Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

 International Skeptics Forum WTC Explosives: Rigging the Towers and Avoiding Detection, a Probabilistic Exam

 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.
 18th August 2015, 02:20 PM #81 Richard the G Thinker   Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 236 Originally Posted by Bravin Neff WTC Explosives: Rigging the Towers and Avoiding Detection, a Probabilistic Exam [b]Explosive Rigging Detection Avoidance – A Charitable Estimate[/ (0.99) ^ (20,000 * 182) = I have not found a calculator that goes this low. . Alternative Scenario – 100 Times Higher Initial Probability of Detection Avoidance Suppose the probability of avoiding detection for (1) person, on a given day, was 99.99%. Thus, for both towers and 182 days of rigging, the probability of avoiding detection would be: (0.9999) ^ (20,000 * 182) = 8.1 x 10 ^ -159 probability This, again, is equivalent to zero in any reasonable interpretation. Again the theory is falsified. Alternative Scenario – 100 Times Higher Initial Probability and Much Quicker Rigging Let us assume both buildings could be rigged in 20 days. I believe this is unreasonable, but we overlook this. Thus the probability of avoiding detection would be: (0.9999) ^ (20,000 * 20) = 4.2 x 10 ^ -18 probability Again, this is simply zero: detection would have occurred. Alternative Scenario – Maximum Charity Suppose the higher probability holds while assuming the Towers would require only 1 day to rig with explosives. I believe this is absurd on its face, but for the sake of completeness we assume it anyway. Thus, the probability of avoiding detection would be: (0.9999) ^ (20,000 * 1) = 0.135, or 13.5% probability of successfully avoiding detection I think it is fair to add that with such a vigorous amount of activity in 1 day, the idea it could be achieved with a 99.99% probability of avoiding detection per person is absurd as well. I conclude WTC 1 & 2 were not successfully rigged with explosive charges, using estimates charitable to success. The theory is rejected. Bravin Neff I think this is a delightful statistical analysis. And from a statistical perspective helps to explain why only about 0.02% of the engineering community supports ae911truth. Firstly it is statistically very unlikely that a CD could have taken place without discovery ( so why would anyone try it) and secondly there was no evidence of it either in the way the towers fell or in the evidence on the pile. Of course there will be a few nutters like Tony who will essentially say anything to support CD. But if you look at say the elevator layout at the collapse level you would see that they would need plenty of dynamite outside the elevator shafts, so I think your statistical analysis is not unreasonable. The whole idea that someone waited until they would only kill 3,000 citizens is quite frankly sick and illogical. Why didn't they collapse the first building to be hit first.? But what gets me is that the geniuses who supposedly planned and implemented the cd went on to create the most bumbling pathetic war in Iraq. How do the cd nutters reconcile that.?
 18th August 2015, 02:53 PM #82 Axxman300 Master Poster     Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Central California Coast Posts: 2,266 I love this statistical look at the problem, I think it helps. I always have to ask, if they were going to use explosives to bring down the buildings then why do to the trouble of hijacking the planes? Blowing up skyscrapers would have been enough, and way more terrifying since it would have had to have been done right under the noses of thousands of people, the NYPD, and the FBI. Why is that not scary enough?
 18th August 2015, 02:59 PM #83 DGM Skeptic not Atheist     Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 24,416 Originally Posted by Axxman300 I love this statistical look at the problem, I think it helps. I always have to ask, if they were going to use explosives to bring down the buildings then why do to the trouble of hijacking the planes? Blowing up skyscrapers would have been enough, and way more terrifying since it would have had to have been done right under the noses of thousands of people, the NYPD, and the FBI. Why is that not scary enough? Crashing the plane was enough. Why do they think the towers had to completely collapse? This was a successful terrorist attack on American soil, collapse or not. This is one of the many issues "truthers" can't address. __________________ "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
 18th August 2015, 05:25 PM #84 Notconvinced Critical Thinker     Join Date: May 2015 Posts: 339 Originally Posted by GlennB ... In many/most cases the very hefty drywall used in WTC1+2 was a flush fit against the core columns. Fixing substantial charges to the columns would make it impossible to replace the drywall without moving an entire section of it outwards. Accessing portions of concealed cavities through small cuts in drywall is as simple and mundane as installing a light switch. A pocket could be quickly made in the steel with a hammer drill, and wireless charges placed accordingly. The patch work would be just as quick.
 18th August 2015, 05:52 PM #85 njslim Graduate Poster     Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 1,056 Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti One also shouldn't forget that there was an elevator modernization project being done in the WTC Twin Towers in the eight months prior to Sept. 11, 2001. What are the odds that an office worker would know that something different than the elevator project was being done? OMG!!! They are "modernizing " the elevators in my building!!!!! Should I be concerned that they are using the elevators as cover for some nefarious purpose.......???
 18th August 2015, 05:54 PM #86 Redwood Graduate Poster     Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 1,476 Originally Posted by DGM Why do they think the towers had to completely collapse? This was a successful terrorist attack on American soil, collapse or not. This is one of the many issues "truthers" can't address. And if a "mission goal" was to bring down the Twin Towers, why not simply use larger aircraft, like Boeing 747s? Did the Vast Conspiracy calculate that the Twin Towers could withstand even 747s? If so, it should be child's play for Truthers to demonstrate this today. Moore's Law seems to be still holding, so there would be hundreds of times the computing power available to them today as there was to the Vast Conspiracy then.
 18th August 2015, 06:16 PM #87 BadBoy Graduate Poster     Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,139 :facepalm: [quote=Notconvinced;10827973]So what some people see "is pointless" but what you see "is what happened"? [quote] People are not always reliable in that sense. Language is inexact. We have video, we don't need their accounts of what "they" think happened. Quote: Without even considering the witness testimony or the evidence for thermitics, I watch the video and SEE controlled demolition. I look to official sources for a verified explanation and I SEE fraud and obfuscation. I know a guy who swears he's seen aliens. I believe he thinks he did. You SEE controlled demolition because you want to. It may look similar on first glance. But if you really watch it and pay attention and compare with real CD's you can see they are very different indeed. You can see where the collapse initiated from, where the planes hit. Anyway, why go to all that trouble. If the idea is the government did it because they wanted a war, flying the planes into buildings would have done the trick anyway. Quote: NIST cannot explain the collapse, only the initiation, and their explanation of the initiation itself is wraught with problems. Apparently, they were only interested in initiation. Got it? Quote: The ASCE may endorse Bazan't theory of progressive collapse, but the paper fully discloses that it is ONLY valid IF the buildings behaved in a manner which would be impossible in the natural world. The idea that Zone B would accrete into additional energy only moving downward without Zone A losing energy through deformation, comminution, etc isn't even remotely valid, yet is the argument that your entire mission relies on. But they did collapse, and we know why. The How is just for fun. So even if Bazant is wrong doesn't mean thermite, or TNT or Laser Beans or any other idiotic notion that has NO reliable EVIDENCE or logical coherent theory to support it. __________________ Go sell crazy someplace else we're all stocked up here
 18th August 2015, 06:27 PM #88 BadBoy Graduate Poster     Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,139 Originally Posted by Notconvinced Accessing portions of concealed cavities through small cuts in drywall is as simple and mundane as installing a light switch. A pocket could be quickly made in the steel with a hammer drill, and wireless charges placed accordingly. The patch work would be just as quick. Wireless charges? And who was responsible for changing all the batteries after several months of concealment. I suspect wireless control wouldn't work very well at all. You do know they also have to cut collumns and supports to weaken them first in real CD? And the number of beams they would have to fix up to ensure a CD would mean they would need literally truck loads of equipment. 90 odd floors * say 20 pillars on each floor is nearly 2000 locations. I think someone would have noticed as that would be a big job that would require many people with a lot of equipment over many days. Go and watch a video of how they do it in real life. Its complicated and takes a long time to prepare. __________________ Go sell crazy someplace else we're all stocked up here
 18th August 2015, 08:34 PM #89 Bravin Neff Thinker   Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 193 Originally Posted by BadBoy Wireless charges? And who was responsible for changing all the batteries after several months of concealment. I suspect wireless control wouldn't work very well at all. You do know they also have to cut collumns and supports to weaken them first in real CD? And the number of beams they would have to fix up to ensure a CD would mean they would need literally truck loads of equipment. 90 odd floors * say 20 pillars on each floor is nearly 2000 locations. I think someone would have noticed as that would be a big job that would require many people with a lot of equipment over many days. Go and watch a video of how they do it in real life. Its complicated and takes a long time to prepare. Yeah, but that could all fit inside a small hole in the drywall. You know, like what you see for light switches and such. Because the core columns are only a couple inches thick. Big deal? LOL. Truthers really do not understand the task they have before them. Its all a big hand wave to them. In the real world, with real projects and real success and failure on the line, probabilities rule the long run and the complex. There is no other way projects like this get pulled off. And every time you add something - like some new technology ("wireless charges") - you have added another failure mode, something with a probability less than 1, which gets multiplied against the other probabilities, each of which are already less than 1, resulting in a lower overall probability. I assume this is why truthers do not actually tackle the job I have tried to tackle here - put some numbers down to show what it would take. In my last post, I calculated that in order for the conspirator to achieve a 90% probability of success, he needs to defeat the median WTC occupant with a failure of only 3 out of 10,000,000 - and based on unrealistic assumptions grossly in favor of the conspiracy theorist. And the conspirator does this on the first try. Consider that the finest manufacturing processes in the world, for normal parts where fit/finish/function matter, failures of 1 in 1,000,000 are at the bleeding edge of world class. And in every case, this takes months if not years to develop, with months and months of worse outcomes as it gets fine tuned, with scrap and failures all over the place before you get to this kind of level. And we're talking about the WTC conspirators getting roughly 3 times better than this - on the first try. Yes, hand wave it all away. I wouldn't want to be the sucker tasked with showing how such a thing could be pulled off, and having my head on the line as management says "your analysis sounds good, budget approved."
 18th August 2015, 09:07 PM #90 Bravin Neff Thinker   Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 193 Psychologists have known for years each of us has an "inner physicist." The "inner physicist" is our mental anticipation of the way the physical world behaves, and this sense is roughly in accordance with newtonian kinematics and mechanics. Of course it can get things wrong, but our ability to imagine, anticipate motion, catch baseballs, move up flights of stairs, etc., relies on this inner sense. We couldn't survive without it. Which brings me to the WTC. Like many others here, I watched the towers collapse live. The "look" of the collapsing buildings looked right to me, in terms of being a gravity driven event - no artificial sweetener necessary. There was nothing about the behavior that got my inner physicist sending up red flags or whatever. To this day when I see the replays, the appearance is in perfect accordance with my general sense of how things works, especially at that scale. I have, however - for approximately 1 hour in 2007 watching "Loose Change" - entertained twoofer ideas, and was slightly swayed by the argumentation. And during that hour, I started to "see" the controlled demolition in the video replay. Afterwards of course I stopped seeing it, but this has led me to believe the inner physicist of the twoofer is likely no different than the average person's. It is his other intellectual faculties that interrupt things and run the show, up to and including rewriting the "inner physicists" narrative and even rewriting the *history* of his inner physicist. If I am right, then this implies even the twoofers weren't twoofers on 9/11. Anyone else have this sense? Last edited by Bravin Neff; 18th August 2015 at 09:09 PM.
 18th August 2015, 09:33 PM #92 Bravin Neff Thinker   Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 193 Originally Posted by beachnut Do 911 truth faith based followers do more than memorize failed tag lines of 911 truth? no I call it Twoofer Quote Mine Regurgitation Robotics. The person would then be a Twoofer Quote Mine Regurgitation Robot, or TQMRR. You know the usual: "Fell on its own footprint." "2000% of the live loads." "NIST's core samples only reached 250 C" Etc. ad nauseum.
 19th August 2015, 06:05 AM #93 GlennB Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian     Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Pie City, Arcadia Posts: 21,568 Originally Posted by Notconvinced Accessing portions of concealed cavities through small cuts in drywall is as simple and mundane as installing a light switch. A pocket could be quickly made in the steel with a hammer drill, and wireless charges placed accordingly. The patch work would be just as quick. Here some cutter charges being installed. You simply can't embed such things in holes that you've made with a drill.
 19th August 2015, 09:57 AM #94 beachnut Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 24,822 Originally Posted by GlennB Here some cutter charges being installed. You simply can't embed such things in holes that you've made with a drill. http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/g...rcharges-1.jpg In a the fantasy world of 911 truth believers... they have magic drills. __________________ "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein "... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
 19th August 2015, 11:52 AM #95 DGM Skeptic not Atheist     Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 24,416 Originally Posted by Notconvinced Accessing portions of concealed cavities through small cuts in drywall is as simple and mundane as installing a light switch. A pocket could be quickly made in the steel with a hammer drill, and wireless charges placed accordingly. The patch work would be just as quick. Do you drill steel with a hammer drill often............. __________________ "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
 19th August 2015, 11:52 AM #96 Notconvinced Critical Thinker     Join Date: May 2015 Posts: 339 Originally Posted by JSanderO Tony, How many things do you think would or could explode in a office building such as the twin towers which were burning out of control... with no fire suppression? This is an effective counter argument if the explosions were only reported above or near the location of the fires. Explosions in the basements and lower floors cannot be 'hand waived' away so easily. Originally Posted by JSanderO But were the explosions heard "bombs" and were the sounds tied to any movement of the building. That is did the tops drop after all the explosions sounded? Was there ejected material and pressurized gas of the magnitude to be associated with bombs that would destroy steel columns? The explosions were used intermittently over a sustained period of time to weaken the supporting structure, thereby facilitating the "progressive collapse" which was initiated by thermitics later. Loud explosions were extensively reported in the basements, and near stairwells, areas that had to be weakened to allow the buildings crumble cleanly. All collapses are gravity driven, but this one was only made possible after degrading the underlying supports. Originally Posted by JSanderO How many columns had to be blown up to cause the tops to drop as they did? And how would these devices have been protected from the fires and damage of the planes? Zero, the tops dropped after their supporting columns were melted with thermitics. While clever, the unfortunate consequence of this was that the molten metal ended up in the basement also. Oh, and some poured out of the side of the building... smh. Originally Posted by JSanderO And did the witnesses identify where the explosive sounds came from? Were they able to pin the location to the top section where the motion downward began? Again, no. The explosions came from the lower section where there were no fires but STRONG supporting structures which had to be weakened.
 19th August 2015, 12:01 PM #97 Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles     Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 25,605 Originally Posted by Notconvinced This is an effective counter argument if the explosions were only reported above or near the location of the fires. Explosions in the basements and lower floors cannot be 'hand waived' away so easily. Burning jet fuel, falling due to gravity. Kind of obvious, really. Originally Posted by Notconvinced The explosions were used intermittently over a sustained period of time to weaken the supporting structure, thereby facilitating the "progressive collapse" which was initiated by thermitics later. No, they weren't. That's just a fantasy of yours, unsupported by credible evidence. Originally Posted by Notconvinced Loud explosions were extensively reported in the basements, and near stairwells, areas that had to be weakened to allow the buildings crumble cleanly. No, they didn't. The buildings didn't "crumble", they collapsed as the steel supports failed and the debris from the collapse caused the failures to progress downwards. Originally Posted by Notconvinced All collapses are gravity driven, Some conspiracy fantasists claim that debunkers won't even admit they're right if they say the sky is blue, but this too is a fantasy; you did, at least, get this bit absolutely right. Originally Posted by Notconvinced but this one was only made possible after degrading the underlying supports. Again, a fantasy unsupported by credible evidence. Originally Posted by Notconvinced Zero, the tops dropped after their supporting columns were melted with thermitics. While clever, the unfortunate consequence of this was that the molten metal ended up in the basement also. Oh, and some poured out of the side of the building... smh. And this one is a fantasy specifically contradicted by the evidence. Originally Posted by Notconvinced Again, no. The explosions came from the lower section where there were no fires but STRONG supporting structures which had to be weakened. Again, fantasy. 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
 19th August 2015, 12:01 PM #98 JSanderO Master Poster     Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: nyc Posts: 2,698 Originally Posted by Notconvinced This is an effective counter argument if the explosions were only reported above or near the location of the fires. Explosions in the basements and lower floors cannot be 'hand waived' away so easily. The explosions were used intermittently over a sustained period of time to weaken the supporting structure, thereby facilitating the "progressive collapse" which was initiated by thermitics later. Loud explosions were extensively reported in the basements, and near stairwells, areas that had to be weakened to allow the buildings crumble cleanly. All collapses are gravity driven, but this one was only made possible after degrading the underlying supports. Zero, the tops dropped after their supporting columns were melted with thermitics. While clever, the unfortunate consequence of this was that the molten metal ended up in the basement also. Oh, and some poured out of the side of the building... smh. Again, no. The explosions came from the lower section where there were no fires but STRONG supporting structures which had to be weakened. I suspect many of the explosions were electrical in nature and NOT associated with fire. Since the electrical system runs throughout the building with main switch gear in the basement areas, explosions from shorts likely would cause equipment in the basement switch gear to explode. And these sorts of explosion could occur at locations of step down transformers on the floors which has the main distribution gear. The "molten metal" was used at the top? Are you saying there were multiple columns up there which would have been melted away? Where are they? Completely gone or just ends of them of sections? And the melted steel would migrate to the bottom of each debris pile but left no trail as it flowed downward? No cooling, no slag? no sort of evidence of a "lava like" flow? This is hardly credible.
 19th August 2015, 12:17 PM #99 DGM Skeptic not Atheist     Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 24,416 Originally Posted by Notconvinced The explosions were used intermittently over a sustained period of time to weaken the supporting structure, thereby facilitating the "progressive collapse" which was initiated by thermitics later. Loud explosions were extensively reported in the basements, and near stairwells, areas that had to be weakened to allow the buildings crumble cleanly. All collapses are gravity driven, but this one was only made possible after degrading the underlying supports. The problem with this is it never happened. In fact the lower levels of the buildings did not collapse. People even survived the collapse there. You really need to do some actually research on this subject instead of just believing the "truther" propaganda. __________________ "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
 19th August 2015, 12:26 PM #100 Notconvinced Critical Thinker     Join Date: May 2015 Posts: 339 Originally Posted by MRC_Hans Mmm, interesting discussion, but isn't it a bit late? This has been discussed over, and over, and over ....... in the last very nearly 14 years, and no sensible hypothesis on how, why and when the towers could be rigged with explosives, how it could be synchonized with the plane collisions, why it made no sound and left no traces, has ever been forwarded. It's never too late to form a hypothesis. I've heard very coherent arguments over the years from the 911 truth perspective. I've also heard VERY good official counter arguments, likely levied by many of you. But the facts of 911 are just too messy to ever go away. 1000 years from now, people will see that footage of WTC1 collapsing from the 90th floor down and laugh that anybody could have been so dense as to try and pull that off. Use the Presidential Pardon and stop dumbing down our people. 14years may be a little too soon to reconcile the facts, but it's time that America (or at least select tacticians) realistically consider a level of disclosure which would help regain our intellectual integrity and ensure a more brilliant future. I'd like to quote Adm. Cecil D. Haney, USSTRATCOM Commander: “These complex issues require talented people, whether serving in our all-volunteer force, in our government, as an industry partner, or within academia, and as leaders we must ensure we are developing the talent that will assume that mantle. We are relying on their innovative approaches, their forward thinking, their ability to comprehend and dissect difficult problems, and their questioning attitudes to get at this now and in the future. This is required to preserve not just our democratic way of life, but the foundational aspects of international norms. Ultimately, our future is dependent on those who provide meaningful thought … we must continue to grow the next generation of strategic thinkers.” Granted he is speaking about bright minds being utilized in deterrence, but the principle is the same. It is never too late to think strategically, about anything.
 19th August 2015, 12:27 PM #101 Notconvinced Critical Thinker     Join Date: May 2015 Posts: 339 Here's my research: The upper section is treated as a rigid member crushing floor by floor the lower section. The upper section is not a rigid member. The official explanation is wrong.
 19th August 2015, 12:39 PM #102 DGM Skeptic not Atheist     Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 24,416 Originally Posted by Notconvinced Here's my research: The upper section is treated as a rigid member crushing floor by floor the lower section. The upper section is not a rigid member. The official explanation is wrong. Sorry but, that's not the official explanation. That sounds like you think the Bazant papers were reality. This has never been claimed. Hey, maybe this is why you're "Notconvinced", you don't even know what the "official explanation" is............. ETA: Notconvinced, don't feel so bad, Tony Sz made the same mistake in all the papers he wrote. __________________ "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; 19th August 2015 at 01:21 PM.
 19th August 2015, 12:45 PM #103 JSanderO Master Poster     Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: nyc Posts: 2,698 Originally Posted by Notconvinced Here's my research: The upper section is treated as a rigid member crushing floor by floor the lower section. The upper section is not a rigid member. The official explanation is wrong. The explanation was that the disintegrated mass of the top sections' floors cam crashing down and destroyed the floors below them in a vertical avalanche mostly contained inside the four exterior walls... And those walls as well as the core lost bracing and stability with the floors gone toppled from Euler forces. And the videos look exactly like that. Last edited by JSanderO; 19th August 2015 at 01:50 PM.
 19th August 2015, 01:34 PM #104 GlennB Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian     Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Pie City, Arcadia Posts: 21,568 Originally Posted by Notconvinced Here's my research: The upper section is treated as a rigid member crushing floor by floor the lower section. The upper section is not a rigid member. The official explanation is wrong. Your 'research' is pitiful.
 19th August 2015, 02:31 PM #105 Bravin Neff Thinker   Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 193 Originally Posted by Richard the G I think this is a delightful statistical analysis. I appreciate the kind words. Thank you. Bravin
 19th August 2015, 02:32 PM #106 Bravin Neff Thinker   Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 193 Originally Posted by Axxman300 I love this statistical look at the problem, I think it helps. Thank you. Bravin
 19th August 2015, 06:08 PM #107 Tony Szamboti Illuminator   Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 4,965 Originally Posted by Notconvinced Thx Tony, Did WTC 7 rely on the same sort of exterior support as WTC1&2? All three buildings had exterior columns and central cores, with floors outside of the cores between them, so they were similar that way.
 19th August 2015, 06:12 PM #108 Tony Szamboti Illuminator   Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 4,965 Originally Posted by DGM You do know Mr Jowenko didn't support the idea the towers were a controlled demolition? You do know Tony is not a "building professional" (he's a mechanical engineer)? I have more structure experience. Mechanical engineers are structural engineers. There is a reason we need to take courses in statics, dynamics, material science, strength of materials, and stress analysis just like civil engineers. I can do structural analysis of a machine or a building, as the science is the same. Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 19th August 2015 at 06:17 PM.
 19th August 2015, 06:25 PM #109 JayUtah Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 14,670 Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti Mechanical engineers are structural engineers. There is a reason we need to take courses in statics, dynamics, material science, strength of materials, and stress analysis just like civil engineers. I can do structural analysis of a machine or a building, as the science is the same. http://www.nspe.org/resources/blogs/...current-status
 19th August 2015, 06:39 PM #110 DGM Skeptic not Atheist     Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 24,416 Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti I can do structural analysis of a machine or a building, as the science is the same. So why don't you? __________________ "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
 20th August 2015, 12:42 AM #111 Tony Szamboti Illuminator   Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 4,965 Originally Posted by DGM So why don't you? I have analyzed the collapses of the three NYC high rises and the only thing that fits the observations is controlled demolition. That means the perpetrators had access to the interiors and since nobody was ever investigated for this there are people still at large who were involved.
