|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:54 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
so both progressive collapse and fracture wave collapse have been rejected by peers in the scientific community. |
One article in one journal doesn't prove or disprove any theory. It's the accumulation of such articles that reflects the general consensus of the scientific community and thus indicates which scenario is scientifically more valid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
so both progressive collapse and fracture wave collapse have been rejected by peers in the scientific community. |
One article in one journal doesn't prove or disprove any theory. It's the accumulation of such articles that reflects the general consensus of the scientific community and thus indicates which scenario is scientifically more valid. |
i totally agree with you. however, my statement does not indicate otherwise.
my point is that, current theories in 'popular' scientific communities haven't been validated as some people assume. Just because a theory is presented in a 'popular' journal, it doesn't make it valid. Just as you pointed out in your post. So, I think we agree then.
And those theories you provided links to, do not exclude demolition as a theory, which in my opinion has more evidence supporting it than any existing 'popular' theory. As you pointed out, it is unfortunate that demolition theory is not presented in popular journals. I would also like to include 'popular' media too. It is a real shame. wouldn't you agree? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
so both progressive collapse and fracture wave collapse have been rejected by peers in the scientific community. |
One article in one journal doesn't prove or disprove any theory. It's the accumulation of such articles that reflects the general consensus of the scientific community and thus indicates which scenario is scientifically more valid. |
i totally agree with you. however, my statement does not indicate otherwise. |
Ok. I interpreted "rejected by peers" to mean definitive rejection.
| Quote: |
| my point is that, current theories in 'popular' scientific communities haven't been validated as some people assume. Just because a theory is presented in a 'popular' journal, it doesn't make it valid. Just as you pointed out in your post. So, I think we agree then. |
I agree that they are theories and not undeniable facts. I doubt we'll ever be able to piece together the entire sequence of events. But we have a pretty good idea of what happened.
| Quote: |
| And those theories you provided links to, do not exclude demolition as a theory, which in my opinion has more evidence supporting it than any existing 'popular' theory. |
Undeniable evidence: planes crashed into the WTCs and the caught on fire. Which would support the "popular" theory (I'm assuming by popular you mean the non-controlled demolition theory).
Further evidence proving or disproving controlled demolition is debatable. But it's up to the controlled demolition crowd to prove that thermite, or some other substance, was used. Thus far they have failed miserably at it. Thus the de facto explanation is planes crash, fire starts, buildings collapse.
| Quote: |
| As you pointed out, it is unfortunate that demolition theory is not presented in popular journals. I would also like to include 'popular' media too. It is a real shame. wouldn't you agree? |
A shame? Is it a shame that popular journals don't talk about creationism more? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
so both progressive collapse and fracture wave collapse have been rejected by peers in the scientific community. |
One article in one journal doesn't prove or disprove any theory. It's the accumulation of such articles that reflects the general consensus of the scientific community and thus indicates which scenario is scientifically more valid. |
i totally agree with you. however, my statement does not indicate otherwise. |
Ok. I interpreted "rejected by peers" to mean definitive rejection.
| Quote: |
| my point is that, current theories in 'popular' scientific communities haven't been validated as some people assume. Just because a theory is presented in a 'popular' journal, it doesn't make it valid. Just as you pointed out in your post. So, I think we agree then. |
I agree that they are theories and not undeniable facts. I doubt we'll ever be able to piece together the entire sequence of events. But we have a pretty good idea of what happened.
| Quote: |
| And those theories you provided links to, do not exclude demolition as a theory, which in my opinion has more evidence supporting it than any existing 'popular' theory. |
Undeniable evidence: planes crashed into the WTCs and the caught on fire. Which would support the "popular" theory (I'm assuming by popular you mean the non-controlled demolition theory).
Further evidence proving or disproving controlled demolition is debatable. But it's up to the controlled demolition crowd to prove that thermite, or some other substance, was used. Thus far they have failed miserably at it. Thus the de facto explanation is planes crash, fire starts, buildings collapse.
| Quote: |
| As you pointed out, it is unfortunate that demolition theory is not presented in popular journals. I would also like to include 'popular' media too. It is a real shame. wouldn't you agree? |
A shame? Is it a shame that popular journals don't talk about creationism more? |
We have a good idea of what happened? I realize that is your opinion, but I think I have argued well enough to demonstrate that the scientific community has very little idea about the sequence of collapse after initiation other than calling it 'global collapse' or using a pancake theory that has been rejected by the 911truth scientists and even scientists in the mainstream.
They do have a computer model for the collapse initiation. 'Extreme' values had to be used as variables for the collapse to occur. This is all in the NIST report. For example, NIST put 42 inches as the length of sag the beams experienced before collapse.
There is a whistle blower named Kevin Ryan who worked for the company (UL) that tested the WTC steel. He challenged NIST's values for such things. He wrote a formal letter disputing these values and calling attention to such problems. He was fired from his job. you may already know about it.
http://www.ultruth.com/
again, collapse sequence models and studies are irrelevant. They do not show why the buildings were totally and completey pulverized. There simply isn't enough energy from a gravitational fall to do that. It is not unreasonable to make this observation? it cheats science to call it 'global collapse' and blanket the event out...there simply is no 'official' method for complete destruction of the buildings except to say..."it just collapsed like that"
What is the official story on the mechanism for total collapse?
-pancaking?/progressive collapse -->
these are old theories now/evidence rejects them as we have seen. The government even called for another report NIST, after FEMA used this theory in its report. why do another investigation and spend 40, 000, 000 more???
NIST--> global collapse....they give it a name but don't research or propose a mechanism...why?...they say it is irrelevant. something happens for the first time in history and it is irrelevant? is that good science? what about building practices, laws, codes? shouldnt they be revised if building can be pulverized when a floor collapses?
(all of the above has been cited throughout this thread, if you want to see a specific reference I will link you to it.just let me know.
Thermate
There is evidence for the chemical product signiture of thermate reactions on steel from WTC 1/2/7. (reference previously posted, ask if you want it)
It terms of the sulpher present in relatively high amount. I don't think other sources (gypsium, etc) have been eliminated as possible contaminants. That will be a hard one to accomplish in my opinion. 1 point for the 'oficial story' of collapse after initiation?!?!?!?!?!
Scientists are working on these things. For example, I showed you the article about the eroded steel beam. Currently they are researching the kind of enviromnet that would be necessary to erode the steel in such a manner. That should be interesting.
you compared this to arguing for creation. i've enjoyed discussing these issues constructivley with you but that comment is suspect. don't you think? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Reviews of
Debunking 9/11 Debunking:
An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official
Conspiracy Theory
news:[email protected]...
New Evidence The Official
911 Story Is A Fraud
David Ray Griffin
10-12-7
My book, although it has yet to be reviewed by a single mainstream
publication in the United States, has been supported by well-respected
political commentators from the left and the right. Howard Zinn wrote:
"Considering how the 9-ll tragedy has been used by the Bush
administration to propel us into immoral wars again and again, I
believe that David Ray Griffin's provocative questions about 9-ll
deserve to be investigated and addressed." Paul Craig Roberts, who was
the assistant secretary of the US Treasury during the Reagan
administration, wrote: "Professor Griffin is the nemesis of the 9/11
cover-up. This new book destroys the credibility of the NIST and
Popular Mechanics reports and annihilates his critics."
My book was even endorsed by a former senior official of the CIA, Bill
Christison, who had for the first five years after 9/11, he admitted,
studiously avoided looking at the evidence that it might have been an
inside job. He called my book "a superb compendium of the strong body
of evidence showing the official US government story of what happened
on September 11, 2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous series of
lies."
Book reviewers in mainstream publications were evidently not moved
even by Publishers Weekly. Although it had dismissed my first two
books about 9/11 as "ridiculous" and "pure speculation," it said of
Debunking 9/11 Debunking: "All but the most dogmatic readers will find
Griffin's evidence - from the inconsistencies between NORAD tapes and
the 9/11 Commission Report to rigorous exploration into the physics of
the collapse detailed and deeply unnerving."
Another source widely used to determine whether a book is worthy of
review is Choice, put out by the American Library Association. It has
recently spoken, saying: "Griffin exhibits exceptional skill in
detailed scholarly analysis.
He concludes with a call to the reader, and all of us, to bring these
issues into full public discussion and to expose the truth about 9/11,
whatever it may be. Indeed, such 'truth' has certainly not yet been
revealed due to extensive gaps and contradictions in official theories
that he documents in detail." Whether this endorsement will lead to
any reviews remains to be seen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 2:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
We have a good idea of what happened? I realize that is your opinion, but I think I have argued well enough to demonstrate that the scientific community has very little idea about the sequence of collapse after initiation other than calling it 'global collapse' or using a pancake theory that has been rejected by the 911truth scientists and even scientists in the mainstream. |
The sequence of collapse after initiation is only a small part of the overall picture. With the "official" theory, we have the assailants, the weapon, and the catalyst for collapse. With the controlled demolition theory we have some sulfur residue that may or may not indicate the use of thermite and a few other bits and pieces of very debatable circumstantial evidence. I'd say the official theory, holes and all, wins hands down.
A forthcoming paper on the collapse is discussed here:
http://www.physorg.com/news108737007.html
| Quote: |
Dr Seffen's new analysis, which will be published in a forthcoming issue of the American Society of Civil Engineers' Journal of Engineering Mechanics, focuses on calculating the residual capacity of the building to resist the weight of the floors above under collapse conditions.
He then develops a dynamic model of the collapse sequence, which simulates the successive squashing, or "pan-caking" of individual storeys based on the residual capacity already identified. The process is already well known from other studies of progressive collapse, but usually applies to other structures such as undersea pipelines, rather than buildings.
This allowed Dr Seffen to predict that the residual capacity of both buildings was limited, and once collapse had started, it would take only 10 seconds for the building to go down - just a little longer than the free-falling of a coin dropped from the top of either tower. |
Looks like all the loose ends are getting cleaned up quite nicely.
| Quote: |
There is a whistle blower named Kevin Ryan who worked for the company (UL) that tested the WTC steel. He challenged NIST's values for such things. He wrote a formal letter disputing these values and calling attention to such problems. He was fired from his job. you may already know about it.
http://www.ultruth.com/ |
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/05/loose-screw-3-kevin-ryan-of.html
| Quote: |
| again, collapse sequence models and studies are irrelevant. They do not show why the buildings were totally and completey pulverized. There simply isn't enough energy from a gravitational fall to do that. It is not unreasonable to make this observation? |
"Not enough energy" according to whom?
| Quote: |
| NIST--> global collapse....they give it a name but don't research or propose a mechanism...why?...they say it is irrelevant. something happens for the first time in history and it is irrelevant? is that good science? what about building practices, laws, codes? shouldnt they be revised if building can be pulverized when a floor collapses? |
I don't think there's a lot you can do once you've got 30 floors crashing down on your building. Much more important is preventing the failure that led to it. i.e. fireproofing, insulation, redundancies, etc. Probably more important is keeping planes from crashing into your building.
| Quote: |
There is evidence for the chemical product signiture of thermate reactions on steel from WTC 1/2/7. (reference previously posted, ask if you want it)
It terms of the sulpher present in relatively high amount. I don't think other sources (gypsium, etc) have been eliminated as possible contaminants. That will be a hard one to accomplish in my opinion. 1 point for the 'oficial story' of collapse after initiation?!?!?!?!?! |
Which eliminates just about the only piece of physical evidence that the controlled demolition theory has.
| Quote: |
| Scientists are working on these things. For example, I showed you the article about the eroded steel beam. Currently they are researching the kind of enviromnet that would be necessary to erode the steel in such a manner. That should be interesting. |
Yes, that research would be of interest. I hope it's being done by uninvolved, unbiased parties. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The sequence of collapse after initiation is only a small part of the overall picture |
You are ignoring the hypothesis of demolition
-->"The sequence of collapse was only possible with explosives"
under this hypothesis, the one I've been arguing for, collapse after initiation is the MOST important part. You've falsely minimized an issue here.
| Quote: |
| With the "official" theory, we have the assailants, the weapon, and the catalyst for collapse. |
you've used quite a large brush here. you've ignored the mastermind of the attack and the financial backers. you also rely on the NIST model for a catalyst. this model has been torn to shreds by scientists speaking up. details of the model were never released to be reviewed by peers. you call that scienctific investigation?
Your broad stokes directly reflect what you read in the mainstream media. THAT is a shame.
| Quote: |
| With the controlled demolition theory we have some sulfur residue that may or may not indicate the use of thermite and a few other bits and pieces of very debatable circumstantial evidence |
debatable evidence? HAven't I just debated the 'official' story evidence? What are you trying to express in that statement?
Evidence?-->did you not read the last 9 pages?
your logic is tainted....double think
To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies � all this is indispensably necessary.
Orwell/1984
good find. we will have to wait until it is released to discuss it. lets hope they are honest scientists and release all the details and value inputs for their study to be peer reviewed.
I too.........
| Quote: |
| hope it's being done by uninvolved, unbiased parties. |
is anyone ubiased towards 9/11?....sigh
| Quote: |
| "Not enough energy" according to whom? |
Source: International Journal of Fracture, Volume 141, Numbers 1-2, September 2006 , pp. 287-289(3)
Publisher: Springer
Abstract:
Two theories of the WTC collapse are examined. The first one is the theory of progressive failure, and the other one is the theory of fracture waves. The collapse in the regime of progressive failure is shown to occur at an acceleration, which is several times less than the gravitational acceleration and, hence, this theory contradicts to the observed free fall. Evidently, the WTC towers were disintegrated at the very beginning of each collapse. To explain this fact an alternative model based on the theory of failure waves is proposed.
forget that one?
| Quote: |
| I don't think there's a lot you can do once you've got 30 floors crashing down on your building. Much more important is preventing the failure that led to it. i.e. fireproofing, insulation, redundancies, etc. Probably more important is keeping planes from crashing into your building. |
one out of three buildings had 30 floors crashing down to be exact.
Here are the fallacies of that theory.
The fallacies here are multiple.
For there to be any chance of the top of the building impacting the bottom, the top would have to have broken loose and gone into freefall. But that's impossible because the top was connected to the bottom by the at least 85 percent of the columns that were not seriously damaged by the plane impact.
Given the asymmetry of the damage, any failure would have made the top bend and topple gradually over, not collide with the bottom like a sledgehammer.
The Towers were not only designed to support static gravity loads. They were designed to withstand the huge dynamic loads caused by 140 mph wind shears and earthquakes. Furthermore, they were designed to support many times normal static loads, given the standard engineering practices of building in large reserve strength ratios.
The visual records show that the alleged "hammer" didn't exist in either case. Rather the Towers' tops rapidly disintegrated as the Towers exploded outward.
check this video 2:50-3:20 mark.
http://www.911docs.net/911_rare_demolition_evidence.htm
physical laws cannot be changed. those are explosions created with explosives. not air being pushed out through steel.
| Quote: |
| http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/05/loose-screw-3-kevin-ryan-of.html |
comical at best.....sigh
| Quote: |
Looks like all the loose ends are getting cleaned up quite nicely.
|
Clever. This is probobly the most telling statement you've made.
