JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Tags David Chandler

Reply
Old 27th February 2010, 12:18 PM   #81
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,359
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
Tony, your analysis and arguments would have a lot more impact and credence (pun intended) if you were to get them published in a mainstream engineering journal.

Let's just posit, for arguments sake, that your ideas are correct. This could be easily verified by your peers around the world via a peer-review process, and then your movement could take them to scientific bodies and argue that a new investigation was needed.

Having failed to do this, your cries for an investigation carry little scientific weight.

I don't see why you have to be so dismissive of femr2's chart, as it provides more details with which to apply to your models. I say congrats to femr2 for the due diligence.

I'm firmly with the others on this thread who see you and Chandler trying to argue 2 contradicting positions at once: On the one hand, acceleration at 1g would indicate zero resistence, indicating that structure had been artificially removed; on the other the fact that there was indeed resistance is used to argue that structure was artificially removed.

Richard Gage prefers to muddy the waters with the term 'near freefall', which is actually closer to 'near 1/2 freefall'.

You will have to stop contradicting yourselves if you want to be taken seriously by the engineering community.
These mini-jolts that femr2 claims to have found are on the order of 1 to 3 ft./second and are only indicative of floor slab collisions, not column impact, and thus insignificant when it comes to explaining the collapse of the lower section of the building.

The columns in WTC 1 would not have missed each other based on the actual motion of the upper section. It appears something was removing most of the strength of the columns.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 12:22 PM   #82
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,359
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Hi, Tony, welcome back. I was wondering if you had given any more thought to this question: If the diagram below were a static situation, how much of the weight of the upper block would be resting on the perimeter columns at the right:

http://opendb.com/images/wtc1tilt.jpg

You gave one answer -- about a 7% increase because of the displaced center of mass -- but when I asked what happened to the load that was carried by those failed columns across floor 97, I don't believe you answered. Of course, the point is: If the the tilt meant that the load of the upper block was no longer distributed evenly across all the columns, how much "load amplification" would really be necessary?
Go over to the 911freeforum and take a look at the kinematic models and discussions there. The columns don't miss, the load increase on separate column rows is not great enough and the small amount of eccentricity would not have played a significant role. The failure in WTC 1 also happened much too fast for a gradual loss of velocity being compensated for by a continued fall.

The situation you try to present just didn't happen.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 27th February 2010 at 12:23 PM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 12:24 PM   #83
walkyrie
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: London UK
Posts: 156
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post

It appears something was removing most of the strength of the columns.


You are Right , the STRENGHT of each WTC column of the North and South towers was removed intentionally with explosives and melting charges attached to the columns

Last edited by walkyrie; 27th February 2010 at 12:35 PM.
walkyrie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 12:32 PM   #84
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Somewhere between Here and There
Posts: 4,329
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
These mini-jolts that femr2 claims to have found are on the order of 1 to 3 ft./second and are only indicative of floor slab collisions, not column impact, and thus insignificant when it comes to explaining the collapse of the lower section of the building.

The columns in WTC 1 would not have missed each other based on the actual motion of the upper section. It appears something was removing most of the strength of the columns.
It appears that assumption is somewhat incorrect. You have not properly eliminated other likely reasons that there weren't ideal column-on-column impacts.
You therefore jump to conclusions about the apparent lack of resistance.

You're probably wrong.
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 12:37 PM   #85
WilliamSeger
Critical Thinker
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 333
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Go over to the 911freeforum and take a look at the kinematic models and discussions there. The columns don't miss, the load increase on separate column rows is not great enough and the small amount of eccentricity would not have played a significant role. The failure in WTC 1 also happened much too fast for a gradual loss of velocity being compensated for by a continued fall.

The situation you try to present just didn't happen.
No, my question has nothing whatever to do with the columns missing each other. (I do note, however, that the model you reference doesn't take into account any lateral movement, opposite to the direction of the tilt, that would have been produced by the top block trying to rotate.)

As I said when I asked this question before, go ahead and "assume" that the top block is resting firmly on those perimeter columns on the right, even though that's not a realistic assumption. The point is, if my diagram were a static situation, the only sensible support of the entire top block are the perimeter columns on the left and right sides, because all of the other columns across floor 97 have failed. What happened to the load they were carrying? This goes directly to the question of how much "load amplification" would really be necessary to cause those perimeter columns on the left and right side to fail, if those columns could not support even the static weight shown in my diagram.

I really can't figure out if you just don't understand my question or if you're intentionally dodging the obvious answer.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 12:39 PM   #86
AZCat
Graduate Poster
 
AZCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: where the grass is greener.
Posts: 1,644
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
I really can't figure out if you just don't understand my question or if you're intentionally dodging the obvious answer.
I don't know either, but it happens a lot with Tony. Notice he stopped responding to my posts also.
AZCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 12:50 PM   #87
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,359
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
No, my question has nothing whatever to do with the columns missing each other. (I do note, however, that the model you reference doesn't take into account any lateral movement, opposite to the direction of the tilt, that would have been produced by the top block trying to rotate.)

As I said when I asked this question before, go ahead and "assume" that the top block is resting firmly on those perimeter columns on the right, even though that's not a realistic assumption. The point is, if my diagram were a static situation, the only sensible support of the entire top block are the perimeter columns on the left and right sides, because all of the other columns across floor 97 have failed. What happened to the load they were carrying? This goes directly to the question of how much "load amplification" would really be necessary to cause those perimeter columns on the left and right side to fail, if those columns could not support even the static weight shown in my diagram.

I really can't figure out if you just don't understand my question or if you're intentionally dodging the obvious answer.
Your diagram is not accurate. The upper section did not tilt that much before the columns of the 97th and 99th floors would have collided. The lateral movement is also insignificant at the small angles involved.

The stress on the east and west perimeter walls can be shown not to have been sufficient to cause their failure with a slight tilt. You also shouldn't discount the core columns.

A 2-D model was done on the 911freeforum showing that the core columns alone would have prevented the collapse if their strength was not removed.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 27th February 2010 at 12:52 PM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 01:05 PM   #88
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 17,875
Just out of curiosity:
Has Tony (or any other "truther") shown how it could be done other then how NIST/ Bazant describes it? (not forgetting that explosives make noise and therm?te is just silly)
__________________
Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 01:06 PM   #89
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Somewhere between Here and There
Posts: 4,329
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Your diagram is not accurate. The upper section did not tilt that much before the columns of the 97th and 99th floors would have collided. The lateral movement is also insignificant at the small angles involved.

The stress on the east and west perimeter walls can be shown not to have been sufficient to cause their failure with a slight tilt. You also shouldn't discount the core columns.

A 2-D model was done on the 911freeforum showing that the core columns alone would have prevented the collapse if their strength was not removed.
How do these issues compare with the collapse of WTC2?
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 01:12 PM   #90
Jackanory
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 1,339
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Your diagram is not accurate.
A 2-D model was done on the 911freeforum .
And the problem begins and ends with these. If it fits - wear it. Too much time trying to prove the impossible with ill fitting cartoons. No wonder the conclusions you come to are wrong.
__________________
The mind of the bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract.
Oliver Wendell Holmes
Jackanory is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 01:17 PM   #91
Jackanory
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 1,339
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Just out of curiosity:
Has Tony (or any other "truther") shown how it could be done other then how NIST/ Bazant describes it? (not forgetting that explosives make noise and therm?te is just silly)
In a word - No. No matter how many dodgy models they make.

Mr Bjorgman and his tripod beats Tony - hands down.
__________________
The mind of the bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract.
Oliver Wendell Holmes
Jackanory is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 01:18 PM   #92
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 21,720
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Tony edited his post after I had begun my previous response. Here is Tony's edited post:

Because I can add, subtract, and multiply.

Your paper exists in at least two versions, both of which identify themselves as "Journal of 911 Studies, January 2009/Volume 24":

http://journalof911studies.com/volum...issingJolt.pdf
http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...ssingJolt7.pdf

I have been using the first of those two versions, which appears to have been the version that was originally published in the "journal"; at any rate, it is the version found by Google Scholar. The second version appears to be a subsequent revision, since it has had a "7" appended to its name. When we are dealing with this kind of "journal", I guess we have to expect that kind of chicanery.

Here is the relevant part of your figure from page 8 of TheMissingJolt7.pdf:

1.3334 20.24 31.68
1.5000 25.52 36.96
1.6667 32.56 39.59
1.8334 38.72 39.60
2.0000 45.76 44.88

That table was computed using "symmetric differencing", which has the effect of smoothing the data while halving its resolution to 1/3 second. The earlier version of your paper, which was the one I was reading, did not use symmetric differencing. If we use ordinary differencing, which preserves the 1/6-second resolution of your numerical data, we get the following table:

1.3334 20.24 ------
1.5000 25.52 31.68
1.6667 32.56 42.24
1.8334 38.72 36.96 note drop in velocity here!!!!!
2.0000 45.76 42.24

Your figure 4 on page 9 of TheMissingJolt7.pdf appears to use velocities calculated by simple differencing, and shows the actual deceleration from 1.67 to 1.83 seconds, although your graph is not as clear as mine. The graphs in the earlier version of the paper were different, and appear to be entirely bogus.

More importantly, my graph displays the velocity loss (delta-V) correctly. My dashed line shows your expected loss of velocity (delta-V) followed by the 1g acceleration that would (as implied by your model) follow immediately upon the large jolt you were expecting. Your dashed line shows your expected loss of velocity (delta-V) followed by the 70% average acceleration observed in your data; in other words, your dashed line counts the expected resistance twice: once to produce your sudden jolt, and again to slow the acceleration to 0.7g.

That mistake of yours had the effect of doubling the magnitude of the effect you have been carrying on about. It should surprise no one that your 2x factor was not observed, because the 2x factor was nothing more than your mistake. What surprised me is that the 1x factor you had calculated really is observed in your data (to within quantization error) when the data are graphed honestly and competently.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...01#post5544701
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1213
Nice work. I will check this against my momentum model to see if the velocities are close. I got 12.08 seconds for collapse time with a simple model.



Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
...
A 2-D model was done on the 911freeforum showing that the core columns alone would have prevented the collapse if their strength was not removed.
Wrong, there is no lateral support for the core when the shell does this due to the problems with fire and the floors.

The WTC tower is a system. You can model all you want, but if it has no use in the real world it is bogus. Since the shell is compromised the core is doomed. The shell is the lateral support for the core and the floor were the connection. Think system. While simple momentum models can match the collapse times, your modeling of the core by itself has no practical meaning in the real world, except the WTC towers as a system were extremely strong. If your work is indicative of Gage's gang of 1000, then 911 truth is doomed to perpetual nonsense.

I think your jolt is there, but in the real world it is broken down into chaos and spread out as the collisions take place and the few seconds of creep are totally ignored as the beginning of the collapse.

Poor David failed to debate his ideas. Why don't you go to the schools and have a sit down with structural engineers and learn why you are wrong? Is all of 911 truth so far in the paranoid conspiracy theorist fringe you can't talk to experts in structural engineering? Why waste 8 more years, you could have had a PhD in structural engineering but instead you are chasing delusions of explosives, or even a dumber idea, thermite.

Last edited by beachnut; 27th February 2010 at 01:32 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 01:18 PM   #93
WilliamSeger
Critical Thinker
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 333
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Your diagram is not accurate. The upper section did not tilt that much before the columns of the 97th and 99th floors would have collided.
Go ahead and redo my drawing with whatever angle you like, and my question remains: How much of the static weight of the upper block would be on those perimeter columns on the right? My diagram does not need to be very accurate to illustrate the point, which is that if there was any tilt at all, then your assumption about "load amplification" being necessary is completely invalid, because the columns below can no longer act all together to resist the fall.

I can't see any reason to go into the rest of your analysis while this glaring error in logic exists, but nonetheless...

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The lateral movement is also insignificant at the small angles involved.
Proof by assertion? Maybe if you can tell me how much it was, I can judge for myself how "insignificant" it was?

