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

[sdemetri]

Originally Posted by Myriad

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

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

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by sdemetri

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

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

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

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

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Myriad

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

Roll a Hot Wheels car off your kitchen table and note the results. Roll a real car off a 150 ft. cliff, compare/contrast.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by WildCat

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

-cough-

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by sdemetri

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

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

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

Respectfully,
Myriad

[uk_dave]

Originally Posted by sdemetri

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

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

What makes you think they were oxygen starved?

[AZCat]

Originally Posted by Myriad

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

Meaningless, but amusing nonetheless.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by sdemetri

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

That example sews up you problem! You have no clue what to use to understand 9/11. Try physics next time, not your, what did Einstein call it?

Quote:

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." Einstein

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

[16.5]

Originally Posted by uk_dave

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

What makes you think they were oxygen starved?

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

[T.A.M.]

Guys;

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

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

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

Waste of your time boys and girls.

TAM

[SDC]

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

[sdemetri]

Originally Posted by Horatius

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

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

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

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

[uk_dave]

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

[Newtons Bit]

Originally Posted by sdemetri

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Total Energy In
+50kj

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

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

What did I do wrong?

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Total Energy In
+50kj

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

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

What did I do wrong?

Snicker....

[Newtons Bit]

Originally Posted by rwguinn

Snicker....

Quiet you. Don't give it away.

[sdemetri]

Originally Posted by uk_dave

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

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

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

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

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by sdemetri

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

The very same windows from which people jumped out?

[rwguinn]

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

[Arus808]

Originally Posted by sdemetri

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

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

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



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

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

The very same windows from which people jumped out?

Do they even know they are posting lies? Showing a truther the truth, to make the truther, the liar.

[lapman]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

The very same windows from which people jumped out?

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a1...dalis/wtc3.jpg

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

[sdemetri]

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

What did I do wrong?

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

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

[sdemetri]

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

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

[AZCat]

Originally Posted by sdemetri

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

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

[Newtons Bit]

Originally Posted by sdemetri

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

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

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

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

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

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by lapman

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

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

Oh well, nothing new.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

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

Oh well, nothing new.

Only by ignoring the facts can you understand THE TRUTH™.

[Jonnyclueless]

Originally Posted by sdemetri

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

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

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

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

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

[pomeroo]

Originally Posted by sdemetri

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

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

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

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

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

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by sdemetri

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jonnyclueless]

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

[ElMondoHummus]

Originally Posted by sdemetri

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by sdemetri

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

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

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

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by sdemetri

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

Brave, brave Sir Robin.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

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

[snipped for brevity]

What did I do wrong?

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

Dave

[Mancman]

Originally Posted by sdemetri

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

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

This diagram illustrates it. On the left, open windows just after impact, on the right - just before collapse. Black windows were open. Blue windows were obscured.

[Newtons Bit]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

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

Dave

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

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

[R.Mackey]

Originally Posted by sdemetri

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

Emphasis added.

It's funny to hear you say this, because Dr. Greening and Dr. Bazant have done exactly what you ask for in the second highlighted passage -- the BLBG paper provides defense of the "official argument" with the pulverization treated thoroughly.

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

Originally Posted by sdemetri

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

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

[...]

What did I do wrong?

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

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

---

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

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

[AZCat]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

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

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

Thanks for staying on top of this.