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.
Tags nist , structural engineering , tony szamboti , wtc , Zdenek Bazant

Reply
Old 15th January 2009, 06:38 AM   #1
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

A new paper by Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti contest NIST's and Bazant's collapse hypothesis, finding that there was no deceleration of the rigid 12 story block when it impacted the rest of the North Tower.

http://journalof911studies.com/volum...ssingJolt4.pdf

Quote:
Conclusions:
We have tracked the fall of the roof of the North Tower through 114.4 feet, (approximately 9 stories) and we have found that it did not suffer severe and sudden impact or abrupt deceleration. There was no jolt. Thus there could not have been any amplified load. In the absence of an amplified load there is no mechanism to explain the collapse of the lower portion of the building, which was undamaged by fire. The collapse hypothesis of Bazant and the authors of the NIST report has not withstood scrutiny.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis 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 15th January 2009, 07:15 AM   #2
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: 29,407
I'm going to indulge in a direct attack on the editorial policy of JON-ES here, so truthers may want to stick their fingers in their ears.

Several months ago, Gregory Urich submitted a paper to JON-ES analysing the dynamics of the collapse, and demonstrating that the collapse times - and, clearly, the fact of collapse itself - were consistent with a gravity driven process. His paper was rejected on the grounds that JO-NES was ceasing publication, because they felt that no further evidence was necessary to demonstrate that the official story of 9/11 cannot stand up to scrutiny and must therefore be re-investigated. Please note that there was no criticism of Urich's methodology, reasoning or conclusions; the paper was simply rejected. Now, however, it appears that JON-ES is not only still publishing, but still publishing on the specific subject of the dynamics of the Twin Towers collapses. Since they have neither published Urich's paper nor, as far as I know, informed him of any adverse peer review result that would justify its rejection, it seems clear to me that their only possible motivation for its rejection is that it does not agree with their preferred conclusion concerning 9/11. I felt certain that this was already the case, but the subject matter of this latest paper places the matter beyond question. The Journal of 9/11 Studies is therefore shown to be no more than a propaganda organ of the 9/11 truth movement. Ironically, this active suppression of any dissenting opinion is exactly the behaviour of which all mainstream media are accused by the 9/11 truth movement, usually without justification.

The behaviour of this "journal" is reprehensible and repulsive.

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 15th January 2009, 07:51 AM   #3
JamesB
Master Poster
 
JamesB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,152
On what planet do theology professors co-author peer-reviewed papers on structural engineering?
__________________
I said lots of things in NPH that I would not say today and that I did not repeat in NPHR, where I specifically corrected at least some of the errors I had made in that earlier book, written 5 years ago.
-David Ray Griffin-
JamesB 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 15th January 2009, 07:53 AM   #4
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Is anyone going to actually address the paper?
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis 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 15th January 2009, 07:56 AM   #5
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,370
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Is anyone going to actually address the paper?
I'm not qualified to address it. All I know that some dudes, who may or may not be qualified to do so, studied a video and declared Bazant and NIST wrong. Fortunately, there are quite a few folks on this very forum who are qualified to address it, and I'm sure they will.

Be careful what you wish for.
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead 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 15th January 2009, 07:58 AM   #6
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,703
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Is anyone going to actually address the paper?
Gregory Urich already did. Is there a reason we (or anyone) should lend any credibility to this paper?
__________________
"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 15th January 2009, 08:00 AM   #7
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 13,742
I'm not going to analyze anything.

However, I would suggest finding a good, high-speed video of a head-on car collision. Should be easy to find.

Now, analyze that video. Do a frame-by-frame to identify the exact time that the front of each vehicle makes impact.

Next, do the same thing, but block out the middle part of the video (the fronts of each vehicle, just cover part of the screen with a piece of paper) and try to identify the time of impact by looking for the "jolt" at the rear of the vehicle.

For additional fun, do the same thing with a video of two pool balls impacting, where no damage occurs to either impactor.

Let me know how that works out.
__________________
Ideologies separate us. Dreams and anguish bring us together. - Eugene Ionesco
Hellbound 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 15th January 2009, 08:12 AM   #8
metamars
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Is anyone going to actually address the paper?
I did, here.

