The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

Discussions on 9/11, moon landing etc.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2041  Postby uke2se » Nov 12, 2010 1:26 am

Patriots4Truth wrote:good god, uke2se, try to prove your point without linking to jref. post you explanation and conclusion here at Rational Skepticism

showing me links to jref many times doesn't count as you proving anything


I could say the same of your links to Szamboti's musings. Both hold the same scientific rigor. You want to talk just peer-reviewed science? Ok. What you got? Nothing? Then what's there to discuss?

Also, why should we go through the same discussion here when it has already been done elsewhere? I'm just saving us hundreds of posts which will just lead to the same conclusion.
User avatar
uke2se
 
Posts: 641

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2042  Postby econ41 » Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am

uke2se wrote:This is the JREF thread on Tony Szamboti's "Missing Jolt" paper. I'm fairly sure econ participated in it. Szamboti certainly did, and his paper got a thorough trashing. Be aware that Szamboti's paper isn't peer-reviewed, no matter what the people at the Journal of 9/11 Studies says. It doesn't need to be countered with peer-reviewed science. Forum science is sufficient for taking the paper apart.

Now, if Tony had submitted his paper to a proper journal and actually got it published, we would be in a very different situation. However, that's not the case, and the 9/11 conspiracy theorists still have no science.

(My emphasis added.)
Not quite. I came late to the JREF discussions. I have confronted Tony Szamboti several times showing the flaws in his "Missing Jolt" paper. But it was not in the main "Missing Jolt" thread. He has not responded with any reasoned argument nor addressed my argument. Nothing but bare assertions bluster laced with a few patronising and insulting comments thrown back at me. I have been "told off" by a debunker on JREF for being willing to engage Tony Sz in discussion. All to no avail. You cannot win in the climate over there.

A possibly amusing side issue is that my very first post on the internet was on the Dawkins Net Forum and it included an attack on an earlier paper by Tony Szamboti. I think I quoted that back in the thread when I challenged Tony on the "missing Jolt" nonsense.

The key fault in "Missing Jolt" by the way is that it takes the extreme conservative assumptions of the 2001 Bazant and Zhou paper and presumes that they are the gospel of what actually happened. A one storey free fall if I recal accurately.

So "Missing Jolt" is:
  • Based on a false premise; AND
  • Employs circular logic. (It implicitly presumes "demolition" then uses that assumption to prove itself if I put it very simply.)
:scratch:

:nono:
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1286
Age: 81
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2043  Postby Patriots4Truth » Nov 12, 2010 1:33 am

if you can't prove whatever point you were trying to make here, and telling people to go read up several threads on another forum, you are just wasting space

ps you have to prove there was measurable deceleration when the upper section hit the lower section of WTC1, if you want to prove Szamboti's video analysis on this particular subject wrong
User avatar
Patriots4Truth
 
Posts: 169

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2044  Postby uke2se » Nov 12, 2010 1:36 am

Patriots4Truth wrote:if you can't prove whatever point you were trying to make here, and telling people to go read up several threads on another forum, you are just wasting space



If you can't prove your point here and just quote Tony Szamboti all the time, despite him being shown to be wrong at many occasions, you're just wasting space.


See how stupid that sounds? Of course you can quote Szamboti, the same way as I can link to where Szamboti has been shown to be wrong. Do you want me to copy-paste the posts where he is shown to be wrong? How would that not be a waste of space?

Face it, Szamboti has been shown to be wrong, and I have evidenced that assertion. That you don't want to click on links to JREF where the evidence is is nobody's problem but your own.
User avatar
uke2se
 
Posts: 641

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2045  Postby uke2se » Nov 12, 2010 1:37 am

Patriots4Truth wrote:
ps you have to prove there was measurable deceleration when the upper section hit the lower section of WTC1, if you want to prove Szamboti's video analysis on this particular subject wrong


I don't have to. The link I provided shows that Szamboti didn't know what he was doing, thus his methodology is all wrong, thus his conclusions are worthless.
User avatar
uke2se
 
Posts: 641

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2046  Postby Patriots4Truth » Nov 12, 2010 1:43 am

Patriots4Truth wrote:I got something new that might enlighten some people.
1. Can thermitic material melt steel? (even plain old thermate)
2. Can it cut steel horizontally or vertically?
3. Does it take a massive quantity to do any real damage?
Backyard experiments provided by a truther equivalent to Bill Nye or Mr. Wizard answers all these questions
(and makes National Geographic's 9/11 Science and Conspiracy special look stupid/er)
:dance: :thumbup: :rickroll: :point: :nod2: :pulp: :rofl2: :grin: :welcome: :awesome: :awe: :yay: :cheerdance: :bemused: :disco: :curtsy: :maraca: :-P :wink: :party: :clap: :cheers: :smoke:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g[/youtube]


also if any of you want to talk about how thermitic material would be too difficult to work with (like many debunkers suggested earlier in this 100+ The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II thread), now would be a good time to post your reasons why

------------------

and ukele - if you could please tell me here where Szamboti's methodology is wrong in reference to "no measurable deceleration" instead of saying "go read a huge freaking forum" maybe I'll take you seriously
User avatar
Patriots4Truth
 
Posts: 169

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2047  Postby uke2se » Nov 12, 2010 1:46 am

Patriots4Truth wrote:
also if any of you want to talk about how thermitic material would be too difficult to work with (like many debunkers suggested earlier in this 100+ The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II thread), now would be a good time to post your reasons why


No. You first hypothesize how they got thermitic material into the buildings, applied it to the supporting beams, made sure it survived the aircraft impacts and subsequent inferno, and then went off without a hitch.

The first thing you will note is that thermitic material doesn't react well to heat.

The second thing is that in order to get the thermitic material close to the beams you will have to remove several layers of material.

The third thing is that this is a job that would take several months (standard prepping time for a normal controlled demolition, involving normal explosives).

I'll let you think about this before we proceed.


Patriots4Truth wrote:
and ukele - if you could please tell me here where Szamboti's methodology is wrong in reference to "no measurable deceleration" instead of saying "go read a huge freaking forum" maybe I'll take you seriously


I already provided you a link to a post. A single post, not a whole huge freaking forum. If you can't be arsed to read a single post which was conveniently linked to you, I can not take you seriously.
User avatar
uke2se
 
Posts: 641

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2048  Postby Patriots4Truth » Nov 12, 2010 1:50 am

uke2se wrote:
Patriots4Truth wrote:
ps you have to prove there was measurable deceleration when the upper section hit the lower section of WTC1, if you want to prove Szamboti's video analysis on this particular subject wrong


I don't have to. The link I provided shows that Szamboti didn't know what he was doing, thus his methodology is all wrong, thus his conclusions are worthless.


Szamboti is a mechanical engineer and here's his missing jolt paper that I'm sure you've heard about several times already. Now what specifically is your problem regarding his methodology in which he showed no measurable deceleration when the top section of the wtc1 hit the bottom section

Do you not realize that it has been your turn to point out contradictions for the last two pages? Saying "go read several pages at an unsubstantial debunker forum" isn't going to cut it. Focus on your point if you are trying to make one. I don't even know if you have a contradiction. You seem to be struggling to write one down
User avatar
Patriots4Truth
 
Posts: 169

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2049  Postby uke2se » Nov 12, 2010 1:54 am

Patriots4Truth wrote:
uke2se wrote:
Patriots4Truth wrote:
ps you have to prove there was measurable deceleration when the upper section hit the lower section of WTC1, if you want to prove Szamboti's video analysis on this particular subject wrong


I don't have to. The link I provided shows that Szamboti didn't know what he was doing, thus his methodology is all wrong, thus his conclusions are worthless.


Szamboti is a mechanical engineer and here's his missing jolt paper that I'm sure you've heard about several times already. Now what specifically is your problem regarding his methodology in which he showed no measurable deceleration when the top section of the wtc1 hit the bottom section

Do you not realize that it has been your turn to point out contradictions for the last two pages? Saying "go read several pages at an unsubstantial debunker forum" isn't going to cut it. Focus on your point if you are trying to make one. I don't even know if you have a contradiction. You seem to be struggling to write one down


:nono:

Go back to the link I provided to you. Take your mouse pointer and click on the link. Read the single post as opposed to a whole thread or a whole forum that clicking the links brings you to. Then you will know why Szamboti was wrong. If you admit in this thread to being unable to click a link, I will take the trouble to copy-paste the post and waste more space, but only if you admit that you are unable to use your web browser to click on a link. :lol:

For you to practice, this is a link to my post where I posted the link. Take it slow and don't hurt yourself.
User avatar
uke2se
 
Posts: 641

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2050  Postby econ41 » Nov 12, 2010 1:57 am

Patriots4Truth wrote:...you see everything in black and white.
"There was no big jolt therefore Szamboti's hypothesis is wrong."
I hypothesize that a fire collapse would have shown at least a small or medium sized jolt...
I have gone as far as I am prepared to go in giving you a logical presentation to address.

I will simply point out the ridiculous comments in your post and leave it there until you either:
  • Address my reasoned explanation ; OR
  • Present a reasoned explanation of your own.
Patriots4Truth wrote:...you are arguing against any "big jolt" at all because you believe that the top part fell and hit everything in the 9 subsequent floors in only a mish-mash way which would look like minijolts if you decided to do an video analysis.
... ridiculously false. The fact as shown by multiple persons both "truther side" and "debunker side" and implicit in your own posts is that there was no big jolt. So I am not arguing against any big jolt. I am quoting the same persons you quote and we should be on common ground.

Patriots4Truth wrote:...I would argue that if you showed some middle ground between your crushing down "mish-mash hypothesis" (which is all that your huge text above is by the way) and a single section hitting another single section hypothesis you would find a measurable jolt: a small-medium sized jolt. We can call this the "middleground mish-mash hypothesis" and I think it's a lot more acceptable than your "mish-mash hypothesis". It also follows "#3" in your list by the way.
First my "huge text" was simply to call your bluff in refusing to engage in debate. Mission accomplished. Second your middle ground is within the range of my #3 setting

Patriots4Truth wrote:...Hypotheses aside, lets take into account what actually happened....
...any day you want.
Patriots4Truth wrote:...We should take free-fall acceleration into consideration.....
...get real. One sentence after saying "...lets take into account what actually happened..." :nono: There was no free fall of the main structural elements of wTC1 and WTC2 at any stage other than the fall of outer tube columns detached from the main body plus aluminium cladding ditto and some miscellaneous thrown clear materials.

Patriots4Truth wrote:...any Video analysis shows the absence of jolts, mini or huge.
...you actually mean video analysis looking for "big jolts", flawed in that purpose and deliberately structured so that mini-jolts are dampened out.

Look at what you are trying here. You are deflecting into discussion of video measurement. An evasive ploy. The real issue is that the falling top section of tower falling onto the bottom section would have shown a "big jolt" if there had been demolition as per Szamboti and Chandlers claims. There was no big jolt so their claims were wrong. Sorry you don't like "black and white" when it goes against you. That's life.
Patriots4Truth wrote:... We should take that into consideration.
Then do so - properly.
Patriots4Truth wrote:... And know what? Both freefall acceleration and the absence of jolts strongly support controlled demolition..
freefall acceleration is irrelevant to what we are discussing. And it does not support "demolition" over "no demolition" - I am well aware of the canards of truther lore. That one is wrong.

Patriots4Truth wrote:...I would like to mention one thing that you didn't consider in your post (something that I've had to repeat already for someone else). There was no measurable deceleration when the upper section hit the bottom section. not even a mini-jolt. The Verinage collapse graphs show measurable deceleration. Szamboti's video analysis does not show measurable deceleration. Therefor Verinage does not in fact support what actually happened.
Take a while to think that one through again. Starting at "The Verinage..." from there on plus some knowledge of what "Verinage" is is all you need to get the answer right.
\
End of comments.

Clearly I have done you the courtesy of laying out an explanation in fullsome detail. The ball is in your court to either address my explanation OR provide your own. And, yes, I am aware that for your hypothesis to "beat" mine you have to do both - show where mine is wrong AND present a better one of your own. I'll go along with one step at a time.

Your play.
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1286
Age: 81
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2051  Postby Patriots4Truth » Nov 12, 2010 2:04 am

uke2se wrote:
Patriots4Truth wrote:
uke2se wrote:

I don't have to. The link I provided shows that Szamboti didn't know what he was doing, thus his methodology is all wrong, thus his conclusions are worthless.


Szamboti is a mechanical engineer and here's his missing jolt paper that I'm sure you've heard about several times already. Now what specifically is your problem regarding his methodology in which he showed no measurable deceleration when the top section of the wtc1 hit the bottom section

Do you not realize that it has been your turn to point out contradictions for the last two pages? Saying "go read several pages at an unsubstantial debunker forum" isn't going to cut it. Focus on your point if you are trying to make one. I don't even know if you have a contradiction. You seem to be struggling to write one down


:nono:

Go back to the link I provided to you. Take your mouse pointer and click on the link. Read the single post as opposed to a whole thread or a whole forum that clicking the links brings you to. Then you will know why Szamboti was wrong. If you admit in this thread to being unable to click a link, I will take the trouble to copy-paste the post and waste more space, but only if you admit that you are unable to use your web browser to click on a link. :lol:

For you to practice, this is a link to my post where I posted the link. Take it slow and don't hurt yourself.


well you provided multiple links to jref so your childish instructing on how to view a single post is irrelevant.
so you you can cut the crap
uke2se wrote:This is the JREF thread on Tony Szamboti's "Missing Jolt" paper. I'm fairly sure econ participated in it. Szamboti certainly did, and his paper got a thorough trashing. Be aware that Szamboti's paper isn't peer-reviewed, no matter what the people at the Journal of 9/11 Studies says. It doesn't need to be countered with peer-reviewed science. Forum science is sufficient for taking the paper apart.


and as for your single post jref link - if you can't explain it in your own words then I believe I am done dealing with you.
User avatar
Patriots4Truth
 
Posts: 169

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2052  Postby uke2se » Nov 12, 2010 2:10 am

Patriots4Truth wrote:
well you provided multiple links to jref so your childish instructing on how to view a single post is irrelevant.
so you you can cut the crap


But I have referred you back to this post several times. I mean, there's a limit to how many times you can ask for the same thing and not realizing you have got it already before someone calls you mad. Note that I'm not calling you mad. I just thought it was funny that you had such problems understanding that I had answered you several pages ago despite me telling you over and over again.

Patriots4Truth wrote:
and as for your single post jref link - if you can't explain it in your own words then I believe I am done dealing with you.


Do you know why I prefer to rely on the linked person's words instead of mine? I'll tell you why. He's an actual engineer. I'm not. I rely on him to counter the engineering claims from Tony Szamboti.

Do you want to have this discussion if none of us are able to use other people's words for our arguments? Are you a qualified engineer?
User avatar
uke2se
 
Posts: 641

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2053  Postby Patriots4Truth » Nov 12, 2010 2:37 am

econ41 wrote:There was no free fall (acceleration) of the main structural elements of wTC1

I suppose you have proof?
econ41 wrote:...you actually mean video analysis looking for "big jolts",
flawed in that purpose and deliberately structured so that mini-jolts are dampened out.

Okay, let's agree that we should analyze the video at 30fps and search for these minijolts. Has anyone done this? If so please link to me their analysis
econ41 wrote:
Look at what you are trying here. You are deflecting into discussion of video measurement. An evasive ploy.
The real issue is that the falling top section of tower falling onto the bottom section would have shown a "big jolt"
if there had been demolition as per Szamboti and Chandlers claims. There was no big jolt so their claims were wrong.
Sorry you don't like "black and white" when it goes against you. That's life.

I told you that a big jolt isn't an issue for me. a small-medium sized jolt is. and a small-medium sized jolt would fall into the realm of your hypothesis. "only mini-jolts" is the extreme end of your hypothesis and that appears to be what you agree with because it might be able to be supported with video evidence...
econ41 wrote:
freefall acceleration is irrelevant to freefall acceleration is irrelevant to what we are discussing. And it does not support "demolition" over "no demolition" - I am well aware of the canards of truther lore. That one is wrong.

controlled demolition can take away support on entire floors - it would be easy to figure out how freefall acceleration could happen when beam connections on multiple stories or beams themselves are demolished

controlled demolition can also create a collapse very much like that of of "verinage"
econ41 wrote:
Patriots4Truth wrote:...I would like to mention one thing that you didn't consider in your post (something that I've had to repeat already for someone else). There was no measurable deceleration when the upper section hit the bottom section. not even a mini-jolt. The Verinage collapse graphs show measurable deceleration. Szamboti's video analysis does not show measurable deceleration. Therefor Verinage does not in fact support what actually happened.

Take a while to think that one through again. Starting at "The Verinage..." from there on plus some knowledge of what "Verinage" is is all you need to get the answer right.
I'm not sure what you are getting at here actually.
User avatar
Patriots4Truth
 
Posts: 169

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2054  Postby uke2se » Nov 12, 2010 2:46 am

Patriots4Truth wrote:
controlled demolition can take away support on entire floors - it would be easy to figure out how freefall acceleration could happen when beam connections on multiple stories or beams themselves are demolished


So can fire. What we have in WTC 1 is a combination of fire and aircraft damage. NIST explains this fully.
User avatar
uke2se
 
Posts: 641

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2055  Postby Durro » Nov 12, 2010 2:55 am


!
MODNOTE
Uke2se and Patriots4Truth - stop, breathe, count to 10 and then try to post in a more calm manner. Both of you have had some of your posts reported today because of your hostility towards each other and both of you are at risk of being sanctioned if things keep escalating.

Now chill, or else I'll be obliged to wield the big stick.

Durro

p.s. I've closed the reports about both of you without action, but I shall be monitoring this thread more closely in future.
I'll start believing in Astrology the day that all Sagittarians get hit by a bus, as predicted.
User avatar
Durro
RS Donator
 
Posts: 16737
Age: 55
Male

Country: Brisbane, Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2056  Postby GrahamH » Nov 12, 2010 8:49 am

Miragememories wrote:
GrahamH wrote:"I note that you have failed to back-up you claim by providing any evidence of calculation or provision for the effects of fire on the structure.

It is not contested that an analysis for impact damage was conducted, for a slow-flying 707.

Is it worth asking again? What evidence can you provide of an allowance made for structural effects of subsequent fires?"


You are either ignoring or did not read;

NCSTAR 1-2, 8.2 AIRCRAFT IMPACT DAMAGE ANALYSIS, 8.2.1 Safety of the WTC Towers in Aircraft Collision wrote:"3. The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707 - DC 8) travelling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."


This detailed analysis was performed at the request of the NYC Port Authority in response to public concerns about the safety of such tall buildings in the event of aircraft collisions and subsequent fires, and largely on the basis of this WWII event reported in the NY Times;

"Saturday morning in July 1945, when a B-25 bomber, lost in the fog, barreled into the 79th floor of the Empire State Building. Most of the 14 people who died were incinerated by a fireball created when the plane's fuel ignited, even though the fire was quickly contained. The following year, another plane crashed into the 72-story skyscraper at 40 Wall Street, and yet another one narrowly missed the Empire State Building, terrifying sightseers on the observation deck."

Are you seriously suggesting that while designing the Towers to cope with such a crash, the designers somehow overlooked the possibility of fire?

Prior to 9/11, Leslie Robertson was making a different, more ego-serving claim;

http://snurl.com/j54gc (Report From Ground Zero page 188

A few quotes from that page;

Image

"After the bombing of the WTC in 1993, Leslie Robertson, one of the engineers who worked on the towers' structural design in the 1960s, claimed that each had been built to withstand the impact of a fully fueled 707. The 707 was the state-of-the-art airplane, and the Port Authority was quite amenable to considering the effect of an airplane as a design criterion...I don't know if we considered the fire damage that would cause. Anyway, the architect, not the engineer, is the one who specifies the fire system."

"Of course, when Yamaski was designing the buildings he was aware that steel, when it reaches an inherent temperature of 1200 degrees, will stretch at the rate of 9 1/2 inches per 100 feet. He undoubtedly took into account the possibility of a plane's hitting the building and causing the steel to stretch in a resulting fire. There might even be a collapse, but only on the side of the building that was 'hit. Partial collapses often happen in burning buildings."

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
"John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8."

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698
Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision
By Eric Nalder

as reported in the Seattle Times Februaury 27, 1993

"In the wake of the WTC bombing, the Seattle Times interviews John Skilling who was one of the two structural engineers responsible for designing the Trade Center. Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the Twin Towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. He says, “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.”

MM


I am not ignoring what you write. I note again that you have not supplied evidence of a detailed analysis of the structural impact of fire. That the designers understood there would be a fire, and that fires weaken steel structures, is plain enough. The point in question is how did they apply that basic knowledge in the design. What parameters did they use. How many floors on fire, for how long, with what impact damage and re-distributed loads? Did they consider sagging floor trusses?

It is one thing to consider that jet fuel would result in fires, and perhaps take some measures to limit that spread. It is an entirely different matter to do a detailed structural analysis of the impact of fire.

This was an interesting point.
There might even be a collapse, but only on the side of the building that was 'hit. Partial collapses often happen in burning buildings."[/i]


Note that two sides were hit, since the plane went right through two faces of the exterior column wall. Did the calculations include the pane smashing holes in two sides and damaging the core columns?
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20419

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2057  Postby amused » Nov 12, 2010 12:53 pm

Amateurs playing with stuff that makes steel hot proves nothing. Amateurs "analyzing" random bits of video proves nothing. Amateurs building "models" that have no correlation to the actual physical structures proves nothing.

Real professionals did a real investigation and arrived at real conclusions.
amused
 
Posts: 468

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2058  Postby Nicko » Nov 12, 2010 3:22 pm

amused wrote:Real professionals did a real investigation and arrived at real conclusions.


103 pages in and the truthers have still not managed to get past this simple point.

There is no evidence that the towers were subject to any sort of controlled demolition. The towers did not fall as if they were subject to controlled demolition. There was no credible evidence of explosives at the scene. There has never been suggested a credible method by which a controlled demolition could have been set up without drawing the attention of everyone who worked in the buildings. There has never been suggested a credible motive for the US government to blow up two landmark buildings full of campaign contributors, risking total financial paralysis on a national scale.

There is, however, overwhelming evidence that the the towers were each hit by a very fucking large aeroplane and then caught on fire. There is ample evidence that agents in the field obtained information that could have prevented the attack (without torture or illegal wiretaps I might add), but which was not acted upon by higher ups. There is ample evidence that goverments the world over used 9/11 as an excuse to engage in violence that could not otherwise be "justified" or, at the very minimum, to pass laws to restrict civil liberties.

There is real stuff here for Americans to be angry about. The truthers need to stop looking in the shadows for conspiracies and pay attention to the crimes and negligence occurring in broad daylight.
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8641
Age: 45
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2059  Postby Miragememories » Nov 12, 2010 4:13 pm

econ41 wrote:"They are all attempts at explaining something where my personal competence at both understanding and explaining is on par with or better than theirs.", I expect this should pose little difficulty."
Miragememories wrote:"Do you really know what it means to drop?

If we drop a ball for instance, it clearly means that at the very instant that we remove its last thread of vertical restraint, it will descend at free fall, only impeded by air resistance."
econ41 wrote:"Given that drop = "Fall, or allowing an object to fall" does not implicitly mean free fall I will recognise your wish to limit "drop" to free fall."


Actually, I made it perfectly clear that my interpretation of drop explicitly meant descend at free fall, only impeded by air resistance.

In the context of the upper section of WTC 1 dropping onto the intact lower section, I can see no other interpretation of the word. You could have used sink, gradually fail, gradually buckle, etc., but you chose a term that clearly implies suddenness or instantaneous in nature, D R O P.

Because the reader is so familiar with the meaning, it is critically important that it be used properly before continuing on with a narrative that will otherwise contradict itself.

econ41 wrote:"My meaning however should be clear in context. So substitute "started to move downwards" or, if you wish, suggest some other phrase.
<cut for brevity>
So moving on and addressing more of your terminology:"
Miragememories wrote:"Using WTC 1 (the North Tower) as an example, you are proposing that at collapse initiation, its upper section [econ41 edit] dropped"started to move downwards" as a single unit or block."
econ41 wrote:[/i]"(terminology changed)...yes it came down as a recognisable entity. But don't read "rigid" or "solid" into either "single unit" or "block". I made that aspect explicit in my post:"[/i]


Well this is rather important do you not think?

A rigid or solid body impacting a structure is going to have a totally different effect than a not rigid or not-solid body.

Take a bag of sand for example. It has a fixed mass and while tightly contained, represents a solid and rigid body. Drop it, or if you prefer, make it move downward, when it impacts an object below, it will have a certain amount of concentrated momentum.

Now take the same bag and make it not rigid, or not solid, by breaking its containment structure (the burlap bag encasement) and drop, or if you prefer, pour its contents downward, when it impacts an object below, it will have a vastly different amount of concentrated momentum.

econ41 with added emphasis wrote:"We are at the stage where the lower portions of the falling top block is interacting with the upper portions of the lower tower. Neither is a rigid solid rather a framework of separate members each with its own flexibilities plus the flexibilities of the various combinations."


Well we have a more fragile upper block suffering pre-existing physical damage from the aircraft impact, on several of its floors, combined with whatever damage has resulted from 102 minutes of unfought fire, making contact with the undamaged, intact structure below it.

The intact structure below is rigidly interconnected by a perimeter of structural steel columns linked by concrete covered steel trusses joined to heavy structural steel core columns.

Miragememories wrote:"But getting back to WTC 1. Ignoring for the moment, the issue of the upper block's much smaller mass, what allowed that upper block to drop?"
econ41 wrote:"You are addressing the causes of the initial collapse. My post was referring to those moments in time following the start of the initial collapse where the various claims for "missing jolts" fit in the collapse sequence. I was not discussing the mechanisms which led to the initial collapse."


Are you suggesting that an error in understanding what caused the initial collapse is irrelevant to what followed?

econ41 wrote:"The rest of your post moves over three stages of collapse. I will identify but not address the issues which were in the pre-initial collapse stage or in the later global collapse stage. We can discuss them at a later stage:"


I think the basic premise on which you draw your forward conclusions must be proven to be reasonable before you can proceed with any analysis.

You are in effect asking that the reader accept your assumptions so that you can present conclusions which are wholly dependent on the legitimacy of your unsubstantiated assumptions.

The rest of your response just continues in the same vein.

The reason I make such a big issue about this, is that I believe for both of the Towers, the upper sections did D R O P.

What I do not believe is that they dropped as a consequence of fire-induced thermal expansion.

MM
User avatar
Miragememories
 
Posts: 69
Age: 71
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2060  Postby Weaver » Nov 12, 2010 4:17 pm

MirageMemories wrote:snip ...
What I do not believe is that they dropped as a consequence of fire-induced thermal expansion.


But as we've been trying, ad nauseum, to point out is that it doesn't matter what you BELIEVE - it matters what you can PROVE. So far you have yet to provide any proof that something else caused the collapse.
Image
Retired AiF

Cogito, Ergo Armatus Sum.
User avatar
Weaver
RS Donator
 
Posts: 20125
Age: 54
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracy Theories

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests