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 20th August 2015, 07:13 AM   #121
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,590
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I have analyzed the collapses of the three NYC high rises and the only thing that fits the observations is controlled demolition.
I've analysed them and the only thing that fits the observations is alien infraviolet lollipops.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 20th August 2015, 09:15 AM   #122
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
 
grandmastershek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,455
So basically in order to make the Towers CD work we have to use an unproven method to mimic progressive collapse, meanwhile going back to WTC 7 when it's convenient even though this is a "classic controlled demolition" with no recordable detonations.

3 record breaking wholly unique explosive CD's in one day that flawlessly covered the sounds of their detonations in any measurable way, and left not a scrap of debris from the devices ,but it happened. Makes sense if you don't think about it.

These people simply ignore the mountain of problems and gaps with their proposed theory.

Keeping everyone quiet.

Keeping the detonations unrecordable.

Keeping the device debris invisible.

Keeping the charges impervious to plane impacts.

Keeping the devices undetectable to bomb sniffing dogs.


As always, must have been magical stuff.
__________________
For as the NWO are higher than the people, so are their ways higher than your ways, and their thoughts than your thoughts. (A amalgam of Isaiah 55:9 & truther logic)

Last edited by grandmastershek; 20th August 2015 at 09:24 AM.
grandmastershek 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 20th August 2015, 04:33 PM   #123
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,869
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Mechanical engineers are structural engineers.
No they are not. The curriculum, competency, licensing and experience are different.
Quote:
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.
You left out all the building structural courses in wood, steel, concrete, seismic forces that structural engineers take that mechanical engineers don't.
For designing or analysis of buildings, mechanical engineers are to structural engineers as gynecologists are to neurosurgeons.
__________________
In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius
A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.There's a sucker born every minute-Barnum

Last edited by BasqueArch; 20th August 2015 at 04:42 PM.
BasqueArch 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 20th August 2015, 04:49 PM   #124
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,655
Originally Posted by BasqueArch View Post
No they are not. The curriculum, competency, licensing and experience are different.
It doesn't matter. The great and powerful Tony Sz has spoken and his flock will believe.

Unfortunately for Tony, none of these are engineers............
__________________
"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
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 20th August 2015, 05:05 PM   #125
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: 28,159
Originally Posted by BasqueArch View Post
No they are not. The curriculum, competency, licensing and experience are different.
But of course we're not dealing with real science, but cargo cult science. In real science, a statement of opinion is held to carry weight if it comes from an expert in the specific field in which the opinion is being stated. In cargo cult science, it is held to carry weight if it comes from someone with some claim to authority in any field. Therefore, Steven Jones becomes an authority on demolition techniques because he's a nuclear physicist, Tony Szamboti on structural collapses because he's a mechanical engineer, and Jim Fetzer on just about anything because he's a philosopher. In cargo cult science, expertise somehow becomes a fungible commodity.

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 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 20th August 2015, 05:57 PM   #126
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,869
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
But of course we're not dealing with real science, but cargo cult science. In real science, a statement of opinion is held to carry weight if it comes from an expert in the specific field in which the opinion is being stated. In cargo cult science, it is held to carry weight if it comes from someone with some claim to authority in any field. Therefore, Steven Jones becomes an authority on demolition techniques because he's a nuclear physicist, Tony Szamboti on structural collapses because he's a mechanical engineer, and Jim Fetzer on just about anything because he's a philosopher. In cargo cult science, expertise somehow becomes a fungible commodity.

Dave
Well said. Being loudly wrong and proven wrong doesn't faze them.
__________________
In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius
A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.There's a sucker born every minute-Barnum
BasqueArch 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 20th August 2015, 07:11 PM   #127
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,867
Interesting that when the statements if truth "experts" are shown to be incorrect.. they never admit it, revise their views or retract. It's like they are in an impenetrable one way bubble... that excrete wrong information/ideas but it won't let the right ones in.

I suppose some like Gage and Jones and Griffin just avoid direct contact with people who can show them to be full of hot air... Out of sight out of mind and they carry on in their bubble.

Nothing seems to penetrate Tony's mind... he's like the energizer bunny and keeps ticking (the same old song).
JSanderO 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 20th August 2015, 07:38 PM   #128
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
In cargo cult science, expertise somehow becomes a fungible commodity.

Dave
Couldn't have said it better. No doubt this explains why twoofer non-structural "structural engineers" don't feel the need to test their theories with structural engineers.
Bravin Neff 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 20th August 2015, 07:40 PM   #129
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
...It's like they are in an impenetrable one way bubble... that excrete wrong information/ideas but it won't let the right ones in...
In other contexts, that's called an "echo chamber."
Bravin Neff 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 20th August 2015, 08:09 PM   #130
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by Bravin Neff View Post
Couldn't have said it better. No doubt this explains why twoofer non-structural "structural engineers" don't feel the need to test their theories with structural engineers.
It doesn't sound like you or your like minded friends here really know the difference between the terms "civil engineer", "structural engineer", and "mechanical engineer" and what is involved.

The term structural engineering can be used to describe work done in civil or mechanical engineering, even though it seems to be used more often by the general public in reference to engineers involved with static civil structures, whereas mechanical engineers performing structural design are more often involved in machine design. The structures of things like cars, trains, and aircraft, are designed by mechanical engineers and this work is generally more complex structurally due to the dynamics involved and fatigue considerations.

As I said, the curriculums for civil and mechanical engineers relative to structural design and analysis are the same. The differences between civil and mechanical are small and for the most part involve things like thermodynamics, heat transfer, soil mechanics, and surveying.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 20th August 2015 at 08:26 PM.
Tony Szamboti 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 20th August 2015, 08:25 PM   #131
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,388
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
It doesn't sound like you or your like minded friends here know the difference between a "structural engineer" and a "mechanical engineer".
Explain the link I posted, from a professional engineering organization, which listed the states (mine included) that test and license structural engineers differently, and lay out a rationale for why more states ought to do that.

Quote:
As I said, the curriculums for civil and mechanical engineers relative to structural design and analysis are the same.
Yes, all engineers study the Core Engineering curriculum. The difference is what happens after graduation. There is a period of specialized apprenticeship following which the engineer may sit for the licensing exam, which -- as I mentioned -- is often specialized to apply additional criteria for structural engineers.

Are you licensed to practice any form of engineering, in any state? Normally that question would not be strictly in keeping with ISF practice. But I ask because at least one of the posters here has assumed you are a licensed professional engineer. As I'm sure you're aware, it is a very serious breach of professional ethics to misrepresent that.

Last edited by JayUtah; 20th August 2015 at 08:26 PM.
JayUtah 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 20th August 2015, 09:38 PM   #132
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
structural design and analysis are the same. The differences between civil and mechanical are small and for the most part involve things like thermodynamics, heat transfer, soil mechanics, and surveying.
I think you understate.

Since you seem bent on the academic side of this discussion, and just to check, I went to the website of one of my old school's engineering department (University of Michigan) and compared two programs: the mechanical and civil engineering curriculums.

As is typical, the engineering undergraduate program is roughly 130 credits. Unsurprisingly, the first 55 were identical across both (and many other) disciplines. They all do the typical math curriculum (calc 1-4, Diff EQ, linear algebra), the typical Physics 1 & 1 and thermo 1 & 2, chemistry, etc.

But after the 55 credits, I see widely divergent programs. The ME's go heavily into design and manufacturing, mechanics, dynamics, vibrations, materials science and controls. Throw in a couple of humanities (micro and macro econ, some statistical courses), plus some electives heavily biased toward dynamics, systems and control, some thermal and fluid sciences, and the ME is done.

The civil engineering kid, after his 55 credits, has several statistical and computational math classes the ME doesn't, thermodynamics of environment, geotechnical engineering, sensors and circuits, plus a dozen electives which all seem aimed at hydrology, hydraulics, environmental, structural engineering and construction contracting.

If the University of Michigan's engineering program is representative - and I'm quite sure it is represent of the elite - then I'm thinking you're bundling the two closer than is merited.

I myself have a degree in economics and mathematics. I have definitely taken more math than the typical engineer, have taken the same physics and chemistry core curriculum type classes, and have in my professional career ended up by accident in the engineering field as a manufacturing and process engineer, working along side ME's and design guys for years. When I come across the civil and structural guys (and definitely the electrical guys), they don't seem cut from the same cloth at all. Without exception they all seem to remember their calculus and thermo far better than the ME's, but maybe that's just my tiny corner of the universe talking.

Last edited by Bravin Neff; 20th August 2015 at 09:45 PM.
Bravin Neff 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 20th August 2015, 09:51 PM   #133
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by Bravin Neff View Post
I think you understate.

Since you seem bent on the academic side of this discussion, and just to check, I went to the website of one of my old school's engineering department (University of Michigan) and compared two programs: the mechanical and civil engineering curriculums.

As is typical, the engineering undergraduate program is roughly 130 credits. Unsurprisingly, the first 55 were identical across both (and many other) disciplines. They all do the typical math curriculum (calc 1-4, Diff EQ, linear algebra), the typical Physics 1 & 1 and thermo 1 & 2, chemistry, etc.

But after the 55 credits, I see widely divergent programs. The ME's go heavily into design and manufacturing, mechanics, dynamics, vibrations, materials science and controls. Throw in a couple of humanities (micro and macro econ, some statistical courses), plus some electives heavily biased toward dynamics, systems and control, some thermal and fluid sciences, and the ME is done.

The civil engineering kid, after his 55 credits, has several statistical and computational math classes the ME doesn't, thermodynamics of environment, geotechnical engineering, sensors and circuits, plus a dozen electives which all seem aimed at hydrology, hydraulics, environmental, structural engineering and construction contracting.

If the University of Michigan's engineering program is representative - and I'm quite sure it is represent of the elite - then I'm thinking you're bundling the two closer than is merited.

I myself have a degree in economics and mathematics. I have definitely taken more math than the typical engineer, have taken the same physics and chemistry core curriculum type classes, and have in my professional career ended up by accident in the engineering field as a manufacturing and process engineer, working along side ME's and design guys for years. When I come across the civil and structural guys (and definitely the electrical guys), they don't seem cut from the same cloth at all. Without exception they all seem to remember their calculus and thermo far better than the ME's, but maybe that's just my tiny corner of the universe talking.
If you even thought about and mildly understood what I said concerning the structural design of cars, trains, and aircraft being done by mechanical engineers you wouldn't have answered in the generic way you did and claimed my points are overstated.
Tony Szamboti 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 20th August 2015, 10:05 PM   #134
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,388
Originally Posted by Bravin Neff View Post
...my old school's engineering department (University of Michigan) ...
I attended U-M engineering, 1987 but only that year. I completed college elsewhere. Go Blue! I concur with your assessment.

Tony, please clarify for the other poster who insinuated: are you actually licensed to do engineering work of any kind in any state? Yes or no.
JayUtah 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 20th August 2015, 11:16 PM   #135
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 341
Originally Posted by Bravin Neff View Post
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?
You'd only have to do this for the perimeter columns, if at all. The core columns were accessible via the elevator shafts.

Originally Posted by Bravin Neff View Post
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.
Right. So why mess around with the unknown probability that Atta and gang would hit their intended targets, and instead go for the certainty of capturing and/or killing them while simultaneously guiding a much more controlled collision and subsequent collapse.

Originally Posted by Bravin Neff View Post
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.
I've pointed out that your 20,000 occupancy factor is grossly overestimated for the portion of the building which actually matters. Can you refine the equation to take into consideration the two different environments, inner and outer cores?
Notconvinced 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 20th August 2015, 11:38 PM   #136
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,827
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
You'd only have to do this for the perimeter columns, if at all. The core columns were accessible via the elevator shafts.
And here you betray your ignorance. Why not check out the plans? They're easily found on the internet.
GlennB 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 21st August 2015, 12:20 AM   #137
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 341
Originally Posted by Bravin Neff View Post
Psychologists have known for years each of us has an "inner physicist."

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.
Regarding the twin towers, I concur. Not only did I swallow the punch, but I was the first to vocally endorse a bombing campaign in my college lecture hall when the 100+ students were queried by a lefty prof as to what might be an appropriate response. I was just as mad as all of us.

However, that emotional allegiance had suppressed three significant doubts I had on 9/11/2001. The first was the unusual impact on the pentagon, the second was the bizarrely absent sign of flight 93, and the third was the collapse of wtc7. I heard Blitzer say that there may have been a forewarning out of the Cayman's (iirc) but never heard it again. That told me the story was being doctored at the outset.

Several other doubts surfaced in the days that followed. One stemmed from a conversation I had with my father who was a senior executive at Verizon at the time. He described to me the chaos within the VZ building prior to the collapses and knowing the significance of telecommunications in the information age/war, it struck me as extremely odd. Another much more significant doubt surfaced when the Anthrax attacks began. It reminded me of the serial killer shows I'd seen, when the killer has intended targets, but strikes a few seemingly random ones first, so as to make the whole thing seem random. It was clear to me then that we were NOT going to back away from the Patriot Act, at ANY cost. I have no doubt that the Daschle attacks were just the tip of the iceberg, and thankfully our politicians cowered before it got any rougher. The other thing that, probably more than anything else, made me realize the whole event was a massive deception was the death of William Cooper. I had just happened to catch the story on the local news, but as I had the unusual experience of having read "Behold a Pale Horse" (and all of it's nutty kookvilleness) I had the oh **** moment of truly understanding that nothing was what it seemed.

Originally Posted by Bravin Neff View Post
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.
Knowing to what extent we individual humans are powerless had a deeply scarring effect on me, and I went off the rails so to speak for several years. I put 911 completely out of my mind, blocking the Government atrocity fully. It wasn't until my MENSA group had a showing of Loose Change that I got somewhat interested in all of it again. The movie made sense, and more than anything, it was refreshing to hear that others had similar doubts.

The more I've researched the subject, the more it's evident who the players are, and the more flawed the official story, from start to finish. The conundrum we're in now however, is that as a society we're being asked to embrace a mythology, and I fear that's going to leave us intellectually desolate, and pawns to other powers who simply won't buy into the BS.

I digress... back to the OP. I cannot watch footage of the twin towers collapsing without seeing them being blown apart. The elements of CD are so compelling, they are simply evidentiary, and the attempts to hide them are clever but inevitably wasted.

The probability of them being strategically destroyed by incendiaries and explosives, after being struck by aircraft which might have otherwise been piloted by terrorists, is 1.
Notconvinced 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 21st August 2015, 12:22 AM   #138
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 341
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
And here you betray your ignorance. Why not check out the plans? They're easily found on the internet.
What do you disagree with? The accessibility of the majority of inner columns?
Notconvinced 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 21st August 2015, 12:24 AM   #139
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
If you even thought about and mildly understood what I said...
I thought about and mildly understood it.
Bravin Neff 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 21st August 2015, 12:28 AM   #140
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
I've pointed out that your 20,000 occupancy factor is grossly overestimated for the portion of the building which actually matters. Can you refine the equation to take into consideration the two different environments, inner and outer cores?
There is only one (ahem, 2) building, and it has its occupants. My term "median WTC occupant" by definition captures every occupant, regardless of how remote from, or close to, they are from the alleged conspirators - there is no refinement of the equation necessary. What you insist on is a refinement of the probability of defeating the median WTC occupant.

Why don't you refine it? And please justify your version.

Last edited by Bravin Neff; 21st August 2015 at 12:54 AM.
Bravin Neff 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 21st August 2015, 12:36 AM   #141
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Right. So why mess around with the unknown probability that Atta and gang would hit their intended targets, and instead go for the certainty of capturing and/or killing them while simultaneously guiding a much more controlled collision and subsequent collapse.
The coherence of this statement baffles me and I cannot respond to it. Perhaps you could clarify your meaning.
Bravin Neff 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 21st August 2015, 12:48 AM   #142
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 341
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
How do the 19 murderers fit in your magical fantasy which mocks the murder of thousands?
If I were a General... 3000 dead to win the war would be pretty good numbers.
(I wouldn't have used non-combatants, but still... those are good numbers)

The 19 (or so) terrorists were with certainty the reason for the whole operation. We HAD to get control over the digital realm, the physical realm, and completely reallocate our priorities to ensure individuals like those 19 didn't trash our landmarks, or dirty bomb our cities going forward. We needed NORTHCOM. We needed DHS. We needed to take some fight to the camps. We needed a security council who was ok with drone strikes. And more importantly than anything else, we needed to have the most sophisticated intelligence apparatuses this planet has ever seen. We got that, and I do not mock it.

Nor do I mock the integrity of reasoned debate, intellectual honesty, and physical certainty. When our Country has digressed to schoolyard antics to keep its citizens from critically thinking, we have a BFP.

Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
And you lied about NIST, they did explain the collapse. Did you fail to read NIST?
I read the important part, when they claim that "global collapse would ensue". That's the part that might have been interesting, if they'd even touched it. It didn't matter if the initial collapse happened by fire, planes, bombs, thermite, or termites. What mattered to me was, how could the upper portion of tower 1 crush 90 floors of tower below it? Bazant knows..... he even says so in line one of his paper. "global collapses seen in earthquakes and controlled demolitions".
NIST did not explain the global collapse, for without explaining how all the additional energy got into the system, they can't.

Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Why do you comment on things you don't understand?
I really do try and refrain from making unfounded accusations in public forums. The things I comment on are because I see the issues coming to a head in the world around us. Copernicus had his day... and I'd like America to stop embarrassing itself.
Notconvinced 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 21st August 2015, 12:52 AM   #143
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Regarding the twin towers, I concur....

<snip>

I cannot watch footage of the twin towers collapsing without seeing them being blown apart. The elements of CD are so compelling...
It sounds to me exactly what I described before: your other intellectual faculties have interpreted things, up to and including rewriting you "inner physicist's" narrative and even rewriting its *history.* If your inner physicist originally saw a gravity driven event, and now you no longer do, something other than your "inner physicist" is making you see things differently. That should send up a red flag - and you seem to be explaining, in a long winded way, that your having been convinced there is a conspiracy with powerful actors deceiving us is now driving your unmediated, unadulterated mental sense of the behavior of physical objects.

THAT IS PRECISELY when deep, personal, honest introspective reflection that self deception may be taking over. You aren't the only one.

Quote:
The probability of them being strategically destroyed by incendiaries and explosives, after being struck by aircraft which might have otherwise been piloted by terrorists, is 1.
You are either being hyperbolic (which is plausible, given the tenor and tone of your previous paragraphs) or you do not understand probabilities.
Bravin Neff 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 21st August 2015, 12:52 AM   #144
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 341
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Do you drill steel with a hammer drill often.............
all day long baby! but no.... the concrete/asbestos fireproofing yes.
Notconvinced 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 21st August 2015, 01:00 AM   #145
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 341
Originally Posted by Bravin Neff View Post
If your inner physicist originally saw a gravity driven event, and now you no longer do, something other than your "inner physicist" is making you see things differently.
Yes, the realization that the upper block was not a rigid member.

Originally Posted by Bravin Neff View Post
You are either being hyperbolic (which is plausible, given the tenor and tone of your previous paragraphs) or you do not understand probabilities.
Hasn't it already been determined in this forum that the probability of something happening which happened is 1?

Originally Posted by Bravin Neff View Post
THAT IS PRECISELY when deep, personal, honest introspective reflection that self deception may be taking over. You aren't the only one.
I do appreciate your efforts.
Notconvinced 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 21st August 2015, 01:23 AM   #146
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
I read the important part, when they claim that "global collapse would ensue". That's the part that might have been interesting, if they'd even touched it.
What a bizarre but not unpredicted statement in that 2015 it is as wornout as it gets.

"The important part?"

You mean you didn't find "important" the over 10,000 pages of one of the most impressive event reconstructions in history - the modelling of the collisions, the modelling of the damage, the modeling of the fires, the cataloging of the steel and materials and fitting it all back together, the thousands of photographs and video clips - all painfully sequenced used to calibrate their models to keep them consistent with the physical evidence...

And you claim the important part is how they don't touch the global collapse part whose outcome is not in question?

So let me understand: damn near the most sophistication computer modelling ever done by human beings, performed on the damage and fires leading up to collapse initiation, wasn't "impressive" to you, but you would rather have them model something many orders of magnitude more difficult - and frankly impossible by any supercomputer today - just to "explain" what has already been explained - that global collapse, once initiated, was a certainty?

Friend, that is standard twoofer quote-mine memes and robotic regurgitation.
Bravin Neff 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 21st August 2015, 01:29 AM   #147
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Hasn't it already been determined in this forum that the probability of something happening which happened is 1?
The probability of a past event is 1. If the past event's causal chain is in question, then the probability the correct explanation is the one that has no evidence ("being strategically destroyed by incendiaries and explosives") is very low and subject to occam's razor, to say nothing of unparsimonious.
Bravin Neff 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 21st August 2015, 01:33 AM   #148
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Yes, the realization that the upper block was not a rigid member.
It sounds like you need to get your inner physicist working to explain the expected results of the falling "non rigid member." How are you coming along with that?
Bravin Neff 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 21st August 2015, 01:41 AM   #149
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 341
Last one for the evening...

If the top didn't fall to one side, the non rigid member would have "crushed up" at the same time it "crushed down", and would have found itself lodged and embedded in about what would be left of the 80th floor. That would have been the end of the party.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Notconvinced 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 21st August 2015, 02:18 AM   #150
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,573
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
It doesn't sound like you or your like minded friends here really know the difference between the terms "civil engineer", "structural engineer", and "mechanical engineer" and what is involved.

The term structural engineering can be used to describe work done in civil or mechanical engineering, even though it seems to be used more often by the general public in reference to engineers involved with static civil structures, whereas mechanical engineers performing structural design are more often involved in machine design. The structures of things like cars, trains, and aircraft, are designed by mechanical engineers and this work is generally more complex structurally due to the dynamics involved and fatigue considerations.

As I said, the curriculums for civil and mechanical engineers relative to structural design and analysis are the same. The differences between civil and mechanical are small and for the most part involve things like thermodynamics, heat transfer, soil mechanics, and surveying.
All this is immaterial. Even the best and most relevantly educated engineer can be mistaken.

The evidence is what matters. Present evidence.

Note: "I'm a very good engineer, and my opinion is .... " is not evidence.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans 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 21st August 2015, 02:25 AM   #151
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,827
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
What do you disagree with? The accessibility of the majority of inner columns?
Only some surfaces of some columns were accessible from the elevator shafts. Most were not. Presumably you knew this?
GlennB 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 21st August 2015, 03:15 AM   #152
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: 28,159
Originally Posted by Bravin Neff View Post
I thought about and mildly understood it.
You'll see this a lot with Tony. The normal flow of the conversation goes something like:

"This is my opinion, which since I am an engineer should be treated as incontrovertible fact."
"But these facts contradict your opinion; how do you explain that?"
"You're an idiot."

He's just quite good at wording it a bit differently each time.

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 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 21st August 2015, 03:17 AM   #153
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: 28,159
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
If the top didn't fall to one side, the non rigid member would have "crushed up" at the same time it "crushed down", and would have found itself lodged and embedded in about what would be left of the 80th floor. That would have been the end of the party.
That's just guesswork. Present your calculations please, ideally treating the towers as realistic structures rather than featureless blocks. And remember that the falling top block retains its mass however much its structure is disrupted.

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 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 21st August 2015, 04:18 AM   #154
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,867
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Last one for the evening...

If the top didn't fall to one side, the non rigid member would have "crushed up" at the same time it "crushed down", and would have found itself lodged and embedded in about what would be left of the 80th floor. That would have been the end of the party.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Basic flaw... any single twin tower floor was incapable of statically supporing more than several twin tower floors... And what you had in 1wtc is something 20 floors to support on a single slab Not gonna happen.

Last edited by JSanderO; 21st August 2015 at 04:20 AM.
JSanderO 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 21st August 2015, 04:38 AM   #155
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,590
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
If you even thought about and mildly understood what I said concerning the structural design of cars, trains, and aircraft being done by mechanical engineers you wouldn't have answered in the generic way you did and claimed my points are overstated.
Well, that's a dismissive post if I ever saw one.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 21st August 2015, 04:54 AM   #156
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,867
Tony, whether you hold a professional license hardly matters because your thinking about the world trade center is flawed... and it has been pointed out to you many times and you are stubborn in your refusal to accept.... the truth. ;-)
JSanderO 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 21st August 2015, 05:09 AM   #157
Major_Tom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,960
Originally Posted by Bravin Neff View Post

"The important part?"

You mean you didn't find "important" the over 10,000 pages of one of the most impressive event reconstructions in history - the modelling of the collisions, the modelling of the damage, the modeling of the fires, the cataloging of the steel and materials and fitting it all back together, the thousands of photographs and video clips - all painfully sequenced used to calibrate their models to keep them consistent with the physical evidence
...

And you claim the important part is how they don't touch the global collapse part whose outcome is not in question?

So let me understand: damn near the most sophistication computer modelling ever done by human beings, performed on the damage and fires leading up to collapse initiation, wasn't "impressive" to you, but you would rather have them model something many orders of magnitude more difficult - and frankly impossible by any supercomputer today - just to "explain" what has already been explained - that global collapse, once initiated, was a certainty?

Bravin Neff, is this your 'inner physicist' working?

You do not seem to realize you are simply repeating a meme yourself. Such is the nature of being trapped within a false choice.


Take the case of WTC1. All NIST descriptions of the 'painfully sequenced' collapse initiation event are reproduced at this link.

The actual WTC1 movement during collapse initiation is most accurately mapped at this link.



In your quote this is what your wrote of the NIST product:
  • damn near the most sophistication computer modelling ever done by human beings
  • one of the most impressive event reconstructions in history


You seem to sincerely believe this. This is a good opportunity to test your 'inner physicist' and compare it to that of the person you are arguing against.

Are you capable of reviewing the information in the links given and critically examining the accuracy of your own beliefs as expressed in your quote?
__________________
Website

Last edited by Major_Tom; 21st August 2015 at 05:11 AM.
Major_Tom 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 21st August 2015, 07:49 AM   #158
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
Bravin Neff, is this your 'inner physicist' working?
The "inner physicist" is, as I made clear, a psychological feature of the human mind that anticipates and understands the behavior of physical objects roughly in accordance with newtonian kinematics and mechanics.

Quote:
Take the case of WTC1. All NIST descriptions of the 'painfully sequenced' collapse initiation event are reproduced at...
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/...sition=561:561

Quote:
Are you capable of reviewing the information in the links given and critically examining the accuracy of your own beliefs as expressed in your quote?
I am. From your first "sharpprintinginc" link:

The writer tells us what they are going to show: "In reality, the building leaned less than 1 degree and had multiple signs of early core failure over the original column failure sequence, as demonstrated in this section."

After wading throgh a seemingly endless number of claims that "NIST misrepresentations of the [WTC1] building leaning 8 degrees to the south." We finally get to something backing up this claim:

"Fig 2.33 As seen from 4 different angles synchronized, this is the actual position of the upper section just as the last group of columns fail along the northwest corner. Note how visibly different each of the images are when compared to the NIST misrepresentations of the building leaning 8 degrees to the south."

We are given images whose purported "synchronization" aren't demonstrated to be synchronized at all, but with a header that: "It can be easily verified that the northwest corner had already failed in the frames shown below..." and then doesn't verify this. Furthermore it tells us:

"Note how visibly different each of the images are when compared to the NIST misrepresentations of the building leaning 8 degrees to the south." - Images with no source or time stamp data. Presumably they are asking the reader to gather the relevant videos and do the synchronizing themselves.

What follows from this:

"A MORE PRECISE DETERMINATION OF TILT ANGLE - Anyone can determine tilt angles from various perspectives over which all columns fail by using a simple 4 step process..."

Do they give it to us? No, they keep the infomercial going:

"By synchronizing videos from other perspectives with the Sauret video from the north, tilt angles can be determined from each perspective."

Followed by no calculation of any angle. Where is the angle calculation? I appreciate the nice soliloquy at the end on the merits of the "scientific method" as much as the next guy, but the thesis of the paper was: the building leaned less than 1 degree... Where is this shown?

I thought my mind was playing tricks on me, so I started googling the page, first with "angle" then with "calculation" then with "1 degree" and I never found a calculation of the 1 degree angle - the thing the paper was supposed to show.

Then the writer says:

"The following sequences of images from NIST NCSTAR 1-6 show the entirety of the visual evidence the NIST presents to support the claim that the building tilted 8 degrees as column failures propagated from south to north."

What is omitted is the entirety of the video evidence cataloged at the NIST site, and mentioned by NIST as used in their angle measurements in 6.2.1

Why is this omitted? Was the video evidence even reviewed (you don't need to answer that, LOL)? Why does it claim "the following... show the entirey of the visual evidence..." when this is clearly false?

What did you come away from this website believing, and why? Are you impressed with this sort of argumentation?

I reject this paper, and so should you.

Last edited by Bravin Neff; 21st August 2015 at 07:55 AM.
Bravin Neff 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 21st August 2015, 08:02 AM   #159
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,655
Originally Posted by Bravin Neff View Post

I reject this paper, and so should you.
FYI, It's his website and "book".
__________________
"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
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 21st August 2015, 08:14 AM   #160
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
FYI, It's his website and "book".
Ouch. Apologies if I came across harsh.
Bravin Neff 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 01:19 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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

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