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 22nd August 2015, 01:25 PM   #201
Richard the G
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 236
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Bravin Neff, you've done well on this thread. Especially, you've independently discovered the hollowness of the former truth movement's "engineering" claims. They can point at a video and say "the angle is wrong" but they can't show quantitatively what the angle is or what it should be. They can say "there wasn't enough energy in the fire to weaken the structure to the point of failure" but they can't show quantitatively how much there was OR how much would be required. (Dave Rogers calls that the Unevaluated Inequality Fallacy.) And they'll do anything it takes to distract from that: argue credentials, argue psychology ("you can't face the uncomfortable truth"), argue motives, argue analogies, argue personal history ("you said something five years ago I still disagree with so you can't be trusted"), argue forum rules ("I'd tell you but it would be off-topic"), anything but actual numbers.

One thing I'd caution you about, however, is the reliability of the "inner physicist" you speak of. For almost everyone, it works very well at the familiar scales of the objects we manipulate. But change the scale, and most people have (and eventually everyone has) a lot more difficulty.

I once was working at a new temporary job in a warehouse, and a stack of boxes a few steps away from me got tipped over slightly and was moments from falling. I pushed back on it and it didn't fall. The foreman saw this and gave me a well-deserved chewing out. Back home in my garage, pushing back on a stack of boxes to keep it from falling is a reasonable choice, but in a warehouse the boxes are bigger (not by a huge amount, but enough) and heavier (not by a huge amount, but enough) and stacked higher (not by a huge amount, but enough) so that the correct thing to do if a stack of boxes starts falling over is to run away. Otherwise you're likely to get killed. I had to adjust my expectations of cause and effect to the then-unfamiliar new scale.

When it comes to tall buildings, most people's intuition fails. If you ask which is stronger, a high-rise steel building or a wine goblet, most people will (correctly) choose the building. If you ask which is stronger in comparison to its own weight, most people will still pick the building, but they're now wrong. You might be able to challenge their wrong-scale intuition by phrasing the question differently (e.g. "Which would be more likely to hold up without breaking if stacked five high: wine goblets or high-rise buildings?) but even that might fail. "Buildings are made of strong steel and wine goblets are made of fragile glass," their "inner physicists" are reminding them, and they can't see past that. And they're more likely to challenge the validity of your analogy than examine why their intuition might be wrong.

There are plenty of people out there who could watch a cartoon of Mighty Mouse picking up a twenty-story brick building by one corner, and think, "accepting the premise that the mouse is really strong, that's completely plausible." Among those are the former truthers who made world trade center collapse models out of cardboard pizza boxes, office trays, chicken wire and similar materials, and observed that they don't have any tendency to crush under their own weight. And they further argued that that should be even more true for the wtc towers because they were made of much stronger materials. That the behavior would change with scale is something their "inner physicists" were completely oblivious to.
Lovely observations Myriad.
Richard the G 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 August 2015, 03:30 PM   #202
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,427
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post

I have 3 years of examples which show how many JREF/ISF posters handle technical discussions. Many have no history of having an informed, fact-based technical discussion in those threads over a 3 year period.

The part you also document is how you handle technical discussions, you don't. You seem to ignore them completly unless they are on your terms. This is well documented by...........well.....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
DGM 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 August 2015, 07:46 PM   #203
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,700
The issue that Myriad raises misses a few points. It is not complicated to compare the strength of materials.. glass, steel cardboard and so on, It is more complex when the things are not homogenous materials but assemblies of them... with joints connecting similar and different materials with different properties. Buildings are like that... wine glasses and pizza box are no regardless of the scale... though for scale is a key factor when dealing with "strength". An ant is much stronger than an elephant in proportion to its body mass. And this is one of the reasons that "scale models" of building collapses cannot be done. You can't scale gravity and you can't scale time. You can scale dimensions.

The collapse of the towers was an event on the micro level and the macro level... It is not likely to know what was going on at the micro level... despite seeing areas of fire or damage to the building.

Block mechanics do not apply and are an absurd and false simplification. The collapse occurred because the mass (loads) were freed..had escaped from the load paths which are the steel columns. The free mass then destroyed the intact floors which were still connected... free that mass ultimately leaving the columns...(load paths) doing nothing but trying to stand on their own. But that was not possible because the the floor system provided the stability for the columns. And so they too succumbed.

The "mystery" was to understand how the plane damage and the subsequent heat got the floor mass free to begin the runaway progress collapse.
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 23rd August 2015, 01:10 AM   #204
Richard the G
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 236
Yes it is a failing of mechanical engineers that they look at block mechanics and do not understand the structural implications, hence Tony finds himself in a rabbit hole whenever he talks about structures.

I agree with your summary. However the "mystery" of failure, isnt really a mystery on WTC 1 and 2 because the failures happened close to the point of impact. I think the challenge for many structural engineers, which is rarely discussed, is how can they explain how these towers stay standing for so long with so many adjacent columns sheared.

It's also explains why the whole ae911truth nonsense about explosives at every level is irrelevant.

The statistical analysis by Brevin simply reinforces that had they tried to apply CD it is almost certain they would have been found out. So on that basis they would not have tried it... because it would have been nuts
Richard the G 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 August 2015, 06:32 AM   #205
Mr.Herbert
Graduate Poster
 
Mr.Herbert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,448
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
No normal office worker is going to be suspicious with the elevator renovation project going on and their chances of seeing anything is nill if the charges are set in the elevator shafts, which aren't observable to the office workers. This is why an elevator renovation would be a perfect ploy to use for both a cover and means to set the charges.

The way the buildings were taken down was by cutting the core columns and causing the exterior to be pulled inward and buckle. The only thing needed on the exterior was to cut the corner spandrel connections to let the exterior walls petal outward when pushed downward by the falling floors.

Watch this short video and explain what you think is going on at the corners https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUDoGuLpirc
Tony is back....

Tony, have you ever worked with IEUC Local 1? Please let me know how these core columns were accessed. I'd love to know.
Mr.Herbert 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 August 2015, 06:56 AM   #206
Major_Tom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,960
Originally Posted by Bravin Neff View Post
I appreciate the welcome.

Regarding the videos I pointed you to - the ones you originally couldn't be bothered to spend the 5 seconds to click on - yes, the same ones omitted in your paper when you said "...the entirety of the visual evidence..." - did you find them useful? Have you updated your paper yet?


...


Let's be clear about something: if you don't correct your record and acknowledge your error, then are not a trustworthy source. But don't let that stop you from PMing me this "better collection" you have.




A far, far superior list of compiled videos:


The 911Dataset Project


CTV WTC 1 Archive
CTV WTC 2 Archive
CTV WTC 7 Archive


Femr2
Xenomorph



Concerning the "original NIST videos" to which you have linked, to quote another poster who works with 9/11datasets.org:

There is no such thing when it comes to WTC footage, neither regarding the source nor the quality.

Is this the original recording quality by a TV professional camera back in 2001?


Frame taken from "CBS-Net NIST Dub #7" tape, FOIA file: "42A0102 - G25D12", Release 25, NIST FOIA #09-42, on 911datasets.org. [Link]

If you look through the released WTC video tapes, it becomes obvious that NIST didn't obtain copies directly from master tapes, especially material from TV news stations.
It looks as if NIST gathered "post-production crap" from the networks: Overbrightened, dull, blurry, noisy, fast forth or back rewinded, butchered videos, set together out of chronological order, missing audio on one channel, low volume, completely silent or altered audio tracks (like at the mentionend tape above).

Ironically, most of the few amateur video recordings also obtained by NIST, have far superior quality than most of their TV-Pro material.

end quote.


>>>>>>>>>>



In addition, you have no working concept as to how and when the much smaller collection of NIST videos appearing on their site came to be released to the public. They were basically forced to release them though FOIA requests. The FOIA releases were then uploaded by 9/11datasets.org from 2011 to the present.



What appears on the NIST website is only a small fragmented shadow on the video available within the public domain, and they resisted presenting even that for years after their reports were published.


Yet that fragmented shadow of a collection is perceived by you as being massive, a 'ton', using your own comment, and must appear quite impressive to you. And anyone who doesn't agree with you must appear to you as an ignorant bumpkin. I really don't blame you for having such such a highly predictable reaction. You are merely a product of the subculture in which you have obtained these viewpoints, merely a product of a forum like this one that actively promotes and propagates popular memes in which the NIST as a type of intellectual diety which should never be questioned or critically examined.


>>>>>>

Also, if you look at the NIST simulations through the link you provided, you will notice a complete absence of any simulation of both the WTC1 and WTC2 collapse initiation process which the NIST has claimed to perform. It is now 2015, 10 years after the WTC1 and 2 reports were released, and they have never released their simulation results of either tower despite repeated requests to do so. No one outside of the NIST researchers themselves have ever been allowed to see them.
__________________
Website

Last edited by Major_Tom; 23rd August 2015 at 07:10 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 23rd August 2015, 08:32 AM   #207
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,427
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
If you look through the released WTC video tapes, it becomes obvious that NIST didn't obtain copies directly from master tapes, especially material from TV news stations.
I'd love to see your proof of this. Would it be because that was what they were allowed to release? Let me guess, you think CBS (ect)wouldn't mind them giving away their property?

Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
In addition, you have no working concept as to how and when the much smaller collection of NIST videos appearing on their site came to be released to the public. They were basically forced to release them though FOIA requests. The FOIA releases were then uploaded by 9/11datasets.org from 2011 to the present.
What is your evidence that what the NIST released was the total amount they had access to? I know for a fact it wasn't.

Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
What appears on the NIST website is only a small fragmented shadow on the video available within the public domain, and they resisted presenting even that for years after their reports were published.

This doesn't mean the video evidence they used is inferior to yours. They had access to public domain video/stills and in one case, I personally know of two videos that you or anyone else won't see.

The NIST can't "release" video/images without the owners permission. In the videos I mentioned, they were taken by a friend and although he allowed the NIST to view them they were not allowed to release them.

What seems naive here is your belief that the NIST did not have access to what the rest of the world did (and more).

Don't get me wrong. Your video catalog is very good. It just doesn't follow that this makes your analysis better.