I have no doubt, 'loose ends' are being 'cleaned up' by a lot of busy little bees exactly as we speak.
http://911truth.org/article.php?story=20071014221652399
| Quote: |
In sum, Graham�s ongoing relationship with the Shreveport FBI, from November 2000 until his poisoning in 2004, should have given him special protection as a supplier of information about the 9/11 terrorists in Shreveport, before and after 9/11.
Instead, Graham died a mysterious death that was never investigated. Shreveport FBI were extremely hostile when I asked them why. Agent Stephen Hayes indicated that Mohammed Jamal Khan Khan may have in fact been the FBI�s informant.
The Shreveport FBI appears to have protected foreign spies and 9/11 terrorists from a tenacious citizen researcher. An investigation of the Shreveport FBI could begin to expose who ordered Graham�s death. We must reassert the rule of law in America. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A hypothesis as valid as "cold fusion".
The cold fusion researchers presenting their review document to the 2004 DoE panel on cold fusion said that the observation of excess heat has been reproduced, that it can be reproduced at will under the proper conditions, and that many of the reasons for failure to reproduce it have been discovered. Despite the assertions of these researchers, most reviewers stated that the effects are not repeatable.
In 1989, the DoE panel said: "Even a single short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary. As a result, it is difficult convincingly to resolve all cold fusion claims since, for example, any good experiment that fails to find cold fusion can be discounted as merely not working for unknown reasons."[25] While repeatability is critical for commercial applications, independent reproduction is the criterion used in the scientific method.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The sequence of collapse after initiation is only a small part of the overall picture |
You are ignoring the hypothesis of demolition
-->"The sequence of collapse was only possible with explosives"
under this hypothesis, the one I've been arguing for, collapse after initiation is the MOST important part. You've falsely minimized an issue here. |
Because 1. sequence of events leading up to the collapse don't mesh with a controlled demolition theory, and 2. the collapse after initiation is still subject to debate. Many of the controlled demolition "proofs" use a faulty assumption (i.e. incorrect collapse time), haven't been computed by reputable scientists, and haven't passed the muster of peer review.
I still can't conclusively prove that the collapse after initiation concurs with the official theory, and nor can you prove that it conclusively supports a controlled demolition. But #1 is a major factor which you've completely ignored.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| With the "official" theory, we have the assailants, the weapon, and the catalyst for collapse. |
you've used quite a large brush here. you've ignored the mastermind of the attack and the financial backers. you also rely on the NIST model for a catalyst. this model has been torn to shreds by scientists speaking up. details of the model were never released to be reviewed by peers. you call that scienctific investigation? |
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed still factors into my equation, as does Al Qaeda. When have I cited the NIST report? Not very often. As a collaborative document, there are bound to be miscommunications and compromises that effect the final consistencies of the project. I've consistently only used the NIST report as a rough guideline and relied primarily on peer-reviewed articles as support. And those peer-reviewed articles all support the theory that the planes and fires caused the collapse.
If you want to repeatedly claim that "scientists" have torn the NIST report to shreds, you'll need to start citing the peer-reviewed work of those scientists.
| Quote: |
| Your broad stokes directly reflect what you read in the mainstream media. THAT is a shame. |
Incorrect. Have you been following all of the cites that I've provided. How many are from the MSM?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| With the controlled demolition theory we have some sulfur residue that may or may not indicate the use of thermite and a few other bits and pieces of very debatable circumstantial evidence |
debatable evidence? HAven't I just debated the 'official' story evidence? What are you trying to express in that statement?
Evidence?-->did you not read the last 9 pages? |
Yes. Did you? 911review.com is not evidence. Peer reviewed articles by trained scientists are evidence. By my estimations, the weight of evidence is about 20:1 in my favor.
| Quote: |
| your logic is tainted....double think |
Oh the irony.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| "Not enough energy" according to whom? |
Source: International Journal of Fracture, Volume 141, Numbers 1-2, September 2006 , pp. 287-289(3)
Publisher: Springer
Abstract:
Two theories of the WTC collapse are examined. The first one is the theory of progressive failure, and the other one is the theory of fracture waves. The collapse in the regime of progressive failure is shown to occur at an acceleration, which is several times less than the gravitational acceleration and, hence, this theory contradicts to the [b]observed free fall. Evidently, the WTC towers were disintegrated at the very beginning of each collapse[/b]. To explain this fact an alternative model based on the theory of failure waves is proposed.
forget that one? |
No. Did you forget that I also provided a rebuttal to that article? It also appears that Mr. Cherepanov relies on the incorrect assumption of free fall speed.
| Quote: |
| physical laws cannot be changed. those are explosions created with explosives. not air being pushed out through steel. |
It's air being pushed through windows.
Where are the traces of these supposed explosives in the debris?
How much explosives would it take, according to the controlled demolition theorists, to produce the collapse and disintegration that is supposedly not possible due to a gravity? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 8:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The controlled demolition theory is an excellent theory, but it does however contain one tiny, tiny flaw. And what's that? The collapse of the twin towers and WTC7 bear absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to a controlled demolition.
