Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

[Lurker]

What I'm here to do is narrow my focus to small, digestible chunks of information, such as the point Lurker made about "safety factor," a great piece of terminology which will help me understand things better.

And to Lurker: I'm not even a Junior level engineer (however my father is a civil and structural engineer with 35 years experience), but I have a very solid science background, I understand debates, and I understand reason and logic. Just those skills alone are hard to come by in forums like these.

All righty then. My father also is a Civil Engineer but his area was not structures. Have you asked your father about the WTC, factors of safety, and impact loading?

Anyway, the formula I provided shows that the force from the upper part impacting onto the lower part is a minimum of 2xWeight. Actually, it got me thinking about structures in general and if they always use factors of safety below two. If so, then every building would experience total collapse if a whole section fell into the whole section below.

My guess is that not all structures have WTC factors of safety. Why do I think this? My guess is the steel girders come in certain standard sizes and are not scaleable from one building to another. Thus, building that are not skyscrapers probably have higher factors of safety than what the WTC has. Not because engineers feel they need that high a level, but because there is no need to downsize the steel beams which would probably cost more money.

Lurker

[SDC]

I have not "retreated" from anything. My post #491 is my response to you as well. I'll have to stop replying to distracting comments such as yours if I'm even going to have a chance to get back to the "engineering perspective" angle.... I'm at work, and when I'm not at work I have a life, believe it or not.

Well, you said you weren't an engineer. Why did you start from that perspective? It certainly appeared as though you were making that claim.

Lest anyone say "Gravy's not neither," that's right, and he doesn't pretend to be. He draws from the works of those who are.

That said, I hope you're going to make some interesting arguments. It's been pretty dreary around here. Ah, the stories these old keyboards could tell... Just get my drink filled, won't you, youngster?....

[DGM]

It has nothing to do with how I feel about the government. It boils down to my own admission that "if I was the government, I would lie to the public."

I'm pretty sure history is filled with far more examples of governments lying to the people than telling the truth. This is one of the core axioms of people who question "official stories" put out by governments. It seems a lot of people here hold the fundamental belief that governments don't lie, and I'd like to have them explain what lead them to that belief.

I think it has the makings of a fantastic thread. All historical citations of governments lying v.s. governments telling the truth. No conspiracy theories required: just boring stuff like drug safety, automobile safety, toxic waste, the economy, the environment, whether "I had sex with that woman" or not, "no new taxes," etc.

Now that's a good one. Name one skeptic here that has said this or you think believes it. Be careful with these sweeping statements or you will find people reacting harshly to you.

[16.5]

"I'll have to stop replying to distracting comments such as yours if I'm even going to have a chance to get back to the "engineering perspective" angle.... I'm at work, and when I'm not at work I have a life, believe it or not."

Understood! Now, had it been me, before I came into a thread tossing around insults like the discussion here is proceeding at a Ninth Graders level, I'd have been sure I had a good understanding of the "engineering perspective" angle, but you have a life.

Anyhow, let me know if you want me to post your suggested thread in politics, because you are at work and have a life.

[dbalsdon]

I think all governments, some more then others, lie to their people.

Just because they lie, doesn't mean they kill.

[uk_dave]

I think people lie too. Sometimes to sell a story to the gullible.

hmmmmmmmm

[Lurker]

Put me in agreement with dbalsdon.

I am hoping Architect or some other knowlegable person will advise me what Factors of Safety are typically used in low rise vs high rise structures and if my guess on steel sizing is correct in that regard. Just want to learn a bit.

Lurker

[brasil]

Welcome to the forums, brasil. NIST used a safety factor for the tower column gravity loads of about 2. That was a bit of an overestimation, which is wise. The actual safety factor for the core columns was about 1.67 and for the perimeter columns it varied from about 1.22-1.44. Some columns (about 5%) were determined to have exceeded their demand-to-capacity ratios in use, but these were not determined to have played a significant role in the collapses, since the buildings could easily redistribute the loads that those columns couldn't carry.

The towers used a steel frame, not steel and concrete (unless you're including the floors, but they only had to carry their own loads). A few steel elements on mechanical floors were encased in concrete, but these wouldn't have made a difference in the collapses.

Of course, the "30 floors vs. 80 floors" argument is a non-starter. The falling top portion only has to break through one floor for the collapse to proceed, and of course the floors were built to hold the weight of themselves and their contents, not of the building above.

You'll find a good analysis of the possible column failure modes in Professor Bazant's papers. He shows that even if the severed columns above landed squarely and evenly on those below, the collapse would have proceeded due to column failure with a downward movement of the top portion of only 0.5 meters. Obviously, the columns didn't contact each other in that way. So, even using extremely conservative assumptions in favor of collapse prevention, the energy of the falling upper portions vastly exceeded the capacity of the structure below to absorb it.

Do you have any specific engineering arguments that demonstrate that the towers shouldn't have collapsed as they did? If so, you can start a thread to discuss them.

You said you signed up here to address me. Again, welcome. Which of my errors would you like to discuss?

Thanks for your welcome to the forum. I believe what lead me to this forum was a comment under the youtube videos in which you sat down and debated with the producers of "Loose Change." From there I went to your 911myths site and did some reading. I was hoping to be blown away by some very irrefutable logic, but I came away from it with more questions, and who knows, maybe some "facts" to point to that might actually be in dispute or unprovable. Since it already feels like I've been thrown into an angry pack of wolves, I'm not planning on directly addressing this topic until I have my thoughts in order and my references ready. Looking forward to it though.

[Zlaya]

Ever considered the possibility that you've been sold a lie?

There you go. 9/11 in one simple sentence.

You complain how the "Truthers" are making money off of this, when the entire war on terror is based on this lie.

Ask Giulianni how much money HE makes off of exploiting 9/11.

The double standards on this board know no boundaries.

[Pookster]

It's not an "evasion." It's a matter of available time and priorities. If I spend the next two hours studying and then rehashing information that's in the public domain, that you can study on your own from much more qualified sources, then I can't spend the time educating myself enough to reply to Lurker's interesting reply, and Mark/Gravy (the reason I joined the forum in the first place). I'm not here to get quizzed by you. It is "bait." I'm not qualified to give a lecture on how "the towers worked structurally" off the top of my head, only to have you rip me apart when you inevitably find errors in it.

What I'm here to do is narrow my focus to small, digestible chunks of information, such as the point Lurker made about "safety factor," a great piece of terminology which will help me understand things better.

And to Lurker: I'm not even a Junior level engineer (however my father is a civil and structural engineer with 35 years experience), but I have a very solid science background, I understand debates, and I understand reason and logic. Just those skills alone are hard to come by in forums like these.

I find it quite telling when someone interested in discussing the truth views anything as "bait". I mean, how can the truth be a "trap" if you're on the side of truth? If you don't know enough to explain something, you should just say so. There's nothing inherently wrong with being ignorant about a subject or topic.

[Pookster]

Reposted in case Brasil missed it ...

... AND THEN, on September 18th, the EPA issued an official press release and made a public announcement, and I quote: "EPA Administrator Christie Whitman announced today that results from the Agency's air and drinking water monitoring near the World Trade Center and Pentagon disaster sites indicate that these vital resources are safe." ...

(emphasis added)

Welcome to the forum. I snipped much of your post because it wasn't responsive to my post. Please quote where the EPA specifically told Ground Zero workers that the air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe. I think my request is quite simple to respond to. Either there is such a quote, or there isn't. I would be willing to accept something along the lines of "the workers no longer have to use their protective breathing gear" or such. "Near the WTC" isn't going to cut it. I want "at the WTC".

Thanks.

[Pookster]

Thanks for your welcome to the forum. I believe what lead me to this forum was a comment under the youtube videos in which you sat down and debated with the producers of "Loose Change." From there I went to your 911myths site and did some reading. I was hoping to be blown away by some very irrefutable logic, but I came away from it with more questions, and who knows, maybe some "facts" to point to that might actually be in dispute or unprovable. Since it already feels like I've been thrown into an angry pack of wolves, I'm not planning on directly addressing this topic until I have my thoughts in order and my references ready. Looking forward to it though.

I could be mistaken, but I don't believe that the "911myths.com" website is Gravy's, if that is what you're referring to. Are you referring to it, or a different website?

[Norseman]

Oh Mark you are good at this.
Why would you post a description from the South Tower in an attempt to prove something that did not happen in the North Tower actually happened ?

(Unnecessary large bolded font in above font changed to normal font)

Swing Dangler wrote the above quote in response to this quote posted by Mark Roberts:
And in the south tower, an elevator mechanic reports:
Quote:
We heard the explosion and within a matter of seconds after that impact, I heard – and as well as everybody else heard – this noise, this increasing sound of wind. And it was getting louder and louder. It was like a bomb, not quite the sound of a bomb coming down from a bomber. It was a sound of wind increasing, a whistling sound, increasing in sound.

What we heard was 6 and 7 car free-falling from the 107th floor and they impacted the basement at B-2 Level. And that’s the explosion that filled the lobby within a matter of two or three seconds, engulfed the lobby in dust, smoke.

And apparently from what I talked to with other mechanics, they saw the doors, the hatch doors blow off in the lobby level of 6 and 7 car. http://archive.recordonline.com/adayinseptember/jones.htm
But Swing Dangler knows all this. He's just here in a pathetic bid for attention.

Mark posted the quote in a follow up to a post I wrote in response to Swing Dangler wrongly claiming that elevator shafts 6 and 7 could not be the source of the fire ball in the lobby. My post contained the following witness accounts:

Quote:
Don (Parente) noticed that the doors of elevators number 6 and 7 had been blown out."
Courage Above and Beyond the Call of Duty: A Report of the September 11, 2001 Experiences of Port Authority Engineers at the World Trade Center
(http://www.elevator-world.com/magazine/archive01/0112-005.html-ssi)

And this one also from New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F03EFDF1739F932A25750C0A9649C8B 63):

She walked through two sets of doors into the lobby of the north tower shortly before 9 a.m., and heard ''a whistle, the loudest sound you can possibly imagine,'' she said. She still does not know for sure what it was, but thinks it may have been the elevators plunging down their shafts. She had no idea that a jet had hit the building.

After the sound came the fireball, exploding from the elevators where jet fuel had cascaded down the shafts.

''The fire hit me and spun me around and half pushed me out the doors,'' she said. She pushed open the second set of doors, which were searing hot, and ran outside. She was aflame, in agony.

I have highlighted significant similarities in the the three witness accounts.

Swing Dangler, within science and research it is a well established principle to compare similar cases, as an intelligent person you should know this. In the case of the World Trade Center we have two completely identical buildings, less some minor details, being hit by Boeing 767's. In response to my post he posted a very similar witness account from the south tower. In his paper he has done the same thing. Both actions are completely within very well established principles of science and research. Based on these witness accounts from WTC 1, corroborated by the account from WTC 2, there is very good reason to assume that elevator cars 6 and 7 in the north tower crashed down to the bottom of their shafts(one or both). This assumption is also supported by other accounts and facts.

You made a very bold statement in the quote above, Swing Dangler, a statement that must be regarded as yet another one of your numerous false claims in this forum unless you for once can back it up with some real hard facts.

As Gravy so well said it in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3232297#post3232297), you are a true artist.

[brasil]

I could be mistaken, but I don't believe that the "911myths.com" website is Gravy's, if that is what you're referring to. Are you referring to it, or a different website?

911myths.com is in fact the website I was referring to. It's what I thought was pointed to by Mark in his video debate with Dylan and Justin. If that's not his site with his views, then I need to go back to square one with regards to this thread.

[Gravy]

Thanks for your welcome to the forum. I believe what lead me to this forum was a comment under the youtube videos in which you sat down and debated with the producers of "Loose Change." From there I went to your 911myths site and did some reading. I was hoping to be blown away by some very irrefutable logic, but I came away from it with more questions, and who knows, maybe some "facts" to point to that might actually be in dispute or unprovable. Since it already feels like I've been thrown into an angry pack of wolves, I'm not planning on directly addressing this topic until I have my thoughts in order and my references ready. Looking forward to it though.Sounds good. By the way, the superb 911myths.com is run by Mike Williams, not by me. He posts here as "Mike W.")

To the others, I ask again that this discussion be restricted to errors I've made. It would be nice to have a positive signal-to-noise ratio here.

[Pookster]

911myths.com is in fact the website I was referring to. It's what I thought was pointed to by Mark in his video debate with Dylan and Justin. If that's not his site with his views, then I need to go back to square one with regards to this thread.

I think you're back to square one then. It seems like you might want to start another thread if you have specific questions for Gravy not related to the thread topic. Again, welcome to the forum. I look forward to the discussions concerning whatever questions you may have of Gravy.

[Pushkin]

Brasil,

as a fellow newbie round here I can certainly see why you are hesitant to stick your neck out.

I've loitered here for months reading and digesting what people post. Some of it is garbage but most funny, informed or educational. The vast majority of posters wont bite your head off if you are here to learn and discuss. But no-one will stand for the "I know you are wrong just you wait" attitude which IMHO is already in evidence in your posts.

I'd be delighted were you to prove me wrong with some informed, well researched posts.

Welcome to the forum.

[Gravy]

Reposted in case Brasil missed it ...
(emphasis added)

Welcome to the forum. I snipped much of your post because it wasn't responsive to my post. Please quote where the EPA specifically told Ground Zero workers that the air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe. I think my request is quite simple to respond to. Either there is such a quote, or there isn't. I would be willing to accept something along the lines of "the workers no longer have to use their protective breathing gear" or such. "Near the WTC" isn't going to cut it. I want "at the WTC".

Thanks.The thing is, if this were true, the Ground Zero workers and their unions would be screaming it from the rooftops. I've never seen a single quote by a worker on the piles who said they were told they didn't have to wear their PPE, and the workers I've spoken with have said the opposite.

So, to those who challenge this, if you cannot produce a statement from an official body that the air was safe to breathe at Ground Zero or that the workers didn't have to wear personal protective equipment, can you produce an accusation by a single one of the 40,000+ GZ workers who says this?

http://911stories.googlepages.com/GZrespiratorPPEmustwear.jpg

[Pookster]

The thing is, if this were true, the Ground Zero workers and their unions would be screaming it from the rooftops. I've never seen a single quote by a worker on the piles who said they were told they didn't have to wear their PPE, and the workers I've spoken with have said the opposite.

So, to those who challenge this, if you cannot produce a statement from an official body that the air was safe to breathe at Ground Zero or that the workers didn't have to wear personal protective equipment, can you produce an accusation by a single one of the 40,000+ GZ workers who says this?

That's what I was thinking as well about the workers and their unions. I can't imagine anyone doing anything different without some kind of direct order from their superiors, foremen, etc. as well. It should be quite easy to find quotes of such.

[Brainache]

Maybe Brasil could tell us all how sick he became from breathing in the air in Manhattan for those weeks and months after 9/11. If the air was so toxic he must have gotten at least a bit sick, right?

[RedIbis]

brasil,
Welcome to the forum. I sense the mods are in the rushes and will (as I believe they should, keeping this the forum what it is) pull any off-topic exchanges. So I'll make this brief and within the topic of the OP.

When you point out Gravy's errors on this thread or any other, be very specific and able to support with solid sourcing. The errors are there, but most of what Gravy does is conjecture, and provide a semi plausible theory (the jet fuel fireball, for example) and personal appeal (nearly the entire Escape Artist paper). He has admitted that his work should not be considered scientific, academic, nor open to peer review.

When you inevitably point out errors and deceptive language, you will begin to be ignored by Gravy and then his supporters. It's unfortunate, but that's the way it goes around here.

That said, you can learn a lot on this excellent forum and throughout jref. Those of us who criticize the official story can stick around a bit by maintaining a sense of humor, real civility, respect for the rules and the sharpest possible focus on evidence, hard, physical evidence.

[brasil]

Reposted in case Brasil missed it ...



(emphasis added)

Welcome to the forum. I snipped much of your post because it wasn't responsive to my post. Please quote where the EPA specifically told Ground Zero workers that the air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe. I think my request is quite simple to respond to. Either there is such a quote, or there isn't. I would be willing to accept something along the lines of "the workers no longer have to use their protective breathing gear" or such. "Near the WTC" isn't going to cut it. I want "at the WTC".

Thanks.

I'm not saying that such a quote doesn't exist (and besides, we would only be talking about a web-discoverable quote, whose absence would certainly not mean the statement was never made), however on this point we may have to agree to disagree.

As I stated earlier, I live in NYC and experienced these public statements in the news as they happened, and reacted to them in much the way everyone did, and that includes "ground zero workers" - these people read the newspapers and watched the news just like everyone else, and I would think would have an even greater interest in the EPA statement than the average person.

Here's why that EPA statement reaching a ground zero worker through the news could easily be interpreted, and was interpreted, to mean "at the WTC." Everyone has seen the pictures of the dust all over lower Manhattan. There is video showing the dust blowing all the way to Williamsburg, Brooklyn. It was the same dust 10 and 20 blocks away as it was at the WTC site. If you were here, you would already know that the debris and dust covered a much larger area than what is technically labeled "the WTC site." If the EPA said it was safe "near the WTC" that was the same as saying it was safe "at the WTC site," because the dust we now know to be highly toxic was everywhere.

What I'm trying explain is that I was here experiencing this in real-time, and I assure you that everyone interpreted that EPA statement as also applying to the ground zero workers. It's what everyone "on the street" was talking about, and that statement was designed to calm NYC residents' fears, and keep the workers from walking off the job.

And I don't mean to split hairs semantically with you, but what the statement actually says is that their monitoring equipment was "near the WTC." And as I've said, the conditions "near the WTC" and "at the WTC" were so similar as to make the distinction irrelevant. And again, a nationally publicized, official EPA announcement is the same as "telling the ground zero workers."

[RedIbis]

And as I've said, the conditions "near the WTC" and "at the WTC" were so similar as to make the distinction irrelevant. And again, a nationally publicized, official EPA announcement is the same as "telling the ground zero workers."

You are about to find out that such minor, inconsequential distinctions is the foundation of what is known around here as debunking.

[Brainache]

So why is it only the GZ workers who are now sick? What about all the people who lived and worked near the WTC, shouldn't they all be sick as well if the conditions near GZ were the same as conditions at GZ?

ETA: I guess my argument here is what RedIbis would call inconsequential. Oh well, it seems valid to me.

[Gravy]

Here's why that EPA statement reaching a ground zero worker through the news could easily be interpreted, and was interpreted, to mean "at the WTC." Nonsense. Why are you ignoring the fact that the GZ workers had specific instructions about wearing personal protective equipment?

And specifically how do you dispute these findings?

Office of Inspector General Evaluation Report No. 2003-P-00012

EPA’s Response to the World Trade Center Collapse: Challenges, Successes, and Areas for Improvement, pp. 100-101

EPA Actions to Encourage Respirator Use

As demonstrated by a fact sheet prepared on September 11, 2001, EPA’s emergency response officials immediately recognized the need for and recommended the use of air purifying respirators at Ground Zero (a copy of this document is available on our OIG web site). EPA officials told us this fact sheet was provided to a FEMA official, but was not issued. We contacted a FEMA representative who told us that the flyer was not issued because it was decided that New York City should handle worker protection issues.

EPA also provided respirators for workers at the site. According to a May 1, 2002, letter from EPA’s Region 2 Administrator to Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) and Senator George Voinovich (R-OH), EPA had distributed 22,100 air purifying respirators and 30,500 sets of P100 particulate cartridges to New York City by September 22, 2001. Additionally, 600 respirators (MSA and 3m brand) and 2,000 cartridges (GME-P100) were provided to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the New York State Department of Health. The bulk of EPA-procured equipment was transported from EPA’s Edison facility by the New York National Guard to the New York City Office of Emergency Management for distribution to response workers.

As the rescue phase progressed, EPA emergency response officials told us they were concerned about the lack of respirator use at Ground Zero and outlined these concerns in a letter to NYCDOH dated October 5, 2001. This letter outlined the threat of potential exposure of workers to hazardous substances. The letter noted that EPA “... has recommended, and continues to recommend, that workers utilize personal protective equipment and the personal wash stations to prevent the spread of asbestos and other hazardous substances from the WTC to their homes, cars, public transportation, food service locations, etc.” The letter stated that EPA had observed very inconsistent compliance with its recommendations, but did not have the authority to enforce compliance with non-EPA/United States Coast Guard employees. The letter concluded by recommending that the Incident Commander adopt and enforce a site-wide Health and Safety Plan. A copy of the letter is in Appendix P.

"White House meddled with 9-11 reports"

Early U.S. EPA statements made after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York City reassuring the public that the air outside the “Ground Zero” area was “safe” to breathe were not substantiated by the data available at the time, according to a report by EPA’s Inspector General (IG), the agency’s watchdog arm. Instead, the White House Council on Environmental Quality convinced EPA “to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones” in its press releases, the report finds. In effect, EPA’s overriding message was that there was no significant threat to human health, even though the agency lacked monitoring data for several contaminants, particularly PCBs, particulate matter, dioxin, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Because of the lack of supporting data—including health-based benchmarks for short-term and acute exposures to many of the contaminants of concern, research data on synergistic effects, and reliable information on the extent of the public’s exposure to these pollutants—the IG concludes that “the answer to whether the outdoor air around the World Trade Center was safe to breathe may not be settled for years to come.” http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2003/sep/science/kc_911air.html


http://911stories.googlepages.com/GZrespiratorPPEmustwear.jpg

[RedIbis]

So why is it only the GZ workers who are now sick? What about all the people who lived and worked near the WTC, shouldn't they all be sick as well if the conditions near GZ were the same as conditions at GZ?

ETA: I guess my argument here is what RedIbis would call inconsequential. Oh well, it seems valid to me.

And what if people who returned to lower Manhattan are suffering respiratory problems? Will you simply rationalize it, or will you ask why the EPA deemed the air safe, when it obviously wasn't?

[16.5]

"That said, you can learn a lot on this excellent forum and throughout jref. Those of us who criticize the official story can stick around a bit by maintaining a sense of humor, real civility, respect for the rules and the sharpest possible focus on evidence, hard, physical evidence."

People on the internet often talk about needing a new keyboard because something they read was so outlandish, or so funny that they spit their beverage on it. I thought that was a myth, or just an expression.

Until today.

RedIbis, you owe me a new keyboard

[RedIbis]

Gravy is obviously missing the point. They were told to wear respirators, so what? The point is that they shouldn't have been working down there at all, respirator or no respirator.

The fact that I have to actually spell this out is disappointing.

[RedIbis]

"That said, you can learn a lot on this excellent forum and throughout jref. Those of us who criticize the official story can stick around a bit by maintaining a sense of humor, real civility, respect for the rules and the sharpest possible focus on evidence, hard, physical evidence."

People on the internet often talk about needing a new keyboard because something they read was so outlandish, or so funny that they spit their beverage on it. I thought that was a myth, or just an expression.

Until today.

RedIbis, you owe me a new keyboard

I'm sure there must be some smilie or gif that you can post to articulate your thoughts.

[brasil]

So why is it only the GZ workers who are now sick? What about all the people who lived and worked near the WTC, shouldn't they all be sick as well if the conditions near GZ were the same as conditions at GZ?

