445 replies to this topic

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 30 January 2012 - 01:50 AM, said:

Ah, the laws of physics predicted that thermite would be formed and then burned that day at WTC....

OK

Which law of physics would that be Sky?

The law of physics governing the creation of thermite.

Edited by skyeagle409, 30 January 2012 - 02:29 AM.

[charmcph]

According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions.  We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building  because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are  inaccessible or incompatible.?????????


This is what amazed me the most.... saying that their computer's, etc... is outdated and not to mention .. don't work together to do the job their there for? Our government runs itself on OUTDATED MACHINES?  The Pentagon?? What's being used in the white house ... what's being used everywhere else in our government?

WOW really?
Wonders where our money really does go too?
Besides update's to bathrooms, offices, umm should I name more?
But they can't update technology in our government.... yelp... I feel safe.

[flyingswan]

Q24, on 29 January 2012 - 08:00 PM, said:

You claimed there is nothing “that looks the least like thermite” and were proven wrong.
You claimed thermite can only move “straight down” and were proven wrong.
You claimed cutting a column is the same as penetrating the floor and were proven wrong.

Re-writing those sentences replacing "you were proven wrong" with "Q24 thinks otherwise" would get nearer the mark.

Quote

Also, the thermite charge was possibly less than 200 kg as I previously demonstrated here.  You initially estimated the WTC2 flow was “several hundred kg” and only changed it to “multi-ton” when you realised the first could be contained in a reasonably sized charge.

Several hundred kg are needed to provide the material in the photo, but the flow lasted for several minutes.  Not just my estimate, by the way, the conspiracist Christopher Bollyn comes up with "many tons".

Quote

There are no discrepancies between the WTC2 flow and thermite.

Apart from the much lower temperature and the lack of any sign that the flow is cutting through anything?

Quote

I’d get a wide dispersion nozzle on there, hit it at an angle, multiple times over a period of minutes… it ain’t gonna “settle” or “weld itself back into place” then.

So now we've got a device that can stand up to all that, but is still so small and inconspicuous that it won't be found in the debris.  Sure you're using your imagination, but so were Heath Robinson and Rube Goldberg.

Quote

Oh dear, it excludes Newton’s third law… not to mention the rest of reality.

Sums it all up, really.  Q24 can't follow the maths in Bazant's papers, he just knows he doesn't like Bazant's conclusions, so he makes himself look completely ridiculous with this claim that anyone who can follow the maths can see is false.
http://www.civil.nor...TC collapse.pdf

In the words of Bob Dylan, "Don't criticise what you can't understand".

[Q24]

Nice to see you are still living on another planet, Swanny…

flyingswan, on 26 February 2012 - 12:33 PM, said:

Re-writing those sentences replacing "you were proven wrong" with "Q24 thinks otherwise" would get nearer the mark.

Quite bizarre.

You are the only person who, when shown thermite flowing over surfaces or ejecting horizontal…

Still claim it can only move “straight down”.

flyingswan, on 26 February 2012 - 12:33 PM, said:

Sums it all up, really.  Q24 can't follow the maths in Bazant's papers…

It’s actually the assumptions his math is based upon which I blatantly refuse to follow.

Because those assumptions are observably not of reality.

Math could show that a giant Super Mario jumping on a tower would crush it…

Of course such does not exist in the real world, much like Bazant’s assumptions.

flyingswan, on 26 February 2012 - 12:33 PM, said:

In the words of Bob Dylan, "Don't criticise what you can't understand".

Did you also like “The Land of Make Believe” by Bucks Fizz?

I did.  I was the kid that wouldn’t go.

[flyingswan]

Q24, on 26 February 2012 - 02:10 PM, said:

It’s actually the assumptions his math is based upon which I blatantly refuse to follow.

Yeah, he bases his maths on things like assuming Newton's Laws are true, but you don't like the results so you accuse him of ignoring those laws.
http://www.civil.nor...TC collapse.pdf

It's a breathtaking combination of ignorance and arrogance on your part.

[minera]

preacherman76, on 06 January 2012 - 12:11 PM, said:

Agreed, nor should they. Its a known fact that the FBI confiscated all video tapes from every business in the sourounding area. The Pentagon its self is the most highly survieled building in this country. There is tons on video coverage on what took place that morning. Releasing that 1 second clip that showed nothing is a slap to the face of the American people. Not only do people who seek the truth have to get frustrated over the governments total disregard for any real evidence that day, they then have to deal with people like you, saying things such as-
"You aren't helping alleviate the impact of that tragedy with nonsensical accusations and unsubstantiated theories."
When you clearly dont have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

In all this debate no one mentioned the whereabouts of the passengers if in fact it was either a bomb or a small plane. But with the disregard for human life the government is more concerned with missing money. To be honest I would not trust ANY government agency to be upfront about anything when it comes to public concerns. They consider themselves above the law.

[Q24]

flyingswan, on 26 February 2012 - 05:03 PM, said:

Yeah, he bases his maths on things like assuming Newton's Laws are true, but you don't like the results so you accuse him of ignoring those laws.
http://www.civil.nor...TC collapse.pdf

It's a breathtaking combination of ignorance and arrogance on your part.

