Debunk Alert: New Ryan/Jones Article in Peer Reviewed Journal

[Mangoose]

HyJinX: "Hey Red...any comment on Mangoose's post (#139)?" Mostly it's questioning the sources for the paper. I don't see where s/he proposes what caused the spikes in VOCs at levels thousands of times greater than what has been recorded for normal office bldg fires with large amounts of plastics.

And Mangoose, rather than taking a single line and parsing it to your heart's content, perhaps you might try to address the salient points of the paper


I'm not surprised that you missed the point of my post, but it is worth reiterating: My post showed that the article was a shoddily-researched paper with abysmal standards of evidence which NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED in any sort of respectable journal. You don't have to refute or assess their claims about "spikes in VOCs" or any other claim in the paper; what I presented is SUFFICIENT to demonstrate this. And this is no mere "single line," Ryan et al. accord great weight to the false claim contained in that line in the very next paragraph, turning it into one of the key "facts" that requires explanation -- the raison d'etre for the investigation in the rest of the paper.

[Horatius]

the raison d'etre for



Look, if they can't figure out the point of your earlier post, is it really fair to expect them to figure out French?


Good earlier post, BTW.

[Mangoose]

Horatius: You're right, mon mauvais. :p

[Pardalis]

Horatius: You're right, mon mauvais. :p

Actually, this is too literal a translation. If you wanted to say "my bad" you should have said "c'est de ma faute". :)

[R.Mackey]

Well, since I've seen nothing useful from our newcomer, and things seem pretty much settled, let me turn to a less crucial question:

I don't think Ryan does present such a hypothesis. The question to you is what could be the cause of such spikes, remembering that the highest recorded levels occur long after office contents and debris are removed?

I agree that Mr. Ryan doesn't present a workable hypothesis, but that's the whole point. This question is thus not really on topic anymore. Nonetheless, it is a reasonable question, which is why the EPA and DELTA looked at it to begin with. I'll take a stab at it.

So we know that the gas concentrations were rather high. The 180,000 ppb etc. appears to be a highly localized sample, much higher than the site average, but the site average is still pretty high. However, following the article I linked, your average charcoal barbeque puts out about 3,000 ppb into open air. Quantities in this range or even several times higher should be unsurprising, given that the Pile fire was much less aerated than a standard barbeque, and benzene along with other aromatic hydrocarbons are products of incomplete combustion.

What is interesting, however, is that from these limited data the concentration appears much higher after the fire was diminished or extinguished. This suggests the fire isn't entirely to blame. Perhaps the fire is the original source of the compounds, but those compounds weren't loose in the atmosphere until something else happened. Or perhaps there's another source entirely.

There are several obvious factors that would strongly influence these readings:
Site demolition: I would guess that in the February timeframe, the Pile had been carried off to the point that demolition of the basement and foundation structures, the PATH station, etc. took place in earnest. This would naturally disturb concentrations of contaminants held underground.

Weather: Ambient temperature and humidity, not to mention surface winds, will have a dramatic effect on the plume behavior, not to mention any chemical reactions still taking place. The Towers were hit in September, but the spikes were later, into November and even February? Totally different environment.

Demolition activities: It may be that the spikes are caused by something new brought into the site. Cutting torches? Hundreds of diesel generators powering tools and lights? Crushers? I can't say, but it bears examination.

To investigate this thoroughly, we would need a better understanding of activities at the Pile, preferably day by day, as well as more data on the contaminants themselves. How sampled and where? What time of day? What altitude? How does all this correspond to the location and type of activity at the site?

I'm fairly confident that we could figure this out with the right information. Without it, I can't say for certain that there actually is an anomaly here. The concentration is high, but not absurd; the chemicals are among those we expect to find; the site itself has few direct analogues for comparison. It's interesting enough to study. Mr. Ryan, however, has gone off half-cocked in asserting that there must be an anomaly here, and even more so by proposing something fantastic in response. We just aren't ready to say one way or the other.

That's my guess. Might be right, might not. But that's my first cut at a hypothesis, and how to test it.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Plumes of dark smoke, from the towers and from whatever is burning on the ground in that image, indicates an uncontrolled burn. In the towers with its controlled environment and windows that would not open, the fires were oxygen starved. If this choir believes otherwise, good luck to you. Herd mentality doesn't prove anything. In the photo above, whatever the fuel is, it would most likely burn much, much cleaner in a controlled burn where the proper mix of oxygen and fuel are mixed optimally. Yikes!

Ridiculous, a jet burner effect can produce, black smoke,
and melt steel both at the same time, it merely means that there is more carbon than oxygen in the atmospheric oxidized flame it does not mean oxygen starved in a normal atmosphere.

The only way to have an oxygen, carbon balanced fire is with bottled oxygen, or by limiting fuel and air intake with controlled means, it has no bearing on fire temperature in fact a jet burner effect was noticed in the air handling system to some degree.
All carbon rich fires will produce black smoke, which itself is a fuel and explosion source from pyrosis heating of the fuel as well as explosive Carbon monoxide.

Your confusing oxygen starved with unbalanced flames, what type of chemist are you?

Oxygen starved is a completely different term it means not enough oxygen to continue combustion.

The fire in the towers was unusual, as it was multi floor accelerated, and Chemically enhanced.

Of course there would be no black smoke in a complete oxygen atmosphere, as your suggesting, there would be no fuels, no life, and no people there as well, all the metals in the world would also be oxidized to their metal oxides.

Talk about hand waving your flapping so hard your in already passed escape velocity, and heading for the next solar system.

[RedIbis]

So we know that the gas concentrations were rather high. The 180,000 ppb etc. appears to be a highly localized sample, much higher than the site average, but the site average is still pretty high.
The highest level of benzene recorded was in February at 610,000ppb.

However, following the article I linked, your average charcoal barbeque puts out about 3,000 ppb into open air. 3000ppb of what?

Quantities in this range or even several times higher should be unsurprising, given that the Pile fire was much less aerated than a standard barbeque, and benzene along with other aromatic hydrocarbons are products of incomplete combustion.
The readings were thousands of times higher than those recorded, not at a weekend barbeque, but in other large office bldg fires with large concentrations of plastic, about 26ppb. Is this figure far too small?

What is interesting, however, is that from these limited data the concentration appears much higher after the fire was diminished or extinguished. This suggests the fire isn't entirely to blame. Perhaps the fire is the original source of the compounds, but those compounds weren't loose in the atmosphere until something else happened. Or perhaps there's another source entirely.
Perhaps.

There are several obvious factors that would strongly influence these readings:
Site demolition: I would guess that in the February timeframe, the Pile had been carried off to the point that demolition of the basement and foundation structures, the PATH station, etc. took place in earnest. This would naturally disturb concentrations of contaminants held underground.
Agreed.

Weather: Ambient temperature and humidity, not to mention surface winds, will have a dramatic effect on the plume behavior, not to mention any chemical reactions still taking place. The Towers were hit in September, but the spikes were later, into November and even February? Totally different environment.
Yes, February.

Demolition activities: It may be that the spikes are caused by something new brought into the site. Cutting torches? Hundreds of diesel generators powering tools and lights? Crushers? I can't say, but it bears examination.
I agree, it does bear examination.



I'm fairly confident that we could figure this out with the right information.
Ay, there's the rub.

Without it, I can't say for certain that there actually is an anomaly here.
If the EPA data is accurate, you can certainly call it an anomaly.

The concentration is high, but not absurd; the chemicals are among those we expect to find; the site itself has few direct analogues for comparison.
This is a series of contradictions. First, the concentrations do appear absurdly high. I'm not sure what "we" you're referring to because the presence of some of this material was not expected and remained unexplained.

It's interesting enough to study. Mr. Ryan, however, has gone off half-cocked in asserting that there must be an anomaly here, and even more so by proposing something fantastic in response. We just aren't ready to say one way or the other.
Fair enough. So why don't we forget about Ryan and Jones and try to answer the difficult question of what would cause those spikes. I'm not quite sure when you'll be ready to say, but it's been almost 7 years.

That's my guess. Might be right, might not. But that's my first cut at a hypothesis, and how to test it.

I know it's difficult for some around here to grasp, but I do find your contributions helpful. Even if I disagree or follow up with more questions, an even informed tone is the proper one to gain understanding through discourse.

[Disbelief]

This is a series of contradictions. First, the concentrations do appear absurdly high. I'm not sure what "we" you're referring to because the presence of some of this material was not expected and remained unexplained.


The presence of what material is not expected and unexplained?


Fair enough. So why don't we forget about Ryan and Jones and try to answer the difficult question of what would cause those spikes. I'm not quite sure when you'll be ready to say, but it's been almost 7 years.


Haven't people here been offering possibilities? The bigger question for you, is what is the significance of these spikes? remember, you are forgetting about Jones and Ryan.

[sdemetri]

There's no need to keep repeating that you weren't trained in engineering, because you're shouting it from the rooftops with everything else you say. First of all, the building wasn't "supposedly intact", it had massive damage from the airliner impacts which weakened the structure around the collapse initiation zone. Secondly, the resistance offered by the lower structure was built to resist the static loading of a stationary upper block, not to decelerate and arrest an already falling block. If it isn't clear to you why the latter would require a very much stronger structure, then you need to learn so much more physics than you know already that I simply don't have time to try and teach it to you.

Perhaps, however, you could try this: place a house brick on top of a wine glass, and you'll find that it stays there. Now raise the brick a foot above the glass and drop it, and you'll find that a structure that was strong enough to hold the stationary brick somehow didn't manage to hold it once it got moving. In compliance with the rules of this forum, which prohibit members to advocate others to self-harm, I would advise you to wear safety goggles and protective gloves while doing this.

We can, of course, as you suggest, agree to differ. This will result in a continuation of the status quo, in which the 9-11 attacks are known by the overwhelming majority to have been carried out by al-Qaeda without the complicity of the US government. If you want that situation to change, you'll need to learn enough to present a convincing argument to people who know far better than you do at present what they're talking about. So far, the truth movement has failed abysmally in doing this.

Dave

That is a very interesting demonstration... a brick on a wine glass... I heard a talk recently in which a similar statement was made. The speaker said regarding the ability of the upper mass to crush the lower intact building, presumably intact from around floor 91 down to ground level, if this lower part of the building were made primarily of glass, I could buy that argument. So could I. The lower structure of the building was not made of glass, however. The structure was stronger and more rigid as one travelled down the building. So, a brick on a wine glass.... if this were remotely comparable to the actual structure, or were the demostration you suggest of raising the brick several inches and letting it fall remotely comparable, you might have something there. Nice visual, but thoroughly unconvincing.

But I do want to give ElMondo a nod to his reference to Astaneh_Asi's comments about "unusual design elements." Interesting stuff. What Astaneh-Asi points out as a possible weakness in design, a plane easily entering the internal reaches of the design, DeMartini points to as a feature of the design, speculating the building could withstand multiple aircraft strikes, if one thinks of the perimeter structure as similar to mosquito netting. Of course, no designer of buildings desires to test that theory, but the towers were designed to withstand winds well in excess of the force of an aircraft slamming into them. I think it is incorrect to portray the designs as "poor," or as weak as a wine glass.

[Dave Rogers]

Nice visual, but thoroughly unconvincing.

You've missed the point, unsurprisingly. What's convincing is the calculation of the dynamic loading and the strength of the support columns, which gives the result that collapse propagates. If you don't understand why the dynamic loading is greater than the static loading, then a visualisation might be useful. If you refuse to believe the results, then there's nothing I can say to convince you that you should accept the known properties of materials and Newtonian mechanics as a basis for your reasoning. However, as long as you choose not to do so, nobody with any influence will pay you the slightest bit of attention.

Dave

[WildCat]

sdemetri, do you acknowledge that the fires in the WTC were not oxygen-starved and there was no "controlled environment" once the planes struck?

[sdemetri]

And that illuminates a bigger point (sorry to run off on a tangent like this): Real criticism illuminates. False criticism stated with an agenda in mind - in the case of 9/11 Trutherism, the impugnment of the US Government - obsfucates. How many people are still stuck on the notion of steel having to have melted for the towers to collapse? How many people can be led into thinking incorrectly of the military response that day because some conspiracy peddler asked "Why did the planes fly around for 40 minutes without being intercepted"? It's necessary to retail the first narrative in order to build the case for thermite, and the second for the stand down, but it doesn't truly shed light on what really happened that day. Inquiries like Astaneh-Asl's - even if the engineering world ends up falsifying the charges - lead to better understanding of the engineering issues involved. Look at the true, genuinely considered criticisms that have occurred: Arup, Edinburg, Quintiere's statements for example... all those may pose more questions, and in regards to the fireproofing in those specific examples actually contradict NIST's model, but they ultimately build a path towards further illumination. What about conspiracy fantasies does the same thing?

A movie critic - was it the late Gene Siskel? I forget... - once said that the real difference between independent and mainstream movies wasn't the production company, the funding, the director, or anything like that. It was whether the storyline confirmed or challenged the dominant view of whatever subject matter the film was covering. A most independent source of funding for a film with a most un-Hollywood director would not result in an independent film if the storyline confirmed society's views on the subject, whereas the most commercial studio using the most inside-Hollywood director could make an independent film if they chose to challenge how the audience normally looked upon a topic. While incomplete, the definition is useful in separating what truly chooses to exist outside the zeitgeist, and what chooses to flow with it. This framework is very much applicable to conspiracy fantasists and the entire subject of 9/11. Who really challenges existing thought? And who simply chooses to follow the current of the particular zeitgeist? When Astaneh-Asl, for example, questions the view of the towers being properly constructed, he may be doing so within the rigid rules of engineering, and he is doing so from well inside the engineering community, but he's very much offering an illuminating challenge to the dominant mode of thought regarding the towers. Were they in fact truly well built? We're the builders' "10 unusual elements" truly bad practices? Regardless of code, was the choices made in the design of the towers truly bad ones to make? Against those questions, you have the dominant NIST model which exonerates the design. Where lies the truth? Who knows, but the interplay between the positions will shed light on that question.

Now, consider the conspiratorial claims: Thermite. Stand down. Pull it. Claims like these and others pose as though they stand against the dominant paradigm, but do they really? Do such claims that tap into the common feelings of powerlessness in the face of such a large government as the United States's one really challege orthodox thinking? Does tapping into the common mistrust of government really stand as independent thought? Does any of the conspiratorial narrative truly achieve any real state of rebellion? Or are they mere confirmations of the lazier parts of the zeitgeist that says this monster in Washington is all-powerful and all-capable, and willing to do whatever it takes for power/money/influence/forward the "NWO"/etc.? And on top of that, what do conspiratorial claims illuminate? Is it anything original? Does it truly generate genuine scholarship, and really illuminate new considerations inside well known fields? Or is it yet another "confirmation" of government's willingness to act against society, as the zeitgeist says?

In the end, the disappointment I feel towards the conspiracy addicts is not merely in their lack of discriminating thought (although that is certainly a component of it), nor in their abuse of freedom of speech (many "abuse" this right). It is that the energy spent on the faulty narrative ultimately does not challenge or change anything. What are all these arguments we have here, other than bricks in the ediface of the conventional? Even when Christophera, Balsamo in his various sock puppets, Swing Dangler, RedIbis, etc. put forth superficially challenging arguments, what puzzle are they completing other than the conspiratorial one that ultimately says "Government bad"? For all the poses of original thought, what they put forth is every bit as conventional as the arguments we muster; they simply have the flaw of being contextually or outright factually wrong as well. They don't plow new ground; they only tred in the tracks of previous paranoids. And they do nothing to get people to look at anything in any new way. Even those who consider 9/11 an "Inside Job" end up painting a picture no different from that painted by those who looked askance at government for Ruby Ridge, the JFK assasination, Waco, the Oklahoma City Bombings... calling government an antagonist, a contravida, is as old as the history of formal governments, and every bit as established. So what do they accomplish, other than forward a conventional narrative disguised as rebellion?

Ultimately, the problem in the so-called truth movement is that they neither illuminate, nor challenge. Much energy is wasted to convey a message that is ultimately flawed, and no true enlightenment comes of it. Whereas looking at the critiques of Quintiere, Astaneh-Asl, or other genuine critics really gets you thinking outside the mainstream. They challenge conventional wisdom: Was NIST's presumptions regarding the fireproofing truly erroneous, therefore demonstrating that the fireproofing is actually irrelevant in these situations? Were the building practices truly deviated from? Those of us outside the engineering community cannot definitively answer those because we don't know; the answers would be genuinely original scholarship. And even inside the community, I'd bet that the questions stimulates thinking, even if it does not ultimately result in change. But the point is that the rebels who are creating genuinely original thought are not the ones proclaiming "Inside Job" or finding ways to spin Steven Jones's latest findings. They're in fact very much a part of the establishment they seek to criticize.

Interesting post, ElMondo... If I were being rebellious simply for the sake of rebellion, you might have pegged my feelings and opinions about the towers coming down. Or, if my opinions were formulated to regard the US government as corrupt from head to toe, and complicit, you might have something.

But I arrived at my opinions through neither of those routes. For several years I bought the official line. I didn't buy the links of Al Qeada to Iraq and the necessity to invade Iraq, but, aside from moral concerns about bombing Afghanistan after their twenty years of war already and adding to the misery of the civilian population, I more or less supported that invasion. Al Qeada needed to be dealt with. To the degree that Al Qeada and copy cat organizations are real threats, and there is much debate about what that threat actually entails and how it is best treated, I think extremists need to be pursued, prosecuted, and jailed. I imagine we agree on that.

I left the official line when questions raised about the response (victim's family members raised alot of those initial concerns), questions raised about the large spread of debris in Pennslyvania, and lack of it at the Pentagon, and questions about surprising destruction of the towers... when these questions were raised and left so unsatisfactorily answered, that is when I decided there is more to this than what I am being told. When Quintiere speaks to a national conference saying NIST data and documentation should be independently examined, he is challenging the prevailing orthodoxy. And I agree with him. It should be. The story will remain incomplete, until it is. Being trained in science, I subscribe to the method that independent confirmation of the hypothesis is absolutely necessary. It is incomplete, until it is confirmed. NIST's conclusions are only a hypothesis, and not a very good one, for obvious (in my pov) reasons.

