen there. Have you never seen the comedian gallagher with his sledge-o-matic? Gravity, breakable objects & collisions.] where is that pile-driving mass ? [right behind the opaque cloud that steve pretends to see thru.] it does not exist. [utterly laughable. The mass existed before the building began to collapse. The mass existed after the building collapsed. (they had to truck it over to fresh kills.) but you assert that, while you can't see the mass behind a cloud, it suddenly ceases to exist. Pretty dang funny, jm.] the building here is being ripped apart by forces other than gravity."


furthermore, bjorkman provides the following: [find somebody with some engineering credibility, wouldja, jm. Please. Paris hilton would be a major step up compared to bjorkman because paris doesn't think she knows what she's talking about.]


fig. 5 - from [2] - upper part c roof line downward displacement versus time. The curve is very smooth. If upper part c had really "crushed down" 9 or 13 intact storeys below into part b - rubble/debris, the curve should be staggered! The smooth curve suggests that upper part c is simply removed in a computer animation.

Scootle affirmed the above point by making speed-time graphs of the motion of four different verinage demolitions, where the columns on the central floors are weakened to crush the bottom section. [verinage of a 10 story, traditional construction (i.e., not 1 acre tube within tube skyscraper) building is completely irrelevant to the collapse of the twin towers. If scootie had the slightest clue about structural engineering, he would immediately recognize this fact. Clearly, since he did not recognize this fact … well, i'll let you finish the thought.], the first three were tracked at an angle, however, he notes that "in all three cases there's an initial acceleration and then upon impact the acceleration abruptly ceases and a deceleration trend begins. This is exactly what we would expect using basic physics and common sense." the fourth was tracked from a great frontal view: [all irrelevant.]

and here's an after effects speed-time plot...
[wasted your time.]


can't get much clearer than that really!
[i couldn't agree with you more. Totally clear. That neither you nor scootie have a clue about structural load paths.]

in comparison scootle mapped out the north tower and provided the following:

Three points were tracked. This was a bit more difficult because of the smoke. The graph below is of all three tracks together.

I think that's pretty clear! Just like chandlers' analysis and macqueen & szamboti's analysis, my tracks have produced a reasonably straight line. For at least two seconds the north tower accelerated constantly, further proof of the lack of jolt. [there are lots of little jolts that your techniques are simply far too crude to see. There is zero expectation that there would be any large jolts. Szamboti knows where he's screwing up. He's been told about 500 times. He simply refuses to admit it. Do you know where he's screwing up, jm?]

the three [four] verinage demolitions are perhaps the closest real-world examples we have for comparison to the north tower [lmao. No they are not in the slightest appropriate real world comparisons to either towers' collapse.], and they clearly behave differently. [yep, they sure do. Because the structure of the buildings is different, the initiation is completely different, and the ratios of structural toughness to available impact energy is way, way different. Other than that…] the fact remains that what happened to the north tower was unprecedented, regardless of how much you wanna exaggerate the tilt! [no, what happened to the north tower had a precedent right next door about 1/2 hour earlier. It now seems clear & consistent: In the only two examples of large passenger jets flown into steel tube-within-tube skyscrapers with blown on insulation, the buildings collapsed. That is exactly why we will never again see skyscrapers built in this fashion, with this inherent flaw vis a vis murderous terrorists. As a fine example, look at the completely different design of the freedom tower just constructed on the wtc7 site.]

bazant et al. Did author a closure, which bjorkman called "the most shameful closure in structural damage analysis history" in his response. Is he right? [bjorkman's a fool. Bazant is a world class engineer. One of the best. Why do you consort with fools, jm?] well, his response also included a challenge that puts his money where his mouth is, offering 10,000 euro to anyone who can "come up with some other type of structure that really can collapse from top down," when the mass of part c is 1/9 the mass of part a. [you're not very up on current events, are ya, jm? Bjorkman didn't originate this idea. He stole it from james randi, who has had his "million dollar challenge" for about 30 years. Bjorkman decided to imitate randi, and announced his million dollar wager 2.5 years ago. See "the heiwa challenge" over at randi.org. Randi put his money into a secure account outside of his own control, to be awarded on the objective completion of specific tasks. Bjorkman was asked to do the same. Bjorkman refused. There is zero evidence that he ever had that money to pay off the bet. It is certain that, as the only judge, he never had any intent of paying off. Now you're telling me that he has dropped the amount by a factor or 120?? He is 120x less sure now than he was 2 years ago?? Some truther champion you got there.]


if his opponents cannot find a way to collect the money offered, [there is a massive flaw in bjorkman's challenge. Something that makes it crucially different than the towers when they collapsed. Lets see if you can figure it out.] then it is certainly possible that they have written "the most shameful closure in structural damage analysis history." [bazant wrote a simple, compelling reply to bjorkman that dismantled bjorkman's nonsense. The fact that you don't understand bazant's points makes them not one iotsa less compelling.] here is the only attempt i'm aware of thus far:

[now let's see if you can pick out the errors in cole's video. I can.
Let's see if you can pick out the absolutely ludicrous, disqualifying aspects of cole's use of concrete blocks as a model for the twin towers. I can.
]

as bjorkman noted, "a heavy disc on a pin that breaks the weak fastenings of other discs to same pin is not a collapse of anything. The only things broken are the weak fastenings while the discs and the pin remain intact, the discs having displaced a little. [ummmm… as bjorkman noted: "a moon size object falling from two miles could not have crushed the towers." so much for anything that bjorkman "notes".]

this experiment with concrete blocks is much more representative:

Even this egg experiment is more representative than the first above:
[perhaps concrete block & egg drop experiments are "representative of the twin towers collapses to you, an ex-medical professional. But i carry an extra burden that you do not: Knowledge of fundamental mechanical engineering principles. This burden forces me to laugh uproariously when i see these "experiments". Perhaps you could tell me the simple principle which renders these models ludicrous, and renders the conclusions derived from them both wrong & absurd.]

it is not lost on me one iota that i have made a bunch of simple assertions in my reply to you. That was not an accident or an oversight.

Every single one of my statements above is exactly true. I've intentionally left out the "why", in imitation of your style of "simply making assertions".

Annoying, ain't it?!!

The second reason that i did so is that i have no inclination to take you by the hand & walk you thru 11 years of ct conspiracy bs. That is not my job.

But here is the gift that i will offer you. You get to pick out any 3 items in my list above, and i will explain to you exactly where your ct source is wrong, and i am right. (i will give you an exact explanation, with the minimal amount of math required to get the explanation across. Whether you understand what i write or not is your problem, not mine. I will freely elaborate on any point with which you have a problem.

However, once you have chosen your 3, that decision is final. So choose carefully.

Now, you please explain to me what it means to you about all the ct bs that you've quoted, if it turns out that 3 out of 3 of your "debunking the debunker" points turns out to be flat out wrong.

I won't provide you with any answers until you answer this question.

Regards,


tom
tl;dr

Last edited by Starving for Truth; 12th November 2012 at 01:10 PM.
Starving for Truth 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 12th November 2012, 02:16 PM   #27
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by Starving for Truth View Post
tl;dr
I know you're Poe-ing, but nonetheless, I don't blame you.

It's much too long for my tastes as well. A couple of disparate forces drove that.

I was responding to a pretty long post by JM.

He requested that I put my response into a single reply, and that he'd reply to that. I attempted to do that, but it was certainly a bad idea.

I've been on vacation for the last 2 weeks, and it's tough getting back to this stuff rather than running, swimming, roller-blading, trying to drag my lard-ass back into shape, on Malibu beach. So my attention has been spotty at best.

Not having a WiFi connection, I've been doing this on my iPad, which is pretty horrible for typing.

So, between the long original post & my innate long-windedness, & the other factors, this literary abomination emerges.

Again, my apologies for inflicting it on anyone.

I don't blame anyone for simply skipping it.

tk

PS. I need to correct the record on two points.

1. The comment that I made, suggesting that he "not say anything about anyone that he wouldn't want them to hear" was in a draft of a message that I intended, at first, to send him. (Actually the entire message that I posted.)

But I posted the entire thing here, instead. So I did not send him that comment prior to this posting.

2. Apropos the same subject, JM wrote met that he wanted our conversation to stay confidential "because he didn't want to piss anyone off". He didn't elaborate on WHY he might do that.

It was MY (turns out, mistaken) inference that he might piss somebody off by saying something uncomplimentary about them. An epidemic problem in the clash between the vying sides in this (discussion? war? food fight?).

My assumption turned out to be wrong. He writes that he wouldn't do that, and I have no reason whatsoever to doubt this. He has been unfailingly polite to me thus far.
tfk 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 12th November 2012, 04:00 PM   #28
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Here's a better approach, I think.

