New(?) 911 bad science - Page 4

jaydeehess · #91 (**permalink**) 20-June-2006, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sigma_Orionis

a COLD Fusion Bomb? Riiiiiiight. Although I am surprised nobody has come up with that yet

Eta C, I think it's time for Pauli's saying again:

A Cold Fusion bomb would be right up Prof. Jones' ally would it not ;D

I also recognize Christophera and MMC as posters others are encountering who will hold dogmatically to their own view no matter how much evidence you stack up against it. You could zip Chris into a time machine that he built himself and go back and witness various stages of the construction of the towers and I have no doubt that he would still insist that the entire core of the structures had solid concrete walls rather than steel columns and drywall.

Eggy1 · #92 (**permalink**) 22-June-2006, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jt-3d

It's all illogical. Just ignore them and do something you want to do.

Thats probably the best advise of all..thanks!

MMCC · #93 (**permalink**) 26-June-2006, 03:21 AM

Where's the evidence guys?

I've just gone through the NIST report based upon the legal requirements of the Data Quality Act...

NIST is in gross violation of this act...I'll give you a quick snippet from one of the points:

Quote:

Does the NIST report on 9/11 meet the basic requirements for quality?

Quote:

Quality is an encompassing term comprising utility, objectivity, and integrity. Therefore, the guidelines sometimes refer to these four statutory terms, collectively, as "quality."

Utility refers to the usefulness of the information to its intended users, including the public. In assessing the usefulness of information that the agency disseminates to the public, NIST considers the uses of the information not only from its own perspective but also from the perspective of the public. As a result, when transparency of information is relevant for assessing the information's usefulness from the public's perspective, NIST takes care to ensure that transparency has been addressed in its review of the information.

Objectivity consists of two distinct elements: presentation and substance. The presentation element includes whether disseminated information is presented in an accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased manner and in a proper context. The substance element involves a focus on ensuring accurate, reliable, and unbiased information. In a scientific, financial, or statistical context, the original and supporting data will be generated, and the analytic results will be developed, using sound statistical and research methods.

Integrity refers to security – the protection of information from unauthorized access or revision, to ensure that the information is not compromised through corruption or falsification.

Utility, as defined by NIST, refers to he 'usefulness' of information provided to the General public. NIST has failed to provide the basic requirements, as defined by 'Utility', by producing a report that does not clearly demonstrate the cause of the collapse. It merely 'suggests' that its hypothesis is probably correct, although it cannot provide the evidence to support the claim.

Thus, as a report to be disseminated to the general public, it is close to being useless. NIST has failed to achieve the 'Utility' requirement of 'Quality'.

The next aspect is 'Objectivity', which is split into two basic componants...presentation and substance. Dealing with 'Presentation' first, we have the following 5 basic requirements:

1. Accurate
2. Clear
3. Complete
4. Unbiased Manner
5. Proper context

We will take the first 3 basic requirements (Accurate, Clear and Complete) and deal with those first. The best resource on this aspect is Professor David Ray Griffin. You may either purchase the book, read the summary or watch the video:

The book:
The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions
A Critique of the Kean-Zelikow Report
By David Ray Griffin
http://www.interlinkbooks.com/Books_/911CommRep.html

The summary:
The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?...50523112738404

The video:
Video 6: David Ray Griffin - 911 Commission Report: Ommissions and Distortions
http://www.gieis.uni.cc/evidence/vid6/index.html

Upon reviewing this material, we will quickly observe that the NIST report on 9/11 fails the first 3 basic requirements of being accurate, clear and complete.

Moving on to the forth aspect of the basic requirements, an 'Unbiased manner' we note that the report began with a hypothesis inconsistant with the audio & visual record of 9/11.

The hypothesis that NIST used was this:

Quote:

1. Aircraft impact damage to perimeter columns with redistribution of column loads to adjacent perimeter columns and to the core columns via the hat truss;
2. After breaching the building’s exterior, the aircraft continued to penetrate into the buildings, damaging core columns with redistribution of column loads to other intact core and perimeter columns via the hat truss and floor systems;
3. The subsequent fires, influenced by post-impact condition of the fireproofing, further weakened columns and floor systems (including those that had been damaged by aircraft impact), triggering additional local failures that ultimately led to column instability;
4. Initiation and horizontal progression of column instability ensued when redistributing loads could not be accommodated any further. The collapses then ensued.

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_.../appendixq.pdf

The noted problems include the following:

Quote:

NIST did not approach its research on how WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7 collapsed from a forensic science perspective. It did not treat its investigation as a crime scene investigation. It based its research on the predetermined conclusions fed to it by the U.S. government. NIST only had one working hypothesis when it started its investigation into how the twin towers collapsed – that the government’s account of 9/11 as articulated in the 9/11 Commission Report was one hundred percent accurate and therefore complete. NIST did not set out to reach a different conclusion. It purposely set out to validate the conclusion that had already been fed to the media by the White House – that the twin towers miraculously collapsed in 10 seconds (South Tower) and 11.4 seconds (North Tower) due to the impact of aircraft and ensuing fires.

In the scientific world, a hypothesis is a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations, a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena. A scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory.

...If the NIST scientists responsible for the “probable collapse sequence of WTC-1 and WTC-2” had to take the stand in a civil court proceeding, it would quickly be discovered by the world that NIST failed to perform and disseminate its research regarding the collapse of the twin towers in accordance with its own Data Quality Act guidelines. Even a rookie attorney fresh out of law school would be able to quickly dissect and dismiss as irrelevant, the NIST conclusions. It is precisely what NIST did not consider in its research that makes its published conclusions suspect. NIST simply refused to consider and vigorously pursue a second working hypothesis; that the twin towers collapsed as the result of controlled demolition.

...Throughout the NIST reports is found this language:
"NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001."

This statement is a gross contradiction that cannot be easily dismissed or ignored. When defining its approach to its research into the probable collapse sequence of WTC-1 and WTC-2, NIST explained that with the assistance of the media, public agencies and individual photographers, it acquired and organized nearly 7,000 segments of video footage, totaling in excess of 150 hours and nearly 7,000 photographs representing at least 185 photographers. NIST claimed that this information guided the Investigation Team’s efforts to determine the condition of the buildings following the aircraft impact, the evolution of the fires, and the subsequent deterioration of the structure. Assuming that this statement by NIST is true, then it is proof that NIST was grossly negligent and violated the Data Quality Act by not pursuing a controlled demolition hypothesis in addition to the “pancake theory” hypothesis that was the centerpiece of the NIST research.

Why should NIST have worked with two working hypotheses instead of one? Why should there have been a controlled demolition hypothesis that received matching computer modeling and explanation, as did the “pancake theory” hypothesis? The answer is found in the 7,000 segments of video footage that NIST used to develop the computer modeling and collapse simulations that were intended to validate the government’s 9/11 Commission Report. Nobody can deny that the collapse of WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7 looked like controlled demolitions. Americans remember watching the news on the morning of 9/11. We remember all the newscasters reporting live from New York City. We remember when the first tower fell, and the voices of news anchors from all the major networks attempting to describe what they just witnessed. To a man, every major network, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, FOX, and MSNBC used the language, “It looked like what we have all seen before when a building is purposely demolished – like a controlled demolition.” If NIST viewed over 7000 video segments, if it listened to the commentary given by the major media outlets on the morning of September 11, 2001, then it had to have seen buildings collapsing in the style of a controlled demolition. NIST had to have heard newscasters describing the scene as looking like “a controlled demolition.”

...The footage of the collapse of WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7 and its similarity to footage of other buildings being demolished by controlled demolition demanded that NIST develop a controlled demolition hypothesis. NIST did not.

...When putting the NIST study to the Data Quality Act test, it is clear that by refusing a controlled demolition hypothesis – NIST demonstrated contempt prior to investigation.

...When defining the approach of their investigation, the NIST scientists said that “the scarcity of physical evidence that is typically available in place for reconstruction of a disaster” led to the NIST approach of computer modeling and collapse simulation. This is critical and another example as to why NIST should have developed a controlled demolition hypothesis to fulfill the mandate set by the Data Quality Act.

...NIST should have viewed the utter destruction of the crime scene by FEMA and the FBI at Ground Zero and the fact that FEMA only allowed NIST access to 236 pieces of steel from the entire World Trade Center Complex wreckage – steel that was contaminated if not tampered with prior to being delivered to NIST for analysis, as all the evidence it needed to open and thoroughly explore a controlled demolition hypothesis.

...In total, NIST examined less than one-fifth of one percent of meaningful steel from the twin towers.

...More importantly, there is no record that any of the miniscule pieces of steel that FEMA gave NIST were tested for traces of explosives. Why? The 236 pieces of steel were not tested for traces of explosives commonly used in controlled demolitions because NIST was not working a controlled demolition hypothesis. It was working the “pancake theory” hypothesis in support of the 9/11 Commission Report.

...NIST did not investigation the collapse of the twin towers free from a predetermined bias. Nor is NIST investigating the collapse of WTC-7 in an unbiased manner. In fact, NIST has already released a statement on WTC-7 that says that NIST has seen no evidence that the collapse of WTC-7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition. The use of the words, “bombs” and “missiles” is a purposeful distraction. The focus should be on the words “controlled demolition” and the fact that the collapse of WTC-7 and the twin towers both require a controlled demolition hypothesis because the video evidence that NIST claims it used to develop its “pancake theory” and insists to ignore in the context of a controlled demolition, speaks for itself – that the collapse of the twin towers and WTC-7 clearly looks like a controlled demolition. The appearance of controlled demolition is all that should have been required for NIST to pursue a controlled demolition hypothesis. NIST refused or was prevented from pursuing this hypothesis.

http://www.teamliberty.net/id265.html

As we can observe clearly, NIST has failed to approach or deliver a report in an 'Unbiased Manner'.

Finally, we come to the fifth element in the basic requirements, "Proper Context". With an intentional bias in the working hypothesis there is no method to determine if NIST has placed the collapse in the appropriate context. It was simply never tested, thus, NIST has failed to apply "Proper Context" to the collapse.

We are now able examine the final requirement of 'Quality', 'integrity'. 'Integrity' refers to the security of the work from unauthorised alteration or revision. Given the facts outlined above, it is clear that 'integrity' was compromised at a very early stage in NIST's work.

In summary, NIST has failed to achieve the legal definition of 'Quality' as defined in the Data Quality Act.

NIST is, thus, in gross violation of Section 515 of Public Law 106-554, known as the Data Quality Act.

ktesibios · #94 (**permalink**) 26-June-2006, 05:52 PM

What I brought away from my own reading of the NIST reports relating to the initial damage, fires and probable collapse sequence is a bit different.

Doing such things as carefully ticking off the exterior column damage predicted by the impact simulations against the damage visible in the photographic record, building cube farms and lighting them on fire to test and calibrate the fire dynamics model- and then doing it again with the cube farms pre-trashed to learn about the effects of rubbleization- and using the analysis of recovered steel as test points for the fire-structure interface model, just to name three items, are the acts of knowledgeable people who are genuinely taking pains to test their hypotheses against observable reality.

I contrast this with conspiracy promoters who have no relevant training or experience and who sieze on a resemblance which even a layman who pays attention can perceive is only superficial to construct claims which they demand be conclusively proven wrong or else accepted.

I admit that much of the work done by NIST is well over my head. I work in electronics, not engineering, construction or demolition and I never learned any math more advanced than basic single-variable calculus.

But after twenty years of earning a living as a professional troubleshooter I can very clearly see the difference between people who are engaged in the honest use of diagnostic logic and people who are trying to hammer and file the evidence until it fits into an ideologically predetermined conclusion.

I think I can also recognize an attempt at an invalid shifting of the burden of proof, even when it's dressed up in pettifogging legalisms.

Finally, as to what NIST should have spent my tax money investigating, the Founders wrote a preamble to the Constitution which explains what they hoped to achieve by constructing the government whose specifications are given in the rest of the document.

Quote:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I'd like to call attention to the fact that "to expend the public Treasure to oblige any random Lunatic who has a bizarre Claim and demands to be proven Wrong" seems to have been left out.

Donnie B. · #95 (**permalink**) 26-June-2006, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ktesibios

I'd like to call attention to the fact that "to expend the public Treasure to oblige any random Lunatic who has a bizarre Claim and demands to be proven Wrong" seems to have been left out.

How could they have overlooked that one?

PhantomWolf · #96 (**permalink**) 26-June-2006, 10:00 PM

NIST did not approach its research on how WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7 collapsed from a forensic science perspective. It did not treat its investigation as a crime scene investigation. It based its research on the predetermined conclusions fed to it by the U.S. government.

That's funny, I was watching TV that night (it was about 1am in the morning here) and I swear that remember seeing a plane hit the WTC 2 building, now I find out that NIST had to be told that by the US Government? You're right, something is fishy with that statment.

JayUtah · #97 (**permalink**) 26-June-2006, 11:16 PM

I've just gone through the NIST report based upon the legal requirements of the Data Quality Act...

...and from your learned perspective as an attorney specializing in relevant law and from a rich background of evaluating other previous reports also so subject?

Or is this one of those times when the fringe claims are taken at face value with no critical thought and trumped up as "evidence" for this or that, and people appoint themselves to positions of presumed expertise.

SpitfireIX · #98 (**permalink**) 27-June-2006, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayUtah

I've just gone through the NIST report based upon the legal requirements of the Data Quality Act...

...and from your learned perspective as an attorney specializing in relevant law and from a rich background of evaluating other previous reports also so subject?

Or is this one of those times when the fringe claims are taken at face value with no critical thought and trumped up as "evidence" for this or that, and people appoint themselves to positions of presumed expertise.

Uh, I'll go with answer "B," Regis.

Sigma_Orionis · #99 (**permalink**) 27-June-2006, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayUtah

I've just gone through the NIST report based upon the legal requirements of the Data Quality Act...

...and from your learned perspective as an attorney specializing in relevant law and from a rich background of evaluating other previous reports also so subject?

Or is this one of those times when the fringe claims are taken at face value with no critical thought and trumped up as "evidence" for this or that, and people appoint themselves to positions of presumed expertise.

Hmmmm let me check with my crystal ball and I'll get back to you

MMCC · #**100** (**permalink**) 02-July-2006, 02:45 PM

I don't see any hardcore facts guys...

I just see a few parrotts repeating things they have been told.

Perhaps you lot are in the right place...'Bad Astronomy...' and all that...

I also must have a giggle at people who tell me they saw a building collapse...The first thing I ask is, what have you seen that could act as a base reference for your judgements?

Have you seen terrorist bombs detonate first-hand?
Have you seen seen a building collapse first-hand, or a skyscraper?

The usual answer is no...

To which I reply, then what the hell would you know?

My answer is yes...I've seen them both...first-hand.

Then I ask them to compare these photos:

Storax Sedan 104 Kt Shallow Underground Nuclear Detonation

Now I ask them to show me a photo of a "collapse" that is consistant with the image of the WTC...

Normally, the either rant a little more trying to avoid the question, or the just shut up altogether.

No one has ever been able to show me a photo of the collapse that matches the WTC.

Architect · #**101** (**permalink**) 02-July-2006, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMCC

I don't see any hardcore facts guys...

I just see a few parrotts repeating things they have been told.

Perhaps you lot are in the right place...'Bad Astronomy...' and all that...

I also must have a giggle at people who tell me they saw a building collapse...The first thing I ask is, what have you seen that could act as a base reference for your judgements?

Have you seen terrorist bombs detonate first-hand?
Have you seen seen a building collapse first-hand, or a skyscraper?

The usual answer is no...

To which I reply, then what the hell would you know?

My answer is yes...I've seen them both...first-hand.
.

Really? I'll bite. Tell us what kind of explosions, and in what context? If you do have credible qualifications and compelling arguments then believe me, this is the right place to be.

However lets look at some of the little gems on your website:

http://www.gieis.uni.cc/evidence/ad1/index.html

4 questions:

+ Where does the explosive have to be placed for the appropriate effect?

+ Given the existing fire proofing, encasement, and linings, how is it possible to accurately place the charges in 5 minutes?

+ How is the risk of discovery in said period or following placement of devices managed?

+ This is the important one. Have you any EVIDENCE of such charges or is this just supposition?

http://www.gieis.uni.cc/evidence/ad5/index.html

+ What makes you think that it's molten copper or steel? Can we have test results or samples? Have you tested alternative explanations?

http://www.gieis.uni.cc/evidence/ad5/index.html

Quote:

The burden of proof exists with NIST to conclusively prove that fires were the sole cause of the collapse. To date, this has yet to be achieved and thus, scientifically, it cannot be held as the primary theory behind the collapses.

+ Can I assume that we can apply the same benchmark regarding burden of proof to the arguments on the site you linked to? Because if so, I think you're about to receive a bit of a broadside.

cope · #**102** (**permalink**) 02-July-2006, 04:42 PM

"+ What makes you think that it's molten copper or steel? Can we have test results or samples? Have you tested alternative explanations?"

Good point. As this photo of the famed "Firefall" at Yosemite Park (a bonfire of wood subsequently pushed off the cliff) shows, it is not even certain that the burning material falling from the WTC is liquid.

R.A.F. · #**103** (**permalink**) 02-July-2006, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMCC

Then I ask them to compare these photos...

OK, I compared the 2 images, so what's your point?? That the 2 are similiar?? You're not seriously suggesting that because they "kinda" resemble each other (and I stress the "kinda") that they must have been caused by the same thing, are you??

Quote:

Originally Posted by Architect

If you do have credible qualifications and compelling arguments then believe me, this is the right place to be.

And if you don't have credible qualifications, that will be determined very quickly.

jt-3d · #**104** (**permalink**) 02-July-2006, 09:07 PM

Yes, falling dirt and falling concrete dust do look a lot alike because they are both subject to the same gravity. But your images are not pictures of explosions, just dirt and debris. The debris and dirt both behaved the similarly, yes but does that prove anything? I don't think so.

Eta C · #**105** (**permalink**) 03-July-2006, 03:17 AM

Sorry MMCC. Your two photos are not remotely comparable. One (the WTC) shows the collapse of a building initiating in the upper third of the structure. The second (the nuclear test) shows debris thrown up from an explosion occurring below. Are you suggesting that the device was in the bottom levels of the WTC? If so, why did the failure occur in the top third (and close to where the airplanes hit, or are you one of those who don't accept that a plane actually hit the WTC?) of the building instead of at ground level? Then, of course, if you're arguing that a nuclear device brought down the WTC you must have evidence of fallout consistent with a nuclear explosion. Without that the whole hypothesis is falsified (to use the favorite term of the Popperians). And don't give us any "anti-matter" bomb rationales either. My, and any other physicist's, opinion of that is summarized in Pauli's quote.

jt-3d · #**106** (**permalink**) 03-July-2006, 03:56 AM

For the controlled demolition crowd (and anybody else who likes to see stuff get blown up!), tomorrow is explosive day on the History Channel, in particular is a show called Modern Marvels: Demolition at 8AM and 2PM central. Here you can see what C.D. really look like. Then you can try to find anything like that on the Trade Center collapses.