See Screw Loose Change at the 1 hour point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 1:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Because 1. sequence of events leading up to the collapse don't mesh with a controlled demolition theory, and 2. the collapse after initiation is still subject to debate. Many of the controlled demolition "proofs" use a faulty assumption (i.e. incorrect collapse time), haven't been computed by reputable scientists, and haven't passed the muster of peer review.
|
about 1. you are right. the events don't mesh. during controlled demolition people are evacuated from the area, office supplies are removed and it's done in a controlled manner. so what? lets not be ignorant of the implications a controlled demolition theory suggests.
Everybody saw the planes crash into the buildings. It is natural for us to assume the plane crashes caused the events that lead up to the total collapse. We've assumed a cause and effect relationship and based scientific theory around it. "How did the events of 9/11 (plane crashes) cause 3 buildings to collapse?" the question is biased because it assumes a cause and effect relationship between the plane and the collapse. assumptions create bias. it isn't objective science
you've told me you don't rely on the NIST report, which indicates you agree it wasn't conducted properly. so you rely on scientific journals. they describe, 'pancaking', 'progressive collapse', 'domino effects', 'global collapse'. how many names do they need for it? these articles do nothing to explain why
-molten steel/metal was found under all 3 buildings
-towers collapsed completely into the basements
-no macroscopic concrete found in rubble
-corroded pieces of steel found
-near free fall speed
-complete destruction of the inner core
-large pieces of steel shot 400 feet away
-etc etc etc
these questions plus many others are vey curious. however with the articles you have referenced, such events have been blanketed by the same collapse theory--->"total collapse was inevitable after initiation"
this has been torn to shreds in the truth movement....show me some replies to these theories that give them credit.
don't be ignorant of the context from which that came and what side of the line you are standing on. who is to gain from 9/11 and the official story?
| Quote: |
It's air being pushed through windows.
Where are the traces of these supposed explosives in the debris?
How much explosives would it take, according to the controlled demolition theorists, to produce the collapse and disintegration that is supposedly not possible due to a gravity? |
here's the fallacy with the 'puff of air' theory.
There are several problems with this explanation, which we designate the piston theory.
The squibs contain thick dust of a light color, apparently from crushed concrete and gypsum. But these materials would not have been crushed until the pancaking floors above impacted the floor emitting the squib. Thus the dust would not be produced until the air was already squeezed out, so there was no source of the dust for the squib.
The squibs emerge from the facade 10 to 20 floors below the exploding rubble cloud inside of which the tower is disintegrating. The thick clouds appear to contain the pulverized concerete of the floor slabs, which was the only concrete component of the tower. But the piston theory requires that the floors have already pancaked down to the level of the squib, making them unavailable for the production of the concrete dust more than 10 floors above.
The piston theory requires a rather orderly pancaking of the floor diaphragms within the intact sleeve of the perimeter wall. Such a process should have left a stack of floor diaphragms at the tower's base at the end of the collapse. But there was no such stack. In fact, it is difficult to find recognizable pieces of floor slabs of any size in Ground Zero photographs. The North Tower exhibits three distinct sets of squibs at different elevations of the building. Each set is visible as two distinct squibs on the same floor, one emerging from about the horizontal center of each of the tower's two visible faces. This pattern is is far too focused and symmetric to be explained by the piston theory, which would produce similar pressures across each floor and over successive floors.
The pancaking of floors within the perimeter wall would have created underpressures in the region above the top pancaking floor. But we seen no evidence of dust being sucked back into the tower.
in my opinion, that explanation tears the 'puff of smoke' theory to bits. it is common sense, it doesn't have to be published in a scientific journal; for me to understand the basic flaw in the official explanation.
essentially, any evidence for demolition can be neatly tucked away as a result of pancaking. but we don't actually see pancaking occuring because we don't see pancaked floors when they finish collapsing. Not even one!!!! that is the double think of the official story. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 4:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
| Quote: |
Because 1. sequence of events leading up to the collapse don't mesh with a controlled demolition theory, and 2. the collapse after initiation is still subject to debate. Many of the controlled demolition "proofs" use a faulty assumption (i.e. incorrect collapse time), haven't been computed by reputable scientists, and haven't passed the muster of peer review.
|
about 1. you are right. the events don't mesh. during controlled demolition people are evacuated from the area, office supplies are removed and it's done in a controlled manner. so what? lets not be ignorant of the implications a controlled demolition theory suggests. |
There's no need to try and be coy and change the direction of the discussion. But we'll ignore that you've brushed off all of the scientific evidence which supports the sequence of events leading up to, and including, the failure of the towers. A controlled demolition also requires extensive building preparation. Evidence of which is completely missing from the equation.
| Quote: |
| Everybody saw the planes crash into the buildings. It is natural for us to assume the plane crashes caused the events that lead up to the total collapse. We've assumed a cause and effect relationship and based scientific theory around it. "How did the events of 9/11 (plane crashes) cause 3 buildings to collapse?" the question is biased because it assumes a cause and effect relationship between the plane and the collapse. assumptions create bias. it isn't objective science |
So who's getting published in scientific journals and who has to make up their own journals to get their viewpoints "published"?
| Quote: |
| you've told me you don't rely on the NIST report, which indicates you agree it wasn't conducted properly. |
Producing a comprehensive and coherent analysis of the events is nearly impossible. Especially when you have 10 different teams dealing with interacting issues. The tackling of one issue at a time, via the scientific process, is going to be much more telling. And thus far, that process has been overwhelmingly supporting the same basic causalities.
Let's take a look at your "issues."
For the controlled demolition theory (CDT) to have any legs, the controlled demolition theorists (CTs) need to show that 1. their theory could produce the results observed, and 2. the "official theory" could not. Let's examine your issues in this light.
| Quote: |
so you rely on scientific journals. they describe, 'pancaking', 'progressive collapse', 'domino effects', 'global collapse'. how many names do they need for it? these articles do nothing to explain why
-molten steel/metal was found under all 3 buildings |
1. CTs haven't shown or explained how thermite could maintain molten metal for several months after the fact.
2. CTs haven't shown that smoldering fires couldn't maintain the temperatures needed to produce molten steel. Two things to consider. First, we don't know what the metal was. Second, if you look up molten in the dictionary, it doesn't just mean liquid, it also means glowing. Thus reproducing temperatures that exceed the melting point of steel is unnecessary.
| Quote: |
| -towers collapsed completely into the basements |
1. Why would a pre planned CD go to that much trouble to drop the WTCs into the basement? Doesn't make any logistical sense.
2. Incorrect assumption. Pieces fell all over the place. Where else would you expect the buildings to fall? Into Central Park?
| Quote: |
| -no macroscopic concrete found in rubble |
1. How would CD produce the pulverized concrete any better? The explosives (which we have no evidence of in the first place) in CD are meant to knock out support beams, not blow up the concrete.
2. What else would you expect from a building dropping 1000'?
| Quote: |
| -corroded pieces of steel found |
1. No mention of thermite or any other causes in the article you cited earlier.
2. ditto.
| Quote: |
| -near free fall speed |
1. Again, it doesn't make logistical sense to do a complete CD on the towers.
2. Incorrect assumption. CTs almost always use the incorrect fall time.
| Quote: |
| -complete destruction of the inner core |
1. Again, logistical overkill.
2. Why would any part of the inner core remain?
| Quote: |
| -large pieces of steel shot 400 feet away |
1. No evidence of explosives capable of doing that.
2. Haven't you ever smashed aluminum cans before? Sometimes they squirt out from under your foot and across the room. Same principle. You've also now complained about how both the building fell straight down as well as how pieces of the building didn't fall straight down. Which one is the problem?
| Quote: |
| these questions plus many others are vey curious. however with the articles you have referenced, such events have been blanketed by the same collapse theory--->"total collapse was inevitable after initiation" |
Well, individual papers aren't going to tackle every issue. As we've seen, there's at least one paper forthcoming that will explain the collapse sequence.
| Quote: |
| this has been torn to shreds in the truth movement....show me some replies to these theories that give them credit. |
Show me any peer reviewed articles from the CTs that demonstrate my two criteria. A bunch of crap posted on the internet is still a bunch of crap. They don't deserve any credit as they don't conform to the process that scientific publishing demands.
| Quote: |
don't be ignorant of the context from which that came and what side of the line you are standing on. who is to gain from 9/11 and the official story? |
I don't really care who is to gain. It doesn't effect the science. That's the problem with the CTs - they're using 9/11 as an excuse to attack Bush. The science isn't important to them. It's an exercise in political assassination.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
It's air being pushed through windows.
Where are the traces of these supposed explosives in the debris?
How much explosives would it take, according to the controlled demolition theorists, to produce the collapse and disintegration that is supposedly not possible due to a gravity? |
here's the fallacy with the 'puff of air' theory.
There are several problems with this explanation, which we designate the piston theory. |
In better words that I can write:
http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm
| Quote: |
| But if we examine the anomaly closely, we see these [would be] explosives work in reverse to an explosive blast. They tend to spurt out and then increase with time. An explosive works in reverse to this. Its strongest point is the moment the charge is set off. It doesn't increase its explosive strength with time. |
Don't forget, you still haven't shown any evidence of the supposed explosives that produced these squibs.
| Quote: |
| in my opinion, that explanation tears the 'puff of smoke' theory to bits. it is common sense, it doesn't have to be published in a scientific journal; for me to understand the basic flaw in the official explanation. |
The behavior of how buildings collapse is not "common sense." It's an extremely complex model that we don't have nearly enough input data for. All too often, CTs beg out of any real proof by calling on "common sense." Frankly, people need to start thinking a little more with their brain and a little less with their "sense."
| Quote: |
| essentially, any evidence for demolition can be neatly tucked away as a result of pancaking. but we don't actually see pancaking occuring because we don't see pancaked floors when they finish collapsing. Not even one!!!! that is the double think of the official story. |
And what makes you think they'd stay intact after either falling 1000' or having 100 floors of building fall on them? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 4:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
I. The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cbclark4 wrote: |
I. The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html |
thanks bud....won't forget that though. doing an undergrad in biology at one of the tops uni's in canada ensures that.
i'm sure you have a lot of experience using the scientific method too.......again, sigh.
huff:check back around lunch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Let's take a look at your "issues."