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The stress on the east and west perimeter walls can be shown not to have been sufficient to cause their failure with a slight tilt.
Really? Please do show that, then.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
You also shouldn't discount the core columns.
Well, in my diagram, I'm "discounting the core columns" at floor 97 because they've already failed, and I'm "discounting the core columns" at floor 96 because they haven't yet come into play to resist the falling block. Can you or can you not explain why I shouldn't do that?

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
A 2-D model was done on the 911freeforum showing that the core columns alone would have prevented the collapse if their strength was not removed.
Well, some of their strength was removed at the level the where the collapse began, so what's your point? (That's not an invitation to again ignore my point above, btw.)

Last edited by WilliamSeger; 27th February 2010 at 01:28 PM.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 01:20 PM   #94
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 17,875
Originally Posted by Jackanory View Post
In a word - No. No matter how many dodgy models they make.

Mr Bjorgman and his tripod beats Tony - hands down.
That's just sad.
__________________
Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 01:22 PM   #95
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
 
Cl1mh4224rd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Posts: 6,978
It seems Tony missed this post...

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Tony edited his post after I had begun my previous response. Here is Tony's edited post:

Because I can add, subtract, and multiply.

Your paper exists in at least two versions, both of which identify themselves as "Journal of 911 Studies, January 2009/Volume 24":

http://journalof911studies.com/volum...issingJolt.pdf
http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...ssingJolt7.pdf

I have been using the first of those two versions, which appears to have been the version that was originally published in the "journal"; at any rate, it is the version found by Google Scholar. The second version appears to be a subsequent revision, since it has had a "7" appended to its name. When we are dealing with this kind of "journal", I guess we have to expect that kind of chicanery.

Here is the relevant part of your figure from page 8 of TheMissingJolt7.pdf:

1.3334 20.24 31.68
1.5000 25.52 36.96
1.6667 32.56 39.59
1.8334 38.72 39.60
2.0000 45.76 44.88

That table was computed using "symmetric differencing", which has the effect of smoothing the data while halving its resolution to 1/3 second. The earlier version of your paper, which was the one I was reading, did not use symmetric differencing. If we use ordinary differencing, which preserves the 1/6-second resolution of your numerical data, we get the following table:

1.3334 20.24 ------
1.5000 25.52 31.68
1.6667 32.56 42.24
1.8334 38.72 36.96 note drop in velocity here!!!!!
2.0000 45.76 42.24

Your figure 4 on page 9 of TheMissingJolt7.pdf appears to use velocities calculated by simple differencing, and shows the actual deceleration from 1.67 to 1.83 seconds, although your graph is not as clear as mine. The graphs in the earlier version of the paper were different, and appear to be entirely bogus.

More importantly, my graph displays the velocity loss (delta-V) correctly. My dashed line shows your expected loss of velocity (delta-V) followed by the 1g acceleration that would (as implied by your model) follow immediately upon the large jolt you were expecting. Your dashed line shows your expected loss of velocity (delta-V) followed by the 70% average acceleration observed in your data; in other words, your dashed line counts the expected resistance twice: once to produce your sudden jolt, and again to slow the acceleration to 0.7g.

That mistake of yours had the effect of doubling the magnitude of the effect you have been carrying on about. It should surprise no one that your 2x factor was not observed, because the 2x factor was nothing more than your mistake. What surprised me is that the 1x factor you had calculated really is observed in your data (to within quantization error) when the data are graphed honestly and competently.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...01#post5544701
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1213
Cl1mh4224rd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 01:26 PM   #96
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 17,875
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
How much of the static weight of the upper block would be on those perimeter columns on the right?
Just so I can be clear in my mind. In order for the top to "tilt" the columns on the right (as you say) would have to bear the entire weight of the upper block, thus creating a "hinge". Correct?

ETA I'm not an engineer (just a guy that builds what they design)
__________________
Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

Last edited by DGM; 27th February 2010 at 01:28 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 01:29 PM   #97
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,180
Originally Posted by Jackanory View Post
Mr Bjorgman and his tripod beats Tony - hands down.
I think Bjorkman's in good company... That's right, not only does Chandler claim that the WTC cannot have collapsed, but also that:

"A small section of a structure, consisting of a few floors, cannot one-way crush-down a significantly larger lower section of same structure by gravity alone."

In other words, [top-down] progressive collapse is not possible via gravity alone.
Of course given the treatment of the masses at the beginning of the paper, it wasn't hard to surmise this is what he was getting at.
__________________
AutoCAD/Photoshop Hobbyist
::Work Samples::
If you want a set (sigs/avatars) or helpful tips for photoshop and CAD. Always glad to help.

Last edited by Grizzly Bear; 27th February 2010 at 01:30 PM.
Grizzly Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 01:41 PM   #98
WilliamSeger
Critical Thinker
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 333
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Just so I can be clear in my mind. In order for the top to "tilt" the columns on the right (as you say) would have to bear the entire weight of the upper block, thus creating a "hinge". Correct?
In my diagram, I'm showing that all of the columns across floor 97 have failed except for the "hinge" of the perimeter columns on the left. If you could gently lower the top block so there were no dynamic forces involved, then all of the weight of the top block would then be resting on the perimeter columns at the left at floor 97 and the perimeter columns on the right at floor 96. But if those columns could not even support the static weight of the load that would be on them at this point, then there is no reason to think they would decelerate a falling top block, i.e. those perimeter columns on the right would fail without causing any "jolt" to the top block. When they failed, the core columns on the right side of the core would meet the same fate, and so forth across that level. The point is, there would not need to be any "jolt" if there was never any time when the columns below were offering more resistance than the static load of the top block, because only a subset of the columns were being "attacked" at any given instant.

Last edited by WilliamSeger; 27th February 2010 at 01:46 PM.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 01:47 PM   #99
walkyrie
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: London UK
Posts: 156
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post


"assume"that the top block is resting firmly on those perimeter columns on the right, even though that's not a realistic assumption. The point is, if my diagram were a static situation, the only sensible support of the entire top block are the perimeter columns on the left and right sides, because all of the other columns across floor 97 have failed.

.

You are RIGHT , the strenght of internal 48 SUPER STRONG and EXTRA reinforced core columns of the WTC was REMOVED with remote controlled melting THERMITE/THERMATE charges

Last edited by walkyrie; 27th February 2010 at 01:52 PM.
walkyrie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 01:50 PM   #100
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 17,875
Originally Posted by walkyrie View Post
You are RIGHT , the strenght of internal 48 SUPER STRONG and EXTRA reinforced core columns of the WTC were REMOVED with controlled melting THERMITE/THERMATE charges
Your high!
__________________
Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 01:52 PM   #101
Profanz
Muse
 
Profanz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 932
Today I was watching some news reports about the earthquake in Chile. Yes. There was an earthquake in Chile. Were some of you not off this forum long enough to hear about it?

Anyway they showed some footage of a church tower. The top of which broke off and tumbled into the street. Now maybe I should use this as a comparison to 9/11. I should say that because the top once compromised it should have crushed the rest of the tower below it and destroyed the rest of church as well. But that would be ridiculous.

But then again I am not a debunker. I also won't be bringing up any models of Popsicle sticks or cardboard towers for that matter.
Profanz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 02:01 PM   #102
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 17,875
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
In my diagram, I'm showing that all of the columns across floor 97 have failed except for the "hinge" of the perimeter columns on the left. If you could gently lower the top block so there were no dynamic forces involved, then all of the weight of the top block would then be resting on the perimeter columns at the left at floor 97 and the perimeter columns on the right at floor 96. But if those columns could not even support the static weight of the load that would be on them at this point, then there is no reason to think they would decelerate a falling top block, i.e. those perimeter columns on the right would fail without causing any "jolt" to the top block. When they failed, the core columns on the right side of the core would meet the same fate, and so forth across that level. The point is, there would not need to be any "jolt" if there was never any time when the columns below were offering more resistance than the static load of the top block, because only a subset of the columns were being "attacked" at any given instant.
Personally I can't picture any columns lining up and hitting end to end. Why would there be a space in the first place? The columns were being bent out of position, the best you could hope for would be a offset collision (picture 3 hinges).

I think the whole "jolt" argument is an unrealistic argument using Bazant's limiting model as a reality.
__________________
Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 02:01 PM   #103
Profanz
Muse
 
Profanz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 932
Edited by Tricky:  Edited for rule 12.

Last edited by Tricky; 27th February 2010 at 06:11 PM.
Profanz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 02:18 PM   #104
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,505
Edited by Tricky:  Edited for Rule 12.

Last edited by Tricky; 27th February 2010 at 06:07 PM.
Sword_Of_Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 02:22 PM   #105
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,505
Originally Posted by Profanz View Post
I think plenty of things can collapse. Especially what some people once considered a career. They thought they knew it all, but then they were just kicked out the door. Now they are unemployed and bitter. Instead of looking for a new job they are much more suited for like... drug dealer, hooker, or one of those guys on the side of the road with the orange vest picking up road kill and garbage, they just troll the internet. All day and all of the night. Seven days a week. 24/7.
And given the tens of thousands of people who would have been involved in rigging the WTC for destruction, the probability that several (or several hundred) are now "unemployed and bitter" is virtually 100%.

It's too bad that this and all the other predictions made by the "inside job" hypotheses just haven't occurred, isn't it"?
Sword_Of_Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 02:24 PM   #106
walkyrie
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: London UK
Posts: 156
Edited by Tricky:  Edited response to modded post.

Last edited by Tricky; 27th February 2010 at 06:07 PM.
walkyrie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 02:34 PM   #107
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,505
Edited by Tricky:  Edited for continuation of modded post.

Last edited by Tricky; 27th February 2010 at 06:12 PM.
Sword_Of_Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 03:00 PM   #108
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 13,927
First off, I'd like to congratulate Tony for making a few posts that didn't require editing.

However, Tony, if you are going to spend so much time and effort describing these "jolts," the word you are looking for is "discrete." Not "discreet." An engineer mis-using this term in the context of "the separate discreet impacts" does not inspire confidence.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 03:03 PM   #109
WilliamSeger
Critical Thinker
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 333
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Personally I can't picture any columns lining up and hitting end to end. Why would there be a space in the first place? The columns were being bent out of position, the best you could hope for would be a offset collision (picture 3 hinges).
Me neither. My only point is that Tony is ignoring a very serious flaw in his argument which prevents him from offering any credible estimate of how much "jolt" should be expected, even if end-to-end contact is assumed.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 03:23 PM   #110
Profanz
Muse
 
Profanz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 932
Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth View Post
And given the tens of thousands of people who would have been involved in rigging the WTC for destruction, the probability that several (or several hundred) are now "unemployed and bitter" is virtually 100%.

It's too bad that this and all the other predictions made by the "inside job" hypotheses just haven't occurred, isn't it"?
Yes. That is correct.

tens of thousands of people or 10 religious knuckleheads. It's one or the other according to the debunker skeptical thinkers. That religion is magical, ain't it?
Profanz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 03:24 PM   #111
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Queens
Posts: 34,948
delete
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 05:23 PM   #112
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,505
Originally Posted by Profanz View Post
Yes. That is correct.

tens of thousands of people or 10 religious knuckleheads. It's one or the other according to the debunker skeptical thinkers. That religion is magical, ain't it?
There's no other way to rig WTC 1, 2 and 7 and then cover everything back up in the various time frames you people have given us.
Sword_Of_Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 06:25 PM   #113
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Whispering Glades, Fredonia
Posts: 1,488
my underlining
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
These mini-jolts that femr2 claims to have found are on the order of 1 to 3 ft./second and are only indicative of floor slab collisions, not column impact, and thus insignificant when it comes to explaining the collapse of the lower section of the building.

Wrong.
If the slabs fell 12 feet so did the columns at the same time. You can't have the slabs hitting without the accompanying columns also. The "mini-jolts" then , if such, are all produced during the first 2 seconds when the columns and slabs are hitting. The "mini jolts" if actual ,represent the columns hitting the slabs , the slabs hitting the slabs, and the fractured columns hitting each other tangentially at the sides , the ends bipassing each other due to tilt and as follows:

Quote:
The columns in WTC 1 would not have missed each other based on the actual motion of the upper section. It appears something was removing most of the strength of the columns.


Wrong again.
At 911freeforum you said you did not know of any forces that would have displaced the columns horizontally , and you were right., you didn’t know what Bazant knew and what was confirmed in the WTC2 collapse videos.

The tilt produces a horizontal thrust of the upper block towards the hinge side, causing additional columns displacement.

Calculated by Bazant, January 2002 Appendix II. Why Didn’t the Upper Part Pivot About Its Base? and Bazant, et al ,2008, What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York.

“However, rotation about a point at the base of the upper part (Fig. 6c) would cause a horizontal reaction approximately 10.3 times greater than the horizontal shear capacity of the story, and the shear capacity must have been exceeded already at the tilt of only 2.8 deg.”



Fig. 4. Scenario of tilting of upper part of building ~South Tower (Bazant)



Video of WTC2 top block displacement towards west wall. Approximate 8 -12 foot horizontal displacement overhang seen before vertical drop At WTC 1 the tilt and mass are less and the displacement proportionately smaller.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
"El Diablo sabe mas por viejo que por astuto." -Dad - "The Devil knows more because he's old than because he's smart."
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "
- Marcus Aurelius
A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can lead a truther to facts but you can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.- modified Twain or Swift

Last edited by BasqueArch; 27th February 2010 at 06:48 PM.
BasqueArch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 06:27 PM   #114
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,318
Originally Posted by Profanz View Post
Today I was watching some news reports about the earthquake in Chile. Yes. There was an earthquake in Chile. Were some of you not off this forum long enough to hear about it?

Anyway they showed some footage of a church tower. The top of which broke off and tumbled into the street. Now maybe I should use this as a comparison to 9/11. I should say that because the top once compromised it should have crushed the rest of the tower below it and destroyed the rest of church as well. But that would be ridiculous.
If you were to scale a church tower up to the size of the WTC towers, you wouldn't need an earthquake. It would probably collapse under its own weight.

After all, church towers have been around for centuries, but 100-story buildings only a few decades. Care to guess why?
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.
aggle-rithm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 08:23 PM   #115
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
 
TruthersLie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
Posts: 3,720
Originally Posted by walkyrie View Post
You are RIGHT , the strenght of internal 48 SUPER STRONG and EXTRA reinforced core columns of the WTC was REMOVED with remote controlled melting THERMITE/THERMATE charges
It is a very simple question that I have asked you repeatedly.

Can you please (pretty please with a cherry on top) show me or anyone a video of thermite/thermate/melting charges that can be used on VERTICLE columns.

I'd love to see it.

It should be very easy to find and source. I'll wait for it.
__________________
"There are submissions to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, but that's about as convincing as submissions to the Journal of Intelligent Design Studies." –Noam Chomsky (and this can be said of ANY and all twoof papers)
TruthersLie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 08:26 PM   #116
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
 
TruthersLie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
Posts: 3,720
Originally Posted by Profanz View Post
Yes. That is correct.

tens of thousands of people or 10 religious knuckleheads. It's one or the other according to the debunker skeptical thinkers. That religion is magical, ain't it?
Gee... lets see..

you have 10's of thousands of people involved in the rube goldberg (da JOOOOOS) conspiracy machine of thermite/explosives/holgoraphic planes/remote controlled jets/cruise missles/media cover up/NIST cover up etc....

Or you have under 50 people who are highly motivated armed with boxcutters and folding knives, slicing some people throats and flying huge jets into buildings.

hmmm....
Follow the KISS rule, it is usually correct.
__________________
"There are submissions to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, but that's about as convincing as submissions to the Journal of Intelligent Design Studies." –Noam Chomsky (and this can be said of ANY and all twoof papers)
TruthersLie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 10:50 PM   #117
sylvan8798
Graduate Poster
 
sylvan8798's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,915
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
We need a new investigation.
You had your new investigation. You did it yourself. You accepted your results. You're done. Bye now.
sylvan8798 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 11:14 PM   #118
sylvan8798
Graduate Poster
 
sylvan8798's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,915
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
You are wrong.

If the deceleration is just g then the force is F = mg and the same as the static load. To get an amplification to twice the static load you need F = m x 2g.

It sounds like you are confused about what is happening at rest. Why is the static load equal to mg?
Uh, no, YOU are wrong. Have you ever drawn free body diagrams? This is not that complex an item.

Down is mg, call the force up N. Call up positive and down negative.

If there is no deceleration, then sum of forces = 0. So -mg+N=0, and N = mg.

If there is a deceleration it must be UPWARDS deceleration (because downwards g makes things go faster not slow down). So -mg+N=ma, and

N = ma + mg.

Therefore, if a = g, then N = 2(mg)

which is twice static load.

Don't tell me I'm wrong, Tony. I teach this stuff.

If you ignore this, I will take it as recognition that you were previously incorrect.

Last edited by sylvan8798; 27th February 2010 at 11:16 PM.
sylvan8798 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 11:50 PM   #119
JamesB
Master Poster
 
JamesB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,151
Now that I actually bother to read this, it is amazing how amateurish this paper is, even to someone who knows very little about physics. Take this figure from page 5:

Quote:
Frame # T (sec) y (m) vy (m/s)
216 0.00 82.397
222 0.20 82.399 0.010
228 0.40 82.401 0.010
234 0.60 82.403 -0.562
240 0.80 82.176 -1.708
246 1.00 81.720 -2.665
252 1.20 81.110 -3.400
258 1.40 80.360 -4.520
264 1.60 79.302 -5.860
270 1.80 78.016 -7.165
276 2.00 76.436 -8.485
282 2.20 74.622 -10.005
288 2.40 72.434 -11.505
294 2.60 70.020 -12.648
300 2.80 67.375 -13.968
306 3.00 64.433 -15.285
312 3.20 61.261 -16.240
318 3.40 57.937 -17.358
324 3.60 54.318 -18.300
330 3.80 50.617 -19.443
336 4.00 46.541
Table 1: Video Measurement Data--Frame numbers indicate every 6th frame relative to
the start of the video clip. The frame rate of the video is NTSC standard, 29.97 fps,
yielding a measurement interval of 0.20 s. The y-values are the height of the roof line
relative to an arbitrary origin. Velocities are computed by the symmetric difference
differentiation algorithm.
OK, first off he takes what little precision he has in measuring the vertical and skips every 5 frames, thereby smoothing over any possiblity of observing his "deceleration", but where are they getting these measurements? They are only making 5 measurements per second, but they have 2 decimal points of precision. Then for the vertical, they are measuring pixels on a compressed YouTube video taken from hundreds of meters away from the twin towers, using an unknown camera, yet they claim to have a precision to a thousandth of a meter? They can really measure the collapse to the millimeter?

Then their velocity is also carried out to the thousandth, despite the fact that neither of the measurements that went into it are even precise to one decimal point.

Didn't they teach this kind of thing in 5th grade math?

ETA: Then on page 8 they use this completely false precision and come up with even more false precision:

Quote:
The slope, in this
context, is the acceleration: -6.31 m/s2 with an R2 value of 0.997.
__________________
I said lots of things in NPH that I would not say today and that I did not repeat in NPHR, where I specifically corrected at least some of the errors I had made in that earlier book, written 5 years ago.
-David Ray Griffin-

Last edited by JamesB; 27th February 2010 at 11:57 PM.
JamesB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2010, 05:09 AM   #120
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,359
Originally Posted by sylvan8798 View Post
Uh, no, YOU are wrong. Have you ever drawn free body diagrams? This is not that complex an item.

Down is mg, call the force up N. Call up positive and down negative.

If there is no deceleration, then sum of forces = 0. So -mg+N=0, and N = mg.

If there is a deceleration it must be UPWARDS deceleration (because downwards g makes things go faster not slow down). So -mg+N=ma, and

N = ma + mg.

Therefore, if a = g, then N = 2(mg)

which is twice static load.

Don't tell me I'm wrong, Tony. I teach this stuff.

If you ignore this, I will take it as recognition that you were previously incorrect.
The deceleration of the upper section is indicative of the load it is applying. To apply twice the static load it must decelerate at twice the rate of gravity. To apply three times the static load it must decelerate at three times the rate of gravity, etc. It is that simple, and to say otherwise is nonsense.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 28th February 2010 at 05:26 AM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:27 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.