Trycerany · #**107** (**permalink**) 04-July-2006, 06:00 AM

How do you intend on getting a controlled demolition to be pulled off with how much goes on in the World Trade Centers? There's so much busy activity, they can't just get everyone out? Wouldn't they notice suspicious activity?

PhantomWolf · #**108** (**permalink**) 04-July-2006, 07:29 AM

I'd have to say that if the CT's were actually right, the WTC was the worst "controlled" demolition I've ever seen.

Tog_ · #**109** (**permalink**) 04-July-2006, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMCC

No one has ever been able to show me a photo of the collapse that matches the WTC.

Possibly because the number of buildings hit with BFPs is very small. How many pictures of buildings that collapse d from an airplane strike do we have to compare it to?

Also, I'm sure that you are aware that that pictur you posted would look basically the same if it were a nuclear or conventional explosive with the same yeild. Enough TNT will make a full on mushroom cloud, complete with pressure and vacuum effects. The fact that stuff blown up into the air falls back down the same way in both pictures proves only that ballistic trajecetories exist.

So then, why did they fall starting at the impact site rather than at the bottom?
If explosives were used, then they must have been placed at about the same floors where the impacts occurred. If this is the case, how did the impacts not destroy the wiring used to connect all of the explosives?
How did the people flying the planes hit the propper floors with enough precision to not destroy the illusion?

I'm not a scientist or engineer. I'm one of the Sheeple. The mindless, thougtless masses yearning to be told the Truth(tm). Tell me the answers to my questions so I can sleep easier, knowing the PTB are out to get me.

MMCC · #**110** (**permalink**) 04-July-2006, 09:56 AM

Quote:

+ Where does the explosive have to be placed for the appropriate effect?

Given the visual evidence and the structure, the core columns.

If you examine the 2nd video here:

Part 2: 11th September 2001 & Molten Copper or Molten Steel
http://www.gieis.uni.cc/evidence/part2/index.html

The core columns were continous, in that they were large sections welded to create columns almost 1000ft long. These column were produced specially in Japan.

So, technically, you would only need to break them twice and let gravity do the rest. One break at the impact zone and another around the 30th floor a few seconds later.

8Kg of C4 is enough to destroy 35, 8-foot steel reinforced concrete beams.

I have used overkill in my quick feasibility study, at least 45Kg per floor.

Quote:

+ Given the existing fire proofing, encasement, and linings, how is it possible to accurately place the charges in 5 minutes?

Preparation would be the key. A team would prepare the building beforehand, providing easy access to the required areas.

A 3Kg bomb would also destroy fire-proofing, encasements and linings.

Quote:

+ How is the risk of discovery in said period or following placement of devices managed?

We would need the blue-prints to make such determinations and locations of camera's, etc.

Quote:

+ This is the important one. Have you any EVIDENCE of such charges or is this just supposition?

This is an important one. NIST's work is based upon assuming the building collapsed due to the impacts and subsequent fires.

There is no actual physical evidence to support their claim. They had 236 samples of steel, supplied 1 year after the event, and those saw temperatures of only around 250-600C.

Its an assumption.

Quote:

+ What makes you think that it's molten copper or steel? Can we have test results or samples? Have you tested alternative explanations?

NIST noted, in appendix H, that the material was molten metal. They felt it was aluminium. Comparitive analysis shows the assumption to be incorrect.

In terms of colour, texture and phase transition, the image matches with that of copper or steel.

Please feel free to show me an alternative image that could indicate otherwise. I must warn you though, 75% of the elements in the periodic table are metals.

Quote:

+ Can I assume that we can apply the same benchmark regarding burden of proof to the arguments on the site you linked to? Because if so, I think you're about to receive a bit of a broadside.

I'm using the same benchmarks as NIST. They made assumptions without physical evidence.

Quote:

Good point. As this photo of the famed "Firefall" at Yosemite Park (a bonfire of wood subsequently pushed off the cliff) shows, it is not even certain that the burning material falling from the WTC is liquid.

There are numerous photos and videos of the event. Your picture also carries the colours scheme of burning wood and is over-exposed.

Quote:

OK, I compared the 2 images, so what's your point?? That the 2 are similiar?? You're not seriously suggesting that because they "kinda" resemble each other (and I stress the "kinda") that they must have been caused by the same thing, are you??

...Yes, falling dirt and falling concrete dust do look a lot alike because they are both subject to the same gravity. But your images are not pictures of explosions, just dirt and debris. The debris and dirt both behaved the similarly, yes but does that prove anything? I don't think so.

...Sorry MMCC. Your two photos are not remotely comparable. One (the WTC) shows the collapse of a building initiating in the upper third of the structure. The second (the nuclear test) shows debris thrown up from an explosion occurring below. Are you suggesting that the device was in the bottom levels of the WTC? If so, why did the failure occur in the top third (and close to where the airplanes hit, or are you one of those who don't accept that a plane actually hit the WTC?) of the building instead of at ground level? Then, of course, if you're arguing that a nuclear device brought down the WTC you must have evidence of fallout consistent with a nuclear explosion. Without that the whole hypothesis is falsified (to use the favorite term of the Popperians). And don't give us any "anti-matter" bomb rationales either. My, and any other physicist's, opinion of that is summarized in Pauli's quote.

Please show me a picture of a "gravity collapse" that resembles the photo of the WTC...

What exactly are you using as a base reference upon which to base your judgements?

Is it merely suggestion?

Right now, all of you are in an incredibly weak position.

I see no science, only PR and apologetic behavior...that's "bad science..."

Quote:

How do you intend on getting a controlled demolition to be pulled off with how much goes on in the World Trade Centers?

That's what would provide the cover. A mailboy, or someone posing as a mailboy, travelling between floors wouldn't get stopped with a cart full of packages...

Quote:

I'd have to say that if the CT's were actually right, the WTC was the worst "controlled" demolition I've ever seen.

That's the point...its supposed to look natural, yet, collapse the building.

Quote:

Also, I'm sure that you are aware that that pictur you posted would look basically the same if it were a nuclear or conventional explosive with the same yeild.

Yes, a collapse from the central core at the bottom of the building, would cause the structure to become like a cone, directing all explosive force upwards. It can be compared to an umbrella being turned inside out...

Quote:

The fact that stuff blown up into the air falls back down the same way in both pictures proves only that ballistic trajecetories exist.

True, but the top section has vapourised. To create ballistic arcs such as those, the material had to be reflected with great force.

If the largest forces are gone at this point, why did it collapse completely?

It obviously had enough upthrust to not only reflect, but also vapourise the top section.

That does not make any sense.

Quote:

If explosives were used, then they must have been placed at about the same floors where the impacts occurred. If this is the case, how did the impacts not destroy the wiring used to connect all of the explosives?

As we can observe in the 2nd video (see link), the collapse begins with a failure in the central core.

Part 2: 11th September 2001 & Molten Copper or Molten Steel
http://www.gieis.uni.cc/evidence/part2/index.html

As we can also observe, it begins below the impact site, as the bottom floor is pulled inwards by the collapse of the central core.

Quote:

How did the people flying the planes hit the propper floors with enough precision to not destroy the illusion?

Hidden in the central core, on the opposite side from the impact, they would have been safe. In the fireball of the impact, explosives such as C4, semtex, etc., will simply burn and not detonate.

Add a little thermite to destroy evidence and maybe cut a few columns, and you have a solid illusion.

Tog_ · #**111** (**permalink**) 04-July-2006, 10:35 AM

Quote:
Also, I'm sure that you are aware that that pictur you posted would look basically the same if it were a nuclear or conventional explosive with the same yeild.

Yes, a collapse from the central core at the bottom of the building, would cause the structure to become like a cone, directing all explosive force upwards. It can be compared to an umbrella being turned inside out...

But that isn't what the actual collapse looked like. The majority of the debris was sent out horizontally at the start. Not on a high vertical arc.

Quote:
The fact that stuff blown up into the air falls back down the same way in both pictures proves only that ballistic trajecetories exist.

True, but the top section has vapourised. To create ballistic arcs such as those, the material had to be reflected with great force.

If the largest forces are gone at this point, why did it collapse completely?

Ever stand on a soda can? It can support up to about 70 Kg if you get on it carefuly. Bend down and tap the sides with your fingers and it breaks the support and the can collpses under your wieght. If you're not quick you get your fingers caught. I have never had a can stop halfway down unless I slipped off. Each floor falling would add more weight, hitting with more force to the floor below. Why wouldn't it have collapsed completely?

It obviously had enough upthrust to not only reflect, but also vapourise the top section.

That does not make any sense.

The top section was vaporised? Where is there any evidence at all of that? Every video I've seen shows the collpse begin at just aboutt he impact area. The top is still intact, but falling. As the top section falls, it stays intact until it vanishes in the cloud.
Wouldn't the top floors falling down onto the still stable floors below the impact site cause a rush of air to carry the debris out to the site of the building?
Quote:
If explosives were used, then they must have been placed at about the same floors where the impacts occurred. If this is the case, how did the impacts not destroy the wiring used to connect all of the explosives?

As we can observe in the 2nd video (see link), the collapse begins with a failure in the central core.

Part 2: 11th September 2001 & Molten Copper or Molten Steel
http://www.gieis.uni.cc/evidence/part2/index.html

As we can also observe, it begins below the impact site, as the bottom floor is pulled inwards by the collapse of the central core.

Well below? I thought the great hole at the top of the frame WAS the impat site.
And the pressure from the upper floors pressing on the weakened central core wouldn't have cause that same effect?

And for that matter, since the frame is zoomed in on that one section, how do we know the collapse hadn't already begun?
Quote:
How did the people flying the planes hit the propper floors with enough precision to not destroy the illusion?