I'm just going to color code JM's comments.
Red is for things that are factually incorrect.
Blue is for things that are misleading or irrelevant.

Now, one can simply scan for "percent of various colors" to get a good estimate of reliability.
___

One Thing Wrong and A Lot of Things Right
Posted by John-Michael P. Talboo

PhD Physicist Crockett Grabbe was recently published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Engineering Mechanics, disputing the the pile-driver or crush-down theory in which the tops of the Towers act as giant sledgehammers put forward by engineer Zdenek Bazant. One reason I bring this up, is to express my agreement with debunkers that his claim that the South Tower's "top segment... initially collapses at an acceleration rate more than four as large as that of gravity," is untenable. That said, Grabbe's stated goals in his paper includes three other solid points. Outlining his goals, Grabbe writes:

First is their assertion about implications of their collapse model for the South Tower. Second is the very inadequate amount of energy expended in their gravitational collapse model, including the claimed ease of breaking through and demolishing each floor that they assert in explaining the smooth collapse, in contrast to independent calculations of the total energy expended in the observed collapses. Third is an underlying 1-dimensional (1D) assumption in the equations used to model the collapse in this paper and in previous papers it references. Shortcomings of this 1D model seriously challenge its validity, and thus that of the "crush-down, crush-up" model of gravitational collapse for the calculations they present.Fourth is a challenge to their broad claim that all objections have been shown invalid.

Before getting into his other three points, I think it important to note that "debunkers" who bashed the Bentham journal for bad peer-review, should be doing the same here [i.e., bashing JEM -tk] if they don't want to be hypocritical. In doing so, however, does that not put the peer-review of Bazant's papers in question as well? As Jim Hoffman at the website 911research.wtc7.net pointed out, "Bazant must be a super-genius to understand how two skyscrapers could crush themselves to rubble, a newly observed behaviour for steel structures, and write a paper about it in just two days." This paper was also published, and apparently reviewed, in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics during those 48 hours. Juxtapose this with the fact that Bazant's theory has been challenged, not once, twice, but three times, and likely a fourth time, with a paper coming from mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti, in that same journal and you have a good a priori case that Bazant is wrong, but we won't rely on that, just saying.

While addressing his second stated goal in the paper, Grabbe writes:
... Independent calculations of the energy expended in the collapses of the Towers have produced estimates of that expenditure to be at least 25MgH or more.[Hoffman, 1983] This implies that the "crush-up, crush-down" model cannot begin to account for the energy expended in the WTC collapses -- indeed, from the maximum energy expenditure claimed in Le and Bazant's paper, over a factor of 100. Hoffman identified energy being expended for crushing the concrete. heating the concrete and the suspended gases, and vaporization of the water. Any rough validity to these energy expenditure calculations would imply that these collapses cannot be caused by fire-induced gravitational collapse as Le and Bazant presume in this paper.
Hoffman is arguably one of the most well respected 9/11 researchers ever due to his careful nature, so there is indeed a reason to believe that there is at least a rough validity to his calculations, even though his work on this topic is incomplete. Hoffman's page "Volume of Dust Clouds Proves Demolition" notes:

At least one academic paper has attempted to explain the rapidity of the collapses by promoting a questionably applicable mathematical model alleged to predict a nearly frictionless total collapse. Since that model has each tower neatly pulling itself down at near the speed of free-fall, there would be very little heat produced to drive the dust cloud expansion.
The academic paper cited is by Bazant and is reproduced in full at that link with refutations added in red colored text throughout.

Addressing his third stated goal in the paper, Grabbe writes:
1D equation cannot model the Towers collapses correctly, because the horizontal dimension is very important in the physics of those collapses. This includes the squibs repeatedly shooting out in this horizontal dimension, the South Tower's top segment making a sudden shift in the horizontal direction in its collapse, very large pieces hurled out from of both Towers having considerable momentum and kinetic energy in this horizontal dimension. There are large streams shooting out in the horizontal dimension with large debris coming out from the Towers -- not only with a downward component, but also an upward component in the case of the North Tower. These effects are all neglected in a 1D model, yet they are very important processes in the Towers collapses.

