KinchyB Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 FEMA hung on to about 200 beams for their examination, and it just so happens that some people argue that they have explosive residue on them. Explosive Residue on Beam FWIW...google...Dr. Jones Explosive Residue... several articles and pieces of info will come up. NIST report advising that they did not test for what Dr. Jones found in the steel. NIST Report (do a search for "Residue" in the document.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nedak Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Achilles, Ray...and everyone else I suppose Personally, I think a giant penguin organized the whole thing to try and stop global warming. Thank god! I thought I was the only one... CIA intelligence leaked this to the media... Here you can clearly see what looks like a terrorist penguin. This is what we believe to be Osama Binladin. No wonder we can't find him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Ah...UBL was a covert eco-terrorist secretly trained by Greenpeace?! It all makes sense now. Thanks you two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Links for 9/11 Research "In this paper, we examine the claims of Dr. David Ray Griffin regarding the NIST investigation into the World Trade Center disasters, and find those claims to be unfounded. All 18 major claims are discussed and rigorously dismissed, and a further analysis of the text reveals an overwhelming density of factual and logical errors. This paper refutes Dr. Griffin’s major claims, supporting with evidence that the aircraft impacts were expected to significantly damage the structures, that the resulting fires were of both sufficient temperature and duration to cause structural collapse, that a progressive collapse resulting in total destruction of the Towers was the likely result, and that the “controlled demolition” hypothesis is speculative and unsupported by any evidence." Collapse versus Demolition: Burden of Proof Mr. Hoffman next addresses the burden of proof, responding to the author’s charge (on page 4 of this whitepaper, and again on page 136) that Dr. Griffin has failed to provide any coherent hypothesis of his “controlled demolition” ideas. He begins by indulging in red herring: Griffin has no more failed to identify a controlled demolition theory than NIST has failed to identify a collapse theory. In their most general forms, the collapse hypothesis and the demolition hypothesis encompass two mutually-exclusive accounts of the destruction of the Twin Towers, where each has many possible detailed scenarios. This reasoning is invalid – NIST’s performance, or lack thereof, does not absolve Dr. Griffin of his own burden of proof. Whoever advances a theory must support it, regardless of what other teams may produce. Additionally, the premise of this reasoning is not accurate. While it is true that NIST largely assumed that structural collapse after initiation would be total, NIST provided an extremely detailed and quantified pair of hypotheses (one for each Tower, with subtle but important differences) for the causes and early stages of the collapses, in accordance with NIST’s mandate. Furthermore, NIST’s assumption about the likelihood of progressive collapse was based on the published work of others, such as Dr. Bazant [21] (N.B.: Mr. Hoffman rejects Dr. Bazant’s calculations without just cause, as we will examine again below). Taken in total, NIST and the scientific community have indeed provided a complete collapse theory – several, in fact, if we compare differences between such models as Dr. Bazant’s [21] and Dr. Seffen’s [285]. In like fashion Dr. Griffin would be perfectly within his rights to cite published theories of a WTC controlled demolition, rather than producing an entire theory on his own. However, he has not provided this, nor are there any such theories to be found anywhere in published literature. We are left to guess about the details of Dr. Griffin’s hypothesis, whereas NIST’s hypothesis is detailed enough to permit independent analysis, such as those from Arup and Purdue. The two situations are therefore not comparable, and Mr. Hoffman’s excuse is insufficient. the free fall fallacy the collapse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Links for 9/11 Research Yes, I'm familiar with it. Which part did you feel was particularly helpful to your argument (assuming that you read this one this time)? "In this paper, we examine the claims of Dr. David Ray Griffin regarding the NIST investigation into the World Trade Center disasters, and find those claims to be unfounded. All 18 major claims are discussed and rigorously dismissed, and a further analysis of the text reveals an overwhelming density of factual and logical errors. This paper refutes Dr. Griffin’s major claims, supporting with evidence that the aircraft impacts were expected to significantly damage the structures, that the resulting fires were of both sufficient temperature and duration to cause structural collapse, that a progressive collapse resulting in total destruction of the Towers was the likely result, and that the “controlled demolition” hypothesis is speculative and unsupported by any evidence." Is this as far as you made it? the free fall fallacy The first line: "The towers did not fall at or below free fall speeds…" Oh, so they fell faster than free fall? "Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground." Well which is it? Faster or not faster? I'm glad the site was able to thoroughly discipline the straw man of "free fall speed", but nothing here seems to address the actual argument of "near free fall speed". (hint: we already knew that free fall wasn't possible because the building didn't collapse in a vaccum, but maybe the intended audience wouldn't know the difference) This is my favorite part: "Below are calculations from a physics blogger..." Hey Ray, does this mean we're debating the ~10 seconds thing again? I can't keep track and I don't want to post a bunch of counter-sources just to find out that you "aren't" debating it again. Thanks in advance. the collapse *photo of "sagging trusses"* Interesting that the trusses don't actually align that way. (they would be running perpendicular to the direction suggested in the picture). *other picutures* "Here's what it looked like when it started to fall. Here's what it looked like afterwards. What happened in between? Oh, don't worry about that. It complicated.". *pictures and reference to Nova's simulation* Anyone wanna play "Guess What's Missing"? (Hint: the entire outside of the building) That one was too easy. Let's play "Guess What's Still Standing After the Simulation". (Hint: the intact core columns) It's too bad that's just a pic and not an actual video of the simulation. Then we could all see that it took nearly 9 seconds just to get a few of the floors to collapse (with no external columns and the core columns intact). I wonder if the authors of your source considered that when they posted the pic rather than the vid. Hmmm... *skip over a bunch of pics that aren't loaded* "Below is another interesting photo. It shows the perimeter columns laid out as if they simply tilted over. The only explanation is that the floors went straight down and the unsupported perimeter columns pivoted over in large sections." <snip> "The last piece of evidence is the standing perimeter columns. You can see what's left of the steel plates which hold the floors up. The tremendous weight stripped them off as the floors were on their way down." Love this. Both laying and standing columns support their claim. That's awesome. Do you have any more sources, Ray? Furthermore, as long as you do not change your argumentation to something that can actually be worked with I consider your "thesis" of explosives being the only possible explanation for the 10 second time frame of the WTC collapse as refuted and thus untrue.Please direct me to the post where I asserted this. (anyone offering odds that this part of my post is ignored in subsequent responses?) No takers, Ray. Apparently the betting community didn't think you were going to come through either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Explosive Residue on Beam FWIW...google...Dr. Jones Explosive Residue... several articles and pieces of info will come up. Anyone can post to this site without going through an editor first. You can tell by Hamblin's misspelling, too. I did a search on Hamblin himself, and as far as I can tell in a relatively short search, this is the only piece he's written, i.e. he's not a journalist. His story quotes an article written by Dr. Jones in the 'Journal of 9/11 Studies', which says it's peer-reviewed. However, it is not 'peer-reviewed' in the typical sense of other academic journals. It's 'peer-reviewed' by people who are 9/11 conspiracy theorists. That doesn't mean their science is necessarily bad, but it's certainly biased since it's not peer-reviewed by a decent cross-section of scientists in that field. They're pretty much publishing whatever they want and calling it 'peer-reviewed' since they pretty much agree with each other. I could put together an eye journal with a few of my colleagues and call it peer-reviewed, but that doesn't mean it would be taken seriously in the rest of the academic community. @Achilles--and this is not meant to be snarky in the least, I'm asking seriously--if you have no intention of defending the explosives conspiracy, then why do you keep bringing it up? As for the idea of explosives--if there were 40+ floors' worth of explosives, I'm sure the residue would be all over the place, not just the steel beams. If there was significant proof of that much residue, why hasn't it been brought to light? I will not completely rule out materials that could create explosions being present, because it would not surprise me in the least if the maintenance guys had stuff in their department like blowtorches and other flammable materials. However, there's been nothing brought to light describing the amount of residue required to explain building demolition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 @Achilles--and this is not meant to be snarky in the least, I'm asking seriously--if you have no intention of defending the explosives conspiracy, then why do you keep bringing it up?I guess we'd have to clarify what you mean by "keep bringing it up". My last reference to them was in post #157, which I posted 3 days ago. As for the idea of explosives--if there were 40+ floors' worth of explosives, I'm sure the residue would be all over the place, not just the steel beams. This is why I didn't want to bring it up. Now we're going to spend the next week arguing this and ignore the physics (which no one can adequately explain). It would have been nice to resolve one part of the debate before moving on to the next Dust analysis Thermite residues If there was significant proof of that much residue, why hasn't it been brought to light? By whom? The EPA? Perhaps you'll recall that they just got raked over the coals for the last several weeks over accusations of cronyism. The people that are trying to bring it to light are being arbitrarily dismissed as "conspiracy theorists" by people that refuse to listen to what they have to say. You can't have it both ways Jae. You can't kill the messenger and then complain that no one is trying to tell you. I will not completely rule out materials that could create explosions being present, because it would not surprise me in the least if the maintenance guys had stuff in their department like blowtorches and other flammable materials. Indeed. An argument that I agreed with way back on the first or second page. As I've stated repeatedly, I am skeptical of all claims because no one has the whole story. Likewise, you should be skeptical of the "official story" because you can't rule out that explosives weren't used. However, there's been nothing brought to light describing the amount of residue required to explain building demolition.I'm not sure I follow this part of your post. Could you please clarify what you meant? Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinchyB Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Anyone can post to this site without going through an editor first. You can tell by Hamblin's misspelling, too. I did a search on Hamblin himself, and as far as I can tell in a relatively short search, this is the only piece he's written, i.e. he's not a journalist. This is pretty much irrelevant since I was referring to the work of Dr. Jones, hence the information about what to look for. This was just one example of many... His story quotes an article written by Dr. Jones in the 'Journal of 9/11 Studies', which says it's peer-reviewed. However, it is not 'peer-reviewed' in the typical sense of other academic journals. It's 'peer-reviewed' by people who are 9/11 conspiracy theorists. That doesn't mean their science is necessarily bad, but it's certainly biased since it's not peer-reviewed by a decent cross-section of scientists in that field. Gotta love the irony...someone with bias trying to discount other people using bias as an argument. If you truly want to discount the peer review status how about some resumes and background on those who peer reviewed the work instead. If you have some additional information that led you to this conclusion maybe it could actually sway the argument... Also, if we are looking at peer reviews we have to completely discount the NIST report as it is not peer reviewed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Apparently these guys (and gals) feel confident enough in their process to encourage submission to mainstream journals. Journal of 9/11 Studies While I'm certainly not going to roll over for some letters after their names, I do think this shows that we're not just dealing with some bored kids with a lap top and too much free time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Mainlining journal, maybe, but hardly mainstream. Journal of 9/11 Studies is not a 'peer-reviewed journal' that's taken seriously in the rest of the academic community, as I mentioned just 3 posts up. It certainly is not a mainstream journal. It was started by a group of conspiracy theorists only 2 years ago, and they're 'peer-reviewing' their own stuff--that's hardly unbiased and certainly does not meet the same academic rigors that articles in real mainstream journals receive. Just because it says 'Journal of X' doesn't make it reliable if the rest of the academic community for that particular field is not also reviewing the material. My bias is irrelevant in this case--that particular journal would be biased even if I agreed 100% with them. We have that sort of thing going on in medicine, too--there are some 'journals' out there that are doing 'science' on really fringy stuff, and the people who started them are reviewing the work of like-minded colleagues and calling it 'peer-reviewed' to give it the appearance of greater credibility. If the Journal of 9/11 Studies had articles peer-reviewed from a variety of scientists in the relevant fields, not just their own hand-picked conspiracy-theory buddies, I'd take it more seriously. As it is, it really should be called "Journal of Conspiracy Theory" rather than "Journal of 9/11 Studies", because that's exactly what it is. Kinchy--The NIST and FEMA reports are not scientific articles, they're gov't reports. They do need to meet certain criteria, yes, but reports on something of this magnitude can't go through the exact same process because of the sheer scope of the project. There is no "Journal of What Happens to Skyscrapers After Planes Crash Into Them". Engineers and physicists handled the engineering parts, crash experts had to handle the effects of the plane crash itself, chemists and chemical engineers had to handle the discussions about combustible materials and the behavior of steel at given temperatures, etc. There were no scientists prior to 9/11 who had devoted their lives entirely to studying the behaviors of skyscrapers after planes crash into them. Scientists did contribute in their particular area of expertise and reviewed those sections later, and the reports themselves have certainly received a great deal of scrutiny since their publication. Achilles--I don't discount the conspiracy theory 100%, because as windu6 would say, "Anything is possible!!!" However, the evidence seems to fit the standard theory better at this point. This is why I didn't want to bring it up. Now we're going to spend the next week arguing this and ignore the physics (which no one can adequately explain). It would have been nice to resolve one part of the debate before moving on to the next.We could probably argue that point until cows crap ice cream and get nowhere close to any resolution of the physics, which you've noted already no one can adequately explain. It's going to take years for scientists to work through all the multiple variables and none of us here has the physics or engineering expertise to address that. The evidence and what I know about physics, having studied 3 years of general physics to go along with the 2 years of grad-level optics and physics of light, tell me that while the current model leaves a number of issues unresolved, it still works better at this time than the conspiracy of planted explosives. If someone comes up with a better model or comes up with new evidence that substantially changes the current working theories, great, we'll move on to that. I'm fine with saying 'there's no agreement on this point' and bifurcating on to another aspect of this case. The page on the dust analysis doesn't get my panties in knots. If there were any kind of medical or dental offices on site, particularly any x-ray equipment or other radiological equipment, or any other scientific/engineering offices that handled radioactive materials, that could easily explain the radioactive particles. This page also notes that there's no way to distinguish whether this was different from the normal background radiation present all the time. The nice list of organic chemicals can all come as byproducts of burning plastics and other chemical reactions that happen at high heat. Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and the related dibenzofurans can come from burning PVC and other plastics (like computer cases, among many other things). Many of these chemicals can be created by burning furniture, especially the foam inside sofas and stuffed chairs (or airplane seats). Cleaning solvents can react at high temperatures and pressures to produce toxic chemicals like those listed on that page, as well. I would expect to see dust contaminated with combustible materials--a plane loaded with jet fuel crashed into the buildings and burned, after all. I'd be very concerned if we didn't find evidence of combustibles. Thermite and explosives can explain the dust components, however, everyday items could also explain those components, too. The presence of those chemicals does not automatically mean thermite was present. Regarding the thermite page--barium is used very often in radiology, and there was at least 1 medical office in the WTC 1. There was a Kodak imaging center in WTC 2 where a variety of chemicals undoubtedly were housed. Aluminum? The planes had a lot of aluminum in them, and anyone with Reynolds foil wrap has aluminum sitting around. Iron is used in making steel and a lot of pipes, so no surprise to see that in the dust. Sulfur is easily found in great quantities in calcium sulfate (i.e. gypsum) which is used to make drywall. Normal burning temperatures might not be able to create some of the compounds or spheres, however, dramatically increasing the pressure (as would happen with the weight of a skyscraper collapsing on itself) would also drive the temperature up (physics formula p1V1/T1=p2V2/T2), and given the enormous pressure could theoretically melt a number of metals that wouldn't normally melt at normal pressures. The iron-rich and aluminosilicate spheres can also be found in the flyash from burning coal. Zinc is extremely common--it's in all our coins, diecasting, galvanized steel, parts of batteries, and is a white pigment in paint (and likely on many of the walls in the WTC). All these chemicals are found in thermite? Absolutely. All these chemicals can be found in normal everyday life, like painted drywall, galvanized steel and steel alloys, too? Absolutely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Journal of 9/11 Studies is not a 'peer-reviewed journal' that's taken seriously in the rest of the academic community, as I mentioned just 3 posts up.Finger on the pulse, eh? It certainly is not a mainstream journal. Indeed it is not, however as I mentioned 1 post up, they do appear to be confident enough in their process to encourage contributors to submit to mainstream journals as well. It was started by a group of conspiracy theorists only 2 years ago, and they're 'peer-reviewing' their own stuff--that's hardly unbiased and certainly does not meet the same academic rigors that articles in real mainstream journals receive. Considering that all of these people were "lettered" prior to 9/11, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that they are plenty familiar with "the academic rigors of mainstream journals". Hence why I find it significant that they feel that as though their articles are up to the test. Just because it says 'Journal of X' doesn't make it reliable if the rest of the academic community for that particular field is not also reviewing the material. Right, hence the part about submitting to mainstream journals. If the Journal of 9/11 Studies had articles peer-reviewed from a variety of scientists in the relevant fields, not just their own hand-picked conspiracy-theory buddies, I'd take it more seriously. *debates trying to make the point one more time* You're right, Jae. It certainly would be fantastic if other journals had a chance to review their stuff. Maybe they should consider it. As it is, it really should be called "Journal of Conspiracy Theory" rather than "Journal of 9/11 Studies", because that's exactly what it is.Yes, and you're clearly in a position to judge being completely unfamiliar with the subject matter. Achilles--I don't discount the conspiracy theory 100%, because as windu6 would say, "Anything is possible!!!" However, the evidence seems to fit the standard theory better at this point. Really, Jae. Both you and Ray have been sing-songing that point for several pages now but have yet to produce a single source that matches the evidence that we do have and in some cases, have presented materials that contradict your own arguments. Repeating something doesn't make it true, Jae. We could probably argue that point until cows crap ice cream and get nowhere close to any resolution of the physics, which you've noted already no one can adequately explain. Yet you'll argue the evidence fits your notions better. This is not intellectual rigor. It's going to take years for scientists to work through all the multiple variables and none of us here has the physics or engineering expertise to address that. That's fine. I'm more than happy to accept a source that does, even if the arguments are not your own. Can you produce one or not? If not, then I think it's pretty obvious that you've accepted a conclusion without any evidence. Now where have we heard that before? The evidence and what I know about physics, having studied 3 years of general physics to go along with the 2 years of grad-level optics and physics of light, tell me that while the current model leaves a number of issues unresolved, it still works better at this time than the conspiracy of planted explosives.This isn't an argument. This is your endorsement of your own opinion. If someone comes up with a better model or comes up with new evidence that substantially changes the current working theories, great, we'll move on to that. First, there is no "current model" that a "better model" can replace. Second, the hypothesis we do have don't match the evidence, therefore they are worthless. Third, therefore you've arbitrarily decided to accept one opinion over another with absolutely no evidence to support your choice. You're, of course, free to do whatever you'd like, but I think it would help the "honesty factor" of the thread if we could stop pretending that what we have is more than it really is. I'm fine with saying 'there's no agreement on this point' and bifurcating on to another aspect of this case. This, too, sounds familiar. deleted off-topic comment on panties due to member complaint --Jae If there were any kind of medical or dental offices on site, particularly any x-ray equipment or other radiological equipment, or any other scientific/engineering offices that handled radioactive materials, that could easily explain the radioactive particles. Yes, in the World Trade Center. I'm sure that you could find a listing of tenets somewhere on the web. Would you care to do a little research and perhaps replace your speculation with some actual data? It sure would go a long way toward strengthening your argument. This page also notes that there's no way to distinguish whether this was different from the normal background radiation present all the time. Hmmm, that little bit of intellectual integrity must have somehow slipped past the obviously-defunct peer-review process. I'm sure it was a mistake. The nice list of organic chemicals can all come as byproducts of burning plastics and other chemical reactions that happen at high heat. Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and the related dibenzofurans can come from burning PVC and other plastics (like computer cases, among many other things). Many of these chemicals can be created by burning furniture, especially the foam inside sofas and stuffed chairs (or airplane seats). Cleaning solvents can react at high temperatures and pressures to produce toxic chemicals like those listed on that page, as well. I would expect to see dust contaminated with combustible materials--a plane loaded with jet fuel crashed into the buildings and burned, after all. I'd be very concerned if we didn't find evidence of combustibles. I'm waiting for the part where you rule out explosives based on the evidence. Thermite and explosives can explain the dust components, however, everyday items could also explain those components, too. The presence of those chemicals does not automatically mean thermite was present. I'll take this to mean that you won't be ruling out explosives in this post? Regarding the thermite page--barium is used very often in radiology, and there was at least 1 medical office in the WTC 1. The source indicates that there was a high amount of barium. Please address that. Aluminum? The planes had a lot of aluminum in them, and anyone with Reynolds foil wrap has aluminum sitting around. Indeed. Iron is used in making steel and a lot of pipes, so no surprise to see that in the dust. Iron and steel are not the same thing. Extra carbon is added to iron to make steel, so finding high amounts of iron isn't a given. Sulfur is easily found in great quantities in calcium sulfate (i.e. gypsum) which is used to make drywall. Normal burning temperatures might not be able to create some of the compounds or spheres, however, dramatically increasing the pressure (as would happen with the weight of a skyscraper collapsing on itself) would also drive the temperature up (physics formula p1V1/T1=p2V2/T2), and given the enormous pressure could theoretically melt a number of metals that wouldn't normally melt at normal pressures. I'm beginning to wonder if there isn't anything the weight of this building can't do. It can pulverize concrete (which take quite a bit of energy to do, so there's some of that right there). It can snap throught thousands of bolts and welds, causing the floors to collapse at a rate that makes it seems as though they aren't even there (which would also take up quite a bit of that energy). It can create such tremendous pressure that it can cause large amounts of steel to become so pressurized that it undergoes a chemical change (I imagine that also takes some energy). It can project steel beams hundreds of feet outward, lodging them in surrounding buildings. And it does all this simultaneously. At some point you'd think the law of conservation of energy would kick in, but it doesn't. It almost seems too much to believe. The iron-rich and aluminosilicate spheres can also be found in the flyash from burning coal. Was a lot of coal stored in either of the WTC towers? Zinc is extremely common--it's in all our coins, diecasting, galvanized steel, parts of batteries, and is a white pigment in paint (and likely on many of the walls in the WTC). You know, part of me wonders if they thought of all this when they said "high amounts". All these chemicals are found in thermite? Absolutely. All these chemicals can be found in normal everyday life, like painted drywall, galvanized steel and steel alloys, too? Absolutely. So again, no ruling out in this post then? Thanks for your response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Finger on the pulse, eh?Recognize a flake journal when I see it. Indeed it is not, however as I mentioned 1 post up, they do appear to be confident enough in their process to encourage contributors to submit to mainstream journals as well.Good, let's see them publish in mainstream journals then. Considering that all of these people were "lettered" prior to 9/11, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that they are plenty familiar with "the academic rigors of mainstream journals". Hence why I find it significant that they feel that as though their articles are up to the test. I'm sure they know how to write a scientific article. I'd like to see them submit it through the mainstream peer-review process now. You're right, Jae. It certainly would be fantastic if other journals had a chance to review their stuff. Maybe they should consider it.You're right, Achilles. It certainly would be fantastic if other journals had a chance to review their stuff. But since they know the likelihood of getting published in those mainstream journals is low, they just decided to make up their own journal instead. Yes, and you're clearly in a position to judge being completely unfamiliar with the subject matter. Oh, my mistake then. The subject matter isn't about 9/11 or their conspiracy theories. Of course. Really, Jae. Both you and Ray have been sing-songing that point for several pages now but have yet to produce a single source that matches the evidence that we do have and in some cases, have presented materials that contradict your own arguments.There are plenty of sources, links, sites, and papers that have been presented that support the prevailing theory. Bazant's paper is very compelling in showing WTC collapse does not require explosives. You have not explained what you find objectionable in that paper, yet you label it as 'not matching the evidence'. Do you always do that when a source doesn't agree with your theory? Repeating something doesn't make it true, Jae.Repeating something in different ways is what I often do with patients to make sure they fully understand what I'm trying to get across to them. Sometimes it looks like you're not on the same track as I am so I feel the need to clarify. Sometimes it's just me being repetitive. Yet you'll argue the evidence fits your notions better. This is not intellectual rigor. Show me how Bazant's paper is wrong, then. Show me that it's impossible for multiple floors to separate from the columns at the same time when the columns bowed or broke off in large sections, and that it's impossible for several floors to be falling at the same time before landing on ones below. Some of the videos and pictures I've seen show large, irregularly shaped chunks of the outer columns failing right before floor collapse. That's fine. I'm more than happy to accept a source that does, even if the arguments are not your own. Can you produce one or not? If not, then I think it's pretty obvious that you've accepted a conclusion without any evidence.What part of Bazant's paper or the other papers make them unacceptable as sources? You have done nothing to disprove these sources. Nor do I think you can, given your chosen field of expertise is business and not engineering. Now where have we heard that before?As usual, an off-topic barb designed to shut down the argument when you don't like the direction it's going. This isn't an argument. This is your endorsement of your own opinion.No, it's just part of the discussion. First, there is no "current model" that a "better model" can replace.The prevailing model, and what most scientists agree on, is the one that says the planes crashing into the buildings were what ultimately caused the collapse. I didn't think that needed to be stated outright, but now it is. Second, the hypothesis we do have don't match the evidence, therefore they are worthlessNo, some of the evidence is incomplete. There is a lot of evidence for the current model in the many links Ray's provided and the few I've added. The hypothesis is not worthless just because we don't have all the answers. If that were the case, all of science would be worthless. We saw the planes hit the buildings, we saw massive damage done to the buildings, we saw the buildings collapse, we saw, tragically, thousands die as a result. The current model doesn't require super-spy secrecy to accomplish that, either. Third, therefore you've arbitrarily decided to accept one opinion over another with absolutely no evidence to support your choice. There's a mountain of evidence in this thread. I don't know how you can continue to say I've chosen a theory based on no evidence. You're, of course, free to do whatever you'd like, but I think it would help the "honesty factor" of the thread if we could stop pretending that what we have is more than it really is.Good. Start with accepting that Bazant's paper provides one possible explanation for how the buildings fell without explosives. This, too, sounds familiar.This, too, sounds like yet another off-topic barb. Yes, in the World Trade Center. I'm sure that you could find a listing of tenets somewhere on the web. Would you care to do a little research and perhaps replace your speculation with some actual data? It sure would go a long way toward strengthening your argument. I did.I figured you'd be looking it up anyway since you don't trust any other sources here. In addition, buildings around the WTC were also heavily damaged, and those places also contributed to the materials found in the dust. I'm waiting for the part where you rule out explosives based on the evidence.Never said I did rule it out, and won't, though on the continuum of believability it ranks really low for me. I'll take this to mean that you won't be ruling out explosives in this post?If you can find me high levels of explosive residue all over everything and remains of explosive devices, I'll give it more credence. The source indicates that there was a high amount of barium. Please address that.Medical office for one. Barium is used in a lot in GI tests. Define 'high amount' for me, please. Iron and steel are not the same thing. Extra carbon is added to iron to make steel, so finding high amounts of iron isn't a given. Yeah, it's an alloy, but it doesn't become a new chemical--it's still iron. Iron is the element, steel is not. I'm beginning to wonder if there isn't anything the weight of this building can't do.... It almost seems too much to believe.The papers quoted above deal with the energy aspect that you bring up here. Was a lot of coal stored in either of the WTC towers?I don't know. I brought it up to show you that the little spheres can be created in ways other than thermite explosions. You know, part of me wonders if they thought of all this when they said "high amounts". They don't specify, so I don't know. So again, no ruling out in this post then?Why do I need to rule out explosives entirely? Is it possible they were used? Sure. Is it probability high that they were used? I don't think so. The chemicals found in the dust can be explained more easily with mundane materials than with the extra layer of an explosive conspiracy. Thanks for your response.You're welcome. I appreciate the time and energy you spent on looking at much of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth InSidious Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 I don't mean to be rude, Achilles, but I could found a Journal of Pyramidology - that doesn't mean that Mary Magdalene married Tacitus atop Khufu's purely because I put it in my wonderful new JoP... Of course, that said, I do know a thing or two about the structure in question... although I'll admit I'm no expert on pyramids... Further, doesn't your explosives argument get into trouble with Ockham's Razor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Further, doesn't your explosives argument get into trouble with Ockham's Razor? That sounds familiar like something that may have been brought up in this thread before. I knew I liked Darth InSidious for some reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Recognize crap when I see it. Based on the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I am unable to accept this claim as true. Good, let's see them publish in mainstream journals then. Indeed. As appears to be their intent. But since they know the likelihood of getting published in those mainstream journals is low, they just decided to make up their own journal instead. Just curious, is there some central authority that hands out "bona fide" journals that I'm not aware of? My understanding of the process is that any group of scientists can create whatever journal they would like and then build a reputation from there. Oh, my mistake then. The subject matter isn't about 9/11 or their conspiracy theories. Of course.I'm afraid that I don't understand how this comment addresses your lack of familiarity with the subject matter. There are plenty of sources, links, sites, and papers that have been presented that support the prevailing theory. Bazant's paper is very compelling in showing WTC collapse does not require explosives. You have not explained what you find objectionable in that paper, yet you label it as 'not matching the evidence'. Err...it not matching the evidence is the explanation, Jae. It describes one process. The video evidence shows another. Therefore, this source is useless (because it tries to explain something that didn't happen). Do you always do that when a source doesn't agree with your theory? Point out that the source is faulty? Yes, I'd like to think that I do. Repeating something in different ways is what I often do with patients to make sure they fully understand what I'm trying to get across to them. Sometimes it looks like you're not on the same track as I am so I feel the need to clarify. Sometimes it's just me being repetitive. We've been over this before, Jae. Ignoring a counter-argument and repeating your first argument as though it hasn't been addressed/refuted is not the same thing. One of these things is good communication. The other is a dishonest debate technique (ala William Craig, etc). Show me how Bazant's paper is wrong, then.Jae, at this point I'm considering the possiblity that you don't even read my posts before responding. Bazant's paper argues that the upper floors remained (mostly) intact, drove the collapse, then "crushed up" in the final stages of the process. The problem is that these sections were the first to collapse. Therefore the claim and the evidence do not match. Show me that it's impossible for multiple floors to separate from the columns at the same time when the columns bowed or broke off in large sections, and that it's impossible for several floors to be falling at the same time before landing on ones below. Some of the videos and pictures I've seen show large, irregularly shaped chunks of the outer columns failing right before floor collapse. Relevance to the discussion? What part of Bazant's paper or the other papers make them unacceptable as sources? How about the fact that the process they descibe didn't happen? You have done nothing to disprove these sources. Except point out (repeatedly) that they don't match what actually happened. That is something of a show-stopper, Jae. Nor do I think you can, given your chosen field of expertise is business and not engineering. Amazingly enough, a little common sense (and years of studying various fields of science, both academically and as a hobby) goes a long way. I don't think one needs a engineering degree in order to read a paper and recognize that the process it describes doesn't match what the videos and the pictures show. Especially when the discrepancy is something large and fairly noticable...like 20+ floors of a building. As usual, an off-topic barb designed to shut down the argument when you don't like the direction it's going. Not at all. Simply pointing out that you have a history of accepting things without evidence. I think it's rather relevant, considering that it's happening here as well. The prevailing model, and what most scientists agree on, is the one that says the planes crashing into the buildings were what ultimately caused the collapse. I didn't think that needed to be stated outright, but now it is.Which one is that? The papers that don't flat out admit that they don't know each have their own guess. So if you mean the claim that "the planes hit the buildings and then the fell down", then yes, I think we all agree that happened. What we're fuzzy on (and what would actually constitute a "hypothesis" rather than an "observation") is if we had some sort of explanation for what happened in between that caused the collapse. Preferrably something based on science that is also consistent with the evidence. No, some of the evidence is incomplete. There is a lot of evidence for the current model in the many links Ray's provided and the few I've added. The hypothesis is not worthless just because we don't have all the answers. If that were the case, all of science would be worthless. The hypothesis is worthless because it doesn't match the evidence. That's precisely how science works. If it match all the evidence but still had holes, that would be ok because that's still workable. That's not what we have here (so far as Ray's paper goes). There's a mountain of evidence in this thread. I don't know how you can continue to say I've chosen a theory based on no evidence. Repeating it won't make it true, Jae. Not one single source provided matches the envidence. Good. Start with accepting that Bazant's paper provides one possible explanation for how the buildings fell without explosives. I'd love to but I keep getting stuck at the part where Bazant's paper doesn't actually match the footage. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I intend to prove to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that that man right there-" "It's a woman." "What?" "It's a woman." "Whatever do you mean?" "You said 'that man'. That 'man' is a woman." *Looks* *Dainty woman in pretty dress smiles and waves kindly* "No matter. I shall proceed with my arguments anyway." This, too, sounds like yet another off-topic barb. Just pointing out that when you encounter an argument that you can't address that you like to bifurcate on to something else. Generally in another thread. I did.I figured you'd be looking it up anyway since you don't trust any other sources here.Link takes us to the fourth page of this thread. In addition, buildings around the WTC were also heavily damaged, and those places also contributed to the materials found in the dust. Indeed, but I plan on bringing that up another time. Never said I did rule it out, and won't, though on the continuum of believability it ranks really low for me. Because of the lack of evidence? That can't be it, as you just got finished acknowledging that this isn't the case. If you can find me high levels of explosive residue all over everything and remains of explosive devices, I'll give it more credence. Hooray for moving goal posts Yeah, it's an alloy, but it doesn't become a new chemical--it's still iron. Iron is the element, steel is not. Then clearly it would have had to have undergone some process to lose the carbon and revert to iron. I think that's their point. The papers quoted above deal with the energy aspect that you bring up here.Which one? Which page? Does it address all of the points that I raised, or just one? I don't know. I brought it up to show you that the little spheres can be created in ways other than thermite explosions. I'm sure that's true. However if the evidence is consistent with thermite, then I'm wondering on what basis you're willing to toss it aside and happily go along with whatever 30 second news segment you accepted 7 years ago. They don't specify, so I don't know.I appreciate the honest answer. (<=snark-free zone, just to be clear) Why do I need to rule out explosives entirely? Is it possible they were used? Sure. Is it probability high that they were used? I don't think so. The chemicals found in the dust can be explained more easily with mundane materials than with the extra layer of an explosive conspiracy.Your earlier argument seems to be that you would have an easier time accepting understanding the hypothesis that explosives were used if there was some evidence for them. Now with some evidence for them, the question becomes: "what next?" You're welcome. I appreciate the time and energy you spent on looking at much of this.Thank you for the kind words I hope that this conversation will continue to be educational for the both us. I don't mean to be rude, Achilles, but I could found a Journal of Pyramidology - that doesn't mean that Mary Magdalene married Tacitus atop Khufu's purely because I put it in my wonderful new JoP... That's awesome! I think you'll agree though that science tends to be a little more...exact...than history. A lot of the principles and processes are the same. However being able to go into a lab and produce a detailed report on the chemical composition of Apparatus XYZ is a little bit different than trying to comb through texts, archalogical finds, etc and trying to piece together a story. Of course, that said, I do know a thing or two about the structure in question... although I'll admit I'm no expert on pyramids... Just as I know a thing or two about science, even though I am not a scientist Further, doesn't your explosives argument get into trouble with Ockham's Razor?Not at all. Ockham's Razor simply seeks to remove unnecessary steps from an explanation. For instance, you probably would agree that 2+2+x=4 has an unneccessary step. You could easily say that 2+2=4. This is Ockham's Razor. Ockham's Razor is not simply declaring "4". That's the very-brief-I'm-trying-to-post-this-before-a-meeting explanation. I can go into deeper detail if you would like. Take care! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinchyB Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Journal of 9/11 Studies is not a 'peer-reviewed journal' that's taken seriously in the rest of the academic community Sources? I would like to know who you talked to and what information you found that supports this statement. Ideally you should site individuals with at least a PHD in Physics...ideally...as the person refuting the argument should at least be on the same playing field as the person who proposed the argument. My bias is irrelevant in this case--that particular journal would be biased even if I agreed 100% with them. This same exact argument can be made for every single journal and peer reviewed article in existence. How is this relevant? there are some 'journals' out there that are doing 'science' on really fringy stuff, and the people who started them are reviewing the work of like-minded colleagues and calling it 'peer-reviewed' to give it the appearance of greater credibility. So would this also include the first articles claiming that the world is actually round and not flat?...Just because they do not agree with what you think doesn't make them any less credible. See post 173--snipped off-topic comment The NIST and FEMA reports are not scientific articles, they're gov't reports. Oh that's right! I forgot the government is flawless and has never lied to anyone...ever. *cough* Good, let's see them publish in mainstream journals then. Open Civil Engineering Journal....http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM This article was published and peer-reviewed. It details 14 points where they agree with the NIST, however, they do note that in the end they disagree with how the towers eventually came down. They do need to meet certain criteria, yes, but reports on something of this magnitude can't go through the exact same process because of the sheer scope of the project. ~snipped flame-bait~ See Kavar's corners rules on what constitutes a flame-bait here--Jae Saying that the scope of the project is too large for it to be peer reviewed is complete fallacy. One does not automatically exclude the other. There were no scientists prior to 9/11 who had devoted their lives entirely to studying the behaviors of skyscrapers after planes crash into them Conveniently this completely avoids the topic of researching the evidence (or lack of researching if you're the NIST) that there was more than just a plane crash that brought down the buildings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/speed.html -- In a vacuum, a block of wood (or lead) would take 9.2 seconds to fall from the tower's roof. In the air a block of wood, say ten inches on a side, might take 50 percent longer than in a vacuum. Fifteen seconds, a good estimate for the total time of collapse of the North Tower, is about the time it would take our block to fall from the roof. The rubble from the Tower probably had similar average density to our block of wood, since the floor slabs consisted of corrugated sheet metal and lightweight concrete, and the perimeter steel columns were hollow with walls only 1/4th inch thick at the Towers' tops. Air resistance alone could account for the slowing of the falls to the point where each Tower took about 15 seconds to completely come down. http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/demolition/seismic.html -- Video Records Show 15-Second+ Durations Unlike seismic records, video recordings of the Towers' destruction allow the conclusive determination of lower bounds for the durations of each event, and those are much greater than ten seconds. Several live television broadcasts showed these events from their precipitous onsets to their explosive dust-shrouded conclusions. In each case, portions of the Tower below the exploding rubble clouds are visible up to at least the 12 second mark. Figure 2: The North Tower at about 10 seconds into its destruction. About two-thirds of the Tower is still standing. Lacking access to the uncut original broadcasts, I assembled timelines for each Tower using multiple video clips. These timelines clearly show that, in the case of each Tower, the process of destruction lasted a minimum of 15 seconds, not counting the persistence of fragments of core structures. This is true even accounting for uncertainties in precise times of onsets, greater uncertainties in the times of completions, and margins of error in the compositing of the timelines. The onsets of the events are different in the two Towers. The South Tower's top leans for about two seconds before the roof starts to plunge downwards, whereas the North Tower's roof begins its plunge about a half second after its radio antenna begins to drop. In both cases I used the first evident motion -- the rotation of the South Tower's top, and the drop of the North Tower's antenna -- to set the timeline origin. Using these timelines, it is clear that large portions of each Tower below the descending debris clouds remained intact at the 10-second mark. Reasonable estimates for the duration of these events are around 17 seconds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nedak Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Tower took about 15 seconds to completely come down. But we've already said that the towers took 10 seconds! Not 15. Also, you haven't explained why they found sulfur and traces of Thermate in the debris... EDIT: I would also like to point this out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CuBNB4dB1o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBPuu9o89dk&feature=related Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 I take it this means that you are contesting it again? (I also take it that you're not finished laying out your points?) http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/speed.html -- It's short enough, Ray. Let's go ahead and post the whole thing: Each of the Twin Towers fell completely in intervals of time similar to that taken for a block of wood dropped from a tower's roof to reach the ground. A block of wood has about the same average density as the main components of the towers near their tops. In a vacuum, a block of wood (or lead) would take 9.2 seconds to fall from the tower's roof. In the air a block of wood, say ten inches on a side, might take 50 percent longer than in a vacuum. Fifteen seconds, a good estimate for the total time of collapse of the North Tower, is about the time it would take our block to fall from the roof. The rubble from the Tower probably had similar average density to our block of wood, since the floor slabs consisted of corrugated sheet metal and lightweight concrete, and the perimeter steel columns were hollow with walls only 1/4th inch thick at the Towers' tops. Air resistance alone could account for the slowing of the falls to the point where each Tower took about 15 seconds to completely come down. The official story requires that more than air resistance was slowing the descents. The falling rubble would be having to crush every story below the crash zone -- ripping apart the steel grids of the outer walls and obliterating the steel lattice of the core structure. The resistance of the intact building itself would be thousands of times greater than air resistance. If air resistance is able to increase total collapse times by even 20 percent, then shouldn't the addition of the resistance of the buildings themselves increase the time several thousand percent, to at least tens of minutes? Of course the idea of a collapse lasting minutes is absurd. So is the idea of a steel frame building crushing itself. So according to this source, nearly free fall should have been closer to 15 seconds than 10? Okay. 11 floors of resistance instantly disintegrated per second as compared to 7.3 floors of resistance instantly disintegrated per second. At what point does the "floors of resistance instantly disintegrated per second" begin to register for you? Assuming that enough energy was present (and we could explain where it came from) to cause the building to collapse at a rate of one floor per second, we're talking about nearly two minutes. Compared to 15 (or 10 or 11) seconds. I'll fully concede the 15 seconds collapse time if it will help you perhaps maybe start to kinda sorta address the physics. But we've already said that the towers took 10 seconds! Not 15. Clearly, Ray has changed his mind about accepting that, and that's fine. The quicker we can agree on a time that he's happy with, the quicker we can get the part where he actually gets to start how a collapse in that time-frame is possible within the laws of physics (as we know them). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Both quotes/excerpts in #192 are from Achilles' source he linked to in #182. So is also the second one (the one he left out while quoting from #192 so happily in #194) which states that 17 seconds is a reasonable estimate for the time frame of both collapses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nedak Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Like the one that he left away so happily which states that 17 seconds are reasonable estimates for the collapses. Huh?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Huh??IIRC, Ray is German, therefore I tend to assume that English is not his primary language. I'm not entirely sure what he hoped to convey there either, but hopefully that helps to explain why we're both confused by his post. EDIT: Also, now that I'm home and can view YT clips... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CuBNB4dB1o The radio tower starts to collapse first either because: a) the core started to collapse first (consistent with controlled demolition) or b) it was rigged with explosives to collapse first (also consistent with controlled demolition). I suppose "a" could arguably be explained by core damage, however it doesn't stand to reason that the core would have sustained more damage than the outside of the building, as the part of the plane that struck the core would have been slowed by their impact with the outer beams (thereby reducing the force of their impact). What's also interesting is this progression (use the right arrow buttons to advanced through the first 6 or 7 frames). You'll notice that just as the radio tower starts to go before the top of the roof, so does the roof start to go before the lowest floor with fire. Of course, since both Ray and his source both claim that this portion of the building fell mostly intact, we can easily conclude that the photographs are obviously wrong and/or our eyes are deceiving us. Positing that the footage is accurate and that neither Ray nor the authors of Ray's source bothered to review any footage of the actual collapse before offering their hypothesis will be frowned upon with great earnestness. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBPuu9o89dk&feature=relatedCredentials mean nothing. Clearly he's nutters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Credentials mean nothing.... Well......I guess that explains why Achilles is so quick to dismiss the professionals that argue against his position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Maybe the school should replace one of those 3 years of basic physics with a critical thinking course...? Saying that the scope of the project is too large for it to be peer reviewed is complete fallacy. One does not automatically exclude the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth InSidious Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 That's awesome! I think you'll agree though that science tends to be a little more...exact...than history. A lot of the principles and processes are the same. However being able to go into a lab and produce a detailed report on the chemical composition of Apparatus XYZ is a little bit different than trying to comb through texts, archalogical finds, etc and trying to piece together a story. Given that there's next-to-no writing from the fourth dynasty, no. In fact, this is a useful example, since the pyramids are as much an engineering puzzle as they are archaeology. Just as I know a thing or two about science, even though I am not a scientist Really? And which area is your doctorate in? Not at all. Ockham's Razor simply seeks to remove unnecessary steps from an explanation. For instance, you probably would agree that 2+2+x=4 has an unneccessary step. You could easily say that 2+2=4. This is Ockham's Razor. Ockham's Razor is not simply declaring "4". That's the very-brief-I'm-trying-to-post-this-before-a-meeting explanation. I can go into deeper detail if you would like. Take care! OK. Thanks for the info. If I have further questions, I'll PM you. Credentials mean nothing. You know that this comment isn't going to be taken lightly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.