Hidden in the central core, on the opposite side from the impact, they would have been safe. In the fireball of the impact, explosives such as C4, semtex, etc., will simply burn and not detonate.

Add a little thermite to destroy evidence and maybe cut a few columns, and you have a solid illusion.

Not exaclty my question there. If the plane hit at the 90th floor, but the explosives were placed on the 75th, then the explosions would have come much lower than expected. How did the pilots know which floor to aim for.

Also, if the lower cut was made within 30 seconds of impact, why did it take so long for them to begin to fall?

BTW, I'm having a hard time with your site that compares the colors of molten copper and steel as well. Were those pictures made with the same f stop and shutter speed as the video at the WTC? were there any filters used? Were the coatings on the camera lenses the same? Were the sample pictures digital, print or slide film? All of these will have an effect on color. Even the type of film can make a difference.

Edit to fix the quote tags

jt-3d · #**112** (**permalink**) 04-July-2006, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMCC

Right now, all of you are in an incredibly weak position.

Is this some sort of joke or just some ego boost for you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMCC

I see no science, only PR and apologetic behavior...that's "bad science..."

I really wish I could say what I see but then I couldn't be around for your other astounding bits of wisdom.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMCC

That's what would provide the cover. A mailboy, or someone posing as a mailboy, travelling between floors wouldn't get stopped with a cart full of packages...

Got any idea how many trips that mailboy would have to make and who plants it all? The same mailboy or would this be the guys desguised as maintenance crews i.e. ninja demolition team

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMCC

That's the point...its supposed to look natural, yet, collapse the building.Yes, a collapse from the central core at the bottom of the building, would cause the structure to become like a cone, directing all explosive force upwards. It can be compared to an umbrella being turned inside out...

Building collapses aren't natural, genius.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMCC

True, but the top section has vapourised. To create ballistic arcs such as those, the material had to be reflected with great force.

No, it was not vaporised, it was obscured by the debris cloud. The great force would be the air expelled by the collapsing floors pushing the air out.

Enough, this has all been pandered to before. Go read and quit spreading your whatever it is that I also can't accuse you of. You know what you are and so do we, we just can't call you on it, here. Go read some threads here. Spend more time reading and less time copying and pasting. You might get informed.

PhantomWolf · #**113** (**permalink**) 04-July-2006, 11:51 AM

I'm using the same benchmarks as NIST. They made assumptions without physical evidence.

I don't know, I'd say that NIST had pretty good physical evidence that a plane had hit the building and that they had been on fire. What evidence do you have have?

They had 236 samples of steel, supplied 1 year after the event, and those saw temperatures of only around 250-600C.

Do you understand FEA verification? I have have an iron rod that is glowing red inside a furnace at one end and is buried in a block of ice at the other, I then take 5 measurements of the temperature along the rod, getting readings between 50°C and 300°C. Is it your contention that the rod is not hotter than 300°C anywhere along its length? That's what you are saying about the WTC Steel, that because the verification steel got no hotter than 600°C that none of the steel did. Do you understand why this is wrong?

SpitfireIX · #**114** (**permalink**) 04-July-2006, 12:25 PM

Building collapses aren't natural, genius.

Careful, jt. I know it's tough, believe me, but please try to confine your insults to the ideas, and not their proponent. The ideas alone are an easy enough target.

Laguna · #**115** (**permalink**) 04-July-2006, 12:45 PM

The first thing I ask is, what have you seen that could act as a base reference for your judgements?
I aw a lot of demolitions on the sites we build new buildings...
Have you seen terrorist bombs detonate first-hand?
I don't need to see it explode to know the results.

Have you seen seen a building collapse first-hand, or a skyscraper?
Yes

The usual answer is no...
In my case it is yes.

To which I reply, then what the hell would you know?
Enough.

My answer is yes...I've seen them both...first-hand.
You have seen the bomb go off? What bomb? From what distance?
Or have you just theen the results of the explosion?

Then I ask them to compare these photos:
First picture.
An object is collapsing from its top down.
Debris is falling down, nothing is rising.

Second picture.
All objects are blown up in the air. Objects that are decending have been brought up there. These two pictures have nothing in common. Not the faintest bit.

Now I ask them to show me a photo of a "collapse" that is consistant with the image of the WTC...
Sorry, can't do that. I know of no building that has been brought down with explosions placed at its top. And also of no building that collapsed because some FBP where flown into it.
Usually we place the majority of the explosive material at the bottom.

Normally, the either rant a little more trying to avoid the question, or the just shut up altogether.
Not on this board.

No one has ever been able to show me a photo of the collapse that matches the WTC.
See above

But lets turn it the other way round.
Can you provide us a picture of a building that was shot by palcing the explosives at the top of it?
At least you claim that they did it at the WTC. So it should be no problem for you to get one.