I'm also not happy with the editorial policies of the JONES. Also, I couldn't agree with Dave Rogers more when he says

Quote:
Ironically, this active suppression of any dissenting opinion is exactly the behaviour of which all mainstream media are accused by the 9/11 truth movement*
Lee Smolin, author of The Trouble with Physics, has a nifty line: "Science thrives on controversy." It seems rather obvious to me that the small number of members of stj911 who are actually running it have great difficulty wearing both their "truth" and "justice" hats, simultaneously. Scientists are a special kind of truth-seeker, but the circle-the-wagon, "tribalistic" behavior one can observe at stj911 is only too reminiscent of the flawed behavior of scientists that Smolin was criticizing.

Besides the stj911/mainstream media analogy, one can also draw a stj911/NIST analogy, which is irony-squared, you might say.

* though he adds "usually without justification", which is nonsense; the rest of the quoted sentence makes sense, though!!
metamars 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 15th January 2009, 08:12 AM   #9
Seymour Butz
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 884
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Is anyone going to actually address the paper?
What does it matter if someone does or not?

No matter what objections may be raised, it will never convince you anyways.

No matter what facts are mentioned about poor quality video - which therefore make the analysis suspect - this will not affect troofer views on what kind of earth shattering news this is.

Of course, when the rest of the world has absolutely no reaction to it - including those in foreign countries, which of course includes those that would love to see Bush's cronies hurt and/or put in jail - this will mean nothing to troofers. Indeed, if anything, it'll just reinforce the trooder's delusion that the media is controlled by a $100,000 bribe.

Do you actually think that we can be convinced that you are actually interested in any rational view? We know better.

We know that troofers are either
a)politically motivated - and so, believe that any lie to protest the war/Bush is fine, no matter who it disrespects, from the FDNY, to Silverstein, to ATC's, etc. They are the lowest scum around. Sub-human.
b)insane
c)stupid/ignorant
Seymour Butz 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 15th January 2009, 08:14 AM   #10
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,370
Uh oh. TRUTHER FIGHT!!!!!

ETA: Sorry. Couldn't resist, metamars.
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

Last edited by twinstead; 15th January 2009 at 08:15 AM.
twinstead 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 15th January 2009, 08:19 AM   #11
technoextreme
Illuminator
 
technoextreme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,785
Originally Posted by twinstead View Post
I'm not qualified to address it. All I know that some dudes, who may or may not be qualified to do so, studied a video and declared Bazant and NIST wrong. Fortunately, there are quite a few folks on this very forum who are qualified to address it, and I'm sure they will.

Be careful what you wish for.
Actually we do know that they are not qualified to make that type of observation. They are theology professors.
__________________
It's amazing how many of these "paranormal" icons seem to merge together. There always seem to be theories about how they link together in some way. I'm sure someone has a very good explanation as to how Bigfoot killed JFK to help cover Roswell.-Mark Mekes
This isn't rocket surgery.-Bill Nye
technoextreme 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 15th January 2009, 08:22 AM   #12
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,370
Originally Posted by technoextreme View Post
Actually we do know that they are not qualified to make that type of observation. They are theology professors.
Oh. Well, there ya go. Maybe God told them Bazant was wrong.
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead 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 15th January 2009, 08:28 AM   #13
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
 
funk de fino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 11,938
Tony Szamboti posted here previous.

Clueless.
__________________

Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase.
funk de fino 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 15th January 2009, 08:30 AM   #14
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Is anyone going to actually address the paper?
It was, Red. It was conclusively demonstrated in this very thread that Jones' Journal is intellectually fraudulent, the authors are incompetent, and the methodology is pathetic.

Thanks for the link though!

You EVER gonna take a position on anything, or simply continue being 911 Blogger's waterboy?
The Big Dog 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 15th January 2009, 08:41 AM   #15
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: 29,407
Originally Posted by metamars View Post
* though he adds "usually without justification", which is nonsense; the rest of the quoted sentence makes sense, though!!
I think you need to understand the difference between "I disagree with this statement" and "This statement doesn't make sense".

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 15th January 2009, 08:47 AM   #16
stateofgrace
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,843
Let me get this straight.

Option 1

Read something about a buildings collapse by two guys, one of whom as zero engineering experience and the other who as zero structural engineering background and try to reinforce their predetermined conclusions by looking a single video.