Bearing in mind that you do not accept thermite can flow anywhere other than “straight down”, even when it is shown unequivocally otherwise… it does not surprise me you also do not accept that Bazant’s unimpeded initial drop, said to have imparted all of it’s energies into cross-sections of the lower steelwork is impossible, even when it is shown unequivocally so.

It’s a breathtaking belief in fantasy on your part.

And please link to Newton’s Law you have found which states, “For every action, there is an unequal and one directional reaction”.

[flyingswan]

Q24, on 26 February 2012 - 06:26 PM, said:

Bearing in mind that you do not accept thermite can flow anywhere other than “straight down”, even when it is shown unequivocally otherwise… it does not surprise me you also do not accept that Bazant’s unimpeded initial drop, said to have imparted all of it’s energies into cross-sections of the lower steelwork is impossible, even when it is shown unequivocally so.

Of course the upper block doesn't impart all its energy into the steelwork.  Only a few percent is needed to completely buckle every column in the next floor down and it retains the rest as kinetic energy.  If you think you have "unequivocally" shown otherwise, dream on.

Quote

It’s a breathtaking belief in fantasy on your part.

Yeah, yeah, detailed engineering calculations are fantasy and a magic thermite column-cutter charge that can be fitted without anyone noticing and vanish completely when it's done its job is reality.

You live in a very strange world.

Quote

And please link to Newton’s Law you have found which states, “For every action, there is an unequal and one directional reaction”.

That is just your misunderstanding of Bazant's conclusions.  

You claimed that Bazant ignored Newton's third law in his assumptions.  It is your burden of proof to show exactly where he does that.

[Babe Ruth]

"without anyone noticing?"  How do we know that?

Without anyone "reporting it" might be more accurate, given what we know about the big federal presence amongst the tenants, and the Mayor's favored status for the building.

[Q24]

flyingswan, on 27 February 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:

Of course the upper block doesn't impart all its energy into the steelwork.  Only a few percent is needed to completely buckle every column in the next floor down and it retains the rest as kinetic energy.  If you think you have "unequivocally" shown otherwise, dream on.

I’m talking about this hogwash from Bazant’s initial paper which presented the basis of his theory: -

“For our purpose, we may assume that all the impact forces go into the columns and are distributed among them equally.  Unlikely though such a distribution may be… ”

First, what is the “purpose” that led you to “assume”, Bazant?  It was not to provide a scientific analysis of what actually happened, that is a certainty.  No, I’ll tell you the exact “purpose” - it was to present a scenario through whatever assumption(s) necessary that would demonstrate a collapse continuation.  As ever, a preconceived conclusion with the calculations fit around it.

Did you ever wonder how Bazant came up with the paper two short days after 9/11?  Well, not you Swanny, I know you don’t wonder about much.  But for others – the quick release would indicate the necessary assumptions were determined before the event ever happened.  Hey, those responsible for the demolition needed prior confirmation that some semblance of explanation could be provided didn’t they.

Anyway, back to the point…

Bazant then admits his very own assumption is, “Unlikely”.  I have another word for it - sheer “Fantasy”.  One doesn’t need to be a scientist to know this.  Do we all have use of our eyes here?  The observable initial tilt of the upper block and chaotic break up of the structure alone, show there was absolutely not, to paraphrase Bazant, “equal distribution of all impact forces into cross-sections of the columns”.

The above is completely apparent to anyone, Bazant included, there is no arguing it:  this supposedly scientific paper, the official collapse continuation theory, is based from the outset on fantasy assumptions.  In short: fantasy science.   It is taking fantasy that observably did not happen, and applying figures to it.

As said, Bazant knows this, which is why he tacks on more hogwash to counter (continuing above quote): -

“…it is nevertheless the most optimistic hypothesis to make because the resistance of the building to the impact is, for such a distribution, the highest.”

This is an error in that it assumes path of most resistance, whereas we know a falling body will take the path of least resistance wherever possible.

The assumption is indeed “most optimistic hypothesis” in outright halting the upper block’s downward movement.  It also happens to be the most pessimistic hypothesis in allowing any of the lower block to remain intact!  It critically ignores existence of the scenario whereby the upper block may continue a period of downward movement through the path of least resistance whilst not causing maximum damage to entirety of the lower block (otherwise known as partial collapse).

This is more difficult to explain in practical terms.  Let’s imagine a 1 metre circumference boulder approaching infinite weight and an oak tree, it’s trunk also of 1 metre circumference supporting many great branches…

Bazant’s assumption of the “most optimistic hypothesis” in halting fall of the boulder, is to drop it precisely centre on strongest part of the tree and path of most resistance – the trunk.  Of course the boulder here is of near infinite weight, goes crashing through the trunk and obviously in doing so brings the entire tree down.  It is the most pessimistic hypothesis in allowing any of the tree to survive.

However, what if the boulder impacts off-centre of the trunk?  Now it is allowed to follow a path of least resistance, is deflected by the trunk to some degree, crashing through and snapping the branches.  By the time the boulder hits the ground, there might be a very battered tree with half the branches missing, but in large part it is still standing.

Again, at the WTC, this can be applied due to reality of the tilt and chaotic break up of the structure (unequal and indirect impact forces), and also debris falling outside the building footprint, all seen with our own eyes, none of which Bazant’s oversimplified fantasy science assumptions accurately account for.

It can’t be emphasised enough: compare Bazant’s assumptions against what your eyes actually witnessed – the two do not match.  The only reason the fantasy assumptions are accepted is because they align favourably with the politically correct preconceived conclusion.

flyingswan, on 27 February 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:

Yeah, yeah, detailed engineering calculations are fantasy and a magic thermite column-cutter charge that can be fitted without anyone noticing and vanish completely when it's done its job is reality.

The calculations are not fantasy, the assumptions they are based upon are, have you still not got that?

Funny you should mention charges that “vanish” though.  I was reading somewhere about a degradable, though highly heat-resistant material.  That got me thinking it could have been an interesting option.  Though not actually necessary as the physical debris from the collapse level was never recovered or investigated in any case.

flyingswan, on 27 February 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:

That is just your misunderstanding of Bazant's conclusions.  

It is the fantasy law on which Bazant’s crush-down/crush-up theory is reliant.

Anyhow, I’ve been looking up Northwestern University where Bazant lectures.  Apparently they have quite a CIA connection going on.  The previous director was actually a former U.S. State Department and CIA employee with an interest in civil-military relations, and U.S. foreign policy.

So it is our CIA connected university which published the official collapse continuation theory.

[booNyzarC]

I disagree Q24.

The center of gravity for the upper block is still fully within the building's footprint.  It will fall straight down regardless of the partial tilt which is observable and which nobody denies.  The only assumption you are really pointing out here is that the calculations were based on simultaneous impact at all points in the structure below as it fell; which is admitted in the paper.  To which I respond; Big Deal.  The overall mass of the upper block is still falling straight down due to gravity and it's full mass is still impacting the remaining floors as it falls.

The simplified assumption presented of having the mass impact equally would actually create a better resistance to crushdown than the off-kilter and uneven impact of the tilted upper block.

With all due respect, do you understand what that means?

The model he presents in his calculations is more resistant to the impact than what actually transpired, and yet the calculations still fully support global collapse.  In other words, were he to calculate based on a model more closely resembling the actual structure; It would improve the global collapse results, not hinder it.

Your additional comments about the path of least resistance are somewhat baffling.  The path any object falls is dictated by gravity and any resistance it encounters.  The calculations clearly show that the remaining structure below do not offer sufficient resistance to alter the downward course of the upper block; hence it is already following the path of least resistance.

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 01 March 2012 - 12:00 AM, said:

The simplified assumption presented of having the mass impact equally would actually create a better resistance to crushdown than the off-kilter and uneven impact of the tilted upper block.

With all due respect, do you understand what that means?

I thought I had addressed that…

The assumption is indeed “most optimistic hypothesis” in outright halting the upper block’s downward movement.  It also happens to be the most pessimistic hypothesis in allowing any of the lower block to remain intact!  It critically ignores existence of the scenario whereby the upper block may continue a period of downward movement through the path of least resistance whilst not causing maximum damage to entirety of the lower block (otherwise known as partial collapse).

booNyzarC, on 01 March 2012 - 12:00 AM, said:

The model he presents in his calculations is more resistant to the impact than what actually transpired, and yet the calculations still fully support global collapse.  In other words, were he to calculate based on a model more closely resembling the actual structure; It would improve the global collapse results, not hinder it.

No, if Bazant did not assume all impact forces go into the columns, they would instead be applied to the floors and breaking the support structure.  This would divert forces away from the columns increasing chance of allowing the tilt to continue and/or reducing momentum of the upper block.  Bazant’s assumption means the most vital part of the structure, the columns, are taking full force of the impact throughout collapse.

Plus Bazant assumes a pure freefall drop through the height of one floor imparting all of its forces into the columns across the whole lower structure, just to get the ball rolling.  Yet this simply does not happen, nothing like: -

booNyzarC, on 01 March 2012 - 12:00 AM, said:

Your additional comments about the path of least resistance are somewhat baffling.  The path any object falls is dictated by gravity and any resistance it encounters.  The calculations clearly show that the remaining structure below do not offer sufficient resistance to alter the downward course of the upper block; hence it is already following the path of least resistance.

It’s simple, the columns provide path of most resistance… and that’s where Bazant wants to assume all of the impact forces simultaneously travelled… even though they blatantly did not, see above.

Bazant assumes that the upper storeys performed as indestructible blocks (they didn’t) throughout the collapses and that they fell through thin air (they didn’t) before 100% of their force impacted through the cross-sections of the lower columns (it didn’t).

[aquatus1]

Guys, being that this is completely off-topic, that this thread is already 30 pages long, and nothing being presented so far is really any different from anything else we normally hear, I am going to go ahead and shut this one down.  Please feel free to continue in the more generally named 9/11 Conspiracy thread.  Perhaps a blank slate to start over on will make the arguments a bit clearer to everyone involved.