A Short Computation!

[wildbilln864]

snip/
It was observed that the building collapsed in just 6.5 seconds.1 Could this possibly happen as a
result of pancaking floors collapsing from the top down? We show here that if the collisions are
inelastic, such a scenario is impossible."

/end snipon edit: oops! forgot this Link!

[hack89]

1. Except the collapse took 8.2 seconds

and was a three phase, non-symmetrical event.

Look at slide 24:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/June2004WTC7StructuralFire&CollapseAnalysisPrint.pdf

[wildbilln864]

2. depends on...

who's stopwatch you're using I guess. I'll pass on using the PNAC's stopwatch, thanks!
:shrug:

[hack89]

3. How do you explain ..

the three phased, non-symmetrical collapse. Can't tell me that looks "just like controlled demolition" can you?

[wildbilln864]

4. Can't seem...

to tell you anything! :shrug:
Why try? It's not meant for you. It's meant for those with more open minds. Sorry!

[hack89]

5. At least you are somewhat honest

about your inability to articulate complex concepts. Why try? Simple - as far as I can see your contribution to this forum consists of kicks, cheer leading and posting other peoples thoughts. I have never seen you try to articulate a coherent argument on any subject - not even for you fellow CTrs. Tell me again I should respect your opinion when you seem completely unable to explain it or defend it?

[Strange1]

6. WOW, new science emerges

Hack
Have you really read this document that you link to? Do you know much about scientific hypothesis and theories? Do you realize that what this document does is contradictory to scientific research? The government starts with an observation, the building collapse, and ends with a contrived "working collapse hypothesis", as they state. There is absolutely no evidence to fit their hypothesis, no data from the collapse, just computer models that could explain the collapse. Hmm...let's run a lot of computer simulations that make the building collapse but wait...what did the damage result from. WOW, this is a new type of science. A type that makes the hypothesis fit the theory. As far as I know, this is not science but conjecture.
I could make anything fall down with my imagination.

[wildbilln864]

7. Well hello...

and welcome to the dungeon. :hi:

[hack89]

9. Except it has been accepted by the

engineering and scientific community. Take the ARUP group for instance - they have no problem accepting that a plan crash and fires would bring down the towers. The biggest hurdle that that CT world has not overcome is that they have been unable to prove that it was theoretically impossible for the towers to fall without CD. And that is the issue - the details of the NIST report aside, there is near unanimous agreement that the towers did not need CD to collapse.

What hurts the CT world is the incredibly complex theories they weave to account for the "evidence" they see. If you accept their theories, you must accept that the WTC were laced with a complex web of high explosives and thermite to bring down the towers plus tons of additional explosives to pulverize the contents. No CD has ever been done using the techniques and materials that were supposedly done at the WTC and yet not only is it "obviously CD" but it was done perfectly three time the first time it was ever tried. Think about that - the most complex CD in history pulled off perfectly and in complete secrecy.

Show me the research that the 911 truth community has done - why do they refuse peer review? If you are such a supporter of real science then surely this bothers you?

[MervinFerd]

13. Exactly right.

The fundamental claim of the CT CD "community" is that the observed collapses are physically, theoretically, impossible without explosives. That is an extremely difficult case to make--if there is -even one- collapse mechanism, then the building can collapse without explosives. Proving a -particular- theory proves nothing; it is necessary to prove that -all possible- theories are wrong.

Given that there is complete consensus of the relevant expert community against them, the CT CDers have given themselves an impossible task.

There case is not helped by the fact that their claims are entirely incoherent. Supposed evidence is distributed excitedly, but never attached to a plausible hypothesis. The buildings "fell in their footprints", did not fall in their footprints, were pulverized, fell at Free Fall speed, exhibited numerous bangs, puffs, poofs not apparently unrelated to the collapse, had residues of thermite, showed evidence of beams cut in straight lines, had beams twisted like pretzels....

[MervinFerd]

14. You fundamentally misunderstand the process.

Investigations -always- start with one or more hypotheses. These are tested and accepted, or rejected and replaced by better ones.

Since these buildings were hit by very large airplanes which started large fires, the hypothesis that this was the cause of the collapses kind of stands out from the crowd--at least to most healthy people. The investigators found -no- -reason- to reject the obvious hypothesis.

They did not particularly investigate thermite; they also didn't investigate the hypothesis of invisible elves, or Romulan Disruptor Rays. There was no rational basis for doing so.

Sorry.

[wildbilln864]

10. I never cared...

whether you respect my opinion! That's your misguided assumption again! :shrug:
You're quite good at ridiculing others but it changes nothing regarding 911! It was an inside job! Some realize it, some don't! Proving it to you on a message board is not my mission. :hi:

[salvorhardin]

11. Then why do you post?

If the "truth" of 9-11 can only be realized through revealed knowledge then why even bother posting? Or is this your method of worshiping at the altar of truthiness?

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[Taxloss]

16. If you're just asking questions!

Why do you use! So many exclamation points! :hi:

[Strange1]

8. Back at you!

I don't have a lot of time to be here, but when I am, I will have fun:-)

[MervinFerd]

15. Engineers with vast training and experience have done the same calculation...

and conclude that the observed collapse is quite a reasonable phenomenon.

In fact your Brigham Young expert doesn't disagree:

Highlighted in the text:
<<"The other possibility is that the building fell in such a way that the falling floors
encountered very little resistance until they reached the bottom. This possibility seems more
likely, especially when the videos of the building are observed.2" >>

Which is the consensus opinion of the credentialed experts: Once the collapse had gathered speed, the structures below were too weak to offer substantial resistance.

[MervinFerd]

17. Refute this document. Don't call names. Address the issues.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/June2004WTC7StructuralFire&CollapseAnalysisPrint.pdf

What's wrong with the 'theory' presented here? Which stage in the collapse sequence is impossible (or even improbable)? What facts are in error?

The document is a summary for public presentation of a work still in progress. It's not very detailed, but the facts are entirely clear.

(To the engineers: What are the dimensions of columns 79-81? What does "W 14X 730" mean?)

[AZCat]

18. The column description is as follows.

The "W" describes the type of beam (wide flange).

The "14" describes the depth of the beam in inches.

The "730" describes the weight in pounds per foot of length.

[MervinFerd]

19. Thanks. nt.

[wildbilln864]

20. because it's make believe BS!

Look here.
:hi:

[MervinFerd]

21. I said "No Name Calling"! And I meant it. A 10 minute Time Out for you.

The document you linked is about WTC1 and 2; it has nothing to do with the one I assigned.

FWIW, I have neither the time nor the expertise to fully address the document you linked. But on cursory examination it appears to be based on the customary Conspiracist misunderstandings of scientific procedure and computer modeling. The investiagors --of course-- dismissed scenarios that were inconsistent with the facts and adjusted their assumptions to get the observed phenomena. That's how modeling works.

And, for the 999th time: The advocate of CD must prove that NO MECHANISM OF COLLAPSE can account for the observed collapse. Quibbling with specific NIST analyses does not advance the case.

[wildbilln864]

22. Who's name calling?

:shrug:

[MervinFerd]

23. That would be you.

[LARED]

24. The document is published from

Journal of 911 Studies, The Jones and Ryan misinformation joy ride.

[MervinFerd]

25. Truly a high-quality journal.

Refereed, no doubt.