Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

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

 Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
 25th August 2015, 02:25 AM #281 beachnut Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 25,088 Originally Posted by Notconvinced Wow.... thanks for helping me make my case! From your link.... The collapse of top WTC1 as an inelastic collision with an underlying mass in rest. Why kinetic energy is always decreasing, and the bogus theory of “pancaking” (i.e. “progressive column failure”). In the collapse of WTC1, from a physical standpoint, we have an upper mass m1 – top 12 stories of building – suddenly moving, and falling onto the lower – and much bigger, almost 90% of total skyscraper - mass m2 of building in rest. This is clearly an inelastic collision, where the two masses m1 + m2 are sticking and traveling together at a common speed, after the impact, or stopping, if m2 can totally “absorb” the energy received by m1 This postulate, coupled with that of momentum conservation can be expressed as follows: (2) (m1 + m2)vf= m1v1i+ m2v2i where: m1 = mass of falling top WTC1 m2 = mass of 98 stories below in rest vf = final velocity of two masses after impact v1i = initial velocity of top WTC1 v2i = initial velocity of 98 stories below, before impact = 0 After collision they are both moving at the same velocity. We can write the initial kinetic energy of m1 as: (3) Kei = ˝ m1 v1i˛ And after re-arranging by multiplying for m1/ m1, in order to extrapolate momentum (p = mv), we have: (4) Kei= (m1 v1i)˛/2m1= p˛/2m1 Since momentum is conserved after impact, and it is equal to (4) , the only difference being mass, which is now m1 + m2, we can write down the final kinetic energy as: (5) Kef=p˛/2 (m1+ m2) Now, if we compare eq. (4) and (5), we can clearly find out that final energy is mathematically lower than initial energy , being the ratio between the two energies: (6) Kef/ Kei= m1/(m1+ m2) Of course this equation can be found in any physics textbooks [7], [8], [9], and it is a total debunking of the concept expressed by Bazant et al., namely that the collapsing 12 floors of top WTC1 were acquiring “a much higher kinetic energy”. Or to put in simpler terms... the collapse cannot proceed. BS, a floor of the WTC can only hold 29,000,000 pounds, thus the the collapse can't stop. ..., simple math debunks the fantasy of CD, and BS science practiced by 911 truth followers. How much do the 12 floors weigh? lol, they don't have to have any KE, they can just sit on the lower floor, carefully placed softly without velocity; As for Bazant, 911 truth can't debunk Bazant, they have no clue what Bazant paper was about; lol, 911 truth can't explain the differential equations, or understand models; 911 truth does not use science, they use BS and fantasy. CD is a fantasy; and only gets easier in the CD fantasy 911 truth followers push; as they ignore the 19 murderers responsible for all the damage and deaths on 911. One number debunks the delusional collapse can't proceed; 29,000,000... 911 truth CD fantasy believers are into perpetual failure, and lack all understanding of science, and physics, ignoring the structure of the WTC, and making up BS. 19 terrorists did 911, when 911 truth has evidence otherwise, the biggest Pulitzer in history would be presented... but 911 truth claims are all lies, BS, fantasy, nonsense, etc. 911 truth mocks the murder of thousand with dumbed down lies of CD - 14 solid years of failure. Flight 93 passengers figured out 911 in minutes, most rational people figured out 911 in hours, or days; only 911 truth followers continue clueless pushing nonsense of how easy it would be to bring down the WTC with silent explosives and no product thermite. Where do you guys get the silent explosives? Is there a magic store in the fantasy world of 911 truth? LOL, as you ponder energy, which is cool, energy is an outstanding why to think about stuff. However, since a floor of the WTC can only hold up 29,000,000 pounds, energy is not important, weight is. Gravity makes your failed calculation total nonsensical BS. As does the BS assumption you can use the mass of 98 floors as m2; The WTC collapse matches the momentum; but you have to use the mass of one floor as being added to the upper mass. Since the floors are failing one at a time (in a sense, and initially the collapse timing matches very close to the momentum of floors added as progression takes place), as heard on 911. Did you hear the floors failing? The loud noises on 911, when not bodies hitting the ground, were floor failures, and other sounds due to the collapse, not CD. Sudden moving? lol, floors falling at g, starting at zero velocity... sudden? Waving your hands, and claiming you debunked Bazant is funny; what was wrong with his differential equations? Is Bazant's model wrong? lol, 911 truth has no clue why Bazant was doing, or why claiming Bazant is debunked proves 911 truth is dumber than dirt. Explain how 12 floors can be held up on floor in the WTC? The floors of the WTC did not hold up the other floors, the shell and the core held up the 110 floors; when the floors are compromised, the system is compromised. The WTC was system, as seen during constructions, the floors hold the shell to the core. The shell is the lateral support, the core can't stand without the shell connected to the core by the floors. The floors don't hold up the WTC, the core and the shell do because the floors hold the shell and core together... 911 truth does not understand the WTC structure, or grasp any practical physics to apply to the CD fantasy. Do you have more fantasy physics to present; this is almost as good as pilots for truth nonsense. https://www.academia.edu/13907138/Wo...ass_in_Physics You realize that paper is BS... it is funny __________________ "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein "... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232 Last edited by beachnut; 25th August 2015 at 02:34 AM.
 25th August 2015, 02:47 AM #282 WilliamSeger Illuminator     Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 4,020 Originally Posted by Notconvinced Wow.... thanks for helping me make my case! From your link.... ... After collision they are both moving at the same velocity. ... Didn't your Mensan spidey sense start tingling at that point? (ETA snarkless comment) In an inelastic collision, by definition, some of the energy goes into deforming the colliding objects, so this bizarre calculation which attempts to show that kinetic energy is lost is not necessary. Here's the problem: Quote: Of course this equation can be found in any physics textbooks [7], [8], [9], and it is a total debunking of the concept expressed by Bazant et al., namely that the collapsing 12 floors of top WTC1 were acquiring “a much higher kinetic energy”. The falling mass didn't come to a halt until it hit the ground, and all the way down it continued to gain kinetic energy by losing altitude. Again: gravity doesn't disappear because you ignore it. Last edited by WilliamSeger; 25th August 2015 at 03:30 AM.
 25th August 2015, 04:29 AM #283 thedopefishlives Graduate Poster   Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 1,696 Originally Posted by WilliamSeger Didn't your Mensan spidey sense start tingling at that point? (ETA snarkless comment) In an inelastic collision, by definition, some of the energy goes into deforming the colliding objects, so this bizarre calculation which attempts to show that kinetic energy is lost is not necessary. Here's the problem: The falling mass didn't come to a halt until it hit the ground, and all the way down it continued to gain kinetic energy by losing altitude. Again: gravity doesn't disappear because you ignore it. And even if it did, as beachnut points out, the floors weren't capable of holding up the mass of debris falling from above, even if it had just been sitting there carefully placed. Sure, a fully intact column/truss system could, but once everything broke and started falling, all of that went out the window. Let me guess, next our esteemed guest is going to start down Major_Tom's "Missing Jolt" route. __________________ Truthers only insist that there must have been some sinister purpose behind [WTC7] because they already think there's a sinister purpose behind everything. -Horatius
 25th August 2015, 04:55 AM #284 Belz... Fiend God     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 76,641 Originally Posted by Notconvinced You are deceived because your eyes have shown you increasing velocity, and your heart cannot accept the alternative. What sort of new age, sophist claptrap is that? Is that supposed to be an argument? The rest of your posts is just ignorance. That's not how gravity and collapse work. __________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward
 25th August 2015, 05:05 AM #285 cantonear1968 Graduate Poster     Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,605 Originally Posted by beachnut BS, a floor of the WTC can only hold 29,000,000 pounds, thus the the collapse can't stop. Beachnut, can I ask where you are getting this number? I'm sure it must be my misinterpretation, but I always thought the floors could sustain only a 1/10th of this weight. According to Thomas Eager: "With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t [2,600,000 lbs] beyond its own weight." http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom...agar-0112.html Where am I going wrong? __________________ Can you people please stop not thinking? - Gorgonian The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. -Good luck America with President Trump
 25th August 2015, 05:19 AM #286 GlennB Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian     Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arcadia, Greece Posts: 23,836 Originally Posted by Notconvinced After collision they are both moving at the same velocity. Yes, this bit is especially funny among the many laughs on offer. Last edited by GlennB; 25th August 2015 at 06:12 AM.
 25th August 2015, 05:38 AM #287 JSanderO Master Poster     Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: nyc Posts: 2,867 a floor was 208x208 =43,000 SF Assuming the design load spec as 62# superimposed live load and there was a safety factor of 2 each SF could support 150# = 6,450,000# = about 3,200 tons A typical floor weighed 43,000x95# (wt per cu ft) x .4'(thickness) = about 1,600,000 pounds = about 800 tons Add in the assumed live load 43,000# x 62#x .5 (50% of design load) = 1,300,000# = 670 tons per floor live load each super imposed dead and live load per floor - 800 tons+ 670 tons = about 1,500 tons So each floor could support about 2 floors of dead and live loads statically (impossible) super imposed on a typical WTC slab.
 25th August 2015, 05:55 AM #288 NoahFence Banned   Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 22,131 Originally Posted by Notconvinced You are deceived because your eyes have shown you increasing velocity, and your heart cannot accept the alternative. If you back out of the screening room for a moment, and just look at the basic physics involved, irrespective of all of their implications, you will see: The kinetic energy of an impacting floor upon the floor below it will decrease velocity and channel the energy of momentum into deformation of the colliding bodies. Bazan't model does not account for the energy of deformation in the floor(s) above impact. The mass is essentially the same (actually diminishing a bit through ejection and comminution) and as the velocity must decrease through impact and deformation, the momentum decreases. Bazant's model only considers energy loss in the story below "the crushing front", but wants to increase the mass with each iteration. By accurately and homogeneously applying the energy dissipation in the first impact and subsequent impacts to both the floor below AND above the "Part B", the reaction quickly runs out of energy and fails to crush half of the building, let alone all of it. We saw the velocity of the tower's destruction increasing because the collapse was facilitated with the addition of energy in the form of explosives. The addition of energy into the system is the only way to satisfy the mathematics of the observables of the day, i.e. explosives. Word salad! Yummy. I didn't observe any explosives. And explosives don't explain the rest of the day. You do remember it was more than 2 towers, no?
