QUOTE (metamars+Mar 13 2006, 12:52 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 12 2006, 10:41 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 12 2006, 10:06 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 12 2006, 09:05 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 12 2006, 06:47 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 12 2006, 05:38 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 12 2006, 04:50 AM)
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 12 2006, 04:36 AM)
YET ANOTHER BLUNDEROUS OMISSION IN HIS SO-CALLED 'ANALYSES' WHICH IMPRESS YOU SO MUCH?
I must have missed that bit. Perhaps you could fill me in on just one point that you have made which doen't ramble on about drivel that has little or nothing to do with the subject with the odd adjective or verb thrown in just because you have heard it somewhere on your troubleshooting/varied /groundbreaking/(insert more blowhard egobosting words here) history and think that you will sound good to some other no-mark who is similarly clueless.
Let's be clear here. An education in a subject also confers the ability to assess the knowledge of others.
Gordon.
Thank-you. I was about to waste more time answering "Reality Check's" nonsense and obfuscation, but you have saved me the time.
I might add: take a representative sample of Gordon's posts, and a representative sample of "Reality Check's" posts, to ANY physicist or engineer at a local university, and ask a simple question:
Which is written by a technically competent person, and which is drivel?
Do be kind enough to post the responses you get, properly sourced, of course.
Metamars, I'm sure even YOU could randomly put together impressive-looking equations and numbers and terms STRAIGHT OUT OF A TEXTBOOK....while not understanding AT ALL THEIR MEANING AND OR USAGE IN ANY WAY.
The important thing is COMPREHENSION, not mindless COPYING AND PASTING some totally erroneous textbook terms to 'dress up' totally incompetent analysis constructs.
Haven't you learnt ANYTHING from the debacle with Jones and Hoffman et al? THEY ARE SUPPOSED PROFESSORS, FOR GOODNESS' SAKE...and look at the hash THEY made of the 'equations/figures', heh? Wake up and smell reality....numbers and equations are no substitute for objective observation and logical comprehension. HOW DO YOU THINK ALL THOSE EQUATIONS AND PRINCIPLES GOT FIGURED OUT IN THE FIRST PLACE?...it was those observations and logical comprehensions that allowed mathematical constructs to be created/refined TO REPRESENT THAT REALITY BEING LOGICALLY COMPREHENDED IN THE FIRST PLACE BY 'SCIENTIFIC METHOD' OBSERVATION and later REPRODUCTION VIA MATHEMATICAL REPRESENTATIONS OF SAME.
Have you learned anything from that? If nothing else, take away the point that 'numbers' mean NOTHING without comprehension and context (statistics/survey constructs/analyses are PERFECT examples where the truth is NOT ALWAYS in the NUMBERS, but in the CONTEXT). And in the case of 9/11, the physics is in context only insofar as it can be demonstrated to be 'prosaic' and everyday processes/principles involved in EXTRAORDINARILY CHAOTIC AND HUMONGOUS DYNAMICS.
Once you accept that a lot of things could be happening all over the place during that chaos, then you probably won't feel so much need to invoke space lasers and space aliens and 'mysterious energy' flows. Common sense will do the job.
Lame. Your continued avoidance of even any attempt to be precise, when you could be (that is, if you really are a "scientist", with expertise or even basic knowledge in physics and chemistry), strikes me as nothing more than a way to avoid being shown up for the spewer of drivel that you are.
And, as you have been shown to be a spewer of drivel even in a qualitative way, I don't believe for a second that you are a scientist.
I note, once again, that NIST and FEMA eschewed your "wonderful insights" for the relevance of chaos theory in understanding the collapses. Even in a mumbo jumbo, non-technical way that you specialize in, where it difficult to say where and how, exactly, your thinking is off because you are so unclear in presenting anything resembling a coherent argument. Apparently, in your own mind, your invocation of chaos to explain away anything you can't, otherwise, is a real contribution. But even NIST and FEMA didn't stoop this low!
When are you going to contact NIST and FEMA to let them imbibe of your wisdom? You woulnd't want to leave them in a state of ignorance, now, would you?
And I repeat, if YOU aren't satisfied with common sense, and INSIST that "THEY" did it, then why don't you take the time and trouble to come up with consistent physics explanations in support? Don't you think the victims of 9/11 DESERVE that little bit of effort from YOU, since you maintain that there is an official govt. conspiracy to cover the murder of all their family/friends. You say that the govt did it, but do you take the trouble to prove any of it for the sake of the victims? No. Obviously. You're too lazy; or too not-enamoured-after-all with your own stupidity. That's what comes across, met. I don't care what you think of me. I don't HAVE to care about what lazy stupid peoiple think of me. I care about YOU doing science and everyone involved a disservice by your unsubstantiated UFO/CT bulldust.
RC.
I reject the "common sense" premise of your first question. Indeed, as should be obvious to any reader of this thread (including yourself), we find the "common sense" of the NIST apologists to often be laughable - and yours may be the most laughable of all, though you do have lots of stiff competition. (We really should have a poll to settle the matter. )
Indeed, did I not just recently point out, again, that the more improbable your notion, the more you need to make it quantitative in the hopes of possibly rescuing it? Did you think that I meant "improbable in the mind of the spewer of such drivel"? I did not.
Having put the lie to this obvious twist of propaganda, your question about a physics question is a fair one, though I digress to once again point out the difference between disproving one assertion, and proving one at odds with it.
<begin digression>
If you claim that little green fairies took down the towers, and I say "no, they were taking down with thermite", but fail to prove this claim, that does not mean that the little green faires are indeed the culprits. Perhaps to a believer in Fairy Tales, yes, but you are a scientist, so you know better. Right?
<end digression>
I'm not sure what you mean by "consistent", but I will presume you mean "non-contradictory".
I also presume that that a comprehensive account is desirable. This is certainly my view.
So the question arises: how "comprehensive" is "comprehensive"? I recently introduced the distinction between what I call the strong and weak forms of the NIST'ian hand waving re "global collapse ensued". As NIST carries out their wonderful analysis by closing their eyes to all the anomalies, most all of which point away from their Fairy Tale intuition, should I also carry out a "comprehensive" analysis wherein I also close my eyes to evidence - much of it extraordinary - which argues against NIST's intuition?
If you answer "no, don't ignore these phenomena, also" then please explain to me why it's OK for NIST to do so.
If you answer "yes, ignore these phenomena", then I will deal with your question accordingly.
* Your question being:
I reject the "common sense" premise of your first question. Indeed, as should be obvious to any reader of this thread (including yourself), we find the "common sense" of the NIST apologists to often be laughable - and yours may be the most laughable of all, though you do have lots of stiff competition. (We really should have a poll to settle the matter. )
Indeed, did I not just recently point out, again, that the more improbable your notion, the more you need to make it quantitative in the hopes of possibly rescuing it? Did you think that I meant "improbable in the mind of the spewer of such drivel"? I did not.
Having put the lie to this obvious twist of propaganda, your question about a physics question is a fair one, though I digress to once again point out the difference between disproving one assertion, and proving one at odds with it.
<begin digression>
If you claim that little green fairies took down the towers, and I say "no, they were taking down with thermite", but fail to prove this claim, that does not mean that the little green faires are indeed the culprits. Perhaps to a believer in Fairy Tales, yes, but you are a scientist, so you know better. Right?
<end digression>
I'm not sure what you mean by "consistent", but I will presume you mean "non-contradictory".
I also presume that that a comprehensive account is desirable. This is certainly my view.
So the question arises: how "comprehensive" is "comprehensive"? I recently introduced the distinction between what I call the strong and weak forms of the NIST'ian hand waving re "global collapse ensued". As NIST carries out their wonderful analysis by closing their eyes to all the anomalies, most all of which point away from their Fairy Tale intuition, should I also carry out a "comprehensive" analysis wherein I also close my eyes to evidence - much of it extraordinary - which argues against NIST's intuition?
If you answer "no, don't ignore these phenomena, also" then please explain to me why it's OK for NIST to do so.
If you answer "yes, ignore these phenomena", then I will deal with your question accordingly.
* Your question being:
if YOU aren't satisfied with common sense, and INSIST that "THEY" did it, then why don't you take the time and trouble to come up with consistent physics explanations in support?
Hi metamars! Are the space Lasers in position yet? Which 'spire' shall we disintegrate today?
Really metamars, just what is it you have against Randomness and Chaos where such widespread dynamic energies are involved?
Doesn't the video evidence of many unscathed cars, people, plants etc in an event where others WERE hit and set on fire by embers/debris, tell you the OBVIOUS? Where's the need for me to waste MY time 'quantifying' and 'numerating' things for YOU?
After all, YOU are the one with the crazy assertions. I merely comment on what I see AND LEAVE IT AT THAT if I am satisfied with the Occam's Razor outcomes.
I repeat, why don't YOU do all that 'quantifying' you demand of others? You seem to be MOTIVATED enough but TOO lazy, is that it?
So, if YOU are TOO LAZY to try and SUBSTANTIATE/SUPPORT your own wild assertions, how can you stand there with a straight face and accuse ME of not wanting to do your work for you? It is not I that has to support one conspiracy theory hypothesis after another, now is it? Or didn't you read where I said I was only in this for presenting YOUNGER Physorgforumers with an alternative view and common principles/analogies which present something for these youngsters to get their teeth into and look up for themselves....instead of just 'believing' you and your pseudo-scientific assinine and hypocritical bleating about what OTHERS should do FOR YOU...when you should be here doing 'science' for YOURSELF and your assertions, heh?
I am not asserting anything here, I am just replying to YOURS and others' assertions. OK?
So quit whining about others, and instead go ahead and REFUTE WHAT THEY SAY USING YOUR OWN 'WORK' to support what YOU are blathering on about. Fair enough?
Where's YOUR quantitative physics/analysis for whatever YOU are hypothesising, metamars? If it's so allfired important to you, why not do a THESIS on your conspiracy 'anomalies'. You are a university student are you not? If what you say is so important and true, then YOU TOO may become as famous as Jones et al! Think of joining that illustrious BYU 'hotbed of incompetence' (note that even that 'useless christian science' university has had enough of being painted with the same brush that Jones is being painted into a corner with daily).
BTW, metamars.....YOU'RE not a student of Jones at BYU, are you? That would explain a lot. He was too lazy to check his facts re Hoffman and other sources too. It wouldn't surprise me if that's where gordon got his 'one-dimensional' analysis constructs from, either. That's a great christian education you can get at BYU.....except they LEAVE OUT anything that is inconsistent with their 'beliefs'.....some scientists you and gordon are emulating for all you're worth, mate. I pity you and any other youngster mesmerised by a "christian" conman of such 'integrity' in matters of ethics and application of the scientific method.
Get back to Jones' class, metamars, the bell's gone. Cheers!
RC.
.
More blathering to avoid even more embarassment, eh? Let's try this one more time:
I'm not sure what you mean by "consistent", but I will presume you mean "non-contradictory".
I also presume that that a comprehensive account is desirable. This is certainly my view.
So the question arises: how "comprehensive" is "comprehensive"? I recently introduced the distinction between what I call the strong and weak forms of the NIST'ian hand waving re "global collapse ensued". As NIST carries out their wonderful analysis by closing their eyes to all the anomalies, most all of which point away from their Fairy Tale intuition, should I also carry out a "comprehensive" analysis wherein I also close my eyes to evidence - much of it extraordinary - which argues against NIST's intuition?
If you answer "no, don't ignore these phenomena, also" then please explain to me why it's OK for NIST to do so.
If you answer "yes, ignore these phenomena", then I will deal with your question accordingly.
.
.
* Your question being:
As far as your statement:
Or didn't you read where I said I was only in this for presenting YOUNGER Physorgforumers with an alternative view and common principles/analogies which present something for these youngsters to get their teeth into and look up for themselves
I would think that if you had any real concern for "YOUNGER" forum members, that you at least would take the time to put forth a coherent argument every 100 pages or so. Do you think that forcing "YOUNGER" members to wade through your James Joyce style of drivel might not drive them away from science? Do you think that maybe, just maybe, you labeling yourself as a scientist and then spamming this board with your drivel might not make some "YOUNGER" members give up on science?? Has it not occurred to you that your drivel, ascribed to a scientist such as yourself, might not permanently prejudice a young mind against a career in science?
From where I sit, you have about as much concern for "YOUNGER" forum members as you do for understanding the WTC collapses, as you possess any real scientific training - which is to say, none at all.
Oh dear! YOU make all the assinine assertions and I'M the one being embarrassed? Right THERE you prove how hypocritical you are, metamars.
I am only obliged to point to reasonable conjecture regarding the phenomena which you point to in your wild speculations. Is it my fault that your speculations don't stand up to even cursory scrutiny?
And STILL you evade the point that YOU are not doing what YOU demand of others, even though Schneibster et al have refuted the original basis for the CD conspiracy theories invoking 'free fall', exotic weapons, etc etc.
Mate, get a grip and look at yourself before going on about your perceived shortcomings in others, heh?
DO YOU INTEND TO DO ANY MORE FOR YOUR 'QUEST FOR TRUTH' THAN MERELY ASKING OTHERS TO ANTE UP THINGS WHICH THEY NEVER HAD TO DO IN THE FIRST PLACE?
Hey metamars, if your OWN 'motives' and 'science' are so woefully inadequate to the task, who are YOU to say what youngsters need? I'll tell you what they need, LESS BS and hypocrisy from YOU, for a start. Anything I say here that gets a youngster to at least stop and question all the exotic Bulldust YOU deal out is pure gravy as far as future science is concerned. Let's DO leave it to them, heh? And what have they said so far.....nothing in support of YOU, that's clear enough....or else they would be coming to bat for your side in droves, wouldn't they? See reality, act accordingly, and stop fart-arsing about and GET TO WORK on that thesis which will make you as (in)famous as Jones! Can't wait for more 'professional' "christian science" from those who let 'beliefs' dictate to their scientific integrity.
Those youngsters AT LEAST are getting an object lesson from you and your cohort as to what NOT to do if you want to be respected in REAL scientific quarters. Shame on you.
RC.
.
Your answer is both as scientific, and to the point, as most all your other posts.
In case you hadn't noticed (you certainly at least pretend not to), it was mostly you who was singled out for criticism ito not being quantitative. And, indeed, of not even making an attempt.
Meanwhile, it is you who 1) claims to be a scientist and 2) certainly doesn't talk like one.
Furthermore, it is you who has referred to Jones and Hoffman as "idiots".
You were challenged, essentially, to put up or shut up, and you have, as expected, completely failed the test.
I have never claimed to be a scientist, and still have attempted, on numerous occassions, to be be quantititive, within the limits of my ability. As you have commented on at least some of these posts, you are completely aware of this fact. Your pretense otherwise speaks to your dishonesty.
Indeed, I recently sketched out a calculation re Hoffman to get (hopefully) a better idea of what sort of temperature drop off one might expect. My posts on this subject make it crystal clear that anything I determine from such a crude calculation - one way or another - will in no way obviate the desirability of a full blown treatment employing fluid hydrodynamics.
This is consistent with how, I am sure, an inquisitive, even scientific, mind works. Can you imagine Einstein blathering on about the principles - oh!, excuse me, the PRINCIPLES - of physics, like yourself? I sure can't. When he had some ideas that were the germ of general relativity, but realized he didn't have the appropriate mathematical background, he sought out a mathematician who could teach him differential geometry.
He did not say "I'm a scientist, listen to my bloviations about physics PRINCIPLES, and by the way, you guys are idiots".
The difference between these two approaches are like night and day.
I don't believe you're capable of doing any insightful physics calcs wrt to the collapses (in other words, I don't believe you're a scientist with any relevant background and/or expertise. Perhaps you're a plant botanist, or something equally ill-suited, but that's about it.) Furthermore, if you really are capable, then it's still quite clear you have no interest in understanding the collapses.
Your concern about "YOUNGSTERS" is yet another smokescreen, for one thing you surely are is a propagandist. Obfuscating a serious issue does nobody any good, including young people. The only people it can possibly help are the perpetrators.
At least Schneibster and, yes, even adoucette, are/were capable of making some excellent points. I have trouble of thinking of even one that you have made. Your signal to noise ratio is so low, that you are clearly in the same region as "Common Sense" - and communicate about as effectively, though your contorted "stream of consciousness" sentence structures are quite different from his.
Thus, even compared to your fellow popes, you occupy a lowly station. It was suggested to Common Sense (IIRC) earlier in this thread that he "retire". I now repeat that same suggestion to you. You do not even help your side in the debate, as least as observed by rational people. Your only contribution to your "side", in this regard, is to exhaust the patience of potential participants who don't want to deal with your blathering, which inevitably becomes peppered with ad hominems.
Stop whining and namedropping (Einstein! no less!) and get to work on your thesis on the physics anomalies in 9/11.
What do you not undersatnd about my "RealityCheck" function? Let me make it simple, I ASK the questions and PUT alternative views to those ASSERTIONS MADE BY OTHERS (and that means YOU). I have stated many times I'm too busy with other things to go through unnecessary 'hoops' when Occam's Razor does the job.
And UNTIL YOU, who MAKE the assertions in the first place are able to refure EVEN THOSE BASIC ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESES, why should anyone take you seriously enough when YOU won't put in the hard yards FOR YOURSELF.
It may have escaped your notice that, UNLIKE you and Einstein, I don't have any particular barrow to push HERE....and so I concentrate my time and efforts on those things I DO want to further.
So why DON'T you take a leaf out of Einstein's book and, as you say, learn the necessaries to support your assertions BEFORE you bring your half-arsed assertions here to be laughed at?
What's YOUR agenda? If it IS science proper, THEN WHY DON'T YOU GO AND DO SOME, AND THEN COME BACK AND MAKE YOUR ASSERTIONS SUPPORTED by your OWN work.
You are hypocritical and unscientific in your own 'methods' and attitudes, and then you have the nerve to criticise others.
Read my lips: I don't DO what YOU want. I DO what I want to do ever since I started at Physorg. And that is to test assertions made by OTHERS, who apparently have a barrow to push and don't care a whit about science and logic, just their agendas.
For your information, matamars, ANYONE WITH THE GUTS AND INTEGRITY AND LOGIC TO APPLY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS IPSO FACTO A 'SCIENTIST'. OK? You and Jones et al are OBVIOUSLY NOT scientists in that tradition....you are 'convenient/expedient' pseudo-scientists who have overlain an agenda on the scientific method and made a mockery of same.
Tell me honestly, do you have complete trust in the competence and integrity of Jones? Does the fact that even his own BYU fellows see through him not tell you something about all this 'anomalies' business you keep parroting without supporting....just like Jones?
Come and tell me I'm not a scientist when you yourself are worthy of that name.
RC.
.
How was it then possible for the floors to pull the walls in with a reduced force upon contraction, but not outwards upon expansion?
Gordon.
Brian. Here's tae us. Wha's like us?
Good questions.
The perimeter columns may have bowed outward slightly just after the fire started but may not have been noticed. The linear thermal expansion coefficient for steel is about 10E-5. Assuming a 600C temperature rise of the steel and a 60 foot long truss on the east side, that amounts to a lengthening of about 4.7 inches. For a 300C rise, it's about 2.3 inches. That may not have been noticed from pics. Also, the trusses may have already started sagging before the outward expansion had a chance to continue as the temperature increased.
The inward pull due to sag is different. It can continue to pull on perimeter columns once the sag has already occurred. It's more a geometrical issue and its effect can be much greater than that of thermal expansion. The perimeter columns (and the core columns if also hot) would continue to creep inward slowly at elevated temperature until the compressive forces of the building load on them caused them to buckle catastrophically. The inward bowing was something like 3 to 4 feet, more than an order of magnitude larger than any thermal expansion or contraction.
Even if the force along the length of a truss is at or below that needed to yield the truss, that doesn't mean that the columns can't be bent inward. That pull is occurring at roughly a right angle to the column. There's a lateral force on the column, as opposed to an axial force. It's easier to bend a long column than it is to compress or expand it along its longitudinal axis, as you would when measuring its yield stress.
Gordon.
Brian. Here's tae us. Wha's like us?
damn few.
How was it then possible for the floors to pull the walls in with a reduced force upon contraction, but not outwards upon expansion?
Gordon.
Brian. Here's tae us. Wha's like us?
Good questions.
The perimeter columns may have bowed outward slightly just after the fire started but may not have been noticed. The linear thermal expansion coefficient for steel is about 10E-5. Assuming a 600C temperature rise of the steel and a 60 foot long truss on the east side, that amounts to a lengthening of about 4.7 inches. For a 300C rise, it's about 2.3 inches. That may not have been noticed from pics. Also, the trusses may have already started sagging before the outward expansion had a chance to continue as the temperature increased.
The inward pull due to sag is different. It can continue to pull on perimeter columns once the sag has already occurred. It's more a geometrical issue and its effect can be much greater than that of thermal expansion. The perimeter columns (and the core columns if also hot) would continue to creep inward slowly at elevated temperature until the compressive forces of the building load on them caused them to buckle catastrophically. The inward bowing was something like 3 to 4 feet, more than an order of magnitude larger than any thermal expansion or contraction.
Even if the force along the length of a truss is at or below that needed to yield the truss, that doesn't mean that the columns can't be bent inward. That pull is occurring at roughly a right angle to the column. There's a lateral force on the column, as opposed to an axial force. It's easier to bend a long column than it is to compress or expand it along its longitudinal axis, as you would when measuring its yield stress.
gordon continues to play stupid to the cooling effect explained in the NIST report. He KNOWS the fires spread, heated the steel trusses then contracted as the most intense fire moved away consuming more office furniture elsewhere. Simple yet gordon wants to act like christopher and pretend ignorance just to be able to ask the question again and hook some other ignorant joe.
I don't have a degree but I know sagged steel isn't going to straighten out by itself. This is exactly the shait I'm talking about. You don't need a degree to see these people are pulling shait straight out their a$$.
It was also more than one truss. It was a number of floors on a given wall which pulled the columns in together. As even I know, you have to combine the stories together which pulled in the perimeter.
Gordon.
Brian. Here's tae us. Wha's like us?
damn few.
Well THAT is the first GOOD news I've read in a while.
Arthur
I must have missed that bit. Perhaps you could fill me in on just one point that you have made which doen't ramble on about drivel that has little or nothing to do with the subject with the odd adjective or verb thrown in just because you have heard it somewhere on your troubleshooting/varied /groundbreaking/(insert more blowhard egobosting words here) history and think that you will sound good to some other no-mark who is similarly clueless.
Let's be clear here. An education in a subject also confers the ability to assess the knowledge of others.
Gordon.
Thank-you. I was about to waste more time answering "Reality Check's" nonsense and obfuscation, but you have saved me the time.
I might add: take a representative sample of Gordon's posts, and a representative sample of "Reality Check's" posts, to ANY physicist or engineer at a local university, and ask a simple question:
Which is written by a technically competent person, and which is drivel?
Do be kind enough to post the responses you get, properly sourced, of course.
Metamars, I'm sure even YOU could randomly put together impressive-looking equations and numbers and terms STRAIGHT OUT OF A TEXTBOOK....while not understanding AT ALL THEIR MEANING AND OR USAGE IN ANY WAY.
The important thing is COMPREHENSION, not mindless COPYING AND PASTING some totally erroneous textbook terms to 'dress up' totally incompetent analysis constructs.
Haven't you learnt ANYTHING from the debacle with Jones and Hoffman et al? THEY ARE SUPPOSED PROFESSORS, FOR GOODNESS' SAKE...and look at the hash THEY made of the 'equations/figures', heh? Wake up and smell reality....numbers and equations are no substitute for objective observation and logical comprehension. HOW DO YOU THINK ALL THOSE EQUATIONS AND PRINCIPLES GOT FIGURED OUT IN THE FIRST PLACE?...it was those observations and logical comprehensions that allowed mathematical constructs to be created/refined TO REPRESENT THAT REALITY BEING LOGICALLY COMPREHENDED IN THE FIRST PLACE BY 'SCIENTIFIC METHOD' OBSERVATION and later REPRODUCTION VIA MATHEMATICAL REPRESENTATIONS OF SAME.
Have you learned anything from that? If nothing else, take away the point that 'numbers' mean NOTHING without comprehension and context (statistics/survey constructs/analyses are PERFECT examples where the truth is NOT ALWAYS in the NUMBERS, but in the CONTEXT). And in the case of 9/11, the physics is in context only insofar as it can be demonstrated to be 'prosaic' and everyday processes/principles involved in EXTRAORDINARILY CHAOTIC AND HUMONGOUS DYNAMICS.
Once you accept that a lot of things could be happening all over the place during that chaos, then you probably won't feel so much need to invoke space lasers and space aliens and 'mysterious energy' flows. Common sense will do the job.
Lame. Your continued avoidance of even any attempt to be precise, when you could be (that is, if you really are a "scientist", with expertise or even basic knowledge in physics and chemistry), strikes me as nothing more than a way to avoid being shown up for the spewer of drivel that you are.
And, as you have been shown to be a spewer of drivel even in a qualitative way, I don't believe for a second that you are a scientist.
I note, once again, that NIST and FEMA eschewed your "wonderful insights" for the relevance of chaos theory in understanding the collapses. Even in a mumbo jumbo, non-technical way that you specialize in, where it difficult to say where and how, exactly, your thinking is off because you are so unclear in presenting anything resembling a coherent argument. Apparently, in your own mind, your invocation of chaos to explain away anything you can't, otherwise, is a real contribution. But even NIST and FEMA didn't stoop this low!
When are you going to contact NIST and FEMA to let them imbibe of your wisdom? You woulnd't want to leave them in a state of ignorance, now, would you?
QUOTE
And I repeat, if YOU aren't satisfied with common sense, and INSIST that "THEY" did it, then why don't you take the time and trouble to come up with consistent physics explanations in support? Don't you think the victims of 9/11 DESERVE that little bit of effort from YOU, since you maintain that there is an official govt. conspiracy to cover the murder of all their family/friends. You say that the govt did it, but do you take the trouble to prove any of it for the sake of the victims? No. Obviously. You're too lazy; or too not-enamoured-after-all with your own stupidity. That's what comes across, met. I don't care what you think of me. I don't HAVE to care about what lazy stupid peoiple think of me. I care about YOU doing science and everyone involved a disservice by your unsubstantiated UFO/CT bulldust.
RC.
I reject the "common sense" premise of your first question. Indeed, as should be obvious to any reader of this thread (including yourself), we find the "common sense" of the NIST apologists to often be laughable - and yours may be the most laughable of all, though you do have lots of stiff competition. (We really should have a poll to settle the matter. )
Indeed, did I not just recently point out, again, that the more improbable your notion, the more you need to make it quantitative in the hopes of possibly rescuing it? Did you think that I meant "improbable in the mind of the spewer of such drivel"? I did not.
Having put the lie to this obvious twist of propaganda, your question about a physics question is a fair one, though I digress to once again point out the difference between disproving one assertion, and proving one at odds with it.
<begin digression>
If you claim that little green fairies took down the towers, and I say "no, they were taking down with thermite", but fail to prove this claim, that does not mean that the little green faires are indeed the culprits. Perhaps to a believer in Fairy Tales, yes, but you are a scientist, so you know better. Right?
<end digression>
I'm not sure what you mean by "consistent", but I will presume you mean "non-contradictory".
I also presume that that a comprehensive account is desirable. This is certainly my view.
So the question arises: how "comprehensive" is "comprehensive"? I recently introduced the distinction between what I call the strong and weak forms of the NIST'ian hand waving re "global collapse ensued". As NIST carries out their wonderful analysis by closing their eyes to all the anomalies, most all of which point away from their Fairy Tale intuition, should I also carry out a "comprehensive" analysis wherein I also close my eyes to evidence - much of it extraordinary - which argues against NIST's intuition?
If you answer "no, don't ignore these phenomena, also" then please explain to me why it's OK for NIST to do so.
If you answer "yes, ignore these phenomena", then I will deal with your question accordingly.
* Your question being:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
And I repeat, if YOU aren't satisfied with common sense, and INSIST that "THEY" did it, then why don't you take the time and trouble to come up with consistent physics explanations in support? Don't you think the victims of 9/11 DESERVE that little bit of effort from YOU, since you maintain that there is an official govt. conspiracy to cover the murder of all their family/friends. You say that the govt did it, but do you take the trouble to prove any of it for the sake of the victims? No. Obviously. You're too lazy; or too not-enamoured-after-all with your own stupidity. That's what comes across, met. I don't care what you think of me. I don't HAVE to care about what lazy stupid peoiple think of me. I care about YOU doing science and everyone involved a disservice by your unsubstantiated UFO/CT bulldust. RC. |
I reject the "common sense" premise of your first question. Indeed, as should be obvious to any reader of this thread (including yourself), we find the "common sense" of the NIST apologists to often be laughable - and yours may be the most laughable of all, though you do have lots of stiff competition. (We really should have a poll to settle the matter. )
Indeed, did I not just recently point out, again, that the more improbable your notion, the more you need to make it quantitative in the hopes of possibly rescuing it? Did you think that I meant "improbable in the mind of the spewer of such drivel"? I did not.
Having put the lie to this obvious twist of propaganda, your question about a physics question is a fair one, though I digress to once again point out the difference between disproving one assertion, and proving one at odds with it.
<begin digression>
If you claim that little green fairies took down the towers, and I say "no, they were taking down with thermite", but fail to prove this claim, that does not mean that the little green faires are indeed the culprits. Perhaps to a believer in Fairy Tales, yes, but you are a scientist, so you know better. Right?
<end digression>
I'm not sure what you mean by "consistent", but I will presume you mean "non-contradictory".
I also presume that that a comprehensive account is desirable. This is certainly my view.
So the question arises: how "comprehensive" is "comprehensive"? I recently introduced the distinction between what I call the strong and weak forms of the NIST'ian hand waving re "global collapse ensued". As NIST carries out their wonderful analysis by closing their eyes to all the anomalies, most all of which point away from their Fairy Tale intuition, should I also carry out a "comprehensive" analysis wherein I also close my eyes to evidence - much of it extraordinary - which argues against NIST's intuition?
If you answer "no, don't ignore these phenomena, also" then please explain to me why it's OK for NIST to do so.
If you answer "yes, ignore these phenomena", then I will deal with your question accordingly.
* Your question being:
if YOU aren't satisfied with common sense, and INSIST that "THEY" did it, then why don't you take the time and trouble to come up with consistent physics explanations in support?
Hi metamars! Are the space Lasers in position yet? Which 'spire' shall we disintegrate today?
Really metamars, just what is it you have against Randomness and Chaos where such widespread dynamic energies are involved?
Doesn't the video evidence of many unscathed cars, people, plants etc in an event where others WERE hit and set on fire by embers/debris, tell you the OBVIOUS? Where's the need for me to waste MY time 'quantifying' and 'numerating' things for YOU?
After all, YOU are the one with the crazy assertions. I merely comment on what I see AND LEAVE IT AT THAT if I am satisfied with the Occam's Razor outcomes.
I repeat, why don't YOU do all that 'quantifying' you demand of others? You seem to be MOTIVATED enough but TOO lazy, is that it?
So, if YOU are TOO LAZY to try and SUBSTANTIATE/SUPPORT your own wild assertions, how can you stand there with a straight face and accuse ME of not wanting to do your work for you? It is not I that has to support one conspiracy theory hypothesis after another, now is it? Or didn't you read where I said I was only in this for presenting YOUNGER Physorgforumers with an alternative view and common principles/analogies which present something for these youngsters to get their teeth into and look up for themselves....instead of just 'believing' you and your pseudo-scientific assinine and hypocritical bleating about what OTHERS should do FOR YOU...when you should be here doing 'science' for YOURSELF and your assertions, heh?
I am not asserting anything here, I am just replying to YOURS and others' assertions. OK?
So quit whining about others, and instead go ahead and REFUTE WHAT THEY SAY USING YOUR OWN 'WORK' to support what YOU are blathering on about. Fair enough?
Where's YOUR quantitative physics/analysis for whatever YOU are hypothesising, metamars? If it's so allfired important to you, why not do a THESIS on your conspiracy 'anomalies'. You are a university student are you not? If what you say is so important and true, then YOU TOO may become as famous as Jones et al! Think of joining that illustrious BYU 'hotbed of incompetence' (note that even that 'useless christian science' university has had enough of being painted with the same brush that Jones is being painted into a corner with daily).
BTW, metamars.....YOU'RE not a student of Jones at BYU, are you? That would explain a lot. He was too lazy to check his facts re Hoffman and other sources too. It wouldn't surprise me if that's where gordon got his 'one-dimensional' analysis constructs from, either. That's a great christian education you can get at BYU.....except they LEAVE OUT anything that is inconsistent with their 'beliefs'.....some scientists you and gordon are emulating for all you're worth, mate. I pity you and any other youngster mesmerised by a "christian" conman of such 'integrity' in matters of ethics and application of the scientific method.
Get back to Jones' class, metamars, the bell's gone. Cheers!
RC.
.
More blathering to avoid even more embarassment, eh? Let's try this one more time:
QUOTE
I'm not sure what you mean by "consistent", but I will presume you mean "non-contradictory".
I also presume that that a comprehensive account is desirable. This is certainly my view.
So the question arises: how "comprehensive" is "comprehensive"? I recently introduced the distinction between what I call the strong and weak forms of the NIST'ian hand waving re "global collapse ensued". As NIST carries out their wonderful analysis by closing their eyes to all the anomalies, most all of which point away from their Fairy Tale intuition, should I also carry out a "comprehensive" analysis wherein I also close my eyes to evidence - much of it extraordinary - which argues against NIST's intuition?
If you answer "no, don't ignore these phenomena, also" then please explain to me why it's OK for NIST to do so.
If you answer "yes, ignore these phenomena", then I will deal with your question accordingly.
.
.
* Your question being:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
I'm not sure what you mean by "consistent", but I will presume you mean "non-contradictory". I also presume that that a comprehensive account is desirable. This is certainly my view. So the question arises: how "comprehensive" is "comprehensive"? I recently introduced the distinction between what I call the strong and weak forms of the NIST'ian hand waving re "global collapse ensued". As NIST carries out their wonderful analysis by closing their eyes to all the anomalies, most all of which point away from their Fairy Tale intuition, should I also carry out a "comprehensive" analysis wherein I also close my eyes to evidence - much of it extraordinary - which argues against NIST's intuition? If you answer "no, don't ignore these phenomena, also" then please explain to me why it's OK for NIST to do so. If you answer "yes, ignore these phenomena", then I will deal with your question accordingly. . . * Your question being: if YOU aren't satisfied with common sense, and INSIST that "THEY" did it, then why don't you take the time and trouble to come up with consistent physics explanations in support? |
As far as your statement:
QUOTE
Or didn't you read where I said I was only in this for presenting YOUNGER Physorgforumers with an alternative view and common principles/analogies which present something for these youngsters to get their teeth into and look up for themselves
I would think that if you had any real concern for "YOUNGER" forum members, that you at least would take the time to put forth a coherent argument every 100 pages or so. Do you think that forcing "YOUNGER" members to wade through your James Joyce style of drivel might not drive them away from science? Do you think that maybe, just maybe, you labeling yourself as a scientist and then spamming this board with your drivel might not make some "YOUNGER" members give up on science?? Has it not occurred to you that your drivel, ascribed to a scientist such as yourself, might not permanently prejudice a young mind against a career in science?
From where I sit, you have about as much concern for "YOUNGER" forum members as you do for understanding the WTC collapses, as you possess any real scientific training - which is to say, none at all.
Oh dear! YOU make all the assinine assertions and I'M the one being embarrassed? Right THERE you prove how hypocritical you are, metamars.
I am only obliged to point to reasonable conjecture regarding the phenomena which you point to in your wild speculations. Is it my fault that your speculations don't stand up to even cursory scrutiny?
And STILL you evade the point that YOU are not doing what YOU demand of others, even though Schneibster et al have refuted the original basis for the CD conspiracy theories invoking 'free fall', exotic weapons, etc etc.
Mate, get a grip and look at yourself before going on about your perceived shortcomings in others, heh?
DO YOU INTEND TO DO ANY MORE FOR YOUR 'QUEST FOR TRUTH' THAN MERELY ASKING OTHERS TO ANTE UP THINGS WHICH THEY NEVER HAD TO DO IN THE FIRST PLACE?
Hey metamars, if your OWN 'motives' and 'science' are so woefully inadequate to the task, who are YOU to say what youngsters need? I'll tell you what they need, LESS BS and hypocrisy from YOU, for a start. Anything I say here that gets a youngster to at least stop and question all the exotic Bulldust YOU deal out is pure gravy as far as future science is concerned. Let's DO leave it to them, heh? And what have they said so far.....nothing in support of YOU, that's clear enough....or else they would be coming to bat for your side in droves, wouldn't they? See reality, act accordingly, and stop fart-arsing about and GET TO WORK on that thesis which will make you as (in)famous as Jones! Can't wait for more 'professional' "christian science" from those who let 'beliefs' dictate to their scientific integrity.
Those youngsters AT LEAST are getting an object lesson from you and your cohort as to what NOT to do if you want to be respected in REAL scientific quarters. Shame on you.
RC.
.
Your answer is both as scientific, and to the point, as most all your other posts.
In case you hadn't noticed (you certainly at least pretend not to), it was mostly you who was singled out for criticism ito not being quantitative. And, indeed, of not even making an attempt.
Meanwhile, it is you who 1) claims to be a scientist and 2) certainly doesn't talk like one.
Furthermore, it is you who has referred to Jones and Hoffman as "idiots".
You were challenged, essentially, to put up or shut up, and you have, as expected, completely failed the test.
I have never claimed to be a scientist, and still have attempted, on numerous occassions, to be be quantititive, within the limits of my ability. As you have commented on at least some of these posts, you are completely aware of this fact. Your pretense otherwise speaks to your dishonesty.
Indeed, I recently sketched out a calculation re Hoffman to get (hopefully) a better idea of what sort of temperature drop off one might expect. My posts on this subject make it crystal clear that anything I determine from such a crude calculation - one way or another - will in no way obviate the desirability of a full blown treatment employing fluid hydrodynamics.
This is consistent with how, I am sure, an inquisitive, even scientific, mind works. Can you imagine Einstein blathering on about the principles - oh!, excuse me, the PRINCIPLES - of physics, like yourself? I sure can't. When he had some ideas that were the germ of general relativity, but realized he didn't have the appropriate mathematical background, he sought out a mathematician who could teach him differential geometry.
He did not say "I'm a scientist, listen to my bloviations about physics PRINCIPLES, and by the way, you guys are idiots".
The difference between these two approaches are like night and day.
I don't believe you're capable of doing any insightful physics calcs wrt to the collapses (in other words, I don't believe you're a scientist with any relevant background and/or expertise. Perhaps you're a plant botanist, or something equally ill-suited, but that's about it.) Furthermore, if you really are capable, then it's still quite clear you have no interest in understanding the collapses.
Your concern about "YOUNGSTERS" is yet another smokescreen, for one thing you surely are is a propagandist. Obfuscating a serious issue does nobody any good, including young people. The only people it can possibly help are the perpetrators.
At least Schneibster and, yes, even adoucette, are/were capable of making some excellent points. I have trouble of thinking of even one that you have made. Your signal to noise ratio is so low, that you are clearly in the same region as "Common Sense" - and communicate about as effectively, though your contorted "stream of consciousness" sentence structures are quite different from his.
Thus, even compared to your fellow popes, you occupy a lowly station. It was suggested to Common Sense (IIRC) earlier in this thread that he "retire". I now repeat that same suggestion to you. You do not even help your side in the debate, as least as observed by rational people. Your only contribution to your "side", in this regard, is to exhaust the patience of potential participants who don't want to deal with your blathering, which inevitably becomes peppered with ad hominems.
Stop whining and namedropping (Einstein! no less!) and get to work on your thesis on the physics anomalies in 9/11.
What do you not undersatnd about my "RealityCheck" function? Let me make it simple, I ASK the questions and PUT alternative views to those ASSERTIONS MADE BY OTHERS (and that means YOU). I have stated many times I'm too busy with other things to go through unnecessary 'hoops' when Occam's Razor does the job.
And UNTIL YOU, who MAKE the assertions in the first place are able to refure EVEN THOSE BASIC ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESES, why should anyone take you seriously enough when YOU won't put in the hard yards FOR YOURSELF.
It may have escaped your notice that, UNLIKE you and Einstein, I don't have any particular barrow to push HERE....and so I concentrate my time and efforts on those things I DO want to further.
So why DON'T you take a leaf out of Einstein's book and, as you say, learn the necessaries to support your assertions BEFORE you bring your half-arsed assertions here to be laughed at?
What's YOUR agenda? If it IS science proper, THEN WHY DON'T YOU GO AND DO SOME, AND THEN COME BACK AND MAKE YOUR ASSERTIONS SUPPORTED by your OWN work.
You are hypocritical and unscientific in your own 'methods' and attitudes, and then you have the nerve to criticise others.
Read my lips: I don't DO what YOU want. I DO what I want to do ever since I started at Physorg. And that is to test assertions made by OTHERS, who apparently have a barrow to push and don't care a whit about science and logic, just their agendas.
For your information, matamars, ANYONE WITH THE GUTS AND INTEGRITY AND LOGIC TO APPLY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS IPSO FACTO A 'SCIENTIST'. OK? You and Jones et al are OBVIOUSLY NOT scientists in that tradition....you are 'convenient/expedient' pseudo-scientists who have overlain an agenda on the scientific method and made a mockery of same.
Tell me honestly, do you have complete trust in the competence and integrity of Jones? Does the fact that even his own BYU fellows see through him not tell you something about all this 'anomalies' business you keep parroting without supporting....just like Jones?
Come and tell me I'm not a scientist when you yourself are worthy of that name.
RC.
.
I'm not old enough to retire but thanks for thinking about me. 
BTW, didn't you say to Foxx this thread wasn't worth it? Is that another example you being full of shait?
You and Jones are NOBODY even with your tin star degree. You continue to purposely exclude evidence which to any person with neurons this side of Terri Schiavo can see explodes jones's theory. And why? Why pin the murder of 3000 people onto thousands of Americans who work for the government and others? To put money into peoples pockets. Never mind what civil unrest could come from these lies. If it were true I would be right there with you but it's a pack of lies. But how can I take someone seriously who's own university civil engineers think hes out there. Someone who sought to peer review a civil engineering paper by ONE economist! LAUGHABLE doesn't begin to describe this lunacy!
So you try to dazzle the idiots like newton and reasonwhy with technical jargon and they bit. So what. And yes, I'm not an engineer either but as Aduo. said THOSE LEAVES ARENT ASBESTOS!. THE PAPERS AREN'T ASBESTOS. BOMBS DON'T HOP OVER CARS TO IMPACT OTHERS. EXPLOTIONS DON'T RELEASE ENERGY ON TOP OF A BUILDING IF THEY GO OFF ON THE GROUND LEVEL. THE SURVIVORS WEREN'T POACHED BY 212 F DEGREE PYROCLASTIC FLOWS! I could go on with the absolutely retarded concoctions your side invents to explain the evidence but it would take another 400 pages. I don't need a degree to furgure out you're apeal to authority is sad evidence for CD. A MORON is a MORON is a MORON, degree or not.
BTW, didn't you say to Foxx this thread wasn't worth it? Is that another example you being full of shait?
You and Jones are NOBODY even with your tin star degree. You continue to purposely exclude evidence which to any person with neurons this side of Terri Schiavo can see explodes jones's theory. And why? Why pin the murder of 3000 people onto thousands of Americans who work for the government and others? To put money into peoples pockets. Never mind what civil unrest could come from these lies. If it were true I would be right there with you but it's a pack of lies. But how can I take someone seriously who's own university civil engineers think hes out there. Someone who sought to peer review a civil engineering paper by ONE economist! LAUGHABLE doesn't begin to describe this lunacy!
So you try to dazzle the idiots like newton and reasonwhy with technical jargon and they bit. So what. And yes, I'm not an engineer either but as Aduo. said THOSE LEAVES ARENT ASBESTOS!. THE PAPERS AREN'T ASBESTOS. BOMBS DON'T HOP OVER CARS TO IMPACT OTHERS. EXPLOTIONS DON'T RELEASE ENERGY ON TOP OF A BUILDING IF THEY GO OFF ON THE GROUND LEVEL. THE SURVIVORS WEREN'T POACHED BY 212 F DEGREE PYROCLASTIC FLOWS! I could go on with the absolutely retarded concoctions your side invents to explain the evidence but it would take another 400 pages. I don't need a degree to furgure out you're apeal to authority is sad evidence for CD. A MORON is a MORON is a MORON, degree or not.
Metamars hates popes being a born again who follows this anti-christ idiot like this...
Critics
Some critics have claimed that Jones's analysis is similar to that of other researchers which they have disputed in the past, including claims regarding photographic evidence of demolition charges, the claim that no major persistent fires were visible at WTC7, and what they say are selectively edited quotes from Bill Manning [4]and Stephen Gregory.
A few department chairmen at Jones's university have issued critical statements, though none of these has yet addressed any of the points which Jones made in his paper and at his presentation at BYU. Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims".
The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."[5] The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." [6]
Jones replied to the critique on December the 5th 2005, in the BYU NewsNet article "Censor rumors quelled"
He (Professor Jones) said he feels "a bit awkward" that some colleagues now question the peer review process his paper initially passed through. "My paper was peer-reviewed and accepted for publication before being made available on the Web with the editor’s approval," Jones said. "The reviewers included a physicist and an engineer, I now understand. The review has not been shown to have been inappropriate and I believe it was appropriate." Still, Jones said he willingly submitted his paper to another publication, where he is confident it will pass peer review a second time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones
Other debunking...
9/11: Debunking The Myths
PM examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/de...html?page=1&c=y
PBS Nova: Why the towers fell
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/
Whatever you believe about 9/11, the spreading of false claims helps no-one, and we’d like to play a small part in revealing some of them. We’re not about debunking entire conspiracies, then, but will use this site to zoom in on what we think are the more dubious stories, revealing the misquotes, the distortions, the inaccuracies that are so common online.
But does this make us an authority? No. If we’ve an overall message here, it’s check things for yourself. Don’t trust a site just because it’s telling you what you want to believe. Don’t believe us without evaluating our arguments and checking the references we provide, either (we’re as likely to make mistakes as anyone else). Look into the claims yourself, discover both sides of the argument, and make your own mind up. The truth deserves nothing less.
http://www.911myths.com/
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/
It seems the minions have been told by Rove to divide and conquer the liberals. I've seen this same tactic used by the right wing anti-evolution crowd. The swift boaters are now posing as liberals to split the vote come November. Good luck with that. Heh!
Critics
Some critics have claimed that Jones's analysis is similar to that of other researchers which they have disputed in the past, including claims regarding photographic evidence of demolition charges, the claim that no major persistent fires were visible at WTC7, and what they say are selectively edited quotes from Bill Manning [4]and Stephen Gregory.
A few department chairmen at Jones's university have issued critical statements, though none of these has yet addressed any of the points which Jones made in his paper and at his presentation at BYU. Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims".
The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."[5] The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." [6]
Jones replied to the critique on December the 5th 2005, in the BYU NewsNet article "Censor rumors quelled"
He (Professor Jones) said he feels "a bit awkward" that some colleagues now question the peer review process his paper initially passed through. "My paper was peer-reviewed and accepted for publication before being made available on the Web with the editor’s approval," Jones said. "The reviewers included a physicist and an engineer, I now understand. The review has not been shown to have been inappropriate and I believe it was appropriate." Still, Jones said he willingly submitted his paper to another publication, where he is confident it will pass peer review a second time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones
Other debunking...
9/11: Debunking The Myths
PM examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/de...html?page=1&c=y
PBS Nova: Why the towers fell
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/
Whatever you believe about 9/11, the spreading of false claims helps no-one, and we’d like to play a small part in revealing some of them. We’re not about debunking entire conspiracies, then, but will use this site to zoom in on what we think are the more dubious stories, revealing the misquotes, the distortions, the inaccuracies that are so common online.
But does this make us an authority? No. If we’ve an overall message here, it’s check things for yourself. Don’t trust a site just because it’s telling you what you want to believe. Don’t believe us without evaluating our arguments and checking the references we provide, either (we’re as likely to make mistakes as anyone else). Look into the claims yourself, discover both sides of the argument, and make your own mind up. The truth deserves nothing less.
http://www.911myths.com/
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/
It seems the minions have been told by Rove to divide and conquer the liberals. I've seen this same tactic used by the right wing anti-evolution crowd. The swift boaters are now posing as liberals to split the vote come November. Good luck with that. Heh!
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 13 2006, 12:57 AM)
How was it then possible for the floors to pull the walls in with a reduced force upon contraction, but not outwards upon expansion?
Gordon.
Brian. Here's tae us. Wha's like us?
Good questions.
The perimeter columns may have bowed outward slightly just after the fire started but may not have been noticed. The linear thermal expansion coefficient for steel is about 10E-5. Assuming a 600C temperature rise of the steel and a 60 foot long truss on the east side, that amounts to a lengthening of about 4.7 inches. For a 300C rise, it's about 2.3 inches. That may not have been noticed from pics. Also, the trusses may have already started sagging before the outward expansion had a chance to continue as the temperature increased.
The inward pull due to sag is different. It can continue to pull on perimeter columns once the sag has already occurred. It's more a geometrical issue and its effect can be much greater than that of thermal expansion. The perimeter columns (and the core columns if also hot) would continue to creep inward slowly at elevated temperature until the compressive forces of the building load on them caused them to buckle catastrophically. The inward bowing was something like 3 to 4 feet, more than an order of magnitude larger than any thermal expansion or contraction.
Even if the force along the length of a truss is at or below that needed to yield the truss, that doesn't mean that the columns can't be bent inward. That pull is occurring at roughly a right angle to the column. There's a lateral force on the column, as opposed to an axial force. It's easier to bend a long column than it is to compress or expand it along its longitudinal axis, as you would when measuring its yield stress.
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 13 2006, 12:57 AM)
Bearing in mind the situation where the floors were heated up and remembering that a 250 C temp rise, approx, will put a straight, constrained steel bar beyond yield strain, the floors had no option other than to absorb the strain, sag, push the perimeter columns outwards, or, more likely, a combination with proportionate magnitudes of all three.
That effective force, greater in magnitude than the yield stress load, and acting at close to ninety degrees, its most effective angle, was unable to push the columns out to any appreciable amount and the floors had to sag instead.
When the floors cooled, and presumably not by the full amount of the rise, some of the thermally induced strain would be relieved in the floors and they would wish to contract, and could do so by either pulling inwards on the walls, relieving and reversing their own strain and that in the columns, or reversing their sag, or, more likely, a combination of all three.
We know that the outward force, the effective load on expansion was greater than yield load.
We know that the inward force was less than yield force or it would have yielded, and also because of our reasoning above.
We know that the perimeter columns were no easier to pull inwards than outwards.
We know that the steel floors were at their hottest and weakest when carrying the full expansive strain and at their coldest and strongest when carrying the contraction strain.
We know that the mass did not get bigger and thus increase the vertical force.
How was it then possible for the floors to pull the walls in with a reduced force upon contraction, but not outwards upon expansion?
Gordon.
Brian. Here's tae us. Wha's like us?
Hi gordon. Once the floor structures had DEFORMED and SAGGED, contraction would have been more than just 'recovery' to the 'original position'....since they no longer retained their pristine geometry. Plus by that time, as some images show, many floors HAD separated at certain points....due probably to impact and further internal falls of debris during column deformation shifting burning rubble before full local collapse. And we have to consider that the 'expanding' floor trusses (while still attached) could only 'bias' the perimeter columns only as far as the floor trusses could 'extend' at whatever temps they were at and before the truss geometry was compromised by the strut failures and the floor sagged in before 'full extendsion' was reached outwards. But when they contracted, they would have been effectively 'shortened/sagged/distorted' so as to present a greater force/distance INWARDS....which may explain why floor trusses/connections may have been under GREATER strain later, during contraction, rather than earlier, during 'expansion' phase....and the loss of strength in the connections by that time (through heating, cooling 'workhardening/microfracturing' etc) should also be considered.
The earlier/later aspect also may have been critical as to when 'failures' started to 'accumulate' in various structures.
For example, the fires took time to do the extension damage/weakening, the vertical loads 'per unit column' would have been increasing as more and more loads were being tranferred back and forth between the core and perimeter structures through the hat truss in that unstable and dynamic situation. Such 'see-sawing' of loads-transfers' would be expected as first one structure gave a little, and then another structure gave a little more etc....until the 'juggling act' between core and outer structures had no more 'leeway' to accomodate the escalating failures here and there "chaotically" because there were too many possible connection-failure points and column 'geometric/creep' shifts amongst all the elements affected for it to have been otherwise (unless one can pinpoint and quantify EVERY SINGLE BIT OF DAMAGE TO EVERY SINGLE CONNECTOR/STRUCTURE).
That's a quick response in the same spirit of your post. Does it have any obvious merit/flaws that you can see?
RC.
.
That effective force, greater in magnitude than the yield stress load, and acting at close to ninety degrees, its most effective angle, was unable to push the columns out to any appreciable amount and the floors had to sag instead.
When the floors cooled, and presumably not by the full amount of the rise, some of the thermally induced strain would be relieved in the floors and they would wish to contract, and could do so by either pulling inwards on the walls, relieving and reversing their own strain and that in the columns, or reversing their sag, or, more likely, a combination of all three.
We know that the outward force, the effective load on expansion was greater than yield load.
We know that the inward force was less than yield force or it would have yielded, and also because of our reasoning above.
We know that the perimeter columns were no easier to pull inwards than outwards.
We know that the steel floors were at their hottest and weakest when carrying the full expansive strain and at their coldest and strongest when carrying the contraction strain.
We know that the mass did not get bigger and thus increase the vertical force.
How was it then possible for the floors to pull the walls in with a reduced force upon contraction, but not outwards upon expansion?
Gordon.
Brian. Here's tae us. Wha's like us?
Hi gordon. Once the floor structures had DEFORMED and SAGGED, contraction would have been more than just 'recovery' to the 'original position'....since they no longer retained their pristine geometry. Plus by that time, as some images show, many floors HAD separated at certain points....due probably to impact and further internal falls of debris during column deformation shifting burning rubble before full local collapse. And we have to consider that the 'expanding' floor trusses (while still attached) could only 'bias' the perimeter columns only as far as the floor trusses could 'extend' at whatever temps they were at and before the truss geometry was compromised by the strut failures and the floor sagged in before 'full extendsion' was reached outwards. But when they contracted, they would have been effectively 'shortened/sagged/distorted' so as to present a greater force/distance INWARDS....which may explain why floor trusses/connections may have been under GREATER strain later, during contraction, rather than earlier, during 'expansion' phase....and the loss of strength in the connections by that time (through heating, cooling 'workhardening/microfracturing' etc) should also be considered.
The earlier/later aspect also may have been critical as to when 'failures' started to 'accumulate' in various structures.
For example, the fires took time to do the extension damage/weakening, the vertical loads 'per unit column' would have been increasing as more and more loads were being tranferred back and forth between the core and perimeter structures through the hat truss in that unstable and dynamic situation. Such 'see-sawing' of loads-transfers' would be expected as first one structure gave a little, and then another structure gave a little more etc....until the 'juggling act' between core and outer structures had no more 'leeway' to accomodate the escalating failures here and there "chaotically" because there were too many possible connection-failure points and column 'geometric/creep' shifts amongst all the elements affected for it to have been otherwise (unless one can pinpoint and quantify EVERY SINGLE BIT OF DAMAGE TO EVERY SINGLE CONNECTOR/STRUCTURE).
That's a quick response in the same spirit of your post. Does it have any obvious merit/flaws that you can see?
RC.
.
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 13 2006, 12:57 AM)
Gordon.
Brian. Here's tae us. Wha's like us?
damn few.
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 12 2006, 09:15 PM)
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 13 2006, 12:57 AM)
How was it then possible for the floors to pull the walls in with a reduced force upon contraction, but not outwards upon expansion?
Gordon.
Brian. Here's tae us. Wha's like us?
Good questions.
The perimeter columns may have bowed outward slightly just after the fire started but may not have been noticed. The linear thermal expansion coefficient for steel is about 10E-5. Assuming a 600C temperature rise of the steel and a 60 foot long truss on the east side, that amounts to a lengthening of about 4.7 inches. For a 300C rise, it's about 2.3 inches. That may not have been noticed from pics. Also, the trusses may have already started sagging before the outward expansion had a chance to continue as the temperature increased.
The inward pull due to sag is different. It can continue to pull on perimeter columns once the sag has already occurred. It's more a geometrical issue and its effect can be much greater than that of thermal expansion. The perimeter columns (and the core columns if also hot) would continue to creep inward slowly at elevated temperature until the compressive forces of the building load on them caused them to buckle catastrophically. The inward bowing was something like 3 to 4 feet, more than an order of magnitude larger than any thermal expansion or contraction.
Even if the force along the length of a truss is at or below that needed to yield the truss, that doesn't mean that the columns can't be bent inward. That pull is occurring at roughly a right angle to the column. There's a lateral force on the column, as opposed to an axial force. It's easier to bend a long column than it is to compress or expand it along its longitudinal axis, as you would when measuring its yield stress.
gordon continues to play stupid to the cooling effect explained in the NIST report. He KNOWS the fires spread, heated the steel trusses then contracted as the most intense fire moved away consuming more office furniture elsewhere. Simple yet gordon wants to act like christopher and pretend ignorance just to be able to ask the question again and hook some other ignorant joe.
I don't have a degree but I know sagged steel isn't going to straighten out by itself. This is exactly the shait I'm talking about. You don't need a degree to see these people are pulling shait straight out their a$$.
It was also more than one truss. It was a number of floors on a given wall which pulled the columns in together. As even I know, you have to combine the stories together which pulled in the perimeter.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 12 2006, 10:21 PM)
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 13 2006, 12:57 AM)
Gordon.
Brian. Here's tae us. Wha's like us?
damn few.
Well THAT is the first GOOD news I've read in a while.
Arthur
.
Hehehe.
Hehehe.
I don't have a degree but I know sagged steel isn't going to straighten out by itself.
And you certainly will not get an engineering degree if you persist with statements like the above.
Get a steel rod and clamp it into two vices on the same work bench. Now heat it up. It will sag because it cannot expand lengthwise due to the vices, and it will continue to expand till it is red hot, then it will contract for a bit, depending upon its carbon content, and then it will continue to expand as you increase the temperature. When you stop applying heat it will contract, expand then contract again in a reverse manner to the expansion.
When it has returned to ambient temperature it will be the same length, with the same sag as it had when you started.
Gordon
An they're aw deid.
And you certainly will not get an engineering degree if you persist with statements like the above.
Get a steel rod and clamp it into two vices on the same work bench. Now heat it up. It will sag because it cannot expand lengthwise due to the vices, and it will continue to expand till it is red hot, then it will contract for a bit, depending upon its carbon content, and then it will continue to expand as you increase the temperature. When you stop applying heat it will contract, expand then contract again in a reverse manner to the expansion.
When it has returned to ambient temperature it will be the same length, with the same sag as it had when you started.
Gordon
An they're aw deid.
Note also that the sides of the towers that were buckled were the east side of the south tower and the south side of the north tower, the floor sections that were the longest (60 feet) from core to perimeter. That's consistent with the fact that long trusses would tend to sag more readily than short ones. Those longer sections are also heavier and better able to pull inward.
The sides the aircraft struck didn't buckle because there were no floor sections still connected there to pull those sides in. Also, the loads that would have been there got redistributed to the core and other perimeter sides that weren't struck. Those sides that had to carry the extra loads were more susceptible to buckling, especially the ones connected by 60 foot-long trusses and ones that were in regions where the fires were the worst (east side of south tower; south side of north tower once the fires spread to that region).
The sides the aircraft struck didn't buckle because there were no floor sections still connected there to pull those sides in. Also, the loads that would have been there got redistributed to the core and other perimeter sides that weren't struck. Those sides that had to carry the extra loads were more susceptible to buckling, especially the ones connected by 60 foot-long trusses and ones that were in regions where the fires were the worst (east side of south tower; south side of north tower once the fires spread to that region).
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 13 2006, 03:09 AM)
I don't have a degree but I know sagged steel isn't going to straighten out by itself.
And you certainly will not get an engineering degree if you persist with statements like the above.
Get a steel rod and clamp it into two vices on the same work bench. Now heat it up. It will sag because it cannot expand lengthwise due to the vices, and it will continue to expand till it is red hot, then it will contract for a bit, depending upon its carbon content, and then it will continue to expand as you increase the temperature. When you stop applying heat it will contract, expand then contract again in a reverse manner to the expansion.
When it has returned to ambient temperature it will be the same length, with the same sag as it had when you started.
Gordon
An they're aw deid.
Hi gordon. Your bar is not part of a larger load-bearing structure dependent on many geometries/interconnections that have lost original function/form. The floor trusses were complex sructures that would have many variables acting during non-uniform heating, sagging, contraction.
RC.
.
And you certainly will not get an engineering degree if you persist with statements like the above.
Get a steel rod and clamp it into two vices on the same work bench. Now heat it up. It will sag because it cannot expand lengthwise due to the vices, and it will continue to expand till it is red hot, then it will contract for a bit, depending upon its carbon content, and then it will continue to expand as you increase the temperature. When you stop applying heat it will contract, expand then contract again in a reverse manner to the expansion.
When it has returned to ambient temperature it will be the same length, with the same sag as it had when you started.
Gordon
An they're aw deid.
Hi gordon. Your bar is not part of a larger load-bearing structure dependent on many geometries/interconnections that have lost original function/form. The floor trusses were complex sructures that would have many variables acting during non-uniform heating, sagging, contraction.
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 13 2006, 01:42 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 13 2006, 12:52 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 12 2006, 10:41 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 12 2006, 10:06 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 12 2006, 09:05 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 12 2006, 06:47 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 12 2006, 05:38 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 12 2006, 04:50 AM)
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 12 2006, 04:36 AM)
YET ANOTHER BLUNDEROUS OMISSION IN HIS SO-CALLED 'ANALYSES' WHICH IMPRESS YOU SO MUCH?
I must have missed that bit. Perhaps you could fill me in on just one point that you have made which doen't ramble on about drivel that has little or nothing to do with the subject with the odd adjective or verb thrown in just because you have heard it somewhere on your troubleshooting/varied /groundbreaking/(insert more blowhard egobosting words here) history and think that you will sound good to some other no-mark who is similarly clueless.
Let's be clear here. An education in a subject also confers the ability to assess the knowledge of others.
Gordon.
Thank-you. I was about to waste more time answering "Reality Check's" nonsense and obfuscation, but you have saved me the time.
I might add: take a representative sample of Gordon's posts, and a representative sample of "Reality Check's" posts, to ANY physicist or engineer at a local university, and ask a simple question:
Which is written by a technically competent person, and which is drivel?
Do be kind enough to post the responses you get, properly sourced, of course.
Metamars, I'm sure even YOU could randomly put together impressive-looking equations and numbers and terms STRAIGHT OUT OF A TEXTBOOK....while not understanding AT ALL THEIR MEANING AND OR USAGE IN ANY WAY.
The important thing is COMPREHENSION, not mindless COPYING AND PASTING some totally erroneous textbook terms to 'dress up' totally incompetent analysis constructs.
Haven't you learnt ANYTHING from the debacle with Jones and Hoffman et al? THEY ARE SUPPOSED PROFESSORS, FOR GOODNESS' SAKE...and look at the hash THEY made of the 'equations/figures', heh? Wake up and smell reality....numbers and equations are no substitute for objective observation and logical comprehension. HOW DO YOU THINK ALL THOSE EQUATIONS AND PRINCIPLES GOT FIGURED OUT IN THE FIRST PLACE?...it was those observations and logical comprehensions that allowed mathematical constructs to be created/refined TO REPRESENT THAT REALITY BEING LOGICALLY COMPREHENDED IN THE FIRST PLACE BY 'SCIENTIFIC METHOD' OBSERVATION and later REPRODUCTION VIA MATHEMATICAL REPRESENTATIONS OF SAME.
Have you learned anything from that? If nothing else, take away the point that 'numbers' mean NOTHING without comprehension and context (statistics/survey constructs/analyses are PERFECT examples where the truth is NOT ALWAYS in the NUMBERS, but in the CONTEXT). And in the case of 9/11, the physics is in context only insofar as it can be demonstrated to be 'prosaic' and everyday processes/principles involved in EXTRAORDINARILY CHAOTIC AND HUMONGOUS DYNAMICS.
Once you accept that a lot of things could be happening all over the place during that chaos, then you probably won't feel so much need to invoke space lasers and space aliens and 'mysterious energy' flows. Common sense will do the job.
Lame. Your continued avoidance of even any attempt to be precise, when you could be (that is, if you really are a "scientist", with expertise or even basic knowledge in physics and chemistry), strikes me as nothing more than a way to avoid being shown up for the spewer of drivel that you are.
And, as you have been shown to be a spewer of drivel even in a qualitative way, I don't believe for a second that you are a scientist.
I note, once again, that NIST and FEMA eschewed your "wonderful insights" for the relevance of chaos theory in understanding the collapses. Even in a mumbo jumbo, non-technical way that you specialize in, where it difficult to say where and how, exactly, your thinking is off because you are so unclear in presenting anything resembling a coherent argument. Apparently, in your own mind, your invocation of chaos to explain away anything you can't, otherwise, is a real contribution. But even NIST and FEMA didn't stoop this low!
When are you going to contact NIST and FEMA to let them imbibe of your wisdom? You woulnd't want to leave them in a state of ignorance, now, would you?
And I repeat, if YOU aren't satisfied with common sense, and INSIST that "THEY" did it, then why don't you take the time and trouble to come up with consistent physics explanations in support? Don't you think the victims of 9/11 DESERVE that little bit of effort from YOU, since you maintain that there is an official govt. conspiracy to cover the murder of all their family/friends. You say that the govt did it, but do you take the trouble to prove any of it for the sake of the victims? No. Obviously. You're too lazy; or too not-enamoured-after-all with your own stupidity. That's what comes across, met. I don't care what you think of me. I don't HAVE to care about what lazy stupid peoiple think of me. I care about YOU doing science and everyone involved a disservice by your unsubstantiated UFO/CT bulldust.
RC.
I reject the "common sense" premise of your first question. Indeed, as should be obvious to any reader of this thread (including yourself), we find the "common sense" of the NIST apologists to often be laughable - and yours may be the most laughable of all, though you do have lots of stiff competition. (We really should have a poll to settle the matter. )
Indeed, did I not just recently point out, again, that the more improbable your notion, the more you need to make it quantitative in the hopes of possibly rescuing it? Did you think that I meant "improbable in the mind of the spewer of such drivel"? I did not.
Having put the lie to this obvious twist of propaganda, your question about a physics question is a fair one, though I digress to once again point out the difference between disproving one assertion, and proving one at odds with it.
<begin digression>
If you claim that little green fairies took down the towers, and I say "no, they were taking down with thermite", but fail to prove this claim, that does not mean that the little green faires are indeed the culprits. Perhaps to a believer in Fairy Tales, yes, but you are a scientist, so you know better. Right?
<end digression>
I'm not sure what you mean by "consistent", but I will presume you mean "non-contradictory".
I also presume that that a comprehensive account is desirable. This is certainly my view.
So the question arises: how "comprehensive" is "comprehensive"? I recently introduced the distinction between what I call the strong and weak forms of the NIST'ian hand waving re "global collapse ensued". As NIST carries out their wonderful analysis by closing their eyes to all the anomalies, most all of which point away from their Fairy Tale intuition, should I also carry out a "comprehensive" analysis wherein I also close my eyes to evidence - much of it extraordinary - which argues against NIST's intuition?
If you answer "no, don't ignore these phenomena, also" then please explain to me why it's OK for NIST to do so.
If you answer "yes, ignore these phenomena", then I will deal with your question accordingly.
* Your question being:
I reject the "common sense" premise of your first question. Indeed, as should be obvious to any reader of this thread (including yourself), we find the "common sense" of the NIST apologists to often be laughable - and yours may be the most laughable of all, though you do have lots of stiff competition. (We really should have a poll to settle the matter. )
Indeed, did I not just recently point out, again, that the more improbable your notion, the more you need to make it quantitative in the hopes of possibly rescuing it? Did you think that I meant "improbable in the mind of the spewer of such drivel"? I did not.
Having put the lie to this obvious twist of propaganda, your question about a physics question is a fair one, though I digress to once again point out the difference between disproving one assertion, and proving one at odds with it.
<begin digression>
If you claim that little green fairies took down the towers, and I say "no, they were taking down with thermite", but fail to prove this claim, that does not mean that the little green faires are indeed the culprits. Perhaps to a believer in Fairy Tales, yes, but you are a scientist, so you know better. Right?
<end digression>
I'm not sure what you mean by "consistent", but I will presume you mean "non-contradictory".
I also presume that that a comprehensive account is desirable. This is certainly my view.
So the question arises: how "comprehensive" is "comprehensive"? I recently introduced the distinction between what I call the strong and weak forms of the NIST'ian hand waving re "global collapse ensued". As NIST carries out their wonderful analysis by closing their eyes to all the anomalies, most all of which point away from their Fairy Tale intuition, should I also carry out a "comprehensive" analysis wherein I also close my eyes to evidence - much of it extraordinary - which argues against NIST's intuition?
If you answer "no, don't ignore these phenomena, also" then please explain to me why it's OK for NIST to do so.
If you answer "yes, ignore these phenomena", then I will deal with your question accordingly.
* Your question being:
if YOU aren't satisfied with common sense, and INSIST that "THEY" did it, then why don't you take the time and trouble to come up with consistent physics explanations in support?
Hi metamars! Are the space Lasers in position yet? Which 'spire' shall we disintegrate today?
Really metamars, just what is it you have against Randomness and Chaos where such widespread dynamic energies are involved?
Doesn't the video evidence of many unscathed cars, people, plants etc in an event where others WERE hit and set on fire by embers/debris, tell you the OBVIOUS? Where's the need for me to waste MY time 'quantifying' and 'numerating' things for YOU?
After all, YOU are the one with the crazy assertions. I merely comment on what I see AND LEAVE IT AT THAT if I am satisfied with the Occam's Razor outcomes.
I repeat, why don't YOU do all that 'quantifying' you demand of others? You seem to be MOTIVATED enough but TOO lazy, is that it?
So, if YOU are TOO LAZY to try and SUBSTANTIATE/SUPPORT your own wild assertions, how can you stand there with a straight face and accuse ME of not wanting to do your work for you? It is not I that has to support one conspiracy theory hypothesis after another, now is it? Or didn't you read where I said I was only in this for presenting YOUNGER Physorgforumers with an alternative view and common principles/analogies which present something for these youngsters to get their teeth into and look up for themselves....instead of just 'believing' you and your pseudo-scientific assinine and hypocritical bleating about what OTHERS should do FOR YOU...when you should be here doing 'science' for YOURSELF and your assertions, heh?
I am not asserting anything here, I am just replying to YOURS and others' assertions. OK?
So quit whining about others, and instead go ahead and REFUTE WHAT THEY SAY USING YOUR OWN 'WORK' to support what YOU are blathering on about. Fair enough?
Where's YOUR quantitative physics/analysis for whatever YOU are hypothesising, metamars? If it's so allfired important to you, why not do a THESIS on your conspiracy 'anomalies'. You are a university student are you not? If what you say is so important and true, then YOU TOO may become as famous as Jones et al! Think of joining that illustrious BYU 'hotbed of incompetence' (note that even that 'useless christian science' university has had enough of being painted with the same brush that Jones is being painted into a corner with daily).
BTW, metamars.....YOU'RE not a student of Jones at BYU, are you? That would explain a lot. He was too lazy to check his facts re Hoffman and other sources too. It wouldn't surprise me if that's where gordon got his 'one-dimensional' analysis constructs from, either. That's a great christian education you can get at BYU.....except they LEAVE OUT anything that is inconsistent with their 'beliefs'.....some scientists you and gordon are emulating for all you're worth, mate. I pity you and any other youngster mesmerised by a "christian" conman of such 'integrity' in matters of ethics and application of the scientific method.
Get back to Jones' class, metamars, the bell's gone. Cheers!
RC.
.
More blathering to avoid even more embarassment, eh? Let's try this one more time:
I'm not sure what you mean by "consistent", but I will presume you mean "non-contradictory".
I also presume that that a comprehensive account is desirable. This is certainly my view.
So the question arises: how "comprehensive" is "comprehensive"? I recently introduced the distinction between what I call the strong and weak forms of the NIST'ian hand waving re "global collapse ensued". As NIST carries out their wonderful analysis by closing their eyes to all the anomalies, most all of which point away from their Fairy Tale intuition, should I also carry out a "comprehensive" analysis wherein I also close my eyes to evidence - much of it extraordinary - which argues against NIST's intuition?
If you answer "no, don't ignore these phenomena, also" then please explain to me why it's OK for NIST to do so.
If you answer "yes, ignore these phenomena", then I will deal with your question accordingly.
.
.
* Your question being:
As far as your statement:
Or didn't you read where I said I was only in this for presenting YOUNGER Physorgforumers with an alternative view and common principles/analogies which present something for these youngsters to get their teeth into and look up for themselves
I would think that if you had any real concern for "YOUNGER" forum members, that you at least would take the time to put forth a coherent argument every 100 pages or so. Do you think that forcing "YOUNGER" members to wade through your James Joyce style of drivel might not drive them away from science? Do you think that maybe, just maybe, you labeling yourself as a scientist and then spamming this board with your drivel might not make some "YOUNGER" members give up on science?? Has it not occurred to you that your drivel, ascribed to a scientist such as yourself, might not permanently prejudice a young mind against a career in science?
From where I sit, you have about as much concern for "YOUNGER" forum members as you do for understanding the WTC collapses, as you possess any real scientific training - which is to say, none at all.
Oh dear! YOU make all the assinine assertions and I'M the one being embarrassed? Right THERE you prove how hypocritical you are, metamars.
I am only obliged to point to reasonable conjecture regarding the phenomena which you point to in your wild speculations. Is it my fault that your speculations don't stand up to even cursory scrutiny?
And STILL you evade the point that YOU are not doing what YOU demand of others, even though Schneibster et al have refuted the original basis for the CD conspiracy theories invoking 'free fall', exotic weapons, etc etc.
Mate, get a grip and look at yourself before going on about your perceived shortcomings in others, heh?
DO YOU INTEND TO DO ANY MORE FOR YOUR 'QUEST FOR TRUTH' THAN MERELY ASKING OTHERS TO ANTE UP THINGS WHICH THEY NEVER HAD TO DO IN THE FIRST PLACE?
Hey metamars, if your OWN 'motives' and 'science' are so woefully inadequate to the task, who are YOU to say what youngsters need? I'll tell you what they need, LESS BS and hypocrisy from YOU, for a start. Anything I say here that gets a youngster to at least stop and question all the exotic Bulldust YOU deal out is pure gravy as far as future science is concerned. Let's DO leave it to them, heh? And what have they said so far.....nothing in support of YOU, that's clear enough....or else they would be coming to bat for your side in droves, wouldn't they? See reality, act accordingly, and stop fart-arsing about and GET TO WORK on that thesis which will make you as (in)famous as Jones! Can't wait for more 'professional' "christian science" from those who let 'beliefs' dictate to their scientific integrity.
Those youngsters AT LEAST are getting an object lesson from you and your cohort as to what NOT to do if you want to be respected in REAL scientific quarters. Shame on you.
RC.
.
Your answer is both as scientific, and to the point, as most all your other posts.
In case you hadn't noticed (you certainly at least pretend not to), it was mostly you who was singled out for criticism ito not being quantitative. And, indeed, of not even making an attempt.
Meanwhile, it is you who 1) claims to be a scientist and 2) certainly doesn't talk like one.
Furthermore, it is you who has referred to Jones and Hoffman as "idiots".
You were challenged, essentially, to put up or shut up, and you have, as expected, completely failed the test.
I have never claimed to be a scientist, and still have attempted, on numerous occassions, to be be quantititive, within the limits of my ability. As you have commented on at least some of these posts, you are completely aware of this fact. Your pretense otherwise speaks to your dishonesty.
Indeed, I recently sketched out a calculation re Hoffman to get (hopefully) a better idea of what sort of temperature drop off one might expect. My posts on this subject make it crystal clear that anything I determine from such a crude calculation - one way or another - will in no way obviate the desirability of a full blown treatment employing fluid hydrodynamics.
This is consistent with how, I am sure, an inquisitive, even scientific, mind works. Can you imagine Einstein blathering on about the principles - oh!, excuse me, the PRINCIPLES - of physics, like yourself? I sure can't. When he had some ideas that were the germ of general relativity, but realized he didn't have the appropriate mathematical background, he sought out a mathematician who could teach him differential geometry.
He did not say "I'm a scientist, listen to my bloviations about physics PRINCIPLES, and by the way, you guys are idiots".
The difference between these two approaches are like night and day.
I don't believe you're capable of doing any insightful physics calcs wrt to the collapses (in other words, I don't believe you're a scientist with any relevant background and/or expertise. Perhaps you're a plant botanist, or something equally ill-suited, but that's about it.) Furthermore, if you really are capable, then it's still quite clear you have no interest in understanding the collapses.
Your concern about "YOUNGSTERS" is yet another smokescreen, for one thing you surely are is a propagandist. Obfuscating a serious issue does nobody any good, including young people. The only people it can possibly help are the perpetrators.
At least Schneibster and, yes, even adoucette, are/were capable of making some excellent points. I have trouble of thinking of even one that you have made. Your signal to noise ratio is so low, that you are clearly in the same region as "Common Sense" - and communicate about as effectively, though your contorted "stream of consciousness" sentence structures are quite different from his.
Thus, even compared to your fellow popes, you occupy a lowly station. It was suggested to Common Sense (IIRC) earlier in this thread that he "retire". I now repeat that same suggestion to you. You do not even help your side in the debate, as least as observed by rational people. Your only contribution to your "side", in this regard, is to exhaust the patience of potential participants who don't want to deal with your blathering, which inevitably becomes peppered with ad hominems.
Stop whining and namedropping (Einstein! no less!) and get to work on your thesis on the physics anomalies in 9/11.
What do you not undersatnd about my "RealityCheck" function? Let me make it simple, I ASK the questions and PUT alternative views to those ASSERTIONS MADE BY OTHERS (and that means YOU). I have stated many times I'm too busy with other things to go through unnecessary 'hoops' when Occam's Razor does the job.
And UNTIL YOU, who MAKE the assertions in the first place are able to refure EVEN THOSE BASIC ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESES, why should anyone take you seriously enough when YOU won't put in the hard yards FOR YOURSELF.
It may have escaped your notice that, UNLIKE you and Einstein, I don't have any particular barrow to push HERE....and so I concentrate my time and efforts on those things I DO want to further.
So why DON'T you take a leaf out of Einstein's book and, as you say, learn the necessaries to support your assertions BEFORE you bring your half-arsed assertions here to be laughed at?
What's YOUR agenda? If it IS science proper, THEN WHY DON'T YOU GO AND DO SOME, AND THEN COME BACK AND MAKE YOUR ASSERTIONS SUPPORTED by your OWN work.
You are hypocritical and unscientific in your own 'methods' and attitudes, and then you have the nerve to criticise others.
Read my lips: I don't DO what YOU want. I DO what I want to do ever since I started at Physorg. And that is to test assertions made by OTHERS, who apparently have a barrow to push and don't care a whit about science and logic, just their agendas.
For your information, matamars, ANYONE WITH THE GUTS AND INTEGRITY AND LOGIC TO APPLY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS IPSO FACTO A 'SCIENTIST'. OK? You and Jones et al are OBVIOUSLY NOT scientists in that tradition....you are 'convenient/expedient' pseudo-scientists who have overlain an agenda on the scientific method and made a mockery of same.
Tell me honestly, do you have complete trust in the competence and integrity of Jones? Does the fact that even his own BYU fellows see through him not tell you something about all this 'anomalies' business you keep parroting without supporting....just like Jones?
Come and tell me I'm not a scientist when you yourself are worthy of that name.
RC.
.
This post is a real prize, even for you. Most of your questions, as well as assertions, are lies and/or distortions. Even the premises of most of your questions are manipulative distortions. Need I add that you mostly evaded answering my questions and points, once again?
I don't have the time to point out your nonsense and propaganda, yet again.
Have a pleasant stay in your pseudo-reality. I hope they give you a Nobel Prize, in your pseudo-realistic parallel universe, for you surely deserve one.
I am done with you.
I must have missed that bit. Perhaps you could fill me in on just one point that you have made which doen't ramble on about drivel that has little or nothing to do with the subject with the odd adjective or verb thrown in just because you have heard it somewhere on your troubleshooting/varied /groundbreaking/(insert more blowhard egobosting words here) history and think that you will sound good to some other no-mark who is similarly clueless.
Let's be clear here. An education in a subject also confers the ability to assess the knowledge of others.
Gordon.
Thank-you. I was about to waste more time answering "Reality Check's" nonsense and obfuscation, but you have saved me the time.
I might add: take a representative sample of Gordon's posts, and a representative sample of "Reality Check's" posts, to ANY physicist or engineer at a local university, and ask a simple question:
Which is written by a technically competent person, and which is drivel?
Do be kind enough to post the responses you get, properly sourced, of course.
Metamars, I'm sure even YOU could randomly put together impressive-looking equations and numbers and terms STRAIGHT OUT OF A TEXTBOOK....while not understanding AT ALL THEIR MEANING AND OR USAGE IN ANY WAY.
The important thing is COMPREHENSION, not mindless COPYING AND PASTING some totally erroneous textbook terms to 'dress up' totally incompetent analysis constructs.
Haven't you learnt ANYTHING from the debacle with Jones and Hoffman et al? THEY ARE SUPPOSED PROFESSORS, FOR GOODNESS' SAKE...and look at the hash THEY made of the 'equations/figures', heh? Wake up and smell reality....numbers and equations are no substitute for objective observation and logical comprehension. HOW DO YOU THINK ALL THOSE EQUATIONS AND PRINCIPLES GOT FIGURED OUT IN THE FIRST PLACE?...it was those observations and logical comprehensions that allowed mathematical constructs to be created/refined TO REPRESENT THAT REALITY BEING LOGICALLY COMPREHENDED IN THE FIRST PLACE BY 'SCIENTIFIC METHOD' OBSERVATION and later REPRODUCTION VIA MATHEMATICAL REPRESENTATIONS OF SAME.
Have you learned anything from that? If nothing else, take away the point that 'numbers' mean NOTHING without comprehension and context (statistics/survey constructs/analyses are PERFECT examples where the truth is NOT ALWAYS in the NUMBERS, but in the CONTEXT). And in the case of 9/11, the physics is in context only insofar as it can be demonstrated to be 'prosaic' and everyday processes/principles involved in EXTRAORDINARILY CHAOTIC AND HUMONGOUS DYNAMICS.
Once you accept that a lot of things could be happening all over the place during that chaos, then you probably won't feel so much need to invoke space lasers and space aliens and 'mysterious energy' flows. Common sense will do the job.
Lame. Your continued avoidance of even any attempt to be precise, when you could be (that is, if you really are a "scientist", with expertise or even basic knowledge in physics and chemistry), strikes me as nothing more than a way to avoid being shown up for the spewer of drivel that you are.
And, as you have been shown to be a spewer of drivel even in a qualitative way, I don't believe for a second that you are a scientist.
I note, once again, that NIST and FEMA eschewed your "wonderful insights" for the relevance of chaos theory in understanding the collapses. Even in a mumbo jumbo, non-technical way that you specialize in, where it difficult to say where and how, exactly, your thinking is off because you are so unclear in presenting anything resembling a coherent argument. Apparently, in your own mind, your invocation of chaos to explain away anything you can't, otherwise, is a real contribution. But even NIST and FEMA didn't stoop this low!
When are you going to contact NIST and FEMA to let them imbibe of your wisdom? You woulnd't want to leave them in a state of ignorance, now, would you?
QUOTE
And I repeat, if YOU aren't satisfied with common sense, and INSIST that "THEY" did it, then why don't you take the time and trouble to come up with consistent physics explanations in support? Don't you think the victims of 9/11 DESERVE that little bit of effort from YOU, since you maintain that there is an official govt. conspiracy to cover the murder of all their family/friends. You say that the govt did it, but do you take the trouble to prove any of it for the sake of the victims? No. Obviously. You're too lazy; or too not-enamoured-after-all with your own stupidity. That's what comes across, met. I don't care what you think of me. I don't HAVE to care about what lazy stupid peoiple think of me. I care about YOU doing science and everyone involved a disservice by your unsubstantiated UFO/CT bulldust.
RC.
I reject the "common sense" premise of your first question. Indeed, as should be obvious to any reader of this thread (including yourself), we find the "common sense" of the NIST apologists to often be laughable - and yours may be the most laughable of all, though you do have lots of stiff competition. (We really should have a poll to settle the matter. )
Indeed, did I not just recently point out, again, that the more improbable your notion, the more you need to make it quantitative in the hopes of possibly rescuing it? Did you think that I meant "improbable in the mind of the spewer of such drivel"? I did not.
Having put the lie to this obvious twist of propaganda, your question about a physics question is a fair one, though I digress to once again point out the difference between disproving one assertion, and proving one at odds with it.
<begin digression>
If you claim that little green fairies took down the towers, and I say "no, they were taking down with thermite", but fail to prove this claim, that does not mean that the little green faires are indeed the culprits. Perhaps to a believer in Fairy Tales, yes, but you are a scientist, so you know better. Right?
<end digression>
I'm not sure what you mean by "consistent", but I will presume you mean "non-contradictory".
I also presume that that a comprehensive account is desirable. This is certainly my view.
So the question arises: how "comprehensive" is "comprehensive"? I recently introduced the distinction between what I call the strong and weak forms of the NIST'ian hand waving re "global collapse ensued". As NIST carries out their wonderful analysis by closing their eyes to all the anomalies, most all of which point away from their Fairy Tale intuition, should I also carry out a "comprehensive" analysis wherein I also close my eyes to evidence - much of it extraordinary - which argues against NIST's intuition?
If you answer "no, don't ignore these phenomena, also" then please explain to me why it's OK for NIST to do so.
If you answer "yes, ignore these phenomena", then I will deal with your question accordingly.
* Your question being:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
And I repeat, if YOU aren't satisfied with common sense, and INSIST that "THEY" did it, then why don't you take the time and trouble to come up with consistent physics explanations in support? Don't you think the victims of 9/11 DESERVE that little bit of effort from YOU, since you maintain that there is an official govt. conspiracy to cover the murder of all their family/friends. You say that the govt did it, but do you take the trouble to prove any of it for the sake of the victims? No. Obviously. You're too lazy; or too not-enamoured-after-all with your own stupidity. That's what comes across, met. I don't care what you think of me. I don't HAVE to care about what lazy stupid peoiple think of me. I care about YOU doing science and everyone involved a disservice by your unsubstantiated UFO/CT bulldust. RC. |
I reject the "common sense" premise of your first question. Indeed, as should be obvious to any reader of this thread (including yourself), we find the "common sense" of the NIST apologists to often be laughable - and yours may be the most laughable of all, though you do have lots of stiff competition. (We really should have a poll to settle the matter. )
Indeed, did I not just recently point out, again, that the more improbable your notion, the more you need to make it quantitative in the hopes of possibly rescuing it? Did you think that I meant "improbable in the mind of the spewer of such drivel"? I did not.
Having put the lie to this obvious twist of propaganda, your question about a physics question is a fair one, though I digress to once again point out the difference between disproving one assertion, and proving one at odds with it.
<begin digression>
If you claim that little green fairies took down the towers, and I say "no, they were taking down with thermite", but fail to prove this claim, that does not mean that the little green faires are indeed the culprits. Perhaps to a believer in Fairy Tales, yes, but you are a scientist, so you know better. Right?
<end digression>
I'm not sure what you mean by "consistent", but I will presume you mean "non-contradictory".
I also presume that that a comprehensive account is desirable. This is certainly my view.
So the question arises: how "comprehensive" is "comprehensive"? I recently introduced the distinction between what I call the strong and weak forms of the NIST'ian hand waving re "global collapse ensued". As NIST carries out their wonderful analysis by closing their eyes to all the anomalies, most all of which point away from their Fairy Tale intuition, should I also carry out a "comprehensive" analysis wherein I also close my eyes to evidence - much of it extraordinary - which argues against NIST's intuition?
If you answer "no, don't ignore these phenomena, also" then please explain to me why it's OK for NIST to do so.
If you answer "yes, ignore these phenomena", then I will deal with your question accordingly.
* Your question being:
if YOU aren't satisfied with common sense, and INSIST that "THEY" did it, then why don't you take the time and trouble to come up with consistent physics explanations in support?
Hi metamars! Are the space Lasers in position yet? Which 'spire' shall we disintegrate today?
Really metamars, just what is it you have against Randomness and Chaos where such widespread dynamic energies are involved?
Doesn't the video evidence of many unscathed cars, people, plants etc in an event where others WERE hit and set on fire by embers/debris, tell you the OBVIOUS? Where's the need for me to waste MY time 'quantifying' and 'numerating' things for YOU?
After all, YOU are the one with the crazy assertions. I merely comment on what I see AND LEAVE IT AT THAT if I am satisfied with the Occam's Razor outcomes.
I repeat, why don't YOU do all that 'quantifying' you demand of others? You seem to be MOTIVATED enough but TOO lazy, is that it?
So, if YOU are TOO LAZY to try and SUBSTANTIATE/SUPPORT your own wild assertions, how can you stand there with a straight face and accuse ME of not wanting to do your work for you? It is not I that has to support one conspiracy theory hypothesis after another, now is it? Or didn't you read where I said I was only in this for presenting YOUNGER Physorgforumers with an alternative view and common principles/analogies which present something for these youngsters to get their teeth into and look up for themselves....instead of just 'believing' you and your pseudo-scientific assinine and hypocritical bleating about what OTHERS should do FOR YOU...when you should be here doing 'science' for YOURSELF and your assertions, heh?
I am not asserting anything here, I am just replying to YOURS and others' assertions. OK?
So quit whining about others, and instead go ahead and REFUTE WHAT THEY SAY USING YOUR OWN 'WORK' to support what YOU are blathering on about. Fair enough?
Where's YOUR quantitative physics/analysis for whatever YOU are hypothesising, metamars? If it's so allfired important to you, why not do a THESIS on your conspiracy 'anomalies'. You are a university student are you not? If what you say is so important and true, then YOU TOO may become as famous as Jones et al! Think of joining that illustrious BYU 'hotbed of incompetence' (note that even that 'useless christian science' university has had enough of being painted with the same brush that Jones is being painted into a corner with daily).
BTW, metamars.....YOU'RE not a student of Jones at BYU, are you? That would explain a lot. He was too lazy to check his facts re Hoffman and other sources too. It wouldn't surprise me if that's where gordon got his 'one-dimensional' analysis constructs from, either. That's a great christian education you can get at BYU.....except they LEAVE OUT anything that is inconsistent with their 'beliefs'.....some scientists you and gordon are emulating for all you're worth, mate. I pity you and any other youngster mesmerised by a "christian" conman of such 'integrity' in matters of ethics and application of the scientific method.
Get back to Jones' class, metamars, the bell's gone. Cheers!
RC.
.
More blathering to avoid even more embarassment, eh? Let's try this one more time:
QUOTE
I'm not sure what you mean by "consistent", but I will presume you mean "non-contradictory".
I also presume that that a comprehensive account is desirable. This is certainly my view.
So the question arises: how "comprehensive" is "comprehensive"? I recently introduced the distinction between what I call the strong and weak forms of the NIST'ian hand waving re "global collapse ensued". As NIST carries out their wonderful analysis by closing their eyes to all the anomalies, most all of which point away from their Fairy Tale intuition, should I also carry out a "comprehensive" analysis wherein I also close my eyes to evidence - much of it extraordinary - which argues against NIST's intuition?
If you answer "no, don't ignore these phenomena, also" then please explain to me why it's OK for NIST to do so.
If you answer "yes, ignore these phenomena", then I will deal with your question accordingly.
.
.
* Your question being:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
I'm not sure what you mean by "consistent", but I will presume you mean "non-contradictory". I also presume that that a comprehensive account is desirable. This is certainly my view. So the question arises: how "comprehensive" is "comprehensive"? I recently introduced the distinction between what I call the strong and weak forms of the NIST'ian hand waving re "global collapse ensued". As NIST carries out their wonderful analysis by closing their eyes to all the anomalies, most all of which point away from their Fairy Tale intuition, should I also carry out a "comprehensive" analysis wherein I also close my eyes to evidence - much of it extraordinary - which argues against NIST's intuition? If you answer "no, don't ignore these phenomena, also" then please explain to me why it's OK for NIST to do so. If you answer "yes, ignore these phenomena", then I will deal with your question accordingly. . . * Your question being: if YOU aren't satisfied with common sense, and INSIST that "THEY" did it, then why don't you take the time and trouble to come up with consistent physics explanations in support? |
As far as your statement:
QUOTE
Or didn't you read where I said I was only in this for presenting YOUNGER Physorgforumers with an alternative view and common principles/analogies which present something for these youngsters to get their teeth into and look up for themselves
I would think that if you had any real concern for "YOUNGER" forum members, that you at least would take the time to put forth a coherent argument every 100 pages or so. Do you think that forcing "YOUNGER" members to wade through your James Joyce style of drivel might not drive them away from science? Do you think that maybe, just maybe, you labeling yourself as a scientist and then spamming this board with your drivel might not make some "YOUNGER" members give up on science?? Has it not occurred to you that your drivel, ascribed to a scientist such as yourself, might not permanently prejudice a young mind against a career in science?
From where I sit, you have about as much concern for "YOUNGER" forum members as you do for understanding the WTC collapses, as you possess any real scientific training - which is to say, none at all.
Oh dear! YOU make all the assinine assertions and I'M the one being embarrassed? Right THERE you prove how hypocritical you are, metamars.
I am only obliged to point to reasonable conjecture regarding the phenomena which you point to in your wild speculations. Is it my fault that your speculations don't stand up to even cursory scrutiny?
And STILL you evade the point that YOU are not doing what YOU demand of others, even though Schneibster et al have refuted the original basis for the CD conspiracy theories invoking 'free fall', exotic weapons, etc etc.
Mate, get a grip and look at yourself before going on about your perceived shortcomings in others, heh?
DO YOU INTEND TO DO ANY MORE FOR YOUR 'QUEST FOR TRUTH' THAN MERELY ASKING OTHERS TO ANTE UP THINGS WHICH THEY NEVER HAD TO DO IN THE FIRST PLACE?
Hey metamars, if your OWN 'motives' and 'science' are so woefully inadequate to the task, who are YOU to say what youngsters need? I'll tell you what they need, LESS BS and hypocrisy from YOU, for a start. Anything I say here that gets a youngster to at least stop and question all the exotic Bulldust YOU deal out is pure gravy as far as future science is concerned. Let's DO leave it to them, heh? And what have they said so far.....nothing in support of YOU, that's clear enough....or else they would be coming to bat for your side in droves, wouldn't they? See reality, act accordingly, and stop fart-arsing about and GET TO WORK on that thesis which will make you as (in)famous as Jones! Can't wait for more 'professional' "christian science" from those who let 'beliefs' dictate to their scientific integrity.
Those youngsters AT LEAST are getting an object lesson from you and your cohort as to what NOT to do if you want to be respected in REAL scientific quarters. Shame on you.
RC.
.
Your answer is both as scientific, and to the point, as most all your other posts.
In case you hadn't noticed (you certainly at least pretend not to), it was mostly you who was singled out for criticism ito not being quantitative. And, indeed, of not even making an attempt.
Meanwhile, it is you who 1) claims to be a scientist and 2) certainly doesn't talk like one.
Furthermore, it is you who has referred to Jones and Hoffman as "idiots".
You were challenged, essentially, to put up or shut up, and you have, as expected, completely failed the test.
I have never claimed to be a scientist, and still have attempted, on numerous occassions, to be be quantititive, within the limits of my ability. As you have commented on at least some of these posts, you are completely aware of this fact. Your pretense otherwise speaks to your dishonesty.
Indeed, I recently sketched out a calculation re Hoffman to get (hopefully) a better idea of what sort of temperature drop off one might expect. My posts on this subject make it crystal clear that anything I determine from such a crude calculation - one way or another - will in no way obviate the desirability of a full blown treatment employing fluid hydrodynamics.
This is consistent with how, I am sure, an inquisitive, even scientific, mind works. Can you imagine Einstein blathering on about the principles - oh!, excuse me, the PRINCIPLES - of physics, like yourself? I sure can't. When he had some ideas that were the germ of general relativity, but realized he didn't have the appropriate mathematical background, he sought out a mathematician who could teach him differential geometry.
He did not say "I'm a scientist, listen to my bloviations about physics PRINCIPLES, and by the way, you guys are idiots".
The difference between these two approaches are like night and day.
I don't believe you're capable of doing any insightful physics calcs wrt to the collapses (in other words, I don't believe you're a scientist with any relevant background and/or expertise. Perhaps you're a plant botanist, or something equally ill-suited, but that's about it.) Furthermore, if you really are capable, then it's still quite clear you have no interest in understanding the collapses.
Your concern about "YOUNGSTERS" is yet another smokescreen, for one thing you surely are is a propagandist. Obfuscating a serious issue does nobody any good, including young people. The only people it can possibly help are the perpetrators.
At least Schneibster and, yes, even adoucette, are/were capable of making some excellent points. I have trouble of thinking of even one that you have made. Your signal to noise ratio is so low, that you are clearly in the same region as "Common Sense" - and communicate about as effectively, though your contorted "stream of consciousness" sentence structures are quite different from his.
Thus, even compared to your fellow popes, you occupy a lowly station. It was suggested to Common Sense (IIRC) earlier in this thread that he "retire". I now repeat that same suggestion to you. You do not even help your side in the debate, as least as observed by rational people. Your only contribution to your "side", in this regard, is to exhaust the patience of potential participants who don't want to deal with your blathering, which inevitably becomes peppered with ad hominems.
Stop whining and namedropping (Einstein! no less!) and get to work on your thesis on the physics anomalies in 9/11.
What do you not undersatnd about my "RealityCheck" function? Let me make it simple, I ASK the questions and PUT alternative views to those ASSERTIONS MADE BY OTHERS (and that means YOU). I have stated many times I'm too busy with other things to go through unnecessary 'hoops' when Occam's Razor does the job.
And UNTIL YOU, who MAKE the assertions in the first place are able to refure EVEN THOSE BASIC ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESES, why should anyone take you seriously enough when YOU won't put in the hard yards FOR YOURSELF.
It may have escaped your notice that, UNLIKE you and Einstein, I don't have any particular barrow to push HERE....and so I concentrate my time and efforts on those things I DO want to further.
So why DON'T you take a leaf out of Einstein's book and, as you say, learn the necessaries to support your assertions BEFORE you bring your half-arsed assertions here to be laughed at?
What's YOUR agenda? If it IS science proper, THEN WHY DON'T YOU GO AND DO SOME, AND THEN COME BACK AND MAKE YOUR ASSERTIONS SUPPORTED by your OWN work.
You are hypocritical and unscientific in your own 'methods' and attitudes, and then you have the nerve to criticise others.
Read my lips: I don't DO what YOU want. I DO what I want to do ever since I started at Physorg. And that is to test assertions made by OTHERS, who apparently have a barrow to push and don't care a whit about science and logic, just their agendas.
For your information, matamars, ANYONE WITH THE GUTS AND INTEGRITY AND LOGIC TO APPLY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS IPSO FACTO A 'SCIENTIST'. OK? You and Jones et al are OBVIOUSLY NOT scientists in that tradition....you are 'convenient/expedient' pseudo-scientists who have overlain an agenda on the scientific method and made a mockery of same.
Tell me honestly, do you have complete trust in the competence and integrity of Jones? Does the fact that even his own BYU fellows see through him not tell you something about all this 'anomalies' business you keep parroting without supporting....just like Jones?
Come and tell me I'm not a scientist when you yourself are worthy of that name.
RC.
.
This post is a real prize, even for you. Most of your questions, as well as assertions, are lies and/or distortions. Even the premises of most of your questions are manipulative distortions. Need I add that you mostly evaded answering my questions and points, once again?
I don't have the time to point out your nonsense and propaganda, yet again.
Have a pleasant stay in your pseudo-reality. I hope they give you a Nobel Prize, in your pseudo-realistic parallel universe, for you surely deserve one.
I am done with you.
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 12 2006, 10:09 PM)
I don't have a degree but I know sagged steel isn't going to straighten out by itself.
And you certainly will not get an engineering degree if you persist with statements like the above.
Get a steel rod and clamp it into two vices on the same work bench. Now heat it up. It will sag because it cannot expand lengthwise due to the vices, and it will continue to expand till it is red hot, then it will contract for a bit, depending upon its carbon content, and then it will continue to expand as you increase the temperature. When you stop applying heat it will contract, expand then contract again in a reverse manner to the expansion.
When it has returned to ambient temperature it will be the same length, with the same sag as it had when you started.
Gordon
An they're aw deid.
And if you have an engineering degree I don't want one.
How can you possibly compair one rod with some clamps to multiple floors with multiple trusses and columns? Are you saying after this deformation the building should have been whole again?
No thanks, Keep your degree...
And you certainly will not get an engineering degree if you persist with statements like the above.
Get a steel rod and clamp it into two vices on the same work bench. Now heat it up. It will sag because it cannot expand lengthwise due to the vices, and it will continue to expand till it is red hot, then it will contract for a bit, depending upon its carbon content, and then it will continue to expand as you increase the temperature. When you stop applying heat it will contract, expand then contract again in a reverse manner to the expansion.
When it has returned to ambient temperature it will be the same length, with the same sag as it had when you started.
Gordon
An they're aw deid.
And if you have an engineering degree I don't want one.
How can you possibly compair one rod with some clamps to multiple floors with multiple trusses and columns? Are you saying after this deformation the building should have been whole again?
No thanks, Keep your degree...
If anyone has seen pics of sagged trusses from building fires, they don't return straight again at room temperature.
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 12 2006, 10:21 PM)
This post is a real prize, even for you. Most of your questions, as well as assertions, are lies and/or distortions. Even the premises of most of your questions are manipulative distortions. Need I add that you mostly evaded answering my questions and points, once again?
I don't have the time to point out your nonsense and propaganda, yet again.
Have a pleasant stay in your pseudo-reality. I hope they give you a Nobel Prize, in your pseudo-realistic parallel universe, for you surely deserve one.
I am done with you.
Jesus Christ! I've seen less hand waving at the superbowl during a fan wave! Heh!
Do you have anything better than "You are wrong, I'm right" arguments? GEEZ...
I don't have the time to point out your nonsense and propaganda, yet again.
Have a pleasant stay in your pseudo-reality. I hope they give you a Nobel Prize, in your pseudo-realistic parallel universe, for you surely deserve one.
I am done with you.
Jesus Christ! I've seen less hand waving at the superbowl during a fan wave! Heh!
Do you have anything better than "You are wrong, I'm right" arguments? GEEZ...
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 13 2006, 03:21 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 13 2006, 01:42 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 13 2006, 12:52 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 12 2006, 10:41 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 12 2006, 10:06 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 12 2006, 09:05 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 12 2006, 06:47 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 12 2006, 05:38 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 12 2006, 04:50 AM)
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 12 2006, 04:36 AM)
YET ANOTHER BLUNDEROUS OMISSION IN HIS SO-CALLED 'ANALYSES' WHICH IMPRESS YOU SO MUCH?
I must have missed that bit. Perhaps you could fill me in on just one point that you have made which doen't ramble on about drivel that has little or nothing to do with the subject with the odd adjective or verb thrown in just because you have heard it somewhere on your troubleshooting/varied /groundbreaking/(insert more blowhard egobosting words here) history and think that you will sound good to some other no-mark who is similarly clueless.
Let's be clear here. An education in a subject also confers the ability to assess the knowledge of others.
Gordon.
Thank-you. I was about to waste more time answering "Reality Check's" nonsense and obfuscation, but you have saved me the time.
I might add: take a representative sample of Gordon's posts, and a representative sample of "Reality Check's" posts, to ANY physicist or engineer at a local university, and ask a simple question:
Which is written by a technically competent person, and which is drivel?
Do be kind enough to post the responses you get, properly sourced, of course.
Metamars, I'm sure even YOU could randomly put together impressive-looking equations and numbers and terms STRAIGHT OUT OF A TEXTBOOK....while not understanding AT ALL THEIR MEANING AND OR USAGE IN ANY WAY.
The important thing is COMPREHENSION, not mindless COPYING AND PASTING some totally erroneous textbook terms to 'dress up' totally incompetent analysis constructs.
Haven't you learnt ANYTHING from the debacle with Jones and Hoffman et al? THEY ARE SUPPOSED PROFESSORS, FOR GOODNESS' SAKE...and look at the hash THEY made of the 'equations/figures', heh? Wake up and smell reality....numbers and equations are no substitute for objective observation and logical comprehension. HOW DO YOU THINK ALL THOSE EQUATIONS AND PRINCIPLES GOT FIGURED OUT IN THE FIRST PLACE?...it was those observations and logical comprehensions that allowed mathematical constructs to be created/refined TO REPRESENT THAT REALITY BEING LOGICALLY COMPREHENDED IN THE FIRST PLACE BY 'SCIENTIFIC METHOD' OBSERVATION and later REPRODUCTION VIA MATHEMATICAL REPRESENTATIONS OF SAME.
Have you learned anything from that? If nothing else, take away the point that 'numbers' mean NOTHING without comprehension and context (statistics/survey constructs/analyses are PERFECT examples where the truth is NOT ALWAYS in the NUMBERS, but in the CONTEXT). And in the case of 9/11, the physics is in context only insofar as it can be demonstrated to be 'prosaic' and everyday processes/principles involved in EXTRAORDINARILY CHAOTIC AND HUMONGOUS DYNAMICS.
Once you accept that a lot of things could be happening all over the place during that chaos, then you probably won't feel so much need to invoke space lasers and space aliens and 'mysterious energy' flows. Common sense will do the job.
Lame. Your continued avoidance of even any attempt to be precise, when you could be (that is, if you really are a "scientist", with expertise or even basic knowledge in physics and chemistry), strikes me as nothing more than a way to avoid being shown up for the spewer of drivel that you are.
And, as you have been shown to be a spewer of drivel even in a qualitative way, I don't believe for a second that you are a scientist.
I note, once again, that NIST and FEMA eschewed your "wonderful insights" for the relevance of chaos theory in understanding the collapses. Even in a mumbo jumbo, non-technical way that you specialize in, where it difficult to say where and how, exactly, your thinking is off because you are so unclear in presenting anything resembling a coherent argument. Apparently, in your own mind, your invocation of chaos to explain away anything you can't, otherwise, is a real contribution. But even NIST and FEMA didn't stoop this low!
When are you going to contact NIST and FEMA to let them imbibe of your wisdom? You woulnd't want to leave them in a state of ignorance, now, would you?
And I repeat, if YOU aren't satisfied with common sense, and INSIST that "THEY" did it, then why don't you take the time and trouble to come up with consistent physics explanations in support? Don't you think the victims of 9/11 DESERVE that little bit of effort from YOU, since you maintain that there is an official govt. conspiracy to cover the murder of all their family/friends. You say that the govt did it, but do you take the trouble to prove any of it for the sake of the victims? No. Obviously. You're too lazy; or too not-enamoured-after-all with your own stupidity. That's what comes across, met. I don't care what you think of me. I don't HAVE to care about what lazy stupid peoiple think of me. I care about YOU doing science and everyone involved a disservice by your unsubstantiated UFO/CT bulldust.
RC.
I reject the "common sense" premise of your first question. Indeed, as should be obvious to any reader of this thread (including yourself), we find the "common sense" of the NIST apologists to often be laughable - and yours may be the most laughable of all, though you do have lots of stiff competition. (We really should have a poll to settle the matter. )
Indeed, did I not just recently point out, again, that the more improbable your notion, the more you need to make it quantitative in the hopes of possibly rescuing it? Did you think that I meant "improbable in the mind of the spewer of such drivel"? I did not.
Having put the lie to this obvious twist of propaganda, your question about a physics question is a fair one, though I digress to once again point out the difference between disproving one assertion, and proving one at odds with it.
<begin digression>
If you claim that little green fairies took down the towers, and I say "no, they were taking down with thermite", but fail to prove this claim, that does not mean that the little green faires are indeed the culprits. Perhaps to a believer in Fairy Tales, yes, but you are a scientist, so you know better. Right?
<end digression>
I'm not sure what you mean by "consistent", but I will presume you mean "non-contradictory".
I also presume that that a comprehensive account is desirable. This is certainly my view.
So the question arises: how "comprehensive" is "comprehensive"? I recently introduced the distinction between what I call the strong and weak forms of the NIST'ian hand waving re "global collapse ensued". As NIST carries out their wonderful analysis by closing their eyes to all the anomalies, most all of which point away from their Fairy Tale intuition, should I also carry out a "comprehensive" analysis wherein I also close my eyes to evidence - much of it extraordinary - which argues against NIST's intuition?
If you answer "no, don't ignore these phenomena, also" then please explain to me why it's OK for NIST to do so.
If you answer "yes, ignore these phenomena", then I will deal with your question accordingly.
* Your question being:
I reject the "common sense" premise of your first question. Indeed, as should be obvious to any reader of this thread (including yourself), we find the "common sense" of the NIST apologists to often be laughable - and yours may be the most laughable of all, though you do have lots of stiff competition. (We really should have a poll to settle the matter. )
Indeed, did I not just recently point out, again, that the more improbable your notion, the more you need to make it quantitative in the hopes of possibly rescuing it? Did you think that I meant "improbable in the mind of the spewer of such drivel"? I did not.
Having put the lie to this obvious twist of propaganda, your question about a physics question is a fair one, though I digress to once again point out the difference between disproving one assertion, and proving one at odds with it.
<begin digression>
If you claim that little green fairies took down the towers, and I say "no, they were taking down with thermite", but fail to prove this claim, that does not mean that the little green faires are indeed the culprits. Perhaps to a believer in Fairy Tales, yes, but you are a scientist, so you know better. Right?
<end digression>
I'm not sure what you mean by "consistent", but I will presume you mean "non-contradictory".
I also presume that that a comprehensive account is desirable. This is certainly my view.
So the question arises: how "comprehensive" is "comprehensive"? I recently introduced the distinction between what I call the strong and weak forms of the NIST'ian hand waving re "global collapse ensued". As NIST carries out their wonderful analysis by closing their eyes to all the anomalies, most all of which point away from their Fairy Tale intuition, should I also carry out a "comprehensive" analysis wherein I also close my eyes to evidence - much of it extraordinary - which argues against NIST's intuition?
If you answer "no, don't ignore these phenomena, also" then please explain to me why it's OK for NIST to do so.
If you answer "yes, ignore these phenomena", then I will deal with your question accordingly.
* Your question being:
if YOU aren't satisfied with common sense, and INSIST that "THEY" did it, then why don't you take the time and trouble to come up with consistent physics explanations in support?
Hi metamars! Are the space Lasers in position yet? Which 'spire' shall we disintegrate today?
Really metamars, just what is it you have against Randomness and Chaos where such widespread dynamic energies are involved?
Doesn't the video evidence of many unscathed cars, people, plants etc in an event where others WERE hit and set on fire by embers/debris, tell you the OBVIOUS? Where's the need for me to waste MY time 'quantifying' and 'numerating' things for YOU?
After all, YOU are the one with the crazy assertions. I merely comment on what I see AND LEAVE IT AT THAT if I am satisfied with the Occam's Razor outcomes.
I repeat, why don't YOU do all that 'quantifying' you demand of others? You seem to be MOTIVATED enough but TOO lazy, is that it?
So, if YOU are TOO LAZY to try and SUBSTANTIATE/SUPPORT your own wild assertions, how can you stand there with a straight face and accuse ME of not wanting to do your work for you? It is not I that has to support one conspiracy theory hypothesis after another, now is it? Or didn't you read where I said I was only in this for presenting YOUNGER Physorgforumers with an alternative view and common principles/analogies which present something for these youngsters to get their teeth into and look up for themselves....instead of just 'believing' you and your pseudo-scientific assinine and hypocritical bleating about what OTHERS should do FOR YOU...when you should be here doing 'science' for YOURSELF and your assertions, heh?
I am not asserting anything here, I am just replying to YOURS and others' assertions. OK?
So quit whining about others, and instead go ahead and REFUTE WHAT THEY SAY USING YOUR OWN 'WORK' to support what YOU are blathering on about. Fair enough?
Where's YOUR quantitative physics/analysis for whatever YOU are hypothesising, metamars? If it's so allfired important to you, why not do a THESIS on your conspiracy 'anomalies'. You are a university student are you not? If what you say is so important and true, then YOU TOO may become as famous as Jones et al! Think of joining that illustrious BYU 'hotbed of incompetence' (note that even that 'useless christian science' university has had enough of being painted with the same brush that Jones is being painted into a corner with daily).
BTW, metamars.....YOU'RE not a student of Jones at BYU, are you? That would explain a lot. He was too lazy to check his facts re Hoffman and other sources too. It wouldn't surprise me if that's where gordon got his 'one-dimensional' analysis constructs from, either. That's a great christian education you can get at BYU.....except they LEAVE OUT anything that is inconsistent with their 'beliefs'.....some scientists you and gordon are emulating for all you're worth, mate. I pity you and any other youngster mesmerised by a "christian" conman of such 'integrity' in matters of ethics and application of the scientific method.
Get back to Jones' class, metamars, the bell's gone. Cheers!
RC.
.
More blathering to avoid even more embarassment, eh? Let's try this one more time:
I'm not sure what you mean by "consistent", but I will presume you mean "non-contradictory".
I also presume that that a comprehensive account is desirable. This is certainly my view.
So the question arises: how "comprehensive" is "comprehensive"? I recently introduced the distinction between what I call the strong and weak forms of the NIST'ian hand waving re "global collapse ensued". As NIST carries out their wonderful analysis by closing their eyes to all the anomalies, most all of which point away from their Fairy Tale intuition, should I also carry out a "comprehensive" analysis wherein I also close my eyes to evidence - much of it extraordinary - which argues against NIST's intuition?
If you answer "no, don't ignore these phenomena, also" then please explain to me why it's OK for NIST to do so.
If you answer "yes, ignore these phenomena", then I will deal with your question accordingly.
.
.
* Your question being:
As far as your statement:
Or didn't you read where I said I was only in this for presenting YOUNGER Physorgforumers with an alternative view and common principles/analogies which present something for these youngsters to get their teeth into and look up for themselves
I would think that if you had any real concern for "YOUNGER" forum members, that you at least would take the time to put forth a coherent argument every 100 pages or so. Do you think that forcing "YOUNGER" members to wade through your James Joyce style of drivel might not drive them away from science? Do you think that maybe, just maybe, you labeling yourself as a scientist and then spamming this board with your drivel might not make some "YOUNGER" members give up on science?? Has it not occurred to you that your drivel, ascribed to a scientist such as yourself, might not permanently prejudice a young mind against a career in science?
From where I sit, you have about as much concern for "YOUNGER" forum members as you do for understanding the WTC collapses, as you possess any real scientific training - which is to say, none at all.
Oh dear! YOU make all the assinine assertions and I'M the one being embarrassed? Right THERE you prove how hypocritical you are, metamars.
I am only obliged to point to reasonable conjecture regarding the phenomena which you point to in your wild speculations. Is it my fault that your speculations don't stand up to even cursory scrutiny?
And STILL you evade the point that YOU are not doing what YOU demand of others, even though Schneibster et al have refuted the original basis for the CD conspiracy theories invoking 'free fall', exotic weapons, etc etc.
Mate, get a grip and look at yourself before going on about your perceived shortcomings in others, heh?
DO YOU INTEND TO DO ANY MORE FOR YOUR 'QUEST FOR TRUTH' THAN MERELY ASKING OTHERS TO ANTE UP THINGS WHICH THEY NEVER HAD TO DO IN THE FIRST PLACE?
Hey metamars, if your OWN 'motives' and 'science' are so woefully inadequate to the task, who are YOU to say what youngsters need? I'll tell you what they need, LESS BS and hypocrisy from YOU, for a start. Anything I say here that gets a youngster to at least stop and question all the exotic Bulldust YOU deal out is pure gravy as far as future science is concerned. Let's DO leave it to them, heh? And what have they said so far.....nothing in support of YOU, that's clear enough....or else they would be coming to bat for your side in droves, wouldn't they? See reality, act accordingly, and stop fart-arsing about and GET TO WORK on that thesis which will make you as (in)famous as Jones! Can't wait for more 'professional' "christian science" from those who let 'beliefs' dictate to their scientific integrity.
Those youngsters AT LEAST are getting an object lesson from you and your cohort as to what NOT to do if you want to be respected in REAL scientific quarters. Shame on you.
RC.
.
Your answer is both as scientific, and to the point, as most all your other posts.
In case you hadn't noticed (you certainly at least pretend not to), it was mostly you who was singled out for criticism ito not being quantitative. And, indeed, of not even making an attempt.
Meanwhile, it is you who 1) claims to be a scientist and 2) certainly doesn't talk like one.
Furthermore, it is you who has referred to Jones and Hoffman as "idiots".
You were challenged, essentially, to put up or shut up, and you have, as expected, completely failed the test.
I have never claimed to be a scientist, and still have attempted, on numerous occassions, to be be quantititive, within the limits of my ability. As you have commented on at least some of these posts, you are completely aware of this fact. Your pretense otherwise speaks to your dishonesty.
Indeed, I recently sketched out a calculation re Hoffman to get (hopefully) a better idea of what sort of temperature drop off one might expect. My posts on this subject make it crystal clear that anything I determine from such a crude calculation - one way or another - will in no way obviate the desirability of a full blown treatment employing fluid hydrodynamics.
This is consistent with how, I am sure, an inquisitive, even scientific, mind works. Can you imagine Einstein blathering on about the principles - oh!, excuse me, the PRINCIPLES - of physics, like yourself? I sure can't. When he had some ideas that were the germ of general relativity, but realized he didn't have the appropriate mathematical background, he sought out a mathematician who could teach him differential geometry.
He did not say "I'm a scientist, listen to my bloviations about physics PRINCIPLES, and by the way, you guys are idiots".
The difference between these two approaches are like night and day.
I don't believe you're capable of doing any insightful physics calcs wrt to the collapses (in other words, I don't believe you're a scientist with any relevant background and/or expertise. Perhaps you're a plant botanist, or something equally ill-suited, but that's about it.) Furthermore, if you really are capable, then it's still quite clear you have no interest in understanding the collapses.
Your concern about "YOUNGSTERS" is yet another smokescreen, for one thing you surely are is a propagandist. Obfuscating a serious issue does nobody any good, including young people. The only people it can possibly help are the perpetrators.
At least Schneibster and, yes, even adoucette, are/were capable of making some excellent points. I have trouble of thinking of even one that you have made. Your signal to noise ratio is so low, that you are clearly in the same region as "Common Sense" - and communicate about as effectively, though your contorted "stream of consciousness" sentence structures are quite different from his.
Thus, even compared to your fellow popes, you occupy a lowly station. It was suggested to Common Sense (IIRC) earlier in this thread that he "retire". I now repeat that same suggestion to you. You do not even help your side in the debate, as least as observed by rational people. Your only contribution to your "side", in this regard, is to exhaust the patience of potential participants who don't want to deal with your blathering, which inevitably becomes peppered with ad hominems.
Stop whining and namedropping (Einstein! no less!) and get to work on your thesis on the physics anomalies in 9/11.
What do you not undersatnd about my "RealityCheck" function? Let me make it simple, I ASK the questions and PUT alternative views to those ASSERTIONS MADE BY OTHERS (and that means YOU). I have stated many times I'm too busy with other things to go through unnecessary 'hoops' when Occam's Razor does the job.
And UNTIL YOU, who MAKE the assertions in the first place are able to refure EVEN THOSE BASIC ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESES, why should anyone take you seriously enough when YOU won't put in the hard yards FOR YOURSELF.
It may have escaped your notice that, UNLIKE you and Einstein, I don't have any particular barrow to push HERE....and so I concentrate my time and efforts on those things I DO want to further.
So why DON'T you take a leaf out of Einstein's book and, as you say, learn the necessaries to support your assertions BEFORE you bring your half-arsed assertions here to be laughed at?
What's YOUR agenda? If it IS science proper, THEN WHY DON'T YOU GO AND DO SOME, AND THEN COME BACK AND MAKE YOUR ASSERTIONS SUPPORTED by your OWN work.
You are hypocritical and unscientific in your own 'methods' and attitudes, and then you have the nerve to criticise others.
Read my lips: I don't DO what YOU want. I DO what I want to do ever since I started at Physorg. And that is to test assertions made by OTHERS, who apparently have a barrow to push and don't care a whit about science and logic, just their agendas.
For your information, matamars, ANYONE WITH THE GUTS AND INTEGRITY AND LOGIC TO APPLY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS IPSO FACTO A 'SCIENTIST'. OK? You and Jones et al are OBVIOUSLY NOT scientists in that tradition....you are 'convenient/expedient' pseudo-scientists who have overlain an agenda on the scientific method and made a mockery of same.
Tell me honestly, do you have complete trust in the competence and integrity of Jones? Does the fact that even his own BYU fellows see through him not tell you something about all this 'anomalies' business you keep parroting without supporting....just like Jones?
Come and tell me I'm not a scientist when you yourself are worthy of that name.
RC.
.
This post is a real prize, even for you. Most of your questions, as well as assertions, are lies and/or distortions. Even the premises of most of your questions are manipulative distortions. Need I add that you mostly evaded answering my questions and points, once again?
I don't have the time to point out your nonsense and propaganda, yet again.
Have a pleasant stay in your pseudo-reality. I hope they give you a Nobel Prize, in your pseudo-realistic parallel universe, for you surely deserve one.
I am done with you.
Is there no end to your hypocrisy? You want people to answer YOUR questions/assertions (which are the ones that are based on false premises from start to finish 'a la Jones'), but yet you have studiously avoided to answer a very pertinent question as to your agenda here.
So before you have done, perhaps you would be so kind as to answer the questioin I put last time. To wit:
I would think that if you had any real concern for "YOUNGER" forum members, that you at least would take the time to put forth a coherent argument every 100 pages or so. Do you think that forcing "YOUNGER" members to wade through your James Joyce style of drivel might not drive them away from science? Do you think that maybe, just maybe, you labeling yourself as a scientist and then spamming this board with your drivel might not make some "YOUNGER" members give up on science?? Has it not occurred to you that your drivel, ascribed to a scientist such as yourself, might not permanently prejudice a young mind against a career in science?
From where I sit, you have about as much concern for "YOUNGER" forum members as you do for understanding the WTC collapses, as you possess any real scientific training - which is to say, none at all.
Oh dear! YOU make all the assinine assertions and I'M the one being embarrassed? Right THERE you prove how hypocritical you are, metamars.
I am only obliged to point to reasonable conjecture regarding the phenomena which you point to in your wild speculations. Is it my fault that your speculations don't stand up to even cursory scrutiny?
And STILL you evade the point that YOU are not doing what YOU demand of others, even though Schneibster et al have refuted the original basis for the CD conspiracy theories invoking 'free fall', exotic weapons, etc etc.
Mate, get a grip and look at yourself before going on about your perceived shortcomings in others, heh?
DO YOU INTEND TO DO ANY MORE FOR YOUR 'QUEST FOR TRUTH' THAN MERELY ASKING OTHERS TO ANTE UP THINGS WHICH THEY NEVER HAD TO DO IN THE FIRST PLACE?
Hey metamars, if your OWN 'motives' and 'science' are so woefully inadequate to the task, who are YOU to say what youngsters need? I'll tell you what they need, LESS BS and hypocrisy from YOU, for a start. Anything I say here that gets a youngster to at least stop and question all the exotic Bulldust YOU deal out is pure gravy as far as future science is concerned. Let's DO leave it to them, heh? And what have they said so far.....nothing in support of YOU, that's clear enough....or else they would be coming to bat for your side in droves, wouldn't they? See reality, act accordingly, and stop fart-arsing about and GET TO WORK on that thesis which will make you as (in)famous as Jones! Can't wait for more 'professional' "christian science" from those who let 'beliefs' dictate to their scientific integrity.
Those youngsters AT LEAST are getting an object lesson from you and your cohort as to what NOT to do if you want to be respected in REAL scientific quarters. Shame on you.
RC.
.
Your answer is both as scientific, and to the point, as most all your other posts.
In case you hadn't noticed (you certainly at least pretend not to), it was mostly you who was singled out for criticism ito not being quantitative. And, indeed, of not even making an attempt.
Meanwhile, it is you who 1) claims to be a scientist and 2) certainly doesn't talk like one.
Furthermore, it is you who has referred to Jones and Hoffman as "idiots".
You were challenged, essentially, to put up or shut up, and you have, as expected, completely failed the test.
I have never claimed to be a scientist, and still have attempted, on numerous occassions, to be be quantititive, within the limits of my ability. As you have commented on at least some of these posts, you are completely aware of this fact. Your pretense otherwise speaks to your dishonesty.
Indeed, I recently sketched out a calculation re Hoffman to get (hopefully) a better idea of what sort of temperature drop off one might expect. My posts on this subject make it crystal clear that anything I determine from such a crude calculation - one way or another - will in no way obviate the desirability of a full blown treatment employing fluid hydrodynamics.
This is consistent with how, I am sure, an inquisitive, even scientific, mind works. Can you imagine Einstein blathering on about the principles - oh!, excuse me, the PRINCIPLES - of physics, like yourself? I sure can't. When he had some ideas that were the germ of general relativity, but realized he didn't have the appropriate mathematical background, he sought out a mathematician who could teach him differential geometry.
He did not say "I'm a scientist, listen to my bloviations about physics PRINCIPLES, and by the way, you guys are idiots".
The difference between these two approaches are like night and day.
I don't believe you're capable of doing any insightful physics calcs wrt to the collapses (in other words, I don't believe you're a scientist with any relevant background and/or expertise. Perhaps you're a plant botanist, or something equally ill-suited, but that's about it.) Furthermore, if you really are capable, then it's still quite clear you have no interest in understanding the collapses.
Your concern about "YOUNGSTERS" is yet another smokescreen, for one thing you surely are is a propagandist. Obfuscating a serious issue does nobody any good, including young people. The only people it can possibly help are the perpetrators.
At least Schneibster and, yes, even adoucette, are/were capable of making some excellent points. I have trouble of thinking of even one that you have made. Your signal to noise ratio is so low, that you are clearly in the same region as "Common Sense" - and communicate about as effectively, though your contorted "stream of consciousness" sentence structures are quite different from his.
Thus, even compared to your fellow popes, you occupy a lowly station. It was suggested to Common Sense (IIRC) earlier in this thread that he "retire". I now repeat that same suggestion to you. You do not even help your side in the debate, as least as observed by rational people. Your only contribution to your "side", in this regard, is to exhaust the patience of potential participants who don't want to deal with your blathering, which inevitably becomes peppered with ad hominems.
Stop whining and namedropping (Einstein! no less!) and get to work on your thesis on the physics anomalies in 9/11.
What do you not undersatnd about my "RealityCheck" function? Let me make it simple, I ASK the questions and PUT alternative views to those ASSERTIONS MADE BY OTHERS (and that means YOU). I have stated many times I'm too busy with other things to go through unnecessary 'hoops' when Occam's Razor does the job.
And UNTIL YOU, who MAKE the assertions in the first place are able to refure EVEN THOSE BASIC ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESES, why should anyone take you seriously enough when YOU won't put in the hard yards FOR YOURSELF.
It may have escaped your notice that, UNLIKE you and Einstein, I don't have any particular barrow to push HERE....and so I concentrate my time and efforts on those things I DO want to further.
So why DON'T you take a leaf out of Einstein's book and, as you say, learn the necessaries to support your assertions BEFORE you bring your half-arsed assertions here to be laughed at?
What's YOUR agenda? If it IS science proper, THEN WHY DON'T YOU GO AND DO SOME, AND THEN COME BACK AND MAKE YOUR ASSERTIONS SUPPORTED by your OWN work.
You are hypocritical and unscientific in your own 'methods' and attitudes, and then you have the nerve to criticise others.
Read my lips: I don't DO what YOU want. I DO what I want to do ever since I started at Physorg. And that is to test assertions made by OTHERS, who apparently have a barrow to push and don't care a whit about science and logic, just their agendas.
For your information, matamars, ANYONE WITH THE GUTS AND INTEGRITY AND LOGIC TO APPLY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS IPSO FACTO A 'SCIENTIST'. OK? You and Jones et al are OBVIOUSLY NOT scientists in that tradition....you are 'convenient/expedient' pseudo-scientists who have overlain an agenda on the scientific method and made a mockery of same.
Tell me honestly, do you have complete trust in the competence and integrity of Jones? Does the fact that even his own BYU fellows see through him not tell you something about all this 'anomalies' business you keep parroting without supporting....just like Jones?
Come and tell me I'm not a scientist when you yourself are worthy of that name.
RC.
.
This post is a real prize, even for you. Most of your questions, as well as assertions, are lies and/or distortions. Even the premises of most of your questions are manipulative distortions. Need I add that you mostly evaded answering my questions and points, once again?
I don't have the time to point out your nonsense and propaganda, yet again.
Have a pleasant stay in your pseudo-reality. I hope they give you a Nobel Prize, in your pseudo-realistic parallel universe, for you surely deserve one.
I am done with you.
Is there no end to your hypocrisy? You want people to answer YOUR questions/assertions (which are the ones that are based on false premises from start to finish 'a la Jones'), but yet you have studiously avoided to answer a very pertinent question as to your agenda here.
So before you have done, perhaps you would be so kind as to answer the questioin I put last time. To wit:
Tell me honestly, do you have complete trust in the competence and integrity of Jones? Does the fact that even his own BYU fellows see through him not tell you something about all this 'anomalies' business you keep parroting without supporting....just like Jones?
Thanks in advance for your honest reply.
RC.
.
I must have missed that bit. Perhaps you could fill me in on just one point that you have made which doen't ramble on about drivel that has little or nothing to do with the subject with the odd adjective or verb thrown in just because you have heard it somewhere on your troubleshooting/varied /groundbreaking/(insert more blowhard egobosting words here) history and think that you will sound good to some other no-mark who is similarly clueless.
Let's be clear here. An education in a subject also confers the ability to assess the knowledge of others.
Gordon.
Thank-you. I was about to waste more time answering "Reality Check's" nonsense and obfuscation, but you have saved me the time.
I might add: take a representative sample of Gordon's posts, and a representative sample of "Reality Check's" posts, to ANY physicist or engineer at a local university, and ask a simple question:
Which is written by a technically competent person, and which is drivel?
Do be kind enough to post the responses you get, properly sourced, of course.
Metamars, I'm sure even YOU could randomly put together impressive-looking equations and numbers and terms STRAIGHT OUT OF A TEXTBOOK....while not understanding AT ALL THEIR MEANING AND OR USAGE IN ANY WAY.
The important thing is COMPREHENSION, not mindless COPYING AND PASTING some totally erroneous textbook terms to 'dress up' totally incompetent analysis constructs.
Haven't you learnt ANYTHING from the debacle with Jones and Hoffman et al? THEY ARE SUPPOSED PROFESSORS, FOR GOODNESS' SAKE...and look at the hash THEY made of the 'equations/figures', heh? Wake up and smell reality....numbers and equations are no substitute for objective observation and logical comprehension. HOW DO YOU THINK ALL THOSE EQUATIONS AND PRINCIPLES GOT FIGURED OUT IN THE FIRST PLACE?...it was those observations and logical comprehensions that allowed mathematical constructs to be created/refined TO REPRESENT THAT REALITY BEING LOGICALLY COMPREHENDED IN THE FIRST PLACE BY 'SCIENTIFIC METHOD' OBSERVATION and later REPRODUCTION VIA MATHEMATICAL REPRESENTATIONS OF SAME.
Have you learned anything from that? If nothing else, take away the point that 'numbers' mean NOTHING without comprehension and context (statistics/survey constructs/analyses are PERFECT examples where the truth is NOT ALWAYS in the NUMBERS, but in the CONTEXT). And in the case of 9/11, the physics is in context only insofar as it can be demonstrated to be 'prosaic' and everyday processes/principles involved in EXTRAORDINARILY CHAOTIC AND HUMONGOUS DYNAMICS.
Once you accept that a lot of things could be happening all over the place during that chaos, then you probably won't feel so much need to invoke space lasers and space aliens and 'mysterious energy' flows. Common sense will do the job.
Lame. Your continued avoidance of even any attempt to be precise, when you could be (that is, if you really are a "scientist", with expertise or even basic knowledge in physics and chemistry), strikes me as nothing more than a way to avoid being shown up for the spewer of drivel that you are.
And, as you have been shown to be a spewer of drivel even in a qualitative way, I don't believe for a second that you are a scientist.
I note, once again, that NIST and FEMA eschewed your "wonderful insights" for the relevance of chaos theory in understanding the collapses. Even in a mumbo jumbo, non-technical way that you specialize in, where it difficult to say where and how, exactly, your thinking is off because you are so unclear in presenting anything resembling a coherent argument. Apparently, in your own mind, your invocation of chaos to explain away anything you can't, otherwise, is a real contribution. But even NIST and FEMA didn't stoop this low!
When are you going to contact NIST and FEMA to let them imbibe of your wisdom? You woulnd't want to leave them in a state of ignorance, now, would you?
QUOTE
And I repeat, if YOU aren't satisfied with common sense, and INSIST that "THEY" did it, then why don't you take the time and trouble to come up with consistent physics explanations in support? Don't you think the victims of 9/11 DESERVE that little bit of effort from YOU, since you maintain that there is an official govt. conspiracy to cover the murder of all their family/friends. You say that the govt did it, but do you take the trouble to prove any of it for the sake of the victims? No. Obviously. You're too lazy; or too not-enamoured-after-all with your own stupidity. That's what comes across, met. I don't care what you think of me. I don't HAVE to care about what lazy stupid peoiple think of me. I care about YOU doing science and everyone involved a disservice by your unsubstantiated UFO/CT bulldust.
RC.
I reject the "common sense" premise of your first question. Indeed, as should be obvious to any reader of this thread (including yourself), we find the "common sense" of the NIST apologists to often be laughable - and yours may be the most laughable of all, though you do have lots of stiff competition. (We really should have a poll to settle the matter. )
Indeed, did I not just recently point out, again, that the more improbable your notion, the more you need to make it quantitative in the hopes of possibly rescuing it? Did you think that I meant "improbable in the mind of the spewer of such drivel"? I did not.
Having put the lie to this obvious twist of propaganda, your question about a physics question is a fair one, though I digress to once again point out the difference between disproving one assertion, and proving one at odds with it.
<begin digression>
If you claim that little green fairies took down the towers, and I say "no, they were taking down with thermite", but fail to prove this claim, that does not mean that the little green faires are indeed the culprits. Perhaps to a believer in Fairy Tales, yes, but you are a scientist, so you know better. Right?
<end digression>
I'm not sure what you mean by "consistent", but I will presume you mean "non-contradictory".
I also presume that that a comprehensive account is desirable. This is certainly my view.
So the question arises: how "comprehensive" is "comprehensive"? I recently introduced the distinction between what I call the strong and weak forms of the NIST'ian hand waving re "global collapse ensued". As NIST carries out their wonderful analysis by closing their eyes to all the anomalies, most all of which point away from their Fairy Tale intuition, should I also carry out a "comprehensive" analysis wherein I also close my eyes to evidence - much of it extraordinary - which argues against NIST's intuition?
If you answer "no, don't ignore these phenomena, also" then please explain to me why it's OK for NIST to do so.
If you answer "yes, ignore these phenomena", then I will deal with your question accordingly.
* Your question being:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
And I repeat, if YOU aren't satisfied with common sense, and INSIST that "THEY" did it, then why don't you take the time and trouble to come up with consistent physics explanations in support? Don't you think the victims of 9/11 DESERVE that little bit of effort from YOU, since you maintain that there is an official govt. conspiracy to cover the murder of all their family/friends. You say that the govt did it, but do you take the trouble to prove any of it for the sake of the victims? No. Obviously. You're too lazy; or too not-enamoured-after-all with your own stupidity. That's what comes across, met. I don't care what you think of me. I don't HAVE to care about what lazy stupid peoiple think of me. I care about YOU doing science and everyone involved a disservice by your unsubstantiated UFO/CT bulldust. RC. |
I reject the "common sense" premise of your first question. Indeed, as should be obvious to any reader of this thread (including yourself), we find the "common sense" of the NIST apologists to often be laughable - and yours may be the most laughable of all, though you do have lots of stiff competition. (We really should have a poll to settle the matter. )
Indeed, did I not just recently point out, again, that the more improbable your notion, the more you need to make it quantitative in the hopes of possibly rescuing it? Did you think that I meant "improbable in the mind of the spewer of such drivel"? I did not.
Having put the lie to this obvious twist of propaganda, your question about a physics question is a fair one, though I digress to once again point out the difference between disproving one assertion, and proving one at odds with it.
<begin digression>
If you claim that little green fairies took down the towers, and I say "no, they were taking down with thermite", but fail to prove this claim, that does not mean that the little green faires are indeed the culprits. Perhaps to a believer in Fairy Tales, yes, but you are a scientist, so you know better. Right?
<end digression>
I'm not sure what you mean by "consistent", but I will presume you mean "non-contradictory".
I also presume that that a comprehensive account is desirable. This is certainly my view.
So the question arises: how "comprehensive" is "comprehensive"? I recently introduced the distinction between what I call the strong and weak forms of the NIST'ian hand waving re "global collapse ensued". As NIST carries out their wonderful analysis by closing their eyes to all the anomalies, most all of which point away from their Fairy Tale intuition, should I also carry out a "comprehensive" analysis wherein I also close my eyes to evidence - much of it extraordinary - which argues against NIST's intuition?
If you answer "no, don't ignore these phenomena, also" then please explain to me why it's OK for NIST to do so.
If you answer "yes, ignore these phenomena", then I will deal with your question accordingly.
* Your question being:
if YOU aren't satisfied with common sense, and INSIST that "THEY" did it, then why don't you take the time and trouble to come up with consistent physics explanations in support?
Hi metamars! Are the space Lasers in position yet? Which 'spire' shall we disintegrate today?
Really metamars, just what is it you have against Randomness and Chaos where such widespread dynamic energies are involved?
Doesn't the video evidence of many unscathed cars, people, plants etc in an event where others WERE hit and set on fire by embers/debris, tell you the OBVIOUS? Where's the need for me to waste MY time 'quantifying' and 'numerating' things for YOU?
After all, YOU are the one with the crazy assertions. I merely comment on what I see AND LEAVE IT AT THAT if I am satisfied with the Occam's Razor outcomes.
I repeat, why don't YOU do all that 'quantifying' you demand of others? You seem to be MOTIVATED enough but TOO lazy, is that it?
So, if YOU are TOO LAZY to try and SUBSTANTIATE/SUPPORT your own wild assertions, how can you stand there with a straight face and accuse ME of not wanting to do your work for you? It is not I that has to support one conspiracy theory hypothesis after another, now is it? Or didn't you read where I said I was only in this for presenting YOUNGER Physorgforumers with an alternative view and common principles/analogies which present something for these youngsters to get their teeth into and look up for themselves....instead of just 'believing' you and your pseudo-scientific assinine and hypocritical bleating about what OTHERS should do FOR YOU...when you should be here doing 'science' for YOURSELF and your assertions, heh?
I am not asserting anything here, I am just replying to YOURS and others' assertions. OK?
So quit whining about others, and instead go ahead and REFUTE WHAT THEY SAY USING YOUR OWN 'WORK' to support what YOU are blathering on about. Fair enough?
Where's YOUR quantitative physics/analysis for whatever YOU are hypothesising, metamars? If it's so allfired important to you, why not do a THESIS on your conspiracy 'anomalies'. You are a university student are you not? If what you say is so important and true, then YOU TOO may become as famous as Jones et al! Think of joining that illustrious BYU 'hotbed of incompetence' (note that even that 'useless christian science' university has had enough of being painted with the same brush that Jones is being painted into a corner with daily).
BTW, metamars.....YOU'RE not a student of Jones at BYU, are you? That would explain a lot. He was too lazy to check his facts re Hoffman and other sources too. It wouldn't surprise me if that's where gordon got his 'one-dimensional' analysis constructs from, either. That's a great christian education you can get at BYU.....except they LEAVE OUT anything that is inconsistent with their 'beliefs'.....some scientists you and gordon are emulating for all you're worth, mate. I pity you and any other youngster mesmerised by a "christian" conman of such 'integrity' in matters of ethics and application of the scientific method.
Get back to Jones' class, metamars, the bell's gone. Cheers!
RC.
.
More blathering to avoid even more embarassment, eh? Let's try this one more time:
QUOTE
I'm not sure what you mean by "consistent", but I will presume you mean "non-contradictory".
I also presume that that a comprehensive account is desirable. This is certainly my view.
So the question arises: how "comprehensive" is "comprehensive"? I recently introduced the distinction between what I call the strong and weak forms of the NIST'ian hand waving re "global collapse ensued". As NIST carries out their wonderful analysis by closing their eyes to all the anomalies, most all of which point away from their Fairy Tale intuition, should I also carry out a "comprehensive" analysis wherein I also close my eyes to evidence - much of it extraordinary - which argues against NIST's intuition?
If you answer "no, don't ignore these phenomena, also" then please explain to me why it's OK for NIST to do so.
If you answer "yes, ignore these phenomena", then I will deal with your question accordingly.
.
.
* Your question being:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
I'm not sure what you mean by "consistent", but I will presume you mean "non-contradictory". I also presume that that a comprehensive account is desirable. This is certainly my view. So the question arises: how "comprehensive" is "comprehensive"? I recently introduced the distinction between what I call the strong and weak forms of the NIST'ian hand waving re "global collapse ensued". As NIST carries out their wonderful analysis by closing their eyes to all the anomalies, most all of which point away from their Fairy Tale intuition, should I also carry out a "comprehensive" analysis wherein I also close my eyes to evidence - much of it extraordinary - which argues against NIST's intuition? If you answer "no, don't ignore these phenomena, also" then please explain to me why it's OK for NIST to do so. If you answer "yes, ignore these phenomena", then I will deal with your question accordingly. . . * Your question being: if YOU aren't satisfied with common sense, and INSIST that "THEY" did it, then why don't you take the time and trouble to come up with consistent physics explanations in support? |
As far as your statement:
QUOTE
Or didn't you read where I said I was only in this for presenting YOUNGER Physorgforumers with an alternative view and common principles/analogies which present something for these youngsters to get their teeth into and look up for themselves
I would think that if you had any real concern for "YOUNGER" forum members, that you at least would take the time to put forth a coherent argument every 100 pages or so. Do you think that forcing "YOUNGER" members to wade through your James Joyce style of drivel might not drive them away from science? Do you think that maybe, just maybe, you labeling yourself as a scientist and then spamming this board with your drivel might not make some "YOUNGER" members give up on science?? Has it not occurred to you that your drivel, ascribed to a scientist such as yourself, might not permanently prejudice a young mind against a career in science?
From where I sit, you have about as much concern for "YOUNGER" forum members as you do for understanding the WTC collapses, as you possess any real scientific training - which is to say, none at all.
Oh dear! YOU make all the assinine assertions and I'M the one being embarrassed? Right THERE you prove how hypocritical you are, metamars.
I am only obliged to point to reasonable conjecture regarding the phenomena which you point to in your wild speculations. Is it my fault that your speculations don't stand up to even cursory scrutiny?
And STILL you evade the point that YOU are not doing what YOU demand of others, even though Schneibster et al have refuted the original basis for the CD conspiracy theories invoking 'free fall', exotic weapons, etc etc.
Mate, get a grip and look at yourself before going on about your perceived shortcomings in others, heh?
DO YOU INTEND TO DO ANY MORE FOR YOUR 'QUEST FOR TRUTH' THAN MERELY ASKING OTHERS TO ANTE UP THINGS WHICH THEY NEVER HAD TO DO IN THE FIRST PLACE?
Hey metamars, if your OWN 'motives' and 'science' are so woefully inadequate to the task, who are YOU to say what youngsters need? I'll tell you what they need, LESS BS and hypocrisy from YOU, for a start. Anything I say here that gets a youngster to at least stop and question all the exotic Bulldust YOU deal out is pure gravy as far as future science is concerned. Let's DO leave it to them, heh? And what have they said so far.....nothing in support of YOU, that's clear enough....or else they would be coming to bat for your side in droves, wouldn't they? See reality, act accordingly, and stop fart-arsing about and GET TO WORK on that thesis which will make you as (in)famous as Jones! Can't wait for more 'professional' "christian science" from those who let 'beliefs' dictate to their scientific integrity.
Those youngsters AT LEAST are getting an object lesson from you and your cohort as to what NOT to do if you want to be respected in REAL scientific quarters. Shame on you.
RC.
.
Your answer is both as scientific, and to the point, as most all your other posts.
In case you hadn't noticed (you certainly at least pretend not to), it was mostly you who was singled out for criticism ito not being quantitative. And, indeed, of not even making an attempt.
Meanwhile, it is you who 1) claims to be a scientist and 2) certainly doesn't talk like one.
Furthermore, it is you who has referred to Jones and Hoffman as "idiots".
You were challenged, essentially, to put up or shut up, and you have, as expected, completely failed the test.
I have never claimed to be a scientist, and still have attempted, on numerous occassions, to be be quantititive, within the limits of my ability. As you have commented on at least some of these posts, you are completely aware of this fact. Your pretense otherwise speaks to your dishonesty.
Indeed, I recently sketched out a calculation re Hoffman to get (hopefully) a better idea of what sort of temperature drop off one might expect. My posts on this subject make it crystal clear that anything I determine from such a crude calculation - one way or another - will in no way obviate the desirability of a full blown treatment employing fluid hydrodynamics.
This is consistent with how, I am sure, an inquisitive, even scientific, mind works. Can you imagine Einstein blathering on about the principles - oh!, excuse me, the PRINCIPLES - of physics, like yourself? I sure can't. When he had some ideas that were the germ of general relativity, but realized he didn't have the appropriate mathematical background, he sought out a mathematician who could teach him differential geometry.
He did not say "I'm a scientist, listen to my bloviations about physics PRINCIPLES, and by the way, you guys are idiots".
The difference between these two approaches are like night and day.
I don't believe you're capable of doing any insightful physics calcs wrt to the collapses (in other words, I don't believe you're a scientist with any relevant background and/or expertise. Perhaps you're a plant botanist, or something equally ill-suited, but that's about it.) Furthermore, if you really are capable, then it's still quite clear you have no interest in understanding the collapses.
Your concern about "YOUNGSTERS" is yet another smokescreen, for one thing you surely are is a propagandist. Obfuscating a serious issue does nobody any good, including young people. The only people it can possibly help are the perpetrators.
At least Schneibster and, yes, even adoucette, are/were capable of making some excellent points. I have trouble of thinking of even one that you have made. Your signal to noise ratio is so low, that you are clearly in the same region as "Common Sense" - and communicate about as effectively, though your contorted "stream of consciousness" sentence structures are quite different from his.
Thus, even compared to your fellow popes, you occupy a lowly station. It was suggested to Common Sense (IIRC) earlier in this thread that he "retire". I now repeat that same suggestion to you. You do not even help your side in the debate, as least as observed by rational people. Your only contribution to your "side", in this regard, is to exhaust the patience of potential participants who don't want to deal with your blathering, which inevitably becomes peppered with ad hominems.
Stop whining and namedropping (Einstein! no less!) and get to work on your thesis on the physics anomalies in 9/11.
What do you not undersatnd about my "RealityCheck" function? Let me make it simple, I ASK the questions and PUT alternative views to those ASSERTIONS MADE BY OTHERS (and that means YOU). I have stated many times I'm too busy with other things to go through unnecessary 'hoops' when Occam's Razor does the job.
And UNTIL YOU, who MAKE the assertions in the first place are able to refure EVEN THOSE BASIC ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESES, why should anyone take you seriously enough when YOU won't put in the hard yards FOR YOURSELF.
It may have escaped your notice that, UNLIKE you and Einstein, I don't have any particular barrow to push HERE....and so I concentrate my time and efforts on those things I DO want to further.
So why DON'T you take a leaf out of Einstein's book and, as you say, learn the necessaries to support your assertions BEFORE you bring your half-arsed assertions here to be laughed at?
What's YOUR agenda? If it IS science proper, THEN WHY DON'T YOU GO AND DO SOME, AND THEN COME BACK AND MAKE YOUR ASSERTIONS SUPPORTED by your OWN work.
You are hypocritical and unscientific in your own 'methods' and attitudes, and then you have the nerve to criticise others.
Read my lips: I don't DO what YOU want. I DO what I want to do ever since I started at Physorg. And that is to test assertions made by OTHERS, who apparently have a barrow to push and don't care a whit about science and logic, just their agendas.
For your information, matamars, ANYONE WITH THE GUTS AND INTEGRITY AND LOGIC TO APPLY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS IPSO FACTO A 'SCIENTIST'. OK? You and Jones et al are OBVIOUSLY NOT scientists in that tradition....you are 'convenient/expedient' pseudo-scientists who have overlain an agenda on the scientific method and made a mockery of same.
Tell me honestly, do you have complete trust in the competence and integrity of Jones? Does the fact that even his own BYU fellows see through him not tell you something about all this 'anomalies' business you keep parroting without supporting....just like Jones?
Come and tell me I'm not a scientist when you yourself are worthy of that name.
RC.
.
This post is a real prize, even for you. Most of your questions, as well as assertions, are lies and/or distortions. Even the premises of most of your questions are manipulative distortions. Need I add that you mostly evaded answering my questions and points, once again?
I don't have the time to point out your nonsense and propaganda, yet again.
Have a pleasant stay in your pseudo-reality. I hope they give you a Nobel Prize, in your pseudo-realistic parallel universe, for you surely deserve one.
I am done with you.
Is there no end to your hypocrisy? You want people to answer YOUR questions/assertions (which are the ones that are based on false premises from start to finish 'a la Jones'), but yet you have studiously avoided to answer a very pertinent question as to your agenda here.
So before you have done, perhaps you would be so kind as to answer the questioin I put last time. To wit:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Or didn't you read where I said I was only in this for presenting YOUNGER Physorgforumers with an alternative view and common principles/analogies which present something for these youngsters to get their teeth into and look up for themselves |
I would think that if you had any real concern for "YOUNGER" forum members, that you at least would take the time to put forth a coherent argument every 100 pages or so. Do you think that forcing "YOUNGER" members to wade through your James Joyce style of drivel might not drive them away from science? Do you think that maybe, just maybe, you labeling yourself as a scientist and then spamming this board with your drivel might not make some "YOUNGER" members give up on science?? Has it not occurred to you that your drivel, ascribed to a scientist such as yourself, might not permanently prejudice a young mind against a career in science?
From where I sit, you have about as much concern for "YOUNGER" forum members as you do for understanding the WTC collapses, as you possess any real scientific training - which is to say, none at all.
Oh dear! YOU make all the assinine assertions and I'M the one being embarrassed? Right THERE you prove how hypocritical you are, metamars.
I am only obliged to point to reasonable conjecture regarding the phenomena which you point to in your wild speculations. Is it my fault that your speculations don't stand up to even cursory scrutiny?
And STILL you evade the point that YOU are not doing what YOU demand of others, even though Schneibster et al have refuted the original basis for the CD conspiracy theories invoking 'free fall', exotic weapons, etc etc.
Mate, get a grip and look at yourself before going on about your perceived shortcomings in others, heh?
DO YOU INTEND TO DO ANY MORE FOR YOUR 'QUEST FOR TRUTH' THAN MERELY ASKING OTHERS TO ANTE UP THINGS WHICH THEY NEVER HAD TO DO IN THE FIRST PLACE?
Hey metamars, if your OWN 'motives' and 'science' are so woefully inadequate to the task, who are YOU to say what youngsters need? I'll tell you what they need, LESS BS and hypocrisy from YOU, for a start. Anything I say here that gets a youngster to at least stop and question all the exotic Bulldust YOU deal out is pure gravy as far as future science is concerned. Let's DO leave it to them, heh? And what have they said so far.....nothing in support of YOU, that's clear enough....or else they would be coming to bat for your side in droves, wouldn't they? See reality, act accordingly, and stop fart-arsing about and GET TO WORK on that thesis which will make you as (in)famous as Jones! Can't wait for more 'professional' "christian science" from those who let 'beliefs' dictate to their scientific integrity.
Those youngsters AT LEAST are getting an object lesson from you and your cohort as to what NOT to do if you want to be respected in REAL scientific quarters. Shame on you.
RC.
.
Your answer is both as scientific, and to the point, as most all your other posts.
In case you hadn't noticed (you certainly at least pretend not to), it was mostly you who was singled out for criticism ito not being quantitative. And, indeed, of not even making an attempt.
Meanwhile, it is you who 1) claims to be a scientist and 2) certainly doesn't talk like one.
Furthermore, it is you who has referred to Jones and Hoffman as "idiots".
You were challenged, essentially, to put up or shut up, and you have, as expected, completely failed the test.
I have never claimed to be a scientist, and still have attempted, on numerous occassions, to be be quantititive, within the limits of my ability. As you have commented on at least some of these posts, you are completely aware of this fact. Your pretense otherwise speaks to your dishonesty.
Indeed, I recently sketched out a calculation re Hoffman to get (hopefully) a better idea of what sort of temperature drop off one might expect. My posts on this subject make it crystal clear that anything I determine from such a crude calculation - one way or another - will in no way obviate the desirability of a full blown treatment employing fluid hydrodynamics.
This is consistent with how, I am sure, an inquisitive, even scientific, mind works. Can you imagine Einstein blathering on about the principles - oh!, excuse me, the PRINCIPLES - of physics, like yourself? I sure can't. When he had some ideas that were the germ of general relativity, but realized he didn't have the appropriate mathematical background, he sought out a mathematician who could teach him differential geometry.
He did not say "I'm a scientist, listen to my bloviations about physics PRINCIPLES, and by the way, you guys are idiots".
The difference between these two approaches are like night and day.
I don't believe you're capable of doing any insightful physics calcs wrt to the collapses (in other words, I don't believe you're a scientist with any relevant background and/or expertise. Perhaps you're a plant botanist, or something equally ill-suited, but that's about it.) Furthermore, if you really are capable, then it's still quite clear you have no interest in understanding the collapses.
Your concern about "YOUNGSTERS" is yet another smokescreen, for one thing you surely are is a propagandist. Obfuscating a serious issue does nobody any good, including young people. The only people it can possibly help are the perpetrators.
At least Schneibster and, yes, even adoucette, are/were capable of making some excellent points. I have trouble of thinking of even one that you have made. Your signal to noise ratio is so low, that you are clearly in the same region as "Common Sense" - and communicate about as effectively, though your contorted "stream of consciousness" sentence structures are quite different from his.
Thus, even compared to your fellow popes, you occupy a lowly station. It was suggested to Common Sense (IIRC) earlier in this thread that he "retire". I now repeat that same suggestion to you. You do not even help your side in the debate, as least as observed by rational people. Your only contribution to your "side", in this regard, is to exhaust the patience of potential participants who don't want to deal with your blathering, which inevitably becomes peppered with ad hominems.
Stop whining and namedropping (Einstein! no less!) and get to work on your thesis on the physics anomalies in 9/11.
What do you not undersatnd about my "RealityCheck" function? Let me make it simple, I ASK the questions and PUT alternative views to those ASSERTIONS MADE BY OTHERS (and that means YOU). I have stated many times I'm too busy with other things to go through unnecessary 'hoops' when Occam's Razor does the job.
And UNTIL YOU, who MAKE the assertions in the first place are able to refure EVEN THOSE BASIC ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESES, why should anyone take you seriously enough when YOU won't put in the hard yards FOR YOURSELF.
It may have escaped your notice that, UNLIKE you and Einstein, I don't have any particular barrow to push HERE....and so I concentrate my time and efforts on those things I DO want to further.
So why DON'T you take a leaf out of Einstein's book and, as you say, learn the necessaries to support your assertions BEFORE you bring your half-arsed assertions here to be laughed at?
What's YOUR agenda? If it IS science proper, THEN WHY DON'T YOU GO AND DO SOME, AND THEN COME BACK AND MAKE YOUR ASSERTIONS SUPPORTED by your OWN work.
You are hypocritical and unscientific in your own 'methods' and attitudes, and then you have the nerve to criticise others.
Read my lips: I don't DO what YOU want. I DO what I want to do ever since I started at Physorg. And that is to test assertions made by OTHERS, who apparently have a barrow to push and don't care a whit about science and logic, just their agendas.
For your information, matamars, ANYONE WITH THE GUTS AND INTEGRITY AND LOGIC TO APPLY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS IPSO FACTO A 'SCIENTIST'. OK? You and Jones et al are OBVIOUSLY NOT scientists in that tradition....you are 'convenient/expedient' pseudo-scientists who have overlain an agenda on the scientific method and made a mockery of same.
Tell me honestly, do you have complete trust in the competence and integrity of Jones? Does the fact that even his own BYU fellows see through him not tell you something about all this 'anomalies' business you keep parroting without supporting....just like Jones?
Come and tell me I'm not a scientist when you yourself are worthy of that name.
RC.
.
This post is a real prize, even for you. Most of your questions, as well as assertions, are lies and/or distortions. Even the premises of most of your questions are manipulative distortions. Need I add that you mostly evaded answering my questions and points, once again?
I don't have the time to point out your nonsense and propaganda, yet again.
Have a pleasant stay in your pseudo-reality. I hope they give you a Nobel Prize, in your pseudo-realistic parallel universe, for you surely deserve one.
I am done with you.
Is there no end to your hypocrisy? You want people to answer YOUR questions/assertions (which are the ones that are based on false premises from start to finish 'a la Jones'), but yet you have studiously avoided to answer a very pertinent question as to your agenda here.
So before you have done, perhaps you would be so kind as to answer the questioin I put last time. To wit:
Tell me honestly, do you have complete trust in the competence and integrity of Jones? Does the fact that even his own BYU fellows see through him not tell you something about all this 'anomalies' business you keep parroting without supporting....just like Jones?
Thanks in advance for your honest reply.
RC.
.
In an explosion the expanding gases push compressed air ahead of their expansion creating the blast wave. It’s reflection can cause a mach stem to form and this video shows mach stem formation from a conventional explosive
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Movies/machstem.shtml
Note the turbulence at ground level in this picture
http://www.jasco.com/services/blast_physics/shock.html
which shows the mach stem from two blasts. The blast energy from an above ground blast will cause the pressure at ground level to be slightly greater than that above this level. This is caused by energy absorption at the ground causing the front at this level to move more slowly.
After the blast pressure drops to atmospheric there is a reversal of air flow and this can be most visually observable at ground level as debris at very low levels is sucked back towards the centre of the explosion, seemingly in the reverse direction to what would be expected. This is caused by the “inertia” of the material within the blast wave causing a slight over-expansion.
This is a phenomenon which I believe is most obvious by watching the blast patterns following nuclear explosions but is not limited to those and as the videos above show can be caused by above ground conventional explosions.
So after an explosion we would expect the debris at ground level to travel generally slightly upwards and towards the source of the blast, caused by the pressures mentioned above.
Now please examine this video and watch the ground level debris right at the end when the camera operator goes behind a vehicle.
http://terrorize.dk/911/naudet/911.wtc.1.d...tion.naudet.wmv
Note the direction that the camera operator runs.
Note the direction of the flow of near ground level dust and debris.
Note the direction from where the dust cloud arrives.
Gordon.
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Movies/machstem.shtml
Note the turbulence at ground level in this picture
http://www.jasco.com/services/blast_physics/shock.html
which shows the mach stem from two blasts. The blast energy from an above ground blast will cause the pressure at ground level to be slightly greater than that above this level. This is caused by energy absorption at the ground causing the front at this level to move more slowly.
After the blast pressure drops to atmospheric there is a reversal of air flow and this can be most visually observable at ground level as debris at very low levels is sucked back towards the centre of the explosion, seemingly in the reverse direction to what would be expected. This is caused by the “inertia” of the material within the blast wave causing a slight over-expansion.
This is a phenomenon which I believe is most obvious by watching the blast patterns following nuclear explosions but is not limited to those and as the videos above show can be caused by above ground conventional explosions.
So after an explosion we would expect the debris at ground level to travel generally slightly upwards and towards the source of the blast, caused by the pressures mentioned above.
Now please examine this video and watch the ground level debris right at the end when the camera operator goes behind a vehicle.
http://terrorize.dk/911/naudet/911.wtc.1.d...tion.naudet.wmv
Note the direction that the camera operator runs.
Note the direction of the flow of near ground level dust and debris.
Note the direction from where the dust cloud arrives.
Gordon.
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 13 2006, 12:57 AM)
Bearing in mind the situation where the floors were heated up and remembering that a 250 C temp rise, approx, will put a straight, constrained steel bar beyond yield strain, the floors had no option other than to absorb the strain, sag, push the perimeter columns outwards, or, more likely, a combination with proportionate magnitudes of all three.
Are you keeping in mind the 1 x 3 foot "I" beam that went from the spandrel plates to the interior box columns that were fastened to the outside of the core wall?
Eager tried to leave it out in his pancake theory but the steel workers had a site that blasted him and defined the true strength of the towers. It was only up for a few months.
I believe I have an image that shows one, not well but it does. The archives of construction photos were sifted of key images prior to 9-11 and after it.
Are you keeping in mind the 1 x 3 foot "I" beam that went from the spandrel plates to the interior box columns that were fastened to the outside of the core wall?
Eager tried to leave it out in his pancake theory but the steel workers had a site that blasted him and defined the true strength of the towers. It was only up for a few months.
I believe I have an image that shows one, not well but it does. The archives of construction photos were sifted of key images prior to 9-11 and after it.
The sides the aircraft struck didn't buckle because there were no floor sections still connected there to pull those sides in.
So the sides with all the columns intact and carrying their share of a 50 000 tonne load didn't buckle due to that load, but the side with the big hole in it so that the columns were carrying more than their fair share of the same 50000 tonne load did buckle? And the difference was that every other column had a 6 tonne load pulling in on it on the buckling side whereas the non buckling side had totally disconnected columns, and presumably still some force pulling in on the 80%(Nist?) still intact connections according to the OCT?
Gordon.
No thanks, Keep your degree...
I didn't offer.
So the sides with all the columns intact and carrying their share of a 50 000 tonne load didn't buckle due to that load, but the side with the big hole in it so that the columns were carrying more than their fair share of the same 50000 tonne load did buckle? And the difference was that every other column had a 6 tonne load pulling in on it on the buckling side whereas the non buckling side had totally disconnected columns, and presumably still some force pulling in on the 80%(Nist?) still intact connections according to the OCT?
Gordon.
No thanks, Keep your degree...
I didn't offer.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 12 2006, 07:47 PM)
(Were do you get the idea the columns had relatively weak joints?):
The joints were relatively weak compared with the size and weight of the columns. Take a look at all of the debris and see how many individual columns there were compared with still-connected ones, especially inner core columns. Check out all of the columns with empty bolt holes. Imagine trying to support the weight of a string of unsupported box columns many hundreds of feet high with bolted splices. The bolts will crack when the structure bends.
Also, it's not the same as a flag pole or telephone pole. They are designed to stand vertical without support. The spliced columns of the towers weren't. A hypothetical flag pole that is spliced with bolts whose cross-section is small compared with that of the column itself will also have trouble standing, especially if it has been struck by debris and is oscillating or starting to tilt.
The joints were relatively weak compared with the size and weight of the columns. Take a look at all of the debris and see how many individual columns there were compared with still-connected ones, especially inner core columns. Check out all of the columns with empty bolt holes. Imagine trying to support the weight of a string of unsupported box columns many hundreds of feet high with bolted splices. The bolts will crack when the structure bends.
Also, it's not the same as a flag pole or telephone pole. They are designed to stand vertical without support. The spliced columns of the towers weren't. A hypothetical flag pole that is spliced with bolts whose cross-section is small compared with that of the column itself will also have trouble standing, especially if it has been struck by debris and is oscillating or starting to tilt.
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 12 2006, 07:24 PM)
If anyone has seen pics of sagged trusses from building fires, they don't return straight again at room temperature.
Apparently the ones in the WTC did.
from the New York Times (Saturday 15th February 1975):
Fire Commissioner John T. O'Hagan said yesterday that he would make a vigorous effort to have a sprinkler system installed in the World Trade Center towers as a consequence of the fire that burned for three hours in one of them early yesterday morning.
The towers, each 110 stories tall and the highest structures in the city, are owned and operated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which is not subject to local safety codes.
As Commissioner O'Hagan stood in the sooty puddles of the North Tower's 11th floor hallway, he told reporters that the fire would not have spread as far as it did if sprinklers had been installed there.
The fire spread throughout about half of the offices of the floor and ignited the insulation of telephone cables in a cable shaft that runs vertically between floors. Commissioner O'Hagan said that the absence of fire-stopper material in gaps around the telephone cables had allowed the blaze to spread to other floors within the cable shaft. Inside the shaft, it spread down to the 9th floor and up to the 16th floor, but the blaze did not escape from the shaft out into room or hallways on the other floors.........
Only the 11th floor office area was burned, but extensive water damage occurred on the 9th and 10th floors, and smoke damage extended as far as the 15th floor, the spokesman said.
Although there were no direct casualties, 28 of the 150 firemen called to the scene suffered minor injuries.
"It was like fighting a blow torch" according to Captain Harold Kull of Engine Co. 6,........
Flames could be seen pouring out of 11th floor windows on the east side of the building.
It should be emphasized that the North Tower suffered no serious structural damage from this fire. In particular, no trusses needed to be replaced.
That the 1975 fire was more intense than the 9/11 fires is evident from the fact that it caused the 11th floor east side windows to break and flames could be seen pouring from these broken windows. This indicates a temperature greater than 700°C. In the 9/11 fires the windows were not broken by the heat (only by the aircraft impact) indicating a temperature below 700°C.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_1975_fire.html
So the longer and more intense fire in 1975 did not permantly damage the trusses
Apparently the ones in the WTC did.
QUOTE
from the New York Times (Saturday 15th February 1975):
Fire Commissioner John T. O'Hagan said yesterday that he would make a vigorous effort to have a sprinkler system installed in the World Trade Center towers as a consequence of the fire that burned for three hours in one of them early yesterday morning.
The towers, each 110 stories tall and the highest structures in the city, are owned and operated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which is not subject to local safety codes.
As Commissioner O'Hagan stood in the sooty puddles of the North Tower's 11th floor hallway, he told reporters that the fire would not have spread as far as it did if sprinklers had been installed there.
The fire spread throughout about half of the offices of the floor and ignited the insulation of telephone cables in a cable shaft that runs vertically between floors. Commissioner O'Hagan said that the absence of fire-stopper material in gaps around the telephone cables had allowed the blaze to spread to other floors within the cable shaft. Inside the shaft, it spread down to the 9th floor and up to the 16th floor, but the blaze did not escape from the shaft out into room or hallways on the other floors.........
Only the 11th floor office area was burned, but extensive water damage occurred on the 9th and 10th floors, and smoke damage extended as far as the 15th floor, the spokesman said.
Although there were no direct casualties, 28 of the 150 firemen called to the scene suffered minor injuries.
"It was like fighting a blow torch" according to Captain Harold Kull of Engine Co. 6,........
Flames could be seen pouring out of 11th floor windows on the east side of the building.
It should be emphasized that the North Tower suffered no serious structural damage from this fire. In particular, no trusses needed to be replaced.
That the 1975 fire was more intense than the 9/11 fires is evident from the fact that it caused the 11th floor east side windows to break and flames could be seen pouring from these broken windows. This indicates a temperature greater than 700°C. In the 9/11 fires the windows were not broken by the heat (only by the aircraft impact) indicating a temperature below 700°C.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_1975_fire.html
So the longer and more intense fire in 1975 did not permantly damage the trusses
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 12 2006, 10:39 PM)
In an explosion the expanding gases push compressed air ahead of their expansion creating the blast wave. It’s reflection can cause a mach stem to form and this video shows mach stem formation from a conventional explosive
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Movies/machstem.shtml
Note the turbulence at ground level in this picture
http://www.jasco.com/services/blast_physics/shock.html
which shows the mach stem from two blasts. The blast energy from an above ground blast will cause the pressure at ground level to be slightly greater than that above this level. This is caused by energy absorption at the ground causing the front at this level to move more slowly.
After the blast pressure drops to atmospheric there is a reversal of air flow and this can be most visually observable at ground level as debris at very low levels is sucked back towards the centre of the explosion, seemingly in the reverse direction to what would be expected. This is caused by the “inertia” of the material within the blast wave causing a slight over-expansion.
This is a phenomenon which I believe is most obvious by watching the blast patterns following nuclear explosions but is not limited to those and as the videos above show can be caused by above ground conventional explosions.
So after an explosion we would expect the debris at ground level to travel generally slightly upwards and towards the source of the blast, caused by the pressures mentioned above.
Now please examine this video and watch the ground level debris right at the end when the camera operator goes behind a vehicle.
http://terrorize.dk/911/naudet/911.wtc.1.d...tion.naudet.wmv
Note the direction that the camera operator runs.
Note the direction of the flow of near ground level dust and debris.
Note the direction from where the dust cloud arrives.
Gordon.
Amazingly the camera man survived the 212 F degree pyroclastic flow.. Asbestos lungs no doubt.
Notice he is under the front of a car.
Notice the debris which obviously fell on top of the car then passes by the camera, right to left.
notice a few frames before the above event there is a puff of debris coming FROM the towers direction under the car which gets quickly obscured by the debris coming from over the top of the car.
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Movies/machstem.shtml
Note the turbulence at ground level in this picture
http://www.jasco.com/services/blast_physics/shock.html
which shows the mach stem from two blasts. The blast energy from an above ground blast will cause the pressure at ground level to be slightly greater than that above this level. This is caused by energy absorption at the ground causing the front at this level to move more slowly.
After the blast pressure drops to atmospheric there is a reversal of air flow and this can be most visually observable at ground level as debris at very low levels is sucked back towards the centre of the explosion, seemingly in the reverse direction to what would be expected. This is caused by the “inertia” of the material within the blast wave causing a slight over-expansion.
This is a phenomenon which I believe is most obvious by watching the blast patterns following nuclear explosions but is not limited to those and as the videos above show can be caused by above ground conventional explosions.
So after an explosion we would expect the debris at ground level to travel generally slightly upwards and towards the source of the blast, caused by the pressures mentioned above.
Now please examine this video and watch the ground level debris right at the end when the camera operator goes behind a vehicle.
http://terrorize.dk/911/naudet/911.wtc.1.d...tion.naudet.wmv
Note the direction that the camera operator runs.
Note the direction of the flow of near ground level dust and debris.
Note the direction from where the dust cloud arrives.
Gordon.
Amazingly the camera man survived the 212 F degree pyroclastic flow.. Asbestos lungs no doubt.
Notice he is under the front of a car.
Notice the debris which obviously fell on top of the car then passes by the camera, right to left.
notice a few frames before the above event there is a puff of debris coming FROM the towers direction under the car which gets quickly obscured by the debris coming from over the top of the car.
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 12 2006, 07:59 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 12 2006, 07:47 PM)
(Were do you get the idea the columns had relatively weak joints?):
The joints were relatively weak compared with the size and weight of the columns. Take a look at all of the debris and see how many individual columns there were compared with still-connected ones, especially inner core columns. Check out all of the columns with empty bolt holes. Imagine trying to support the weight of a string of unsupported box columns many hundreds of feet high with bolted splices. The bolts will crack when the structure bends.
Also, it's not the same as a flag pole or telephone pole. They are designed to stand vertical without support. The spliced columns of the towers weren't. A hypothetical flag pole that is spliced with bolts whose cross-section is small compared with that of the column itself will also have trouble standing, especially if it has been struck by debris and is oscillating or starting to tilt.
Do you have information on how the core columns were connected?
The joints were relatively weak compared with the size and weight of the columns. Take a look at all of the debris and see how many individual columns there were compared with still-connected ones, especially inner core columns. Check out all of the columns with empty bolt holes. Imagine trying to support the weight of a string of unsupported box columns many hundreds of feet high with bolted splices. The bolts will crack when the structure bends.
Also, it's not the same as a flag pole or telephone pole. They are designed to stand vertical without support. The spliced columns of the towers weren't. A hypothetical flag pole that is spliced with bolts whose cross-section is small compared with that of the column itself will also have trouble standing, especially if it has been struck by debris and is oscillating or starting to tilt.
Do you have information on how the core columns were connected?
Also bear in mind that the floor sections which could not be connected directly to the core, because they lay outwith the corners, would be connected to a beam running from the core corner to the perimeter wall. This could be 3 x 1 , I don't know, but if you have a force pulling on the perimeter through one end of the floor you have to have one at the other end.
Now without spending too much time looking at a diagram, you have a 6 tonne load pulling on every other column, because they were only connected every other column, but you still need to distort the other columns because of the spandrel plates and at the other end you have all your floors connected to one beam so combining all of the six tonne loads to deflect one beam of indeterminate size but which was surely smaller than the perimeter columns.
No degree required to assess this for much further. Where would your money go?
The twenty(?) 14 x 10 box section columns or the single 3 x 1 (?) beam?
Anyone who is in the habit of putting a bet on odds such as this please meet me on betfair.com
Gordon.
Now without spending too much time looking at a diagram, you have a 6 tonne load pulling on every other column, because they were only connected every other column, but you still need to distort the other columns because of the spandrel plates and at the other end you have all your floors connected to one beam so combining all of the six tonne loads to deflect one beam of indeterminate size but which was surely smaller than the perimeter columns.
No degree required to assess this for much further. Where would your money go?
The twenty(?) 14 x 10 box section columns or the single 3 x 1 (?) beam?
Anyone who is in the habit of putting a bet on odds such as this please meet me on betfair.com
Gordon.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 12 2006, 11:00 PM)
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 12 2006, 07:24 PM)
If anyone has seen pics of sagged trusses from building fires, they don't return straight again at room temperature.
Apparently the ones in the WTC did.
from the New York Times (Saturday 15th February 1975):
Fire Commissioner John T. O'Hagan said yesterday that he would make a vigorous effort to have a sprinkler system installed in the World Trade Center towers as a consequence of the fire that burned for three hours in one of them early yesterday morning.
The towers, each 110 stories tall and the highest structures in the city, are owned and operated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which is not subject to local safety codes.
As Commissioner O'Hagan stood in the sooty puddles of the North Tower's 11th floor hallway, he told reporters that the fire would not have spread as far as it did if sprinklers had been installed there.
The fire spread throughout about half of the offices of the floor and ignited the insulation of telephone cables in a cable shaft that runs vertically between floors. Commissioner O'Hagan said that the absence of fire-stopper material in gaps around the telephone cables had allowed the blaze to spread to other floors within the cable shaft. Inside the shaft, it spread down to the 9th floor and up to the 16th floor, but the blaze did not escape from the shaft out into room or hallways on the other floors.........
Only the 11th floor office area was burned, but extensive water damage occurred on the 9th and 10th floors, and smoke damage extended as far as the 15th floor, the spokesman said.
Although there were no direct casualties, 28 of the 150 firemen called to the scene suffered minor injuries.
"It was like fighting a blow torch" according to Captain Harold Kull of Engine Co. 6,........
Flames could be seen pouring out of 11th floor windows on the east side of the building.
It should be emphasized that the North Tower suffered no serious structural damage from this fire. In particular, no trusses needed to be replaced.
That the 1975 fire was more intense than the 9/11 fires is evident from the fact that it caused the 11th floor east side windows to break and flames could be seen pouring from these broken windows. This indicates a temperature greater than 700°C. In the 9/11 fires the windows were not broken by the heat (only by the aircraft impact) indicating a temperature below 700°C.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_1975_fire.html
So the longer and more intense fire in 1975 did not permantly damage the trusses
Was the fire proofing on the trusses? Did they EVER expand or contract even with a 3 hour fire and fire proofing? Do you have a link to this information?
Also, I see fireman were fighting the fire with cooling water...
"It was like fighting a blow torch"
You know that didn't happen in the towers...
So the sides with all the columns intact and carrying their share of a 50 000 tonne load didn't buckle due to that load, but the side with the big hole in it so that the columns were carrying more than their fair share of the same 50000 tonne load did buckle? And the difference was that every other column had a 6 tonne load pulling in on it on the buckling side whereas the non buckling side had totally disconnected columns, and presumably still some force pulling in on the 80%(Nist?) still intact connections according to the OCT?
Gordon.
No thanks, Keep your degree...
I didn't offer.
Maybe I should have said the side the aircraft struck did not bow inward slowly with time. The south side of the south tower eventually buckled along with the east side as the global collapse began. The south side of the south tower didn't bend inward with time during the fires, though. The east side did bow inward with time and buckled as the collapse started.
Apparently the ones in the WTC did.
QUOTE
from the New York Times (Saturday 15th February 1975):
Fire Commissioner John T. O'Hagan said yesterday that he would make a vigorous effort to have a sprinkler system installed in the World Trade Center towers as a consequence of the fire that burned for three hours in one of them early yesterday morning.
The towers, each 110 stories tall and the highest structures in the city, are owned and operated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which is not subject to local safety codes.
As Commissioner O'Hagan stood in the sooty puddles of the North Tower's 11th floor hallway, he told reporters that the fire would not have spread as far as it did if sprinklers had been installed there.
The fire spread throughout about half of the offices of the floor and ignited the insulation of telephone cables in a cable shaft that runs vertically between floors. Commissioner O'Hagan said that the absence of fire-stopper material in gaps around the telephone cables had allowed the blaze to spread to other floors within the cable shaft. Inside the shaft, it spread down to the 9th floor and up to the 16th floor, but the blaze did not escape from the shaft out into room or hallways on the other floors.........
Only the 11th floor office area was burned, but extensive water damage occurred on the 9th and 10th floors, and smoke damage extended as far as the 15th floor, the spokesman said.
Although there were no direct casualties, 28 of the 150 firemen called to the scene suffered minor injuries.
"It was like fighting a blow torch" according to Captain Harold Kull of Engine Co. 6,........
Flames could be seen pouring out of 11th floor windows on the east side of the building.
It should be emphasized that the North Tower suffered no serious structural damage from this fire. In particular, no trusses needed to be replaced.
That the 1975 fire was more intense than the 9/11 fires is evident from the fact that it caused the 11th floor east side windows to break and flames could be seen pouring from these broken windows. This indicates a temperature greater than 700°C. In the 9/11 fires the windows were not broken by the heat (only by the aircraft impact) indicating a temperature below 700°C.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_1975_fire.html
So the longer and more intense fire in 1975 did not permantly damage the trusses
Was the fire proofing on the trusses? Did they EVER expand or contract even with a 3 hour fire and fire proofing? Do you have a link to this information?
Also, I see fireman were fighting the fire with cooling water...
"It was like fighting a blow torch"
You know that didn't happen in the towers...
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 13 2006, 03:54 AM)
So the sides with all the columns intact and carrying their share of a 50 000 tonne load didn't buckle due to that load, but the side with the big hole in it so that the columns were carrying more than their fair share of the same 50000 tonne load did buckle? And the difference was that every other column had a 6 tonne load pulling in on it on the buckling side whereas the non buckling side had totally disconnected columns, and presumably still some force pulling in on the 80%(Nist?) still intact connections according to the OCT?
Gordon.
No thanks, Keep your degree...
I didn't offer.
Maybe I should have said the side the aircraft struck did not bow inward slowly with time. The south side of the south tower eventually buckled along with the east side as the global collapse began. The south side of the south tower didn't bend inward with time during the fires, though. The east side did bow inward with time and buckled as the collapse started.
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 12 2006, 10:54 PM)
The sides the aircraft struck didn't buckle because there were no floor sections still connected there to pull those sides in.
So the sides with all the columns intact and carrying their share of a 50 000 tonne load didn't buckle due to that load, but the side with the big hole in it so that the columns were carrying more than their fair share of the same 50000 tonne load did buckle? And the difference was that every other column had a 6 tonne load pulling in on it on the buckling side whereas the non buckling side had totally disconnected columns, and presumably still some force pulling in on the 80%(Nist?) still intact connections according to the OCT?
Gordon.
No thanks, Keep your degree...
I didn't offer.
Good, because any degree someone has who thinks steel floor trusses snap back into plumb after sagging from fire isn't worth much. Unless it's a degree in economy.
So the sides with all the columns intact and carrying their share of a 50 000 tonne load didn't buckle due to that load, but the side with the big hole in it so that the columns were carrying more than their fair share of the same 50000 tonne load did buckle? And the difference was that every other column had a 6 tonne load pulling in on it on the buckling side whereas the non buckling side had totally disconnected columns, and presumably still some force pulling in on the 80%(Nist?) still intact connections according to the OCT?
Gordon.
No thanks, Keep your degree...
I didn't offer.
Good, because any degree someone has who thinks steel floor trusses snap back into plumb after sagging from fire isn't worth much. Unless it's a degree in economy.
Notice, this is happening without exposions ejecting debris out of the windows.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/WTC2_1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/WTC2_2.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/WTC2_1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/WTC2_2.jpg
The Nist report said they used a figure of 14 kip, which is about the force you would get from 6 tonne. For those perimeter columns outwith the corner of the core and on the corners of the towers, only half would carry a floor and only half of those would have a connection since it was every other column. Those would all be connected to a beam and not the core directly as I outlined in my previous post.
So roughly, out of all the columns only half had a floor connection so that leaves about 60 connecting the perimeter columns to anything substantial, about another 30 connected to the core to perimeter beams, and 150 without a floor end connection because they were in the corner or every other column.
So assuming the full 6 tonne load even through all the available connections gives you a total of 540 tonnes.
The vertical load is 56 000 tonnes according to BZ. Now if you say that this load alone was unable to plastically deform the columns to their buckle points, then according to BZ they must still be operating within the elastic range. We know this because if the load was raised sufficiently to move outside the elastic range, the same load would cause the plastically deformed buckle points.
Let us assume that the load was actually almost capable of buckling the beam but was just hovering on the brink. We know that the minimum load to complete deformation at full deflection is 25% of that required to initiate buckling (from BZ)
so we can now directly relate these forces, because they would be acting over the same moment over the same column length.
25% of 56 000 is 14 000 tonnes required
Total load from floor 540 tonnes.
Gordon.
So roughly, out of all the columns only half had a floor connection so that leaves about 60 connecting the perimeter columns to anything substantial, about another 30 connected to the core to perimeter beams, and 150 without a floor end connection because they were in the corner or every other column.
So assuming the full 6 tonne load even through all the available connections gives you a total of 540 tonnes.
The vertical load is 56 000 tonnes according to BZ. Now if you say that this load alone was unable to plastically deform the columns to their buckle points, then according to BZ they must still be operating within the elastic range. We know this because if the load was raised sufficiently to move outside the elastic range, the same load would cause the plastically deformed buckle points.
Let us assume that the load was actually almost capable of buckling the beam but was just hovering on the brink. We know that the minimum load to complete deformation at full deflection is 25% of that required to initiate buckling (from BZ)
so we can now directly relate these forces, because they would be acting over the same moment over the same column length.
25% of 56 000 is 14 000 tonnes required
Total load from floor 540 tonnes.
Gordon.
Good, because any degree someone has who thinks steel floor trusses snap back into plumb after sagging from fire isn't worth much.
Degrees can't think, and they are not who's, they are what's.
Gordon.
Degrees can't think, and they are not who's, they are what's.
Gordon.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 13 2006, 04:48 AM)
Notice, this is happening without exposions ejecting debris out of the windows.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/WTC2_1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/WTC2_2.jpg
that's funny, 'cause i see debris being ejected in the bottom picture. look. there are chunks flying out.
i also see that that flame at the edge of the building has flared up, and there is a noticable increase in the volume of the smoke.
those pictures both say 9:59 (that says to me that they were taken within a minute of each other(smart, eh?), and appear to be from the same camera.
and, yet, the top one is darker? oh, well, i guess the physics that make cameras work were on holiday, too. either that, or someone tampered with them for some reason.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/WTC2_1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/WTC2_2.jpg
that's funny, 'cause i see debris being ejected in the bottom picture. look. there are chunks flying out.
i also see that that flame at the edge of the building has flared up, and there is a noticable increase in the volume of the smoke.
those pictures both say 9:59 (that says to me that they were taken within a minute of each other(smart, eh?), and appear to be from the same camera.
and, yet, the top one is darker? oh, well, i guess the physics that make cameras work were on holiday, too. either that, or someone tampered with them for some reason.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 13 2006, 05:34 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 13 2006, 04:48 AM)
Notice, this is happening without exposions ejecting debris out of the windows.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/WTC2_1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/WTC2_2.jpg
that's funny, 'cause i see debris being ejected in the bottom picture. look. there are chunks flying out.
i also see that that flame at the edge of the building has flared up, and there is a noticable increase in the volume of the smoke.
those pictures both say 9:59 (that says to me that they were taken within a minute of each other(smart, eh?), and appear to be from the same camera.
and, yet, the top one is darker? oh, well, i guess the physics that make cameras work were on holiday, too. either that, or someone tampered with them for some reason.
Hi newt!
For your consideration: Could it be that in the bottom picture the increasing inwards bowing of the perimeter wall, combined with the attendant further internal collapses of fire-floors material, could somehow create sufficient air movements so that any flames/debris there are forced to go with those air currents?
RC.
.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/WTC2_1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/WTC2_2.jpg
that's funny, 'cause i see debris being ejected in the bottom picture. look. there are chunks flying out.
i also see that that flame at the edge of the building has flared up, and there is a noticable increase in the volume of the smoke.
those pictures both say 9:59 (that says to me that they were taken within a minute of each other(smart, eh?), and appear to be from the same camera.
and, yet, the top one is darker? oh, well, i guess the physics that make cameras work were on holiday, too. either that, or someone tampered with them for some reason.
Hi newt!
For your consideration: Could it be that in the bottom picture the increasing inwards bowing of the perimeter wall, combined with the attendant further internal collapses of fire-floors material, could somehow create sufficient air movements so that any flames/debris there are forced to go with those air currents?
RC.
.
QUOTE (brian+Mar 12 2006, 11:04 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 12 2006, 10:55 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Mar 12 2006, 10:45 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 12 2006, 01:56 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 12 2006, 01:31 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 11 2006, 09:01 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 11 2006, 09:00 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 11 2006, 05:50 PM)
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 11 2006, 05:23 PM)
The puffs are initiated by the buckling. Part of the puff is the fireproofing covering the perimeter columns being crushed. Some is drywall from the offices. The puffs have a light color on the lower half of the buckled east side as the collapse starts. The same dust above the buckled zone has a darker color because the soot from the fires above is mixed in with it.
but the spire has been relieved of any crushing forces from above, so what would cause the remaining core columns to buckle? (which, by the way, i don't see any of. i see a straight spire get whacked on one side by some explosive force, and then begin to tip as a straight spire, and then fall straight down.)
i know RC has a theory about it, but surprisingly, i don't agree that things were moving around much at the base. it is also clear from the debris pile photos that the towers were peeled like a banana at the base. which indicates, forces radiating predominantly outward. obviously, this is also apparent for the (ultra fine) dust cloud.
That peeling effect is from the core exploding and pushing outward on the beams between the interior box columns.
No it's not. It's from falling apart all on it's own..
Okay, you say it falls apart on its own. Why is it going up so much?
Hi Chris, everyone. Isn't that about where the lower half of the core temporarily obstructs the downward collapse of the 'central' part of the debris 'plug' formed by most of the upper core, its inner concrete floor slabs and hat-truss?
If so, that's EXACTLY where I would expect an EXTRA AMOUNT of 'UP-rebound/SIDE-expulsion' effects before the remnant core itself succumbs to the DOUBTLESS damage that such a 'rebound/expulsion' PILE-DRIVER 'hit' would have done to all its 'integral' geometry/interconnections.
So Chris, in fact, that extra 'explosive-looking' effect AT THAT LEVEL shows that it was the collapse to that stage that produced it...and not high-explosives. That's how I connect the height/effects with the core remnant height/status information presented by you guys. Ciao!
RC.
.
This is the sort of objectivity the youngsters need eh?
Verbiage is verbiage is verbiage.
Say what? Brian, are you even reading that upon which you comment so stupidly? Next time read AND UNDERSTAND the points being made BEFORE you open your irrelevant, incompetent mouth, heh?
RC.
.
"Next time read AND UNDERSTAND the points being made BEFORE you open your irrelevant, incompetent mouth, heh?"
And the points being made were?
First you ask a question - "Isn't that about where ..."
Then you assume the answer - "If so, that's EXACTLY where ..."
Then it becomes fact - "So Chris, in fact ...."
"Irrlevant incompetent" - verbiage.
You sir are a clown.
What CS is doing I call "imposed dynamic cognitive distortions" and they provide an easy out for those experiencing cognitive dissonance while reading this material we generate trying to distill all the information and arrive at an agreement as to what happened. CS hopes to alienate as many readers as possible by one means or another.
The distortions are made a part of the discussion and are posed from a perspective of invisibility, never admitted to but employed in layers to confuse facts. I have a list of 12 distoriton that originate with cognitive therapists, most are applicable. They are utilized dynamically, unconsciously within behavior patterns. I haven't examined CS posts that way, I'll try. Should be revealing.
I thought I'd bring up my answer to RC. Since it was buried in CSpam.
Okay, I'm certain that I'm just not qualified or experienced in physics enough to really understand some of the more esoteric concepts put forth here.
Can any one properly sequence the math needed to quantify 'UP-rebound/SIDE-expulsion' effects?
Particuarly in regard to the following image.
but the spire has been relieved of any crushing forces from above, so what would cause the remaining core columns to buckle? (which, by the way, i don't see any of. i see a straight spire get whacked on one side by some explosive force, and then begin to tip as a straight spire, and then fall straight down.)
i know RC has a theory about it, but surprisingly, i don't agree that things were moving around much at the base. it is also clear from the debris pile photos that the towers were peeled like a banana at the base. which indicates, forces radiating predominantly outward. obviously, this is also apparent for the (ultra fine) dust cloud.
That peeling effect is from the core exploding and pushing outward on the beams between the interior box columns.
No it's not. It's from falling apart all on it's own..
Okay, you say it falls apart on its own. Why is it going up so much?
Hi Chris, everyone. Isn't that about where the lower half of the core temporarily obstructs the downward collapse of the 'central' part of the debris 'plug' formed by most of the upper core, its inner concrete floor slabs and hat-truss?
If so, that's EXACTLY where I would expect an EXTRA AMOUNT of 'UP-rebound/SIDE-expulsion' effects before the remnant core itself succumbs to the DOUBTLESS damage that such a 'rebound/expulsion' PILE-DRIVER 'hit' would have done to all its 'integral' geometry/interconnections.
So Chris, in fact, that extra 'explosive-looking' effect AT THAT LEVEL shows that it was the collapse to that stage that produced it...and not high-explosives. That's how I connect the height/effects with the core remnant height/status information presented by you guys. Ciao!
RC.
.
This is the sort of objectivity the youngsters need eh?
Verbiage is verbiage is verbiage.
Say what? Brian, are you even reading that upon which you comment so stupidly? Next time read AND UNDERSTAND the points being made BEFORE you open your irrelevant, incompetent mouth, heh?
RC.
.
"Next time read AND UNDERSTAND the points being made BEFORE you open your irrelevant, incompetent mouth, heh?"
And the points being made were?
First you ask a question - "Isn't that about where ..."
Then you assume the answer - "If so, that's EXACTLY where ..."
Then it becomes fact - "So Chris, in fact ...."
"Irrlevant incompetent" - verbiage.
You sir are a clown.
What CS is doing I call "imposed dynamic cognitive distortions" and they provide an easy out for those experiencing cognitive dissonance while reading this material we generate trying to distill all the information and arrive at an agreement as to what happened. CS hopes to alienate as many readers as possible by one means or another.
The distortions are made a part of the discussion and are posed from a perspective of invisibility, never admitted to but employed in layers to confuse facts. I have a list of 12 distoriton that originate with cognitive therapists, most are applicable. They are utilized dynamically, unconsciously within behavior patterns. I haven't examined CS posts that way, I'll try. Should be revealing.
I thought I'd bring up my answer to RC. Since it was buried in CSpam.
Okay, I'm certain that I'm just not qualified or experienced in physics enough to really understand some of the more esoteric concepts put forth here.
Can any one properly sequence the math needed to quantify 'UP-rebound/SIDE-expulsion' effects?
Particuarly in regard to the following image.
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 13 2006, 05:56 AM)
QUOTE (brian+Mar 12 2006, 11:04 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 12 2006, 10:55 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Mar 12 2006, 10:45 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 12 2006, 01:56 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 12 2006, 01:31 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 11 2006, 09:01 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 11 2006, 09:00 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 11 2006, 05:50 PM)
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 11 2006, 05:23 PM)
The puffs are initiated by the buckling. Part of the puff is the fireproofing covering the perimeter columns being crushed. Some is drywall from the offices. The puffs have a light color on the lower half of the buckled east side as the collapse starts. The same dust above the buckled zone has a darker color because the soot from the fires above is mixed in with it.
but the spire has been relieved of any crushing forces from above, so what would cause the remaining core columns to buckle? (which, by the way, i don't see any of. i see a straight spire get whacked on one side by some explosive force, and then begin to tip as a straight spire, and then fall straight down.)
i know RC has a theory about it, but surprisingly, i don't agree that things were moving around much at the base. it is also clear from the debris pile photos that the towers were peeled like a banana at the base. which indicates, forces radiating predominantly outward. obviously, this is also apparent for the (ultra fine) dust cloud.
That peeling effect is from the core exploding and pushing outward on the beams between the interior box columns.
No it's not. It's from falling apart all on it's own..
Okay, you say it falls apart on its own. Why is it going up so much?
Hi Chris, everyone. Isn't that about where the lower half of the core temporarily obstructs the downward collapse of the 'central' part of the debris 'plug' formed by most of the upper core, its inner concrete floor slabs and hat-truss?
If so, that's EXACTLY where I would expect an EXTRA AMOUNT of 'UP-rebound/SIDE-expulsion' effects before the remnant core itself succumbs to the DOUBTLESS damage that such a 'rebound/expulsion' PILE-DRIVER 'hit' would have done to all its 'integral' geometry/interconnections.
So Chris, in fact, that extra 'explosive-looking' effect AT THAT LEVEL shows that it was the collapse to that stage that produced it...and not high-explosives. That's how I connect the height/effects with the core remnant height/status information presented by you guys. Ciao!
RC.
.
This is the sort of objectivity the youngsters need eh?
Verbiage is verbiage is verbiage.
Say what? Brian, are you even reading that upon which you comment so stupidly? Next time read AND UNDERSTAND the points being made BEFORE you open your irrelevant, incompetent mouth, heh?
RC.
.
"Next time read AND UNDERSTAND the points being made BEFORE you open your irrelevant, incompetent mouth, heh?"
And the points being made were?
First you ask a question - "Isn't that about where ..."
Then you assume the answer - "If so, that's EXACTLY where ..."
Then it becomes fact - "So Chris, in fact ...."
"Irrlevant incompetent" - verbiage.
You sir are a clown.
What CS is doing I call "imposed dynamic cognitive distortions" and they provide an easy out for those experiencing cognitive dissonance while reading this material we generate trying to distill all the information and arrive at an agreement as to what happened. CS hopes to alienate as many readers as possible by one means or another.
The distortions are made a part of the discussion and are posed from a perspective of invisibility, never admitted to but employed in layers to confuse facts. I have a list of 12 distoriton that originate with cognitive therapists, most are applicable. They are utilized dynamically, unconsciously within behavior patterns. I haven't examined CS posts that way, I'll try. Should be revealing.
I thought I'd bring up my answer to RC. Since it was buried in CSpam.
Okay, I'm certain that I'm just not qualified or experienced in physics enough to really understand some of the more esoteric concepts put forth here.
Can any one properly sequence the math needed to quantify 'UP-rebound/SIDE-expulsion' effects?
Particuarly in regard to the following image.
Hello Chris.
(1) You will note that it was the CTer FOXX who accused YOU of being a planted 'disinformation agent' for the govt.
(2) You will note that all that psychobabble about "...imposed dynamic cognitive distortions...." can, as FOXX suspects, apply equally to YOU (but here for the CTer 'side', apparently), heh?
(3) If you look at that picture you posted, you will see the REAL THING....so what 'quantification/numeration' do your eyes need? Perhaps getting your 'prescription' checked again might be a good idea. Where have you lived, in a 'bubble'? Are you a "bubble boy" who has never experienced/observed REBOUND? Even a steel ball bearing, a glass marble or a basketball or a collapsing BIG bonfire? Do you suffer from some observational deficit that you can't apply everyday principles/processes to what you 'analyse'....or does it mean that those things do not exist/happen unless and until someone 'quantifies it' for you. Wow!
RC.
.
but the spire has been relieved of any crushing forces from above, so what would cause the remaining core columns to buckle? (which, by the way, i don't see any of. i see a straight spire get whacked on one side by some explosive force, and then begin to tip as a straight spire, and then fall straight down.)
i know RC has a theory about it, but surprisingly, i don't agree that things were moving around much at the base. it is also clear from the debris pile photos that the towers were peeled like a banana at the base. which indicates, forces radiating predominantly outward. obviously, this is also apparent for the (ultra fine) dust cloud.
That peeling effect is from the core exploding and pushing outward on the beams between the interior box columns.
No it's not. It's from falling apart all on it's own..
Okay, you say it falls apart on its own. Why is it going up so much?
Hi Chris, everyone. Isn't that about where the lower half of the core temporarily obstructs the downward collapse of the 'central' part of the debris 'plug' formed by most of the upper core, its inner concrete floor slabs and hat-truss?
If so, that's EXACTLY where I would expect an EXTRA AMOUNT of 'UP-rebound/SIDE-expulsion' effects before the remnant core itself succumbs to the DOUBTLESS damage that such a 'rebound/expulsion' PILE-DRIVER 'hit' would have done to all its 'integral' geometry/interconnections.
So Chris, in fact, that extra 'explosive-looking' effect AT THAT LEVEL shows that it was the collapse to that stage that produced it...and not high-explosives. That's how I connect the height/effects with the core remnant height/status information presented by you guys. Ciao!
RC.
.
This is the sort of objectivity the youngsters need eh?
Verbiage is verbiage is verbiage.
Say what? Brian, are you even reading that upon which you comment so stupidly? Next time read AND UNDERSTAND the points being made BEFORE you open your irrelevant, incompetent mouth, heh?
RC.
.
"Next time read AND UNDERSTAND the points being made BEFORE you open your irrelevant, incompetent mouth, heh?"
And the points being made were?
First you ask a question - "Isn't that about where ..."
Then you assume the answer - "If so, that's EXACTLY where ..."
Then it becomes fact - "So Chris, in fact ...."
"Irrlevant incompetent" - verbiage.
You sir are a clown.
What CS is doing I call "imposed dynamic cognitive distortions" and they provide an easy out for those experiencing cognitive dissonance while reading this material we generate trying to distill all the information and arrive at an agreement as to what happened. CS hopes to alienate as many readers as possible by one means or another.
The distortions are made a part of the discussion and are posed from a perspective of invisibility, never admitted to but employed in layers to confuse facts. I have a list of 12 distoriton that originate with cognitive therapists, most are applicable. They are utilized dynamically, unconsciously within behavior patterns. I haven't examined CS posts that way, I'll try. Should be revealing.
I thought I'd bring up my answer to RC. Since it was buried in CSpam.
Okay, I'm certain that I'm just not qualified or experienced in physics enough to really understand some of the more esoteric concepts put forth here.
Can any one properly sequence the math needed to quantify 'UP-rebound/SIDE-expulsion' effects?
Particuarly in regard to the following image.
Hello Chris.
(1) You will note that it was the CTer FOXX who accused YOU of being a planted 'disinformation agent' for the govt.
(2) You will note that all that psychobabble about "...imposed dynamic cognitive distortions...." can, as FOXX suspects, apply equally to YOU (but here for the CTer 'side', apparently), heh?
(3) If you look at that picture you posted, you will see the REAL THING....so what 'quantification/numeration' do your eyes need? Perhaps getting your 'prescription' checked again might be a good idea. Where have you lived, in a 'bubble'? Are you a "bubble boy" who has never experienced/observed REBOUND? Even a steel ball bearing, a glass marble or a basketball or a collapsing BIG bonfire? Do you suffer from some observational deficit that you can't apply everyday principles/processes to what you 'analyse'....or does it mean that those things do not exist/happen unless and until someone 'quantifies it' for you. Wow!
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 12 2006, 02:15 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 12 2006, 09:43 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 12 2006, 09:32 PM)
.
That's interesting about a secret weapon for blowing up some cars and not others. Did you read it in Popular Mechanics/Science?...or was it part of the script in this month's movie quota?(just joshing ya, newt!).
BTW, I can see spandrels on the PERIMETER-corner 'ladder' in the construction photo, but all I can see in the 'spire' core-corner picture is some skinny lateral 'noggins' which are not wide enough for spandrels. Can you confirm this?
RC.
.
if you put a cup of fat, and a cup of water in the microwave, which heats up faster?
so, if a car has a full tank of gas, maybe it won't explode, but if it has a vapour barrier in the airspace above it, then it does explode.
and, yes. i agree about the spire. i said before i think it's the core box columns, and their connecting 'noggins'.
Thanks mate! I seem to remember that cars can be set on fire just as houses can in 'bushfires' here....from accumulation of burning embers in the gutters/eaves etc. The same thing happens when accumulations of burning embers/ash along their RUBBER door/boot/hood trimmings. That is, the materials are set alight and burn through to create open slit where embers/ash/heat can affect the interior and 'vapourise' the vinyl/plastics (remember that 'new car smell' from all that outgassing from plastic upholstery etc (and even after being parked for some time on a hot day you get that 'vapour' smell when you first open the door).
It is not improbable that such 'vapours' were produced more voluminously by the heat from burning embers accumulating, and were then ignited in the passenger compartment where it would be accumulating mixed with air until ignition by penetrating burning embers/ash. And even in the boot, many cars have a gas-vapour-pressure 'release' valve just to relieve any dangerous pressures caused by extremely hot days. Imagine if the heat from ingress of embers/ash heated the boot interior and tank so that the relief valve put out sufficient fuel vapour to mix with the air contained in the boot....and it was ignited by those same embers/ahs that burned through the rubber seals.
Besides, I also speculate that the TYPE of fuel involved would have something to do with why some cars were more affected than others. You know, hybrid, monofuel, Pressure-liquified natural gas, petrol, diesel, switching systems and electrics shorts, state of repair, cabin/boot 'cargo' at the time, doors/windows open/closed/ajar etc etc.
That's it, mate. Hope you are well despite our 'jousting'! Cheers!
RC.
.
For you information a gas tank pressure relief valve does not vent to the trunk/boot. Were do you come up with these crazy ideas?
That's interesting about a secret weapon for blowing up some cars and not others. Did you read it in Popular Mechanics/Science?...or was it part of the script in this month's movie quota?(just joshing ya, newt!).
BTW, I can see spandrels on the PERIMETER-corner 'ladder' in the construction photo, but all I can see in the 'spire' core-corner picture is some skinny lateral 'noggins' which are not wide enough for spandrels. Can you confirm this?
RC.
.
if you put a cup of fat, and a cup of water in the microwave, which heats up faster?
so, if a car has a full tank of gas, maybe it won't explode, but if it has a vapour barrier in the airspace above it, then it does explode.
and, yes. i agree about the spire. i said before i think it's the core box columns, and their connecting 'noggins'.
Thanks mate! I seem to remember that cars can be set on fire just as houses can in 'bushfires' here....from accumulation of burning embers in the gutters/eaves etc. The same thing happens when accumulations of burning embers/ash along their RUBBER door/boot/hood trimmings. That is, the materials are set alight and burn through to create open slit where embers/ash/heat can affect the interior and 'vapourise' the vinyl/plastics (remember that 'new car smell' from all that outgassing from plastic upholstery etc (and even after being parked for some time on a hot day you get that 'vapour' smell when you first open the door).
It is not improbable that such 'vapours' were produced more voluminously by the heat from burning embers accumulating, and were then ignited in the passenger compartment where it would be accumulating mixed with air until ignition by penetrating burning embers/ash. And even in the boot, many cars have a gas-vapour-pressure 'release' valve just to relieve any dangerous pressures caused by extremely hot days. Imagine if the heat from ingress of embers/ash heated the boot interior and tank so that the relief valve put out sufficient fuel vapour to mix with the air contained in the boot....and it was ignited by those same embers/ahs that burned through the rubber seals.
Besides, I also speculate that the TYPE of fuel involved would have something to do with why some cars were more affected than others. You know, hybrid, monofuel, Pressure-liquified natural gas, petrol, diesel, switching systems and electrics shorts, state of repair, cabin/boot 'cargo' at the time, doors/windows open/closed/ajar etc etc.
That's it, mate. Hope you are well despite our 'jousting'! Cheers!
RC.
.
For you information a gas tank pressure relief valve does not vent to the trunk/boot. Were do you come up with these crazy ideas?
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 13 2006, 01:00 AM)
The Nist report said they used a figure of 14 kip, which is about the force you would get from 6 tonne. For those perimeter columns outwith the corner of the core and on the corners of the towers, only half would carry a floor and only half of those would have a connection since it was every other column. Those would all be connected to a beam and not the core directly as I outlined in my previous post.
So roughly, out of all the columns only half had a floor connection so that leaves about 60 connecting the perimeter columns to anything substantial, about another 30 connected to the core to perimeter beams, and 150 without a floor end connection because they were in the corner or every other column.
So assuming the full 6 tonne load even through all the available connections gives you a total of 540 tonnes.
The vertical load is 56 000 tonnes according to BZ. Now if you say that this load alone was unable to plastically deform the columns to their buckle points, then according to BZ they must still be operating within the elastic range. We know this because if the load was raised sufficiently to move outside the elastic range, the same load would cause the plastically deformed buckle points.
Let us assume that the load was actually almost capable of buckling the beam but was just hovering on the brink. We know that the minimum load to complete deformation at full deflection is 25% of that required to initiate buckling (from BZ)
so we can now directly relate these forces, because they would be acting over the same moment over the same column length.
25% of 56 000 is 14 000 tonnes required
Total load from floor 540 tonnes.
Gordon.
According to NIST, the inward bowing of the Perimeter columns was a NECESSARY but INSUFFICIENT condition to initiate collapse.
Both WTC 1 & 2 would have not fallen without impact and thermal damage to their core columns.
Try not to think SO 1 dimensionally.
Arthur
So roughly, out of all the columns only half had a floor connection so that leaves about 60 connecting the perimeter columns to anything substantial, about another 30 connected to the core to perimeter beams, and 150 without a floor end connection because they were in the corner or every other column.
So assuming the full 6 tonne load even through all the available connections gives you a total of 540 tonnes.
The vertical load is 56 000 tonnes according to BZ. Now if you say that this load alone was unable to plastically deform the columns to their buckle points, then according to BZ they must still be operating within the elastic range. We know this because if the load was raised sufficiently to move outside the elastic range, the same load would cause the plastically deformed buckle points.
Let us assume that the load was actually almost capable of buckling the beam but was just hovering on the brink. We know that the minimum load to complete deformation at full deflection is 25% of that required to initiate buckling (from BZ)
so we can now directly relate these forces, because they would be acting over the same moment over the same column length.
25% of 56 000 is 14 000 tonnes required
Total load from floor 540 tonnes.
Gordon.
According to NIST, the inward bowing of the Perimeter columns was a NECESSARY but INSUFFICIENT condition to initiate collapse.
Both WTC 1 & 2 would have not fallen without impact and thermal damage to their core columns.
Try not to think SO 1 dimensionally.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 12 2006, 10:51 PM)
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 13 2006, 01:00 AM)
The Nist report said they used a figure of 14 kip, which is about the force you would get from 6 tonne. For those perimeter columns outwith the corner of the core and on the corners of the towers, only half would carry a floor and only half of those would have a connection since it was every other column. Those would all be connected to a beam and not the core directly as I outlined in my previous post.
So roughly, out of all the columns only half had a floor connection so that leaves about 60 connecting the perimeter columns to anything substantial, about another 30 connected to the core to perimeter beams, and 150 without a floor end connection because they were in the corner or every other column.
So assuming the full 6 tonne load even through all the available connections gives you a total of 540 tonnes.
The vertical load is 56 000 tonnes according to BZ. Now if you say that this load alone was unable to plastically deform the columns to their buckle points, then according to BZ they must still be operating within the elastic range. We know this because if the load was raised sufficiently to move outside the elastic range, the same load would cause the plastically deformed buckle points.
Let us assume that the load was actually almost capable of buckling the beam but was just hovering on the brink. We know that the minimum load to complete deformation at full deflection is 25% of that required to initiate buckling (from BZ)
so we can now directly relate these forces, because they would be acting over the same moment over the same column length.
25% of 56 000 is 14 000 tonnes required
Total load from floor 540 tonnes.
Gordon.
According to NIST, the inward bowing of the Perimeter columns was a NECESSARY but INSUFFICIENT condition to initiate collapse.
Both WTC 1 & 2 would have not fallen without impact and thermal damage to their core columns.
Try not to think SO 1 dimensionally.
Arthur
If a NECESSARY but INSUFFICIENT condition does not exist.
What does that say about the rest of the NIST report?
So roughly, out of all the columns only half had a floor connection so that leaves about 60 connecting the perimeter columns to anything substantial, about another 30 connected to the core to perimeter beams, and 150 without a floor end connection because they were in the corner or every other column.
So assuming the full 6 tonne load even through all the available connections gives you a total of 540 tonnes.
The vertical load is 56 000 tonnes according to BZ. Now if you say that this load alone was unable to plastically deform the columns to their buckle points, then according to BZ they must still be operating within the elastic range. We know this because if the load was raised sufficiently to move outside the elastic range, the same load would cause the plastically deformed buckle points.
Let us assume that the load was actually almost capable of buckling the beam but was just hovering on the brink. We know that the minimum load to complete deformation at full deflection is 25% of that required to initiate buckling (from BZ)
so we can now directly relate these forces, because they would be acting over the same moment over the same column length.
25% of 56 000 is 14 000 tonnes required
Total load from floor 540 tonnes.
Gordon.
According to NIST, the inward bowing of the Perimeter columns was a NECESSARY but INSUFFICIENT condition to initiate collapse.
Both WTC 1 & 2 would have not fallen without impact and thermal damage to their core columns.
Try not to think SO 1 dimensionally.
Arthur
If a NECESSARY but INSUFFICIENT condition does not exist.
What does that say about the rest of the NIST report?
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 13 2006, 06:18 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 13 2006, 05:56 AM)
QUOTE (brian+Mar 12 2006, 11:04 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 12 2006, 10:55 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Mar 12 2006, 10:45 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 12 2006, 01:56 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 12 2006, 01:31 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 11 2006, 09:01 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 11 2006, 09:00 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 11 2006, 05:50 PM)
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 11 2006, 05:23 PM)
The puffs are initiated by the buckling. Part of the puff is the fireproofing covering the perimeter columns being crushed. Some is drywall from the offices. The puffs have a light color on the lower half of the buckled east side as the collapse starts. The same dust above the buckled zone has a darker color because the soot from the fires above is mixed in with it.
but the spire has been relieved of any crushing forces from above, so what would cause the remaining core columns to buckle? (which, by the way, i don't see any of. i see a straight spire get whacked on one side by some explosive force, and then begin to tip as a straight spire, and then fall straight down.)
i know RC has a theory about it, but surprisingly, i don't agree that things were moving around much at the base. it is also clear from the debris pile photos that the towers were peeled like a banana at the base. which indicates, forces radiating predominantly outward. obviously, this is also apparent for the (ultra fine) dust cloud.
That peeling effect is from the core exploding and pushing outward on the beams between the interior box columns.
No it's not. It's from falling apart all on it's own..
Okay, you say it falls apart on its own. Why is it going up so much?
Hi Chris, everyone. Isn't that about where the lower half of the core temporarily obstructs the downward collapse of the 'central' part of the debris 'plug' formed by most of the upper core, its inner concrete floor slabs and hat-truss?
If so, that's EXACTLY where I would expect an EXTRA AMOUNT of 'UP-rebound/SIDE-expulsion' effects before the remnant core itself succumbs to the DOUBTLESS damage that such a 'rebound/expulsion' PILE-DRIVER 'hit' would have done to all its 'integral' geometry/interconnections.
So Chris, in fact, that extra 'explosive-looking' effect AT THAT LEVEL shows that it was the collapse to that stage that produced it...and not high-explosives. That's how I connect the height/effects with the core remnant height/status information presented by you guys. Ciao!
RC.
.
This is the sort of objectivity the youngsters need eh?
Verbiage is verbiage is verbiage.
Say what? Brian, are you even reading that upon which you comment so stupidly? Next time read AND UNDERSTAND the points being made BEFORE you open your irrelevant, incompetent mouth, heh?
RC.
.
"Next time read AND UNDERSTAND the points being made BEFORE you open your irrelevant, incompetent mouth, heh?"
And the points being made were?
First you ask a question - "Isn't that about where ..."
Then you assume the answer - "If so, that's EXACTLY where ..."
Then it becomes fact - "So Chris, in fact ...."
"Irrlevant incompetent" - verbiage.
You sir are a clown.
What CS is doing I call "imposed dynamic cognitive distortions" and they provide an easy out for those experiencing cognitive dissonance while reading this material we generate trying to distill all the information and arrive at an agreement as to what happened. CS hopes to alienate as many readers as possible by one means or another.
The distortions are made a part of the discussion and are posed from a perspective of invisibility, never admitted to but employed in layers to confuse facts. I have a list of 12 distoriton that originate with cognitive therapists, most are applicable. They are utilized dynamically, unconsciously within behavior patterns. I haven't examined CS posts that way, I'll try. Should be revealing.
I thought I'd bring up my answer to RC. Since it was buried in CSpam.
Okay, I'm certain that I'm just not qualified or experienced in physics enough to really understand some of the more esoteric concepts put forth here.
Can any one properly sequence the math needed to quantify 'UP-rebound/SIDE-expulsion' effects?
Particuarly in regard to the following image.
Hello Chris.
(1) You will note that it was the CTer FOXX who accused YOU of being a planted 'disinformation agent' for the govt.
(2) You will note that all that psychobabble about "...imposed dynamic cognitive distortions...." can, as FOXX suspects, apply equally to YOU (but here for the CTer 'side', apparently), heh?
(3) If you look at that picture you posted, you will see the REAL THING....so what 'quantification/numeration' do your eyes need? Perhaps getting your 'prescription' checked again might be a good idea. Where have you lived, in a 'bubble'? Are you a "bubble boy" who has never experienced/observed REBOUND? Even a steel ball bearing, a glass marble or a basketball or a collapsing BIG bonfire? Do you suffer from some observational deficit that you can't apply everyday principles/processes to what you 'analyse'....or does it mean that those things do not exist/happen unless and until someone 'quantifies it' for you. Wow!
RC.
.
I'm speechless, you are actually trying to sell your "bouncing" tower concept. What can I say? Will OMG!!! be enough?
You are being ridiculous.
but the spire has been relieved of any crushing forces from above, so what would cause the remaining core columns to buckle? (which, by the way, i don't see any of. i see a straight spire get whacked on one side by some explosive force, and then begin to tip as a straight spire, and then fall straight down.)
i know RC has a theory about it, but surprisingly, i don't agree that things were moving around much at the base. it is also clear from the debris pile photos that the towers were peeled like a banana at the base. which indicates, forces radiating predominantly outward. obviously, this is also apparent for the (ultra fine) dust cloud.
That peeling effect is from the core exploding and pushing outward on the beams between the interior box columns.
No it's not. It's from falling apart all on it's own..
Okay, you say it falls apart on its own. Why is it going up so much?
Hi Chris, everyone. Isn't that about where the lower half of the core temporarily obstructs the downward collapse of the 'central' part of the debris 'plug' formed by most of the upper core, its inner concrete floor slabs and hat-truss?
If so, that's EXACTLY where I would expect an EXTRA AMOUNT of 'UP-rebound/SIDE-expulsion' effects before the remnant core itself succumbs to the DOUBTLESS damage that such a 'rebound/expulsion' PILE-DRIVER 'hit' would have done to all its 'integral' geometry/interconnections.
So Chris, in fact, that extra 'explosive-looking' effect AT THAT LEVEL shows that it was the collapse to that stage that produced it...and not high-explosives. That's how I connect the height/effects with the core remnant height/status information presented by you guys. Ciao!
RC.
.
This is the sort of objectivity the youngsters need eh?
Verbiage is verbiage is verbiage.
Say what? Brian, are you even reading that upon which you comment so stupidly? Next time read AND UNDERSTAND the points being made BEFORE you open your irrelevant, incompetent mouth, heh?
RC.
.
"Next time read AND UNDERSTAND the points being made BEFORE you open your irrelevant, incompetent mouth, heh?"
And the points being made were?
First you ask a question - "Isn't that about where ..."
Then you assume the answer - "If so, that's EXACTLY where ..."
Then it becomes fact - "So Chris, in fact ...."
"Irrlevant incompetent" - verbiage.
You sir are a clown.
What CS is doing I call "imposed dynamic cognitive distortions" and they provide an easy out for those experiencing cognitive dissonance while reading this material we generate trying to distill all the information and arrive at an agreement as to what happened. CS hopes to alienate as many readers as possible by one means or another.
The distortions are made a part of the discussion and are posed from a perspective of invisibility, never admitted to but employed in layers to confuse facts. I have a list of 12 distoriton that originate with cognitive therapists, most are applicable. They are utilized dynamically, unconsciously within behavior patterns. I haven't examined CS posts that way, I'll try. Should be revealing.
I thought I'd bring up my answer to RC. Since it was buried in CSpam.
Okay, I'm certain that I'm just not qualified or experienced in physics enough to really understand some of the more esoteric concepts put forth here.
Can any one properly sequence the math needed to quantify 'UP-rebound/SIDE-expulsion' effects?
Particuarly in regard to the following image.
Hello Chris.
(1) You will note that it was the CTer FOXX who accused YOU of being a planted 'disinformation agent' for the govt.
(2) You will note that all that psychobabble about "...imposed dynamic cognitive distortions...." can, as FOXX suspects, apply equally to YOU (but here for the CTer 'side', apparently), heh?
(3) If you look at that picture you posted, you will see the REAL THING....so what 'quantification/numeration' do your eyes need? Perhaps getting your 'prescription' checked again might be a good idea. Where have you lived, in a 'bubble'? Are you a "bubble boy" who has never experienced/observed REBOUND? Even a steel ball bearing, a glass marble or a basketball or a collapsing BIG bonfire? Do you suffer from some observational deficit that you can't apply everyday principles/processes to what you 'analyse'....or does it mean that those things do not exist/happen unless and until someone 'quantifies it' for you. Wow!
RC.
.
I'm speechless, you are actually trying to sell your "bouncing" tower concept. What can I say? Will OMG!!! be enough?
You are being ridiculous.
TOWERS BOUNCE ALL THE TIME! WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN? HEHEHE!!!
Acoustic Weapons—A Prospective Assessment: Sources, Propagation, and Effects of Strong Sound
Jürgen Altmann
Experimentelle Physik III Universität Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany
Quote;
Anti-material: embrittlement or fatigue of metals, thermal damage or delamination of composites; against buildings: shattering of windows, localized earthquakes (21)
"www.einaudi.cornell.edu/PeaceProgram/publications/occasional_papers/occasional-paper22.pdf."
The brave new world of weaponry, does not include an expanding role for accelerated, solid projectiles. Directional, high energy, sound waves, capable of rendering personnel temporarily or permanently disabled, will prevail at sites of conflict. Ironically, anti war protesters may experience the prototypical stun affects, even before enemy combatants do. I became aware of this; in my search for high amplitude, infrasonic surface mounted, vibration producing devices, capable of compromising hardened targets. Most of what I found, unfortunately, involved acoustically, compromising humans.
I guess you can see, where I'm going with this. I have a theory, that low frequency transducers were attached securely to surfaces of designated columns. The building is a complex tuning fork. Knowing or determining the resonant period; an excitation frequency, capable of melting the visco-dampers, then snapping the bolts and welds, could be created, assuming sufficient power to produce the required amplitude was available. If that amptitude could be met, then the system could be built with common, but heavy duty, technology. Perhaps, what showed up on the seismographs, were the parameters affects of this phenomena. I wonder how it would compared to the predicted, self destructive, resonant frequency of the building? +/-(2-3)Hz would be interesting!
Of course, a megawatt power source; capable of driving the transducers, at the targeted (subsonic) frequency, would be required. Maybe only a sub-station would be required. It would make sense, to assume it was located in building 7. All that bunkering and shielding, just to protect it's presence? Then building 7 , conveniently implodes. The power supply, in the reinforced area, stays up long enough to finish the job, before the evidence of it's existence is destroyed.
This, of course, is an early work in progress that needs to be developed. I'm not saying that explosives weren't needed for initiation. But after that, the building fell like butter, as if nothing in the lower section was still connected. Maybe nothing was.
Jürgen Altmann
Experimentelle Physik III Universität Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany
Quote;
Anti-material: embrittlement or fatigue of metals, thermal damage or delamination of composites; against buildings: shattering of windows, localized earthquakes (21)
"www.einaudi.cornell.edu/PeaceProgram/publications/occasional_papers/occasional-paper22.pdf."
The brave new world of weaponry, does not include an expanding role for accelerated, solid projectiles. Directional, high energy, sound waves, capable of rendering personnel temporarily or permanently disabled, will prevail at sites of conflict. Ironically, anti war protesters may experience the prototypical stun affects, even before enemy combatants do. I became aware of this; in my search for high amplitude, infrasonic surface mounted, vibration producing devices, capable of compromising hardened targets. Most of what I found, unfortunately, involved acoustically, compromising humans.
I guess you can see, where I'm going with this. I have a theory, that low frequency transducers were attached securely to surfaces of designated columns. The building is a complex tuning fork. Knowing or determining the resonant period; an excitation frequency, capable of melting the visco-dampers, then snapping the bolts and welds, could be created, assuming sufficient power to produce the required amplitude was available. If that amptitude could be met, then the system could be built with common, but heavy duty, technology. Perhaps, what showed up on the seismographs, were the parameters affects of this phenomena. I wonder how it would compared to the predicted, self destructive, resonant frequency of the building? +/-(2-3)Hz would be interesting!
Of course, a megawatt power source; capable of driving the transducers, at the targeted (subsonic) frequency, would be required. Maybe only a sub-station would be required. It would make sense, to assume it was located in building 7. All that bunkering and shielding, just to protect it's presence? Then building 7 , conveniently implodes. The power supply, in the reinforced area, stays up long enough to finish the job, before the evidence of it's existence is destroyed.
This, of course, is an early work in progress that needs to be developed. I'm not saying that explosives weren't needed for initiation. But after that, the building fell like butter, as if nothing in the lower section was still connected. Maybe nothing was.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 13 2006, 05:53 AM)
Hi newt!
For your consideration: Could it be that in the bottom picture the increasing inwards bowing of the perimeter wall, combined with the attendant further internal collapses of fire-floors material, could somehow create sufficient air movements so that any flames/debris there are forced to go with those air currents?
RC.
.
My theory, and it's a good one, is that we've gotten a hold of the Dr. Evil playbook and learned a few lessons, like planting one of our own amongst the enemy. He appears to be working very hard for the other side, when in actual fact his purpose is to advance the most ridiculous/outlandish/preposterous "theories" which will be so thinly veiled that no one can fail to see through them. I have to say we overshot the mark by a good distance, R?C is really hamming it up a bit. Of course, I should not be revealing the secret but I am sure the other side is catching on also, unless I've overestimated them, hmmm, no doubt I have.
For your consideration: Could it be that in the bottom picture the increasing inwards bowing of the perimeter wall, combined with the attendant further internal collapses of fire-floors material, could somehow create sufficient air movements so that any flames/debris there are forced to go with those air currents?
RC.
.
My theory, and it's a good one, is that we've gotten a hold of the Dr. Evil playbook and learned a few lessons, like planting one of our own amongst the enemy. He appears to be working very hard for the other side, when in actual fact his purpose is to advance the most ridiculous/outlandish/preposterous "theories" which will be so thinly veiled that no one can fail to see through them. I have to say we overshot the mark by a good distance, R?C is really hamming it up a bit. Of course, I should not be revealing the secret but I am sure the other side is catching on also, unless I've overestimated them, hmmm, no doubt I have.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 12 2006, 06:50 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 12 2006, 12:30 PM)
QUOTE (Guest+Mar 12 2006, 08:46 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 12 2006, 01:28 PM)
QUOTE (hereward+Mar 12 2006, 08:50 AM)
And nobody seems to have any explanation other than that the cars were hit by burning debris... but witness have reported cars exploding... which is quite distinct from, say, being hit with a pice of burning debris.
What makes cars explode???? I am at a loss to explain this.
(: hereward
What makes cars explode?
Duh
Its called a GAS TANK.
But the fact is, virtually all the pictures are simply burned out vehicles.
They are burned out because there was almost no attempt made to put out the fires.
Because the people who could were:
A) Dead
B ) had no equipment
C) had equipment but no water pressure
D) worried about more important things, like finding their friends or finding fresh air
Arthur
Brought to you from INSULTINGLY STUPID MOVIE PHYSICS
Ever notice how cars in movies always burst into flames the instant they collide with anything? Our favorite is when a car falling from a high place explodes the instant before it hits the ground. It's as though its gas tank gets panicky and detonates at the mere thought of striking Earth. Fortunately, the physics are not so cooperative.
Gasoline has a very narrow flammable range of about 1.4 to 7.6% gasoline vapor in air 2. In other words, the vapor-air mixture must be exactly as specified or the gas will not burn, let alone explode! Note that we say vapor. Liquid gasoline must change into vapor before it can burn (although this is no huge problem since it easily vaporizes).
For a car to explode during impact the tank must catastrophically rupture and spew a fine mist of gasoline over a large area so it can vaporize and mix with air in exactly the right proportions. The mixture must then find a source of ignition. Automobile gas tanks are built to withstand a considerable impact force and are usually located in a protected area between the beams of a car's frame. Common ignition sources in the car's engine are generally at the other end of the vehicle.
As portrayed in movies, gasoline tanks are fragile and gasoline so volatile that the vaporizing and mixing process occurs in milliseconds. It always results in an explosive mixture which always finds a source of ignition. Thank heavens it's not so easy or people would regularly be blowing themselves up while refueling at the pump.
Even when a wrecked car catches on fire it rarely explodes. A gas tank can explode if it contains an explosive mixture and there's an opening for the flames to enter. More likely, fire would have to impinge on the outside of the gas tank, vaporizing the gasoline in the tank and eventually causing it to overpressure and explode. However, if the vapors escaped fast enough the tank would not rupture. Most fires start in the engine compartment and will not spread backwards to the gas tank area unless the tank is leaking fuel on the ground. Again a whole series of events has to be just right for an explosion to occur.
Although it's actually quite rare, exploding cars are a common excuse for not wearing seat belts. Onlookers at crash sites are often so concerned about explosions that they unnecessarily jeopardize a person with a spinal injury by pulling them out of a wrecked car. The common Hollywood depiction fuels these harmful misconceptions.
Excellent post guest, why don’t you register? Reminds me of :
The NBC Fuel tank hoax.
NBC news did a story on side mounted fuel tanks on GM trucks.
The claim of the story was that when such a truck was struck, it would burst into flames. GM insisted that it's side mounted truck fuel tanks were more than sturdy enough to survive the average traffic collision.
NBC produced and aired a video segment that showed a vehicle colliding with the side fuel tank of a GM truck at low speed, and the GM fuel tank exploded.
It later turned out that the fuel tank had been rigged with explosive devices by NBC to manufacture the explosion seen in their news report!
TIME article on the NBC hoax.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/LIE/nbc.html
So you morons think the cars just exploded a block away from the towers while leaving the cars next to the towers alone? Incredible hopping explosives or hopping pyroclastic flow... Which is it...
MORONS Heh!
In regard to:
Gasoline has a very narrow flammable range of about 1.4 to 7.6% gasoline vapor in air 2. In other words, the vapor-air mixture must be exactly as specified or the gas will not burn, let alone explode! Note that we say vapor. Liquid gasoline must change into vapor before it can burn (although this is no huge problem since it easily vaporizes).
This makes me wonder about kerosene - is the flammable range of kerosen vapour similar?
If so does this not cast more doubt on the elevator shaft fireball theory?
There's no doubt that there was an exploding fireball in the freight elevator shaft of WTC 1 coinciding with impact - but what caused it eh?
In regard to the exploding cars - we shouldn't overlook the obvious explanation:
pre-planted car bombs - just don't ask me why.
(: hereward
Image is for meteorite, but physics of impact are physics of impact.
Amount and distance of ejecta simply vary with speed and properties of materials.
Arthur
What makes cars explode???? I am at a loss to explain this.
(: hereward
What makes cars explode?
Duh
Its called a GAS TANK.
But the fact is, virtually all the pictures are simply burned out vehicles.
They are burned out because there was almost no attempt made to put out the fires.
Because the people who could were:
A) Dead
B ) had no equipment
C) had equipment but no water pressure
D) worried about more important things, like finding their friends or finding fresh air
Arthur
Brought to you from INSULTINGLY STUPID MOVIE PHYSICS
Ever notice how cars in movies always burst into flames the instant they collide with anything? Our favorite is when a car falling from a high place explodes the instant before it hits the ground. It's as though its gas tank gets panicky and detonates at the mere thought of striking Earth. Fortunately, the physics are not so cooperative.
Gasoline has a very narrow flammable range of about 1.4 to 7.6% gasoline vapor in air 2. In other words, the vapor-air mixture must be exactly as specified or the gas will not burn, let alone explode! Note that we say vapor. Liquid gasoline must change into vapor before it can burn (although this is no huge problem since it easily vaporizes).
For a car to explode during impact the tank must catastrophically rupture and spew a fine mist of gasoline over a large area so it can vaporize and mix with air in exactly the right proportions. The mixture must then find a source of ignition. Automobile gas tanks are built to withstand a considerable impact force and are usually located in a protected area between the beams of a car's frame. Common ignition sources in the car's engine are generally at the other end of the vehicle.
As portrayed in movies, gasoline tanks are fragile and gasoline so volatile that the vaporizing and mixing process occurs in milliseconds. It always results in an explosive mixture which always finds a source of ignition. Thank heavens it's not so easy or people would regularly be blowing themselves up while refueling at the pump.
Even when a wrecked car catches on fire it rarely explodes. A gas tank can explode if it contains an explosive mixture and there's an opening for the flames to enter. More likely, fire would have to impinge on the outside of the gas tank, vaporizing the gasoline in the tank and eventually causing it to overpressure and explode. However, if the vapors escaped fast enough the tank would not rupture. Most fires start in the engine compartment and will not spread backwards to the gas tank area unless the tank is leaking fuel on the ground. Again a whole series of events has to be just right for an explosion to occur.
Although it's actually quite rare, exploding cars are a common excuse for not wearing seat belts. Onlookers at crash sites are often so concerned about explosions that they unnecessarily jeopardize a person with a spinal injury by pulling them out of a wrecked car. The common Hollywood depiction fuels these harmful misconceptions.
Excellent post guest, why don’t you register? Reminds me of :
The NBC Fuel tank hoax.
NBC news did a story on side mounted fuel tanks on GM trucks.
The claim of the story was that when such a truck was struck, it would burst into flames. GM insisted that it's side mounted truck fuel tanks were more than sturdy enough to survive the average traffic collision.
NBC produced and aired a video segment that showed a vehicle colliding with the side fuel tank of a GM truck at low speed, and the GM fuel tank exploded.
It later turned out that the fuel tank had been rigged with explosive devices by NBC to manufacture the explosion seen in their news report!
TIME article on the NBC hoax.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/LIE/nbc.html
So you morons think the cars just exploded a block away from the towers while leaving the cars next to the towers alone? Incredible hopping explosives or hopping pyroclastic flow... Which is it...
MORONS Heh!
In regard to:
QUOTE
Gasoline has a very narrow flammable range of about 1.4 to 7.6% gasoline vapor in air 2. In other words, the vapor-air mixture must be exactly as specified or the gas will not burn, let alone explode! Note that we say vapor. Liquid gasoline must change into vapor before it can burn (although this is no huge problem since it easily vaporizes).
This makes me wonder about kerosene - is the flammable range of kerosen vapour similar?
If so does this not cast more doubt on the elevator shaft fireball theory?
There's no doubt that there was an exploding fireball in the freight elevator shaft of WTC 1 coinciding with impact - but what caused it eh?
In regard to the exploding cars - we shouldn't overlook the obvious explanation:
pre-planted car bombs - just don't ask me why.
(: hereward
Image is for meteorite, but physics of impact are physics of impact.
Amount and distance of ejecta simply vary with speed and properties of materials.
Arthur
QUOTE (newton+Mar 13 2006, 12:34 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 13 2006, 04:48 AM)
Notice, this is happening without exposions ejecting debris out of the windows.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/WTC2_1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/WTC2_2.jpg
that's funny, 'cause i see debris being ejected in the bottom picture. look. there are chunks flying out.
i also see that that flame at the edge of the building has flared up, and there is a noticable increase in the volume of the smoke.
those pictures both say 9:59 (that says to me that they were taken within a minute of each other(smart, eh?), and appear to be from the same camera.
and, yet, the top one is darker? oh, well, i guess the physics that make cameras work were on holiday, too. either that, or someone tampered with them for some reason.
That's funny, because the smoke would have looked more like this...
notice smoke jets straight out to the side.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/WTC2_1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/WTC2_2.jpg
that's funny, 'cause i see debris being ejected in the bottom picture. look. there are chunks flying out.
i also see that that flame at the edge of the building has flared up, and there is a noticable increase in the volume of the smoke.
those pictures both say 9:59 (that says to me that they were taken within a minute of each other(smart, eh?), and appear to be from the same camera.
and, yet, the top one is darker? oh, well, i guess the physics that make cameras work were on holiday, too. either that, or someone tampered with them for some reason.
That's funny, because the smoke would have looked more like this...
notice smoke jets straight out to the side.
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 13 2006, 12:04 AM)
Degrees can't think
Gordon.
I've noticed...
Gordon.
I've noticed...
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 13 2006, 12:56 AM)
QUOTE (brian+Mar 12 2006, 11:04 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 12 2006, 10:55 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Mar 12 2006, 10:45 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 12 2006, 01:56 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 12 2006, 01:31 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 11 2006, 09:01 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 11 2006, 09:00 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 11 2006, 05:50 PM)
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 11 2006, 05:23 PM)
The puffs are initiated by the buckling. Part of the puff is the fireproofing covering the perimeter columns being crushed. Some is drywall from the offices. The puffs have a light color on the lower half of the buckled east side as the collapse starts. The same dust above the buckled zone has a darker color because the soot from the fires above is mixed in with it.
but the spire has been relieved of any crushing forces from above, so what would cause the remaining core columns to buckle? (which, by the way, i don't see any of. i see a straight spire get whacked on one side by some explosive force, and then begin to tip as a straight spire, and then fall straight down.)
i know RC has a theory about it, but surprisingly, i don't agree that things were moving around much at the base. it is also clear from the debris pile photos that the towers were peeled like a banana at the base. which indicates, forces radiating predominantly outward. obviously, this is also apparent for the (ultra fine) dust cloud.
That peeling effect is from the core exploding and pushing outward on the beams between the interior box columns.
No it's not. It's from falling apart all on it's own..
Okay, you say it falls apart on its own. Why is it going up so much?
Hi Chris, everyone. Isn't that about where the lower half of the core temporarily obstructs the downward collapse of the 'central' part of the debris 'plug' formed by most of the upper core, its inner concrete floor slabs and hat-truss?
If so, that's EXACTLY where I would expect an EXTRA AMOUNT of 'UP-rebound/SIDE-expulsion' effects before the remnant core itself succumbs to the DOUBTLESS damage that such a 'rebound/expulsion' PILE-DRIVER 'hit' would have done to all its 'integral' geometry/interconnections.
So Chris, in fact, that extra 'explosive-looking' effect AT THAT LEVEL shows that it was the collapse to that stage that produced it...and not high-explosives. That's how I connect the height/effects with the core remnant height/status information presented by you guys. Ciao!
RC.
.
This is the sort of objectivity the youngsters need eh?
Verbiage is verbiage is verbiage.
Say what? Brian, are you even reading that upon which you comment so stupidly? Next time read AND UNDERSTAND the points being made BEFORE you open your irrelevant, incompetent mouth, heh?
RC.
.
"Next time read AND UNDERSTAND the points being made BEFORE you open your irrelevant, incompetent mouth, heh?"
And the points being made were?
First you ask a question - "Isn't that about where ..."
Then you assume the answer - "If so, that's EXACTLY where ..."
Then it becomes fact - "So Chris, in fact ...."
"Irrlevant incompetent" - verbiage.
You sir are a clown.
What CS is doing I call "imposed dynamic cognitive distortions" and they provide an easy out for those experiencing cognitive dissonance while reading this material we generate trying to distill all the information and arrive at an agreement as to what happened. CS hopes to alienate as many readers as possible by one means or another.
The distortions are made a part of the discussion and are posed from a perspective of invisibility, never admitted to but employed in layers to confuse facts. I have a list of 12 distoriton that originate with cognitive therapists, most are applicable. They are utilized dynamically, unconsciously within behavior patterns. I haven't examined CS posts that way, I'll try. Should be revealing.
I thought I'd bring up my answer to RC. Since it was buried in CSpam.
Okay, I'm certain that I'm just not qualified or experienced in physics enough to really understand some of the more esoteric concepts put forth here.
Can any one properly sequence the math needed to quantify 'UP-rebound/SIDE-expulsion' effects?
Particuarly in regard to the following image.
This coming from someone who thinks the core had a concrete tube... Heh!
You're a con-man, do I need to prove it again?
If you look back you'll see I'm the first person to bring up cognitive dissonance in this thread and it was the CTers ignoring photographic evidence and changing the arguments around the evidence which clearly illustrates it.
OK, Mr "The towers had a concrete core". Heh!
but the spire has been relieved of any crushing forces from above, so what would cause the remaining core columns to buckle? (which, by the way, i don't see any of. i see a straight spire get whacked on one side by some explosive force, and then begin to tip as a straight spire, and then fall straight down.)
i know RC has a theory about it, but surprisingly, i don't agree that things were moving around much at the base. it is also clear from the debris pile photos that the towers were peeled like a banana at the base. which indicates, forces radiating predominantly outward. obviously, this is also apparent for the (ultra fine) dust cloud.
That peeling effect is from the core exploding and pushing outward on the beams between the interior box columns.
No it's not. It's from falling apart all on it's own..
Okay, you say it falls apart on its own. Why is it going up so much?
Hi Chris, everyone. Isn't that about where the lower half of the core temporarily obstructs the downward collapse of the 'central' part of the debris 'plug' formed by most of the upper core, its inner concrete floor slabs and hat-truss?
If so, that's EXACTLY where I would expect an EXTRA AMOUNT of 'UP-rebound/SIDE-expulsion' effects before the remnant core itself succumbs to the DOUBTLESS damage that such a 'rebound/expulsion' PILE-DRIVER 'hit' would have done to all its 'integral' geometry/interconnections.
So Chris, in fact, that extra 'explosive-looking' effect AT THAT LEVEL shows that it was the collapse to that stage that produced it...and not high-explosives. That's how I connect the height/effects with the core remnant height/status information presented by you guys. Ciao!
RC.
.
This is the sort of objectivity the youngsters need eh?
Verbiage is verbiage is verbiage.
Say what? Brian, are you even reading that upon which you comment so stupidly? Next time read AND UNDERSTAND the points being made BEFORE you open your irrelevant, incompetent mouth, heh?
RC.
.
"Next time read AND UNDERSTAND the points being made BEFORE you open your irrelevant, incompetent mouth, heh?"
And the points being made were?
First you ask a question - "Isn't that about where ..."
Then you assume the answer - "If so, that's EXACTLY where ..."
Then it becomes fact - "So Chris, in fact ...."
"Irrlevant incompetent" - verbiage.
You sir are a clown.
What CS is doing I call "imposed dynamic cognitive distortions" and they provide an easy out for those experiencing cognitive dissonance while reading this material we generate trying to distill all the information and arrive at an agreement as to what happened. CS hopes to alienate as many readers as possible by one means or another.
The distortions are made a part of the discussion and are posed from a perspective of invisibility, never admitted to but employed in layers to confuse facts. I have a list of 12 distoriton that originate with cognitive therapists, most are applicable. They are utilized dynamically, unconsciously within behavior patterns. I haven't examined CS posts that way, I'll try. Should be revealing.
I thought I'd bring up my answer to RC. Since it was buried in CSpam.
Okay, I'm certain that I'm just not qualified or experienced in physics enough to really understand some of the more esoteric concepts put forth here.
Can any one properly sequence the math needed to quantify 'UP-rebound/SIDE-expulsion' effects?
Particuarly in regard to the following image.
This coming from someone who thinks the core had a concrete tube... Heh!
You're a con-man, do I need to prove it again?
If you look back you'll see I'm the first person to bring up cognitive dissonance in this thread and it was the CTers ignoring photographic evidence and changing the arguments around the evidence which clearly illustrates it.
OK, Mr "The towers had a concrete core". Heh!
QUOTE (replicant+Mar 13 2006, 03:03 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 13 2006, 05:53 AM)
Hi newt!
For your consideration: Could it be that in the bottom picture the increasing inwards bowing of the perimeter wall, combined with the attendant further internal collapses of fire-floors material, could somehow create sufficient air movements so that any flames/debris there are forced to go with those air currents?
RC.
.
My theory, and it's a good one, is that we've gotten a hold of the Dr. Evil playbook and learned a few lessons, like planting one of our own amongst the enemy. He appears to be working very hard for the other side, when in actual fact his purpose is to advance the most ridiculous/outlandish/preposterous "theories" which will be so thinly veiled that no one can fail to see through them. I have to say we overshot the mark by a good distance, R?C is really hamming it up a bit. Of course, I should not be revealing the secret but I am sure the other side is catching on also, unless I've overestimated them, hmmm, no doubt I have.
More character assassinations in the place of logic and reason. I guess we won the debate already RC.
For your consideration: Could it be that in the bottom picture the increasing inwards bowing of the perimeter wall, combined with the attendant further internal collapses of fire-floors material, could somehow create sufficient air movements so that any flames/debris there are forced to go with those air currents?
RC.
.
My theory, and it's a good one, is that we've gotten a hold of the Dr. Evil playbook and learned a few lessons, like planting one of our own amongst the enemy. He appears to be working very hard for the other side, when in actual fact his purpose is to advance the most ridiculous/outlandish/preposterous "theories" which will be so thinly veiled that no one can fail to see through them. I have to say we overshot the mark by a good distance, R?C is really hamming it up a bit. Of course, I should not be revealing the secret but I am sure the other side is catching on also, unless I've overestimated them, hmmm, no doubt I have.
More character assassinations in the place of logic and reason. I guess we won the debate already RC.
QUOTE (hereward+Mar 13 2006, 09:21 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 12 2006, 06:50 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 12 2006, 12:30 PM)
QUOTE (Guest+Mar 12 2006, 08:46 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 12 2006, 01:28 PM)
QUOTE (hereward+Mar 12 2006, 08:50 AM)
And nobody seems to have any explanation other than that the cars were hit by burning debris... but witness have reported cars exploding... which is quite distinct from, say, being hit with a pice of burning debris.
What makes cars explode???? I am at a loss to explain this.
(: hereward
What makes cars explode?
Duh
Its called a GAS TANK.
But the fact is, virtually all the pictures are simply burned out vehicles.
They are burned out because there was almost no attempt made to put out the fires.
Because the people who could were:
A) Dead
B ) had no equipment
C) had equipment but no water pressure
D) worried about more important things, like finding their friends or finding fresh air
Arthur
Brought to you from INSULTINGLY STUPID MOVIE PHYSICS
Ever notice how cars in movies always burst into flames the instant they collide with anything? Our favorite is when a car falling from a high place explodes the instant before it hits the ground. It's as though its gas tank gets panicky and detonates at the mere thought of striking Earth. Fortunately, the physics are not so cooperative.
Gasoline has a very narrow flammable range of about 1.4 to 7.6% gasoline vapor in air 2. In other words, the vapor-air mixture must be exactly as specified or the gas will not burn, let alone explode! Note that we say vapor. Liquid gasoline must change into vapor before it can burn (although this is no huge problem since it easily vaporizes).
For a car to explode during impact the tank must catastrophically rupture and spew a fine mist of gasoline over a large area so it can vaporize and mix with air in exactly the right proportions. The mixture must then find a source of ignition. Automobile gas tanks are built to withstand a considerable impact force and are usually located in a protected area between the beams of a car's frame. Common ignition sources in the car's engine are generally at the other end of the vehicle.
As portrayed in movies, gasoline tanks are fragile and gasoline so volatile that the vaporizing and mixing process occurs in milliseconds. It always results in an explosive mixture which always finds a source of ignition. Thank heavens it's not so easy or people would regularly be blowing themselves up while refueling at the pump.
Even when a wrecked car catches on fire it rarely explodes. A gas tank can explode if it contains an explosive mixture and there's an opening for the flames to enter. More likely, fire would have to impinge on the outside of the gas tank, vaporizing the gasoline in the tank and eventually causing it to overpressure and explode. However, if the vapors escaped fast enough the tank would not rupture. Most fires start in the engine compartment and will not spread backwards to the gas tank area unless the tank is leaking fuel on the ground. Again a whole series of events has to be just right for an explosion to occur.
Although it's actually quite rare, exploding cars are a common excuse for not wearing seat belts. Onlookers at crash sites are often so concerned about explosions that they unnecessarily jeopardize a person with a spinal injury by pulling them out of a wrecked car. The common Hollywood depiction fuels these harmful misconceptions.
Excellent post guest, why don’t you register? Reminds me of :
The NBC Fuel tank hoax.
NBC news did a story on side mounted fuel tanks on GM trucks.
The claim of the story was that when such a truck was struck, it would burst into flames. GM insisted that it's side mounted truck fuel tanks were more than sturdy enough to survive the average traffic collision.
NBC produced and aired a video segment that showed a vehicle colliding with the side fuel tank of a GM truck at low speed, and the GM fuel tank exploded.
It later turned out that the fuel tank had been rigged with explosive devices by NBC to manufacture the explosion seen in their news report!
TIME article on the NBC hoax.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/LIE/nbc.html
So you morons think the cars just exploded a block away from the towers while leaving the cars next to the towers alone? Incredible hopping explosives or hopping pyroclastic flow... Which is it...
MORONS Heh!
In regard to:
Gasoline has a very narrow flammable range of about 1.4 to 7.6% gasoline vapor in air 2. In other words, the vapor-air mixture must be exactly as specified or the gas will not burn, let alone explode! Note that we say vapor. Liquid gasoline must change into vapor before it can burn (although this is no huge problem since it easily vaporizes).
This makes me wonder about kerosene - is the flammable range of kerosen vapour similar?
If so does this not cast more doubt on the elevator shaft fireball theory?
There's no doubt that there was an exploding fireball in the freight elevator shaft of WTC 1 coinciding with impact - but what caused it eh?
In regard to the exploding cars - we shouldn't overlook the obvious explanation:
pre-planted car bombs - just don't ask me why.
(: hereward
Which is why I pointed out that most of the pictures I had seen were simply burned out cars.
BUT, that day there were quite UNUSUAL events, (falling hunks of hot steel, concrete, etc) which COULD cause cars to explode.
BUT, I have YET to see any evidence that ANY car blew up PRIOR to the towers falling.
Arthur
Image is for meteorite, but physics of impact are physics of impact.
Amount and distance of ejecta simply vary with speed and properties of materials.
Arthur
This is exactly what I was saying about the floors impacting on other floors. It's what drove the debris away from the building, wouldn't you say Arthur? That and the fact that the columns were basicly sitting on the columns below. Once the top column begain to move outward you can predict an elbo effect like this...
-->_
->/ \
>/
/
|
|
|
---->__
--->/ ---\
-->/ -----\
->/
>/
/
|
What makes cars explode???? I am at a loss to explain this.
(: hereward
What makes cars explode?
Duh
Its called a GAS TANK.
But the fact is, virtually all the pictures are simply burned out vehicles.
They are burned out because there was almost no attempt made to put out the fires.
Because the people who could were:
A) Dead
B ) had no equipment
C) had equipment but no water pressure
D) worried about more important things, like finding their friends or finding fresh air
Arthur
Brought to you from INSULTINGLY STUPID MOVIE PHYSICS
Ever notice how cars in movies always burst into flames the instant they collide with anything? Our favorite is when a car falling from a high place explodes the instant before it hits the ground. It's as though its gas tank gets panicky and detonates at the mere thought of striking Earth. Fortunately, the physics are not so cooperative.
Gasoline has a very narrow flammable range of about 1.4 to 7.6% gasoline vapor in air 2. In other words, the vapor-air mixture must be exactly as specified or the gas will not burn, let alone explode! Note that we say vapor. Liquid gasoline must change into vapor before it can burn (although this is no huge problem since it easily vaporizes).
For a car to explode during impact the tank must catastrophically rupture and spew a fine mist of gasoline over a large area so it can vaporize and mix with air in exactly the right proportions. The mixture must then find a source of ignition. Automobile gas tanks are built to withstand a considerable impact force and are usually located in a protected area between the beams of a car's frame. Common ignition sources in the car's engine are generally at the other end of the vehicle.
As portrayed in movies, gasoline tanks are fragile and gasoline so volatile that the vaporizing and mixing process occurs in milliseconds. It always results in an explosive mixture which always finds a source of ignition. Thank heavens it's not so easy or people would regularly be blowing themselves up while refueling at the pump.
Even when a wrecked car catches on fire it rarely explodes. A gas tank can explode if it contains an explosive mixture and there's an opening for the flames to enter. More likely, fire would have to impinge on the outside of the gas tank, vaporizing the gasoline in the tank and eventually causing it to overpressure and explode. However, if the vapors escaped fast enough the tank would not rupture. Most fires start in the engine compartment and will not spread backwards to the gas tank area unless the tank is leaking fuel on the ground. Again a whole series of events has to be just right for an explosion to occur.
Although it's actually quite rare, exploding cars are a common excuse for not wearing seat belts. Onlookers at crash sites are often so concerned about explosions that they unnecessarily jeopardize a person with a spinal injury by pulling them out of a wrecked car. The common Hollywood depiction fuels these harmful misconceptions.
Excellent post guest, why don’t you register? Reminds me of :
The NBC Fuel tank hoax.
NBC news did a story on side mounted fuel tanks on GM trucks.
The claim of the story was that when such a truck was struck, it would burst into flames. GM insisted that it's side mounted truck fuel tanks were more than sturdy enough to survive the average traffic collision.
NBC produced and aired a video segment that showed a vehicle colliding with the side fuel tank of a GM truck at low speed, and the GM fuel tank exploded.
It later turned out that the fuel tank had been rigged with explosive devices by NBC to manufacture the explosion seen in their news report!
TIME article on the NBC hoax.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/LIE/nbc.html
So you morons think the cars just exploded a block away from the towers while leaving the cars next to the towers alone? Incredible hopping explosives or hopping pyroclastic flow... Which is it...
MORONS Heh!
In regard to:
QUOTE
Gasoline has a very narrow flammable range of about 1.4 to 7.6% gasoline vapor in air 2. In other words, the vapor-air mixture must be exactly as specified or the gas will not burn, let alone explode! Note that we say vapor. Liquid gasoline must change into vapor before it can burn (although this is no huge problem since it easily vaporizes).
This makes me wonder about kerosene - is the flammable range of kerosen vapour similar?
If so does this not cast more doubt on the elevator shaft fireball theory?
There's no doubt that there was an exploding fireball in the freight elevator shaft of WTC 1 coinciding with impact - but what caused it eh?
In regard to the exploding cars - we shouldn't overlook the obvious explanation:
pre-planted car bombs - just don't ask me why.
(: hereward
Which is why I pointed out that most of the pictures I had seen were simply burned out cars.
BUT, that day there were quite UNUSUAL events, (falling hunks of hot steel, concrete, etc) which COULD cause cars to explode.
BUT, I have YET to see any evidence that ANY car blew up PRIOR to the towers falling.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 13 2006, 08:27 AM)
Image is for meteorite, but physics of impact are physics of impact.
Amount and distance of ejecta simply vary with speed and properties of materials.
Arthur
This is exactly what I was saying about the floors impacting on other floors. It's what drove the debris away from the building, wouldn't you say Arthur? That and the fact that the columns were basicly sitting on the columns below. Once the top column begain to move outward you can predict an elbo effect like this...
-->_
->/ \
>/
/
|
|
|
---->__
--->/ ---\
-->/ -----\
->/
>/
/
|
"Whas like us? Gie few an thur aw deed"
Gordon - See the The Wee Man joined the above? Being a rational Hun I know you will agree he deserves that honour :-)
Interseting demonstration of the effect you mention in the Naudet film. What else could explain it?
A few minutes on the amazing bouncing towers -
http://www.911truestory.com/ProjectileMotion.wmv
Gordon - See the The Wee Man joined the above? Being a rational Hun I know you will agree he deserves that honour :-)
Interseting demonstration of the effect you mention in the Naudet film. What else could explain it?
A few minutes on the amazing bouncing towers -
http://www.911truestory.com/ProjectileMotion.wmv
QUOTE (brian+Mar 13 2006, 09:27 AM)
"Whas like us? Gie few an thur aw deed"
Gordon - See the The Wee Man joined the above? Being a rational Hun I know you will agree he deserves that honour :-)
Interseting demonstration of the effect you mention in the Naudet film. What else could explain it?
A few minutes on the amazing bouncing towers -
http://www.911truestory.com/ProjectileMotion.wmv
oooh look, the grammar cops are making a funny! HAHA-HEHE.
Stick to correcting grammar, your better at it.
Gordon - See the The Wee Man joined the above? Being a rational Hun I know you will agree he deserves that honour :-)
Interseting demonstration of the effect you mention in the Naudet film. What else could explain it?
A few minutes on the amazing bouncing towers -
http://www.911truestory.com/ProjectileMotion.wmv
oooh look, the grammar cops are making a funny! HAHA-HEHE.
Stick to correcting grammar, your better at it.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 13 2006, 12:03 AM)