you can't use common sense...

[wildbilln864]

you have to use physics. :rofl:

[CLANG]

1. I guess if you never went past second grade you wouldn't know the difference

[Bolo Boffin]

2. Free lobotomy! Step right up!

Put numbers to the problem, wildbill, I dare you.

[wildbilln864]

3. are you sure ...

you wouldn't rather "demand" it again? :rofl:

[whatchamacallit]

4. I love this one (n/t)

[Mist]

5. Fun! Thanks for posting! nt

[wildbilln864]

7. my pleasure. nt

[William Seger]

6. IIRC, the original title was much more accurate (n/t)

[BeFree]

9. That's not true anymore

Would you like to speculate why?

[William Seger]

10. Nope

The original title accurately identified the target audience. This title is not at all accurate: "Common sense" (and perhaps a little real-world experience with very heavy things falling) is really all you need to understand why the towers collapsed. What some "truthers" call "common sense" is obviously not all that common, mainly because it's not very sensible, and this video is classic example. Relative size really has nothing to do with it -- impact damage always needs to be understood in terms of kinetic energy and strength of materials -- but if a VW and a school bus can be used in any way to model any aspect of the collapse, this "truther" got it exactly backwards. The top multi-floor section hit one floor and destroyed it. Then the "school bus" plus that destroyed "VW" accelerated some more and hit the next VW with even greater mass and velocity. In that circumstance, it doesn't matter how many VWs you line up; if the first one wasn't strong enough to decelerate the mass that hit it, then things just get worse from there on. That's common sense, BeFree, and I hate to break the news to you, but the world is literally full of people who understand it very well.

[BeFree]

11. Back up a bit

Do you think it is possible that bombs could do what was done? Yes, or no.

We all agree that taking out one floor would cause the collapse. Right?

[William Seger]

12. Of course bombs could destroy a floor

... but unfortunately for that theory: 1) bombs could not pull the perimeter columns in, and those columns buckling inward is what initiated the collapses; 2) bombs make a very distinctive noise, which is exactly why "truther" Richard Gage removes the soundtracks from the controlled demolition videos in his presentation; 3) bombs cause seismic waves which would have been detected by seismographs; 4) bombs destroy with a high velocity shock wave, which in turn causes high velocity smoke and debris ejections, whereas the ejections from the WTC towers are clearly slower pneumatic ejections, consistent with air being forced out; and 5) bombs probably could not have withstood the fires on the floors where the collapses started. That's just the short list, off the top of my head, but it's more than enough to say my answer is no, bombs could not have been what caused those collapses. Why is it necessary to repeat these same points over and over and over, when "truthers" have no reasonable response to any of them?

Anyway, you seem to be missing the point of this video (or hijacking the thread), which is the implicit argument that building can't collapse like that, so it must have been a controlled demolition.

[BeFree]

13. All over the place, much?

At first you say yes, then you go on to say why you are wrong to say yes.

Jeez. But, if you are an established expert in the field of demolitions and have been peer-reviewed, and proven perfection in your field, then your awkwardness may be excused.

So, we agree that bombs could have taken the buildings down, yes? It is not a theory, it is a widely accepted physical fact.

And it is a possibility that the NIST never even ventured to look at with the twin towers, but will as they examine #7. Did you know that? They plan on looking at how #7 could have been bombed?

Yes, or no. Did you know they have a plan to do just that?

[OnTheOtherHand]

14. see, this is where obsession with keystrokes comes in

Words have meanings.

"At first you say yes, then you go on to say why you are wrong to say yes."

No. First he says that bombs could destroy a floor. Then he explains the evidence against the hypothesis that bombs did destroy a floor. Could versus did. It's sort of like ask versus tell.

"So, we agree that bombs could have taken the buildings down, yes?"

Well, we agree that it would have been possible to use bombs to take the buildings down. And I guess we also agree that the evidence is incompatible with the hypothesis that bombs did take the buildings down, since you didn't object to any of Seger's points on that score.

Excellent. Consensus that bombs don't account for the collapses. Or did you have a substantive response that you just forgot to include?

[wildbilln864]

15. no...

"Then he explains the evidence against the hypothesis that bombs did destroy a floor. " He makes an assertion in his first point, "1) bombs could not pull the perimeter columns in, and those columns buckling inward is what initiated the collapses;", which is without evidence. Perimeter columns could be pulled in by cutting core columns which could drop and pull the perimeter by way of the floor system. So wrong from the start! :eyes:

[BeFree]

16. They just don't get it, do they?

A closed mind is not a terrible thing to waste. And man, what a waste!

[wildbilln864]

17. they don't want to! nt

[BeFree]

18. Quite obviously

Your very good common sense will be rejected without a thought for it's good sense. What a waste! But you've been around enough to get used to it, eh? Laughing at them is one way....

[William Seger]

100. LOL, Looks like you were wrong

... again. I'm beginning to see why the title of the OP video might really apply to some people.

[Twist_U_Up]

111. He was laughing at you,not with you.

and hes not the only one.

[William Seger]

125. How ironic (n/t)

[Twist_U_Up]

110. the fake opposition

the fake opposition pretends to be making genuine attempts to examine the official story and to ferret out the truth but their real purpose (for whatever ultimate reason) is to obscure the truth,to make sure that it never comes out, and in effect to support the official
story

[OnTheOtherHand]

31. at least you offer a substantive response

I'm sure BeFree is grateful for the cover. Well, I imagine that he is. Perhaps he has convinced himself that "Perimeter columns could be pulled in by cutting core columns which could drop and pull the perimeter by way of the floor system" was on the tip of his tongue.

If you would care to elaborate, there might even be the basis for a serious discussion -- although from what I recall of past threads, it seems like a long shot.

[BeFree]

34. You're fixated on me?

I guess if you can't answer simple questions you just fixate on BeFree?

Serious discussions with you? Since when?

[OnTheOtherHand]

38. LOL

No, silly: if I can't answer simple questions, I just beat my wife.

Thanks for your interest. :eyes:

[BeFree]

39. Well

That is about as stupid of an attempt at discussion as I've ever seen.

you: "...just beat your wife." And no, I am not interested in anything you have to say, not anymore. I just like the sideshow you present, ya know, like at the carnival.

[OnTheOtherHand]

40. "See, I'm responding to what you wrote."

"Happy now?"

You create the kinds of discussions you want. Congratulations on that.

[William Seger]

99. Wrong

You have to explain the actual evidence. The videos show the columns buckling along one wall first, then progressing sequentially along the side walls. That can't done by just cutting core columns; that can only be done by getting the top of the building to tilt, which implies that those perimeter columns buckled first. Also, intact floor diaphragms would not allow a collapsing core to preferentially pull one wall in; the force would be distributed across the building. The lopsided collapse implies that the floors were no longer acting as a diaphragm.

The NIST hypothesis explains the evidence. Your core column hypothesis simply does not.

ETA: I forgot one other important piece of evidence: The perimeter columns began bending inward about 20 minutes before the collapse. When you attempt to patch up your core demolition hypothesis, don't forget to explain that one, too.

[wildbilln864]

148. so many assertions....

so little supporting evidence!

"The perimeter columns began bending inward about 20 minutes before the collapse. When you attempt to patch up your core demolition hypothesis..."

got proof? no? :shrug: Take your word for it you say?

[William Seger]

149. Still play games, huh

Yes, the photos are in the NIST report. For example:



And:



I will now anxiously await your explanation of how that was done with explosives. :eyes:

[BeFree]

23. Did you or didn't you know?

Did you know the NIST will examine if bombs did take down #7?

OTOH aside and how butting in hurt the thread we were working, did you know NIST finally has agreed to study that possibility, now nearly 7 years later?

[Make7]

35. When will their results be released? ( n/t )

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf#page=68
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf#page=355

[BeFree]

36. Who knows when

But at least they hired some private contractors this time around. Seems they couldn't handle all that stuff on their own, and they finally admitted it. It is probably above their pay scale. Bwahhahahah

[Make7]

94. The NIST probably knows.

I'm sure it says on their website:

    http://wtc.nist.gov/


I seem to recall that they hired private contractors and outside consultants for their investigation of WTC1 and WTC2. There is probably some information about that on their website:

    http://wtc.nist.gov/

 

[BeFree]

104. Sorry, wrong

The NIST did the twins in house, says so on their website.

And it says for #7 they hired outside. And I'll bet the outsiders convinced them to model a CD. 7 years later, and finally getting some outside help, the NIST will undertake a more thorough study. It's taken us 7 years, but they are coming around to doing a more thorough study.

Is it us that's slow? Or is it the government bureaucrats that are slow?

[Make7]

107. I strongly suggest that you visit the NIST website.

It appears that you may not have been there in a while, if ever. (The links in my previous posts should prove useful in this discussion.)
 

[BeFree]

129. oops, you're right!

I hadn't read much of the site, but I did read this page, but it was quite outdated. At the bottom of the page was this. Thanks for setting me straight.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

"While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements."

I wonder if they ever did determine the magnitude? Someone who HAS read all the NIST may have a link?

[Make7]

132. I find your response somewhat disappointing.

The only thing you were able to find on the NIST website was from over two years ago? Really?

Did you neglect to even look for newer information that would answer your question regarding the results of their hypothetical blast scenarios? You really couldn't find it even after Bolo Boffin told you exactly where to find it in another thread?

You also were unable to find anything on their website related to outside experts and contractors used during their investigation of WTC1 and WTC2? For someone who likes being "on the cutting edge of the sharp deadly sword of truth," you seem not to make much effort to inform yourself.

Once again, I suggest that you actually visit the NIST website if you intend to discuss what is on it. There are links in my previous post. Good luck.
 

[BeFree]

134. I'm glad you asked

Yeah, I followed your links and it was pretty much the same old same old.

Now, I guess were I to spend hours and hours going over the same old same old, you'd be less disappointed? Cause, by golly, YOU being less disappointed is the priority, eh?

I showed you the link, the quote and even told you where to find the quote, and that is, as far as I have read here, better than most do. Mostly it is just a link or two and that's it - "Go, bore yourself", they say!

As to the sharp deadly sword of truth, it has more to do with some fucking link to some fucking Bushco dribble. But you use YOUR position to make fun of me and deride me whilst you Fucking know that many innocents have fucking died, and you use that to boost your self? Shame on you.

[Make7]

140. Aren't you the one that brought up the NIST regarding bomb scenarios?

And then also claimed it says on the NIST website that they did the WTC1 and WTC2 investigation in house. That was you, right?

If you had followed my links, you would have found out that the NIST final report on WTC7 was released November 2008. Perhaps you thought their hypothetical blast scenarios were to be released sometime after their final report. Who knows? Although, as I pointed out in my last post, Bolo Boffin had already informed you that the blast scenarios were in the final report.

If you had followed my links, you also would have found a list of contracts awarded to people outside of NIST that participated in their investigation of WTC1 and WTC2. Not so much "in house" when people not working at NIST are helping with the investigation.

Is that what you consider "pretty much the same old same old"? Links to the information that you claim to know, but apparently don't. You claim to care about the truth, but you do not seem to make much of an effort to include accurate information in your posts. Disappointing...
 

[BeFree]

141. Never found that

Where the NIST hired outside help for the twins.

And never saw much of the blast hypotheticals either, just a denial that blasts occurred.

here is a cut from NIST;
"When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation".
No link

And

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm Very Bottom
"While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements."

Now maybe they have updated their pages, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna spend any more time searching through all that crap. I saw the videos like a 100 times, that's what got me going. Mere words from a bunch of gov. bureaucrats don't sway me much.

Are ya happy now? Cuz I sure do want to make you happy.

[Make7]

143. Please tell me you understand...

Please tell me you understand how to find and download the pdf file of the NIST WTC7 final report. Please tell me that you understand how to find the table of contents in a document and determine on what page you should look for a particular subject.

Please tell me you understand the difference between hiring new staff and awarding contracts to outside experts and organizations.

Please tell me you understand how to click on a hyperlink from a webpage.

Please tell me you are capable of this. Now, please click on the links in my previous post.
 

[BeFree]

144. I understand, yes I do

Shoot, I am a failure. I tried to get you to do some work for me and you didn't. You didn't even put up a simple cut and paste. I have failed to do anything but piss you off.

I'll not spend another hour reading the NIST stuff any time soon. If ever. But knowing it is part of the bible of the OCT I should, so I can understand where some of you are coming from. So, I tried the easy route and lazily asked you for some direct stuff. Fail!!

However, this little tid-bit comes to mind:

Knowing how easily changeable the web is, I wonder why the NIST would leave really old and outdated content on their site? And just how much of their content has been slipped in and forgotten?

Oh, did you know the NIST was in on the ground floor of HAVA? That they helped to falsely certify voting machines, way back in 2003? And now 5 years later, the state of California has de-certified those machines because of long lasting certifiable problems which everybody else (NIST approved) missed?

Can hardly blame yall for not wanting to limit NIST exposure, they are pretty crappy on several points.

[wildbilln864]

145. snap!

:rofl: Thank you BeFree! :patriot:

[Make7]

146. This is just too funny!

I was trying to get you to look up information regarding the claims you made about the NIST investigation. And you were trying to get me to look things up for you. Too funny!

I guess asking you to follow a couple of hyperlinks and reading a couple of pages on the NIST website was a rather unrealistic expectation on my part. Sorry for that.

The weird thing is that you said that you followed my links (and you claim to know how to follow links) and yet couldn't find information on the very pages that my links would have taken you. Now, I will admit that you probably would have had to scroll down to get to all of the text pertinent to our discussion, and perhaps you are just too lazy to scroll down. Who knows? I apologize for assuming that you would be prepared to expend a minimal amount of effort looking into a subject that you introduced to the discussion.

I know this topic is extremely important to you. Well, perhaps not important enough to actually look up information regarding subjects you include in your posts, but important nonetheless. Therefore I will try to help you out with some simple copying and pasting.

I wrote:

I seem to recall that they hired private contractors and outside consultants for their investigation of WTC1 and WTC2. There is probably some information about that on their website:

    http://wtc.nist.gov/
 

BeFree wrote:

Sorry, wrong

The NIST did the twins [investigation of WTC1 & WTC2] in house, says so on their website.

Unfortunately you didn't provide a quote or link to back up your claim. And if you had followed my link (you did say that you followed my links, right?), you would have found a list of contracts that the NIST awarded to outside experts and organizations, some of which were for the WTC1 & WTC2 investigations. But you still claimed that you "Never found that ... Where the NIST hired outside help for the twins." Didn't look very hard, did you?

Why do you introduce subjects into a discussion if you have no intention of making any effort to verify the accuracy of the information that you post?
 

[BeFree]

147. Got a link for that?

hey, I said I made a mistake. S f'n what? You think you can take down ol BeFree with this minutiae? Don't make me laugh.

If you can't find a link and a copy of exactly what you are complaining about, maybe you need to work a bit harder?

Anyway, you asked:
"Why do you introduce subjects into a discussion if you have no intention of making any effort to verify the accuracy of the information that you post?"

One: I pasted what was on the NIST site, verbatim.

Two: I explained that already. I don't care to waste any more time on the NIST pages and I was hoping you'd do all that work for me. I failed at that. So sue me.

[Make7]

150. There was a link in my post that you just replied to. ( n/t )

[Make7]

203. There's only one link in my post. Can't you find it? ( n/t )

[Make7]

204. Wouldn't it just be quicker to look the information up yourself, BeFree?

Why continue to make post after post in the hopes someone else will find and post some information that you could very easily just look up yourself?
 

[William Seger]

96. You're really determined to hijack this thread, aren't you

Why is that? (Rhetorical question; no need to make up an answer.)

No, I didn't know that, but I can't imagine why any "truther" would care about any such study. Given that there is exactly zero evidence of the noise and seismic events that that much explosives would produce, I don't think it's hard to predict what the study will find or how "truthers" will react. You taking bets?

[whatchamacallit]

19. Utter crap

"Common sense" (and perhaps a little real-world experience with very heavy things falling) is really all you need to understand why the towers collapsed. What some "truthers" call "common sense" is obviously not all that common, mainly because it's not very sensible, and this video is classic example.

What we witnessed on 911 has only occurred 3 times in history (all on the same day), and is not likely to ever be witnessed again. There was nothing common or real-world about it. Sorry William, *you* and the rest of the OCT got it "exactly backwards". Real-world experience with heavy things would suggest a different outcome; the kind we've seen again and again. You expect people to remember physics properties like kinetic energy, but forget properties like "conservation of momentum". I've repeatedly asked the OCT to produce video or photos of a remotely similar collapse from anywhere, anytime, not due to CD. All I ever get is *crickets* or vague and convenient modifiers like "... the unique construction of the towers..." and "... we've never had planes hit buildings before...". If what we saw was common, easily understood physics, why can't you pony-up other common examples? No man, it's not as "DUH!" as you claim.

[wildbilln864]

20. thank you whatchamacallit! nt

[whatchamacallit]

22. My pleasure!

:hi:

[SDuderstadt]

21. Okay....if WS' post is "utter crap"...

then post your alternative hypothesis and PROVIDE the math that proves your claim. Why is that so hard? If your claim is correct, why aren't structural engineers all over the world up in arms????

[whatchamacallit]

24. Has *your* hypothesis been proven?

If your claim is correct, why aren't structural engineers all over the world up in arms???

There ARE architects, engineers, physicists, scientists... who are up in arms over it, but you armchair experts instantly label anyone who challenges the orthodoxy as "kooks" and "crackpots". There are many more world over who, for one reason or another, haven't publicly stated their beliefs. As far as a "proven" alternative hypothesis is concerned, the original official hypothesis is unproven. NIST wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. Why? Because they knew THEY couldn't provide the math to sell it.

[BeFree]

25. And, NIST answers the question:

Can NIST’s findings be used in court?
As part of the NCST Act, no part of any report resulting from investigations can be admitted as evidence or used in any suit or action for damages. Additionally, NIST employees are not permitted to serve as expert witnesses.

[whatchamacallit]

26. Buttoned up rather well

The kind of provisions only a criminal enterprise would require.

[BeFree]

27. Exactly

Who, in their right mind, would base all their arguments upon a group that is insulated from any strict questioning? What agenda is it that drives such a stance?

[SDuderstadt]

29. Because....

we DON'T base all of our arguments on NIST. You need to open your eyes and look at all the other organizations and individuals that have studied the collapses. If you really want to do a thorough job, examine the clean-up operations, particularly how the debris from the site was taken to, among other places, the Fresh Kills landfill where hundreds of law enforcement personnel sifted through the remains carefully. Yet, not one of them found a detonator or detonation cord or anything else one would expect to find in a controlled demolition. Unless you're claiming that all of these law enforcement personnel are "in on it", please explain that.

[whatchamacallit]

32. So then you think such draconian restrictions on NIST are fine and dandy in an open society?

Your uncommon trust (for a liberal) of authoritarian measures is interesting to say the least.

[SDuderstadt]

37. What the fuck are you babbling about now?

What "draconian restrictions" are you yammering about? I don't support ANY authoritarian measures and your constant attempts to make it appear so (through a combination of strawman arguments/misinterpretation of materials that don't say anything remotely like you claim they do)is not only tiring but extremely offensive. I'm going to ask you nicely one last time to knock if off.

I assume you're talking about the NCST act. If you are, please explain how it's a "draconian restriction" or an "authoritarian measure". While you're at it, please ecxplain why the act instructs NIST to regularly brief the public on its investigations and findings. It's really silly to claim that NIST is somehow insulated from public scrutiny.

[whatchamacallit]

44. Wow...

The restrictions on NIST are vintage Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft/Gonzales/Yoo! No sworn testimony, no unsanctioned interviews, no lawsuits, cya, cya, cya... Anyone who truly believes in open government would see this for what it is; authoritarian control. I imagine most people who don't believe 911 was an inside job, might say "yeah those rules are weird and kind of disturbing, maybe even illegal , but I still don't believe it was an inside job...". Not the OCT, when it comes to all things 911 y'all will excuse away the craziest government shit every time. I have a theory as to why. If it can be shown that the government is hiding or covering up anything relating to 911 then your shit falls apart as fast as theirs does. Therefore, it's impossible they have anything to hide and the notion of NIST being isolated from scrutiny is "silly".

[SDuderstadt]

46. First of all...

establish that:

1) those restrictions were placed on NIST under Bush
2) they remain in place under Obama and
3) even if they were (are)that would, in any way, prove that "9/11 was an inside job".

Please show that the Obama administration is covering something up regarding 9/11. If you can seriously reveal a smoking gun, I'll gladly be your biggest proponent. Your post was written in the present tense. If you were talking about the Bush administration (which I utterly desoised) then use the past tense. In the meantime, what we have is you mostly babbling about things you don't appear to understand.

[BeFree]

76. Heh, sdude

Are you claiming that the people who sifted thru the debris at Fresh kills were looking for detonators or detonator cords?

"...If you really want to do a thorough job, examine the clean-up operations, particularly how the debris from the site was taken to, among other places, the Fresh Kills landfill where hundreds of law enforcement personnel sifted through the remains carefully. Yet, not one of them found a detonator or detonation cord or anything else one would expect to find in a controlled demolition."

[SDuderstadt]

77. Umm, yeah....

why do you think they had law enforcement personnel do it?? Ground Zero was a crime scene, remember? If they were merely looking for engineering evidence, why have the FBI and other law enforcement agencies do the sifting? If they were merely loking for remains, why wouldn't they only have forensic pathologists there? Do you really think they sifted through the debris and wouldn't take note of detonators or other signs of demolition?? Really? How many people in on this??

[BeFree]

79. That's hilarious

Amongst all the wires and computer parts, and batteries they were looking for detonators? Who told them to look for detonators? Did you tell them to look for detonators?

And they never found the blackboxes?
Or aircraft parts?
Or any remains of 1,000 humans?

Again, where they told to look for detonators?

[SDuderstadt]

81. I seriously give up, BF....

There are numerous pictures of airplane parts at Ground Zero. You just won't look for them, which means you did not try to fact-check your own claims. If you think I'm kidding, go here:



or here:




Brent Blanchard and other members of his team were onsite at Ground Zero. See what he has to say about evidence of explosives:

http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf


Other than that, I'm done.

[BeFree]

83. Good, go away

The way you change the subject at a whim is logical only in the sense that your mind is closed, you want no discussion and are always leaving when you don't get just what you want.

And yeah, those parts are all burned, eh? Charred brown by the heat of a fire that weakened the steel. Gawddamn.

[SDuderstadt]

84. Duh....

the plane parts weren't found in the building....they might not even have made it into the building. I'm not sure what you find all so strange about that.

But, I'm not leaving. I'm just not playing your silly little games anymore.

[BeFree]

85. But I am playing yours

Because it just shows how stupid the defenders of the OTC are.

We were talking about Fresh Kills and wires and little tiny parts and then you show pics of parts that have nothing to do with any of that. Who the hell even knows where those pictures come from? Where are the black boxes?

I don't mind playing your games, but you really look stupid, you do know?

[SDuderstadt]

86. YOU asked about the airplane parts, remember???

Or aircraft parts?

Wtf do you think I would post pictures of? Detonators that weren't there? How am I supposed to post pics of that? Remember that game I accused you of playing? You just did it again.

[BeFree]

87. Black boxes

In Fresh Kills. Burned parts. Are you really that dense to forget where we were? I guess so. Sorry for thinking you were smarter than that. My bad.

Heck, I can grab pics of detonators, wanna see 'em?

[SDuderstadt]

88. If you can't stop the personal insults...

you can play by yourself.

[BeFree]

89. Good, go away

You keep threatening to, now do it. Be honest for once.

[SDuderstadt]

90. It's amazing how you try to turn this into something about me,,,

when you've lost the debate by your nearly constant resort to personal insults. Fucking amazing.

[BeFree]

91. Oh, I get it

Your little game is to get the last post! Ok, you win! All yours!

Blackboxes.
Charred airplane parts.
Where are those WMD?
Cheney running the show and defending torture.
Cheney at the WH on 9/11 in command and control, while Bush sat there looking like a pet goat.

The OCT is the owner of all that and more.

[OnTheOtherHand]

92. well, it's perfectly consistent, right?

But, yes, I know just what you mean.

[wildbilln864]

137. well obviously many here do base their arguments on just that!

whether they're in their right minds, I can't say. :hi:

[SDuderstadt]

28. ASCE has 130,000+ members....

how many does AE for 9/11 truth have? More importantly, how many other structural engineers are there around the world? It's hard to claim that THEY don't speak out because they have contracts with the "government".

It's also rather stupid to label a working hypothesis as the "original official hypothesis". If you understood anything at all about the scientific method, you'd know that scientists accept hypotheses PROVIONALLY, that is, until further research or evidence rule out a particular hypothesis, then they formulate a huypothesis that better explains the phenomenom.

Your comment about NIST is hysterical. If, as you seem to claim, NIST is not concerned about real science, why would they care whether they needed to provide the math to sell it? Do you realize the trap you just fell into? Think hard. If NIST did not embrace FEMA'S initial hypothesis because of the "math issue", it's relatively obvious that they know that engineers and scientists around the world will intensely scrutinize their work. Again, I'll ask a simple question. How many members does AE for 9/11 truth actually have? What percentage is that of the available professionals (even in the United States, let alone the world)? If, as you claim, NIST is misleading us, why aren't these people up in arms? Are you suggesting that the scientific community has failed to adequately scrutinize NIST's work?

For the record, there are numerous peer-reviewed papers about the co9llapse. Unfortunately for you, NONE of them posit controlled demolition or similar causes. Why is that? Are you seriously claiming that you and your cohorts here are able to see things that professional engineers cannot? Your confirmation bias is showing...again.

[whatchamacallit]

30. No official report detailing the collapse (not initiation) exists

You can side with the speculation of any group you like, but the verdict is not in. BTW, you can't possibly expect us to believe that if a group like ASCE puts their imprimatur on something, every single member agrees. A sampling as large as 130,000 never renders a totally uniform result.

[SDuderstadt]

33. And, I didn't claim that....

but, have you seen any significant outcry from ASCE? No. Why is that? More importantly, once the collapse initiation is understood, is the collapse so hard to understand?

[whatchamacallit]

41. For a "scholarly logician" you sure present a lot of logical fallacies

If

A) Some people believe 911 was an inside job

and

B) No member from ASCE has publicly stated they believe 911 was an inside job

then

C) No member of ASCE believes 911 was an inside job

------

Here's one from the other day:


A) whachamacallit states logic is not Sdude's strong suit

B) whatchamacallit doesn't provide a specific logical fallacy committed by SDude

C) Logic is SDude's strong suit


Honestly man, you're really full of it.

[OnTheOtherHand]

42. huh?

"C) No member of ASCE believes 911 was an inside job"

Not only is that a misreading, but it's an evasion. SDuderstadt asked a serious question:

have you seen any significant outcry from ASCE? No. Why is that?

(emphasis added)

Got anything?

[whatchamacallit]

45. Why don't you tell me what the implication is?

If it's a misreading please tell me what he meant to imply.

[OnTheOtherHand]

48. another evasion

He asked you a question. I've repeated the question. Why don't you stop trying to divine what the question is intended to "imply," and instead do your own level best to answer the question?

Or is answering questions for little people like the rest of us?

[whatchamacallit]

49. You're whirling like a dervish and you lost me

Which question? Please ask it again now and I'll be glad to answer it.

[OnTheOtherHand]

51. I put the question in bold for your convenience

Frankly, it's hard to fathom that you could interpret post #42 as "whirling like a dervish."

ETA: Note that SDuderstadt thoughtfully repeats the same question, in the same words, in post #50. We're trying.

[SDuderstadt]

52. It ashould be painfully obvious by now that...

Whatchamacallit tries to make the argument about the other poster (usually trying to impeach their motivation or argue with something they didn't even say) rather than stick to the facts at hand. It's extremely frustratinbg and embarrassing in a liberal forum.

[whatchamacallit]

54. Well we can't all be regarded as standard bearers of the liberal movement like you

:eyes: :puke:

[SDuderstadt]

56. I'll pay you not to embarrass it any more than you already have...

what's your price?

[whatchamacallit]

59. You leaving the party and this forum. (nt)

[SDuderstadt]

63. Nice try....nt

[whatchamacallit]

53. Ha unreal!

have you seen any significant outcry from ASCE? Why is that?

My honest answer: I don't know. I'm not sure why there's been no significant outcry from ASCE.

But you must know. Otherwise, you wouldn't have asked the question. So now it's your turn to answer.

OnTheOtherHand, have you seen any significant outcry from ASCE? Why is that?

[SDuderstadt]

55. You just answered your own question...

although you didn't direct it to me, I'll take a swing at it. I don't know...maybe because PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS HAVE SCRUTINIZED NIST'S WORK AND FIND IT BASICALLY SOUND???? If they didn't, please explain why there's not a groundswell of opposition to the NIST reports from ASCE/

[whatchamacallit]

58. Maybe is right chief!

you swing pure speculation like a bat. There was another whiff.

[OnTheOtherHand]

61. you call it "pure speculation," but you brought nothing at all

So it goes.

[whatchamacallit]

62. No, what i didn't do is

employ the intellectually dishonest approach of co-opting 130,000 unwitting allies to buttress my crap argument. You guys are real pieces of work.

[OnTheOtherHand]

64. wow, that's an amazingly cheap shot

And that's being gentle about it. No one is "co-opting 130,000 unwitting allies." As far as I can tell, you are pretending that we are in order to spare yourself the discomfort of thinking seriously about the question.

[whatchamacallit]

69. I am thinking seriously about it

and unlike you don't feel privileged to represent their views. *You* need to get serious.

[OnTheOtherHand]

73. LOL

I didn't "represent their views." I offered a working hypothesis, and I explained my reasoning for it. You haven't responded, except with a personal attack. If that's your way of thinking seriously, I am unimpressed.

[SDuderstadt]

65. Bullshit, Whatchamacallit....

I did nothing of the sort. If you're any sort of seriosu debater, you'd subject your claims to rigorous scrutiny. Answer a very s8imple question...if your claim has merit, why isn't it being embraced by a significant number of civil engineers. Where is the groundswell? Face it..."9/11 was an inside job" is nothing more than a fringe movement because your hypothesis doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

[whatchamacallit]

70. You don't know that!

You are admittedly assuming what they do or do not believe. That's not serious debate, that's indulgent bullshit. What else could I expect?

[SDuderstadt]

72. Listen, dude...

You've had 7 1/2 years to prove your case. I am not claiming to know what the members of ASCE think. But, if your claim held water, couldn't we expect some segment of ASCE to speak up? Seriously, to what do you attribute their falure to do so?

[whatchamacallit]

75. You forget the last 7 yrs where under an administration historians are now calling a dictatorship

If we are wasting our time why are you here?

[SDuderstadt]

78. How many "dictatorships" have you heard of that....

willingly ceded power in a democratic election? I despised the Bush administration and agree that Bush and Co. appeared to be moving in the direction of fascism and assumed powers that were dictator-like, but that doesn't mean he WAS a dictator. Leave the hyperbole to RWers. They do it better.

[snooper2]

106. Oh Jesus H. Christ...

Never come to the 911 forum but some of you guys are :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: fucking $#!@^@&^ :rofl:

[OnTheOtherHand]

60. mmm

My honest answer: I don't know. I'm not sure why there's been no significant outcry from ASCE.

Thank you. You might want to consider this as something worth being curious about.

But you must know. Otherwise, you wouldn't have asked the question.

I find this very strange. Has it been your life experience that people only ask questions when they already know the answers?

I spend time in this forum because I am curious why people believe things that I don't believe. I might have to revise my beliefs about 9/11, or I might have to abandon my faith in reason, or something else might happen -- but I keep hoping that, whatever it is, it will be interesting. Occasionally it is.

SDuderstadt's working hypothesis seems plausible to me as well, although I would qualify it: I don't assume that many engineers have "scrutinized" NIST's work, but I assume that they at least find the conclusions plausible. It seems to me that pretty much any professional engineer with a pulse would be at least mildly curious about the events of 9/11. So I have a very hard time understanding the confidence of non-engineers that the NIST report is obviously and fundamentally wrong, when this appears not to be obvious to the profession of engineers.

I myself am not an engineer; I'm a political scientist. I've always been curious about the folks who are convinced that the 2004 exit polls provide strong evidence that Kerry should have won, when this is far from obvious to political scientists. So that's the basis of my special curiosity on this point. If you have further questions on that point, I'm happy to answer them.

[SDuderstadt]

43. First of all....

Show me where I ever claimed that "no member of ASCE believes that 9/11 was an inside job". This is just another one of your stupid strawman arguments.


As far as your second argument, you're putting words in my mouth again. If, as you claim, logic is not my strong suit, you'd should be able to point to at least one logical fallacy I've committed (the ones you "manufacture" don't count). By pointing out that you can't do so DOESN'T prove that logic is my strong suit, it merely goes in the direction of disproving your claim.

Finally, show me where I made any argument in the form in which you're trying to argue I did. The most ironic thing is you try to accuse me of logical fallacies by committing two yourself. Priceless. I'm beginning to believe that your problem is not so much Logic as it is reading comprehension.

[whatchamacallit]

47. What was the point of your statement about ASCE if not to imply a unified front?

Or was it simply random and meaningless like a lot of the shit you say? BTW my reading is fine, the problem is more likely that you don't bother to read your own shit before hitting "Post message".

[SDuderstadt]

50. Try to follow the math here...

ASCE has 130,000+ members who are civil engineers. I'm sure you'd agree that that is a lot of professionals. If there were merit to your claims, don't you think you could field a fair number of supporters from there? Even a measly 1% would be 1300 new converts for you. But, you haven't, have you. Why is that? In the meantime, I never said or even implied that NO member of ASCE believes that "9/11 was an inside job". The problem with trying to reason with you is that you don't pay attention to what people actually say and, instead, start arguing with what you think they must have meant. Half the time when I'm trying to engage with you, it's like you're talking about a completely different argument than the one I actually made.

Half the crap that goes on between you and other members originates from your lack of comprehension. If you're not sure what someone means by their post, ask a simp0le clarifying question before going off half-cocked. If I mean that NO member of ASCE believes that 9/11 was an "inside job", I'll SAY no member of ASCE believes that 9/11 was an "inside job". Ok? Can you follow that?

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[SDuderstadt]

66. Jesus Christ!

I'm not talking about the number of people in general who are members of 9/11 truth. I'm talking about the number of civil engineers. Do you bother to read before you post?

[whatchamacallit]

67. Flying Spaghetti Monster!

How the fuck do you have any fucking idea how many engineers believe what about anything? You don't! And playing semantic games won't change the fundamental flaw in your reasoning.

[SDuderstadt]

68. Think this through...

ASCE has 130,000+ members. Your claim, if true, would be earth-shaking. Why haven't the members of ASCE spoken out?????

[whatchamacallit]

71. How do you know any haven't?

You got some kind of live feed of their professional and private statements? Your position on this is some of the most embarrassing bullshit I've ever encountered. Please stop representing the views of people you don't know. This too low... even for you.

[SDuderstadt]

74. Then point to them....

they would seriously bolster your case and add much-needed gravitas to your movement. I'm challenging YOU. Where are the members of ASCE in your "movement". Why can't you point to them?

[OnTheOtherHand]

80. hey, if you think you can win on the merits, go for it

You appear to think the video in the OP is pretty cogent. Does this mean that you think it is facially bizarre that the portion of each tower above the impact point could initiate a progressive collapse that would bring down the tower?

To me, the argument behind the video seems about as cogent as an argument that the domino effect is physically impossible. Am I missing something? Or should I not even try to descry an argument in the video because it's just satire anyway?

[William Seger]

97. Fluster and bluster and flailing arms...

... and still no rational response to a single one of the serious problems with the "controlled demolition" theory. Instead, you launch a lame counterattack by trying to find problems with the NIST theory based on absolutely nothing but faulty logic, your own ignorance, and some crap you picked up (from a fairly well-known source) about "conservation of momentum," which you obviously don't understand.

Contrary to "truther" opinion, the idea of progressive collapse was not invented by FEMA or NIST on 9/11. It's a fairly well-known phenomenon, regardless of the fact that nothing quite like the WTC towers ever happened before -- the basic principle is the same as many other collapses. I have mentioned here before one example that I'm familiar with -- the Skyline Towers in 1973 -- because I was working as a structural draftsman at the time, just a few miles away in Alexandria, Va, and the engineers in the office talked about it for weeks. All of their talk centered around what caused the initial collapse; not a one of them was surprised that when the top floor failed, the 25 floors below it collapsed one after the other, right down to the sub-basement. They knew that buildings are simply not designed to handle that kind of abuse, and they had no trouble explaining to me in perfectly "common sense" terms -- no elaborate structural mechanics required -- why it happened. (That explanation does, however, require a high-school-physics level understanding of impact force and what determines it, and some "common sense" understanding of what happens to a structure when structural integrity is lost, so I seem to have great difficulty explaining it to most "truthers.")

And, indeed, something like WTC7 could happen again -- easily -- if a 767 flies into a high-rise built similar to the WTC towers, and something like the WTC7 collapse could happen again -- easily -- just by of fire, because that building was clearly not designed to withstand a prolonged, unfought fire. People who understand the seriousness of that fact don't have much patience with "controlled demolition" bullshit from people who clearly don't know what they are talking about. For some bizarre reason, "truthers" prefer to think that all steel buildings are designed the same so they should all behave the same. If you ever get the urge to do something about your ignorance, ask a structural engineer about that some day.

So, unless and until you have something resembling a cogent reply to why those five issues I listed don't disprove a controlled demolition, I'm finished with wasting time with you.

[whatchamacallit]

101. Gotta love that OCT playbook...

Play #1: Claim superior knowledge.

Regardless of your actual level of education or area of expertise, aggressively claim your command of any and all topics being discussed. It doesn't matter what you really know or what you do for a living, just go for it. The more aggressive and condescending the better, as it helps bully the impressionable into accepting your faux bona fides. Useful related phrases:

"any one with a high school understanding of ___ knows..."

"Do you even know what ___ means?!?"

"___, which you obviously don't understand"

"Jesus Christ!"



. . . Stay tuned. . . more OCT plays to come . . .

[Bolo Boffin]

102. More meta-discussion from whatchamacallit

You never put numbers to the problem of the building collapses. You only ever put numbers to YOUR problem: knowledgeable people in the subject who are posting here. So you make up little numbered lists of what you think are bad tactics practiced by the other side, but never, ever get around to actually putting your own hypothesis to the rigor of scientific discussion. You simply hide behind ignorance and wait for the knowledgeable to get tired.

So you keep listing your OCT plays and we'll keep bringing the science. "Lord, make my discussion opponents ridiculous!"

[whatchamacallit]

112. So you'll appreciate me more if I do what you do

copy and paste the numbers of someone smart who shares my beliefs regarding 911? I mean let's get real Mr. Science, not a single iota of the "facts and figures" you post here originated in your noggin. It's funny how massively proud you are of not-your-work.

[Bolo Boffin]

113. Well, copying and pasting the numbers of someone who presents a CD explanation

that would be a start. At least then we'd be treating science and physics with the respect it deserves, and working toward an actual understanding of what happened.

Until then, you're just playing silly games.

[wildbilln864]

138. more stuben glass science I suspect! nt

[SDuderstadt]

103. Nice diversions, but....

can you actually answer the questions that WS raises? You can't?

[OnTheOtherHand]

105. in search of the argument

Let's rewind to post #19, where you posted: "Utter crap."

"Real-world experience with heavy things would suggest a different outcome..."

...when one floor of a quarter-mile-high skyscraper gives way? What real-world experience do you think is pertinent one way or the other? (Not a rhetorical question.)

This is where your overweening confidence in your own intuition is hard for many of us to understand, much less to share. Or are you asserting that it is simply impossible for the floor to have given way, in which case the OP would seem to be entirely moot?

Back to #19 again: "You expect people to remember physics properties like kinetic energy, but forget properties like 'conservation of momentum'."

It sounds as if you are on the verge of making an argument. What is it?

[whatchamacallit]

109. Boys, boys, boys...

Here's a question for ya... How's all that "scientific precision" you demand working out for you? If it's the only "valid" form of discourse in the dungeon, and the only way to reach the truth, what's the score? Are we there yet? Surely, after 7+ years of wielding the razor sharp weapons of math and physics, you've won the day. Otherwise, what good has it been if the controversy is still no closer to resolution? How many have been persuaded by your theories, or should I say the theories of much smarter people that you simply parrot on this board? Maybe I'll follow your dictate regarding "valid arguments" when I see some results. Spank on...

[SDuderstadt]

114. It's kinda silly to pretend...

the country is split 50-50 over this issue, just because a few die-hard "9/11 was an inside job" types can't deal with facts and science. This is the same tactics the "intelligent design" folks use. Pretend there's a real controversy (there isn't...the scientific community accepts the reality of evolution almost overwhelmingly) so ID proponents insist on a "false equivalency". Again, hmany of the 130,000+ members of ASCE have flocked to the ranks of the "9/11 truth movement"?

[whatchamacallit]

116. There you go again

Aren't you "pretending" to know what most people think? Show me a published study that has numbers on what most scientists/engineers/physicists believe about 911 and I'll STFU. Otherwise, I suggest you do. Implying all of ASCE agrees with you simply because you haven't seen an organized effort by it's members to challenge the OCT, is about as specious as an argument can be. You've activated the Super Lameness Alert!

[SDuderstadt]

119. Jesus Fucking Christ...

for the last fucking time, I'm not implying that no member of ASCE believes that "9/11 was an inside job". I'm pointing out that ASCE has 130,000+ members and, if your claims hold water, civil engineers would be fertile ground for your cause. Yet, you can't seem to name a significant number of them as your adherents. Why is that?

Additionally, the art of inference seems to elude you. I'm not making any claim whatsoever that all members of ASCE "support the OCT". But the fact that you don't hear a big outcry from ASCE can be used to draw inferences. I have a question for you. Do you think the lack of outcry from ASCE means that it's more likely that they believe "9/11 was an inside job" or less likely that they believe "9/11 was an inside job"?

I'll go you one better. ASCE was instrumental in the WTC BPAT and numerous other studies connected to 9/11, as were countless other entities. Do you really expect us to believe that ASCE issued faulty or downright bogus studies and NO ASCE subset challenged them? Really? If they did, where the fuck is the challenge? You cannot answer simple questions, so you dodge and weave. When you want serious debate, let us know. I'm done.

[whatchamacallit]

120. This is the stupidest argument I've ever heard

for the last fucking time, I'm not implying that no member of ASCE believes that "9/11 was an inside job". I'm pointing out that ASCE has 130,000+ members and, if your claims hold water, civil engineers would be fertile ground for your cause. Yet, you can't seem to name a significant number of them as your adherents. Why is that?

For the last fucking time, I don't know. But it doesn't mean shit. Even an imbecile would understand that there is a universe of possible reasons. Chief among them, ridicule. Just like the withering ridicule the OCT delight in heaping on anyone who doesn't buy the official story.

Jump off your runaway train and think for a minute... Before I came to this forum, I never shared my feelings about 911 with anyone. Yep, to this day neither my friends or coworkers know my views on this. Does this surprise you? It shouldn't. Except for in places like the dungeon, most folks don't see the need to open that can of worms. And I guarantee you I am the rule, not the exception, in this regard. There could be many millions of people in all walks of life and professions that suspect 911 was an inside job. It's ludicrous to assume that any but a small minority of activists would take this to the streets. Your premise is plain wrong, and if you could get past your desire to win at any cost, you'd see it.

[AZCat]

122. You never talked about this with anyone?

That surprises me. Maybe my experience is unusual, but I've talked about the events of September 11th, including conspiracy theories, with quite a few people - many of them engineers. Nobody seemed reluctant to share their opinions, even those who disagreed with me.

[whatchamacallit]

123. I've more or less hinted to my wife

but she doesn't have a lot to say about it (I'm pretty sure she doesn't share my views). If people I felt comfortable with asked my opinion I might give it, but this is not a topic that often comes up in my circles.

[AZCat]

124. Weird.

It's strange how different people's experiences can be. Regardless, I'm glad you can talk about it here. Even if you catch a lot of crap for your views, it's just from a bunch of anonymous people on an internet forum - not from anyone who really matters.

[whatchamacallit]

127. Thanks AZ

You're obviously "the good cop" ;-)

[AZCat]

139. I wouldn't say that...

But I do recognize the importance of questioning what you've been told, especially when reflecting on the last eight years. I'm just alarmed so many people go from questioning anything the Bush Administration says to accepting whatever nonsensical theories a nutjob like Judy Wood promotes. Why not apply rational skepticism in both cases, rather than just one?

[whatchamacallit]

142. Agreed. (n/t)

[OnTheOtherHand]

131. no, it remains a pretty good argument

Of course, it would be better to discuss the physics. But since you've announced that "scientific precision" is not the only "'valid' form of discourse" -- more, that it's apparently pretty worthless as long as some folks can simply disregard it -- and it isn't clear what kind of argument you want to substitute for it, expert opinion seems worth considering.

As a member of an opinionated profession, I find it facially implausible that tens of thousands of professionals would be more reluctant to offer reasoned critiques of progressive collapse than you are reluctant to offer your own critique. There may indeed be a "universe of possible" alternatives to SDuderstadt's surmise that the professionals understand the relevant physics better than you do -- but the question is whether any of these alternatives fit the evidence as well.

There may well be millions of people who suspect that 9/11 was an inside job, and I agree that few of them would "take this to the streets." But that's not the point. Saying that progressive collapse is physically impossible doesn't even require someone to argue that 9/11 was an inside job. It doesn't even necessarily require anyone to write a peer-reviewed paper, or to do minimally competent work for NIST, although either of those would be instructive. Just plain thinking out loud -- something it is hard to keep opinionated professionals from doing -- would probably suffice.

If the Bush administration issued a report denying the existence of climate change, would experts have behaved as if they all accepted this "official story"? We actually saw that experiment, more or less. The Bush administration could have issued a report that the earth is flat, but would physicists have behaved as if that were a reasonable conclusion?

The notion that "the OCT" delight in heaping "withering ridicule" on anyone who "doesn't buy the official story" is not analytically useful. How the towers fell down is an empirical question that should be amenable to scientific investigation. My problem with you isn't that you don't "buy the official story," whatever that is. It's that you seem indifferent or even hostile to any effort to figure out what really happened. I find that perplexing and dismaying.

(edited to correct and clarify second sentence)

[whatchamacallit]

133. Here's a light switch for you

Being experts in logic, surely you guys are familiar with this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof :think:

You may howl with indignation and claim your ASCE argument is somehow different, but that claim would either be ignorance or a lie.

[SDuderstadt]

135. please describe the argument i supposedly made...

in which i committed the ''argumentum ad ignorantium'' fallacy. also, please be kind enough to refer to the post # in which i supposedly did so. i dare you.

[whatchamacallit]

136. Ugh...

From #55

"although you didn't direct it to me, I'll take a swing at it. I don't know...maybe because PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS HAVE SCRUTINIZED NIST'S WORK AND FIND IT BASICALLY SOUND???? If they didn't, please explain why there's not a groundswell of opposition to the NIST reports from ASCE/"


Argument from ignorance

The two most common forms of the argument from ignorance, both fallacious, can be reduced to the following form:

* Something is currently unexplained or insufficiently understood or explained (, so it is not (or must not be) true. why is there not a groundswell of opposition to the NIST reports from ASCE?

* Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven. because PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS HAVE SCRUTINIZED NIST'S WORK AND FIND IT BASICALLY SOUND

[OnTheOtherHand]

115. what? you don't even PRETEND to have an argument?

My mind is blown. Do you actually believe what you claim to believe? If so, why on earth?

Or is it just a hoot to declare "Stalemate! tie game!"?

[whatchamacallit]

117. I get the impression

your mind was blown long ago.

[OnTheOtherHand]

121. gee, thanks for another terrific substantive response

No wonder the "Truth Movement" has such a sterling reputation. :eyes:

Hats off to Woody Box and anyone else willing to argue something.

[Twist_U_Up]

108. What kind of shit do you want in your shit sandwich?

-- the hot-and-steamy horseshit or the cold-and-crunchy bullshit?

OCTers will serve it any way your palat will accept.

Hers another as long as Im on the sublect of shit....
If you cant dazzle them with brilliance, baffle em with bullshit.

[MrMickeysMom]

152. Agreed...

I come back now and again to see the variety served. I have to say, bullshit is served best when it can be piled on!

[William Seger]

126. Nope, no more plays for you

You're a complete waste of time and bandwidth.

[whatchamacallit]

128. Hm... how do I feel about this?

:party: :party: :toast: :party: :party:

[rollingrock]

8. lol

there goes the IHOP theory.

[SidDithers]

82. I make it a point to never watch a wildbill video...

unless he also provides his comments on the video in his OP. Amazingly enough, I've never had to watch a wildbill video.

Sid

Edit: spelling

[wildbilln864]

93. "A wildbill video"...

:rofl:
You can't watch a wildbill video.
I don't make videos. :eyes:

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

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

[Ohio Joe]

98. I have asked for the same as well

A brief comment on the contents and a running time is simply a common courtesy.

[wildbilln864]

118. oh boo friggin hoo! It's no skin off my nose if you don't watch it. nt

:eyes:

[Realityhack]

130. Terms of use violation...

and 'common sense' is what tells you the earth is flat and the sun moves around it.

There are a whole shitload of things that are counter intuitive but true and physics can explain them.

[rollingrock]

153. '...but physics can explain them'

let's see you use physics to explain it then.

or else, your analogy does not apply here.

[rollingrock]

154. What, still no explanation?

cat got your tongue?

[wildbilln864]

155. no surprise there. nt

[OnTheOtherHand]

159. have you, for instance, read other posts in the thread?

Do you consider it possible that the towers fell one floor at a time? If not, why not? If so, then what does the video in the OP have to do with anything?

[wildbilln864]

160. one floor at a time!?

and approximately ten floors per second. One at a time! Very unusual.
:shrug: :shrug:

[OnTheOtherHand]

161. how do you see it, wildbill?

I assume you're familiar with the concept of gravitational acceleration, so I don't have to review that.

Are you under the impression that, say, floors #20, 40, and 60 failed simultaneously? That's not how it looks to me in the videos. YMMV.

ETA: And, yes, I hope we can all agree that the events of 9/11/01 were unusual.

[rollingrock]

162. The NIST says the pancaking theory is invalid.

[William Seger]

163. .... and many people understand WHAT "pancake theory" they were talking about

With a little work and a little thought, you can get on that list.

Oh, wait a sec... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x236135">we already went through that and apparently you prefer your ignorance.

[rollingrock]

167. There's more than one pancake theory?

please, do tell.

[William Seger]

169. I did, in the other thread

The paragraph from the NIST FAQ:

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

The "pancake theory" this paragraph is talking about is the specific theory that the cause of the collapse was the failure of a floor: that a floor broke away from the perimeter or core columns, "pancaked" on the floor below, and that started a progressive failure of the remaining floors. Instead, they found that the cause of the collapse was that perimeter columns buckled inward, and the only plausible reason for that would be that the floors were still attached and pulled the columns in when they sagged. The initial cause was, therefore, not floor pancaking but perimeter column buckling. After the collapse started, however, the floors certainly "pancaked" one after another, as we clearly see in all the videos.

Hope this helps.

[rollingrock]

170. That makes no sense

when something buckles it begins to topple over, it does not explode from the top down floor by floor.

[SDuderstadt]

171. Prove that, Rollingrock

Can you?

[rollingrock]

172. it's your thoery

you prove it

[SDuderstadt]

It's YOUR claim that when....

something buckles, it topples over. YOU prove it.

[SDuderstadt]

174. It's YOUR claim that when....

something buckles, it topples over. YOU prove it.

[rollingrock]

176. In other words you can't

typical response. you can't prove it, so you demand the questioner to prove a negative (which is impossible.)

[SDuderstadt]

180. How in the world am I asking you to "prove a negative"?

It's YOUR claim, RR! You claimed that when something buckles, it can only begin to topple over. If you can't prove that, just say so.

[William Seger]

173. You're half right, so now we're getting somewhere

> "when something buckles it begins to topple over"

Very good!



> "it does not explode from the top down floor by floor."

It can when that buckling leads to complete horizontal progressive failure, and then the resulting vertical forces from falling mass exceed the structure's capacity.

[rollingrock]

175. 'Falling mass exceeds the structure's capacity'

again, makes no sense.

did this 'falling structure' suddenly double or quadruple in weight on 9/11?

[William Seger]

177. Force = mass * acceleration

Or, in an impact, it's deceleration.

In the case of the tower tops falling 12 feet, it's easy to show that the impact force must have been much greater than quadruple the static load of that mass.

[rollingrock]

179. Easier said than done it seems.

...uh, I'm waiting for the show part.


how much force/speed/acceleration/mass (whatever you want to call it) would it take for a VW Bug to enter one end of a school bus and come out of the other side, as if the school bus wasn't even there? is such a feat even possible, except perhaps with the aid of high explosives?

[William Seger]

181. I've been waiting a while, myself

... for some "truther" to estimate the impact force after the tower tops fell 12 feet. So, I'll give you my answer: It's very hard to say exactly, but it's easy to say why it was "too much."

When an object falls, it accelerates at the rate of gravity, 32 ft/s/s, so we could calculate the velocity after a fall of X feet. However, to estimate the average impact force, expressed in Gs, all we need to do is estimate the distance over which it decelerates back to 0 fps, and divide that distance into X. For example, if something fell 12 feet and was brought to a stop within 1 foot, it would experience an average deceleration of 12 Gs. That's just the average, but of course the deceleration is not necessarily smooth; part of the deceleration could be much higher.

A steel column can compress elastically (i.e. with no permanent damage) only about 0.2% of it's length, but it can compress with permanent (plastic) damage by about 3% before it begins to buckle, after which its load carrying capacity drops drastically. Now, to prevent total collapse, we need to not only bring the top mass to a stop; we need to have enough capacity left over to hold up the original mass, so basically we need to stop the fall before the columns buckle, which would allow the collapse to continue. If we assume that columns at the top of the undamaged section and columns at the bottom of the falling section were compressing, then we have 3% of 24 feet in which to stop, which would be 8.64", but call it 9" since we're only approximating. If the tower top was brought to a smooth stop within 9" after falling 12 feet, that would be a deceleration of 16 Gs.

So, the question is: Can columns designed to carry 3 times the weight of tower top as a static load be reasonably expected to absorb a 16 G impact force from that same top, without failing?

Now then, consider that this is an extremely idealized situation, with the top falling squarely on the lower columns and all the columns uniformly compressing, and nothing else considered. In the real collapse, the forces would not have been that symmetric, putting bending moments on the columns which would cause them to buckle sooner, and the floor structure that held the columns vertical would simultaneously be destroyed, meaning that many of the columns could simply be pushed aside rather than compressed to failure. Even if you aren't sure of the answer to the question in the previous paragraph, the reason that the collapse continued should be quite obvious.

So, it doesn't really require any elaborate calculations to arrive at exactly the same conclusion that http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20Did%20&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It.pdf">Bazant, Le, Greening, and Benson did with a very detailed and elaborate analysis.

As for the VW-and-schoolbus, that analogy is so far beyond irrelevant and idiotic that I won't dignify it with a response. The original title of that video was very appropriate.

[rollingrock]

182. What analogy would you use?

name a real world example of an object that can completely annihilate another object with 10 times the mass, through the force of gravity alone.

or else, I can't buy any of your pseudo-calculations.

[Bolo Boffin]

184. Thinking of this as Mass vs. Mass = fail

It's Load vs. Structure. If the structure can't redistribute the load, then the structure is destroyed.

[rollingrock]

187. No

the structure will not fail to redistribute a load unless one or more of its foundations is knocked out from under it. You don't knock down a multi-story house by making a hole in the wall, especially not when that hole is located on the top story.

[William Seger]

186. "10 times the mass"

Sorry, "10 times the mass" has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Check out the progressive collapse of Skyline Towers, Baileys Crossroads VA, 1973: one floor took out all 25 floors below it. In both cases, the floors were destroyed one at at time. You really need to think about it some more.

Nothing "pseudo" about the calculation. High-school freshman physics.

[rollingrock]

189. And those 25 floors were structurally compromised to begin with (improper construction practices)

The collapse was attributed to the early removal of concrete support beams under the floors.

Fairfax County hired Professor Ingvar Schoushoe of the University of Illinois, a concrete specialist, to investigate the cause of the collapse. He determined that the collapse occurred because of the premature removal of shoring from beneath newly poured floors.<10><11>

George Taylor, a workman for Northwest Sheet Metal, Inc., claimed that workmen were pulling concrete supports "out too damn fast. They're trying to hustle the job too damn fast."<2>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyline_Towers_collapse

[William Seger]

190. Nope, read it again. Only the floor that collapsed was weak -- that's why it collapsed

They removed the shoring under it before it was fully cured; they didn't allow enough time for the cold weather. The floors below were fully cured, however. I was working a few miles away in Alexandria as a structural draftsman in an A&E firm. The engineers talked about it for weeks, but mostly about that first floor collapsing. They didn't have any problem figuring out what happened to the other floors, or in explaining it to me.

[rollingrock]

191. Read what again?

...your daily astrology report?

[William Seger]

192. Read the paragraph you copied

Sheesh. You do know that they build buildings one floor at a time, right?

[rollingrock]

193. Do you know what a dictionary is used for?

the difference between singular and plural seems to escape you.

[William Seger]

194. Let's try this again

You do know that they build buildings one floor at a time, right? Well, let me assure you that they do, and in fact, for reinforced concrete there's another step: You have to pour a floor, then the columns, then next floor, with curing time for each step. The temporary shoring referred to was under the last floor poured, regardless of any "s" in that text, and it collapsed because they hadn't allowed enough curing time for the cold weather. Did I mention that I was working in an A&E office where the engineers talked about this collapse for weeks? Yes, I believe I did.

[rollingrock]

195. It's your word against the concrete specialist

hired to do the investigation of the Skyline collapse. I think I'll go with the concrete specialist, who said multiple floors were not properly cured before moving onto the construction of the next one. Other sources say low-quality concrete used throughout the building was also a factor. In any event, the skyline Towers was a steel-reinforced concrete structure, not a steel-frame structure. They can scarcely be compared.

[William Seger]

196. Believe whatever you like, including the stuff you make up

... but I'm quite sure the concrete specialist hired by the county found that it was caused by removing the shoring under that top floor before it had cured, and that was because of the cold weather. All that does is slow down curing, but the floor below that had plenty of time to fully cure.

And just a reminder, I guess you forgot your original argument? Here: I'll save you the trouble of going back:

> "name a real world example of an object that can completely annihilate another object with 10 times the mass, through the force of gravity alone."

Done. "10 times the mass" has absolutely nothing whatever to do with a progressive collapse, because the floors fail one at a time.

[rollingrock]

183. And none of that explains the collapse of building 7

again, which was was struck by no plane, and hence no pile driver theory can apply to his building.

[Bolo Boffin]

185. The final report on 7 from NIST does.

Please check it out.

[William Seger]

188. So? The NIST report explains the collapse of building 7 (n/i)

[rollingrock]

168. Does this theory of involve a rabbit?

[William Seger]

178. Nope, nor does it involve rabbit cages

[Realityhack]

199. You want me to use physics...

to show the world is not flat and that the sun does not orbit it?

I am sorry but I am not your second grade teacher.

[wildbilln864]

151. a kick for william....

perhaps this will help with your "thought experiment". I'm assuming of course you haven't seen it yet.

[William Seger]

165. Kick back atcha

I don't know why you would assume I haven't seen it, since I had several posts. I was assuming that you decided you were better off just ignoring the points I raised, sorta like you apparently decided you were better off not completing the "thought experiment."

[wildbilln864]

166. I haven't ignored them, I'll get to them when ...

I get the time. I usually just pop in and out and read and/or comment.
You did raise interesting points. We'll chat more later if you're still inclined. :hi:

[Grateful for Hope]

156. This thread is kind of amazing

Good on you Wildbill.

[wildbilln864]

157. not sure what you're meaning but...

Thank you. :hi:

[Grateful for Hope]

158. You are quite welcome.

[wildbilln864]

200. never expected it would get this long.

figured it would drop like a stone but it didn't. :hi:

[William Seger]

164. That's an understatement. It's amazingly amazing

:rofl:

[Bolo Boffin]

197. People used common sense for tens of thousands of years.

Then we figured out physics and went to the Moon.

[wildbilln864]

198. kick! nt

[JuniperLea]

201. This thread is hilarious!

Just fucking hilarious!

[wildbilln864]

202. Glad you were entertained! nt

[Name removed]

205. Deleted message

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