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.
Tags peer review goalposts

Reply
Old 22nd April 2008, 07:22 AM   #401
Apollo20
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,425
CHF and Dave Rogers:

I think we all know what NIST intended with its FAQ on the collapse time, but I believe the way it was worded only confuses people and opens the door for quote-miners like Jones.

I suspect that NIST scientists weren't savvy enough to realize that any collapse time they quoted would be taken as gospel, and, if not clearly stated, used as grist for the truther's mill.

I believe the 9/11 Commission Report has the same problem with its throw-away statement on collapse times, but at least that Report was not written by technical specialists, so perhaps they have an excuse for being sloppy on that one.

Last edited by Apollo20; 22nd April 2008 at 08:50 AM.
Apollo20 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 22nd April 2008, 07:31 AM   #402
lapman
Graduate Poster
 
lapman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,717
Nor was the collapse times important to what the Commission was trying to accomplish, just like WTC 7. It's the TM that requires them to be 100% correct on every single letter they put on paper, while the TM can say whatever they want, correct or not.
__________________
They take their paranoia, mix in a healthy dose of mistrust in anything "gubmint", and then bake it in that big ole EZ Bake oven of ignorance, and come to the delusional conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job. - Seymour Butz
lapman 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 22nd April 2008, 07:44 AM   #403
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 23,384
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
I think we all know what NIST intended with its FAQ on the collapse time, but I believe the way it was worded only confuses peoeple and opens the door for quote-miners like Jones.

I suspect that NIST scientists weren't savvy enough to realize that any collapse time they quoted would be taken as gospel, and, if not clearly stated, used as grist for the truther's mill.

I believe the 9/11 Commission Report has the same problem with its throw-away statement on collapse times, but at least that Report was not written by technical specialists, so perhaps they have an excuse for being sloppy on that one.
$129.57

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is online now   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 22nd April 2008, 08:17 AM   #404
CHF
Illuminator
 
CHF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,871
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
I think we all know what NIST intended with its FAQ on the collapse time, but I believe the way it was worded only confuses peoeple and opens the door for quote-miners like Jones.
I wonder why Jones' peer-reviewers didn't catch that....
CHF 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 22nd April 2008, 08:26 AM   #405
tanabear
Critical Thinker
 
tanabear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 286
Originally Posted by Slayhamlet View Post
There's no such thing as the "Pile-Driver Theory". When global collapse began the entire upper block (the floors above the impact region where the columns failed) was no longer supported, so it fell as a single mass, sequentially crushing each of the intact floors below it and adding the mass of each crushed floor to itself as it progressed downwards. This is often described as "pancaking", and is how tall buildings collapse. It is not a "theory", and it is exactly what PM described above.

NIST also describes this as "pancaking":

NCSTAR 1-3C

No it isn't. Read it again.

FEMA's "pancake collapse theory" is this: truss connection failures from thermal deformation of floors in the impact region, where the fire was, caused individual floors to detach from the columns and collapse on the floors below, at some point overloading one of them to the point where global collapse was initiated with a "pancake" phenomenon. The theory was never given any sort of official name, but the vague term "pancake collapse theory" has stuck.

NIST showed that this theory was incorrect, because the weight of only a few floors detaching and collapsing in the impact region was determined to not be enough to initiate a "pancake collapse", and because the truss connections were actually observed not to fail but rather to stay connected to the perimeter columns, so that when thermal deformation of the floor trusses made entire floors sag, it actually pulled the perimeter columns inwards to the point where they could no longer support the mass of the floors above (the upper block).

They know how the building collapsed. They were not tasked with modeling the entire collapse, and so they didn't. WTC7 has nothing to do with this thread.
NIST wrote in their FAQ, "NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon."

Ronald Hamburger used the term pile driver,

"Think of the impact of dropping a 25-story building straight down ... It was like a pile driver, which is why it collapsed as it did."

If NIST knows how the buildings collapsed, then why can't they model it? If NIST science is real science then it should be applicable to the real world. So give me your technique for demolishing a steel-frame high-rise with impact damage and fire. If you can't do this then NIST science is pseudoscience.
__________________
pomeroo: "Mark, where did this guy get the idea that you talked about holding aluminum in your hand?"

Undesired Walrus: "Why, Ron, Mark mentioned this on your very own show!"
tanabear 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 22nd April 2008, 08:37 AM   #406
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,367
Tanabear you aren't fooling anybody. You know that we are talking about collapse initiation here. You want to set up a 50 ft tall house of cards, remove the support from the middle, then complain that we don't know why it collapsed because we can't model exactly what every single card did.

What you should be doing, instead of trying to instill uncertainty and doubt, is come up with YOUR technique for demolishing buildings the size of the WTC WITHOUT using impact damage and fire that fits ALL the available evidence better than the investigations already done.

Perhaps you should go to some other boards where they aren't familiar with your movement's tactics--you may have better luck.
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead 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 22nd April 2008, 08:45 AM   #407
KoihimeNakamura
Creativity Murderer
 
KoihimeNakamura's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: In 2.5 million spinning tons of metal, above Epsilion Eridani III
Posts: 7,915
Let's quote out of context! And take terms not meant to apply there to apply!

BRILLIANT!
__________________
Don't mind me.
KoihimeNakamura 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 22nd April 2008, 07:04 PM   #408
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,375
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
there are 7 Pillars of Wisdom; 7 Wonders of the World...7 Planets


Did another planet in addition to Pluto lose its planetary status recently or is there is (dare I say it?) a new conspiracy afoot?!?

Last edited by LashL; 22nd April 2008 at 07:09 PM.
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2008, 07:17 PM   #409
boloboffin
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,986
Originally Posted by LashL View Post
Did another planet in addition to Pluto lose its planetary status recently or is there is (dare I say it?) a new conspiracy afoot?!?
No conspiracy. Apollo is speaking of the seven classical planets - Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, the Moon, and the Sun.
boloboffin 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 22nd April 2008, 07:28 PM   #410
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,375
Originally Posted by boloboffin View Post
No conspiracy. Apollo is speaking of the seven classical planets - Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, the Moon, and the Sun.

I know of the historical "7 planets" belief, of course, but I couldn't resist.

Last edited by LashL; 22nd April 2008 at 07:32 PM.
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2008, 08:30 PM   #411
tanabear
Critical Thinker
 
tanabear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 286
Originally Posted by twinstead View Post
Tanabear you aren't fooling anybody. You know that we are talking about collapse initiation here. You want to set up a 50 ft tall house of cards, remove the support from the middle, then complain that we don't know why it collapsed because we can't model exactly what every single card did.

What you should be doing, instead of trying to instill uncertainty and doubt, is come up with YOUR technique for demolishing buildings the size of the WTC WITHOUT using impact damage and fire that fits ALL the available evidence better than the investigations already done.

Perhaps you should go to some other boards where they aren't familiar with your movement's tactics--you may have better luck.
What does it mean when you say, "we are talking about collapse initiation?" Why can't anyone here discuss what happened after the initiation? Is it because your "sacred texts"(i.e. The NIST Report), don't allow it?

What are my movement's tactics? I seek to subject the NIST hypothesis to the experimental method. This method has been a mainstay of science since Francis Bacon and Robert Boyle. Are Randians here still stuck in the Dark Ages?

Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
Ah, I see. You're merely nitpicking that your previous post didn't actually specify an aircraft collision, even though it did specify a skyscraper. Nonetheless, you said you demanded to see it in full-scale. That's the whole point. You require someone to destroy a skyscraper for you.

If you understood the physics, you'd accept that this is unnecessary.

Mathematics is a way of experimentation.

The mathematics happens to match observed phenomena in both WTC 1 and WTC 2. This is not, therefore, prediction of a previously unobserved natural behavior. For that reason, the actual collapses are sufficient. There is no parallel between this result and the predictions of general relativity.
If we wished to increase fidelity of the experiment it would be best to use airplanes and have buildings similar to WTC 1,2 and 7. I didn't say that I would require that right off the bat though.

Mathematics is not a way of experimentation. Did we come of age during the time of Pythagoras or Plato? If the world of reality does not conform to the world of mathematics, so much the worse for reality.

If the mathematics matches the observed phenomena of WTC 1 and 2 then why can't computers model the collapse? Why doesn't NIST show the visualizations?

The parallel I was attempting to show was that even an eminent scientist like Einstein still needs to have his theories subjected to the experimental method. If Einstein doesn't get a pass, neither does NIST.
__________________
pomeroo: "Mark, where did this guy get the idea that you talked about holding aluminum in your hand?"

Undesired Walrus: "Why, Ron, Mark mentioned this on your very own show!"
tanabear 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 22nd April 2008, 08:41 PM   #412
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
If the mathematics matches the observed phenomena of WTC 1 and 2 then why can't computers model the collapse?
Because mathmatics says there's about a billion ways for the collapse to progress all the way to the ground. It is impossible to determine which one of those billion ways actually ocurred.

And as it happens, the math finds zero ways for the collapse to arrest itself.

Problem is, truthers are too stupid to understand this. Might as well try to teach a lizard to recite the Gettysburg Address.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2008, 08:58 PM   #413
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
 
BenBurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 37,530
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
...
And as it happens, the math finds zero ways for the collapse to arrest itself.
...
I can think of ONLY one.

__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system?
BenBurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2008, 04:58 PM   #414
tanabear
Critical Thinker
 
tanabear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 286
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Because mathmatics says there's about a billion ways for the collapse to progress all the way to the ground. It is impossible to determine which one of those billion ways actually ocurred.

And as it happens, the math finds zero ways for the collapse to arrest itself.

Problem is, truthers are too stupid to understand this. Might as well try to teach a lizard to recite the Gettysburg Address.
How do you know that the math finds billions of ways for the collapse to progress to the ground? What is this math based on? If this is the case, then you should be able to show this experimentally? Or are the "debunkers" to dumb to prove what they say?
__________________
pomeroo: "Mark, where did this guy get the idea that you talked about holding aluminum in your hand?"

Undesired Walrus: "Why, Ron, Mark mentioned this on your very own show!"
tanabear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2008, 05:02 PM   #415
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 23,972
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
How do you know that the math finds billions of ways for the collapse to progress to the ground? What is this math based on? If this is the case, then you should be able to show this experimentally? Or are the "debunkers" to dumb to prove what they say?
Take 100 numbered balls and throw them into the air and note the position of ball number 73. Now repeat. Did ball number 73 end up in the same place? Why not? If you can answer this you should be able to figure out why you can't model the collapse.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 23rd April 2008 at 05:03 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2008, 05:09 PM   #416
fullflavormenthol
Master Poster
 
fullflavormenthol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,415
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Take 100 numbered balls and throw them into the air and note the position of ball number 73. Now repeat. Did ball number 73 end up in the same place? Why not? If you can answer this you should be able to figure out why you can't model the collapse.
Hell take 100 dice and throw them up in the air and record the individual numbers as they land. Now record the positions. I don't think he realizes that I can't mathematically predict which way every drop of milk will splash as I pour it in my raisin brand in the morning.
__________________
"Burning people! He says what we're all thinking!" -GLaDOS
fullflavormenthol is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2008, 05:22 PM   #417
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,624
Originally Posted by BenBurch View Post

Nonsense. Thor or The Hulk could do it just as good as Supes, you dirty DC fan
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2008, 05:28 PM   #418
fullflavormenthol
Master Poster
 
fullflavormenthol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,415
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Nonsense. Thor or The Hulk could do it just as good as Supes, you dirty DC fan
Derail.

(In Simpson's Comicbook guy voice)

Yes, but the Hulk would be more likely to smash the building unless it was Maestro, the dystopian ruler of the future, who would likely enslave humanity.
__________________
"Burning people! He says what we're all thinking!" -GLaDOS
fullflavormenthol is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2008, 05:30 PM   #419
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
How do you know that the math finds billions of ways for the collapse to progress to the ground? What is this math based on? If this is the case, then you should be able to show this experimentally? Or are the "debunkers" to dumb to prove what they say?
you mean dumb like someone who suggests that we are claiming that "explosives destroy steel frame buildings" is a fairy tale? You mean that kind of dumb.

No, debunkers are not dumb like that, we reserve that kind of unique stupidity for idiot truthers.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2008, 06:27 PM   #420
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,320
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Take 100 numbered balls and throw them into the air and note the position of ball number 73. Now repeat. Did ball number 73 end up in the same place? Why not? If you can answer this you should be able to figure out why you can't model the collapse.
Originally Posted by fullflavormenthol View Post
Hell take 100 dice and throw them up in the air and record the individual numbers as they land. Now record the positions. I don't think he realizes that I can't mathematically predict which way every drop of milk will splash as I pour it in my raisin brand in the morning.
Or for the two word version:

Chaos Theory.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2008, 06:41 PM   #421
fullflavormenthol
Master Poster
 
fullflavormenthol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,415
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Or for the two word version:

Chaos Theory.
I was going to bring that up, but I avoid it because people used to always think of the dude from Jurassic Park or they would ask something to the effect of "Is that like in that one movie...the Butterfly Effect", and then my head would explode.

But yes, you nailed it. There is no way to predict any complex system.
__________________
"Burning people! He says what we're all thinking!" -GLaDOS
fullflavormenthol is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2008, 07:07 PM   #422
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,320
Originally Posted by fullflavormenthol View Post
I was going to bring that up, but I avoid it because people used to always think of the dude from Jurassic Park or they would ask something to the effect of "Is that like in that one movie...the Butterfly Effect", and then my head would explode.

But yes, you nailed it. There is no way to predict any complex system.
For those that do think of the dude from Jurassic Park the Butterfly Effect....

The Basics of Chaos Theroy is that unless you know the exact state of a system you cannot accurately predict any future state, and the further into the the future your pediction is, the greater the diversion from your prediction the result is likely to be.

The secondary part is used with Hisenberg's Uncertainty Princple, which states that you cannot know both the position and the momentum of a particle at a single moment of time.

Between them they create the essense that since it impossible to predict the future without knowing the pressent, and since we can't know the present without altering it into an uinknowable state, it is impossible to predict the future.

Looking at the WTC as an example, the theory tells us that without knowing exactly how every partof the tower was positioned and moving at the time of the collapse, that any model of the collapse will divert from what we saw IRL as the collapse model proceeds, and that as the collapse proceeds, that diverson will grow larger.

Or in simple terms, it's impossible to exactly model the WTC collapses.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2008, 07:14 PM   #423
tanabear
Critical Thinker
 
tanabear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 286
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Take 100 numbered balls and throw them into the air and note the position of ball number 73. Now repeat. Did ball number 73 end up in the same place? Why not? If you can answer this you should be able to figure out why you can't model the collapse.
That is an experiment that can be replicated. Using impact damage and fire to destroy a steel-frame high-rise the way WTC 1 and 2 were has not been duplicated. Until someone can give me their technique/method on how to do this your belief must be considered pseudoscience.

Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
you mean dumb like someone who suggests that we are claiming that "explosives destroy steel frame buildings" is a fairy tale? You mean that kind of dumb.

No, debunkers are not dumb like that, we reserve that kind of unique stupidity for idiot truthers.

TAM
Then please specify which beliefs the 9/11 Truth Movement holds that you would consider comparable to magic or fairy tales.

Hmm... the fairy tale part, is that despite having no proof, you and your debunker mates have concocted an infinitely elaborate, contrived, nonsensical explanations of how the evil hijackers brought down the towers on 9/11. And your fellow debunkers are still working on WTC7 some six years and counting.
__________________
pomeroo: "Mark, where did this guy get the idea that you talked about holding aluminum in your hand?"

Undesired Walrus: "Why, Ron, Mark mentioned this on your very own show!"
tanabear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2008, 07:32 PM   #424
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 16,343
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
That is an experiment that can be replicated. Using impact damage and fire to destroy a steel-frame high-rise the way WTC 1 and 2 were has not been duplicated. Until someone can give me their technique/method on how to do this your belief must be considered pseudoscience.