Normally when I ask for such the other either rant a little more trying to avoid the question, or he just shut up altogether.
No one has ever been able to show me a photo of a collapse that shows a building beeing shot by placing the explosives on top.

sts60 · #**116** (**permalink**) 04-July-2006, 07:02 PM

They had 236 samples of steel, supplied 1 year after the event, and those saw temperatures of only around 250-600C.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, 600 degrees C was the highest temperature achieved. Steel structural elements can certainly fail at that temperature - every firefighter knows that.

Besides, you are now back to ignoring the kinetic structural damage, which is absurd.

JayUtah · #**117** (**permalink**) 04-July-2006, 08:33 PM

So, technically, you would only need to break them twice and let gravity do the rest.

No, "technically" you would only need to remove enough of the bracing for Eulerian behavior to take over and fail the columns by buckling. This was shown to have occurred and to have been the result solely of collision and fire.

This is an important one. NIST's work is based upon assuming the building collapsed due to the impacts and subsequent fires.

No. It tested the hypothesis that the observable causes led to the observable effects. It would be incredibly stupid to act otherwise. You have science exactly backwards. Science does not support a conclusion by proving all other causes to be impossible.

There is no actual physical evidence to support their claim.

You say this only because you don't understand how the physical evidence applies to the techniques they used to test the claims. You're just the latest in a line of johnny-come-latelies to structural analysis. What other structures did you analyze prior to Sept. 11, 2001?

They had 236 samples of steel, supplied 1 year after the event, and those saw temperatures of only around 250-600C.

Irrelevant. FEA models do not require validation across the entire domain of the modeled variables in order to be considered faithful. That is the nature of the underlying physics and mathematics by which those models operate. The range of temperatures used in the validating samples corresponds to the temperatures at which metallurgical estimation of peak temperature is the most precise and accurate and is thus highly defensible from an educated point of view. Cooler or hotter steel does not provide accurate estimates and does not serve well to validate the models.

Its an assumption.

No, it's a validation of method, accomplished according to well-understood principles of forensic engineering common in the industry, and about which you seem to know little or nothing.

What exactly are you using as a base reference upon which to base your judgements?

20 years' experience as an engineer including specialization in the tools used by engineers to conduct forensic examinations of engineering designs and constructions.

What are your exact qualifications to criticize the work of career engineers on this and other points?

Right now, all of you are in an incredibly weak position.

LOL! I do this for a living. You're handwaving. You obviously have no idea how NIST's methods are intended to work. You're just hoping you can stir up enough random and abstract doubt to make lay people believe you have something to talk about. You might be able to fool some people into thinking you have special knowledge in these topics, but you sure don't fool me. I'll debate here on the subject of structural dynamics modeling to any depth of technical detail you choose.

I see no science, only PR and apologetic behavior...that's "bad science..."

Hogwash. What are your exact qualifications that enable to you expertly criticize the work of career engineers? As far as science, you have it exactly backwards. When you can demonstrate even basic knowledge of scientific method, then perhaps your criticism will make some sense.

That's what would provide the cover. A mailboy, or someone posing as a mailboy, travelling between floors wouldn't get stopped with a cart full of packages...

Unfortunately the placement and employment of explosives is only a minor part of a controlled demolition scenario. The vast majority of activity in a controlled demolition involves the systematic reduction of structural redundancy through conventional means. A mailboy with packages might not seem suspicious, but a mailboy tearing away drywall and burning through columns with an oxyacetylene torch certainly would.

True, but the top section has vapourised. To create ballistic arcs such as those, the material had to be reflected with great force.

Have you computed the strain energy involved in the buckling of vertical columns under supercritical load? If not, how can you be sure material can't have been ejected sideways with great force at failures involving high strain rates? You seem to be saying such ejections are anomalous in a natural collapse.

Cl1mh4224rd · #**118** (**permalink**) 05-July-2006, 10:51 AM

MMCC,

Do you know what happens to debris floating near the surface of the water around a sinking ship? Do you know what happens when you run your hand through a fluid? It's the same effect that allows a piece of paper to "stick" to the top face of a dropped text book.

The debris cloud isn't arching from its point of origin at all. The arched look is the result of the air surrounding the towers rushing in, filling the space where the towers were just a moment before, and being "dragged" down by the collapsing tower.

I can't say for sure, but I think this is basic fluid dynamics/mechanics.

JayUtah · #**119** (**permalink**) 05-July-2006, 02:19 PM

I can say for sure, and it's basic fluid dynamics.

Chainsaw1 · #**120** (**permalink**) 05-July-2006, 03:56 PM

The problem with the conspiracy theorist is they are not using Science at all, Just look like evidence.
It looks like it so it must be true.
Here is an Example of that type of thinking.

At first glance this sculpture looks like a complete Smiling female face,
http://chainsawsanders.com/images/trick.jpg
However look Closer, and from a different angle and you see the face is not complete and not smiling!
http://http://chainsawsanders.com/images/realface.jpg
May be Conspiracy theorist just do not know the difference between it looks like and it is.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode