Ten Thoughts on This Tenth Anniversary

[spooked911]

10) 9/11 was the largest and most obvious fraud of my adult life, and almost certainly the perps "made it transparent on purpose".

9) the only way 9/11 would have been a more obvious inside job is if the official death toll were 3,333.

8) the WTC and Pentagon "plane crash sites" were incredibly bizarre mixtures of superficial believability and fakery, whereas the UA93 crash site was just incredibly fake.

7) the 50+ known UA175 videos were incredibly bizarre mixtures of superficial believability and fakery.

6) while 9/11 was evil, the greater evil was the perpetual war that the US has visited on the middle east since 9/11.

5) studying 9/11 has been one of the most fascinating things in my life, not just because of the subject matter, but also because of the incredibly strange personalities, the freakish and illogical mentalities and the obvious intel agents I have encountered.

4) the single most striking thing about 9/11 is the incredible disintegration of the WTC towers, which beyond any reasonable doubt, involved multiple miniature nuclear bombs.

3) 9/11 and the aftermath have made it clear that the news media is a criminal enterprise.

2) what has never ceased to amaze me is the degree to which people just don't give a shit about 9/11, even whether it was an inside job.

1) more important than 9/11 is what I have learned about the ultimate truth of all conspiracies from the Anonymous Physicist.

[spooked911]

1. I would prefer if this first reply

wasn't someone going "LOL" or the like, so I will pre-empt the first reply.

[defendandprotect]

269. True -- seems to be a case of ....

being on call to disrupt -- !!

:)

[terrafirma]

2. LOL

At #4.

Well, lol at all of them really.

[spooked911]

3. yeah, hiLARious

http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/

[terrafirma]

5. What's even more hiLARious

Is you linking to a blog that you write as "proof" of nukes.

And no. I didn't read past the About Me after I saw your name. Your ability to scientifically deduce the events of 9/11 was on display years ago with your bunny cage experiment.

Taking you remotely serious after that would be just plain laughable.

[zappaman]

10. mini-nukes!!!!

:rofl:

[defendandprotect]

270. Wow ... that is an amazing site for information --- thank you -- !!!

[zappaman]

4. number one is my favorite.

everything you believe is on the biggest woo site of the internet!
oh...LOL!

[LARED]

11. My favs are 9, 5, and 4

The steadfast belief in such utter nonsense is hard to digest.

[greytdemocrat]

6. Question

Are those "Micro-Nukes" for sale yet???

I have a really big tree stump out back that needs dealing with.

[defendandprotect]

271. Check with Cheney ---

[Flatulo]

7. Spooked, I would have to say that you are one of the most interesting

personalities I've 'met' online. I have no doubt that you are completely sincere in all your beliefs. I'm fairly certain this post will be deleted, but I hope you read it before it does.

There is something very very wrong with your thought process. I cannot begin to imagine what it must be like to be inside your head.

[LARED]

8. Wow, just wow. I'm speechless. nt

[Mist]

9. I agree with most of your observations, spooked, but am going to need convincing on

point 4--I would have thought a souped-up CD would explain it (yet there are those nagging questions about the condition of cars parked several blocks from the twin towers...)

I certainly became aware, on 9/11 and the days following, of the media being a directed chorus. I had previously not watched much network news, thinking it was pretty shallow anyway, but the similarity of the verbiage from the talking heads, no matter what channel we switched to, made it kind of obvious there was a script.

As to point 2--"what has never ceased to amaze me is the degree to which people just don't give a shit about 9/11, even whether it was an inside job." Well, I'd have to disagree. For nearly two years after 9/11, in various social settings, the talk would eventually get to the gov't, and what everyone thought about 9/11. I've seldom met people who don't think there was some gov't involvement (I'm excluding social acquaintances like my ancient mother's friends, half of whom are Faux fans). I don't get a sense of apathy--I got a sense of horror; then rage; then an ability to realize that our gov't is something quite apart from us. These realizations have happened at different speeds for different people--most of the people I know have moved into utter disbelief in our political system, and the realization that, sad as it is to say this, we have very little actual input or effect on it. Most of us have moved past disbelief and rage. Speaking for myself, 9/11 ripped the blinkers off, and I've found myself questioning much of "consensus reality." Since I don't watch a lot of TV anyway, and as I mentioned above, not much in the way of news programs, I haven't had to "wean" myself off of the MSM. Some I know have. Ya know, if the gov't had got around to having a half-way believable investigation into the events of 9/11, it might have taken me much longer to realize it was a false flag event. But the angry braying to go to war; the insistent repetitions as to "we KNOW who did it"; the grotesque massaging of the public's emotions; the many many anomalies of the OCT; all that just inclined me to disbelief and cynicism. And I actually thought I was pretty cynical before. People aren't apathetic--they've either been through the rage thing and come out of it, or they're studiously avoiding knowing anything much about 911. I don't mean they accept the OCT--they don't. They've just decided to focus on their lives and their communities. It's as if they know if they turn their minds to 911, they'll have to revamp how they look at "reality," and they're not ready to do that. I've actually had several people say to me something like "I know the story's nuts, but I just don't want to go there/pay any more attention to it." But it certainly isn't apathy.

[Flatulo]

18. Wait... what?

> I certainly became aware, on 9/11 and the days following, of the media being a directed chorus. I had previously not watched much network news,
> thinking it was pretty shallow anyway, but the similarity of the verbiage from the talking heads, no matter what channel we switched to, made
> it kind of obvious there was a script.

SO you believe that all the various media in the US and the world were being told what to say by ... someone, under threat of... something?

Wouldn't the various media outlets' reporting also be the same if they were reporting more-or-less factual events?

Your thought process reminds me of the old joke - 'Alcholics always deny being alcohoics.' Yeah, well, so do people who are not alcoholics.

[spooked911]

19. Thanks

there are certainly people like that, and the members of my family, who care a lot about politics, DO care a lot about 9/11.

But I also know a lot of people who just don't want to deal with 9/11-- don't care that much or don't want to deal with it. My wife, for instance, is just too busy to care about 9/11. She realizes the problems with the OCT, but feels powerless to do anything and doesn't want to waste her time on it. On Facebook, if I bring up some 9/11-related link, there's mostly silence. I deal with a lot of people in their mid-20s, and 9/11 just doesn't mean that much to them.

I think older people, who've gone through the 60s, 9/11 resonates much more.

But I'm just amazed by the people who don't want to dig into 9/11 or deal with it.

[Flatulo]

26. Maybe it's because your positions on 9/11 are rather unique and

simply not shared by, well, anyone except a few other persons who have a tenuous grasp on objective reality. The physical events of 9/11 are widely accepted as verifiable truth and not considered subject to interpretation - 19 hijackers flew airplanes into various buildings and fields, and the buildings collapsed due to structural damage and fires. Yeah, maybe there was some deep political skullduggery around who ignored which memo and who covered whose ass, but that's stuff that just isn't verifiable to any great degree.

The rationalizations you use to explain this lack of enthusiasm for mini-nukes and no-planes are just that. The reason that people do not care about these theories is not apathy, but that the theories are simply insane. There is nothing to look into, because there is not a scintilla of scientific evidence to support your theories. You can cry in your beer and lament about the disinterest in your truth, but tragically for you, you are just all wet. I suspect you are going to go to your grave puzzled and confused as to why you are one of only a handful of people in the world who have figured out this whole alternate reality.

[spooked911]

39. I wasn't talking about people not being interested in my view of 9/11

I was talking about being interested in talking about or thinking about 9/11 at ALL.

[Flatulo]

49. Ah, I see. Well, I think we can chalk that up to the attention-defecit

disorder that seems to have afflicted our culture. People are more concerned about which New Jersey Housewife is fucking which New Jersey House-husband. I share your consternation over this. Although we have different priorities (I am much more concerned with the ongoing loss of our national manufacturing base), I wish more people would get pissed off enough to take to the streets.

[jberryhill]

53. But you can't be the judge of that

You can only determine that people don't want to discuss it with YOU.

Your wife, incidentally, is a saint.

[Flatulo]

56. And she makes a damn fine rabbit rabbit stew. nt

[jberryhill]

57. Well, that would account for the handy empty cages

You are a devil.

[BobbyBoring]

62. As I've said 100 times

It's easier to believe the official story. The 10th anniversary was one of the worst days of my life. It's hard to accept the government of a country you grew up believing was the greatest in the world would murder thousands of it's own citizens. A country that my mother and all my uncles served in WW II to defend so we could enjoy what was until the year 2000 the freest nation in the world.

All I have to do is look at what's happened between now and then. The main reason I voted for Obama was I thought he was going to undo most of what Jr. Bush did to strip us of our freedom. Instead, he's doubled down. That in itself should tell you something about where we are headed.

[defendandprotect]

272. Hey, the Native American Indian was "surprised" over and over again ... !!!

and it's a history we should learn from --

too few know of the evil and brutality of those who control our society and our citizens --

If I recall correctly, only one current writer has actually said --

"These people will kill you as quick as look at you" --


Our Founders also warned us of conspiracies -- ironically between presidents asnd vice-

presidents! -- and they recommended "suspension of the adminsitration."

But mainly they were warning us of "dishonest men among us" -- and the need to defend

ourselves against all enemies "domestic and foreign."

Our enemies are domestic and international -- and long allied --

[teddy51]

12. I don't suppose that it will surprise anyone that I agree totally with

the OP. It's to bad that convincing some in this forum is never going to happen. But it's not surprising, and I wonder if they get paid by the post to respond to those of us that believe that the 911 story is pure crap.

[LARED]

13. I believe number 9.

3+3+3+3=12 and 1+2=3. It's obvious to anyone what thinks it through.

[Flatulo]

14. In this shitty economy, those Bushco checks really come in handy.

[Mist]

15. Why is it important to convince them? People have their minds made up, just as those of us

who don't buy the OCT have our minds made up. 10 years is plenty of time for anyone really interested to seek out info beyond NIST or Popular Mechanics. If they chose not to, so be it.

[terrafirma]

16. So true

Why bother with people who know what they're talking about, like NIST and Popular Mechanics, when you can read up on the twoof at any one of Spooked's numerous, yet equally hilarious, blogs.

[spooked911]

21. yet PM and NIST present deeply flawed analyses

that I and others have thoroughly debunked.

Why is this hilarious? Are you 15?

Do you know anything about history or deep politics?

[terrafirma]

25. You thoroughly debunked NIST??

Did you use tinker toys this time or was there a spare rabbit cage in mom's basement?

[spooked911]

41. is there any point trying to have a discussion about this with you?

[zappaman]

43. mini-nukes! n/t

[defendandprotect]

275. Actually, I really wish you'd give up ....

trying to communicate with "ignored" -- tonight I have about two feet of

"ignored" in front of me !!

[teddy51]

17. I guess I'm just doing it for sport now, and as you say we believe what we believe

and short of a very strong independent (outside of the US)investigation I doubt I would change my mind.

[Flatulo]

27. Belief without objective proof = religion. nt

[teddy51]

29. Huh? WTF are talking about? n/t

[teddy51]

30. I guess my question is, what do you consider objective proof? n/t

[Flatulo]

32. Objective proof is evidence that isn't subject to interpretation.

There's no objective proof of God; it's a matter of faith. But there is such an overwhemling preponderance of unassailable evidence that the physical events of 9/11 happened more or less as detailed in the 9/11 Comission report that no sane person can muster a compelling argument otherwise. For example, no-planes and mini-nukes are so far-fetched and completely unsupportable by even a scintella of evidence (thinking that a video doesn't 'look right' or that a piece of flotsam should have fallen here instead of there, as Spooked's standard line of reasoning goes) is completely subjective.

Now, I don't know for certain that the moon exists, because I have never been there or touched a piece of it. But the evidence is so overwhelming that the moon does indeed exist (tidal forces, laws of celestial mechanics, competent testimony from generally reliable sources who have been there) that only an insane person would argue otherwise.

Similarly, if I drop a hammer 99 times, and it falls straight down 99 times, I can't prove that it will repeat this behavior on the 100th try. But it would be extremely ignorant to not believe that it would do so based on the preponderance of data showing this pattern of behaior.

[teddy51]

34. I call bullshit! 911 was was done by insiders (Thermite most likely) and I would like you

to prove otherwise!

[Flatulo]

36. Have fun in lala land. I'll be out here enjoying reality. nt

[zappaman]

37. LOL

you are asking to prove a negative because you can't prove it yourself?!?!?!!?
:rofl:

[OnTheOtherHand]

38. your words: "as you say we believe what we believe"

I've tried to engage you in substantive discussion. So far, you haven't been up to it.

I'm happy to stipulate that you believe what you believe. I won't concede that anyone else should believe it.

[jberryhill]

54. Then you disagree with the OP

Spooked911 is quite certain it was done with miniature nuclear weapons.

You say it was "most likely" done using thermite.

Are you being paid to post here that Spooked911 is wrong about the nuclear weapons?

[defendandprotect]

276. Please ....

consider "ignore" ---

Especially on this OP which offers such interesting evidence from Professor

Anonymous which we could be discussing !!!

All I can see is about two feet of "ignored" -- !!!


Try IGNORE -- it could help us all!!

Because nothing you are going to trade with "ignored" is going to amount to any

true communication!!

[Flatulo]

33. Let me hasten to add that the 9/11 Commission Report, which I've actually read,

does not answer every question that one could have about the whole affair. But the physical record; ie, what happened, is completely unassailable. Why or how it happened will be debated for decades. Did Bush know? I don't believe he did. I believe that as he was being read the August PDB warning of al-qaeda strikes, he as probably thinking about what he would order for lunch. I believe that he was just a lazy idiot. But that is a completely subjective judgement.

[teddy51]

35. Again, Bullshit! n/t

[BobbyBoring]

63. It's far from unassailable

Boeing 757s and 767s are NOT CAPABLE of doing what they did on 9/11. After that, it's all assailable. If anyone is interested in MAYBE learning something, go here http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

Since planes were used, these guys are the ultimate authorities.

[Flatulo]

78. Sorry, we're done here.

I don't care if you think it was an Ocsar-Meyer weinermobile with wings. If you think anything other than 757s were involved, then you've gone into a place where I can't reach you. If you can ignore eyewitnesses, photos and videos of wreckage, and the fact that those exact planes withthose exact people went missing, then you are capable of mental gymnastics that I have no medicine for.

[hang a left]

85. nice attempt at deflection

tell me the towers weren't blown up? I don't give a bejeez what type of plane flew into them.

[Flatulo]

86. The towers weren't blown up.

[hang a left]

91. Tell these first responders, victims, and eyewitnesses

they think you don't know what you are talking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2cViy34b1A

[Flatulo]

98. I see. And do these first responders know that explosions

do not mean bombs? There was around 10,000 gallons of jet fuel dissipated in each tower. Much of it spilled down the elevator shafts and then ignited. I'm sure it made a loud explosion sound. Watch the Naudet video. People were running around in the lobby aflame. But no bomb.

No evidence of a bomb of any type was ever found. Why do ou think this is?

Have you contacted these first responders recently and asked them about bombs in the WTC?

This is old stuff.

[hang a left]

103. And this is an old attempt at debunking....

Anyone that is reading this sad excuse of a defense of the OC...

Check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8

Trust your eyes people not some anonymous internet poster.

BTW shame on you for being an apologist Flatulo

[Flatulo]

108. Hang. Use your common sense. Why go through all the trouble of waiting until some useful idiots flew

jumbo jets into the buildings? Just wait until the towers were filled to capacity and push the button and blame al-Qaeda. Presto, 40,000 casualties and an instant War on terror.

Second, there is plenty of photographic proof that the perimeter columns were badly buckling at the plane impact zone. How could the perps have known in advance where to plant the bombs?

Lastly, each and every cubic inch of rubble was hand sifted to search for forensic evidence and human remains. Nothing resembling any kind of bomb was found. No explosive residue of any kind was found.

No, bombs make no sense. People did hear explosions, but in the minutes following the collapses, do you believe that witnesses and first responders had enough forensic data to make a summary judgement that will stand up to the analyses done by the finest engineering organizations in the world? I don't think so.

But the first point is the most obvious one. BushCo could have just blown the fuckers up and left enough evidence behind to conclusively prove it was an al-Qaeda bombing. Everyone knew that they had tried it once in 1992, so it would have been utterly believable.

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Flatulo]

116. Treasonous? You'd better wake up and retract that, my friend.

[hang a left]

119. I cleaned it up. I don't want to get in trouble

But I feel that way about you and yours.

[Flatulo]

124. Tell you what. If you feel strongly enough about it, why don't you address my points?

I thInk in the battle of ideas, you have to tell people why your opponent is wrong. You haven't done that yet. You keep linking to YouTube vids. Why not dissect my points?

[hang a left]

127. They are all masterfully answered in the video I posted

besides I am not here for you. I am here for those that only read and do not post.

Here is the truth seekers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQgVCj7q49o

[Flatulo]

128. Not a surprising response. nt

[hang a left]

132. Just one that you didn't want.

If you want to know the truth about how the towers were brought down by explosives, all three of them; this is for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQgVCj7q49o

[OnTheOtherHand]

117. bad post, dumb video

I could elaborate, but under present circumstances, I don't see much point.

[hang a left]

121. Is that all you got??

Can't gather your sentences can you?

[OnTheOtherHand]

134. you post stupid-ass links, and you want me to waste my time writing?

Look, if your idea of a good time is trying to generate YouTube hits and smearing people, that's fine. No one can force you to care enough about this topic to discuss it. I may think that the dead deserve that respect, but the choice is yours.

[Flatulo]

122. Your failure to address my points speaks volumes. Oh well, at least

Gage can laugh all the way to the bank for reeling in another one.

Cha-Ching!

[hang a left]

130. Who you gonna trust???

An anonymous internet poster who continually deflects, or your lying eyes??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQgVCj7q49o

[Flatulo]

140. Oops, you forgot door #3

...or you can trust some *other* anonymous internet poster who can only link to what other people have done and has absolutely nothing useful of his own to add to the discussion, other than calling anyone who disagrees with his opinion (which he'll tell you about as soon as someone tells him what it is) treasonous.

Choose wisely.

[hang a left]

143. Empty post

address the evidence

[Flatulo]

148. You mean the evidence I addressed here?

which you completely and utterly ignored?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=321220&mesg_id=322062

Your own posts are doing a far better job than I ever could.

Carry on and let the gentle reader decide who is full of shit.

[hang a left]

155. Old and tired.

It has been proven beyond ANY reasonable doubt that all 3 World Trade Center Towers were brought down by explosives. Many, many experts attest to these facts in the video I have linked below. Do not let apologists for the OC divert you from the truth. You have eyes, ears, and a brain. You can decide for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQgVCj7q49o

[spooked911]

173. assuming they wanted to take down the towers, the '93 attacks showed they couldn't simply

do a truck bomb scenario. Anything more devastating would be too incriminating for the security in charge of the towers.

The plane point you make is the beauty of the no plane theory, as you don't have to worry about ramming a plane into the spot where the explosives go off.

"Nothing resembling any kind of bomb was found. No explosive residue of any kind was found."

How do you know this with such certainty? What is your source?

[defendandprotect]

278. Was '93 attack simply a practice run -- objective to get Clinton to attack Iraq ... ????

And when he wouldn't -- they realized it was going to have to be something bigger?

Of course, we do know that meanwhile the WTC was "White Elephant" -- and was going

to have to be brought down as it was put up -- piece by piece --

[deconstruct911]

294. Just like D.B. building

and it took them years to do that and it was only one 41 story building and not as wide as the twin towers. In fact they only completed it this year.

The 93/practice run theory I agree with 100% It was mostly a psyop to get people to believe the 9/11 oct. FBI tried to get people to buy it with the: "they're gonna come back to finish the job" BS...

[terrafirma]

295. Too incriminating for security?

Please explain how planting explosives or mini-nukes in the building would be LESS incriminating for those in charge of security...

[Name removed]

277. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zappaman]

92. The towers weren't blown up.

[hang a left]

95. Yes they were

Who are you going to trust?? Zappaman or your lying eyes?

This building is exploding. Don't be diverted by OC apologists. Trust your eyes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8

[zappaman]

100. of all the "truthers" I have encountered

you are certainly the least informed.
congrats!

[hang a left]

102. That video scares the crap out of you doesn't it??

Zappaman! Shame on you for being an apologist of the OC.

[zappaman]

105. LOL

your act is boring.
gonna go find a smarter truther to engage.
have fun!

[hang a left]

106. Chicken

How'd you like that video??

[OnTheOtherHand]

80. well, no, they're far from the ultimate authorities

Some pilots have experience flying jumbo jets, but I daresay very few have experience flying jumbo jets at top speed into buildings.

Moreover, linking to "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" is sort of like linking to "Geologists for a Young Earth." Sure, you can find some, but it's weirdly selective to take their word for it. Have you ever really thought about that?

[hang a left]

84. Unassailable?? that is a good one!

you owe me a new monitor.

[Flatulo]

88. Okay, assail away. Be sure to show all your math.

[hang a left]

90. Assail the eyewitnesses

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2cViy34b1A

[zappaman]

93. no math in that video

can you show us the math?
can you tell us how the explosives were placed without anyone knowing?
can you tell us what kind of explosives were used/
can you tell us how many pounds of explosives were used?
can you tell us how many people were involved in this plot?
can you tell us why bother crashing a plane into the WTC if you could just blow it up?
can you tell us why after 10 years, the truth movement can't address these questions with real answers?

[hang a left]

96. The movement has PROVEN beyond any reasonable doubt that the

towers were blown up. All three of them. This is the smoking gun. Religious zealots from caves in Afghanistan did not have access to US military-grade explosives. You are done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQgVCj7q49o

[zappaman]

99. than why not answer my questions?

oh, right...you can't.
:rofl:

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Flatulo]

112. A claim is a smoking gun? Jesus, only in your mind.

If claims were smoking guns, we wouldn't need courts and judges.

I wish you'd think a bit more before you post.

[hang a left]

126. That is not a claim

The towers, all three of them, were brought down by explosives. You cannot hide from that any longer. Anyone that wants to know the truth watch this video:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQgVCj7q49o

[OnTheOtherHand]

136. yo, the videos don't show explosives bringing down the towers

Apparently they feature a very earnest man telling us that they show that, but you can't seem to think of any reasons why anyone should believe the very earnest man.

[hang a left]

144. I think we can leave it to the observer to figure out

what they are witnessing. They certainly don't need a clan of apologists to tell them that their eyes are lying to them.

[Flatulo]

150. Agreed. So run along and stop smearing those who disagree with you.

[hang a left]

152. You run along

with the rest of your clan. How dare you apologize for the perpetrators of this unspeakable crime.

[Flatulo]

154. Want to have a contest to see who can stay awake the longest and get the last word in?

I'm in severe pain and can stay up for days.

Are you in?

[hang a left]

156. I would be willing to bet that you have others that will help

you out when you are off the clock.

[Flatulo]

157. Nope, I'm here all by my lonesome. I have a box of cigars

and a bottle of scotch, and more patience than you can possibly imagine. You see, chronic pain teaches you some things.

[hang a left]

158. OK when you come up with something interesting to talk about

let me know. I am playing poker in another window, but I am right here and I WILL be checking on you.

[Flatulo]

159. We could talk about the points in Gage's video that I addresed here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=321220&mesg_id=322062

But which you have refused to acknowledge.

So instead, let's act like kids and see who can get the last word in. Or in your case, the last link to Gage's Magic Show.

[hang a left]

160. It is not Gage's video

You are NOT following along. I demand that you go back to the beginning or you are going to fail this class.

[Flatulo]

161. Show me which link you mean... all I've seen are the links to Gage's Magic Show.

[Flatulo]

162. Haven't dozed off, have you? The night is still young and my

back is absolutely KILLING me. No chance of any sleep for me.

[hang a left]

164. Gage is the narrator....

There are hundreds of contributors.

Just between you and me; tell me what you see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8

Put on your mute button, grab a scotch and just use your eyes.

Tell me that building is not exploding.

Come on now, tell me that building is not exploding.

You have lived with pain; I have lived with lies that were sworn to be truths. These lessons have taught me to trust my eyes, ears, and brain; not someone else's commentary.

So unless you have an agenda that is not wholesome, you cannot tell me that that building is not being blown apart.

[Flatulo]

165. Sorry, I did see that one. Yes, it does look like it's exploding, but.

it looks more like it's being crushed downwards and the guts are being blown outwards. If it were exploding, I think I would expect to see all four faces blowing outwards at the same time top and bottom. This looks like there's a wave travelling downwards. Frankly, it doesn't look like anything I've ever seen before.

There's no place else for stuff to go but outwards. It can't go up or down, because there's still floors in the way above and below.

Also, I've never seen a 110 story tower fail before, so I don't know what it should look like.

Further, I don't get the significance of the narrator commenting that some of the ejecta has been clocked at 120 mph. How fast should it be ejecting if the tower was not falling in the manner in which AE911Truth claims?

This video, like all the others I've seen, have only incredulity for evidence. I've been a mechanical engineer for 35 years, and I need to see the math. Bazant did the math. NIST did the math. Where is AE911Truth's math? I can't find it. Where's their proof that bombs were placed? All I see is conjecture that elevator workers *could* have placed bombs. Or thermite. Or thermit bombs.

Do you see my problem? I need to see something more objective than just questions as to how this or that could have happened. AE911Truth doesn't provide any empirical work to support their claims. And buddy, to claim that someone murdered 3,000 people without really fucking solid proof is a dangerous thing to do. Now Bush and Cheney were really bad guys (Cheney more so) but if you want to accuse him of murder, you'll need something that you can take to a judge and a jury. Why hasn't AE911Truth done that?

But I will thank you for engaging with me in a more mature way than taunts. I respect your viewpoints.

Now I think I'll go mix some narcotics with my Scotch. Good night.

[hang a left]

166. It looks like it is exploding because it is.

Kathy McGrade, a Metallurgical Engineer, does a wonderful job of explaining the science. The explosive evidence is present in the dust and debris.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6ziLE23Soo&

[Flatulo]

167. I've seen pictures of cherry red steel, which would be about 1200 degrees, but

structral steel doesn't flow until about 1800 degrees.

She starts off with the old 'fire can't melt steel' argument, but I haven't seen any photos of molten steel. I've seen pics of molten *something* flowing out of WTC1, but as I recall it's silvery. Not sure what that is. Do you have any pictures of molten steel?

Also, a metallurgical engineer is in no way qualified to analyze how a structure like the WTC fails any more than I am qualified to discuss microspheres. Her's is just an opinion in this regard.

I don't see anything new that she's presenting, and certainly nothing that I could send someone to the electric chair for.

[hang a left]

168. Here is John Gross denying any knowledge and the

eyewitnesses that debunk him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcqf5tL887o

[Flatulo]

170. Yeah, saw that one ages ago as well.

[OnTheOtherHand]

172. no, it looks like it is collapsing because it is

Millions of people have watched videos of the towers collapsing, and they see the towers collapsing. A relative handful of people watch videos of the towers collapsing and think they see a carefully timed sequence of demolition explosions. Some people see the face of Jesus in their burnt toast; there is no way to prove that it isn't there -- and there is no point in trying.

It seems to me that if you had good evidence of explosives, you wouldn't be reduced to begging people to watch YouTubes.

[hang a left]

169. When you start to flash NIST around as the go to authority...

well, you have lost all credibility with me. Don't give me that math bullsh#t. It doesn't take a mathematician to see that all of those World Trade Center buildings were blown the heck up. You and your buddies' diversions are all so old and tired. See, to me it is not important for me to win an argument with you. My only purpose is to offer truth to those that lurk. I can't change the minds of those with agendas and gates to keep.

[Flatulo]

171. When you trust only your eyes, you can be fooled by charlatans.

I think Gage et al may be sincere, but he's not being taken seriously by 'people like me' who are somewhat competent in the scientific arts that he is trying to appear competent in. He can fool people who are *not* skilled in the art, but he can't fool the vast, vast majority of scientists and engineers. Why doesn't his organization have 100,000 members instead of 1200, or whatever the current headcount is?

He's been taking his show on the road for what, 7 years now? He has no 'smoking gun'. You think he does, but he doesn't. Do you know why this is true? Because when something as unique as the WTC collapse happens, we don't have experience to fall back on. Our eyes aren't educated enough to tell us what is happening. The math and science which you blithely dismiss as bullshit is the only tool we have to try to model and reproduce what happened.

So like Spooked, who also has constructed an alternate reality (although to my knowledge he's always been civil and a real gentleman), you're going to be in for a long, frustrating life if you can't wrap your mind around the possiblity that Gage et al might just be wrong. If you are unable to do this, you may need professional help. I'm sincerely not taunting you here - you have to live your life, and this is the only one we get, so please try to get some peace in it.

Let me give you a final word - some members of the Truth Movement have become quite deranged; if you follow the link to the disturbing and theatening diatribe between a Truther and Dr. Jonathan Barnett, you'll see a disturbing reference to 'treason' (a word you've bandied about quite a bit today) and 'retribution' and 'trials' once the 'shit hits the fan'. But unlike the gentle, non-violent Dr. Barnett, I am extremely ungentle un-non-violent (when it comes to myself, my friends and my family) and armed to the teeth and more than able, by virtue of training and spirit, to defend myself and my family against any luntaics who may try for force others to join their cult. Because you know what? The Truth Movement really is a cult. There's no appreciable difference. Science is tossed out the window, and non-members are this unacceptable 'other' who must either get on board or 'be dealt with' firmly.

But if you're really just trying to convince people of your message, then carry on, but please be (at least superficially) respectful and non-threatening about it.

Please stop accusing others who disagree with you of treason and/or being paid shills for ... someone. It's insulting and against the DU rules, not to mention just plain stupid, and in the worst case, dangerous.

I'm going to go enjoy my cigar now. I have to go to work in a few hours, and I've had about 2 hours of rest today. I wasn't shitting you about the pain.

Peace.

:edited for about the fifth time for spelling, pain, mild intoxicastion and sleep deprivation:

[OnTheOtherHand]

174. no, you don't think that at all

You don't trust anyone who doesn't see what you see. That's why you keep (1) telling people what to see and (2) attacking people who don't see it.

[Flatulo]

138. ^^^ Not a claim? I beg to differ.

The dictionary definition of "CLAIM" is:

"to assert or maintain as a fact"

Are you asserting that Gage's video is factual? Yes or no? If "YES" then that is a "CLAIM". It is not God's Own Truth. Now, a claim may be true or not true, based on the merits of the claim and its compliance or non-compliance with reality. It may also be disputed, and I strongly dispute Gage's DVD.

If you don't want to discuss this, that's fine with me. I appreciate the time you've spent on this up 'til now.

I just spent almost two hours watching Gage's video, and I am impressed by his showmanship, but not by his engineering skills. For example, at 1:18, he produces a tall cardboard box and proceeds to drop two smaller cardboard boxes, one onto the tall box and one into free air. When the tall box (of course) arrests the fall of the smaller box, he concludes that this is proof that the top 15 stories could never have initiated collapse. Give me a break. A cardboard box is supposed to be a proper dynamically scaled model of the WTC tower? He may be fooling his audience, but he's all wet. Later, at 1:33, he mocks NIST for not modeling the entire collapse sequence, and claims that this is easy to do and structural engineers do it "every day". Of course, neither Gage or any of his associates have done the calculations either (no surprise to me), but that doesn't stop him from taking potshots at NIST. If it's so easy, Richard, let's see your math. Just show us. You an even ask for help from any or all of your 1200 associates. I'll wait. The truth is, it is not easy to model. I know this because I do a fair amount of FEA modeling myself for a living, and there is no code on earth that could simulate a 200,000 ton steel structure in exquisite detail without MASSIVE simlifications that would render the results meaningless. Maybe in 10 years we'll be able to do this, but we can't today, and we certainly couldn't several years ago.

Now, to your posts claimning that all my questions would be answered, well, sorry, none of my questions were answered. So either you didn't read my questions, or you misunderstood Gage's presentation, or you just fibbed thinking that I wouldn't actually waste two hours watching the movie.

Either way, I think that your "claim" is exeptionally dubious, and that you and others have been taken in by a possibly sincere but technically lacking showman. Your claim is sufficiently separated from the truth that I am seriously considering billing you $120 for my time.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I'm editing this to add a few more points. Gage brings up Thermate at around 1:07. Now I don't know fuck-all about thermate/thermite/nano-bupkus or whatever pixie dust he's pushing, so I keep my mouth shut about it. However, Gage goes outof his way to piss on NIST's fingering the core columns (which NIST claims were badly damaged by the plane impact and fire) as participating in the global collapse. He claims that the resistance of the floors below 90 were sufficient to resist the dropping of the top 15 floors. Got that? But then he does an about-face and claims that the cores were cut by thermite, or bombs, depending on where you tune in, and when Gage cuts the cores, the pancake collapse begins. Funny how when NIST destroys the cores, they're full of shit, but when Gage destroys them, well, shit-howdy, the buildings fall. Of coure, nowhere does Gage show a SINGLE solitary calculation as to how his collapse initiation begins, but has nothing but scorn for NISTs models, which show quite handily how it began. Got that? Where I come from, that will get you shown the door. Gage has absolutely no math to show. Oh yeah, he does a good job on capturing the acceleraion and velocity profiles, but nowhere is there a mention of how the collapse initiated, other than Gage's magic core columns.

Now I'm honest enough to be open to any feedback about what I've missed here, but if you're going to follow your previous pattern of squealing "This is not a CLAIM, it's the TRUTH" than please fuck off. But I'm happy to listen to any other feedback.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Oh yeah, another interesting bit of backstory...

At 00:11 into the presentation, Gage extensively quotes Dr. Jonathan Barnett, professor of mechanical engineering and fire protection engineering at Worcester Polytechnic Institute. I studied advanced stress analysis under Dr. Barnett, and he's a pretty smart guy. It's interesting that Gage cites Barnett, since Barnett is not only not a Truther, he was on the FEMA team that was first on the scene on 9/12/2001. Not only is he not a Truther, he has actually been threatened with extreme violence by an obviously deranged member of the Truth Movement, as well as being called "treasonous", (just like Hang called me before he edited his post), along with an anti-Jewish diatribe, as documented here...

http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/archive/index.php?t-3613.html

So Gage may have you believe that AE911Truth has an ally in Barnett, but in actual fact, Barnett believes that they're all wet. And has had his life threatened for his views. Nice movement ya got there.

[hang a left]

145. The buildings are exploding...

Don't let a clan of apologists divert you from what you can see with your own eyes.

Take a look for yourselves: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8

Furthermore there is much physical and scientific evidence that has been analyzed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQgVCj7q49o

The entire case is laid out in the video that has been linked above.

The apologists for the OC cannot get around this evidence. Therefore they will name call, deflect, and hold up NIST, as they desperately attempt to fool people into not looking any further.

Speaking of NIST, check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcqf5tL887o This is John Gross being confronted with evidence of molten steel and lying about the presence. Towards the end of the video he admits that they are now examining controlled demolition as the cause of the collapse of World Trade Center building number 7.

These apologists all hang their hats on the work of this guy. Take a look for yourself. Do you find him credible??

[Flatulo]

146. Thanks for proving my case for me. Well done.

You're obviously incapable of understanding or addressing your own links. Your posts remind me of religious fanaticism. Keep repeating the same mantra over and over again... do not think... do not think... do not think...

[hang a left]

147. Nice try

hows your butt feel in your hands??

[Flatulo]

149. Hahahahahaha, you really are quite a piece of work, aren't you?

Feel like caling names now? That's the last resort of people who have nothing of substance to say.

Why don't you spend the rest of the night posting links to Gage's Magic Show.

[hang a left]

151. I didn't call you a name...

I just pointed out that I annihilated your ridiculous attempts at diversion.

[Flatulo]

153. You mean when you called myself and other "treasonous"?

Is that the name that you didn't call us that you aren't referring to?

[Flatulo]

110. The Movement has proven shit and I think you know this very well.

[hang a left]

125. They have proven that all 3 towers were brought down by explosives

BEYOND. A. REASONABLE. DOUBT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQgVCj7q49o

You cannot run from this. You and your friends can try to deflect from the truth but it is there.

Anyone wanting to know the truth, watch this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQgVCj7q49o

You will know when you are done watching that the towers were brought down by explosives. Don't let "groups" of people deter you from the truth. Trust your eyes.

[LARED]

129. Wow, such zeal. Such blind faith.

Seriously, does AE911 pay you to spread the word. Or are you just brainwashed?

[hang a left]

133. Don't be tripped up by those that would try to divert your attention

from the facts at hand. All three World Trade Center Towers were brought down by explosives. Don't trust anonymous internet posters, trust yourself and your eyes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQgVCj7q49o

[LARED]

137. It seems the answer is yes to all my questions. nt

[hang a left]

142. No LARED

I am going to let all of the evidence speak for itself.

World Trade Center Towers 1,2, and 7 were brought down by explosives. It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. For those that are following this thread and that are seeking truth; here is where you can start: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQgVCj7q49o

Don't be distracted by those that are invested in the OC. Trust your own eyes.

Shame on you LARED!! An apologist for the perpetrators of the crime of the century. Is the money that good??

[Flatulo]

163. Still accusing posters of being paid shiils? That's against the rules, you know.

... and BOY, is my back ever KILLING me. This pain is really, really bad.

[Flatulo]

109. Easy. They heard explosions. Explosions do not equal bombs.

While eyewitness comments are useful, they have to jibe with the scientific and forensic data to be credible.

[Flatulo]

113. Hang, eyewitnesses can be wrong. There were hundreds of eyewitnesses

to the JFK assassination, but there are many differing accounts of what happened. They can't all be right, so some of them have to be wrong?

Will you acknowledge the logic of this?

[defendandprotect]

274. I don't think it's about "convincing" anyone -- I think it's about getting information out --

Many people don't have the time to explore and research what's going on --

barely have the time to think about it --

[OnTheOtherHand]

20. maybe if you tried to post something persuasive?

Yes, I'm surprised that anyone agrees that the WTC collapses, "beyond any reasonable doubt, involved multiple miniature nuclear bombs." I'm even more surprised that anyone thinks that someone would have to be "paid by the post" to express disbelief about that.

We hear over and over how unprecedented -- and therefore, apparently, unbelievable -- it is that fires brought down the Twin Towers. How often have multiple miniature nuclear bombs been used to level skyscrapers?

[spooked911]

22. how incredibly superficial

and mis-representative of the actual arguments for nuclear demolition.

[OnTheOtherHand]

24. ROFLMAO

Dude, I think the "actual arguments for nuclear demolition" are shit on a stick -- same as the actual arguments that Kerry won in 2004. Why do you expect me to waste my time trying to make your arguments for you? In the case of the 2004 election, I could probably make better arguments than you apparently can -- but they wouldn't be my arguments, and they probably wouldn't be your arguments, so what could possibly be the point?

[spooked911]

40. good for you

You obviously know a lot about the 2004 election. I haven't really studied that issue for several years, hence my generally vague remarks on the topic.

I am quite familiar with the arguments for nuclear demolition however, and I imagine I know more about what happened to the WTC than you.

What do you even KNOW about the arguments for nuclear demolition?

They are laid out here:
http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/

If you want to discuss any of the details, I'd be happy to go over it with you.

[OnTheOtherHand]

42. none of these arguments makes sense

When you find yourself citing the existence of other wacky hypotheses as evidence for your wacky hypothesis, you need a friend to step in and say, "Don't go there. That's just weird." Of course, we're already at #30 by then.

My FDNY brother-in-law was working the pile for days after 9/11. You'll have a hard time selling me on "extreme security at ground zero."

As with the 2004 election, you seem to have very little sense of what a skeptic would construe as relevant evidence. Since you presumably do think your "evidence" is relevant, the more time I spend plowing through your 35 points, the more frustrated we both will become. Many of them amount to professions of disbelief that the collapses of quarter-mile-tall buildings would cause great damage and heat.

[spooked911]

45. I'm not sure why you picked that piece, as it was just a quick summary

all of those points have been discussed in more detail elsewhere, such as here:
http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/2008/10/brief-new-summary-wtc-destruction-high.html

Also, some critical analyses are here:
http://bogus911science.wordpress.com/


This is a good video showing the basic phenomenon of powerful demolition:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nc5_5IJek8

[zappaman]

46. Mini-nukes! n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

47. yep, I just cherry-picked the top 35 points

As I said, we've gone through a number of them in detail, with no better luck.

From your first link here.... What am I to make of someone who asserts "million-degree temperatures" without an iota of what most of us would construe as evidence? As for the rest, it seems completely capricious. Certain eyewitness reports are interpreted as evidence of nuclear effects operating at some distance, but what about all the rest of the eyewitness reports? (There are lots of reasons this "account" doesn't make much sense; I'm just trying to consider its internal logic.)

Here's an example of what I was talking about before:

WTC engineer Mike Pecoraro reports going up a level and seeing that a sub-basement level was in shambles and was “just gone.” Also he states a 50-ton press has also been apparently vaporized, and a 300 pound steel/concrete door has just been left shriveled up like foil. The only things that could do this are the multi-million degree temperatures, and neutron bombardment, from a nuclear bomb.

Really? According to another one of your physicist's articles, apparently what Pecoraro said was: "There was nothing there but rubble, we're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press gone!"; the door was "wrinkled up like a piece of aluminum foil" (not "shriveled"). Nothing but multi-million degree temperatures and neutron bombardment could account for those descriptions? Holy confirmation bias, Batman!

[spooked911]

58. do you even accept that the WTC was destroyed by demolition?

if not, there is not much point arguing nukes with you.

I will point out that the "million-degree temperatures" was asserted as part of the nuke hypothesis, not as a proven fact.

As to your other "point"-- is there really such a huge difference between "wrinkled" and "shriveled"???

And as is typical for your ilk, you ignore the obvious striking finding of the press gone and the door shriveled, and seize on some use of descriptive words instead and dismiss it all as "confirmation bias". Well done, sir, well done!

[OnTheOtherHand]

60. of course I don't accept that

I don't know any competent authority who does accept that, and after participating in this forum for years, I have no basis for accepting it either. If you're unable to discuss this topic sensibly with someone who doesn't already largely agree with you, that's an interesting limitation.

I will point out that the "million-degree temperatures" was asserted as part of the nuke hypothesis, not as a proven fact.

The argument, if there was one, is that million-degree temperatures -- and, hence, nukes -- could best account for the observables. Whether they were asserted as a "proven fact" is too subtle for me to parse.

is there really such a huge difference between "wrinkled" and "shriveled"???

Yes, I think so. Consider the difference between "wrinkled" tissue and "shriveled" tissue -- whatever that would be. But maybe I just have no idea what point your physicist was even trying to make. He often doesn't make much sense.

And as is typical for your ilk, you ignore the obvious striking finding of the press gone and the door shriveled

Unfortunately, your attempt to personalize the issue* doesn't alter the facts: the eyewitness never said that the press was "gone," nor that the door was "shriveled." Colloquially, the eyewitness depicts carnage, not vaporization. It's a matter of conjecture why anyone would interpret this account as evidence of nuclear effects.

*EDIT: bad choice of words

[spooked911]

65. I didn't say I was unable to discuss the topic, I just said it was pointless

because you're sure as hell not going to accept nuclear demolition if you don't even accept demolition.

You ARE in fact being deliberately obtuse about the wordings here, not sure why.

You wrote a couple of posts earlier:

""There was nothing there but rubble, we're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press gone!"; the door was "wrinkled up like a piece of aluminum foil""

So, according to you, he did say the press was gone.

And if someone says something is wrinkled up like aluminum foil, I don't think shriveled is such an abuse of language.

Anyway, in terms of demolition, what is unclear about this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nc5_5IJek8

[zappaman]

66. Mini-nukes!

:rofl:

[OnTheOtherHand]

67. that would depend on the quality of the evidence

If you had good evidence of nuclear blasts, that would at least increase the plausibility of demolition. I see no reason why anyone should have to accept the latter as a precondition for accepting the former, at least as a matter of logic.

Yes, I committed a braino. What I meant to write was what I said before: that the witness never said that the press was "apparently vaporized." I fear this point will be lost on you, but it was very common for New Yorkers (and others, I assume) to say that the Twin Towers were "gone" -- and, believe it or not, we did not mean "apparently vaporized." I find it strange that this has to be explained.

And if someone says something is wrinkled up like aluminum foil, I don't think shriveled is such an abuse of language.

Maybe not, but it connotes an actual change in size, and it's far from obvious that that's what the witness meant. For that matter, it's far from obvious why a nuclear blast designed to bring down the towers would "apparently vaporize" the press and merely "shrivel" the door, or what would be the point of a blast in the subbasement large enough to "apparently vaporize" the press as a side effect...

...or how any of this dovetails with the video, which argues that since it looks like explosions are running down the building, these explosions must be progressively destroying the building from the top down. The video gives no particular reason or evidence to link the "explosions" with the collapse; that is just an imaginative leap. At least the narrator concedes that setting off a series of explosions from top to bottom would not be a "standard" controlled demolition -- and at least the video makes clear what a big mess the tower made on the way down (no nonsense about collapsing neatly into its footprint). How this video is supposed to make anyone more credulous about the hypothesis that a nuclear weapon more or less "vaporized" a 50-ton press in a subbasement, I really have no idea.

[spooked911]

73. come on

obviously if you don't believe in demolition, you are going to have a much harder time accepting nuclear bombs being used than if you don't accept demolition. How basic is that logic?

Thus, my energy is better spent arguing demolition first, before getting into what was used.

That being said, I really doubt I can "convince" you of demolition at this point, if you already are skeptical of it. But if you are open minded, then I can try.

[OnTheOtherHand]

76. if you want to argue demolition first, that's fine

That being said, I really doubt I can "convince" you of demolition at this point, if you already are skeptical of it. But if you are open minded, then I can try.

As a matter of temperament and training, I am both skeptical and open-minded. But I really doubt I can convince you of that at this point. I think you should try to make the best case you can, and not worry so much about me -- and then you should weigh the arguments against your case.

[spooked911]

81. so... just as a starting point--

how much have you seen in the way of pro-demolition arguments? Are you familiar with the basic points, and aren't convinced, or you aren't sure of the arguments?

[zappaman]

82. Mini-nukes!

No argument can be funnier!

[OnTheOtherHand]

135. I think I'm familar with the basic points

Incredulity, incredulity, woo, incredulity. Maybe not in that order.

Sorry, but it's been a long time....

[spooked911]

176. "Incredulity, incredulity, woo, incredulity."

Please explain what you mean by that.

Is this something I'm supposed to work with, to help convince you?

[OnTheOtherHand]

178. the top four arguments for demolition

Typically, three of them are arguments from incredulity ("NO WAY could fire cause a steel building to collapse!"), and the fourth is woo ("only (Technology X) could account for (A), (B), and (C)," where typically X is somewhere on the continuum from obscure to imaginary, and A through C are cherry-picked fragments or free-hand paraphrases of eyewitness testimony).

You should try to skip any such arguments, and use better ones.

In principle, the argument that gravitational PE could not account for the observed "pulverization" of the concrete -- made with sufficient technical detail -- could be a good argument. In practice, it seems to rely upon handwaving, especially concerning the extent of the "pulverization."

(edit to fix format)

[spooked911]

183. Fair enough...

I tend not to use the fire argument, since it is too easily rebutted in various ways.

I guess the big issues for me are:

1) extreme speed of the structural failure-- close to free-fall speed for the twin towers

2) completeness and symmetry of the destruction-- down to the base, loss of core, all sides gone

3) extreme degree of pulverization of concrete; lack of stacked up floor slabs in the debris pile

4) disappearance/disintegration/vaporization of over 1,000 bodies, most office contents (e.g. filing cabinets)

5) large and powerful explosive squibs coming out below destroyed zone during the destruction

6) complete loss of the upper 30 story block of the south tower during the destruction with concomitant midair explosions

7) massive flaws or impossibility of the official "piledriver" and "crushdown/crushup" mechanisms

[OnTheOtherHand]

185. maybe you should choose one?

Quick responses to these seven. First of all, an overall response: as you've presented these, they are pretty much textbook arguments from incredulity. You're implying that Something Else Should Have Happened, but you aren't presenting a specific argument about what and why.

(1) Your tacit assumption seems to be that the top floors had to smash through the lower floors (presumably one by one), which would take a lot of energy. But that isn't necessarily the case. Any floor will fall if whatever was holding it up is sufficiently compromised.