ETA: I guess my argument here is what RedIbis would call inconsequential. Oh well, it seems valid to me.

Since I jumped on this train late, could Mark or someone direct me to where his statements about this WTC air safety topic are, so I can see what I'm either agreeing or disagreeing with?

Brainache: It is not "only the GZ workers who are now sick." Lots of residents of lower Manhattan became sick, which is my whole reason for citing the September 18th, 2001 EPA statement. I think there is probably some nuance to this debate. Conflicting, contradictory information was put out there - we have the EPA announcing to the public that the air is safe, we have anyone with any sense telling GZ workers to wear respirators (seriously, if i was working down there I personally would not need to be told to wear protective gear, but that's just me).

see this personal injury lawyer's site (yes, not the best source but he has references): newyorkcity.injuryboard.com/world-trade-center-illness/

"Children Exposed to Toxic Dust Following 9/11 Have Developed Respiratory Symptoms"

[Brainache]

Gravy is obviously missing the point. They were told to wear respirators, so what? The point is that they shouldn't have been working down there at all, respirator or no respirator.

The fact that I have to actually spell this out is disappointing.

So the huge piles of smoking rubble should have just been left to sit there indefinitely?

[Brainache]

Since I jumped on this train late, could Mark or someone direct me to where his statements about this WTC air safety topic are, so I can see what I'm either agreeing or disagreeing with?

Brainache: It is not "only the GZ workers who are now sick." Lots of residents of lower Manhattan became sick, which is my whole reason for citing the September 18th, 2001 EPA statement. I think there is probably some nuance to this debate. Conflicting, contradictory information was put out there - we have the EPA announcing to the public that the air is safe, we have anyone with any sense telling GZ workers to wear respirators (seriously, if i was working down there I personally would not need to be told to wear protective gear, but that's just me).

see this personal injury lawyer's site (yes, not the best source but he has references): newyorkcity.injuryboard.com/world-trade-center-illness/

"Children Exposed to Toxic Dust Following 9/11 Have Developed Respiratory Symptoms"

OK thanks, I was unaware of this. I had only ever heard about the actual GZ workers.

[Gravy]

Since I jumped on this train late, could Mark or someone direct me to where his statements about this WTC air safety topic are, so I can see what I'm either agreeing or disagreeing with?I was thinking that you didn't understand the responses to this topic, but it turns out that you haven't even read them. I don't know which of these options troubles me more.

Here's the statement that the conspiracists are responding to. It's on page 9 of this thread. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3232185&postcount=325

[pomeroo]

And what if people who returned to lower Manhattan are suffering respiratory problems? Will you simply rationalize it, or will you ask why the EPA deemed the air safe, when it obviously wasn't?


Concerns over the air quality at Ground Zero and in downtown Manhattan are reality-based. You're a conspiracy liar. How does this concern you?

[Slayhamlet]

Gravy is obviously missing the point. They were told to wear respirators, so what? The point is that they shouldn't have been working down there at all, respirator or no respirator.

The fact that I have to actually spell this out is disappointing.

Are you serious? :boggled:

[Pookster]

... And I don't mean to split hairs semantically with you, but what the statement actually says is that their monitoring equipment was "near the WTC." And as I've said, the conditions "near the WTC" and "at the WTC" were so similar as to make the distinction irrelevant.

I've again snipped most of the non-responsive part of your post. Most of it was just your conjecture anyways, as is what I didn't snip. Conjecture isn't gonna cut it. If you can't provide a quote or reference to where the EPA specifically told Ground Zero workers that the air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe, then you have no evidence. "Near" is not "at". You can try to equate them all you want, but they're still two different things. An employee of mine being "near" the office when she's supposed to be "at" the office will get her in trouble.

[Pookster]

You are about to find out that such minor, inconsequential distinctions is the foundation of what is known around here as debunking.

Inconsequential? Too funny. It's not only known as debunking, it's also known as understanding that words have meaning. And, sorry, you don't get to change those meanings at your leisure just so you can formulate your own personal version of the truth.

[Gravy]

Here's an equivalent argument:

Me: It was wild when those airliners hit St. Paul's Chapel.

Sane Person: What are you talking about? The airliners hit the Twin Towers.

Me: Look, it says right here "Historic St. Paul's Chapel survived unscathed when the nearby Twin Towers were hit by airliners and collapsed."

SP: Yeah? It says "nearby," not "into."

Me: You're splitting hairs. "Nearby" encompasses "into."

SP: That's insane. The article says right here that St. Paul's Chapel was NOT damaged.

Me: It's amazing that an old church could hold up so well to impacts like that.

SP: I'm outta here.

Me: Splitter!

[Pookster]

Gravy is obviously missing the point. They were told to wear respirators, so what? The point is that they shouldn't have been working down there at all, respirator or no respirator.

The fact that I have to actually spell this out is disappointing.

Gravy hasn't missed the point. You're creating a strawman. Your being disappointed that Gravy didn't notice it is irrelevant to what was actually being discussed. It's a pretty strawman though. You seem to take great care in building it. You can see the obvious love and care that went into it. You're certainly devoted to your craft. There now, does that help soothe your disappointment?

[Zlaya]

You are about to find out that such minor, inconsequential distinctions is the foundation of what is known around here as debunking.

AMEN you said it.

"CLUNKITY CLUNK!" Right Gravy?

By the way, Mark you look absolutely like a fool in this one:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=142975074341498508&hl=en

I quote you:

"there is a LARGE thread of people in the conspiracy movement, truth movement they call themselves, who believe that all terrorist acts are really commited by the United States."

First sentence out of your mouth was a falacy. Just wait 'till i put together a "Screw Mark's Gravy" video and a 'blogger' blog - a collection of text boxes scattered all over the place, pointing out your every little stupid thing you've said in this video.

And i'll use BAUT forum as the source for my statements! :) You know, just like you did with your crap?

HAHA!

Just search google, it'll come out soon :)

[Pookster]

Are you serious? :boggled:

But it's such a pretty strawman. Where's the love? :p

[SDC]

AMEN you said it.

"CLUNKITY CLUNK!" Right Gravy?

By the way, Mark you look absolutely like a fool in this one:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=142975074341498508&hl=en

I quote you:

"there is a LARGE thread of people in the conspiracy movement, truth movement they call themselves, who believe that all terrorist acts are really commited by the United States."

First sentence out of your mouth was a falacy. Just wait 'till i put together a "Screw Mark's Gravy" video and a 'blogger' blog - a collection of text boxes scattered all over the place, pointing out your every little stupid thing you've said in this video.

And i'll use BAUT forum as the source for my statements! :) You know, just like you did with your crap?

HAHA!

Just search google, it'll come out soon :)

This performance leads me to ask the question: did you pick the name "Zlaya" because it means "wicked, evil, cross, ill-tempered, mean, malicious, ferocious" in Russian? (Feminine, singular, nominative, by the way. Masculine singular nominative = "Zloi.")

Definition from Kenneth Katzner "English-Russian Russian-English Dictionary," 1984.

[LashL]

Gravy is obviously missing the point. They were told to wear respirators, so what? The point is that they shouldn't have been working down there at all, respirator or no respirator.

I realize that this not on topic since this thread is for "truthers" to attempt to point out Gravy's factual errors, but this statement strikes me as unusual enough as to require a response, despite being off topic.

Are you suggesting, RedIbis, that no search and rescue attempts, and no recovery operations should have been carried out immediately following the terrorist attacks, due to concerns about air quality?

[16.5]

Zlaya:

Wow, I guess after reading some of Zlaya's posts, old Red Ibis has a bit more egg on his face. Yeah, the truthers on this site are well known for their good sense of humor, and their dedication to rigorous recitation of facts and evidence. See Zlaya's spittle soaked post as proof.

Zlaya, you do know that Clunkity Clunk is one of the leading theories of the Truth movement, don't you? Yeah, it is idiotic, but what you gonna do?

Say hi to Kevin Barrett for us!

[Gravy]

AMEN you said it.

"CLUNKITY CLUNK!" Right Gravy?

By the way, Mark you look absolutely like a fool in this one:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=142975074341498508&hl=en

I quote you:

"there is a LARGE thread of people in the conspiracy movement, truth movement they call themselves, who believe that all terrorist acts are really commited by the United States."

First sentence out of your mouth was a falacy. Just wait 'till i put together a "Screw Mark's Gravy" video and a 'blogger' blog - a collection of text boxes scattered all over the place, pointing out your every little stupid thing you've said in this video.

And i'll use BAUT forum as the source for my statements! :) You know, just like you did with your crap?

HAHA!

Just search google, it'll come out soon :)That's probably an overstatement, inspired by the people I was debating: Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas. I'll retract it and say "Some people believe..."

Avery: "It's ridiculous. I mean, if you look at every single assassination attempt or terrorist attack against the United States, I mean it always, it almost always, comes back to our own government. It's FRIGHTENING! It's truly frightening! And I don't want to believe these kinds of things, but I mean, the more you look into it, you can only hide for so long."

Bermas: "Terrorism in this country has always had government backing."
(Quotes sourced in Loose Change Creators Speak (http://www.911myths.com/LooseChangeCreatorsSpeak.pdf))

There are plenty of examples of people making broad claims of the extent of U.S.-sponsored terrorism.

NY 911 Truth guy in my "Ground Zeros" video: "Terrorists do exist. But they're not Islamic people. They happen to be people from this country."

Kevin Barrett: "Every single bombing of a mosque or a market in Iraq has been done by false flag terrorism. There are no indigenous Muslim resistance people doing that."

Barrett and others also claim that the 7/7 and Madrid bombings were the work of the U.S. the governments of the countries involved.

Popular author Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed argues that the Sept. 11 hijackers were part of a worldwide terrorism network sponsored primarily by the United States.



Since you're watching videos, Zlaya, why not make a list of the false claims and misrepresentations made by Avery & Bermas, versus those made by me?

[Zlaya]

Zlaya:

Wow, I guess after reading some of Zlaya's posts, old Red Ibis has a bit more egg on his face. Yeah, the truthers on this site are well known for their good sense of humor, and their dedication to rigorous recitation of facts and evidence. See Zlaya's spittle soaked post as proof.

Zlaya, you do know that Clunkity Clunk is one of the leading theories of the Truth movement, don't you? Yeah, it is idiotic, but what you gonna do?

Say hi to Kevin Barrett for us!

No one wants to discuss Norman Mineta, Pentagon perimeter cameras, and Gravy's BAUT forum sources? :)

[brasil]

I've again snipped most of the non-responsive part of your post. Most of it was just your conjecture anyways, as is what I didn't snip. Conjecture isn't gonna cut it. If you can't provide a quote or reference to where the EPA specifically told Ground Zero workers that the air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe, then you have no evidence. "Near" is not "at". You can try to equate them all you want, but they're still two different things. An employee of mine being "near" the office when she's supposed to be "at" the office will get her in trouble.

Listen, first of all, my entire post was "responsive" to yours and very little if any of it was "conjecture", unless you're just a robot who only responds to one input signal, namely the answer you are trying to get out of me about "the EPA specifically saying blah blah to GZ workers."

So let me get something out of the way: I am probably never going to find a quote "proving" that the EPA specifically told GZ workers that the air specifically at the WTC was safe unless I turn this into a full-time investigative job and start interviewing people (not happening). Now that's out of the way you can reset your program to accept new input.

Let me turn the question back to you, since you're acting like such an authority on this subject: considering the volume of toxic dust that blanketed lower Manhattan from the destruction of the three buildings, and how far it spread (all the way to Williamsburg), why don't you start by attaching some definitions to the terms "near the WTC" and "at the WTC."

For example, since you're arguing that the EPA didn't lie to the public and workers on September 18th, 2001 when they said "results from the Agency's air and drinking water monitoring near the World Trade Center and Pentagon disaster sites indicate that these vital resources are safe", tell us the consensus, "mainstream" definitions. Does "at the WTC" mean no farther than the boundaries of the original building footprints? Does it mean the boundary of the main debris pile?

I'll make my point once more: the dust and debris from the collapses spread so far beyond the original building footprints and the area technically known as the WTC complex, that "at the WTC" and "near the WTC" are functionally identical for the purposes of a health advisory about air quality in lower Manhattan. Not to mention, the WTC complex is not a closed system - it's an open system subject to winds blowing the dust in any direction. I live on the upper west side of Manhattan, and there were quite a few days when the horrible smell reached all the way up here.

Bottom line: The EPA lied to New Yorkers, the Ground Zero workers and the American people on September 18th, 2001 when they declared the air and water safe "near" the WTC. Even if the EPA or some other authority required that respirators be worn at the site, it does not change the fact that THEY LIED. Respirators are a precaution anyone might take, but making an official announcement is a serious matter.

As I said in my first or second post about this, on the day the announcement was made, when I read about it in the New York Times, I knew immediately it was a lie because I knew what was probably in that dust (mercury, asbestos, heavy metals, PCB's etc.). If I knew it, then the EPA knew it.

Their motive for lying was to avoid mass panic, keep the cleanup operation on schedule, and minimize the inevitable economic catastrophe to business interests in lower Manhattan.

[brasil]

now i'm one post away from being able to attach links and images....

[16.5]

"No one wants to discuss Norman Mineta, Pentagon perimeter cameras, and Gravy's BAUT forum sources?"

Huh, I thought we were talking about Clunkity Clunk? It is a proven Truth fact that if you can't say a word 110 times in 10-12 seconds, then it could not have happened!

[Zlaya]

That's probably an overstatement, inspired by the people I was debating: Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas. I'll retract it and say "Some people believe..."

Avery: "It's ridiculous. I mean, if you look at every single assassination attempt or terrorist attack against the United States, I mean it always, it almost always, comes back to our own government. It's FRIGHTENING! It's truly frightening! And I don't want to believe these kinds of things, but I mean, the more you look into it, you can only hide for so long."

Bermas: "Terrorism in this country has always had government backing."
(Quotes sourced in Loose Change Creators Speak (http://www.911myths.com/LooseChangeCreatorsSpeak.pdf))

There are plenty of examples of people making broad claims of the extent of U.S.-sponsored terrorism.

Kevin Barrett: "Every single bombing of a mosque or a market in Iraq has been done by false flag terrorism. There are no indigenous Muslim resistance people doing that."

Barrett and others also claim that the 7/7 and Madrid bombings were the work of the U.S. and other governments.

Popular author Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed argues that the Sept. 11 hijackers were part of a worldwide terrorism network sponsored primarily by the United States.

Since you're watching videos, Zlaya, why not make a list of the false claims and misrepresentations made by Avery & Bermas, versus those made by me?
Oh yea, and i love how loose change kids gave your partner there Debunking 9/11 Debunking, but all he showed at the end was the ****** popular mechanics waste of paper, wicth McCain's insightful comments written in the intro...

Great debate there, very nicely done. The silence in the beginning and the end was especially comfortable.

[T.A.M.]

Gravy is obviously missing the point. They were told to wear respirators, so what? The point is that they shouldn't have been working down there at all, respirator or no respirator.

The fact that I have to actually spell this out is disappointing.

Well actually, would you not have to prove that the respirators failed to protect them, in those who wore them as they were told to, when they were told to, in order to make the statement you have above??

I mean to follow your thought through, then there should have been NO RESCUE EFFORT (they shouldn't have been down there regardless of a respirators) at all, and we would have lost 19 more people on that day.

TAM:)

[Gravy]

Oh yea, and i love how loose change kids gave your partner there Debunking 9/11 Debunking, but all he showed at the end was the ****** popular mechanics waste of paper, wicth McCain's insightful comments written in the intro...Did they? I thought Debunking 9/11 Debunking was published in 2007. But what's that got to do with their work? Ron Wieck encouraged viewers to watch Loose Change, which is what the debate was about. Clear enough?

Great debate there, very nicely done. The silence in the beginning and the end was especially comfortable.You're watching the version shot by Korey Rowe, who backed out of participating in the debate after agreeing to. We're obeying the command of "quiet on the set." Should we have been talking over Ron's intro? Try watching the Hardfire version, genius.

[pomeroo]

AMEN you said it.

"CLUNKITY CLUNK!" Right Gravy?

By the way, Mark you look absolutely like a fool in this one:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=142975074341498508&hl=en

I quote you:

"there is a LARGE thread of people in the conspiracy movement, truth movement they call themselves, who believe that all terrorist acts are really commited by the United States."

First sentence out of your mouth was a falacy. Just wait 'till i put together a "Screw Mark's Gravy" video and a 'blogger' blog - a collection of text boxes scattered all over the place, pointing out your every little stupid thing you've said in this video.

And i'll use BAUT forum as the source for my statements! :) You know, just like you did with your crap?

HAHA!


Just search google, it'll come out soon :)


You are taking the lead in the Dumbest Conspiracy Liar Contest, but don't rest on your laurels. The competition is stiff (pun intended).

Mark's statement is, of course, completely correct. Many loons believe exactly that--if a sparrow falls anywhere in the world, it was shot down by the U.S. Why do you suppose your deranged brethen constantly prattle about "false flag attacks"?

As usual, the rationalist got it right; the dunce is all wet.

[T.A.M.]

As for the rest of this argument, which has bottomed out at ridiculous, I think the original complaint was concerning a particular statement, and the factual error or lack of within it.

If others like brasil (welcome to the forum by the way) wish to then take such, and broaden it into a general discussion on air quality at GZ, and whether it was bad or not, and WHAT ELSE the EPA may or may not have said, then that is a new topic, and one which you will probably get MUCH LESS argument on.

TAM:)

[pomeroo]

Oh yea, and i love how loose change kids gave your partner there Debunking 9/11 Debunking, but all he showed at the end was the ****** popular mechanics waste of paper, wicth McCain's insightful comments written in the intro...

Great debate there, very nicely done. The silence in the beginning and the end was especially comfortable.


You are spectacularly stupid. You can't even trouble yourself to figure out that Griffin's latest travesty hadn't been published at the time of the debate.

UPDATE: Ooops, Mark beat me to it.

[T.A.M.]

I am so glad to have that child on ignore now, but it is annoying that I have to read his spoiled child "I'm gonna get you" rants in other people's quotes.

TAM;)

[brasil]

I think the main problem with this thread is that it's too broad. There should be one thread per "Mark Roberts Factual Error" or disputed "fact" or whatever we're going to call it. This will force the issue to stay focused.

[AZCat]

To the others, I ask again that this discussion be restricted to errors I've made. It would be nice to have a positive signal-to-noise ratio here.

Isn't the signal-to-noise ratio always positive?



(I realize that it could be zero, but that would require claiming that every post in the thread, including the OP, is all noise and no signal.)

[T.A.M.]

Agreed, but as usual, the derails occur, and the thread becomes and ever expanding balloon.

You will likely find little argument from people here on the point of "The air quality at GZ sucked, and more should have been done to keep people around there safe."

TAM:)

[JimBenArm]

I am so glad to have that child on ignore now, but it is annoying that I have to read his spoiled child "I'm gonna get you" rants in other people's quotes.

TAM;)
You do know that's the only reason we quote him, don't you? Just to annoy you.

[T.A.M.]

dont' make me dig up some pdoh quotes!!!

TAM;)

[Gravy]

I am so glad to have that child on ignore now, but it is annoying that I have to read his spoiled child "I'm gonna get you" rants in other people's quotes.

TAM;)Well, that's the state of the "truth" movement. This forum would be chock-full of their threads presenting evidence of the inside job – if they had any.

Instead of trying to make their earth-shattering, career-making, Pulitzer Prize-winning case against the "real" terrorists, they choose to spend their time searching for misstatements by a tour guide. That'll save the world. Well, at least it'll help me improve my debating skills.

[JimBenArm]

dont' make me dig up some pdoh quotes!!!

TAM;)
You wouldn't dare! Would you?

That's like going nuclear!

[Gravy]

Isn't the signal-to-noise ratio always positive?

(I realize that it could be zero, but that would require claiming that every post in the thread, including the OP, is all noise and no signal.)It would be zero if the signal was equal to the noise and negative if the signal was less than the noise.

[AZCat]

It would be zero if the signal was equal to the noise and negative if the signal was less than the noise.

No, then it would just be less than one. A ratio of one postitive number to another can never be negative.

[Gravy]

I think the main problem with this thread is that it's too broad. There should be one thread per "Mark Roberts Factual Error" or disputed "fact" or whatever we're going to call it. This will force the issue to stay focused.:boggled: I'm sorry to remind you that you haven't shown the ability to stay focused. The game would be over quickly and we could all go home if the truthers didn't continually move the goalposts.

[R.Mackey]

It would be zero if the signal was equal to the noise and negative if the signal was less than the noise.

Naw, dude, you totally made a mistake. He got you. You lied. OMG Gravy lied, Inside Jerb!!

---

Well, you could treat signal-to-noise in terms of decibels, as we freqently do... 0 dB would be an SNR of 1, i.e. signal basically obscured by the noise, which is about par for the course when dealing with the Truth Movement. Yeah, that must have been what you meant.

Once again, science to the rescue!

[Gravy]

Naw, dude, you totally made a mistake. He got you. You lied. OMG Gravy lied, Inside Jerb!!

---

Well, you could treat signal-to-noise in terms of decibels, as we freqently do... 0 dB would be an SNR of 1, i.e. signal basically obscured by the noise, which is about par for the course when dealing with the Truth Movement. Yeah, that must have been what you meant.

Once again, science to the rescue!Somehow I had it in my head from reading about spread-spectrum communications, that they operate with a negative signal-to-noise ratio, which would be in decibels. Serves me right for being over my head.

[AZCat]

Naw, dude, you totally made a mistake. He got you. You lied. OMG Gravy lied, Inside Jerb!!

---

Well, you could treat signal-to-noise in terms of decibels, as we freqently do... 0 dB would be an SNR of 1, i.e. signal basically obscured by the noise, which is about par for the course when dealing with the Truth Movement. Yeah, that must have been what you meant.

Once again, science to the rescue!

Can you have negative decibels?



(Sorry, I'm trying to salvage my attempt to point out a Mark Roberts error. So far, AZCat = 0.5 MREs, Truth Movement = 0.)

[Zlaya]

Gravy is obviously missing the point. They were told to wear respirators, so what? The point is that they shouldn't have been working down there at all, respirator or no respirator.

The fact that I have to actually spell this out is disappointing.

He is not missing the point. He is missing the point on purpose, so that he can pretend to know all about debunking the nut case twoofers

[R.Mackey]

Can you have negative decibels?



(Sorry, I'm trying to salvage my attempt to point out a Mark Roberts error. So far, AZCat = 0.5 MREs, Truth Movement = 0.)

Of course you can. The expression for signal strength in decibels is simply:

V (dB) = K log10 (S / S0)

where S is the signal level, S0 is the reference signal level, and K is a constant -- if we're talking about amplitude, K is generally 10, if we're talking about power K is typically 20.

If we apply this to an SNR calculation, the "noise" becomes the reference signal, so we take the logarithm of the desired signal level divided by the noise signal level.

When noise and signal are equal, we are taking the logarithm of 1, which is zero. If the signal is actually weaker than the noise, then (S / S0) is a fraction, and taking the logarithm gives you a negative number.