"Debunkers" do not think these processes are important. Here is a page that I and a few others authored at AE911Truth debunking several claims of "debunkers" relating to squibs. Included is the fact that calculations performed by Grabbe show that the horizontal ejection rate of the squibs is disproportional to the floor and debris descent speeds that are allegedly responsible for them. One point not in the article, is one made by blog contributor Adam Taylor. In his video, "9/11 Smoking Guns: The Squibs," he demonstrates that a squib in the South Tower that appears approximately 40 stories below the demolition wave, forms approximately 3 seconds into the collapse. If something was falling through the building to cause the squib, as "debunkers" have claimed, it would have to be falling faster than gravitational freefall, which is impossible.

As to the South Tower's shift, Jim Hoffman writes:

The sudden slowing of the rotation of the South Tower's upper 30-story block as it disappeared into the burgeoning explosion is the basis for a particularly obvious disproof of the collapse theory. The top began to topple at an accelerating rate, rotating about 20 degrees in two seconds so that its roof overhung its base by at least 80 feet at one point. Why, instead of toppling off of the base, did it telescope into the base?

He then goes on to refute "debunker" Ryan Mackey on this point:
In Mackey's tortured scenario, the columns on the east side of the Tower -- those directly under the center of mass of the rotating and falling top -- were somehow able to catch the top and impart the force necessary to reverse the rotation. That implies that the columns on the far side and the core -- which, being offset from the top's center of mass, would apply increasing torque to accelerate the top's rotation as it toppled -- had somehow ceased to interact with the top. If that were true, why didn't the west perimeter wall, unscathed by the top, remain standing -- why was it erased like the rest of the Tower's base in such a systematic top-down fashion?

Mackey's theory, though incredibly far fetched, may be the best that collapse theory supporters can offer. The behavior of the South Tower's top so clearly reveals that the top and bottom sections were disconnected -- i.e., there was no crush zone -- that even grade-school children quickly grasp this proof of demolition.

As to the "very large pieces hurled out from of both Towers having considerable momentum and kinetic energy"consider this beam:



As blog contributor Scootle Royale wrote:

...It was somewhere between 6.7 and 6.8 seconds. The north tower was 417 meters tall, and WTC7 was 186 meters tall, so the distance between the two roofs was about 230 meters. The amount of time it would take to freefall that distance in a vaccum is about 6.85 seconds. So even if this beam was dropped from the height of the roof of the north tower at the exact moment the tower started to collapse, it still wouldn't have reached the roof of WTC7 in under 6.8 seconds. Put simply, this steel beam had to have been falling significantly faster than freefall. Obviously this is impossible unless it was launched downwards by something, such as an explosion.

Addressing his fourth stated goal, which relates to the third, Grabbe writes:
Finally, I challenge Le and Bazant's statement at the beginning of their paper where they say "All the objections of the proponents of the controlled-demolition hypothesis have been shown invalid." In particular, that is not correct in their response to the recent comment by Bjorkman (Bjorkman, 2010; Bazant et al, 2010). Commentor Bjorkman challenges the validity of the 1D model based on observations, as well as on an earlier critique by MacQueen and Szamboti (2009). Bjorkman states that equations are not needed to see from observations that Le and Bazant's model is wrong. Le and Bazant disagree with that, responding that equations are vital. However, questions of the collapse of the Towers are at least 2D because of important features observed in the horizontal direction. Le and Bazant's 1D gravitational equations for that analysis are not adequate, and they cannot counter Bjorkman's objection unless they present a quantative model of the Tower that is at least 2D in their equations of motion.

As to observations being sufficient to disprove the Bazant model, blog contributor Steve Weathers, included the following picture in his partial repost of Bjorkman's page, "WTC 1 - The Obvious Case Against the Collapse/Crush Down Hypothesis - Debunking the Conspiracy Theories of Prof. Bazant and NIST." Steve notes that, " There is no upper block crushing the lower sections- it's been obliterated. Furthermore gravity alone will not cause the debris to be thrown out laterally as is seen. Where is that pile-driving mass ? It does not exist. The building here is being ripped apart by forces other than gravity."


Furthermore, Bjorkman provides the following:


Fig. 5 - from [2] - Upper part C roof line downward displacement versus time. The curve is very smooth. If Upper part C had really "crushed down" 9 or 13 intact storeys below into Part B - Rubble/debris, the curve should be staggered! The smooth curve suggests that Upper part C is simply removed in a computer animation.

