NIST doesnt release their computer models (now they've done it!)

[Panoply_Prefect]

Hi!

This guy managed to get some of the SAP2000 models (http://razor.occams.info/nist-wtc/) from NIST, for a reasonable fee of $58. They are downloadable from that address.

Havent seen this posted before, and apparenly this guy received it late april this year (last week really). Now all the truther-movement has do to is cough up the rest of the $2500 to get all of it.

/S

[T.A.M.]

So now what will be do with these models?

I am surprised Dylan et al havent gotten a bunch of them, to offer their fans-- I mean their fellow truthers a bone.

TAM:)

[soundaddicted]

Why do they have to pay NIST for this stuff? Didn't NIST use tax dollars to do it?

[T.A.M.]

NIST is a govt affiliated organization. Govt charges for things all the time. The models were created using custom made software in some cases, and there is probably some fee associated with reproduction costs of the models.

Ask them.

TAM:)

[gumboot]

Why do they have to pay NIST for this stuff? Didn't NIST use tax dollars to do it?


Did you bother to follow the link?

Under the FOIA law, NIST may in certain circumstances charge for the time spent on processing the request. They charged $58, classifying my request as commercial, which was very reasonable. You can see my FOIA request letter (with my contact info removed) which was based on NIST's FOIA guidelines.

-Gumboot

[T.A.M.]

and I didnt even have to go and read the quotes gumboot provided, it is just a logical, non-paranoid conclusion.

TAM:)

[kookbreaker]

Yeah, really. What are the troofers thinking? "A 58$ dollar fee!!! I can't afford that and they know it! They're hiding the TROOOF!"

[The Doc]

Maybe they should stop taking the 11th of every month off work...

[Totovader]

So now they have the blueprints, the models, the footage, the witnesses, the steel, the FDR/CVR data...

Is there anything else they need?

As the evidence continues to contradict the conspiracist claims- they move further and further away from the evidence and instead have to rely on death rays and mini nukes.

I'm afraid that pretty soon we will have nothing left to debunk.

[The Doc]

I'm afraid that pretty soon we will have nothing left to debunk.

I think we're already in a loop of repeating ourselves to be honest lol.

[CHF]

Let's all keep in mind that twoofers cannot afford a plane ticket to the Middle East to find the still alive hijackers (so says DR Griffin).

So can we really expect them to pay for NIST models?

[tabouere]

So now they have the blueprints, the models, the footage, the witnesses, the steel, the FDR/CVR data...

Is there anything else they need?

As the evidence continues to contradict the conspiracist claims- they move further and further away from the evidence and instead have to rely on death rays and mini nukes.

I'm afraid that pretty soon we will have nothing left to debunk.

The proof, because there's no proof for the temperature of the fire, only evaluation and modelisation. The witness? Many witness talk about explosion and debris and concrete in powder don't blow completly the building.

[roger]

So now they have the blueprints, the models, the footage, the witnesses, the steel, the FDR/CVR data...

Is there anything else they need?Working minds would be nice.

[Anti-sophist]

The proof, because there's no proof for the temperature of the fire, only evaluation and modelisation.

That's called science. You should learn how it works.

[Hourglassmemory]

The more they have, the more they distort and believe they have the answers for "what really happened".
New computer models from NIST? Yes, lets play with them and speculate why this or that bit of data was put in there. Some, I bet, will even claim that NIST did the simulations for the demolitions and all that crap.
Some people just think too much. And yes it is possible to think too much.
They just want to keep going and keep going and keep going until they find a more convincing explanation. To their minds...nothing is convincing, so they get into this circular, conclusionless thought process and remain forever in doubt. It's a very wrong way to live. I don't know how they can make decisions.

[tabouere]

The more they have, the more they distort and believe they have the answers for "what really happened".
New computer models from NIST? Yes, lets play with them and speculate why this or that bit of data was put in there. Some, I bet, will even claim that NIST did the simulations for the demolitions and all that crap.
Some people just think too much. And yes it is possible to think too much.
They just want to keep going and keep going and keep going until they find a more convincing explanation. To their minds...nothing is convincing, so they get into this circular, conclusionless thought process and remain forever in doubt. It's a very wrong way to live. I don't know how they can make decisions.

We must stop thinking and believe.:confused:

Simulation is not a proof, especially when they don't know what was burning inside and the quantity of kerosene left in the building.

This model are for believer who want confort in what he believe.

If like Greening says the concrete was blown in little debris and dust..... When we know that more than 60% of the weight of the building is concrete..... It's raise a lot of question.

[kookbreaker]

Simulation is not a proof, especially when they don't know what was burning inside and the quantity of kerosene left in the building.

This model are for believer who want confort in what he believe.


Spoken like someone who has no clue about the efforts, abilities and methodology behind computer modeling.

If you don't trust modelling, I would advise that you never enter a building taller than 5 stories, or drive in a car built after 1985.

You might want to stay away from modern airplanes as well.

[thaiboxerken]

We must stop thinking and believe.

I think we must start think and accept.


Simulation is not a proof, especially when they don't know what was burning inside and the quantity of kerosene left in the building.

Model is mathematical proof, the computer model is graphical representation of mathematical proof.


This model are for believer who want confort in what he believe.

It for people to see what the math and science say.


If like Greening says the concrete was blown in little debris and dust..... When we know that more than 60% of the weight of the building is concrete..... It's raise a lot of question.

Why you ask question about like Greening say?

[NBachmann]

Model is mathematical proof, the computer model is graphical representation of mathematical proof.

A mathematical model is not a mathematical proof. They are entirely different concepts.

[Hourglassmemory]

We must stop thinking and believe.:confused:

Simulation is not a proof, especially when they don't know what was burning inside and the quantity of kerosene left in the building.

This model are for believer who want confort in what he believe.

If like Greening says the concrete was blown in little debris and dust..... When we know that more than 60% of the weight of the building is concrete..... It's raise a lot of question.


Stop thinking and believe? Nonononono. You probably didn't understand what I was trying to say. I was talking about the conspiracy theorists. They just think too much. They speculate and try to find things that fit their speculation. They'll somehow distort the way the simulation should be interpreted and get their stupid conclusions

[T.A.M.]

Interesting link for you tabuere, found on google...

Take a look

http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics1.HTM

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

A mathematical model is not a mathematical proof. They are entirely different concepts.

I think you know he didn't mean "A" mathematical proof, but rather, proof of a mathematical nature...nitpicking.

TAM:)

[tabouere]

Stop thinking and believe? Nonononono. You probably didn't understand what I was trying to say. I was talking about the conspiracy theorists. They just think too much. They speculate and try to find things that fit their speculation. They'll somehow distort the way the simulation should be interpreted and get their stupid conclusions

Sorry dude, it's seem you don't notice that the official theory is speculation too.... And I hope they think before writing it.

[William Rea]

That's called science. You should learn how it works.

I agree up to a point with you AS, that what we currently have is the best available.

I don't know of any artefact that has been taken straight from a model to final use without pilot testing.

I recall reading that a university here in the UK is looking for a building to use to test the NIST findings to destruction.

[Par]

I was talking about the conspiracy theorists. They just think too much.

I can see that quote being pasted on conspiracy blogs the world over.

[T.A.M.]

here is another one then...

The CTers are the most intelligent, kind, considerate group of people in the world.

ROFLMAO

TAM:)

[tabouere]

Interesting link for you tabuere, found on google...

Take a look

http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics1.HTM

TAM:)


Do I say wtc was vaporized?

I say the big part of it weight was concrete, this web site say it's was about 80% of the weight of the WTC but I think he's wrong. A mass of 2400 kg/m3 is too heavy. But it don't contradict me, it's show what i'm talking about.

http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/Image127.jpg

The concrete was blown in powder and small "rock". Powder, small rock and steel beam falling don't bring down a building completly.

[Par]

Sorry dude, it's seem you don't notice that the official theory is speculation too.... And I hope they think before writing it.

Let’s, for the sake of argument, say I accept that’s true. Let’s say the official theory has been subjected to zero testing and that it’s just pure speculation. Well, with regards our final conclusion at least, what would follow from that? Given that the official story is seemingly by far and away the most parsimonious (due to the fact it requires no further entities to explain the phenomena than those we know exited), presumably, it’s still the one we should favour. Don’t you think?

[T.A.M.]

touchy are we not. I merely pointed you to it.

lol

So, tab, what do you think caused the "powdering" of the concrete?

TAM:)

oh, and by the way, the top portion of the buildings, above the impact zones, did not turn to "powder and steel beams" as you say, until the building was well into the actual collapse. You make it sound like 18 storeys of cement mix and steel beams came down on the rest of the building, which is not true.

TAM:)

[tabouere]

Let’s, for the sake of argument, say I accept that’s true. Let’s say the official theory has been subjected to zero testing and that it’s just pure speculation. Well, with regards our final conclusion at least, what would follow from that? Given that the official story is seemingly by far and away the most parsimonious (due to the fact it requires no further entities to explain the phenomena than those we know exited), presumably, it’s still the one we should favour. Don’t you think?

There's was testing made, I don't say that. But there was no real simulation with a scaled copy of the wtc, probably they've done that with a computer model, but a computer model depend of the math behind it and the data you provide to the model.

And i'm sure none of em take in consideration that most of the concrete will be blown in dust and small rock. The momentum of this debris falling is really different then the momentum of 10 floors falling in one solid block.

[tabouere]

touchy are we not. I merely pointed you to it.

lol

So, tab, what do you think caused the "powdering" of the concrete?

TAM:)

oh, and by the way, the top portion of the buildings, above the impact zones, did not turn to "powder and steel beams" as you say, until the building was well into the actual collapse. You make it sound like 18 storeys of cement mix and steel beams came down on the rest of the building, which is not true.

TAM:)

Don't forget one thing, every time an upper part hit a lower part, if the lower part broke, the upper part will do so.

What caused the powdering of the concrete?

Falling debris with some help ;)

[Par]

There's was testing made, I don't say that. But there was no real simulation with a scaled copy of the wtc, probably they've done that with a computer model, but a computer model depend of the math behind it and the data you provide to the model.

Well, that doesn’t answer my question, but I’ll rephrase it. Let’s, for the sake of argument, say I accept that the official theory has only been subjected to inappropriate and inconclusive computer modelling. Well, with regards our final conclusion at least, what would follow from that? Given that the official story is seemingly by far and away the most parsimonious (due to the fact it requires no further entities to explain the phenomena than those we know exited), presumably, it’s still the one we should favour. Don’t you think?

