Did Bush watch plane hit the first tower ?

[Non Believer]

Maccy- I am cheered by your reply. I appreciate your interest in finding out what the NIST report actually says. You may find it hard to believe, but I am willing to research information suggested by the other side. Additionally, I plan to request some office time with some of the local engineering professors at Junior colleges ( I don't know if you guys have these), and at the state college. I mention this only because believe it or not, I really am interested in the facts.

A good philosopher should have some awareness of his prejudicial feelings towards certain subjects, and do his best to be objective in his analysis of said subject. Or in the simplest of terms "being objective". I would suggest that I am aware of my prejudice in not believing the official story of 9-11, and I am sure that it does cloud my analysis of facts at times. However, when some of you on this list insisted that global collapse calculations could not be seen as simply as I had suggested ( I had initially claimed that the lower part of the towers should still have the same ability to support the portion above after collapse initiation as it had had when it was undamaged) I considered that I might be mistaken. So perhaps I was too simplistic in that suggestion, and I did consider that maybe I am wrong. Maybe these guys are really going to show me that the collapse was explainable, but for me that didn't happen.

I mention this not to point to the fact that I remain unconvinced, but rather that I felt it was possible that I might be mistaken. and that indeed the towers did come down from airplanes alone. I know that many of you will see this as simply weakness in my belief, and therefore my argument. A good philosopher recognizes that contradictions such as this abound in the world of logic and belief (the contradiction is how do you remain objective and have well researched convictions at the same time). Some have used the expression of "strong convictions loosely held" as a way out of the problem.

As for you that insist there is no weakness in the NIST report. NIST states only that "instability would spread throughout the building" after initial collapse began. In my opinion this is a wholly inadequate explanation of the collapse. We are given no paramaters on how many of the trusses failed, or in what sequence. So I am not certain whether those of you who keep asking what is wrong with the NIST report are not aware of this, just think this is adequate, or believe they had more to say. So please clarify your questions in this regard

As far as the NIST report for initial collapse, I do have lingering questions. Hopefully having questions isn't proof that I am a hopeless skeptic that will never accept any answers. But if the answers continue along the vain of we are the experts just trust us, then I think we will continue to get nowhere.

And as far as the lawyers who ask about what it is I am saying regarding law, what don't you read the thread? I am getting a little tired of repeating the answers to the same questions over and over. The main point that I will repeat for you Mr. Lash is that expert witnesses have to be able to explain to a jury what it is that there talking about. I know this is wholly undignified that the holders of the truth in their ivory towers must come down and be involved with the common folk, but that is the system we have in this country and you just have to deal with it. So this serves as an illustration that discussions of matters of this import must be brought before the public.

Horaitsist- Do you even listen at all. I made the quote about calculus a ways back. Why don't you go and look for it?

Johnny F- As I have said repeatedly, at the moment I am trying to stay on track on the official version of the collapse of the building. Until we have a clear picture of what that story is, I am not willing to compare to a demolition theory. though you should know that it makes you appear weak that you are not able to adequately explain your version of events before attacking the other sides version

[JonnyFive]

Johnny F- As I have said repeatedly, at the moment I am trying to stay on track on the official version of the collapse of the building. Until we have a clear picture of what that story is, I am not willing to compare to a demolition theory. though you should know that it makes you appear weak that you are not able to adequately explain your version of events before attacking the other sides version

Why should we have to continually the same work over and over because you can't trouble yourself to read the NIST report or any other technical material on the collapse? There are many explanations of the official version of events, and your response here is tantamount to "I don't feel like reading".

This has been explained to you (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2220385#post2220385), in this thread, by at least one person with relevant experience. I agree with his explanation, and believe it accurately represents the situation as I saw it unfold, and as the NIST report describes. I will not indulge your vanity by posting the same kind of detailed point-by-point analysis, as I am not qualified to do so.

By the way, NIST does not only state that "instability" would spread throughout the building. There is a very detailed explanation of how the experts working for NIST believe the collapse initiated.

I haven't attacked your theory because I don't need to. You haven't provided one piece of evidence for it, so it's a non-entity at this point. I might as well say I believe invisible space monsters destroyed the tower because the NIST report "doesn't feel right" or some other BS. Until I provide some evidence it's just another wild theory.

Your unwillingness to examine the evidence for the official theory does not make such evidence nonexistent.

Present evidence for your theories, or they will not be taken seriously here.

[Architect]

I had foolishly assumed that whilst I was back in hospital (an unexpected surprise) this thread might have moved on. How wrong I was. NB posts the same empty rhetoric whilst comprehensively failing to address any of the technical points put to him previously.

NIST have explained the collapse at length in their comprehensive full report, and most certainly to a level acceptable to the construction professionals best placed to understand it. NB, despite his utter lack of any relevant technical expertise, disagrees with the report findings but unable - or unwilling - to produce any technical response instead dresses up his doubts as "questions".

NIST do not have a duty to produce a report so simplified that even a layman can follow it, any more than your doctor has to explain the complexities of human anatomy when diagnosing your heart murmur. NB is spamming this site with pseudo philosophical claptrap in an attempt to divert attention away from the matter at hand; he has no substantive arguments to support his grand conspiracy.

[JonnyFive]

NIST do not have a duty to produce a report so simplified that even a layman can follow it, any more than your doctor has to explain the complexities of human anatomy when diagnosing your heart murmur. NB is spamming this site with pseudo philosophical claptrap in an attempt to divert attention away from the matter at hand; he has no substantive arguments to support his grand conspiracy.

Well said. We've been trying to keep him on point, but he continually insists that we have to first establish the official story or some rubbish. When it's pointed out to him that there is plenty to establish the official story, he simply ignores it.

Until he posts some kind of evidence or attempts to address the technical issues head-on, this isn't going anywhere at all.

Of course, sometimes when the CTists attempt to address the technical issues directly it has hilarious results, such as 28th K's truly awful comprehension of physics.

[volatile]

( I had initially claimed that the lower part of the towers should still have the same ability to support the portion above after collapse initiation as it had had when it was undamaged) I considered that I might be mistaken. So perhaps I was too simplistic in that suggestion, and I did consider that maybe I am wrong. Maybe these guys are really going to show me that the collapse was explainable, but for me that didn't happen.

So you think that because the underlying support of the floors below the impact held the weight before the collision, they should have done so afterwards? That the falling mass of the upper floors should have been stopped by the main "undamaged" body of the towers?

If you place a bowling ball on your desk, will your desk collapse? If you drop that same bowling ball from a distance above your desk, will your desk collapse?


I mention this not to point to the fact that I remain unconvinced, but rather that I felt it was possible that I might be mistaken. and that indeed the towers did come down from airplanes alone.

They didn't come down "from airplanes alone", as you'll notice that the towers withstood the plane collisions for several hours. NIST is quite explicit in this fact that the plan collisions caused damage to the fire-proofing which allowed the resulting fires (fuelled by the huge amounts of jet fuel and the burning contents of the WTC offices) to cause enough weakening of the steel superstructure to initiate the collapse sequence. Even reading the NIST FAQ will spell that out to you in great detail.



Johnny F- As I have said repeatedly, at the moment I am trying to stay on track on the official version of the collapse of the building. Until we have a clear picture of what that story is, I am not willing to compare to a demolition theory. though you should know that it makes you appear weak that you are not able to adequately explain your version of events before attacking the other sides version

We do have a very clear, very long report giving the "story", which "adequately" explains the events to every structural engineer who's ever read it. What's wrong with it? You still haven't said.

[Architect]

We do have a very clear, very long report giving the "story", which "adequately" explains the events to every structural engineer who's ever read it. What's wrong with it? You still haven't said.


Don't forget:

1. Architects

2. Fire Engineers

3. Controlled Demolitions Experts

4. Materials specialists

5. Building Contractors

6. Surveyors

[JonnyFive]

We do have a very clear, very long report giving the "story", which "adequately" explains the events to every structural engineer who's ever read it. What's wrong with it? You still haven't said.

Clearly we haven't developed the right logic framework to talk about it yet. Or something.

Alternatively, NB has nothing and can't admit it to himself or others.

[JonnyFive]

Don't forget:

1. Architects

2. Fire Engineers

3. Controlled Demolitions Experts

4. Materials specialists

5. Building Contractors

6. Surveyors

7. People with an understanding of university-level physics and math.

8. People with an understanding of high school-level physics and math.

[HyJinX]

*SNIP* As far as the NIST report for initial collapse, I do have lingering questions. Hopefully having questions isn't proof that I am a hopeless skeptic that will never accept any answers. But if the answers continue along the vain of we are the experts just trust us, then I think we will continue to get nowhere.*SNIP*

You're doctor is an expert...do you trust him/her?
House builders are experts...do you trust to live in what they build?
Car makers are experts...do you trust in what you drive?
Lawyers are experts...would you put your life in their hands to defend you?
NIST is a group of experts...yet you don't trust them?

Why?

[Horatius]

Horaitsist- Do you even listen at all. I made the quote about calculus a ways back. Why don't you go and look for it?


Yes, I listen. I even remember.

Horatius- what has Arch given me to evaluate past it is too complicated, and we all know that this would happen

...

As for the calculus explanation, some of you have threatned to the on the degree of analysis I will be facing. And since I have problems with such authority I have chosen to give the absolute simplest description first, and then slowly move up from there. This of course emphasizes the nature of gradient understandings, of apparently which you are all unaware. So the basic concept of calculus is to build mathematical models that most closely approximate the infinities we approach when measuring motion. Remember a bloody Ct er said this , so you sure better find it ridiculous.


You said that what was given to you was too complicated. You then gave what you considered to be "the absolute simplest description" of calculas, which description would be entirely useless for allowing an untrained or under-trained individual to evaluate the work of a mathemetician or physicist who was presenting a calculas-based proof. As such, your answer was complete useless to us as well, as we still have no idea what level of detail you need.

You also said you were presenting this definition "first", and that you would "then slowly move up from there", which implies there wil be a second definition forthcoming. One might hope there will be a third as well, if needed.

So yes, I listen. I remember. Unfortunately, you don't really say much. Unfortunately, only you can fix that last problem, so, please, do get on with it.

Or, you know, just admit you're blowing smoke. We'd accept that, and it might even make us respect you a little. Not a lot, but a little.

[Regnad Kcin]

...(I had initially claimed that the lower part of the towers should still have the same ability to support the portion above after collapse initiation as it had had when it was undamaged) I considered that I might be mistaken. So perhaps I was too simplistic in that suggestion, and I did consider that maybe I am wrong.That such a thing is even a question in one's mind is remarkable.

Note also how it isn't a question in the mind of the world-wide body of structural engineers.

I mention this not to point to the fact that I remain unconvinced, but rather that I felt it was possible that I might be mistaken. and that indeed the towers did come down from airplanes alone...The towers did not "come down from airplanes alone."

[Non Believer]

Architect - It reads over here as government of the people, for the people, and by the people. We as democracy tell what NIST and any other panty-waist dictator that comes along is our servant sir. The citizenry should not have to fight for the right to access information on the most important day in it's history. Your suggestion that NIST has no duty to the average citizen is an outrage, and completely antithetical to what this country was founded on.

[Brainache]

Architect - It reads over here as government of the people, for the people, and by the people. We as democracy tell what NIST and any other panty-waist dictator that comes along is our servant sir. The citizenry should not have to fight for the right to access information on the most important day in it's history. Your suggestion that NIST has no duty to the average citizen is an outrage, and completely antithetical to what this country was founded on.


So maybe all the engineering textbooks and physics papers should include a version for people who don't study engineering or physics?

It might come as a shock to you to learn that the scientific process is different to the democratic process.

People don't vote on scientific theories, they either stand or fall on their merits. The NIST report stands because people who understand it agree with it. If they didn't agree with it, they would say so and prove themselves to the satisfaction of science and reason, not popular opinion.

You can't claim a valid opinion on a subject which you don't understand.

[Non Believer]

How about one direct quote from NIST on the subject at hand gents. I hear how you know all about the report, but you can speak of it in only the vaguest terms possible. Specifics are certainly an endangered species in your guys world, but why don't you try resurrection of a few and quote a specific someday. Would anybody like to quote in the section of NIST that deals with the collapse of the towers, or should I do it for you?

Don't forget-

1- Fear

2-Compliance

3-Ignorance

4-Secrecy

5-Trust in authority

[volatile]

Indeed.

And that's beside the fact that the NIST report is available, in full, for download, for free, and that there's a non-technical FAQ on the website to boot.

What else do you want, NB? Just because you don't understand it, it doesn't make it not true!

ETA: What was the "subject at hand" again?

ETA2:
NIST NCSTAR 1-6: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers (http://%22http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-6index.htm)

If you want to read them and nitpick, do. If you don't want to do that, shut up.

I haven't read all the report because frankly, I don't have time. Because of this, I have to defer to someone who has read it, and compare their analyses with the analyses of others who have also read it. In the same way as when I'm ill I don't rush down to my university and enrol on a medical degree, but instead ask one (or maybe even more than one) doctor what he thinks is wrong with me.

That said, I have read the FAQ (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm) which explains in laymans terms what the "official story" is, and I also know that enough qualified people who have read both the full report and the FAQ would be up in arms and straight to the journals if there was even the slightest flaw in the report's findings. That's how academia works.

[Horatius]

Architect - It reads over here as government of the people, for the people, and by the people. We as democracy tell what NIST and any other panty-waist dictator that comes along is our servant sir. The citizenry should not have to fight for the right to access information on the most important day in it's history. Your suggestion that NIST has no duty to the average citizen is an outrage, and completely antithetical to what this country was founded on.

Wouldn't the most important date in the history of the US be July 4, 1776?

But maybe I'm just a stupid drunk Canuck.....

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Architect - It reads over here as government of the people, for the people, and by the people. We as democracy tell what NIST and any other panty-waist dictator that comes along is our servant sir. The citizenry should not have to fight for the right to access information on the most important day in it's history. Your suggestion that NIST has no duty to the average citizen is an outrage, and completely antithetical to what this country was founded on.
Are you really this stupid, or just amazingly lazy?

http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

Read. If you don't have the appropriate and adequate knowledge to understand what was written, it's up to you to acquire that knowledge... not have it spoon-fed to you.

[Skibum]

Are you really this stupid, or just amazingly lazy?

http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

Read. If you don't have the appropriate and adequate knowledge to understand what was written, it's up to you to acquire that knowledge... not have it spoon-fed to you.

Maybe it would be easier for the truthers to understand if they had Barney do a special TV show to explain it to them.

[A W Smith]

Nonbeliever. In a democracy it is the majority who determine if they are being properly served. Since the majority of citizens are satisfied with the research of professional architectural and civil engineers, laboratory scientists, material specialists, etc, and agree with the report. It will stand. The MINORITY. which is a group you belong to. Do not determine weather a re-write is necessary simply because you cannot grasp or have faith in its content. You have been out voted. It is a waste of taxpayers resources to satisfy you in a do-over. You have insuffciant evidence to disprove what already has been researched. In a democracy you will accept this. You have no other choice. Accept it. you lose.

[LashL]

Are you really this stupid, or just amazingly lazy?


In NB's case, the two are not mutually exclusive.

http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

Read. If you don't have the appropriate and adequate knowledge to understand what was written, it's up to you to acquire that knowledge... not have it spoon-fed to you.

Like most twoofers, he refuses to read anything that does not originate from conspiracy websites and he refuses to read anything that would force him to acknowledge that he hasn't a clue about the reality of the events that he ascribes all manner of tinhat theories to. In other words, he knows not of whence he speaks - and he has to keep it that way for fear that his fellow twoofers will recognize him for the fraud that he is.

He's out of his depth and simply will not take the time or expend the effort to try to comprehend even the FAQ which is a very short and very simplified version designed specifically to provide a "layman's version" if you will.

It's ever so much simpler to just plug his ears and chant "lalalalalala-i can't hear you", while remaining wilfully ignorant of facts, evidence and reality.

[Architect]

Architect - It reads over here as government of the people, for the people, and by the people. We as democracy tell what NIST and any other panty-waist dictator that comes along is our servant sir. The citizenry should not have to fight for the right to access information on the most important day in it's history. Your suggestion that NIST has no duty to the average citizen is an outrage, and completely antithetical to what this country was founded on.


NB,

Culbable misquotes; the last resort of the CtER.

Let's be quite clear: you do not disagree with the NIST findings but you believe that it is NIST's job to explain the collapse in a way that people such as you, with absolutely no understanding of structural or fire engineering can follow.

Now as you claim to have a degree, you would be aware that university level study is a long and complex process. Architecture takes 5 years. Structural engineering normally takes 5. Fire engineering 4. Then we have the compulsory practical training on top of that.

So tell me then. Do you really believe that NIST are meant to compress all this highly technical education into an idiot-proof report that anybody can read? What size do you think this report will be?!

I put it to you, NB, that you are a fraud. Contrary to your claims, you show no evidence of the understanding and background knowledge required for any university degree. Your basic claim, that the NIST report is deffcient, is ludicrous. You have failed to provide any substantive technical concerns regarding the accepted collapse hypothesis. When pressed, you resort to philosophical babble of doubtful provenance.

In short, you are wasting out time with worthless trolling and doing little more than displaying your own ignorance.

Put up, or shut up.



because that is ludicrous; do you demand that your doctor explains anatomy every time you get a diagnosis? Do you ask your solicitor to run through caselaw when you buy a house

[Non Believer]

OK , there not endangered, there extinct.

[beachnut]

Architect - It reads over here as government of the people, for the people, and by the people. We as democracy tell what NIST and any other panty-waist dictator that comes along is our servant sir. The citizenry should not have to fight for the right to access information on the most important day in it's history. Your suggestion that NIST has no duty to the average citizen is an outrage, and completely antithetical to what this country was founded on.

There is not a thing hidden! News stories and we saw it happen.

9/11 was all seen by us. Either CTers are blind or just dumb as dirt. They just talk the talk of truth. Mean while countless studies on 9/11 past them by. No truth CTer nut case seek out the most idiotic people and ideas to make up the most fantasy crap to believe.

CTers must not vote since they are too young, too stupid, or just using to many drugs to register. Maybe they do not what to do jury duty! What ever CTers are not but a few idiots ignoring the facts making up the "truth".

How bizarre, how ironic, how stupid can the truth movement be?

[aggle-rithm]

Architect - It reads over here as government of the people, for the people, and by the people. We as democracy tell what NIST and any other panty-waist dictator that comes along is our servant sir. The citizenry should not have to fight for the right to access information on the most important day in it's history. Your suggestion that NIST has no duty to the average citizen is an outrage, and completely antithetical to what this country was founded on.

Most people argue against basic physics for a while longer before retreating into a nebulous muddle of quasi-patriotism. You're jumping the gun, man! Read some of the other threads and learn from pros like 28BrainCells and StainRemover.

[JimBenArm]

Architect - It reads over here as government of the people, for the people, and by the people. We as democracy tell what NIST and any other panty-waist dictator that comes along is our servant sir. The citizenry should not have to fight for the right to access information on the most important day in it's history. Your suggestion that NIST has no duty to the average citizen is an outrage, and completely antithetical to what this country was founded on.

Oh, dear.
They didn't hide anything. The fact you're too dense to understand it is not NIST's fault, and doesn't make them dictatorial.
Just makes you slow.

Sorry!

[Mr.D]

OK , there not endangered, there extinct.


Congratulations on demonstrating that we may add both english and spelling to the ever increasing list of subjects with which you are not even a knowledgeable novice.

Which US Government agency is required by "democracy" to dumb down what contractions and homonyms are for you? I'd hate to be accused of conspiring to hide that information from you.

[Architect]

Duplicate post

[Architect]

NB

I assume you are incapable of responding and conceed defeat.



Everyone else:

Apologies for that weird errant sentence at the end of the post. Dunno what happened there, blame it on the meds.

[Architect]

Hmm. Still no response. A definite climbdown by our non-believing friend.