Care to address the question of "key areas"?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=234372
__________________
"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 August 2015 at 08:50 AM.
DGM 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 August 2015, 10:07 AM   #208
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 339
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post

Block mechanics do not apply and are an absurd and false simplification.

Oh good, we agree! Then perhaps you can explain why the ASCE and NIST endorse a theory which relies on the upper section, "Part A" as its described in the 'literature, behaving as a BLOCK which crushes the lower section, "Part C". Yet inexplicably part C is not allowed to be treated as a block. It's a joke and you fools have swallowed the punch.

Watch Ryan Mackey try and explain this conundrum, and offer all of the scale model problems, yet never address this FUNDAMENTAL problem with ALL official explanations. In Mackey's "excellent" description he treats the upper section as a block. NIST says that global collapse would ensue as described in Bazant's work which treats the upper section as a block. And ALL of your debunking efforts, from the planes to the thermite, to the official explanations and web war treat the upper section as a block.

The upper section was composed of floors, and if you explain the collapse as having ANY effect on floors, you must apply the same principle to the upper section.

By perpetuating this lie you make a joke out of science, and unfortunately, American science particularly.

Errata: Bazant means military recruit. Run with that and you have a conspiracy theory, but look at the argument above and you have LOGIC. It won't go away, EVER.


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 23rd August 2015, 11:13 AM   #209
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,427
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Oh good, we agree! Then perhaps you can explain why the ASCE and NIST endorse a theory which relies on the upper section, "Part A" as its described in the 'literature, behaving as a BLOCK which crushes the lower section, "Part C". Yet inexplicably part C is not allowed to be treated as a block. It's a joke and you fools have swallowed the punch.
They don't. It's just you not understanding their use of the model.

This is just another example of you venturing out of your depth.

Everyone noticed you didn't respond to your errors in understanding the "official explanation". Why is this?
__________________
"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 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 August 2015, 11:14 AM   #210
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,700
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Oh good, we agree! Then perhaps you can explain why the ASCE and NIST endorse a theory which relies on the upper section, "Part A" as its described in the 'literature, behaving as a BLOCK which crushes the lower section, "Part C". Yet inexplicably part C is not allowed to be treated as a block. It's a joke and you fools have swallowed the punch.

Watch Ryan Mackey try and explain this conundrum, and offer all of the scale model problems, yet never address this FUNDAMENTAL problem with ALL official explanations. In Mackey's "excellent" description he treats the upper section as a block. NIST says that global collapse would ensue as described in Bazant's work which treats the upper section as a block. And ALL of your debunking efforts, from the planes to the thermite, to the official explanations and web war treat the upper section as a block.

The upper section was composed of floors, and if you explain the collapse as having ANY effect on floors, you must apply the same principle to the upper section.

By perpetuating this lie you make a joke out of science, and unfortunately, American science particularly.

Errata: Bazant means military recruit. Run with that and you have a conspiracy theory, but look at the argument above and you have LOGIC. It won't go away, EVER.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why are you asking me to explain or justify the thinking of anyone or any other organization, professional or otherwise???????????

I have found I don't agree or am not convinced by the presentations related to 9/1/ of some of the persons and organizations you mentioned.

Having said that... the 9/11 truth presentations are so far off the mark they barely contain anything of merit.

I am not involved in 9/11 discussions to debunk. I am online to understand for myself what likely happened and I have most of what I need.

The events were far too complex and we have far to little detailed data from the period from the plane strike to the collapse and in the case of 7wtc from the plane strike of the twin towers (impacts on 7wtc) to then it collapsed.

Lots of guesses and assumption about what happened... some better than others... but they remain guesses or assumptions.
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 23rd August 2015, 11:24 AM   #211
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,700
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I'd love to see your proof of this. Would it be because that was what they were allowed to release? Let me guess, you think CBS (ect)wouldn't mind them giving away their property?



What is your evidence that what the NIST released was the total amount they had access to? I know for a fact it wasn't.



This doesn't mean the video evidence they used is inferior to yours. They had access to public domain video/stills and in one case, I personally know of two videos that you or anyone else won't see.

The NIST can't "release" video/images without the owners permission. In the videos I mentioned, they were taken by a friend and although he allowed the NIST to view them they were not allowed to release them.

What seems naive here is your belief that the NIST did not have access to what the rest of the world did (and more).

Don't get me wrong. Your video catalog is very good. It just doesn't follow that this makes your analysis better.

Care to address the question of "key areas"?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=234372
I suspect that NIST felt that their explanation should be accepted without all the information out there. I believe their theory is more credible when they don't release data which may... MAY lead to the conclusion that their theories may have been incorrect. I suspect there are many ways to skin the cat and each one needs data to support it and maybe there is not enough to make a compelling case so they essentially "cherry pick" to support their scenario... possible.. but think it was probably not the correct one,

In a sense it doesn't matter. They were asked to show that the plane impacts and fires could cause a total building collapse. And they showed it could... one of the ways to skin a cat. Of course they did not mention (I believe) that this one just one of several (many) ways the events could have unfolded to lead to total collapse AND match the visual record. Maybe theyb didn't have the budget for this... or maybe it would seem that they were less than sure if they hedged with several scenario possiblities???
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 23rd August 2015, 11:29 AM   #212
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,427
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
I suspect that NIST felt that their explanation should be accepted without all the information out there. I believe their theory is more credible when they don't release data which may... MAY lead to the conclusion that their theories may have been incorrect. I suspect there are many ways to skin the cat and each one needs data to support it and maybe there is not enough to make a compelling case so they essentially "cherry pick" to support their scenario... possible.. but think it was probably not the correct one,

In a sense it doesn't matter. They were asked to show that the plane impacts and fires could cause a total building collapse. And they showed it could... one of the ways to skin a cat. Of course they did not mention (I believe) that this one just one of several (many) ways the events could have unfolded to lead to total collapse AND match the visual record. Maybe theyb didn't have the budget for this... or maybe it would seem that they were less than sure if they hedged with several scenario possiblities???
I think it's simpler than that. They released a technical report and didn't consider it would be picked at by laymen.............
__________________
"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 August 2015 at 11:32 AM.
DGM 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 August 2015, 11:44 AM   #213
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,700
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I think it's simpler than that. They released a technical report and didn't consider it would be picked at by laymen.............
What the heck is that supposed to mean? Their report would only be read by academia and professional organizations? Absurd.

Picked apart? Explain that.
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 23rd August 2015, 11:58 AM   #214
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,427
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
What the heck is that supposed to mean? Their report would only be read by academia and professional organizations? Absurd.

Picked apart? Explain that.
Easy. They are not used to having to explain things to the general public. The general public does not typically read their reports. This is a professional to professional organisation, aspect of engineering expertise are assumed.

The biggest mistake they made was to address questions from the "truth" movement. This lead to a half assed explanation of "free-fall" and provided them with fuel that they still use today. "Global collapse" is another prime example. No structural engineer needs this term explained.
__________________
"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 August 2015 at 12:00 PM.
DGM 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 August 2015, 12:21 PM   #215
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,700
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Easy. They are not used to having to explain things to the general public. The general public does not typically read their reports. This is a professional to professional organisation, aspect of engineering expertise are assumed.

The biggest mistake they made was to address questions from the "truth" movement. This lead to a half assed explanation of "free-fall" and provided them with fuel that they still use today. "Global collapse" is another prime example. No structural engineer needs this term explained.
On the face global collapse is understandble by anyone who speaks English. The issue I believe was to explain the mechanism(s) involved in the global collapse. One can understand, for example how a massive bomb destroys something in an instant. but the "global collapse" was a process that took (in the case of the twin towers) 10-20 seconds. NIST did not explain as far as I know... what was going on during those 10-20 seconds.
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 23rd August 2015, 12:29 PM   #216
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
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.
Hammer drills are used to drill holes in concrete, they would not drill a hole in steel.

Whoever arms that wireless explosive is a braver man than i am.
tsig 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 August 2015, 12:29 PM   #217
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,427
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
On the face global collapse is understandble by anyone who speaks English. The issue I believe was to explain the mechanism(s) involved in the global collapse. One can understand, for example how a massive bomb destroys something in an instant. but the "global collapse" was a process that took (in the case of the twin towers) 10-20 seconds. NIST did not explain as far as I know... what was going on during those 10-20 seconds.
They were not tasked to. They were tasked to identify the events/mechanisms that lead to the global collapse. They did this fairly well.

They needed to identify how to prevent the **** from hitting the fan, not explain what happened after it did. They also addressed how to make it safer once it does.
__________________
"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 August 2015 at 12:30 PM.
DGM 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 August 2015, 12:48 PM   #218
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
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
Crushed doesn't mean vanished.
tsig 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 August 2015, 12:56 PM   #219
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
A far... [snipped big answer to a question nobody appears to have asked]
I appreciate your answers to questions I didn't ask. The video record you point to is impressive.

Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
...and you cannot provide any video evidence whatsoever that you previously claimed is cataloged at the NIST site.
I didn't catch if you retracted this yet. Is that up thread? I looked, but I will admit I didn't find it.

Anyway, getting back to the questions I DID ask, in that webpage you originally pointed to, when you said: "In reality, the building leaned less than 1 degree... as demonstrated in this section." Did your calculation appear somewhere else? I never found it in the section.
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 23rd August 2015, 01:48 PM   #220
Richard the G
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 236
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Oh good, we agree! Then perhaps you can explain why the ASCE and NIST endorse a theory which relies on the upper section, "Part A" as its described in the 'literature, behaving as a BLOCK which crushes the lower section, "Part C". Yet inexplicably part C is not allowed to be treated as a block. It's a joke and you fools have swallowed the punch.

Watch Ryan Mackey try and explain this conundrum, and offer all of the scale model problems, yet never address this FUNDAMENTAL problem with ALL official explanations. In Mackey's "excellent" description he treats the upper section as a block. NIST says that global collapse would ensue as described in Bazant's work which treats the upper section as a block. And ALL of your debunking efforts, from the planes to the thermite, to the official explanations and web war treat the upper section as a block.

The upper section was composed of floors, and if you explain the collapse as having ANY effect on floors, you must apply the same principle to the upper section.

By perpetuating this lie you make a joke out of science, and unfortunately, American science particularly.