[CptColumbo]

Sorry dude, it's seem you don't notice that the official theory is speculation too.... And I hope they think before writing it.

You should really heed the advice you are trying to give.

[T.A.M.]

Don't forget one thing, every time an upper part it a lower part, if the lower part broke, the upper part will do so.

not quite so. For ever action there is an equal and opposite reaction, but to assume equal damage to both bodies, you are assuming they are identical in mass, form, density, surface area, and make up. If a piece of glass hits a piece of metal, the forces will be equal and opposite, but the effect they have on the two objects will be different. You are also not taking into account momentum.

In other words, when the top section hits the remainder, the bottom starts to collapse, but that does not mean that AN EQUAL ammount of the top section must also "collapse" or turn to dust...it is not that simple.

TAM:)

[tabouere]

Well, that doesn’t answer my question, but I’ll rephrase it. Let’s, for the sake of argument, say I accept that the official theory has only been subjected to inappropriate and inconclusive computer modelling. Well, with regards our final conclusion at least, what would follow from that? Given that the official story is seemingly by far and away the most parsimonious (due to the fact it requires no further entities to explain the phenomena than those we know exited), presumably, it’s still the one we should favour. Don’t you think?

Yeah, If you want, but it must past the test, and for me, there's many leak in the theory and NIST play with the word to make sure we will accept their version.

[tabouere]

not quite so. For ever action there is an equal and opposite reaction, but to assume equal damage to both bodies, you are assuming they are identical in mass, form, density, surface area, and make up. If a piece of glass hits a piece of metal, the forces will be equal and opposite, but the effect they have on the two objects will be different. You are also not taking into account momentum.

In other words, when the top section hits the remainder, the bottom starts to collapse, but that does not mean that AN EQUAL ammount of the top section must also "collapse" or turn to dust...it is not that simple.

TAM:)

It's a concrete floor versus a concrete floor.

Take a look at the rubbles, where's the upper floors?

[T.A.M.]

tab:

I suspect that the majority of the "powder" you see while the tower is collapsing, is from the gypsum wallboard. I suspect that while, obviously there was some pulversizing of the concrete during the early stages of collapse, most of the "pulverization", occured near the end of the collapse, from the concrete hitting the ground.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

It's a concrete floor versus a concrete floor.

Take a look at the rubbles, where's the upper floors?

Once any of it hit the ground, it would have broken into "little rocks" as you have called it.

TAM:)

[tabouere]

tab:

I suspect that the majority of the "powder" you see while the tower is collapsing, is from the gypsum wallboard. I suspect that while, obviously there was some pulversizing of the concrete during the early stages of collapse, most of the "pulverization", occured near the end of the collapse, from the concrete hitting the ground.

TAM:)

The ground is below, not on top of the rubbles. ;)

[T.A.M.]

The ground is below, not on top of the rubbles. ;)

read what I said again. Your reply makes no sense, and does not counter what I have said in the slightest.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

The debris, as it hit the ground, became, effectively, the new "ground" for the debris above it to hit, and so on...come on man, this is common sense.

TAM:)

[Totovader]

Interesting link for you tabuere, found on google...

Take a look

http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics1.HTM

TAM:)

Hey, this guy stole my idea!

[slugmancs]

Yeah, If you want, but it must past the test, and for me, there's many leak in the theory and NIST play with the word to make sure we will accept their version.

Wait, you have a valid critique of NIST that presents facts to dispute it (without ad homs)? I believe many people here would love to see it.

[T.A.M.]

tabuere...did you read the info in the link I gave you? What do you think of what he has to say. he answers your questions.

TAM:)

[Totovader]

There's was testing made, I don't say that. But there was no real simulation with a scaled copy of the wtc, probably they've done that with a computer model, but a computer model depend of the math behind it and the data you provide to the model.

And i'm sure none of em take in consideration that most of the concrete will be blown in dust and small rock. The momentum of this debris falling is really different then the momentum of 10 floors falling in one solid block.

Scale models are not used in structural engineering for entire buildings because they provide no valid data. The forces at work on LARGE SCALE buildings are different forces than in scale models.

Structural engineers use computer models- plain and simple. If you don't believe me, ask any one of them. We have a few of them, here.

[NBachmann]

tab:

I suspect that the majority of the "powder" you see while the tower is collapsing, is from the gypsum wallboard. I suspect that while, obviously there was some pulversizing of the concrete during the early stages of collapse, most of the "pulverization", occured near the end of the collapse, from the concrete hitting the ground.

TAM:)

This does not look how you describe

[tabouere]

read what I said again. Your reply makes no sense, and does not counter what I have said in the slightest.

TAM:)

A pile of rubbles is not a solid ground, there's a lot of space of air in that.

If a floor of concrete fall in a pile of rubbles at a speed less than 9 m/s according to Greening, it won't break in powder as it hit the pile of rubbles, it will probably break, but not in small rocks like that.

Because the movement of the piles of rubbles will absorb the shock.

[Par]

This does not look how you describe

In what ways would those pictures look different if they did depict what TAM describes?

[tabouere]

Scale models are not used in structural engineering for entire buildings because they provide no valid data. The forces at work on LARGE SCALE buildings are different forces than in scale models.

Structural engineers use computer models- plain and simple. If you don't believe me, ask any one of them. We have a few of them, here.

I know that, the resistance and the force we will not be the same, but it's a good method to test how the building will react.

[T.A.M.]

This does not look how you describe

how can you tell. The upper portion is hidden by the smoke/dust, from about 3-4 seconds into the collapse. because you cannot see it, does not mean the top section, in some form, is not still falling,

...and I am not saying that the entirety of the top section reaches the ground in tact...far from it, I am merely saying that it is not pulverized early in the collapse, but rather much later in the collapse, and a substantial part of it likely was obliterated by it hitting the ground, or underlying debris.

tab, you still havent answered my initial question, of what you think happened to the concrete, or was that "little help" comment your answer?

TAM:)

[Totovader]

I know that, the resistance and the force we will not be the same, but it's a good method to test how the building will react.

:dig:

Look at what you just said.

If the resistance and force will not be the same, and structural engineers do not use scale models because of that obvious fact, then why would it be a good method to test how the building would react?

Think about what you're saying, please.

[tabouere]

Sorry Dude, I have to leave to work, it's fun to talk with people who are able to do something else than insulting.

And i'm sorry too for my english.

[T.A.M.]

Sorry Dude, I have to leave to work, it's fun to talk with people who are able to do something else than insulting.

And i'm sorry too for my english.

You are welcome. being civil always helps. Most of us here try to be that way, despite the craziness of some of the theories brought to us here.

TAM:)

[kookbreaker]

Scale models of buildings are pretty much useless for anything other than determining the effects of wind flow in multi-building environments. They are useless for determining fire spread, structuring failures, or anything else.

This is another useless demands by troothers.

[tabouere]

:dig:

Look at what you just said.

If the resistance and force will not be the same, and structural engineers do not use scale models because of that obvious fact, then why would it be a good method to test how the building would react?

Think about what you're saying, please.

Look, the test is simple, really simple, do a(many) scale model of the building with the same architecture and materials than cut the upper part and let's see what happen when it fall on the lowest part.

It's like the computer model, it's not reality but it's an aproxymation.

Why you focus on the detail?

Do you think shatered concrete can make building fall?

Take look at the photo of the rubbles

http://www.time.com/time/photoessays/shattered/2.html

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Do I say wtc was vaporized?

I say the big part of it weight was concrete, this web site say it's was about 80% of the weight of the WTC but I think he's wrong. A mass of 2400 kg/m3 is too heavy. But it don't contradict me, it's show what i'm talking about.

http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/Image127.jpg

The concrete was blown in powder and small "rock". Powder, small rock and steel beam falling don't bring down a building completly.
Unsubstantiated opinion noted.

[beachnut]

The ground is below, not on top of the rubbles. ;)
You should study the WTC before talking about the WTC. Do you have any idea how thick the wall board was on the core steel in the WTC? Do you have any idea how friable the insulation was on the underside of the WTC steel sub floor supports? Did you know lots of samples of dust had glass fibers in them? Did you know the ceiling tiles contain glass fibers, do not forget the window were pulverized by during each 250 tons of TNT collapse energy events turning the glass into dust, the ceiling tiles to dust, the wallboard to dust, the insulation to dust?

Did you know the main floor on most floors were light weight concrete?

Did you know the wallboard also has material that is chemically concrete?

What is your conclusion and what facts have you to support them? My conclusion is all truther are lacking facts, and you have none to support any ideas you can come up with that are from the 9/11 truth movement. What do you have on 9/11 and why? Tell us your conclusions and facts please?

[tabouere]

Scale models of buildings are pretty much useless for anything other than determining the effects of wind flow in multi-building environments. They are useless for determining fire spread, structuring failures, or anything else.

This is another useless demands by troothers.

It's was not for a wind effecttest , but for an impact test.

My point is really simple, but believers(the people who always insult peeps who don't believe what they believe) can't understand it.

NIST model is theory, speculation based on simulation and "law of physics" not fact or proof.

And powder and little rocks don't bring down building.

[Totovader]

Look, the test is simple, really simple, do a(many) scale model of the building with the same architecture and materials than cut the upper part and let's see what happen when it fall on the lowest part.

It's like the computer model, it's not reality but it's an aproxymation.

Why you focus on the detail?

Do you think shatered concrete can make building fall?

Take look at the photo of the rubbles

http://www.time.com/time/photoessays/shattered/2.html

:arrow: This is not an answer to my question.

In order to build a scale model which would glean any useful information as to your question, the scale would have to be 1:1 and cost just as much- if not more- than the towers themselves.

We focus on the details because according to you, the details are unimportant- yet it's those details that are proving that your statements are invalid, and your thinking is erroneous. You cannot simply dismiss details because you do not like them.

In one breath you concede that the scale model of WTC would not provide any useful information as to how it reacts with these forces, and then in the next breath you will demand that it be done anyway. That's not rational.

[kookbreaker]

It's was not for a wind effecttest , but for an impact test.


As I said. Scale models are useless for anything besides wind modelling. What part of 'useless' do you not get?

My point is really simple, but believers(the people who always insult peeps who don't believe what they believe) can't understand it.

So we should make a model that won't work?


NIST model is theory, speculation based on simulation and "law of physics" not fact or proof.


Except for all that practical application that computer models have been used for everyday things.

[Totovader]

It's was not for a wind effecttest , but for an impact test.

My point is really simple, but believers(the people who always insult peeps who don't believe what they believe) can't understand it.

NIST model is theory, speculation based on simulation and "law of physics" not fact or proof.

And powder and little rocks don't bring down building.

People can't understand it because you continue to contradict yourself. It's difficult to take people seriously and follow their train of thought when they contradict themselves. I believe, therefore, that the lack of understanding is solely your fault.

Theory and speculation are two completely different things- and if you are trying to claim that the application of the laws of physics are not fact or proof, then you are miles away from having a valid point.

Powder and little rocks didn't bring down the building- that is a strawman. The "powder and little rocks" are a result of the building being brought down.

[~enigma~]

The "powder and little rocks" are a result of the building being brought down.
I can just see the story on 9/11 blogger and the spin of pdoh because of this sentence. Jref admits that the towers were brought down :(

[T.A.M.]

I can just see the story on 9/11 blogger and the spin of pdoh because of this sentence. Jref admits that the towers were brought down :(

Yes well toto will now be "dustified" as a result of that little NWO slip.

TAM:)

[beachnut]

It's was not for a wind effecttest , but for an impact test.

My point is really simple, but believers(the people who always insult peeps who don't believe what they believe) can't understand it.

NIST model is theory, speculation based on simulation and "law of physics" not fact or proof.

And powder and little rocks don't bring down building.
I find people who believe in lies are always insulting me by repeating them. The fact is a plane hit the WTC tower, fire broke out and the towers fell. Simple math and physics can confirm there was more than enough energy involved to cause what happen on 9/11 without planted explosive what would have cooked off in the fires anyway and not of worked as excepted. Planted explosive is the wildest idea there is and actually makes the person who says it was explosives a fool and a liar for not having proof or evidence.

The fact is the impact of flight 175 was had the energy of 2200 pound of TNT, more than enough to cut every single steel column in the WTC. The fact is steel is weakened in fire, a lot. The fact is the towers fell and destroyed themselves, this is a fact and it backed by physics and science.

You have no facts or physics or math to support your ideas. The fact is the energy of the WTC towers falling each was 250 tons of TNT. That is why ground zero looks like it was bombed with 2000 500 pound bombs.

Take your choice did the WTC look like 500 2000 pound bombs or 2000 500 pound bombs? Can you sum up your conclusions on this topic and what facts do you have to support them?

You have not even acknowledge the dust at the WTC was also wallboard, glass fibers and dust from ceiling tiles, dust from glass windows, dust from insulation, why?

You do not even tell us when the photo was taken, what date, and how much clean up had already take place. You failed to present photos of a large building in ruble 7 stories high and steel and concrete sections, large and looming all over the 19 acres the WTC towers destroyed. Two acre buildings dropped debris over 19 acres damaging many buildings all around. Do not present out of context photos and present shallow research and make wild conclusions that are false. Please do more research and explain why you make statements with no facts or evidence.

[T.A.M.]

I find people who believe in lies are always insulting me by repeating them. The fact is a plane hit the WTC tower, fire broke out and the towers fell. Simple math and physics can confirm there was more than enough energy involved to cause what happen on 9/11 without planted explosive what would have cooked off in the fires anyway and not of worked as excepted. Planted explosive is the wildest idea there is and actually makes the person who says it was explosives a fool and a liar for not having proof or evidence.

The fact is the impact of flight 175 was had the energy of 2200 pound of TNT, more than enough to cut every single steel column in the WTC. The fact is steel is weakened in fire, a lot. The fact is the towers fell and destroyed themselves, this is a fact and it backed by physics and science.

You have no facts or physics or math to support your ideas. The fact is the energy of the WTC towers falling each was 250 tons of TNT. That is why ground zero looks like it was bombed with 2000 500 pound bombs.

Take your choice did the WTC look like 500 2000 pound bombs or 2000 500 pound bombs? Can you sum up your conclusions on this topic and what facts do you have to support them?

You have not even acknowledge the dust at the WTC was also wallboard, glass fibers and dust from ceiling tiles, dust from glass windows, dust from insulation, why?

You do not even tell us when the photo was taken, what date, and how much clean up had already take place. You failed to present photos of a large building in ruble 7 stories high and steel and concrete sections, large and looming all over the 19 acres the WTC towers destroyed. Two acre buildings dropped debris over 19 acres damaging many buildings all around. Do not present out of context photos and present shallow research and make wild conclusions that are false. Please do more research and explain why you make statements with no facts or evidence.


I do not blame them for questioning what they do not understand...I blame them for ignorantly continuing to believe the mistruths and pseudoscience, when they have had people who DO UNDERSTAND, show them the difference.

TAM:)

[beachnut]

This does not look how you describe
That looks like smoke and dust from a very large building destroying itself when it failed and released 248 tons of TNT energy as it did.
http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=6797&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1178387833
I think the truthers are funny when they show still photos and try to say there were explosives. But when you watch the video you see a total gravity driven collapse with not a single explosion. Instead of helping learn how the buildings fell, truthers make up lies and present no facts or evidence.

This photo shows a gravity collapse of the WTC, releasing 248 tons of TNT energy as it falls.

That means the destruction of the WTC just from gravity was equal to 2000 500 pound bombs. How many B-52s would it take to drop that many bombs? Or it was like 500 2000 pound bombs like on Desert Storm when the F-117 dropped a 2000 pound bomb and demolished a big building, it would take 500 f-177s dropping a 2000 pound bomb each! That is what the energy of collapse, a gravity driven collapse, was like.

[Totovader]

I can just see the story on 9/11 blogger and the spin of pdoh because of this sentence. Jref admits that the towers were brought down :(

Oh, they'll spin it no matter what is said- the fact of the matter is that the buildings were "brought" down, by terrorists, or gravity, or structural failure- whatever context you want to put in that.

That gives me an idea, though...

[Totovader]

Yes well toto will now be "dustified" as a result of that little NWO slip.

TAM:)

Yeah- my handler just called me. He's furious. He's thinking he's just going to have to bring JREF down again and clean up all the evidence and then erase people's memories again.

I told him to shove it- we're way over budget, anyway.

[Pardalis]

Why you focus on the detail?


This from someone who focuses on a three minute discrepancy in flight 93's crash. :rolleyes:

[T.A.M.]

Yeah- my handler just called me. He's furious. He's thinking he's just going to have to bring JREF down again and clean up all the evidence and then erase people's memories again.

I told him to shove it- we're way over budget, anyway.

Are you still here, I thought you were scheduled for "dustification".

TAM;)

[~enigma~]

Yeah- my handler just called me. He's furious. He's thinking he's just going to have to bring JREF down again and clean up all the evidence and then erase people's memories again.

I told him to shove it- we're way over budget, anyway.Sorry bout this but you handler called me and told me to introduce you to NWO gansta kitty...

http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/5404/dsc00870ns1.jpg

[T.A.M.]

Well I specifically heard "Dustification", but a good cat scratch and mauling will do...but don't let the slip happen again Toto.

TAM:)

[~enigma~]

Well I specifically heard "Dustification", but a good cat scratch and mauling will do...but don't let the slip happen again Toto.

TAM:)Mauling yes, scratch no. NWO gangsta kitty was trained in the ancient but deadly art of SHORYUKEN. Toto if I were you I would hide...

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/1148/shoryukenen2.jpg

[Panoply_Prefect]

But the truther-argument "NIST wont release its models" seem to me be moot. They will, as long as you pay for them.

Why hasn't any truther-organisation done that? All models for $2500 according to the FOIA-requests made.

/S

[T.A.M.]

in the words (paraphrased) of the high priest of twoof, DRG,

"They cant afford to send anyone across the ocean to interview the alive dead hijackers", so they aint likely gonna cough up $2500 for the models.

TAM:)

[WildCat]

Falling debris with some help ;)
So you're the latest troofer to come here and claim that the WTC was the first CD ever that used explosives to "powderize" the concrete? Would you care to estimate (a ballpark figure will do) how much explosive is needed to pulverize 110 acres of 4" thick lightweight concrete? No troofer has been able to do so to date, maybe you'll be the first!

[T.A.M.]

they usually just say "mini-nuke" which they seem to think covers any amount of required explosive...lol

TAM:)

[Totovader]

Mauling yes, scratch no. NWO gangsta kitty was trained in the ancient but deadly art of SHORYUKEN. Toto if I were you I would hide...

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/1148/shoryukenen2.jpg

LMAO.

[Furcifer]

So you're the latest troofer to come here and claim that the WTC was the first CD ever that used explosives to "powderize" the concrete? Would you care to estimate (a ballpark figure will do) how much explosive is needed to pulverize 110 acres of 4" thick lightweight concrete? No troofer has been able to do so to date, maybe you'll be the first!

I know! I know! If you placed 2 ton charges of TNT on every level in the core section and somehow managed to sequentially fire them every 0.4 seconds, without the lower explosives going off in the process, you would achieve similar "dustification"

[T.A.M.]

Mauling yes, scratch no. NWO gangsta kitty was trained in the ancient but deadly art of SHORYUKEN. Toto if I were you I would hide...

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/1148/shoryukenen2.jpg

ok, now the kitty in the first photo, which you identify as gangsta kitty, is clearly different from the kitty in the picture above. I smell a conspiracy here?

TAM;)

[Dr Adequate]

Fire is hot.

[Dr Adequate]

Scale models are really useful.

Look!

http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/5459/522/400/739362/12.10.06%20pics%20025.jpg

[Miragememories]

NIST is a govt affiliated organization. Govt charges for things all the time. The models were created using custom made software in some cases, and there is probably some fee associated with reproduction costs of the models.

Ask them.

TAM:)

The Models would be files.

The parent application is the only thing that should require purchase!

MM

[Miragememories]

I do not blame them for questioning what they do not understand...I blame them for ignorantly continuing to believe the mistruths and pseudoscience, when they have had people who DO UNDERSTAND, show them the difference.

TAM:)

I believe I heard the very same words spoken at a Nazi party rally in 1936.

MM

[Slayhamlet]

I believe I heard the very same words spoken at a Nazi party rally in 1936.