I think the contingent involved is quite small in the government, not the entire "US Government." As there is a history of this, and other governments, harboring contigents specific to tasks such as what I suspect took place here, and that directly impinges on my health, wealth and pursuit of happiness in not a few ways, I will question the current orthodoxy. I have opinions as to how the conspiracy took place, but they are really irrelevant. The official explanations for many of the inconsistencies in the offical story ought to be answered, my theories notwithstanding. Quintiere was correct to support independent confirmation of NIST's work. Lincoln Chafee is correct to support the NY ballot initiative into a real investigation. We can debate the private conspiracy theories, in a civil manner or not, but the real questions remain regardless.

[R.Mackey]

The highest level of benzene recorded was in February at 610,000ppb.

Yes, I know. But you must keep in mind this is the maximum instantaneous value measured anywhere. The maximum average is quite a bit lower, as in orders of magnitude lower.


3000ppb of what?

I take it you didn't check my link in the post previous. 3,000 ppb of benzene! And that's average, output from a normal charcoal fire, under ordinary ventilation.


The readings were thousands of times higher than those recorded, not at a weekend barbeque, but in other large office bldg fires with large concentrations of plastic, about 26ppb. Is this figure far too small?

It could be. Recall, once again, that the large office fire is highly ventilated. And it isn't clear that burning plastics, at least in this situation, favor benzene production. A smouldering fire does, and as the paper I linked before shows, this doesn't require plastic combustion; ordinary wood is fine.


If the EPA data is accurate, you can certainly call it an anomaly.

Not really. Again, we're comparing spot maxima to overall averages. I also expect the WTC case to be somewhat higher than typical cases due to its size, geometry, etc. Until we get a better handle on the variation expected due to these factors, we can't say.


This is a series of contradictions. First, the concentrations do appear absurdly high. I'm not sure what "we" you're referring to because the presence of some of this material was not expected and remained unexplained.

Not expected because it was novel. Remained unexplained, yes, until mid-2002, when the DELTA group started publishing papers on it. It's kind of like saying the progressive collapse was unexplained until Dr. Bazant started publishing. Nobody had really thought about it before then, but the mathematics and structural dynamics were really quite straightforward.


Fair enough. So why don't we forget about Ryan and Jones and try to answer the difficult question of what would cause those spikes. I'm not quite sure when you'll be ready to say, but it's been almost 7 years.

I was asked about it yesterday, not seven years ago. And the DELTA group, again, had results in under a year. Hold your horses. :D Good science takes time.


I know it's difficult for some around here to grasp, but I do find your contributions helpful. Even if I disagree or follow up with more questions, an even informed tone is the proper one to gain understanding through discourse.

Well, good. I agree, and I advocate this in my Irreducible Delusion (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=118389) whitepaper. The level of deception in the Ryan/Gourmley/Jones paper is rather irksome to me personally, but I'll try to keep it in check.

[16.5]

sdemetri

"We can debate the private conspiracy theories, in a civil manner or not, but the real questions remain regardless."

Well, then lets be civil. You can start by acknowledging two major fallacies of the Twoof movement:

1. There were not small fires only in the WTC towers;

2. Fires that release black smoke are not oxygen starved.

Truth be told, you are not exactly covering yourself in glory when you come here repeating Truther talking points that have been systematically debunked time and gain on this site.

You should also acknowledge that your one line rejection of Mangoose's analysis was wrong, because it appears not only that you did not understand it, but that you don't care if you don't understand it.

[sdemetri]

You've missed the point, unsurprisingly. What's convincing is the calculation of the dynamic loading and the strength of the support columns, which gives the result that collapse propagates. If you don't understand why the dynamic loading is greater than the static loading, then a visualisation might be useful. If you refuse to believe the results, then there's nothing I can say to convince you that you should accept the known properties of materials and Newtonian mechanics as a basis for your reasoning. However, as long as you choose not to do so, nobody with any influence will pay you the slightest bit of attention.

Dave

No, I didn't miss your point. Of course dynamic loading is greater than static. You haven't said anything to convince me that in the case of the towers, dynamic loading was greater. Sorry.

I followed the thread with Greg Urich at the time it was happening. I have also read his paper on the Journal of 911 Studies site. The arguments made in the thread were interesting, but, again, unconvincing.

[Dave Rogers]

No, I didn't miss your point. Of course dynamic loading is greater than static. You haven't said anything to convince me that in the case of the towers, dynamic loading was greater. Sorry.

Then why not try to convince me instead? The maths is fairly simple; work out the mass of the upper block, assume a freefall drop of one storey, determine the deceleration needed to bring the falling mass to rest within the elastic limit of the structure below (can we agree that's about 0.2% for structural steel?), and that will give you a required structural strength for collapse arrest. Divide that by the static loading of the upper block, and you've got the safety factor required in the building for collapse to have been arrested, assuming no damage from the airliner impacts. If that number somes out as something reasonable, post it here, show your working, and a lot of very highly qualified people will take a look at it. Until you've done that, all we've seen is an argument from incredulity.

Dave

[lapman]

I left the official line when questions raised about the response (victim's family members raised alot of those initial concerns), questions raised about the large spread of debris in Pennslyvania, and lack of it at the Pentagon, and questions about surprising destruction of the towers... when these questions were raised and left so unsatisfactorily answered, that is when I decided there is more to this than what I am being told. When Quintiere speaks to a national conference saying NIST data and documentation should be independently examined, he is challenging the prevailing orthodoxy. And I agree with him. It should be. The story will remain incomplete, until it is. Being trained in science, I subscribe to the method that independent confirmation of the hypothesis is absolutely necessary. It is incomplete, until it is confirmed. NIST's conclusions are only a hypothesis, and not a very good one, for obvious (in my pov) reasons.
This is the fatal flaw in all of your arguments. You claim to have been trained in science, but you threw out all of that when you looked at the concerns. You should have been trained to look at the full body of evidence. However you have done nothing close to that. You talk about the lack of debris at the Pentagon. However, if you had done proper research, you would know that there was a plethora of evidence at the site. See here (http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html) for more info on that. As far as Dr. Quintiere is concerned, he still supports the "official story" of damage and fire brought down the towers. He just feels that NIST wasn't thorough enough. Your parroting of the CT lies and distortions only shows that you've completely thrown out objectivity. Most, if not all, of us "debunkers" and "skeptics" know that the FEMA, NIST and the 9/11 Commission reports are not 100% accurate. However, they are infinitely more accurate that anything put out by the "Truth Movement."

[sdemetri]

Then why not try to convince me instead? The maths is fairly simple; work out the mass of the upper block, assume a freefall drop of one storey, determine the deceleration needed to bring the falling mass to rest within the elastic limit of the structure below (can we agree that's about 0.2% for structural steel?), and that will give you a required structural strength for collapse arrest. Divide that by the static loading of the upper block, and you've got the safety factor required in the building for collapse to have been arrested, assuming no damage from the airliner impacts. If that number somes out as something reasonable, post it here, show your working, and a lot of very highly qualified people will take a look at it. Until you've done that, all we've seen is an argument from incredulity.

Dave

I am afraid I have to point out, again, as much as that perturbs you, that engineering is not my specialty. Why should I presume to try to convince engineers in their own language (especially in as merciless a place as this forum) why they are incorrect in that calculation? I have read Ross, I have read Greening's replies to Ross, I have read Bazant... as, I hope, a relatively intelligent guy, I claim nothing more than perhaps the status of a jury member listening to expert witnesses debate highly technical points. And if called upon to vote which argument is more cohesive, more in line with many other articles of evidence, and observations I have made myself, I vote for Ross and Kuttler. I'm sure that doesn't satisfy you, but, again, sorry.

The statement I made to someone else's post, "a lack of structural integrity equals a lack of resistance," as an intuitive way of looking at it, describes my thoughts about why the upper block accelerated rather than decelerated or deflected. Your explanation for a lack of structural integrity appears to come through MG>F1+F2. Mine comes from the addition of large, external forces. I don't see how your explanation explains in thermodynamic terms the pulverization of tons and tons of concrete, office materials, people to a fine dust. My explanation better handles that additional energy requirement. But that's my intuition for you.

[SDC]

"Intuition"?? Someone wants us to rely on his "intuition"? Sheesh. In post 268, first he says he lacks qualifications to decide; and then he says he has decided, and it appears to be because of his "intuition."

My "intuition" says that this is silly.

I'm sorry, we have just been invited into Fantasyville.

[Dave Rogers]

I am afraid I have to point out, again, as much as that perturbs you, that engineering is not my specialty. Why should I presume to try to convince engineers in their own language (especially in as merciless a place as this forum) why they are incorrect in that calculation?

Your argument, in effect, is that you are better able to determine who is in error by virtue of the fact that you are unable to carry out the required calculations. Sorry, but when it came to put up or shut up time, you did neither. I'm not interested in your intuition; Ross and Kuttler are simply, factually, even embarrassingly wrong, and the fact that I'm able to see that and you aren't, is simply the result of the fact that you're dabbling in areas you don't understand.

Dave

[WildCat]

sdemetri, do you acknowledge that the fires in the WTC were not oxygen-starved and there was no "controlled environment" once the planes struck?
Can you answer this please sdemetri? Your answer will reveal whether or not you are a rational person with which this topic can be discussed, or so driven by agenda that you are not only blind to the facts but hostile towards them.

[rwguinn]

]I am afraid I have to point out, again, as much as that perturbs you, that engineering is not my specialty. Why should I presume to try to convince engineers in their own language (especially in as merciless a place as this forum) why they are incorrect in that calculation?[/B] I have read Ross, I have read Greening's replies to Ross, I have read Bazant... as, I hope, a relatively intelligent guy, I claim nothing more than perhaps the status of a jury member listening to expert witnesses debate highly technical points. And if called upon to vote which argument is more cohesive, more in line with many other articles of evidence, and observations I have made myself, I vote for Ross and Kuttler. I'm sure that doesn't satisfy you, but, again, sorry.

The statement I made to someone else's post, "a lack of structural integrity equals a lack of resistance," as an intuitive way of looking at it, describes my thoughts about why the upper block accelerated rather than decelerated or deflected. Your explanation for a lack of structural integrity appears to come through MG>F1+F2. Mine comes from the addition of large, external forces. I don't see how your explanation explains in thermodynamic terms the pulverization of tons and tons of concrete, office materials, people to a fine dust. My explanation better handles that additional energy requirement. But that's my intuition for you.
Stundied!

[sdemetri]

...Ross and Kuttler are simply, factually, even embarrassingly wrong, and the fact that I'm able to see that and you aren't, is simply the result of the fact that you're dabbling in areas you don't understand.

Dave

Perhaps, but their arguments are much better than anything I have seen here, or read elsewhere. And I walk, throw things, pick things up, drop things, use levers, or rollers, or pulleys... physics (and engineering) is not all rocket science. Don't mean to burst your bubble.

[johnny karate]

Can you answer this please sdemetri? Your answer will reveal whether or not you are a rational person with which this topic can be discussed, or so driven by agenda that you are not only blind to the facts but hostile towards them.

Seconded. It would be refreshing to have a Truther come here and engage in discussion with some intellectual honesty.

[johnny karate]

Perhaps, but their arguments are much better than anything I have seen here, or read elsewhere. And I walk, throw things, pick things up, drop things, use levers, or rollers, or pulleys... physics (and engineering) is not all rocket science. Don't mean to burst your bubble.

Stundied.

[Mooseman]

Where's Red, he at least can think straight.

[Myriad]

Intuition is usually wrong when it comes to the effects of scaling.

Look at the wine glass analogy for instance. You seem to think that a building is stronger than a wine glass. But the wine glass is far stronger relative to its own weight and mass.

The wine glass needs to be far stronger, because it is designed to:

- Be picked up with only a few points of contact (such as, between the fingers).

- Be filled with more than its own weight in liquid.

- Be tilted at significant angles from vertical.

- Be collided against a second similar object at relative velocities exceeding 1 foot per second.

- Undergo all of the above simultaneously.

If you tried to do any of those things to a 100-story office tower (regardless of the construction details), let alone all of them in combination, you'd end up with a pile of rubble.

So much for intuition. The important factor is the ratio of strength to the magnitude of the forces experienced. When the forces experienced derive from the object's own mass (e.g. gravitational forces and dynamic loads), the relevant comparison becomes the ratio of the strength to the mass. Even the most delicate wine glass can support many times its own weight. Even the strongest office buildings cannot support many times their own weight. The comparison isn't even close. The wine glass is far stronger.

That's why your intuition fails, and knowing that your intuition fails for that reason and similar reasons is why people with real knowledge of the subject and the ability to calculate results will not be convinced by your argument from intuition.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Spud1k]

Sorry to join this one late, but I couldn't resist dropping a couple of points in because the subject matter is getting perilously close to my dayjob.

First off, I've never come across The Environmentalist before, but apparently Thompson ISI doesn't seem to find it worthy of indexing, which is always a bad sign.

Secondly, to set the matter straight, black smoke is specifically a sign of incomplete combustion. While this can be caused by oxygen starvation or a low combustion temperature, it can also e a sign that whatever the fuel is does not break down cleanly when it burns. The complex polymers found in car tyres are a good example of this. As are the synthetic materials found in fire-resistant office fittings, décor, furnishings and equipment. Not that I'm saying the WTC was full of car tyres or anything.

[sdemetri]

Your argument, in effect, is that you are better able to determine who is in error by virtue of the fact that you are unable to carry out the required calculations.

No, I am better able to determine, at least for myself, who is in error by evaluating the broader body of evidence. It is always better to have indisputable facts on one's side, and having the expertise to perform the calculations is a plus. I hold myself able to determine where weaknesses are in at least some of the conceptual arguments the calculations by Greening or Bazant refer to, if I am unable to perform the calculations myself. And I have never seen anyone defending the official argument from an engineering pov account for the energy requirement for pulverization to the extent it took place. I realize it is extremely complicated, but I think you would agree it is an important component to the energy requirement calculation.

I might refer to Greening's own words when he was asked to present his calculations (although I don't think he was less justified in his response than myself):

"You want me to produce my calculations! Why? So you can scrutinize them and pick at them like a vulture attacking a carcass..."

[sdemetri]

Meant to say "I think he was less justified than myself..."

[sdemetri]

So much for intuition. The important factor is the ratio of strength to the magnitude of the forces experienced. When the forces experienced derive from the object's own mass (e.g. gravitational forces and dynamic loads), the relevant comparison becomes the ratio of the strength to the mass. Even the most delicate wine glass can support many times its own weight. Even the strongest office buildings cannot support many times their own weight. The comparison isn't even close. The wine glass is far stronger.

The better comparison is to take a wine glass, sever off 1/10th of the top, and analyze under what conditions the mass of that top 1/10th will crush the rest of the glass. Or, make a wine glass out of brick, take the top 1/10th...

[Horatius]

And I have never seen anyone defending the official argument from an engineering pov account for the energy requirement for pulverization to the extent it took place. I realize it is extremely complicated, but I think you would agree it is an important component to the energy requirement calculation.

I might refer to Greening's own words when he was asked to present his calculations (although I don't think he was less justified in his response than myself):

"You want me to produce my calculations! Why? So you can scrutinize them and pick at them like a vulture attacking a carcass..."



I agree that such a calculation is an important component. Luckily for us, someone has done some work on that. (http://www.911myths.com/WTCONC1.pdf)

[WildCat]

Intuition is usually wrong when it comes to the effects of scaling.
Roll a Hot Wheels car off your kitchen table and note the results. Roll a real car off a 150 ft. cliff, compare/contrast.

[WildCat]

sdemetri, do you acknowledge that the fires in the WTC were not oxygen-starved and there was no "controlled environment" once the planes struck?
-cough-

[Myriad]

The better comparison is to take a wine glass, sever off 1/10th of the top, and analyze under what conditions the mass of that top 1/10th will crush the rest of the glass. Or, make a wine glass out of brick, take the top 1/10th...


No, that is not a better comparison, because a wine glass has an orders of magnitude higher ratio of strength to mass than a large building has, as I just pointed out. Your intuition is still giving you wrong answers about what is and is not a good comparison.

You aren't the first to fail at this. People have tried to make arguments of how the towers should have behaved based on small scale models made out of chicken wire, plastic trays, Lego, cardboard boxes, paper, building blocks, and pieces of pipe. All meaningless.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[uk_dave]

Plumes of dark smoke, from the towers and from whatever is burning on the ground in that image, indicates an uncontrolled burn. In the towers with its controlled environment and windows that would not open, the fires were oxygen starved. If this choir believes otherwise, good luck to you. Herd mentality doesn't prove anything. In the photo above, whatever the fuel is, it would most likely burn much, much cleaner in a controlled burn where the proper mix of oxygen and fuel are mixed optimally. Yikes!

A big plane had just slammed through one side of the building, through the office partitioning and out the other side.

What makes you think they were oxygen starved?

[AZCat]

You aren't the first to fail at this. People have tried to make arguments of how the towers should have behaved based on small scale models made out of chicken wire, plastic trays, Lego, cardboard boxes, paper, building blocks, and pieces of pipe. All meaningless.

Meaningless, but amusing nonetheless.

[beachnut]

The better comparison is to take a wine glass, sever off 1/10th of the top, and analyze under what conditions the mass of that top 1/10th will crush the rest of the glass. Or, make a wine glass out of brick, take the top 1/10th...

That example sews up you problem! You have no clue what to use to understand 9/11. Try physics next time, not your, what did Einstein call it? "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." Einstein

That is another poor analogies in a long, long list of real bad analogies from 9/11 truth.

[16.5]

A big plane had just slammed through one side of the building, through the office partitioning and out the other side.

What makes you think they were oxygen starved?

He appears to have read that on a Truther web site. So, you know, it is the "Truth," I guess. You can learn a lot on Truther web sites, like disregarding facts, ignoring questions, and fancy arguments like "hand waving."

[T.A.M.]

Guys;

sdemetri has already said he is "unconvinced" and is relying on his "intuition".

Is there any sense in debating or trying to convince someone who has been shown the science, shown the facts, but is still "unconvinced" based on his "intuition".

