900 replies to this topic

[Little Fish]

flyingswan, on 02 October 2012 - 10:29 AM, said:

When the descending upper block first hits stationary structure, it decelerates

and that deceleration does not exist in the ACTUAL data. a deceleration of the top block as it strikes the structure below would manifest as a measurable impulse spike. Szamboti & McQueen looked for it in the data and its not there. you know this. all verinage demolition exmaples show this impulse. the wtc does not show it.

[Little Fish]

Q24, on 02 October 2012 - 11:15 AM, said:

This type of one-sided reinforcement would be better known as... 'cheating'.

Oh dear, the problems the official collapse theory creates.

the guy that did that video knows enough about the wtc to know the tower was 110 stories high - he mentions the mast.
why does he restrict his simulation to only the top part. there was 10 times the amount of structure beneath the collapse point than above it, yet he puts the collapse point in the middle of the structure. I would bet his first attempt was for the full building and when that didn't work, he cheated by making the building only a few stories high.

[booNyzarC]

Little Fish, on 02 October 2012 - 12:38 PM, said:

and that deceleration does not exist in the ACTUAL data. a deceleration of the top block as it strikes the structure below would manifest as a measurable impulse spike. Szamboti & McQueen looked for it in the data and its not there. you know this. all verinage demolition exmaples show this impulse. the wtc does not show it.

That's because the reality of collapse wasn't structured and balanced like Bazant's model.  In reality, the upper block was tilted and slightly off center during the collapse.  The missing jolt is expected in this scenario because instead of one big impact you have thousands of smaller impacts happening in rapid succession across the entire surface of the collapse front, not just the core and perimeter columns.

[Babe Ruth]

RaptorBites, on 01 October 2012 - 09:57 PM, said:

So why when discussion the Ross and Furlong paper, do you detach yourself and bring up another completely different point?



Here's a simple visual image how gravity and jetfuel can melt and blister paint.  (mind you I am not saying this happened, but actually shows you how funny this argument is to me.)

1. jetfuel leaks out of broken plane
2. jetful leaks out of the building
3. gravity pulls the jetfuel towards the street onto cars
4. buring falling debris falls on car and ignites jetfuel
5. blistered paint and melted tires

So tell me again how gravity and jetfuel can never do that?



For the most part, we have been doing well so far.  Every bit of evidence you have presented so far (regardless of how silly or little it is) has not been held up to scruitny.

Have anything else for us to consider?



And yet,

Laymen believed a C-130 could fire a cruise missle at the Pentagon <---*snicker*
Laymen believed the passengers of flight 93 were unloaded onto a bus and carted off to a secret location
Laymen believed nukes were used to demolish the twin towers
Laymen believed this was plotted by the NWO
Laymen believed that a cruise missle fired from under the helipad at the Pentagon caused the damage
Laymen believed that pods were attached to the airplanes
Laymen believed that the planes were military planes just repainted to UA and AAL colors

I can go on and on here how the layman got it wrong, multiple times.

Pretty sad response my friend, but truly, I understand.  A purely hypothetical response, and absurd one at that, regarding the blistered paint and melted tires, and I think blown out glass too.

The point about Ross & Furlong is that IF their work is true and accurate, THEN the Rodriguez testimony is corroborated perfectly, AND that means that huge explosions, along with heat release sufficient to melt human skin without killing the body, took place BEFORE the airplanes struck.

Which in its most basic statement, is yet more circumstantial evidence that the events of the day WERE STAGED.  Just that simple Raptor--staged.  Which means that the Official Story is a complete fabrication, a hoax.

[flyingswan]

Little Fish, on 02 October 2012 - 12:38 PM, said:

and that deceleration does not exist in the ACTUAL data. a deceleration of the top block as it strikes the structure below would manifest as a measurable impulse spike. Szamboti & McQueen looked for it in the data and its not there. you know this. all verinage demolition exmaples show this impulse. the wtc does not show it.

We've discussed this before, eg here:
http://www.unexplain...7

MacQueen and Szamboti are effectively measuring the deceleration of the passengers in a car crash and claiming that it is too small to damage the car structure, ignoring the fact that the failure of the car structure is what gives the passengers a survivable deceleration.

[Little Fish]

booNyzarC, on 02 October 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

Little Fish said:

and that deceleration does not exist in the ACTUAL data. a deceleration of the top block as it strikes the structure below would manifest as a measurable impulse spike. Szamboti & McQueen looked for it in the data and its not there. you know this. all verinage demolition exmaples show this impulse. the wtc does not show it.

That's because the reality of collapse wasn't structured and balanced like Bazant's model. In reality, the upper block was tilted and slightly off center during the collapse. The missing jolt is expected in this scenario because instead of one big impact you have thousands of smaller impacts happening in rapid succession across the entire surface of the collapse front, not just the core and perimeter columns.

expected?
because you say so?
show me your proof that "no jolt is expected"?
if you KNOW no jolt is expected, then you have a point of reference to show. what is that reference?

and the verinage demolitions? these use jacks to prop up a top block, then the jacks swing and the top block hits the bottom block OFF CENTRE - they SHOW a jolt, so A JOLT IS EXPECTED.
real life data trumps your speculative belief protecting rhetoric.

Flyingswan said:

MacQueen and Szamboti are effectively measuring the deceleration of the passengers in a car crash and claiming that it is too small to damage the car structure, ignoring the fact that the failure of the car structure is what gives the passengers a survivable deceleration.

they are not measuring car passengers.
they have measured the fall of the the top of the top block of the wtc1 tower and it shows NO JOLT.
the verinage demolitions SHOW THE JOLT.
real life data trump your belief protecting analogies.

[booNyzarC]

Little Fish, on 02 October 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

expected?
because you say so?
show me your proof that "no jolt is expected"?
if you KNOW no jolt is expected, then you have a point of reference to show. what is that reference?

and the verinage demolitions? these use jacks to prop up a top block, then the jacks swing and the top block hits the bottom block OFF CENTRE - they SHOW a jolt, so A JOLT IS EXPECTED.
real life data trumps your speculative belief protecting rhetoric.

The key factor is the tilting of the upper block.  That tilting took place because failure began on one side of the building and progressed to the other side.  By the time the entire upper block is in downward motion, the collapse front is on a diagonal.  By the very fact that the front is diagonal, the upper block will impact with the lower block across that diagonal instead of 'slapping' down all at once like a Verinage demolition or like the scenario in Bazant's limiting case.

What proof do you need of that?  A visual of the tilted upper block?

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 02 October 2012 - 01:06 PM, said:

The point about Ross &amp; Furlong is that IF their work is true and accurate,..AND that means that huge explosions, along with heat release sufficient to melt human skin without killing the body, took place BEFORE the airplanes struck. THEN the Rodriguez testimony is corroborated perfectly,...

That is false! William Rodriguez reported hearing rumbling sounds, not explosions in the basement.

Quote

Debunking William Rodriguez


"We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," Rodriguez said. "And then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off."

http://archives.cnn....ew.york.terror/

http://truthersaresa...liam-rodriguez/

Nothing there about Rodriguez hearing explosions in the basement before American 11 impacted WTC1. Your routine of posting disinformation and misinformation is clearly evident.

Quote

William Rodriguez - Last Man Out: Discovered a Fraud!

by; Phil Jayhan & Larry McWilliams

http://letsrollforum...24680.html?amp;

Edited by skyeagle409, 02 October 2012 - 04:45 PM.

[flyingswan]

Little Fish, on 02 October 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

they are not measuring car passengers.
they have measured the fall of the the top of the top block of the wtc1 tower and it shows NO JOLT.
the verinage demolitions SHOW THE JOLT.
real life data trump your belief protecting analogies.

The top of the block is protected by deforming structure lower down, just as car crash passengers are protected by deforming structure.  Their data is useless because they are looking for the jolt in the wrong place.  Moreover, their calculation of how a big a jolt there should be is seriously flawed, as I explained here:
http://www.unexplain...05#entry3943154

Boony is also right in saying that any tilt will also lessen the jolt.

Edited by flyingswan, 02 October 2012 - 04:56 PM.

[Little Fish]

booNyzarC, on 02 October 2012 - 03:57 PM, said:

The key factor is the tilting of the upper block.  That tilting took place because failure began on one side of the building and progressed to the other side.  By the time the entire upper block is in downward motion, the collapse front is on a diagonal.  By the very fact that the front is diagonal, the upper block will impact with the lower block across that diagonal instead of 'slapping' down all at once like a Verinage demolition or like the scenario in Bazant's limiting case.

What proof do you need of that?  A visual of the tilted upper block?

what is your reference to your claim that no jolt is expected in the collapse of north tower (wtc1)?

you have just provided more speculative assertions.
a structure is still a structure, regardless of what angle it is struck at by the top block. the tilt of wtc1 was not significant enough to reject the verinage demolitions as comparisons.

[Q24]

flyingswan, on 02 October 2012 - 12:30 PM, said:

We've obviously been at cross purposes.  I consider "unlikely" to mean low probability, say no more than 5%, but you don't.  You think the building is unlikely to collapse, but you also think red is unlikely to come up next spin at roulette.  On your definition of unlikely, you are right, on my definition, I am right.

Well, I have mentioned your lack of English comprehension a few times previously.

Do tell, how do you describe a 10% probability?

If I had ten cards numbered 1-10, requested you pick one randomly and, before looking, asked you to describe the chance that your card is a 10, would you say, “Oh, that’s likely”?  Would you say, “It’s as likely as not”?  Of course either of those responses would be wrong.  The correct answer is that it is “unlikely” to be the 10.

You see why it’s so difficult for us to agree anything when we can’t agree simple facts like this due to some sort of language barrier?  Swanny, are you English?  Is English your first language?  Please say "No" so I can understand and give you a break.

It really doesn’t matter – on the line of probability, applying a simulated 9/11-like building, airliner impact and fire, NIST showed chance of the tower survival to be some distance greater than 50%.

Yet rather than seeking a more likely answer, NIST simply assumed that the unlikely happened (twice... no, three times) and added further manual “tweaks” to provide the politically acceptable “good answer” desired (a little more on that below).

It’s the most blatant disregard of the scientific method one could ever witness.

flyingswan, on 02 October 2012 - 12:30 PM, said:

You may think that the load of rubbish that constitutes the rest of your post is somehow logically connected with this statement, but I don't see any logic there at all, just a complete misunderstanding of the subject.

Ah, so you would like to disagree with my use of your description?  I’m so glad you mentioned it, otherwise I might never have known.  The fact is, you cannot handle when your own words support my argument – and I could make a short book of such occurrences: -

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

Q24:  “You admitted that NIST “tweaked their models”.”
flyingswan:   “All engineers do, it's the way to get good answers from them.”

“The intelligence services failure to prevent the attacks deserves an investigation.”
~flyingswan

I guess none of this means what it actually says though.  Or is it that you simply change the meaning after realisation of the implications?  That would fit better with the wider deceptions and dishonesty of your position.  Speaking of which, are you still hiding from the fact the NIST non-collapse simulations provided a better match to the actual impact damage for both towers?  I’m finding that amusing.

flyingswan, on 02 October 2012 - 12:30 PM, said:

Your toy simulations need a "back of the envelope" reality check.  Neither seems to show any signs of elements buckling, meaning that either very significant physics is missing in the simulation or the elements are much stronger in relation to the mass or distance fallen of the upper block than was the case for the actual towers.

They are physics simulations and it makes little difference whether the columns buckle or break, you should know that.

Little Fish, on 02 October 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

real life data trumps your speculative belief protecting rhetoric.

...

real life data trump your belief protecting analogies.

It is true.  Apparently real life observation does not matter so much next to what people want to believe.  If they can imagine something in their head to retain their worldview, that is what they will do.  It applies on both sides of the argument with official theory adherents susceptible as anyone.

[booNyzarC]

Little Fish, on 02 October 2012 - 04:55 PM, said:

what is your reference to your claim that no jolt is expected in the collapse of north tower (wtc1)?

you have just provided more speculative assertions.
a structure is still a structure, regardless of what angle it is struck at by the top block. the tilt of wtc1 was not significant enough to reject the verinage demolitions as comparisons.

My reference is my own observation of the tilting of the upper block during collapse initiation.  It is actually fairly pronounced in my opinion, relatively speaking anyway.  It will take some time, but I'll put together an animation of one specific video which seems to hi-light the tilting.  Or you could watch it yourself and determine whether or not you see it.  CBS-Net NIST Dub #7 Clip 22.

Key observables include the lowering of the fire section in the upper right side, the tilting of the antenna, the overall tilting of the Northwest corner, and a wave-like expulsion of smoke starting from the Southwest corner and moving toward the Northwest corner between the 95th and 99th stories just as collapse is initiating.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 02 October 2012 - 05:41 PM, said:

It is true.  Apparently real life observation does not matter so much next to what people want to believe.

Let's take a couple examples because there are those who continue to claim that the collapse of the WTC buildings were the result of controlled demolitions. First of all,  controlled demolitions using explosives make a lot of noise. In the following video do you hear the sound of explosives?



In this video do you hear the sound of explosives?



Of course you don't! Which simply means there is no evidence of controlled demolitions involving the WTC buildings, but there are people who want to believe the WTC buildings were demolished by explosives despite the lack of evidence in the videos, on audio and within the rubble of the WTC buildings.

Why are there claims being made of controlled demolitions and the WTC buildings without such evidence?

[W Tell]

I apolagize to LG.

This thread was started as something differant from the the other tit for tat threads that pepper this board and LG thought that would be a good idea. So we are supposed to be "talking turkey". The talk this turned into again can keep going along ...as they have in all the other threads... or..it can go along as the thread I started.



I started this thread with this....


""I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive." Thomas Jefferson

"Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington


"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

" What constitutes the bulwark of our own liberty and independence? It is not our frowning battlements, our bristling seacoasts, the guns of our war steamers, or the strength of our gallant and disciplined army. These are not our reliance against a resumption of tyranny in our fair land. All of them may be turned against our liberties, without making us stronger or weaker for the struggle. Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has planted in our bosoms. Our defense is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands, everywhere. Destroy this spirit, and you have planted the seeds of despotism around your own doors. Familiarize yourselves with the chains of bondage, and you are preparing your own limbs to wear them. Accustomed to trample on the rights of those around you, you become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises." - Abraham Lincoln

The warnings are far too numerous to include here, but they are clear. Large governments, ones that no longer respect the people, easily and inevitably rule the people."





"Here's the question. Are we still under the assumption that America is still under the control of the people, or is it conceivable that the American government has grown to such a size that it is separated from the people?"



I know this threads morphed, but I give LG major kudos for starting it from the beggining.

[Liquid Gardens]

W Tell, on 03 October 2012 - 12:07 AM, said:

I apolagize to LG.

This thread was started as something differant from the the other tit for tat threads that pepper this board and LG thought that would be a good idea. So we are supposed to be "talking turkey". The talk this turned into again can keep going along ...as they have in all the other threads... or..it can go along as the thread I started.

I started this thread with this....

""I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive." Thomas Jefferson

"Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

" What constitutes the bulwark of our own liberty and independence? It is not our frowning battlements, our bristling seacoasts, the guns of our war steamers, or the strength of our gallant and disciplined army. These are not our reliance against a resumption of tyranny in our fair land. All of them may be turned against our liberties, without making us stronger or weaker for the struggle. Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has planted in our bosoms. Our defense is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands, everywhere. Destroy this spirit, and you have planted the seeds of despotism around your own doors. Familiarize yourselves with the chains of bondage, and you are preparing your own limbs to wear them. Accustomed to trample on the rights of those around you, you become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises." - Abraham Lincoln

The warnings are far too numerous to include here, but they are clear. Large governments, ones that no longer respect the people, easily and inevitably rule the people."

"Here's the question. Are we still under the assumption that America is still under the control of the people, or is it conceivable that the American government has grown to such a size that it is separated from the people?"

I know this threads morphed, but I give LG major kudos for starting it from the beggining.

W Tell, no need to apologize to me, man.  I haven't been here that long, but this is the most productive and educational thread I've been involved in here, and kudos to you and all the participants.  I think it has the highest proportion of actual content and debate and engagement of ideas to, well let's just call it 'commenters poking at each other' to be nice, than any other 9/11 thread I've seen since I've been here.  (Not that there's anything that wrong with poking of course, I'm not above indulging in it or receiving it.  All in good fun and mild annoyance.)

I've just spent some time reading another thread with knowledgable people discussing Newton's third law with respect to the collapses which was very interesting, but involved discussions of the differences between dynamic loads vs static loads, calculations involving calculus I know longer remember, etc, which is convincing me that despite thinking that the physics is something objective and there are right and wrong answers on these topics, I think I have little hope of actually nailing it down and being very convincing at this point, that proof lies ultimately in the realm of mathematics.  I do really think I've made an accomplishment with Q with agreement of our floors only behavior of the towers and I'm going to return to it, there may be some hope there yet, but this thread's consuming the majority of my UM time recently and I'm getting a little sick of thinking about the mechanics of the building collapses right now.  I think we can talk about multiple things here simultaneously, so yes, your timing here is perfect, I'm definitely ready to take a brief breather and talk some turkey.

Your quotes above from our presidents are all excellent, but the general idea there has a lot of different applications.  Interesting way of putting it that you suggested, the 'separation' of the government from the people; I guess (if for no other reason than to keep this discussion in the correct forum) you might be able to suggest that the US government has some of the attributes of a secret society in a way.  But I guess it depends on how we are defining 'large government'.  Is that military strength and the exercise of it, degree and amount of secrecy, revenue, dependence of the populace on it/welfare type programs, invasiveness of its laws, sheer number of people employed?  Probably all put together.  I guess, to me, the most concerning are the exercise of our military and the invasiveness of our laws, the former because of the raw damage and cost and latter because of its insidiousness.

Which leads into your first point, who's to blame for what the government does, terrible things that are obviously unjustified to me like the Iraq War.  I don't think, if we were to just ridiculously glom 'the American people' together into one averaged stereotyped mass, that I'd say then that the people are not 'in control' inasmuch as I'd say that the American people still have the power ultimately.  Unfortunately we don't want to be bothered to use it unless its absolutely essential, which usually just unfortunately means, it affects most of us directly.  We don't want to be bothered with even knowing where these countries we're at war with are located, what their history and culture is, don't particularly care to be reminded of the actual cost of these wars with such nuisances as being exposed to relatively benign photos of flag-draped caskets, don't want to keep up with really what's going on, our wars get boring after a few years ya know.  We aren't interested in these details, we don't keep that close an eye on what the government does which was a pretty key part of the founders idea of an effective government.  Oh but give us something remotely titillating, then we can't get enough of it of course; off the top of my head I can't rattle off the name of 4 cities in Afghanistan but I could probably rattle off 4 names of the lawyers involved in the O.J. trial.  (obviously this is a caricature, there are loads of very good unselfish Americans and varying degrees of all of it).

And our government secret society knows how we behave and our apathy, and plays it to a tee.  But we could change it if we wanted, everyone making the decisions is very beholden to being reelected, or being recalled in the extreme case.  And this simplified discussion assumes that there's something that the people can mostly agree on; it gets even stickier and more complicated when there are a good amount of people that think going to Iraq for example was a good idea.   But I don't think it changes where the power is, I blame the people not the government, we've been given all the tools to make change, significant changes to the structure of the government itself, and only a fraction of us use them, are really knowledgable enough to have educated input to provide, or really care enough to.  We could punish those who are not talking to us straight and keeping secrets unnecessarily, who are giving us a sales pitch, but many of us don't even bother to fact check; instead it's, 'here's the power and the nuisance, take it.'

But I do have the hope somehow through something like the internet that people can both get themselves interested and educated on what our government is doing at least until it is more 'fixed', and express their will more easily and conveniently.  Nowhere near that yet, but I think I see the potential, although I admit that I'm concerned about how a more true will of the people would actually express itself and what it would result in.