Scootle affirmed the above point by making speed-time graphs of the motion of four different verinage demolitions, where the columns on the central floors are weakened to crush the bottom section. The first three were tracked at an angle, however, he notes that "in all three cases there's an initial acceleration and then upon impact the acceleration abruptly ceases and a deceleration trend begins. This is exactly what we would expect using basic physics and common sense." The fourth was tracked from a great frontal view:
And here's an After Effects speed-time plot...



Can't get much clearer than that really!
In comparison Scootle mapped out the North Tower and provided the following:

Three points were tracked. This was a bit more difficult because of the smoke. The graph below is of all three tracks together.

I think that's pretty clear! Just like Chandlers' analysis and MacQueen & Szamboti's analysis, my tracks have produced a reasonably straight line. For at least two seconds the north tower accelerated constantly, further proof of the lack of jolt.

The three [four] Verinage demolitions are perhaps the closest real-world examples we have for comparison to the North Tower, and they clearly behave differently. The fact remains that what happened to the north tower was unprecedented, regardless of how much you wanna exaggerate the tilt!
Bazant et al. did author a Closure, which Bjorkman called " the most shameful Closure in structural damage analysis history" in his response. Is he right? Well, his response also included a challenge that puts his money where his mouth is, offering 10,000 Euro to anyone who can "come up with some other type of structure that really can collapse from top down," when the mass of part C is 1/9 the mass of part A.


If his opponents cannot find a way to collect the money offered, then it is certainly possible that they have written "the most shameful Closure in structural damage analysis history." Here is the only attempt I'm aware of thus far:



As Bjorkman noted, "A heavy disc on a pin that breaks the weak fastenings of other discs to same pin is not a collapse of anything. The only things broken are the weak fastenings while the discs and the pin remain intact, the discs having displaced a little.

This experiment with concrete blocks is much more representative:



Even this egg experiment is more representative than the first above:
___

There is my assessment of JM's post.

Not very good, John Michael.
There doesn't seem to be much continuously correct & relevant (i.e., black) text in the section above. Far less in any of the conclusions drawn.

My contention here is not that JM knows little to nothing about structural or mechanical engineering. That is true beyond doubt.

But that is not his problem.

His problem is that he has a totally dysfunctional epistemology. That he evidently possesses little to no ability to decide who & what to believe about these subjects.

And therefore he ends up disbelieving - on issues of STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING - world class & world famous structural engineers (e.g., Bazant) and the dozens of experienced, accomplished mechanical & structural engineers (from gov't, academia & industry) who put together the NIST report.

He ends up disbelieving the legions of structural & mechanical engineers in industry, government & academia that accept and build upon the conclusions of the NIST report.

And he ends up believing "blog commentators" (e.g., Scootie Royale & Adam Taylor), religious studies professors (e.g., McQueen & presumably DRG), computer visualization professionals (e.g., Hoffman), plasma physicist (e.g., Grabbe) & even an "ex-medical professional" (e.g., himself). Again, on issues of STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING.

The above is incomprehensible in an educated, thinking individual.

It is somewhat more understandable that an insufficiently skeptical individual might believe folks like Bjorkman (naval insurance adjuster, with degree in naval architecture), Szamboti (spacecraft fixture designer, with degree in mechanical engineering), Cole (unknown occupation, with degree in mechanical engineering), or the other structural and mechanical engineers at AE911T. The distinction between these clowns & real, expert engineers takes a discerning eye & brain.

But if JM can't distinguish the first group (which IS the source of 99% of truther woo), then there is no hope that he'll be able to move on to the much more subtle steps required to distinguish the second group from real experts.

As always, JMO.

But it's absolutely correct.


Tom

Last edited by tfk; 12th November 2012 at 05:03 PM.
tfk 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 13th November 2012, 03:16 AM   #29
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,812
To nitpick one thing, tfk, here's something misleading:

Originally Posted by tfk View Post
Here's a better approach, I think.

I'm just going to color code JM's comments.
Red is for things that are factually incorrect.
Blue is for things that are misleading or irrelevant.

Now, one can simply scan for "percent of various colors" to get a good estimate of reliability.
___
...
... One reason I bring this up, is to express my agreement with debunkers that his claim that the South Tower's "top segment... initially collapses at an acceleration rate more than four as large as that of gravity," is untenable.
...
You redded a factually incorrect claim there, but it is embedded in a JM construct that negates it, so what JM wrote turns out to be factually correct: "his claim that [incorrect claim] is untenable" - correct statement, even if asserted without providing reasons.
Oystein 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 13th November 2012, 03:25 AM   #30
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,812
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
...
But here is the gift that I will offer you. You get to pick out any 3 items in my list above, and I will explain to you exactly where your CT source is wrong, and I am right. (I will give you an exact explanation, with the minimal amount of math required to get the explanation across. Whether you understand what I write or not is your problem, not mine. I will freely elaborate on any point with which you have a problem.

However, once you have chosen your 3, that decision is final. So choose carefully.

Now, you please explain to me what it means to you about ALL the CT BS that you've quoted, IF it turns out that 3 out of 3 of your "Debunking the Debunker" points turns out to be flat out wrong.

I won't provide you with ANY answers until you answer this question.
Excellent proposal and offer, and I wish JM would take it up, but I know that he won't

It's basically the same challenge that's atop my blog:
"What is your one (1) single most convincing argument? Your strongest evidence? Your most damning fact? State it as precisely as you can, and convince me!"
With more detailed explanation here:
Originally Posted by Oystein
  1. The Topic ... I want you to pick a very narrowly and specifically defined claim, that has specific implications.
  2. ...
  3. Your Objective therefore should be to present the best and strongest claim you have: The one that you are most convinced of. The one that has the strongest evidence for it. The one that has the most damning implications. Chose wisely! Because My Objective will be to show that your claim is not true, not proven, or does not have serious implications, and to conclude that you really have nothing at all in your hands against the common narrative, as your one best claim turned out to be unconvincing.
Haven't found any takers, but several times wordy excuses as to why that would be an unfair proposal.

Last edited by Oystein; 13th November 2012 at 03:26 AM.
Oystein 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 13th November 2012, 06:06 AM   #31
Chuck Guiteau
Graduate Poster
 
Chuck Guiteau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 1,846
Maybe I'm missing something here and, if so, just chalk it up to the fact that I possess no degrees in mechanical engineering or any related field, but I fail to see where any of this makes a whit's worth of difference.
It just seems to me that regardless of what initiated the collapse, after the first hundredth of a second or so everything would react in the same manner.
If the floor gave way due to loss of structural integrity due to fire/plane damage, or explosives/death rays/tiny ninjas with miniature lasers, gravity would affect the building in exactly the same manner with exactly the same results.
Have I missed something here?
If not then it all comes back to: what caused the floor(s) to lose their integrity to begin with?
I've seen no evidence of explosives ( and I AM experienced in their application).
I've seen no compelling evidence for thermite ( which I've used on a number of occasions), or even a reasonable method to employ the compound in such a manner as to cause a building collapse resembling the WTC collapse.
I've yet to see any footage of a death ray destroying a skyscraper.
That pretty much leaves us with either:
A. Damage from collision/fire.
or
B. Tiny ninjas.
Call me silly, but I'll go with option A.
Chuck Guiteau 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 13th November 2012, 06:35 AM   #32
enik
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 245
Originally Posted by Chuck Guiteau View Post
...
What do you do for a living?
__________________
TFK: You think that you've stumbled on a cute little argument that boxes debunkers in a corner.
enik 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 13th November 2012, 06:51 AM   #33
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,812
Originally Posted by Chuck Guiteau View Post
Maybe I'm missing something here and, if so, just chalk it up to the fact that I possess no degrees in mechanical engineering or any related field, but I fail to see where any of this makes a whit's worth of difference.
Having or not having a relevant degree as such is not the problem. The question is: How do you behave with your expertise, or lack thereof? How do you choose who to listen to if you don't have expertise yourself?

Originally Posted by Chuck Guiteau View Post
It just seems to me that regardless of what initiated the collapse, after the first hundredth of a second or so everything would react in the same manner.
If the floor gave way due to loss of structural integrity due to fire/plane damage, or explosives/death rays/tiny ninjas with miniature lasers, gravity would affect the building in exactly the same manner with exactly the same results.
Have I missed something here?
Yes, conceivably:
If collapse was initiated by the unplanned, to some degree chaotic development of fires, creep and such, then there will with utmost probability just this one "initiation event", however you describe it (I'd see it as the drop that made the barrel run over).
If however you have some planned initiating event, you could just as well have several or many, timed in a coordinated fashion.
The difference would/could be collapse progression, and indeed that's what many CDers claim: That one initiating event could not have cause the run-away collapse all the way to the ground, that instead it was assisted by further charges (or whatever) to take out supports in lower floors.
Oystein 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 13th November 2012, 07:10 AM   #34
Chuck Guiteau
Graduate Poster
 
Chuck Guiteau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 1,846
Originally Posted by enik View Post
What do you do for a living?
I'm a disabled veteran who, until recently, was still able to work.
For the past twenty odd years I was an investigator, in both the public and private sector. Much of that was as a bail enforcement agent.
Chuck Guiteau 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 13th November 2012, 07:26 AM   #35
Chuck Guiteau
Graduate Poster
 
Chuck Guiteau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 1,846
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Having or not having a relevant degree as such is not the problem. The question is: How do you behave with your expertise, or lack thereof? How do you choose who to listen to if you don't have expertise yourself?
I generally search for as much information as is practical, then attempt to make an informed judgment based upon the available evidence.
In regards to this matter, the only thing that explains everything logically and consistently is the 19MFT.

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post

If however you have some planned initiating event, you could just as well have several or many, timed in a coordinated fashion.
The difference would/could be collapse progression, and indeed that's what many CDers claim: That one initiating event could not have cause the run-away collapse all the way to the ground, that instead it was assisted by further charges (or whatever) to take out supports in lower floors.
That doesn't sound very logical. I've seen numerous videos of the collapse, and none of them showed anything like what I'd expect to see in a timed, sequential detonation. Just comparing the videos with other videos of buildings taken down in this manner would show the obvious differences.
Chuck Guiteau 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 13th November 2012, 07:52 AM   #36
enik
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 245
Originally Posted by Chuck Guiteau View Post
I'm a disabled veteran who, until recently, was still able to work...
I did 4 years on the, soon to be cut into razor blades, USS Enterprise back in the 80's.

Can you elaborate on the following quotes?
Quote:
I've seen no evidence of explosives ( and I AM experienced in their application).

Quote:
I've seen no compelling evidence for thermite ( which I've used on a number of occasions),
__________________
TFK: You think that you've stumbled on a cute little argument that boxes debunkers in a corner.
enik 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 13th November 2012, 08:31 AM   #37
Chuck Guiteau
Graduate Poster
 
Chuck Guiteau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 1,846
Originally Posted by enik View Post
I did 4 years on the, soon to be cut into razor blades, USS Enterprise back in the 80's.

Can you elaborate on the following quotes?
I spent four of my six years in the Army as an Infantryman, two as a Light Weapons specialist (MOS 11B) and 2 as a Reconnaissance specialist (MOS 11D) where I was trained in the use of explosives. This training was put to use during my tour in Vietnam. I also had occasion to use explosives in training scenarios after my return from RVN.
I am familiar with C-4, Composition B, TNT, Primacord, ANFO, and Thermite.
Additionaly, I was born and raised near a granite quarry (Kelly's Quarry in Lithonia, GA) and grew up around blasters. Several of my friends later went to work either in the quarry or on demolition crews. I've seen first hand how buildings are demolished in civilian life, including the demolition of the Omni in Atlanta.
I know what a shot looks like, and it looks nothing like what I saw in the videos of the WTC. Not to mention that I have a problem seeing how someone could prep the buildings without anyone noticing, or figure out how anyone could use thermite with such precision.
Chuck Guiteau 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 13th November 2012, 09:04 AM   #38
enik
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 245
Originally Posted by Chuck Guiteau View Post
...
Fascinating background. Thanks.
__________________
TFK: You think that you've stumbled on a cute little argument that boxes debunkers in a corner.
enik 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 13th November 2012, 09:25 AM   #39
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17,633
Originally Posted by Chuck Guiteau View Post
or figure out how anyone could use thermite with such precision.
Or without the blinding white flashes.
carlitos 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 13th November 2012, 12:36 PM   #40
Starving for Truth
Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 194
Originally Posted by enik View Post
What do you do for a living?


I guess I did explain that with posts I made in the past few weeks which you are now helping other shills to push off of the map. Which has the overall effect of old-style censorship but without it appearing to be censorship.

It is keeping those of us who know the truth, virtually ISOLATED from one another, both in the "real time" here, and hence in our real lives as we try to find time to connect the dots or puzzle pieces of the NWO plan for ourselves.
Psychological Operations intrinsically depends on the media. Of which internet forums are now a valuable part. It is difficult enough for new truth seekers on the scene to realize how much the media has clouded their entire value system(s) throughout their lives.

Make no mistakes. The censorship was never designed to be noticed.
Starving for Truth 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 12:45 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.