Option 2

Read something about a buildings collapse that was compiled by over two hundred highly qualified experts in their field. The same people who acquired and organised over 7000 segments of video footage and over 7000 photographs. The same guys who reviewed over 10,000 pages of documents, interviewed over one thousand people who were at the scene or involved in the buildings design and actually analyzed over 236 pieces of steel taken from the scene, performed laboratory tests, measured materials properties and performed computer simulations.

I know this a tough call for you Red, but maybe you could point me to the better option.

And the answer is no, I have no intention whatsoever of reading your link. If you think it as merit, read it, sum it up and present your own thoughts.

Last edited by stateofgrace; 15th January 2009 at 09:24 AM. Reason: typo
stateofgrace 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 15th January 2009, 08:48 AM   #17
JamesB
Master Poster
 
JamesB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,152
Hilariously this is Jones' announcement on 911 Blogger

http://911blogger.com/node/19095

Quote:
The 116th peer-reviewed paper was published today in the Journal of 9/11 Studies:
“The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis,”
by Prof. Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti. Take a look!
Uh, yeah, one of those "116 peer-reviewed papers" was an e-mail that I sent to Jones criticizing his fake photos. Hell, one of them was an e-mail that I sent to a third party that he published without my permission. Interesting definition of peer-review.
__________________
I said lots of things in NPH that I would not say today and that I did not repeat in NPHR, where I specifically corrected at least some of the errors I had made in that earlier book, written 5 years ago.
-David Ray Griffin-
JamesB 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 15th January 2009, 08:49 AM   #18
metamars
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
Originally Posted by metamars View Post

I'm also not happy with the editorial policies of the JONES. Also, I couldn't agree with Dave Rogers more when he says
Oops. I meant to say:

I'm also not happy with the editorial policies of the JONES. Also, I couldn't agree more with Dave Rogers more when he says
metamars 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 15th January 2009, 08:51 AM   #19
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,266
Ok, just one page into the paper, and I've already got some questions/issues:

Originally Posted by MacQueen, Szamboti

The
rigidity of the upper block of stories is crucial to this explanation. If the upper block were to break, disintegrate or flow on impact it would certainly not threaten the 92 intact floors beneath it.
Isn't this a restatement of Heiwa's silly analysis? The weight flows downward regardless of rigidity, and I've yet to see an analysis presented that convinces me that being non-rigid affects the impact any.


Also:
Quote:

In addition, the rigid block had to
fall onto the rest of the building. Although this seems obvious, the NIST authors are often shy about saying it. We hear about the rigid block’s “descent.”[5] We hear of tilting and “downward movement.”[6] We have to look carefully to find the NIST authors using the language of falling. Whatever the reasons for their reticence, it is clear that it will not do for the upper block to ease itself onto the building beneath it, with a gradual creaking of buckled columns and sagging floors. If this were to happen, why would the structure beneath collapse?



This simply sounds like a misrepresentation of what happened to me. The columns gradually weaken, but when they fail, they fail. I simply don't see anything that suggests an "easing" of the upper sections onto the lower ones. I do in fact see a fall.

More to come when I get a chance to read further.


ETA: As a side note, will compare this to what Mackey and others have said about Bazant's modelings when I get a chance to. But just from the opening paragraph alone, this looks like it doesn't address the NIST hypothesis as much as it creates a competing one and tries to argue from video analysis. Again, though, that's an initial impression; will read further soon.
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."

Last edited by ElMondoHummus; 15th January 2009 at 08:53 AM.
ElMondoHummus 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 15th January 2009, 09:06 AM   #20
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,266
Originally Posted by MacQueen, Szamboti
What NIST essentially says, agreeing with Bazant, is that the lighter and weaker part initially fell with a powerful jolt onto the heavier and stronger part, which could not withstand the momentum of the upper block, and that this caused a progressive collapse to initiate smashing it to bits all the way to the ground.
GAAAAAH!! I'm tempted to dismiss it right there without reading any further! This is yet another attempt to frame the argument of the upper block competing against the strength of the lower structure as a whole, not floor-by-floor which is what was determined to have occurred!

Global failure led to the initial drop onto the first floor beneath the failure zone. Subsequent drops were upper section plus newly failed floor, and mathematically this has been determined to be overall an accelerating one, with each individual floor not being able to negate the acceleration the upper segment! Again, this is old information!