[Non Believer]

I guess you guys are not capable of anything more than ad hominem attacks, and opinions on things no one can verify. You have absolutely nothing on this issue. Why don't you answer directly on the question of expert witnesses having to make their testimony understandable to juries?
At this point there seems to be no point in asking you guys any questions, or requesting evidence, since you have none. Imagine if we discussed how much force it takes to pulverize concrete, or what the likelihood of a progressive collapse breaking the truss joints and causing a pancake collapse might be. Yes, someday we may have even graduated to considering whether the near free fall speed of the collapse was consistent with the resistance offered by the lower part of the structure. But we know your answer to every question in advance. And your answer is of course, "It's so obvious that it would have happened that way we don't need to explain it."
O. K lets pretend your interested. How about estimates on the force of the mass of the tower collapsing. It seems general estimates on this would be simple enough. You could even measure it with the claim of instant acceleration at all points along the horizontal axis at the 94th floor. In other words like an energy beam cut through the whole thing simultaneously.
Not surprising that you never touched the objectivity thing. Are you guys above such considerations? Do you not believe that people with equal amounts of education in subjects can reach completely different conclusions based on personal prejudice. The pre war intelligence seems like a perfect example. Those who believed in the necessity of regime change believed Iraq possessed weapons, those who didn't see the necessity of regime change tended to doubt the so called proof. And of course this was a prime case for the experts being wrong as well.
This also brings us back to the jury selection process. One would assume that in our metaphorical trial that witnesses with strong political feelings might be considered prejudiced. I have admitted my prejudice, how about yours? Any borderline imperialist tendencies lurking out there?

[Horatius]

At this point there seems to be no point in asking you guys any questions, or requesting evidence, since you have none. Imagine if we discussed how much force it takes to pulverize concrete, ... But we know your answer to every question in advance. And your answer is of course, "It's so obvious that it would have happened that way we don't need to explain it."

Actually, my answer to that would be, read Dr. Greening's paper (http://www.911myths.com/WTCONC1.pdf). Too bad for you, he hasn't dumbed it down enough for you to understand it.

How can we have a serious discussion with you, if you refuse to put in the time and effort needed to understand even the basics of what we're discussing?

And I'm still waiting for the "real" description of calculus you promised. Remember, it has to be complete enough for some to actually use it to analyse a real example of calculus in action.

[Mr.D]

I guess you guys are not capable of anything more than ad hominem attacks, and opinions on things no one can verify. You have absolutely nothing on this issue. Why don't you answer directly on the question of expert witnesses having to make their testimony understandable to juries?


What jury?

You haven't put together a coherent enough argument for a further investigation, warrant or subpoena, nevermind a grand jury or trial.


O. K lets pretend your interested. How about estimates on the force of the mass of the tower collapsing. It seems general estimates on this would be simple enough. You could even measure it with the claim of instant acceleration at all points along the horizontal axis at the 94th floor.


Fine. I'll play for a bit. Let's pretend you're (not "YOUR" - geeez, how hard is it to get even that right?) actually using the vocabulary in a way that makes sense and calculate the kinetic energy of the top 16 floors after falling a distance of 1 floor.

We'll use the approximate values that Bell posted in another thread.


WTC height: 1,368 ft (417.0 m)
WTC width: 208 feet (63.4 m)
WTC weight: 500.000 ton


PE = mgh

So to a first approximation ...

PE =~ (500000 tons / 110 floors) * 16 floors * (1000 kg / ton) * (9.8 m / s^2) * 1 floor * (1368 ft / 110 floors) * (1 m / 3.28 ft)
PE =~ 2906000000 (kg m^2 / s^2)

Keeping in mind this is a lower bound because we've left out the additional mass of office supplies, equipment and tragically, victims.

Now, 28th. Using "political theory," and a different "framework," explain how much of the structure of the 93rd floor you'd expect to remain intact after being hit with energy exceeding that of 2/3 ton of exploding TNT. And remember to apply your own standards of evidence and make it understandable to a jury.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Why don't you answer directly on the question of expert witnesses having to make their testimony understandable to juries?
Jury? What jury? Oh, wait... You're trying to be the jury, aren't you?

[beachnut]

At this point there seems to be no point in asking you guys any questions, or requesting evidence, since you have none. Imagine if we discussed how much force it takes to pulverize concrete, or what the likelihood of a progressive collapse breaking the truss joints and causing a pancake collapse might be. Yes, someday we may have even graduated to considering whether the near free fall speed of the collapse was consistent with the resistance offered by the lower part of the structure. But we know your answer to every question in advance. And your answer is of course, "It's so obvious that it would have happened that way we don't need to explain it."
O. K lets pretend your interested. How about estimates on the force of the mass of the tower collapsing. It seems general estimates on this would be simple enough. You could even measure it with the claim of instant acceleration at all points along the horizontal axis at the 94th floor. In other words like an energy beam cut through the whole thing simultaneously.


So you are wanting to vote on 9/11 instead of learning physics.

You are math challenged? The numbers have been done by many. Use some of that top notch research and find the stuff you need to understand 9/11. You have to do it youself.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

How about one direct quote from NIST on the subject at hand gents. I hear how you know all about the report, but you can speak of it in only the vaguest terms possible. Specifics are certainly an endangered species in your guys world, but why don't you try resurrection of a few and quote a specific someday. Would anybody like to quote in the section of NIST that deals with the collapse of the towers, or should I do it for you?

Don't forget-

1- Fear

2-Compliance

3-Ignorance

4-Secrecy

5-Trust in authority
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf
Starting pg 285 of the document, pg 367 of the pdf

[Architect]

Oh NB

[sigh]

you do seem to be having some problems in the face of (say) technical evidence, eh?

[aggle-rithm]

At this point there seems to be no point in asking you guys any questions, or requesting evidence, since you have none. Imagine if we discussed how much force it takes to pulverize concrete, or what the likelihood of a progressive collapse breaking the truss joints and causing a pancake collapse might be. Yes, someday we may have even graduated to considering whether the near free fall speed of the collapse was consistent with the resistance offered by the lower part of the structure. But we know your answer to every question in advance. And your answer is of course, "It's so obvious that it would have happened that way we don't need to explain it."


Look at it this way. You are asked to solve a word problem:

Car A starts out from location X and drives south. Car B starts out from location Y and drives north, towards car A. Car B is driving faster than car A. When will car A and car B pass each other?

What's the answer? The fact is, you don't have to do any math at all. All you have to do is apply simple logic to determine that there is not enough information provided to solve the problem.

If you tell me you can take this word problem and come up with an exact solution, then I would assume you are lying, are delusional, or simply have no idea what you're talking about.

This is our position when someone comes along and challenges the experts' conclusions that there is nothing unusual about how the towers collapsed. In essence, they are claiming to be able to solve the following word problem:

A 20-story section of a 110-story building drops onto the 90-story section beneath it from the height of 10 feet. The 90-story section is very strong. Is it strong enough to withstand the force of the upper section falling on it?

Like I said: lying, delusional, or simply have no idea what you're talking about.

[pchams]

Oh I knew deconstructionisim would set you guys loose. Did you ever see the old stark trek with Harry mud and an enclave of androids, where Spock gives them a version of Godel with " everything I say is a lie (pause) Now I am lying. This sends the linked android community into a frenzy from which they never recover. Clearly your freudian based shortcomings require most of you to have stable state Newtonian universes. You can adnit that relativity happens, but not where you live.

I have read this thread up until this quote, and will finish it, however I don't wish to lose this opportunity to propose a new internet law which has occured to me.
Much like invoking "Godwin's law" will immediately lose one the argument, I propose that invoking Star Trek as evidence does the same.
Perhaps we should call this "Roddenberry's Law", or better, "Shatner's Law".

[pchams]

That was an excellent job Architect!
But, in the spirit of the board I now invoke Godwin's Kitty:
.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_886345ac4dbe5505c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3669)

[JonnyFive]

I guess you guys are not capable of anything more than ad hominem attacks, and opinions on things no one can verify. You have absolutely nothing on this issue. Why don't you answer directly on the question of expert witnesses having to make their testimony understandable to juries?

As we have said many, many, many times: you are the one coming here and claiming this was some kind of government inside job. It isn't our job to re-frame all the available evidence for your benefit. Guess what, just because you don't trust anything related to the government doesn't mean that what they present automatically becomes invalid and we have to listen to you!

You need to present an independent case if you want anyone here to believe or even listen to you. So far we've pointed you to the various reports available on this subject and we have presented in as simple terms as possible. If you remember, Architect summed everything up for you here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2220385#post2220385).

Since you don't even know the difference between "they're" and "there", I'm going to provisionally assume you're lying about having a philosophy, or anything else, degree.

You have repeatedly ignored the requests that you review the available reports on the collapse and present specific issues you have. You have also ignored repeated requests to present evidence that anyone in the government was behind the attacks.

You love to talk about juries and what-not, but you don't seem to realize that evidence is required in court as well.

Perhaps you would like to be tried for murder using your own standards? Imagine it!


Prosecution: Your honor, Non Believer is obviously guilty of murder. I once heard him say something about "killing" in some way. He has not presented any clear evidence that he wasn't the murderer!

Defense: But, your honor, my client is innocent! We have volumes of evidence! Here in this transcript you can see that blood splatter experts have determined that it was clearly a suicide! Besides, I have a dozen witnesses placing my client elsewhere, and there's absolutely no evidence to connect him to the crime scene!

P: We don't have time to read all these reports. Why don't you dumb it down for the jury here?

D: Uhhh... okay. My client didn't do it, and the experts have evidence that strongly suggests he couldn't have done it.

P: I don't see any evidence he didn't do it. Those are government experts and I don't trust them.

D: But the reports!

P: I don't have time to read that. They should make it easier to understand. By the way, what about the Constitution? You know you can't trust the government experts.

D: What? But I just told you...

P: You haven't provided the proper framework for me to accept this evidence yet. Why won't you present evidence proving he was never at the scene that I'll accept?

D: It's your job to prove my client did this!

P: I don't see any evidence that your client is innocent.

D: ARGGGGH!!429rFEfjef

Sounds like fun, doesn't it?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

And NB's choice to "[not] trust anything related to the government doesn't mean that what they present automatically becomes invalid and we have to listen to you! " is just a way of embracing an argumentum ad hominem as a core component of NB's belief system.

[JonnyFive]

And NB's choice to "[not] trust anything related to the government doesn't mean that what they present automatically becomes invalid and we have to listen to you! " is just a way of embracing an argumentum ad hominem as a core component of NB's belief system.