Then please specify which beliefs the 9/11 Truth Movement holds that you would consider comparable to magic or fairy tales.

Hmm... the fairy tale part, is that despite having no proof, you and your debunker mates have concocted an infinitely elaborate, contrived, nonsensical explanations of how the evil hijackers brought down the towers on 9/11. And your fellow debunkers are still working on WTC7 some six years and counting.
Whew! I had to unbuckle the belt on that one! I might need a doctor.
applecorped is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2008, 07:39 PM   #425
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Problem is, truthers are too stupid to understand this. Might as well try to teach a lizard to recite the Gettysburg Address.
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
That is an experiment that can be replicated. Using impact damage and fire to destroy a steel-frame high-rise the way WTC 1 and 2 were has not been duplicated. Until someone can give me their technique/method on how to do this your belief must be considered pseudoscience.
And along comes tanabear to prove my point!
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2008, 08:17 PM   #426
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
 
BenBurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 37,530
There ARE no other buildings like WTC 1 & 2.

And never will be again.

Which is a good thing, because I think the design was really flawed from a fire survival point of view.
__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system?
BenBurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2008, 08:24 PM   #427
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,654
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
Mathematics is not a way of experimentation. Did we come of age during the time of Pythagoras or Plato? If the world of reality does not conform to the world of mathematics, so much the worse for reality.

If the mathematics matches the observed phenomena of WTC 1 and 2 then why can't computers model the collapse? Why doesn't NIST show the visualizations?

The parallel I was attempting to show was that even an eminent scientist like Einstein still needs to have his theories subjected to the experimental method. If Einstein doesn't get a pass, neither does NIST.
I was thinking about this when I saw your posts:
You have no clue what you are talking about.
You never took a physics class.
You forgot all your geometry.
If I say calculus, you say, "what?".
You are not going to be an engineering student.
Your first years in college you did not exempt the final in calculus.
Your first years in college you did not exempt the final in physics.
Your first years in college you did not exempt the final in chemistry.
You think Joule is a name.
You think Momentum is a rapper from Detroit
You have no idea what gravity is, or how to represent it in an equation of energy.
The heat energy of 10,000 gallons of fuel is equal to 315 tons of TNT.
The primary energy in CD is gravity.
The primary energy source in the failure of the WTC, was fire.
The secondary energy source in the failure of the WTC was gravity.
The tertiary energy source for the failure of the WTC was aircraft impact.
The secondary energy source for CD is explosives.
The fires were hundreds of time more energy than explosives used in CD!

But those are not all true, are they? Just thinking about stuff; Why you fail to understand aircraft impacts of 2,840,000,000 joules, and 4,380,000,000 joules, and fires caused the WTC tower to fall?

Have you any experience using physics? Why does it appear you have no clue what you are talking about? Good luck in college.

Great posts, have no idea what you are talking about, but you got me thinking.
Quote:
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
- Albert Einstein

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 23rd April 2008, 08:30 PM   #428
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,320
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
That is an experiment that can be replicated. Using impact damage and fire to destroy a steel-frame high-rise the way WTC 1 and 2 were has not been duplicated. Until someone can give me their technique/method on how to do this your belief must be considered pseudoscience.
There are only two ways to do this:

1) Mathematically
2) Build a new WTC Tower and crash a plane into it.

Since you reject 1, and no one in their right mind is going to perform 2 just for your viewing pleasure, you're stuck in your fantasy.

Quote:
Then please specify which beliefs the 9/11 Truth Movement holds that you would consider comparable to magic or fairy tales.
First you're going to need to define what "the Truth Movement" actually believes. Was it LIHOP or MIHOP? Was it Bush, Cheney and the PNAC or those pesky Jews? Was it thermite or bombs? Was it a missile or plane? Was it commando hijackers or remote controls? Was nukes or was it space beams? Were the claimed hijackers fake, or are they still alive? What exactly does the "Truth Movement" believe because so far from what I have seen if we got 3 of you in a room togther we'd have 10 different versions.

Quote:
Hmm... the fairy tale part, is that despite having no proof, you and your debunker mates have concocted an infinitely elaborate, contrived, nonsensical explanations of how the evil hijackers brought down the towers on 9/11. And your fellow debunkers are still working on WTC7 some six years and counting.
except for the confessions, the bodies, the ID's located in the wreckage, the eyewittness testimony from onboard the planes and on the ground, the trail of money, the trail left by the hijackers of their actions in the US and back to Germany and Afghanistan, the phone calls home, e-mails between conspirators, their friends and family statements, their martyrdom tapes, the work of 7,000 FBI agents whoo sorted through the evidence of the case, the conviction of one of the conspirators and another 6 indited and ready for trial.

But hey why bother looking at any of that, right?
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2008, 08:46 PM   #429
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
 
Cl1mh4224rd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,059
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
That is an experiment that can be replicated. Using impact damage and fire to destroy a steel-frame high-rise the way WTC 1 and 2 were has not been duplicated. Until someone can give me their technique/method on how to do this your belief must be considered pseudoscience.

Replication is one thing. Corroboration is something else entirely.

Say Bush tosses a 100 dice into the air, counts up the results and jots down their position on the ground. Sure, you could replicate the event, but the chances you're going to get the same results is statistically nil.

Does that mean there's something suspicious about Bush's toss?

The collapse could be modeled, although it would be at an extremely low resolution, compared to the actual event, and the results will be guaranteed to differ so greatly from what was observed on 9/11 that the model would be utterly useless.

Is this really that difficult for you to understand?

Last edited by Cl1mh4224rd; 23rd April 2008 at 08:48 PM.
Cl1mh4224rd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2008, 09:21 PM   #430
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,842
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
That is an experiment that can be replicated. Using impact damage and fire to destroy a steel-frame high-rise the way WTC 1 and 2 were has not been duplicated. Until someone can give me their technique/method on how to do this your belief must be considered pseudoscience.
Two planes crashing into 100+ story buildings is "an experiment that can be replicated. Using impact damage and fire to destroy a steel-frame high-rise."

Absolute insanity. It is stunning that Twoofers have sunk to this level of idiocy.

"Until someone can give me their technique/method on how to do this your belief must be considered pseudoscience."

Shall we crash a 757 into the Aon building in Chicago? Give me a billion dollars and a billion dollars worth of insurance, Tanabear. Absolute insanity.
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2008, 10:41 PM   #431
DC
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 23,064
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
CHF and Dave Rogers:

I think we all know what NIST intended with its FAQ on the collapse time, but I believe the way it was worded only confuses people and opens the door for quote-miners like Jones.

I suspect that NIST scientists weren't savvy enough to realize that any collapse time they quoted would be taken as gospel, and, if not clearly stated, used as grist for the truther's mill.

I believe the 9/11 Commission Report has the same problem with its throw-away statement on collapse times, but at least that Report was not written by technical specialists, so perhaps they have an excuse for being sloppy on that one.
i found Dr. Shyam Sunder's interview alot more confusing when he talked about the collapse times.
i find the NIST FAQ far more clear and correct than the words of the lead investigator from NIST

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html

or did the tower collapse in only 11 and 9 seconds?
because then, i only saw slowed down videos.....

ETA : or did NIST got confused by the Seismic data? and when yes, why?

Last edited by DC; 23rd April 2008 at 10:45 PM.
DC 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 24th April 2008, 06:01 AM   #432
Apollo20
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,425
Dictator Cheney:

Yes, I agree that Dr. Sunder's comment about the collapse times of WTC 1 & 2 leaves a lot to be desired. Momentum transfer takes time! And I have written to NIST about its past statements on the collapse times and asked that NIST scientists and engineers stop saying that WTC 2 collapsed in "about 9 seconds". So far NIST has not replied to my e-mails and, as with my previous attempts to communicate with NIST's PR people, they appear to have no interest in debating technical issues with me. But I guess that's NIST's prerogative.....

Indeed, I am very familiar with government agencies ignoring complaints from concerned citizens. Here in Canada I reported a case of scientific fraud to NSERC, the agency that was paying for the research. Those guys simply bounced my complaint back to the university who did the research. The university in question immediately carried out a whitewash "inquiry" through the professor's "union" - otherwise known as the Faculty Association - and concluded that the professor had done nothing wrong! (It was the professor's post-doc that perpetrated the fraud by the way!)

Thus I am always left wondering: who is going to "police the police"!

So, DC, when Pomeroo suggests to critics of the NIST Report that they should be writing to NIST to ask them about their concerns, I suspect that if you try to do this you will discover, as I have, that you are wasting your time.
Apollo20 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 24th April 2008, 06:18 AM   #433
DC
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 23,064
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
Dictator Cheney:

Yes, I agree that Dr. Sunder's comment about the collapse times of WTC 1 & 2 leaves a lot to be desired. Momentum transfer takes time! And I have written to NIST about its past statements on the collapse times and asked that NIST scientists and engineers stop saying that WTC 2 collapsed in "about 9 seconds". So far NIST has not replied to my e-mails and, as with my previous attempts to communicate with NIST's PR people, they appear to have no interest in debating technical issues with me. But I guess that's NIST's prerogative.....

Indeed, I am very familiar with government agencies ignoring complaints from concerned citizens. Here in Canada I reported a case of scientific fraud to NSERC, the agency that was paying for the research. Those guys simply bounced my complaint back to the university who did the research. The university in question immediately carried out a whitewash "inquiry" through the professor's "union" - otherwise known as the Faculty Association - and concluded that the professor had done nothing wrong! (It was the professor's post-doc that perpetrated the fraud by the way!)

Thus I am always left wondering: who is going to "police the police"!

So, DC, when Pomeroo suggests to critics of the NIST Report that they should be writing to NIST to ask them about their concerns, I suspect that if you try to do this you will discover, as I have, that you are wasting your time.
thank you

a very good answer i think

while i stll suspect atm that NIST somehow got confused by the Seismic data.
thats the only way i can imagen they got it wrong.
and it is totaly beyond me how a man like Dr. Sunder can say 9 and 11 second collapses like it is the most normal thing on the world.

i suggest Dr. Sunder should read the NIST faq :P
DC 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 24th April 2008, 07:03 AM   #434
CptColumbo
Just One More Question
 
CptColumbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Lots of places
Posts: 9,213
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
Dictator Cheney:

Yes, I agree that Dr. Sunder's comment about the collapse times of WTC 1 & 2 leaves a lot to be desired. Momentum transfer takes time! And I have written to NIST about its past statements on the collapse times and asked that NIST scientists and engineers stop saying that WTC 2 collapsed in "about 9 seconds". So far NIST has not replied to my e-mails and, as with my previous attempts to communicate with NIST's PR people, they appear to have no interest in debating technical issues with me. But I guess that's NIST's prerogative.....
Are you assuming that you are the only person that is sending the NIST e-mails regarding 9/11? Send a letter, fewer people are using it and it's more likely to be read. Be sure to list your qualifications, as they will probably weigh it's importance based on that. The address is:
NIST
100 Bureau Drive
Stop 1070
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1070
__________________
I've been involved in a lot of cults, both as a leader and a follower. You have more fun as a follower, but you make more money as a leader.--Creed, "The Office"
The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices to be only found in the minds of men. Prejudices and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own.--Rod Serling
CptColumbo 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 24th April 2008, 07:22 AM   #435
lapman
Graduate Poster
 
lapman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,717
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
There are only two ways to do this:

1) Mathematically
2) Build a new WTC Tower and crash a plane into it.
Let's not forget that part of #2 is to build a minimum of a 120 story building covering 15 acres to house the experiment so they could create the environmental conditions that were present that day. When we talk about the money that would be involved, the twoofers are quick to point out the money spent on the war that they say should be spent on programs here.
__________________
They take their paranoia, mix in a healthy dose of mistrust in anything "gubmint", and then bake it in that big ole EZ Bake oven of ignorance, and come to the delusional conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job. - Seymour Butz