 25th August 2015, 06:05 AM #289 Bravin Neff Thinker   Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 193 Originally Posted by beachnut BS, a floor of the WTC can only hold 29,000,000 pounds, thus the the collapse can't stop. BS... it is funny Beachnut, You've caused me to put more coffee/water/soda through my nose than any other poster here. Just thought I'd share.
 25th August 2015, 07:32 AM #290 Gamolon Master Poster     Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 2,145 Originally Posted by Notconvinced Wow.... thanks for helping me make my case! From your link.... The collapse of top WTC1 as an inelastic collision with an underlying mass in rest. Why kinetic energy is always decreasing, and the bogus theory of “pancaking” (i.e. “progressive column failure”). In the collapse of WTC1, from a physical standpoint, we have an upper mass m1 – top 12 stories of building – suddenly moving, and falling onto the lower – and much bigger, almost 90% of total skyscraper - mass m2 of building in rest. This is clearly an inelastic collision, where the two masses m1 + m2 are sticking and traveling together at a common speed, after the impact, or stopping, if m2 can totally “absorb” the energy received by m1 This postulate, coupled with that of momentum conservation can be expressed as follows: (2) (m1 + m2)vf= m1v1i+ m2v2i where: m1 = mass of falling top WTC1 m2 = mass of 98 stories below in rest vf = final velocity of two masses after impact v1i = initial velocity of top WTC1 v2i = initial velocity of 98 stories below, before impact = 0 After collision they are both moving at the same velocity. We can write the initial kinetic energy of m1 as: (3) Kei = ˝ m1 v1i˛ And after re-arranging by multiplying for m1/ m1, in order to extrapolate momentum (p = mv), we have: (4) Kei= (m1 v1i)˛/2m1= p˛/2m1 Since momentum is conserved after impact, and it is equal to (4) , the only difference being mass, which is now m1 + m2, we can write down the final kinetic energy as: (5) Kef=p˛/2 (m1+ m2) Now, if we compare eq. (4) and (5), we can clearly find out that final energy is mathematically lower than initial energy , being the ratio between the two energies: (6) Kef/ Kei= m1/(m1+ m2) Of course this equation can be found in any physics textbooks [7], [8], [9], and it is a total debunking of the concept expressed by Bazant et al., namely that the collapsing 12 floors of top WTC1 were acquiring “a much higher kinetic energy”. Or to put in simpler terms... the collapse cannot proceed. So let me get this straight. I can define anything as an "upper mass" and a "lower mass", no matter how many or what type of connecting components make up either one. Then I can take the formulas above and determine if any "upper mass" will have it's descent stopped by the "lower mass". How about the following. Let's create a "lower mass" consisting of a massive 1,000' x 1,000' x 1,000' concrete block with a 5' x 5' square opening through the center and a 5'-6" x 5'-6" x 1/2" glass plate as shown below. Let's glue that glass plate over the opening in the concrete block. Now let's drop a 16 lb. bowling ball (upper mass) onto the glass plate portion of the "lower mass" defined above from 20'. Are you telling me that the "lower mass" will resist the "upper mass" and that the bowling bowl will just roll off? Last edited by Gamolon; 25th August 2015 at 07:33 AM.
 25th August 2015, 07:59 AM #291 GlennB Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian     Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arcadia, Greece Posts: 23,836 Originally Posted by Gamolon Now let's drop a 16 lb. bowling ball (upper mass) onto the glass plate portion of the "lower mass" defined above from 20'. Are you telling me that the "lower mass" will resist the "upper mass" and that the bowling bowl will just roll off? Yes, there's something Heiwa-esque about the physics of that analysis. Pretty soon he'll be quoting Newtons 3rd Law.
 25th August 2015, 07:59 AM #292 waypastvne Critical Thinker   Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 399 Originally Posted by cantonear1968 Beachnut, can I ask where you are getting this number? Question 12 Quote: Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 pounds to 395,000 pounds, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 pounds (see Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 square feet, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on Sept. 11, 2001, was 80 pounds per square foot. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 square feet) by the gravitational load (80 pounds per square foot), which yields 2,500,000 pounds (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 pounds) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 pounds), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors. http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi..._wtctowers.cfm Last edited by waypastvne; 25th August 2015 at 08:03 AM.