By the way, that's a good-faith attempt to identify your assumptions. If you don't like having words put in your mouth (who does?), then you should present an argument, as I've asked you to do.

(2) The destruction isn't especially symmetrical. As for completeness, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Do you imagine that the bottom ten or twenty floors somehow should have survived?

(3) "Lack of stacked up floor slabs"?! This suggests that your standard of "pulverization" is fairly broad, and also that maybe you aren't taking gravitational potential energy very seriously.

(4) Again, I'm not sure specifically what you expect to find after maybe a billion pounds of material comes raining down from an average height of two football fields stacked lengthwise.

(5) No idea what your basis is for "large and powerful explosive squibs." To me, they look more like "puffs."

(6) What, you expect incomplete loss of the top 30 stories? As for "mid-air explosions" -- the mind reels. Not only do most of us not see any such thing, but considering how much video evidence you think was faked, I don't see how you can believe that this evidence could exists.

(7) Arguments from incredulity don't get much balder than that.

[spooked911]

188. how is #7 an argument from incredulity?

Seems to me, by your definition, every opposing argument is an argument from incredulity.

And number 1 is more like this: "The top floors had to smash through the lower floors one by one, which would take a lot of TIME, unless the lower floors were weakened by having their supports blown out before the upper chunk of floors reached there."

[OnTheOtherHand]

192. you asserted, without basis, that the official accounts are impossible

How could that be any more an argument from incredulity? Maybe if there were a little more argument to it?

Seems to me, by your definition, every opposing argument is an argument from incredulity.

I don't know why -- but, for that matter, if you say "mini-nukes destroyed the towers," and I say "I don't believe you," it doesn't really matter whether my comment is an "argument from incredulity," because it is your task to support your assertion, not mine to rebut it.

And number 1 is more like this: "The top floors had to smash through the lower floors one by one, which would take a lot of TIME, unless the lower floors were weakened by having their supports blown out before the upper chunk of floors reached there."

Unsupported assertion. First of all, the top floors didn't necessarily have to "smash through the lower floors"; they only need to overcome whatever is preventing the lower floors from falling. Depending on what you mean by "smash," that might be a semantic quibble or a major correction -- but since you haven't presented an argument, there really isn't much point in my guessing what your argument might be. You didn't lift a finger to demonstrate that the process would "take a lot of TIME."

[spooked911]

196. Dude

I am trying to establish the exact topic of argument, before getting into the full argument.

So, let's take #1.

I did some work on the timing as described here:
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/01/billiard-balls-and-momentum_03.html

and on elastic versus inelastic floor collisions here:
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/12/more-fatal-flaws-in-bazant-et-als-wtc.html

I find it hard to escape the conclusion that the official models of collapse are impossible.

[OnTheOtherHand]

198. stopping at the first error

Judy Wood's "Billiard Ball Example" is a strong proof that the WTC towers were brought down by abnormal means and were not gravity-driven collapses.

Her basic point is that in a progressive collapse, it will take a fair amount of time for each floor to drop to the next and keep the collapse going.

Using an ideal model where each floor drops at free-fall speed to the next, but then pauses as it breaks the next floor....

I guess I might have stopped at "Judy Wood's." But never mind.

"Where each floor drops at free-fall speed to the next, but then pauses as it breaks the next floor"? WTF? That might be an "ideal model" for purposes of proving your point, if you could get anyone to believe it.

Edit: the first version entailed speculation.

[spooked911]

199. you really need to keep going

I was just using her model as a starting point.

[OnTheOtherHand]

200. actually not

You characterize her argument as a "strong proof." Obviously it isn't. How anyone could seriously conclude that 97 seconds is a conservative estimate of the required collapse time is beyond me. Why should I have to plow through the rest of the article in hopes that you got better at physics on the way down?

[zappaman]

201. maybe this will convince you...

pretty amazing stuff here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x56836

[OnTheOtherHand]

203. in each case, I guess I should give him credit for trying

But golly. There's a professional literature on this; it isn't very hard to find.

[spooked911]

202. what exactly is wrong with her argument so that it isn't strong proof?

It is not so obvious to me.

Keep in mind, this has nothing to do with DEW or anything weird. It is just straightforward collapse modeling.

[OnTheOtherHand]

206. I can't really find the argument, actually

After Block-A travels one floor, it now has momentum. If all of the momentum is transferred from Block-A to Block-B, the next floor, Block-A will stop moving momentarily, even if there is no resistance for the next block to start moving.

Excellent point!!1!

A bit on the tautological side, but hey, tautology has its place.

On the other hand, if not all the momentum is transferred from Block-A to Block-B, the next floor, Block-A will not stop moving momentarily. :shrug:

Why does Dr. Judy suppose that Block-A should stop moving? Well, she seems to think that the scenario is a lot like Newton's cradle. Why? Unknown at this time.

(Why did you think that "Wood explains the logic of how momentum shouldn't be transferred during a floor collapse"? Also unknown at this time. Possibly just a really confusing choice of words. What would "lead to the upper floors pausing" if there were no transfer of momentum whatsoever?)

There is no reason in the general case to assume that all the momentum will be transferred. If we're going to consider idealized billiard ball examples, then imagine a billiard ball colliding with a stationary ping-pong ball of the same size. Do you expect the billiard ball to stop and the ping-pong ball to shoot off really fast? Really?

Now, you apparently tried to get at the momentum transfer problem by "assuming that 50% of velocity is transferred at each collision of floors." Why? Unknown at this time.

Since everything is falling, more or less, a plausible first cut at the problem is to assume that momentum is conserved such that the previously falling floors and the newly falling floor are moving at the same velocity after the collision. (That isn't what the billiard ball and ping-pong ball would do, but a building collapse isn't all that much like a billiard ball collision.) That will mean a fractional decrease in velocity, not a full stop.

Granted, the collision isn't perfectly elastic: a lot of energy is dissipated making a colossal mess. But as Greening, Bazant et al., and Mackey all have pointed out, even slight delays compared to free fall represent enormous amounts of energy available for destruction.

[spooked911]

208. Hmmm. It's like you simply don't want to even TRY

to comprehend anything that deviates from the official explanation. Which is odd, since obviously you are very clever.
----------

Why does Dr. Judy suppose that Block-A should stop moving? Well, she seems to think that the scenario is a lot like Newton's cradle. Why? Unknown at this time.

I don't think this is too hard to see from what she wrote. She makes the assumption (though not elaborated on unfortunately), that the energy from the upper floor falling will be just enough to dislodge the lower floor from its supports and to pulverize the concrete. Thus, the upper floor will have it's momentum stopped, and it or the floor below-- whichever survives more-- will have to start falling from a velocity of zero. This is juts a model, of course, but it gives a good sense of the timing issues.
-----------

(Why did you think that "Wood explains the logic of how momentum shouldn't be transferred during a floor collapse"?

see above
-----------
What would "lead to the upper floors pausing" if there were no transfer of momentum whatsoever?)

Again, the idea of the model is that the energy from the upper floor falling will be just enough to dislodge the lower floor from it's supports and pulverize the concrete. Thus, the upper floor will have it's momentum stopped.
-----------

There is no reason in the general case to assume that all the momentum will be transferred.

I agree, and so would Wood!
-----------

If we're going to consider idealized billiard ball examples, then imagine a billiard ball colliding with a stationary ping-pong ball of the same size. Do you expect the billiard ball to stop and the ping-pong ball to shoot off really fast? Really?

If we are just talking about these objects, no, I wouldn't expect that. But if there is a supporting structure involved, that is conceivable under the right circumstances.

Though in the case of the WTC, we're talking about an upper floor impacting a progressively better supported lower floor, so it's would be more like the ping pong ball impacting a billiard ball.
-----------

Now, you apparently tried to get at the momentum transfer problem by "assuming that 50% of velocity is transferred at each collision of floors." Why? Unknown at this time.

It was a simple assumption, for modeling purposes, that breaking away the lower supports and pulverizing the concrete would consume 50% of the energy from the falling upper floor, instead of 100%.
-----------

Since everything is falling, more or less, a plausible first cut at the problem is to assume that momentum is conserved such that the previously falling floors and the newly falling floor are moving at the same velocity after the collision. (That isn't what the billiard ball and ping-pong ball would do, but a building collapse isn't all that much like a billiard ball collision.) That will mean a fractional decrease in velocity, not a full stop.

I disagree completely here. Although, I am not sure what you mean by "everything is falling". But I will address the velocity issue.

Physics says that under ideal (perfect) INELASTIC conditions (as you describe), floor A colliding with floor B at velocity V should result in a final velocity of V/2. So, it is impossible by normal physics, to have a collision where both masses move at the same velocity after the collision. This would assume you are creating energy and this clearly violates conservation of energy!
-----------

Granted, the collision isn't perfectly elastic: a lot of energy is dissipated making a colossal mess. But as Greening, Bazant et al., and Mackey all have pointed out, even slight delays compared to free fall represent enormous amounts of energy available for destruction.

Except, as I showed here--
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/12/more-fatal-flaws-in-bazant-et-als-wtc.html

--Bazant is fatally flawed, and Greening and Mackey make the same flawed assumptions.

[OnTheOtherHand]

209. spooked, you evidently think that about many, many people

The fact is, I'm obviously burning hours in this useless attempt -- for which I have no one to blame but myself.

Yes, Dr. Judy sometimes assumes without basis that the falling floors' kinetic energy is entirely consumed in pulverizing the floor beneath. How on earth that would be analogous to Newton's cradle or billiard balls... really, why are we even having this conversation? Did you have any particular beef with previous competent analyses, or did you just feel compelled to start over with arbitrary assumptions of your own?

It was a simple assumption, for modeling purposes, that breaking away the lower supports and pulverizing the concrete would consume 50% of the energy from the falling upper floor, instead of 100%.

Oh-kay, but do you have any basis for that assumption whatsoever? And why do you say "the falling upper floor," singular?

Physics says that under ideal (perfect) INELASTIC conditions (as you describe), floor A colliding with floor B at velocity V should result in a final velocity of V/2.

Again, in your world, did only one floor fall? If not, maybe you could formalize your argument.

Except, as I showed asserted here... Bazant is fatally flawed,

FIFY.

[spooked911]

210. Do you think that the upper block of floors started falling as a solid accreted mass of

compacted floors or a relatively intact chunk of building with individual floors separated by columns?

In other words, was the first step in the collapse of the south tower a solid mass equivalent to 30 stories impacting the floor below, or was it an upper floor and a lower floor impacting, where each upper and lower floor had supporting structure above and below, respectively?

[OnTheOtherHand]

211. your questions are confused

The upper block isn't a "solid accreted mass of compacted floors," but its momentum is the momentum of the block, not of an individual floor.

[spooked911]

212. but the collision involves individual floors

RIGHT?

[OnTheOtherHand]

213. it involves individual molecules, in fact

We could keep drilling down from there. So what?

Look, you're welcome to believe that everyone who has looked at this before you and come to radically different conclusions is incompetent and/or corrupt. That probably explains that derisive response you got from JEM. Actually, I'm guessing that you never bothered to try to write this up for JEM.

[spooked911]

214. OK, we were talking about timing, and so we need to understand the basic nature of the collisions.

The point is, in terms of calculating velocity of the collapse, do the collapses involve single floor to single floor collisions, or do they involve an upper solid block impacting an isolated lower floor?

The official story supporters would have you believe the latter.

I think that is the wrong way of looking at it.

Do you agree with them or me?

And I'm not sure what derisive response you are referring to, about JEM.

[OnTheOtherHand]

215. not really either

An "isolated lower floor"?

I think it's much better to construe the upper block as a block than as a single floor, if that's what you're trying to ask.

And I'm not sure what derisive response you are referring to, about JEM.

Oh, whimsical speculation about how your manuscript would be received. Probably, in reality, you would get an extremely polite formal letter offering some reason why the manuscript didn't merit detailed peer review.

[spooked911]

216. why is it "much better to construe the upper block as a block than as a single floor"?

seriously, I want to know why this makes more sense to you than two floors striking each other, in terms of a collision.


If we are counting the upper floors as a solid block, why don't we count the lower floors as a solid block?

If floor 79 is falling down on floor 78, why do you want to ignore the space between floor 79 and floor 80?

Also, there is the fact that the columns between floor 79 and floor 80 are going to be equal if not somewhat weaker than the columns between floor 79 and floor 78.

[OnTheOtherHand]

217. I'll try

I'm having a hard time overlooking that people have written about this at length, and in fact people have tried at length to explain it to you. So I'm not going to hurt myself here.

If we are counting the upper floors as a solid block, why don't we count the lower floors as a solid block?

Umm, because it isn't? It's hard to put my finger on exactly what the stumbling block (no pun intended) is here at the level of intuition. Do you actually think that it is irrelevant how many floors are falling? Do you actually think that the top floor of the bottom block will better survive the impact if there are lots of floors beneath?

I think your basic problem is thinking that the upper block and the lower block are somehow interchangeable. It does matter that the upper block is falling on the lower block.

[spooked911]

218. as a matter of fact, I have not seen someone seriously deal with this issue before

either here, or in a separate article. If you have a good link for this, please pass it on.
--------

Do you actually think that it is irrelevant how many floors are falling?

No, I don't. But that doesn't change how many floors will be impacting each other at that first collision, does it?
---------

Do you actually think that the top floor of the bottom block will better survive the impact if there are lots of floors beneath?

No.

But by the same blessed token -- do you actually think that the bottom floor of the TOP block will better survive the impact if there are lots of floors above it???

This is the key question that I just have not seen the official story supporters address!
---------

I think your basic problem is thinking that the upper block and the lower block are somehow interchangeable.

Actually, I don't. But the fact is, the lower block is more strongly built AND is less weakened by fire. All the more reason for a lot of crush-up during a collapse.
---------

It does matter that the upper block is falling on the lower block.

I never said otherwise.

[OnTheOtherHand]

219. truly, it's hard to know what you would construe as relevant

If you're interested in what happens to the upper block, you might try Bazant and Verdure -- although you seem to have a block (groan) about Bazant.

But by the same blessed token -- do you actually think that the bottom floor of the TOP block will better survive the impact if there are lots of floors above it???

This is the key question that I just have not seen the official story supporters address!

Why is that a key question?

[spooked911]

220. I'm not sure why you don't understand the significance of that question

But the point is that in the collision, the damage is not one-way (equal and opposite reaction, right?). The upper floor will be damaged as well as the lower floor. There should be crush up simultaneous with crush down.

If the lower structure is stronger than the upper part, as is typical for towers, there should be more crush up than crush down. If there is enough crushup, with accompanying deflection of debris to the sides, the downward momentum should be slowed or even halted.

I assume you're familiar, then, with Bazant and Verdure? Perhaps you could summarize their argument for what happened in terms of crush up?

[OnTheOtherHand]

221. it's important to get your assumptions out into the open

Are you familiar with "breaking," as in breaking boards or blocks? Do you think that Newton's third law dictates that it is impossible to break a board without simultaneously breaking your hand?

I do think that the upper floors sustained some (further) damage on the way down, but I see no reason to conclude that it alters the basic analysis very much. There's an ever larger mass falling under gravitational acceleration. I agree in principle that if enough debris had gone overboard, the downward momentum could have been halted -- but that is a long way from showing that it should have been.

No, I'm not going to summarize Bazant and Verdure for you. It's virtually impossible to get you to state your own 'arguments' clearly, without dragging them into the muck.

[spooked911]

222. please, what does a hand hitting a board have to do with two floors colliding with each other?

There's an ever larger mass falling under gravitational acceleration.

... onto a progressively stronger structure.

I agree in principle that if enough debris had gone overboard, the downward momentum could have been halted -- but that is a long way from showing that it should have been.

Well, we haven't gotten there yet. This supposed to be a discussion on timing.

No, I'm not going to summarize Bazant and Verdure for you. It's virtually impossible to get you to state your own 'arguments' clearly, without dragging them into the muck.

Given that you seemed to think velocity isn't slowed when two equal size objects impact each other, I wager that you have never read Bazant and Verdure. But if you have, feel free to at least quote the relevant section. Thanks.

[terrafirma]

223. What makes you think

the Twin Towers were so much stronger at the bottom than at the top?

What structural elements bring you to this conclusion? Was the core thicker at the bottom? The columns stronger? The windows thicker?

[spooked911]

224. do you seriously not know this?

http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/nist-core-column-data

[terrafirma]

225. Fair enough

I learned something from Spooked.

Odd though, you linking NIST data. How do you know what stuff to trust?

[OnTheOtherHand]

226. why do you keep saying "two floors"?

I thought the "breaking" example might provoke you to rethink some of your assumptions, but I guess it's too subtle.

You seem to be thinking, more or less, that one floor collides with another, causing equal and opposite damage -- so, pretty soon (through a logic that isn't entirely clear), the upper block will be entirely crushed up, which somehow seems in your mind to cancel its ability to do further damage to the lower block.

Now, you didn't actually use the phrase "equal and opposite damage." But without some such assumption, I don't see how you can get anywhere near the conclusion you intend to reach. Although the situations aren't closely analogous, it is no more obvious that the upper block will be crushed up than it is obvious that a hand can't break a board. (It also isn't obvious that it matters exactly how much damage the upper block sustains, as long as the mass continues to fall. But maybe that is too much nuance for this discussion.)

And if you don't like my presentation of your position, maybe you should try presenting your position yourself.

... onto a progressively stronger structure.

That's an interesting hand-wave. (Full disclosure: "interesting" is intended euphemistically.) If the upper block is accelerating at close to gravitational acceleration, then it should be falling an order of magnitude faster after ten stories than it was after one story, and so on. Just how much stronger do you think the lower floors were?!

[spooked911]

227. why do I keep saying "two floors"?

seriously?

Uh, because, the collision in question occurs when two floors collide.

I hope we can at least agree on that.

Yes, I am thinking that when one floor collides with another, there is equal and opposite damage.

Do you think otherwise? If so, why?

[OnTheOtherHand]

228. the upper block falls on the lower block

I think it's a reasonable simplification, for some purposes, to construe the upper block as colliding with one "floor" after another. You haven't offered any warrant for isolating a single floor of the upper block. To say that the two floors collide is ambiguous rather than wrong, but for you it appears to be a real source of confusion.

Yes, I am thinking that when one floor collides with another, there is equal and opposite damage.

Why? Do the block and the hand sustain equal and opposite damage?

It seems to me that you're inventing a law of motion here, and not in a good way.

If, for sake of thought experiment, I stipulate Spooked's Law of Equal and Opposite Damage, then I guess it really would be obvious that the upper blocks couldn't possibly have crushed the lower blocks. I would be left, like you, to ponder the perfidy (or at best the spectacular incompetence) of Bazant, Zhou, Verdure, Greening, Mackey, various other authors, a host of peer reviewers, a much larger host of professionals, and so forth. How, you must wonder, could they possibly be so stupidly wrong? But there is no such law. Newton's Third Law does apply, but Spooked's Law does not.

Now, you may think you have some good reason why "equal and opposite damage" applies (or should have applied) during the collapse of the towers although there is no such law in general. I am skeptical: if you had such a reason, I think you would have presented it at least a few days ago, if not years ago.

Lest there be confusion, I am not asserting that the upper block must be undamaged, any more than I asserted that "velocity isn't slowed when two equal size objects impact each other."

[spooked911]

229. wow, just fucking wow

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_third_law#Newton.27s_third_law

[OnTheOtherHand]

230. did you not even read my post?

No one is denying Newton's third law. Bazant has not forgotten it; he does not misunderstand it.

At this point, it seems likely that you misunderstand it -- although it's still possible that something else is going on.

[spooked911]

234. who is confused here?

I think it's a reasonable simplification, for some purposes, to construe the upper block as colliding with one "floor" after another. You haven't offered any warrant for isolating a single floor of the upper block.

WTF??? The reason to isolate the lower floor of the upper block is because it was just as isolated as the upper floor of the lower block. Each floor-- the lower floor of the upper block and the upper floor of the lower block-- was part of a larger connected structure of floors in the tower. This is a FACT, and it is a fact that the purveyors of the official story conveniently ignore. Both floors were held in place by similar mechanisms-- supporting columns.

Please don't tell me that you don't understand this, nor that you don't know that construing the upper block as a solid mass greatly favors the official story.
--------

To say that the two floors collide is ambiguous rather than wrong, but for you it appears to be a real source of confusion.

WHY in god's name is it ambiguous? I am not confused here. I don't know about you-- whether you are confused or just want to play word games.
--------

(me)Yes, I am thinking that when one floor collides with another, there is equal and opposite damage.(/me)


Why? Do the block and the hand sustain equal and opposite damage?

Look I understand why a hand can break a board and it is not a good analogy at all here. A better analogy is dropping a brick onto another brick from ten feet up. Both bricks will sustain damage, right?
--------

It seems to me that you're inventing a law of motion here, and not in a good way.

If, for sake of thought experiment, I stipulate Spooked's Law of Equal and Opposite Damage, then I guess it really would be obvious that the upper blocks couldn't possibly have crushed the lower blocks. I would be left, like you, to ponder the perfidy (or at best the spectacular incompetence) of Bazant, Zhou, Verdure, Greening, Mackey, various other authors, a host of peer reviewers, a much larger host of professionals, and so forth. How, you must wonder, could they possibly be so stupidly wrong? But there is no such law. Newton's Third Law does apply, but Spooked's Law does not.

"Spooked's Law of Equal and Opposite Damage" is simply Newton's third law. You're just playing word games here.

And I am saying that "Bazant, Zhou, Verdure, Greening, Mackey, various other authors, a host of peer reviewers, a much larger host of professionals"-- if they don't understand this point-- are flat out wrong. But they do this BECAUSE it helps them explain the official story-- which is their goal after all.

I asked you where Bazant and Verdure show that they take simultaneous upper damage into account, and you never answered.
----------

Now, you may think you have some good reason why "equal and opposite damage" applies (or should have applied) during the collapse of the towers although there is no such law in general. I am skeptical: if you had such a reason, I think you would have presented it at least a few days ago, if not years ago.

I have indeed been talking about this literally for years. Sorry if you missed it. I know I had an argument with Seger about crush-up during the the "collapse", and he seemed to deny that it happened, not surprisingly, since again, it supports the official story to not have it happen.

[OnTheOtherHand]

235. yeah, sure, keep digging

Each floor-- the lower floor of the upper block and the upper floor of the lower block-- was part of a larger connected structure of floors in the tower. This is a FACT, and it is a fact that the purveyors of the official story conveniently ignore.

Sorry, that's risible -- and apparently you will never understand why.

Yes, indeed, the bottom floor of the upper block is connected to floors above it -- which is why it's reasonable to consider the mass of the entire upper block in the simple analysis.

And yes, indeed, the top floor of the lower block is connected to floors below it, until the columns give way.

Look I understand why a hand can break a board and it is not a good analogy at all here.

Then I guess we agree that Spooked's Law isn't a law. We ought to be done now, but the fish will keep thrashing.

A better analogy is dropping a brick onto another brick from ten feet up. Both bricks will sustain damage, right?

I foresee another classic Spooked YouTube!

However... umm, no, not necessarily. What damage either brick will sustain depends on conditions that you haven't specified, and it isn't apparent how any brick-on-brick collision is analogous to the collapse of one of the towers.

"Spooked's Law of Equal and Opposite Damage" is simply Newton's third law. You're just playing word games here.

Newton's third law obviously doesn't say anything about equal and opposite damage; you did. Ergo, Spooked's Law obviously isn't Newton's third law.

Yes, there are collision scenarios that should lead to equal and opposite damage, but a mere appeal to Newton's third law doesn't demonstrate the applicability of any of them. If you'd prefer that I demote Spooked's Law to Spooked's Circumstantial Bald Assertion, I'm OK with that.

And I am saying that "Bazant, Zhou, Verdure, Greening, Mackey, various other authors, a host of peer reviewers, a much larger host of professionals"-- if they don't understand this point-- are flat out wrong. But they do this BECAUSE it helps them explain the official story-- which is their goal after all.

I guess that's Spooked's Brazen, Baseless Broadbrush Smear. So remarkably often in your posts, spooked, the transition from a faulty inference to mass character assassination (a much more sweeping faulty inference, I suppose) is practically instantaneous.

Seriously, I don't know where you get off saying that Bazant's goal is to explain the official story, nor the goal of any of the other people I named -- but you've gone several orders of magnitude beyond that. To you, apparently, it's obvious that if ten or twenty-plus stories fall on the rest of a building, the building either should not collapse, or should collapse very slowly, due to Newton's Third Law -- which, I hope we all can agree, is pretty basic physics. In your view as I understand it -- a tenuous understanding, to be sure, since your explanations have been foggy in the extreme -- one really doesn't have to think much more about the situation than that to realize that the towers must have been demolished by explosives or the like. The towers fell, ergo most engineers are tools or willing dupes, Q.E.D.

I envy your self-confidence, I guess, but yeesh.

I asked you where Bazant and Verdure show that they take simultaneous upper damage into account, and you never answered.

I'd suggest reading pages 5 and 6, very slowly, although I don't really expect it to go any better than it has in the past. I see no sign that you will construe anything short of complete agreement with you as a true "taking into account."

I know I had an argument with Seger about crush-up during the the "collapse", and he seemed to deny that it happened, not surprisingly, since again, it supports the official story to not have it happen.

Seger has said that both the top and the bottom were being torn apart. Your characterization of his view and motivations is of a piece with your characterization of... well, really, most people, I suppose. :shrug:

It's a shame, because trying to consider specifically how the towers collapsed is at least more interesting than debating simplified models. But you can't even get past, 'B-b-b-b-but a floor collided with another floor! How can you OCTers ignore that?!!'

[spooked911]

238. please enlighten me why the uper floor was so much more invincible than the lower floor

and why it is wrong to assume similar damage to both floors when the two collide.

Please tell me.

[OnTheOtherHand]

239. keep digging

No one has said anything about the upper floor being invincible. I'm just calling you out for inventing physical principles. I think it's bad form.

Please enlighten me why the hand is so much more invincible than the board. See what a silly, irrelevant question that is?

I doubt that it is possible to enlighten you. However, if you want to continue your odd thought experiment, maybe I can point out something else that is wrong with it.

[spooked911]

240. pray tell-- what physical principles have I invented?

I didn't say the upper floor was invincible, period, I asked why you assume it is *more* invincible than the lower floor. That is obviously a very different question.

If you are not saying that, than I assume you agree that with the first collision, the two floors will both be dislodged from their supports to the same extent? Or not? If not, why?

[OnTheOtherHand]

241. no less irrelevant

If you are not saying that, than I assume you agree that with the first collision, the two floors will both be dislodged from their supports to the same extent? Or not? If not, why?

Because you have refused to offer a supporting argument. It's really just that simple. If you aren't even able to identify the assumptions in your model, there's no prospect of further intelligent discussion.

Against my better judgment, I've offered to set that aside. Suppose the floors are dislodged from their supports to the same extent. Then what?

[spooked911]

242. First of all, you didn't say what physical principles I have violated

Second, I thought it was clear that my supporting argument for the two floors both being dislodged from their supports to similar extents was Newton's third law.

Third, you appear to assume the upper floor is more invincible than the lower floor. Is this true or not?

[OnTheOtherHand]

243. an odd form of moving the goalposts

As long as you decline to state your assumptions, there is no way of knowing whether you are violating any physical principles. It is as if you said, "Well, I did a calculation, and my result was 42 -- go ahead, prove me wrong!!"

If you're asserting that in any collision, the damage to the top must equal the damage to the bottom, then you're simply wrong. It isn't a matter of violating physical principles, it's a matter of inventing one.

d, I thought it was clear that my supporting argument for the two floors both being dislodged from their supports to similar extents was Newton's third law.

Newton's third law is a law, not an argument.

Suppose I insisted that it's impossible to break a board with my hand without also breaking my hand, and pressed for a supporting argument, I replied, "Newton's third law!" That would be pretty silly, right?

Third, you appear to assume the upper floor is more invincible than the lower floor. Is this true or not?

It's utter bullshit.

[spooked911]

249. Dude

I am really really trying to find some non-controversial common starting ground.

I will say I misquoted you last post when I said "violating physical principles" -- I meant "inventing physical principles".

I don't think I claimed that the damage in a floor collision has to be perfectly equal to both floors. On the other hand, they ARE similar objects meeting across a large surface-- NOT like a hand chopping the middle of a block. So I think the damage-- as a result of the force going both ways-- to both floors should be quite similar.

This bit about the collision of two floors is actually important in that it affects the momentum calculation and thus the timing of a collapse.

I thought I was making a non-controversial claim that when the first two floors collide, there will be damage to both floors. The upper floor will impact on and damage the lower floor, and the lower floor will impact on and damage the upper floor-- consistent with Newton's third law.

I have been trying to say that the lowest floor of the upper block can be knocked off its supports just as easily as the upper floor of the lowest block can. At this point I am not sure whether you agree with this or not.

If you don't agree with it, please tell me why.

[OnTheOtherHand]

252. "meeting across a large surface"

Why? Does it look to you as if the upper blocks are falling level upon the lower blocks? It certainly doesn't to me. In fact, you've participated in threads about the tilts of the upper blocks.

I don't think this matters to the conclusion that the towers collapsed sans mini-nukes, but I'm perplexed that you are trying to offer it as "non-controversial starting ground."

You could still try the rest of your argument and see if that goes any better.

[spooked911]

255. No, I'm done with you, I think.

I can see you are just playing games here. You can't seem to understand a simple assumption about damage going both ways. I've repeatedly asked questions that you refuse to answer. You accuse me of moving the goalposts when that has been your modus operandi from the beginning.

"the conclusion that the towers collapsed sans mini-nukes"

That's an odd phrase to be sure, and not because you said "sans".

[OnTheOtherHand]

259. it isn't a simple assumption at all

As I believe you just admitted, it depends at least upon assuming that the top block hasn't tilted. Don't you feel a little... squeamish about that in light of the evidence?

I've repeatedly asked questions that you refuse to answer.

Oh?

You accuse me of moving the goalposts when that has been your modus operandi from the beginning.

Oh?

See, spooked, this is your blind spot. (Yes, that is a sort of grim joke at my own expense.) You really think that your arguments are obviously right, so when someone points out the holes, you think s/he is being perverse.

[spooked911]

260. Tilting is a whole other ballgame and yes, I am aware of it.

That is why earlier I said "similar objects meeting across a large surface" and didn't say the floors were colliding flat surface to flat surface.

I'm not sure I have the patience to get into tilting with you though.

That being said, as far as I know, the models of the official collapse story don't take into account the force of impact of tilting versus non tilting, but correct me if I am wrong. Generally the models are either very simplified or very abstract. Granted, what happened to the towers is a very complex problem if you don't believe in demolition, but every time I've looked at the official calculations of the "collapses", I see fatal weaknesses from over-simplification or over-abstraction.

[OnTheOtherHand]

261. say what?

That is why earlier I said "similar objects meeting across a large surface" and didn't say the floors were colliding flat surface to flat surface.

Wow, and you accuse me of not being straightforward?

They don't collide flat surface to flat surface, but rather they meet across a large surface? Like a yin colliding with a yang, perhaps?

See, this is what I'm saying. If you want to offer what you think is a slam-dunk argument for demolition, why in hell do I need to chase you around for days and still not know what you're saying -- and still not really have reached the argument?

That being said, as far as I know, the models of the official collapse story don't take into account the force of impact of tilting versus non tilting, but correct me if I am wrong.

Moving the goalposts once again. If you don't have a decent reason to think that dislodging a floor from the lower block must also dislodge a floor from the upper block, then you're nowhere. Frankly, even if you do have a decent reason -- which seems quite unlikely at this point -- you seem to be pretty close to nowhere. It really doesn't matter what anyone else has done -- and I see no point in trying to discuss anyone else's models considering how little progress we've made with yours.

Granted, what happened to the towers is a very complex problem if you don't believe in demolition

I have no idea what this means.

but every time I've looked at the official calculations of the "collapses", I see fatal weaknesses from over-simplification or over-abstraction.

ROFL is overused, but I really am laughing pretty hard at this comment.

[zappaman]

262. "but every time I've looked at the official calculations of the "collapses", I see fatal weaknesses"

One of the best Spooked quotes ever.

[spooked911]

266. what happened to the towers is a very complex problem if you don't believe in demolition

clearly this means that if you say the towers were blown up, that solves the whole problem of modeling a collapse, and modeling the collapse is quite complicated.

As far as "similar objects meeting across a large surface"-- what exactly is wrong with this statement???

Actually, I think what is supposed to have happened is that the supports (trusses) of one floor weakened due to fires, the upper floor bowed downwards, and pulled the fire-weakened outer columns in and the fire-weakened core columns bending, and the whole top of the tower tilted over because of this one section of floor on one side of the tower bowing down.

Would you agree to this scenario being a reasonably accurate description of the official collapse model?

The floor bowing down to hit the lower floor would lead to similar objects meeting across a large surface, wouldn't they?

[OnTheOtherHand]

267. sort of like "God did it"?

what happened to the towers is a very complex problem if you don't believe in demolition

clearly this means that if you say the towers were blown up, that solves the whole problem of modeling a collapse, and modeling the collapse is quite complicated.

I think all this really means is that you don't believe the towers could have fallen down without demolition. Saying the towers were blown up surely doesn't "solve the whole problem of modeling a collapse," although one might feel that it somehow moots the problem.* It really does seem a lot like saying that asserting the truth of creationism solves the whole problem of modeling evolution.

The floor bowing down to hit the lower floor would lead to similar objects meeting across a large surface, wouldn't they?

The floor bowing down to hit the lower floor? No, this doesn't sound much like the "official collapse model" to me. I'm not sure what picture is in your head, nor why it leads to symmetrical failures in the top and bottom blocks, nor even why you think it matters whether there are symmetrical failures in the top and bottom blocks.

*ETA: I don't really grasp that way of thinking. If someone is really interested in the hypothesis that the towers were brought down by thermite or mini-nukes or whatever, why wouldn't someone want to model that hypothesis?

[spooked911]

286. Do you agree that floor bowing due to truss failure is the start of the collapse sequence?

If not, what then?

I'm not sure what you mean by "why it leads to symmetrical failures in the top and bottom blocks, nor even why you think it matters whether there are symmetrical failures in the top and bottom blocks."

[OnTheOtherHand]

287. one could actually refer to the collapse sequence

For WTC 1:

Collapse Initiation

• The bowed south wall columns buckled and were unable to carry the gravity loads. Those loads shifted to the adjacent columns via the spandrels, but those columns quickly became overloaded as well. In rapid sequence, this instability spread all the way to the east and west walls.



• The section of the building near the impact zone (near the 98th floor), acting as a rigid block, tilted at least 8 degrees to the south.



• The downward movement of this structural block was more than the damaged structure could resist, and global collapse began.

NCSTAR 1, p. 201

Floor "sagging" is part of the thermal weakening that precedes collapse initiation, but I would not say that "floor bowing due to truss failure is the start of the collapse sequence."

As for the other thing... I'm trying to figure out what you mean. You more or less seem to have a mental model in which the top and bottom blocks consume each other, one floor at a time. Whatever your mental model is, you haven't offered any justification for it (other than "Newton's third law"), and I can't tell whether you understand Bazant's argument well enough to know why you disagree with it.

(edit to add page reference)

[spooked911]

290. What?

It sounds like you are saying that truss failure was a consequence of perimeter column failure rather than a primary cause of the supposed collapse. Am I reading you right?

Note-- sorry, I don't have time right now to check NCSTAR 1 for this (assuming that is the appropriate reference), but my recollection is that the whole thing started with one floor failing, pulling in the perimeter columns.



"You more or less seem to have a mental model in which the top and bottom blocks consume each other".

That would be one way to put it though my view is more complex than that.

As far as Bazant's argument, which one are you referring to?

[OnTheOtherHand]

291. the columns were bowing because sagging floors were pulling them in

That's one stress among many, and I wouldn't say it's how "the whole thing started," but that's probably a semantic issue. At any rate, NIST doesn't say anything about a single floor "failing" -- which could again be largely a semantic issue, except that you possibly may think that failing entails smashing into the next floor, which is not the collapse sequence that NIST describes.

I was referring to Bazant's argument about why crush-down initially dominates crush-up; from memory, I think the details in Bazant and Verdure and the "closure" response to Gourley are complementary. (I'm not sure it necessarily matters whether crush-down initially dominates crush-up, but it's helpful to understand the argument regardless.)

[spooked911]

292. Semantic issue? Really?

Didn't NIST actually conduct test of heating truss elements and test their stress response?

I don't see why (according to the official story) the perimeter columns would start to bow inward unless the weakened floor pulled them in-- otherwise you'd be saying that the outer perimeter columns bowed inward in SPITE of the horizontal force exerted by the floors and trusses.

Further, wasn't the whole weak link in the WTC structure the long floor trusses and not the perimeter columns?


As far as Bazant and Verdure, I think their crush down argument was that there may be initial crush up and crush down, but that the aggregated floors would eventually accumulate enough mass so that crush down proceeded quickly enough such that it dominated the collapse sequence.

That actually makes sense, but it assumes there is some sort of compact floor aggregation without much loss of mass (debatable). The other issue, that I think it huge, is how the first floor collapse occurred, and how much of a truly rapid drop there was. If the floor/upper block drops slowly enough, it will not drive a powerful and massive collapse. That is why it is so important to understand the overall sequence of the official collapse model.

[OnTheOtherHand]

293. yes, really

The whole thing started when the planes hit.

I don't see why (according to the official story) the perimeter columns would start to bow inward unless the weakened floor pulled them in

And your point is?

Further, wasn't the whole weak link in the WTC structure the long floor trusses and not the perimeter columns?

That's an ill-formed question. The "whole weak link"?

Maybe you should stop picking fights with me, spend more time reading and thinking about the whole subject, and then start again. (Hint: I'm not disputing that the floors sagged. Doh.)

[spooked911]

297. my point (and I do have one)

is that the official story revolves around weakened floor trusses causing the floor to sag, pulling the perimeter columns inward. Further, I would say that many people who non-conspiracy types think that the obvious potential flaw in the WTC design was the wide open floor layout and truss support system.

I'm not sure why you find this debatable, nor why you think I am "arguing" with you. I'm just trying to establish some common ground.

[OnTheOtherHand]

304. "the official story revolves around"

If you asked a dozen neutral observers to read the NIST analysis and state what it "revolved around," I suspect that several -- possibly most -- of them would ask you what the question meant. I'm not sure that any would say that it revolved around sagging floors.

Why am I stubbornly contesting your point? Because I don't think it makes much sense.

Does it have any bearing on your engineering analysis? Do you deny that the floors sagged and pulled the perimeter columns inward?

[spooked911]

298. Bazant and Verdure model

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was as follows:

1. About 60% of the 60 columns of the impacted face of framed tube (and about 13% of the total of 287 columns) were severed, and many more were significantly deflected. This caused stress redistribution, which significantly increased the load of some columns, attaining or nearing the load capacity for some of them.

2. Because a significant amount of steel insulation was stripped, many structural steel members heated up to 600°C, as confirmed by annealing studies of steel debris (NIST 2005) (the structural steel used loses about 20% of its yield strength already at 300°C, and about 85% at 600°C (NIST 2005); and exhibits significant viscoplasticity, or creep, above 450 ° C ....

3. Differential thermal expansion, combined with heat-induced viscoplastic deformation, caused the floor trusses to sag. The catenary action of the sagging trusses pulled many perimeter columns inward (by about 1 m, NIST 2005). The bowing of these columns served as a huge imperfection inducing multistory out-of-plane buckling of framed tube wall. The lateral deflections of some columns due to aircraft impact, the differential thermal expansion, and overstress due to load redistribution also diminished buckling strength.

4. The combination of seven effects—1) Overstress of some columns due to initial load redistribution; 2) overheating due to loss of steel insulation; 3) drastic lowering of yield limit and creep threshold by heat; 4) lateral deflections of many columns due to thermal strains and sagging floor trusses; 5) weakened lateral support due to reduced in-plane stiffness of sagging floors; 6) multistory bowing of some columns (for which the critical load is an order of magnitude less than it is for one-story buckling); and 7) local plastic buckling of heated column webs—finally led to buckling of columns (Fig. 1b). As a result, the upper part of the tower fell, with little resistance, through at least one floor height, impacting the lower part of the tower. This triggered progressive collapse because the kinetic energy of the falling upper part exceeded (by an order of magnitude) the energy that could be absorbed by limited plastic deformations and fracturing in the lower part of the tower.

A few thoughts:

1) this whole model depends on a significant number of core and perimeter columns getting heated to 600C for a significant period of time over a significant length of their area. Where is the solid evidence that a large number of columns in the collapse zone were heated in this manner?

2) sagging floor trusses were clearly a part of the initial triggering mechanism

3) even assuming this whole sequence takes place place, how feasible is it that that first collapse is going to be a complete one story drop with "little resistance", since we still have columns there for that first stage of collapse-- they are just bending and distorting, right?

4) Moreover the tilting effect will at BEST lead to a one story drop on only ONE SIDE of the tower, so any calculation that uses the complete upper block mass dropping one complete story is completely flawed.

[OnTheOtherHand]

299. this isn't the "Bazant and Verdure model"

You may be fundamentally confused about the meaning of "model." Not everything said in the paper becomes part of a model.

(1) Where is your "solid evidence" that any of Bazant and Verdure's modeling "depends on a significant number of core and perimeter columns getting heated to 600C for a significant period of time over a significant length of their area"? What they wrote in that one sentence appears to me to be flat-out wrong (or so poorly written that it might as well be flat-out wrong) -- but I'm not remotely convinced that any model depends on it.

(2) The trouble here started when you wrote, "The floor bowing down to hit the lower floor would lead to similar objects meeting across a large surface, wouldn't they?" It doesn't really matter to me whether you construe floor bowing as "the start of the collapse sequence" or "a part of the initial triggering mechanism" or whatever.

(3) spooked, have you ever felt your knees "buckle"? Would it be plausible to say that they then offered "little resistance" to falling, or would that be physically infeasible because, after all, your knees were still there?

It isn't immediately obvious how much resistance buckling columns would offer. It is immediately obvious that pointing out that "we still have columns there" isn't going to make a big impression on engineers, or at any rate not a favorable impression.

(4) I don't think you've thought through what you're saying here. "Completely flawed"? It is probably overly optimistic to the survival of the towers to construe the upper blocks as falling symmetrically on a complete story, if the mass(es) initially fell disproportionately on one side.

I don't think you've grasped the scope of the challenge you seem to take upon yourself. You are trying to prove that Bazant's engineering arguments are incompetent -- which would reflect not only on Bazant, but on many, many other engineers -- and there's not much sign that you know anything about engineering. I don't know much myself, but I know enough to be left rubbing my eyes sometimes.

It's perfectly reasonable to question whether things must have happened as the NIST report, Bazant and Verdure, etc. describe, and what else might have happened instead. But you seem to have been stuck in the binary mode of arguing that all these 'OCT sources' are Wrong Wrong Wrong. I don't see that as reasonable or conducive to informed discussion.

[spooked911]

300. Gimme a break

It's their basic model for the onset of collapse. I'm not sure why you need to nitpick on things like this.

1) I'm a bit confused what you are asking here. Are you saying Bazant and Verdure's sentence was wrong? Or mine?

2) the trouble started for ME when you started with this sort of thing (post 188): "First of all, the top floors didn't necessarily have to "smash through the lower floors"; they only need to overcome whatever is preventing the lower floors from falling. Depending on what you mean by "smash," that might be a semantic quibble or a major correction -- but since you haven't presented an argument, there really isn't much point in my guessing what your argument might be." You know, that is just being difficult since it was fairly clear what I meant. If you doubted it would take that much time, you could simply ask how long I thought it would take.

3) knees are joints and are made to bend-- unlike columns. And the columns wouldn't simply disappear during the fall, unless nukes vaporized them or something.

4) yes, completely flawed, if they assume the upper block moves down one whole story en masse-- which seems to be the case. Please correct me if they say otherwise.

I am happy to take on Bazant, because he may be a wiz mathematician, but his assumptions are quite erroneous every time I've looked into them. And I am biased towards demolition, but at least I am being honest about my motives. I'm not saying OCT sources are completely wrong, but invariably they rest on serious flaws, so that hardly inspires confidence that the OCT is right.

[OnTheOtherHand]

303. I'm "nitpicking" because I think you are wrong

You may insist that their summary of the prevailing failure scenario is actually their "model," and their model is... well, you don't say what you want to call that. If you were Humpty Dumpty, I might concede the point.

To be honest, I suspect that you want it to be their model because that would mean that you don't really have to know anything about engineering in order to rebut them. In some cases that could be true, but I don't think it is true for this paper.

(1) What I wrote, in this case, is crystal clear. If you can't parse that, there isn't much point in trying to discuss engineering analyses.

(2) Malarkey. It wasn't clear what you meant, and it still isn't. If you want to debate collision models, you have to state specifically what you construe as colliding with what. Otherwise, you will commit basic errors -- as, in fact, you did in your blog analysis. It's bothersome in the extreme that you recognize your error there, but still don't understand the importance of stating your assumptions clearly. After all, you presumably thought for years that that analysis was "fairly clear."

"If you doubted it would take that much time, you could simply ask how long I thought it would take." Whut?

(3) Way to miss the point. Right, no one -- at least no engineer I've seen -- ever said that the columns "simply disappear(ed)." That is why saying that they didn't won't make a favorable impression on engineers.

(4) Your assertion doesn't constitute proof, or even argument. If you want to offer an engineering critique of Bazant and Verdure's analysis, go ahead. But complaining that their assumptions aren't literally true isn't going to cut much ice with engineers -- and coming from the purveyor of the "bunny cage experiment," it seems strangely inconsistent as well as unpersuasive.

[spooked911]

305. As much "fun" as it is going back and forth with you on this,

the problem is that I feel like you're not even trying to see my points, or you're barely trying.

I don't think I am being so very unclear about knees being made to bend and columns still giving some resistance even when bending. I don't think it's so unclear that the tower tilting on one side does not equal a complete one story drop with little resistance.

Mainstream engineers have all kinds of reasons for supporting the official story, consciously or subconsciously. Plus, the assumption I've seen in their models are clearly inaccurate and help the official collapse story.

You wrote "Where is your "solid evidence" that any of Bazant and Verdure's modeling "depends on a significant number of core and perimeter columns getting heated to 600C for a significant period of time over a significant length of their area"? What they wrote in that one sentence appears to me to be flat-out wrong (or so poorly written that it might as well be flat-out wrong)"

You implied that Bazant and Verdure wrote something flat-out wrong, so I just wanted to confirm that's what you meant.

[terrafirma]

306. "Mainstream engineers"....

Are you suggesting that they KNOW the official story is wrong, but support it for "all kinds of reasons" (which, of course, you don't actually state)?? And what assumptions are they making that are so clearly inaccurate?

Again... your belief in humanity is nothing short of abysmal and your failure to acknowledge what you define as CLEAR is telling. If your evidence was even remotely opaque, you would think that others, apart from the fringe "truth" movement, would've picked up on it by now.

That they haven't just means that either A.) the majority of the world is in on it or being paid off, or B.) you're just wrong.

[zappaman]

307. I go with A.

the majority of the world is in on it or being paid off.
isn't it obvious?

[terrafirma]

308. Occam's Razor

The simplest explanation is most likely the correct one.

In Spooked's world, it's far simpler to just assume the world being involved in the cover-up than it is to imagine he's wrong.

[spooked911]

309. the truth movement isn't so fringe, and more...

Why Haven't More Scientists and Engineers Spoken Out About the Controlled Demolition of the World Trade Center?
There are several factors at play here, which all work together to inhibit professionals from speaking out.

1) Most engineers are politically conservative, were probably Bush supporters, and simply cannot bring themselves to question 9/11 and the "war on terror".

2) There is still a large degree of taboo associated with 9/11 for anyone to openly question the official 9/11 story.

3) Many scientists fear for their careers if they speak out. Scientists spend half their lives on their education and building their reputations-- they fear speaking out about a hot-button political issue that might inhibit their ability to get grant funding or diminish their professional reputation. I know a mechanical engineering professor who is convinced that the WTC towers were brought down by some form of controlled demolition, yet this person is very afraid of speaking out because of the negative effect it would have on his career.

4) Many scientists probably have not studied the evidence. In particular they may not have seen the footage of the collapses since 9/11 and may not remember the incredible speed and the explosive nature of of the collapses. Moreover, the collapse of WTC7 late in the day of 9/11 was clearly the result of controlled demolition, yet this aspect of 9/11 is very obscure to most people. If more people were aware of the perfectly controlled collapse of WTC7, it would strongly affect what people think happened to the twin towers.

5) Conformity-- peer pressure; why buck the trend? (closely related to #3)

6) The mentality of: "It's not my job" to worry about this. "How does questioning the official story help me personally?" "Why should I waste my time on this issue?"

[terrafirma]

310. I'm impressed

6 whole points of nothing but conjecture and speculation.

Tell me. How is it you know the political affiliation of most of the world's engineers?

[spooked911]

316. it's sad, really

you have spent so much time hysterically denying any conspiracy, that you can't even recognize simple and obvious facts.

If you don't know that engineers tend towards being conservative, then maybe you don't know much about engineers.

[terrafirma]

317. Nice try

If it's such common knowledge that engineers are conservative, you should have no problem sourcing a reference for your assertion.

[spooked911]

319. and I'm sure you should have no problem using google to either find a supporting article or

something to disprove me.

[terrafirma]

321. So you have nothing to back your assertion up...

Thought so.

[terrafirma]

326. Is there a book out there...

That breaks down career vs. political affiliation? Was it covered in civics and I just slept through it?

I'm curious... Where does one gain knowledge of the political affiliations of the worlds professionals?

[OnTheOtherHand]

323. ooh, there go the goalposts again

FWIW, your original claim was: "Most engineers are politically conservative, were probably Bush supporters, and simply cannot bring themselves to question 9/11 and the 'war on terror'."

Even if you can support that "engineers tend towards being conservative," that won't get you where you need to go. It really takes some brass to argue that most engineers can't consider the possibility that the twin towers were brought down through controlled demolition because it violates their political ideology.

[zappaman]

311. Unbelievable

1) Most engineers are politically conservative, were probably Bush supporters, and simply cannot bring themselves to question 9/11 and the "war on terror".

How do you know? Can you support this?

2) There is still a large degree of taboo associated with 9/11 for anyone to openly question the official 9/11 story.

Says who?

3) Many scientists fear for their careers if they speak out. Scientists spend half their lives on their education and building their reputations-- they fear speaking out about a hot-button political issue that might inhibit their ability to get grant funding or diminish their professional reputation. I know a mechanical engineering professor who is convinced that the WTC towers were brought down by some form of controlled demolition, yet this person is very afraid of speaking out because of the negative effect it would have on his career.

How do you know? Can you support this?


4) Many scientists probably have not studied the evidence. In particular they may not have seen the footage of the collapses since 9/11 and may not remember the incredible speed and the explosive nature of of the collapses. Moreover, the collapse of WTC7 late in the day of 9/11 was clearly the result of controlled demolition, yet this aspect of 9/11 is very obscure to most people. If more people were aware of the perfectly controlled collapse of WTC7, it would strongly affect what people think happened to the twin towers.

How do you know? Can you support this?

5) Conformity-- peer pressure; why buck the trend? (closely related to #3)

How do you know? Can you support this?

6) The mentality of: "It's not my job" to worry about this. "How does questioning the official story help me personally?" "Why should I waste my time on this issue?"

How do you know? Can you support this?


What a load of horseshit.
You made up every single one of those points to bolster your own belief system that has nothing to do with reality.
It's sad really.

[OnTheOtherHand]

312. you have barely tried to make your points

Or maybe, in some sense, you are trying very hard, but you have no idea how to go about it.

If you want to dispute the assumption that the columns gave "little resistance," saying that they gave "some resistance" obviously won't cut it. Saying that one thing "does not equal" another thing obviously doesn't cut much of anything, either.

It's OK not to have an argument, but it's fairly not OK that you resort to smearing mainstream engineers for failing to agree with your non-argument. It would be more constructive, and more decent, to set aside your defamatory preconceptions and try to learn something from them.

[terrafirma]

313. But...

They're all Bush voting Republicans!

[spooked911]

314. I have a "word argument", I'm sorry I don't have the time to put it into a "mathematical argument"

If you can't see there is a problem saying the top block initially fell at nearly free-fall speed for one whole story, when it really tilted over in a more controlled fall (one side anchored, significant resistance during the initial part of the tilting)-- if you can't see that the Bazant/NIST assumption is inaccurate and heavily biased toward the official theory-- I'm not sure there's much point continuing.

[terrafirma]

315. Don't have the time?

This is the biggest cover up in the history of the world.. And you don't have the time?

Guess you're just as complacent as those engineers that support the official story, but almost worse since you know but are just too lazy to show your work.

[OnTheOtherHand]

318. terrafirma got it in one

Who do you think you are, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat's_Last_Theorem">Pierre de Fermat? We didn't take his word for it, and we had a hell of a lot more evidence for that than we have for controlled demolition.

Really, where do you think you get off slamming engineers while refusing to state engineering arguments?

Yes, you have a word argument, and it is facially silly. Why on earth do you think it is obviously better, for the survival of the towers, for the upper blocks to fall at angles rather than straight down?

For that matter, if you intend to restrict yourself to "word arguments," would it be too much at least to quote Bazant and NIST when you want to throw around terms like the "Bazant/NIST assumption"? Oh, wait. "Sorry, I don't have time right now to check NCSTAR 1." :eyes:

(edit: fixing URL)

[spooked911]

320. "terrafirma got it in one"-- not sure what that means

Why is my argument "facially" silly?

I described the basic principles. Was that not clear? I do have limited time, sorry for that. For better or worse, I do not spend my life on this stuff.

[terrafirma]

322. With what's at stake...

You'd think maybe you should.

[OnTheOtherHand]

325. yeah

It seems to me that there's a very wide gap between the seriousness of spooked's charges and the thoroughness of his efforts to support them.

[OnTheOtherHand]

324. because there is an obvious counterargument

Here is how Bazant and Zhou put it, back in 2001:

For our purpose, we may assume that all the impact forces go into the columns and are distributed among them equally. Unlikely though such a distribution may be, it is nevertheless the most optimistic hypothesis to make because the resistance of the building to the impact is, for such a distribution, the highest. If the building is found to fail under a uniform distribution of the impact forces, it would fail under any other distribution.

You don't have to accept that argument, but you should at least be able to discuss it.

[spooked911]

327. Actually, I wasn't talking about the *distribution* of the downward force

I was referring to how they assume there is a complete one story drop of the upper block, with minimal resistance to the fall. A complete one story drop confers much more force than a drop from a lesser height, right?

Further, I am saying with the tilting, there is substantial resistance on the buckling side, so it's far from a one story drop at free-fall even on that side that collapses (tilts down) the most (initially). Maybe there is a half story at drop at free fall, at most. Further, on the side opposite from the buckling (the north face for WTC1), there will be a huge amount of resistance-- and the columns should bend, not just crumple downward and go away. Thus, there won't be a free-fall drop at all, at least for the first story. This doesn't even mention the resistance from the two other sides.

A complete one story drop at near free fall speed for the initiation of the collapse:
a) greatly favors a complete and progressive collapse due to the initial force delivered
b) is ridiculous

[OnTheOtherHand]

328. indeed you weren't

That's my point. You don't actually seem to have given this issue very much thought.

Just how much "lesser" does the height have to be in order to alter the outcome? How much lesser do you think it would be?

Just how "substantial" is the resistance on the buckling side as the collapse begins?

Assuming that the columns on the other side initially bend instead of breaking -- hey, the tilt has to come from somewhere -- specifically how does that affect the analysis?

spooked, it appears that the reason you think that Bazant's simple analysis "greatly favors a complete and progressive collapse" is that you don't know how to reason about any alternative. Thinking badly of engineers is a lot easier than learning enough to keep up with them, no doubt.

[spooked911]

329. alternatives

Not sure what you mean by "very much thought".

Your questions are fine, but what is this about not knowing how to reason about an alternative? I clearly have thought of an alternative. If you need me to put this into some sort of mathematical format, fine-- but that would take me quite a while.

Meanwhile, I think I've made the point that the one story free-fall drop for the upper block is unrealistic and leads to a larger downward force that favors a progressive collapse.

If you want alternatives, there were several ways the fire and structural damage could have gone:
1) the fires burn out without any collapse
2) one floor section collapses but breaks away from the core and perimeter columns so no massive failure-- it stops on the next floor down
3) one floor section collapses but breaks away from the core and perimeter columns so no massive failure-- it hits the next floor down and causes a few floors to collapse down without core and perimeter columns failure, and eventually the collapse progression either peters out or halts at the more strongly built mechanical floors at 75-76
4) one floor section collapses -- breaks away from the core but pulls in the local perimeter columns--- one side of the tower caves in, several floors are wiped out
5) one floor section collapses-- pulls in the perimeter columns and pulls away the local core columns, the top block starts tilting, all the perimeter columns start crumpling, there is a slower, lower energy collapse that peters out after a few stories
6) one floor section collapses-- pulls in the perimeter columns and pulls away the local core columns, the top block starts tilting, all the perimeter columns start crumpling, the upper block induces a collapse of one side of the tower; there is a major collapse that takes out the upper half of one side of the tower but the core and the other side remains largely intact
7) one floor section collapses-- pulls in the perimeter columns and pulls away the local core columns, the top block starts tilting, all the perimeter columns start crumpling, the upper block starts a massive global progressive collapse that completely wipes out the whole tower to the base, rubble pile has clearly piled up floor slabs distinguishable objects in it
8) one floor section collapses-- pulls in the perimeter columns and pulls away the local core columns, the top block starts tilting, all the perimeter columns start crumpling, the upper block starts a massive global progressive collapse that completely wipes out the whole tower to the base; every concrete floor slab is pulverized, all interior contents largely disintegrated.

To me, #7 is relatively unlikely, and #8 is the least likely outcome.

[OnTheOtherHand]

330. well, yes, it probably would take you quite a while

If you actually wanted to do justice to the problem, you would have to put quite a bit of thought into a specific alternative to Bazant's various calculations that gives the towers a substantially higher chance of survival.

Meanwhile, I think I've made the point repeatedly asserted that the one story free-fall drop for the upper block is unrealistic and leads to a larger downward force that favors a progressive collapse.

FIFY. See also above. You haven't demonstrated that the simple analysis appreciably favors a progressive collapse.

I don't think your "alternatives" merit much discussion in their present form. For some reason, you seem intent upon depicting the collapse as beginning (and perhaps ending) with a single "floor section." For some reason, you appear to believe that the damage (if any!) is likely to be limited to perhaps a few floors, and/or to one side of each tower. In fact, you appear to believe that all this is obvious -- even though, in the piece I filleted earlier, you conceded, "The natural reaction is to think of a huge weight gaining so much speed that is (sic) smashes down through all lower floors, in a 'pile-driver' type of reaction."

[spooked911]

331. So--

do you agree that a one story (12 foot) free-fall drop for the upper block leads to a larger downward force than a half story (6 foot) free-fall drop of the upper block?

"You haven't demonstrated that the simple analysis appreciably favors a progressive collapse."

I assume you mean Bazant's simple analysis? Can you rephrase that, as I am not sure what you are asking?


As far as the alternatives, I started with the floor sections because that is the obvious weak link for fire-induced weakening of structural steel. I haven't seen any evidence that the perimeter or core columns actually got hot enough to fail on their own and start the collapse.


""The natural reaction is to think of a huge weight gaining so much speed that is (sic) smashes down through all lower floors, in a 'pile-driver' type of reaction.""

My point was that the natural reaction is not always right, and that is something the OCTists have pointed out when it suits their argument.

In any case, it is still true that the columns get progressively stronger down the tower, and there is major loss of material from the floors at each collision-- both are complicating factors for your fillet.

[OnTheOtherHand]

332. mmmmmm

The velocity of the block affects its momentum, yes. So (for instance) if you can somehow induce the upper block to creep down slowly until it's just a few inches above the lower block, and only then begin to fall, then the towers probably won't collapse. All that is obvious, even to engineers.

I am asking you to make an engineering argument about why you purport to believe that the towers should not have collapsed. Here I think the problematic word was "favors," which is why I prepended "appreciably." Suppose we assume that the upper blocks free-fall 6 feet instead of 12. Result: collapse of the towers. So, what on earth are we talking about? And why do I have to ask you over, and over, and over, and over?

As far as the alternatives, I started with the floor sections because that is the obvious weak link for fire-induced weakening of structural steel.

That's amazingly foggy. It's one thing to emphasize the importance of sagging floors; it's another thing to assume that collapse initiation entails the collapse of a single floor section. Are you assuming that? I can't tell, because you seem to insist on using fuzzy language like "weak link."

Of course the natural reaction is not always right. But your stated position is that "the only way 9/11 would have been a more obvious inside job is if the official death toll were 3,333." Yet you are, to put it charitably, struggling to come up with an argument that the towers might not have collapsed without controlled demolition, never mind that they obviously could not have.

In any case, it is still true that the columns get progressively stronger down the tower, and there is major loss of material from the floors at each collision-- both are complicating factors for your fillet.

Spooked, people have been modeling those for years. Of course they are "complicating factors" -- and of course we are nowhere near having a collapse model that would explain the fate of every piece of metal and concrete in each tower -- but if you want to "argue" that obviously those considerations would prevent the towers from collapsing, then really all anyone has to say is, "I refuse to take your word for it."

[spooked911]

333. The good news is that after 300+ posts, we are finally communicating somewhat more directly--

the bad news is that now *you* are making assertions without any supporting evidence.

How do you know a drop of a few inches leads to no collapse but six feet does?

Also, what is so fuzzy about saying the floor trusses were an obvious weak link?

"Yet you are, to put it charitably, struggling to come up with an argument that the towers might not have collapsed without controlled demolition, never mind that they obviously could not have."

The only reason I seem to be struggling with this is because you have been exceedingly grudging about conceding even fairly obvious points-- such as the floor supports being a weak link, or a 12 foot free fall drop of the complete upper block favors global collapse more than a 6 foot drop from a tilted upper block where one side is still attached.

[OnTheOtherHand]

334. wow

In fact, I don't know that a drop of a few inches leads to no collapse. I even used the word "probably" to indicate that I don't know it. Serves me right for trying to meet you on your own terms, I suppose.

spooked, it isn't a matter of my "conceding" anything. Evidence suggests that your grasp on conservation of momentum is somewhat tenuous, but Bazant seems to understand it just fine.

[spooked911]

335. sorry if I misinterpreted you, but I thought you said

"All that is obvious, even to engineers."

I was hoping that you had done some calculations or something.

I guess I will have to produce something more convincing to you, on this. But that will take some time. It's still amazing though, how demolition can be so obvious to some people, but not to others, and how some people can't seem to recognize the conflict of interest that most professional engineers have on this.

[zappaman]

336. "some people can't seem to recognize the conflict of interest that most professional engineers have

bullshit.
everything you stated about engineers and their politics, was pulled right out of your ass.
how about you get back to us when you get a fucking engineering degree?
unfuckingbelievable.

[spooked911]

345. Not bullshit

It's basic logic.

[OnTheOtherHand]

337. ?

For various models, it is possible to calculate various "critical heights" beyond which global collapse occurs. You don't seem to understand the purpose of the models, so I don't see much point in doing further calculations with them.

What I find amazing is that -- if I'm parsing your comment correctly -- you still insist that demolition is "so obvious" to you, and yet you seem no closer to offering a coherent warrant for the obviousness than you were when we started. I suppose that is one meaning of "obvious": you just know it, so you don't need a reason.

You haven't identified a "conflict of interest that most professional engineers have on this," so it shouldn't surprise you that some people can't seem to recognize it. :eyes:

[spooked911]

346. I gave the conflicts in an earlier post.

As far as the critical heights for a global collapse, could you please give one of those references?
Thanks.

[OnTheOtherHand]

347. you "gave the conflicts in an earlier post"?

Seriously, if you want to summarily dismiss every opinion that doesn't agree with yours, shouldn't you do a bit better than that?

Your question is farcical.

[spooked911]

353. the conflicts are in post 309

I'm not sure what you mean by "shouldn't you do a bit better than that?" I was posting on my phone last night from the anti-war protest in DC. It wasn't feasible to look up the specific post then.

Also, I'm not sure what is farcical. Asking for a reference?

[OnTheOtherHand]

354. it was already pointed out that you didn't support your assertions

I won't bother to repeat that for every point, because that was done already.

It's mildly interesting to read that you know a mechanical engineering professor who is "convinced" that the towers were explosively demolished, but where are his engineering arguments?

I like this one: "Conformity-- peer pressure; why buck the trend?" Well, one reason is that presenting a strong argument for controlled demolition could make someone's academic career. Doh. The professional incentives for at least some engineers to argue for CD -- if it can be done well -- are apparent, not even to mention the ethical reasons. If engineers fear for their reputations if they make certain arguments, is that because the arguments are obviously true yet "taboo," or could it be because the arguments aren't very good at all?

WTF is "the explosive nature of the collapses"? I don't "remember" that, either. And asserting that the collapse of WTC7 "was clearly the result of controlled demolition" is an unconvincing appeal to your own authority. It's sort of like blurting, in the middle of an argument about Intelligent Design, "Well, anyway, the human eye was obviously designed!" Many people, including some very smart ones, seem actually to believe that, yet their sincerity does not constitute strong evidence.

Yes, at this point in the discussion, it's farcical to ask for a reference. I don't know which is harder to believe: that you can't think of any relevant references yourself, or that you somehow consider it useful to pretend that you can't.

[spooked911]

355. the points are based on logic and do not need sourcing

"where are his engineering arguments?"

This person was disturbed by the extreme rapidity of the destruction.

"If engineers fear for their reputations if they make certain arguments, is that because the arguments are obviously true yet "taboo," or could it be because the arguments aren't very good at all?""

I certainly know what your answer is. Of course there are engineers who have made good arguments, and where has that gotten them?

Explosive nature of the collapses refers to the, uh, I don't know, err-- maybe the EXPLOSIONS-- that occur as the building goes down.

WTC7-- for chrissakes. The bldg went down at freefall speed; it's pretty obvious to most people it was demolition.

In any case, to my original question-- I did a search on that and didn't find anything. You suggested there were modeling studies showing that. If you have a link, I would appreciate seeing it.

[OnTheOtherHand]

359. that's a pretty loose construction of "logic"

But if you can't argue the merits, I guess that's a pretty good approach.

Of course there are engineers who have made good arguments, and where has that gotten them?

That's a spooked "of course," which is a lot like a spooked "obvious." Is this another point that is based on logic and does not need sourcing?

OK, if you want to refer to "explosions," no power on earth can stop you. But it isn't a very compelling reason to smear engineers.

WTC7-- for chrissakes. The bldg went down at freefall speed; it's pretty obvious to most people it was demolition.

Yeah, right. And that point is based on logic too, right?

Do you not even understand the non-demolition explanation of how WTC 7 came down?

In any case, to my original question-- I did a search on that and didn't find anything. You suggested there were modeling studies showing that. If you have a link, I would appreciate seeing it.

Really, I rest my case. What credibility could you possibly have when it comes to assessing good engineering arguments? Grrrrr.

[spooked911]

361. No I don't understand the non-demolition explanation of how WTC 7 came down at free-fall speed

I don't even think I've seen the free-fall collapse explained without demolition.

Yes, I am aware the Penthouse came down earlier, but the main tower came down at free-fall speed.

So yes, I would be so grateful if you could explain how the main WTC7 structure fell at free-fall speed without demolition.

[deconstruct911]

363. I think you will just get the NIST

explanation Sdude used to give you numerous times.

[spooked911]

371. neither of them explained how the tower could go down at free-fall speed

period.

[zappaman]

374. except they didn't. Period.

Here some more info for you NOT to understand.

http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

[spooked911]

380. I agree. They didn't explain the fre-fall of WTC7 and neither did that link.

Are we in agreement?
:)

[OnTheOtherHand]

368. no, you wouldn't

If you were interested in understanding this argument, you would already understand it by now.

I don't even think I've seen the free-fall collapse explained without demolition.

Ergo, you've never even read the NIST report. It's OK not to give a flying fuck, but then I really don't understand why you insist on posting.

ETA: For the record, as far as I can tell, most of the collapse isn't "free-fall."

[spooked911]

370. for the record, it IS free-fall, once the main body starts falling

NIST does not address this-- they don't even model the complete collapse. So how can they explain the free-fall time?

[zappaman]

375. for the record--you have no idea what you are talking about....again.

Here some more info for you NOT to understand.

http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

[OnTheOtherHand]

378. well, I think we were supposedly focusing on WTC 7 right here

although I'm not sure that he didn't confuse it with the towers himself.

[spooked911]

383. wow, thanks, Joe Clueless

that link says nothing about WTC7 going down at free-fall.

[OnTheOtherHand]

384. WTC 7 mostly didn't go down at free-fall

That might be the reason. :)

[spooked911]

390. the reason for giving a link that had nothing to do with WTC7?

surrrre....

[OnTheOtherHand]

393. no, he probably wasn't paying much attention

Frankly, I wish I had that much sense. Hours of my life here that I'll never get back.

[OnTheOtherHand]

377. for the record, you're flat out wrong on both points

NIST does address it, and they demonstrate that only part of the collapse of the "main body" (i.e., facade) is (approximately) free fall.

spooked, you're a wonder. Would it take much more time to get things right? Would it take any at all?

[spooked911]

386. what are the "both points"? You conceded the facade falls approximately at free-fall speed.

I asked where NIST explained the free-fall collapse of WTC7. I have not seen a proper explanation for that.

Even buildings that undergo controlled demolition don't go down as fast as WTC7.

[OnTheOtherHand]

387. bullshit

spooked, I try to give you every benefit of the doubt, but you're going out of your way here to distort and misrepresent my posts, never mind to ignore the obvious.

[spooked911]

391. ?????????????????

Wow. Really don't know what you are talking about. I asked for a clarification on what the two points were. Not sure why you are getting your panties all soiled here.

[spooked911]

392. from NIST:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

* Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
* Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
* Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity


This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.
------------

so there were over two seconds of complete free-fall. What do they say about this?

"indicating negligible support from the structure below"

Wow, how enlightening, not to mention a vast understatement.

"indicating NO support from the structure below"

Fixed it.

[OnTheOtherHand]

394. at least you found the FAQ, but your "fix" is broken

If you've paid any attention to the literature -- or just thought a bit about the underlying problem -- it should have crossed your mind that video studies wouldn't be able to distinguish "no" support from "very little" support. Thus, NIST's "negligible" is supported by the evidence, and your "NO" is not.

But let's back up.

so there were over two seconds of complete free-fall. What do they say about this?

"indicating negligible support from the structure below"

Wow, how enlightening, not to mention a vast understatement.

I could not make this shit up.

Yo, dude. Spooked. Yo. Try reading the next sentence.

If you think you can meaningfully rebut that explanation, by all means do your damnedest. Right now, you just look kind of silly.

[spooked911]

396. I saw that quote

It's the same old problem. A bent column doesn't just disappear. It still gives some resistance as it bends. And even if it does completely give away, there are other columns below it that still need crumpling.

Free-fall indicates no resistance.

[OnTheOtherHand]

397. well, it's the same old pattern on your part

Of course a bent column doesn't just disappear. But you haven't lifted a finger to demonstrate that the columns should have given more resistance than they did.

Free-fall indicates no resistance.

That's true, but irrelevant. It isn't possible to determine from video analysis that there was no resistance. Pretty obvious, if you think about it.

[zappaman]

398. "Pretty obvious, if you think about it."

Pretty obvious that some people would rather ignore it.
Especially if it doesn't fit with a "mini-nuke" hypothesis.
:rofl:

[spooked911]

399. Pretty obvious that you have some cognitive dissonance going on

Statement 1) Free-fall indicates no resistance. That's true, but irrelevant.

Statement 2) It isn't possible to determine from video analysis that there was no resistance.

Given that the video shows free-fall (even NIST agrees that was free-fall for over two seconds), which = no resistance, how do you get to " It isn't possible to determine from video analysis that there was no resistance."?

[OnTheOtherHand]

400. actually not

It isn't possible to determine from video analysis that there was no resistance. That's why the FAQ says, "During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below" (emphasis added) -- which you attempted to "correct," which is how we got here.

If you've considered the measurement issues, you already realize that there is no practical way to distinguish between gravitational acceleration and very slightly less than free fall acceleration. I am left to wonder, again, whether I'm the victim of an extended practical joke.

[spooked911]

415. the bottom line is that WTC7 went down at the same speed or even faster than known

controlled demolitions:
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/09/wtc-7-collapsed-at-same-speed-as-known.html


The NIST thermal expansion explanation is the joke.

There is no precedent for such a free-fall collapse of a high rise steel structure due to office fires.

Plus, we have the symmetry of the WTC7 fall, the testimony of Barry Jennings (who mysteriously died), the suspicious/shady WTC7 tenants (who may well have had reason to destroy evidence: IRS, DOD, CIA, IRS, SEC, US Secret Service), Silverstein was on the phone with his insurance company to authorize controlled demolition of WTC7 on 9/11*, the abundant evidence of funny business with 9/11 as a whole.


It was demolition for chrissakes.

*http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/04/21/jeffrey-scott-shapiro-jesse-venture-book-lies-truthers-ground-zero-sept-shame/

[terrafirma]

416. Speaking of precedents...

What's the precedent for 3 sky scrapers being demolished with mini-nukes, thermite, or magical silent explosives?

[OnTheOtherHand]

418. it's sort of hilarious that you link to that, actually

That Landmark Tower video could be a textbook example of how little a typical controlled demolition resembles what happened to WTC 7. I guess that's how you came up with silent mini-nukes. So, as terrafirma points out, your argument from "precedent" seems as poorly considered as the previous hundreds of times it has been trotted out.

If we're seriously gonna be obsessed with the time from when the roofline of the "main building" starts to fall to where it hits bottom, then I'm not convinced that it is possible to get an accurate timing for either WTC 7 or the Landmark Tower. However, you haven't disputed NIST's finding that the time that the WTC 7 roofline took to fall 18 stories was approximately 5.4 s, or about 40% longer than the computed free fall time. You seem to want this to be impossible without explosives, but why?

If you had a substantive critique of NIST's analysis, you would present it. But it really doesn't appear that you know much about NIST's analysis, so you serve up handwaves ("the symmetry of the WTC7 fall" -- that's sort of true if one completely ignores the east penthouse) and non sequiturs ("suspicious/shady tenants" -- so now some unidentified combination of "IRS, DOD, CIA, IRS, SEC, US Secret Service" is in on the plot?).

This one is priceless:

Silverstein was on the phone with his insurance company to authorize controlled demolition of WTC7 on 9/11

By God, it's a masterstroke! Say, did the insurance company authorize the use of mini-nukes?

Seriously, try for a few moments to be agnostic about the fate of WTC 7 -- as if maybe the almost 800 pages of NCSTAR 1-9 contain something worth taking seriously, at least as a thought experiment -- and consider why this factoid doesn't help your case.

[spooked911]

420. It's ALL such a mystery isn't it?

why would NIST and Bazant put out a false story?
why would professional engineers go along with the official story?
what is wrong with thermal expansion of one beam causing a massive steel-framed tower to come down?
why would the CIA et al have anything to hide?
why is it so hard to believe a massive building can collapse a free-fall speed?
what is wrong with failed columns giving no resistance at all?
why would Silverstein calling his insurance company to authorize demolition make someone think WTC7 underwent controlled demolition?
why does anyone listen to those conspiracy nutters?
why would anyone believe the elites plot false-flag operations?
why does Spooked911 think such silly things?

It's just SO HARD to figure out...

[terrafirma]

421. Your sarcasm is noted.

Unfortunately, like the rest of your assertions, it does nothing to further your argument.

You think that just because there COULD be something amiss, that there IS something amiss.

Rational people, however, tend to look at actual evidence. Not internet people JAQing off.

[zappaman]

422. "why does Spooked911 think such silly things?"

I think I know...

[OnTheOtherHand]

423. your response looks like a surrender to me

If you had a substantive response, surely you wouldn't resort to stringing your often muddled questions together like popcorn in the vain hope that they would have more impact that way.

You seem to be damn sure that you know better than the professional engineers, but you don't offer a coherent critique of them or anyone else. A few cases in point:

what is wrong with "failed columns giving no resistance at all"?

(FIFY.)

Your inability to demonstrate that they gave "no resistance at all," and your apparent inability to muster an argument about how much resistance they should have given. (Just what was the load-carrying capacity of the buckled columns, and how would they fare against 30+ stories' worth of mass?) It seems that if you could be prevented from inaccurately paraphrasing NIST's analysis, you wouldn't have much left to say on the subject.

why would Silverstein calling his insurance company to authorize demolition make someone think WTC7 underwent controlled demolition?

No reason whatsoever. If Silverstein was part of a conspiracy to sneakily destroy WTC 7, it is facially unlikely that he would call his insurance company to ask permission. (It is also facially unlikely that he would announce during a TV interview that he had had the building destroyed -- something that many "truth movement" adherents say they believe.) That's probably why the author cited it in the middle of a rant against the truth movement. And you would be utterly incredible if you asserted that Silverstein's reported call made you think that: clearly you thought so already.

Now, I think it's reasonable to wonder how "several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers" thought they knew what Silverstein had said on the phone to his insurance company. If I attached, oh, a tenth as much importance to this story as you presently purport to attach, I would be trying to verify it. Strangely -- or perhaps not strangely at all -- I've seen 9/11 "truth" adherents cite this story many times, and I haven't seen one of them express the slightest skepticism about it. It might be the one item in Fox News history that they assume to be beyond question. Or maybe they are too busy making bizarre inferences from the "fact" even to consider whether it is factual at all.

[spooked911]

424. It's a bit of a surrender, yes, in terms of trying to convince you

clearly, the type of argument you require would take a great deal of time -- time I don't have readily. So as much fun as it is playing semantic games with you, I probably need to spend more time reading Bazant and NIST and brushing up on my physics, to try to mount a more mathematical argument. But I suppose I can give you credit for inspiring me to do this.

FWIW, we had done some more precise analyses of Bazant's arguments on crushing concrete, and so forth here, if you are interested:

http://bogus911science.wordpress.com/2009/07/17/the-oct%E2%80%99s-bazant%E2%80%99s-bogus-dust-analysis-is-doomed-to-the-dustbin-of-history/

http://bogus911science.wordpress.com/2009/07/17/the-three-fatal-flaws-in-bazants-wtc-concrete-pulverization-calculations-and-why-his-calculations-really-support-nuclear-demolition/

You can have fun with those, while I try to do more research on the official collapse story-- though I do think those articles pretty much demolish the official collapse story.

As far as the Silverstein stuff, in my opinion, it is all a psy-op game, where the BTB are both blatantly admitting demolition as well as officially denying it in order to cause cognitive dissonance and muddy the truth.

On the one hand, Silverstein calling his insurance company to authorize demolition in the same article as you deny demolition is ridiculous, but on the other hand, the author had to know this. Thus, it must all be an intel op.

[OnTheOtherHand]

426. I'll await your physics, but the following is odd:

On the one hand, Silverstein calling his insurance company to authorize demolition in the same article as you deny demolition is ridiculous, but on the other hand, the author had to know this. Thus, it must all be an intel op.

Cool. So whenever I read an article or post that, in my view, the author "had to know" was ridiculous, I should conclude that "it must all be an intel op"?

If you think Shapiro made this story up to mess with your head, well, that seems possible -- but to construe it as "blatantly admitting demolition" is quite a stretch.

[zappaman]

427. every article or fact that spooked does not agree with is an "intel op"

see how easy it is to believe in everything being a conspiracy?

[spooked911]

428. depends, but in this case it is fairly clear that it is an op

and I wasn't just referring to Shapiro, but also Silverstein's "pull it" remark and various other aspects of the whole WTC7 op.

[zappaman]

395. Oops

My bad!
I linked to the two towers and not wtc 7.
Guess I was confused by your inability to understand ANYTHING about that day.
So, to make up for it, here is the sentence you left out...

"This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above."

[OnTheOtherHand]

388. bullshit

spooked, I try to give you every benefit of the doubt, but you're going out of your way here to distort and misrepresent my posts, never mind to ignore the obvious.

[OnTheOtherHand]

389. hey, I think this is my first time with this glitch

Soooo... spooked, any chance that you could stop (redacted) around, look up what NIST said about this issue, and discuss that?

[spooked911]

356. fwiw, this thread here has two different people saying that engineers are

overwhelmingly conservative (80-90%)--

http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/595324-conservative-vs-liberal-profession.html

There are a couple of other links with similar ideas.

This is not to say there aren't liberal engineers, obviously, just that they are mostly conservative.

[terrafirma]

360. Well then by your reasoning

All the more liberal/progressive engineers should be speaking out against the official story, no? Or are they just too chicken shit because it's so taboo, in which case, why even bring up their political leanings to begin with.

Wouldn't it just be easier to say that engineers that don't agree with you are cowards?

[spooked911]

362. It's really funny how hysterically clueless you are about my argument about engineers--

methinks you doth protest too much.

[terrafirma]

364. It's funny you think you're argument about engineers

Is remotely valid.

But I guess that's par for the course in SpookedWorld, where any assertion made just HAS to be true. It just HAS to.

You forget that you not only asserted most engineers were conservative, but that by being such, were more inclined to turn a blind eye towards demolition. In doing so, you are now forced to reason why progressive engineers haven't spoken out against it either.

Remember... You brought up the political bent of engineers as a defense to your beliefs.

Not me.

[spooked911]

369. are you at all familiar with what whistleblowers have to go through?

this is sort of like that, except much much bigger. If you can't understand this, I don't know what else to say except maybe you are just not mature enough to understand the grown-up world.

[AZCat]

372. Actually, yes.

It was a topic in several classes in school. Engineering school. The one I went to where I learned all the physics you've failed to grasp.

[spooked911]

382. Great!

Now, think about being a whistle-blower to the world's biggest crime, a crime where thousands were killed, trillions of dollars are at stake, a conspiracy where there was complicity with secret societies and the leaders of the intel and military agencies of the govt.

[terrafirma]

376. Being lectured on the "grown-up" world

From someone who attempted modeling the Twin Towers' destruction using a bunny cage.

Priceless.

So again. You're implying that 80-90% of the world's engineers are just to cowardly to come out with the truth. It's too much of a burden for them. They can sleep just fine knowing that 3000 people were murdered by their government. No big deal. Life goes on.

Gotcha.

[spooked911]

381. No, that's not what I am saying.

wow, are you dense.

[terrafirma]

385. No?

Well if they arent scared, what is it then??

They just don't care? Don't have the time? Don't wanna' deal with having helped expose the greatest cover up ever?

Because a lot of people saw the towers collapse. They saw WTC 7 fall. I'm guessing these conservative engineers saw it as well. And if it's obvious to an "expert" like you that is was demolition, then it should be DAMN obvious to people that actually studied engineering.

[AZCat]

373. Wow - that evidence is overwhelming!

A thread on an internet forum has people saying stuff! It must be true.

[OnTheOtherHand]

379. damn, this is annoying

If you have no idea how to go about supporting a generalization about people's political views, maybe you should just stop.

I will be fairly surprised if you can find reputable evidence that 80-90% of engineers are self-identified political conservatives. I'll be even more surprised if you can make a decent case that 80-90% of engineers would be predisposed to ignore evidence that the Bush administration faked the 9/11 attacks (if that's what controlled demolition entails -- I suppose it wouldn't have to).

[terrafirma]

338. What conflict of interest???

That the world's engineers are all in the pockets of Bushco and that if they spoke out against the official story, they'd all be fired, or worse.... Mysteriously disappeared?

But yet those "engineers" who HAVE gone against the grain are still alive. And employed. And spouting their bullshit.

And I did google "political affiliations by career" and came up with nothing that supported your assertion that engineers are inherently conservative. Could you please direct me to where you discovered this "obvious" information?

[spooked911]

344. Nothing so sinister

Jesus. It is simply bad for their careers.
It's pretty well known engineers tend to be conservative. I can't look it up right now (posting on my phone) but there are sources.

[terrafirma]

348. So...

You ARE implying that they know the towers were blown up, but just feel their paycheck is more important than speaking out against the largest cover-up in world history.

Correct?

[AZCat]

339. Oh my fucking god!

Spooked, I'm usually content to read through your ridiculous posts and avoid the temptation to respond, but this is such fucking bullshit I can't let it pass.

What the do you know about professional engineers and our ethics? Who the fuck are you to judge me and my peers? You try to somehow implicate us in a horrific crime because of your own inability to understand fundamental physics. How do you rationalize this behavior to yourself? Do you even know any professional engineers besides those of us who you regularly encounter on forums such as this one?

Needless to say, I'm pretty pissed off. I'm a progressive and a professional engineer, and I won't let bullshit (whether produced by the government or a client) pass without comment. You just managed to insult me and every other progressive (or liberal) professional engineer I've worked with (which is quite a lot). Good fucking job, spooked. Way to win people over.

[ocpagu]

340. Oh please,

Save us from that emotional bullshit.

If you're an engineer as you claim, why don't you just answer Spooked's questions?

And yes, he's right. Engineers, in the US or anywhere else in the world, as a matter of fact, tend to be conservative and right wingers.

[zappaman]

341. oh, please

prove it.

[terrafirma]

342. So...

Because they're all conservative, right wingers, they're inherently predisposed to cover-up mass murder, is that what you're saying?

Are all the worlds' conservatives such murderous bastards, or just the ones who are engineers?

[AZCat]

350. I have answered his questions. For years.

He has proven remarkably resistant to information that doesn't mesh with his ludicrous claims.

No, he isn't right. There certainly are conservative, right-winged engineers. There are plenty who are not. Spooked didn't argue they tend to be conservative or right-winged (nor would I know of any research suggesting a particular tendency) so don't move the goalposts for him - he's plenty capable of moving them himself.

[spooked911]

343. Really, sorry

I just can't give a shit if I offended you.

[AZCat]

349. No, of course you can't.

Protecting your ignorance is more important than the truth.

[spooked911]

358. as if you cared about the truth

and what kind of engineer are you, and are you an academic or in business?

[AZCat]

366. I care more about the truth than you do (at least in my opinion).

I don't think you are interested in exploring information unless it confirms your conclusions.

Why does it matter what kind of engineer I am or what I do? You didn't seem to make any distinctions when you made the blanket accusations earlier.

[zappaman]

367. as if you cared about the truth

all you care about is keeping your fantasies alive.
the truth is out there but it "doesn't look right" to you and you "don't understand it", so you reject it.
the incredible lengths you go to buttress your fantasies is truly pathetic.
in all sincerity, you need some serious therapy.
it would do a world of good.

[zappaman]

351. you don't seem to give a shit about any facts or information

that don't support your fantasies either.
what an embarrassment you are to DU.
oh well, the right has to put up with "birthers", I guess we get to put up with "truthers".
and if I was a "truther", I would be inclined to believe Spooked was a disinfo agent with the amount of pure illogical, unreasoned bullshit he slings around.
over 300 posts in this thread alone and you still don't have the slightest fucking clue, Spooked.
it would be funny if it wasn't so fucking pathetic.

[spooked911]

357. ha ha

I could call you names just as easily

[zappaman]

365. Truly an embarassment. n/t

[KDLarsen]

352. Don't have the time..?

Spooked, you've been posting here for at least 6 years now. Surely at some point you could have taken some time off from DU to sit down and do the math?

[OnTheOtherHand]

263. shall we talk about your new "partial conservation of velocity" law?

Just for purposes of discussion, I will attempt to assume that collisions along large surfaces have the properties you seem to think they have.

Also, we will assume that when one floor reaches the lower floor, it's velocity is decreased by a set amount each time-- but that some velocity (essentially "momentum") is transmitted between floors to speed up the subsequent fall time between floors.

Say what? Some velocity will be transmitted? Did you really mean it?

We will assume in this model that the only energy cost for destroying a floor is the loss of some degree of velocity at each floor collision.

The first set of calculations will be assuming that 50% of velocity is transferred at each collision of floors.

I guess you did really mean it -- but why? Totally bizarre. What on earth is transfer of velocity? and why are you conflating it with the "energy cost for destroying a floor"?

Now it gets more complicated for the second floor.

First, we assume that after bashing against the lower floor, that the two floors are going 50% of the original velocity -- in this case 13.9 f/s.

That would be a perfectly reasonable calculation based on conservation of momentum -- although that seems to be coincidental, since you go on to run the numbers for smaller percentages of 'velocity transfer.'

Based on conservation of momentum alone, if a body with mass m traveling at velocity v₀ collides inelastically with a second body with mass m and velocity 0, and the two bodies (with combined mass 2m) adhere, we have mv₀ = 2mv₁, and v₁ = v₀/2.

If you want to model some energy loss, you can do that. But an arbitrary percentage of velocity loss makes no sense. As it stands, your calculation actually assumes no energy loss at the first collision, since your v₁ agrees with that from the conservation of momentum equation.

Now we get a time of 0.53 s for the 2nd floor collapse at free-fall speed and 50% loss of momentum. Now we can calculate the final velocity after this floor falls 12 f ---> 30.9 f/s.

For the next floor collapse, the floor will start moving at 50% of this speed, at 15.5 f/s.

Oh, FFS. You wrote yourself, "the two floors are going 50% of the original velocity" (emphasis added). But by now I guess you've just forgotten that there are two floors falling. Conservation of momentum dictates that if two floors (with mass 2m) collide inelastically with a third, the new velocity of the three floors will be 2/3 the velocity of the two floors at collision. As the crush front grows in mass, the ratio should approach 1.

Of course you can make assumptions about energy loss and mass shedding that will prevent the ratio from getting very close to 1. But you'll be hard-pressed to come up with assumptions that yield anything like the behavior of your model.

(Speaking of forgetting, you also seem to have forgotten the rest of the upper block, still falling -- although I don't think that will make much difference in your model.)

Just one more quotation:

One could say the structure only slowed the falling mass by 1% at each floor collapse, and get close to the observed collapse times, but this defies physics and is an insult to engineers who design strong buildings.

Well, modeling energy loss as a fixed-percentage decrease in velocity -- regardless of the percentage -- does apparently defy physics. But it's hard for some of us to overlook that lots of other people have tried actually to model how much the structure could slow the falling mass, while you settle for yanking percentages out of your two-hole.

As for insults to engineers who design strong buildings, some people might be insulted to be construed as complicit in mass murder, dontcha think? :eyes:

I look forward to your explanation of how I have utterly, inexplicably misconstrued your masterwork. Just bear in mind that I've been at this for days, and this is all you have given me.

[spooked911]

265. your points about velocity versus momentum and increasing mass are perfectly valid

As I said, I was merely modifying Wood's model, and this was some time back. Clearly Wood's billiard ball model is flawed in this regard, thus my calculations are flawed, so I will need to think about this more. I wish you'd pointed this out when I first brought this up. I wish someone had pointed out this flaw years ago, actually.

Note, I'm not saying no one has noted this flaw before (in all the internet, I'm sure someone has), but that I hadn't seen it, and I had looked up rebuttals to her model in the past. Mostly I had seen her model picked on for assuming elastic collisions and for not calculating the energy need to crush floors.

I guess I should have known better than to start with her timing model anyway, since I had always had some unease with it. Oh well.

[OnTheOtherHand]

283. that's classy, but also confusing

If you step back and compare your work with Greening's, I think it's apparent that your approach is (1) extraordinarily reductive and (2) basically tautological: if we assume that the towers fall at much less than free fall acceleration, then the collapse times are much longer. Your explanation of how to use an online calculator to solve 12 = 0 + 13.9t + 16t^2 for t doesn't really add any value; you just gussied up your assumption with some math.

It's really quite bizarre to bring "momentum" into the discussion yet never refer to conservation of momentum.

The first commenter said all that had to be said from a scientific standpoint (but then, unfortunately, kept on going):

You used the word "assume" 6 times in your post without any explanation og (sic) WHY you made these assumptions.

The commenter went on to speculate uncharitably about why you were willing to settle for such poorly supported (and poorly explained) assumptions. I don't pretend to know that. I think it has something to do with your belief that your conclusions are self-evident, and therefore you shouldn't have to think very hard in order to demonstrate them.

[spooked911]

285. I confess that I was under undue influence from Wood

who I still thought was a trustworthy source-- and I have to say that she really liked my analysis in that post. But since then I have many many reasons to not trust her, and like I said, I shouldn't have started off with that issue.

Now, there is nothing wrong with making assumptions, per se. You have to make a certain number of assumptions in any analysis. So it's not fair to just say "oh, you made a bunch of assumptions, therefore you're full of shit". That's just a dumb thing to say. The point is to see if there is a questionable assumption, that casts doubt on or negates the overall analysis. So you did that, and that is fine.

What I will say, fwiw, is that I think Wood's ASSUMPTION-- based on pictorial evidence-- is that the upper floors turned to dust and then didn't count towards increasing the momentum. That's the best I can figure. Of course, that doesn't make sense in the context of disproving the official collapse story, so it would seem to be a flawed assumption.

[OnTheOtherHand]

288. assuming what you intend to prove is just a bad idea

If your model assumes a large decrease in velocity at each floor, then there's really not much point in doing the computations. The real question is why your model and its findings are at variance with other people's work, and what the implications are for the actual collapse. In this case, that assumption itself is the crux, so you would scrutinize how it diverges from other models and why you think it is justified. ('Because the tower gets stronger on the way down' is not a very good argument for this particular assumption.)

I'm not really interested in talking about Judy Wood. Even if Judy Wood were reliable -- even if your model was essentially right! -- what you wrote would still be badly defective, and if you hope to contribute to informed discussion, it is important that you fully understand why.

People who use models professionally generally have well-honed strategies for understanding why model results vary and for sorting out the implications. That seems to be a problem for you, as evinced by what is sometimes called the "bunny case experiment." As I recall, your basic defense of that experiment is that scientists have to use models. Well, of course. But what makes your model better than NIST's (the draft reports had been available for months) -- or perhaps not better overall, but at least especially revealing in some respect? If your experiment falsifies some part of NIST's analysis, which part does it falsify, and how?

Looking at even the beginning of that thread is revealing. Your analysis concluded:

What I conclude is that a fairly flimsy steel structure does not distort and bend and collapse very easily from a simple hydrocarbon fire. And thus, it is not clear why the much stronger steel columns in the WTC towers weakened so much from fires that the towers underwent global collapse.

About an hour later, Make7 cited three examples of fires in steel structures that caused the roofs or buildings to collapse. You gave a one-sentence response that none of those examples was like the twin towers. It did not escape Make7's notice that your bunny cage wasn't like the twin towers, either. So, what exactly was the point of your experiment? We already knew that fire in steel structures sometimes leads to collapse and sometimes doesn't. Whether or not your cage collapsed, what could we hope to learn about the towers from that outcome? Again, what part of NIST's or others' analyses would be falsified, and how? You never seem to have taken that question very seriously.

[spooked911]

289. It's actually very easy to poke holes in models.

That would include what I did (obviously very easy in my case) as well as Bazant's work and NISTs models.

In my case, my models were a great learning experience because obviously I am not an engineer.

Your points in general are well taken, and I think the only real explanation I have for my errors were naïveté and the certainty that we were being lied to about 9/11. I still think we were lied to and think there was demolition of the towers though it will be interesting to see if I can ever make a convincing case to you. I am doubtful at this point but at least we are having a reasonable conversation now.

[AZCat]

296. I'm pretty sure the flaws in Wood's billiard ball model were pointed out here...

immediately when someone posted her model. I remember responding myself, and I was only one of several.

Spooked, this is why it is so frustrating arguing with you. The flaws in the billiard ball model were obvious to those of us with some background in mechanics, yet you couldn't see them. You simply don't have the required knowledge for discussing these topics at a professional level.

[Name removed]

279. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cpwm17]

244. Do you have a video that shows the top section of either building out surviving the lower section?

I can guess why that may be true if that indeed is what happened.

Since gravity is pointed downward, I would assume that the debris that breaks off would collide with the lower section much more than the top, causing the lower section to break apart more quickly - that's my guess.

But if the top broke apart more quickly, I'm sure someone could come up with an explanation why that may be true also. The top and lower sections weren't identical, and gravity acted on them both differently. Plus the fire wasn't symmetrical.

Collapsing skyscrapers certainly don't happen every day, so I imagine you can only know what happens until after it actually happens. All buildings are different. 9-11 sure was a bad way to do tests on collapsing skyscrapers.

I looked for a good video, but the dust blocked the view, except for the first couple of seconds.:-)

[spooked911]

247. the 30 story top of WTC2 disappeared pretty quickly

and some videos seem to show the upper section breaking apart in midair. The upper part of a tower is constructed less strongly than the lower part, so that wold be a reason why the lower part could break apart the upper part. But of course, my hypothesis is demolition. I have been trying to give points for demolition to OTOH here but I can't get OTOH to agree on simple, non-controversial points, oddly enough.

[OnTheOtherHand]

248. nonsense

Heck, I think if you ever got around to stating your argument, even you would see a problem with it.

[cpwm17]

231. Newton's Third Law would apply in the collision of the top and bottom sections

When you strike someone in their face, their face strikes your fist just as hard.

In the collapse, you can see that the top section of the building crumbles similar to the bottom section (around 1:35): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGAofwkAOlo

When the collapse gets going, the gravitational potential energy of the entire top section of the building gets transferred to kinetic energy. When the sections collide, some of the kinetic energy of the entire top section gets transferred into the destruction (at point of impact) of both the top and bottom sections. Due to the tremendous force at point of impact, there is no way that a complete collapse can be stopped once it started.

As the building collapsed, it collected more and more debris which caused more and more destruction further down the building. Also much of the gravitational potential energy, which is then transferred into kinetic energy, pulverized and threw out sideways building material, etc.

That's my two cents worth.

[OnTheOtherHand]

232. that seems about right

It's impossible to tell exactly what is happening in the crush zone, but there is no doubt that both the top and the bottom are taking damage. spooked seems to imagine the damage as exactly symmetrical, but that doesn't make much sense, since the top isn't even falling flat (although the tilt in the north tower is smaller).

It's interesting to think about exactly what happens if one stipulates that the initial collision is a full slab-to-slab collision; the problem isn't nearly as tractable as "two floors colliding" makes it sound. Although spooked hasn't been explicit about it, I think he imagines such a collision pulverizing or disintegrating both floors. Then there's a slight delay (corresponding to the distance between floors) until the next floor of the top block can disintegrate itself against the next floor of the bottom block, until the top block is consumed and the collapse stops -- or something like that. But even in the case of a full slab-to-slab collision, I see no reason to assume this model or any similar model that would greatly slow (or arrest) the collapse of the towers. The bottom floor of the upper block doesn't have to disintegrate anything; it only has to overcome the supports that prevented the top floor of the lower block from falling. But whether or not we assume that those two floors substantially disintegrate, eventually we end up with something like Bazant and Verdure modeled: a crush zone of compacted rubble.

Since spooked's position seems to be that it's obvious that the towers could not have collapsed without explosives, I think it's reasonable to stop on the first large error, which is to assert that Newton's third law dictates equal and opposite damage. That assumption seems to be at the heart of his insistence that the towers couldn't have collapsed without CD. But I guess I'm not surprised that he is missing the point, since the collision that he is imagining seems to be one piece of concrete against an identical piece of concrete.

[cpwm17]

236. Yes, that seems to be what he thinks

If I tried to hold up over my head 200 pounds and I could only support 100 pounds, the 200 pounds would fall without delay. The downward force of the fall would only be cut in half (and the downward acceleration would be cut in half), until my resistance gives way. In the real world the dynamics are more complicated than this, but this is a good way to think of it - in my opinion.

It's not like the 200 lbs waits until it uses up the 100 lbs of resistance, and then starts moving again. There's no delay. It only slows down.

You could probably place that 200 lb weight on your foot and it may only hurt a little. But drop that weight from over your head and it will hurt a lot and your foot will break. The force on your foot will be far greater when the weight is dropped than when it is simply placed on your foot. Likewise, there is no way that the lower section of the building could survive with the top section of the building colliding with the lower section of the building. It simply wasn't designed to support such huge forces. And, like you wrote, the collapse wasn't symmetrical, so the forces would even be far greater.

The Towers fell quickly. But they did fall significantly slower than the acceleration due to the force of gravity (g) (g = 9.8 m/s^2 or 32 ft/s^2). You can see the falling debris beating the still collapsing building to the ground.

[OnTheOtherHand]

237. one thing I argued with myself about wading into...

Suppose that the upper block came down on the lower block, detaching the top floor of the lower block, but also the bottom floor of the upper block. So now we basically have three blocks. In a simple model, the middle block (the two floors) should move downward at half the collision speed (conservation of momentum), or somewhat less if we allow for damage to the floors. Meanwhile, the rest of the upper block presumably is moving downward at the collision speed, or close to it, and (like the middle block) subject to gravitational acceleration.

So, analytically segmenting the upper block into floors doesn't really change the quantity of momentum bearing down, it just reallocates it: qualitatively, instead of the collision momentarily slowing the entire upper block "a little," it slows one floor "a lot."

I'm afraid that if I go that far down spooked's rabbit hole, I won't soon emerge.

[cpwm17]

245. I'm not sure of everything you mean

So the top floor of the lower block is combined with the bottom floor of the top block to create a middle block, and you want to know how the collision of the new middle block against the lower block compares to the actual collision of the top block against the lower block?

If I understand correctly, I suppose it would be completely unpredictable, but perhaps the engineers could do some calculations to see if the lower block could or could not withstand a collision with just the middle block. But the dynamics I guess would be much different, and the speed of collapse (if it collapses) would be difficult to predict. That is my guess.

In a simple model, the middle block (the two floors) should move downward at half the collision speed (conservation of momentum), or somewhat less if we allow for damage to the floors. Meanwhile, the rest of the upper block presumably is moving downward at the collision speed, or close to it, and (like the middle block) subject to gravitational acceleration.

Is the middle block moving downward at half the collision speed (1/2 as compared to the actual top and lower block collision speed, I assume) a precondition, or is it an assumption you make of the actual physics of the collisions? I'm also not sure how you are applying the conservation of momentum here.

So, analytically segmenting the upper block into floors doesn't really change the quantity of momentum bearing down, it just reallocates it: qualitatively, instead of the collision momentarily slowing the entire upper block "a little," it slows one floor "a lot."

If you segment the top section, then the total momentum of the segments would equal the total momentum of the non-segmented top section, that is, if they were all moving at the same speed. If the lower block was hit with separated upper blocks, it may react fundamentally different than if the lower block was hit with a non-separated upper block. The lower block may possibly have a chance to recover between collisions, and the lower block may not have a linear reaction to the top block's momentum (or energy). i.e., twice the moment may not cause twice the destruction.

That's my best opinion.

[OnTheOtherHand]

246. ah, well...

The reasoning behind "half the collision speed" is just what Greening used for the case of two identical floors in a non-elastic collision: the mass doubles, so the velocity is halved. (If that's too terse, see p. 3 of his "Energy Transfer" paper.) Of course there are multiple reasons why that isn't right in practice. I'm just trying to reconstruct what spooked might think would happen if the two colliding floors are both dislodged, as I think he put it recently.

Even on these assumptions, since the rest of the floors are (by assumption) still headed down at full speed, I don't think that allowing for some 'segmentation' of the momentum will save the towers, although it appears that spooked does.

[cpwm17]

251. Perhaps for the fun of it, I'll study this later

I guess if I had done my homework and tried to decider your entire discussion (and Greening's paper) from the beginning I may have understood better. If I get motivated, I may try to do better latter.

Greening wrote the following on pg 5:

We note in concluding this Section that the values for tc given above represent the calculated values for the time of collapse of the WTC towers neglecting the energy required to crush or otherwise destroy the support structure of each floor.

I assumed, especially when considering the mass of just a single floor, that it would be completely inaccurate to disregard the energy loss during the collapse (if it would even collapse at all). Though when dealing with the entire large upper block, just using momentum will get you an answer closer to correct.


Greening seems to say that the lower section collapsed first, and then the upper section collapsed. I don't think that's right. Maybe I'll read it later. It could give me a review of my college physics I took 25 years ago.

[spooked911]

250. I see you have the right idea here

don't know why this is so hard to state to me directly.

Jeesh.

[OnTheOtherHand]

253. another, quite perverse example of moving the goalposts

Why was it "so hard" for you to state your assumptions yourself?

One logical possibility is that you don't fully understand what your assumptions are. Another logical possibility is that you are embarrassed to state them. I'm sure there are other logical possibilities. But rather than speculate about why your arguments are poor, I would prefer that you make better arguments.

[spooked911]

254. I did state them

you seem to have a perverse habit of misconstruing everything I write-- I suspect because you just want to fuck with me.

[zappaman]

256. or NOTHING you write makes any sense

which isn't surprising from a guy who thinks we didn't go to the moon and the earth is under an alien quarantine.

[spooked911]

257. that's BS

OnTheOtherHand clearly understood what I was getting at, based on OTOH's responses to "cpwm17" in this thread.

[OnTheOtherHand]

258. not really

Sometimes I manage to guess right. But I can't tell why you think your blog analysis (the one in which you riff on Judy Wood's billiard ball model) respects conservation of momentum.

It does seem to me that sometimes you don't even know what your assumptions are. In that blog analysis, you seem to have decided that momentum and velocity are more or less interchangeable for the first collision, and therefore you can treat them as interchangeable for every collision. If you are making further assumptions under which that makes "sense," I don't know what they are.

[spooked911]

264. uh huh

I find it hard to believe that you had no idea what I was getting at when I talked about damage going up as well as down. I'm not sure why you had to quibble endlessly over that.

But if you are more willing to get down to solid arguments, then your point is absolutely valid about my blog post and momentum versus velocity.

All I can say at this point is that I was trying to modify Wood's simple model and account for momentum; obviously it was a highly simplified analysis that didn't take increasing mass into account.

[OnTheOtherHand]

268. technical discussion

It usually isn't that I literally have "no idea" what you mean -- but my idea is far too vague to support a serious discussion. It's kind of sad that you construe that as quibbling.

But if you are more willing to get down to solid arguments

You have a lot of brass, spooked.

[spooked911]

233. Yes, those are the general concepts, except I think it is debateable about how

complete such a collapse would be.

[Flatulo]

79. FYI, here's a 50 ton press. It's about the size of a doorway.

Just a few beams, and a 4" hydraulic cylinder. I made one in high school shop class. It doesn't weigh 50 tons, it *produces* 100,000 lbs force. It weighs several hundred pounds.

http://www.northerntool.com/shop/tools/product_475_475

Sorry for all the edits. My keyboard is going south. Too many ashes from my stogie.

[spooked911]

425. thanks

though that doesn't change the fact that it was blown away, far away from any plane impact.

[zappaman]

31. Mini-nukes!!! n/t

[Ohio Joe]

50. I've seen this accusation so many times

And every fucking time I ask the same thing... How the fuck can I start getting a check? I've been unemployed for three fucking years and could really use the fucking money, so stop keeping it a fucking secret and tell me how?

[jberryhill]

61. I thought you believed in thermite

The OP does not agree with you that thermite was responsible.

So, which is it - thermite or mini-nukes?

[hang a left]

83. It is not the responders in this forum that are important

but the silent readers. There are gates being kept.

[defendandprotect]

280. +1 ---

[Name removed]

273. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SidDithers]

23. Awesome...

:thumbsup:

Sid

[LARED]

28. Thanks Spooked

This is the best thread in quite a while.

[zappaman]

44. +1

mini-nukes!

[Ohio Joe]

48. Sometimes I do not understand you Spooked

It seems like you will go to great lengths to explain some small thing but then will completely ignore or come up with a bad reason to explain big things.

The witnesses - You simply cannot explain away all of the witnesses to the second strike (on the towers) by claiming they were brain-washed by the TV. I'm sorry but TV is simply not that convincing. It is possible that some people may have been convinced by it but the fact remains that most people would not believe they had seen a plane hit the building, when they had not, just because they saw it on TV.

The videos - If all of the videos have been faked, why does not one single video expert, anywhere in the world, come forward? It is easy to dump stuff on the internet and remain anonymous and once it is out there, there is no going back.

The radiation - Where is the radiation? This is not something that could be lied about or covered up. Do you have any idea what the population is around that area? How many people are right near there on a daily basis? These people would not die of cancer years after the fact, they would have been dropping in the street in droves from radiation sickness. Not tens of people... Not hundreds of people... Not thousands of people... But tens of thousands... Within weeks. Where are these bodies? Where are the families?

EMP - Why were there no reports of widespread damage caused by the EMP that would have been generated? EMP damages electronics and they do not work again. Blackouts? Yes, there were some blackouts and no surprise there. EMP damage. No, there was no EMP damage.

This is just a few of the big things that you are really just ignoring and without them, nukes cannot be a valid theory.

[zappaman]

51. all valid points, but...

MINI-NUKES!!!!

[spooked911]

59. I've addressed all these issues repeatedly over the years

I'm not going to go over it in detail.

The witnesses--
some were brainwashed by the TV
some were simply fooled by a fly-by
some never saw a plane
other witnesses are actors

The videos--
because most people don't care or don't want to get involved
some video experts do claim fakery, but I'm not sure what kind of proof you want
the main problem is lack of high res videos to analyze

Radiation--
you are way over-stating the deaths from radiation
other points addressed here:
http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/2007/06/on-issue-of-nuclear-demolition-of-wtc.html

EMP effects are addressed here--
http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/2008/05/summary-of-evidence-of-emps.html
http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/2008/10/eyewitness-testimony-of-firefighters.html

But really, you probably don't even admit that 9/11 was an inside job or that the towers were blown up by explosives, so what is the point arguing these issues with you?

[zappaman]

64. Mini-nukes!

:rofl:

[Ohio Joe]

68. If you see no point in presenting your arguments, why post at all?

Nuclearrse neither of us will change the others mind, the point is to let readers decide which side has more merit.

Witnesses - Have you ever been to NYC? Ever seen the skyline from the Jersey side? Not one single witness made it through with the truth? I'm sorry but there would have been large numbers of people that saw no planes but what witnesses are there to this? None. Oh, there are a few cherry picked quotes to be thrown out but where are the people that go on the truther tours claiming there were no planes? Any? At all? One?

Videos - "some video experts do claim fakery, but I'm not sure what kind of proof you want" - I want names. I do not mean anonymous youtube videos, I do not mean good old Ace (who is NOT a video expert). I want real video experts who claim the videos are faked.

Radiation - I overstate the deaths... By how many? The article you link to can be summed as - The govt has non-radioactive nukes or The govt took away the evidence by removing the steel - Non-radioactive nukes is a fantasy for which he produces no evidence and lies out right by stating"

" “Nuclear device characteristics and the factors affecting radionuclide production and distribution are described along with some recent nuclear experiments conducted by the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission for the purpose of providing technical data on cratering mechanisms and special emplacement techniques which could minimize the release of radioactivity to the atmosphere.” This shows, even back in 1969, that the govt experimented with using nukes to construct canals. It shows that they worked on having nukes with blast effect, and little or no radioactive elements created."

This is total bullshit, it tries to equate minimal release oradioactiveve material into the atmosphere with noradioactiveve nukes... A fantasy.

It does not even touch on the topic of zero radiation deaths. Why did not a single first responder die of radiation poisoning? Being at the scene for as long as they were (long before any steel was removed... Not that that would hide the radiation) not one of them died of radiation. Does that not strike you as odd? Do you really not need some evidence of radiation to resolve this?

EMP - OK, I read both articles and have to ask...Since both articles rely 100% on cherry pickequoteses, why have the no plane people not gone back and followed up with these people? Why are you satisfied with and off the cuff remark made right after a hugtragedydy? Why do you not require a single piece of hard evidence... A phone... A computer... A car... Any electronic that could be shown to have suffered damage due to EMP... Even if one were to assume the EMP magically only had a few block effect, there would be hundreds of thousands of items to choose from... Yet you are satisfied without a single one? Really?

[zappaman]

69. Mini-nukes!

:rofl:

[spooked911]

70. Just suppose --for the sake of argument-- that the 9/11 operation involved

no planes and nuclear demolition, and it was done by a covert group affiliated with and protected by the government.

Would you agree in principle that there would be a great deal of effort put into censoring the truth of what was done?

[Ohio Joe]

71. OK, lets say it was...

Keep in mind, I know this area very well, I grew up and lived most of my life just on the other side of the river from The city. I spent a lot of time there but let me put on my project manager hat and pretend someone just came up to me and asked what would be required to pull this off.

The first part of the plan would require handling of the people. "A great deal" does not even begin to cover what would be required to censor what was done, it would require a monumental effort to even try to censor it. The number of people that go in and out of that area every day is huge. In 2002 it was estimated at about 300k per day just for the George Washington Bridge:

http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch6en/conc6en/georgewashingtonbridge.html

And you know what... On the morning of 9/11/2001 every eye will be watching the towers. Everyone that has a camera will turn it towards them after the first hit (timing is meaningless, you must plan for them to have time to get them and they did) The towers could be seen clearly for many miles around, all angles... And not just in The City:

http://www.google.com/search?um=1&hl=en&biw=1280&bih=530&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=NYC+skyline&oq=NYC+skyline&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=730l3574l0l4088l11l10l0l4l4l1l384l1437l0.2.3.1l6l0

This would have to be an operation to censor people that not only live in The City but other boroughs and the NJ side of the river. People who travel in every day from NJ, CT, MA and PA (and probably other states). Also, the internet cannot be ignored.

To even begin to contemplate pulling off such an operation, one would have to recognize that they are considering the largest and most complex plan ever concieved... Dwarfing anything else by many orders of magnitude... And that would only be the parts that include handling the people.

So... We have millions of people. We have an unknown number with cameras at unknown locations. We have entrance and exit routes that cover land, sea and air that are used on a daily basis for mass transit. We have to ensure that none of them walk away with any evidence that no planes hit the towers, none of them remember that no planes hit the towers and that no video escapes showing that no planes hit the towers.

First blast - Not much of a problem. Everyone in The City knows not to walk around looking up as it marks you for a tourist ripe for the plucking.

Second blast - Wait... You want to do it how much longer after the first? No. We do it within minutes so that no one has time to get a video camera and most people are unaware the first has even happened. Word may travel but most will not have time to turn their attention to the towers. The few that do will be far easier to convince they simply missed seeing the plane then if we wait about 20 minutes, no more then 2-3 minutes between blasts.

OK... We want to plan for a much longer time between blasts (intentionally or not does not matter, the plan had to be in place as it had to be far too wide reaching to be improvised).

ummm... ok, you want to make this even harder.

First option. I could do it so that nothing got out but then everyone would be fully aware that evidence was confiscated. Block all entrances and exits with full searches of every person and vehicle. Door to door searches of every room in every building that had a view. Seal off at least 30 miles of the Jersey side of the river and do the same... and do not forget the other boroughs. This will have to be a concerted effort that hits all areas at the same time to insure nothing slips through. I would give a conservative estimate 10k people required to complete and a zero chance to keep it secret for more then 5 minutes.

A second option would be to go after people as they became aware of the operation but before they could get word out. Agents would have to be stationed to cover small areas to insure awareness before anything gets out. Overall area to be covered would have to include at the least, all of the tri-state area, NY, NJ and CT... A huge area to blanket... I'll have to get back to you on how many agents required but off the top of my head, at least 50k with clean up teams no further then five minutes from any agent. Teams in the immediate area of the events would have to be in place and ready to re-act within the first few hours after the second blast. Secondary teams will have to catch people as they go home. Teams will have to be held in place for an indeterminate time to catch those that see that the media is not reporting reality and hide their evidence while keeping quiet. A third set of teams will be required world wide to re-act in case anything manages to get out. I would estimate a 70% chance of keeping this quiet for more then 6 months with the odds going down drastically for every year that follows. Odds of full containment of evidence are at best 50-50. Agents can be reduced, area covered reduced in order to increase odds of keeping it quiet but that increase the odd word gets out.

That is about the best I can realistically come up with to keep word/evidence of no planes from getting out. To manage it with zero evidence as well as zero knowledge of the effort cannot be done.

[spooked911]

72. you are making it way too complicated

on purpose, I am sure, to make it seem oh so ridiculous.

And your scenario is ridiculous, like the number of people you think would have died from radiation poisoning. How many people do you think have died from the Fukushima meltdowns so far?

Of course, there were a lot of people who were in on the cover up, but most of them were just following orders in time of crisis, and didn't really have much idea of the conspiracy.

In terms of keeping the no plane secret, it wasn't so hard, when the media was blasting planes hit the towers non-stop for hours and hours after the attacks.

If someone didn't see the "2nd plane", they would just think they missed it.

There weren't so many angles to get a great view of the 2nd hit with the incoming "plane".

If there was no plane, people would focus their cameras on it.

A few stray people may have caught the tower being hit without a plane on camera, and either:
1) never realized what they had
2) realized what they had and were scared to death of putting it out
3) put their video out in some way, and were threatened/paid off

It was an operation, but the PTB have had years of psy-op practice, and how to control people.

It's not nearly as impossible as you make it seem, particularly with the media blasting the official story non-stop, and EVERYONE watched the news those days.

[Ohio Joe]

74. You are ignoring things

"And your scenario is ridiculous, like the number of people you think would have died from radiation poisoning. How many people do you think have died from the Fukushima meltdowns so far?"

This is a bad analogy. A good number of people died at Fukushima and they knew the risks. How many were (and have been for years) at ground zero, in theory, without knowing about the radiation? And not a single radiation death? Come on.

"There weren't so many angles to get a great view of the 2nd hit with the incoming "plane"."

What? Sorry but that is a complete denial of reality. They were the dominating view in The City. Take another look at the views from the Jersey side of the river, you can see all around for miles and miles. Where do you think people went to look at the towers while the first one was burning? Up high to have a good view, thats where.

"A few stray people may have caught the tower being hit without a plane on camera, and either:
1) never realized what they had
2) realized what they had and were scared to death of putting it out
3) put their video out in some way, and were threatened/paid off"

A few? Really? What do you think people were looking at? A person has a video of the tower exploding with no plane and does not realize what they have? Really? A New Yorker scared to put it out ten years later and can't figure out how to do it at a cafe or library? Really? They waited until it was put out and managed to stop it before it was seen by anyone and then threaten or paid the person off... All of them? Really? Not a single shred of evidence gets out... Not a single witness comes forward... Every last piece of evidence "cleaned up", not a single one escaping and not a single person noticing... In a city of millions... With millions more in and out every day... Really?

As much as you may think I make it overly complicated, I think you are making it overly simplistic to think an entire city like NY could be covered by TV, fear and pay-offs without at least some evidence getting out. You give TV far too much credit and ignore the rest of the communications used, this did not happen in the 1950's when the world was a much larger place. Phones, the internet, these things were already very common place and used. No, you make it far, far to simplistic to explain no evidence and not a single person talking to this day.

[spooked911]

123. Really.

You have to remember how much of a shock people were in that day and how scared, and I honestly think anyone who saw something unusual was too traumatized to speak out or even realize what they saw.

Also, please see #120.

[terrafirma]

139. What about the folks

That literally saw the 2nd plane hit the tower first hand.

Not on tv.

Watching it live.

How do you explain them away?

[spooked911]

175. I already did

see other posts here

[terrafirma]

177. Paid actors?

I'm sure my former boss would love to hear that she's an actress. A handful of my former coworkers as well.

God... The lengths you must have to go in your mind to justify your beliefs is truly astounding. As is your perception of your fellow human beings.

[spooked911]

181. so you know some people who saw what exactly?

If they saw the plane go into the tower, is there any chance I could talk or exchange emails with them?

Thanks.

[terrafirma]

182. Not really in the habit

of giving out contact information of people I used to work with to people who want to question them on what they saw on that day, just so you can label them either misinformed, a shill, stupid, paid-off, or all of the above.

'Cause let's face it, Spooked. We all know it doesn't matter to you what they saw. It won't change your mind.

[spooked911]

184. SO typical

every time I ask a witness or ask for a witness, they back away.

and how do you know what I would label them? Maybe I would be convinced by them.


At least, can you get a proper statement from them on what they saw?

[terrafirma]

186. For starters...

I no longer work there.

Secondly, you seem to feel that giving out contact information for people without their consent is just something people do. Maybe you do, but I have more respect for the privacy of others.

Thirdly, I don't know what constitutes a "proper" statement in your head, but she and I briefly spoke about the events of that day (it is not something she enjoys reliving) and she said she saw the second plane fly into the south tower. Others working at 120 broadway saw the same thing. And I'm sure many others witnessed the event from their offices downtown as well.

Lastly, I've seen enough from you over the years to know beyond the shadow of a doubt that one eye witness would not change your mind. Pretending as though it's a possibility just to try to get a chance to badger and question someone you don't even know is disingenuous at best.

[spooked911]

189. I wasn't expecting you to blindly give me their email addresses and names,

but I was hoping you could maybe arrange some sort of communication with them.

When she said she saw the plane flying into the south tower, I would like to know where she was and what exactly she saw. Because a lot of such witnesses turn out to not have directly seen the plane impact the building.

Maybe I can just ask you this-- where was the office building? I could get a better idea of the vantage point, at least.

[zappaman]

190. how the hell would knowing the vantage point

of someone help your "investigstion"?

[terrafirma]

191. What other kind of communication is there?

Phone? Pen pals? Smoke signals?

And if you paid attention, I've already given out the address.

[spooked911]

194. I missed that address, could you post in response to this, please?

and you seem to have missed my point-- I'm just saying I didn't expect you to give me their addresses and that I would contact them cold. I assumed you would check with them first, or you could give them my contact info.

[terrafirma]

195. Oh what an email that would be...

"Hey Former Boss. I know I haven't spoken to you in years, but was wondering if it would be cool to give your name and email address to some guy on the Internet whom I've never met so that he can question what exactly it was you saw on the morning of Tuesday, September 11th 2001, as I'm sure it's a subject you enjoy reliving and talking about with anyone. (sarcasm). Fair warning, he doesn't believe any planes hit the towers that day, so he will more than likely nitpick every last detail, down to how up to date your eyeglass prescription was. Let me know!"

....

And the address is 120 Broadway, as previously stated just a few short posts ago.

[spooked911]

197. who knows, maybe they would have a good sense of humor about it--

or not. But you never know what might change my mind.

Anyway, 120 Broadway would offer a good view of the south tower impact face. What floor were these offices at?

[terrafirma]

204. Yeah.

Cause if there's an event that people generally "have a good sense of humor about", it's 9/11.

And I wanna say the office floors at the time were mid to upper 20s.

And I may not know what WOULD change your mind, but I know what would NOT. Based on your ability to label complete strangers as paid shills or actors, I don't see my former boss, regardless of how convincing her account was, as doing the trick.

And you know that just as well as I do, so please stop pretending otherwise.

[OnTheOtherHand]

207. the Charlie Veitch scenario

Charlie Veitch says that after actually talking with eyewitnesses and experts in various places, he concluded that there was no evidence for controlled demolition.

That might have been OK, if he had had the good grace not to say so. But since he did, he's presumptively a cognitive infiltrator.

I guess that shows that it really is possible for some people to change their minds. For others, dissent from a previously trusted person isn't enough even to merit a second thought.

Certainly, I would not gamble a friendship, or worse, on spooked's capacity to objectively weigh eyewitness testimony.

[zappaman]

205. "maybe they would have a good sense of humor about it"

yes, nothing funnier than discussing the deaths of 3000+ people with a seemingly mentally ill guy who believes mini-nukes took down the towers, the earth is under quarantine by an alien race, and we never went to the moon, which incidentally is actually a giant spaceship.
Get real, dude.

[zappaman]

187. "Maybe I would be convinced by them."

Fat chance.
You are way too good at denying reality.

[OnTheOtherHand]

179. people all over NYC were speaking out quite volubly about what they saw

FFS, you're talking about New York City. The place apparently in your head bears no resemblance to the place where millions of people actually live, and make a lot of noise doing it.

[OnTheOtherHand]

77. spooked, had you ever visited NYC while the Towers were there?

There weren't so many angles to get a great view of the 2nd hit with the incoming "plane".

I suppose that's true for appropriate values of "so many" and "great," but for purposes of determining whether a plane hit, it's ridiculous. Ohio Joe is stating a formidable objection to your hypothesis. Even if "it's not nearly as impossible as (he makes) it seem," that's a long way from saying that it's a plausible inference from the evidence.

[spooked911]

120. Yes, I had visited NYC when the towers were there, and I went to the top of WTC2 in the mid-80s

I am familiar with the views of the towers and so forth.

Again, I disagreed with his whole scenario and I offered alternatives. An important point is that I am NOT starting from the premise of just "oh, I just don't think the plane hit the tower" and people were fooled, but a whole series of lines of inference, starting with highly implausible jet piloting and moving to impossible crash physics and seemingly fake videos going to other problems with the official story including several people who never saw the plane though they should have, the fact that no black boxes were ever recovered from ground zero. Basically, this evidence must be explained, despite the witness problem. I can only suggest that the perps of 9/11 took the witness issue into account and set up ways to address it.

I don't take this position lightly, or as a joke, but as a thoroughly thought-out position that I think best fits all the evidence. That being said, my mind is not completely made up and I am willing to consider new evidence.

[zappaman]

131. garbage

"starting with highly implausible jet piloting and moving to impossible crash physics"
what implausible jet piloting?

"and seemingly fake videos"
what videos are faked, how were they faked and who faked them?

"several people who never saw the plane though they should have"
so the fact that some people didn't see a plane impact means a plane didn't impact?
interesting that you state "I am NOT starting from the premise of just "oh, I just don't think the plane hit the tower" and people were fooled" yet believe that since a handful of people did not see the impact, then the hundreds who did must be wrong.


"the fact that no black boxes were ever recovered from ground zero"
there are at least half a dozen examples of black boxes being destroyed, so the fact they weren't recovered hardly strengthens your case.

lastly...MINI-NUKES!
:rofl:

[terrafirma]

180. Question about the black boxes and your general stream of thought...

Even if they HAD been found, wouldn't you just say they too were planted in the rubble by actors/spies/shills?

Seems an odd point to bring up when we all know you wouldn't believe the data contained within them to begin with. Actually... it seems like a glaring oversight on those who planned the attack in your world. Why go to all the trouble of fake planes, green screens, paid actors, mini-nukes, thermite/ate/ute/ote, and the host of other requirements needed to pull this off... and not bother to carry in a couple flight data recorders that they could then "find" to further corroborate their "story"?

[spooked911]

193. my reasoning is that the videos and "witnesses" "proved" planes at the WTC

so they didn't need to plant black boxes, like they did at the Pentagon and Shanksville sites.

[defendandprotect]

281. Spooked -- Are there any INSURANCE records on the airlines being reimbursed for the planes lost ???

Or allegedly lost?

After all, one sensational aspect of 9/11 was Silverstein's INSURANCE claim

picking up $7 BILLION on a $13 million investment -- ???


Did the airlines just accept the loss of the planes -- and do we have any

idea what insurance companies would have been involved covering the planes?

[deconstruct911]

301. AIG

didn't pay a penny for the WTC's but around 800 million for aviation. (compared to its competition 800M was very little for how big AIG was) I'm not sure if that 800 M had anything to do with the Boeing jets though.

[defendandprotect]

402. Back kind late on this -- but THANK YOU for the info ... was interested in

what kind of proof the insurance companies would want that there were four planes

hijacked and actually destroyed?

What would $800 million for "aviation" be if not for the planes?


:hi:

[deconstruct911]

404. Yea probably the planes but maybe the industry also....

Since 4 planes shouldn't cost 800m?

Here is something else I just remembered.

"- European regulators are examining trades in Germany's Munich Re, Switzerland's Swiss Re, and AXA of France, all major reinsurers with exposure to the Black Tuesday disaster. FTW Note: AXA also owns more than 25% of American Airlines stock making the attacks a "double whammy" for them."

That was from Mike Ruppert's report on 9 11 insider trading. Quite easy to find the link if you google it.

Also some more info:

Insurance Prices Soaring, A.I.G. Chief Says

By JOSEPH B. TREASTER

Published: October 10, 2001


Maurice R. Greenberg, the chief executive of the American International Group, said yesterday that insurance prices were rising ''by leaps and bounds'' in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Mr. Greenberg, whose company is one of the world's largest insurers, said that prices for some kinds of commercial insurance were doubling, up from expected increases of 20 percent to 60 percent as the industry emerged from a long period of cutthroat pricing. Other experts say the cost of coverage for airlines has increased even more, as much as fivefold.

In a conference call with investors and journalists, Mr. Greenberg increased his estimate of losses for A.I.G. in the attacks to $800 million, up from $500 million. He said that third-quarter earnings would also be hurt by a $1.36 billion charge in connection with A.I.G.'s acquisition of American General, the big Texas life insurer.

Even so, he said, A.I.G. would turn a profit of several hundred million dollars for the quarter. Then, he said, the company's earnings would pick up to their historic pattern of more than 20 percent annual growth.

A.I.G. is now expected to earn 16 cents a share, down from an expected 75 cents as a result of the attacks and a one-time charge for the merger, according to Alice Schroeder, an analyst at Morgan Stanley.

Mr. Greenberg, who led industry efforts to provide coverage for airlines when others refused to do so and who has been lobbying Washington for government support in coping with any future terrorist attacks, painted a bright picture for his company.

''The opportunities for us are enormous,'' he said.

A.I.G. is a leader in commercial coverage and auto and life insurance. ''There is a greater awareness of a need for coverage in the whole country, for life insurance, accident insurance or whatever else,'' Mr. Greenberg said. ''It's a global opportunity. It's not just in the United States, but rates are rising throughout the world. So our business looks quite good going forward.''
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/10/business/insurance-prices-soaring-aig-chief-says.html?ref=mauricergreenberg

[deconstruct911]

405. Actually it would be the planes...

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/prices/

If the planes were 767's and the original estimate was 500m it would coincide with the planes.

[defendandprotect]

407. How do you mean that ?

Do you mean like a "pay off" to the industry?

In '06, a Boeing 747 was somewhere over $200 million ---

So it sounds like that $800 million would be in line --

considering age of planes -- wear and tear -- on the lot value? :evilgrin:



Here is something else I just remembered.

"- European regulators are examining trades in Germany's Munich Re, Switzerland's Swiss Re, and AXA of France, all major reinsurers with exposure to the Black Tuesday disaster. FTW Note: AXA also owns more than 25% of American Airlines stock making the attacks a "double whammy" for them."

Like Mike Ruppert -- glad to hear he's still around.



"The opportunities for us are enormous" -- ???

What about Global Warming -- ?

Isn't that why they've been stealing pensions?

[deconstruct911]

408. Yea I see what you mean

I reposted in #405

It was the gov that bailed out the industry.

[defendandprotect]

409. Right --- convenient -- if a terrorist attack the public pays so no questions really

about proving any planes were lost -- !!!

Ta dah!!

[deconstruct911]

410. GW is also interesting for them

TRIA was passed after 9/11 to bail out insurance companies EVEN though they admit they MADE BIG MONEY!!! It's so fucking rediculous.

I read that since 9/11 (because at the time it was the biggest "loss") big natural disasters (like Katrina which was more than 9/11) they do the same thing. They receive 40% bailout for the claims from the gov + increased premiums.

*******

"According to the Consumer Federation of American, insurers reported a 66.4 percent increase in profits in the first six months of 2002 thus suggesting the consequences of 9/11 were not as dire for them as they were for thousands of others.

The companies are not so crass as to suggest that they need the protection because a 66.4 percent increase in profits (after paying out more than $40 billion in claims) was inadequate. Instead they explain that unless the government lets taxpayers become coinsurers against terrorism losses, the companies will be unwilling to write insurance against terrorist attacks and the taxpayers will be the losers. That is a dismal prospect for the taxpayer and the government and the Congress."

http://www.counterpunch.org/brauchli05202005.html




**********

"Following a catastrophe, “who you gonna call?”, the government of course; see Moss (2002).
The reality is that private markets regularly fail in the face of a catastrophe, and government or
associated non-profit entities are often the only available responders. This clearly applies to the
emergency aid needed in the very short run, although the government response is not always
effective, as was evident in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. In the medium run,
government aid to reconstruct structures and infrastructure is often very limited, even if the
conventional wisdom is to the contrary; see Kunreuther (1996) and Comerio (2006). However,
reconstruction aid following the 9/11 terrorist attack and Katrina hurricane has been more
substantial. Rand (2004) indicates that the government paid approximately 42 percent ($16
billion) of the $38 billion in total compensation for the 9/11 attack (insurance payments were
most of the remainder). Garcia-Swartz and Layne-Farrar (2006) reference a range of estimates
for Hurricane Katrina, with the average again indicating government funding of about 42 percent
($42 billion) of the approximate total compensation ($100 billion)"

http://www.theirrationaleconomists.com/abstracts/Jaffee...

[defendandprotect]

413. Wow -- Had no idea --- and I bet you very few taxpayers know -- !!!

Rand (2004) indicates that the government paid approximately 42 percent ($16
billion) of the $38 billion in total compensation for the 9/11 attack (insurance payments were
most of the remainder). Garcia-Swartz and Layne-Farrar (2006) reference a range of estimates
for Hurricane Katrina, with the average again indicating government funding of about 42 percent
($42 billion) of the approximate total compensation ($100 billion)"

Everything in a neat little pile of "PAID" and no real questions needing to be asked re 9/11!!

Thank you -- I'll save your links in my 9/11 file --

:hi:

[deconstruct911]

406. Yas exactly

And AIG's own ceo made it clear 9/11 resulted in big profits. Seems like AIG is the perfect fit for the insurance fraud since they have their own scams that depend on the OCT. They pay for the fake planes and prop up the OCT and make more money.

And the WKJO threads are definitely some of the best.

[defendandprotect]

411. What's "WKJO"?

[deconstruct911]

412. just short for who killed john o neil. nt

[defendandprotect]

414. So -- after 10 years ....

and presume you've been looking into this since 9/11 .... ????

What so you think is the softest part of the cover up of 9/11 --

and what might be the most interesting areas of info you've uncovered or

come across?

[deconstruct911]

419. Not really for a long time...

But I was to young at the time to care much. I didn't focus on it for quite awhile and then they did the "fifth estate" things on CBC (because I live in Canada) and they did a good job making the OCT seem legit. One thing they did was still make it look somewhat LIHOP (like the saudi connection) so I started to get interested. I remember I got more in depth when I wanted to learn about the put options but couldn't find anything valuable for a long time until maybe 2 years ago when I found original reports etc. That led me to DrDebug's research, so I was lucky to avoid a lot of BS and get right into the good research. Seems like most people still don't know about today....

I agree with the maker of WKJO, it's easy to argue about controlled demolition(but like all researches I still research it)but money laundering and the drug trade/vietnam/Iran-Contra/Afghanistan is a whole nother story that debunkers try and say is a hoax and cia-money laundering is a big hoax (BCCI) so that aspect and the insider trading is really easy to see past which I think leads to important connections.

[deconstruct911]

302. Here:

Dr.Debug writes:

"WTC building insurance and ownership

What were the 3 companies who insured the WTC?

AIG, Marsh and ACE. All run by Greenbergs at the time.

They then sold stakes of the original contract to their competition, a process called reinsuring. Once the towers came down, the reinsurers got caught holding the bag."



*****

In this case the timing is odd
Edited on Sat Jul-01-06 01:03 PM by DrDebug
The lease went to Larry on 24 July 2001 (1) and before that AIG was the main insurer and they moved the policy to their main competitors. So ultimately the Greenberg cartel paid $365 million and their competitors in excess of $4.5 billion. (2)

So not only did all the building change hands to Larry, but also AIG made their competitors responsible for the damage and put in the WilProp clause on their contracts, because Larry did a little bit of insurance fraud as well and collected almost double from the rest.

Not to mention that Larry got the contract due to the Blackstone group which once again links in AIG.

Sources:
1. http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO403B.html
2. http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=203&aid=5...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x97281#97307

*******

"AIG made their competitors responsible for the damage"
Interesting topic.

"Lloyd's shared some of A.I.G.'s risk at the World Trade Center by selling it insurance known as reinsurance. Now Lloyd's must reimburse A.I.G. and other American insurers for some of their losses in the attacks."
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/23/business/23LLOY.html?...

Does anyone know if Lloyd's coverage for AIG was specifically property or aviation or both?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x97281#304443

[defendandprotect]

403. Thanks again for the info --

Apologies for getting back so late --

that's a monster thread re O'Neill --

Fantastic info on that thread I'll try to keep in mind!


What I was trying to get to was what kind of challenge may have been made

by insurance companies vs paying off on four jet liners that may not have existed?

But as I reflect on it, I'm thinking that if the questions became too large that

those involved probably would have moved the insurance companies to pay off on them --

and then reimbursed them -- to keep the cover up going.

Doubt there would have been any real investigation --


The alleged hijacking of four commercial jet liners seems ridiculous --

and AA reports that Flight #11 didn't even exist!

[zappaman]

75. wow

That's a great explanation.
+1
:applause:

[hang a left]

87. I don't care where you lived

those towers were blown up. Do we believe you or our lyin' eyes

[zappaman]

94. LOL!

talk about denial.

[hang a left]

97. You find the subject amusing? There were people in those buildings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8

This building is being blown up. It is not rocket science. Just take a look for yourself and forgive Zappaman, he knows not what he does.

[Ohio Joe]

104. Thats nice

Do you believe it was mini-nukes that took down the towers?

[hang a left]

107. No, Military-grade explosives

For those of you that are interested in the truth the following video lays out in great detail the scientific case. It will convince you beyond any reasonable doubt that World Trade Center Towers 1, 2, and 7 were brought down by explosives. Don't let anonymous internet posters who are apologists for the OC divert you from the truth. Trust your eyes. It is all there for you to see.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQgVCj7q49o

And shame on you Ohio Joe for being a tool for those that would have the truth hidden.

[Ohio Joe]

111. Shame on me for being a tool?

Did you attend their forum for #200 a seat or just buy the book on the internet from them? I missed the end, do you know if they convinced the truther judges to remain truthers or did they give up and return to sanity?

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ohio Joe]

118. I am both a tool and a traitor?

Have you read the rules?

[Flatulo]

89. ::Head hits desk::

[jberryhill]

52. God Bless Spooked911 And All Who Sail In Her!

[uppityperson]

55. Ow, my back hurts when I laugh.

[Flatulo]

141. Mea Culpa - just realized a major error...

I've been claiming that NIST did not find any traces of exploves in the WTC dust or rubble.

The reason they didn't find any was that they didn't look. Sorry if I beat anyone over the head with this argument. I've been away from the dungeon for a few years and my memory is clearly failing with age. I used to know this factoid, but I just forgot it.

My other points still stand. The rubble was hand sorted at the Fresh Kills landfill, and human remains that would fit into a thimbal were found, but nothing that indicated explosives were used. Don't want to wade into the whole thermate debate becauss I'm clueless about the chemistry.

[defendandprotect]

282. # 10 -- Since 11-22/63 -- we've had many events piled up --

9/11 almost required audience participation ---

#9 -- Not sure about the death toll -- but presume the loss of firefighters are faithfully

numbered and correct --

#8 -- A few in the corporate-press began to talk about the "demolition" -- Rather, for one.

Trust that gave an opening clue to some in the audience.

However, sad to say, but it would have taken many calling it an "inside job" to wake up

the audience which still believe that if anything were truly wrong, the anchors would let

them know!

#7 -- all of the sites -- videos -- were unbelievable --

#6 -- Think most Americans know that the wars are lies -- there is however a small few who

will always react with punishment and vengenance on their minds -- and little thought given

to anything.

#5 -- Imagine you have quite some stories to tell about those encounters some day --

#4 -- Think the concensus now is that NUCLEAR was employed in some manner --

Susan Lindauer says that CIA expected a Thermonuclear device -- and RADIATION FEARS --

certainly Thermite and other stuff mixed in which she says could not have been accomplished

by anyone but military.


#3 -- is very important ---

9/11 and the aftermath have made it clear that the news media is a criminal enterprise.

Especially here at DU we will regularly see posters talk of how corrupt our corporate-press is

and the daily lies -- and disinformation. HOWEVER, evidently when it comes to 9/11 our

corporate-press is suddently believable -- !! WHY? Because there were videos!!

The public saw the events with their own eyes!! And little do they think that they can be

fooled by gimmicked video!! And would find it very difficult to believe that corporate-press

could have pulled that off. It's going to take a lot more to convince them!

#2 -- Actually, I think they do but it frightens them -- Like Global Warming -- "What can we

do about it?" If nothing -- then just forget it!! Somehow many just don't seem to get that

behind an event like this is a new ton of fascism coming our way -- !!

#1 -- Love the Anonymous Physicist -- and hope we get to discuss some of his stuff!!

[zappaman]

284. same old tired bullshit

from the MOST uniformed poster on DU.
maybe because she has 90% of DU on "ignore"?

[LARED]

401. It not often one gets to be the 401th post.. Thanks Spooked nt

[zappaman]

417. "the only way 9/11 would have been more obvious inside job is if the official death toll were 3,333"

just saw this.
:rofl:

[Larry L. Burks]

429. hi Zap

A lot has happened in the past month. Judy has been every where. And has been talking to a lot of people.

Every body is talking about Judy’s work. Why are they talking about Judy’s work?

If you will go to Judy’s home page. Click here.

http://www.drjudywood.com/


You will see that some thing as changed there.

The key words are “Molecular Dissociation:”. That is a specific scientific term.

Dr. Judy Wood is telling us in her interviews on world wide radio that the building on 9/11 did not simply fall down due to gravity. Nor did they blow up. As others are claiming.

They turned into dust. The testing in the lab of the dust and the photographic picture support this finding. Ther dust in the lab is composed of the same elements that the building were made of.

The dust is the building.

That is where the building went to.

You can here Judy in her own words, Click here please.

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=40&Itemid=67

Think of this. If the building turned in to dust? What would a building look like. In real life if it just suddenly turned into dust and fail down?

Another word for dust is power. A very dry snow forms very small snow flakes called ”Power”.

Avalanche are composed of power snow.

If you do a cross comparison of avalanches pitted against the pictures of the Twin Towers as they are falling down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trdmeUIjNfU&feature=related

Look at the ones that form large clouds.

Need I say more.

Dr. Woods as nailed this one. You can pick up that dirt and hold it in you hands. It went all over NY City. It is every where. To big to cover up the crime scene. The evidence found in the dust is to powerful To lie their way out of this one. There is a ton of evidence to be found in every cotton swab of that dust. It’s every where. Gather you evidence while you may. Hint Hint.

After you state “Molecular Dissociation:”. The next thing you should be asking your self is. Where do we find in nature where the condition for molecular dissociation to take place.

(1) very high temperatures. Which is very hot.

(2) curved space. Where molecular dissociation can take place at room temperature. Like the temperature was on 9/11. The so called cold process of molecular dissociation.

Which brings us to this question. Where in nature do were find the condition right for space to be curved to the point that molecular dissociation can take place. Black holes and worm holes.

Worm holes is the right answer. On 9/11.

Who has them? We do. The US Government does.

Our National Missile Defense System is based on the technology of worm holes and curved space. Molecular dissociation is what is taking place where ever they knock a missile out of the air with the system. It turns to dust.

I got pictures.


http://www.ufoworkshop.0catch.com/black%20lines.html


Did the Twin Towers turn to dust 0n 9/11? Sure. We got pictures. Need I say more.

Now you know the truth.

I put up my last post on my web page about five weeks ago. I have talked about how testing this DEW out west is doing damage to the ozone layer.

The ultraviolet light coming from the sun is stronger than it has ever been. It is cooking every thing in Texas.

From the time I made my last post. Half of Texas has burnt to the ground. And in the other half of Texas. It’s been so long since it last rained in west Texas that they tell me that the Mississippi River. She is a running dry now. You can walk from bank to bank on dry ground. With out getting your feet wet.

People in Texas have been reading my last post. Now there walking around with their hands in the air. Wanting to know who is going to pay for their burn down barn and house.

You know what? The Black lines in the sky have all gone a way.

Funny how things work.

Judy is now talking about the free energy end of thing. Judy is in demand. She is going places fast.

Check out the upcoming events.

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php

See what I mean. There is no turning back now.

This Technology is coming out of the wood work all over the place. And it’s happening faster and faster.

Larry L. Burks