Creative Speculation
Related: About this forumNorth Tower Exploding...
a video by David Chandler.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
William Seger
(11,082 posts)... because, gee, a proven conspiracy crackpot can't think of any other explanation. Thanks, wildbill.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)NIST doesn't explain the squibs, the pulverization of the concrete, the steel components hurled hundreds of yards.
NIST only gave us half a report. They cut off their analysis at the moment of collapse initiation, and were thus able to dodge the ten essential mysteries of the actual collapses.
William Seger
(11,082 posts)He just wants to imply that a controlled demolition explains those things, but apparently he hasn't given any serious thought to why a controlled demolition is an extremely dubious explanation for any of those things. And mentally lazy "truthers" swallow it by the spoonful.
Actually, NIST did explain the "squibs" in their Q&A as being a pneumatic effect caused by air being forced out of the building. If Chandler was more observant and more scientifically oriented, he might have picked up on the tell-tale evidence that supports that hypothesis and refutes the "squib" hypothesis. But it's clear that not only does Chandler not know what explosives sound like, he doesn't know what they look like, either. The thing that Chandler misses is simply that the smoke clouds he calls "squibs" accelerate as they exit the building. Somehow, I doubt that you're going to understand this any better than any of the other physics-based arguments you've been given, but the smoke cloud from an explosive expands because it is accelerated by the explosion itself. As obvious as that is, the subtle thing Chandler misses is that that means all of the acceleration happens within a very small fraction of a second. That's why, when you see a real squib in a video, the smoke cloud appears very suddenly and the expansion is only seen to decelerate in subsequent frames, because there is no longer any force pushing it. The clouds Chandler calls "squibs," however, are seen to accelerate over several frames as they exit the building. A continued acceleration can only have one explanation: a continued force. In this case, the obvious explanation is the air that is still being pushed out of the building is exerting that continuing force. As obvious as this, I suppose I will need to explain this to you over and over and over and over, but I'm going to ask anyway that you give this some thought before responding and don't waste everyone's time and bandwidth with non-responsive nonsense.
As for the pulverization of the concrete and steel components hurled hundreds of yards, no controlled demolition hypothesis is necessary to explain those things given the amount of kinetic energy that was unleashed. But Chandler really should talk to an actual CD expert and ask how much additional explosives would be required to do that, over and above just cutting the columns, and how those additional explosives would need to be placed to get those effects. Then, if he were forced to come up with an explanation for why the alleged perps would do such a difficult and completely unnecessary thing, he might began to suspect that maybe that's not really a plausible explanation. Whether or not he arrived at that insight, anyone who has some appreciation for what that much explosives would sound like realizes that Chandler is just a crackpot.
Sensible people don't need NIST to explain these simple things, and conspiracy crackpots will ignore all explanations, regardless of the source, so please spare us the posturing.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 3, 2013, 02:02 PM - Edit history (1)
... the first stage of an honest scientific process. Implicitly he's pointing out that these phenomena we observe have not been explained by the government investigations.
NIST's handwaving little essay on "pneumatic effects" has no author ascribed to it, cites no actual evidence or studies, is not part of the report, and contradicts the gas laws. The squibs are seen exiting from isolated windows many stories below the collapse zone. NIST does not explain how a piston action many stories above can cause ejections in isolated windows. Piston pressure is exerted in all directions, like the air in a tire.
Your challenge to achieve the pulverization of the concrete by explosives is a red herring. The mystery is that the energy requirement for the pulverization does not appreciably slow down the collapses, nor has that energy requirement been quantified. Certainly there's a plausible explanation for the perps explosively rocketing steel components 200 yards: to further the terrorist effect of the collapses, and to make plausible the notion that WTC7 was brought down by debris damage.
Right, you don't need NIST to explain anything--because you can just make up all the answers need. Some of us prefer to eschew sophomoric solipsism and demand thorough, honest, and complete official investigations. Democracy permits no less a standard.
William Seger
(11,082 posts)... that produces the kind of fuzzy thinking and shoddy "evidence" typical of conspiracists who search only for validation of a predetermined conclusion. I just told you in very simple terms how we can be quite sure that his "squibs" are pneumatic rather than explosive, and as usual you completely ignored it -- as if ignoring the argument will make it disappear in a puff of smoke. Sorry, but no, the "squibs" can't be explained by explosives whether or not you understand why, and you're inability to understand how they could be explained by air being pushed out of the building at the weakest points is equally irrelevant. There is no "gas law" violated if the compressed air simply escaped first through already-broken windows or vents below the collapse front.
> Your challenge to achieve the pulverization of the concrete by explosives is a red herring.
Bullshit; you are the one who attempted to use that as an indicator of a controlled demolition rather than a gravity-driven collapse, so pointing out that the alleged perps would have needed to plant massive amounts of magical silent explosives all over occupied office floors is quite relevant to explaining why that's a perfectly idiotic theory.
> The mystery is that the energy requirement for the pulverization does not appreciably slow down the collapses,
Bullshit; we've been around that barn a dozen times. It's not at all a mystery to those who have accurately analyzed how much energy was available and how much the structure could absorb. It's only a mystery to fantasists who base their agenda-driven arguments on imaginary physics.
> nor has that energy requirement been quantified.
Bullshit; yes, it has, many times. I've mentioned to you a couple of times that the major flaw in "truther" Gordon Ross' infamous "momentum transfer" analysis was double-counting that energy. Frank Greening did a much more accurate quantification and showed how it can easily be explained by the amount of energy unleashed, and also made several salient observations about how implausible it is that explosives are the reason. You need to read that paper.
> Some of us prefer to eschew sophomoric solipsism and demand thorough, honest, and complete official investigations. Democracy permits no less a standard.
Bullshit; you just attempted to dismiss sound reasoning by completely ignoring it and offering "sophomoric solipsism" instead of cogent rebuttal, and this was certainly not the first time you've employed that tactic. You insult the intelligence of the entire board with your hypocrisy.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Already-broken windows? Broken by what? How come so many of them are in the center of the wall?
Vents? You mean HVAC ducts? "Puffs" of air strong enough to break windows would break apart the ducts first.
I never said the pulverized concrete was an indication of demolition. I said it was one of ten essential mysteries
of the collapses that NIST dodged.
There's no need for silent explosives once a collapse is in progress. The din of the collapse masks the sounds of
explosives.
Who has accurately analyzed how much kinetic energy was available and how much the structure could absorb?
NIST claims they did not analyze the collapses.
The energy requirements of pulverization of the concrete may have been computed by Dr. Greening. Dr. Greening
gets no credit in the NIST report of which I am aware, nor are his findings AFAIK incorporated in the NIST report.
How do we even know that a paper featured at a propaganda website called 911myths is even Dr. Greening's
work? I want an official, reliable energy budget for the collapse. Pdfs from propaganda websites are not good
enough for democracy.
You haven't given me any sound reasoning to dismiss. Your sources are not reliable and your handwaving is silly.
AZCat
(8,345 posts)I think that would be a necessary piece of information before drawing the conclusion that you have regarding the "puffs".
In addition, why do you need an official energy budget? It's not really necessary. The available energy is far in excess of what was required to sustain the collapses. That is obvious to most competent professionals.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Oh, I don't need an official energy budget? All I need is the evidence-free assertions of an anonymous
internet poster? If you think I should take that at face value, it only shows your own credulous nature
and destroys your own credibility.
AZCat
(8,345 posts)It's interesting that you assume everyone else has the same level of ignorance as you.
No, you don't need an official energy budget. Why would you? Are you a building design professional with a vested interest in preventing future collapses? If not, then you're not a relevant party to the discussion. If you are, then it's likely (unless you're incompetent) obvious to you that the available energy is in excess of what was required and an official energy budget is not required.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)... of people like you that the collapses were no mystery have any validity.
Why do you need that explained to you?
The simple assertions of anonymous internet posters that the available energy was in excess of what was required are not good enough for a liberal democracy.
AZCat
(8,345 posts)You're simply not relevant. Building professionals are, but not anonymous posters on the internet. They, however, possess the skills to determine this on their own without being spoon-fed by someone else.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)I am a citizen who is dissatisfied with the dishonest, incomplete, and unscientific nature of the official reports that had radical effects on the policies and culture of my country.
Who are you to tell me I am not relevant? Who died and made you Empress of the Universe?
Your empty bullying betrays your inability to deal with the questions.
AZCat
(8,345 posts)I didn't determine your irrelevancy - you did it on your own. It's not my fault you aren't competent in these areas.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Last edited Thu Dec 5, 2013, 02:45 PM - Edit history (2)
The information that's not in the report is the problem.
I bet you've been reciting your same old thuggish lines for years. Don't you ever get tired of it?
What could possibly motivate such obsessive bullying? You think you have the truth. Isn't that
enough? Why must you argue with people you regard as fools?
By contrast, my motivation is quite clear. I think I don't have the truth, and I want to have the
truth--for me, for the 9/11 families, for the victims, for history, for democracy.
AZCat
(8,345 posts)Competent building design professionals, however, still seemed to make sense of them.
It is quite amusing that you feel so oppressed by my posts (and by William Seger's), to the point where you've labelled our responses as "obsessive bullying". We haven't been kicking threads from years ago, responding to posters who have gone dormant (or are tombstoned), and replying to any posts that reply to yours, even when the subthread has run out of gas. Perhaps you should consider that your behavior might appear obsessive to others as well?
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Since all the mysteries of the collapses took place after they terminated their analysis, the suspicion is
justified that they terminated their analysis at collapse inception because they didn't like what their
analysis was telling them.
AZCat
(8,345 posts)of a chaotic system (which, while the behavior is typically not reproducible, is still deterministic and well-understood) with an undefined system. Just because we can't simulate accurately the behavior of the collapse doesn't mean we don't understand why it happened.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Last edited Fri Dec 6, 2013, 12:52 PM - Edit history (1)
The collapse comes down floor by floor by floor, spewing out dust symmetrically.
NIST's problem wasn't that the collapse was too chaotic. Their problem was that it was too orderly. Their models did not converge.
AZCat
(8,345 posts)Why would their models not converge? Why don't you think about that for a bit, especially in light of your claim that the collapse wasn't chaotic, and get back to me when you better understand the issue.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)How would I know why NIST's secret models did not converge?
Why should anyone care about my speculations on it?
Is it not sufficient to note that they did not converge?
AZCat
(8,345 posts)What does that mean in this context?
If you're going to use it as an argument supporting a conclusion, you should at least demonstrate familiarity with the concept (which you haven't yet done).
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Last edited Sun Dec 8, 2013, 04:05 PM - Edit history (2)
And apparently none of their models turned out to their satisfaction, so we can assume that none of their unsatisfactory models that did not converge displayed behavior resembling what the towers did. So they must have shown the asymmetrical and/or partial collapses that any reasonable person would expect from asymmetrical insults to the buildings.
AZCat
(8,345 posts)Once you eliminate all the gibberish in your post thrown in as a distraction. That's what I thought. Again, you've demonstrated your ignorance of the subject matter, and that's why you're irrelevant to the discussion.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)How could anyone not know what that means?
AZCat
(8,345 posts)What does such a problem imply about the nature of the collapses?
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)What can you not understand about that?
You're done. Thanks for playing. Better luck next time. Or perhaps pick a subject with which you're more familiar, and about which you don't expose your ignorance quite so easily.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)It seems you lack the epistemic understanding to recognize that the empty claims of an anonymous internet poster (you) are meaningless.
You're the one who didn't even know that the models did not converge. You post like a bot, by the way. One-size-fits-all bromides without reference to specifics.
You're pretty much done. You can keep arguing all you want, but your ignorance means it's not an interesting discussion. Perhaps you could rectify this and come back in a few years when you know what things like model convergence mean? Because your explanation (or failure to explain, more like) is telling.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)... and makes me ignorant---when you didn't even know that they had failed to converge.
That the models failed to converge is a meaningful fact. Your empty claims are meaningless.
AZCat
(8,345 posts)Nothing I can do about your lack of knowledge. That's all your responsibility.
If the failure to converge is a "meaningful fact" then what does it mean? You're welcome to keep trying to answer correctly, since your first answer (once I managed to drag it out of you) was so blindingly wrong that it is obvious you don't know much about the subject matter.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Your empty posturing is quite tiresome.
AZCat
(8,345 posts)Care to try again? Maybe read up on the subject first this time.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)that he didn't even know that the models failed to converge on a single solution.
AZCat
(8,345 posts)The meaning of "convergence" is not dependent on my opinion (thankfully). However, I did take the time to learn about it before trying to discuss the subject with others. Maybe you should do the same?
On edit:
I'd like to point out this isn't what your post originally said, which is why the response might not match up completely.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)AZCat
(8,345 posts)This is quite disappointing - I had hoped you might grow a little from the experience.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)You don't even do that. You seem to think that the proclamations of a cat should be taken as authoritative. Got any videos of you playing the piano?
AZCat
(8,345 posts)It's quite obvious to qualified professionals. Unfortunately you don't appear to fit in that category.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)AZCat
(8,345 posts)The entire internet is before you - go educate yourself. There are probably thousands (if not more) resources available to learn about modeling. Why not spend your time improving yourself rather than wasting time defending poorly supported (or just wrong) claims you've made on internet forums? Then you can rely on actual knowledge instead of defensive hostility to support your arguments.
AZCat
(8,345 posts)It can complicate responding to them. Could you please just try to get them right the first time?
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)AZCat
(8,345 posts)Perhaps if you took more time to think about what you're writing before you click "Post my reply!" then you might have better quality first attempts?
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)More competent writing skills on your part would improve the discussion somewhat.
Response to AZCat (Reply #61)
Post removed
William Seger
(11,082 posts)> You haven't given me any sound reasoning to dismiss.
Yes, I have, and as predicted, I need to post it again:
You did not even attempt to address this argument. You completely ignored it, the same as you did with a long list of other physics-based arguments such as: why JFK's forward head-snap cannot be explained by motion blur; why Gourley was wrong about his "Newton's Third Law" claims in the collapse of the WTC towers; what Bazant was actually doing in his analysis and what his conclusion meant; and why Richard Gage can't have it both ways that the WTC7 collapse was silent because it was caused by thermite and sudden because it was caused by explosives, just to name a few off the top of my head. If I can get you to even address it at all, your predictable response will be simple denial followed by simple repetition of refuted arguments, such as your response to why the exterior shell of WTC 7 looked different from the NIST sim and why "most" of the columns in the WTC towers were not "easily accessible from elevator shafts" on the floors where the collapses began, to name just a couple of examples.
You did not respond to the argument above because you could not, but you also couldn't keep your fingers off the keyboard to accuse me of "handwaving," right after a song and dance about how your own inability to comprehend the concrete pulverization is supposed to be accepted as evidence of, uh, something or other -- it's a mystery to you. Tell you what: I'll discuss that nonsense with you right after you respond to the argument above.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Apparently you don't--and even go on to repeat what you've "learned"--and thus you go around spreading your confusion about 9/11.
This would explain your great frustration when people are not bowled over by your empty claims. You believe everything you read on the internet as long as it supports your prejudices, and you are frustrated when people who do not share your prejudices find your arguments lacking.
Who exactly measured the squibs and found that they accelerated?
Your argument about the shell of WTC7 made no sense. You claimed that the non-structural curtain wall that hung from the perimeter framing stood even when that framing distorted and fell down. That's like claiming that a wall can fall down and the curtain that's hanging from it will hide the fact that it fell down.
Life is too short to address the bogus arguments of bullshitters whose preference for bullying over persuasion trashed their credibility.
Most (and probably all) of the WTC towers' core columns were accessible at some point from the elevator shafts. Only by restricting the universe of columns to those accessible at the floor where you believe the collapses began can you give the illusion of having an argument.
I can comprehend the concrete pulverization just fine. I want NIST to explain it to me. I don't want to hear it from obsessive and anonymous propagandists.
William Seger
(11,082 posts)You ignore arguments by anonymous internet posters because they're anonymous; you ignore arguments by qualified engineers like Bazant and Greening because their arguments weren't included in the NIST report; and you ignore arguments in the NIST report because they're a dishonest pack of government shills.
But you accept arguments by Gourley and Chandler even after flaws are pointed out to you that you can't rectify, because... they are conspiracists like you?
And this is your idea of a superior epistemology?
> Who exactly measured the squibs and found that they accelerated?
Many people have, but here's an animated gif that I did myself several years ago, showing that the "squib" undergoes three separate acceleration phases, implying a varying pneumatic flow:
Careful observation should tell you that something similar could be done with the "squibs" in Chandler's video, since there is at least one noticeable acceleration phase. (And if you want to say you don't see it, I'll do a gif and we'll see who is the more careful observer.) For contrast, here is an actual controlled demolition squib. Notice that after appearing, the expansion is strictly decelerating, for the obvious logical reason that I gave you but you insist on ignoring:
> Your argument about the shell of WTC7 made no sense. You claimed that the non-structural curtain wall that hung from the perimeter framing stood even when that framing distorted and fell down.
That's simply not true, "Ace." I made it clear several times that I believe the interior framing fell away from the exterior framing -- i.e. the exterior columns and beams -- which held its box shape because of the rigidity of the attached curtain walls. Maybe you still don't get it, but it's hard to tell with you where your lack of comprehension ends and the blatantly disingenuous arguments begin.
> Life is too short to address the bogus arguments of bullshitters whose preference for bullying over persuasion trashed their credibility.
LOL, that's a lame excuse considering how you apparently find it impossible to stop digging yourself deeper into every losing argument you engage in. Obviously you have plenty of time to beat your dead horses, but you're too busy to think of good reasons for why you're doing that? Fascinating.
> Most (and probably all) of the WTC towers' core columns were accessible at some point from the elevator shafts. Only by restricting the universe of columns to those accessible at the floor where you believe the collapses began can you give the illusion of having an argument.
What a pantload. If conspiracists want to claim that it wouldn't have been hard to rig the core columns for a controlled demolition because "most" of them were easily accessible from elevator shafts, then the columns in the areas where the collapses began are the ones that would need to be rigged! When confronted with clear evidence that that wasn't true -- that you were parroting bullshit you read on a "truther" site without checking it out -- you tried to chicken-shit your way out of it by saying you weren't claiming any controlled demolition theories, you were just sayin' "most" of the columns were accessible, somewhere, which meant, uh, absolutely nothing. And now you have the chutzpah to say I'm the one who is trying to create an "illusion of having an argument!" You are, without a doubt, the biggest hypocrite I have ever encountered anywhere on the net.
> I can comprehend the concrete pulverization just fine. I want NIST to explain it to me. I don't want to hear it from obsessive and anonymous propagandists.
Bullshit, anyone who believes that's what you want hasn't been paying attention. You've made it clear that you don't trust anything coming out of NIST because you think they are dishonest. You find some excuse, no matter how lame, for ignoring anyone who challenges your 9/11 fantasies, even while pretending to be the heroic objective investigator. And anyway, you have yet to present anything remotely resembling a rational reason why the concrete pulverization has anything to do with anything. When confronted with how idiotic it is to believe the alleged perps planted massive amounts of magical silent explosives all over occupied office floors just to pointlessly crush a lot of concrete, you tried to chicken-shit your way out of that implicit argument by saying you hadn't made any such claim, you were just mystified about energy, or something, but you definitely don't want "obsessive and anonymous propagandists" to explain it to you.
But, hey, don't worry about me being "frustrated" by someone who is so determined to not understand my arguments -- "amused" would be more accurate. 
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Last edited Thu Dec 5, 2013, 02:48 PM - Edit history (4)
They claim they did not analyze the collapses.
I ignore Bazant because his theories bear no resemblance to what actually happened so they're irrelevant, because rely on absurd assumptions, and because the fact that NIST gives him no love whatsoever validates those observations.
I might read Greening if he were published in a peer-reviewed journal, but when people link to anonymous propaganda websites I have no way of knowing if what I'm reading is what Greening really wrote, or perhaps something he wrote years ago and has since repudiated.
Where did I say I accepted arguments by Gourley and Chandler?
How can any reasonable person expect another reasonable person to accept scientific measurements taken by an anonymous internet poster? Especially one so obviously as biased as yourself? Who would expect such a stupid thing? And how can we respect the judgment of someone who does?
I guess I misunderstood your argument about WTC7, which is not surprising since it seemed to be deliberately presented in a verbose and confusing way. It doesn't change the point of the argument: NIST's WTC7 animations bore no resemblance to what happened. Nor did they bear any resemblance to what you claim happened. And again, how can you expect anyone to give a bitter fig about an anonymous internet poster's wacky theories?
I'm not beating any dead horses. I am asserting irrefutable FACTS: 273 of the widows' 300 questions were never answered;and NIST only gave us half a report about the towers, dodging the ten essential mysteries of the collapses by cutting off their analysis when the collapse began. For you and AZ to accept the injustice of the first and the scientific illegitimacy of the second is very revealing. How can anyone who believes in democracy do so?
The accessibility of the core columns pertains to the demolition of the cores, "William". That's part of the collapses, part of what NIST refuses to touch. Initiation of the collapses is a different animal;NIST makes the distinction between the two phases. So why can't I? FEMA said a few failing truss anchors could initiate the collapse--and that absurd notion was prevailing wisdom for three years. Your demand that all facts pertain to all questions is just an hysterical excuse to discard facts. The fact that most of the main structural columns were accessible for most of their length from the elevator shafts hardly "means nothing" as you claim. It means that the claim that demolition of the buildings was impractical is a lie.
I never said I "don't trust anything coming out of NIST". I cite them as an authority often. For instance section 6.14.4 where they say the towers came down "essentially in free fall". The part where they say WTC1 fell in less than 12 seconds.
I never claimed to be an heroic investigator. Why should anyone care about the investigations of anonymous internet posters? I leave that kind of nonsense to fools like you--who think we should believe your handwaving proclamations about mysteries where NIST feared to tread.
The pulverization of the concrete has everything to do with the collapses because, as anyone with any basic concept of the first law of thermodynamics knows, the energy necessary to pulverize the concrete must be subtracted from the kinetic energy available to take the building down, and would have slowed the collapses accordingly. That's why we need the official energy budget that AZ sneers at.
I never said anyone pulverized the concrete with explosives. Where would you get such a silly idea?
Why are you so obsessive and so emotional about these things? Would you spend hundreds of hours of your time arguing with Creationists or global warming deniers? What kind of warped person will do that? You think you have the truth. Isn't that enough? Why must you argue with people you regard as fools? My motivation is quite clear. I think I don't have the truth, and I want to have the truth, and I want to facilitate the self-discrediting of those who want to keep it from me.
And you are doing a great job of self-discrediting, by the way. Thank you very much! 
William Seger
(11,082 posts)> I ignore Bazant because his theories bear no resemblance to what actually happened so they're irrelevant, because rely on absurd assumptions, and because the fact that NIST gives him no love whatsoever validates those observations.
You have repeatedly demonstrated that you don't understand Bazant's analysis, so your dismissal of it is of no consequences whatsoever. And that's without noting that your dismissal is based on simply imagining what's going on inside a cloud of smoke and dust. If someone who actually understands Bazant's arguments actually had a valid technical criticism of them, they still have plenty of opportunity to make a name for themselves by criticizing them in the proper venue: the technical journal where his papers have been published. Gourley tried that and Bazant handed him his ass. You don't see that, but the people who read that journal surely do. Your simply refuse to acknowledge the obvious problems with his "3rd law" nonsense and ignore that the Verinage videos demonstrate the "crush-down" phenomenon in action, but that's not the important part of Bazant's analysis, anyway. Over and over, you demonstrated that you simply could not even comprehend what Bazant was saying about the structure being unable to absorb the energy that was unleashed, much less criticize it. So why exactly do you think anyone ought to be impressed that you ignore an expert who has written 450 peer-reviewed journal articles and 6 textbooks on structural mechanics?
> I might read Greening if he were published in a peer-reviewed journal, but when people link to anonymous propaganda websites I have no way of knowing if what I'm reading is what Greening really wrote, or perhaps something he wrote years ago and has since repudiated.
LOL, yeah right, unless "his theories bear no resemblance to" your imaginary physics, in which case credentials and peer-reviewed publications don't matter.
> Where did I say I accepted arguments by Gourley and Chandler?
Oh, I'm sorry; did I once again just assume that you were actually trying to make a point by parroting their arguments?
> How can any reasonable person expect another reasonable person to accept scientific measurements taken by an anonymous internet poster? Especially one so obviously as biased as yourself? Who would expect such a stupid thing? And how can we respect the judgment of someone who does?
WTF are you talking about? On several occasions I've offered graphics that illustrate my points -- is that what you are referring to, and is that going to be your excuse for ignoring what they show?
> I guess I misunderstood your argument about WTC7, which is not surprising since it seemed to be deliberately presented in a verbose and confusing way. It doesn't change the point of the argument: NIST's WTC7 animations bore no resemblance to what happened. Nor did they bear any resemblance to what you claim happened. And again, how can you expect anyone to give a bitter fig about an anonymous internet poster's wacky theories?
It's not a "wacky theory," but to understand why, you'd need to understand that the interior floor beams and girders were connected to the exterior columns and spandral beams with "shear connections," not "moment connections": They were only designed to carry the gravity load, not to resist the interior ends falling and twisting away. Furthermore, you'd need to acknowledge the video evidence that the interior structure did fall away from the exterior walls when the structure under the east penthouse collapsed, but the only sign from outside was broken windows all the way up the building. I have given this "wacky theory" some thought; you refuse to, because it spoils your "mystery."
> I'm not beating any dead horses. I am asserting irrefutable FACTS: 273 of the widows' 300 questions were never answered;and NIST only gave us half a report about the towers, dodging the ten essential mysteries of the collapses by cutting off their analysis when the collapse began. For you and AZ to accept the injustice of the first and the scientific illegitimacy of the second is very revealing. How can anyone who believes in democracy do so?
Wrong again. I have said many times here that I believe the 9/11 Commission dodged many important issues about the attacks, for political reasons, but I have said that the "truth movement's" pursuit of idiotic controlled demolition theories does nothing but distract from the serious questions that remain. You try to make a goulash of that and the NIST reports, but it is quite clear that you are simply searching for excuses for dismissing those reports, not trying to solve any "mysteries." That's because it's quite clear that the continuation of the collapse after initiation is not a mystery to experts who actually understand structural mechanics, and it's quite clear that Richard Gage's "2000 plus architects and engineers" have manifestly failed to produce a single valid technical argument for why the experts are wrong. You build a "mystery" out of your own ignorance, for no purpose except your own amusement, and then protect it by abjectly refusing to understand even the simplest principles involved.
> The accessibility of the core columns pertains to the demolition of the cores, "William". That's part of the collapses, part of what NIST refuses to touch. Initiation of the collapses is a different animal;NIST makes the distinction between the two phases. So why can't I?
As I said before, you have a peculiar way of dealing with being wrong.
> FEMA said a few failing truss anchors could initiate the collapse--and that absurd notion was prevailing wisdom for three years. Your demand that all facts pertain to all questions is just an hysterical excuse to discard facts.
You really should stay away from arguing about structural mechanics; your ignorance makes you too vulnerable. If the truss seats had failed along the perimeter walls, then indeed that would have been sufficient to initiate the collapse: The floors would have "pancaked" on each other and the perimeter columns would have easily buckled after losing lateral restraint. Yes, that initial theory was discarded, but not because it was an "absurd notion"; it was discarded after actually investigating the construction details and quantitatively analyzing them, which showed that the seat connections were strong enough to resist the supposed sequential "unzippering" effect that Thomas Eager had proposed. That shows that NIST was actually doing its job of analyzing, but "truthers" try to spin it as yet another excuse for dismissing NIST's conclusions; and again, you uncritically parrot bullshit you've read on "truther" sites.
> The fact that most of the main structural columns were accessible for most of their length from the elevator shafts hardly "means nothing" as you claim. It means that the claim that demolition of the buildings was impractical is a lie.
That is simply wrong. "Most" of the columns were only accessible in the lower third of the building, far away from where explosives would need to be planted to initiate the collapse. In the upper third, fewer than 1/3 of the core columns were accessible from elevator shafts. If you really can't figure out how that affects theories that occupied office buildings were easily rigged for a controlled demolition, then I can't help you, but please spare me any more bullshit about trying to solve "mysteries."
> I never said I "don't trust anything coming out of NIST". I cite them as an authority often. For instance section 6.14.4 where they say the towers came down "essentially in free fall". The part where they say WTC1 fell in less than 12 seconds.
You distrust anything coming out of NIST that shows that controlled demolition theories are not necessary to explain what happened. But you consistently demonstrate that your distrust is based on lame excuses, not sound reasoning.
> I never claimed to be an heroic investigator. Why should anyone care about the investigations of anonymous internet posters? I leave that kind of nonsense to fools like you--who think we should believe your handwaving proclamations about mysteries where NIST feared to tread.
If NIST's had been tasked with convincing "truthers" that there was no controlled demolition, you are a prime example of why they should fear taking on that impossible task, but that isn't the case. The fact that you can't understand why total collapse was inevitable after it began does not mean that NIST was required to make a futile attempt to explain it to you. But I suppose you are correct; you haven't directly claimed to be an heroic investigator; you've simply tried your damnedest to imply that by claiming to be poking holes in the "official story" with garbage dredged up from "truther" sites.
> The pulverization of the concrete has everything to do with the collapses because, as anyone with any basic concept of the first law of thermodynamics knows, the energy necessary to pulverize the concrete must be subtracted from the kinetic energy available to take the building down, and would have slowed the collapses accordingly. That's why we need the official energy budget that AZ sneers at.
You're putting the cart before the horse: The pulverization of the concrete was not "necessary" and it did not make any "demands" (Gordon Ross' term) on the total energy available. Rather, the pulverization of the concrete shows how much extra energy was available beyond that which destroyed the structural integrity of the load-bearing structure. As I said, you'd do better to avoid discussing structural mechanics, but in fact, even Gordon Ross' analysis (after correction) showed that there was enough energy to explain all the observed damage. This is another of your "mysteries" that you protect with ignorance.
> I never said anyone pulverized the concrete with explosives. Where would you get such a silly idea?
Well, apparently I once again got the silly idea that you were actually trying to make a point, but if you don't believe that there was enough gravitational energy to explain the pulverization, then where do you suppose it came from? Oh, that's right; you're just pointing out the "mysteries," not looking for solutions. That would take all the fun out of it.
>Why are you so obsessive and so emotional about these things? Would you spend hundreds of hours of your time arguing with Creationists or global warming deniers? What kind of warped person will do that? You think you have the truth. Isn't that enough? Why must you argue with people you regard as fools? My motivation is quite clear. I think I don't have the truth, and I want to have the truth, and I want to facilitate the self-discrediting of those who want to keep it from me.
Back in the early days of Usenet, I did in fact waste a lot of time arguing with creationists, but after a while it became clear that Jonathan Swift was correct when he observed that you can't reason someone out of a belief that wasn't the result of reason to begin with. I could say the same thing about "truthers," but to answer your question, three things: 1) Bullshit never did anyone any good; 2) the truth about 9/11 actually matters, certainly enough that the bullshit needs to be weeded out; and 3) as we see from JFK conspiracism, unchallenged bullshit doesn't disappear, it procreates.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)You obviously make no effort to edit it.
William Seger
(11,082 posts)After all the effort I put into typing that, couldn't you at least put a little more effort into you concession speech?
One of the reasons I post here is simply to practice effective writing. Here's my tip of the day: It's much more effective to call a post "blather" after -- not instead of -- demonstrating why it's nonsense,
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)I've got work to do today.
Nobody reads your rambling screeds, and nobody's going to read my long debunking of them either.
When I have time I will write about 7 separate posts taking apart your points one by one.
greyl
(22,997 posts)AZCat
(8,345 posts)I for one am not going to hold my breath waiting for his "7 separate posts taking apart your points one by one."
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)AZCat
(8,345 posts)Fix your own problems before trying to diagnose ours, please.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)With spooked and d&p gone, you are going to have to do more than post YouTube videos with a waving smiley.
T S Justly
(884 posts)Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Because it is. The video starts where the report ends.
What is it that makes people think that half a report from NIST and 1/11 of a report from the 9/11 Commission (supplemented by a few wacky theories from anonymous websites) are enough? How can democracy survive if that's good enough?
CrawlingChaos
(1,893 posts)Between this, Building 7, the Norad stand down - and on and on and on - it truly floors me that anyone can swallow the ludicrous official 9/11 story. A phenomenon that will be studied by future generations, I'm sure.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)The lack of audible explosions indicates no explosions. It's easy to imagine what caused the towers to fall this way. Not surprisingly David Chandler can't come up with the answer, or at least he doesn't want to admit he really knows the answer. It would spoil a good CT.
The towers were giant containers of air. The air had to go somewhere. The windows provided an easy path.
It should not be surprising that a massive weight falling on a large (and mostly hollow) structure from such a distance would create such a mess. Originally truthers claimed that the collapsing towers fell too neatly; too much like a controlled demolition. But when too many people pointed out that it was a mess (unlike a controlled demolition), truthers then claimed that the towers were brought down by large (and silent) explosions.
So no matter how the towers came down, truthers are going to claim them as evidence for a demolition.