You also frequently see negative dB ratings for signal losses. Since signal losses are a multiplicative effect (e.g. albedo), we can add dB factors since log (x y) = log (x) + log (y). For example, spacecraft communications in S-band suffer a 1 dB signal loss in clear atmosphere when above the horizon, or a -1 dB correction. In stormy weather, it's about -6 dB. Bouncing a 10-meter band ham radio signal off the Moon incurs about a -100 dB loss. The effect of distance between us and the Voyager spacecraft is about -168 dB.

Respect the noble logarithm.

[Zlaya]

This performance leads me to ask the question: did you pick the name "Zlaya" because it means "wicked, evil, cross, ill-tempered, mean, malicious, ferocious" in Russian? (Feminine, singular, nominative, by the way. Masculine singular nominative = "Zloi.")

Definition from Kenneth Katzner "English-Russian Russian-English Dictionary," 1984.

No. Zlaja is a common nickname for a certain type of name, like Bill vs William, Dick vs Richard, Gravy vs. Mark Roberts, etc. etc...

[Arus808]

He is not missing the point. He is missing the point on purpose, so that he can pretend to know all about debunking the nut case twoofers



no its very apparent that those missing the point are the ones that wish to remain ignorant on the subject and ignore evidence.

Seeing that you can't even provide an link to an OFFICIAL claim by the EPA that it was "SAFE to breathe the air" ... you have missed it entirely.

[Zlaya]

no its very apparent that those missing the point are the ones that wish to remain ignorant on the subject and ignore evidence.

Seeing that you can't even provide an link to an OFFICIAL claim by the EPA that it was "SAFE to breathe the air" ... you have missed it entirely.

Wait, i thought the point was the people are dieing right now because EPA said that air was safe to breathe so that the rich greasy bankers could open the Wall Street ASAP?

[Gravy]

no its very apparent that those missing the point are the ones that wish to remain ignorant on the subject and ignore evidence.

Seeing that you can't even provide an link to an OFFICIAL claim by the EPA that it was "SAFE to breathe the air" ... you have missed it entirely.I think we need to respect the fact the Zlaya had a difficult journey from the future. See, he knows about the documents that disprove my statement "no one said the air was safe to breathe at Ground Zero," but he couldn't carry them with him, for the same reason that he arrived here naked.

[AZCat]

Of course you can. The expression for signal strength in decibels is simply:

V (dB) = K log10 (S / S0)

where S is the signal level, S0 is the reference signal level, and K is a constant -- if we're talking about amplitude, K is generally 10, if we're talking about power K is typically 20.

If we apply this to an SNR calculation, the "noise" becomes the reference signal, so we take the logarithm of the desired signal level divided by the noise signal level.

When noise and signal are equal, we are taking the logarithm of 1, which is zero. If the signal is actually weaker than the noise, then (S / S0) is a fraction, and taking the logarithm gives you a negative number.

You also frequently see negative dB ratings for signal losses. Since signal losses are a multiplicative effect (e.g. albedo), we can add dB factors since log (x y) = log (x) + log (y). For example, spacecraft communications in S-band suffer a 1 dB signal loss in clear atmosphere when above the horizon, or a -1 dB correction. In stormy weather, it's about -6 dB. Bouncing a 10-meter band ham radio signal off the Moon incurs about a -100 dB loss. The effect of distance between us and the Voyager spacecraft is about -168 dB.

Respect the noble logarithm.

Ahhh, thanks. I can always count on you for elucidation. I revise my score to

AZCat = lim((1-1/n)^n) MREs
Truth Movement = 0 MREs

[Arus808]

Wait, i thought the point was the people are dieing right now because EPA said that air was safe to breathe because the rich greasy bankers could open the Wall Street ASAP?


no, this thread is about the factual errors in Gravy's papers; of which no one has done yet.

Yet taking pot-shots and moving the thread off topic is definitely that you enjoy doing.

[Gravy]

Wait, i thought the point was the people are dieing right now because EPA said that air was safe to breathe because the rich greasy bankers could open the Wall Street ASAP?Try to stay focused. The point is that no one told the workers at GZ that the air was safe to breathe. You can easily prove me wrong by presenting the worker testimonies that say officials told them the air there was safe to breathe, and I'll retract the statement. Stop fantasizing about evidence and start gathering it. Okay?

[Zlaya]

no, this thread is about the factual errors in Gravy's papers; of which no one has done yet.

Yet taking pot-shots and moving the thread off topic is definitely that you enjoy doing.

Isn't 'gravy' the one who's peddling the conspiracy theory that the pentagon just never had any cameras around the perimeter, that would surely capture the impact?

He claims that, and it's a factual error. So there, back on topic. Sorry!

[AZCat]

Isn't 'gravy' the one who's peddling the conspiracy theory that the pentagon just never had any cameras around the perimeter, that would surely capture the impact?

He claims that, and it's a factual error. So there, back on topic. Sorry!

Normally claims like this require actual quotes or evidence in order to be accepted by others. There are exceptions. This is not one of them. Please provide a quote from one of Gravy's papers, and then provide evidence that his quote is incorrect.

[Gravy]

Isn't 'gravy' the one who's peddling the conspiracy theory that the pentagon just never had any cameras around the perimeter, that would surely capture the impact?

He claims that, and it's a factual error. So there, back on topic. Sorry!I did? Feel free to find that quote of mine and start a new topic about it. Happy searching.

[Zlaya]

First, Swing Dangler is misusing "your." "You're" is the contraction of "you are." Example: So you're telling me that black helicopters fly over your house every night?

Next, some history (all bolding is mine):
On April 29, 2007, Rodriguez agreed to Ron Wieck's invitation to appear with me on Hardfire. He posted (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2561670&postcount=17) his initial acceptance on this forum:Within minutes of learning that Ron (pomeroo) had posted that invitation here as "Challenge to William Rodriguez," Rodriguez changed his mind and said he would not appear on the show. That made me wonder how much more there was to his story, which caused me to do the research that resulted in William Rodriguez, Escape Artist (http://911stories.googlepages.com/home).
On May 20, 2007 I sent this email to William Rodriguez. He was the first person I notified about my paper.
On May 21 he replied briefly and requested that before I proceed further, I contact James Randi to get more background information on Rodriguez. He later reminded me of that request in a post on this forum (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2747460&postcount=21), as if that would somehow change the truth of his claims or how I approached them.In that email Rodriguez wrote, "Keep up the good work and I do support your position and quest to clear up points."
Later on May 21, Rodriguez emailed again and called my paper "an effectively good paper" and "well done." He said, "The only problem I have is when you get into the personal insults, personalising the issue , and the part at the end" [He quoted this section]:Rodriguez explained that he is not homophobic, that the quote was taken out of context, and that I should have included the part where he said this didn't matter in regards to the debate. He wasn't reading carefully: that disclaimer is right there in the passage he quoted, and the quote is not out of context or misleading.

That is the only specific thing he criticized, and he got it wrong.


Still later on May 21, Rodriguez forwarded a short email he had received, in which the sender said he had read my paper and castigated him with strong language for lying. Rodriguez said this was "my work" and cryptically wrote, "Wait for my action."
I replied, "William, my work is what I wrote and compiled. I welcome any specific response you may have to that."
He replied that he'd rather not get into a back-and-forth debate, but would instead argue his case in national media interviews.
I replied,
On June 4, Rodriguez emailed me with a link to a Nico Haupt post about him.
On August 10 and 12 I emailed him, asking for clarification about information about him that I had gathered in my John Schroeder research. He did not reply. When that paper was finished, he did say he was sending it to 65,000 people on his mailing list.
When participating in this forum, Rodriguez has repeatedly avoided answering tough questions.
In his signature on the Loose Change forum, Rodriguez includes a link to my paper about him.
In a post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2747349&postcount=18) where he said, "Thank you Gravy, and keep it coming," Rodriguez says he sent the link to my paper to the 9/11 families on his mailing list. About his behavior, he wrote, " You do not like it? get together a group of survivors and do your own show-presentation-demostration-exhibition-fair." He signed that post "William Rodriguez Escape Artist."
On this forum, Rodriguez addressed me as "My dear promoter (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2997405&postcount=48)."
In this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2746763#post2746763) post he wrote, "I have a show to do in couple of minutes," which he then changed to, "I have a presentation to do in couple of minutes." A telling slip, I think.
At 1:55 in this video (http://youtube.com/watch?v=-bPJjdqO5hg) made in Liverpool, Rodriguez says,
In this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2732699&postcount=1) Rodriguez wrote,
In this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2732732#post2732732) post he wrote,


In the video linked above, which was shot in July, Rodriguez says that he wants all of this touring to be over by December, so that he can spend time with his family, and so that he can take the time to grieve. "My grieving process has been in front of the media this whole time." That's a curious statement, since Rodriguez consistently claims that he's ignored by the media.

I don't know what changed his mind, but last month Rodriguez announced that he was embarking on a new international tour, with my JREF forum nickname attached to it:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/gravytour.jpg
Here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2673513#post2673513), his entire post was "I am 9/11."To summarize,

"It will be a humble honor to have a dialogue with him."
"Keep up the good work"
"An effectively good paper"
"Well done"
"The only problem I have"
"Helped me immensely"
"Thank you Gravy, and keep it coming."
"Thank you Mark for the tour, is going great!"
"It did help indeed."
"International 'Gravy' truth tour"
"I am 9/11."


Rodriguez hasn't tried to rebut my paper because he's quite happy with it. I wonder why his fans aren't.

I think willie is just being sarcastic with you.

[Zlaya]

I did? Feel free to find that quote of mine and start a new topic about it. Happy searching.

Ok. I'm talking about this piece of work: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

Did you write the following:

As for the question, "Where are all those Pentagon video cameras?" one answer is that the Pentagon primarily uses live security – human beings – for its perimeter security. (Since 9/11 more cameras may have been installed. I don’t have information on that.) Here's a post on the BAUT forum from a Pentagon employee who was there on 9/11. http://tinyurl.com/gxvvd An excerpt: "Why isn't there more video? Without telling too much of what I know of Pentagon security, you would be surprised how few cameras there are outside the building. Humans actively patrolling a building's perimeter are a tad more effective than dozens of monitors which may or may not be watched at any given moment."

Are you aware that you're dismissing me, based on something someone wrote on some forum? Wait, i do see the irony...

[Gravy]

Ok. I'm talking about this piece of work: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

Did you write the following:

Are you aware that you're dismissing me, based on something someone wrote on some forum? Wait, i do see the irony...

Sorry, can you point out where I said this
Isn't 'gravy' the one who's peddling the conspiracy theory that the pentagon just never had any cameras around the perimeter, that would surely capture the impact?

He claims that, and it's a factual error. So there, back on topic. Sorry!
Or where I made a factual error?

[chillzero]

People, get it back on topic please, or the thread will go to moderated status. Please try not to rise to the bait of anyone that ignores the topic and chooses instead to post personalised jibes at others.

[Dave Rogers]

Fair question. I would state because the removal of the support of one floor was needed for global collapse to ensue, it wouldn't take staggering amounts of explosives, only a small amount placed in strategic places without the conditions Mark places on his non-expert analysis.

How many times do you plan to admit you're wrong before you admit you've admitted you're wrong?

Dave

[Belz...]

Wait, you debunked Mineta's testimony? You debunked the fact that a plane hit the pentagon and no one did anything?

**** man, i should quit right now...

Would you mind answering my question instead of going off on tangents: Don't you think the "big picture" is made up of those individually-debunked elements ?

[Pookster]

Listen, first of all, my entire post was "responsive" to yours and very little if any of it was "conjecture", unless you're just a robot who only responds to one input signal, namely the answer you are trying to get out of me about "the EPA specifically saying blah blah to GZ workers."

So let me get something out of the way: I am probably never going to find a quote "proving" that the EPA specifically told GZ workers that the air specifically at the WTC was safe unless I turn this into a full-time investigative job and start interviewing people (not happening). Now that's out of the way you can reset your program to accept new input.

Let me turn the question back to you,

<snip conjecture>



Your posts to me were not responsive. I asked for a quote or reference where EPA officials specifically told the Ground Zero workers that the air there was safe to breathe. You've provided no such thing in a number of posts now. I'll accept your concession that you're not likely to find such either. I still contend that none exists. Your conjecture is not an acceptable replacement for what I asked for. Conjecture is not evidence. Sorry. Again, "near the WTC" is not "at the WTC". You're either "at the WTC", or you're not. I know how inconvenient this can be for the Truth Movement, but words mean things.

As to turning the question back on me, that's off topic for this thread. Feel free to start a new thread to discuss such, if you desire. If I feel inclined, I may decide to participate in your new thread.

[Belz...]

I think all governments, some more then others, lie to their people.

Just because they lie, doesn't mean they kill.

It gets better: just because they lie, doesn't mean they always lie.

[Belz...]

He is not missing the point. He is missing the point on purpose, so that he can pretend to know all about debunking the nut case twoofers

Well at least you admit it.

Isn't 'gravy' the one who's peddling the conspiracy theory that the pentagon just never had any cameras around the perimeter, that would surely capture the impact?

Since when is that a conspiracy theory ? I don't think that word means what you think.

[Swing Dangler]

The infamous “Pull” error can be found in Mark's WTC7 (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/is%22pullusedbydemolitionsprostomean%22demol)

Mark's claim:
Is "Pull" used by demolitions pros to mean "demolish with explosives?"
No.

I won’t rehash the comment from Silverstein that will follow later.

In this case Mark asks if demolition pros (plural) use the term ‘pull’ to mean “demolish with explosives”. He then cites 3 experts to support the answer of no. Three doesn’t seem to be a proper sample to represent demolition pros,
which I assume Mark means all pros but I won’t focus on that fallacy.
Lets examine other statements in the demolition industry and their use
of the term pull within the context of demolishing a building with
explosives:


"In the demolition industry, a blaster is usually trying to pull a structure away from adjacent exposures and towards an area large enough to contain the debris." -ImplosionWorld.com

"Jack [Loizeaux] brought a basic knowledge of construction,
engineering, and physics to his new science of implosion. More
important, though, he brought the fascination and conviction of a true
believer. Long before anyone else, he had faith in the power of
explosives to help gravity do what it wants to do anyway: pull things
down." -University of Georgia

On Sunday, June 10, 2001, the City of Des Moines subcontracted the
implosion of the Younkers Warehouse Building to Controlled Demolition
Incorporated (CDI) from Des Moines and Metro Wrecking and Excavating,
Inc. from Phoenix, Maryland. CDI drilled over 500 holes in the
supporting columns in the building and placed approximately 250 pounds
of explosives. The explosives were detonated with a delay pattern that
started in the southeast corner of the building and proceeded toward the
northwest corner in a matter of seconds. This delay sequence allowed the
explosive charges to detonate fractions of seconds apart; reducing the
noise and vibrations to approximately 25 percent of the allowable levels
before damage would occur to surrounding buildings. This delay allowed
CDI to control the direction that the building would fall and resulted
in the illusion that the building melted. CDI planned the implosion to
pull the building to the southeast and away from the intersection of SW
9th and Mulberry Streets. The implosion was very successful. -Front
Line/Des Moines, IA

"Not all demolition blast(s) are implosions. The industry often refers
to them as implosions because it is a popular expression. A true
implosion is a case when a structure has been caused to fall inwards on
itself. Smokestacks, towers, bridges and most buildings are not
imploded. They are simply knocked over.
Implosion is used when there is limited area on all sides of a
structure making it impossible to lay them out.
The principles used on an implosion are basically the same whether it
is a true implosion, or if the structure is simply going to be laid out.
The principle tool in an implosion is gravity. The explosives are used
to weaken and cause the supporting members of the structure to fail,
thus allowing gravity to pull the structure down or over." -Dykon
Blasting Corp.

"Stacey Loizeaux, twenty-six years old, has worked for Controlled
Demolition, an international explosives engineering firm, since the age
of fifteen. She learned the fine art of demolition from her father, Mark
Loizeaux, and her uncle, Doug Loizeaux—president and vice-president of
the company.
NOVA: A common misconception is that you blow buildings up. That's not
really the case, is it?
Stacy Loizeaux: No. The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother
back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what
we do than "explosion." There are a series of small explosions, but the
building itself isn't erupting outward. It's actually being pulled in on
top of itself. What we're really doing is removing specific support
columns within the structure and then cajoling the building in one
direction or another, or straight down.
SL: Well, you just pull it away,
you peel it off. If you have room in the opposite direction, you just
let the building sort of melt down in that direction and it will pull
itself completely away from the building. It can be done.
NOVA: What do you look for in an explosive?
SL: Velocity. You have two different types of explosives. You have low
order and high order. A low order explosive is like what they used when
they bombed the Oklahoma City building—that's ANFO, ammonium nitrate
and fuel oil. It's a very slow, heaving explosion. It tends to push more
than it does shatter. The explosive we look for is a shattering
explosive. What we want to do is instantaneously remove the integrity of
the columns or whatever we're working on. That's what we look for in
nitroglycerin or NG-based dynamite. With a steel building, we use
something called a linear shaped charge. It's the same explosive they
use to sever the fuel tank off the Space Shuttle, when they launch.
NOVA: I understand that Controlled Demolition was hired to bring down
the remains of the Oklahoma City Federal Building. Were you out there
for that?
SL: My father and my uncle went out.
NOVA: Do you get a thrill watching a building fall?
SL: Oh sure. I mean you really don't ever lose it. Your perspective
changes. When I first started traveling with my Dad at fifteen, sixteen
years old, I used to be awestruck. But you sort of go from that
awestruck feeling to where you understand how the structure is coming
down and you're watching for certain things—counting the delays or
waiting for a part of the building to kick out or waiting for it to pull
forward. So it does change, but it's always a rush." -NOVA/PBS (1997)

Demolition of Dangerous Building
"City staff have contacted the property owner by phone to request that
he obtain a demolition permit and pull down and demolish the building,
however, the owner has demonstrated no desire to cooperate.
2. THAT the owners are hereby ordered to pull down the building and
remove the resulting debris and the discarded materials from the site
within 14 days of the date from a copy of this Resolution being served
pursuant to Section 324A of the Vancouver Charter.
3. THAT in the event that the owners do not comply with the order set
forth in the preceding paragraph, the City Building Inspector is hereby
ordered and authorized to pull down the building and remove the resulting debris and discarded material from the site at the cost of the owners and dispose of it by selling to the demolition contractor any
material he may agree to purchase, and delivering the rest to a disposal
site." - Vancouver City Council (01/09/96)

"The preparation of the structure for implosion could have been
approached a number of ways...it was decided that CDI [Controlled
Demolition, Inc.] could effectively minimize the amount of linear shaped
charge explosives to be used in the structure. By torch-cutting splice
plates on selected upper columns/floors, and utilizing approximately
3,000 feet of steel-core cable on alternate upper floors to help
“pull” the northern and eastern walls away from the fiber optics
cables..." -Controlled Demolition, Inc. (01/23/05)

"Phase 1 continued to fall, helping to pull Phase 2 in. Phase 2 was
detonated several seconds later and collapsed and fell the same as Phase
1." -Controlled Demolition, Inc. (01/23/05)

It appears that the term “pull” is used to designate bringing a building down with explosives and using cables to bring down a building.

So in this case, Mark makes another factual error when trying to state that "pull" is not used to demolish a building with explosives.

[Lurker]

Here's why that EPA statement reaching a ground zero worker through the news could easily be interpreted, and was interpreted, to mean "at the WTC." Everyone has seen the pictures of the dust all over lower Manhattan. There is video showing the dust blowing all the way to Williamsburg, Brooklyn. It was the same dust 10 and 20 blocks away as it was at the WTC site. If you were here, you would already know that the debris and dust covered a much larger area than what is technically labeled "the WTC site." If the EPA said it was safe "near the WTC" that was the same as saying it was safe "at the WTC site," because the dust we now know to be highly toxic was everywhere.

Um, actually, that would not be true. As someone who has had some college education in the area of gas dispersion, we would expect the concentration of pollutants to be highest at the source, the WTC GZ site. As one moves away from that area, the concentration of pollutants diminishes depending on a variety of factors such as wind speed, turbulence, temperature, etc.

It comes as no surprise to me that strong warnings may be issued and PPE equipment required at GZ but a couple hundred yards away they may have felt there was enough dissipation to allow for a different response. Also, when working in the rubble pile it is quite possible that the harmful pollutants may have been rather heavy and thus not prone to drifting very far before settling back to ground. The act of sifting through rubble will stir some of those pollutants up and thus a PPE is required yet heavy enough to not be a hazard to those outside of GZ.

Lurker

[RedIbis]

Swing, as usual, good work. You surely provide some interesting examples. I'm curious why debunking arguments, in this instance, rely on the idea that "pull it" is not an industry term. Even though you show many examples where it is used that way, Silverstein is not an industry expert. At best, his use of the phrase has to be taken as informal, from the perspective of an outsider. But with his long career in real estate, I'm sure he's been part of discussions about demolitions.

All I'm trying to point out here is that the so called debunk of "pull it" is deeply flawed since we can't apply the same rationale for Silverstein's use of the phrase, as we would someone within the demolition community.

[Swing Dangler]

Swing, as usual, good work. You surely provide some interesting examples. I'm curious why debunking arguments, in this instance, rely on the idea that "pull it" is not an industry term. Even though you show many examples where it is used that way, Silverstein is not an industry expert. At best, his use of the phrase has to be taken as informal, from the perspective of an outsider. But with his long career in real estate, I'm sure he's been part of discussions about demolitions.

All I'm trying to point out here is that the so called debunk of "pull it" is deeply flawed since we can't apply the same rationale for Silverstein's use of the phrase, as we would someone within the demolition community.

Thanks Red. What is interesting is that Mark uses the same method I did when trying trying to answer the question: Is "Pull" used to mean "Withdraw firefighters from danger?"

I suspect that most debunkers will accept Mark's method with regards to removing firefighters from danger but will of course ignore my method for the meaning of "pull" within the demolition industry. I hope this doesn't turn out to be that way, but the hypocrisy of many debunkers leads me to believe that they will.

[Lopakhin]

Mark's claim:


I won’t rehash the comment from Silverstein that will follow later.

In this case Mark asks if demolition pros (plural) use the term ‘pull’ to mean “demolish with explosives”. He then cites 3 experts to support the answer of no. Three doesn’t seem to be a proper sample to represent demolition pros,
which I assume Mark means all pros but I won’t focus on that fallacy.
Lets examine other statements in the demolition industry and their use
of the term pull within the context of demolishing a building with
explosives:
...

In every single instance in which the word 'pull' is used in your examples, it is followed by an adverb or adverbial phrase to make what is known to grammaticians as a 'phrasal verb' or a 'particle verb'. e.g. 'pull down', 'pull in', 'pull forward', 'pull away', 'pull to the southeast'. Are we to take it that you couldn't come up with an instance from the demolition industry of someone saying (as you claim that Silverstein meant), 'We pulled the building'? (No adverb). Because if you had, you'd definitely have posted it here, right?

[DavidJames]

Thanks Red. What is interesting is that Mark uses the same method I did when trying trying to answer the question: Is "Pull" used to mean "Withdraw firefighters from danger?"

I suspect that most debunkers will accept Mark's method with regards to removing firefighters from danger but will of course ignore my method for the meaning of "pull" within the demolition industry. I hope this doesn't turn out to be that way, but the hypocrisy of many debunkers leads me to believe that they will.
When you went to bed last night knowing the U.S. govt was complicit in the murder of 3000 people and knowing that your only action to address this was to nit pick semantics in a tour guides writings, did you have good dreams?

[HyJinX]

Thanks Red. What is interesting is that Mark uses the same method I did when trying trying to answer the question: Is "Pull" used to mean "Withdraw firefighters from danger?"

I suspect that most debunkers will accept Mark's method with regards to removing firefighters from danger but will of course ignore my method for the meaning of "pull" within the demolition industry. I hope this doesn't turn out to be that way, but the hypocrisy of many debunkers leads me to believe that they will.

Swing...did Larry have the building demolished or not? That's the only pertinent question. Regardless of what phrases or words your wish to carp on about...do you think he did it or not?

[Lurker]

When you went to bed last night knowing the U.S. govt was complicit in the murder of 3000 people and knowing that your only action to address this was to nit pick semantics in a tour guides writings, did you have good dreams?

If Gravy falls, so too will his JREF minions and then the world will rebel against the govt and install Dylan Avery as President. Only the evil JREF stands in the way of truth.

[chillzero]

I often wonder if Silverstein meant "pull out" - to recall the men to safety.

[Dave Rogers]

Lets examine other statements in the demolition industry and their use
of the term pull within the context of demolishing a building with
explosives:

Your fallacy here is equating "use of the term pull within the context of demolishing a building with explosives" with use of the term pull to mean demolishing a building with explosives. Let's look at your examples.


(1) "a blaster is usually trying to pull a structure away from adjacent exposures "

Ambiguous at best, in that the word "pull" could either be used as a synonym for "demolish" or in its literal sense of "cause to move by applying a tractive force".

(2) "he had faith in the power of
explosives to help gravity do what it wants to do anyway: pull things
down."

Clearly the word "pull" here does not mean "demolish with explosives", as this would imply that gravity is setting off the explosives.

(3) "CDI planned the implosion to pull the building to the southeast"

Same comment as (1).

(4) "thus allowing gravity to pull the structure down"

Same comment as (2).

(5-7) "It's actually being pulled in on top of itself. What we're really doing is removing specific support columns within the structure and then cajoling the building in one direction or another, or straight down.
SL: Well, you just pull it away, you peel it off. If you have room in the opposite direction, you just let the building sort of melt down in that direction and it will pull itself completely away from the building. It can be done."

Again, the use of the word "pull" to mean "pull". Nobody is disputing that demolition professionals use the word "pull", this is a discussion on the meaning of that word. In none of these examples does it make sense for it to mean "demolish with explosives".

(8) "counting the delays or waiting for a part of the building to kick out or waiting for it to pull forward. "

Again, the word "pull" clearly is not intended to mean "demolish with explosives" here, as the quote would then make no sense.

(9-11) "City staff have contacted the property owner by phone to request that he obtain a demolition permit and pull down and demolish the building, however, the owner has demonstrated no desire to cooperate.
2. THAT the owners are hereby ordered to pull down the building and
remove the resulting debris and the discarded materials from the site
within 14 days of the date from a copy of this Resolution being served
pursuant to Section 324A of the Vancouver Charter.
3. THAT in the event that the owners do not comply with the order set
forth in the preceding paragraph, the City Building Inspector is hereby
ordered and authorized to pull down the building and remove the resulting debris and discarded material from the site at the cost of the owners and dispose of it by selling to the demolition contractor any
material he may agree to purchase, and delivering the rest to a disposal
site." - Vancouver City Council (01/09/96)

No mention of explosives anywhere in this passage; irrelevant.

(12) "utilizing approximately 3,000 feet of steel-core cable on alternate upper floors to help “pull” the northern and eastern walls away from the fiber optics cables..."

Again, using the word "pull" to mean "demolish with explosives" makes no sense here, as it's something cables are doing.

(13) "Phase 1 continued to fall, helping to pull Phase 2 in."

Again, "pull" to mean "pull", unless it's suggested that one part of the building set off charges in the other part.

So in this case, Mark makes another factual error when trying to state that "pull" is not used to demolish a building with explosives.

This one is a bit of a grey area. You've provided a total of two quotes which could be interpreted to mean that the term "pull" is used to mean "demolish with explosives", or alternatively could be interpreted just to mean "cause to move by applying a tractive force", ie. the common meaning. Therefore, the truth movement's commonly repeated claim that "pull" means "demolish with explosives" is not proven by any of these quotes, but neither is Mark's claim that it is not used in that sense. All we have, therefore, is the citation of three experts to support Mark's claim. On balance, therefore, unless you can find dissenting experts or unambiguous quotes, this one goes to Mark.

On the subsidiary question of whether "pull it" means "remove the firefighters from danger", I agree that it seems an extremely unusual usage; I would have expected something like "pull them", or "pull them out", or closest to the original, "pull it out" (meaning the group of firemen). Therefore, since neither interpretation of the quote seems to me to make sense, the only thing I have to go on is what Silverstein said he meant, and the related fact that I don't believe in the Freudian slip confession model - especially not in a prerecorded interview.

Dave

[Belz...]

The infamous “Pull” error can be found in Mark's WTC7 (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/is%22pullusedbydemolitionsprostomean%22demol)

Mark's claim:


I won’t rehash the comment from Silverstein that will follow later.

[...]

It appears that the term “pull” is used to designate bringing a building down with explosives and using cables to bring down a building.

So in this case, Mark makes another factual error when trying to state that "pull" is not used to demolish a building with explosives.

Except that in NONE of those examples is the term "pull" being used as a synonym for a demo. You're making stuff up. Why am I not surprised ?

[GStan]

It appears that the term “pull” is used to designate bringing a building down with explosives and using cables to bring down a building.

So in this case, Mark makes another factual error when trying to state that "pull" is not used to demolish a building with explosives.

Nice try, an 'A' for effort anyway. You have proven that there are demolition industry people who speak English, that they know what the English word 'pull' means and that they use the word. None of the examples show the authors using the term 'pull' or 'pull it' in remotely the same manner as CTers have erroneously asserted Silverstein was doing, and he's not in the industry anyway. (He may have picked up the term overhearing conversations of demo teams wiring his buildings to explode.) Mark's only assertion is that industry professionals do not use the term pull/pull it to mean demolish a building with explosives. He contacted several and they affirmed his assertion. Perhaps you could contact the authors of these quotes to ask them the same questions Mark did and verify evidence of your claim that Mark's assertion is in error. I don't believe it will happen, but here's my interpretation of how that inquiry might play out:

SD: Do you work in the demolition industry?
NWO: Yes
SD: Have you ever used the English word pull verbally or in written form at work?
NWO: I'm sure I have at some point. That's kind of a weird question.
SD: Thanks, gotta run.

Silverstein Guilty! Implicated by Demo Pros! Proof Tonight on Action News at 11!

ETA: Dave Rogers, great post on the pull quotes...that's what I meant but was too lazy to do in detail.

[Swing Dangler]

pull down

1. To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.

Source: dictionary.com

n. Pull


10. To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.

As I said, it can be accomplished with explosives as the numerous examples show or with cables.

N'uff said.

Ready for the next error?

[SDC]

pull down

1. To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.

Source: dictionary.com

As I said, it can be accomplished with explosives as the numerous examples show or with cables.

N'uff said.

Ready for the next error?

Your MEGO factor is diminishing to milliseconds. Can't you find some blondes?

[Dave Rogers]

Gravy is obviously missing the point. They were told to wear respirators, so what? The point is that they shouldn't have been working down there at all, respirator or no respirator.

You're obviously missing the point. Check the thread title. The question is not whether they were told to wear respirators, but whether they were told that the air was safe.

Picture the scene.

Boss man: "The air at Ground Zero is completely safe. You must wear this respirator at all times when you're working there."

Rescue Worker: "Why do I have to wear a respirator if the air is safe?"

Boss man: "Errrrr..... Just do it, OK?"

Did it go something like that?

Dave

[uk_dave]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pull

'nuff said.

[Dave Rogers]

pull down

1. To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.

Source: dictionary.com

n. Pull


10. To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.


Nobody is disputing that the term "pull down" means "demolish". Show me a single example of the word "pull" by itself, i.e. without the word "down", meaning "to demolish with explosives", or move on.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pull

What happened to "To persuade someone to have sex with you"?

Dave

[GStan]

pull down

1. To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.

Source: dictionary.com

n. Pull


10. To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.

As I said, it can be accomplished with explosives as the numerous examples show or with cables.

N'uff said.

Mark's assertion was clear as to use by demolition industry professionals, not dictionary.com. :eek:

Ready for the next error?

Actually, I'm still waiting for the first error.;)

[uk_dave]

Actually, I'm still waiting for the first error.;)

Ditto.

Swing's not very good at this.

[DGM]

Ditto.

Swing's not very good at this.
Me three!

Hey Swing when you pull out into the street does your car explode? Just asking questions.

[pomeroo]

pull down

1. To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.

Source: dictionary.com

n. Pull


10. To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.

As I said, it can be accomplished with explosives as the numerous examples show or with cables.

N'uff said.

Ready for the next error?


You liar! I contacted fourteen demolition companies in four different states in preparation for the interview that Griffin fled. NOBODY in the demolition industry has heard "pull it" used to mean "blow up the building"--NOBODY!

NOBODY thinks it is industry slang.

You have been caught lying--again!--in your bogus definitions. The Encarta Webster's Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition, offers twenty (20) definitions of "pull," used as a verb. NONE refers to the demolition industry.
The phrase "pull down" is defined as "demolish something, especially a building." Yes, demolition professionals will talk about attaching cables and pulling down a SMALL structure, but as you have been told repeatedly, the technique cannot be used on a 47-story skyscraper.


(In addition to being one of most dishonest conspiracy liars at large, Swingie is one of the most cowardly. His repeated drubbings at my hands have compelled him to ignore me when I expose his mendacity. Would someone please copy this message so that the ignorant fraud can't pretend that he never saw it?)

[GStan]

You liar! I contacted fourteen demolition companies in four different states in preparation for the interview that Griffin fled. NOBODY in the demolition industry has heard "pull it" used to mean "blow up the building"--NOBODY!

NOBODY thinks it is industry slang.

(In addition to being one of most dishonest conspiracy liars at large, Swingie is one of the most cowardly. His repeated drubbings at my hands have compelled him to ignore me when I expose his mendacity. Would someone please copy this message so that the ignorant fraud can't pretend that he never saw it?)

with pleasure

[AZCat]

Swing Dangler][/b] http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3240565#post3240565)
pull down

1. To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.

Source: dictionary.com

n. Pull


10. To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.

As I said, it can be accomplished with explosives as the numerous examples show or with cables.

N'uff said.

Ready for the next error?


You liar! I contacted fourteen demolition companies in four different states in preparation for the interview that Griffin fled. NOBODY in the demolition industry has heard "pull it" used to mean "blow up the building"--NOBODY!

NOBODY thinks it is industry slang.

(In addition to being one of most dishonest conspiracy liars at large, Swingie is one of the most cowardly. His repeated drubbings at my hands have compelled him to ignore me when I expose his mendacity. Would someone please copy this message so that the ignorant fraud can't pretend that he never saw it?)

Ask and ye shall receive.



Dangit, GStan beat me to it.

[16.5]

Swing:

"The infamous “Pull” error can be found in Mark's WTC7."

Have you just posted a serious of quotes suggesting that the demolition industry uses the word pull? They also use the words "push," "exit," "watercooler" and "the," among thousands of others. I am astonished that you continue to insist on being so disingenuous, so much so that each post reeks of desperation.

To make the point simple for you: Gravy was referring to the term “pull” as a term of art. Not one of your litany of examples can it be said that the term “pull” is being used as a term of art.

What is more important is that there is no question that Silverstein and the NYFD were using the term “pulled” in the context of the retreat from the zone of danger. Even assuming that the demolition industry uses that term as a term of art (a claim you have utterly failed to prove), your burden is proving that the FDNY personnel were using it as a term of art. How can you quote from Dictionary.com awhile at the same time ignoring the entry for “pulled back.” Oh never mind, I know why, it is inconvenient to the Truth.

[pomeroo]

Ask and ye shall receive.



Dangit, GStan beat me to it.



Many thanks, but I added a little to the post.

[Hyperviolet]

You liar! I contacted fourteen demolition companies in four different states in preparation for the interview that Griffin fled. NOBODY in the demolition industry has heard "pull it" used to mean "blow up the building"--NOBODY!

NOBODY thinks it is industry slang.

You have been caught lying--again!--in your bogus definitions. The Encarta Webster's Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition, offers twenty (20) definitions of "pull," used as a verb. NONE refers to the demolition industry.
The phrase "pull down" is defined as "demolish something, especially a building." Yes, demolition professionals will talk about attaching cables and pulling down a SMALL structure, but as you have been told repeatedly, the technique cannot be used on a 47-story skyscraper.


(In addition to being one of most dishonest conspiracy liars at large, Swingie is one of the most cowardly. His repeated drubbings at my hands have compelled him to ignore me when I expose his mendacity. Would someone please copy this message so that the ignorant fraud can't pretend that he never saw it?)

In addition, why would Silverstein, a businessman, be speaking in obscure technical jargon (so obscure that no experts recognise it)?


Is it more likely Silverstein meant:
"There was such terrible loss of life, the decision was made to pull people out of the area, to avoid further loss"

Or:
"There was such terrible loss of life, we decided to blow up a building"

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I have to admit, I'm confused by this entire thread. Gravy has compiled information to counter claims made by the conspiracy theorists. He has taken this compiled information and added to it his conclusions and comments. If errors are found in his work it does nothing to weaken the conclusions put forth by NIST, the 9/11 Commissions, et al. Furthermore, if there are errors found in his work it does nothing to strengthen the claims of the conspiracy theorists.

There are two ways which the conclusions of NIST, et al, can be overturned:
1) In the same manner as Newtonian physics were replaced by Einstein's work
2) In the same manner as Ptomely's model of the solar system was replaced by Copernicus'

In both cases, the replacing theory better explained the observed evidence and made better testable predictions. That the conspiracy theorists are focusing on Gravy's work, rather than putting together something that could challenge NIST/FEMA/etc speaks volumes as to the lack of substence of their claims.

Rather than playing in to the nitpicking, cherry-picking, and god-of-the-gaps(ing) of the conspiracy theory crowd; we should be encouraging, nay requireing, them to focus on putting together a meaningful theory with which to present to the world.

[Pookster]

The infamous “Pull” error can be found in Mark's WTC7 (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/is%22pullusedbydemolitionsprostomean%22demol)

Mark's claim:


I won’t rehash the comment from Silverstein that will follow later.

In this case Mark asks if demolition pros (plural) use the term ‘pull’ to mean “demolish with explosives”. He then cites 3 experts to support the answer of no. Three doesn’t seem to be a proper sample to represent demolition pros,
which I assume Mark means all pros but I won’t focus on that fallacy.
Lets examine other statements in the demolition industry and their use
of the term pull within the context of demolishing a building with
explosives:

<snip>


In all of those quotes, "pull" wasn't used to identify the method of a strictly explosive demolition (demolition using only explosives - no cables for pulling). From scanning through the bolded parts, I see the word "pull" used in describing certain aspects of what's occurring during an explosive demolition, not as a term for the method of demolition occurring. In none of those quotes did "pull" mean "demolish with explosives". The one quote after the "Demolition of Dangerous Building" label where "pull" was used did, in fact, refer to pulling the building down with cables, even though explosives were used to assist in the overall demolition. Without the specific reference to using cables, no one used "pull" in your quotes to refer to the method of a demolition using only explosives with the term "pull". I saw no cables used on WTC 7 on 9/11. No one has been quoted as describing such either.

How can explosives "pull" anything down? Explosives can cause a building to be in a condition that allows gravity to pull it down. The word was used in those kinds of descriptions that you quoted. The only context where I've seen "pull" used as the method of demolition is when cables are tied to walls/floors and used to literally pull the building down. I imagine in some "pull" demolitions, there were probably people describing how the sound of the building falling might have sounded like "explosives" or like a "bomb" went off. It certainly doesn't mean that the term "explosives" now means to demolish a building using cables.

Do you have any quotes where "pull" is used to describe the method where explosives are exclusively used to demolish a building? Thanks.

[Swing Dangler]

Dave Rogers- Thank you for focusing on the relevant quotes. I agree with much of your assessment which shows that the term "pull" is used within the context of gravity, cables, and explosives. With that said, I want to focus on quote in particular along with its context since you are at least open to this source.

From Implosion World:
DID YOU KNOW that only a small percentage of explosive demolition jobs are true 'building implosions'?

Webster’s Dictionary defines implosion as "a violent collapse inward". In the demolition industry, a blaster is usually trying to pull a structure away from adjacent exposures and towards an area large enough to contain the debris.
Therefore, the only time a building is truly 'imploded' is when exposures (other structures or areas of concern) completely surround it. When this situation exists, the blaster has no choice; he must make the building collapse in on itself. This is by far the trickiest type of explosive demolition project, and there are only a handful of blasting companies in the world that possess enough experience—and insurance—to perform these true building implosions.
On the same page we find this image (http://www.implosionworld.com/img/dyk21.jpg) using explosives.

Ambiguous at best, in that the word "pull" could either be used as a synonym for "demolish" or in its literal sense of "cause to move by applying a tractive force". In this context, the blaster above is trying to pull a structure in on itself, in this case, using explosives which can be found in the remaining passage.

According to Stacy Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc.,
The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion." There are a series of small explosions, but the building itself isn't erupting outward. It's actually being pulled in on top of itself. What we're really doing is removing specific support columns within the structure and then cajoling the building in one direction or another, or straight down.

In the above quote Stacy refers to IT as a building being "pulled" in on top of itself. In this the case the "pull" part is referring to the small explosions causing the building to collapse in on it self. Hence "pull" another case where "pull" refers to the act of imploding a building using small explosions.

There is no need to litter the thread at this point with Larry Silverstein or my thoughts on his comment. This is in reference to the term pull and how it is used in the industry.

[T.A.M.]

pull down

1. To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.

Source: dictionary.com

n. Pull


10. To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.

As I said, it can be accomplished with explosives as the numerous examples show or with cables.

N'uff said.

Ready for the next error?

So the fact that no one in the demolition industry uses the term "pull" to indicate controlled demolition is immaterial to you?

TAM:)

[Belz...]

Webster’s Dictionary defines implosion as "a violent collapse inward". In the demolition industry, a blaster is usually trying to pull a structure away from adjacent exposures and towards an area large enough to contain the debris.

Yes, where "pull" means "pull", not "demolish".

Ambiguous at best, in that the word "pull" could either be used as a synonym for "demolish" or in its literal sense of "cause to move by applying a tractive force".

You DO know what "tractive force" means, right ?

[T.A.M.]

there is NO ENTRY for "Pull it" on Dictionary.com, so really, you can infer he meant practically anything by it, or by "it".

TAM;)

[16.5]

Hey thanks Swing-y. Lets use another word from that quote, “Cajole”:

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just cajole it.' And they made that decision to cajole and then we watched the building collapse."

Hey, here is another quote from that day. Let us change “pull” with “cajole” and see how that works for ya:

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they cajoled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They cajoled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski

[Pookster]

... In the above quote Stacy refers to IT as a building being "pulled" in on top of itself. In this the case the "pull" part is referring to the small explosions causing the building to collapse in on it self. Hence "pull" another case where "pull" refers to the act of imploding a building using small explosions.

There is no need to litter the thread at this point with Larry Silverstein or my thoughts on his comment. This is in reference to the term pull and how it is used in the industry.

Stacy refers to part of what is happening to the building, not the method of demolition. Buildings can "implode" with the wall(s) "pulling" in on themselves in a strong enough wind storm. Explosives aren't pulling the building/walls anywhere. Gravity is. Cherry picking words out of descriptions and then using them to say they're used to identify the method of demolition is innocently incorrect at best, and dishonest at worst in this case, unless can you present where "pull" is used to specifically identify a method of demolition that doesn't include using cables and such to literally pull the the building down. Can you? So far, you haven't.

[GStan]

In the above quote Stacy refers to IT as a building being "pulled" in on top of itself. In this the case the "pull" part is referring to the small explosions causing the building to collapse in on it self. Hence "pull" another case where "pull" refers to the act of imploding a building using small explosions.

There is no need to litter the thread at this point with Larry Silverstein or my thoughts on his comment. This is in reference to the term pull and how it is used in the industry.

Pull is what gravity does to make the building fall after explosives remove the supports. Congratulations, you've cracked the case by discovering that industry professionals have used the word pull. Unfortunately, every demo professional who has been asked has confirmed that pull/pull it is not an industry synonym for demolishing a building with explosives. Thus disproving your claim of a Gravy error. Why do you want to keep arguing this stupid and pointless issue?:eye-poppi

ETA: This is making my head "pull in on itself".
(That's the American Medical Association translation from the Greek origin cranius explodicus)

[metamars]

F = W +W[1+(2hk)/W]^0.5

So, you can put this in a spreadsheet and see how h effects the force. The impact load STARTS at least TWICE the weight of the body.


In the limit h -> 0, F -> 2W. But clearly, if for all time, h = 0 (i.e., static case), F should equal W, not 2W. How do you explain this discontinuity?

If we take h to be 1 mm, then, by this equation, F ~ 2W. Do you seriously believe that the towers would have collapsed after a fall of 1 mm?

[Lurker]

In the limit h -> 0, F -> 2W. But clearly, if for all time, h = 0 (i.e., static case), F should equal W, not 2W. How do you explain this discontinuity?
Quite simple, really. The formula is for impact. It is not for a static load. I will even quote from the textbook immediately after the formula in question


Note, in this equation, that if h=0, then F=2W. This says that when the weight is released while in contact with the spring but is not exerting any force on the spring, the largest force is double the weight.

The testbook is quite old. Anyway, the authors are:

Joseph Edward Shigley, Professor Emeritus, The University of Michigan
Charles R. Mischke, Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Iowa State University

If you want to question the formula, I suggest contacting them or any other pofessor of Mechanical Engineering. Shigley and Mischke was a very popular text for most engineering schools. There is a 3 page derivation of the formula from mechanics principles preceding it.

If we take h to be 1 mm, then, by this equation, F ~ 2W. Do you seriously believe that the towers would have collapsed after a fall of 1 mm?

Odd how that works, eh? Do you think a building designer ever thought for a moment that his building would have one floor disappear abruptly and the remaining lower structure would have to absorb the impact of the upper structure? I doubt it.

When you jump onto a scale the indicator jumps well past your weight. Does it jump 2x your weight? No. But that is because the crude data acquisition system in your scale cannot obtain the datapoints quickly enough.

[metamars]

Quite simple, really. The formula is for impact. It is not for a static load. I will even quote from the textbook immediately after the formula in question



The testbook is quite old. Anyway, the authors are:

Joseph Edward Shigley, Professor Emeritus, The University of Michigan
Charles R. Mischke, Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Iowa State University

If you want to question the formula, I suggest contacting them or any other pofessor of Mechanical Engineering. Shigley and Mischke was a very popular text for most engineering schools. There is a 3 page derivation of the formula from mechanics principles preceding it.


Without even looking at the derivation, I'm pretty sure I can guess an assumption that went into it, that make it irrevlevant. No, it's not simply a question of "impact" vs. "static".


Odd how that works, eh? Do you think a building designer ever thought for a moment that his building would have one floor disappear abruptly and the remaining lower structure would have to absorb the impact of the upper structure? I doubt it.

When you jump onto a scale the indicator jumps well past your weight. Does it jump 2x your weight? No. But that is because the crude data acquisition system in your scale cannot obtain the datapoints quickly enough.

You didn't answer the question clearly. Do you really think that collapse would occur if a drop from 1 mm occurred? Yes or no?

As for me, I have an electric scale, and "not acquiring datapoints quickly enough" seems wide of the mark, no?

[pomeroo]

Thank you for focusing on the relevant quotes. I agree with much of your assessment which shows that the term "pull" is used within the context of gravity, cables, and explosives. With that said, I want to focus on quote in particular along with its context since you are at least open to this source.

From Implosion World:
DID YOU KNOW that only a small percentage of explosive demolition jobs are true 'building implosions'?

Webster’s Dictionary defines implosion as "a violent collapse inward". In the demolition industry, a blaster is usually trying to pull a structure away from adjacent exposures and towards an area large enough to contain the debris.
Therefore, the only time a building is truly 'imploded' is when exposures (other structures or areas of concern) completely surround it. When this situation exists, the blaster has no choice; he must make the building collapse in on itself. This is by far the trickiest type of explosive demolition project, and there are only a handful of blasting companies in the world that possess enough experience—and insurance—to perform these true building implosions.
On the same page we find this image (http://www.implosionworld.com/img/dyk21.jpg) using explosives.

In this context, the blaster above is trying to pull a structure in on itself, in this case, using explosives which can be found in the remaining passage.


In the above quote Stacy refers to IT as a building being "pulled" in on top of itself. In this the case the "pull" part is referring to the small explosions causing the building to collapse in on it self. Hence "pull" another case where "pull" refers to the act of imploding a building using small explosions.

There is no need to litter the thread at this point with Larry Silverstein or my thoughts on his comment. This is in reference to the term pull and how it is used in the industry.


You are a liar. NO ONE in the demolition industry uses the phrase "pull it" to mean "blow up the building."

I have done my research. Now, let's see you produce someone in the demolition industry who accepts the falsehood peddled by the loons.

(Again, I'd appreciate it if someone will quote me so the mendacious SW can't pretend he didn't see this post.)

[TheRedWorm]

Thank you for focusing on the relevant quotes. I agree with much of your assessment which shows that the term "pull" is used within the context of gravity, cables, and explosives. With that said, I want to focus on quote in particular along with its context since you are at least open to this source.

From Implosion World:
DID YOU KNOW that only a small percentage of explosive demolition jobs are true 'building implosions'?

Webster’s Dictionary defines implosion as "a violent collapse inward". In the demolition industry, a blaster is usually trying to pull a structure away from adjacent exposures and towards an area large enough to contain the debris.
Therefore, the only time a building is truly 'imploded' is when exposures (other structures or areas of concern) completely surround it. When this situation exists, the blaster has no choice; he must make the building collapse in on itself. This is by far the trickiest type of explosive demolition project, and there are only a handful of blasting companies in the world that possess enough experience—and insurance—to perform these true building implosions.
On the same page we find this image (http://www.implosionworld.com/img/dyk21.jpg) using explosives.

In this context, the blaster above is trying to pull a structure in on itself, in this case, using explosives which can be found in the remaining passage.


In the above quote Stacy refers to IT as a building being "pulled" in on top of itself. In this the case the "pull" part is referring to the small explosions causing the building to collapse in on it self. Hence "pull" another case where "pull" refers to the act of imploding a building using small explosions.

There is no need to litter the thread at this point with Larry Silverstein or my thoughts on his comment. This is in reference to the term pull and how it is used in the industry.

You are a liar. NO ONE in the demolition industry uses the phrase "pull it" to mean "blow up the building."

I have done my research. Now, let's see you produce someone in the demolition industry who accepts the falsehood peddled by the loons.

(Again, I'd appreciate it if someone will quote me so the mendacious SW can't pretend he didn't see this post.)


Multi Quote is a nifty feature.

[Gravy]

I often wonder if Silverstein meant "pull out" - to recall the men to safety.He did indeed, which he has made clear since. What 9/11 denialists deny more than anything is context. Silverstein: "We've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it."

Denialists want us to believe that Silverstein was saying "We've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is destroy my skyscraper with explosives. You guys aren't busy, are you? I'd appreciate it if you'd take care of that at your earliest convenience."

Which makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

And then the entire FDNY, NYPD, Port Authority Police, National Guard, and hundreds of off-duty uniformed and civilian workers on the scene complied (because we all know that in addition to being a real estate developer, Larry Silverstein owns those organizations and individuals and their unions), the FDNY sent their secret explosives demolition team to the Hushaboom explosive warehouse, risked their lives in an inferno to plant the charges in a building that they already believed was going to collapse, planted those charges so that every column would "fail simultaneously," presided over the silent detonations, and nobody involved said a mumbling word.

People who actually believe that need more help than we could ever give them here. They are desperately lost and troubled.


Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

http://911guide.googlepages.com/danielnigro


Is “Pull” used by demolitions pros to mean “demolish with explosives?” (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/is%22pullusedbydemolitionsprostomean%22demol)

Is “Pull” used to mean “Withdraw firefighters from danger?” (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/%22pull%22%3Dwithdrawfirefightersfromdanger)

[beachnut]

You are a liar. NO ONE in the demolition industry uses the phrase "pull it" to mean "blow up the building."

I have done my research. Now, let's see you produce someone in the demolition industry who accepts the falsehood peddled by the loons.
Maybe Swing will get an education at the earliest opportunity so he can actually make a rational post on 9/11. So far the best he has posted can only qualify as poor researched quibbling.

[stilicho]

pull down

1. To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.

Source: dictionary.com

n. Pull


10. To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.

As I said, it can be accomplished with explosives as the numerous examples show or with cables.

N'uff said.

Ready for the next error?
Have you written about your suspicions to Westfield America's loss prevention department or Jacques Dubois of Swiss Re?

I am certain they'd be willing to pay you a lot for your proof that "pull it" meant what you pretend that you think it means.

Post your correspondence with them here. I would be interested to see how it was received.

[Dave Rogers]

Webster’s Dictionary defines implosion as "a violent collapse inward". In the demolition industry, a blaster is usually trying to pull a structure away from adjacent exposures and towards an area large enough to contain the debris.

Focusing, again, on the part of the quote that's relevant: This is simply the common definition of the word "pull", indicating that parts of the structure, as they fall, are exerting a tractive force on other parts of the structure in order to cause them to move in a specific direction. The same is true of the other quotes you've posted.

Let me try and give you an analogous case. Suppose I asserted that the word "collapse" meant, in demolition industry jargon, "set off explosives to bring down the building". This would be quite a damning suggestion for, for example, NIST, who claim that WTC1 and WTC2 "collapsed", because it could therefore be interpreted that NIST are claiming the Twin Towers were demolished. Your homework, if you choose to accept it, is to look through your quotes and see how many times the word "collapse" is used in a description the use of explosives to bring down a building. You'll find a lot, even in just the quotes you've posted. So is "collapse" used in the demolition industry as slang for "set off the explosives"? If so, then that suggests that "pull" isn't, because having two such terms could lead to serious confusion. If not, then all you've proved is that the words "collapse" and "pull" are used in the demolition industry with their common meanings.

You have yet to provide any evidence that the word "pull" has, in the demolition industry, the specific meaning, "set off the charges to demolish the building". Mark has provided expert evidence that it doesn't have that specific meaning. Unless you can find more than the quotes you've posted, you haven't demonstrated an error.

Dave

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

rodriguez refuses to come back here and prove how redibis is "right" about mark, but instead i only see redibis glorifying a " mr" rodriguez....
why is that "redibis"?

[Tolls]

He did indeed, which he has made clear since. What 9/11 denialists deny more than anything is context. Silverstein: "We've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it."

Denialists want us to believe that Silverstein was saying "We've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is destroy my skyscraper with explosives. You guys aren't busy, are you? I'd appreciate it if you'd take care of that at your earliest convenience."

Which makes perfect sense, doesn't it?


This is one of the few things I've actually manage to convince a truther to change their position on. I actually got him to agree that the former was the more likely explanation for his statement. I was rather chuffed with myself for that, and a little surprised.

[T.A.M.]

unfortunately what is "more likely" or "more probable" does not concern them. If there is even a remote chance they are right on any element of the 9/11 CTs, then they believe it is the CT that is true...paranoia!!

TAM:)

[bonavada]

pull down
1. To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.
Source: dictionary.com
n. Pull
10. To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.
As I said, it can be accomplished with explosives as the numerous examples show or with cables.
N'uff said.
Ready for the next error?

hey you forgot THIS (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pull) (strangely) from the same source as yours.....

10.to withdraw or remove:

say no more

BV

[uk_dave]

hey you forgot THIS (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pull) (strangely) from the same source as yours.....

10.to withdraw or remove:

say no more

BV

Is 'forgot' a polite way of saying "scrolled all the way down the webpage in a desperate search for something to do with building demolitions" ?

:D

[Tolls]

unfortunately what is "more likely" or "more probable" does not concern them. If there is even a remote chance they are right on any element of the 9/11 CTs, then they believe it is the CT that is true...paranoia!!

TAM:)

Well, he still thought it was an inside job, but I take my little victories where I can find them.
:)

[Lurker]

Without even looking at the derivation, I'm pretty sure I can guess an assumption that went into it, that make it irrevlevant. No, it's not simply a question of "impact" vs. "static".
Well, feel free to tell us what assumption you think went into it. I can list those those that are in the book.

I look forward to your revelation on what assumption you believe is made. By the way, why did you not just type it in here instead of holding back like it is some great secret?


You didn't answer the question clearly. Do you really think that collapse would occur if a drop from 1 mm occurred? Yes or no?
Assuming the factor of safety is less than 2, then yes, I believe the collapse would occur. But keep in mind, collapse initiation is different than collapse continuation. The equation I am using relates to collapse continuation.


As for me, I have an electric scale, and "not acquiring datapoints quickly enough" seems wide of the mark, no?

You must have a very good electronic scale. We have specialized equipment where I work in order to capture data points quickly. Most home scales won't have the resolution that a professional scale has. This is regardless whether it is electric or not.

[Lurker]

Metamars:

Think of it this way. Let's say you can hold a 200 lb dumbbell above your head. It is difficult but you find that you can do it.

Now enlist two friends to hold that dumbbell some small distance above your hands and have them drop it. I think you would find that it is much more difficult and you would probably drop it.

I am not suggesting you try this experiment as it would be dangerous, but perhaps you could try with a smaller weight like 50 lbs.

[Dave Rogers]

Swing, as usual, good work. You surely provide some interesting examples. I'm curious why debunking arguments, in this instance, rely on the idea that "pull it" is not an industry term. Even though you show many examples where it is used that way, Silverstein is not an industry expert. At best, his use of the phrase has to be taken as informal, from the perspective of an outsider. But with his long career in real estate, I'm sure he's been part of discussions about demolitions.

All I'm trying to point out here is that the so called debunk of "pull it" is deeply flawed since we can't apply the same rationale for Silverstein's use of the phrase, as we would someone within the demolition community.

This analysis actually harms, rather than helps, your case. Let's look at the actual claim of the truth movement, broken down into premises and conclusions. I'm not Arkan Wolfshade, but I'll do my best.

P1: Silverstein said that he decided to "pull it".
P2: The word "it" in "pull it" denoted WTC7.
P3: "Pull it" is demolition industry slang for demolishing a building.
P4: Silverstein was conversant with this slang.

Conclusion: Silverstein knowingly admitted to giving the order to demolish WTC7.

What we have here is a chain of reasoning, very different to the standard conspiracy theorist scattergun proof; if any link of this chain is broken, then the conclusion becomes invalid. So how do these four premises look?

P1: It's now well-known that Silverstein said "they made the decision to pull". The first premise is therefore invalid.

P2: Silverstein has denied this and stated that "it" meant the contingent of firefighters. Denials along the line of "Well he would say that, wouldn't he?" fail to explain why Silverstein allowed the original comment to go out in a pre-recorded interview. The second premise is therefore unproven and challenged by Silverstein himself.

P3: The part of the chain under discussion. Despite the fact that the word "pull" is used in the demolition industry, as are (presumably) the vast majority of the more common words in the English language, no evidence has been presented to show that "pull" means "demolish with explosives", and considerable evidence has been presented that it does not. Swing's efforts notwithstanding, on the balance of evidence the third premise is invalid.

P4: This is the premise you are now calling into question, and you're not the first. You don't have any way to assess Silverstein's experience with the demolition industry, and I don't see anyone presenting proof that it's normal for a property developer to understand the technical details of demolition; I'd have thought he would hire people for that, but that's no more than my opinion. There's no evidence that Silverstein is or ever has been conversant with demolition industry jargon, and if he isn't then this premise becomes invalid. At best it is unproven.

So we have a chain of four premises, every one of which has been shown to be either invalid or at best unestablished. To say that the conclusion does not follow is an understatement.

Dave

[tsig]

Well, that's the state of the "truth" movement. This forum would be chock-full of their threads presenting evidence of the inside job – if they had any.

Instead of trying to make their earth-shattering, career-making, Pulitzer Prize-winning case against the "real" terrorists, they choose to spend their time searching for misstatements by a tour guide. That'll save the world. Well, at least it'll help me improve my debating skills.

3" Rebar on 4' centers.

[Belz...]

Please don't remind us of this.

[pomeroo]

rodriguez refuses to come back here and prove how redibis is "right" about mark, but instead i only see redibis glorifying a " mr" rodriguez....
why is that "redibis"?


Rodriguez is a self-promoting phony who refuses to confront his critics.
RedIbis is a conspiracy liar who is devoid of critical thinking skills. But, I repeat myself.

[T.A.M.]

Well, he still thought it was an inside job, but I take my little victories where I can find them.
:)

There aren't many victories with these guys, so take them when you can.

TAM:)

[tsig]

pull down

1. To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.

Source: dictionary.com

n. Pull


10. To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.

As I said, it can be accomplished with explosives as the numerous examples show or with cables.

N'uff said.

Ready for the next error?

We know what you mean when you say 'pull it" hope you enjoy "it"

[tsig]

Please don't remind us of this.

You had to read the whole thing. .

[Miragememories]

Metamars:

Think of it this way. Let's say you can hold a 200 lb dumbbell above your head. It is difficult but you find that you can do it.

Now enlist two friends to hold that dumbbell some small distance above your hands and have them drop it. I think you would find that it is much more difficult and you would probably drop it.

I am not suggesting you try this experiment as it would be dangerous, but perhaps you could try with a smaller weight like 50 lbs.

Let's get real and suggest you have a whole bunch of friends holding the dumbbell.

Something occurs, and for some reason they are effected in a way that makes it impossible for them to maintain holding it up.

One by one they let go while struggling to maintain support.

The dumbbell gradually dips and topples to the ground completely missing your head.

Isn't reality wonderful?

MM

[Redtail]

Let's get real and suggest you have a whole bunch of friends holding the dumbbell.

Something occurs, and for some reason they are effected in a way that makes it impossible for them to maintain holding it up.

One by one they let go while struggling to maintain support.

The dumbbell gradually dips and topples to the ground completely missing your head.

Isn't reality wonderful?

MM

So the rest of the building should have moved. Gotcha.

[Gravy]

Just checking my error total for the day.

...

Okay, thanks.

[Minadin]

Let's get real and suggest you have a whole bunch of friends holding the dumbbell.

Something occurs, and for some reason they are effected in a way that makes it impossible for them to maintain holding it up.

One by one they let go while struggling to maintain support.

The dumbbell gradually dips and topples to the ground completely missing your head.

Isn't reality wonderful?

MM

That may be the most ridiculous analogy I've ever seen. It's not applicable in any way and has no connection to reality whatsoever.

[pomeroo]

{snip} some really dumb drivel


Isn't reality wonderful?

MM


It is. You should visit sometime.

[Brainache]

This analysis actually harms, rather than helps, your case. Let's look at the actual claim of the truth movement, broken down into premises and conclusions. I'm not Arkan Wolfshade, but I'll do my best.

P1: Silverstein said that he decided to "pull it".
P2: The word "it" in "pull it" denoted WTC7.
P3: "Pull it" is demolition industry slang for demolishing a building.
P4: Silverstein was conversant with this slang.

Conclusion: Silverstein knowingly admitted to giving the order to demolish WTC7.

What we have here is a chain of reasoning, very different to the standard conspiracy theorist scattergun proof; if any link of this chain is broken, then the conclusion becomes invalid. So how do these four premises look?

P1: It's now well-known that Silverstein said "they made the decision to pull". The first premise is therefore invalid.

P2: Silverstein has denied this and stated that "it" meant the contingent of firefighters. Denials along the line of "Well he would say that, wouldn't he?" fail to explain why Silverstein allowed the original comment to go out in a pre-recorded interview. The second premise is therefore unproven and challenged by Silverstein himself.

P3: The part of the chain under discussion. Despite the fact that the word "pull" is used in the demolition industry, as are (presumably) the vast majority of the more common words in the English language, no evidence has been presented to show that "pull" means "demolish with explosives", and considerable evidence has been presented that it does not. Swing's efforts notwithstanding, on the balance of evidence the third premise is invalid.

P4: This is the premise you are now calling into question, and you're not the first. You don't have any way to assess Silverstein's experience with the demolition industry, and I don't see anyone presenting proof that it's normal for a property developer to understand the technical details of demolition; I'd have thought he would hire people for that, but that's no more than my opinion. There's no evidence that Silverstein is or ever has been conversant with demolition industry jargon, and if he isn't then this premise becomes invalid. At best it is unproven.

So we have a chain of four premises, every one of which has been shown to be either invalid or at best unestablished. To say that the conclusion does not follow is an understatement.

Dave

Has anyone pointed out that the FDNY is not a demolition company? They put out fires AFAIK, maybe rescue the occasional cat from up a light pole and cook each other big meals on slow nights, but I don't think I ever heard of them setting charges and prepping skyscrapers for demolition. I spose I could be wrong...

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

I have to wonder where is redibis hiding?
what's taking him so long to pay Totovader what, $300 or is it more?

[metamars]

Well, feel free to tell us what assumption you think went into it. I can list those those that are in the book.


Sure. The impacting mass was rigid, and the other end was constrained by a rigid surface.

In Wave Motion in Elastic Solids by Karl F. Graff, p. 103, the ratio of initial impact force is given (eq. 2.4.25) for elastic-on-elastic vs. rigid-on-elastic collisions. The elastic body being impacted is a thin rod. This is:

1 / (1 + Z1/Z2).


Where Z1 is the impedance of the elastic impacting object, and Z2 is the impedance of the impacted elastic object.

Z is given by rho*A*c0, where
rho is density
A is area
c0 is the speed of sound

In the special case of the collision of rods of exactly the same dimensions and density, the impedances are equal, and thus the peak force will be 1/2 times that of the analogous rigid-on-elastic impact.


I look forward to your revelation on what assumption you believe is made. By the way, why did you not just type it in here instead of holding back like it is some great secret?

These qualitative impact of these "revelations" was made intuitively by me over 2 years ago. The above equations are from Chapter 2 of an 8 chapter book on elasticity theory. They are not "revelations", at all.

A more interesting question is, why did Dr. Bazant, who has co-authored numerous books (one of which I've glanced at, and seems to be well written) involving both elastic and plastic theory, cherry-pick his assumptions regarding rigidity the way he did, so as to "derive" a fragility to the building that was greater than he suggested? Recall that in a subsequent paper (Bazant and Verdure), he made reference to his not-so-youthful indiscretion of a paper with Zhou. He had plenty of time to reflect on his paper with Zhou, and to publish a correction.

The Newton's Bit paper - even the new and improved one - also has un-explicated assumptions of rigidity, which invalidate his analysis. (I'll have more to say on those, later, but on his threads.) Actually, I think all of the analyses along the lines of Bazant-Zhou's original paper that ignore established theory are wrong - BZ, Ross, and Newton's Bit.

This is actually a much deeper problem than you might think. If you're curious what strain vs. time would look like in a real impact, see

http://metamars.i8.com/index.html

Notice that (apparently), the compressive stress wave is "one way". I.e., the reflected wave contributions are very small. (The data is represented two separate runs abreast, so don't misinterpret.) That tells me (I'm not 100% sure) that transmittance at the base is very high, so reflected compressive waves won't add to the net stress on the rod very much. Remember how these sorts of considerations were ignored by Manuel Garcia?


You might also ask yourself the question of why other JREF'ers, who have a technical background, did not bother to disabuse you of your mistaken notions of whether or not and how you mis-applied a mathematically correct solution to a physical problem.


Assuming the factor of safety is less than 2, then yes, I believe the collapse would occur. But keep in mind, collapse initiation is different than collapse continuation. The equation I am using relates to collapse continuation.

Well, you're wrong. My question to you regarding a drop of all of 1 mm should have been a clue that something was amiss in your reasoning. To amuse yourself, why don't you call the professors whose results you quoted, and ask them the 1 mm question?


You must have a very good electronic scale. We have specialized equipment where I work in order to capture data points quickly. Most home scales won't have the resolution that a professional scale has. This is regardless whether it is electric or not.
It's ok. I just checked, and it records about 15 pounds over my true weight when I first step on it. I don't really know the details of how it works, but I don't believe that constraints in "acquiring data points" have anything to do with not showing more than +15 pounds.

[pomeroo]

Has anyone pointed out that the FDNY is not a demolition company?


I have, maybe a thousand or so times.



They put out fires AFAIK, maybe rescue the occasional cat from up a light pole and cook each other big meals on slow nights, but I don't think I ever heard of them setting charges and prepping skyscrapers for demolition. I spose I could be wrong...


When I made this exact point on the Winter Patriot blog, some imbecile called me names and babbled about axes and poles. I guess you could tear down a skyscraper with a big enough pole--Archimedes and his lever and all that.

[LashL]

That may be the most ridiculous analogy I've ever seen. It's not applicable in any way and has no connection to reality whatsoever.


It is a common problem among "truthers", that whole "disconnected from reality" thing.

[Gravy]

A more interesting question is, why did Dr. Bazant, who has co-authored numerous books (one of which I've glanced at, and seems to be well written) involving both elastic and plastic theory, cherry-pick his assumptions regarding rigidity the way he did, so as to "derive" a fragility to the building that was greater than he suggested? Recall that in a subsequent paper (Bazant and Verdure), he made reference to his not-so-youthful indiscretion of a paper with Zhou. He had plenty of time to reflect on his paper with Zhou, and to publish a correction.


What did Dr. Bazant say when you pointed this out to him and asked for his response?

[tsig]

Sure. The impacting mass was rigid, and the other end was constrained by a rigid surface.

In Wave Motion in Elastic Solids by Karl F. Graff, p. 103, the ratio of initial impact force is given (eq. 2.4.25) for elastic-on-elastic vs. rigid-on-elastic collisions. The elastic body being impacted is a thin rod. This is:

1 / (1 + Z1/Z2).


Where Z1 is the impedance of the elastic impacting object, and Z2 is the impedance of the impacted elastic object.

Z is given by rho*A*c0, where
rho is density
A is area
c0 is the speed of sound

In the special case of the collision of rods of exactly the same dimensions and density, the impedances are equal, and thus the peak force will be 1/2 times that of the analogous rigid-on-elastic impact.


These qualitative impact of these "revelations" was made intuitively by me over 2 years ago. The above equations are from Chapter 2 of an 8 chapter book on elasticity theory. They are not "revelations", at all.

A more interesting question is, why did Dr. Bazant, who has co-authored numerous books (one of which I've glanced at, and seems to be well written) involving both elastic and plastic theory, cherry-pick his assumptions regarding rigidity the way he did, so as to "derive" a fragility to the building that was greater than he suggested? Recall that in a subsequent paper (Bazant and Verdure), he made reference to his not-so-youthful indiscretion of a paper with Zhou. He had plenty of time to reflect on his paper with Zhou, and to publish a correction.

The Newton's Bit paper - even the new and improved one - also has un-explicated assumptions of rigidity, which invalidate his analysis. (I'll have more to say on those, later, but on his threads.) Actually, I think all of the analyses along the lines of Bazant-Zhou's original paper that ignore established theory are wrong - BZ, Ross, and Newton's Bit.

This is actually a much deeper problem than you might think. If you're curious what strain vs. time would look like in a real impact, see

http://metamars.i8.com/index.html

Notice that (apparently), the compressive stress wave is "one way". I.e., the reflected wave contributions are very small. (The data is represented two separate runs abreast, so don't misinterpret.) That tells me (I'm not 100% sure) that transmittance at the base is very high, so reflected compressive waves won't add to the net stress on the rod very much. Remember how these sorts of considerations were ignored by Manuel Garcia?


You might also ask yourself the question of why other JREF'ers, who have a technical background, did not bother to disabuse you of your mistaken notions of whether or not and how you mis-applied a mathematically correct solution to a physical problem.


Well, you're wrong. My question to you regarding a drop of all of 1 mm should have been a clue that something was amiss in your reasoning. To amuse yourself, why don't you call the professors whose results you quoted, and ask them the 1 mm question?


It's ok. I just checked, and it records about 15 pounds over my true weight when I first step on it. I don't really know the details of how it works, but I don't believe that constraints in "acquiring data points" have anything to do with not showing more than +15 pounds.

Try jumping on it.

[Belz...]

You had to read the whole thing. .

I did. That's why I didn't want you to remind me.

[Lurker]

Let's get real and suggest you have a whole bunch of friends holding the dumbbell.

Something occurs, and for some reason they are effected in a way that makes it impossible for them to maintain holding it up.

One by one they let go while struggling to maintain support.

The dumbbell gradually dips and topples to the ground completely missing your head.

Isn't reality wonderful?

MM

Hey, I was just attempting to illustrate the formula for impact, which was questioned recently by another poster. Seems your side is the one questioning reality when they question a formula that was derived many, many years ago.

Anyway, your analogy is flawed. The piledriver could not miss the building directly below it. If you think so, please advise what side force you think would contribute enough force to do so. Use f=ma where m is the mass of the piledriver and a would be the accelleration to move it to the side without hitting the structure below in the time that it fell one or two stories. Good luck.

[Lurker]

Sure. The impacting mass was rigid, and the other end was constrained by a rigid surface.

In Wave Motion in Elastic Solids by Karl F. Graff, p. 103, the ratio of initial impact force is given (eq. 2.4.25) for elastic-on-elastic vs. rigid-on-elastic collisions. The elastic body being impacted is a thin rod. This is:

1 / (1 + Z1/Z2).


Where Z1 is the impedance of the elastic impacting object, and Z2 is the impedance of the impacted elastic object.

Z is given by rho*A*c0, where
rho is density
A is area
c0 is the speed of sound

In the special case of the collision of rods of exactly the same dimensions and density, the impedances are equal, and thus the peak force will be 1/2 times that of the analogous rigid-on-elastic impact.

Hmm, it seems you are comparing a rigid/elastic vs a elastic/elastic impact. Sorry, you have a formula for comaprison there. A problem I see with your formula the way you are trying to use it is if we apply it to two billiard balls. I know you like intuition so will start with that. Two billiard balls the same size and density. I hit one and it hits a stationary ball. The stationary ball then rolls away at the same speed as the one I hit. Yet your odd formula would have only HALF the force transferred from one ball to the other. We intuitively know that is NOT true.

So where is your formula wrong? First off, I see no way your units will work out for you. you have a dimensionless equation. No big deal cause it is defined as a ratio but where is the rest of the formula that you apply this ratio to? Second, your impact is essentailly acting in space. No gravity acting on it. You see, the reason the impact formula I provided is correct and accurate is because it has gravity in it which is the reason the force has increased so much. I don't see gravity in your equation at all.

Sorry, it is clear you are totally misapplying your equation.



These qualitative impact of these "revelations" was made intuitively by me over 2 years ago. The above equations are from Chapter 2 of an 8 chapter book on elasticity theory. They are not "revelations", at all.
Be careful how you apply an equation you find in a book. Still, I am impressed you found that equation.


Well, you're wrong. My question to you regarding a drop of all of 1 mm should have been a clue that something was amiss in your reasoning. To amuse yourself, why don't you call the professors whose results you quoted, and ask them the 1 mm question?

I provided the equation and the verbiage. It is your responsibility to show it is wrong. The equation you countered with is clearly wrong since it does not include a gravity term.


It's ok. I just checked, and it records about 15 pounds over my true weight when I first step on it. I don't really know the details of how it works, but I don't believe that constraints in "acquiring data points" have anything to do with not showing more than +15 pounds.
Step on? that is not impacting your total weight then is it? Plus your scale probably cannot handle the spike, which would disappear VERY quickly.

[metamars]

Hmm, it seems you are comparing a rigid/elastic vs a elastic/elastic impact. Sorry, you have a formula for comaprison there. A problem I see with your formula the way you are trying to use it is if we apply it to two billiard balls. I know you like intuition so will start with that. Two billiard balls the same size and density. I hit one and it hits a stationary ball. The stationary ball then rolls away at the same speed as the one I hit. Yet your odd formula would have only HALF the force transferred from one ball to the other. We intuitively know that is NOT true.



Incorrect. Ignoring rotation, and whatever other effects may fall out from a collision of two spheres vs. rods, a similar formula in this scenario would simply say that the peak force experienced by the ball that got hit by another, real ball, is only 1/2 the peak force it would have experienced if it had gotten hit by a rigid ball of the same mass, size, and speed.

In reality, there's no such thing as a (perfectly) rigid ball. Correct?

Also, just to dot my i's wrt my former post, if you calculate the impacted rod problem assuming the rod is resting on a rigid base, you are implicitly assuming that no energy is being transmitted through the rod/base juncture. A rigid base can't flex, it can't transmit vibrational energy, and it can't displace, either, and thus absorb energy via momentum transfer.

Which is not consistent with the experimental work of Gul, et. al. , at least insofar as I can gather.


So where is your formula wrong? First off, I see no way your units will work out for you. you have a dimensionless equation. No big deal cause it is defined as a ratio but where is the rest of the formula that you apply this ratio to?




I don't have my book with me, but if you want to see the full formula, it's essentially

Fmax(elastic impactor) / Fmax(rigid impactor) = 1 / (1 + Z1/Z2).

It's a Dover book, so you can be a proud owner for just a few bucks!


Second, your impact is essentailly acting in space. No gravity acting on it. You see, the reason the impact formula I provided is correct and accurate is because it has gravity in it which is the reason the force has increased so much. I don't see gravity in your equation at all.
Sorry, it is clear you are totally misapplying your equation.

I am using the equation to show you that BZ's approach is misleading, as is your own argument, due to assumptions of rigidity. In particular, it is misleading in a direction contrary to his conclusion and yours. I.e., the assumption of rigidity in the special case of two impacting rods "in air" results in overestimating the maximum impact force by a factor of 2. In a WTC scenario, I see absolutely no reason why a similar result would not ensue, but the exact quantitative details remain to be worked out. I wasn't claiming to have worked them out.

A full analytic treatment, involving not only non-rigid impacting masses but also "rods" (i.e., columns) that are constrained in the horizontal plane every h (modelling the stabilizing effects of floor trusses), would require a numerical solution via finite-difference methods. (So says an applied mathematician cousin of mine, who has studied elastic theories on a graduate level.)


Can you give even one rational reason why doing an analysis in a graviational field, with aphysical, rigid bodies would still not effect the analysis in the manner I indicate? What effect to you think the presence of gravity would make wrt maximal elastic vs. rigid impacting force? Would it exactly cancel it? Make an elastic impact even more 'forceful' than a rigid impact?

Do tell. And remember that the speed of sound in steel is about 5K m/s, vs. an impact speed of ~8.5 m/s.



Be careful how you apply an equation you find in a book. Still, I am impressed you found that equation.

A-h-h-h, you would be well advised to follow your own advice.


I provided the equation and the verbiage. It is your responsibility to show it is wrong. The equation you countered with is clearly wrong since it does not include a gravity term.


I have no reason to think that the equation you quote is wrong mathematically. It is not my "responsibility" to show you anything.

The "equation I countered with" is also mathematically correct. The real question is, what is the relevance of "my" equation in showing you the physical deficiencies of "your" equation?

Since you have written:

I can list those (assumptions) that are in the book.

when are you going to do this? Were you telling the truth when you wrote this?

Doing so would be a good exercise for you, since you have muddled physical reality and math.



Step on? that is not impacting your total weight then is it? Plus your scale probably cannot handle the spike, which would disappear VERY quickly.

Hmmm. I suppose that depends on the details of how I stepped on it. A better experiment would be to drop a 20 lb weight on it from 1 mm. The scale screen doesn't seem to update all that quickly - a few times per second. It's conceivable, though, that the first reading significantly averages out it's peak value with subsequent, lesser ones to arrive at the displayed reading, thus obscuring it.

If such is the case, the experiment wouldn't prove anything.

[metamars]

What did Dr. Bazant say when you pointed this out to him and asked for his response?

I've never contacted Bazant. At one point, on the physorg thread, NEU-FONZE/Apollo20 had either offered to present questions to Bazant or I had asked about this (I really can't remember which one it was.) However, NBA playoffs were in the offing, and one has to keep some things in life sacred!

By this time, both Greening and Benson, two of Bazant's authors, are aware of many of the complaints I've had of the BZ paper. Its not their responsibility to convey them, but I'm assuming that that's happened in some way, shape or form.

In any event, a full rebuttal to Bazant will require a quantitative analysis using established theory, along with some computer work (see my prior post). I have also hoped that ae911truth members would be so inclined, and I could just sit back and watch the big boys work it out, but alas, this hasn't happened, yet.

[DGM]

I've never contacted Bazant. At one point, on the physorg thread, NEU-FONZE/Apollo20 had either offered to present questions to Bazant or I had asked about this (I really can't remember which one it was.) However, NBA playoffs were in the offing, and one has to keep some things in life sacred!

By this time, both Greening and Benson, two of Bazant's authors, are aware of many of the complaints I've had of the BZ paper. Its not their responsibility to convey them, but I'm assuming that that's happened in some way, shape or form.

In any event, a full rebuttal to Bazant will require a quantitative analysis using established theory, along with some computer work (see my prior post). I have also hoped that ae911truth members would be so inclined, and I could just sit back and watch the big boys work it out, but alas, this hasn't happened, yet.
Do you really think anyone at ae911truth is qualified? No really, think about what you've seen from them so far.

[metamars]

Two billiard balls the same size and density. I hit one and it hits a stationary ball. The stationary ball then rolls away at the same speed as the one I hit.

BTW, Goldsmith solves the problem of two elastic collinear rods undergoing collision in Impact: The Theory and Physical Behaviour of Colliding Solids. Like the billiard balls, the rods exchange momentum (at least when they are of equal length).

[cmcaulif]

metamars, I think you should contact Dr. Bazant directly, I have emailed him with questions and got a response within hours.

I suspect that assumptions of rigidity would make little difference if it is only a factor of 2 we are talking about, due to dynamic snapthrough or limit point stability, similar to the maxwell construction from Seffen.

This is treated in any book on dynamic stability of structures, Bazant and Cedolin wrote one called Stability of Structures: Elastic, Inelastic, Fracture, and Damage Theories and there is a helpful section on snapthrough in Dynamic Stability of Structures by Wei-Chau Xie.

Essentially infinitesimal changes in loading can cause finite changes in deflection due to the fact that the structure will be unstable at certain points on the curve. There are load deflection diagrams in Bazant and Verdure, calculated for a story, and these were used to find a mean crushing force.

So if a non rigid body would not deliver a load greater than the snapthrough load (you can also ask Bazant what load he calculated) then you might have something.

[metamars]

metamars, I think you should contact Dr. Bazant directly, I have emailed him with questions and got a response within hours.


Maybe someday. If you feel motivated enough to do so now, and post the answer(s), feel free.




I suspect that assumptions of rigidity would make little difference if it is only a factor of 2 we are talking about, due to dynamic snapthrough or limit point stability, similar to the maxwell construction from Seffen.


I know nothing about dynamic snapthrough. I took a course dynamical systems many moons ago, so I have a hazy remembrance of stable limit cycles, but frankly don't know if this is the same as "limit point stability".

Thus, I am in no position to evaluate theory regarding same, though in order for me to have faith in it, I'd have to see some sort of experimental verification.



This is treated in any book on dynamic stability of structures, Bazant and Cedolin wrote one called Stability of Structures: Elastic, Inelastic, Fracture, and Damage Theories and there is a helpful section on snapthrough in Dynamic Stability of Structures by Wei-Chau Xie.

Essentially infinitesimal changes in loading can cause finite changes in deflection due to the fact that the structure will be unstable at certain points on the curve. There are load deflection diagrams in Bazant and Verdure, calculated for a story, and these were used to find a mean crushing force.


I actually bought this book a couple months ago or so. It's the one I referred to. I would be interested in learning more about this subject, but it it just isn't a priority right now.

I note with some amusement, though, that when I talked with my mathematician cousin last Thanksgiving, I noted that some of the papers on column buckling that I've seen involve Liapunov functions. He told me "Lyapunov functions are BS". I didn't take this as gospel truth, but note that Bazant/Cedolin covers Liapunov theorems (p. 182).

The only point of mentioning this (beside amusement) is that perhaps what my cousin meant is that Liapunov theory is not very insightful for physical systems, in his experience. However, he normally studies things like fluid flows, not collapsing steel.



So if a non rigid body would not deliver a load greater than the snapthrough load (you can also ask Bazant what load he calculated) then you might have something.


Can you summarize for us whatever experimental evidence exists for theoretical calculations of "snapthrough" load? Evidence via computer simulation that had been previously validated against real physical columns and rods would also be of interest.

[uk_dave]

However, NBA playoffs were in the offing, and one has to keep some things in life sacred!



Oh!! I love it! Absolute 'truther' - "Nevermind relatives of those I believe were killed by an 'inside job' on 9-11, the proof will have to wait, there's a game on!"

Too funny. Yet another 'truther' who doesn't really care about the events he is debating, just wants to score a few points in an online debate.

[Gravy]

I've never contacted Bazant. At one point, on the physorg thread, NEU-FONZE/Apollo20 had either offered to present questions to Bazant or I had asked about this (I really can't remember which one it was.) However, NBA playoffs were in the offing, and one has to keep some things in life sacred!I expected nothing more.

By this time, both Greening and Benson, two of Bazant's authors, are aware of many of the complaints I've had of the BZ paper. Its not their responsibility to convey them, but I'm assuming that that's happened in some way, shape or form.Since it's not their responsibility to convey your concerns, your assumption is not logical.

In any event, a full rebuttal to Bazant will require a quantitative analysis using established theory, along with some computer work (see my prior post). I was referring to your claim that Bazant cherry-picked rigidity assumptions in order to deceive. I assume you have proof of that. Where can I find it?

I have also hoped that ae911truth members would be so inclined, and I could just sit back and watch the big boys work it out, but alas, this hasn't happened, yet.That you're hoping for such a patently unlikely event, and that you think there are "big boys" in Richard Gage's group, tells me that you've never seen the ae911truth website.

[metamars]

I expected nothing more.

Since it's not their responsibility to convey your concerns, your assumption is not logical.


Oh, sure! And it's not logical, if I tell you repeatedly that your wife is cheating on you, or driving on the left-hand side of the road, or running naked in the city parks, for you to confront her, either, now is it? Benson and Greening are co-authors with Bazant, you know. Your 'logic' seems rather ad-hoc and self-serving, does it not?



I was referring to your claim that Bazant cherry-picked rigidity assumptions in order to deceive. I assume you have proof of that. Where can I find it?


You assume incorrectly. But if I ever come across documentation that says "I, Dr. Bazant, cherry picked rigidity assumptions deliberately, so as to deceive", I will be sure to post it. I find it hard to believe that it wasn't deliberate, but that is not the same as claiming I have proof of same, or even believing that it was.

I certainly suspect it, though, to the point that I have tentatively concluded it was so. Nevertheless, I could be wrong about that.

It isn't necessary for Bazant to have deliberately sought to deceive. I have read both Not Even Wrong and The Trouble with Physics, and am well aware of the capacity of very bright people, such as theoretical physicists, to deceive themselves


Also, in the area of the foundations of physics, in Speakable and Unspeakable in quantum mechanics by J. S. Bell



But in 1952 I saw the impossible done. It was in papers by David Bohm. Bohm showed explicitly how parameters could indeed be introduced, into nonrelativistic wave mechanics, with the help of which the indeterministic description could be transformed into a deterministic one. More importantly, in my opinion, the subjectivity of the orthodox version, the necessary reference to the 'observer,' could be eliminated.

Moreover, the essential idea was one that had been advanced already by de Broglie in 1927, in his 'pilot wave' picture.

But why then had Born not told me of this 'pilot wave'? If only to point out what was wrong with it? Why did von Neumann not consider it? More extraordinarily, why did people go on producing 'impossibility' proofs after 1952, and as recently as 1978? When even Pauli, Rosenfeld, and Heisenberg, could produce no more devastating criticism of Bohm's version than to brand it as 'metaphysical' and 'ideological'? Why is the pilot wave picture ignored in text books? Should it not be taught, not as the only way, but as an antidote to the prevailing complacency? To show that vagueness, subjectivity, and indeterminism, are not forced on us by experimental facts, but by deliberate theoretical choice?

(emphasis mine)

Nowhere does Bell say that the physicists who produced impossibility proofs for deterministic hidden-variable theories of qm, up to 26 years after they were shown to be wrong, intended to deliberately deceive anybody. Since I assume their proofs were mathematically sound, I can only assume that their physical assumptions were wrong.



That you're hoping for such a patently unlikely event, and that you think there are "big boys" in Richard Gage's group, tells me that you've never seen the ae911truth website.

It's interesting, isn't it, how many of your presumptions are wrong? It's also interesting how you don't care to address the the key issue I raise concerning the validity, or lack thereof, of Bazant's paper.

Apparently, I can expect nothing more.

[ref]

Still no factual errors by Mark? There's gotta be some. Let's ask the man himself. Mark, have you ever had factual errors in your 9/11 work, that you later found out being wrong and have corrected? What were they?

[Belz...]

Maybe someday. If you feel motivated enough to do so now, and post the answer(s), feel free.

"Well, I don't want to actually make any effort to know the truth, but thanks!"

[Pookster]

Oh, sure! And it's not logical, if I tell you repeatedly that your wife is cheating on you, or driving on the left-hand side of the road, or running naked in the city parks, for you to confront her, either, now is it? Benson and Greening are co-authors with Bazant, you know. Your 'logic' seems rather ad-hoc and self-serving, does it not?

Speaking of rather ad-hoc and self-serving logic, are the NBA playoffs still in the offing? Did you Tivo them or something? Just asking questions.

[Pookster]

Oh, sure! And it's not logical, if I tell you repeatedly that your wife is cheating on you, or driving on the left-hand side of the road, or running naked in the city parks, for you to confront her, either, now is it? Benson and Greening are co-authors with Bazant, you know. Your 'logic' seems rather ad-hoc and self-serving, does it not?


Also, the matter of credibility comes into play. History plays into that as well. If someone known for making wild unsubstantiated claims were to tell me my husband was running naked in the streets, well I'd probably just let that person take that up with him. I'd have more important things to do ... like watching the NBA playoffs. Just sayin'

[Lurker]

Incorrect. Ignoring rotation, and whatever other effects may fall out from a collision of two spheres vs. rods, a similar formula in this scenario would simply say that the peak force experienced by the ball that got hit by another, real ball, is only 1/2 the peak force it would have experienced if it had gotten hit by a rigid ball of the same mass, size, and speed.

Do you know the difference between a rigid body and an elastic body?



I don't have my book with me, but if you want to see the full formula, it's essentially

Fmax(elastic impactor) / Fmax(rigid impactor) = 1 / (1 + Z1/Z2).


I am using the equation to show you that BZ's approach is misleading, as is your own argument, due to assumptions of rigidity. In particular, it is misleading in a direction contrary to his conclusion and yours. I.e., the assumption of rigidity in the special case of two impacting rods "in air" results in overestimating the maximum impact force by a factor of 2. In a WTC scenario, I see absolutely no reason why a similar result would not ensue, but the exact quantitative details remain to be worked out. I wasn't claiming to have worked them out.

I don't know about Bazant's approach. I thought you were trying to assail my formula for impact. Since you are not, I will bow out as it has gone beyond my expertise but if you feel comfortable, carry on.




A-h-h-h, you would be well advised to follow your own advice.
The difference between us being that I actually studied from teh book that I took that formula from. I actually studied the very chapter and formula in class. Meanwhile, you did take your formula from a book which I doubt you took the class in. The danger being you are misapplying a formula. My point was about impact.



I have no reason to think that the equation you quote is wrong mathematically. It is not my "responsibility" to show you anything.

The "equation I countered with" is also mathematically correct. The real question is, what is the relevance of "my" equation in showing you the physical deficiencies of "your" equation?
I am not arguing whether the equation is sound, but whether it is applicable. By YOUR equation, if a body is moving at a constant velocity of 100000000 m/s or whether it is moving at 1 m/s makes no difference in the force transferred. Does that sound right to you?

No, it is clear you are applying the formula in a way not intended.


when are you going to do this? Were you telling the truth when you wrote this?
I was waiting for your big reveal on why the impact formula was wrong.


Hmmm. I suppose that depends on the details of how I stepped on it. A better experiment would be to drop a 20 lb weight on it from 1 mm. The scale screen doesn't seem to update all that quickly - a few times per second. It's conceivable, though, that the first reading significantly averages out it's peak value with subsequent, lesser ones to arrive at the displayed reading, thus obscuring it.

If such is the case, the experiment wouldn't prove anything.
Glad we have established that your scale is insufficient to the task.

[Lurker]

BTW, Goldsmith solves the problem of two elastic collinear rods undergoing collision in Impact: The Theory and Physical Behaviour of Colliding Solids. Like the billiard balls, the rods exchange momentum (at least when they are of equal length).

I am sure they do, which contradicts the equation you provided earlier. Anyway, how about the problem that actually relates to the WTC collapse where the impact is in the vertical direction where gravity needs to be considered? Surely you agree that you have two forces acting here:

1. The gravity pulling the piledriver down onto the lower section
2. The force from velocity

As you can see, both are considered in Shigley's equation.

Metamars, try this simple experiment. Hold a rather hefty book like a dictionary or college textbook. Extend your arm out all the way. Hold hte book in your extended hand. Feel the weight of it. Now, lift it an inch or so and drop it onto your extended hand. Note how your arm lowers a bit when the book impacts. Next, try again but drop the book from higher up. Note again how your arm swings even further. Your arm swings further when impacted with the book because the force has risen dramatically. This illustrates the equation I provided.

If you question it, what is your estimate of the additional force from impact versus static load and how you arrived at the estimate. Thanks!

[metamars]

Do you know the difference between a rigid body and an elastic body?



Do you know the difference between an ideal, pefectly rigid body as used in theories vs. a body which is described as "rigid" by a layman, but is actually an elastic solid? You know, like a steel column? You do know that steel behaves elastically up to a point before plastic deformation also occurs, correct?



I don't know about Bazant's approach. I thought you were trying to assail my formula for impact. Since you are not, I will bow out as it has gone beyond my expertise but if you feel comfortable, carry on.


Both Bazant and, almost certainly, your formula incorporated assumptions of rigid masses impacting steel rods or columns. Before you "bow out", you should at least follow up on your word to tell us what assumptions were used in deriving the formula you quoted.

Was the mass that impacted the rod an ideal, rigid body or wasn't it?

Was the base that the rod rested upon an ideal, rigid body or wasn't it?





The difference between us being that I actually studied from teh book that I took that formula from. I actually studied the very chapter and formula in class. Meanwhile, you did take your formula from a book which I doubt you took the class in. The danger being you are misapplying a formula. My point was about impact.


No I didn't take a class in elastic theory. Since you have taken a class, you should be able to answer my question, which you have already said you would do, regarding whether or not the impacting mass was an ideal, rigid body or not. Surely, your class experience informed you as to what that is, no? Surely you are capable of answering this simple question.


I am not arguing whether the equation is sound, but whether it is applicable. By YOUR equation, if a body is moving at a constant velocity of 100000000 m/s or whether it is moving at 1 m/s makes no difference in the force transferred.

Huh? I don't think you you understand what I've written, at all. Perhaps another JREF'er with a technical background can explain it to you, better than me. You know, somebody like Mackay or Newton's Bit.


Does that sound right to you?

No. See above.


No, it is clear you are applying the formula in a way not intended.

Really? Would Mackay and Newton's Bit agree with this? Frankly, the formula is rather simple. What is there not to understand?


I was waiting for your big reveal on why the impact formula was wrong.

I've already done so. I also asked you specific questions to help you clarify your thinking. All for nought.


Glad we have established that your scale is insufficient to the task.
I'm not aware that we have established this, although the scale is quite up to the task of showing me that I failed to follow my diet. :(

[funk de fino]

That IDEAL, RIGID just jumped out of the bushes eh?

[Lurker]

Do you know the difference between an ideal, pefectly rigid body as used in theories vs. a body which is described as "rigid" by a layman, but is actually an elastic solid? You know, like a steel column? You do know that steel behaves elastically up to a point before plastic deformation, correct?
LOL. Yes, I know all about steel. Elastic deformation, yield point, 2% offset, strain hardening region, UTS, necking, break.

I use abstractions as perfectly rigid bodies all the time. I model elastic behavior as well as hyperelastic and viscoelastic behaviors on a regular basis, and to a lesser extent I use elastic-plastic models too. I didn't mean to get you upset, I just wanted to ensure we were both on the same wavelength.


Both Bazant and, almost certainly, your formula incorporated assumptions of rigid masses impacting steel rods or columns. Before you "bow out", you should at least follow up on your word to tell us what assumptions were used in deriving the formula you quoted.

Was the mass that impacted the rod an ideal, rigid body or wasn't it?

Was the base that the rod rested upon an ideal, rigid body or wasn't it?
I thought it was obvious that it was based on elastic bodies. You did see that "k" term in there, right? For a structure that would be analagous to EI, or the material and geometric stiffness of the body.


No I didn't take a class in elastic theory. Since you have taken a class, you should be able to answer my question, which you have already said you would do, regarding whether or not the impacting mass was an ideal, rigid body or not. Surely, your class experience informed you as to what that is, no? Surely you are capable of answering this simple question.
I thought it was obvious when the "k" term was included. My mistake. Classes in elasticity are graduate level Civil Engineering classes. I sat in on a couple of lectures to see if I wanted to take the class but my schedule was already pretty full of other graduate classes so I passed on the Elasticity class.


Huh? I don't think you you understand what I've written, at all. Perhaps another JREF'er with a technical background can explain it to you, better than me. You know, somebody like Mackay or Newton's Bit.
Perhaps. I am not all that conversant with wave propogation theory so that is why I attempted to bow out of the discussion. I do think the equation you are trying to use is being misapplied though.


Really? Would Mackay and Newton's Bit agree with this? Frankly, the formula is rather simple. What is there not to understand?
Formulas, formulas, everywhere. Some are deceptively simple in appearance. But it is in understanding how and when they apply that the expertise comes in. I never claimed to be an expert in the formula you provided so can only make uninformed remarks about it. If I am wrong, that is fine. But to me, it does not seem a good model of what we are examining. You still have to explain why velocity makes no difference in your formula.


I've already done so. I also asked you specific questions to help you clarify your thinking. All for nought.
I guess I will remain in ignorance then.


I'm not aware that we have established this, although the scale is quite up to the task of showing me that I failed to follow my diet. :(
I would have thought the club hopping would keep you in better shape. ;)

[Lurker]

By the way, metamars, why are you using a formula that has the ratio of Fmax(elastic) versus Fmax(rigid)?

In the case of the WTC, wouldn't both the top and bottom be elastic bodies? Neither appears to be rigid so why are you trying to use this formula?

Just wondering...

[metamars]

I am sure they do, which contradicts the equation you provided earlier. Anyway, how about the problem that actually relates to the WTC collapse where the impact is in the vertical direction where gravity needs to be considered? Surely you agree that you have two forces acting here:

1. The gravity pulling the piledriver down onto the lower section
2. The force from velocity

As you can see, both are considered in Shigley's equation.



I haven't correctly solved the problem for mass in a gravitational field, nor found the solution. I have found a couple of analytic solutions for a rigid mass hitting an elastic rod, resting on a rigid base, but not in a gravitational field.* Also, the Gul, et. al. paper has a solution, with numerical algorithm, for solving elastic/plastic equation(s), for slender columns, impacted by a rigid mass, and with a gravitational field.


Of course a solution with gravity is desired. That doesn't mean that if you find a solution to a similar problem, yes even one involving gravity in your very own textbook, that it is the correct one. In particular, I have indicated to you why it cannot be the correct or final solution, and in what direction it is wrong or inaccurate.


It's quite possible that, even assuming a reasonable amount of deviation from plumb in the topmost impacted columns, if you solve the problem numerically, you will not even surpass the elastic limit for all of the column segments except the topmost one, and that this one will only get insignificantly bent. Or even, possibly, not plastically, additionally bent, at all.

It's also possible that the topmost column will get bent to the point of failure, but that remains to be seen. Perhaps if would have been seen, by now, had Bazant and Zhou not published their mistaken paper.



* Using rough numbers for a WTC scenario, I came with with something like a maximum compression of .003. If we assume that the real figure would have been about half of this, had the calculation been done with non-rigid impacting masses, then we will not exceed the elastic limit of .002. I.e., Bazant Zhou's conclusion would be reversed.

[metamars]

LOL. Yes, I know all about steel. Elastic deformation, yield point, 2% offset, strain hardening region, UTS, necking, break.


Then you know more about this stuff, in general, than I do!



I thought it was obvious that it was based on elastic bodies. You did see that "k" term in there, right? For a structure that would be analagous to EI, or the material and geometric stiffness of the body.


I thought it was obvious when the "k" term was included. My mistake. Classes in elasticity are graduate level Civil Engineering classes.


So does the "k" in:

F = W +W[1+(2hk)/W]^0.5

refer to the rod, only, or both the rod and the impacting mass that hit the rod? If the impacting mass that hit the rod was an ideal, rigid mass, then either it doesn't have a k or it's k-> infinity.

[Lurker]

Of course a solution with gravity is desired. That doesn't mean that if you find a solution to a similar problem, yes even one involving gravity in your very own textbook, that it is the correct one. In particular, I have indicated to you why it cannot be the correct or final solution, and in what direction it is wrong or inaccurate.

I apologize. Can you reiterate why you think Shigley's formula is incorrectly applied ro incorrect?

[Lurker]

So does the "k" in:

F = W +W[1+(2hk)/W]^0.5

refer to the rod, only, or both the rod and the impacting mass that hit the rod? If the impacting mass that hit the rod was an ideal, rigid mass, then either it doesn't have a k or it's k-> infinity.

Good point. The "k" refers to the impacted body. I'll have to think on the implications of the W portion being elastic vs rigid and what difference, if any, it makes on the the equivalent static force of impact.

[Lurker]

Metamars:

Have you tried the simple book drop experiment I outlined yet? Clearly as h rises the force on your arm rises when you try and catch it. I think that illustrates the problem pretty well. You may disagree with the amount of increase in force but Shigley specifically states that if h=0 then F = 2W.

[Dave Rogers]

Good point. The "k" refers to the impacted body. I'll have to think on the implications of the W portion being elastic vs rigid and what difference, if any, it makes on the the equivalent static force of impact.

It shouldn't have any effect at all. The spring comprising the upper mass is compressed by the same force as the one compressing the lower mass, so in the case of a zero distance drop both will compress together to twice the equilibrium compression, at which the loading will be twice the static loading.

Dave

[cmcaulif]

Maybe someday. If you feel motivated enough to do so now, and post the answer(s), feel free.

I'm not sure why you wouldn't, he is quite helpful.

I know nothing about dynamic snapthrough. I took a course dynamical systems many moons ago, so I have a hazy remembrance of stable limit cycles, but frankly don't know if this is the same as "limit point stability".

Well, If you have Bazant and Cedolin, it is right there in section 4.4. 4.8, on snapdown is also interesting and helpful when you get the time.

Limit point stability is merely another name for snapthrough because the structure will be stable up to some limit, at which an infinitesimal amount of load will cause the structure to be unstable, and thus snapthrough.

Thus, I am in no position to evaluate theory regarding same, though in order for me to have faith in it, I'd have to see some sort of experimental verification.

Just fiddle with a light switch, pg 236:

"Other examples of snapthrough instability are found in various switches (e.g,) the standard wall switch for electric lights).";)

The classic example for snapthrough seems to be the flat arch, and for experimentation, Bazant cites Roorda, J. (1965), "stability of Structures with small Imperfections," J. Eng. Mech. (ASCE), 91(1):87-106

I note with some amusement, though, that when I talked with my mathematician cousin last Thanksgiving, I noted that some of the papers on column buckling that I've seen involve Liapunov functions. He told me "Lyapunov functions are BS". I didn't take this as gospel truth, but note that Bazant/Cedolin covers Liapunov theorems (p. 182).

The only point of mentioning this (beside amusement) is that perhaps what my cousin meant is that Liapunov theory is not very insightful for physical systems, in his experience. However, he normally studies things like fluid flows, not collapsing steel.

Its a book on theory, not on code, or practice. There are equations in fluid mechanics that have very limited physical usefulness as well, though I wouldn't say BS.


Can you summarize for us whatever experimental evidence exists for theoretical calculations of "snapthrough" load? Evidence via computer simulation that had been previously validated against real physical columns and rods would also be of interest.

I am still trying to fully wrap my head around some of the theory, but Roorda is cited quite frequently. I have to return my copy of Bazant and Cedolin(interlibrary loan) and I'll see if I can get a copy of the Roorda paper at that time.

[Lurker]

"Other examples of snapthrough instability are found in various switches (e.g,) the standard wall switch for electric lights).";)

The classic example for snapthrough seems to be the flat arch, and for experimentation, Bazant cites Roorda, J. (1965), "stability of Structures with small Imperfections," J. Eng. Mech. (ASCE), 91(1):87-106

I have worked on some snap through problems myself in the past. Under keys on a keyboard there can be metal snap domes - essentially an arc dome such that a certain amount of force is required before the dome snaps through to the other side and thus completing the circuit and registering a keystroke. The force deflection graph of this would initially have a positive slope but once that force was achieved would rapidly change to a negative slope (or derivative if you would rather).

[Disbelief]

Oh, sure! And it's not logical, if I tell you repeatedly that your wife is cheating on you, or driving on the left-hand side of the road, or running naked in the city parks, for you to confront her, either, now is it? Benson and Greening are co-authors with Bazant, you know. Your 'logic' seems rather ad-hoc and self-serving, does it not?

You assume incorrectly. But if I ever come across documentation that says "I, Dr. Bazant, cherry picked rigidity assumptions deliberately, so as to deceive", I will be sure to post it. I find it hard to believe that it wasn't deliberate, but that is not the same as claiming I have proof of same, or even believing that it was.

I certainly suspect it, though, to the point that I have tentatively concluded it was so. Nevertheless, I could be wrong about that.

It isn't necessary for Bazant to have deliberately sought to deceive. I have read both Not Even Wrong and The Trouble with Physics, and am well aware of the capacity of very bright people, such as theoretical physicists, to deceive themselves

Also, in the area of the foundations of physics, in Speakable and Unspeakable in quantum mechanics by J. S. Bell

(emphasis mine)

Nowhere does Bell say that the physicists who produced impossibility proofs for deterministic hidden-variable theories of qm, up to 26 years after they were shown to be wrong, intended to deliberately deceive anybody. Since I assume their proofs were mathematically sound, I can only assume that their physical assumptions were wrong.

It's interesting, isn't it, how many of your presumptions are wrong? It's also interesting how you don't care to address the the key issue I raise concerning the validity, or lack thereof, of Bazant's paper.

Apparently, I can expect nothing more.

Let me see if I follow your logic here. You say you have tentatively concluded that Bazant has deceived, while alos noting that Dr. Greening is a co-author. Therefore, Dr. Greening would have to be in on the deception since he would have done a review of the work. Have you witnessed Dr. Greening's postings here and the nitpicking he does with people? Do you think he would allow the same of a fellow scientist, especially if his name would be linked to it? Why not ask him yourself?

[Swing Dangler]

From Mark's Paper:

In his March, 2006 presentation “9/11 - A Closer Look,” Ryan misrepresents Silverstein’s statement “And I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
Kevin Ryan, March, 2006

What could be Ryan’s reason for omitting “We’ve had such terrible loss of life,” which was the basis for Silverstein’s statement? We shall see.
Months later, in a presentation remarkably subtitled “A New Standard of Deception,” Ryan makes a serious error of commission and says, "Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder for all three buildings, essentially admitted to demolishing the building." Meanwhile, this slide appears on screen, to include Silverstein ("and I") as a decision-maker:
Kevin Ryan, May, 2006

Ryan changed “They” to “He,” and then to “We.” He is blatantly lying to try to support his claim.


---First error is a spelling error. I don’t think Mark meant to say Ryan makes a serious error of “commission” but this is the factual error thread.

Now lets examine Mark’s other statement: in light of the facts -“Ryan changed “They” to “He,” and then to “We.” He is blatantly lying to try to support his claim. “

Here is the public release statement provided by the State Dept's site posts a statement released by Silverstein Properties spokesperson, Mr. Dara McQuillan, on Sept. 9, 2005 that says the following:

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.
Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001."

In Kevin Ryan's slide presentation, the change from “he” to “we” simply reflects the updated information as released to the public by Silverstein’s own office via the State Department.
But in the deceptive world of Mark Roberts, this is Kevin Ryan lying to support a claim.

No, Mark, Kevin updated his slide because of new information. “We” refers to Mr. Silverstein and the Fire Chief. It is too bad Mark doesn’t do the same with his unfounded assertions and character attacks of Kevin Ryan.

Mark will you do the honorable thing and retract your unfounded accusation and update your research?

[RedIbis]

There's also the sticky issue that "pull it" is unlikely to refer to the firefighting operation since there were no firefighters in WTC 7 since 11:30am.

[GStan]

---First error is a spelling error. I don’t think Mark meant to say Ryan makes a serious error of “commission” but this is the factual error thread.

Now lets examine Mark’s other statement: in light of the facts -

Here is the public release statement provided by the State Dept's site posts a statement released by Silverstein Properties spokesperson, Mr. Dara McQuillan, on Sept. 9, 2005 that says the following:

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.
Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001."

In Kevin Ryan's slide presentation, the change from “he” to “we” simply reflects the updated information as released to the public by Silverstein’s own office via the State Department.
But in the deceptive world of Mark Roberts, this is Kevin Ryan lying to support a claim.

No, Mark, Kevin updated his slide because of new information. “We” refers to Mr. Silverstein and the Fire Chief. It is too bad Mark doesn’t do the same with his unfounded assertions and character attacks of Kevin Ryan.

Mark will you do the honorable thing and retract your unfounded accusation and update your research?

Yes, Mark, please just rectract it and spare us the 5 to 10 pages of pointless semantic arguments over the differences between a fact and an opinion.

Swing, what are you doing? Mark's assertion about Ryan lying is clearly his opinion of his motives for the change, not a presentation of fact. Even if one could prove that that was not the reason for the text change, it would still not represent a factual error, just that his opinion was incorrect. As a truther, I assume the difference between fact and opinion will not matter to you.

Page 18
Factual Errors = 0
Accusations of Factual Errors that, if true, would even matter to any theory or interpretation of the events of 9/11 = 0

[Lopakhin]

There's also the sticky issue that "pull it" is unlikely to refer to the firefighting operation since there were no firefighters in WTC 7 since 11:30am.

But there were some in the area of WTC7, trying to put the fires out. There had to be, remember, to hear the countdown to the demolition which broadcaster Amy Goodman also heard and covered up, since she's in on the plot.

[Dave Rogers]

---First error is a spelling error. I don’t think Mark meant to say Ryan makes a serious error of “commission” but this is the factual error thread.

What is the spelling mistake here? "Error of commission" is a perfectly acceptable term, the antithesis of "error of omission", i.e. Ryan has done something erroneous rather than failed to do something correct. Google it.

For the remainder, I assume you're arguing that the decision to pull the firefighters was a joint one between Silverstein and the Fire Department Commander.

"[...] Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.
Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed."

Silverstein expressed a view. The Fire Commander gave the order later, having heard Silverstein's views. That clearly shows that it was not a joint decision, but a decision by the Fire Commander prior to which he listened to Silverstein's opinions. As usual, your own quote refutes your argument.

Dave

[Belz...]

There's also the sticky issue that "pull it" is unlikely to refer to the firefighting operation since there were no firefighters in WTC 7 since 11:30am.

So the firefighters aren't in on it, after all ?

[RedIbis]

So the firefighters aren't in on it, after all ?

One of the more distasteful strategies of the debunker crowd is to suggest that such scrutiny of the bldg collapses encompasses firefighters being "in on it."

If you can't quote me making such an absurd claim, please keep that rule 8 away from me.

Thank you.

[tomwaits]

I tried asking you before if you thought firefighters were in on it or not, and you refused to answer. This suggests that you do, in fact, think it. However, you can easily change this notion yourself.

[16.5]

One of the more distasteful strategies of the debunker crowd is to suggest that such scrutiny of the bldg collapses encompasses firefighters being "in on it."

If you can't quote me making such an absurd claim, please keep that rule 8 away from me.

Thank you.

Well, you are certainly welcome. But perhaps you can see the source of our confusion. You see, around here 2 (Silverstein) + 2 (FDNY Fire Commander) + 2 ("pull it") equals 6 (accusations of FDNY involvement in the CD of WTC 7).

Sorry for drawing that connection. I am certain when you raise the "Pull it" comment you are totally talking about something different. Totally, I mean, you would not want to have people draw that conclusion, now would you?

[Swing Dangler]

One of the more distasteful strategies of the debunker crowd is to suggest that such scrutiny of the bldg collapses encompasses firefighters being "in on it."

If you can't quote me making such an absurd claim, please keep that rule 8 away from me.

Thank you.

Not only that Red, if "pull" in this context was meant to mean "demolish" then the firefighters only made the 'decision' when someone else could have had the building rigged.

Here is an example of a firefighters who stopped fighting the fires and then after discussing with a building contractor and then decided to demolish the building albeit without explosives while it was still smoldering.
In this case, the firefighters consulted with the buildings owner before deciding on the fate of the building. Demolition Crews Summoned To Battle Fire Near Tunnel (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9903E3DE143BF937A15750C0A9649C8B 63&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/F/Fires%20and%20Firefighters)
It was decided to demolish the entire building, Mr. Cruz said, after discussions with a building contractor...Jose Cruz, deputy director of the Fire Department.

[MikeW]

There's also the sticky issue that "pull it" is unlikely to refer to the firefighting operation since there were no firefighters in WTC 7 since 11:30am.

That was the verdict of FEMA. NIST spent rather longer on this, though, and they said otherwise:

One Battalion Chief coming from the building indicated that they had searched floors 1 through 9 and found that the building was clear.390 In the process of the search, the Battalion Chief met the building’s Fire Safety Director and Deputy Fire Safety Director on the ninth floor. The Fire Safety Director reported that the building’s floors had been cleared from the top down. By this time, the Chief Officer responsible for WTC 7 reassessed the building again and determined that fires were burning on the following floors: 6, 7, 8, 17, 21, and 30.391 No accurate time is available for these actions during the WTC 7 operations; however, the sequence of event indicates that it occurred during a time period from 12:30 p.m. to approximately 2:00 p.m...

At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacuate the site around the building. 395, 396 The order terminated the ongoing rescue operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed.

The Emergency Response Operations
Page 111
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-81.pdf

[Lopakhin]

One of the more distasteful strategies of the debunker crowd is to suggest that such scrutiny of the bldg collapses encompasses firefighters being "in on it."

If you can't quote me making such an absurd claim, please keep that rule 8 away from me.

Thank you.


Not only that Red, if "pull" in this context was meant to mean "demolish" then the firefighters only made the 'decision' when someone else could have had the building rigged.

Here is an example of a firefighters who stopped fighting the fires and then decided to demolish the building albeit without explosives while it was still smoldering.

So Red Ibis, Swingdangler is wrong and absurd to suggest that the firefighters were in on it?

[Belz...]

One of the more distasteful strategies of the debunker crowd is to suggest that such scrutiny of the bldg collapses encompasses firefighters being "in on it."

If you can't quote me making such an absurd claim, please keep that rule 8 away from me.

Thank you.

Fair enough, but let's make it very clear, shall we ?

Do you think that the firefighters are "in on" this conspiracy ?

If not, how do you reconcile this with the "pull it" argument ? Specifically, why would Silverstein tell the firefighter chief to "pull it" if he wasn't in on it ?

[DavidJames]

One of the more distasteful strategies of the debunker crowd is to suggest that such scrutiny of the bldg collapses encompasses firefighters being "in on it.".You want to have it both ways. You want the US government to be guilty of mass murder but you don't want to soil your pretty reputation by actually accusing anyone.

This is mass murder skippy, lots of blood and death. How about you grow a pair and tell us what happened. Maybe actually say something of substance instead of sniping and trying to play gotcha. This is serious, stop acting like this is a game.

As I expect you will attempt to turn this back around, I support the conclusions published by NIST. So please act like a grown up and tell everyone what you think happened and support it with evidence.

Thanks.

[tomwaits]

Fair enough, but let's make it very clear, shall we ?

Do you think that the firefighters are "in on" this conspiracy ?

Don't waste your energy, he won't answer. He knows how to play the game: never say anything concrete because he knows that that way he can always change his position or use completely different arguments with the (mistaken) hope of never contradicting himself. He can always claim "i never said that!" even when it's clear that's what he's implying.

[GStan]

Not only that Red, if "pull" in this context was meant to mean "demolish" then the firefighters only made the 'decision' when someone else could have had the building rigged.

Here is an example of a firefighters who stopped fighting the fires and then after discussing with a building contractor and then decided to demolish the building albeit without explosives while it was still smoldering.
In this case, the firefighters consulted with the buildings owner before deciding on the fate of the building. Demolition Crews Summoned To Battle Fire Near Tunnel (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9903E3DE143BF937A15750C0A9649C8B 63&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/F/Fires%20and%20Firefighters)
It was decided to demolish the entire building, Mr. Cruz said, after discussions with a building contractor...Jose Cruz, deputy director of the Fire Department.

What is the point of this? You have just weakened your own argument. You are providing evidence that there is precedent for firefighters to have openly demolished WTC7 to protect their men. Yet despite this precedent, the firefighters engaged in a conspiracy to cover up something that they had no reason to cover up. And none of the conspirators has given up the secret, a secret that there was no reason to create and maintain in the first place.

Do you have an explanation for why the news story you quoted is relevant to any theories you may hold about 9/11, or why it is relevant to this thread topic?

[Swing Dangler]

Fair enough, but let's make it very clear, shall we ?

Do you think that the firefighters are "in on" this conspiracy ?

If not, how do you reconcile this with the "pull it" argument ? Specifically, why would Silverstein tell the firefighter chief to "pull it" if he wasn't in on it ?

One, we are only getting 1/2 of the conversation.
I linked below to an article about the decision to demolish a building while it was on fire due to the structurally unsound nature of the building. The fire official did not want to risk the lives of the firefighters any longer.

So Red Ibis, Swingdangler is wrong and absurd to suggest that the firefighters were in on it?
The story I linked to had firefighters in on "it". That is the decision to demolish a building. It would only be "wrong" if lives were lost in the decision to demolish a building because it was structurally unsound. Your trying to equate a moral decision "right or wrong" in the context of demolishing a building due to structural instability. That is wrong ;) and unnecessary.

[johnny karate]

Actually, what is trying to be established is how you feel the example of firefighters demolishing a burning building relates to WTC7. You seem to be implying that they did indeed demolish WTC7, thereby making them accomplices after the fact.

If not, then why bother offering that example?

Edit: Also, it should be noted that many firefighters on the scene gave testimony that not only was WTC7 heavily damaged (a claim many CTers deny), but that it was in imminent danger of collapse. These testimonies can be found here (http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html).

So, if WTC7 was a controlled demolition, then how can this be reconciled with a lack of involvement from the FDNY, based on the testimony linked above?

[JimBenArm]

Your trying to equate a moral decision "right or wrong" in the context of demolishing a building due to structural instability. That is wrong ;) and unnecessary.
Speaking of wrong and unnecessary, if this was the case, why are they denying it again? Why not come right out and say "we demolished the building because it was in danger of collapse."?

Not that you have an answer that makes a lick of sense. Just like to point out how utterly absurd this argument is.

[Swing Dangler]

What is the point of this? You have just weakened your own argument. You are providing evidence that there is precedent for firefighters to have openly demolished WTC7 to protect their men. Yet despite this precedent, the firefighters engaged in a conspiracy to cover up something that they had no reason to cover up. And none of the conspirators has given up the secret, a secret that there was no reason to create and maintain in the first place.

Do you have an explanation for why the news story you quoted is relevant to any theories you may hold about 9/11, or why it is relevant to this thread topic?

1. Debunkers state that CT'ers believe firefighters are in on it because of the decision to "pull it" and well....that is just absurd....your an evil bastard for thinking such things, they are heroes, etc, blah blah.

2. I just showed in fact that firefighters would be expected to be in on a decision to demolish a building while it was on fire due to structurally unsound nature of the building and the safety of the firefighters.

3. If this holds true to WTC 7 and CD, these issue need to be addressed for the CT crowd:

a. Who rigged the building in the first place?

b. When was the building rigged?

c. Why was it rigged?

Assuming it is CD, we know the fire chief consulted with the building owner just like the example below that I linked to. We don't know if either of the men consulted with a contractor or structural engineer as in the case I listed.

I could argue that with regards to the "decision to pull" there isn't a conspiracy at all as I pointed to an example showing just that for safety reasons. The method of demolition of course is the issue.

I don't necessarily agree with the likes of Alex Jones who states the "firefighters" were in on it.

[Swing Dangler]

Speaking of wrong and unnecessary, if this was the case, why are they denying it again? Why not come right out and say "we demolished the building because it was in danger of collapse."?

Not that you have an answer that makes a lick of sense. Just like to point out how utterly absurd this argument is.

The fire chief made a decision. Someone else could have performed the act. In the case I pointed to, one of the issues was
...The warehouse's owner, Mecca & Sons Trucking, called in a wrecking company, but the work was delayed because an insurance adjuster had not signed off on the demolition, the fire officials said. Late in the afternoon, the Fire Department gave the wrecking company, Nacirema Environmental Services Group, an ultimatum: Begin dismantling the two brick walls or city crews would be called in to do the work instead.

So perhaps the non-admission has something to do with the Larry's lawsuit, insurance, the need for someone else to sign off on it.

[GStan]

1. Debunkers state that CT'ers believe firefighters are in on it because of the decision to "pull it" and well....that is just absurd....your an evil bastard for thinking such things, they are heroes, etc, blah blah.

I've not seen any conspiracy scenarios that include a WTC7 CD that did not require some degree of firefighters being 'in on it' or at the very least, not speaking out about those who were in on it. When firefighter involvement is removed as an assumption, every WTC7 CD theory crumbles to pieces. I would like to hear one that doesn't.

2. I just showed in fact that firefighters would be expected to be in on a decision to demolish a building while it was on fire due to structurally unsound nature of the building and the safety of the firefighters.

Yes. And you've shown why conspiring to hide such a demolition would be stupid and unnecessary.

3. If this holds true to WTC 7 and CD, these issue need to be addressed for the CT crowd:

a. Who rigged the building in the first place?

b. When was the building rigged?

c. Why was it rigged?

Given the underwhelming evidence of 'rigging' there is no point in addressing a, b or c.

Assuming it is CD, we know the fire chief consulted with the building owner just like the example below that I linked to. We don't know if either men consulted with a contractor or structural engineer as in the case I listed.

I could argue that with regards to the "decision to pull" there isn't a conspiracy at all as I pointed to an example showing just that for safety reasons. The method of demolition of course is the issue.

I don't necessarily agree with the likes of Alex Jones who states the "firefighters" were in on it.

my bolding
Its not too late to get out altogether Swing. Grab your critical thinking cap and come on over to the dark side. Trust me, its way more fun to win virtually all the time.;)

[johnny karate]

I suppose one could could speculate about what the fire chief might have done, or simply go to the source (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94103).

Swing, Fire Chief Nigro clearly contradicts your speculative claims of what might have transpired that day at WTC7. Your thoughts?

[Swing Dangler]

I suppose one could could speculate about what the fire chief might have done, or simply go to the source (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94103).

Swing, Fire Chief Nigro clealry contradicts your speculative claims of what might have transpired that day at WTC7. Your thoughts?

I would have to bring into question his entire statement...

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.
Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.
Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

Yet Larry Silverstein and his later released public statement states that Larry was consulted.
In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001."

So tell me...who is wrong and who is right? Who is lying and who is not?

[JimBenArm]

That's easy. You're wrong.

Try something harder next time, 'kay?

BTW, told you you couldn't answer with anything that made sense. Right, again. Yay, me!TM

[Swing Dangler]

That's easy. You're wrong.

Try something harder next time, 'kay?

BTW, told you you couldn't answer with anything that made sense. Right, again. Yay, me!TM

You wouldn't be captain of your local DODGE ball team would you?:big:

[uk_dave]

It depends on whether chief Nigro believed he was consulting the building owner or merely informing him of the situation.

That Silverstein expressed the view that the safety of the firefighters was paramount and the building was secondary doesn't in any way mean that had he said the opposite, chief Nigro would have changed his decision on the day.

You really do have problems with comprehension, don't you swingy?

[JimBenArm]

You wouldn't be captain of your local DODGE ball team would you?:big:
You know, jokes are funnier when they actually make sense.

Pointing out how you didn't make any sense isn't a dodge. Refusing to answer, or changing the subject is a dodge.

That's just showing your lack of intellect and inability to do humor.

Please, try again. This time using your brain.

[Swing Dangler]

It depends on whether chief Nigro believed he was consulting the building owner or merely informing him of the situation. That Silverstein expressed the view that the safety of the firefighters was paramount and the building was secondary doesn't in any way mean that had he said the opposite, chief Nigro would have changed his decision on the day. You really do have problems with comprehension, don't you swingy?

Reading comprehension?? LOL. I will define "consult" for you:
1. to seek advice or information from; ask guidance from
2. to refer to for information
3. to have regard for (a person's interest, convenience, etc.) in making plans
4. to give professional or expert advice; serve as consultant
5. To take into account; consider
6. To exchange views; confer

Who is wrong Dave? Larry Silverstein on two occasions or Chief Nigro in a letter to a tour guide?

It is very clear from Larry's statements that Chief Nigro did consult with Larry on his building. Why the Chief would state otherwise is of course speculation.
But you can't have both, Dave.

[Swing Dangler]

You know, jokes are funnier when they actually make sense.

Pointing out how you didn't make any sense isn't a dodge. Refusing to answer, or changing the subject is a dodge.

That's just showing your lack of intellect and inability to do humor.

Please, try again. This time using your brain.

Sorry Jimben, but I'm not the one using contradictory statements to prove a point. You are.

[JimBenArm]

Sorry Jimben, but I'm not the one using contradictory statements to prove a point. You are.
Let's see, first you say I'm dodging. Now I'm being contradictory?
Man, life is easy when you can redefine terms to mean whatever you want, isn't it?
Maybe you should invest in a dictionary so you can actually find out what these terms mean.
Meanwhile, yet again, Yay, me!TM

[SDC]

Reading comprehension?? LOL. I will define "consult" for you:
1. to seek advice or information from; ask guidance from
2. to refer to for information
3. to have regard for (a person's interest, convenience, etc.) in making plans
4. to give professional or expert advice; serve as consultant
5. To take into account; consider
6. To exchange views; confer

Who is wrong Dave? Larry Silverstein on two occasions or Chief Nigro in a letter to a tour guide?

It is very clear from Larry's statements that Chief Nigro did consult with Larry on his building. Why the Chief would state otherwise is of course speculation.
But you can't have both, Dave.

I'm not certain, but didn't Chief Nigro speak with Ref, not Gravy? Not that the "tour guide" comment is anything but a red ib... uh, herring.

You are suggesting that "consult" means really that Nigro had to take Silverstein's direction in some way. This is the bunk. Dave is right.

Actually, your whole effort is one big attempt to squeeze blood out of turnips -- by which I mean that you are parsing every little word and phrase, in isolation, to try to turn the meaning in a direction you favor. Do you think you are making any converts? I don't.

[johnny karate]

Without getting into a debate over semantics regarding how "consulting" and "expressing an opinion" are different, what does any of this have to do with Nigro's explanation of what happened?

He clearly states that WTC7 collapsed because of damage and fire.

Nowhere does he state or imply that he, or anyone else in the FDNY, had a hand in demolishing WTC7, as you have been implying they might have.

Your attempt to derail the discussion based on semantic debate over who actually issued the order is lame, transparent, and completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

WTC7 collapsed due to damage and fire. The Fire Chief who was on the scene corroborates this fact. So, either he's wrong or you are.

Which is it?

[16.5]

Swing:

You are really bad at this aren't you? You intentionally bold a clause, and ignore the key to understanding what you are being told. Posts like your's are the reason why the Twooth Movement is where it is today.

Here, let me bold the key to understanding the word "consult":

“For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone.”

You see, Swing? He made the decision. So, try to stop parsing out words, you are really, really bad at it.

[Belz...]

One, we are only getting 1/2 of the conversation.
I linked below to an article about the decision to demolish a building while it was on fire due to the structurally unsound nature of the building. The fire official did not want to risk the lives of the firefighters any longer.

If it was structurally unsound, why would anyone need to demolish it secretly ?

Say, why don't YOU answer my questions:

Do you think that the firefighters are "in on" this conspiracy ?

If not, how do you reconcile this with the "pull it" argument ? Specifically, why would Silverstein tell the firefighter chief to "pull it" if he wasn't in on it ?

[uk_dave]

Reading comprehension?? LOL. I will define "consult" for you:
1. to seek advice or information from; ask guidance from
2. to refer to for information
3. to have regard for (a person's interest, convenience, etc.) in making plans
4. to give professional or expert advice; serve as consultant
5. To take into account; consider
6. To exchange views; confer

Who is wrong Dave? Larry Silverstein on two occasions or Chief Nigro in a letter to a tour guide?

It is very clear from Larry's statements that Chief Nigro did consult with Larry on his building. Why the Chief would state otherwise is of course speculation.
But you can't have both, Dave.

WTF?

Chief Nigro says he didn't consult with Silverstein and Silverstein says he expressed a view with regard to the need to preserve life over the need to preserve the building. NO ONE says Nigro consulted Silverstein.

Someone here has lost the plot, and it aint me.

[RedIbis]

That was the verdict of FEMA. NIST spent rather longer on this, though, and they said otherwise:

Ok, so NIST puts the latest of any firefighter activity in the building, three hours before collapse.

So to backtrack, what was Silverstein talking about then?

[DGM]

Ok, so NIST puts the latest of any firefighter activity in the building, three hours before collapse.

So to backtrack, what was Silverstein talking about then?
I always took it as Silverstein just agreeing with the FDNY. Sort of like giving his blessing to a decision that's already been made.

[RedIbis]

I always took it as Silverstein just agreeing with the FDNY. Sort of like giving his blessing to a decision that's already been made.

Why would they need Silverstein's blessing to pull the firefighters at 5pm when they had already pulled the operations three hours earlier?

[GStan]

Why would they need Silverstein's blessing to pull the firefighters at 5pm when they had already pulled the operations three hours earlier?

They didn't need it. They got it. But they certainly didn't need it.

[DGM]

Why would they need Silverstein's blessing to pull the firefighters at 5pm when they had already pulled the operations three hours earlier?
They didn't.
Have you ever looked for reassurance the what you did was the right thing. The FDNY decided to abandon all hope of saving WTC7 maybe they just wanted to hear the owner say it's OK. These are real people you know.

[johnny karate]

RedIbis, would you care to address the issue of firefighter testimony (specifically Fire Chief Nigro) that directly contradicts the claim of WTC7 being a controlled demolition?

Or are you more content to quibble over insignificant details, as your compatriot Swing Dangler seems to be?

[16.5]

Why would they need Silverstein's blessing to pull the firefighters at 5pm when they had already pulled the operations three hours earlier?

Well they would not, for two reasons: 1. they did not need his blessing: 2. there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that they talked to Silverstein at 5:00.

Where did you get that time?

[beachnut]

Why would they need Silverstein's blessing to pull the firefighters at 5pm when they had already pulled the operations three hours earlier?
Remind me what this mean in respect to the OP and 9/11 in general? Forget it, I just figured out that "pull it" is a classic pit fall for the so called "truth movement". I see any one in 9/11 truth who uses this as a "smoking gun" or that it has anything to do with 9/11 conspiracies, as ignorant on 9/11 and not able to comprehend reality or make rational decisions or conclusions on 9/11 topic.

Trying to figure out when and how a statement made well after 9/11 fits with made up lies about 9/11 is cute when people argue fruitlessly on the 9/11 truth side to come up with some clue. Real dumb stuff comes from 9/11 truth; some is interesting to discuss, some is useful to expose those too challenged to understand 9/11.

If you have no clue on this topic, please take time to think about perceptions after events, and how you are now trying to do nothing to help understand that day. Problem solution choice time has passed, you seem to be on the wrong train and I have missed mine.

[Gravy]

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/RyanFraud1.jpg


*******

Error of Commission. Deliberately altering 2002 quote to implicate Silverstein.

See my note above: "In the May presentation, while this graphic is on screen, Ryan says, 'Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder for all three buildings, essentially admitted to demolishing the building.' "

That's a lie. That's slander. That's fraud.

Goddamned cowardly creeps.

[16.5]

WOW! I did not bother looking at Gravy's article, but compare the article to what Swing said:

"In Kevin Ryan's slide presentation, the change from “he” to “we” simply reflects the updated information as released to the public by Silverstein’s own office via the State Department. But in the deceptive world of Mark Roberts, this is Kevin Ryan lying to support a claim."

What Ryan did was indefensible, and Swing's defense of that deliberate misquote is likewise.

Pathetic Swing.

[pomeroo]

WOW! I did not bother looking at Gravy's article, but compare the article to what Swing said:

"In Kevin Ryan's slide presentation, the change from “he” to “we” simply reflects the updated information as released to the public by Silverstein’s own office via the State Department. But in the deceptive world of Mark Roberts, this is Kevin Ryan lying to support a claim."

What Ryan did was indefensible, and Swing's defense of that deliberate misquote is likewise.

Pathetic Swing.


Of course, the conspiracy liars could preserve some of their dignity (yeah, I get it) by producing ONE person in the demolition industry who has heard the phrase "pull it" used to mean "blow up the building."

C'mon, clowns. Do what I did. Start calling demolition companies. It's easy.

[GStan]

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/RyanFraud1.jpg


*******

Error of Commission. Deliberately altering 2002 quote to implicate Silverstein.

See my note above: "In the May presentation, while this graphic is on screen, Ryan says, 'Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder for all three buildings, essentially admitted to demolishing the building.' "

That's a lie. That's slander. That's fraud.

Goddamned cowardly creeps.


I dare say that is rather damning to Swing's factual error assertion. For those still keeping score:

Thread page = 19
Factual errors still = 0
Assertions of factual errors that would actually be relevant and meaningful if they were actually errors still = 0

[A W Smith]

I dare say that is rather damning to Swing's factual error assertion. For those still keeping score:

Thread page = 19
Factual errors still = 0
Assertions of factual errors that would actually be relevant and meaningful if they were actually errors still = 0

Yaknow straw dangler mentions somewhere on his blog or a link off of it that he spends all his time on debunking sites trying to debunk debunkers, and none on troofer message boards.
:dl:
And every single point he tries to make. he fails.

[Corsair 115]

3. If this holds true to WTC 7 and CD, these issue need to be addressed for the CT crowd:

a. Who rigged the building in the first place?

b. When was the building rigged?

c. Why was it rigged?You left out a very important question:

d. Why did the explosives, powerful enough to bring down the building, make no loud and distinctive booms typical of powerful explosives going off?

[LashL]

I would have to bring into question his entire statement...


Yet Larry Silverstein and his later released public statement states that Larry was consulted.


So tell me...who is wrong and who is right? Who is lying and who is not?


Why do you assume that either of them is lying? Why do you assume that Mr. Silverstein spoke to Mr. Nigro?

Mr. Silverstein says that he spoke to a fire commander, but that doesn't mean that it was Chief Nigro. He may have spoken to any one of several fire commanders - i.e., an operations commander, an incident commander, a battalion commander, etc.

Perhaps you should look into that rather than just assuming that Mr. Silverstein spoke to Mr. Nigro, and before alleging - without a scintilla of evidence - that one of them must be lying.

[LashL]

Who is wrong Dave? Larry Silverstein on two occasions or Chief Nigro in a letter to a tour guide?

It is very clear from Larry's statements that Chief Nigro did consult with Larry on his building. Why the Chief would state otherwise is of course speculation.
But you can't have both, Dave.

[My bolding]

No, it isn't.

There is no evidence that Mr. Silverstein spoke specifically to Mr. Nigro that day. He spoke to someone, that is clear, but unless you call him up and clarify who it was that he spoke to, I don't think that you can draw the conclusions that you have drawn. He is probably, like you, not very conversant with the heirarchy of the FDNY and probably doesn't know one type of "fire commander" from another.

[LashL]

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/RyanFraud1.jpg


*******

Error of Commission. Deliberately altering 2002 quote to implicate Silverstein.

See my note above: "In the May presentation, while this graphic is on screen, Ryan says, 'Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder for all three buildings, essentially admitted to demolishing the building.' "

That's a lie. That's slander. That's fraud.

Goddamned cowardly creeps.



It is an out and out lie, without question. It is also slander (when he said it live at the event). It is also libel (when he broadcast it and/or published it on the internet). It would also be fraud if he makes money from his false statements but I, personally, do not know if he has, as yet (although he may well have with his "legal defence fund" farce.)


So, the question remains, and I'll direct this to SwingDangler since he/she is the one trying to defend Kevin Ryan's obvious lie here: SwingDangler, why do you attempt to defend Kevin Ryan's obvious, blatant, and clearly intentional lie?

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

There's also the sticky issue that "pull it" is unlikely to refer to the firefighting operation since there were no firefighters in WTC 7 since 11:30am.

there's also the sticky issue of you failing to provide proof that your e-mail was genuine.
not a computer expert? please don't hint everyone what my signature will be as a reminder of who you really are.
I will also hold totovader to his claim of providing proof that you already donated money to the charity he provided for you.

[Rika]

...what's with your user name?

[Belz...]

Why would they need Silverstein's blessing to pull the firefighters at 5pm when they had already pulled the operations three hours earlier?

Why would they need Silverstein's blessing to destroy the building ?

[Swing Dangler]

Why would they need Silverstein's blessing to destroy the building ?

The same reasons the FD needed to consult with the owner of the building in the article that I linked to before demolishing it.