Last edited by lapman; 24th April 2008 at 07:27 AM.
lapman 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 24th April 2008, 08:47 AM   #436
DC
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 23,064
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
I was thinking about this when I saw your posts:
You have no clue what you are talking about.
You never took a physics class.
You forgot all your geometry.
If I say calculus, you say, "what?".
You are not going to be an engineering student.
Your first years in college you did not exempt the final in calculus.
Your first years in college you did not exempt the final in physics.
Your first years in college you did not exempt the final in chemistry.
You think Joule is a name.
You think Momentum is a rapper from Detroit
You have no idea what gravity is, or how to represent it in an equation of energy.
The heat energy of 10,000 gallons of fuel is equal to 315 tons of TNT.
The primary energy in CD is gravity.
The primary energy source in the failure of the WTC, was fire.
The secondary energy source in the failure of the WTC was gravity.
The tertiary energy source for the failure of the WTC was aircraft impact.
The secondary energy source for CD is explosives.
The fires were hundreds of time more energy than explosives used in CD!

But those are not all true, are they? Just thinking about stuff; Why you fail to understand aircraft impacts of 2,840,000,000 joules, and 4,380,000,000 joules, and fires caused the WTC tower to fall?

Have you any experience using physics? Why does it appear you have no clue what you are talking about? Good luck in college.

Great posts, have no idea what you are talking about, but you got me thinking.
James Prescott Joule?
DC 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 24th April 2008, 11:31 AM   #437
nicepants
Graduate Poster
 
nicepants's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,722
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
That is an experiment that can be replicated. Using impact damage and fire to destroy a steel-frame high-rise the way WTC 1 and 2 were has not been duplicated. Until someone can give me their technique/method on how to do this your belief must be considered pseudoscience.
It wouldn't really be accurate unless it was full of furniture & people as the towers were on 9/11. You should be able to find plenty of truthers to volunteer for that job, though, since they're so sure that the buildings won't collapse.
__________________
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen -Einstein
nicepants 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 24th April 2008, 11:31 AM   #438
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,654
Collapst time? Watch the videos, and then read NIST, or just pay attention. 9/11 truth cherry picks, as if they are dolts who want to mislead others.

Quote:
NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).
More data can give you an idea of time. But watching the video will show you how long it took. It seem different parts of the WTC had different collapse times. Who knew?

Quote:
The seismic spikes for the collapse of the WTC Towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground. The spikes began approximately 10 seconds after the times for the start of each building’s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds. There were no seismic signals that occurred prior to the initiation of the collapse of either tower. The seismic record contains no evidence that would indicate explosions occurring prior to the collapse of the towers.
Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney View Post
James Prescott Joule?

OMG, it is a name! I was using it as unit of energy! I am always learning..
Baited, hooked, and cooked. "Et tu, Brute?" (on learning u r not studying debunkers, you are just a truther)

Last edited by beachnut; 24th April 2008 at 11:37 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 24th April 2008, 11:46 AM   #439
DC
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 23,064
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Collapst time? Watch the videos, and then read NIST, or just pay attention. 9/11 truth cherry picks, as if they are dolts who want to mislead others.


More data can give you an idea of time. But watching the video will show you how long it took. It seem different parts of the WTC had different collapse times. Who knew?



OMG, it is a name! I was using it as unit of energy! I am always learning..
Baited, hooked, and cooked. "Et tu, Brute?" (on learning u r not studying debunkers, you are just a truther)
but its the LEAD investigator, the chief, you told me i should accepts as fact what the chiefs say, even if they cannot back it up
you are a very confusing teacher beachnut.
DC 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 24th April 2008, 11:53 AM   #440
eeyore1954
Philosopher
 
eeyore1954's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,013
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Take 100 numbered balls and throw them into the air and note the position of ball number 73. Now repeat. Did ball number 73 end up in the same place? Why not? If you can answer this you should be able to figure out why you can't model the collapse.
Excellent analogy then next he should try 10,000 balls or a 100,000 balls.
eeyore1954 is online now   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 07:43 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.