Indeed. The fact of the matter is that the government, as well as private individuals not connected to the government, have presented ample evidence for their side. NB seems to believe that simply by virtue of the fact that those sources do not agree with his views/have some connection with the government investigation, he can toss them out and expect us to feed him the simplest possible version of events like sweet, sweet baby food.

The fact that there is considerable dissent within the US government about how well 9/11 was handled is of no consequence (and thus "the government" is not the monolithic entity that CTist seem to fancy it is). It's all part of the plot, which NB has no evidence for.

I'm sure he's certain it's (the evidence) out there somewhere, but he seems to be jumping the gun a bit in that he raises questions without evidence, when there are already excellent answers if he would only care to read the damn reports.

Hell, he could read excellent summaries of the problems with various CT theories by the likes of Gravy linked on this very board. All these things cite sources and explain why they disagree with the CTists. Of course, this is probably no good either, because those people disagree with the CTists are government disinfo agents and thus can also be discounted.

Never mind actually producing positive evidence, a bunch of vague accusations are enough for anyone, right?

[Non Believer]

Objectivity-not going to go there are we?

A rhithim- could you tell me what other threads you think this might be appropriate for (not that I am appropriate for any of you for that matter). Otherwise I personally am thinking of starting a new thread that is not under the Bush quote.

Your word problem is always a challenge philosophically, but I don't see it has much relevance. I already mentioned Godel's theorem and that logic has its contradictions, so what's your point? But to give a partial answer, you probably could give the problem an upper and lower bound just by some common sense real world applications. For instance, you could set the upper bound as the likely maximum tank of gas (or other fuel source), and the distance that could be traveled on one tank. The smallest scale would be bound smallest amount of acceleration allowable within the auto technology. In other words, what we imagine is the slowest amount of acceleration a car manufacturer could predictably construct into his vehicles. So unless you want to say your example is not bound by real world constraints, I would say that there are solutions to your problems. They may include a large range, but they are not infinite.

Mr. D - It's like this. The reference to the jury is not about anything specific to what happened on 9-11. It is not about me personally presenting a case for government involvement. The jury system defines the spirit of our legal system. Do you not get that? You are tried in front of your fellow citizen's regardless of whether they're laymen or not, and experts are required to explain it those citizens.. This is the basic function of our legal system, and those basics still apply to congressional investigations. Why the U. S citizenry, media or congress have not opened a new investigation is not the point here. The point is what are the principles of our legal system, and how should they apply to experts who wish to stifle public discussion.

You did actually put some facts (numbers) together, and that is a good start. I would disagree that this a low estimate since the amount of material being blown free of the collapse zone would reduce the overall mass.

Arch- I know you don't have much to do know that you have risen above it all. I expect your main purpose is to wear me down, so that I will move on. Then you may ascend further, and exalt on your chicken making sound throne. You were quoted as making chicken sounds were you not?

Jonny- I don't even read them anymore, so don't waste both of our's time. Though, I think I am about ready to move onto some of the other collapse stuff, and this would include the plane alone Vs demolition comparison. But I want to take that to a new thread

[Regnad Kcin]

To summarize the post #543 above...

No, I have no evidence of an "inside job."

[aggle-rithm]

Your word problem is always a challenge philosophically, but I don't see it has much relevance. I already mentioned Godel's theorem and that logic has its contradictions, so what's your point? But to give a partial answer, you probably could give the problem an upper and lower bound just by some common sense real world applications. For instance, you could set the upper bound as the likely maximum tank of gas (or other fuel source), and the distance that could be traveled on one tank. The smallest scale would be bound smallest amount of acceleration allowable within the auto technology. In other words, what we imagine is the slowest amount of acceleration a car manufacturer could predictably construct into his vehicles. So unless you want to say your example is not bound by real world constraints, I would say that there are solutions to your problems. They may include a large range, but they are not infinite.





So which would you trust -- someone who has the necessary data and is able to come up with exact numbers (for instance, NIST) or someone who doesn't have them and can only come up with a range?

If all you can come up with is a RANGE of numbers, then how can you know with certainty that the towers should not have collapsed?

And, do you really think common sense applies to uncommon situations like 1,000-foot skyscrapers collapsing?

[Mr.D]

You did actually put some facts (numbers) together, and that is a good start. I would disagree that this a low estimate since the amount of material being blown free of the collapse zone would reduce the overall mass.


And?

I hugely oversimplified the numbers to come up with a result that poses a question any layperson could answer (whether or not they come up with a sensible answer is another question).


explain how much of the structure of the 93rd floor you'd expect to remain intact after being hit with energy exceeding that of 2/3 ton of exploding TNT.


And after all your blather, all you can come up with is a thoroughly pathetic attempt at deflecting the question, and a lame dismissal of the numbers you've insisted on having with a wave of your hand.

But let's push on shall we?

Assume that the top 16 floors were completely empty. Also assume that we've overestimated the mass of the top section by a full 25% (or if you prefer, thrown clear of the area by a force having no other affect). How much of the structure of the 93rd floor would you expect to remain intact after being impacted with energy exceeding that of 500kg of exploding TNT?

Don't forget to apply your own standards for evidence and ensure your answer is understandable to a hypothetical jury of laypersons.


I think I am about ready to move onto some of the other collapse stuff, and this would include the plane alone Vs demolition comparison. But I want to take that to a new thread


Pssst. If you cannot answer my question, then you cannot meaningfully discuss the effects of a "plane alone" or "demolition," nevermind make any comparison between them whatsoever.

[Architect]

Arch- I know you don't have much to do know that you have risen above it all. I expect your main purpose is to wear me down, so that I will move on. Then you may ascend further, and exalt on your chicken making sound throne. You were quoted as making chicken sounds were you not?



Translation: Actually I have hee-haw evidence or technical knowledge and can't answer Architect's posts, so I will ignore him and run away whilst failing to realise that I made a fool of myself.

Well, that's that cleared up then.

[Gravy]

Nonbeliever, since you are unable to back any of your claims with evidence, here is some gibberish that you can cut and paste to make up the substance of your future posts. It should save you considerable time.

Donec sit amet ante. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Suspendisse at lacus. In felis neque, aliquet nec, bibendum vel, elementum vel, sem. Praesent feugiat purus a augue. Nullam aliquam enim sed felis. Nullam lobortis, tellus nec facilisis sodales, arcu mi laoreet pede, sed adipiscing magna libero non ligula. Praesent porta lacus. Donec in neque. Sed malesuada imperdiet arcu. Donec congue. Nam venenatis. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Duis sodales leo ac nulla. Cras consequat varius libero. Aenean vitae orci quis urna aliquam blandit. Aliquam in erat id nibh pharetra cursus. Donec fermentum, dui id fringilla placerat, elit nisi volutpat quam, ac vulputate mi nunc ac erat. Aliquam fermentum sodales ligula. Vivamus non leo eu arcu pretium faucibus. Vivamus odio. Donec eget urna quis leo posuere aliquam. Nullam eu nunc. Maecenas et magna ut orci aliquam porttitor. Phasellus tempor tincidunt orci. Quisque aliquet diam sed ligula. Morbi gravida mi mollis pede. Ut ultricies. Nunc enim. Suspendisse sem orci, eleifend id, consequat sed, pharetra ac, odio. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Morbi eleifend lectus at odio. Donec consequat vulputate lorem. Cras a erat in neque cursus aliquam. Nunc suscipit lobortis ante. Praesent interdum, libero vel fermentum posuere, eros ante venenatis metus, ut dapibus dui tellus a nunc. Cras vitae nisi. Suspendisse potenti. Etiam lectus sem, accumsan ut, iaculis eget, dignissim vitae, felis. Vestibulum ornare, justo ut pulvinar tempor, arcu diam commodo nulla, in suscipit erat nibh luctus erat.

[Brainache]

Donec sit amet ante. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Suspendisse at lacus. In felis neque, aliquet nec, bibendum vel, elementum vel, sem. Praesent feugiat purus a augue. Nullam aliquam enim sed felis. Nullam lobortis, tellus nec facilisis sodales, arcu mi laoreet pede, sed adipiscing magna libero non ligula. Praesent porta lacus. Donec in neque. Sed malesuada imperdiet arcu. Donec congue. Nam venenatis. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Duis sodales leo ac nulla. Cras consequat varius libero. Aenean vitae orci quis urna aliquam blandit. Aliquam in erat id nibh pharetra cursus. Donec fermentum, dui id fringilla placerat, elit nisi volutpat quam, ac vulputate mi nunc ac erat. Aliquam fermentum sodales ligula. Vivamus non leo eu arcu pretium faucibus. Vivamus odio. Donec eget urna quis leo posuere aliquam. Nullam eu nunc. Maecenas et magna ut orci aliquam porttitor. Phasellus tempor tincidunt orci. Quisque aliquet diam sed ligula. Morbi gravida mi mollis pede. Ut ultricies. Nunc enim. Suspendisse sem orci, eleifend id, consequat sed, pharetra ac, odio. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Morbi eleifend lectus at odio. Donec consequat vulputate lorem. Cras a erat in neque cursus aliquam. Nunc suscipit lobortis ante. Praesent interdum, libero vel fermentum posuere, eros ante venenatis metus, ut dapibus dui tellus a nunc. Cras vitae nisi. Suspendisse potenti. Etiam lectus sem, accumsan ut, iaculis eget, dignissim vitae, felis. Vestibulum ornare, justo ut pulvinar tempor, arcu diam commodo nulla, in suscipit erat nibh luctus erat.

Is that a display of Gravytas?
Looks pretty heavy to me.

[Mashuna]

Is that a display of Gravytas?
Looks pretty heavy to me.

:D :D

[Architect]

Nonbeliever, since you are unable to back any of your claims with evidence, here is some gibberish that you can cut and paste to make up the substance of your future posts. It should save you considerable time.

Donec sit amet ante. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Suspendisse at lacus. In felis neque, aliquet nec, bibendum vel, elementum vel, sem. Praesent feugiat purus a augue. Nullam aliquam enim sed felis. Nullam lobortis, tellus nec facilisis sodales, arcu mi laoreet pede, sed adipiscing magna libero non ligula. Praesent porta lacus. Donec in neque. Sed malesuada imperdiet arcu. Donec congue. Nam venenatis. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Duis sodales leo ac nulla. Cras consequat varius libero. Aenean vitae orci quis urna aliquam blandit. Aliquam in erat id nibh pharetra cursus. Donec fermentum, dui id fringilla placerat, elit nisi volutpat quam, ac vulputate mi nunc ac erat. Aliquam fermentum sodales ligula. Vivamus non leo eu arcu pretium faucibus. Vivamus odio. Donec eget urna quis leo posuere aliquam. Nullam eu nunc. Maecenas et magna ut orci aliquam porttitor. Phasellus tempor tincidunt orci. Quisque aliquet diam sed ligula. Morbi gravida mi mollis pede. Ut ultricies. Nunc enim. Suspendisse sem orci, eleifend id, consequat sed, pharetra ac, odio. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Morbi eleifend lectus at odio. Donec consequat vulputate lorem. Cras a erat in neque cursus aliquam. Nunc suscipit lobortis ante. Praesent interdum, libero vel fermentum posuere, eros ante venenatis metus, ut dapibus dui tellus a nunc. Cras vitae nisi. Suspendisse potenti. Etiam lectus sem, accumsan ut, iaculis eget, dignissim vitae, felis. Vestibulum ornare, justo ut pulvinar tempor, arcu diam commodo nulla, in suscipit erat nibh luctus erat.


No no no no no!

It's obvious:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Morbi a pede vel quam lobortis laoreet. In justo purus, rutrum vitae, pulvinar pellentesque, sodales ut, magna. Donec ac mi vulputate odio ultrices interdum. Integer sit amet est in dui sollicitudin condimentum. Sed quam libero, scelerisque nec, lobortis sagittis, viverra vitae, metus. Pellentesque mauris metus, accumsan id, pellentesque vitae, vulputate a, lorem. Cras urna mauris, adipiscing id, scelerisque non, vehicula et, mi. Integer erat urna, dapibus id, dapibus non, consequat viverra, pede. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Vestibulum porta dignissim nulla. Suspendisse tempus justo a tortor. Mauris tristique dapibus velit. Nunc blandit. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Proin quis lorem. Phasellus sagittis nisl porttitor purus.

Sheesh. Do you guys know nothing?!?! :p

[Architect]

Incidentally, NB, since you've dropped into RemoveBush mode I thought this would be an appropriate question:


Bore fory fe fydd hi'n gawodlyd gydag ysbeidiau heulog, gyda'r dwyrain yn troi'n sych.

Fe fydd cymylau a glaw yn ymledu i dde-orllewin Cymru yn ystod y prynhawn, gyda'r tymheredd yn cyrraedd 8 selsiws.
Noson lawog iawn gyda llifogydd o bosib. Y gwyntoedd yn troi'n dymhestlog yn y de a'r gorllewin. Y tymheredd yn disgyn i 4 selsiws.

[Spins]

As for you that insist there is no weakness in the NIST report. NIST states only that "instability would spread throughout the building" after initial collapse began. In my opinion this is a wholly inadequate explanation of the collapse. We are given no paramaters on how many of the trusses failed, or in what sequence. So I am not certain whether those of you who keep asking what is wrong with the NIST report are not aware of this, just think this is adequate, or believe they had more to say. So please clarify your questions in this regardAs far as I'm aware this isn't what NIST said, here is the sequence of events (outlined by NIST) that lead to the collapse WTC 1 & 2...


In WTC 1, the aircraft impact caused damage to the north and south walls, floors, some core columns, and insulation. The subsequent fires caused sagging of the floors on the south side of the office area, where insulation was damaged, and inward bowing of the south wall. The damage to the core columns resulted in local load redistribution to the remaining core columns. The subsequent fire-induced high temperatures caused the core to displace downward from plasticity and high creep strains in high stress and high temperatures. The downward displacement of the core resulted in load redistribution from the core to the exterior walls. With continuously increased bowing, the entire width of the south wall buckled inward. The section of the building above the impact zone tilted to the south as instability progressed horizontally to the adjacent east and west walls. Global collapse occurred as potential energy of the falling upper structure exceeded the strain energy capacity in the deforming structural members.

In WTC 2, the aircraft impact caused damage to the south and north exterior walls, floors, and columns in the southeast corner of the core. The floor damage and the subsequent fires caused sagging of the floors and local floor/wall disconnections, and resulted in bowing and buckling of the east wall. The damage to the core columns and fire-induced high temperatures resulted in local redistribution to the remaining core columns in the southeast corner, which redistributed the core column loads to the east and the south wall columns, as the core leaned toward the south and east. With continuously increased bowing, the entire width of the east wall buckled inward. The section of the building above the impact zone tilted to the east and south as instability progressed horizontally to the adjacent north and south walls. Global collapse occurred when the potential energy of the falling upper structure exceeded the strain energy capacity in the deforming structural members.

The results of the global analysis of both WTC 1 and WTC 2 showed that global collapse of both towers was initiated by the instability of the exterior walls pursuant to their excessive inward bowing which progressed horizontally to adjacent walls.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6D.pdf

[Spins]

O. K lets pretend your interested. How about estimates on the force of the mass of the tower collapsing. It seems general estimates on this would be simple enough. You could even measure it with the claim of instant acceleration at all points along the horizontal axis at the 94th floor. In other words like an energy beam cut through the whole thing simultaneously.How about...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2194188#post2194188

...or even better...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2195537#post2195537

...or maybe ...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2079284#post2079284

...?

[Spins]

Architect - It reads over here as government of the people, for the people, and by the people. We as democracy tell what NIST and any other panty-waist dictator that comes along is our servant sir. The citizenry should not have to fight for the right to access information on the most important day in it's history. Your suggestion that NIST has no duty to the average citizen is an outrage, and completely antithetical to what this country was founded on.NB do you think all 200 technical experts who worked on the WTC investigation at NIST are lying? If not why have they come to the conclusions they have after such a thorough 3 year investigation?


Public Outreach

During the course of this Investigation, NIST held public briefings and meetings (listed in Table P–2) to solicit input from the public, present preliminary findings, and obtain comments on the direction and progress of the Investigation from the public and the Advisory Committee. NIST maintained a publicly accessible Web site during this Investigation at http://wtc.nist.gov (http://wtc.nist.gov/). The site contained extensive information on the background and progress of the Investigation.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-6Draft.pdf page xxviii

[The Doc]

And from the FAQ :)

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It almost seems as if NB wants an over-simplified explanation so that he can flaunt his "superior intellect" by pointing out "flaws" in said over-simplification.

[Architect]

Of course the reason the explanation is not simple is that the underlying mechancis of the collapse are very far from simple.

It worries me that NB thinks he has a right to have everything reduced to the lowest common denominator. Although I do find his comment about "Government of the people, for the people" highly amusing as it seems to completely overlook the fact that the UK is a democracy too.

[JonnyFive]

Jonny- I don't even read them anymore, so don't waste both of our's time. Though, I think I am about ready to move onto some of the other collapse stuff, and this would include the plane alone Vs demolition comparison. But I want to take that to a new thread

So you haven't read any of the reports on the collapse, or any of our summaries on the collapse, or any of the other information available on 9/11 that doesn't agree with your weird conspiracy views. Good, I'm glad we were able to clear that up.

Why does it have to include a comparison? That's just silly, and that you would even ask for it only highlights your lack of knowledge in the basic procedures of evidence-based reasoning. Both individual theories can be evaluated in light of the evidence available for them.

We have reams upon reams of evidence (literally) supporting the idea that a massive plane impact plus intense fire damage to the remaining structural steel caused an initial failure that, given the structural design of the building, quickly progressed into an unstoppable failure of massive proportions. This is confirmed by structural engineers and demolitions experts worldwide.

You have nothing. You haven't provided or linked to one piece of direct evidence. The best the CTists have brought is vague insinuation that something isn't right.

If that were good enough for us here, we'd all be shelling out thousands of dollars to get our authentic Sylvia Browne readings. Sorry, this board demands more substance and less bull crap.

You just seem to want some BS "debate" where we're all cowed by your amazing linguistic gymnastics and convert to your stupid, baseless theory. I would strongly suggest you head over to the Loose Change boards with that kind of attitude, I believe you'd feel right at home.

[JonnyFive]

It worries me that NB thinks he has a right to have everything reduced to the lowest common denominator. Although I do find his comment about "Government of the people, for the people" highly amusing as it seems to completely overlook the fact that the UK is a democracy too.

That's weird, I always thought you were some kind of dictatorship ruled by giant potatoes.

[JimBenArm]

That's weird, I always thougth you were some kind of dictatorship ruled by giant potatoes.
They only rule from the shadows. We're not supposed to know about them.

[Architect]

That's weird, I always thougth you were some kind of dictatorship ruled by giant potatoes.


And they have eyes everywhere! :p

[JonnyFive]

And they have eyes everywhere! :p

Nice riposte.

You'd better watch it though, you might offend your starchy overlords.

[Architect]

I believe they're led by Prince Edward....... ;)

[JonnyFive]

I believe they're led by Prince Edward....... ;)

I knew it!

[Architect]

Well, he's always been a bit green.....but when the powers that be catch up with him, he'll have had his chips!

[Brainache]

Is Gravy involved in this conspiracy at all?

[JimBenArm]

Is Gravy involved in this conspiracy at all?

Yes, I believe he has it covered.

[JonnyFive]

Yes, I believe he has it covered.

He keeps the potato masters moist and tasty.

It's a tough job, but someone has to do it.

[Architect]

And if you discover their nefarious plans, you get fried.

[Jennie C.]

Well, wading through this thread was nowhere nearly as difficult as the Christophera and Loose Change ones, so I guess I got off easily this time.

I've lost track but someone keeps repeating (correctly) that NB hasn't provided any evidence for his theory.

My problem is that I haven't even seen the theory yet.

Except that Bush said something about seeing the first plane hit the tower and we all know he either didn't (because he couldn't have) or that he has Superman-style sight ability so he could see it from a Florida classroom while reading to schoolchildren.

[Architect]

Oh, it's just the usual CT stuff about fire not causing failure of buildings and so on.....

[rwguinn]

Well, wading through this thread was nowhere nearly as difficult as the Christophera and Loose Change ones, so I guess I got off easily this time.

I've lost track but someone keeps repeating (correctly) that NB hasn't provided any evidence for his theory.

My problem is that I haven't even seen the theory yet.

Except that Bush said something about seeing the first plane hit the tower and we all know he either didn't (because he couldn't have) or that he has Superman-style sight ability so he could see it from a Florida classroom while reading to schoolchildren.

NB has the "Dilbert" secretary philosophy:
"Teach me to be an engineer. I don't care if it takes all day--and don't tell anyone else about this scam..."

[Jennie C.]

NB has the "Dilbert" secretary philosophy
Hmmm, I see what you mean. But when I see "Dilbert secretary," I think of Carol, the admin. And since I'm an admin, I bristled at first (Carol is my hero).

But I know what you mean.:)

[Non Believer]

Lets be clear on whether an undamaged lower portion of a building retains its tendency to support the structure above. I have admitted that this tendency is not absolute, but niether is it the feather pillow force that you all would portray it as. Lets use the ladder example. If you were to have a sudden collapse, or cut, accross the ladder, the upper collapsing portion would not drive the lower into the ground. The ladder would not have lost an appreciable ability to support the weight that it held before. If it would please explain why? So in my opinion your equation needs to show only the acceleration caused by the collapse. Instead you claim that the lower section would now face a force of 500kg. I guess I would accept that as long as we also stated that the towers were being exposed to a constant 495 kg blasts while it stood all those years. If you want to suddenly convert all of the weight bearing ability of a building into explosive force then lets be consistent.

Aggle- So you riddle about the cars is supposed to serve as an analogy for the collapse of the towers. How so?

[CurtC]

I believe they're led by Prince Edward....... ;)Is he the one in a can, or is that Albert?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Lets use the ladder example. If you were to have a sudden collapse, or cut, accross the ladder, the upper collapsing portion would not drive the lower into the ground. The ladder would not have lost an appreciable ability to support the weight that it held before.
The ladder wouldn't have the same capability if it were scaled up to the size of the twin towers. Similarly, a scaled-down model of the twin towers would have a relative "strength" significantly greater than the original towers.

So in my opinion your equation needs to show only the acceleration caused by the collapse. Instead you claim that the lower section would now face a force of 500kg. I guess I would accept that as long as we also stated that the towers were being exposed to a constant 495 kg blasts while it stood all those years. If you want to suddenly convert all of the weight bearing ability of a building into explosive force then lets be consistent.
What the hell...?

[beachnut]

Lets be clear on whether an undamaged lower portion of a building retains its tendency to support the structure above. I have admitted that this tendency is not absolute, but niether is it the feather pillow force that you all would portray it as. Lets use the ladder example. If you were to have a sudden collapse, or cut, accross the ladder, the upper collapsing portion would not drive the lower into the ground. The ladder would not have lost an appreciable ability to support the weight that it held before. If it would please explain why? So in my opinion your equation needs to show only the acceleration caused by the collapse. Instead you claim that the lower section would now face a force of 500kg. I guess I would accept that as long as we also stated that the towers were being exposed to a constant 495 kg blasts while it stood all those years. If you want to suddenly convert all of the weight bearing ability of a building into explosive force then lets be consistent.

Aggle- So you riddle about the cars is supposed to serve as an analogy for the collapse of the towers. How so?

Funny thing is Osama bin Laden has a degree in engineering. He is laughing at you dumb guys as he continues to support without question his own goals. As you wallow in your ignorant bliss Osama bin Laden is still working towards his goals. As you fail to understand physics or math or how the WTC fell because you are too lazy to learn how to understand 10,000 pages put together by real experts. Why are you so dumb and Osama bin Laden is so much smarter then you and laughing at how dumb you CT guys are?

Funny Osama bin Laden did not think the towers would fall. And if the fire proofing had not been destroyed by the massive impact (which you can not understand or calculate) of terrorist hijacked aircraft they may not of failed. Gee they survived the impact of a 2000 pounds of TNT impact in the form of an aircraft; which you do not understand anyway! Do you?

The second plane almost made it through the building because it was going so fast! SPEEED!

You are Osama bin Laden's favorite person. A dumb CTer who joins the terrorist in attacking the west; you are Osama bin Laden's friend in his war against the west. Good job dumb guys in the not sot truthful truth movement.

Even Osama bin Laden got a degreee; why have you failed to get you degree and understand 9/11???

[Mr.D]

Lets be clear on whether an undamaged lower portion of a building retains its tendency to support the structure above. I have admitted that this tendency is not absolute, but niether is it the feather pillow force that you all would portray it as. Lets use the ladder example. If you were to have a sudden collapse, or cut, accross the ladder, the upper collapsing portion would not drive the lower into the ground. The ladder would not have lost an appreciable ability to support the weight that it held before. If it would please explain why? So in my opinion your equation needs to show only the acceleration caused by the collapse. Instead you claim that the lower section would now face a force of 500kg. I guess I would accept that as long as we also stated that the towers were being exposed to a constant 495 kg blasts while it stood all those years. If you want to suddenly convert all of the weight bearing ability of a building into explosive force then lets be consistent.


:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp

[fezzic]

Let's not forget that a building is not a ladder. If a building could maintain its integrity, except at the location which was cut or otherwise destroyed, it is possible that the intact structure might just be able to absorb the impact but only if it would retain its own structural integrity. Confusing... :confused: hmmm.

Put it this way, the building structure (and I mean only the load-bearing part) is designed to pass the load of the building down to the foundations. Slice out a floor of the building (for instance) and whether the building stands will depend on how well the underlying structure is able to redistribute the loads and stresses without having a critical amount of failures due to exceeding the strength of various structural elements. Each failure causes more redistribution of loads which causes more stress on the remaining structural elements which can lead to more failures, etc., until the remaining structure can't support the loads and gives way (possibly catastrophically).

Taking the WTC towers. The primary support was vested in the core columns and a significant amount in the perimeter columns. The whole point of that design was to allow for the maximum amount of open space per floor (on the order of 40,000 sf). The floor was constructed from light-weight concrete to provide the actual floor and supported by trusses that supported the concrete and also served to provide for load transfer between the core and perimeter columns.

Enter 9/11 and the general structural failure that causes the upper portion of either building to fall onto the lower portion. A major mass falls onto a floor that (likely) was designed for a given dead load (weight of the truss, concrete, and the permanent stuff ) and live load (people and just about everything else). The floor, not designed to support that major mass, gives way and quickly. If the end connectors fail, the floor drops. If the end connectors hold, they pull the perimeter columns in and/or the core columns outward. In either case, there is no opportunity for the load imposed by the descending upper portion to be held and distributed to the true load-bearing structures (the perimeter and core columns). The structure is disrupted and along with that disruption goes the ability of the structure to hold up the building.

Even if the structure of the WTC towers could or should have been strong enough, the fact that there was no place that could take the impact of the falling building and survive long enough to distribute the load to the columns led to the complete collapse.

Thinking about the ladder analogy. Assume the ladder is carrying a load that at least reasonably stresses it. Cut it, then rotate the upper portion 90 degrees or some angle such that the ladder's beams are not aligned and now you depend on the rungs to transfer the load of the upper part to the lower part. If the rung can handle it, the load gets distributed to the beams and continues down to the feet/ground. The ladder, however precariously, stands. If the rung can't, then it breaks allowing the upper portion to fall on the next rung, etc. or some reasonable facsimile. In any case, you have ongoing structural failure, until and unless the rungs, in contact, manages to hold, otherwise the ladder "collapses".

I'll go back to lurking now. :)

[JonnyFive]

Oh, it's just the usual CT stuff about fire not causing failure of buildings and so on.....

Also, Bin Laden had nothing to do with it and possibly is a swell guy who loves kittens and donates his time to the poor children down at the Boys and Girls Club.

[Oliver]

*lol* I love this thread - it´s like the resurrection of "realisice". :D

[Architect]

In all fairness, Chris is more polite.

[JonnyFive]

In all fairness, Chris is more polite.

I never thought I'd say this, but yeah he kind of is.

They both refuse to examine any evidence at all, but Chris is just slightly nicer about it.

[Non Believer]

Nothing new, as we have been through all this before. As Fezzic (and those before him) says we cannot consider the lower portions ability to hold the collapsing portion because of the weakness at the floor trusses. Fine, except that this theory leads to the pancake collapse that NIST rejected, so you are back to where you started from.

Cl doesn't get it, or is angry by the explanation. Who knows, and who cares. The point is that you are calculating the explosive force with a mass that the structure has been supporting, so to make it sound that it is suddenly facing a new force is absurd. Also how do you apply free fall acceleration unless you assume the energy beam that cuts through the entire building simultaneously.

One other thing-Someone asked why all these engineers and such could come to the wrong conclusion. This is quite clear. You start with a belief of what happened (collapse caused by plane crash and fires), and then you do your best to fix the facts to explain that phenomenon. It does not mean that they mislead us in any intentional way. It is much more likely the case that they believe this must have happened, so they are willing to constantly fudge the criteria in the direction favorable of a collapse.

For example, You are trying to determine the temps of the fires. Most of the physical evidence (paint tests, model results, etc.), indicates temps below 600F, but these temps don't result in initial collapse in your computer models. But you KNOW that the impact damage and fires brought down the building, so you decide the physical evidence must be wrong to some degree and you plug in higher temps.

Again when it comes to global collapse. You just decide that since the building came down that this means automatically that initial collapse would lead to global. It is not surpassing that those on this forum are not capable of breaking free of this analytic pathology since they are not able to even discuss their objectivity.

Though, I must backtrack a little and insist that you have not shown the amount of assent to official story as you claim. I have asked for evidence of the support among experts for the official story, but have never seen such evidence. Further, just because somebody works on the NIST report does not mean that their opinion is consistent with the conclusions of the report

[Jennie C.]

One other thing-Someone asked why all these engineers and such could come to the wrong conclusion. This is quite clear. You start with a belief of what happened (collapse caused by plane crash and fires), and then you do your best to fix the facts to explain that phenomenon. It does not mean that they mislead us in any intentional way. It is much more likely the case that they believe this must have happened, so they are willing to constantly fudge the criteria in the direction favorable of a collapse.

I am not an engineer nor do I play one on TV. But an engineer (or scientist) who makes an assumption and then adjusts the facts to fit it is a lousy engineer (scientist).

Or a CTist.

[Architect]

Now NB, this is going to be a rather long post but I'd like you to read it and tell me where you disagree:


1. The principal design loads encountered in a tall building such as WTC are the dead load (the weight of the materials themselves), the live load (occupants and contents), and wind loads.

2. Even comparatively limited wind speeds can produce significant loads, because of the surface area, and it is important to appreciate that they will result in significant strains on the building; deflection is not constant across a face, raising torsional issues, the lee face will be in compression whilst the windward might be in compression, and so on.

3. It would be neither practical or economic to have one element carry all those loads; for example, the external envelope would have to comprise massive sections and cross bracing. The traditional (well, post-Louis Sullivan) approach has been a framed structure with frequent columns across the floor plate braced by large beam sections at floor level. Unfortunately this results in a significant loss of floor space and hence lower rental returns.

4. WTC therefore adopted what might be loosely termed a composite approach, with three principal structural elements acting together. A layman's comparison would be a space frame, which is far lighter and more efficient than a steel beam would be for the same loading.

5. The outer loadbearing facade comprised comparatively slim box sections, with staggered joints. This envelope carried the outer end of the floors (and hence around half the dead/live loads) and also the wind loadings.

6. The inner core comrpised section columns. These were significantly larger than the individual box sections because individually they were carrying greater loads (i.e. same or slightly larger loads, but less columns as available perimeter was less). In addition the core provided resistance to the bending moment caused by wind loads.

7. Of course for this system to work, it is necessary to transmit the loads betwixt the facade and the core. This was the work of the floor trusses, which redistributed wind loads (like a space frame) AND transmitted the dead/live loads to the other two elements.

8. An additional - and rather cute - feature of the design was the use of the so called hat trusses at high level; if you can imagine the bending moment in a high wind, one of the areas of greatest stress is at high level, and these trusses effectively acted as a very much beefed up version of the floors, stiffening the whole upper structure together and redistributing loads.

9. This is what Robertson - and the others - all mean when they say:


Another structural innovation was the outrigger space frame, which structurally linked the outside wall to the services core. This system performed several functions. First, gravity-induced vertical deformations between the columns of the services core and the columns of the outside wall were made equal at the top of the building; at other levels, the differential deformations were ameliorated. Second, wind-induced overturning moments were resisted in part by the columns of the services core, thus providing additional lateral stiffness. Finally, the weight of, and the wind-induced overturning moment from the rooftop antenna (440 feet tall) was distributed to all columns in the building . . . adding additional redundancy and toughness to the design.


11. Now, clearly the floor is supported at both ends and the loads largely distrbuted evenly (saving for allowance for the corners) between the outer facade and inner core. Similarly we know that cantilevering the floors from the core alone would be impractical due to cross-sectional sizes. Hence it is entirely wrong to suggest that the core was designed to take all floor loadings.

12. For a summary of mutch of the design, you might want to start with the FEMA report at http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf) .

13. On 911, the aircraft impacts caused damage to the cores through both connection (splice) failure and fracturing of the columns themselves. At WTC1 6 columns failed completely and 9 suffered significant damage. At WTC 2, 10 failed completely and 7 were badly damaged.

It is obvious that this would have compromised the ability of the core to carry loads.

14. We similarly know that there was damage to the external frame, compromising its ability to carry load.

15. You have questioned the intensity of the fire and effect on the floors. Now one of our best resources is the extensive NIST fire modelling, but I suspect you're going to claim that the results were fiddled so instead let's have a look Eagar's 2001 article - http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html) and his February 2002 presentation -http://eagar.mit.edu/EagarPresentati...C_TMS_2002.pdf (http://eagar.mit.edu/EagarPresentati...C_TMS_2002.pdf).

One of the first things his article inadvertently does is rubbish suggestions that smoke colour indicated a minor fire.

It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke

He then goes on to deal with failure of steel due to "normal" office fires:

It is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best.

and

Temperature of tower fires about the same as typical office fires

which means:

It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C

Before coming to the conclusion that:

Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire...The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.

16. We know that failure of the lightweight floor trusses led to buckling of the external facade over a significant area, to the point where the affected section could no longer carry any dead/live loads.

17. Some of this load was redistributed to adjacent external panels through the staggered jointing system (think of it as a natural arching structure) and some to the damaged inner core by way of the hat trusses. Neither had sufficient capacity to accept these loads, and failed - thus initiating the collapse.

18. The collapse of the floors and outer envelope would invariably lead to impact damage on the already weakened core. Whilst it is mass that would cause damage, it is nevertheless important to note that large sections of relatively intact debris can be clearly identified in photographs.

19. Similarly it is important to understand that the impact loads would not have been uniformly vertical. We know that parts of the structure tilted and rotated, placing transverse dynamic loads on the structure below. But the core was not built to accept transverse loads in isolation, only as part of the wider composite system. There would be little or no effective bracing.

20. In the same vein, the floors themselves were attached to the core and it would be niaive to believe that when dislodged the joints would neatly shear. Some damage to the core columns would be inevitable.

21. However this is largely academic as the outer envelope and core failed in quick succession as a result of redistributed loads.

Now, NB. Which bits of this do you disagree with, and why? Remember to provide a detailed response for a change.

[aggle-rithm]

Aggle- So you riddle about the cars is supposed to serve as an analogy for the collapse of the towers. How so?

No, it's supposed to illustrate that your assertions that the towers should not have collapsed are baseless because you don't have enough information to come to that determination.

Here's a better example: I have a substance that melts at a certain temperature. I apply heat. After 30 minutes, is the substance still solid, or has it melted?

By the same logic you are using with the towers, you believe there is sufficient information here to solve the problem. I do not.

[aggle-rithm]

Lets use the ladder example. If you were to have a sudden collapse, or cut, accross the ladder, the upper collapsing portion would not drive the lower into the ground. The ladder would not have lost an appreciable ability to support the weight that it held before. If it would please explain why?

A ladder is built to handle a dynamic load of several times greater than its own mass.

Were the WTC towers built this way? Can you imagine why they would NOT be built so as to support the weight of, for instance, a 500- to 1000-foot-tall gorilla?

[aggle-rithm]

Now, NB. Which bits of this do you disagree with, and why? Remember to provide a detailed response for a change.

Great post, Architect. But I predict his response will be along the lines of:

"Blah, blah, blah, Goedel's incompleteness theorum blah, blah, left brain blah, blah, high school physics blah, blah, blah, conservation of motion blah, blah, common sense."

[JonnyFive]

Great post, Architect. But I predict his response will be along the lines of:

"Blah, blah, blah, Goedel's incompleteness theorum blah, blah, left brain blah, blah, high school physics blah, blah, blah, conservation of motion blah, blah, common sense."

You forgot to talk about frameworks.

And misspell a couple of the key words. I'm just saying, is all!

We're just playing, Non Believer. We'll be serious as soon as you post actual evidence instead of just flapping your jaw.

[aggle-rithm]

And misspell a couple of the key words. I'm just saying, is all!

Well, I did spell "momentum" as "motion".

[JonnyFive]

Well, I did spell "momentum" as "motion".

That's true, but it doesn't have the right typo-ridden flavor of his posts.

Try spelling it "moton" or something. Or "incompleetnuss theerum".

(I'm kidding, I'm kidding)

[Regnad Kcin]

One other thing-Someone asked why all these engineers and such could come to the wrong conclusion. This is quite clear. You start with a belief of what happened (collapse caused by plane crash and fires), and then you do your best to fix the facts to explain that phenomenon. It does not mean that they mislead us in any intentional way. It is much more likely the case that they believe this must have happened, so they are willing to constantly fudge the criteria in the direction favorable of a collapse."This is quite clear."

Your type really are some of the most amazing people. And I don't mean that in a good way.

[Architect]

Great post, Architect. But I predict his response will be along the lines of:



Sooner this damned knee gets better and I can find something else to do apart from post and watch daytime TV, the better! :p

[Jennie C.]

Great post, Architect. But I predict his response will be along the lines of:

"Blah, blah, blah, Goedel's incompleteness theorum blah, blah, left brain blah, blah, high school physics blah, blah, blah, conservation of motion blah, blah, common sense."

To add to dear aggle's kudos, I as a lowly software type and now bit-shuffler, am in awe, not just of your knowledge, not even close, but to your ability to explain it so I (low ST etc,) can understand it. Thanks, Architect. I know a physicist named Crawford who can do this too. I'm grateful to him, too.

[Mr.D]

Lets use the ladder example. If you were to have a sudden collapse, or cut, accross the ladder, the upper collapsing portion would not drive the lower into the ground. The ladder would not have lost an appreciable ability to support the weight that it held before. If it would please explain why? So in my opinion your equation needs to show only the acceleration caused by the collapse.


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1404545b1eec44bbba.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3738)


Assume that the top 16 floors were completely empty. Also assume that we've overestimated the mass of the top section by a full 25% (or if you prefer, thrown clear of the area by a force having no other affect). How much of the structure of the 93rd floor would you expect to remain intact after being impacted with energy exceeding that of 500kg of exploding TNT?

[Non Believer]

First off for Jennie- I don't how long you have been following the thread, so perhaps that is part of your difficulty in following the comments. On the other hand, you only mention 2 things I have actually said (Those being Godel and common sense), so I am already a little concerned about your spirit towards real inquiry. It would seem that ridicule is more your concern, though don't be too worried about this criticism since this is the aim of most folks on this forum.

Arch- I am hoping by now you will now what my concerns are about your description of what you believe transpired in the towers on 9-11. So I am to assume your resubmitting of your opinions is one last attempt to get a clarification from me, so I will do my best.

My position is that when I am presented with an argument on a vital subject, that such an argument must reach certain standards of validity. The standard for an opinion of an expert is that the information or theory that expert presents MUST BE VERIFIABLE.

In my opinion your explanation is just a description of what you believe probably happened, and anyone can do that. So as I have stated before, the evidence presented for a certain argument should be judged firstly by that evidences ability to stand alone, and not by the status of the individual presenting the evidence. Such as, can the argument, or hypothesis, be tested in any way. Such tests can include physical models, video evidence, historical precedent, and established scientific precedent. In my opinion, your hypothesis has almost no independent verification.

How am I to differentiate the information you give from the information a person that might be willingly trying to deceive me, or at least willingly keep me in the dark might give. Do you really think a good critical thinker should accept an explanation that is only a description of a belief of what happened to be fact. Do you believe that it could be the case that a single expert or a small group of experts could put forth a claim that is wrong for whatever reason? If the answer is Yes, how am I able to differentiate from what you say with such a person unless the information is independently verifiable.

You offer no qualitative details whatsoever. There is no comment on to how many of the joints, and at what locations failed, to start the collapse. You do not give any indication on how much force the floor trusses could take. You do not give any type of calculation to confirm your position that the floor truss joints could not simply snap free (and not pull on the columns) no matter what the force. This seems surprising since you claim the amount of force this collapse will not even be slowed in the least by the remaining structure below. Do you not think the pulverization of concrete would cause a slowing in free fall collapse?


Beyond the argument that your hypothesis is based on belief and not hard science, you also make the claim that it was well known that the towers were vulnerable to global collapse before 9-11. Yet this is not represented in the recorded history prior to 9-11. We do have clear statements by Skilling and Demartini that they did not expect a collapse. These statements should be considered the official historical expectation, unless you can SHOW quotes that refute them (remember these need to be pre 9-11 to establish historical context). You have failed to do this beyond saying that you knew this was not the case. So we are led back to the original problem of unsubstantiated opinion.

Further, since you seem to have high ideals that only experts should discuss the particulars of the collapse, I am interested at what points do you relinquish your expertise and excuse yourself from the conversation. For instance, when we begin to discuss the lower structures resistance to free fall, this becomes much more a question of physics than engineering. So I assume you will put away your hat as an authority at this point.

For those of you who are the apologetic grammar critics, please don't concern yourselves with my feelings on the matter. I certainly feel it is all of you that should be concerned about the embarrassment of stooping to such criticisms. Believe it or not, many of you make typos or real mistakes as well, but I try to concentrate on the ideas being discussed.

[aggle-rithm]

In my opinion your explanation is just a description of what you believe probably happened, and anyone can do that. So as I have stated before, the evidence presented for a certain argument should be judged firstly by that evidences ability to stand alone, and not by the status of the individual presenting the evidence.


It is not status that gives the argument weight, it is expertise.

If 100 people with relevant expertise say "A is true" and one person without such expertise says "A is false", I don't care what the social status of these people are. There is a larger group that knows what they're talking about, and I can either spend several years of intensive study learning what they know, or I can accept what they say as fact. The alternative, in your mind, is rejecting the experts out of hand and accepting the non-expert's testimony as fact. Why would anyone do this?


Such as, can the argument, or hypothesis, be tested in any way. Such tests can include physical models, video evidence, historical precedent, and established scientific precedent. In my opinion, your hypothesis has almost no independent verification.

How am I to differentiate the information you give from the information a person that might be willingly trying to deceive me, or at least willingly keep me in the dark might give. Do you really think a good critical thinker should accept an explanation that is only a description of a belief of what happened to be fact. Do you believe that it could be the case that a single expert or a small group of experts could put forth a claim that is wrong for whatever reason? If the answer is Yes, how am I able to differentiate from what you say with such a person unless the information is independently verifiable.


If you want to spend the rest of your life unproductively spinning your wheels, then by all means, question anything and everything you don't understand without trying to learn anything about it.


You offer no qualitative details whatsoever. There is no comment on to how many of the joints, and at what locations failed, to start the collapse. You do not give any indication on how much force the floor trusses could take. You do not give any type of calculation to confirm your position that the floor truss joints could not simply snap free (and not pull on the columns) no matter what the force. This seems surprising since you claim the amount of force this collapse will not even be slowed in the least by the remaining structure below. Do you not think the pulverization of concrete would cause a slowing in free fall collapse?


I haven't done the calculations, but people who are emminently qualified have, and they are satisfied. Why do I believe them? Well, aside from their expertise, they have the advantage of the simple fact that the buildings were observed to collapse, and were filmed from many different angles, and their conclusions are in perfect agreement with observation.


Beyond the argument that your hypothesis is based on belief and not hard science, you also make the claim that it was well known that the towers were vulnerable to global collapse before 9-11. Yet this is not represented in the recorded history prior to 9-11. We do have clear statements by Skilling and Demartini that they did not expect a collapse.


Could be they were wrong, don't you think?

Could it be that when Skilling and Demartini made their claims, they assumed that the fireproofing in the towers had been installed properly, which would have been a mistaken assumption?

These statements should be considered the official historical expectation, unless you can SHOW quotes that refute them (remember these need to be pre 9-11 to establish historical context). You have failed to do this beyond saying that you knew this was not the case. So we are led back to the original problem of unsubstantiated opinion.

Further, since you seem to have high ideals that only experts should discuss the particulars of the collapse,

Wrong! Anyone can discuss them, but uninformed opinions are not likely to be taken seriously.

I am interested at what points do you relinquish your expertise and excuse yourself from the conversation. For instance, when we begin to discuss the lower structures resistance to free fall, this becomes much more a question of physics than engineering. So I assume you will put away your hat as an authority at this point.


Engineers know quite a good deal about physics. It is essential to understanding the forces involved in maintaining a structure's integrity.


For those of you who are the apologetic grammar critics, please don't concern yourselves with my feelings on the matter. I certainly feel it is all of you that should be concerned about the embarrassment of stooping to such criticisms. Believe it or not, many of you make typos or real mistakes as well, but I try to concentrate on the ideas being discussed.


Good for you! However, keep in mind that it's difficult to take someone seriously who doesn't take the time to communicate his ideas clearly.

[Jennie C.]

First off for Jennie- I don't how long you have been following the thread, so perhaps that is part of your difficulty in following the comments. On the other hand, you only mention 2 things I have actually said (Those being Godel and common sense), so I am already a little concerned about your spirit towards real inquiry. It would seem that ridicule is more your concern, though don't be too worried about this criticism since this is the aim of most folks on this forum.

NB, Please learn how the quotes and links work. In this post
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2271549#post2271549 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2271549#post2271549),

I was merely tagging on to Aggle's post to thank Architect for explaining the technical issues of his expert opinion in terms this layman could understand. That's not a common ability. Most experts use jargon (heck, I haven't gotten over FORTRAN enough to spell goto as 2 words), there are few who can explain themselves, without losing their meaning, using ordinary words.

So until you can discern my comment from the message I was quoting (not hard, it says "quote" and has a red arrow to allow you to link back to the post I'm referencing), don't condescend to me. It's not hard to read a thread of only 15 pages. I managed it.

The fact that you'd rather argue philosophy than engineering, architecture, etc., is perhaps understandable, since you say it's your field. But it is also, unfortunately, irrelevant.

[beachnut]

First off for Jennie- I don't...


He should have said; "have any facts at all on 9/11".

He failed to see all his ladders did survive in the WTC failure. He missed the fact his ladders are the individual steel sections liberated in the failure of the WTC whose gravity driven collapse due to impact and fire, released the equal of 248 tons of TNT in energy.

He can not understand physics and energy. It would be funny to see him when he takes a physics course and passes; as he finally finds truth not to be found in the ironic "truth movement".

[JonnyFive]

It would be funny to see him when he takes a physics course and passes;

Speaking of impossible things...

[Mr.D]

This seems surprising since you claim the amount of force this collapse will not even be slowed in the least by the remaining structure below. Do you not think the pulverization of concrete would cause a slowing in free fall collapse?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1404545b1eec44bbba.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3738)

Assume that the top 16 floors were completely empty. Also assume that we've overestimated the mass of the top section by a full 25% (or if you prefer, thrown clear of the area by a force having no other affect). How much of the structure of the 93rd floor would you expect to remain intact after being impacted with energy exceeding that of 500kg of exploding TNT?

[uk_dave]

Now NB, this is going to be a rather long post but I'd like you to read it and tell me where you disagree:


....................

Now, NB. Which bits of this do you disagree with, and why? Remember to provide a detailed response for a change.

You know, you present these facts with a remarkable clarity.......









..... for a scot!

:D

(I can run faster)

[Architect]

NB

I was hoping that by now you might have read my post, thought about what really happened on 9/11, and appraise the evidence before you in a more informed and level manner. It appears that I was optimistic.

The accepted scientific or engineering position is that when I am presented with an argument on a vital subject, this argument must reach certain standards of validity. This must be verifiable through calculation, our understanding of existing systems, and evidence.

In the case of 9/11 a wealth of evidence exists including the NIST report and material by a wide range of independent sources from the US and abroad.

Your explanations in support of your theories are no more than a description of what you believe happened, and anyone can do that. The evidence presented for a certain argument should be judged firstly by that evidence's ability to stand alone. For example can the argument, or hypothesis, be tested in any way. Such tests can include physical models, video evidence, historical precedent, and established scientific precedent.
In my opinion, your hypothesis has almost no independent verification. It is not supported by engineering models, basic structural issues, or our understanding of fire performance. It is not supported by credible evidence, and such evidence as you do present is clearly not based on a thorough review of available material.

Of greatest concern are the misquotes and unsubstantiated theories which you post. Whatever the provenance of such posts, how are those of us on this board to differentiate the information you give us from the information a person that might be willingly trying to deceive us, or at least willingly keep us in the dark might give?

Do you really think a good critical thinker should accept an explanation that is only a description of a belief of what happened to be fact? Do you not agree that it is incumbent upon us to investigate, understand, and analyse before reaching a conclusion? Do you believe that that a single source or a small group of unqualified activisits with little or no expertise in specialist should be believed before expert technical opinion?

In your posts you qualitative details whatsoever. There is no comment on the capacity of the structure to support load, and at what locations, in order to arrest or significantly support the collapse. You do not give any indication of how loads are to be magically transferred through the hat truss to the core. You do not post any calculations demonstrating the capacity of the core.

It is clear to me, and the others on this site, that you fail to grasp both the basic engineering principles and logical analysis required in order to understand the actual events which led to the collapse of WTC.

[Architect]

You know, you present these facts with a remarkable clarity.......

..... for a scot!

:D




That's why we run your country for you, mate! ;)