The use of Doublespeak to derail Occam's Razor.

reply to post by exponent


MY SECOND REPLY WAS TO SOMEONE ELSE ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE.

You responded to that as well as my response to you. You stated in that response that you hope I am talking about 7 because you were talking about the twins and blah blah. I am stating that you need not respond to that and worry about which tower I meant since it was not addressed to you, had nothing to do with the twins, and had nothing to do with me asking you for calculations that you never did. Are you saying that they did recover steel from WTC7? Or are you saying you are confused because you replied to a post that was to someone else and when I explained it in English, you got lost.

Just give us the calculations or stop pretending you have any idea what you are saying.

reply to post by exponent


If you can't explain what the NIST study offers that is new, and point out the critical information in the study, then either there is nothing new in this huge document, or you don't understand it.

Also, the office areas would have burned on an average of 800 C, not 1,200 C. The fires could have reach as much as 1,200C for brief periods on the hottest pockets of the fire. That would be in the hottest buring sections in the office furniture, not in the steel core, where the 800C average would have been what the structure saw.

If you have the formulas that show the mass of steel in the core, and the calories required to cause those beams to shatter in such a manner as to bring the buidling down in free fall, show them. Otherwise, I find no reason to believe you. This information has been with held, and my money says that the NIST data does't give this information, or fudges it considerably.

Here is a web site that gives the numbers, and they don't add up to a free fall collapse of the WTC without something else aiding the collapse.

www.exit23.com...


[edit on 21-9-2008 by poet1b]

again assumptions are made in both theories
so to say that one theory does and the other doesn't make assumptions is misleading

We have evidence in both theories that explain the cause of the collapses.
Where they differ, occam's razor helps us determine which theory is closer to the truth.
Without the spin/derailing of doublespeak,
we can easily make this point by stating the bare facts:
- planes are not known to bring down steel structured buildings
- fires are not known to bring down steel structured buildings
- planes and fires together are not known to bring down steel structured buildings
- controlled demolitions are known to bring down steel structured buildings

we clearly saw planes crash into 2 of the 3 buildings
we clearly saw fire and smoke coming from all 3 buildings
we clearly saw all 3 buildings go down at free fall speed...
just like buildings collapse in a controlled demolition

simply and most sufficiently put by the grace of occam's razor
controlled demolitions most likely brought down the buildings

and poet1b's reference to Grimmer's article, eloquently backs up this theory with numbers

[edit on 21-9-2008 by The All Seeing I]

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
MY SECOND REPLY WAS TO SOMEONE ELSE ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE.

You responded to that as well as my response to you. You stated in that response that you hope I am talking about 7 because you were talking about the twins and blah blah. I am stating that you need not respond to that and worry about which tower I meant since it was not addressed to you, had nothing to do with the twins,

Simply being prudent

and had nothing to do with me asking you for calculations that you never did.

Rather a bold claim for someone to make! I will address this below.

Are you saying that they did recover steel from WTC7?

No, just making sure you knew they recovered steel from WTC1 and 2. Only FEMA had steel that they knew was from WTC7.

Just give us the calculations or stop pretending you have any idea what you are saying.

This is one of several quite offensive statements you've made, I won't bother reporting them as I am still quite a newbie here and I trust the moderators review threads often enough. Regardless, you have seen fit to make quite a lot of nasty claims, that I have never done these calculations, and that implicitly I am lying to you. For example:

So.. you really have no calculations. You never did any calculations. You have no idea what to calculate in the first place.

Now, I stated very clearly what my requirements were for these calculations, and that was that someone making the opposing claim should show theirs. Now clearly this has become somewhat muddled as poet's post below will show, so I will just link to the original calculations (unfortunately missing images) and we can discuss this later.
z10.invisionfree.com...

Originally posted by poet1b
If you can't explain what the NIST study offers that is new, and point out the critical information in the study, then either there is nothing new in this huge document, or you don't understand it.

Here's an example, NIST identified large scale deflections occuring on both towers prior to collapse, no previous report had identified these nor provided a mechanism and supporting modelling and calculation. You are however trying to get me to summarise 11,000 pages in a paragraph. This is not easy!

Also, the office areas would have burned on an average of 800 C, not 1,200 C. The fires could have reach as much as 1,200C for brief periods on the hottest pockets of the fire. That would be in the hottest buring sections in the office furniture, not in the steel core, where the 800C average would have been what the structure saw.

800C is an acceptable average figure. I have no problem with that. 1200C certainly is the absolute upper limit of typical fire temperatures, by no means the average.

If you have the formulas that show the mass of steel in the core, and the calories required to cause those beams to shatter in such a manner as to bring the buidling down in free fall, show them.

There are unfortunately three problems with this request:

• The core did not initiate failure in either building.
  NISTs simulations indicate that the perimeter walls failed to initiate collapse, and while the core was damaged and did play a role in the collapse, this may indicate you don't have a good understanding of their theory.
  
• Beams did not shatter.
  Vertical structural elements are called columns, and they will only shatter in relatively rare situations. Regardless of the term you were using, the calculations are not as simple as taking the quantity of heat output by fires and applying it to steel, NIST used advanced fluid dynamics simulators to determine the conduction of heat from flame to steel. This has yet to be seriously challenged
  
• The buildings did not fall "at free-fall".
  Independent analysis of video evidence shows that the approximate accelerations for WTC1 and 2 were 3/4g and 2/3g respectively. This results in large amounts of GPE being converted into KE and then used up in deformation of the structure

As you can see, I cannot answer your question as it relies on three incorrect assumptions. Hopefully we can discuss these and come to a conclusion. You link to an article to support your claims, but unfortunately this uses the same incorrect assumptions and therefore is pointless.

edit: some readability changes.

[edit on 22-9-2008 by exponent]

reply to post by The All Seeing I


Please show me where there have been any other 757, or similar sized, airliner flown diliberalty, or otherwise, into a building where the building is still standing after the intial damage and ensuing fire.

You cant.

BTW it has been shown time and time again that the buildings did not fall at free fall speed. Do your research.

All you have done is twisted Occams to fit your hypothosis. Nothing else.



[edit on 23-9-2008 by six]

if may seem as if i am twisting,
because you are accustomed to seeing this concept already in a twisted form...

all i am doing is applying occam's razor after including all valid info, minus the disinfo

what you are used to seeing is occam's razor applied after disinfo is included and the omission of valid info...
by default the result is misleading

the whole notion of the combination of plane and fire...
goes out the window when you consider the strength of the inner core
and if you insist on ignoring the inner core
then you have to factor in wtc7...
which was brought down by no plane and a much smaller fire.

the whole notion that all 3 towers fell slower then the rate of gravity...
is a weak factor, when you consider the difference in 5 seconds...
i.e. "one mississippi, two mississippi, three mississippi..." or "one, two, three..."
and how is this amount of time significant?
if you want to claim they didn't fall at the rate of gravity with no resistance
they you must admit that they fell very close to the rate of gravity with no resistance...
which just doesn't make sense... common sense

either way ...
very little to zero resistance is showed by all of the original video footage

in overview of it all...
i can see nothing has changed since the world was once claimed to be flat


[edit on 23-9-2008 by The All Seeing I]

reply to post by exponent


So you have now wasted 4 posts going on about these calculations and have as of yet failed to produce them. Game over. If you had done them, you would have been able to post them by your 3rd post. I am not sure what you point is but I think this is a great example of this double speak.

You claim to have worked out the math to back up the "official" story and instead of ever proving that, you will waste several posts attacking the idea that anyone ask for these calculations. Ok, I am not sure what you point is or what you wish to prove with empty statements but it sure has gotten off-topic hasnt it?

At this point if you cannot at least google someone else's calculations and post that pretending they were yours at the very least. You say that you are a newbie and that explains things. You will find that when you claim to have done the calculations and proved the government story is correct, people at ATS will want to see your work.

NIST made errors in their math so there is no reason to assume you are any closer to perfect than anyone else. Thank you for arguing without ever backing it up. That tells me what kind of person you are off the bat so I will try to get back to the topic and away from this twisted little double speak argument.

reply to post by The All Seeing I

the whole notion of the combination of plane and fire...
goes out the window when you consider the strength of the inner core
and if you insist on ignoring the inner core
then you have to factor in wtc7...
which was brought down by no plane and a much smaller fire.

Very weak argument. The inner core was not some magical all powerfull thing that impervious to any damage that you are making it out to be. The inner core was damaged. Severely damaged, and yet you refuse to take that into account.

Prove to me that WTC 7 was a much smaller fire. Last time I checked it burned unabaited for 8 hours. Thats 7 hours longer than both towers. In that time it spread and grew. In that 8 hours the fire was not just burning contents only. It was doing structural damage. LOTS of damage. I would not be suprised if more floors in WTC7 were involved than in either one of the towers. That does not make it a "much smaller" fire.

Again, the towers did not fall at free fall speed or any where near to free fal speed. 20 to 25 sec to fall is not free fall speed.

You are just fitting the principle to fit your needs. The line you draw, to achieve to goal you seek, claiming that only explosives could have brought the towers down, is very conveluted and not very straight.

[edit on 24-9-2008 by six]

"Weak argument" ? There is nothing to argue... you just lack info.
Unless it is your goal here at ATS to fight and not learn something new?
I will suspend my suspicion that this is true
and assume that you do care about this subject matter.

There appears to be a void in your awareness of a very important model/example from which we can compare and reveal the strength of the core...

The Windsor Building, in Madrid Spain, was of a similar truss design to the twin towers, the fire started 11 storeys from the top of the building, and it burned at temperatures of 800ºC for more than 18 hours. The core of the building did not fail.

The fire in WTC 1 is reported to have burned at 800ºC and was located roughly 17 storeys from the top of the building meaning the inner core supported only 6 additional floors of weight above the fire zone in comparison to the Windsor Building. WTC 1 collapsed after only 85 minutes, reportedly through core failure.

As for the damage caused by the planes, if this truly was a factor, then what we would have seen, would have been similar to a tree being chopped down. Where the axe/plane hit the tree/tower is the point from which we see the top portion of the tree/tower tip over.

Windsor Building Core:


WTC1 Core:


As you can see the core of WTC1 was far more robust than the Windsor Building's core - this is to be expected since the building was 110 storeys high.

Now if we take the Windsor and compare it to the WTC7. Again we have no reasonable reason to think that a steel structured building could collapse like a house of cards due to fire. Especially when you acknowledge that there are plenty of other examples of steel structured buildings that have withstood much hotter longer lasting fires then WTC 1, 2 & 7.

So as i was saying ... once you include all of the relevant information and cut out the disinfo you have an example of occam's razor in proper use.

[edit on 24-9-2008 by The All Seeing I]

reply to post by The All Seeing I

The Windsor Building, in Madrid Spain, was of a similar truss design to the twin towers, the fire started 11 storeys from the top of the building, and it burned at temperatures of 800ºC for more than 18 hours. The core of the building did not fail.

Apples to oranges my friend. Apples to oranges. You cannot compare the two because the ONLY thing they have in common is the fire. ONLY one of the examples had BOTH a high speed collision by a 350,000 lbs aircraft AND a fire. That is the WTC. WTC had more floors damaged by just the aircraft hitting it.These are not the same. Not even close. No matter how much you want them to be. You cannot even compare it to WTC 7 because Madrid did NOT have both massive structrual damage and fire. These are not the same no matter how much you want them to be.

The fact of the matter is that there is only one example of aircraft hitting buildings.. with a ensuing fire.. with collapse.. and that is the WTC. Nothing else is out there to compare it too no matter how much you twist this and that to fit your needs.

There appears to be a void in your awareness of a very important model/example from which we can compare and reveal the strength of the core...

Nope. No void in my awarness.

As for the damage caused by the planes, if this truly was a factor, then what we would have seen, would have been similar to a tree being chopped down. Where the axe/plane hit the tree/tower is the point from which we see the top portion of the tree/tower tip over.

Not a very good analogy. Kind of a stretch to compare a solid steel axe head to a hollow aluminum aircraft. Occams razor again? there are so many differences between the two I dont know even where to start. You are a intelligent person. I will let you figure it out.

If you will look closely, that IS where the tipping started. There was structural integrity issues at that point. I will point you to the " Why were there not any helicoptor rescue" thread. There are some excellent transcripts of the helicoptor pilots making note of the towers leaning. You should take a look.


[edit on 24-9-2008 by six]

[edit on 24-9-2008 by six]

...i suppose the best i can do in response... is just to "agree to disagree"

which leaves me with the following words of wisdom to reconsider...

Originally posted by JimBeam
You articulate in a very mechanic nature. It's not going to resonate to the blind.

These people are the types that wouldn't believe an A-Bomb was possible back in the 40's. We go to the moon in 69, develop weapons to destroy countries with one bomb, but we can't demo 3 buildings all the while making it seem like a terrorist attack?

You are not dealing with people that live in "reality". You are dealing with people that barely have the capacity to connect A to B. You are dealing with children.

... i think i'm finally starting to understand

[edit on 24-9-2008 by The All Seeing I]

reply to post by The All Seeing I


Hmmmm. I am not sure how to respond. I have never been told that I dont live in reality. That I cannot get from A to B. That I am blind or a child. Back handed slap maybe??? You dont know me. To put those, or any other, limits on my mind or imagination is again stretching.

Yes I guess we will have to agree just to disagree. But I would reconsider what you would call "words of wisdom."


[edit on 24-9-2008 by six]

I didn't need no stinking "official" explanation, or some stinking public official to tell me how they all came down after seeing;

A. Bldg 7 come down when it was hit by nothing at all.

B. Reading the testimony of William Rodriguez, who was there.
......www.william911.com...

C. Seeing a few videos, a cpl with explosions going on in the background and seeing the people on the streets talking about the explosions.

D. Testimony from the Commission Report was omitted from the final report, as well as some was sealed for 5o years.

Some folks need a house to fall on them before they wake up, and some, even that wouldn't do it.

I don't need to know every stinking detail of how many pounds ounces and grams of whatever in whatever location blah blah blah to convince me.

Those people who need all that info, STILL won't believe it anyways, so why even waste your time on them.


Bottom line is, no justice will ever be done in this earth age.

Originally posted by six


If you will look closely, that IS where the tipping started. There was structural integrity issues at that point. I will point you to the " Why were there not any helicoptor rescue" thread. There are some excellent transcripts of the helicoptor pilots making note of the towers leaning. You should take a look.


[edit on 24-9-2008 by six]

[edit on 24-9-2008 by six]

Good point. The towers were reportedly leaning and you can clearly see the angular momentum as collapse begins so................
what happend to that angular momentum? Core failure would not stop a leaning building from falling to the side, nor would it cause a leaning chunk on top to correct itself. Thank you for mentioning the leaning, now have any explanation that stays within the realm of actual real world physics that can account for the correct and straight down collapse?

P.S. and this is just a question, how is it that the fires alone could not cause the collapse, it had to do with the impact of the planes as well, yet WTC7 was not hit by a plane so we have to accept it was just fire there? And what exactly did the 'official' reports say that impact did to hasten collapse in collusion with the fire? I just do not recall.

[edit on 9/24/08 by MorningStar8741]

according to NIST's FAQ page
wtc.nist.gov...

3. How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse.

The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
what happend to that angular momentum? Core failure would not stop a leaning building from falling to the side, nor would it cause a leaning chunk on top to correct itself. Thank you for mentioning the leaning, now have any explanation that stays within the realm of actual real world physics that can account for the correct and straight down collapse?

Ignoring the construction of the WTC towers for now (the outer perimeter wall took 50% of the gravity loads), any homogeneous block rotating around a pivot will result in a difference in density between the two points. This density will result in a difference in imparted force. It's quite a complex subject to explain, and the construction of the WTC likely played a role. Please see Dr Greening, Bazant, Benson and Li(I forget this guy's name and I keep forgetting to review it, I need to apologise to him a million times)'s paper which deals with this.

P.S. and this is just a question, how is it that the fires alone could not cause the collapse, it had to do with the impact of the planes as well, yet WTC7 was not hit by a plane so we have to accept it was just fire there?

WTC7 was a radically different building, and several agencies have conducted analyses which indicate that severe fire alone might have been enough to cause the towers to collapse.

And what exactly did the 'official' reports say that impact did to hasten collapse in collusion with the fire? I just do not recall.

Impact simply severed columns which held load, forcing this load to be redistributed to other columns. This means the DCR or Demand-to-Capacity Ratio was reduced in these columns.

Oooo goodie... another example of a deceptive use of language.

This here is an excellent example, of how professional lingo seduces the mind to surrender independent thought. All sounds very intelligent, authoritative and objective... and yet when you strip the descriptions/analysis of the lingo/curtain you can clearly see reality.

All the evidence is in the collective details of independent observation of the 1971 construction photos, 911 news videos and what is covered in a high school physics textbook. The outer shell and inner core were not sufficiently damaged, nor were the fires hot enough, to merit a complete and total collapse of these buildings in their foot print... and throwing wtc7 in the picture only supports this premise further.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by The All Seeing I]

reply to post by exponent


Oh shucks that is some funny stuff. So you read some mumbo jumbo double speak about properties and effects completely unrelated to the principles that I addressed and that satisfies you? I am sorry my friend but either you have not a clue what you are talking about or you are just willing to believe all them thar words somehow manage to actually explain what I am speaking of without even addressing it.

Angular momentum, inertia.

What stopped that angular momentum? What force? What energy source working AGAINST gravity did that?

Originally posted by MorningStar8741

What stopped that angular momentum? What force? What energy source working AGAINST gravity did that?

How about you come up with an explanation for it?

Explore all areas. Look into what it would take.

When you do that, you'll see that any explanation that involves outside forces becomes impossible.

Then you'll understand the red herring that this question represents.

If my recollection serves me right, the outer shell only supported 20%-30% of the structure. If the fall came as a latent response form the impact of the 747, where the 747 physical impact cut enough of the inner core beams to lead to the collapse, then the building should have folded over at the point of impact, not fallen into its own footprint. This is a point numerous people have made.

In addition, one of the planes did tore through a corner of the building, not the core.