 20th August 2015, 01:23 AM #112 fagin Philosopher     Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: As far away from casebro as possible. Posts: 5,149 Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti I have analyzed the collapses of the three NYC high rises and the only thing that fits the observations is controlled demolition. Does that mean that you are a bit of a rubbish engineer? __________________ There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
 20th August 2015, 01:38 AM #113 GlennB Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian     Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Pie City, Arcadia Posts: 21,568 Originally Posted by fagin Does that mean that you are a bit of a rubbish engineer? It means he knows enough about engineering to create plausible-sounding absurdities that appear to support a pre-existing condition, namely a paranoid delusion.
 20th August 2015, 02:00 AM #114 Tony Szamboti Illuminator   Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 4,965 Originally Posted by GlennB It means he knows enough about engineering to create plausible-sounding absurdities that appear to support a pre-existing condition, namely a paranoid delusion. What is absurd is to try and explain the collapse of WTC 7 and its eight story symmetric free fall as being a result of anything but controlled demolition. The highly focused expulsions on the corners of WTC 1 aren't happening because of air pressure in the building either and it is absurd to even say that like some want to. The NIST report explanations, that fires caused these three collapses, simply don't work and those who had access to the interiors of those buildings need to be investigated.
 20th August 2015, 03:43 AM #115 fagin Philosopher     Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: As far away from casebro as possible. Posts: 5,149 I thought it was the result of a couple of big planes flying into them, but I'm not a rubbish engineer, obviously. __________________ There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
 20th August 2015, 05:15 AM #116 MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 20,588 Strange that we're stil here... Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti I have analyzed the collapses of the three NYC high rises and the only thing that fits the observations is controlled demolition. How come the explosives made no sound? How come the collapses (of 1 and 2) started at the plane impact sites? Hans __________________ If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
 20th August 2015, 05:49 AM #117 Argumemnon World Maker     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the thick of things Posts: 69,179 Originally Posted by Notconvinced The explosions were used intermittently over a sustained period of time to weaken the supporting structure, thereby facilitating the "progressive collapse" which was initiated by thermitics later. Loud explosions were extensively reported in the basements, and near stairwells, areas that had to be weakened to allow the buildings crumble cleanly. You know, just that big chunk of building on fire would be enough to collapse the WTC towers, so why bother? 9/11 truth is not truth in any sense of the word. __________________ 渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか
 20th August 2015, 06:12 AM #118 Bravin Neff Thinker   Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 193 Originally Posted by MRC_Hans How come the explosives made no sound? Hans But they *DID* make sound. Haven't you seen the analysis? Take a news reporter on the street, recorded in plain site, hundreds of meters away from the collapse. Take the audio from her news feed, run it through a band pass knocking out everything over 150HZ, then "expand" (an audio process opposite of compressing) the living ***** out of it, and lo and behold, clear to anyone who is honest, there are some... wait for it... "thumping" type sounds. And they appear to be spaced apart at intervals consistent with - who knows what - let's just call it "controlled demolition." Because, you know, old school "150 decibel blasts" wouldn't be expected to "cut through" regular audio any other way. LOL And if you believe that, you won't imagine the amazing bridge I have on sale, one day only...
 20th August 2015, 06:15 AM #119 Bravin Neff Thinker   Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 193 (Of course back here on Earth, 150 decibel blasts, within a few hundred meters, would *drown out everything* to the point you cannot even hear your friend standing right next to you. But that's a minor detail.)
 20th August 2015, 06:51 AM #120 JayUtah Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 14,670 Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti I have analyzed the collapses of the three NYC high rises and the only thing that fits the observations is controlled demolition. Then why do almost all licensed and experienced structural engineers reject your analysis? It seems your claimed peers do not agree with you. At one time that was, under the law anyway, a fairly important component of purported expertise. Quote: That means the perpetrators had access to the interiors... Tail wagging the dog. You say it was done, therefore any absurdities in the purported mechanism are waved away by insinuating it nevertheless must have been done "somehow." That's not how forensic engineering works. Which is probably why all the other engineers pay so little attention to you.

International Skeptics Forum

 Bookmarks Digg del.icio.us StumbleUpon Google Reddit