 25th August 2015, 09:54 AM #293 ozeco41 Philosopher     Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia Posts: 7,426 Originally Posted by GlennB Yes, there's something Heiwa-esque about the physics of that analysis. Pretty soon he'll be quoting Newtons 3rd Law. It is "block on block" or "Heiwa-esque" from the start which says this: Originally Posted by Notconvinced The collapse of top WTC1 as an inelastic collision with an underlying mass in rest. Why kinetic energy is always decreasing, and the bogus theory of “pancaking” (i.e. “progressive column failure”). In the collapse of WTC1, from a physical standpoint, we have an upper mass m1 – top 12 stories of building – suddenly moving, and falling onto the lower – and much bigger, almost 90% of total skyscraper - mass m2 of building in rest. This is clearly an inelastic collision, where the two masses m1 + m2 are sticking and traveling together at a common speed, after the impact, or stopping, if m2 can totally “absorb” the energy received by m1 This postulate, coupled with that of momentum conservation can be expressed as follows:... Since his scenario is false I see little point in rebutting his physics which is the physics of a false scenario. It is by definition FALSE. Therefore - whether or not beachnut's 29,000,000 is correct - his post and other posts following it are chasing the error set up by Notconvinced's false scenario. The real event - actual collapse - for both WTC1 and WTC2 involved a complex of member on member interactions including the examples shown by the graphic I have posted in previous posts. No single mass hitting another single mass. No conservations of momentum resulting from homogeneous single masses. Many bits of momentum interactions down at the level of single member and group of members interactions.
 25th August 2015, 10:24 AM #294 Sherman Bay Master Poster   Join Date: May 2002 Location: Wisconsin, USA Posts: 2,172 Originally Posted by GlennB Yes, there's something Heiwa-esque about the physics of that analysis. Pretty soon he'll be quoting Newtons 3rd Law. Pssst...Dude...Newton's laws don't apply here. I think they were repealed by the renegade Congress just for that one day. In a secret session. Called by the Illuminati.
 25th August 2015, 10:30 AM #295 beachnut Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 25,088 Originally Posted by ozeco41 http://conleys.com.au/smilies/clap.gif http://conleys.com.au/smilies/clap.gif It is "block on block" or "Heiwa-esque" from the start which says this: Since his scenario is false I see little point in rebutting his physics which is the physics of a false scenario. It is by definition FALSE. Therefore - whether or not beachnut's 29,000,000 is correct - his post and other posts following it are chasing the error set up by Notconvinced's false scenario. The real event - actual collapse - for both WTC1 and WTC2 involved a complex of member on member interactions including the examples shown by the graphic I have posted in previous posts. No single mass hitting another single mass. No conservations of momentum resulting from homogeneous single masses. Many bits of momentum interactions down at the level of single member and group of members interactions. Actually you can model the collapse with homogeneous single masses. It is called modeling, it is what engineers can do, and always have; it is in the text books, clearly and what we learned in High School, and College, in Engineering school. What is cool, a simple momentum model, using homogeneous floors hitting, etc, matches the time of collapse during the initial stages. Wow, physics, it is what engineers are allowed to use to model stuff, and what the failed 911 truth followers can't comprehend, and what failed 911 truth investigators make fun of due to ignorance of physics, and engineering models. it is not beachnut's 29,000,000 pounds, it is an estimate from NIST, one which 911 truth can't refute because they will never check numbers; they only use woo. How stupid is 911 truth? We have floors which fail at ~~~~29,000,000 pounds; and the collapsing top is more than 29,000,000 pounds. Thus, for academic purposes, not what happened on 911; we could theoretically (have no clue how) carefully place the top mass on a the lower WTC floor, and that floor would fail instantly. How can a mass moving be stopped by a floor which can't hold the same mass statically? (oops, I got it... Godzilla takes the top of the WTC, and carefully, places it on the lower floor - global collapse ensues. No need to study it past the knowledge of how the WTC was built structurally; which was known in the 70s. Thus knowledge which has been available since the 70s, is ignored by idiots in 911 truth. I went to engineering school twice, it failed to take... lol What is wrong with chasing the failed BS of 911 truth followers? It is great practice (the method to help eratic ignorance) for the many questions grand-kids raise... Yes, 911 truth claims can be attacked in many ways; and 911 truth claims are self-debunking - wrong at face value. How do they ignore the 19 low life murderers responsible for 911. How do they ignore what happened, and promote delusional fantasy. __________________ "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein "... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
 25th August 2015, 10:32 AM #296 Sherman Bay Master Poster   Join Date: May 2002 Location: Wisconsin, USA Posts: 2,172 Originally Posted by Notconvinced You are deceived because your eyes have shown you increasing velocity, and your heart cannot accept the alternative. So we have a conference about a new structure to be built. Notconvinced proposes to use Legos for the main columns. Architect: Unhh...My analysis and computer modelling show that Legos won't support the required weight. We need to account for that pesky gravity, among other things. Notconvinced: That's because you are using your eyes! If you use your heart, Legos will work! I just know it! The meeting breaks up to the tune of "Love is all you need."
 25th August 2015, 10:53 AM #297 pgimeno Illuminator     Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Spain Posts: 3,351 Originally Posted by Notconvinced Wow.... thanks for helping me make my case! From your link.... The collapse of top WTC1 as an inelastic collision with an underlying mass in rest. Why kinetic energy is always decreasing, and the bogus theory of “pancaking” (i.e. “progressive column failure”). In the collapse of WTC1, from a physical standpoint, we have an upper mass m1 – top 12 stories of building – suddenly moving, and falling onto the lower – and much bigger, almost 90% of total skyscraper - mass m2 of building in rest. This is clearly an inelastic collision, where the two masses m1 + m2 are sticking and traveling together at a common speed, after the impact, or stopping, if m2 can totally “absorb” the energy received by m1 This postulate, coupled with that of momentum conservation can be expressed as follows: (2) (m1 + m2)vf= m1v1i+ m2v2i where: m1 = mass of falling top WTC1 m2 = mass of 98 stories below in rest vf = final velocity of two masses after impact v1i = initial velocity of top WTC1 v2i = initial velocity of 98 stories below, before impact = 0 After collision they are both moving at the same velocity. We can write the initial kinetic energy of m1 as: (3) Kei = ˝ m1 v1i˛ And after re-arranging by multiplying for m1/ m1, in order to extrapolate momentum (p = mv), we have: (4) Kei= (m1 v1i)˛/2m1= p˛/2m1 Since momentum is conserved after impact, and it is equal to (4) , the only difference being mass, which is now m1 + m2, we can write down the final kinetic energy as: (5) Kef=p˛/2 (m1+ m2) Now, if we compare eq. (4) and (5), we can clearly find out that final energy is mathematically lower than initial energy , being the ratio between the two energies: (6) Kef/ Kei= m1/(m1+ m2) Of course this equation can be found in any physics textbooks [7], [8], [9], and it is a total debunking of the concept expressed by Bazant et al., namely that the collapsing 12 floors of top WTC1 were acquiring “a much higher kinetic energy”. Or to put in simpler terms... the collapse cannot proceed. These equations fairly represent the situation in an ideal frictionless case like this: But they utterly fail to represent this other one: Try using your mensa superpowers to see why. Just in case, I'll spell the reason to you: potential energy. Each floor has PE that is freed and starts to turn into KE as soon as the impact destroys the connections and both blocks are in movement. __________________ Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
 25th August 2015, 11:32 AM #298 pgimeno Illuminator     Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Spain Posts: 3,351 On the probability of past Originally Posted by ozeco41 His probabilities exercise could be a valid assessment tool for anyone planning the 9/11 strikes on WTC Towers. But everything that happened on 9/11 now has probability ONE and everything that did not happen has probability ZERO. And any person posting with claimed expertise in probabilities MUST know those two facts. To paraphrase an enriched version of a sentence attributed to Wolfgang Pauli, "That's not just not right. It's not even wrong." ProbabilityWP is the measure of the likeliness that an event will occur. It just doesn't apply to an event that happened in past; that's a data point, and a data point itself can't be assigned a probability; only the event it's associated with can. When we say things like "What were the chances of that happening?" that's a colloquial way of saying "What would be the probability of the event that resulted in that data point happening?" That's a valid question, and the answer is not either "1 because it happened" or "0 because it didn't happen". We should however be aware that, as Scott Sagan put it, "things that have never happened before happen all the time". The amount of things that are unlikely is so overwhelming, that some unspecified collection of them are actually expected to happen in any complex enough event. Focusing on the unlikely things that happened while forgetting about the unlikely, or even the likely, things that did not happen is a trap that is easy to fall into, when analysing an event. That's what we call "anomaly hunting". But Bravin's analysis does not fall into that realm. His assessment comprises what is the likeliness of success from the point of view of the perpetrators. And that's a valid one and it's not "anomaly hunting". __________________ Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
 25th August 2015, 11:39 AM #299 Bravin Neff Thinker   Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 193 Anyhoo... Are there any demolition experts on record for what WTC would take, hypothetically speaking? I mean is it in the public domain (1) what a typical charge would look like (e.g., how big is it, how heavy is it, can-you-put-it-in-your-pants-pocket-or-do-you-need-to-cart-the-\$h1t-around), and (2) an estimate for how many charges something like the WTC would require? You know, just for educational purposes - not that this stuff probably happened. LOL.
 25th August 2015, 11:47 AM #300 Bravin Neff Thinker   Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 193 Originally Posted by pgimeno But Bravin's analysis does not fall into that realm. His assessment comprises what is the likeliness of success from the point of view of the perpetrators. And that's a valid one and it's not "anomaly hunting". Appreciate your point. Another way of describing probabilities in this sense is the degree of uncertainty one has, which is fundamentally a question about justifying belief. For example: a coin has been tossed, it is heads or tails. Nobody knows because it is covered up. What is the probability it is heads? This is not a question about changing the fixed state that the coin already possesses - it is a question as to what mathematical justification exists given the current state of incomplete information. The correct answer is 50%. This says nothing about the actual state of the coin.
 25th August 2015, 11:51 AM #301 MileHighMadness Muse   Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Just Southeast of Hell Posts: 650 Originally Posted by Bravin Neff Anyhoo... Are there any demolition experts on record for what WTC would take, hypothetically speaking? I mean is it in the public domain (1) what a typical charge would look like (e.g., how big is it, how heavy is it, can-you-put-it-in-your-pants-pocket-or-do-you-need-to-cart-the-\$h1t-around), and (2) an estimate for how many charges something like the WTC would require? You know, just for educational purposes - not that this stuff probably happened. LOL. Try, for starters... http://www.implosionworld.com/wtc.htm __________________ “I don’t look forward to heaven, it sounds as boring as hell.” Lord Postsettle
 25th August 2015, 11:55 AM #302 GlennB Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian     Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arcadia, Greece Posts: 23,836 Originally Posted by pgimeno ProbabilityWP is the measure of the likeliness that an event will occur. It just doesn't apply to an event that happened in past; that's a data point, and a data point itself can't be assigned a probability; only the event it's associated with can. When we say things like "What were the chances of that happening?" that's a colloquial way of saying "What would be the probability of the event that resulted in that data point happening?" Exactly. There was poster on an old forum I used to frequent who had fun saying "Everything is even money. Either it will happen or it won't"
 25th August 2015, 12:40 PM #303 Nihilianth Illuminator   Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 3,626 posting for automatic subscription. I could have sworn there was a subscription button somewhere? Ah well. __________________ Lowpro: Food is also a little more important than guns; you can't eat a gun. (\ (\ ( '_' ) o_(")(")
 25th August 2015, 03:30 PM #304 Sherman Bay Master Poster   Join Date: May 2002 Location: Wisconsin, USA Posts: 2,172 Originally Posted by Nihilianth posting for automatic subscription. I could have sworn there was a subscription button somewhere? Ah well. There is. Look under "Thread Tools" and challenge anyone drilling into the thread walls or placing magical, silent explosives.
 25th August 2015, 07:43 PM #305 BadBoy Graduate Poster     Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,355 Originally Posted by NoahFence Word salad! Yummy. I didn't observe any explosives. And explosives don't explain the rest of the day. You do remember it was more than 2 towers, no? And, why didn't they detonate at the same time for WTC1 and 2? Why the delay? __________________ Go sell crazy someplace else we're all stocked up here
 26th August 2015, 05:30 AM #306 Major_Tom Graduate Poster   Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,960 Originally Posted by Bravin Neff And don't fall for Major_Tom's diversion as to whether FEMR2's mappings are superior to NISTS: he was never challenged on that point. He was challenged specifically on this [me asking Major_Tom]: "...in that webpage you originally pointed to, when you said: 'In reality, the building leaned less than 1 degree... as demonstrated in this section." That demonstration never appeared in the section, and he was asked for it. He still has not produced it, apparently requiring you to do an expose on FEMR2. There are two ways to determine the position of the WTC1 upper section at the time all columns have already failed: one is by using the naked eye and the other, more precise method, is by subpixel object tracking the upper northwest corner of the building from the Sauret viewpoint. Anyone, using the information given at this link: 2.4: WTC1 Accurate Collapse History, can verify the tilt angle and early motion of the WTC1 upper portion is quite different from what the NIST claimed within their reports. The less accurate but much easier method shows that all WTC1 columns have already failed by the moment the WTC1 upper portion was in this position: The more accurate method shows that even this extremely small tilt angle is exaggerated. The actual tilt angle is even smaller than the one shown in the images. Every quote and supporting image the NIST uses to describe the early motion of the WTC1 upper portion within their reports is reproduced in this link: NIST WTC1 Misrepresentations. They are obviously very wrong, and that is not hard to show. What is nearly impossible to do is to get this verifiable information past the mental barriers of the true believers, the NISTians. The reason why I posted this information within this thread or in this forum, an environment which I find utterly anti-intellectual and repulsive (with the exception of very few posters), is because of this comment by Bravin Neff: Originally Posted by Bravin Neff 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. The post is religious in nature. It is a bizarre but not unpredicted statement that in 2015 is as worn out as it gets. The comment is a form of worship, and has no connection whatsoever to skeptical or critical thought. It is a standard JREF/ISF meme, a type of robotic regurgitation which goes unchallenged within this environment. I wanted to see if Bravin was capable of critical thought as directed toward his own beliefs or if he only applies critical thought toward others who do not share his unwavering faith in official reports. I don't wish to pick on you personally since you are just one more victim of the environment which both the NIST and the JREF/ISF forum actively helped to create. The original creators of this extremely bias, church-like environment are to blame much more than their many victims, but I collect and document examples of this type of thinking and your quote and follow-up comments were a great example of this mindset in action. So, Bravin, are you capable of viewing the NIST reports critically or will you entrench yourself in your beliefs even further? And on the subject of probability, what is the probablility that the NIST can release verifiably incorrect information to the public such as this extreme misrepresentation of the WTC1 collapse initiation process and such information goes virtually unchallenged by ASCE publications like the Journal of Engineering Mechanics for a decade? What is the probability of so many people being so, so wrong for so long? __________________ Website Last edited by Major_Tom; 26th August 2015 at 05:41 AM.