I'll continue to take one for the team, but when a non-engineer, non-architect like me can see the flaws - namely, that so far, just a few pages into the work that this is merely a restatement of an already refuted model of collapse - then that speaks volumes about the work.
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus 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 15th January 2009, 09:30 AM   #21
GStan
Graduate Poster
 
GStan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,350
Originally Posted by stateofgrace View Post

Read something about a buildings collapse that was compiled by over two hundred highly qualified experts in their field. The same people who acquired and organised over 7000 segments of video footage and over 7000 photographs. The same guys who reviewed over 10,000 pages of documents, interviewed over one thousand people who were at the scene or involved in the buildings design and actually analyzed over 236 pieces of steel taken from the scene, performed lavatory tests, measured materials properties and performed computer simulations.
Dang! You caught it. It was alot funnier this way.^

ETA: And probably far more synonymous with what a JONES paper might be useful for.
__________________
On why one would debate truthers at JREF..."Kind of like holidaying with a cult, without the inconvenience of having to give away the deed to your house." - Confuseling

Last edited by GStan; 15th January 2009 at 09:33 AM.
GStan 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 15th January 2009, 09:38 AM   #22
stateofgrace
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,843
Originally Posted by GStan View Post
Dang! You caught it. It was alot funnier this way.^

ETA: And probably far more synonymous with what a JONES paper might be useful for.

Thatís what you get for using spell checkers and then not reading it afterwards. But hey you are correct this is exactly where this stuff belongs .
stateofgrace 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 15th January 2009, 09:44 AM   #23
CurtC
Illuminator
 
CurtC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 4,785
Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus View Post
Isn't this a restatement of Heiwa's silly analysis? The weight flows downward regardless of rigidity, and I've yet to see an analysis presented that convinces me that being non-rigid affects the impact any.
They've had this conceptual issue for a long time - the Truther mind seems unable to comprehend that a giant, loose pile of rubble could cause an intact floor below it to fail.
__________________
Is there a God? Find the answer at The Official God FAQ.
CurtC 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 15th January 2009, 09:48 AM   #24
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: 29,407
The actual velocity calculation done in the paper is rather bizarre, and mathematically invalid. The authors are calculating the acceleration required to reach each point in the elapsed time, assuming constant acceleration, and from that deriving the velocity at that point relative to the velocity at the previous point. What they are therefore calculating is not the true velocity; in effect, they're applying a smoothing algorithm based on averaging all the previous points. Looking at their results in rather more detail, it turns out that the reason for this is that they are measuring movements of small numbers of pixels, so a velocity graph obtained by numerical differentiation - which would give a correct velocity - would show pronounced steps in the velocity. This in itself invalidates the entire analysis. The authors are taking a dataset which consists of discontinuous steps in velocity, applying a smoothing algorithm so as to produce a continuous function, then pointing out that the first derivative of this function contains no discontinuities.

Quite simply, the resolution of the data is insufficient to carry out the analysis, and the attempt to rectify this by effectively smoothing the data renders the conclusion invalid. I'll be charitable and describe this as lack of understanding of data resolution and experimental error issues by the authors, rather than deliberate intent.

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 15th January 2009, 09:53 AM   #25
ref
Master Poster
 
ref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,685
JONES = Journal Of Never Ending Scam

Dave's first post couldn't be more on point.
__________________
9/11 Guide homepage

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit. - Chief Daniel Nigro
ref 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 15th January 2009, 10:27 AM   #26
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Oh look, RedIbis is fluffing MIHOP again!
__________________
Vive la libertť!
WildCat 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 15th January 2009, 11:20 AM   #27
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,203
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Is anyone going to actually address the paper?
Sorry, this means nothing for 911. The WTC fell due to gravity after fire destroyed the strength of steel. Reality. All the other conclusions on explosives and thermite are insane fantasy ideas based on hearsay, lies and false information.

Why do you fail to understand 911? If you understood this topic and read the paper you could see they failed to make their point. They attack a model on how the WTC could fall as fast as it did, and come up with woo.

Too bad the idiots who did the paper fail to understand a floor in the WTC center will fail with 25,000,000 pounds of material on it. I bet they forgot to weigh the upper floors.

Do they make up this stuff? In a class of building structures what score would they earn? Failure. They made up their conclusion based on failed work.

Quote:
presumably through planted explosives or other means of demolition--
I thought they were chicken to say it. But you got pure insanity in a scientific paper backed with ZERO evidence. I grade the paper F, for fantasy, or S for stupid.

What did you give it? 7 years of failure. How can anyone be dumb enough to fall for this tripe?
LOL

You need to take this work to the nearest University engineering department, get permission from Tony to be a co-author (it is done for someone who supports the work and does what you will do) and you can garner the awards for exposing explosives were used at the WTC. A Pulitzer Prize is the minimum award I suspect a real work would get on this topic! Go get it you will be the hero of 911Truth. Donít be coy, take some action.

But too bad, you are just a cheerleader for the terrorists apologists. Great job.

Did you read that paper? Did you understand it? No
Otherwise you would comment more than you have and explain it carefully so we can understand it.

Last edited by beachnut; 15th January 2009 at 11:30 AM.
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 15th January 2009, 11:37 AM   #28
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,632
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Is anyone going to actually address the paper?
Hello, Paper!

(Hat Tip to Art Carney)
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2009, 12:05 PM   #29
Heiwa
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus View Post
Isn't this a restatement of Heiwa's silly analysis? The weight flows downward regardless of rigidity, and I've yet to see an analysis presented that convinces me that being non-rigid affects the impact any.
I think it is a very good paper! Of course it only analyses the first 3.17 seconds of the displacement of the WTC1 roof line and the upper part below down to floor 98, BUT we can learn a lot from that.

During these 3.17 seconds the roof line displaces say 33 metres downwards ... but nothing happens to the structure below floor 93!

Strange, isn't it. When the roof line has dropped 33 meters, evidently 33 meters of structure below floor 93 should have been completely crushed down then by the rigid upper part crushing down.

BUT - the structure below floor 93 remains undamaged!

What you see instead is the upper part - floor 98 to the roof - being compressed or imploding during these 3.17 seconds.

I have described it before at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm ... and no JREF member has managed to debunk my observations there.

The paper under discussion does not analyse what happens after the 3.17 seconds. The paper assumes that the upper part columns actually contact the lower structure columns during these 3.17 seconds, BUT, as soon as the the columns have sheared off (or whatever), the two ends of all columns never meet again.

The upper part columns should then start to punch holes in the floors below or just hit air outside the structure below AND the lower structure columns should start to punch holes in the upper part floors.

It is like a collision of two ships! Both ships are damaged, and after a while the local destruction is arrested, etc.

NIST assumes of course that the upper part of WTC1 remains completely undamaged during the whole collapse and applies its PE on the lower structure that lacks SE, etc. BUT it is just silly nonsense.

Reason for NIST staff suggesting such nonsense is that if anybody does not do it, he or she is a terrorist according to president GWB. We will see if things change after 20 January!
Heiwa 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 15th January 2009, 12:09 PM   #30
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,576
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Is anyone going to actually address the paper?

From:
Journal of 9/11 Stundies
123 Fail Lane
Fraudulence, Freedonia

To:
Rubbish Bin
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele 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 15th January 2009, 12:14 PM   #31
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,266
Ok, actually having to work at work today . So I'm not going to be addressing any further points until much later.

But folks like Dave Rodgers, Architect, rwguinn, etc. could do so far better than me anyway. To anyone who's not familiar with this forum yet (yes, any of you new folks lurking ), there are some engineering, architectural, or just plain trained-better-in-physics-than-most-people types hanging around here. And I personally find it telling that they're dismissing the paper; Dave Rogers in particular is highlighting a very basic problem that by itself invalidates the conclusions. To me, who's not educated in engineering or architectural concepts, and who's physics only extends to the required courses level in college, this paper still smells fishy, just for the things I've objected to so far. And that's even before taking into account Dave Rogers post. Combining my own personal sense that something feels wrong with the utter dismissal by other trained types here may not add up to a full refutation, but it does indicate that there are very core problems with the paper. Others can elucidate those core issues later, and with better clarity than I. For now, this layman's read of the paper is setting off alarm bells.
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus 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 15th January 2009, 12:19 PM   #32
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,203
It would be cool if RedIbis could show us the 31 G calculation or state the duration of the deceleration. There are many decelerations to pick from, the first one is almost instant and the velocity slows down .66 m/s. Over 0.02 second that is more than 31 G. And since the failures are essentially instantaneous, this first 31 G jolt, or whatever, is possible. The paper in question is not debunked, it is BUNK.

hi paper

The decelerations continue to grow in velocity results to 1 m/s then taper off as the mass grows that is falling. This process is much more complicated than a the failed paper presented and clams explosives did it. So sad to see Jones' insanity continue after it started from simply dropping cinder blocks in his back yard and making a false conclusion and making up thermite. The moment of insanity leading to his journal where he can publish trash:
9.16.05, 16 September 2005 was the day Jones dropped science and became a fraud so he could bring us a paper to address and posted by people who donít understand science but love to spread lies, fantasy, and false information.
Quote:
5. I conducted simple experiments on the "pancaking" theory, by dropping cement blocks from approximately 12 feet onto other cement blocks. (The floors in the WTC buildings were about 12 feet apart.) We are supposed to believe, from the pancaking theory, that a concrete floor dropping 12 feet onto another concrete floor will result in PULVERIZED concrete observed during the Towers' collapses! Nonsense! My own experiments, and I welcome you to try this yourself, is that only chips/large chunks of cement flaked off the blocks -- no mass pulverization to approx. 100-micron powder as observed. Explosives, however, can indeed convert concrete to dust --mostly, along with some large chunks-- as observed in the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9-11-01.
Why this current paper made it to publication. Jones lost it in September 2005.

Last edited by beachnut; 15th January 2009 at 12:50 PM.
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 15th January 2009, 12:24 PM   #33
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,266
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
I think it is a very good paper! Of course it only analyses the first 3.17 seconds of the displacement of the WTC1 roof line and the upper part below down to floor 98, BUT we can learn a lot from that.

During these 3.17 seconds the roof line displaces say 33 metres downwards ... but nothing happens to the structure below floor 93!

Strange, isn't it. When the roof line has dropped 33 meters, evidently 33 meters of structure below floor 93 should have been completely crushed down then by the rigid upper part crushing down.

BUT - the structure below floor 93 remains undamaged!

What you see instead is the upper part - floor 98 to the roof - being compressed or imploding during these 3.17 seconds.

I have described it before at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm ... and no JREF member has managed to debunk my observations there.

The paper under discussion does not analyse what happens after the 3.17 seconds. The paper assumes that the upper part columns actually contact the lower structure columns during these 3.17 seconds, BUT, as soon as the the columns have sheared off (or whatever), the two ends of all columns never meet again.

The upper part columns should then start to punch holes in the floors below or just hit air outside the structure below AND the lower structure columns should start to punch holes in the upper part floors.

It is like a collision of two ships! Both ships are damaged, and after a while the local destruction is arrested, etc.

NIST assumes of course that the upper part of WTC1 remains completely undamaged during the whole collapse and applies its PE on the lower structure that lacks SE, etc. BUT it is just silly nonsense.

Reason for NIST staff suggesting such nonsense is that if anybody does not do it, he or she is a terrorist according to president GWB. We will see if things change after 20 January!
Sorry, Heiwa, but you endorsing their paper is the equivalent of Samuel Shenton advocating a paper on geology: The viewpoint advocated by such an individual renders any analysis suspect by virtue of the known starting biases and flawed basic preconceptions embraced and forwarded by said personality. It would take as much argument from you to validate this viewpoint as it would take from a flat earther to validate theirs. I'd rather accept conclusions from demonstrably trustworthy individuals. You are not on that list.

ETA: Oh, and for the record: No. People have in fact debunked your work. You're just pretending it doesn't exist when you make that claim. I would in particular look up the posts of Architect, Dave Rogers, rwguinn, R.Mackey, and others as proof of this. It's one thing to make an argument, it's another thing to present a demonstrably wrong claim. And claiming that no one's debunked you is a demonstrably wrong claim.
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."

Last edited by ElMondoHummus; 15th January 2009 at 12:27 PM.
ElMondoHummus 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 15th January 2009, 12:28 PM   #34
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,203
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
I think it is a very good paper! ...
We will see if things change after 20 January!
You have no clue about gravity, you would think anything is a good paper as long as your kids can bounce on a bed. The WTC/kids jumping on bed analogy comes to mind as your credibility is as good as a pizza box talking.

After 20 January, the President will have the intelligence to tell you your doltish work on 911 is.
Quote:
It is like a collision of two ships! Both ships are damaged, and after a while the local destruction is arrested, etc.
Oops, no it is not. Gravity! Hi paper.

Last edited by beachnut; 15th January 2009 at 12:34 PM.
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 15th January 2009, 12:36 PM   #35
stateofgrace
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,843
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
I think it is a very good paper! Of course it only analyses the first 3.17 seconds of the displacement of the WTC1 roof line and the upper part below down to floor 98, BUT we can learn a lot from that.

During these 3.17 seconds the roof line displaces say 33 metres downwards ... but nothing happens to the structure below floor 93!

Strange, isn't it. When the roof line has dropped 33 meters, evidently 33 meters of structure below floor 93 should have been completely crushed down then by the rigid upper part crushing down.

BUT - the structure below floor 93 remains undamaged!
So where did it go Sherlock?

Quote:
What you see instead is the upper part - floor 98 to the roof - being compressed or imploding during these 3.17 seconds.
Where did the upper weight go, Sherlock?
Quote:
I have described it before at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm ... and no JREF member has managed to debunk my observations there.
It as been debunked your failure to see this is your problem. Post a link to your website again and I will report you for spamming.
Quote:
The upper part columns should then start to punch holes in the floors below or just hit air outside the structure below AND the lower structure columns should start to punch holes in the upper part floors.
The upper columns? What about the upper floors, the hat truss, the upper core, all the concrete on the upper floor trusses, all the machinery on the upper floors, where did it all go, Sherlock?

Quote:
It is like a collision of two ships! Both ships are damaged, and after a while the local destruction is arrested, etc.
Rubbish.
Quote:
NIST assumes of course that the upper part of WTC1 remains completely undamaged during the whole collapse and applies its PE on the lower structure that lacks SE, etc. BUT it is just silly nonsense.
Wrong, complete garbage.
Quote:
Reason for NIST staff suggesting such nonsense is that if anybody does not do it, he or she is a terrorist according to president GWB. We will see if things change after 20 January!
More garbage, grow up or go away.
stateofgrace 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 15th January 2009, 01:02 PM   #36
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Is anyone going to actually address the paper?
Tell me where you agree with it Red? lol, just kidding.

As a non physicist/engineer, here is my reply.

"The paper is likely incorrect."

TAM
T.A.M. 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 15th January 2009, 01:17 PM   #37
alexi_drago
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,348
I don't understand much of this and want to know it it's correct that the deceleration during the impulse would be a constant for the duration and then end abruptly (in this case a constant 31g for 13ms), anyone know?
Not that i'll make much difference to the paper, just curious.
alexi_drago 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 15th January 2009, 01:26 PM   #38
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,370
So let me get this straight, Heiwa. All you have to do is claim not to have been debunked, and you can declare anything you say as true, no matter what anybody else says or if any evidence to the contrary has been presented?

I LIKE it. I think you're on to something here.
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead 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 15th January 2009, 01:29 PM   #39
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,104
Originally Posted by alexi_drago View Post
I don't understand much of this and want to know it it's correct that the deceleration during the impulse would be a constant for the duration and then end abruptly (in this case a constant 31g for 13ms), anyone know?
Not that i'll make much difference to the paper, just curious.
1. Deceleration is not a term we use. What you mean is "Acceleration opposing current motion"
2. If by "constant" you mean "continually changing", then, yes.
3. IF by abruptly, you mean rapidly increasing to a limit, yes.
As for the values given, I am not wasting my time to look over another chunk of "Matrimonial advice by an unmarried marriage counseler"
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn 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 15th January 2009, 01:36 PM   #40
alexi_drago
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,348
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
1. Deceleration is not a term we use. What you mean is "Acceleration opposing current motion"
2. If by "constant" you mean "continually changing", then, yes.
3. IF by abruptly, you mean rapidly increasing to a limit, yes.
As for the values given, I am not wasting my time to look over another chunk of "Matrimonial advice by an unmarried marriage counseler"
1. ok, but you knew what I meant.
2. again, ok [edit] but in what manner does it change?
3. lost me there, I mean at the end of the duration of the impulse the acceleration opposing current motion instantly drops from it's continually changing constant value to 0.

Last edited by alexi_drago; 15th January 2009 at 01:49 PM.
alexi_drago 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 06:39 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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

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