900 replies to this topic

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 30 September 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

Certainly IT IS air being ejected. The point is that at least visually, it is identical to the phenomenon seen in controlled demolition.  Enter, Common Sense.

Common sense says that since no evidence of controlled demolitions is evident in videos or photos, and that demolition experts and investigators found no evidence of explosives, simply means that no explosives were used.

Quote

And given all the rest of the circumstantial evidence suggesting CD, the squibs are consistent.

False!! The squibs had nothing to do with explosives. Study your physics book to understand why those squibs had nothing to do with explosives.

Quote

Yes LG, Common Sense and The Big Picture.  The forest, by looking at ALL the trees.  Same impression Peter Jennings received.

Peter Jennings never claimed that the collapse of the WTC buildings were the result of controlled demolitions. Once again, you just got caught pushing disinformation again!

[RaptorBites]

Babe Ruth, on 30 September 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

And given all the rest of the circumstantial evidence suggesting CD, the squibs are consistent.

What circumstantial evidence suggesting a CD?

The Ross and Furlong paper that I analyzed, which now you are avoiding to address?

Edited by RaptorBites, 30 September 2012 - 10:37 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

Ross & Furlong is but one piece Raptor.

Fires not hot enough or of insufficient duration to weaken steel.

The presence of molten steel FOR DAYS.  Blistered paint and melted tires on vehicles.  Mysterious times of collapse.  Pyroclastic flow.  Presence of chemical byproducts of thermite reaction.

Conveniently placed identification papers in impossible places.  More than year-long refusal to conduct an investigation.  Suspicious and somewhat irrational reports generated by companies and men with history of feeding at government trough.

Numerous court decisions terminating civilian whistle-blowing efforts.  And on, and on, and on.

Though you might deny its existence Raptor, the circumstantial case AGAINST the official story is huge.  That's why so many people know the government is hiding something.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 01 October 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:

Fires not hot enough or of insufficient duration to weaken steel.

Of course the fires were hot enough to weaken steel just like the fire of the Windsor Building in Spain caused the collapse of its steel struture.

Quote

The presence of molten steel FOR DAYS.

How amusing when it was determined that 9/11 conspiracist were duped by a hoaxed photo of a flashlight reflection they claimed was molten steel.

Quote

Blistered paint and melted tires on vehicles

Vandalism by 9/11 conspiracist.

Quote

Mysterious times of collapse.

Blame gravity for the collapse. It's a 24/7 kind of thing  with gravity, you understand.

Quote

Pyroclastic flow.

A volcano in New York City?!

Quote

Presence of chemical byproducts of thermite reaction.

The thermite reaction occurred after I lit a sparkler left over from the 'Fourth of July' celebration.

Edited by skyeagle409, 01 October 2012 - 02:40 PM.

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 29 September 2012 - 02:44 AM, said:

Thank you, it appears the lower edge of the upper block core is as I said, within the impact zone.

[Q24]

Liquid Gardens, on 29 September 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

As am I.  Let's see what of the following you don't agree with:

• The compressed mass of stories is not hovering at the same altitude they were originally located.  At incremental periods in time, the compressed mass of any story is in a position closer to the ground than when it was originally located during the collapse.  The only way this could happen is if these compressed stories have motion.
  
• The stories obviously have mass.
  
• The compressed mass thus has momentum.  It does not have momentum when it is actually just 'sitting' motionless on the lower story.

This momentum is the additional force that is greater than the force of the same mass sitting motionless with only gravity acting on it.  Newton's first law says that objects in motion stay in motion unless acted on by another force; it has no exceptions that I'm aware of concerning the exact mechanics of why the mass is in motion.  The lower block has to support the weight of the compressed stories whether they are motionless or not, but when it is collapsing, it has to stop this mass's motion, where else can this additional force come from if not the lower block?  What is applying the necessary force to decelerate the middle compressed mass?  The instant before the upper block is vaporized, the middle mass is moving downward; the instant after it's vaporized, the mass is still in motion downward.  The vaporization itself of the upper mass did not exert an upward force on this middle block.

The debris, at the collapse front, within the building footprint, is not generating its own momentum; it is always moving down as a result of the upper block – there is nowhere for it to fall; it is supported by the structure below – any additional force comes from the upper block that it is being crushed by.  How can I describe this?  Stamp on a drinks can fast as you like, but only to halfway – the upper portion of the can doesn’t continue damaging the lower portion after you remove the driving force of the crush down.

Liquid Gardens, on 29 September 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

I don't think the collapse front is neat, it's just easier to talk about floor on floor.  Let's see if we can take this baby step.  If the core structure of the lower section was not built to be stronger than the upper, it was all of consistent strength, and that's the only change we make to our 'floors-only' collapse scenario that we agree on, do you think this collapse scenario will result in the upper block experiencing less forces than the lower?

This is a surreal question.  If we make the lower columns the same strength as the upper columns, then you are effectively asking: if the building was not designed to hold itself up, then would it crush itself?  Err... yes (you’d actually never get the thing built).  Or, if we make the upper columns the same strength as the lower columns, so the building had an insanely high safety factor the higher up we go, then would it crush itself?  Well... no.  I don’t understand the point in your question.  High-rise structures are built with the strength and safety factor to support the above mass including the force of gravity at any given elevation.

Liquid Gardens, on 29 September 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

You've mentioned things 'breaking' during the collapse, what does that mean to you?  What it means to me is that the broken mass/structure no longer has it's original strength to resist the force of the upper block and has likewise has also lost some of its ability to resist Superman.

Of course – that is why the collapse progresses downward.  But we still cannot avoid approximately equal and opposite damage to the upper block.

Liquid Gardens, on 29 September 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

Can you envision the collapse of any possible 'continuous structure' that will behave like the floors only model as far as there being more damage to the lower than the upper?

Yes, where the upper and lower structures are not of equal construction or materials.  Or a structure that is so weak it falls apart rather than needing to be broken apart.  Or a structure where there is no opportunity for penetration, as discussed.  Or, here’s a good one... a structure where demolition charges weaken the lower portion.

Liquid Gardens, on 29 September 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

I don't think you have any more evidence, you have exactly what I have, opinion.  I'm trying to demonstrate that your attachment of labels to things does exactly what mine do for you, which is about nothing.

No, if I label someone I can provide evidence that the tag is deserved.  On the other hand, it comes across like you just labelled a group of professionals with derogatory terms apparently only because you don’t like what they are saying.

Liquid Gardens, on 29 September 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

Yes, I just wasted my time doing that, and the rebuttal to it.

You do know that I’m not talking about technical detail of the papers but specifically in regard to the publishing rules?  There is no defence to this complaint from Gourley: -

“JEM knew full well I was required to comply with the 2000 word limit, while Dr. Bazant was not.”

http://911blogger.com/node/18196

Liquid Gardens, on 29 September 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

Yes, by the time it reached the ground the upper block appears to have been penetrated.  

The spire was some 60 storeys tall.  The upper block must have been penetrated bottom to top when the roofline was still at the 60 storey mark.  And that’s just one group of columns we have evidence of which survived right to the end – how many other spires were present during the collapse?  Anyhow, concerning the spire we know, the mass of the upper block then fell for a further 60 storeys without taking down the group of columns.  This indicates that the upper block had broken apart to such extent way up at the 60 storey mark as to pass around the columns.

Liquid Gardens, on 29 September 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

Let me ask you, what happened to the rest of the core column?  It broke.  What happened when that breakage happened, where'd that core column mass go during the collapse?

The rest of the column must have moved out of alignment with the column below and descended with the crush down.

Liquid Gardens, on 29 September 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

Ha ha ha, yes yes, unlike all that sound science you're providing for your theory.

Whilst the official collapse theory has not been proven possible, it obvious that a demolition could bring the structures down.

Liquid Gardens, on 29 September 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

So it's your position that if one brick-sized concrete chunk is dislodged from the upper block than Bazant's theory is entirely inapplicable, if how intact or rigid is truly irrelevant?  Would you really like me to apply that level of scrutiny/absurdity to your 'case' and watch all of your 'evidence' crumble?  All explanations of the collapse will be insufficient, we are greatly limited in the amount of data there is to evaluate.

No, I think you’re going to extremes in characterising “the block” in my description as “one brick [of the block]”.  Ok, let’s see if we can define where Bazant’s theory stops working completely.  Let’s ask him: -

"But if the upper part had the height of only  3 stories, then this ratio would be about 5. In that case, the upper part would be slender enough to act essentially as a flexible horizontal plate in which different column groups of the upper part could move down separately at different times.  Instead of one powerful jolt, this could lead to a series of many small vertical impacts, none of them fatal."

So if the initial upper block were 14 stories, and it crushes through 11 stories below, sustaining approximately equal damage and leaving 3 stories intact, at this point, rather than “one powerful jolt”, that whole upper mass is going to provide, “a series of many small vertical impacts”, none of which are necessarily fatal.

[Q24]

Liquid Gardens, on 29 September 2012 - 05:20 PM, said:

Of course it was 'threatening', your interpretation of the NIST report has the analysis of the actual damage overlapping part of the range where the collapse may occur, I'd call that threatening.

The actual damage was closer to the non-collapse simulated case.  There is no evidence that the actual level of impact and fire damage could initiate collapse.  Did we ever get round to discussing the further manual inputs NIST had to add, even to the severe case, to induce collapse in the model?  Because here’s something... none of NIST’s simulated cases initiated collapse without additional human assistance (tweaking), which the computer model did not predict.  No, the impacts and fires were not threatening to the structure according to physics of the models alone.

Liquid Gardens, on 29 September 2012 - 05:20 PM, said:

Unless you are talking about the lower block then the word 'resting' should never be used, as long as you are going to admonish others for using misleading wording.  As soon as anything in the lower block collapses, compresses, or is crushed, the middle layer above it is no longer resting but moving, the fact that it has physical contact with it isn't relevant all on its own.

Lacking the upper block driving force, the crushed layers would be resting on the lower intact block.  The crushed layers only move down due to momentum of the upper block

Liquid Gardens, on 29 September 2012 - 05:20 PM, said:

God I was hoping that you were above the 'squibs' nonsense, but alas....  Let's use your standards, prove to me how it is impossible that these squibs are not the result of millions of square feet of air being compressed downward.  Where are the audible explosions coinciding with these demolition charges that you can hear on every other demolition?

Millions of square feet of air being compressed downward through the building would produce numerous ejections around the facade at many floors, not focussed bursts at intervals.  Neither would focussed air compression (‘squibs’) occur through your method prior to the collapse initiation.  Why should the explosions be heard above the din of hundreds of breaking connections during the collapses?  The explosions were certainly heard prior to the collapses.

Liquid Gardens, on 29 September 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

It demonstrated it was unlikely that fire and impact initiated the collapse?  Was that their conclusion, or is that another non-scientific-but-in-your-opinion-'founded' conclusion of yours?

You’re really worrying me LG.  I don’t mean to be rude but it’s never going to click if you don’t retain past discussion; you’re never building the full corroborating case; the evidence is forgotten and wasted.

Yes the NIST study proved that even one tower collapse initiation was unlikely due to the impacts and fires, nevermind two.  It is inherent in the results.  Had NIST been privy to the impacts and fires on 9/11 but not witnessed the collapses, and performed the study and simulated cases exactly as they did, their conclusion would be that the towers were not likely to collapse.  Now I know you don’t want to listen to me because what I say doesn’t gel with your worldview, so listen to my helpful assistant: -

NIST's conclusion would be "It's more likely to stand up than collapse, but we can't rule out collapse"
~flyingswan

Taken from the last response of post #120 here.

Liquid Gardens, on 29 September 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

The 'observable reality' only gives us what percentage of the actual reality that we would need to have data on to really analyze the issue?  Likelihood implies probability, how much more unlikely then?  Did NIST apply probability distribution to their ranges of measurements, or did you?

As for percentages to place against the above conclusion, this is not possible except to say the results indicate a 51%+ probability for the tower survival.  That’s why I do not attempt to be more precise, only say it how it is: the study not only failed to prove collapse initiation possible (within extent of the observable reality), but in fact demonstrated it unlikely, given only an impact and fire scenario.

Liquid Gardens, on 29 September 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

This really shouldn't be necessary, especially for the very strong statements you make.  This ties in with one of the statements from you weeks ago that definitely concerns me: 'there is no best evidence'.  I believe this was in the discussion of the Israeli 'agents' and how that evidence tries to address the question, "If we assume it was demolished, who was involved?" as opposed to the "Were the buildings demolished?".  If you don't really have evidence for the demolition that stands on its own and doesn't rely on all the other suggestive evidence, then I don't think your position is consistent with your evidentiary foundation, its (metaphor alert) mighty thin gruel.

What you are referring to is the difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence.  There has been many a crime solved without the former.  Evidence of the 9/11 false flag is always categorised under the latter.  If you review the link you will see why this makes it terribly difficult to prove the overall case to anyone who wants to take up an opposing position.

http://en.wikipedia....antial_evidence

Liquid Gardens, on 29 September 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

Seriously, what do you think of Sasquatch, would you say its existence is blatant?  If it's not, how would you sum up why it isn't?  It sure does not suffer from sheer lack of evidence, there's loads of it, once you retain all the unlikelihoods of all of that being fake or wrong, the big picture also sinks in.  My answers to why I don't think Sasquatch's existence is blatant is two-fold.  One, all of the individual pieces of evidence have alternative explanations and no great evidence or reason to privilege one explanation over the other.  Second, it fails because there is evidence that I reasonably expect to be there to address the question of his existence that is not.  I think a lot of what's been argued here for a 9/11 demolition also suffers from one of those two issues also.

I don’t believe there are enough areas of corroborating evidence to make Bigfoot blatant, or even likely.  This example is not a patch on evidence of the 9/11 false flag, but nice try.

If I were to make a better comparison, it would be a murder trial.  We have a suspect with a known grudge against the victim, his fingerprints and a witness place him at the scene, the murder weapon is found in his possession, there are blood splatters on his shirt.  That is all circumstantial evidence by the way, and there’s no CCTV footage of the murder itself.  Now I’d say our suspect is guilty, given the corroborating evidence.  Though perhaps you would say he happened to be passing at the time, popped into the victim’s house for a cuppa to resolve their differences, the knife was later planted and the shirt was cross-contaminated... so the suspect must be innocent?  That’s what I see official story adherents do with 9/11.

Liquid Gardens, on 29 September 2012 - 09:50 PM, said:

That may the only point Q was making with this, that if you assume a demolition then maybe these squibs are evidence of it, then fine for what it's worth, I guess it's not entirely nonsense.  In the context of this discussion however where we are hearing out the arguments for demolition, despite all the time we spend talking about the perceived problems with the official story, it says nothing.

It’s certainly true that everything which should be expected of such a covert demolition is present.  I should just say that I’ve barely got into any of the evidence more directly related to the demolition.  The last time I tried to head that direction (with evidence of explosives) you didn’t respond to the post.  What I’ve been mainly focussed on is opening the door for a demolition indirectly through disputing the official theory.

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 01 October 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

Thank you, it appears the lower edge of the upper block core is as I said, within the impact zone.

That's it?  That's all you've got to say in response?

Because a relatively small portion of the facade is moving down, that makes it the lower edge of the block?  Never mind that sections of the facade on either side are not moving?  Never mind the details that there had already been partial floor failure right there in the impact zone which is probably why the downward moving facade was essentially just hanging from the intact floors above?

[flyingswan]

Q24, on 01 October 2012 - 03:08 PM, said:

Yes the NIST study proved that even one tower collapse initiation was unlikely due to the impacts and fires, nevermind two.  It is inherent in the results.  Had NIST been privy to the impacts and fires on 9/11 but not witnessed the collapses, and performed the study and simulated cases exactly as they did, their conclusion would be that the towers were not likely to collapse.  Now I know you don’t want to listen to me because what I say doesn’t gel with your worldview, so listen to my helpful assistant: -

NIST's conclusion would be "It's more likely to stand up than collapse, but we can't rule out collapse"
~flyingswan

...and you carefully omit the rest of my quote: "Engineers don't put safety factors into their calculations for fun, they do it because no-one ever knows everything, there are always margins of error.  You don't design a building to stand up, just.  You design it to stand up under the worst conditions you can think of, and then make it stronger again by a substantial factor.  That means that a prediction of a collapse within the margins of error of the input parameters would be enough to declare the building unsafe."

"Not likely to collapse" is thus your interpretation, not mine.

To put it another way, that quote of mine means that both standing and collapse have sizeable probabilities.  The probability of standing is the larger, but that doesn't mean the probability of collapse is small.  I wouldn't enter a building with a 40% probability of collapse, even if you claim that you would.

Edited by flyingswan, 01 October 2012 - 03:49 PM.

[Q24]

flyingswan, on 01 October 2012 - 03:37 PM, said:

...and you carefully omit the rest of my quote: "Engineers don't put safety factors into their calculations for fun, they do it because no-one ever knows everything, there are always margins of error.  You don't design a building to stand up, just.  You design it to stand up under the worst conditions you can think of, and then make it stronger again by a substantial factor.  That means that a prediction of a collapse within the margins of error of the input parameters would be enough to declare the building unsafe."

"Not likely to collapse" is thus your interpretation, not mine.

NIST's conclusion would be "It's more likely to stand up than collapse, but we can't rule out collapse”.
~flyingswan

Oh shock, horror, flyingswan trapped in a moment of honesty, now here comes the last desperate, though typical, line of defence; silly accusations and word games to create a visage of disagreement.  Ok, let’s just say NIST’s results proved that the towers were “more likely to stand up than collapse”.  You can stop reading now Swanny...

For everyone else, of course if the building is likely to stand up, then it is unlikely to collapse.

An unlikely event would have a probability between 0 and ½.
A likely event would have a probability between ½ and 1.

http://www.cimt.plym...21/bk7_21i1.htm

Flyingswan is trying to say that the two can exist simultaneously.  I’m not sure whether the mutually exclusive beliefs are deliberate or due to the conflict of wanting to uphold a belief in the official theory (not the first ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ styled quirk to be seen in official adherent arguments) .  Neither is good for impartial discussion.

flyingswan, on 01 October 2012 - 03:37 PM, said:

To put it another way, that quote of mine means that both standing and collapse have sizeable probabilities.  The probability of standing is the larger, but that doesn't mean the probability of collapse is small.  I wouldn't enter a building with a 40% probability of collapse, even if you claim that you would.

By definition a 40% probability is unlikely, a 60% probability is likely.

Edited by Q24, 01 October 2012 - 04:31 PM.

[flyingswan]

Q24, on 01 October 2012 - 04:24 PM, said:

By definition a 40% probability is unlikely, a 60% probability is likely.

If that's your understanding of probability, you should avoid gambling.

[booNyzarC]

flyingswan, on 01 October 2012 - 04:37 PM, said:

If that's your understanding of probability, you should avoid gambling.

Exactly what I was thinking.

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 01 October 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

The debris, at the collapse front, within the building footprint, is not generating its own momentum; it is always moving down as a result of the upper block – there is nowhere for it to fall; it is supported by the structure below – any additional force comes from the upper block that it is being crushed by.  How can I describe this?  Stamp on a drinks can fast as you like, but only to halfway – the upper portion of the can doesn’t continue damaging the lower portion after you remove the driving force of the crush down.

The problem with your analogy here is that the upper block is never removed.  Drop a large brick on the can and you'd have a closer representation.

Tell me something Q24, speaking in terms of Bazant's model only, do you think that the core columns continue to provide full (or nearly full) resistance to the upper block until they are completely deformed to the point of full compression?

Q24, on 01 October 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

No, I think you’re going to extremes in characterising “the block” in my description as “one brick [of the block]”.  Ok, let’s see if we can define where Bazant’s theory stops working completely.  Let’s ask him: -

"But if the upper part had the height of only  3 stories, then this ratio would be about 5. In that case, the upper part would be slender enough to act essentially as a flexible horizontal plate in which different column groups of the upper part could move down separately at different times.  Instead of one powerful jolt, this could lead to a series of many small vertical impacts, none of them fatal."

So if the initial upper block were 14 stories, and it crushes through 11 stories below, sustaining approximately equal damage and leaving 3 stories intact, at this point, rather than “one powerful jolt”, that whole upper mass is going to provide, “a series of many small vertical impacts”, none of which are necessarily fatal.

What a fascinating representation of your expectations here.  A full and proper response to this will have to wait, but at the outset I'm quite surprised that anyone could possibly think this is what would happen.

[RaptorBites]

Babe Ruth, on 01 October 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:

Ross & Furlong is but one piece Raptor.

Fires not hot enough or of insufficient duration to weaken steel.

The presence of molten steel FOR DAYS.  Blistered paint and melted tires on vehicles.  Mysterious times of collapse.  Pyroclastic flow.  Presence of chemical byproducts of thermite reaction.

Conveniently placed identification papers in impossible places.  More than year-long refusal to conduct an investigation.  Suspicious and somewhat irrational reports generated by companies and men with history of feeding at government trough.

Numerous court decisions terminating civilian whistle-blowing efforts.  And on, and on, and on.

Though you might deny its existence Raptor, the circumstantial case AGAINST the official story is huge.  That's why so many people know the government is hiding something.

The Ross and Furlong paper only talks about the seismic activity before the reported crash times of the flights.  Which is Ross and Furlongs contention along with Willie Rodriguez's testimony that is YOUR submitted proof of controlled demolitions.

At what point of the paper did they talk about blisted paint and melted tires?

This is the reason why it is not even possible to have any form of rational conversation with you BR.

[booNyzarC]

booNyzarC, on 01 October 2012 - 04:46 PM, said:

Q24, on 01 October 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

The debris, at the collapse front, within the building footprint, is not generating its own momentum; it is always moving down as a result of the upper block – there is nowhere for it to fall; it is supported by the structure below – any additional force comes from the upper block that it is being crushed by.  How can I describe this?  Stamp on a drinks can fast as you like, but only to halfway – the upper portion of the can doesn’t continue damaging the lower portion after you remove the driving force of the crush down.

The problem with your analogy here is that the upper block is never removed.  Drop a large brick on the can and you'd have a closer representation.

Tell me something Q24, speaking in terms of Bazant's model only, do you think that the core columns continue to provide full (or nearly full) resistance to the upper block until they are completely deformed to the point of full compression?

An even better analogy would be to take a multi-tiered structure that is holding up a weight successfully and then slowly start removing or weakening its structural elements part way through its height until it collapses.  Say it is 100 tiers and there are 50 structural elements between each tier.  Let's say that if you hypothetically remove 10 of those structural elements and weaken another 10, the remaining 30 elements can no longer hold the weight and they fail in relatively quick succession.

In this scenario we have an upper block which starts with an initial velocity (and therefore initial momentum) of zero.  Once sufficient structural elements fail, it accelerates due to the force of gravity, regardless of the fact that there are still structural elements between it and the next tier.  Notice here that the key point is that those 30 intact elements are still there, they are just buckling under the load and then failing/deforming - but the mass of the structure above it is still accelerating downward because of gravity, not because of any momentum.

When it strikes the next tier, let's say for the sake of the model that the structural elements are insufficient to arrest the momentum which the upper block gathered during its initial descent.  What do you predict would happen if those structural elements buckled, failed, and deformed because of the energy imparted by the impact?  Would it not continue to accelerate due to the force of gravity just as the original upper block accelerated through the first failed tier?