The poster is polite and civil, but is no better than the others, as he is not being logical, and is going forward based on his "intuition".

Waste of your time boys and girls.

TAM:)

[SDC]

Some enterprising creative soul should put together a video featuring all the objects referred to in 285 by Myriad.

[sdemetri]

I agree that such a calculation is an important component. Luckily for us, someone has done some work on that.

The first problem I see with this is what looks like an assumption that the mass of the upper 15 floor block strikes at freefall on the entire 627 tonnes of concrete in the impact with the 95th floor. The entire kinetic energy of the falling mass is at the moment of impact seems to be incorporated into his view of the impact. With the tilt of the upper mass, and with what might be considered a necessary relatively slow deformation of supporting columns and load shifting, I have to wonder if the full force implied by Greening actually impacted the 95th floor. A lot follows from his analysis of that here, and I don't see that full kinetic force happening in how the damage propagated. Maybe he discusses this in his earlier paper, I don't recall, but from this paper, that seems a problem.

Others have made the calculations that assume the full force did impact the 95th floor, in an attempt to favor progressive collapse, and that still didn't satisfy energy requirements for a continued collapse, let alone supply energy to complete pulverization. Obviously, some here have found those arguments faulty.

I had not seen the Risk Management Solutions study before. Interesting stuff.

[uk_dave]

sdemetri, why do you think the fires were oxygen starved?

[Newtons Bit]

I am afraid I have to point out, again, as much as that perturbs you, that engineering is not my specialty. Why should I presume to try to convince engineers in their own language (especially in as merciless a place as this forum) why they are incorrect in that calculation? I have read Ross, I have read Greening's replies to Ross, I have read Bazant... as, I hope, a relatively intelligent guy, I claim nothing more than perhaps the status of a jury member listening to expert witnesses debate highly technical points. And if called upon to vote which argument is more cohesive, more in line with many other articles of evidence, and observations I have made myself, I vote for Ross and Kuttler. I'm sure that doesn't satisfy you, but, again, sorry.

Let's see if we can get you to figure this out your own. Below is a puzzle of sorts, see if you can figure it out.

There are two cars, car A and car B. Car A is moving at 10 m/s. Car B is stationary. Both weigh 1000kg. Car A impacts car B (which was in neutral). The two objects stick together and start rolling together. I have video evidence of this. However car A and B were really dirty so right at the impact they both through up a big cloud of dirt obscuring what happened next. The evidence does show that the cars continue to roll for quite some distance.

Using some basic back of the envelope calculations, I calculate correctly that the strain energy damage to each car should be about 20KJ each.

Now then, the intial energy of the impact was 1/2 M * V^2 or

0.5*1000kg*(10^2) = 50,000J or 50KJ

Using conservation of momentum, I can calculate the velocity of the two cars after impact.

M1V1 = M2V2
1000kg * 10 m/s = 2000kg * V2
V2 = 5 m/s

The new energy is 1/2 M * V^2 or
0.5*1000kg*(5^2) = 12,500J or 12.5KJ

The loss of energy is thus 50KJ - 12.5KJ = 38.5KJ

Total Energy In
+50kj

Total Energy out
-38.5KJ
-20KJ
-20KJ

Leaving a deficit of -28.5KJ. I thus conclude that the dust flying during the impact was due to explosives.

What did I do wrong?

[rwguinn]

Let's see if we can get you to figure this out your own. Below is a puzzle of sorts, see if you can figure it out.

There are two cars, car A and car B. Car A is moving at 10 m/s. Car B is stationary. Both weigh 1000kg. Car A impacts car B (which was in neutral). The two objects stick together and start rolling together. I have video evidence of this. However car A and B were really dirty so right at the impact they both through up a big cloud of dirt obscuring what happened next. The evidence does show that the cars continue to roll for quite some distance.

Using some basic back of the envelope calculations, I calculate correctly that the strain energy damage to each car should be about 20KJ each.

Now then, the intial energy of the impact was 1/2 M * V^2 or

0.5*1000kg*(10^2) = 50,000J or 50KJ

Using conservation of momentum, I can calculate the velocity of the two cars after impact.

M1V1 = M2V2
1000kg * 10 m/s = 2000kg * V2
V2 = 5 m/s

The new energy is 1/2 M * V^2 or
0.5*1000kg*(5^2) = 12,500J or 12.5KJ

The loss of energy is thus 50KJ - 12.5KJ = 38.5KJ

Total Energy In
+50kj

Total Energy out
-38.5KJ
-20KJ
-20KJ

Leaving a deficit of -28.5KJ. I thus conclude that the dust flying during the impact was due to explosives.

What did I do wrong?
:dl:

Snicker....

[Newtons Bit]

:dl:

Snicker....

Quiet you. Don't give it away.

[sdemetri]

sdemetri, why do you think the fires were oxygen starved?

Arthur Cote, author of a well-respected fire safety manual, has talked about diffuse flames, where the ratio of fuel to oxygen is not optimized, resulting in lower than potentially achievable temperatures. When oxygen, in relation to the fuel source, is low... a fuel-rich fire... the resulting flame is not burning optimally, can be evidenced by black smoke, can be considered oxygen-starved. "Oxygen-starved" is a relative term as I have used it, as it is in relation to the fuel present.

In the towers, the intact building had mostly sealed windows and a controlled environment. Now that was obviously disrupted when the planes struck the buildings, but the sealed windows that remained sealed after the planes struck ensured there was not a free flow of air through the damaged parts of the building. Many were blown out, I dispute the claims of an earlier poster that said, thousands, but no doubt many were. And the openings from the aircraft obviously provided ventilation. At any rate, Cote stated, " It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke..." I take his words at face value. Now this was written in Jone's paper, which will throw some of you into apoplectic fits, no doubt, but it is a quote by MIT's Eagar. He is quoting Cote. I take both as credible sources of information.

Another salient point, the complete disintergration of the towers was unexpected. The years of experience of the fire chiefs led them to assess the risk of sending hundreds of their men and women into the towers are acceptable. If they had any inkling the towers were likely to fall, they would not have sent them. They were expecting a typical, large, but typical office building fire. Perhaps localized collapses on some floors, but not sudden, complete disintergration. There is an element here regarding the inability to effectively communicate and warn their men to evacuate, and I accept that. But they assessed the risk due to the damage and fire as within acceptable limits and sent their men and women in.

[Pardalis]

In the towers, the intact building had mostly sealed windows and a controlled environment.

The very same windows from which people jumped out?

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a154/perdalis/wtc3.jpg

[rwguinn]

wanna answer the question?
Newton';s Bit posed a good one for you, "Scientist"...

[Arus808]

In the towers, the intact building had mostly sealed windows and a controlled environment. Now that was obviously disrupted when the planes struck the buildings, but the sealed windows that remained sealed after the planes struck ensured there was not a free flow of air through the damaged parts of the building.


yet you are ignoring the nearly 5-10 stories of open air contributed by the plane impacts. the 5-10 floors where the FIRES were concentrated.

the "floors" with sealed windows, had smaller fires, or no fires at all. nearly all the floors affected by the planes impact, WERE ENTIRELY on fire.



You again, show that you dont know what you are talking about.

[beachnut]

The very same windows from which people jumped out?

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a154/perdalis/wtc3.jpg
Do they even know they are posting lies? Showing a truther the truth, to make the truther, the liar.

[lapman]

The very same windows from which people jumped out?

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a154/perdalis/wtc3.jpg
I hope you get an answer. He hasn't answered me for the same question.

[sdemetri]

What did I do wrong?

What did you do wrong? You show considerable arrogance. You quote me, but obviously didn't read it closely enough to understand what I said.

Sorry, have your snicker and chuckle, but I don't need to rise to this bait, even if I know what the answer to your little test is.

[sdemetri]

"The one thing engineers are good at, though, is flaunting their very large egos!"

And don't get me wrong, I don't have much against one flaunting their ego... I just had a good read with Rand's Anthem. It is how the ego is used that is the cause of most people's problems with it, presumably even with Greening.

[AZCat]

Sorry, have your snicker and chuckle, but I don't need to rise to this bait, even if I know what the answer to your little test is.

No, I don't think you do know what the answer is. Because if you did, you wouldn't be arguing what you have been for several pages of this thread.

[Newtons Bit]

What did you do wrong? You show considerable arrogance. You quote me, but obviously didn't read it closely enough to understand what I said.

Sorry, have your snicker and chuckle, but I don't need to rise to this bait, even if I know what the answer to your little test is.

You mistake my intentions. You don't claim to be an expert on this stuff. I'm not trying to expose you or trap you as someone who isn't an expert.

I'm trying to get you to learn. You might even say that I'm trying to get you to work out the truth for yourself. The problem I posted shares the same fundamental problem that Gordon Ross's paper does. See if you can figure it out (this problem is much more visible in my car example). Try thinking it through, you'll not be ridiculed for trying. You won't be ridiculed for guessing wrong as you don't proclaim to be an expert. You will be labeled, accurately, an intellectual coward for not even attempting a guess.

Take a stab at it. What's wrong with the car problem? What SEEMS wrong? Try working at it through the basis that there weren't any explosives and that the energy balance is wrong.

[Pardalis]

I hope you get an answer. He hasn't answered me for the same question.

Looks like he's going to ignore mine as well.

Oh well, nothing new.

[WildCat]

Looks like he's going to ignore mine as well.

Oh well, nothing new.
Only by ignoring the facts can you understand THE TRUTH™.

[Jonnyclueless]

Arthur Cote, author of a well-respected fire safety manual, has talked about diffuse flames, where the ratio of fuel to oxygen is not optimized, resulting in lower than potentially achievable temperatures. When oxygen, in relation to the fuel source, is low... a fuel-rich fire... the resulting flame is not burning optimally, can be evidenced by black smoke, can be considered oxygen-starved. "Oxygen-starved" is a relative term as I have used it, as it is in relation to the fuel present.

In the towers, the intact building had mostly sealed windows and a controlled environment. Now that was obviously disrupted when the planes struck the buildings, but the sealed windows that remained sealed after the planes struck ensured there was not a free flow of air through the damaged parts of the building. Many were blown out, I dispute the claims of an earlier poster that said, thousands, but no doubt many were. And the openings from the aircraft obviously provided ventilation. At any rate, Cote stated, " It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke..." I take his words at face value. Now this was written in Jone's paper, which will throw some of you into apoplectic fits, no doubt, but it is a quote by MIT's Eagar. He is quoting Cote. I take both as credible sources of information.

Another salient point, the complete disintergration of the towers was unexpected. The years of experience of the fire chiefs led them to assess the risk of sending hundreds of their men and women into the towers are acceptable. If they had any inkling the towers were likely to fall, they would not have sent them. They were expecting a typical, large, but typical office building fire. Perhaps localized collapses on some floors, but not sudden, complete disintergration. There is an element here regarding the inability to effectively communicate and warn their men to evacuate, and I accept that. But they assessed the risk due to the damage and fire as within acceptable limits and sent their men and women in.

This is the same ignorance that causes all of these conspiracy theories. But these people who dish out this ignorance under the guise that they have researched the issue never bother to REALLY research it other than repeating some complete nonsense such as this that they read on a 9/11 cult tabloid because it sounded smart to them. But if these people would actually do honest research they would not be making posts like this.

At the very least if some of these people would use the search function they would see why posts like this one are nothing more than ignorance because these common misconceptions have been addressed 1000s of times already. And each one of these lemmings thinks they are the first ones to bring up this crap.

[pomeroo]

Interesting post, ElMondo... If I were being rebellious simply for the sake of rebellion, you might have pegged my feelings and opinions about the towers coming down. Or, if my opinions were formulated to regard the US government as corrupt from head to toe, and complicit, you might have something.

But I arrived at my opinions through neither of those routes. For several years I bought the official line. I didn't buy the links of Al Qeada to Iraq and the necessity to invade Iraq, but, aside from moral concerns about bombing Afghanistan after their twenty years of war already and adding to the misery of the civilian population, I more or less supported that invasion. Al Qeada needed to be dealt with. To the degree that Al Qeada and copy cat organizations are real threats, and there is much debate about what that threat actually entails and how it is best treated, I think extremists need to be pursued, prosecuted, and jailed. I imagine we agree on that.

I left the official line when questions raised about the response (victim's family members raised alot of those initial concerns), questions raised about the large spread of debris in Pennslyvania, and lack of it at the Pentagon, and questions about surprising destruction of the towers... when these questions were raised and left so unsatisfactorily answered, that is when I decided there is more to this than what I am being told. When Quintiere speaks to a national conference saying NIST data and documentation should be independently examined, he is challenging the prevailing orthodoxy. And I agree with him. It should be. The story will remain incomplete, until it is. Being trained in science, I subscribe to the method that independent confirmation of the hypothesis is absolutely necessary. It is incomplete, until it is confirmed. NIST's conclusions are only a hypothesis, and not a very good one, for obvious (in my pov) reasons.

I think the contingent involved is quite small in the government, not the entire "US Government." As there is a history of this, and other governments, harboring contigents specific to tasks such as what I suspect took place here, and that directly impinges on my health, wealth and pursuit of happiness in not a few ways, I will question the current orthodoxy. I have opinions as to how the conspiracy took place, but they are really irrelevant. The official explanations for many of the inconsistencies in the offical story ought to be answered, my theories notwithstanding. Quintiere was correct to support independent confirmation of NIST's work. Lincoln Chafee is correct to support the NY ballot initiative into a real investigation. We can debate the private conspiracy theories, in a civil manner or not, but the real questions remain regardless.


And when Dr. Quintiere says that his belief that the buildings would have collapsed even if no fireproofing had been dislodged is a stronger refutation of the fantasist moonshine about explosives than NIST's conclusions, what do you reply?

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Arthur Cote, author of a well-respected fire safety manual, has talked about diffuse flames, where the ratio of fuel to oxygen is not optimized, resulting in lower than potentially achievable temperatures. When oxygen, in relation to the fuel source, is low... a fuel-rich fire... the resulting flame is not burning optimally, can be evidenced by black smoke, can be considered oxygen-starved. "Oxygen-starved" is a relative term as I have used it, as it is in relation to the fuel present.

In the towers, the intact building had mostly sealed windows and a controlled environment. Now that was obviously disrupted when the planes struck the buildings, but the sealed windows that remained sealed after the planes struck ensured there was not a free flow of air through the damaged parts of the building. Many were blown out, I dispute the claims of an earlier poster that said, thousands, but no doubt many were. And the openings from the aircraft obviously provided ventilation. At any rate, Cote stated, " It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke..." I take his words at face value. Now this was written in Jone's paper, which will throw some of you into apoplectic fits, no doubt, but it is a quote by MIT's Eagar. He is quoting Cote. I take both as credible sources of information.

Another salient point, the complete disintergration of the towers was unexpected. The years of experience of the fire chiefs led them to assess the risk of sending hundreds of their men and women into the towers are acceptable. If they had any inkling the towers were likely to fall, they would not have sent them. They were expecting a typical, large, but typical office building fire. Perhaps localized collapses on some floors, but not sudden, complete disintergration. There is an element here regarding the inability to effectively communicate and warn their men to evacuate, and I accept that. But they assessed the risk due to the damage and fire as within acceptable limits and sent their men and women in.

OK Mr. Chemist, how come I can produce black smoke, with a acetylene torch, without burning the oil or producing a flame from it?

Black smoke simply means that the carbon is not burning it is reacting to the heat without oxidation, it gives no direct indication of the fires temperature.

It only shows the carbon in the smoke is not reacting with oxygen, not fire temperature, that produced the smoke though pyrosis.

PS. your also forgetting the damaged air handling systems, and other damage such as the elevator cares falling in shafts and open shafts collapsed floors.

[Jonnyclueless]

Leave it to chainsaw to take all the fun out of it....

[ElMondoHummus]

Interesting post, ElMondo... If I were being rebellious simply for the sake of rebellion, you might have pegged my feelings and opinions about the towers coming down. Or, if my opinions were formulated to regard the US government as corrupt from head to toe, and complicit, you might have something.

But I arrived at my opinions through neither of those routes. For several years I bought the official line. I didn't buy the links of Al Qeada to Iraq and the necessity to invade Iraq, but, aside from moral concerns about bombing Afghanistan after their twenty years of war already and adding to the misery of the civilian population, I more or less supported that invasion. Al Qeada needed to be dealt with. To the degree that Al Qeada and copy cat organizations are real threats, and there is much debate about what that threat actually entails and how it is best treated, I think extremists need to be pursued, prosecuted, and jailed. I imagine we agree on that.

I left the official line when questions raised about the response (victim's family members raised alot of those initial concerns), questions raised about the large spread of debris in Pennslyvania, and lack of it at the Pentagon, and questions about surprising destruction of the towers... when these questions were raised and left so unsatisfactorily answered, that is when I decided there is more to this than what I am being told. When Quintiere speaks to a national conference saying NIST data and documentation should be independently examined, he is challenging the prevailing orthodoxy. And I agree with him. It should be. The story will remain incomplete, until it is. Being trained in science, I subscribe to the method that independent confirmation of the hypothesis is absolutely necessary. It is incomplete, until it is confirmed. NIST's conclusions are only a hypothesis, and not a very good one, for obvious (in my pov) reasons.

I think the contingent involved is quite small in the government, not the entire "US Government." As there is a history of this, and other governments, harboring contigents specific to tasks such as what I suspect took place here, and that directly impinges on my health, wealth and pursuit of happiness in not a few ways, I will question the current orthodoxy. I have opinions as to how the conspiracy took place, but they are really irrelevant. The official explanations for many of the inconsistencies in the offical story ought to be answered, my theories notwithstanding. Quintiere was correct to support independent confirmation of NIST's work. Lincoln Chafee is correct to support the NY ballot initiative into a real investigation. We can debate the private conspiracy theories, in a civil manner or not, but the real questions remain regardless.

I, too, investigated 9/11 issue when I discovered that questions were raised. For me, it started with the one asking "How did the towers collapse? Jet fuel cannot burn hot enough to melt steel". But, when I heard that, as well as other 9/11 questions like it, I took the time to look at more than just the claim itself; I investigated the context as well. And in doing so, I discovered that context is just as important as factual accuracy when evaluating conspiratorial claims. You see, much about conspiracy peddling involves casting correct facts in incorrect context, and then from there going on to cast more facts even further separated from the situation's context. On top of that, you begin to see factually inaccurate claims, too. Those claims increase in contextual separation and factual inaccuracy until an entirely false picture is built from what on the surface appear to be strings of eminently sensible objections. After the narrative is built, many who have followed the line end up being too intellectually invested and have trouble honestly analyzing the actual truth of the event. Truly honest folks are able to eventually identify the traps and realize the level of deception, but others who are not quite there yet remain mired in the conspiratorial narrative until the dissonace becomes too great to ignore. Either that, or they simply work at staying in the "questions" phase, thus avoiding such conflict. At any rate, there's a problem with the conspiracy narrative, and just about all of us here have seen the same deceptions and distortions used to build that narrative. I understand that the questions seem honestly compelling. They really are. It's just that the answers to those are out there as well, and once you discover those, you'll see how much of the conspiratorial claims are built on shakey foundations, misrepresentations, or outright distortions.

Consider the first claim I brought up, the one about jet fuel and steel melting. Why did the towers fall when the fires weren't hot enough to melt the steel? Well, the simple answer is that the towers' steel did not have to melt for that to happen. It's actually a simple issue, yet the phrasing of the "question" leads people in the wrong direction. They'll trust that the representation of the issue is correct. And that's where the deceptions begin. The statement about jet fuel and steel is a total canard, a fact that happens to be independently correct (light a container of jet fuel on fire, then stick a steel rod into it. Unless the environment is somehow insulated, the steel won't melt), but in regards to 9/11, is irrelevant.

Context. You have to also critically analyze the questions posed in opposition of the "Official Story", and judge the question's merits. Is the question based on real understanding? Is the objection cast in the proper context? Too many times, I see wonderful levels of inquiry and skepticism aimed at the NIST, FEMA, 9/11 Commision, and other "official sources" narratives utterly wasted because they're based on blithe acceptance of flawed conspiratorial points. Misapprehensions are built from such careless acceptance.

Take another look at an example, one of your own claims: "Small pockets of fire", "two hand lines". That one appears to provide the base of a rather big misapprehension regarding the magnitude of the fires on 9/11. First of all, at some point you were presented with a mistaken quote, and apparently it never was corrected before you brought it here; again, the statement was not "small pockets", it was "isolated". Chief Palmer certainly did not consider those fires small, not if he was dedicating two 2-1/2 inch lines to fight them, and right there is the second place where you fail to catch onto the distortion: Two hand lines like that actually amounts to a good amount of capacity. 250 gallons per minute per line is hardly small. Furthermore, you characterize the entire conflageration, including the rubble pile fires, with a statement made by one person discussing one isolated area on one floor of one tower. As serious study of the events reveal, the 78th floor of the South Tower was one of the lightest fires known to be in the towers; NCSTAR 1-5 characterizes it that way, yet on it's own merits, 2 hand lines is no small capacity (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3062738#post3062738). The point lesson here is that it is a mistake to characterize any of the fires in the towers as small, even the isolated pockets on the 78th floor that Chief Palmer saw. But the bigger lesson is that when you don't question the conspiracy narrative that presented that issue to you, you end up with a very wrong grasp of that small part of the truth the claim is discussing. (For context on Chief Palmer's quote, I recommend you read some other sources, such as this thread here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=96116) where some firefighters joined in and explained how much capacity two lines truly represented.).

Now, you mention other questions. You stated that you "... left the official line when questions raised about the response (victim's family members raised alot of those initial concerns), questions raised about the large spread of debris in Pennslyvania, and lack of it at the Pentagon, and questions about surprising destruction of the towers". You also stated that you found the answers unsatisfactory. Did you really find the answers, or just the conspiracy peddler's misrepresentations of those answers? Again, I point at the example of the towers falling without the steel melting as one where the truth is poisoned by the mere dishonest framing of the question. After seeing you try to paint common and expected particles as significant, after seeing you compare large but otherwise common structure fires to the largest structure and, post collapse, largest debris pile fire since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, after seeing you misstate the mistruth about fire sizes and actually error out on Chief Palmer's quote, and after seeing you so blithly buy into the fantasy of "nanocomposites", I wonder if the sources you depend on for the information you've given so far are being honest about the portrayal of the Shanksville crash or the Pentagon impact. Let's deal with Shanksville momentarily: What was wrong with the "large spread of debris in Pennsylvania"? Much of the heavy debris was not spread out so far; the lighter objects, like paper and fabrics, were indeed found futher away, some as far as 1-1/2 miles away near Indian Lake. I don't know if you were heading in this direction, but other people who've brought up the size of the Shanksville debris field generally are trying to work towards an argument that Flight 93 was shot down. That's usually the core claim that these questions build towards, and that issue is where efforts are best spent. In sum, the flight data recorder information (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc04.pdf) shows that the jet was in fact functioning normally all the way into the ground (more info (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page2)). So, does your objection to the size of the Shanksville debris field indicate a disbelief in the narrative that Flight 93 crashed? Because there's a huge burden of proof that must be met to overcome the current body of proof (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page1) indicating that Flight 93 did indeed crash there (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?</p><p>p=1899834&postcount=3898), and did in fact do so because of the hijackers actions.

I can write a similar paragraph touching upon the Pentagon, and the plethora of proof that Flight 77 did indeed crash there, but this post is already too long, and I'm only assembling info found in and through this forum anyway. You can search for that as easily as I can.

At any rate, I don't really see any worthy objections so far. I see incredulity over the physics of the collapse, and presentation of other points that are either devoid of accuracy (the size of the fires, the color of the smoke), devoid of context (the statements about what's expected from mundane structure fires), or with entirely invented context (the molybdenum spherules, aluminosilicates). But I don't see a willingness to truly study the issues, only a willingness to push the conspiratorial narrative. It's fine to defend a thesis, but it's necessary to accept when data negates such. Can you accept that your current points regarding the fire sizes are wrong? And that you're mistaken regarding the significance of the smoke's color? Because those two points of your argument are wrong, and while they themselves don't undo the whole conspiracy thesis, they are erroneous data points that must be discared. Just like our own years-past points of diesel fuel from the emergency lines in WTC 7, and pancaking collapse initiation; those poins are now considered incorrect too, and we readily accept that. Can you discard your own errors in the interest of improving the accuracy for your own argument?

In the end, it's not enough to note that questions are being raised. Those questions and the context behind then have to be evaluated every bit as skeptically as the NIST, FEMA, 9/11 Commision, and other "official" claims. If they're not, then simply going from belief in the "Official Story" to belief in the alternate narrative isn't really an indication of enlightenment. It's merely a sign of bending with the wind.

[Dave Rogers]

Perhaps, but their arguments are much better than anything I have seen here, or read elsewhere.

So you admit that they may perhaps be "simply, factually, even embarrassingly wrong", and that you aren't competent to judge whether they are or not, but you've decided to believe them because you think they argue better? Brilliant. Round about this time, you should start calling us all sheeple, because there are one or two irony meters that haven't exploded yet.

Congratulations, though, for adopting a new logical fallacy. Argument from incompetence ("I can't understand the arguments, therefore I'm better able to decide who's right") is one I must confess I've never seen before outside of a Dilbert strip.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Sorry, have your snicker and chuckle, but I don't need to rise to this bait, even if I know what the answer to your little test is.

Brave, brave Sir Robin.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Let's see if we can get you to figure this out your own. Below is a puzzle of sorts, see if you can figure it out.

[snipped for brevity]

What did I do wrong?

Tricky's told me before that this sort of post is ineligible for the Language Award, because the language used has to be English and not mathematics. I nominated it anyway. Nicely framed, and it would expose sdemitri's utter cluelessness if it weren't for the fact that he's so proud of it that he proclaims himself to be utterly clueless every chance he gets.

Dave

[Mancman]

In the towers, the intact building had mostly sealed windows and a controlled environment. Now that was obviously disrupted when the planes struck the buildings, but the sealed windows that remained sealed after the planes struck ensured there was not a free flow of air through the damaged parts of the building. Many were blown out, I dispute the claims of an earlier poster that said, thousands, but no doubt many were. And the openings from the aircraft obviously provided ventilation.

You seem to forget that heat will easily break windows. This happened in the WTC towers.

This diagram illustrates it. On the left, open windows just after impact, on the right - just before collapse. Black windows were open. Blue windows were obscured.
http://i34.tinypic.com/sw8z9z.jpg

[Newtons Bit]

Tricky's told me before that this sort of post is ineligible for the Language Award, because the language used has to be English and not mathematics. I nominated it anyway. Nicely framed, and it would expose sdemitri's utter cluelessness if it weren't for the fact that he's so proud of it that he proclaims himself to be utterly clueless every chance he gets.

Dave

I'm not trying to expose him, honest!. I'm just trying to use the Socratic Method and get him to think for himself instead of blindly following the charlatans and frauds who lead the "Truth" movement.

I know physics is hard for some people, but you'd think he could at least give it a shot.

[R.Mackey]

No, I am better able to determine, at least for myself, who is in error by evaluating the broader body of evidence. It is always better to have indisputable facts on one's side, and having the expertise to perform the calculations is a plus. I hold myself able to determine where weaknesses are in at least some of the conceptual arguments the calculations by Greening or Bazant refer to, if I am unable to perform the calculations myself. And I have never seen anyone defending the official argument from an engineering pov account for the energy requirement for pulverization to the extent it took place. I realize it is extremely complicated, but I think you would agree it is an important component to the energy requirement calculation.

Emphasis added.

It's funny to hear you say this, because Dr. Greening and Dr. Bazant have done exactly what you ask for in the second highlighted passage -- the BLBG paper (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20Did%20&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It.pdf) provides defense of the "official argument" with the pulverization treated thoroughly.

From this, I infer that you are not even aware of the larger body of evidence, nor are you in a position to correctly evaluate it, contrary to your blasé claim in the first sentence above. You have an opportunity to learn here, and I suggest you take it.


I might refer to Greening's own words when he was asked to present his calculations (although I don't think he was less justified in his response than myself):

"You want me to produce my calculations! Why? So you can scrutinize them and pick at them like a vulture attacking a carcass..."

Again, Dr. Greening provided his calculations. Thus what you've provided is irony thick enough to comfortably walk upon.

Let's see if we can get you to figure this out your own. Below is a puzzle of sorts, see if you can figure it out.

[...]

What did I do wrong?

Nicely challenged. Although I need to point out that as phrased, there are actually two errors in the calculation -- the first is arithmetic in nature. The second is the more fundamental error in reasoning, which Newtons Bit is trying to lead our interpid newcomer into seeing. Depending on the depth of confusion, one might be led to make the arithmetic error, so it might be deliberate or it could be an accident.

However, apparently sdemitri hasn't even gotten the easy one yet.

---

No further follow-up from the editors. Funny, they responded to me right away when they (bizarrely) thought I was going to submit an article. After I explained to them why that was ridiculous, no response. You'd almo$t think there wa$ $ome rea$on.

I'm giving them until Wednesday, one week after last contact, and then I'm going to the circulations manager and their department at U Guelph. This is abhorrent behavior for a professional scientist.

[AZCat]

No further follow-up from the editors. Funny, they responded to me right away when they (bizarrely) thought I was going to submit an article. After I explained to them why that was ridiculous, no response. You'd almo$t think there wa$ $ome rea$on.

I'm giving them until Wednesday, one week after last contact, and then I'm going to the circulations manager and their department at U Guelph. This is abhorrent behavior for a professional scientist.

Thanks for staying on top of this.

[Newtons Bit]

Nicely challenged. Although I need to point out that as phrased, there are actually two errors in the calculation -- the first is arithmetic in nature. The second is the more fundamental error in reasoning, which Newtons Bit is trying to lead our interpid newcomer into seeing. Depending on the depth of confusion, one might be led to make the arithmetic error, so it might be deliberate or it could be an accident.

Arithmetic hard. I suppose that's what happens when I write something like that in about 9 minutes while scarfing down my lunch.

The second energy calculation should be 1/2 M2 * V2^2. That is not the error that I was talking about.

[R.Mackey]

Arithmetic hard. I suppose that's what happens when I write something like that in about 9 minutes while scarfing down my lunch.

The second energy calculation should be 1/2 M2 * V2^2. That is not the error that I was talking about.


Yup, that's the one. Has no bearing on the point of the post, which is well stated, and sure to be ignored by those who think they know everything.

[Magenta]

I, too, investigated 9/11 issue when I discovered that questions were raised. [...]

In the end, it's not enough to note that questions are being raised. Those questions and the context behind then have to be evaluated every bit as skeptically as the NIST, FEMA, 9/11 Commision, and other "official" claims. If they're not, then simply going from belief in the "Official Story" to belief in the alternate narrative isn't really an indication of enlightenment. It's merely a sign of bending with the wind.


Excellent post, ElMondo and nominated for TLA.

[ElMondoHummus]

Oh! Thank you. :blush:

ETA: Oh! And Dave Rodgers too. Twice in the same thread. I'm humbled. Thanks guys. :)

[Toke]

Something is badly wrong here.

One car run into another, and due to conservation of momentum the now doubled mass continue at half the speed.
And half the kinectic energi have disappered ½*2000*5`2 = 25Kj :confused:

4/5 of the original energi gone into bumpers mean that energi have suddenly appeared out of thin air.

It have been too long since i had physics, will read up on it.

[sdemetri]

You mistake my intentions. You don't claim to be an expert on this stuff. I'm not trying to expose you or trap you as someone who isn't an expert.

I'm trying to get you to learn. You might even say that I'm trying to get you to work out the truth for yourself. The problem I posted shares the same fundamental problem that Gordon Ross's paper does. See if you can figure it out (this problem is much more visible in my car example). Try thinking it through, you'll not be ridiculed for trying. You won't be ridiculed for guessing wrong as you don't proclaim to be an expert. You will be labeled, accurately, an intellectual coward for not even attempting a guess.

Take a stab at it. What's wrong with the car problem? What SEEMS wrong? Try working at it through the basis that there weren't any explosives and that the energy balance is wrong.

Thanks, Newton. I like your quote, btw, at the bottom of your posts. I think there is a danger in assuming the "calculations" are the final word of "truth" about a matter. My stepson's dad is an Aussie engineer, worked as a project manager at times on some of the tunnels in and around Hong Kong. I have a great deal of respect for the profession, but in the end, in the final analysis, especially in analyzing a thoroughly unexpected event such as these towers disintergrating after less than an hour and slightly more than an hour, the "calculations" are especially only useful to "guesstimate" what happened. They provide a "theoretical" model, and in no way, shape, or manner, are capable of providing the "absolute truth." The math models reality, how well is the problem.

In the last Bazant paper I waded through he uses lots and lots of theoretical calculations, but toward the end said something to the effect of, "but not much of this could be seen because it was obscured in dust clouds."
So, a religious reliance on the "calculations" is not a particularly convincing revelation of truth. The calculations are perfectly capable of ignoring or missing, not out of malice or with a particular design, extremely relevant phenomena.

A police woman in one of the lobbies described massive explosions. She had spent 13 or 14 years in the military before becoming a police officer. She was trained to recognize explosions, and continue to operate efficiently while explosions were going off all around her. Her military training taught her drop, cover her mouth, keep her head down, look before getting up. In other words, she knew what an explosion was. She had been trained and had experienced them, and knew what to do. She said this training all came back to her in the lobby. She was picked up and thrown many feet, pelted with schrapnel, burned, had the air sucked out of her from the shock wave. This was hundreds of feet below any fire or aircraft damage. This was not elevators dropping, boilers or transformers exploding. This was a massive explosion, one of several. She is a highly credible witness to explosions, one of many witnesses. The reality of her experience does not have a function in an engineering calculation to account for what she heard, felt, experienced, and suffered from for days after the fact.

The math approximates reality, it does not substitute for it. Sometimes the approximations are good, at other times, as wrong as can be.

[Pardalis]

A police woman in one of the lobbies described massive explosions. She had spent 13 or 14 years in the military before becoming a police officer. She was trained to recognize explosions, and continue to operate efficiently while explosions were going off all around her. Her military training taught her drop, cover her mouth, keep her head down, look before getting up. In other words, she knew what an explosion was. She had been trained and had experienced them, and knew what to do. She said this training all came back to her in the lobby. She was picked up and thrown many feet, pelted with schrapnel, burned, had the air sucked out of her from the shock wave. This was hundreds of feet below any fire or aircraft damage. This was not elevators dropping, boilers or transformers exploding. This was a massive explosion, one of several. She is a highly credible witness to explosions, one of many witnesses. The reality of her experience does not have a function in an engineering calculation to account for what she heard, felt, experienced, and suffered from for days after the fact.

You wouldn't have her name and full statements with you by any chance?

[Dave Rogers]

In the last Bazant paper I waded through he uses lots and lots of theoretical calculations, but toward the end said something to the effect of, "but not much of this could be seen because it was obscured in dust clouds."
So, a religious reliance on the "calculations" is not a particularly convincing revelation of truth. The calculations are perfectly capable of ignoring or missing, not out of malice or with a particular design, extremely relevant phenomena.

How much less sensible, therefore, is it to rely on calculations which are demonstrably incorrect? Ross's calculations would actually conclude that collapse is expected to propagate down to ground level if Ross didn't make an absurd mathematical error that double-counts the deformation energies. Kuttler's calculations would demonstrate that the predicted collapse times agree very well with the observed collapse times if he didn't assume that all the concrete had to be pulverised and ejected in every collision, or overestimate the resistance of the support columns to collapse by about twenty times. Yet, with all your skepticism of Bazant's calculations, which are at least internally consistent, you allow yourself to be convinced by work that is quite simply wrong. A rigorous reliance on erroneous calculations is hardly a better revelation of truth.

Dave

[Spud1k]

You wouldn't have her name and full statements with you by any chance?

I think this (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110192.PDF) might be what he's referring to (spun version here (http://rinf.com/alt-news/911-truth/demolition-detonations-confirmed-in-official-statement/1621/)). The detail that you won't hear truthers advertising is that if you check the timeline, the part where she reports explosions actually occurs well before the collapse. Naturally, reports at ground level of explosions pre collapse don't jive with any CD mechanism that would cause the top-down collapse that was observed, so I don't see how this supports any conspiracy theory.

[Pardalis]

I think this (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110192.PDF) might be what he's referring to (spun version here (http://rinf.com/alt-news/911-truth/demolition-detonations-confirmed-in-official-statement/1621/)). The detail that you won't hear truthers advertising is that if you check the timeline, the part where she reports explosions actually occurs well before the collapse. Naturally, reports at ground level of explosions pre collapse don't jive with any CD mechanism that would cause the top-down collapse that was observed, so I don't see how this supports any conspiracy theory.

Reading through it quickly, she does seem to casually use the word "explosion" to describe any big sound she heard.

[sdemetri]

I, too, investigated 9/11 issue when I discovered that questions were raised. For me, it started with the one asking "How did the towers collapse? Jet fuel cannot burn hot enough to melt steel". But, when I heard that, as well as other 9/11 questions like it, I took the time to look at more than just the claim itself; I investigated the context as well. And in doing so, I discovered that context is just as important as factual accuracy when evaluating conspiratorial claims. You see, much about conspiracy peddling involves casting correct facts in incorrect context, and then from there going on to cast more facts even further separated from the situation's context. On top of that, you begin to see factually inaccurate claims, too. Those claims increase in contextual separation and factual inaccuracy until an entirely false picture is built from what on the surface appear to be strings of eminently sensible objections. After the narrative is built, many who have followed the line end up being too intellectually invested and have trouble honestly analyzing the actual truth of the event. Truly honest folks are able to eventually identify the traps and realize the level of deception, but others who are not quite there yet remain mired in the conspiratorial narrative until the dissonace becomes too great to ignore. Either that, or they simply work at staying in the "questions" phase, thus avoiding such conflict. At any rate, there's a problem with the conspiracy narrative, and just about all of us here have seen the same deceptions and distortions used to build that narrative. I understand that the questions seem honestly compelling. They really are. It's just that the answers to those are out there as well, and once you discover those, you'll see how much of the conspiratorial claims are built on shakey foundations, misrepresentations, or outright distortions.

Consider the first claim I brought up, the one about jet fuel and steel melting. Why did the towers fall when the fires weren't hot enough to melt the steel? Well, the simple answer is that the towers' steel did not have to melt for that to happen. It's actually a simple issue, yet the phrasing of the "question" leads people in the wrong direction. They'll trust that the representation of the issue is correct. And that's where the deceptions begin. The statement about jet fuel and steel is a total canard, a fact that happens to be independently correct (light a container of jet fuel on fire, then stick a steel rod into it. Unless the environment is somehow insulated, the steel won't melt), but in regards to 9/11, is irrelevant.

Context. You have to also critically analyze the questions posed in opposition of the "Official Story", and judge the question's merits. Is the question based on real understanding? Is the objection cast in the proper context? Too many times, I see wonderful levels of inquiry and skepticism aimed at the NIST, FEMA, 9/11 Commision, and other "official sources" narratives utterly wasted because they're based on blithe acceptance of flawed conspiratorial points. Misapprehensions are built from such careless acceptance.

Take another look at an example, one of your own claims: "Small pockets of fire", "two hand lines". That one appears to provide the base of a rather big misapprehension regarding the magnitude of the fires on 9/11. First of all, at some point you were presented with a mistaken quote, and apparently it never was corrected before you brought it here; again, the statement was not "small pockets", it was "isolated". Chief Palmer certainly did not consider those fires small, not if he was dedicating two 2-1/2 inch lines to fight them, and right there is the second place where you fail to catch onto the distortion: Two hand lines like that actually amounts to a good amount of capacity. 250 gallons per minute per line is hardly small. Furthermore, you characterize the entire conflageration, including the rubble pile fires, with a statement made by one person discussing one isolated area on one floor of one tower. As serious study of the events reveal, the 78th floor of the South Tower was one of the lightest fires known to be in the towers; NCSTAR 1-5 characterizes it that way, yet on it's own merits, 2 hand lines is no small capacity (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3062738#post3062738). The point lesson here is that it is a mistake to characterize any of the fires in the towers as small, even the isolated pockets on the 78th floor that Chief Palmer saw. But the bigger lesson is that when you don't question the conspiracy narrative that presented that issue to you, you end up with a very wrong grasp of that small part of the truth the claim is discussing. (For context on Chief Palmer's quote, I recommend you read some other sources, such as this thread here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=96116) where some firefighters joined in and explained how much capacity two lines truly represented.).

Now, you mention other questions. You stated that you "... left the official line when questions raised about the response (victim's family members raised alot of those initial concerns), questions raised about the large spread of debris in Pennslyvania, and lack of it at the Pentagon, and questions about surprising destruction of the towers". You also stated that you found the answers unsatisfactory. Did you really find the answers, or just the conspiracy peddler's misrepresentations of those answers? Again, I point at the example of the towers falling without the steel melting as one where the truth is poisoned by the mere dishonest framing of the question. After seeing you try to paint common and expected particles as significant, after seeing you compare large but otherwise common structure fires to the largest structure and, post collapse, largest debris pile fire since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, after seeing you misstate the mistruth about fire sizes and actually error out on Chief Palmer's quote, and after seeing you so blithly buy into the fantasy of "nanocomposites", I wonder if the sources you depend on for the information you've given so far are being honest about the portrayal of the Shanksville crash or the Pentagon impact. Let's deal with Shanksville momentarily: What was wrong with the "large spread of debris in Pennsylvania"? Much of the heavy debris was not spread out so far; the lighter objects, like paper and fabrics, were indeed found futher away, some as far as 1-1/2 miles away near Indian Lake. I don't know if you were heading in this direction, but other people who've brought up the size of the Shanksville debris field generally are trying to work towards an argument that Flight 93 was shot down. That's usually the core claim that these questions build towards, and that issue is where efforts are best spent. In sum, the flight data recorder information (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc04.pdf) shows that the jet was in fact functioning normally all the way into the ground (more info (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page2)). So, does your objection to the size of the Shanksville debris field indicate a disbelief in the narrative that Flight 93 crashed? Because there's a huge burden of proof that must be met to overcome the current body of proof (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page1) indicating that Flight 93 did indeed crash there (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?</p><p>p=1899834&postcount=3898), and did in fact do so because of the hijackers actions.

I can write a similar paragraph touching upon the Pentagon, and the plethora of proof that Flight 77 did indeed crash there, but this post is already too long, and I'm only assembling info found in and through this forum anyway. You can search for that as easily as I can.

At any rate, I don't really see any worthy objections so far. I see incredulity over the physics of the collapse, and presentation of other points that are either devoid of accuracy (the size of the fires, the color of the smoke), devoid of context (the statements about what's expected from mundane structure fires), or with entirely invented context (the molybdenum spherules, aluminosilicates). But I don't see a willingness to truly study the issues, only a willingness to push the conspiratorial narrative. It's fine to defend a thesis, but it's necessary to accept when data negates such. Can you accept that your current points regarding the fire sizes are wrong? And that you're mistaken regarding the significance of the smoke's color? Because those two points of your argument are wrong, and while they themselves don't undo the whole conspiracy thesis, they are erroneous data points that must be discared. Just like our own years-past points of diesel fuel from the emergency lines in WTC 7, and pancaking collapse initiation; those poins are now considered incorrect too, and we readily accept that. Can you discard your own errors in the interest of improving the accuracy for your own argument?

In the end, it's not enough to note that questions are being raised. Those questions and the context behind then have to be evaluated every bit as skeptically as the NIST, FEMA, 9/11 Commision, and other "official" claims. If they're not, then simply going from belief in the "Official Story" to belief in the alternate narrative isn't really an indication of enlightenment. It's merely a sign of bending with the wind.

Many of the initial questions the family members had were around, why no NORAD response to the hijackings? As is amply documented the story changed from NORAD and FAA at least three times. Completely from the standpoint of someone who lost a daughter, son, husband or wife, the question was a legitimate one, and one that to this day has not been answered. It is still a legitimate one, given many of the documented facts that are in the public record and without dispute. In the end, this question has been punted on by the government. Maybe to cover for gross or criminal incompetence, but if so, one might think someone would have been prosecuted or held accountable. Family members and several well placed people, including some members of the 9/11 Commission, believe the true story is being covered up. The context of this question is nothing out of the ordinary. It is legitimate.

The fire chiefs sent their men and women into the towers based on their expertise in assessing risk. The completely unexpected disintergration of the towers took them by surprise, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of those men and women. The NIST investigation narrowly focussed on the effects of damage and fire, looking for a plausible explanation to the disintergration of the buildings. They provide much good data, but the conclusions they have drawn do not fit with the data they refused to even look at. In the end, this investigation did not explain the disintergration. They have stated, " we cannot explain the total collapse..." and indeed, they can't. They have let the other "experts" surmise what caused that, remained silent and left the gaping holes in our understanding wide open. They gave a non-answer as an answer, sequestered the data, documentation, and parameters they used to arrive at their non-answer, forbid their scientists from engaging in any public discussion. Any questions, such as those that prompted Quinteire, an advocate of a more open forum, to announce the data should be independently evaluated, are shortcircuited and though legitimate not addressed. The context of these questions is perfectly legitimate.

The black boxes from both Shanksville and the Pentagon are lacking in their identifying serial numbers in the official record of the NTSB. The FBI has admitted that they did not positively ID the planes through matching the black box serial numbers with the manufacturer's records of other component serial numbers. This is revealed in a FOIA request, and the correspondence associated with that request. A judge has told the FBI provide the documentation ID'ing the planes, or provide a reason why they can't.

You can track all of the court documents regarding this legitimate controversy over the plane ID's, starting here, and working back through the history:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/16762

The NTSB states in response to one request:

"This letter responds to your FOIA request, dated July 11, 2008, which you requested copies of records revealing the process by which wreckage recovered from the aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was positively identified as belonging to; American Airlines flight 11 (N334AA), United Airlines flight 175 (N612UA), American Airlines flight 77 (N644AA), and United Airlines flight 93 (N591UA). Unfortunately, the NTSB doesn't have any records regarding the above requested information."

In another response from the FBI:

"Since being served with the Summons and Amended Complaint, Federal Defendant, with assistance of its attorneys, has analyzed Plaintiff’s request and conducted a searched for responsive records. Federal Defendant has determined that there are no responsive records. The identities of the airplanes hijacked in the September 11 attacks was never in question, and, therefore, there were no records generated “revealing the process by which wreckage recovered by defendant, from aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was positively identified by defendant . . . as belonging to said aircraft . . .” (Amend Compl. Inj. Relief #15 at 1.)

It is all in this record. There are very large, legitimate questions surrounding the identities of the planes alledged to have been used. None of this is out of context. Claiming folks like me are out of context with our questions, is nothing more than your opinion, which given the evidence that legitimate questions exist and have been unanswered, it is your opinion that is out of context. You are blowing in a foul wind, relying on the official story to answer everything for you....

[sdemetri]

I think this (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110192.PDF) might be what he's referring to (spun version here (http://rinf.com/alt-news/911-truth/demolition-detonations-confirmed-in-official-statement/1621/)). The detail that you won't hear truthers advertising is that if you check the timeline, the part where she reports explosions actually occurs well before the collapse. Naturally, reports at ground level of explosions pre collapse don't jive with any CD mechanism that would cause the top-down collapse that was observed, so I don't see how this supports any conspiracy theory.

Capt. DeShore is not the person, although her testimony is also very valuable. Being a captain, and the experience that implies, she is also a credible witness. And ground level explosions are perfectly consistent with CD, top down or not. Dislodging lower members of the internal structure is not at all inconsistent with typical demolitions. Why would it be in an atypical demolition?

The former military policewoman is discussed at the end of Graeme McQueen's talk at the University of Waterloo in March of this year.

[lapman]

Wow, more stupid packed into one post. The parroting of "Truth Movement" lies continues.
Many of the initial questions the family members had were around, why no NORAD response to the hijackings?Such an outrageous lie that has been covered so many times, no link is even necessary. Do you even know what the word research means?

[funk de fino]

Many of the initial questions the family members had were around, why no NORAD response to the hijackings? As is amply documented the story changed from NORAD and FAA at least three times. Completely from the standpoint of someone who lost a daughter, son, husband or wife, the question was a legitimate one, and one that to this day has not been answered. It is still a legitimate one, given many of the documented facts that are in the public record and without dispute. In the end, this question has been punted on by the government. Maybe to cover for gross or criminal incompetence, but if so, one might think someone would have been prosecuted or held accountable. Family members and several well placed people, including some members of the 9/11 Commission, believe the true story is being covered up. The context of this question is nothing out of the ordinary. It is legitimate.

The tapes are out there for everyone to listen to. Have you?

The fire chiefs sent their men and women into the towers based on their expertise in assessing risk. The completely unexpected disintergration of the towers took them by surprise, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of those men and women. The NIST investigation narrowly focussed on the effects of damage and fire, looking for a plausible explanation to the disintergration of the buildings. They provide much good data, but the conclusions they have drawn do not fit with the data they refused to even look at. In the end, this investigation did not explain the disintergration. They have stated, " we cannot explain the total collapse..." and indeed, they can't. They have let the other "experts" surmise what caused that, remained silent and left the gaping holes in our understanding wide open. They gave a non-answer as an answer, sequestered the data, documentation, and parameters they used to arrive at their non-answer, forbid their scientists from engaging in any public discussion. Any questions, such as those that prompted Quinteire, an advocate of a more open forum, to announce the data should be independently evaluated, are shortcircuited and though legitimate not addressed. The context of these questions is perfectly legitimate.

NIST have explained the total collapse in their FAQ's maybe you should have researched them before making false accusations. They give calculations and explain why the collapse did not arrest.

NIST also sent out some of their samples to independant labs for testing and the labs agreed with NIST findings. Maybe you did not read this part of NIST report?

The black boxes from both Shanksville and the Pentagon are lacking in their identifying serial numbers in the official record of the NTSB. The FBI has admitted that they did not positively ID the planes through matching the black box serial numbers with the manufacturer's records of other component serial numbers. This is revealed in a FOIA request, and the correspondence associated with that request. A judge has told the FBI provide the documentation ID'ing the planes, or provide a reason why they can't.

NTSB did not do an aircraft accident investigation. They helped the FBI investigation. The identification of the planes is in no doubt except to a few nutjobs on the internet. Even if the NTSB did an aircraft accident invesigation they do not always list the serial numbers.

You can track all of the court documents regarding this legitimate controversy over the plane ID's, starting here, and working back through the history:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/16762

The NTSB states in response to one request:

"This letter responds to your FOIA request, dated July 11, 2008, which you requested copies of records revealing the process by which wreckage recovered from the aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was positively identified as belonging to; American Airlines flight 11 (N334AA), United Airlines flight 175 (N612UA), American Airlines flight 77 (N644AA), and United Airlines flight 93 (N591UA). Unfortunately, the NTSB doesn't have any records regarding the above requested information."

In another response from the FBI:

"Since being served with the Summons and Amended Complaint, Federal Defendant, with assistance of its attorneys, has analyzed Plaintiff’s request and conducted a searched for responsive records. Federal Defendant has determined that there are no responsive records. The identities of the airplanes hijacked in the September 11 attacks was never in question, and, therefore, there were no records generated “revealing the process by which wreckage recovered by defendant, from aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was positively identified by defendant . . . as belonging to said aircraft . . .” (Amend Compl. Inj. Relief #15 at 1.)

Its only controversial to nutjob truthers. Not to anyone else.

It is all in this record. There are very large, legitimate questions surrounding the identities of the planes alledged to have been used. None of this is out of context. Claiming folks like me are out of context with our questions, is nothing more than your opinion, which given the evidence that legitimate questions exist and have been unanswered, it is your opinion that is out of context. You are blowing in a foul wind, relying on the official story to answer everything for you....

There are no legitimate questions regarding the identities of the planes unless you are an irrational person who lacks logic.

Most of this is a derail maybe you should start another thread.

[funk de fino]

Capt. DeShore is not the person, although her testimony is also very valuable. Being a captain, and the experience that implies, she is also a credible witness. And ground level explosions are perfectly consistent with CD, top down or not. Dislodging lower members of the internal structure is not at all inconsistent with typical demolitions. Why would it be in an atypical demolition?

The former military policewoman is discussed at the end of Graeme McQueen's talk at the University of Waterloo in March of this year.

What purpose would the explosions that occured at the same time as the aircraft impacts serve in a CD (atypical or not)?

[lapman]

Capt. DeShore is not the person, although her testimony is also very valuable. Being a captain, and the experience that implies, she is also a credible witness. And ground level explosions are perfectly consistent with CD, top down or not. Dislodging lower members of the internal structure is not at all inconsistent with typical demolitions. Why would it be in an atypical demolition?That is so incredibly false. A ground level explosion is not even close to consistent from a top-down demolition. A ground level explosion is only consistent from a ground level demolition. Period. So, you've proven again that research is a completely foreign concept to you.

[Pardalis]

The former military policewoman is discussed at the end of Graeme McQueen's talk at the University of Waterloo in March of this year.

Link, name, full quotes?

[Dave Rogers]

Many of the initial questions the family members had were around, why no NORAD response to the hijackings? As is amply documented the story changed from NORAD and FAA at least three times.

The story changing "at least three times" implies that there were at least four versions of the story told. Would you please either state what were some of the differences between the four stories, or admit that you're parroting a lie you read on a conspiracy website and couldn't be bothered to check because it supported your prejudices?

The NIST investigation narrowly focussed on the effects of damage and fire, looking for a plausible explanation to the disintergration of the buildings. They provide much good data, but the conclusions they have drawn do not fit with the data they refused to even look at.

Please list the data NIST refused to even look at, with links where possible. Ideally, these links should not be to the NIST report.


In the end, this investigation did not explain the disintergration. They have stated, " we cannot explain the total collapse..." and indeed, they can't. They have let the other "experts" surmise what caused that, remained silent and left the gaping holes in our understanding wide open.

Blatant misrepresentation of NIST's statement. Also, your requirement that a full explanation of every aspect of 9-11 should be available from a single source, and that work from other individuals which support NIST's conclusions should be ignored because the work was not from NIST, is at variance with humanity's approach to science since the Enlightenment.

The black boxes from both Shanksville and the Pentagon are lacking in their identifying serial numbers in the official record of the NTSB. The FBI has admitted that they did not positively ID the planes through matching the black box serial numbers with the manufacturer's records of other component serial numbers.

The planes were positively ID'd by other means, including continuous radar traces, DNA identification of passenger remains, and the simple but incontravertible fact that those were the only four airliners not otherwise accounted for. It's really very simple; one each of an AA 757, an AA 767, a UA 757 and a UA 767 didn't land at an airport that day.

It is all in this record. There are very large, legitimate questions surrounding the identities of the planes alledged to have been used. None of this is out of context.

None of the questions are legitimate, because all of them have been satisfactorily answered. The fact that you choose not to believe that these answers exist is a measure, not of the uncertainty surrounding the events of 9-11 in the minds of those who have studied it impartially, but the determination on your part to obscure the truth. Strange, though familiar, behaviour from those who claim to be truth seekers.

Dave

[boloboffin]

$20 that Mr. Ryan now walks among us. Any takers?

[AZCat]

$20 that Mr. Ryan now walks among us. Any takers?

I'll take that bet if you give me 2:1 odds.

[Dave Rogers]

Getting back to the original topic of this thread, Frank Greening has posted a response to the paper over on Gregory Urich's 9-11 Forum. While I would have liked to post a couple of excerpts here, I won't quote the post directly; as Frank is a banned JREF forum member I believe that would be an infringement of the MA. However, the full article can be found at:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/paper-by-ryan-gourley-jones-on-1-3-dpp-t41.html

Frank may have an over-abrasive personality and a tendency to overreact grossly to criticism, but on questions of chemistry he is very knowledgeable.

One point that's made in a quote from elsewhere is the following, from the EPA Summary Report EPA/600/R-03/142:

“Most of the VOC data are from grab samples, which were not collected to characterize exposures but were intended to inform recovery workers within the restricted zone of the location of hot spots. As a result, the locations for most of the sampling were near the sources and plumes of smoldering fires, ..."

The high concentrations, therefore, are to be expected; the sampling was not remote, random sampling to determine overall air quality, but targeted at regions where the highest instantaneous and local concentrations would be expected. As such, the sampling method would be expected to produce an extremely high variance from the average concentrations over Ground Zero, so the spiky nature of the data is hardly surprising.

Furthermore, since the collection of samples was from places where fires were observed to be smouldering, it would seem likely that the intense heat and light emission from thermite reactions, or the near-explosions from nano-thermate, would not only be noticed by the workers collecting the samples, but would be a very specific danger to them. The absence of any reports from these workers of thermite reactions is, at the very least, a strong indication that there were none occurring.

Dave

[sdemetri]

The story changing "at least three times" implies that there were at least four versions of the story told. Would you please either state what were some of the differences between the four stories, or admit that you're parroting a lie you read on a conspiracy website and couldn't be bothered to check because it supported your prejudices?

Will have to look through the reference books I have used to come to that conclusion. Don't have them with me here at work.

Please list the data NIST refused to even look at, with links where possible. Ideally, these links should not be to the NIST report.

Given the empirical data NIST generated in their fire simulations, with longer, hotter burns, and that input didn't cause the simulation to initiate collapse I think I could have said as accurately that some of their conclusions don't even fit the data they did look at.


...your requirement that a full explanation of every aspect of 9-11 should be available from a single source, and that work from other individuals which support NIST's conclusions should be ignored because the work was not from NIST, is at variance with humanity's approach to science since the Enlightenment.

"Single source" is not one of my requirements. The mandate for the NIST study was to provide an explanation for the failure of the buildings. They didn't. They took it only so far. And in their correspondence state that they could not explain the total collapse. Greening and Bazant have attempted to explain the total disintergration, which Chief Nigro described upon arriving at the scene as pulverized contents and steel. Their work adds to NIST, but inconclusively as it models only so much of what happened, ignoring other plausible factors that could influence the outcome we witnesses. If NIST data, documentation, and parameters were independently evaluated, capable investigators might be able to assist in their analysis.

The planes were positively ID'd by other means, including continuous radar traces, DNA identification of passenger remains, and the simple but incontravertible fact that those were the only four airliners not otherwise accounted for. It's really very simple; one each of an AA 757, an AA 767, a UA 757 and a UA 767 didn't land at an airport that day.

Perhaps you should file a "friend of the court" brief or something and straighten out that judge who issued a court order requiring the FBI to provide the doc's, or explain why it can't. He also denied the FBI motion to dismiss, so apparently there is some merit to Monahan's request.

You can take the position that given "everybody knows" what the planes were, of course there is no reason to positively ID them, and record exactly how that was done. That seems to be the FBI's argument. Except, that is not an accepted method of "due process," evidentiary rules, chain of custody issues.

DNA of victims provides DNA, but in no way explains how they died, or even if they did die. I say that from the standpoint of what DNA analysis is capable of revealling. Radar traces can be foiled by shadow flights, flying in a particular formation to the target aircraft to mask one's own radar blip. David Griscom, a physicist and long time (33yrs), highly regarded Naval Research Lab scientist, has explained how that can happen, not as definitive proof that it did happen, but only as a working hypothesis.

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/#Griscom

So positive ID based on the serial numbers of the FDR, and component aircraft parts from the manufacturer's database is the final word on identification. The NTSB, who normally does such analysis, didn't in these cases, at least in a way that generated documents they have. The FBI claims no records exist. Either it was not done, or it was done and later destroyed, or some other explanation that to date remains a mystery. Just saying, 'of course we know what the planes were,' is not enough.

[funk de fino]

"Single source" is not one of my requirements. The mandate for the NIST study was to provide an explanation for the failure of the buildings. They didn't. They took it only so far. And in their correspondence state that they could not explain the total collapse. Greening and Bazant have attempted to explain the total disintergration, which Chief Nigro described upon arriving at the scene as pulverized contents and steel. Their work adds to NIST, but inconclusively as it models only so much of what happened, ignoring other plausible factors that could influence the outcome we witnesses. If NIST data, documentation, and parameters were independently evaluated, capable investigators might be able to assist in their analysis.

And in later FAQs they do indeed explain the total collapse.

Read the NIST report, they sent samples of steel to independant investigators and they agreed with NIST findings.

You are making false, irrelevant and off topic claims.

Except, that is not an accepted method of "due process," evidentiary rules, chain of custody issues.

Explain how this applies to aircraft identification.

[SDC]

Sdemetri is trying to shift the burden of proof; to get others to do his/ her work. Wasted time and effort. Just another orphan.

[Disbelief]

So positive ID based on the serial numbers of the FDR, and component aircraft parts from the manufacturer's database is the final word on identification. The NTSB, who normally does such analysis, didn't in these cases, at least in a way that generated documents they have. The FBI claims no records exist. Either it was not done, or it was done and later destroyed, or some other explanation that to date remains a mystery. Just saying, 'of course we know what the planes were,' is not enough.

So, DNA proves nothing but a few serial numbers would convince you? You do realize that it would be far easier to fake serial numbers on an FDR and a few components than to have DNA from all of the victims that are known to have been on the plane.

[jaydeehess]

So positive ID based on the serial numbers of the FDR, and component aircraft parts from the manufacturer's database is the final word on identification. The NTSB, who normally does such analysis, ....

Do they actually identify crashed aircraft by the serial numbers on their parts? Please provide a link to a docuement from the NTSB to back this assertion.
Perhaps they might do so in cases where two planes collide in order to separate which parts come from which plane such as when the two 747's collided in Tenerife. However has there ever been a case in which the crash was witnessed by hundreds of people on the street and dozens of ATC operators AND the identity of the a/c been so indeterminate that serial number parts had to be used to positively identify the a/c that crashed?
If so please provide an example.

It would be akin to having a person murdered on front of hundreds of witnesses, several of whom know the victim by name, and requiring dental record verification of the identity of the deceased.

[lapman]

"Single source" is not one of my requirements. The mandate for the NIST study was to provide an explanation for the failure of the buildings. They didn't. They took it only so far. And in their correspondence state that they could not explain the total collapse.You obviously have no clue what the NIST mandate was. Their mandate was to investigate the events up to the collapse initiation so that they can make building code change recommendation, not the collapse itself since there would be of no real benefit.
Greening and Bazant have attempted to explain the total disintergration, which Chief Nigro described upon arriving at the scene as pulverized contents and steel. Their work adds to NIST, but inconclusively as it models only so much of what happened, ignoring other plausible factors that could influence the outcome we witnesses.The key word is plausible. Thermite and explosives are certainly not even close to plausible since there is nothing that would give any real indication of their presence.
If NIST data, documentation, and parameters were independently evaluated, capable investigators might be able to assist in their analysis.
DNA of victims provides DNA, but in no way explains how they died, or even if they did die. I say that from the standpoint of what DNA analysis is capable of revealling.[/quote]Please proved one instance where all the DNA collected from a crash was autopsied.
Radar traces can be foiled by shadow flights, flying in a particular formation to the target aircraft to mask one's own radar blip. David Griscom, a physicist and long time (33yrs), highly regarded Naval Research Lab scientist, has explained how that can happen, not as definitive proof that it did happen, but only as a working hypothesis.Appeal to authority fallacy. Since there is a plethora of evidence to point to what really crashed into the buildings, the hypothesis is baseless.
So positive ID based on the serial numbers of the FDR, and component aircraft parts from the manufacturer's database is the final word on identification. The NTSB, who normally does such analysis, didn't in these cases, at least in a way that generated documents they have. The FBI claims no records exist. Either it was not done, or it was done and later destroyed, or some other explanation that to date remains a mystery. Just saying, 'of course we know what the planes were,' is not enough.This is false. I have asked the NTSB about their serial number collection practices. They specifically stated NTSB investigators rarely encounter a scenario when the identification of an accident aircraft is not apparent. But during those occasions, investigators will record serial numbers of major components, then contact the manufacturer of those components in an attempt to determine what aircraft the component was installed upon. So your statement is false. Add to that the fact that the crashes were not accidents, so the NTSB was in a supporting roll and not performing a detailed crash investigation since one was not required.

[sdemetri]

Do they actually identify crashed aircraft by the serial numbers on their parts? Please provide a link to a docuement from the NTSB to back this assertion.
Perhaps they might do so in cases where two planes collide in order to separate which parts come from which plane such as when the two 747's collided in Tenerife. However has there ever been a case in which the crash was witnessed by hundreds of people on the street and dozens of ATC operators AND the identity of the a/c been so indeterminate that serial number parts had to be used to positively identify the a/c that crashed?
If so please provide an example.

It would be akin to having a person murdered on front of hundreds of witnesses, several of whom know the victim by name, and requiring dental record verification of the identity of the deceased.

Witnesses saw many things hit the Pentagon. Nobody clearly saw what happened in Pennsylvania.

Monahan posts on the Blogger site:

"The NTSB reports regarding the FDR's recovered from AA 77 and UA 93 are virtually the only ones during the past 20 years of major U.S. aviation mishaps, within which FDR part and serial numbers were not published (the complete list is provided below) Because each essential FDR part and serial number were not published, they were presumably not made available to the NTSB.

American airlines flight 77 FDR report:

http://www.ntsb.gov/info/AAL77_fdr.pdf

United airlines flight 93 report:

http://www.ntsb.gov/info/UAL93FDR.pdf

However, because each AA 77 and UA 93 FDR model and manufacturer is known and published within the AA 77 and UA 93 FDR reports, it would seem that the NTSB obtained limited access to information contained within FAA and airline aircraft records for AA 77 and UA 93. Why the NTSB was apparently unable to also obtain the FDR part and serial numbers required to generate proper FDR data readout is unknown. Presumably, if the recovered AA 77 and UA 93 FDR's did not possess the memory configurations indicated within FAA and airline aircraft records, a mismatch could become apparent to NTSB investigators.

According to the NTSB "Flight Data Recorder Handbook for Aviation Accident Investigations", FDR serial numbers are required for data readout:

"Specifically, the following information is required to facilitate data readout: ... FDR Part number and Serial Number"

http://www.ntsb.gov/Aviation/Manuals/FDR_Handbook.pdf

FAA records that would contain the FDR part numbers serial numbers for AA 77 and UA 93 are unavailable for release by the FAA under the Freedom of Information Act:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/13149

The FAA's response to a Freedom of Information Act request for these aircraft records was described as "unlawful" by a FOIA expert with the "Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press":

“"[W]e are not in a position to release the said records at this time,” certainly isn’t an exemption any where in the Freedom of Information Act, and I can’t think of any case law that supports that answer either."

Within a reply to a 2007 FOIA federal lawsuit, the FBI indicated that it did not possess any records pertaining to the 9/11 aircraft, containing aircraft component or serial numbers:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/14406

Additional FDR information provided by the NTSB within its June 11, 2008 reply, revealing the significance of the apparently unknown part and serial numbers of the FDRs belonging to AA 77 and UA 93, required to generate FDR data readouts:

"Each recorder does have a unique serial number that is assigned by the manufacturer at the time it is made. In addition to the unique serial number there is a part number that associates the unit with a particular family of recorders. Every recorder has a dataplate affixed to the outside of the unit stating the serial number, part number, date of manufacturer, TSO certification, power requirements and weight. The part number will stay the same even though subtle changes may be made during the manufacturing lifecycle of the recorder. The manufacturer may change some components within the unit as long as the functionality and interchangeability of the unit remain the same. This is where the serial number becomes important. If a recorder with the same part number comes in we need to know what parts were used to make it and that is tracked by individual serial numbers of the recorder."

He also writes:

"A 12/16/2007 public correspondence e-mail inquiry of the NTSB posed the following question:

"Will the NTSB refer to recovered aircraft component serial number data, to determine the positive ID of an aircraft following a mishap, in the absence of other identifying data?"

The following e-mail response was provided by a Susan Stevenson of the NTSB on 12/26/2007:

"Yes. NTSB investigators rarely encounter a scenario when the identification of an accident aircraft is not apparent. But during those occasions, investigators will record serial numbers of major components, and then contact the manufacturer of those components in an attempt to determine what aircraft the component was installed upon."

The above cited method of identification was apparently required to obtain the positive identifications of American Airlines flight 11 and United Airlines flight 175, which crashed into the World Trade Center towers.

By FAA documents identified as "Summary of Air Traffic Hijack Events", pages 4 and 13, it is indicated that American Airlines flight 11 (N334AA) and United Airlines flight 175 (N612UA) were not transmitting proper transponder identification data at the time of their respective destructions and that therefore, proper aircraft identification cannot have been obtained from this absent or erroneous data.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB165/faa7.pdf

By documents labeled "NOTES TO CHAPTER 1", page 456, of the "Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States" (2004), it is indicated that "the CVRs and FDRs from American 11 and United 175 were not found" and that therefore, proper aircraft identification cannot have been obtained from this absent data.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Notes.htm "

Regarding DNA analysis PCR technology can replicate minute pieces of DNA allowing for analysis and mapping. But having DNA samples, and the analysis that follows from those samples says absolutely nothing about where the samples came from, whether the donor was living or dead, or how they died, if dead.

And I agree this is way off topic. Getting to the bottom of why Cahill, about a mile from GZ, picked up their mysterious VOC and particulate data, and why the EPA reported extremely unusual 1,3-DPP readings, for the first time ever, apparently, in a large structure debris fire is a much thornier issue. 1,3-DPP is part of the manufacturing process of nanocomposites. Is this the source of such unusually high spikes, or from off-gassing from PVC?

[SDC]

So I guess Sdemetri, you are preparing to establish that no one died? "the analysis that follows from those samples says absolutely nothing about where the samples came from, whether the donor was living or dead, or how they died, if dead." Well, two guys I used to know, and their families and friends, will be awfully surprised.

I usually reserve the term "obscenity" for holocaust denial and its ilk, but this purportedly sneaky way of slipping no-planeage into the discussion also deserves the term.

[jaydeehess]

Witnesses saw many things hit the Pentagon. Nobody clearly saw what happened in Pennsylvania.

However, floght 93 went missing and a large aircraft crashed near Shankesville with no other aircraft in the area being reported as having crashed and the FDR was recovered indicating that it was Flt 93.

Monahan posts on the Blogger site:

"The NTSB reports regarding the FDR's recovered from AA 77 and UA 93 are virtually the only ones during the past 20 years of major U.S. aviation mishaps, within which FDR part and serial numbers were not published (the complete list is provided below) Because each essential FDR part and serial number were not published, they were presumably not made available to the NTSB.

Could i see the "complete list provided below" link please?
A link showing that in the case of 77 and 93 that the FDR ser# is not included in the report is not what I asked for. I asked for an illustration that such is used to definitively identify the a/c that crashed.
American airlines flight 77 FDR report:



However, because each AA 77 and UA 93 FDR model and manufacturer is known and published within the AA 77 and UA 93 FDR reports, it would seem that the NTSB obtained limited access to information contained within FAA and airline aircraft records for AA 77 and UA 93. Why the NTSB was apparently unable to also obtain the FDR part and serial numbers required to generate proper FDR data readout is unknown.



According to the NTSB "Flight Data Recorder Handbook for Aviation Accident Investigations", FDR serial numbers are required for data readout:

"Specifically, the following information is required to facilitate data readout: ... FDR Part number and Serial Number"

http://www.ntsb.gov/Aviation/Manuals/FDR_Handbook.pdf

It also states :

Release of any additional FDR data (additional data/information not contained in the
preliminary plots and corresponding data file) requires the express approval from the
Directors of the Offices of Research and Engineering and Aviation Safety

Presumably, if the recovered AA 77 and UA 93 FDR's did not possess the memory configurations indicated within FAA and airline aircraft records, a mismatch could become apparent to NTSB investigators.

Presupposes a conspiracy. I thought you were illustrating that one was conducted not assuming the consequent.

[lapman]

According to the NTSB "Flight Data Recorder Handbook for Aviation Accident Investigations", FDR serial numbers are required for data readout:What part of "they weren't performing an accident investigation" are you failing to understand?

[jaydeehess]

Regarding DNA analysis PCR technology can replicate minute pieces of DNA allowing for analysis and mapping. But having DNA samples, and the analysis that follows from those samples says absolutely nothing about where the samples came from, whether the donor was living or dead, or how they died, if dead.

The DNA was not being used to determine whether or not the DNA donor was dead or how they died or when they died. It was, simply, DNA from biological samples found within the scene which were identified as having come from the persons who boarded the flights in questions or who were in the towers, and who have never been seen again by friends and families.

Gee, it seems that if it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck you still require that a tight , legal chain of custody of a sample from the animal in question must be submitted to several labs and have them confirm that the it is indeed a member of the Anatidae family of birds.

[ElMondoHummus]

Many of the initial questions the family members had were around, why no NORAD response to the hijackings? As is amply documented the story changed from NORAD and FAA at least three times. Completely from the standpoint of someone who lost a daughter, son, husband or wife, the question was a legitimate one, and one that to this day has not been answered. It is still a legitimate one, given many of the documented facts that are in the public record and without dispute. In the end, this question has been punted on by the government. Maybe to cover for gross or criminal incompetence, but if so, one might think someone would have been prosecuted or held accountable. Family members and several well placed people, including some members of the 9/11 Commission, believe the true story is being covered up. The context of this question is nothing out of the ordinary. It is legitimate.


What is illegitimate is the refusal to portray what truly happened that day, and that failure is not the fault of the poor victims' families who are already overburdened with the aftermath of the tragedy. That blame falls on the conspiracy peddlers who do not accurately present the 9/11 events.

You want to invoke the NORAD response. Then you need to read the information here:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/norad,faa,ntsb,aircraftcapabilities,pilo

Specifically, since you demonstrate that you do not understand the response, you need to start by understanding the timeline:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1845150&postcount=1

... and then move on to the details of NORAD's response:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70300

... You also need to gain a basic understanding of the confusion that day, confusion stemming from difficulties getting a handle on what exactly was happening, and therefore affecting who was told what in timeframes necessary for action to be made:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608

You ask why there's "no NORAD response" to the hijackings? Consider this: They had 9 minutes of warning for Flight 11. They had 2 minutes of warning for Flight 77. They were told about Flight 175 as it hit Two World Trade, and did not find out about Flight 93 until 4 minutes after it crashed. It takes me longer to get a pizza delivered, yet the military was supposed to discover, locate, fly out, and then "respond", either by shooting down or somehow nullify the situation in that timeframe? May I ask how they were supposed to do that in the time they had?

You wonder why they only had 9 minutes, 2 minutes, zero minutes, and negative 4 minutes to react? Go back to the links above and review the timeline. If you don't understand why they had only single digit minutes in the best case to respond, then you don't understand the events on that day, and you definitely are not capable of explaining to the victims' families what truly happened.

Also, you want to discuss the "amply documented changes"? Haven't you ever wondered who or what discovered the changing story on the part of the military to begin with? The 9/11 Commision. This was investgated. It was their work that uncovered the inconsistencies, and forced the military to acknowledge the correct timeline. So I'm at a loss as to why you present the changing stories issue as a problem to be investigated when in fact it is a clear sign that honest investigation did already occur to reveal that specific problem to begin with.


The fire chiefs sent their men and women into the towers based on their expertise in assessing risk. The completely unexpected disintergration of the towers took them by surprise, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of those men and women.


More misunderstanding on your part. You need to read the testimony of the first responders and some of the people they rescued to truly understand what the FDNY thought the stabilty of the building was. They in fact had many indications that the buildings were unstable and in danger of falling. Some examples:


Firefighter Mike Cancel, Ladder 10:We could feel the building starting to twist above us. I called Ladder 10 three times, Ladder 10 roof to Ladder 10. There was no answer. I said we have to evacuate, the building's coming down. Again, there was no response.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/cancel.html%20

PAPD Sergeant David Lim: On the way down, we were losing our lights & could feel the bldg falling apart. ...You could feel the building starting to collapse internally.

http://brainmind.com/AmericaAttacked2.html

FDNY Chief Joseph Dunne: Another ten or 15 minutes or so later, one of my guys said to me, "listen, the north tower is making noise, we're not safe here, that building is going to come down too.”

Dennis Smith. Report From Ground Zero. New York: Viking Penguin, 2002

The collapse was not "unexpected". If you recall, the difficulties in radio communications were what prevented timely relaying of the information to the firefighters who ultimately became trapped and died in the towers. I realize that this point does not speak to any conspiracy, but I highlight it because it demonstrates your lack of knowledge of the events that day.


The NIST investigation narrowly focussed on the effects of damage and fire, looking for a plausible explanation to the disintergration of the buildings. They provide much good data, but the conclusions they have drawn do not fit with the data they refused to even look at. In the end, this investigation did not explain the disintergration. They have stated, " we cannot explain the total collapse..." and indeed, they can't. They have let the other "experts" surmise what caused that, remained silent and left the gaping holes in our understanding wide open. They gave a non-answer as an answer, sequestered the data, documentation, and parameters they used to arrive at their non-answer, forbid their scientists from engaging in any public discussion. Any questions, such as those that prompted Quinteire, an advocate of a more open forum, to announce the data should be independently evaluated, are shortcircuited and though legitimate not addressed. The context of these questions is perfectly legitimate.


All incorrect. For starters, the data does indeed fit the conclusions. If you have any examples out of the reports, then post them. If you want to invoke Quintiere, then understand what his argument truly is. He takes issue with some of their assumptions regarding the basic data of the fireproofing being lost and the fire durations. When you change that, you do indeed reach a different conclusion, but the point is twofold:

Quintiere is indeed challenging some of the basic "data", specifically the assumptions noted above.
The raw data itself, outside of Quintiere's challenge, does indeed fit the conclusion. It demonstrates that when the impacts stripped the fireproofing, the steel became vulnerable to the thermal effects from the fire, compromised the integrity of the structure, and led to runaway collapse.
There is nothing about NIST's data that contradicts their conclusion.

Next: Of course they're not modeling the complete collapse, and indeed they cannot. They investigated to the point where the building became unstable and runaway collapse was avoidable. That's exactly what they should have investigated. No reasonable critic of the report - neither Quintiere in his critique of the fireproofing and fire loads, nor Astaneh-Asl in his critique of the sufficiency of the fire codes - has ever taken issue with them not investigating beyond the point of global instability. The reason no reasonable researcher does so is because there is no new knowledge to be gained from such study. The building was already at the "tipping" point of collapse; anything beyond that is simply a study of what debris impacted where.

The only "researchers" who even attempt to question this have an agenda of proving that the government took steps to ensure the collapse, and are trying to disguise their agenda in a seemingly reasonable cloak of scientific inquiry. In truth, they want to lodge the impression in people's minds that there's something to be discovered in the post initiation data, something that indicates the collapses would have been halted if external influences like explosives or incendiaries had not been used. But they don't make the case that the collapse would have halted. The few attempts out there to do so rigorously - I'm only personally aware of Gordon Ross's, having read that one, but I've heard of others being invoked - have fatal flaws, which have been documented in this very forum; look up previous threads for examples of this. My point is ultimately this: People need to demonstrate why there is fault in not investigating beyond collapse initiation. All reasons proffered so far have been insufficient. Investigating beyond collapse initiation makes as much sense as investigating a tree falling beyond the point it starts to tip, or a balloon bursting beyond "burst initiation". All you need to know is explained by the work of the lumberjack or the act of the needle bursting the balloon. Similarly, all you need to understand why the towers fell is why the steel failed, and that is explained by the fires and impact damage. Both Quintiere and Astaneh-Asl agree with this, as evidenced by the fact that their own arguments contradicting NIST depend on this to be true.


The black boxes from both Shanksville and the Pentagon are lacking in their identifying serial numbers in the official record of the NTSB. The FBI has admitted that they did not positively ID the planes through matching the black box serial numbers with the manufacturer's records of other component serial numbers.


Yes, because positive identification had already occurred with the ATC radar and FDR evidence.


This is revealed in a FOIA request, and the correspondence associated with that request. A judge has told the FBI provide the documentation ID'ing the planes, or provide a reason why they can't. You can track all of the court documents regarding this legitimate controversy over the plane ID's, starting here, and working back through the history:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/16762

The NTSB states in response to one request:

"This letter responds to your FOIA request, dated July 11, 2008, which you requested copies of records revealing the process by which wreckage recovered from the aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was positively identified as belonging to; American Airlines flight 11 (N334AA), United Airlines flight 175 (N612UA), American Airlines flight 77 (N644AA), and United Airlines flight 93 (N591UA). Unfortunately, the NTSB doesn't have any records regarding the above requested information."

In another response from the FBI:

"Since being served with the Summons and Amended Complaint, Federal Defendant, with assistance of its attorneys, has analyzed Plaintiff’s request and conducted a searched for responsive records. Federal Defendant has determined that there are no responsive records. The identities of the airplanes hijacked in the September 11 attacks was never in question, and, therefore, there were no records generated “revealing the process by which wreckage recovered by defendant, from aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was positively identified by defendant . . . as belonging to said aircraft . . .” (Amend Compl. Inj. Relief #15 at 1.)

It is all in this record. There are very large, legitimate questions surrounding the identities of the planes alledged to have been used. None of this is out of context. Claiming folks like me are out of context with our questions, is nothing more than your opinion, which given the evidence that legitimate questions exist and have been unanswered, it is your opinion that is out of context. You are blowing in a foul wind, relying on the official story to answer everything for you....

First of all, there are zero legitimate questions surrounding the identities of the planes used in 9/11. As mentioned earlier, there is ATC radar data as well as FDR data in the cases where the FDR was recovered in a usable state. Furthermore, there is DNA evidence that identifies passengers and flight manifests that ties them to corresponding flights. Furthermore, there are the cell and airphone calls. The flights have been definitively identified, and no amount of handwaving about FOIA requests changes that.

Second: There is a segment in the book "Firefight (http://www.amazon.com/Firefight-Inside-Battle-Save-Pentagon/dp/0891419055/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1218557520&sr=8-1)" where rescue workers discuss evidence gathering and tracking serialized components of the aircraft (someone else can quote the relevant passage; I already returned the book to the library). The conclusion was that it was unnecessary to do so because such work is done in order to prove that the aircraft being investigated was indeed the one in question, and that in the case of Flight 77, there was already a plethora of evidence, from the data on the FDR itself to the air traffic control radar data, to a number of other elements that rendered the need to so tightly document the crash unnecessary. So when someone brings up what is usual practice for jetliner crash investigations, they need to remember that investigations differ, and in the case of the 9/11 flights, the identities of the jets were already known.

Third: What context is missing? Yes, I know you claim that none is. I need proof of that. I noticed that the exact FOIA requests were missing from the posts you link. Sorry to say this, but after experience studying truther evidence and the rampant separation of fact from context, I want to see the original requests before I conclude that the FBI did indeed not find any documentation whatsoever. Saying there are no responsive records can be interpreted to mean that there was nothing that satisfied a particular request, not that there were no records on the jet investigations whatsoever. I'll leave the legal commenter LashL to respond on that verbiage, but my point is that I'd like to see the original FOIA before accepting the claims at the link.

Last: Yes, you are indeed separating context from fact. Continuously. Again, your misapprehensions regarding NORAD alone are proof of that. You do not understand the events of that day, yet you pose questions as if there's still hidden information regarding the response. Which begs the question of how Vanity Fair was able to write their article on the NORAD response that day (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608), but again, I've yet to see any conspiracy believer who's actually read and comprehended the information they provide. My juxtaposition of your misapprehensions demonstrate that you're separating context from fact, and are indeed ignoring the very answers to your questions. All the points you have raised have been answered, time and time again, and yet you ask them as if the information has been suppressed. If it has, how did people like us posters here get a hold of it? Because the information is truly out there; you simply are relying on the wrong sources to digest it for you.

As far as "relying on the official story": Guess what? I haven't read the entire 911 Commision Report yet. I've only looked up individual points as discussion in this form required. Regarding issues such as the ones you've brought up here, I don't know what the "official story" is. I only know what has been pieced together from sources like the NORAD tapes (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608) and other original sources. Unlike you, who seems to be running the standard truther playbook. If you want to understand how NORAD responded, listen to the tapes. They're freely available; after all, a common publication like Vanity Fair got a hold of them. You want to understand the proof behind the jets and bodies on the jets? Look up the various original sources, such as the Moussaoui trial evidence. You want to understand the towers collapses, read the NIST report, or if you're suspicious of the "Official Story", read the Purdue simulation, the various articles in all the engineering publications cited here (http://www.debunking911.com/paper.htm), at the bottom of that page, or the Arup and Edinburgh findings which also have the distinction of criticizing the NIST findings. They contradict NIST, yet they demonstrate clearly that the paradigm of fires plus impact are responsible for the towers collapse. But whatever you do, don't blindly trust the truther sites that you've been quoting. Those sites have demonstrated distortions and misrepresentations time and time again. You will not gain full understanding by relying on those.

Now, are you ready to dispose of your own "foul wind"? Because you've amply demonstrated your own distortions and misapprehensions in the very first paragraph of your response, nevermind the rest of your post. Are you going to truly look at the information? Or are you going to continue presenting long debunked conspiratorial talking points over and over again, like every other peddler who's come into this forum?

[jaydeehess]

El MundoHummus, love the sig., saw the movie and read the book many years ago.

[ElMondoHummus]

El MundoHummus, love the sig., saw the movie and read the book many years ago.

Heh... like I said over in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=117871): There's a book? :eye-poppi

And Magenta (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3933535#post3933535) and FuelAir (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3935585#post3935585) kindly answered in the affirmative. So I now know what I need to track down and read next. :D

ETA: Aw, cwap, the local library doesn't have it. :(

[Newtons Bit]

Thanks, Newton. I like your quote, btw, at the bottom of your posts. I think there is a danger in assuming the "calculations" are the final word of "truth" about a matter. My stepson's dad is an Aussie engineer, worked as a project manager at times on some of the tunnels in and around Hong Kong. I have a great deal of respect for the profession, but in the end, in the final analysis, especially in analyzing a thoroughly unexpected event such as these towers disintergrating after less than an hour and slightly more than an hour, the "calculations" are especially only useful to "guesstimate" what happened. They provide a "theoretical" model, and in no way, shape, or manner, are capable of providing the "absolute truth." The math models reality, how well is the problem.

In the last Bazant paper I waded through he uses lots and lots of theoretical calculations, but toward the end said something to the effect of, "but not much of this could be seen because it was obscured in dust clouds."
So, a religious reliance on the "calculations" is not a particularly convincing revelation of truth. The calculations are perfectly capable of ignoring or missing, not out of malice or with a particular design, extremely relevant phenomena.

You could have at least admitted that you can't even do that little bit of physics, or that you didn't want to. Instead you just changed the subject. You sir, are an intellectual coward.

[R.Mackey]

Heck, he didn't even find the simple arithmetic mistake, he just turned this thread into the usual toilet bowl of Truth Movement "talking points." How original...

The week is up, and still no response from the editors. I have all the information I need to disqualify this paper. It's very disappointing. I'll be interested to find if there's anyone in authority who even tries to defend it, either at the publisher or at their university. I'm guessing "no."

[LashL]

Heck, he didn't even find the simple arithmetic mistake, he just turned this thread into the usual toilet bowl of Truth Movement "talking points." How original...

The week is up, and still no response from the editors. I have all the information I need to disqualify this paper. It's very disappointing. I'll be interested to find if there's anyone in authority who even tries to defend it, either at the publisher or at their university. I'm guessing "no."


Happy birthday, R.Mackey (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=120924)! :)

[sdemetri]

The DNA was not being used to determine whether or not the DNA donor was dead or how they died or when they died. It was, simply, DNA from biological samples found within the scene...

Really? So that is a "chain of custody" type of thing... Whose word are you trusting that that is where the samples came from? You have evidence, affadavits? My point, which several of you keep missing, is DNA analysis identifying an individual reveals only so much information. What it doesn't reveal is where the sample was collected.

Regarding Monahan's FOIA request, I have given you plenty of links, and what I haven't given you is easily accessed in the links I have given you. Take some time and look through it. The judge issued a court order and denied the FBI's motion to dismiss. Maybe he is a fruitcake...(apparently he is a Bush appointee) but I suspect not.

Regarding the Vanity Fair article, the author as I recall was given special access to NORAD and the tapes in writing his description. I don't hold it as completely unbiased or objective. Tapes can be manipulated. Cozy relationships don't guarantee objectivity, honesty, accuracy. A sympathetic author with a flair for language can present ideas that mask inconsistencies, failures, deceptions. Some of you, no doubt, might think that of me. NORAD response, by many appearances, was confused that day. With all the war games, and simulations going on at the exact time of the attacks, that is not surprising. It creates a scenario of plausible deniability, while making NORAD and the FAA look somewhat like Keystone Cops.

Regarding the veracity of the 9/11 Commission report, try verifying what the testimony of FDNY interview 45 contains. If any of you can get me the contents of that interview I'd be much obliged, and would humbly acknowledge your research skills. ( I think it is very curious that NIST entered into a partnership with the City of NY, and the 9/11 Commission to come up with an agreement in 2003 to interview certain firefighters, police and officials. As the Oral Histories weren't made public until 2005, NIST and the 9/11 Commission through the City of NY had access to the Histories, and knew who and what to ask. As evidenced by Lou Cacchioli's statements after his testimony to the Commission was refuted and disrespected by the interviewers on the Commission, knowing what was said in the interviews would be very interesting. The Notes at the end of the Commission Report direct researchers to specific interviews for more information. Trouble is, where are those interviews to be found? Any help would be appreciated.)

[sdemetri]

You sir, are an intellectual coward.

And you, sir, are not being intellectually honest.

What reasonable person seeing the continual sequestering of critical information would not have reason to suspect something is amiss?

Information has been or is being sequestered in:

the NIST data, documentation, parameters regarding WTC 1 and 2,
data, documentation, parameters regarding WTC 7,
steel and other samples from GZ,
the Oral Histories,
the positive ID'ing of some or all of the aircraft,
video and other mechanical data from around the Pentagon showing the event,
debris from the Pentagon,
debris from Shanksville,
data in EPA studies,
data in USGS studies,
private witness testimony to the 9/11 Commission, including Bush and Cheney,
information regarding programs such as Able Danger,
huge sections of the Joint Congressional investigation,
how and why the UN investigation was shut down...

It doesn't end there... a little intellectual honesty is in order to admit that.

[16.5]

And you, sir, are not being intellectually honest.

What reasonable person seeing the continual sequestering of critical information would not have reason to suspect something is amiss?

Information has been or is being sequestered in:

the NIST data, documentation, parameters regarding WTC 1 and 2,
data, documentation, parameters regarding WTC 7,
steel and other samples from GZ,
the Oral Histories,
the positive ID'ing of some or all of the aircraft,
video and other mechanical data from around the Pentagon showing the event,
debris from the Pentagon,
debris from Shanksville,
data in EPA studies,
data in USGS studies,
private witness testimony to the 9/11 Commission, including Bush and Cheney,
information regarding programs such as Able Danger,
huge sections of the Joint Congressional investigation,
how and why the UN investigation was shut down...

It doesn't end there... a little intellectual honesty is in order to admit that.

Cripes, how many days has it been since Super Truther actually addressed the OP?

[lapman]

Regarding the Vanity Fair article, the author as I recall was given special access to NORAD and the tapes in writing his description.You do know that those same tapes are now publicly available?
I don't hold it as completely unbiased or objective. Tapes can be manipulated. Cozy relationships don't guarantee objectivity, honesty, accuracy.Typical truther copout. The onus is on you to prove that the tapes were manipulated.
A sympathetic author with a flair for language can present ideas that mask inconsistencies, failures, deceptions.The same can be said for a dishonest author with an agenda to twist the facts and outright lie to sell truther DVD's.
Some of you, no doubt, might think that of me.I don't. I just think that you either lack the intelligence to comprehend the real facts or your hatred of the Bush administration has clouded your judgment.
NORAD response, by many appearances, was confused that day. With all the war games, and simulations going on at the exact time of the attacks, that is not surprising. It creates a scenario of plausible deniability, while making NORAD and the FAA look somewhat like Keystone Cops.)There were not any war games or simulations that would have cause any confusion. There was only one that was scheduled that day, Vigilant Guardian, that might have, but it was canceled before it even started. Neither NORAD nor the FAA were prepared for what happened that day.

[DavidJames]

Cripes, how many days has it been since Super Truther actually addressed the OP?An inherent attribute of CTists is the inability to remained focused on one topic.

While it clearly shows up in forums like this, I suspect that trait is, somehow, is part of the defining DNA of the CTists.

[jaydeehess]

Really? So that is a "chain of custody" type of thing... Whose word are you trusting that that is where the samples came from? You have evidence, affadavits? My point, which several of you keep missing, is DNA analysis identifying an individual reveals only so much information. What it doesn't reveal is where the sample was collected.


If you are questioning the chain of custody of the DNA samples then you must have some reason to suspect it was tampered with. What is the evidence that it was tampered with?

I believe that the chain of custody was maintained in secure fashion. I have no reason to doubt it, the friends and families of the deceased have no reason to doubt it. If you require the chain of custody docuements you would also have a reason to doubt the security and veracity of the chain of custody so what is it that gives rise to that doubt?
If you were given those chain of custody docuements and personal assurance from the people who collected, transported and worked on the samples would you then derive some other 'doubt', possibly involving 'planted' samples or the veracity of the people who say they collected, transported and worked on the samples?


What is evident is that the people identified by the DNA samples are no longer among their living relatives and friends. I admit that in some arcane, complex, complicated and, at best, wholly unneccessary Rube-Goldberg style plot the aircraft passengers could have been spirited away and killed elsewhere only to have their remains 'planted' in the ruins of the buildings. However, this takes on an even more massive and complex and ridiculous nature if it also has to apply to the dead in the WTC complex. How, pray tell, does one arrange to have the remains of close to 3000 people 'planted'? Were those dead people and the DNA that identified them, real?

Now if if is then only the aircraft occupants that you question then what possible gain was there in spiriting away the plane and passengers, killing them elsewhere and then arranging their DNA to be 'planted'?

It begs the question (again, and again, and again) why it was neccessary to carry out the incredibly stupid and complex commadeering of an aircraft in order to substitute yet another aircraft, or hologram, or faked live TV feeds, and requiring the hiding of security camera videos, and faked DFDR's, and faked downed lamp posts, and fake eyewitnesses, and possibly the coercion of real eyewitnesses to stay silent or change their story,,,,etc,,,,,,
WHEN IN FACT
it would be so much simpler, and result in the same amount of destruction, and obviously put the DNA of said plane occupants right where they belong, IF you just arrange to have the blinkin' plane fly into the blinkin' building in the first place!

Why is it that the TM feels the need to devise such arcane and ridiculous senarios? Is it simply out of spite? A hatred of the Bush administration that drives such illogical reasoning?

,,, and now good readers, I return you to the OP topic and why it is obvious that the characterization of the paper as "peer reviewed" is incorrect at best.

[jaydeehess]

An inherent attribute of CTists is the inability to remained focused on one topic.

While it clearly shows up in forums like this, I suspect that trait is, somehow, is part of the defining DNA of the CTists.

It is obvious, in a purely seat-of-the-pants, common sense, way, that the reason the OP has been derailed is that the paper's citations ahve been shown to be incredibly suspect and that the characterization of 'peer review is questionable at best, and that the characterization of the benzene concentration as suspicious is bunk, and that no one then wishes to continue defending the paper.

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[peteweaver]

The Environmentalist ? not The American Society of Civil Engineers then...

So really, when it comes down to it; no peers to review da troof...

Its like getting an architect, to do a peer review of a chemistry paper.

[johnny karate]

What reasonable person seeing the continual sequestering of critical information would not have reason to suspect something is amiss?

I'm going to go with every single professional investigator and law enforcement official on the entire planet, since none of them in seven years have expressed even a mild interest in the bunk your movement peddles.

[Newtons Bit]

And you, sir, are not being intellectually honest.

What reasonable person seeing the continual sequestering of critical information would not have reason to suspect something is amiss?

Information has been or is being sequestered in:

the NIST data, documentation, parameters regarding WTC 1 and 2,
data, documentation, parameters regarding WTC 7,
steel and other samples from GZ,
the Oral Histories,
the positive ID'ing of some or all of the aircraft,
video and other mechanical data from around the Pentagon showing the event,
debris from the Pentagon,
debris from Shanksville,
data in EPA studies,
data in USGS studies,
private witness testimony to the 9/11 Commission, including Bush and Cheney,
information regarding programs such as Able Danger,
huge sections of the Joint Congressional investigation,
how and why the UN investigation was shut down...

It doesn't end there... a little intellectual honesty is in order to admit that.


Why do you keep feeling the need to change the subject? What's so hard about answering the physics problem I posted? You don't have to figure it out correctly, but you do need to try. Or are you so dependant on Gordon Ross being correct on the building magically not being able to collapse that it is psychological painful to consider that he makes a fundamental error?

Here it is again (with the accidental arithmatic error fixed)

There are two cars, car A and car B. Car A is moving at 10 m/s. Car B is stationary. Both weigh 1000kg. Car A impacts car B (which was in neutral). The two objects stick together and start rolling together. I have video evidence of this. However car A and B were really dirty so right at the impact they both through up a big cloud of dirt obscuring what happened next. The evidence does show that the cars continue to roll for quite some distance.

Using some basic back of the envelope calculations, I calculate correctly that the strain energy damage to each car should be about 20KJ each.

Now then, the intial energy of the impact was 1/2 M * V^2 or

0.5*1000kg*(10^2) = 50,000J or 50KJ

Using conservation of momentum, I can calculate the velocity of the two cars after impact.

M1V1 = M2V2
1000kg * 10 m/s = 2000kg * V2
V2 = 5 m/s

The new energy is 1/2 M * V^2 or
0.5*2000kg*(5^2) = 25,000J or 25.0KJ

The loss of energy is thus 50KJ - 25.0KJ = 25.0KJ

Total Energy In
+50kj

Total Energy out
-25.0KJ
-20KJ
-20KJ

Leaving a deficit of -15.0KJ. I thus conclude that the dust flying during the impact was due to explosives.

What did I do wrong?

[jaydeehess]

There are two cars, car A and car B. Car A is moving at 10 m/s. Car B is stationary. Both weigh 1000kg. Car A impacts car B (which was in neutral). The two objects stick together and start rolling together. I have video evidence of this. However car A and B were really dirty so right at the impact they both through up a big cloud of dirt obscuring what happened next. The evidence does show that the cars continue to roll for quite some distance.

Using some basic back of the envelope calculations, I calculate correctly that the strain energy damage to each car should be about 20KJ each.

Now then, the intial energy of the impact was 1/2 M * V^2 or

0.5*1000kg*(10^2) = 50,000J or 50KJ

Using conservation of momentum, I can calculate the velocity of the two cars after impact.

M1V1 = M2V2
1000kg * 10 m/s = 2000kg * V2
V2 = 5 m/s

The new energy is 1/2 M * V^2 or
0.5*2000kg*(5^2) = 25,000J or 25.0KJ

The loss of energy is thus 50KJ - 25.0KJ = 25.0KJ

Total Energy In
+50kj

Total Energy out
-25.0KJ
-20KJ
-20KJ

Leaving a deficit of -15.0KJ. I thus conclude that the dust flying during the impact was due to explosives.

What did I do wrong?


the dust, the dust, you have to count the energy contained in moving that dust, and just how did that dust get moving in a direction 90 degrees from the direction of travel. Obviously your energy deficit is even greater than what you calculated and explosives must have been used since the dust came out perpendicular to the original direction of travel.

Seriously , sdemetri , please at least try to respond to this question. I want to have Newton's Bit post the answer so that I see if I am correct in my understanding.

[jaydeehess]

In post 131 I noted

Quick google search bolds mine
http://www.aip.com.au/industry/fact_benzene.htm

Medical aspects

Benzene concentrations in the atmosphere can range from one part per billion (1 ppb) in natural bush land to 25 ppb at a service station. There is no evidence of any adverse effects on human health from typical atmospheric levels of benzene.

Only in cases where there have been frequent exposures in industrial situations to concentrations in excess of 1000 times greater than that typically found at a service station over a period of years, have adverse health effects - specifically, an increase in the incidence of myeloid leukemia - been associated with benzene. The current work place exposure limit in Australia is 10,000 ppb 8 hour Time Weighted Average (TWA). This limit is related to employee work place exposure. The general public are unlikely to be exposed to annual average levels of benzene approaching one thousandth of the occupational limits. .

[jaydeehess]

In post 131 I noted

Quick google search bolds mine
http://www.aip.com.au/industry/fact_benzene.htm

Medical aspects

Benzene concentrations in the atmosphere can range from one part per billion (1 ppb) in natural bush land to 25 ppb at a service station. There is no evidence of any adverse effects on human health from typical atmospheric levels of benzene.

Only in cases where there have been frequent exposures in industrial situations to concentrations in excess of 1000 times greater than that typically found at a service station over a period of years, have adverse health effects - specifically, an increase in the incidence of myeloid leukemia - been associated with benzene. The current work place exposure limit in Australia is 10,000 ppb 8 hour Time Weighted Average (TWA). This limit is related to employee work place exposure. The general public are unlikely to be exposed to annual average levels of benzene approaching one thousandth of the occupational limits. .

But Jones states(again bolds mine)
Benzene is a major product of the combustion of plastics
and other organic materials. In a typical structure fire, when
plastics are abundant, benzene levels have been seen at
levels as high as 26 ppb (MOEE 1997). Apart from fires,
benzene is seen in high-traffic areas of urban settings, with
mean levels of *4 ppb (Crebellia et al. 2001).

So one wonders how it can be that in Australia, in the vicinity of a service station the benzene concentration would be the same as it would be in the smoke from a structure fire.

Well it seems that the MOEE paper concerns the air near the Platimet company fire in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Benzene was used as a marker of the actions of the smoke plume.
The concentrations given in the paper are in micrograms per cubic meter and range from less than 1ug/cubic meter to 79 ug/cubic meter depending on the wind direction and which sampling station one is looking at. Here's the kicker, while the samples at the WTC were right over the smoke plume, the sampling done in hamilton was blocks away from the fire (suprise suprise, they did not put the monitors close enough to be damaged by the fire or get in the way of the FF effort.
Jones makes no attempt to reconcile the location of the sampling done at the Platimet fire with the levels at the WTC underground fire's smoke plume. However in noting that the Plastimet concentrations are similar to that cited in the Australian article as coming from the off gassing at a service station it would seem that in an area where hundreds of automobiles had had their tanks crushed and in which fires were burning through areas where plastics, rubber and gasoline were present that the concentrations of benzene in the smoke plume should be at least the same as in air contaminated simply with gasoline fumes.

[beachnut]

"The NTSB reports regarding the FDR's recovered from AA 77 and UA 93 are virtually the only ones during the past 20 years of major U.S. aviation mishaps, within which FDR part and serial numbers were not published


By FAA documents identified as "Summary of Air Traffic Hijack Events", pages 4 and 13, it is indicated that American Airlines flight 11 (N334AA) and United Airlines flight 175 (N612UA) were not transmitting proper transponder identification data at the time of their respective destructions and that therefore, proper aircraft identification cannot have been obtained from this absent or erroneous data.


What the heck does the absent of serial numbers on a FBI support work from the NTSB have to do with the idiot ideas of 9/11 truth? What a dumb post! While you and 9/11 truth make up stupid ideas who is taking all your "ample evidence" to the authorities and the Pulitzer Prize committee? You have nothing but hearsay and made up ideas to raise the suspicion of people who lack knowledge on 9/11. What a waste, you false information is only good for fooling people who can't understand 9/11 or do anything about it but spew your junk ideas.

What a bunch of junk. The FDR reports were for the FBI. The FDR for 93 and 77 start out with;

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/FDRFlt77.jpg

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/FDRFlt93.jpg

"20 years of major U.S. aviation mishaps"

How can you spew such dumb ideas! These were acts of TERRORISM smart guy, and the reports are not mishap reports and therefore are not governed by NTSB mishap reporting rules! Good work doing standard truther regurgitation of junk ideas, instead of thinking for yourself.

I just want to beat this dead dog again!
According to the NTSB "Flight Data Recorder Handbook for Aviation Accident Investigations", FDR serial numbers are required for data readout:
Let me give you a clue! Accident Investigations, is not equal to TERRORIST ACT! The report the NTSB did was data readout of the FDR the FBI gave the NTSB to decode. End of Story, you ideas are pure junk! You should not spew the junk ideas of others without judgment and knowledge.

Do you understand a mishap is an accident and 9/11 was a terrorist act, not an accident or a mishap. Do you need help understanding this?



As for identifying 11 and 175! Oops, the radars keep painting flights 11 and 175. Darn, all you have to do is pull the "tapes" (which they DID!) on the radar data and you can follow 11, and 175, blimp, per blimp, into the WTC. There goes your lack of knowledge hearsay junk floating down the river of pure ignorance and lies! Do you get anything right about 9/11? Bye, bye.

[lapman]

Beach, I've pointed the fact that it wasn't an accident investigation a few times now. All I get is silence. :rolleyes:

[jaydeehess]

As for identifying 11 and 175! Oops, the radars keep painting flights 11 and 175. Darn, all you have to do is pull the "tapes" (which they DID!) on the radar data and you can follow 11, and 175, blimp, per blimp, into the WTC. There goes your lack of knowledge hearsay junk floating down the river of pure ignorance and lies! Do you get anything right about 9/11? Bye, bye.

The answer is 'shadow aircraft' or fake returns inserted in the data stream of course. :rolleyes:


Which comes back to the sentiment I expressed above;
It begs the question (again, and again, and again) why it was neccessary to carry out the incredibly stupid and complex commandeering of an aircraft in order to substitute yet another aircraft, or hologram, or faked live TV feeds, and requiring the hiding of security camera videos, and faked DFDR's, and faked downed lamp posts, and fake eyewitnesses, and possibly the coercion of real eyewitnesses to stay silent or change their story,,,,etc,,,,,,
WHEN IN FACT
it would be so much simpler, and result in the same amount of destruction, and obviously put the DNA of said plane occupants right where they belong, IF you just arrange to have the blinkin' plane fly into the blinkin' building in the first place!

Why is it that the TM feels the need to devise such arcane and ridiculous senarios? Is it simply out of spite? A hatred of the Bush administration that drives such illogical reasoning?

[SDC]

Some are born to be woo, some achieve woo-ness, some have woo-ness thrust upon them... This one is all tangled up in woo.

I think that may be a song. I imagine Ella Fitzgerald or the like... "All tangled up in woo..."

[WildCat]

I think that may be a song. I imagine Ella Fitzgerald or the like... "All tangled up in woo..."
Or Bob Dylan's "Tangled Up In Blue".

[volatile]

The week is up, and still no response from the editors. I have all the information I need to disqualify this paper. It's very disappointing. I'll be interested to find if there's anyone in authority who even tries to defend it, either at the publisher or at their university. I'm guessing "no."

This is a shame, and an indictment on the journal and its editors. Bear in mind that this is the period of the year when most academics are on holiday and incommunicado, so let's hope that explains the lag. Is it worth forwarding the message to anyone else - publishing director, editorial director etc.?

Springer Verlag are a reputable and serious publishing organisation - I'm sure you can pass this up the chain of command. The people responsible for this journal are listed at http://www.springer.com/life+sci?SGWID=0-10027-12-70841-0, though I imagine few of them are qualified to judge the engineering claims made in the paper, given that the journal is an Environmental Science publication!

Paul Roos (http://www.springer.com/environment?SGWID=0-198-19-124197-0) seems to be the man ultimately responsible for the journal; his title is 'Editorial Director of Environmental Science', the subdivision of Springer which publishes The Environmentalist. There are also five Publishing Directors.

[LashL]

Or Bob Dylan's "Tangled Up In Blue".

I am going to see Bob Dylan in concert this week. Now, if he sings that song, you just know I'm going to hear it as "tangled up in woo". :)

/OT