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 21st May 2016, 12:30 PM   #2601
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 21,283
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
I've seen reports that it happened. So your claim strikes me as odd. Why not?
The building had a long gash down the front, probably caused by hot debris hitting the gap between exterior columns and sliding down between what were now effectively railway tracks.. This alone could have set fires over multiple floors.

Meanwhile that gash would have allowed the spread of fires through damaged flooring, and the countless broken windows would have allowed air to fan the flames.

That's apart from the normal methods by which fires spread in large buildings. WTC7 was much more likely to see extensive fires than the average large building where fire breaks out in a single location.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2016, 03:12 PM   #2602
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The only evidence for anything other than a few pockets of fire on a few floors are firefighter's witness accounts, many of which erroneously described the smoke sticking to the south face as "all 47 floors engulfed in fire".
Please, oh please, tell me about "the smoke sticking to the south face" of WTC7.

I'd really like to hear your interpretation of this "anomaly".

Please include a statement of "from what location you believe the smoke originated".
tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2016, 04:58 PM   #2603
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,115
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Nothing will be solved here and nobody will care. It doesn't matter how many quotes from the NFPA 921 eerily describe the WTC destruction, nor if you provide a specific example of possible criminal foreknowledge citing facts and examples. That is more than enough for any rational person. America should have instituted a policy to investigate inside job/high-level coverup in catalyzing terrorist attacks after that blunder with the security camera footage from the OKC bombing showing John Doe #2 was either "lost" or "never existed".

There's a point where you must leave. 65 pages and no facts will be tolerated without trolling and baiting. Doesn't matter if they're pointed out by experts or ordinary concerned citizens. If I get an emal back from the NFPA or I get FOIA requests approved, I'll post what I find. Otherwise, bye.
Well thanks for admitting your presence here has been a giant waste of time and you have zero evidence. Let us know when you come up with something and can answer questions coherently.

You'd think after 15 years of failure you could do a bit better than this.
I have to say I'm a little embarrassed for you.
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag
ProBonoShill is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2016, 07:13 PM   #2604
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Tfk, Much of Adam Taylor's blog posts are scientifically minded in the sense that they correct false or misleading statements, as well as counter blanket statements with other information that provides ambiguity.
Same old crap.
Adam Taylor: liberal arts & political science major. Punk. Knowledge of engineering: ZERO.

Jim Hoffman: computer graphics major. Knowledge of engineering: ZERO.

David Chandler: high school physics teacher Knowledge of structural engineering or collapse dynamics: ZERO.


“… scientifically minded …”

This topic ain’t “science”.
It’s “engineering”.
The fact that you don’t know the difference merely proves how clueless you are on ALL these issues.

Adam Taylor has never sat thru 5 minutes of a structural engineering class. He is a 100% clueless, know-nothing amateur about the issues.

NOTHING that he “figures out on his own” can be informed. It’s all dreck.

The one, the ONLY way that Taylor could possibly write something that was informed is exactly the same way that you could:

If you both gave up entirely all attempts to “figure it out for yourself”, and to take on the role of a rigorous, competent reporter, and cite only the accurate quotes of REAL experts. And verifying with those experts that your quotes are accurate BEFORE publishing any story.

That means, giving up ALL of your current, clueless amateur sources.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
He, among others, discredited the Popular Mechanics garbage, which did nothing but attack cleverly selected strawman arguments.
LMFAO.

Popular Mechanics did exactly what I told you to do. They did NOT attempt to answer the questions themselves, they went to experts.

They had a team of “fact checkers” working on the project.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Jim Hoffman is the same way, and he made an adequate response to Blanchard, including what he said about the seismic evidence: http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/blanchard/
Jim Hoffman is a clueless moron, a complete 100% amateur, who thinks that “talking fast in simple, declarative sentences” turns “giant, steaming piles of crap” into "correct assertions".

I’ve forced myself, thru peals of laughter, to listen to him attempt to make mechanical/structural arguments.

Do you have the slightest idea what Hoffman’s background is? Computer graphics.

Here’s a clue: Zero mechanical engineering. Zero structural engineering. Zero explosives demolition. Zero seismic recording.

And your clueless ass thinks that Hoffman is competent to “debunk” Blanchard???!!
LMFAO.

Did you even bother to read Hoffman’s paper?
A giant, steaming pile of WRONG.

Tell me what argument that you believe that Hoffman made that debunked anything that Blanchard said.

Please. Run thru this exercise.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I know you still deny this, but a Youtuber high school physics teacher named David Chandler compelled NIST to admit freefall in their final report, when before they denied it and stated that it would be inconsistent with the structural failure they were studying.
Because I have a soft spot for teachers, I exchanged emails with Chandler when he first started this.

I explained several of his errors to him.

First, I told him that his data was 100% meaningless without a competent error analysis. Something that he’s NEVER done.

But if you look carefully at his videos, you’ll see the standard deviation error associated with his calculation.

His number comes in as “9.88 m/sec^2” (almost 8% higher than the real value of G). And if you look at what Chandler doesn’t mention, you’ll see the standard deviation of his measurement: 0.456 m/sec^2.

AT BEST, his results say that the AVERAGE acceleration was between 8.97 m/sec&2 and 10.79 m/sec^2.

That is NOT the same as saying, "The acceleration was 'G'."

I explained to him, just like to you, that this was not science, not physics, but engineering. And the vast majority of the simplifying assumptions used in high school (read: MOST rudimentary) physics are violated in real-world engineering.

For example, the statement that the building can only fall “at or slower than free fall acceleration” is 100% wrong.

That statement would apply only to the Center of Gravity of a Free Body, with no other forces acting on them except gravity.

Is the western most point on the roofline of WTC7 the same as the Center of Gravity?
NO, it is the FURTHEST POINT POSSIBLE from the CG. It is the WORST point to take readings.!

Is the face of WTC7 a “free body” when it was falling?
Hell, no. It was attached to tens of thousands of tons of other structure that you cannot see on the far side of the external wall. You have NO IDEA what that material is doing, but one knows for certain that it is exerting enormous forces on the north wall of the building.

Were there “no forces other than gravity” acting on the north face of WTC7?”
NO. The face of WTC7 had a couple hundred thousand tons of building attached to it, while it was standing. And it had an (unknown) hundred thousand tons of building still attached, much of it having begun its fall prior to the external wall, and therefore capable of exerting enormous forces on the external wall, including "downward acting forces".

Does any aspect of Newton’s Laws say that “no point on a falling body can exceed G during a fall?”
NO, it says nothing of the sort.

I begged Chandler to take his nonsense to a team of experienced structural engineers, who would have confirmed the things that I told him.

He didn’t then.
He NEVER HAS.
He never will.

Why not?
Why does Chandler refuse to submit his work to competent review?
For the same reason that Gage refuses to submit his crap to competent review.

Both of them know that they’ll get laughed out of the review. NOT because all structural engineers are subservient minions of Da Gubbamint.

Because they (Chandler & Gage) are f****** incompetent.!
And because, at this point, their egos won't let them admit, "crap, I've been wrong about this all along."

So, they choose to continue to LIE to people, rather than admit the truth.
__

PS. The external wall did NOT fall “at G”.
NIST didn’t say it fell “at G”.
They said it fell “at approximately free fall”.

Every competent analysis of the fall of the north wall of WTC7 shows that it did NOT fall at a constant acceleration over any interval of time, including Chandler's 2.25 seconds.

Even Chandler's own data shows this.

"G" IS a constant.
Any acceleration that is NOT a constant, can NOT be "equal to G".
WTC7's fall was not a constant.
WTC7's fall was not "at G".

WTC7's AVERAGE acceleration was APPROXIMATELY equal to G, for that period of time.

There is nothing the slightest bit remarkable, much less "impossible", about that fact.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Also, if the "OEM engineer" actually worked for the FDNY as you claim, then his name would be known and Peter Hayden would have known who he was.
LMFAO at another baseless, clueless assertion.

First, there is ONLY ONE person saying “OEM Engineer”. That is YOU.
YOU made that up.
By not acknowledging that you mashed to gather unrelated quotes, by not acknowledging that there is no statement in any of your quotes that the engineer was from the OEM, by continuing to assert that the engineer was an “OEM engineer”, YOU are continuing to LIE about that.

Why do Twoofer feel the need to LIE constantly?

How many engineers/techs, who are trained to use a transit to determine the stability of a building, would you estimate that the FDNY has? Answer: On the order of 10. (Minimum 5, probably less than 100).

How many engineers/techs, who are trained to use a transit to determine the stability of a building, would you estimate that the OEM has? Answer: On the order of 0.
It is a MANAGEMENT organization.
They don’t DO anything.
They MANAGE other people who do things.

Then they report to the mayor.
Then attempt to take credit for other people’s work, & deflect blame for other people’s screw-ups.
Because, THAT is what management does.!

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
How does one exit a JREF thread, again?
Just go away.

God forbid you actually put your ego aside, ask some pertinent questions in a polite, respectful manner … and learn anything.

God forbid you actually put in some effort to learn the things that you are currently clueless about.

Wouldn’t want any of THAT to happen.

So, perhaps it’d be best for you to “exit”.

Last edited by tfk; 21st May 2016 at 07:21 PM.
tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2016, 07:39 PM   #2605
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
This topic ain’t “science”.
It’s “engineering”.
Really? When you get a 4 year degree in engineering in the US it is commonly called a BSE. Guess what the "S" stands for? Hint: It's not skeptic.

Quote:
The fact that you don’t know the difference merely proves how clueless you are on ALL these issues.
Pot, meet kettle.

I wonder how many structural engineers obtained their degrees without taking at least one class in physics. I'm pretty sure the number is 0, but based on your rants, it seems like they should get their money back because it must be an absolute waste of time.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2016, 07:44 PM   #2606
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
"G" IS a constant.
Yes, "G" is a constant, much like the endless delusions and temper tantrums of the skeptics on this forum.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2016, 07:46 PM   #2607
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
So, perhaps it’d be best for you to “exit”.
Translation: Stop bombarding me with facts that slowly deteriorate the wall of denial I have built.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2016, 07:54 PM   #2608
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 20,964
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Really? When you get a 4 year degree in engineering in the US it is commonly called a BSE. Guess what the "S" stands for? Hint: It's not skeptic.
No, it is not. It is commonly called a Bachelor of Science in a specific discipline. The discipline can be Physics or Mathematics or Aeronautical Engineering or Civil Engineering or Biology or many many things.

It is a Science degree as apposed to an Arts degree.

Now that we've cleared up some basic information about the name of a degree, what point would you like to make? Or did you just want to conflate things?
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group.

"He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2016, 08:26 PM   #2609
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,148
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
Please, oh please, tell me about "the smoke sticking to the south face" of WTC7.

I'd really like to hear your interpretation of this "anomaly".

Please include a statement of "from what location you believe the smoke originated".
You will get no answers.

He has painted himself into a corner (again), and will drop the topic to move onto the next CT. He did the same thing in the JFK thread. In this case he has clearly never seen all of the available photos of WTC7 burning and smoking from a massive fire, and was not ready to be confronted by them. He realized that he has been arguing talking points made from a bunch of ninnies. True to form, he wandered in here touting a fire safety reg book trying to link it to the attacks and collapse, a classic "new evidence" angle that was doomed from the start. Nobody in the FDNY thinks CD brought down the buildings.
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2016, 08:26 PM   #2610
MileHighMadness
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 630
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Translation: Stop bombarding me with facts that slowly deteriorate the wall of denial I have built.
Too bad you will never figure out you are talking about yourself.
__________________
“I don’t look forward to heaven, it sounds as boring as hell.” Lord Postsettle
MileHighMadness is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2016, 08:50 PM   #2611
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,115
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Really? When you get a 4 year degree in engineering in the US it is commonly called a BSE. Guess what the "S" stands for? Hint: It's not skeptic.



Pot, meet kettle.

I wonder how many structural engineers obtained their degrees without taking at least one class in physics. I'm pretty sure the number is 0, but based on your rants, it seems like they should get their money back because it must be an absolute waste of time.
It's funny you don't realize how much this post exposes how clueless you are about the facets of science and engineering.

I think the lurkers have about given up on you.
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag
ProBonoShill is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2016, 09:02 PM   #2612
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,115
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Translation: Stop bombarding me with facts lies that slowly deteriorate the wall of denial I have built show how clueless you are about engineering..
FYP
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag
ProBonoShill is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2016, 10:36 PM   #2613
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Really? When you get a 4 year degree in engineering in the US it is commonly called a BSE. Guess what the "S" stands for? Hint: It's not skeptic.
LoL.
You can’t even get that correct.

There are:
BSSE: Structural Engineering (or frequently, under “civil”)
BSEE: Electrical
BSCE: Civil or Chemical
BSIE: Industrial
and several others.

Mine is BSME: Mechanical Engineering.

Your's is ... oh, yeah, that’s right.

Your degree is a BANFE: BA in No F******* Engineering.

Perhaps you’ve got a degree in Twooferology?

Or are you just a drop out?

You have zero engineering degree or experience. But you’ve decided that, because engineering degrees have the word “science” in them, that there is no difference between science & engineering.

You’re going to tell me about my profession for, likely, longer than you’ve been on the planet.

LMFAO.

Once again, right on schedule, a clueless amateur steps in, and not letting utter ignorance slow him down, makes brain-dead, wrong assertions.

Zero knowledge.
Zero doubt.

Unbridled arrogance, supported by boundless ignorance.

LMAO.

Tell me something, FF.

Look at the authors of the NIST report.

What percent of them are “scientists”?
What percent of them are “engineers”?

There. I’ve bought you your first clue.
tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2016, 11:24 PM   #2614
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Science vs. Engineering

For the lurkers:

Of course, engineering is based upon science. But that does not mean that they are the same thing.

Two examples will help distinguish the difference between the two.

In May, 1961, (20 days after Alan Shepard's sub-orbital flight, and 9 months before John Glenn's first orbital flight), JFK gave his famous speech to congress, where he said approximately, "I think this nation should commit itself to sending a man to the moon & returning him safely in this decade".

He was advised by several brilliant engineers (including James Webb & Werner Von Braun). This was brilliant engineering projection.

Several of the technologies didn't exist. Many of the materials didn't exist. Certainly the rockets & space ships didn't exist, nor the plans to build them.

But it was brilliant, deep engineering to know that, with a great amount of effort, this was just possible.

And it was. And they did it. In 8 years & 2 months.

If someone had suggested at that time that they should attempt to send a man to Mars, instead of the moon, then this would have been completely different story.

The science of the two missions is identical.
Get a crew into orbit. Get them into a transfer orbit. Get them into a orbit around (the moon or Mars). Get them down to the surface. Get them back up off the surface to a waiting vehicle in orbit. Get into a transfer orbit to earth. Re-entry & splash down.

The engineering of the two missions are as different as night & day.
Any engineer suggesting that mission in 1961 would have been a moron.

Engineers can't build things out of "Unobtanium". We have to work with the materials & processes & defects, etc. available.
__

Perhaps a better example of the difference.

In the mid-1800s, as railroad trains started to accumulate significant miles, a serious problem emerged.

Iron train wheels & axles cracked in half, with predictably disastrous results

The failures were completely unexpected. Iron is a (relatively) ductile material, and will elongate before it fails. These failures were completely different: "brittle" failures. Little to no elongation, little strain in the grain boundaries. They broke like glass breaks. And they happened at stresses far below the materials ultimate stress or even yield stress.

Engineers had to find a solution. Their solution was arrived at thru experimentation. The new phenomenon was called "fatigue". It was due to cyclic loading, which happens as the axel turns (compression to tension to compression, with each revolution of the axle).

Over the course of the next 150 years, it was characterized by lots of engineer, for lots of materials, under lots of conditions.

Always with “empirical relationships”. That is, with little understanding of the fundamental science at the core of the phenomenon, but with extensive experimentation that showed the limits to which one could push any particular metal.

The issue still crops up, and was responsible for the crashes of BOAC’s “Comets”, the first commercial passenger jets.

In the 1970 & 1980, engineers finally noticed the “migration & accumulation of micro fractures”. With this information, material SCIENTISTS finally started applying quantum theory to surface cracks to develop their explanations of the cracks & their migrations.

The engineers can not wait for the scientists to figure things out.
We need answers.
Now.

THAT is the principle differences between science & engineering.
__

In the case of Chandler & his analysis, high school physics employs grossly simplifying assumptions. No friction, no air resistance, ideal bodies, point bodies, etc.

Chandler uses absurdly simplifying assumptions in every one of his analyses of the collapse of WTC7.

He fails to perform the one analysis that is required of EVERY engineering (or physics) report: an error analysis.

When I was an undergrad, if you didn't hand in an error analysis with each lab report, you got an automatic "F". The prof wouldn't even look at your report.

Chandler is clueless about video compression & its artifacts, interlacing, or any of the various factors associated with NTSC broadcast video.

He is 100% clueless about "Sampling Theory", in analysis of sampled data. There is a key engineering criteria called the Nyquist criteria, which determines the highest frequency that one's data can discern.

ALL of the above are engineering considerations that render Chandler's "scientific" conclusions meaningless.
tfk 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 May 2016, 01:38 AM   #2615
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,079
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
Please, oh please, tell me about "the smoke sticking to the south face" of WTC7.

I'd really like to hear your interpretation of this "anomaly".

Please include a statement of "from what location you believe the smoke originated".
The whole "smoke sticking to the south face" argument is a classic example of the way truther thinking is broken. The start point is that videos and photos show smoke pouring out of all the windows on the south face of WTC7. Truthers desperately want everything about 9/11 to be as suspicious as possible, and clearly the more fire there was in WTC7, the less suspicious the collapse. So they have to come up with an alternative explanation for the smoke, and their chosen explanation is that the smoke came upwind from WTC5, was drawn up the face of WTC7 by a vortex due to the building's shape, and then finally decided to start going downwind to give the illusion of coming from the building. They can't prove any of this, of course, so their only line of defence is to pretend it's an obvious conclusion and to point and jeer at anyone who doesn't agree with them. After all, who could be stupid enough to believe smoke doesn't travel into the wind when it happens to feel like it?

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

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2016, 05:19 AM   #2616
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
Science vs. Engineering


In the mid-1800s, as railroad trains started to accumulate significant miles, a serious problem emerged.

Iron train wheels & axles cracked in half, with predictably disastrous results

The failures were completely unexpected. Iron is a (relatively) ductile material, and will elongate before it fails. These failures were completely different: "brittle" failures. Little to no elongation, little strain in the grain boundaries. They broke like glass breaks. And they happened at stresses far below the materials ultimate stress or even yield stress.

Engineers had to find a solution. Their solution was arrived at thru experimentation. The new phenomenon was called "fatigue". It was due to cyclic loading, which happens as the axel turns (compression to tension to compression, with each revolution of the axle).

Over the course of the next 150 years, it was characterized by lots of engineer, for lots of materials, under lots of conditions.

Always with “empirical relationships”. That is, with little understanding of the fundamental science at the core of the phenomenon, but with extensive experimentation that showed the limits to which one could push any particular metal.

The issue still crops up, and was responsible for the crashes of BOAC’s “Comets”, the first commercial passenger jets.

In the 1970 & 1980, engineers finally noticed the “migration & accumulation of micro fractures”. With this information, material SCIENTISTS finally started applying quantum theory to surface cracks to develop their explanations of the cracks & their migrations.

The engineers can not wait for the scientists to figure things out.
We need answers.
Now.

THAT is the principle differences between science & engineering.
A.A. Griffith was probably the first to develop a crack theory during the First World War. A lot of this was ignored and it wasn't until Orowan and Irwin developed the idea further in the 50s was the engineering science of Fracture Mechanics (FM) established.

In the 60s and 70s elastic-plastic FM was focused on numerical methods to calculate stress intensity factors (K, KI, KIC etc) for various materials.

Dislocation theory was a purely mathematical model invented by Volterra until Orowan, Taylor and Polyani discovered dislocations in 1934. Until then no-one understood why metals underwent plastic deformation. This discovery wasn't experimentally confirmed until the invention of electron microscope in the 50s. Dislocation theory is highly useful in understanding fatigue.

In the meantime alloy development and processing methods rolled along and we went from biplanes to Concorde and of course the moon. Now that we have far more knowledge we can apply FM during the design phase, but even now we use materials testing using physical test specimens to provide the necessary materials property data for stress engineers to perform the calculations.
Sunstealer 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 May 2016, 09:29 AM   #2617
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
A.A. Griffith was probably the first to develop a crack theory during the First World War. A lot of this was ignored and it wasn't until Orowan and Irwin developed the idea further in the 50s was the engineering science of Fracture Mechanics (FM) established.

In the 60s and 70s elastic-plastic FM was focused on numerical methods to calculate stress intensity factors (K, KI, KIC etc) for various materials.

Dislocation theory was a purely mathematical model invented by Volterra until Orowan, Taylor and Polyani discovered dislocations in 1934. Until then no-one understood why metals underwent plastic deformation. This discovery wasn't experimentally confirmed until the invention of electron microscope in the 50s. Dislocation theory is highly useful in understanding fatigue.

In the meantime alloy development and processing methods rolled along and we went from biplanes to Concorde and of course the moon. Now that we have far more knowledge we can apply FM during the design phase, but even now we use materials testing using physical test specimens to provide the necessary materials property data for stress engineers to perform the calculations.
Thanks for that background. I had no idea some of those guys were doing that work so early on.

My history was obtained on the job, with guidance from older engineers.

But still, the results that were used by practicing engineers was empirical equation derived from experiments. I remember using "Modified Goodman diagrams" in my designs.

As was usually the case, I only had time enough to do contemporaneous reviews of what was then (in the '70 & '80s), the "best engineering practice". The Engineering VP was insistent that I get an answer fast, & not turn the problem (a part fatigue failure) into a PhD thesis.

I learned quickly that "fast" & "fatigue testing" never collide in the same sentence.

Twice, I had to build test fixtures to measure real-world fatigue life for thin wires used in medical devices. Ever since some infamous fatigue failures of some heart valves, fatigue has been of extraordinary interest to the FDA.

The lasting tidbit of data that resulted from my experience is the immediate knowledge that 1 million seconds is 11+ days, and that 1 billion seconds is 32 years. That puts a very pragmatic bound on how many cycles you can test for, how many cycles/sec you need to run your experiments & how many samples you have to run simultaneously. Because nobody in upper management is willing to wait for comprehensive fatigue testing to be done before finalizing design. But god forbid you have a failure ...

Last edited by tfk; 22nd May 2016 at 09:33 AM.
tfk 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 May 2016, 09:56 AM   #2618
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 21,283
Any mention of Jim Hoffman makes me smile

He had two cracks at justifying his claims about the pulverisation of the WTC concrete and the subsequent expansion of the dust clouds being driven by heat. Having to abandon those his final effort was to suppose that ~2 million explosive ceiling tiles - complete with remote controlled detonators - had been secretly installed in the towers.

This stuff used to be archived at (I think) 911research.wtc7.net in the articles/essays section. Don't know if it's still there or not.

You could hardly make it up, but he did.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2016, 09:57 AM   #2619
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
No, it is not. It is commonly called a Bachelor of Science in a specific discipline.
Must you argue about everything, even when you are clearly wrong.

If someone gets a BSE, what does the "S" stand for? What does the "E" stand for?

Here, let me help you. The "S" stands for science, and the "E" stands for engineering.
FalseFlag 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 May 2016, 09:59 AM   #2620
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by MileHighMadness View Post
Too bad you will never figure out you are talking about yourself.
Are you sure about that?
FalseFlag 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 May 2016, 10:00 AM   #2621
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
In the case of Chandler & his analysis,
Perform an experiment to prove he's wrong.
FalseFlag 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 May 2016, 10:23 AM   #2622
MileHighMadness
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 630
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Are you sure about that?
Yes...

Other things I'm sure about:

Richard Gage is a lying POS.

Richard Gage doesn't want a new investigation, he doesn't care about the truth, he just wants your money.
__________________
“I don’t look forward to heaven, it sounds as boring as hell.” Lord Postsettle
MileHighMadness 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 May 2016, 10:42 AM   #2623
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by MileHighMadness View Post
Yes...

Other things I'm sure about:

Richard Gage is a lying POS.

Richard Gage doesn't want a new investigation, he doesn't care about the truth, he just wants your money.
What is he lying about?

Please provide proof to support your claim that he only wants money.
FalseFlag 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 May 2016, 11:17 AM   #2624
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
What is he lying about?

Please provide proof to support your claim that he only wants money.
Please provide proof that Gage has done anything other than ask for money and make a living out of 9/11.
Spanx 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 May 2016, 11:41 AM   #2625
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,303
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
What is he lying about?
He claims "midair pulverization of 90,000 lbs of concrete" and has never actual shown evidence to support this statement.

http://www.ae911truth.org/news/evidence.html
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2016, 12:03 PM   #2626
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,801
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
... Jim Hoffman is the same way...
Jim Hoffman is open loop BS flowing with no corrections made to his massive pile of BS which has references and information which debunk your delusional inside job, and fantasy base CD.

Jim Hoffman fantasy extends to insane claims...
Quote:
The new ceiling tiles with embedded thin-film explosives and wireless detonators are installed throughout every other floor of the Tower. In all, each Tower gets 500,000 of the large tiles and 400,000 of the small tiles. http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/t..._scenario.html
Is Jim Hoffman insane, or are his claim insane?

Referencing Jim Hoffman as an expert for your fantasy version of 9/11 you can't explain; overwhelming failure. Not sure if you can best Jim for complete fantasy to help mock the murdered of 9/11 with more disrespect.
__________________
"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
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2016, 12:41 PM   #2627
Richard the G
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 236
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
If it was so obvious and predictable, then why do both the NIST and ARUP report use the rare and unpredictable event of thermal expansion to explain how the collapse initiated? They should've just tried to find the Jesus engineer and he would tell them all the answers.
Maybe it's because the understanding of fires in structures has only really developed in the last 20 years and Arup were one of the leading engineers in publishing multiple papers. It could be that the fire experts at Nist understood these papers

Or maybe it could be that thermal expansion explains why a major beam failed. But I agree it could have been a construction defect such as lack of fire protection, or a poor bolt/weld. Or it could have been a beam failure due to an overload from debris or from fire or from any combination of the above. Of course it could also have been a single explosive device that survived the fires.

And of course the single beam failure led to column failure and progressed to the collapse of the internal structure which caused the penthouse to fail. And then some 10 seconds later the perimeter collapsed.

Or it could be that they are like you and just made it up

Last edited by Richard the G; 22nd May 2016 at 12:43 PM.
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 May 2016, 12:43 PM   #2628
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Must you argue about everything, even when you are clearly wrong.

If someone gets a BSE, what does the "S" stand for? What does the "E" stand for?

Here, let me help you. The "S" stands for science, and the "E" stands for engineering.
I see.
You've neither read nor understood what I explained. And you're going to "instruct" me on my profession. A profession at which you've spent not one minute of your life.

Determined ignorance + unbridled arrogance = typical twoofer.

What did you say you do for a living?
"Not an expert"?
Not an answer, either.

Did you bother to look at the % of NIST authors who are "scientists" vs. "engineers"? No, of course you didn't.

Tell you what. You try to get the building department in your city to accept a physicist's signature in the "plans approved by: Structural Engineer" block of a building design. Be sure to explain to the clerk that "Engineers have the word 'science' on their degrees, and so does my physicist."

Let me know how that works for you.
tfk 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 May 2016, 12:57 PM   #2629
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 20,964
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Must you argue about everything, even when you are clearly wrong.
Aren't you the self-admitted non-expert who argues everything...especially when you are clearly wrong?

By the way, if you check you may find that many engineering schools do not offer BSE degrees. MIT, for example, offers the BS degree.

Quote:
If someone gets a BSE, what does the "S" stand for? What does the "E" stand for?

Here, let me help you. The "S" stands for science, and the "E" stands for engineering.
Yes, and so? Did you ignore the rest of my post for a specific reason? It is a Science degree as apposed to an Arts degree. Bachelor of Science.

And again, now that we've cleared up some basic information about the name of a degree, what point would you like to make? Or did you just want to conflate things?
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group.

"He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
jsfisher 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 May 2016, 01:29 PM   #2630
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,079
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
If it was so obvious and predictable, then why do both the NIST and ARUP report use the rare and unpredictable event of thermal expansion to explain how the collapse initiated?
What precisely is either rare or unpredictable about thermal expansion, a process that is always occurring whenever the temperature of anything changes, and in a way precisely described and predicted by well-understood principles of the physics of materials?

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

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2016, 01:41 PM   #2631
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
He claims "midair pulverization of 90,000 lbs of concrete" and has never actual shown evidence to support this statement.
I guess you never watched videos of the collapses of either of the twin towers.
FalseFlag 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 May 2016, 01:46 PM   #2632
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
I see.
No, you don't.

You have clearly ignored my first post in response to your claim that engineering has nothing to do with science.
FalseFlag 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 May 2016, 01:50 PM   #2633
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
Thanks for that background. I had no idea some of those guys were doing that work so early on.

My history was obtained on the job, with guidance from older engineers.
There's no other substitute. We stand on the shoulders of engineers and it's engineers all the way down! Most truthers have no understanding of the work previously carried out and continued to this day in the subjects they try to comment on.

Jon Cole is a classic example. It's why his experiments are null and void. However, I've always said that I give him credit for actually doing something. Unfortunately he gets it wrong on so many fronts because he hasn't undergone the extensive learning process required to understand such subjects.

Originally Posted by tfk View Post
Twice, I had to build test fixtures to measure real-world fatigue life for thin wires used in medical devices. Ever since some infamous fatigue failures of some heart valves, fatigue has been of extraordinary interest to the FDA.
Wow, that's interesting. I had no idea that fatigue would have been a problem in such devices. Before I did my degree, my A-level Physics teacher gave me a whole load of information on biomedical technology and the materials used therein, but that was more to do with 'passivity' and materials applications interacting with the body.[/quote]

Originally Posted by tfk View Post
The lasting tidbit of data that resulted from my experience is the immediate knowledge that 1 million seconds is 11+ days, and that 1 billion seconds is 32 years. That puts a very pragmatic bound on how many cycles you can test for, how many cycles/sec you need to run your experiments & how many samples you have to run simultaneously. Because nobody in upper management is willing to wait for comprehensive fatigue testing to be done before finalizing design. But god forbid you have a failure ...
Fortunately for me, fatigue behaviour had to be understood for the material being used. It's essential for design. Materials testing is very expensive. I was once upon a time managing around a million pounds worth of materials testing including fatigue testing on a well known defence project. Luckily the fatigue testing was 'in-house' and I had a good rapport with the department performing it. Due to the expense and nature of the tests, it was very important to be conducting the tests with the right parameters to get the best output for the budget and the limited number of test specimens. Sometimes I'd have specimens on test for 3 months, with the proviso that they call me ASAP when failure occurred, so I could get the provisional data out.

Proper experimentation requires carefully designed experiments and defined parameters, usually accompanied by a god bit of tinkering, so that they can be useful in gaining better understanding or to demonstrate principles.

In order to understand what is useful and applicable then one has to have an understanding of the subject. Jon Cole fails in this respect. As does FalseFlag along with other truthers.
Sunstealer 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 May 2016, 02:22 PM   #2634
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,303
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
I guess you never watched videos of the collapses of either of the twin towers.
I have, many times, none show "midair pulverization of 90,000 lbs of concrete". Your point?
__________________
"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; 22nd May 2016 at 02:24 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2016, 02:46 PM   #2635
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Your point?
You're suffering from extreme denial.
FalseFlag 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 May 2016, 03:05 PM   #2636
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,863
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
LoL.
...................

You have zero engineering degree or experience. But you’ve decided that, because engineering degrees have the word “science” in them, that there is no difference between science & engineering.

You’re going to tell me about my profession for, likely, longer than you’ve been on the planet.

LMFAO.

Once again, right on schedule, a clueless amateur steps in, and not letting utter ignorance slow him down, makes brain-dead, wrong assertions.

Zero knowledge.
Zero doubt.

Unbridled arrogance, supported by boundless ignorance.
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
There's no other substitute. We stand on the shoulders of engineers and it's engineers all the way down! Most truthers have no understanding of the work previously carried out and continued to this day in the subjects they try to comment on.

Jon Cole is a classic example. It's why his experiments are null and void. However, I've always said that I give him credit for actually doing something. Unfortunately he gets it wrong on so many fronts because he hasn't undergone the extensive learning process required to understand such subjects.

............
Quote:
......

In order to understand what is useful and applicable then one has to have an understanding of the subject. Jon Cole fails in this respect. As does FalseFlag along with other truthers.
Very informative riff fellas.
Of course FF would say you're just trying to confuse him by falsifying his English prose claims with engineering facts.

Quote:
Your statement is proof that you don't understand Newton's third law of motion. You are a victim of the tricks that the "experts" have done. They have intentionally over-complicated things so that it is easier to get concepts confused.
__________________
In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius
A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.There's a sucker born every minute-Barnum

Last edited by BasqueArch; 22nd May 2016 at 03:27 PM.
BasqueArch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2016, 03:19 PM   #2637
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,863
Originally Posted by MileHighMadness View Post
Too bad you will never figure out you are talking about yourself.
Like vampires, truthers can't see their images in the mirror.
Vampires because they have no soul, truthers because they have no truth.
__________________
In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius
A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.There's a sucker born every minute-Barnum
BasqueArch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2016, 03:26 PM   #2638
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,303
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
You're suffering from extreme denial.
Not me.

90,000 lbs of concrete did not get pulverized in mid air. Gage lies and you suck it up.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2016, 04:37 PM   #2639
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,148
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
I guess you never watched videos of the collapses of either of the twin towers.
We have watched ALL of the videos shot from every angle.

Here's what's missing:

Explosions.
Evidence of explosions.
Signs of any type of CD.
Axxman300 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 May 2016, 04:41 PM   #2640
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by BasqueArch View Post
Very informative riff fellas.
Of course FF would say you're just trying to confuse him by falsifying his English prose claims with engineering facts.
How can I be confused when skeptics don't post facts.
FalseFlag 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 04:01 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

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