As an engineer, I am disappointed with A&E-4-9/11truth

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Hence my Q - does it bother you at all that he uses the false statement about freefall speeds, and a photo of compressed floors to make a point about molten steel to make his points?

As far as "freefall" speeds, wasn't the 9/11 commission who stated this first?

But, yes it concerns me. I'm not the type to just take what people say at face value.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
2- No. It was about 70% slower than freefall speed.

WTC 1 and 2 were around 417m high.

Freefall speed for the top of the tower (neglecting air resistance):
v^2 = 2 * 9.8 * 417
v = 90.4 m/s
v = 325 km/hr
v = 203 miles/hr (approx)

70% slower than freefall speed is 0.3 * 90.4 = 27.1 m/s = 98 km/hr = 61 miles/hr

Seymour, please explain your absurd claim with some calculations?

[edit on 15-11-2008 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by ipsedixit

1-Saying that it was 70% slower than freefall speed is not the awesome rebuttal it sounds like.

2-The buildings fell in about 5 seconds or so slower than free fall speed and way, way, way faster than they would have in anything resembling an unassisted collapse.

1- Really? So if you do an experiment, and the results are 70% outside the expected result - this time, the experiment is freefall speed - then this is insignificant?

2- Hahaha.... This sounds like the very thing YOU said.... namely, lying through statistics. So what do you mean by way, way, way?

Originally posted by Griff

1-As far as "freefall" speeds, wasn't the 9/11 commission who stated this first?

2-But, yes it concerns me. I'm not the type to just take what people say at face value.

1- I don't recall. I tend to NOT use that report when it comes to structural matters. But at any rate, you seem to agree that that belief has been debunked.

2- Good for you. A man's integrity is all you've got left when you go to your grave.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Seymour, please explain your absurd claim with some calculations?

Freefall is around 9.2 sec.

9.2x 1.7 = 15.6 seconds.

Which is about what ipsiXXXX said.

Seymour what is your position on controlled demolition?

Are you saying that the buildings were not felled by a controlled demolition because they fell at a rate that was 70% slower than free fall speed, i.e. that each floor fell .05 seconds slower than free fall speed? If you are, I think you are rejecting the theory on very slim grounds and should at least suggest an alternative way that such a collapse could happen.

Side note to Griff: Maybe someone should do a survey of the collapse times in controlled demolitions. Maybe 70% of free fall speed is the standard for CDs. (lol).

If, as Griff is doing, you are looking for strict scientific reporting from a website run by professional engineers and architects, containing no imprecise English language analogies, that is one thing.

Making a big deal about the use of the phrase "free fall speed" in the wider context of the discussion is misleading as far as I'm concerned. That phrase is an exaggeration (granted by 70%) that is used, not unreasonably, to make a point.

I would go even further. I think it is an example of bad faith, of using the objection to the phrase to avoid taking a principled stand on the issue of controlled demolition.

Does the controlled demolition industry demand that buildings fall at free fall speed to be certified as controlled demolitions?

There are some people who take refuge in endless discussions of the finer points of the engineering aspects of the collapse of the WTC. I'm not talking about people like Griff, who are seeking the details of the truth in such a way that could help slam dunk an eventual court case, or about the engineering shills who are paid to make the government's case for them.

I'm talking about people who think that if each floor fell five one hundredths of a second slower than free fall speed, then they can write off a website like A@E49/11Truth as not being truthful.

To me that is an example of an unprincipled use of principle, in order to avoid responsibility. It's being overly punctilious in the context. That's not being a scientist. That's being an ostrich.


[edit on 16-11-2008 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Side note to Griff: Maybe someone should do a survey of the collapse times in controlled demolitions. Maybe 70% of free fall speed is the standard for CDs. (lol).

You may be onto something here. As "free fall" speed can only be achieved in a vacuum, then anything falling in air would automatically fall slower than "free fall" speed.

I'm not an aerodynamics guy or I'd try to calculate what actual "free fall" speed would really be with just air resistance alone. Considering how flat things would be (floors, walls, etc.), my guess would be close to 70% slower. But, that's just a guess.

reply to post by Griff

It would be nice if some of the video analysis experts who have spent so much energy looking at the mainstream news footage of the plane impacts were to do a study of filmed controlled demolitions around the US.
Most of these demos were done by the same one or two companies.

Documentation on the height of the buildings should be obtainable. It seems to me that the people at A@E49/11Truth could do that kind of study easily.

In Rick Siegel's video, 9/11 Eyewitness, there is some analysis of that sort. Freefall speed in air and in a vacuum of some standard object is used and compared to the observed time for the collapse of the towers. In the Siegel video, of course, they were trying to make the case that the buildings did fall at free fall speed and may have underestimated when they actually hit bottom (behind a cloud of toxic dust.)

It would be interesting if the average deviation from the free fall speed of a standard object (five pound cannonball) of a number of controlled demolition collapses matched that of the WTC collapses.

It would take this whole controversy about the use of the term free fall speed out of the discussion entirely. One might then be able to assert that the WTC collapses were completly consistent with the known collapse times of a large number of buildings brought down by controlled demolition.

Isn't that what they call "walking like a duck".


[edit on 17-11-2008 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by Griff

You may be onto something here. As "free fall" speed can only be achieved in a vacuum, then anything falling in air would automatically fall slower than "free fall" speed.

While that's a valid point, all you need to do is observe the exterior panels falling WELL in front of the collapse front in many of the available videos to see that it was about 70% slower. So for us, we can say that freefall = maximum velocity through the air, which has a limit. There's some technical issues also, since freefall really means the acceleration of an object in a vacuum, which of course would be infinite without air resistance. But I think it's sensible to ignore that issue and just go with layman's terms.

There's a video available, done by RKOwens, I believe... you know the one where Rosie is saying that it fell in 9 seconds at the beginning....... In it, when the exterior columns are hitting the ground, around 9 seconds, the collapse front is around the 40 th floor. So the 70% statement stands up to that scrutiny.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
1-Seymour what is your position on controlled demolition?

2-If you are, I think you are rejecting the theory on very slim grounds and should at least suggest an alternative way that such a collapse could happen.

3-I would go even further. I think it is an example of bad faith, of using the objection to the phrase to avoid taking a principled stand on the issue of controlled demolition.

4-the engineering shills who are paid to make the government's case for them.

5-To me that is an example of an unprincipled use of principle, in order to avoid responsibility.

1-Didn't happen. