Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 2 votes

Talking Turkey


  • Please log in to reply
900 replies to this topic

#151    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 24 August 2012 - 04:02 PM

I’m going to leave out some of your post on WTC7 where I think we have both made our cases.  For example, the subject of “creaking” - I’d only be repeating myself and have new information and lines of argument I'd like to introduce in response to your questions.  I’ve also re-ordered some quotes to make the post flow better…


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 24 August 2012 - 01:39 AM, said:


These actions do not necessarily suggest a 'minor concern' as you are stating what firefighters' jobs are; they have a habit of trying to help people get out of burning buildings alive, sometimes even when there is a non-minor concern that they are risking their lives.  You list a bunch of actions they took, but when did they take them?

The point, and I think you miss this continually, is that the firefighter level of concern and actions altered at each step after external advice – the firefighters did not abandon WTC7 of their own accord but because that is what they were influenced to do.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 24 August 2012 - 01:39 AM, said:


You don't have evidence that the sole suspicion that the building would come down came from this advisor. If you think the concern was truly non-existent, then why is Hayden even discussing the possibility of collapse with the advisors?


We have evidence the advisor(s) influenced the FDNY to believe WTC7 would collapse.  We have no evidence the FDNY made independent judgement the building would collapse.  I’m accepting the limit of what’s there on record.

Hayden was influenced to suspect a collapse even prior to his discussion with the “on the money” advisor.  It flows from the account of Michael Currid that we have seen.  An OEM advisor scared the FDNY out of the building at around 11:30am with the warning there was a serious danger of collapse.  When Hayden arrived on scene, he encountered the withdrawing firefighters.  From the NIST report: -


"When the Chief Officer in charge of WTC 7 got to Barclay Street and West Broadway, numerous firefighters and officers were coming out of WTC 7. These firefighters indicated that several blocks needed to be cleared around WTC 7 because they thought that the building was going to collapse."



So we see that initial warning from the OEM advisor affected the firefighters on scene and, indirectly, Hayden upon his arrival.  That is reason Hayden discussed the possibility of collapse with the advisor.  It is the advisor(s) that wanted the FDNY away from the building.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 24 August 2012 - 01:39 AM, said:

I think the collapse of the towers was a surprise as that whole morning was, and being cautious provides a far more reasonable, and to me likely, explanation than 'foreknowledge'.  Did these advisors predict the towers' collapse?  

Funny you should mention that.  It’s something I’ve nearly raised a couple of times but didn’t want to distract from the WTC7 foreknowledge.

First, it is correct the collapse of the twin towers was a surprise.  Even Bazant stated, “To structural engineers, the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers on 9/11/2001 came as the greatest surprise…”  To the trained and experienced FDNY, the global collapse of the towers obviously came as a surprise also.  Keep this at the forefront of your mind.

So why do we have another advisor on scene (or was it the same advisor as for WTC7?  Anonymous, once again), confidently predicting the tower collapses and seeking to influence the FDNY beforehand?  And why didn't the official investigation seek out these clairvoyants?

Here is the account of John Perruggia from the NYT oral histories: -


"Some engineer type person, and several of us were huddled talking in the lobby and it was brought to my attention, it was believed that the structural damage that was suffered to the towers was quite significant and they were very confident that the building’s stability was compromised and they felt that the north tower was in danger of a near imminent collapse.

I grabbed EMT Zarrillo, I advised him of that information. I told him he was to proceed immediately to the command post where Chief Ganci was located. Told him where it was across the street from number 1 World Trade Center.  I told him "You see Chief Ganci and Chief Ganci only.  Provide him with the information that the building integrity is severely compromised and they believe the building is in danger of imminent collapse."  So, he left off in that direction."



Contrast the following two statements from above, and you see why I’m asking questions: -
  • “To structural engineers, the collapse of the World Trade Center … came as the greatest surprise…”
  • “Some engineer type person … very confident … the building is in danger of imminent collapse.”
And the response of the FDNY Chief of Operations when the message of “engineer type person” reached him?  


"who the **** told you that?"
"who would tell you something like that?"
"who are we getting these reports from?



Understandable shock, disdain and confusion.

So to clarify, this is the twin tower situation: -
  • Not one of the FDNY personnel expected collapse.
  • All of the responders displayed some surprise at the information.
  • The information was not their own deduction but was passed up the chain of command.
  • This foreknowledge of collapse was not based on firefighter observation.
  • The foreknowledge originated from an anonymous advisor.
If it happened this way for the towers, then why not again for WTC7?  Except this time of course, the FDNY took the advisor(s) warning more seriously.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 24 August 2012 - 01:39 AM, said:

This looks far more benign to me in context, and note the repeated use of the word 'advice' and not 'insistence'.  


It was still not that the advice was founded in engineering rationale, see above, more that the WTC7 advice was never going to be disregarded, and nor should it have been, later in the day after the tower collapses.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 24 August 2012 - 01:39 AM, said:


Okay, unless I'm missing something, this whole 'pre-emptive' media reports 'argument' is pretty weak.  You think the idea that the hypothesis that this is foreknowledge is more likely than the case that the media has made yet another mistake which it does all the time?  There's a running gag concerning whether the actor Abe Vigoda is alive or dead, after he was twice mistakenly referred to as deceased by the media; I've seen death reports periodically of other celebs that are later retracted.  The media is incentivized to be the first with 'breaking news!', so of course they make mistakes.  And this is surprising during the most chaotic event and probably most media-covered event?  Worse, how does the idea of including in our proposed plot the order that the media be notified by our conspirators that WTC7 has collapsed fit in to anything?  Why would they take it upon themselves to do this and not just let the building collapse and the media report on it?  Yet another bonehead conspirator who isn't waiting for the building to collapse before notifying the media; all he had to do was look at a television.

I think the pre-emptive media reports are further evidence of the rising foreknowledge on scene shortly before the building went down – so confident that it misled reporters to believe the event had already occurred.  And it is not only the incorrect report that is interesting.  The expectation was so certain it led CNN to change their caption from the speculative, "may collapse" to the foreboding, "on verge of collapse"... just 15 minutes prior the actual collapse.  There was no change in the building condition at that time.  Yet reporters accurately predicted the “extraordinary” first time ever event to occur 15 minutes beforehand?  It appears that reporters picked up on the confidence on scene which some possessed.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 24 August 2012 - 01:39 AM, said:


That may be because 'confident foreknowledge' may not be an accurate term for what went on, and of course presumes exactly what I'm disputing.

  • “pretty much right on the money”
  • “pretty sure”
  • “on verge of collapse”
  • “imminent”
  • adamant about 7 coming down”
  • “7 was definitely going to collapse”
  • “it’ll be coming down soon"
  • “building is about to blow up”
What other word do I need to find to demonstrate ‘confident foreknowledge’?

You are making this impossible to prove because you won’t accept what’s there.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 24 August 2012 - 01:39 AM, said:


But a bulge is evidence of structural deformation.  Why do you think that our firefighters, and advisors who I don't think are actually on the scene, believe that they themselves have all the data they need to determine the danger of collapse to such a confident degree that they can reasonably be sure that there's no chance of a collapse and more firefighter deaths?

The firefighters did not have all of the data – along with the advisor(s) warnings, that is why a concern of collapse existed.  Why do you think firefighters had the data to determine the danger of collapse to such a confident degree that they can reasonably be sure that there's a [insert “adamant”/”imminent”/”definite”] collapse coming?


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 24 August 2012 - 01:39 AM, said:


You obviously do not know that the firefighters would not have halted operations at WTC7 in a different reality.

Independently the FDNY certainly would not have halted firefighting operations when they did – see account of Michael Currid - it was the advisor warning that prompted the initial evacuation.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 24 August 2012 - 01:39 AM, said:


Of course there's going to be urgency at even the suggestion of an imminent collapse, it's their lives on the line.  This part of your analysis seems to rely on an assemblage of messages being passed from person to person (I'm sure you are aware of the degradation of the message as it is passed on, a la, the Telephone Game (also called 'chinese whispers' I guess)) and that the parties involved have enough data to know that it won't collapse.  And for no reason that I can think of ignores the most pertinent context of what had actually happened, the impact of those events on everyone's decision-making processes, the chaos and fear and confusion involved, and what was at stake for those at the scene.

No, the urgency increased significantly drawing nearer to the collapse time – the appearance is that some on scene knew the collapse was due.  You say, of course there’s going to be urgency?  Though many firefighters displayed the opposite upon receipt of the warning:  oh, that building is never coming down, that didn't get hit by a plane, why isn't somebody in there putting the fire out?  And an increasing urgency that reaches its crescendo shortly before the collapse?  This isn’t making sense in context of an unpredictable event, it’s making sense in context of a pre-planned event.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 24 August 2012 - 01:39 AM, said:


I'm really confused on these; the quotes indicate a plan to intentionally bring the building down that the firefighters knew about at the time?  I'm having trouble fitting that data point in, you're not suggesting FDNY was in on the demolition?

Yes some firefighters clearly knew there was a plan in the works.  This has already been confirmed through the news article which described Silverstein seeking authorisation for demolition of WTC7 on the morning:  "Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option."

I am suggesting that some firefighters had reason to believe the building was going to be demolished.  It seems that way (we’re gonna have to bring it down”/There's a building, about to blow up”) doesn’t it?

This plan and foreknowledge also frame Silverstein’s “pull it” comment in a whole new light.  I’ve been avoiding that topic – it’s been gone over a thousand times - though to me the language used, logic and surrounding circumstances indicate that “it” refers to the building.

All the official story later had to do, is convince the firefighters and public that fire beat the demolition to it.

You see I don’t think the powers that be were intent on selling the official WTC7 story as we now know it, not from the beginning.  As discussed, the demolition, the way it went, was ‘Plan B’ – it would seem better for them had WTC7 come down at the same time as the north tower.  I think the plan was to remain tight-lipped and see how the situation panned out with the media, emergency departments on scene and public – this is why there was no ‘official story’ for so long.  When it became clear the demolition could be hidden under guise of a fire based collapse, that is what the powers that be went with – there were less questions to answer that way, not to mention limiting further suspicion of the tower demolitions.  But then Silverstein became too publicly candid of his experience.  That does make me wonder how close Silverstein was to the operation planners – though I’ve said before he was more a pawn to smooth the aftermath.

Here’s another piece of information I’ve not mentioned on this thread yet: -


"I do know that that [WTC7] wall I remember was in danger, and I think that they made that decision based on the danger that it had of destroying other things, that they did it in a controlled fashion.”
~John Kerry, 2004 U.S. Presidential candidate



Wherever did Kerry get that idea?

I really think there are more people who know about the WTC7 demolition than any other covered-up area on 9/11 but, either through subversion of the official story or political pressures, are not letting on.  It’s a strange one, WTC7, whereby there is potential for a demolition which is not necessarily nefarious but fits with the rest of the official 9/11 story (much like a Flight 93 shootdown).  And I have heard from official story adherents who do accept both the WTC7 demolition and Flight 93 shootdown.  Though official acceptance of these alternatives would now open a can of worms and stoke conspiracy fires ever higher…

If the public can be so readily deceived in those areas, what else of the official story might not be the whole truth?

Edited by Q24, 24 August 2012 - 04:33 PM.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#152    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,789 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 24 August 2012 - 06:09 PM

No Evidence of Controlled Demolition






Nigro, Daniel
"I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed."

He said the reasons given were that "the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse", "the collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7", "WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels", and "numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them."


Nigro, Daniel,
“The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse had
damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between
West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I
ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to
give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away
far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldn’t lose any more people.

We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and
a half after that order was given, at 5:30 in the afternoon, 7 World Trade Center collapsed
completely.”


McGlynn, James,
“Just when you thought it was over, you’re walking by this building and you’re hearing
this building creak and fully involved in flames. It’s like, is it coming down next? Sure
enough, about half an hour later it came down.”


Kelty, Eugene,
“And 7 World Trade was burning up at the time. We could see it. There was concern. I
had gone up to take a look at it, because I knew that the telephone company building,
which is 140 West Street, was next to 7 World Trade Center, and there was a concern that
if 7 World Trade Center came down, what would happen to this building? We went in
there, we checked it out. There were some people in there. We made them evacuate and I
went in the back to see what was happening.

The fire at 7 World Trade was working its way from the front of the building northbound
to the back of the building. There was no way there could be water put on it, because
there was no water in the area. I went back and I reminded whoever the chief was, I don’t
know if it was Chief McKavanagh or Chief Blaich, that with 7 World Trade Center in
danger of collapsing, you had to be careful, because Con Edison had big transformers in
the back that supplied the lower half of Manhattan. …when I was coming back
somewhere around I think it was 5:00 o’clock, 6:00 o’clock, 7 World Trade Center came
down.”


Fellini, Frank,
“The major concern at that time at that particular location was number Seven, building number seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the façade on Vesey Street.

We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in thebuilding collapsing. So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex. Eventually around 5:00 or a little after, building number seven came down.”

*   At this point Seven World Trade was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down.
–Firefighter Vincent Massa

*   Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable.
–PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

________________________________________________________

What we do have for sure.

1) Fireman saying there was "a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors." "I would say it was probably about a third of it".

2) A laymen officer the fireman was standing next to said, "that building doesn’t look straight." He then says "It didn’t look right".

3) They put a transit on it and afterward were "pretty sure she was going to collapse."

4) They "saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13".

5) Photographic evidence of a fire directly under the penthouse which collapsed first.

6) The penthouse fell first, followed by the rest of the building shortly after.

7) The collapse happened from the bottom.

8) Photographic evidence of large smoke plumes against the back of B7. Plumes of smoke so large you can't see the entire rear of the 47 story office building.

9) Silverstein is not a demolition expert and was talking to a fire fighter and not a demolition expert. Why would he use the word "Pull" to describe the demolition to a fire fighter?

10) Silverstein denies "Pull" means "Controlled demolition". He said it means "Pull" the teams out of the building.

11) Silverstein did not make the decision to "Pull". (Whatever that means) "they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse"

12) Another fire fighter used "Pull" to describe the decision made to get him out of the building.

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Edited by skyeagle409, 24 August 2012 - 06:35 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#153    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,789 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 24 August 2012 - 06:45 PM



KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#154    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,672 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 24 August 2012 - 06:48 PM

View PostQ24, on 23 August 2012 - 01:41 AM, said:

The avenues were covered, because as we see, even when Israeli intelligence were caught celebrating the attack, with an indication of explosives transported in their van and failed lie detector tests, the investigation is swept under the carpet by politics.

Or, an investigation was done to the extent to determine there was no evidence that they were involved in the attacks.  We don’t know, I don’t know what the standard protocol is for when allies uncover one another’s spies.

Quote

That is right - there were no explosives in the van because they had been transferred into the towers. The sniffer dog sure picked up on the residual scent though. I'm not sure there were two vans, or one still packed with explosives.

And "maybe" sure as heck does not give confidence in the official story.

‘Maybe’ doesn’t give us any reason to detain these ‘agents’ further or doubt the official story either, there’s not enough info.  This isn’t really a problem for the official story as the official story doesn’t try to say that these ‘agents’ are evidence of anything, but your theory does, thus ‘maybe’ is an issue for your theory.

Quote

I often hear it said that polygraph tests are 95% reliable. I've had another look after your prompt and the scientific community places it at closer to 60%. Still, both sniffer dogs and polygraph tests are more often than not accurate. To disregard both as mistaken is to believe against the odds.
They are slightly more often than not accurate.  To say that there is a 40% chance that they are not lying is more than enough variability to doubt the results of a polygraph; I'm sure if you were being charged with something and failed a polygraph you'd offer that same argument.

Quote

Ah but "we don't know" is always to my advantage because we should know. In the end I'm the one who would demand a comprehensive investigation of 9/11, it is others defending the lack of answers.

Not quite.  ‘We don’t know” is definitely not ‘always’ to your advantage, and I don’t think it even is in the case of our Israelis. The data is missing, have you entertained at all the possibility that these Israelis were not involved in the demolition of WTC?  What if there was an investigation done, no evidence was found to link them to any demolition, and they were thus sent home?  If that was the case, what more would you demand be done?  What more would you want under that scenario, that we as standard policy parade foreign spies from our allies in front of the media and the public and let them be interrogated by local law enforcement and possibly divulge classified information that our own govt may rightly want classified?  That is what you think should happen if Israel catches one of our spies?

We don’t even know if there was one van with just explosive residue or if it was packed with explosives, whether there were two vans, a possible 40% false positive rate for dogs which is possibly even greater since there are reports that these guys may have been profiled as ‘Arabs’, and the fact that these guys inexplicably later filed suit for their treatment when they were arrested and detained which is foolish if they were part of the plot as they’re providing ‘us’ with even more time to investigate them and who they really supposedly are.  The accounts aren’t even consistent, and based on these sketchy ‘reports’ you’re feeling pretty good that we, meaning the general population, should know the details of the investigation.  Is it illegal to either ride around in a vehicle that contains ‘explosive residue’ that only a dog can detect or to celebrate a terrorist attack?  What evidence has been found that justifies their detainment, and what is the charge?  I think it’s pretty clear that there isn’t enough evidence, with the exception of the questionable case of a van packed with explosives, to charge them with anything.  

I can’t speak necessarily for you, but you know there are plenty of CTs for which any additional evidence offered as to their innocence on this is just going to be waved away because it came from the govt.  Is there anyone, outside of a handful of CTs, whose word you would accept if they were to further investigate these guys and find that they didn’t have any involvement?

And we’re not talking about whether a further investigation should be done or not, we’re talking about at this point in time whether you have enough evidence for your demolition theory.  I’d have to think more about under what conditions I’d think a comprehensive investigation would be warranted, it’s a different question.

Quote

It's just that when the WTC buildings are demolished and there is evidence of Israeli intelligence, who would benefit from the attack, having carried explosives at the scene, there's an obvious connection to be made. I stand to lose nothing in demanding a full investigation. That's one awful risk you take in settling to presume their innocence. You do know Israeli intelligence has bombed Western targets on more than one occassion before to be blamed on Arabs and coerce the West into pro-Israeli action? And really, you now want to give them benefit of the doubt? Don't you think that is a little naive, and possibly dangerous?

If the buildings were demolished.  There isn’t any evidence that they ‘carried explosives at the scene’, you don’t even know if there were explosives ever in their van and if so, how long ago it was.  It’s not just ‘benefit of the doubt’, it’s called ‘presumption of innocence’.  Unless you want to Guantanamo these guys.  

Thanks for the recent responses too, Q, gotta give me some time to digest them.  Ha, I’ve said this a zillion times, but I am going to try narrow how many topics we’re dealing with ongoing, these responses take me a lot of time.  Have a good weekend!

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#155    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,872 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 25 August 2012 - 11:12 AM

View PostQ24, on 20 August 2012 - 11:01 AM, said:

We were not talking about the range of inputs within variable factors, we were talking about the level of damage severity (which the diagram I provided represents). Whichever of the variables are adjusted, this will still converge at a level of damage, and a specific level of damage must still be met to initiate a collapse. For instance, the two parameters of aircraft mass and aircraft speed, however adjusted, result in only one value of kinetic energy. And that is essentially all the initial inputs are about - kinetic energy of the aircraft vs. resistance of the tower - NIST did not need to simulate hundreds of cases to determine the tipping point where the first overcomes the latter.
Typically, you carefully ignore the parameters which don't give a change in energy: trajectory angle and aircraft attitude.  These are the ones that alter the pattern of the damage.

Quote

Again, there is no overlap between the severe (collapse) case and observation. The fact NIST admitted the base (non-collapse) case provided better match to the actual damage rules this out. Please refer to the diagram I provided where you will see that the severe case and actual damage never overlap on the damage severity scale.
You are ignoring significant factors here.  The tipping point is somewhere between the two cases, and the best fit to the damage is somewhere between the two cases.  In your diagram, the size of the error range of the best fit to the damage is your choice and you have arbitrarily chosen to touch one case but not the other, even though for one tower both cases were judged equally good fits.  A slightly different chosen error range and the best estimate wouldn't overlap either.  You are also ignoring all the uncertainties normally covered by a design safety factor.  Even the damage in the "best estimate" represents a considerable reduction in this safety factor, so you cannot claim that there is a valid case for assuming no collapse.

Quote

I would not, generally speaking, be opposed to assuming numerous eyewitnesses were mistaken. However, I cannot disregard the photographic evidence of a melted beam and the high temperature steel corrosion FEMA discovered, which corroborate the statements. Look at the steel beam John Gross posed with. Where is the rest of it? If the section corroded away through high temperature liquification of the steel grain boundary, that is going to match just what those eyewitnesses described ('beams dripping molten steel'). Your solution of a steel lollipop stick dipped in molten aluminium (or another low melting point metal) is not best fit to the body of evidence, including the physical and photographic.

The metal is still in a semi-solid state far above the melting temperature of aluminium or lead which rules out those two metals (at least as a single solution). The presence of liquified steel can be explained twofold, 1) through the FEMA discovery 2) that the dripping substance appears near white hot. But I see - you want to believe no matter what that the glowing lump is a composition of materials coated in molten aluminium or lead, which again achieved through taking the photograph in isolation of the body of evidence.
You still have no clue at all about the differences between melting and intergranular corrosion.  In the latter process, only the boundaries between the grains of the steel are melted, the grains themselves remain intact.  You don't get a pool of molten metal or metal drips, you get a heap of grains.  Your picture of what happens is wrong, so your conclusion is also wrong.

BY your own estimate, the metal in the photographs is at too low a temperature to be molten steel, so whatever is melting/dripping must me some other metal.  Both aluminium and lead are molten at your estimated temperature, steel is not.

Quote

Just for the record, there is another interesting observation in that the main mass of the material held by the digger is not glowing at all. That indicates a focussed energy source/phenomena raised the temperature of the glowing section, rather than the widespread or dispersed effect of a fire.
All it indicates is a temperature gradient, such as occurs between the centre and the outside of something that is cooling.  Pull apart a fresh-baked cake and you'll find the centre is a lot hotter than the outside.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#156    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,872 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 25 August 2012 - 12:56 PM

View PostQ24, on 24 August 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

Why didn't NIST nail it?  

The short answer is that the NIST engineers appreciate the probabilities involved with error limits and you don't.

Quote

Please follow discussion here on Newton and Bazant from post #828.  Poor booNy eventually tied himself in a terrible knot trying to reconcile his own understanding with the official collapse theory, culminating in post #1052 (see green and red text).
Please do, LG, and don't stop at #1052.  Q24 repeatedly claims that Bazant ignores Newton's third law, but can't put his finger on just where in the paper Bazant does this (for the simple reason that he doesn't).  Q24's problem is that he can't see how "equal and opposite reaction" can bring about differing outcomes for the upper and lower blocks.  Boony was quite right to say that the blocks are equally damaged, but this applies only for the initial impact.  Beyond the immediate impact event, in both space and time, things are not symmetrical, and there are two factors that cause this.  First, the blocks are not symmetric structurally, in that the lower block has its far end fixed to the ground while the upper block has its far end free.  Second, after the initial impact, there is a growing debris layer between the blocks which is accelerated by gravity towards the stationary lower block, while there is no differential acceleration between the upper block and this layer.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#157    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 25 August 2012 - 04:53 PM

View PostQ24, on 24 August 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 23 August 2012 - 01:48 AM, said:

View PostQ24, on 16 August 2012 - 01:21 AM, said:

And we are talking of lies so big as offering hypotheticals that do not match reality (not only in the NIST example discussed further above, but numerous others). We are talking of lies that circumvent the foundations of established physics such as Newton's third law.

As an admitted non-expert, I'm surprised to see you repeat this Newton's third law violation stuff.  You do know there is considerable debate and controversy about that topic, are you really qualified to evaluate the arguments against this?  Maybe you are, I don't know.

It’s so blatant anyone can understand.  Please follow discussion here on Newton and Bazant from post #828.  Poor booNy eventually tied himself in a terrible knot trying to reconcile his own understanding with the official collapse theory, culminating in post #1052 (see green and red text).

That last post is perhaps the best example I have seen on this forum of the quote:  "Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation."  Even though the facts that contradicted Bazant were brought clearly to booNy’s mind, even stated in his own words, he clawed for any explanation to fit two contradicting positions.  It’s real and it happens – Orwell described it as “doublethink”.

What a joke...  :rolleyes:

Yes LG, please do read through that thread in full.  See if you can come up with a way to explain these concepts to Q24.  It isn't that complicated, but for some reason Q24 just can't seem to get it.

By the way Q24, I wasn't tied into any kind of knot and I didn't contradict Bazant, as is clearly explained throughout the thread and even after the post which you have wrongly classified as some kind of culmination.  Ridiculous.


#158    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 26 August 2012 - 05:12 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 24 August 2012 - 06:48 PM, said:


Or, an investigation was done to the extent to determine there was no evidence that they were involved in the attacks.  We don’t know, I don’t know what the standard protocol is for when allies uncover one another’s spies.

That is not the impression I get from Cannistraro’s statement: -

"There was no question but that [the order to close down the investigation] came from the White House. It was immediately assumed at CIA headquarters that this basically was going to be a cover-up so that the Israelis would not be implicated in any way in 9/11. Bear in mind that this was a political issue, not a law enforcement or intelligence issue. If somebody says we don't want the Israelis implicated in this - we know that they've been spying the hell out of us, we know that they possibly had information in advance of the attacks, but this would be a political nightmare to deal with."



This suggests: -
  • the investigation was never completed.
  • there was no lack of law enforcement options or intelligence leads.
  • the Israel’s possibly did have connection to the attack.

I’m not sure where your optimism comes from.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 24 August 2012 - 06:48 PM, said:


‘Maybe’ doesn’t give us any reason to detain these ‘agents’ further or doubt the official story either, there’s not enough info.  This isn’t really a problem for the official story as the official story doesn’t try to say that these ‘agents’ are evidence of anything, but your theory does, thus ‘maybe’ is an issue for your theory.

The official story does not decide what is or is not evidence – the reality determines that.  Why should it be that when Moussaoui is detained… that is oh so relevant?  But when Israeli and Saudi agents are detained in relation to the same event… that is near auto-irrelevant?  That is the foundation of propaganda, not truth.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 24 August 2012 - 06:48 PM, said:


What if there was an investigation done, no evidence was found to link them to any demolition, and they were thus sent home?  If that was the case, what more would you demand be done?

Then I’d let it go, given a competent investigation which answered some of the questions we have.

What would you do if an investigation were done, and evidence placing these men in the towers or connecting them to Turner Construction were found?  Perhaps even revealing the fact the front company were used to deliver thermite and explosive materials?  Wouldn’t you feel awkward in defending them now?

You see who of us is taking the risky position?

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#159    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 26 August 2012 - 05:22 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 25 August 2012 - 11:12 AM, said:

Typically, you carefully ignore the parameters which don't give a change in energy: trajectory angle and aircraft attitude.  These are the ones that alter the pattern of the damage.

What are you talking about "aircraft attitude"?  Are you trying to say "aircraft altitude" (which NIST did not adjust) or perhaps referring to the “failure strain”?  It doesn't matter, I’m sure the aircraft trajectory angle and aircraft/building failure strains do determine the pattern of damage, and both also significantly affect the energy imparted to the core structure.  To prove the case, NIST still needed to adjust these factors to produce a best match that resulted in collapse.


View Postflyingswan, on 25 August 2012 - 11:12 AM, said:

You are ignoring significant factors here.  The tipping point is somewhere between the two cases, and the best fit to the damage is somewhere between the two cases.  In your diagram, the size of the error range of the best fit to the damage is your choice and you have arbitrarily chosen to touch one case but not the other, even though for one tower both cases were judged equally good fits.

NIST stated the base case was a better fit for WTC1 but did not specify which case was better fit for WTC2.  Fortunately I did the work for them, comparing the simulations to the actual damage myself - as for WTC1 the base case for WTC2 is once again certainly a better fit to the actual damage.


View Postflyingswan, on 25 August 2012 - 11:12 AM, said:

A slightly different chosen error range and the best estimate wouldn't overlap either.  You are also ignoring all the uncertainties normally covered by a design safety factor.  Even the damage in the "best estimate" represents a considerable reduction in this safety factor, so you cannot claim that there is a valid case for assuming no collapse.

The safety factors are included in NIST's best estimate of the material properties and construction specifications.  Of course they are - NIST did not take the steel properties and building design then deduct the safety factors.


View Postflyingswan, on 25 August 2012 - 12:56 PM, said:


The short answer is that the NIST engineers appreciate the probabilities involved with error limits and you don't.

I certainly appreciate that NIST proved in probability the towers should not have collapsed.

I appreciate NIST did not prove the towers could collapse under the conditions on 9/11.

You appreciate it also: -

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

Well of course NIST couldn’t rule out collapse… when the severe case simulation did not produce the collapse witnessed, NIST simply made manual inputs until it did… it hardly gives the impression NIST were looking to rule anything out, rather make it work no matter what.


View Postflyingswan, on 25 August 2012 - 11:12 AM, said:

You still have no clue at all about the differences between melting and intergranular corrosion.  In the latter process, only the boundaries between the grains of the steel are melted, the grains themselves remain intact.  You don't get a pool of molten metal or metal drips, you get a heap of grains.  Your picture of what happens is wrong, so your conclusion is also wrong.

I know the process.  It doesn't matter whether we refer to the "boundaries" or the "grains"; altogether it is the "steel".  The way that "bricks" and "cement" are a "wall".  If the corrosion occurs at a high rate and temperature then of course the entire steel section will glow and pieces will appear to drip off.


View Postflyingswan, on 25 August 2012 - 11:12 AM, said:

BY your own estimate, the metal in the photographs is at too low a temperature to be molten steel, so whatever is melting/dripping must me some other metal.  Both aluminium and lead are molten at your estimated temperature, steel is not.

The steel in the photograph is not entirely molten, so matches the process above.


View Postflyingswan, on 25 August 2012 - 12:56 PM, said:

Please do, LG, and don't stop at #1052.  Q24 repeatedly claims that Bazant ignores Newton's third law, but can't put his finger on just where in the paper Bazant does this (for the simple reason that he doesn't).  Q24's problem is that he can't see how "equal and opposite reaction" can bring about differing outcomes for the upper and lower blocks.  Boony was quite right to say that the blocks are equally damaged, but this applies only for the initial impact.  Beyond the immediate impact event, in both space and time, things are not symmetrical, and there are two factors that cause this.  First, the blocks are not symmetric structurally, in that the lower block has its far end fixed to the ground while the upper block has its far end free.  Second, after the initial impact, there is a growing debris layer between the blocks which is accelerated by gravity towards the stationary lower block, while there is no differential acceleration between the upper block and this layer.

Your argument is wrong at every turn…

First it is more accurately described that Bazant “circumvents” rather than “ignores” Newton’s third law - please try to remember this (a hopeless request I know) because it’s an important distinction.  This circumnavigation is carried out through the method you describe.  What you need to realise is that the debris at each stage of destruction is not “accelerated by gravity” but by the already greater momentum of the upper block.  This is important because it means the debris cannot and does not progress ahead of the upper block – rather, with mass of the upper block continuously driving the debris downward.  In other words, the debris under gravity, from a standing start, can never outrun momentum of the upper block; the debris does not simply fall under gravity but is continuously compressed through momentum of the upper block.  Once the maximum compression point is reached there must be equal and opposite damage between the upper and lower blocks.  This process is indeed what video footage of the collapse and physics simulations show, which you ignore in favour of non-reality hypotheticals.

Second, booNy was not referring to the initial impact but “throughout” the collapse.  The contradiction between his statements, which were absolutely correct, and Bazant’s hypothetical statement, is blatant.

I’d be interested to hear LG’s view on the contradictory comments.  And whether he can see the circumnavigation of Newton’s third law.  Again, it’s as simple as this – Bazant says the crush up does not occur until the upper block reached the ground – Newton’s third law indicates, and video footage shows, otherwise.  It’s established physics and observation vs. hypothetical - there is no contest – the official collapse theory is wrong.  A smaller rigid block cannot perpetually crash through a larger rigid block of the same construction and material  - yet that is what the official theory presumes possible.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#160    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,225 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 26 August 2012 - 05:53 PM

View PostQ24, on 26 August 2012 - 05:22 PM, said:

What are you talking about "aircraft attitude"?  Are you trying to say "aircraft altitude" (which NIST did not adjust) or perhaps referring to the “failure strain”?  It doesn't matter, I’m sure the aircraft trajectory angle and aircraft/building failure strains do determine the pattern of damage, and both also significantly affect the energy imparted to the core structure.  To prove the case, NIST still needed to adjust these factors to produce a best match that resulted in collapse.

Flyingswan is correctly using the term "attitude" in reference to the aircraft:

From Dictionary.com:

Quote

at·ti·tude
[at-i-tood, -tyood]

noun

1.
disposition, feeling, position, etc., with regard to a person or thing; tendency or orientation, especially of the mind: a negative attitude; group attitudes.

2.
position or posture of the body appropriate to or expressive of an action, emotion, etc.: a threatening attitude; a relaxed attitude.

3.
Aeronautics . the inclination of the three principal axes of an aircraft relative to the wind, to the ground, etc.

4.
Ballet . a pose in which the dancer stands on one leg, the other bent behind.



Without meaning to offend, it surprises me that you are seemingly unaware of this very common aeronautical term (very common in space travel, too), given how informed you typically present yourself as being.






Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 26 August 2012 - 05:55 PM.

"Thinking is critical, because sense is not common..." - GreaterSapien

"For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false." – H. L. Mencken

#161    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,872 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 26 August 2012 - 07:23 PM

View PostQ24, on 26 August 2012 - 05:22 PM, said:

What are you talking about "aircraft attitude"?  Are you trying to say "aircraft altitude" (which NIST did not adjust) or perhaps referring to the “failure strain”?

As Czero says, it is indeed attitude, and since it wasn't known exactly, NIST adjusted it between cases.

Quote

NIST stated the base case was a better fit for WTC1 but did not specify which case was better fit for WTC2.  Fortunately I did the work for them, comparing the simulations to the actual damage myself - as for WTC1 the base case for WTC2 is once again certainly a better fit to the actual damage.

Yeah, you certainly convinced yourself of that, but who else?

Quote

The safety factors are included in NIST's best estimate of the material properties and construction specifications.  Of course they are - NIST did not take the steel properties and building design then deduct the safety factors.

No, they did the calculations with the estimated properties.  There are no safety factors in NIST's cases.

Quote

I certainly appreciate that NIST proved in probability the towers should not have collapsed.

I appreciate NIST did not prove the towers could collapse under the conditions on 9/11.

You appreciate it also: -

NIST's conclusion would be "It's more likely to stand up than collapse, but we can't rule out collapse"
~flyingswan
So?  Would you enter a building with a 40% chance of collapse and a 60% chance not?  Particularly if there was uncertainty in these numbers?

Quote

Well of course NIST couldn’t rule out collapse… when the severe case simulation did not produce the collapse witnessed, NIST simply made manual inputs until it did… it hardly gives the impression NIST were looking to rule anything out, rather make it work no matter what.

Completely untrue.  NIST picked the three cases on the basis of the measurement errors and applied the same rules to all three.   The only adjustment was for the second tower, where, based on the comparisons for the first, they made the severe case less severe.

Quote

I know the process.  It doesn't matter whether we refer to the "boundaries" or the "grains"; altogether it is the "steel".  The way that "bricks" and "cement" are a "wall".  If the corrosion occurs at a high rate and temperature then of course the entire steel section will glow and pieces will appear to drip off.

Ridiculous.  The process is slow and steel grains are too small to see.

Quote

The steel in the photograph is not entirely molten, so matches the process above.

At the temperature you claim,  steel is not molten at all.  Anything molten isn't steel.

Quote

Your argument is wrong at every turn…

First it is more accurately described that Bazant “circumvents” rather than “ignores” Newton’s third law - please try to remember this (a hopeless request I know) because it’s an important distinction.  This circumnavigation is carried out through the method you describe.  What you need to realise is that the debris at each stage of destruction is not “accelerated by gravity” but by the already greater momentum of the upper block.  This is important because it means the debris cannot and does not progress ahead of the upper block – rather, with mass of the upper block continuously driving the debris downward.  In other words, the debris under gravity, from a standing start, can never outrun momentum of the upper block; the debris does not simply fall under gravity but is continuously compressed through momentum of the upper block.  Once the maximum compression point is reached there must be equal and opposite damage between the upper and lower blocks.  This process is indeed what video footage of the collapse and physics simulations show, which you ignore in favour of non-reality hypotheticals.

That argument is like claiming that the force between the two bricks at the bottom of the stack is the same as the force between the two at the top.  The forces differ by the weight of the bricks in between.  In exactly the same way, the force between debris and lower block is greater than the force between debris and upper block by the ever-growing weight of the debris.

Quote

Second, booNy was not referring to the initial impact but “throughout” the collapse.  The contradiction between his statements, which were absolutely correct, and Bazant’s hypothetical statement, is blatant.

If you'd quoted Boony in full, you'd see that he included the debris layer in the upper block.  Ie, the top of the lower block and the lower face of the debris layer see equal damage.  No contradiction with Bazant, who treats the debris layer as separate.

Quote

I’d be interested to hear LG’s view on the contradictory comments.  And whether he can see the circumnavigation of Newton’s third law.  Again, it’s as simple as this – Bazant says the crush up does not occur until the upper block reached the ground – Newton’s third law indicates, and video footage shows, otherwise.  It’s established physics and observation vs. hypothetical - there is no contest – the official collapse theory is wrong.  A smaller rigid block cannot perpetually crash through a larger rigid block of the same construction and material  - yet that is what the official theory presumes possible.

Newton's Laws demand nothing of the sort, and while you claim that the video footage supports your claim, this is another aspect where, when pressed, you can't say exactly where in the footage it does so.  It isn't just a "small rigid block" that's doing the damage, it's also the debris layer.  I've only to point to your claims about the antenna to show that you see what you want to see in the videos.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#162    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,437 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 26 August 2012 - 07:35 PM

Any damage done to the building by the aircraft was done only by the landing gear and engines.

With those exceptions, the airframe was shredded by the building.


#163    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 26 August 2012 - 07:36 PM

View PostQ24, on 26 August 2012 - 05:22 PM, said:

Your argument is wrong at every turn…

First it is more accurately described that Bazant “circumvents” rather than “ignores” Newton’s third law - please try to remember this (a hopeless request I know) because it’s an important distinction.  This circumnavigation is carried out through the method you describe.  What you need to realise is that the debris at each stage of destruction is not “accelerated by gravity” but by the already greater momentum of the upper block.  This is important because it means the debris cannot and does not progress ahead of the upper block – rather, with mass of the upper block continuously driving the debris downward.  In other words, the debris under gravity, from a standing start, can never outrun momentum of the upper block; the debris does not simply fall under gravity but is continuously compressed through momentum of the upper block.  Once the maximum compression point is reached there must be equal and opposite damage between the upper and lower blocks.  This process is indeed what video footage of the collapse and physics simulations show, which you ignore in favour of non-reality hypotheticals.

Second, booNy was not referring to the initial impact but “throughout” the collapse.  The contradiction between his statements, which were absolutely correct, and Bazant’s hypothetical statement, is blatant.

I’d be interested to hear LG’s view on the contradictory comments.  And whether he can see the circumnavigation of Newton’s third law.  Again, it’s as simple as this – Bazant says the crush up does not occur until the upper block reached the ground – Newton’s third law indicates, and video footage shows, otherwise.  It’s established physics and observation vs. hypothetical - there is no contest – the official collapse theory is wrong.  A smaller rigid block cannot perpetually crash through a larger rigid block of the same construction and material  - yet that is what the official theory presumes possible.
You probably don't even realize it, but you've proven yourself wrong within your very description.

When you indicate that each successive floor is being pushed down by the momentum of the descending upper block, that floor is essentially becoming part of the upper block, and becomes the new collapse front to impact with the next floor.  And this continues throughout collapse.  Yes, the damage imparted by the resisting floors below is equal and opposite, but as Bazant describes, the majority of that damage is imparted within the compacted layers between the upper and lower blocks.  In reality, this compacted layer below the original upper block essentially becomes part of that upper block.  This is what happens with an inelastic collision.

Posted Image

Consider that the black block in this animation is like the upper block in the tower, and the blue block is the next floor impacted.  After the collision, the upper block is now comprised of both blocks.

This is not in contradiction with Bazant or with what Swanny is saying, it is just a different way of describing the exact same thing.  Instead of having an upper and lower block with a compressed section in the middle, it is a constantly growing upper block.  Same difference.

And by the way, the collapse does continue to accelerate due to gravity, as anything falling would do until terminal velocity is reached.  It slows at each layer because of the conservation of momentum and accelerates due to gravity from there.


#164    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 26 August 2012 - 07:37 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 26 August 2012 - 07:23 PM, said:

If you'd quoted Boony in full, you'd see that he included the debris layer in the upper block.  Ie, the top of the lower block and the lower face of the debris layer see equal damage.  No contradiction with Bazant, who treats the debris layer as separate.
Exactly.  :tu:

Why can't Q24 see that?


#165    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 26 August 2012 - 07:40 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 26 August 2012 - 07:35 PM, said:

Any damage done to the building by the aircraft was done only by the landing gear and engines.

With those exceptions, the airframe was shredded by the building.
Completely wrong BR, but thank you for demonstrating yet again how completely clueless you are about these things.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users