For the controlled demolition theory (CDT) to have any legs, the controlled demolition theorists (CTs) need to show that 1. their theory could produce the results observed, and 2. the "official theory" could not. Let's examine your issues in this light. |
Perfectly done. Let's use this.
| Quote: |
1. CTs haven't shown or explained how thermite could maintain molten metal for several months after the fact.
2. CTs haven't shown that smoldering fires couldn't maintain the temperatures needed to produce molten steel. Two things to consider. First, we don't know what the metal was. Second, if you look up molten in the dictionary, it doesn't just mean liquid, it also means glowing. Thus reproducing temperatures that exceed the melting point of steel is unnecessary.
|
[i]A Messenger-Inquirer report recounts the experiences of Bronx firefighter "Toolie" O'Toole, who stated that some of the beams lifted from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero by cranes were "dripping from the molten steel."
(Recovery worker reflects on months spent at Ground Zero, Messenger-Inquirer.com, 6/29/02)[/i]
More than one firefighter describes molten steel/metal in the oral histories. I'm sure a firefighter knows the difference between melted steel and glowing steel.
How about a structural engineer?
An article in The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah describing a speaking appearance by Leslie Robertson (structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center) contains this passage:
"As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running."
You are going to have to accept that molten steel/metal was present. So, it is up to me to show that molten steel/metal is consistent with CDT and not with 'pancaking/domino/progressive/global' collapse-->which I will now call 'gravitational collapse'
Again, there is physical and chemical evidence 'supporting', not proving, the use of thermate. physical-->molten steel/metal, corroded steel
chemical-->chemical signature of thermate reaction
found in dust and from steel samples
both the 911truth movement and the mainstream have reported on the above (references previously discussed).
So, is this inconsistent with a 'gravitational' collapse? Can a gravitational collapse melt and erode steel? We know the fires caused by the planes were not hot enough to melt steel. so could the rubble have become 1500 degrees C or hotter (steel melting point) during collapse? Some have mathematically shown, in a closed mathematical equation, the potential energy from the falling floors could be transferred into heat energy hot enough to melt steel. It is theoretically possible.
However, the collapse was not a closed system. Energy leaks were occurring at every point. as I stated before, a box of matches has enough potential energy to make an 8 cup pot of coffee. However, in reality this is not possible because reality is not a closed system.
as far as i know, melting steel has not been addressed in mainstream sciencitific journals. and as far as i know, gravitational collapses have not produced melted steel/metal in the past.
| Quote: |
1. Why would a pre planned CD go to that much trouble to drop the WTCs into the basement? Doesn't make any logistical sense.
2. Incorrect assumption. Pieces fell all over the place. Where else would you expect the buildings to fall? Into Central Park?
|
logistical sense?--->easier clean-up, everything is destroyed, less taking the building apart. Remember, there were requests in the past to demolish the WTC towers that were denied. The WTCs were a financial nightmare. so what is the motive?... if you are gonna do it, do it right. why go halfway?
to clarify. pieces were blown up and out all the way to the bottom as evident in all the videos and seen from photos of the debris. It created a 1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris � outside of building footprint.
ae911truth.org
the buildings came down symmetrically from top to bottom. the footprint of the buildings were the centers of the collapse. is this consistent with CDT? cd experts' main goal is to have a straight down collapse into its footprint. they spend vast amounts of time setting explosives up to accomplish it.
is this consistent with 'gravitational' collapse? not a chance. why not?
for the building to collapse from top to bottom symmetrically, all the support of floors would have to initially fail all TOGETHER. Failure would have to be symmetrical across all the support to go straight down. And subsequent domino effect failure would have to be equal at all points. Demolition guarantees this by cutting all the support with explosives.
The failure of the steel support was not evenly distributed if indeed fire caused the collapse initiation. not all core beams were damaged and not all fireproofing was damaged. thus, there was asymmetrical damage. things fall in the path of least resistance. the building would fall towards the damage because not ALL supporting structures failed at exactly the same time.
Demolition has always been needed to take buildings down the way you see it.
| Quote: |
How would CD produce the pulverized concrete any better? The explosives (which we have no evidence of in the first place) in CD are meant to knock out support beams, not blow up the concrete.
2. What else would you expect from a building dropping 1000'?
|
You wouldn't expect one macroscopic piece of concrete? Not one in the basement or from the roof? You wouldn't expect one floor to remain some what in tact? You would expect it ALL to be completely mangled?
Why do demolition companies use so much explosive when taking buildings down? Why cut ALL the support beams? If gravity truly works so well, why is demolition putting in the extra effort?
| Quote: |
1. No mention of thermite or any other causes in the article you cited earlier.
2. ditto |
you expect steel to melt in a gravitational collapse? it was an observational paper. it didn't speculate on cause. you know that.
| Quote: |
2. Incorrect assumption. CTs almost always use the incorrect fall time.
|
NEAR free-fall....check the NIST report, check the FEMA report, check the times in 'popular' scientific journals. they are all NEAR freefall.
| Quote: |
2. Why would any part of the inner core remain?
|
have you seen the blueprints? Floors were connected to the core and the perimeter. if 'pancaking' were to occur, the floors would collapse ontop of each other, separate from the core, which was its own independent unit. also, what destroyed the core for the top 30 floors? why don't we see the top of the building in the rubble? it exploded on impact and shredded ALL the steel and pulverized ALL the concrete??
| Quote: |
| Well, individual papers aren't going to tackle every issue. As we've seen, there's at least one paper forthcoming that will explain the collapse sequence. |
so you admit the collapse hasn't been adequately described YET (paper hasn't been made public). So why do you hold on so strongly to the official story?...could it be that you are biased in your effort to analyze such a collapse? remember the cause and effect assumption i identified (plane+building=collapse)...this leads to bad science because it all starts from an assumption that may or may not be true. can you deny such logic?
| Quote: |
Show me any peer reviewed articles from the CTs that demonstrate my two criteria. A bunch of crap posted on the internet is still a bunch of crap. They don't deserve any credit as they don't conform to the process that scientific publishing demands.
|
The controlled demolition hypothesis plays a central, albeit not essential, role in the 9/11 conspiracy theories that assert that the US government is responsible for the attacks. Jeff King and Jim Hoffman were early defenders of the controlled demolition hypothesis and published their observations online. David Ray Griffin included the theory in his book The New Pearl Harbor. It received its most notable proponents to date when, in early 2006, Steven Jones, a physicist at Brigham Young University, argued that a "gravity driven collapse" without demolition charges would defy the laws of physics and in August 2007, with National Medal of Science winner Dr. Lynn Margulis praising The New Pearl Harbor and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, �which provides overwhelming evidence that the official story is contradictory, incomplete, and unbelievable� while calling for a new investigation.
No journal???No peer review? http://www.journalof911studies.com/
What's this?
Journal of 9/11 Studies
Thank you for visiting The Journal of 9/11 Studies. The Journal of 9/11 Studies is a peer-reviewed, open-access, electronic-only journal covering the whole of research related to 9/11/2001. All content is freely available online.
Our mission is to provide evidence-based, peer-reviewed research that furthers the cause of truth and justice. More about our efforts toward this goal can be found at the website for Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.
Sincerely,
Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, co-editors
look at any of the numerous journal articles. there is no deviation from scientific method.
indeed, it is true that CDT has NOT made its way into mainstream science publications.
why not? is it so hard to believe that terrorists might have put bombs in the buildings too? they did it before. in fact many reporters initially thought just that. however, the theory was never tested in the mainstream. why? because the cause and effect (plane + building = total collapse) was accepted as truth. Science began to describe a situation based on an assumed cause and effect. like i said before...that is bad science.
| Quote: |
Haven't you ever smashed aluminum cans before? Sometimes they squirt out from under your foot and across the room. Same principle.
|
Why would a can squirt out from under my foot? Because the collapse of the can is not symetric. that is what the WTC should have looked like. now take a stick of dynamite and put it in the can. that is what the WTC looked like.
try this. find a perfect can (or close to). put a dent in the side of it (plane crash). then step on it. what side will it crumble to? path of least resistance....it will destroy the official story every time.
| Quote: |
Well, individual papers aren't going to tackle every issue. As we've seen, there's at least one paper forthcoming that will explain the collapse sequence.
|
again, why are so stuck on a collapse theory that hasn't been explained yet? Could it be that you assume the cause and effect and all research and analysis has occured with that assumption believed as fact?
| Quote: |
That's the problem with the CTs - they're using 9/11 as an excuse to attack Bush. The science isn't important to them. It's an exercise in political assassination.
|
I can smell your bias a million miles away with these kinds of comments
Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and the Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory
by David Ray Griffin.
Reviews
"Professor Griffin is the nemesis of the 9/11 cover-up. This new book destroys the credibility of the NIST and Popular Mechanics reports and annihilates his critics."
-- Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury during the Reagan administration
David Ray Griffin hits another one out of the park by taking on the left gatekeepers and the mass media for the lies and cover-up called 憈he official story of 9/11/01,' which is the greatest conspiracy theory ever perpetrated on the American public. I highly recommend this book for all thinking Americans."
-- Meria Heller, Producer & Host of the Meria Heller Show
| Quote: |
| And what makes you think they'd stay intact after either falling 1000' or having 100 floors of building fall on them? |
why do demolition companies cut ALL support beams? Why not let gravity do more of the work?
____________
All in all, there is no scientifically backed theory of progressive collapse that adequately provides enough support that the building would collapse the way it did. one is coming??? and we are waiting.
If you go to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, they have a working hypothesis that is supported by evidence and observation. The website shows how it was 1. characteristic of CD and 2. not a gravitational fall due to fire.
Eagerly waiting for the computer model of progressive collapse. I hope all details be made public.
Last edited by loose_ends on Sun Oct 21, 2007 10:47 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