MM

You were at a Nazi party rally in 1936?

Explains a lot.

[Miragememories]

You were at a Nazi party rally in 1936?

Explains a lot.

Believe it or not they recorded such events on film back then.

If I had been there, I would have been one of the persecuted.

The Nazi's were big believers in experts and a scientific answer for every question.

MM

[DavidJames]

The Nazi's were big believers in experts and a scientific answer for every question.

MMand I suppose when your team has no experts and scientific answers, invoking Godwin's law is all you've got.

[thaiboxerken]

My point is really simple, but believers(the people who always insult peeps who don't believe what they believe) can't understand it.

We know you point is. We don't agree just.


NIST model is theory, speculation based on simulation and "law of physics" not fact or proof.

Law of physics not fact? You drinky to muchy boozy.


And powder and little rocks don't bring down building.

If building turn to little rock and powder it still stand tall?

[Par]

The Nazi's were big believers in experts and a scientific answer for every question.
MM

They were also firm believers in the idea that Berlin is in Germany. What’s your point?

[Slayhamlet]

Believe it or not they recorded such events on film back then.

Then surely you have an audio clip of "the very same words spoken" at this Nazi rally?

If I had been there, I would have been one of the persecuted.

I bet you're a big fan of The American Free Press, too.

The Nazis were big believers in experts and a scientific answer for every question.

MM

Let's ignore experts because MM says Nazis were big believers in experts!

[beachnut]

I believe I heard the very same words spoken at a Nazi party rally in 1936.

MM
I think your statement missed the point and is wrong at the same time.

[Dr Adequate]

I do not blame them for questioning what they do not understand...I blame them for ignorantly continuing to believe the mistruths and pseudoscience, when they have had people who DO UNDERSTAND, show them the difference.

I believe I heard the very same words spoken at a Nazi party rally in 1936.

The Nazi's were big believers in experts and a scientific answer for every question. You guys do love making stuff up, don't you?

Deutsche Physik:

"There was little scientific core to Deutsche Physik — it was primarily reactionary in its scope, lashing out at modern physics and its practitioners. Ideologically, its key claim was that there was "national character" in science, a denial of the claim of science's universality and internationalism (it, like Nazi ideology, also identified "internationalism" as being synonymous with "Jewishness")."

In short, they were big believers, not in science, but in pseudoscience; not in experts, but in self-proclaimed experts.

Hmm ... remind you of anyone?

[Miragememories]

and I suppose when your team has no experts and scientific answers, invoking Godwin's law is all you've got.

Back to a juvenile "yes' "no" "yes" "no" response!

MM

[Miragememories]

They were also firm believers in the idea that Berlin is in Germany. What’s your point?

Sorry I went over your head par.

Go read a few history books and then re-ask your question.

MM

[Miragememories]

I think your statement missed the point and is wrong at the same time.

?? But you always feel that way beachnut.

Please clarify your statement since I'm sure I was right on the money.

MM

[T.A.M.]

Back to a juvenile "yes' "no" "yes" "no" response!

MM

you liken me to a nazi, and then accuse others of juvenile behaviour. Better juvenile that inflammatory and defamatory like your comment.

TAM

[Slayhamlet]

Back to a juvenile "yes' "no" "yes" "no" response!

MM

You're right, his response was much more juvenile than you irrelevantly invoking Naziism as an argument.

[NBachmann]

The Models would be files.

The parent application is the only thing that should require purchase!

MM

Yes it would cost exactly zero to provide these files to people. They could do it online and instantaneously.

[T.A.M.]

do either of you know if (a) this is what the person who paid the $58 asked for (files only) or (b) if that is what he/she actually recieved?

TAM:)

[Slayhamlet]

?? But you always feel that way beachnut.

Please clarify your statement since I'm sure I was right on the money.

MM

Where's that adio clip, MM? I know enough German to be able to translate such a statement.

[Miragememories]

You guys do love making stuff up, don't you?

Deutsche Physik:

"There was little scientific core to Deutsche Physik — it was primarily reactionary in its scope, lashing out at modern physics and its practitioners. Ideologically, its key claim was that there was "national character" in science, a denial of the claim of science's universality and internationalism (it, like Nazi ideology, also identified "internationalism" as being synonymous with "Jewishness")."

In short, they were big believers, not in science, but in pseudoscience; not in experts, but in self-proclaimed experts.

Hmm ... remind you of anyone?

My my!

Amazing how these Nazi fools with their pseudo science were able to embrace rocketry, jet fighters and nuclear power amongst other things.

I guess they just got lucky and the U.S. fascination and adulation of Nazi scientists after World War II was just a myth?

MM

[thaiboxerken]

So you think bandwidth is free, NBachmann?

[NBachmann]

You guys do love making stuff up, don't you?

Deutsche Physik:

"There was little scientific core to Deutsche Physik — it was primarily reactionary in its scope, lashing out at modern physics and its practitioners. Ideologically, its key claim was that there was "national character" in science, a denial of the claim of science's universality and internationalism (it, like Nazi ideology, also identified "internationalism" as being synonymous with "Jewishness")."

In short, they were big believers, not in science, but in pseudoscience; not in experts, but in self-proclaimed experts.

Hmm ... remind you of anyone?

I love how MMs source was the very words spoken at a Nazi Rally and yours was wikipedia.

[beachnut]

Yes it would cost exactly zero to provide these files to people. They could do it online and instantaneously.
How do you know? Did you ask NIST? Is that what NIST said? Why not use the other models by other people?

[NBachmann]

So you think bandwidth is free, NBachmann?

Yes in some cases it is.

[Slayhamlet]

I love how MMs source was the very words spoken at a Nazi Rally and yours was wikipedia.

MM didn't provide as source.


Don't personalize things with insults. I've edited and removed it - please review your membership agreement about civility, and keep in mind that in this specific sub-forum, the agreement is being stringently enforced.

[Miragememories]

Where's that adio clip, MM? I know enough German to be able to translate such a statement.

Wird dein Wissen der Geschichte so begrenzt, daß du mich benötigst, dir die Geschichte zu erklären?

MM

[T.A.M.]

I'm off to a BBQ, so see you all later for now. MM, I will not forget your likening me to a Nazi...it was uncalled for. The view I stated in the comment, is the view of many people, none of whom are like nazis. It was a cheap shot.

TAM

[NBachmann]

MM didn't provide as source. What kind of crack are you on?

Could you stick to the rules?

[fuelair]

We must stop thinking and believe.:confused:

Simulation is not a proof, especially when they don't know what was burning inside and the quantity of kerosene left in the building.

This model are for believer who want confort in what he believe.

If like Greening says the concrete was blown in little debris and dust..... When we know that more than 60% of the weight of the building is concrete..... It's raise a lot of question.
Oh!! You're still here? Still in denial (looks like it but we can hope!!)?

OK people, let's move along, nothing to see here!!!:rolleyes:

[Par]

Sorry I went over your head par.

Go read a few history books and then re-ask your question.

MM

You said "The Nazi's were big believers in experts and a scientific answer for every question."

I replied "They were also firm believers in the idea that Berlin is in Germany. What’s your point?"

I cannot see how your comment about things going over my head and history books is relevant. Can you explain what you meant please?

[Miragememories]

I'm off to a BBQ, so see you all later for now. MM, I will not forget your likening me to a Nazi...it was uncalled for. The view I stated in the comment, is the view of many people, none of whom are like nazis. It was a cheap shot.

TAM

The Nazi's thought they were right.

The Nazi's thought they were good people.

If you could step back and take some perspective on your posts T.A.M. you might better understand.

MM

[thaiboxerken]

Yes in some cases it is.

And generating computer models is free too? Do you think those people work for free? Is $58 bucks too much for you to pay to have your delusions shattered?

[beachnut]

My my!

Amazing how these Nazi fools with their pseudo science were able to embrace rocketry, jet fighters and nuclear power amongst other things.

I guess they just got lucky and the U.S. fascination and adulation of Nazi scientists after World War II was just a myth?

MM
Your statements are wrong because it was not the NAZIs that did the jets, the rockets, and BTW, they kicked out the Jews who did the best work in physics. Oops seems like NAZIs were idiots who burned books and killed people so they could burn more books. You are confused what Germans did vs what idiot NAZIs did.

You did remember their nuke program fizzled cause they did not condone free thinking or science, they were just NAZIs. Non thinking idiots who were NAZIs. What did NAZIs do but prefect the very propaganda now used by the 9/11 truth movement. Even the name is ironically, truth.

[NBachmann]

And generating computer models is free too? Do you think those people work for free? Is $58 bucks too much for you to pay to have your delusions shattered?

Tax dollars have already paid for that work. Do you like paying for things twice?

[apathoid]

Tax dollars have already paid for that work. Do you like paying for things twice?


What about umeployed and tax-evading FOI requesters? They aren't paying twice....

[WildCat]

Yes it would cost exactly zero to provide these files to people. They could do it online and instantaneously.
I didn't realize "they" work for free.

[Par]

The Nazi's thought they were right.

The Nazi's thought they were good people.

If you could step back and take some perspective on your posts T.A.M. you might better understand.

Out of interest, why do you think you’re immune to this potential pitfall? Why do you think you’re the one that is right and good while we (or, more specifically, TAM) are the deluded Nazi-like ones?

[thaiboxerken]

Tax dollars have already paid for that work. Do you like paying for things twice?

Yes, I'd rather have that extra cost an optional tax than to have my taxes raised to provide you with a free model. If the "truth" is what you really want, then $58 isn't that much to pay for it. But I'm pretty sure the "truth" isn't really what you want.

[NBachmann]

What about umeployed and tax-evading FOI requesters? They aren't paying twice....

Now you are stretching. Scoring points is always more important isn't it.

The models have been paid for. NIST has no reason to charge.

[Miragememories]

You said "The Nazi's were big believers in experts and a scientific answer for every question."

I replied "They were also firm believers in the idea that Berlin is in Germany. What’s your point?"

I cannot see how your comment about things going over my head and history books is relevant. Can you explain what you meant please?

My mistake. Under your name I see "new blood".

Yes I believe you are right. The Nazi's were aware that Berlin was in Germany.

My point about "experts" and "scientic answers" was directed to the obsession here among the diehards that experts and scientists can explain everything about 9/11 with no lingering doubt.

The Nazi's had a similar belief in their infallibility and that was great, for them, until they lost the war.

We all human. You might think 9/11 Truth Seekers are all "troofers" and "tin hatters" but that kind of simplistic thinking describes the Nazi attitude towards the Jews. It worked while they had control, but when the tide turned, as I expect it will in the 9/11 truth movement...well you draw your own conclusions Socrates.

MM

[beachnut]

Tax dollars have already paid for that work. Do you like paying for things twice?
I do not want to pay for my tax dollars being wasted. So if you want something you can pay for it. But then have you asked NIST why they have to charge for what ever they are charging?

NIST has done a job and you can get the results you paid for at the NIST site now. I do not understand why anyone needs NIST to prove the WTC was fallen by a plane and fire. Simple physics and energy can be done on paper to show that what we all saw on 9/11 was capable due to just gravity, fire and impact. There are only a handful of engineers who are truthers and they have got 9/11 wrong. If we need a NIST model to help see the lies of the 9/11 truth movement we are lost.

Write to NIST and you can ask them why, and we can stop making up more junk about it.

[apathoid]

Now you are stretching. Scoring points is always more important isn't it.

The models have been paid for. NIST has no reason to charge.


How is that stretching it? If your haven't paid taxes, whether you're unemployed, ducking taxes, are unemployable, or from another country - you're expecting FOI related work to come to you for free.....including shipping charges, cost of media, labor, etc....

[Hokulele]

In addition, government agencies regularly charge for things. If you request maps from the Park Service, there will be a charge. If you request elevational data models from the US Geological Survey, there will be a charge. Heck, even most state and national parks charge entry fees. Why would this be any different?

[thaiboxerken]

Because the NIST model is a sham! That's right, it's all BS. They put a $58 price on it because they know troofers can't afford it. That's their way of saying "we have evidence but we won't show you." The NWO did extensive studies to find out exactly how much a troofer wouldn't pay for evidence.

[beachnut]

My point about "experts" and "scientic answers" was directed to the obsession here among the diehards that experts and scientists can explain everything about 9/11 with no lingering doubt.

The Nazi's had a similar belief in their infallibility and that was great, for them, until they lost the war.

We all human. You might think 9/11 Truth Seekers are all "troofers" and "tin hatters" but that kind of simplistic thinking describes the Nazi attitude towards the Jews. It worked while they had control, but when the tide turned, as I expect it will in the 9/11 truth movement...well you draw your own conclusions Socrates.

MM
No you need facts and evidence not experts to support anything to do with 9/11. The truth movement has no facts or evidence.

The NAZIs were flawed and burned books, the anti-intellectual supreme dolts.

The tide will always be out for the 9/11 truth movement. Not a fact to be seen and never to be found as the tide dries up after 5 years. When the tide rushes in it will be knowledge and logic and it will cleanse those willing to learn of the 9/11 truth cult organism of ignorance that Dylan has proclaimed to be. Freeing all truthers to be rational intelligent people who can identify the fraud of LC.

[A W Smith]

The Models would be files.

The parent application is the only thing that should require purchase!

MM

Tax dollars have already paid for that work. Do you like paying for things twice?

The models would be useless to the general public. There is no reason to provide a server, space, man hours, and data storage overhead for large files that very few people would download. If you had the software to run the models than it is presumed you are a professional and using the models commercially. if you had paid the typically exorbitant price for the software than the small fee associated with processing the FOI request would be small change for a design professional or engineer. Another thing to consider is that intelligent engineers and architects would not need the models anyway. They can research the freely available data from the models provided within the NIST documents themselves. which I might add. are available for free.

[~enigma~]

ok, now the kitty in the first photo, which you identify as gangsta kitty, is clearly different from the kitty in the picture above. I smell a conspiracy here?

TAM;)
Training partner :)

[fuelair]

Now you are stretching. Scoring points is always more important isn't it.

The models have been paid for. NIST has no reason to charge.
Whining is never becoming.

[WildCat]

Whining is never becoming.
You'll have to tell pd'oh that in his next incarnation. His NBachmann sock puppet has been banned.

[Totovader]

My mistake. Under your name I see "new blood".

Yes I believe you are right. The Nazi's were aware that Berlin was in Germany.

My point about "experts" and "scientic answers" was directed to the obsession here among the diehards that experts and scientists can explain everything about 9/11 with no lingering doubt.

The Nazi's had a similar belief in their infallibility and that was great, for them, until they lost the war.

We all human. You might think 9/11 Truth Seekers are all "troofers" and "tin hatters" but that kind of simplistic thinking describes the Nazi attitude towards the Jews. It worked while they had control, but when the tide turned, as I expect it will in the 9/11 truth movement...well you draw your own conclusions Socrates.

MM

Wow.

In one sentence you snub your nose at people who dare rely on science and facts, and in the next you claim that they're Nazi's for believing in such things.

Tell me, how strong is your belief that science should be abandoned? And, more to the point- what method of investigation should it be replaced with?

Gut instinct? How about coin flips? Faith? Is the truth in the stones, MM?

[Newtons Bit]

Wow.

In one sentence you snub your nose at people who dare rely on science and facts, and in the next you claim that they're Nazi's for believing in such things.

Tell me, how strong is your belief that science should be abandoned? And, more to the point- what method of investigation should it be replaced with?

Gut instinct? How about coin flips? Faith? Is the truth in the stones, MM?

So long as the result is something other than what they think, they will continually attempt to find "holes" in the methods, real and factual or not, and spout them as proof something is fishy.

[twinstead]

Jeeze louise Maragememories you expressed bemusement in another thread when I accused you of being ideologically biased, based on a few months reading of your posts.

I would like to invite anybody who reads even this thread to clam differently.

[Slayhamlet]

Wird dein Wissen der Geschichte so begrenzt, daß du mich benötigst, dir die Geschichte zu erklären?

MM

Also, du hast keine Quelle oder Zitate. Bloß Quatsch. Schwach, aber nicht überraschend.

[Slayhamlet]

Could you stick to the rules?

I see. Must be some pretty potent stuff.

[Slayhamlet]

The Nazi's thought they were right.

The Nazi's thought they were good people.

If you could step back and take some perspective on your posts T.A.M. you might better understand.

MM

You think you are right. I'm sure you also think you're a good person. Hence, you're just like the Nazis. Brilliant!

[T.A.M.]

Nbachmann..kind of figured him for a PDoh puppet. He seemed to engage in a dialogue with me that was too familiar for a supposed newbie.

TAM:)

[tabouere]

I find people who believe in lies are always insulting me by repeating them. The fact is a plane hit the WTC tower, fire broke out and the towers fell. Simple math and physics can confirm there was more than enough energy involved to cause what happen on 9/11 without planted explosive what would have cooked off in the fires anyway and not of worked as excepted. Planted explosive is the wildest idea there is and actually makes the person who says it was explosives a fool and a liar for not having proof or evidence.

The fact is the impact of flight 175 was had the energy of 2200 pound of TNT, more than enough to cut every single steel column in the WTC. The fact is steel is weakened in fire, a lot. The fact is the towers fell and destroyed themselves, this is a fact and it backed by physics and science.

You have no facts or physics or math to support your ideas. The fact is the energy of the WTC towers falling each was 250 tons of TNT. That is why ground zero looks like it was bombed with 2000 500 pound bombs.

Take your choice did the WTC look like 500 2000 pound bombs or 2000 500 pound bombs? Can you sum up your conclusions on this topic and what facts do you have to support them?

You have not even acknowledge the dust at the WTC was also wallboard, glass fibers and dust from ceiling tiles, dust from glass windows, dust from insulation, why?

You do not even tell us when the photo was taken, what date, and how much clean up had already take place. You failed to present photos of a large building in ruble 7 stories high and steel and concrete sections, large and looming all over the 19 acres the WTC towers destroyed. Two acre buildings dropped debris over 19 acres damaging many buildings all around. Do not present out of context photos and present shallow research and make wild conclusions that are false. Please do more research and explain why you make statements with no facts or evidence.
NIST theory is a theory, not fact, it's based on some facts like the mass of the WTC, but it's a theory. If you can't understand that we have a problem.

For the photo, there is some interesting here, I can't copy any on the forum, the photo were taken the day of the collapse.

http://www.time.com/time/photoessays/shattered/2.html

By the way, the peak temperature in the WTC is not a fact, it's speculation based on simulation and observation.

And the energy that you talk about is for the first impact, it could be true because the upper part was in one piece, so it hit whit all his mass, but after many impact, only steel debris, powder and small concrete rock left no math or physic is required to notice, open your eyes. Nothing else is needed. Powder and debris don't bring down building completly.

[T.A.M.]

Evolution is technically a theory...

TAM:)

[Pardalis]

Tabouère, your English is unintelligible.

Could you write your last paragraph in French so I could try to translate?

[AZCat]

Tabouère, your English is unintelligible.

Could you write your last paragraph in French so I could try to translate?

Thanks for offering this, Pardalis - I was having great difficulty understanding his/her posts.

[tabouere]

People can't understand it because you continue to contradict yourself. It's difficult to take people seriously and follow their train of thought when they contradict themselves. I believe, therefore, that the lack of understanding is solely your fault.

Theory and speculation are two completely different things- and if you are trying to claim that the application of the laws of physics are not fact or proof, then you are miles away from having a valid point.

Powder and little rocks didn't bring down the building- that is a strawman. The "powder and little rocks" are a result of the building being brought down.

The speed of the fall is an aproximation done with a formula. To calculate the momentum of an impact, this data is required, when you add data that are not based on direct observation in an equation, the result is not a fact. And in their equation, they forgot many data like the lost of mass in powder, the fact that de concrete will be reduce to small rocks and the momentum of many rocks falling is really different with the momentum of a solid block falling.

My point is simple, their simulation of the collapsed is based on partial reconstruction and computer model, it's not truth, the result depend on the maths behind the computer model and the datas provided to the computer model.

[AZCat]

And in their equation, they forgot many data like the lost of mass in powder, the fact that de concrete will be reduce to small rocks and the momentum of many rocks falling is really different with the momentum of a solid block falling.

No, it isn't different. The relationship between mass and momentum is linear so any "system of masses" is going to have the equivalent momentum of a system containing a single mass of the same quantity if the two systems are travelling at the same speed.

[tabouere]

Tabouère, your English is unintelligible.

Could you write your last paragraph in French so I could try to translate?

Je suis désolé, je suis fatigué à soir, dure journée

je répète

And the energy that you talk about is for the first impact, it could be true because the upper part was in one piece, so it hit whit all his mass, but after many impact, only steel debris, powder and small concrete rock left no math or physic is required to notice, open your eyes. Nothing else is needed. Powder and debris don't bring down building completly.

L'énergie dont parle beachnut est l'énergie du premier impact, et c'est probablement vrai, car la partie supérieure était en un morceau, alors elle a frappé avec toute sa masse la partie inférieure. Mais après plusieurs impacts, cette partie supérieure n'est plus en un morceau, elle est composée de débris d'aciers, de morceaux de bétons et de béton en poudre. On a pas besoin de mathematic ou de physique pour se rendre compte de ça, on ouvre nos yeux et on regarde. De la poudre et des débris, ça fait pas tomber un building jusque dans ses fondations.

[tabouere]

No, it isn't different. The relationship between mass and momentum is linear so any "system of masses" is going to have the equivalent momentum of a system containing a single mass of the same quantity if the two systems are travelling at the same speed.

It will be true if all the debris hit at the very same moment.

[T.A.M.]

My point is simple, their simulation of the collapsed is based on partial reconstruction and computer model, it's not truth, the result depend on the maths behind the computer model and the datas provided to the computer model.

I think we get this point. I think others have tried to explain that computer models are what engineers and scientists use for this type of thing. You really cannot do any better. As others have said, a scale model is not only impractical, but not likely as accurate, due to the variability in so many aspects of the impact, that would make repeatability difficult.

TAM:)

[AZCat]

It will be true if all the debris hit at the very same moment.

If I understand you correctly then you're talking about impact dynamics (not the same thing and quite a bit more complicated) rather than just comparisons of the momentum of systems.

[Pardalis]

L'énergie dont parle beachnut est l'énergie du premier impact, c'est probablement vrai car la partie supérieure était en un morceau alors elle a frappé avec toute sa masse la partie inférieure. Mais après plusieurs impacts, cette partie supérieure n'est plus en un morceau, elle est composée de débris d'aciers, de morceaux de bétons et de béton en poudre. On a pas besoin de mathematic ou de physique pour se rendre compte de ça, on ouvre nos yeux et on regarde. De la poudre et des débris, ça fait pas tomber un building jusque dans ses fondations.

OK, so here's my attempt at a translation:

"The energy Beachnut is talking about is the energy from the first impact. The upper section was in one piece, and it hit with all its mass the lower section. But, after a couple of impacts, this upper section wasn't in one piece anymore, but composed of steel debris, chunks of concrete and also concrete powder. We don't need math or physics to see that, you just have to open your eyes and look. Powder and debris don't make buildings collapse down to the ground."

Still doesn't make any sense to me.

[T.A.M.]

I think he is trying to make the point that once the top section began to break up, and was nothing more that broken apart debris, it did not have the "consistency" the fortitude, to destroy the remainder of the building below it...

kind of like hitting a nail with a hammer. if half way through the strike, the hammerhead turns to powder, it will not continue to drive the nail into the wood.

TAM:)

[Slayhamlet]

OK, so here's my try at a translation:

"The energy Beachnut is talking about is the energy from the first impact. The upper section was in one piece, and it hit with all its mass the lower section. But, after a couple of impacts, this upper section wasn't in one piece anymore, but composed of steel debris, chunks of concrete and also concrete powder. We don't need math or physics to see that, you just have to open your eyes and look. Powder and debris don't make buildings collapse down to the ground."

Still doesn't make any sense to me.

I think you forgot to set your translator to "Woo-woo".

[tabouere]

If I understand you correctly then you're talking about impact dynamics (not the same thing and quite a bit more complicated) rather than just comparisons of the momentum of systems.

It's possible.

Ok let's make a drawing(it's word to word translation)

If I throw rocks one by one on top of a building, nothing will happen.

If I take all the rock that I've thrown, I fuse them in one giant rock and let it fall on the building, the result will be different.

It's magic

[Slayhamlet]

I think he is trying to make the point that once the top section began to break up, and was nothing more that broken apart debris, it did not have the "consistency" the fortitude, to destroy the remainder of the building below it...

kind of like hitting a nail with a hammer. if half way through the strike, the hammerhead turns to powder, it will not continue to drive the nail into the wood.

TAM:)

Well, if that is what he's trying to say, he's wrong. Spectacularly wrong.

[T.A.M.]

It's possible.

Ok let's make a drawing(it's word to word translation)

If I throw rocks one by one on top of a building, nothing will happen.

If take all the rock that I've thrown, I fuse them in one giant rock and let it fall of the building, the result will be different.

Even if this were true (which I doubt) , you still have no proof that the top section desintigrated anywhere close to the top of the collapse...after 1-2 seconds, the entire area is blocked out by dust and smoke...

TAM:)

[Pardalis]

Essaye donc ça en français voir?

[AZCat]

I think we get this point. I think others have tried to explain that computer models are what engineers and scientists use for this type of thing. You really cannot do any better. As others have said, a scale model is not only impractical, but not likely as accurate, due to the variability in so many aspects of the impact, that would make repeatability difficult.

TAM:)

A scale model in this case is not only impractical or inaccurate, it would not be representative of the physical behavior of the towers during collapse.

The problem is a common one. With respect to the collapse of the towers and the behavior of the structure, we care about (among other things) a particular engineering metric known as "stress", with units of force per unit area (such as pounds per square inch). Force is mass times acceleration, and mass is volume times density, so Force is volume times density times acceleration. Volume is a quantity that, if our model is scaled by some factor "x", would be modified by "x" to the third power (because the scaling factor affects three dimensions). This means that forces in our model are modified by x-cubed. The unit area used in determining stress would be modified by x to the second power (because the scaling factor affects two dimensions), so our stress calculation will be modified by x-cubed (for the force) divided by x-squared (for the unit area). This means that stresses in the model will be modified by a factor of "x". In other words, if we produce a 200:1 scale model of the towers, the stresses in the structure of the model would be 1/200th of their real-world equivalents. Severing the connections at a particular point in the model tower (the 85th floor, for example) and studying the response of the structure will grant no insight to the behavior of the actual towers, because the stresses are not at all the same. In order to recreate the structural response, the density of the materials used in the model would have to be increased by a factor of 200 without changing the material responses to stress - a feat I seriously doubt is possible.

This is why engineers like "virtual" models - they can build things to scale.

[tabouere]

Essaye donc ça en français voir?


Si je laisse tomber des roches une par une(peu importe le temps écoulé entre chaque lancer) sur le dessus d'un batiment, rien ne va se passer, le batiment va rester en place intact.

Si je reprend toutes les roches que j'ai lancer, que je fais une grosse roche avec le tas, puis je le laisse tomber sur le dessus du building, le résultat va être différent. L'endroit toucher pourrait ceder. Pourtant il a été touché par la même masse en chute libre, la seule différence, c'est que dans un cas, c'était des impacts multiples de petites envergures et dans l'autre, un seul impact.

[AZCat]

It's possible.

Ok let's make a drawing(it's word to word translation)

If I throw rocks one by one on top of a building, nothing will happen.

If I take all the rock that I've thrown, I fuse them in one giant rock and let it fall on the building, the result will be different.

It's magic

As I said - you're talking about impact dynamics, not momentum comparisons.

[Pardalis]

Tabouère, the top section didn't disintegrate on impact.

[T.A.M.]

The top section did eventually "disintigrate" or fair near did, leaving steel beams and smaller pieces of concrete etc, but I doubt it did so until well near the end of the collapse, at the very least, I suspect it made it, in some form, at least half way down...but I have no proof either, so it is speculation.

TAM:)

[Totovader]

The speed of the fall is an aproximation done with a formula.

Huh? Says who?

To calculate the momentum of an impact, this data is required, when you add data that are not based on direct observation in an equation, the result is not a fact.

What data? What are you talking about? Are you trying to say that equations are not facts? That's utterly ridiculous.

And in their equation, they forgot many data like the lost of mass in powder, the fact that de concrete will be reduce to small rocks and the momentum of many rocks falling is really different with the momentum of a solid block falling.

You lost me, here. If their equation is wrong, then it would not be a fact- but you cannot claim that all equations are not facts and then turn around and claim that this equation (whatever you're referencing) is double-wrong because it's also missing pieces.

I have no idea what equation you're referencing, however- and I have no idea what you're talking about.

We were talking about models...

My point is simple, their simulation of the collapsed is based on partial reconstruction and computer model, it's not truth, the result depend on the maths behind the computer model and the datas provided to the computer model.

I'm not even sure what you're saying- but you need to provide evidence for your claims, instead of just attempting to toss out science altogether. Baby with the bathwater, here...

This would be no different than me saying it's impossible for you to understand the NIST because our language is just so fundamentally flawed that the ideas cannot be understood by anyone. It's sophistry- and utterly ridiculous.

[T.A.M.]

last I checked, if you open a bag of cement, the powder that exits, has the same mass as the bag full of cement before it was opened, minus the weight of the bag...which is a nonissue here.

TAM:)

[tabouere]

Tabouère, the top section didn't disintegrate on impact.

Just try to find a photo of it after the collapse.

Try to find a big chunk of concrete.

Simple logic, to thing of the same material with the same shape that hit, will blow approximately the same.

[tabouere]

last I checked, if you open a bag of cement, the powder that exits, has the same mass as the bag full of cement before it was opened, minus the weight of the bag...which is a nonissue here.

TAM:)

But strangely, it fly in the air ;)

just let fall powder of ciment(not in the bag) on your feet from 2 feet high.

Take the same mass from the same height but in solid concrete....

:boggled:

[Pardalis]

Just try to find a photo of it after the collapse.

Try to find a big chunk of concrete.

We can't see the top section once it starts to sink into the lower section, we don't have X-ray vision to see through the dust cloud.

Simple logic, to thing of the same material with the same shape that hit, will blow approximately the same.

J'ai rien compris, en français s'il vous plaît.

[Totovader]

Just try to find a photo of it after the collapse.

Try to find a big chunk of concrete.

Simple logic, to thing of the same material with the same shape that hit, will blow approximately the same.

Even assuming that a photo of large pieces of concrete could not be found (an earlier photo clearly shows you're wrong)- your claim that it was disintegrated before impact would not be proven (and is contradicted by the video evidence), but also your willful neglect of the makeup of the towers also comes into question- steel was in there as well.

Additionally, your last sentence makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

[Totovader]

But strangely, it fly in the air ;)

just let fall powder of ciment(not in the bag) on your feet from 2 feet high.

Take the same mass from the same height but in solid concrete....

:boggled:

You haven't been making very much sense, but this statement appears to be contradicted by your earlier claim:

to thing of the same material with the same shape that hit, will blow approximately the same.

:boggled:

[tabouere]

We can't see the top section once it starts to sink into the lower section, we don't have X-ray vision to see through the dust cloud.



J'ai rien compris, en français s'il vous plaît.

The upper section is blown after a few impact.

En français :

Deux choses composées des même matériaux qui ont à peu près la même forme qui se frappent ensemble vont subir à peu près les mêmes dégâts.

[Pardalis]

Deux choses composées des même matériaux qui ont à peu près la même forme qui se frappent ensemble vont subir à peu près les mêmes dégâts.

translation:

"when two similar objects (in shape and made with the same materials) collide with each other, they will both suffer the same damage."

Which two objects are you referring to?

[tabouere]

You haven't been making very much sense, but this statement appears to be contradicted by your earlier claim:



:boggled:

I guess you understand none.

Damn

2- A floor made of SOLID concrete that hit a floor below of the same material will have probably the same kind of damage of the floor below.

1- 2 lbs of powder cement that fell from a height of 2 feet on my feet will do no damage at all if the powder is out of the bag.

If I take some of the powder and make a solid block of concrete with it of 2 lbs and I let fell that block on my feet from a height of two feet, it is possible that it will break my feet.

[tabouere]

translation:

"when two similar objects (in shape and made with the same materials) collide with each other, they will both suffer the same damage."

Which two objects are you referring to?

The upper and the lower floor.

[T.A.M.]

The upper section is blown after a few impact.
.

You have not show one single piece of evidence to back this claim up, so thus far it is your opinion only.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

The upper and the lower floor.

two identical cars. one is stationary, the other drives toward it at an angle...is the damage to both the same?

TAM:)

[AZCat]

I guess you understand none.

Damn

2- A floor made of SOLID concrete that hit a floor below of the same material will have probably the same kind of damage of the floor below.

1- 2 lbs of powder cement that fell from a height of 2 feet on my feet will do no damage at all if the powder is out of the bag.

If I take some of the powder and make solid block of concrete with of 2 lbs and I let it fell that block on my feet from a height of two, it is possible that it will break my feet.

The 2 lb. block of concrete doesn't have much of a chance of breaking your feet. It still only weighs two pounds, after all.

[Pardalis]

The upper and the lower floor.

The entire top section fell with all its weight and kinetic energy on the impact floors. You can't possibly think the floors receiving that force could have withstood it, let alone offer enough resistance to nullify it.

I'm in no way a physicist, nor an engineer, but this is ridiculous.

[tabouere]

You have not show one single piece of evidence to back this claim up, so thus far it is your opinion only.

TAM:)

simple physic and simple observation.

[tabouere]

The 2 lb. block of concrete doesn't have much of a chance of breaking your feet. It still only weighs two pounds, after all.

I say it's possible, but 2 pound of powder will never, not even 20.

[Pardalis]

simple physic and simple observation.

You mean simplistic.

[tabouere]

two identical cars. one is stationary, the other drives toward it at an angle...is the damage to both the same?

TAM:)

Nope, fore sure but both will be damage.

But in the case of the WTC, at least one tower fell verticaly.

So the upper floor fall in a straight on the lower floor.

[AZCat]

simple physic and simple observation.

That's the problem. There is a point when "simple physics" is no longer able to accurately describe the situation (such as impact dynamics).

[tabouere]

The entire top section fell with all its weight and kinetic energy on the impact floors. You can't possibly think the floors receiving that force could have withstood it, let alone offer enough resistance to nullify it.

I'm in no way a physicist, nor an engineer, but this is ridiculous.

I've never said the lower floor withstood the impact of the upper floor with all is weight.

But after many impacts, it stop to collide with all is weight, it's was a multiple impact of a much smaller weight.

[Pardalis]

But after many impacts, it stop to collide with all is weight, it's was a multiple impact of a much smaller weight.

How so? Where do the mass and energy go?

[tabouere]

That's the problem. There is a point when "simple physics" is no longer able to accurately describe the situation (such as impact dynamics).

There is many thing you can test by yourself.

Sophisticated explanation that no one understand is not always required, and often, it's used to mislead people. When it's too elaborated, people don't even try to understand and they say to themselves :" if he is able to think a thing like that, he is probably right"

[tabouere]

How so? Where do the mass and energy go?

A small part is gone in dust, I SAID A SMALL PART.

The rest is absorbed by the building at each small impact.

[AZCat]

There is many thing you can test by yourself.

Sophisticated explanation that no one understand is not always required, and often, it's used to mislead people. When it's too elaborated, people don't even try to understand and they say to themself, if he is able to thing like that, he is probably right.

That may be true, but it still doesn't invalidate those times when sophisticated explanation is required. This is one of them. Comparisons such as yours require knowledge of the time-domain response of materials to impact, because time is what separates the two cases in your comparison. In one case, all impacts are occurring at the same time (because the system of particles is bound together) and in the second case the impacts occur in some unspecified distribution through time (because the system of particles is not bound together and therefore impacts the surface at a time based on the particular particle's location within the system), with the system momentum in each case being equal.

[tabouere]

That may be true, but it still doesn't invalidate those times when sophisticated explanation is required. This is one of them. Comparisons such as yours require knowledge of the time-domain response of materials to impact, because time is what separates the two cases in your comparison. In one case, all impacts are occurring at the same time (because the system of particles is bound together) and in the second case the impacts occur in some unspecified distribution through time (because the system of particles is not bound together and therefore impacts the surface at a time based on the particular particle's location within the system), with the system momentum in each case being equal.

Yep, time separate my two cases. And I know one thing, all debris won't hit the floor below at the very same moment because some will immediatly go trought the concrete of the floor below by creating a single hole in it. Others will fall and stay on the lower floor until it's was completly shattered by others debris.......

I'ts fun to talk to many of you.... Not all, but many. ;)

Good night.

[rwguinn]

It's possible.

Ok let's make a drawing(it's word to word translation)

If I throw rocks one by one on top of a building, nothing will happen.

If I take all the rock that I've thrown, I fuse them in one giant rock and let it fall on the building, the result will be different.

It's magic

Really bad analogy.
If you "take all the rock that I've thrown" and drop them all at once on the building the result will be the same as if you "fuse them in one giant rock"

As for the bag of cement analogy:
Get a 1/8 inch thick sheet of plywood, 4' square. support it on 2 edges. Drop the whole bag onto the center of it from 2 feet. Now, empty the bag into a bucket. Invert the bucket from 2 feet onto another sheet of plywood, supported the same way. OOps! Similar result!

[Mancman]

Nope, fore sure but both will be damage.

But in the case of the WTC, at least one tower fell verticaly.

So the upper floor fall in a straight on the lower floor.

Wrong. Both towers leant as they fell.

WTC2
http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/collapse2.jpg

WTC1
http://killtown.911review.org/images/wtc-gallery/nist1-6d/6-11_wtc1-collapsing-wnbc.jpg

[T.A.M.]

simple physic and simple observation.

Nope, fore sure but both will be damage.

But in the case of the WTC, at least one tower fell verticaly.

So the upper floor fall in a straight on the lower floor.

1. Your claim was that both sections would be EQUALLY damaged. Others here have shown you that the top section did not come straight down, but on a tilt. Secondly, both sections are NOT moving at identical speeds with opposite velocities. Your SIMPLE OBSERVATIONS should tell you this, since it is what our SIMPLE OBSERVATIONS tell ALL OF US. You havent even taken into account the phenomenon of MOMENTUM!


2. Your other claim was that within a few "impacts" (floor to floor I assume), the top portion is broken into tiny rocks of concrete and steel beams. You have not shown any photographic or film evidence to support this. Any and all evidence of a photographic or video nature shown in this thread, has had dust and smoke completely obscuring the top portion beyond 1-2 seconds of collapse. Your thought that within a couple of impacts, that the top section is fragmented into "tiny rocks" and steel beams is INSANE!! Your "common sense" and your obviously misinterpreted observations are not enough evidence, not even close, to prove to anyone your outrageous claim.

TAM:)

[Totovader]

I guess you understand none.

Damn

2- A floor made of SOLID concrete that hit a floor below of the same material will have probably the same kind of damage of the floor below.

1- 2 lbs of powder cement that fell from a height of 2 feet on my feet will do no damage at all if the powder is out of the bag.

If I take some of the powder and make a solid block of concrete with it of 2 lbs and I let fell that block on my feet from a height of two feet, it is possible that it will break my feet.

Um, the floor wasn't really "solid concrete"- and that's important because you're thinking it's all one solid object, which apparently cannot be damaged.

On the powder thing- the reason you're not getting it is because you are comparing two completely different things. If you drop a 2lb bag of powder on your head, but just the powder- you aren't dropping all of the powder at the same time. You continue to claim that these were the effects on 9/11- but you have not provided any proof whatsoever to substantiate this claim.

Your analogy really makes no sense at all.

[thaiboxerken]

I've never said the lower floor withstood the impact of the upper floor with all is weight.

But after many impacts, it stop to collide with all is weight, it's was a multiple impact of a much smaller weight.

If what you postulate here is correct, than even a controlled demolition of a building would involve explosives on each floor. The way controlled demolition of high-rise buildings now only involve explosives on the bottom floor or floors and they seem to come down just fine, and have powder and lots of little rocks as well.

You seem to fail at understanding the basic laws of physics. The momentum and mass magically disappear in your postulates.

[gumboot]

I've never said the lower floor withstood the impact of the upper floor with all is weight.

But after many impacts, it stop to collide with all is weight, it's was a multiple impact of a much smaller weight.



That could indeed be true, however the problem is, with ever impact that mass increases because the newly collapsed floors are added to it, and that collective mass continues to accelerate. Thus to demonstrate that the building would stop collapsing, you have to demonstrate that somewhere along the line a floor offers more resistance than the additional force added by the addition of another floor's mass and acceleration over 4m of free fall.

And your problem here is, all of the floors are built the same way.

Thing is, the force of the failing material is always increasing. It's gaining mass with every floor it smashes through, and it's gaining velocity with ever meter it falls.

If the first floor isn't going to stop it, why would the second, or third, or tenth?

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

Nope, fore sure but both will be damage.

But in the case of the WTC, at least one tower fell verticaly.

So the upper floor fall in a straight on the lower floor.



This is not true. Both towers tilted as they fell. More importantly, both also twisted as they fell. This means the columns of the upper mass did not line up with the columns of the lower mass.

This is important because it means at impact, when those 240 exterior columns and 47 interior columns struck the intact lower structure, all of the force of that impact was focused in the tiny footprint of those columns (remember, they were hollow), and that force wasn't transferred through the lower section's columns to the ground. Oh no. It was transferred through the light weight floor truss, into the bolts that held the truss to the columns.

Maybe, had the towers fallen so that the upper columns EXACTLY matched the lower columns, it might have stopped there and then. But it didn't. The upper mass in WTC1 hit with the energy of 2.3 tons of TNT, in WTC2 it was 7.2 tons of TNT. And the only thing resisting that energy was the floor truss and the bolts that held it in place. Each floor truss was connected at every second exterior column, 28 along each side. Only 112 contact points, to resist all of that impact force.

-Gumboot

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Might I suggest, that rather than address tabouere's many "claims" that instead we focus on teaching tabouere how scientific methodology works. It seems clear that (s)he is unfamiliar with it, and as such, is committing fallacy of equivocation after equivocation.

[thaiboxerken]

Arkan, only the willing can be educated.

[gumboot]

Arkan, only the willing can be educated.


And grasshoppers... or something...:confused:

-Gumboot

[TjW]

tabouere:

Are you familiar with a tool called a "dead blow hammer"? The name is probably different in french, but the purpose isn't. The hammer head is hollow, and filled with shot. It is more effective in transferring momentum to the thing it's hitting than a solid hammer, because the hammer doesn't rebound from the target.
The principal is the same as broken bits of building hitting other bits of building.

[fuelair]

You mean simplistic.
Possibly, tab should take a simple physic and see how it moves him.


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

[A W Smith]

tabouere let me try to explain a cascading collapse to you. As the upper storys impact the top most floor of the lower section in the collapse initiation the floor does not turn instantly to powder, it begins to fall on the floor below it in a sort of cascade or stack. So you have a moving stack of floors accelerating as the building collapses. The bottom of this moving stack it constantly replaced by a new floor as the collapse progresses. As the floor moves through this stack from bottom to top it becomes less of a solid and more of a gravel or powder because it is subjected to repeated impacts from the collision of the floors below it in the stack. Until it reaches the top of the stack and is but dust' dense powder and aggregate. This moving stack can be a few storys from three at initiation to a dozen or more depending on how far down into the collapse the building has progressed. When the stack reaches the ground the weight of the stack crushes what remains under it as it stops. And what you see in the photo you posted is debris of varying density topped with precipitate.

[CptColumbo]

So, is the basic premise that people caught in an avalanche have nothing to worry about?

[thaiboxerken]

So, is the basic premise that people caught in an avalanche have nothing to worry about?

Yes, because powder can't do any damage. Troofer physics is awesome!

[rwguinn]

Yes, because powder can't do any damage. Troofer physics is awesome!

and amazing how the NWO gets in there so quickly after one to "pull" all the buildings and trees in the path so everyone will think that avalanches are deadly!

[R.Mackey]

Are you familiar with a tool called a "dead blow hammer"? The name is probably different in french, but the purpose isn't. The hammer head is hollow, and filled with shot. It is more effective in transferring momentum to the thing it's hitting than a solid hammer, because the hammer doesn't rebound from the target.
The principal is the same as broken bits of building hitting other bits of building.

Beautiful analogy.

I wish I'd thought of that in my attempts to educate Miragememories. This is a common misconception among the Troothers.

[TellyKNeasuss]

Yes, because powder can't do any damage. Troofer physics is awesome!

I wish I had informed my foot about this before I dropped that bag of sugar on it so that it would have known not to feel pain.

[Tbone]

So, is the basic premise that people caught in an avalanche have nothing to worry about?

Funnily enough, the potentially most dangerous type of avalanche is one made of nearly all powder, rather that a somewhat coherant mass of snow.

[CptColumbo]

Funnily enough, the potentially most dangerous type of avalanche is one made of nearly all powder, rather that a somewhat coherant mass of snow.

That was my understanding. However, there seems to be a some disagreement with this theory in this very thread.

[beachnut]

Funnily enough, the potentially most dangerous type of avalanche is one made of nearly all powder, rather that a somewhat coherant mass of snow.
One truther used the physics on karate. The physics of a hand hitting wood, and how it works. The truther then takes the physics and say how only the hard parts of the plane make a difference and cause major damage, after showing with physics you can take a hand and break wood. I must assume he thinks the air from a tornado is incapable of destroying a brick house. Our physics truthers must protest the damage this past weekend as being an inside job, since soft air can not destroy a hard brick house. Why do 9/11 truth movement people tend to debunk themselves while they try to teach physics?

How dare you say soft powered could destroy a village! But then you are not a truther for 9/11, and you are capable of rational thinking.

Soft snow. A killer or just soft?

[TjW]

Beautiful analogy.

I wish I'd thought of that in my attempts to educate Miragememories. This is a common misconception among the Troothers.

Thank you. Do you ever get the impression that the twoofers with these misconceptions haven't used tools much?

[R.Mackey]

oh my, yes.

The best example ever was Killtown, who complained that some poor woman he was harassing had to have been lying, because she started a barbeque while her electricity was out. I'll let you search for it...

Having said that, while common sense (the real kind gained through experience) goes a long way, it's not perfect, and we all have something to learn.

[Slayhamlet]

oh my, yes.

The best example ever was Killtown, who complained that some poor woman he was harassing had to have been lying, because she started a barbeque while her electricity was out. I'll let you search for it...

Having said that, while common sense (the real kind gained through experience) goes a long way, it's not perfect, and we all have something to learn.

Wait, that's what convinced him that Mrs. McClatchey was lying? That?! :jaw-dropp

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

oh my, yes.

The best example ever was Killtown, who complained that some poor woman he was harassing had to have been lying, because she started a barbeque while her electricity was out. I'll let you search for it...

Having said that, while common sense (the real kind gained through experience) goes a long way, it's not perfect, and we all have something to learn.
Whatever Killclown has is neither sensical (unfortunately) nor common (thankfully).

[AZCat]

Whatever Killclown has is neither sensical (unfortunately) nor common (thankfully).

Let's add "contagious" to that list. There's enough stupid in the world already.

[gumboot]

Funnily enough, the potentially most dangerous type of avalanche is one made of nearly all powder, rather that a somewhat coherant mass of snow.



Likewise with volcanoes. Pyroclastic flows containing larger pieces of volcanic rock are far less deadly and devastating that pyroclastic flows containing only ash and gases.

-Gumboot

[CptColumbo]

But is Taboure argueing that as long as you're in a building you'll be okay, if an avalanche comes at you, because only large objects could do damage to a structure?

I'm just asking questions?:)

[Belz...]

The proof, because there's no proof for the temperature of the fire, only evaluation and modelisation.

Yes. Something we call "proof".

Do you know how science works ?

Powder, small rock and steel beam falling don't bring down a building completly.

50,000 tons of concrete powder is pretty much the same as 50,000 tons of concrete, wouldn't you say ?

Look, the test is simple, really simple, do a(many) scale model of the building with the same architecture and materials than cut the upper part and let's see what happen when it fall on the lowest part.

Sorry. Scale models don't work that well. Especially not for those scales.

NIST model is theory, speculation based on simulation and "law of physics" not fact or proof.

Theory <> Speculation

"Laws of physics" ? Why the scare quotes ?

NIST theory is a theory, not fact

I'm not sure you understand the difference.

The speed of the fall is an aproximation done with a formula.

9.8m/s2 is not an approximation.

[Belz...]

L'énergie dont parle beachnut est l'énergie du premier impact, et c'est probablement vrai, car la partie supérieure était en un morceau, alors elle a frappé avec toute sa masse la partie inférieure. Mais après plusieurs impacts, cette partie supérieure n'est plus en un morceau, elle est composée de débris d'aciers, de morceaux de bétons et de béton en poudre. On a pas besoin de mathematic ou de physique pour se rendre compte de ça, on ouvre nos yeux et on regarde. De la poudre et des débris, ça fait pas tomber un building jusque dans ses fondations.

That doesn't make sense. The upper section would not break up immediately. You DO realise that this is a progressive process, right ?

Just try to find a photo of it after the collapse.

Try to find a big chunk of concrete.

Had the same discussion with ChristopherA. There were many chunks.

Deux choses composées des même matériaux qui ont à peu près la même forme qui se frappent ensemble vont subir à peu près les mêmes dégâts.

That is patently false. Many factors would come into play. Ever seen car crashes ?

Sophisticated explanation that no one understand is not always required

Is that your problem, then ? The explanation is too complicated for you and therefore you cannot accept it ?

[Yurebiz]

Anyone got a handle on the models yet?

[DavidJames]

Anyone got a handle on the models yet?Did you find the documentation for your claims over here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=81533&page=3) yet?

[Yurebiz]

Did you find the documentation for your claims over here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=81533&page=3) yet?
¬¬ I'll get them soon enough.
I'm playing around with SAP2000... that's why I asked.

[Yurebiz]

D:

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa208/Yurebiz/Untitled.gif

[T.A.M.]

¬¬ I'll get them soon enough.
I'm playing around with SAP2000... that's why I asked.

uh huh...that is why they don't particularly like releasing things to the general public...OMG.

TAM:)

[Panoply_Prefect]

A march 2007 article in "Structure Magazine":

http://www.structuremag.org/archives/2007/March%202007/D-Spotlight-ComputerModeling-Mar07.pdf

/S

[Yurebiz]

uh huh...that is why they don't particularly like releasing things to the general public...OMG.

TAM:)
LOL I understand haha.
Guess waht, I couldn't get them to fall! :D I only tried two simulations though. Those things take so much time to load, like 2 hours per simulation. I gave up for now but maybe I'll try more later. there's about 20 simulations or so per model, and I dunno what is what.