 26th August 2015, 06:24 AM #307 pgimeno Illuminator     Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Spain Posts: 3,351 The claim about the 8 degree tilt of the antenna in the NIST report was already identified by Kent1 as most likely a transcription mistake long ago. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...27#post6262427 The table referenced at page 156 of NCSTAR 1-6 reads: Code: ```10:28:20 Fig. 6-10 WTC 1 began to collapse. The first exterior movement Fig. 6-11 was at Floor 98. Rotation of the building section above the impact and fire zone to at least 8 degrees to the south occurred before the building section began to fall vertically.``` Figure 6-11's caption reads: Figure 6*-11. WTC 1 tilt to the south of approximately 8 degrees was measured before smoke and debris obscured view. Note view is from west and tilt is directly south. Here are both for the record, since Kent1's image is gone: I believe they took that and transcribed it erroneously as the tilt of the antenna at the start of the collapse. Problem is, what's the problem? __________________ Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
 26th August 2015, 06:38 AM #308 JSanderO Master Poster     Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: nyc Posts: 2,867 The problem is that a report... supposedly rigorous and "scientific" and fact checked and done by hundreds of engineers shouldn't include such obvious errors... if the tilt was for example 1° not 8° they made an error of 800% and that's pretty gross. And whether the tilt angle is significant or not (it seems as if it would be)... this undermines the credibility of the rest of the work... by NIST. If they can't get the observations correct... how correct can their hypothesis be BASED on the observations? It's not terribly difficult to do the perspective corrections and determine real world angles such a deviation from plumb. Anyone who just passes this off as a "typo" or of no significance is giving a very very huge pass to NIST. And now 14 years on... where are the errata and corrections from them? This really amounts to GIGO doesn't it?
 26th August 2015, 06:46 AM #309 pgimeno Illuminator     Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Spain Posts: 3,351 Originally Posted by JSanderO The problem is that a report... supposedly rigorous and "scientific" and fact checked and done by hundreds of engineers shouldn't include such obvious errors... if the tilt was for example 1° not 8° they made an error of 800% and that's pretty gross. And whether the tilt angle is significant or not (it seems as if it would be)... this undermines the credibility of the rest of the work... by NIST. If they can't get the observations correct... how correct can their hypothesis be BASED on the observations? It's a typo (or an equivalent to a typo). It probably wasn't spotted because it wasn't relevant for their hypothesis anyway. Originally Posted by JSanderO This really amounts to GIGO doesn't it? It would, if that "Garbage" was used as crucial Input to their hypothesis. It wasn't, therefore there's not necessarily any Garbage Out. __________________ Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
 26th August 2015, 06:46 AM #310 Bravin Neff Thinker   Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 193 Originally Posted by Major_Tom There are two ways to determine the position of the WTC1 upper section at the time all columns have already failed: one is by using the naked eye and the other, more precise method, is by subpixel object tracking the upper northwest corner of the building from the Sauret viewpoint. I appreciate the information. It appears you concede that your section 3.2's statement "In reality, the building leaned less than 1 degree... as demonstrated in this section" is simply false - the demonstration does not exist. Have you updated your paper yet? Quote: What is nearly impossible to do is to get this verifiable information past the mental barriers of the true believers, the NISTians. Presumably your task is a project. Quote: The reason why I posted this information within this thread... because of this comment by Bravin Neff... You mean my judgment that the NIST recreation is one of the finest ever performed? I stand by that judgment. You may disagree with it, you may find technical errors with the recreation, but that doesn't by itself contradict my statement. Nor does my statement suggest every detail within NIST is correct. That would almost certainly be untrue of NIST's or any similar recreation model. Nor does it suggest I endorsed (or denied) some "8 degree of tilt is really 1 degree" statement you have repeated. Nor does it imply: Originally Posted by Major_Tom Bravin Neff is still quite attached to the NIST descriptions of the same motion. Nor does it imply: Originally Posted by Major_Tom [Your] support [and defense of] Bazantian block mechanics... Your leaps of inference should be something that concerns you, I believe. Originally Posted by Major_Tom The post is religious in nature. Incorrect. In retrospect, it appears your obstacle here is your own head-strong vanity which led to premature states of false certainty.* (LOL - c'mon, that's funny) Originally Posted by Major_Tom I wanted to see if Bravin was capable of critical thought How am I doing? More importantly, how are you doing with the "premature state of false certainty" thing you fill your posts with? Originally Posted by Major_Tom So, Bravin, are you capable of viewing the NIST reports But you repeat yourself. I already aswered that. Originally Posted by Major_Tom And on the subject of probability, what is the probablility that... Now you're talking. Do you have a model? I would be interested to see that. *Said someone once.
 26th August 2015, 07:59 AM #311 JSanderO Master Poster     Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: nyc Posts: 2,867 Neff... frankly having read sections of the NIST report, and looked at their "diagrams" my impression was that it was not well done and didn't impress me... or should I say I expected more and better and sooner.
 26th August 2015, 08:02 AM #312 Bravin Neff Thinker   Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 193 Originally Posted by JSanderO Neff... frankly having read sections of the NIST report, and looked at their "diagrams" my impression was that it was not well done and didn't impress me... or should I say I expected more and better and sooner. I think that's fair.
 26th August 2015, 08:53 AM #313 JSanderO Master Poster     Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: nyc Posts: 2,867 Originally Posted by Bravin Neff I think that's fair. For example... why didn't NIST include the ACTUAL floor plans... the structural plans..., the construction logs... You don't find this a bizarre commission? substituting their cartoons?
 26th August 2015, 09:04 AM #314 waypastvne Critical Thinker   Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 399 Originally Posted by Major_Tom And on the subject of probability, what is the probablility that the NIST can release verifiably incorrect information to the public such as this extreme misrepresentation of the WTC1 collapse initiation process and such information goes virtually unchallenged by ASCE publications like the Journal of Engineering Mechanics for a decade? What is the probability of so many people being so, so wrong for so long? On this page of your book entitled Quote: Pressure Bursts from E face, Fls 77 and 80 From floors 77 and 79, east face. Created on 10/15/2010 02:59 PM by admin Updated on 06/15/2012 04:44 PM by admin You have the floor count wrong. It should be: Floors 76 and 78 east face. You may want to also note, there is a large heat exchanger containing compressed freon right where the pressure burst occurred. Also on this page of your book you go into great detail about droplet size and fall time. Quote: How do liquid and droplets travel through air? Since kerosene has a lower density than water I would expect smaller droplets after a 350m fall. * g: gravity * cw: ≈ 1, drag coefficient of the droplet * ρL: density of air (1.2 kg/mł) * vE: max. fall speed * r: radius of the droplet * ρW: density of liquid (825 kg/mł) So we get for the elevation of floor 95 (pink) and floor 77 (yellow) 3mm drops from the elevation of floor 77 would fall one minute before reaching the lobby. 2mm drops ... 68 sec 1mm drops ... 98 sec 0.5mm drops ... 138 sec Of course they have to fall straight down otherwise they would need much more time to running down the walls. And we have to consider the upwards speed of the air due to thermal suction. The impression of falling elevators exploding on impact is hard to imagine if the pause between impact and explosion is at least 60 seconds. Well, impact of what? But nowhere on that page do you mention the part Bernoulli effect would have on the elevator shafts. You have left out the force that would pull a large volume of fuel/air into the elevator shafts very quickly. Why have you left that out ?
 26th August 2015, 09:42 AM #315 WilliamSeger Illuminator     Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 4,020 Originally Posted by pgimeno I believe they took that and transcribed it erroneously as the tilt of the antenna at the start of the collapse. Problem is, what's the problem? The problem for conspiracy theorists is that it isn't good enough to accuse NIST of simply getting something wrong. NIST came up with collapse scenarios that don't require magic silent explosives, so if you want to sell CD theories to the rubes, NIST must be accused of being accessories to mass murder.
 26th August 2015, 09:52 AM #316 pgimeno Illuminator     Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Spain Posts: 3,351 Originally Posted by waypastvne You may want to also note, there is a large heat exchanger containing compressed freon right where the pressure burst occurred. http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/a....18%20PM_1.png Interesting. I always thought that the most likely cause of the ejection was a backdraft. __________________ Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
 26th August 2015, 09:56 AM #317 Bravin Neff Thinker   Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 193 Originally Posted by JSanderO For example... why didn't NIST include the ACTUAL floor plans... the structural plans..., the construction logs... You don't find this a bizarre commission? substituting their cartoons? Given the size of that report (10,000+ pages?), and the sheer volume of questions one could potentially ask, the honest truth is I never asked myself those questions. I appreciate that you bring them up.
 26th August 2015, 11:01 AM #318 JSanderO Master Poster     Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: nyc Posts: 2,867 Neff... The report was about buildings collapsing and recommendations to improve / mitigate such outcomes in the future... Doesn't it seem that it is mission critical to examine, present and analyze the actual plans, the actual connections and so forth? NIST turned this into a series of "cartoons" IIRC. To me that is just not professional and not scientific... and frankly as an architect I feel "cheated"... and I actually worked for the architect of the WTC back in 1971/72. How ironic is that?
 26th August 2015, 11:16 AM #319 Gamolon Master Poster     Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 2,145 Originally Posted by JSanderO For example... why didn't NIST include the ACTUAL floor plans... the structural plans..., the construction logs... You don't find this a bizarre commission? substituting their cartoons? Can you provide an example of a structural/floor plan that they substituted a cartoon for?
 26th August 2015, 11:30 AM #320 JSanderO Master Poster     Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: nyc Posts: 2,867 IIRC the Cantor Structural plans were not included in the NIST report but came after a FOIA. No?

International Skeptics Forum