Errata: Bazant means military recruit. Run with that and you have a conspiracy theory, but look at the argument above and you have LOGIC. It won't go away, EVER.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Notconvincing; it is not only scientists in the US that see no evidence of controlled demolition but all scientist around the world. There is not one scientific institution in any country that sees evidence of CD. its only the 0.02% loony fringe that imagine things your way.
Richard the G 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 August 2015, 02:58 PM   #221
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 339
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
They don't. It's just you not understanding their use of the model
They actually do, and if you don't know this it shows that you and anybody else concurring with your statement hasn't actually examined this most fundamental of points related to the WTC disaster. The collapse is described this way pictorially, linguistically, and mathematically. The ENTIRE myth regarding the WTC twin towers collapse relies on "part A" behaving as a rigid block while the rest of the structure behaves as an array of floors.

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Everyone noticed you didn't respond to your errors in understanding the "official explanation". Why is this?

which errors? I've already clarified that the drill I mentioned would work to penetrate the concrete/asbestos blend fireproofing of the columns. That would get charges close enough to degrade the structure. Regardless, this is minutia.

A claim was made that only a minor percentage of core columns would be accessible from the elevator shafts, and I haven't looked into this in detail. I bet an examination of the floor plans would reveal that stairwells and other internal building compartments would yield access to the remaining majority of columns.

Another "error" you pointed out was your claim that the lower sections weren't crushed. I believe you say this because one spire of inner core column remained and maybe 10 stories of only outer perimeter columns on one of the buildings. You also mentioned that some people survived the collapse, which they only did because of serendipitous pockets of protection being created akin to the safety zones sometimes found in mining cave ins and earthquake collapses.

The claim that the lower portion of the buildings wasn't destroyed is toppled by simple observation of the video testimony of the day. People stood on top of the pile, while the remainder of the structure had been comminuted all over NY.

Is there another "error" I've made in understanding the official story? Please point not it out. There's a lot in this thread, and as case in point I still haven't had a chance to offer a mathematical counter to Bravin's original post.


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 23rd August 2015, 03:04 PM   #222
fagin
Philosopher
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 5,185
All the maths in the world can't refute what was seen to happen.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin 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 August 2015, 03:04 PM   #223
Sherman Bay
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 2,121
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Then perhaps you can explain why the ASCE and NIST endorse a theory which relies on the upper section, "Part A" as its described in the 'literature, behaving as a BLOCK which crushes the lower section, "Part C". Yet inexplicably part C is not allowed to be treated as a block. It's a joke and you fools have swallowed the punch.

Watch Ryan Mackey try and explain this conundrum, and offer all of the scale model problems, yet never address this FUNDAMENTAL problem with ALL official explanations. In Mackey's "excellent" description he treats the upper section as a block. NIST says that global collapse would ensue as described in Bazant's work which treats the upper section as a block. And ALL of your debunking efforts, from the planes to the thermite, to the official explanations and web war treat the upper section as a block.
You fail to understand the difference between static and dynamic loads. You are ignorant of simple physics. You fail to accommodate the extreme forces imposed by large objects when moving, forces that were never anticipated. You fail to compensate for the very large increase in effective mass caused by motion (it's far more than you might guess), and you fail to consider the weakened floors below that were burning and softening (not melting).

In short, not only are you way out of your expertise, but you refuse to acknowledge that others are more educated and experienced than you in all the critical disciplines. You're a textbook case of a trufer.
Sherman Bay 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 August 2015, 03:11 PM   #224
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 339
Originally Posted by Sherman Bay View Post
You fail to accommodate the extreme forces imposed by large objects when moving, forces that were never anticipated.

Extreme forces like those that would have been imposed on the upper section by that VERY LARGE OBJECT which was the remaining 80+ floors?


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 23rd August 2015, 03:39 PM   #225
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,427
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
They actually do, and if you don't know this it shows that you and anybody else concurring with your statement hasn't actually examined this most fundamental of points related to the WTC disaster.
Fair enough, show me where they do. I have a copy of all the reports, a simple reference to the report, chapter or page will do.

I'll wait..........

Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post

Is there another "error" I've made in understanding the official story? Please point not it out.
Yes, the one where it is claimed there was an "upper block" crushing a lower. Where is this "officially" claimed? Sounds like you think the Bazant models are considered reality in the "official story".
__________________
"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 August 2015 at 03:49 PM.
DGM 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 August 2015, 03:59 PM   #226
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,427
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Extreme forces like those that would have been imposed on the upper section by that VERY LARGE OBJECT which was the remaining 80+ floors?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I wonder what you refer to as an "upper section"? How much of this was intact and exactly what parts of the "larger" lower section was it interacting with?

My guess is like "close atomic bonding" , whatever that is or "sub-sonic detonations" not being very loud, you have no clue what you're talking about.
__________________
"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 August 2015 at 04:03 PM.
DGM 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 August 2015, 04:18 PM   #227
WilliamSeger
Master Poster
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,650
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Oh good, we agree! Then perhaps you can explain why the ASCE and NIST endorse a theory which relies on the upper section, "Part A" as its described in the 'literature, behaving as a BLOCK which crushes the lower section, "Part C". Yet inexplicably part C is not allowed to be treated as a block.
That is simply incorrect; you simply do not understand the Bazant model. The entire point of "crush-down/crush-up" is that after a couple of floors, debris layer Part B can crush C without any help from A. It simply doesn't matter at that point if A acts as a rigid block or not; B will crush C because C cannot dissipate the kinetic energy that's been unleashed. If you want to discredit the Bazant analysis, you need to explain how all that energy should have been dissipated -- "crush-down/crush-up" is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
It's a joke and you fools have swallowed the punch.
What a coincidence; that's how I feel "truther physics" asserting that the forces on A and C are equal because we can ignore B, and this invalidates Bazant's analysis.
WilliamSeger 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 August 2015, 04:57 PM   #228
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,386
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I think it's simpler than that. They released a technical report and didn't consider it would be picked at by laymen.............
In the broad picture I agree with both those statements. However within this forum there are misleading innuendos which I would prefer to avoid.

The NIST report(s) can be legitimately supported on their broad thrust and many details,. They can also be legitimately criticised on some details and some "mid level" issues such as "perimeter led v core led" collapse initiation.

BUT the discussions here tend to focus on the debunker v truther polarisation. With the false presumptions that "truthers are always wrong" and "debunkers are mostly right and we overlook any errors they make". In that setting "laymen picking at" is a criticism often directed at perceived truthers with the implied presumption that they are wrong. Whilst on the debunker side counter claimants - some of whom happen to be engineers - reliance is placed on the false presumption that those engineers are right.

There are numerous key issues under contention here where the layman criticisms of the official or Bazantian versions are correct - NIST or Bazant are either demonstrably wrong or are arguably wrong.

There is still a strong body of opinion represented here including professionals who are supporting false explanations - especially those based on Bazant concepts. Whilst some of the denigrated "mere lay-persons" have correctly explained those same issues.

The only valid distinction IMO is between claims which are correct and claims which are not correct. Independent of the qualifications held by the claimants. If a PhD in Structural Engineering makes a false claim of engineering physics the false claim is NOT by magic made correct by his possession of the PhD. It remains false.

And - relevant to recent criticism of both T Sz and Major_Tom in this thread - when either of those two makes a true claim it remains true despite T Sz being a mechanical engineer OR M_T not laying claim to engineering qualifications.

I don't off hand remember an example true claim by T Sz. But M_T has been corectly identifying three of the key Bazant based errors since 2010.

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Easy. They are not used to having to explain things to the general public. The general public does not typically read their reports. This is a professional to professional organisation, aspect of engineering expertise are assumed.

The biggest mistake they made was to address questions from the "truth" movement. This lead to a half assed explanation of "free-fall" and provided them with fuel that they still use today....
They have my sympathy - they were in a "no win" situation. Chandler et al were going to lie about the explanation/outcome whatever it was.
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
"Global collapse" is another prime example. No structural engineer needs this term explained.
sure but the controversy here is not over "global collapse" rather it is about understanding the mechanisms of global collapse. (Or rather the twin towers mechanisms of both "initiation" and "progression" to global collapse.)
ozeco41 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 August 2015, 05:18 PM   #229
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,427
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
.................sure but the controversy here is not over "global collapse" rather it is about understanding the mechanisms of global collapse. (Or rather the twin towers mechanisms of both "initiation" and "progression" to global collapse.)
Yes. The NIST is not really involved in the latter. They say this in the report (I don't need to tell you this).

The interesting part is the "pancake" theory (for initiation) that the NIST dismissed was actually what their initiation theory lead to in progression.

Also "pancake" = ROOSD . Forget about Bazant and the NIST and FEMA really did nail it.
__________________
"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 August 2015 at 05:21 PM.
DGM 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 August 2015, 05:22 PM   #230
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,386
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Extreme forces like those that would have been imposed on the upper section by that VERY LARGE OBJECT which was the remaining 80+ floors?
I wonder what you refer to as an "upper section"? How much of this was intact and exactly what parts of the "larger" lower section was it interacting with?
Try this for a key part of the explanation:


It is the start of "global collapse" AKA "progression" for WTC 2.

The left side yellow arrow is the path being taken by the perimeter columns of the upper block. It is impacting the Open Office Space floors of the lower tower as noted by the blue lines. Nowhere near "column on columns". A large part of the weight of the top block transferred through the perimeter and applied to ONE office floor at a time. Overwhelming overload by a couple of orders of magnitude. From that point "global collapse was inevitable".

The right side yellow arrow shows the reverse - the lower perimeter columns moving "upwards" and shearing off the OOS floors of the upper block - again sequentially and as shown by the blue lines.

Easy to see. And two points stand out:
1) ROOSD already underway - whether or not we like the acronym or the persons who coined it - the mechanism was under way; AND
2) Break-up of both top block and lower tower is already happening.

That makes it easy to see - the other sides are more complicated but the same principles apply and involve the same key factors.

Last edited by ozeco41; 23rd August 2015 at 05:42 PM. Reason: spellin
ozeco41 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 August 2015, 05:41 PM   #231
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,386
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Yes. The NIST is not really involved in the latter. They say this in the report (I don't need to tell you this).
Noted, Agreed, and "you noticed" Respectively.
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
The interesting part is the "pancake" theory (for initiation) that the NIST dismissed was actually what their initiation theory lead to in progression.
Yes - and a fertile field for confusions of terminology applied to different stages.


Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Also "pancake" = ROOSD1 . Forget about Bazant2 and the NIST and FEMA really did nail it3 .
1 That cannot be true. A "truther" invented the acronym.
2 I often wonder if we would have really understood what happened by about 2007 - if we hadn't had the "advantages" of Bazant's insights.
3 A lot of continuing Bazantophiles assert that they identified the "pancaking" early. Probably did. Bazant also spotted it. BUT he then went back to and they still go back to "column crushing energetics"

I think it was about 2009 when I facetiously suggested on another forum - take the Bazant maths and replace the "column crushing energy" bits with "floor joist shear-off energy" and - hey presto - all the controversy solved.

Too old and lazy - wouldn't trust myself to do the maths.
ozeco41 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 August 2015, 05:50 PM   #232
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,427
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
1 That cannot be true. A "truther" invented the acronym.
I'm still wondering why.............
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
I often wonder if we would have really understood what happened by about 2007 - if we hadn't had the "advantages" of Bazant's insights.
We didn't?
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
A lot of continuing Bazantophiles assert that they identified the "pancaking" early. Probably did. Bazant also spotted it. BUT he then went back to and they still go back to "column crushing energetics"
Wasn't that to create a limiting case? A high end thought experiment if you will.

Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
I think it was about 2009 when I facetiously suggested on another forum - take the Bazant maths and replace the "column crushing energy" bits with "floor joist shear-off energy" and - hey presto - all the controversy solved.

Too old and lazy - wouldn't trust myself to do the maths.
Sounds like the point where you also dismissed Bazant models as reality........
__________________
"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 August 2015 at 05:54 PM.
DGM 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 August 2015, 06:31 PM   #233
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,386
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I'm still wondering why................
I have in front of me an apple and a banana. i find the two names useful to identify two different fruit. Also I would get frustrated with anyone claiming we don't need two words because they are both fruit and we already have a good word for fruit.

So I get somewhat frustrated with debunkers who say "it was a progression - we dont need to distinguish THAT progression from others even though they are different". The implication being that crushing columns is the same as shearing off floors. sorry - this engineer won't wear that.

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
We didn't?
I was using "we" globally. I never relied on NIST or Bazant so - good luck more than brilliant foresight - I never was confused as to what really happened. Wasn't till this forum 2010 I had to put brain in gear and see WTF all the fuss was about Bazant's papers. Had to read the bleeding things then. Painful.

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Wasn't that to create a limiting case? A high end thought experiment if you will.
Let's not go there. Yes it was. The guts of remaining controversy is people who think foggy and mix the two different models - without realising it - mainly because they refuse to be precise in what they say. Plus their overriding goal is usually to disagree with or insult a truther. Clarity of engineering logic is abandoned.

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Sounds like the point where you also dismissed Bazant models as reality........
Not really - But the suggestion could have made the Bazant models legit for the actual event. I actually never reached the point where I accepted them as real. Didn't need them and those academic "fool the lay person" papers are too hard to read. remember my first internet post started with this comment:
Quote:
The paper referenced as Engineering Reality by Tony Szamboti is typical of many which look impressive in detail to the non-engineer. The complex calculations may even be correct but the base premises are faulty and the resulting conclusions can readily be demonstrated to be totally wrong.
That was long before I met/discussed with Tony.

Last edited by ozeco41; 23rd August 2015 at 06:37 PM.
ozeco41 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 August 2015, 09:26 PM   #234
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 339
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Fair enough, show me where they do. I have a copy of all the reports, a simple reference to the report, chapter or page will do.

Yes, the one where it is claimed there was an "upper block" crushing a lower. Where is this "officially" claimed? Sounds like you think the Bazant models are considered reality in the "official story".
I concede, upon looking I cannot locate this in an official report. I do find of course numerous instances of the ASCE endorsing Bazant's "upper block" scenario, and as this is the predominate "expert" explanation, I conflated it with the "official" explanation.

It is the case however, that the the 911 commission report references a "pancake collapse" of the North Tower on page 308. It's curious that the only "official" explanation of the collapse itself is one that has since been disproven.

So.... "officially" there remains a void.

I find it a fair assessment however to say that Bazant's thesis remains the most widely accepted explanation for the progressive collapse. Do you agree? And if so... where would categorically disproving Bazant's explanation leave the official story?
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 23rd August 2015, 09:43 PM   #235
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,386
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
I find it a fair assessment however to say that Bazant's thesis remains the most widely accepted explanation for the progressive collapse. Do you agree?...
DGM will no doubt comment. I'm pressed for time so here are my brief comments.

I agree Bazant's explanation is the most widely accepted BUT it is also the most widely misunderstood. There are broadly two schools of thought. The probable minority including me who assert specifically:
a) Bazant as per B&Z 2001/2 presented a valid "limit case" (It has two dubious premises we can let pass for now);
b) The Bazant modeling when applied by Bazant in later papers to the actual WTC Twin Towers collapses is - IMNSHO - unequivocally wrong.

The majority of loyal to Bazant supporters would agree with me on "a)" and strongly disagree with me on "b) - they present present apologetic "mix and match both models" conflations disagreeing with my "b). Multiple threads we can reference if you are interested.

Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
And if so... where would categorically disproving Bazant's explanation leave the official story?
Unchanged. Whilst the original basis of "official explanations" was probably wrong later research on a different approach reaches the same conclusion. So NIST et al were IMO probably "right for the wrong reasons". Explanation later if you need it.
ozeco41 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 August 2015, 09:53 PM   #236
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 339
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I wonder what you refer to as an "upper section"? How much of this was intact and exactly what parts of the "larger" lower section was it interacting with?
I'm specifically concerned with WTC1, and refer to the upper section as the 10 or so floors that began their descent after collapse initiation.

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
My guess is like "close atomic bonding" , whatever that is or "sub-sonic detonations" not being very loud, you have no clue what you're talking about.
You've definitely twisted both of those notions. The first meant molecules aligned proximal to one another so that the distance between them was on the nanoscale, or comparable to the proximity achieved by chemical bonds. The other idea I was exploring was utilizing Si to increase the total density and thereby increase the detonation wave of an otherwise LE. I'm thinking that this detonation wave would not have quite the same ""crack" as an HE but would still impart damage to the concrete and potentially degrade the steel in some manner at 3200fps. And though I speculate such an explosion would be "softer" than a HE, I never said "subsonic".

The comminution observed on 911 can so far only be explained by Bazant's crushing front, but that explanation is invalid, so this leaves a huge hole in the story which is readily explained by explosives.
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 23rd August 2015, 10:25 PM   #237
Sherman Bay
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 2,121
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Extreme forces like those that would have been imposed on the upper section by that VERY LARGE OBJECT which was the remaining 80+ floors?
No. You do not understand how velocity increases impacts and makes a small mass into something effectively much larger. The 80+ floors were not moving, the upper floors were. As they fell, they gained momentum due to the speed, and they gained mass as more floors were added to the fall. You simply don't understand how much greater this added mass was compared to the designed loads.

If the first floor encountered on the way down cannot sustain the load, it makes no difference how many floors are below it. The 80th floor is not made stronger by the 79 floors below. If anything, it allows for more points of failure. And once the first floor is breached, the next floor has even more mass to worry about, and so on.
Sherman Bay 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 August 2015, 10:55 PM   #238
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 339
Originally Posted by Sherman Bay View Post
No. You do not understand how velocity increases impacts and makes a small mass into something effectively much larger. The 80+ floors were not moving, the upper floors were. As they fell, they gained momentum due to the speed, and they gained mass as more floors were added to the fall. You simply don't understand how much greater this added mass was compared to the designed loads.



If the first floor encountered on the way down cannot sustain the load, it makes no difference how many floors are below it. The 80th floor is not made stronger by the 79 floors below. If anything, it allows for more points of failure. And once the first floor is breached, the next floor has even more mass to worry about, and so on.

At the point of impact, it doesn't matter that the lower section (upon checking, part "A" in the Bazant work) is stationary. That's like saying driving into a wall won't hurt you because the wall's not moving.

All of that momentum created by release of the gravitational PE destroys floor 79 in your example, but it also necessarily destroys floor 81. The KE is dispersed into deformation in both Z vectors, satisfying conservation of momentum. This decreases velocity. Bazant wants you to believe that floor 80 is accreted and would have the mass of Part A increase, but Part B is an illusion, a trick if you will. After the first impact of floors, Part A AND Part C consume Part B. If there is a "Part B" at all, it's makeup is then composed of floors 78 and 82. The next areas to be "crushed" are 77 and 83, with velocity decreasing after each impact until the collapse is quickly stalled.


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 23rd August 2015, 11:09 PM   #239
WilliamSeger
Master Poster
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,650
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
I agree Bazant's explanation is the most widely accepted BUT it is also the most widely misunderstood. There are broadly two schools of thought. The probable minority including me who assert specifically:
a) Bazant as per B&Z 2001/2 presented a valid "limit case" (It has two dubious premises we can let pass for now);
b) The Bazant modeling when applied by Bazant in later papers to the actual WTC Twin Towers collapses is - IMNSHO - unequivocally wrong.
*snip*
Whilst the original basis of "official explanations" was probably wrong later research on a different approach reaches the same conclusion. So NIST et al were IMO probably "right for the wrong reasons".
But I take "the original basis of 'official explanations'" to be the "limit case" that you just said was valid, not any "later papers," so I believe they were right for the right reason: inabsorbable energy.
WilliamSeger 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 August 2015, 11:18 PM   #240
Sherman Bay
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 2,121
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
All of that momentum created by release of the gravitational PE destroys floor 79 in your example, but it also necessarily destroys floor 81.
OK, but both floors are going to go DOWN, not UP. Now you have doubled the mass, and looking at the videos, I'd say that the velocity wasn't decreased by much. We now have increased velocity, increased mass, and a gravity assist. You are expecting a single lower floor to stop the falling upper ones, but it wasn't designed to do that, and it didn't. The more floors that fell, the less likely the next one would stop them.
Sherman Bay 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 05:00 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.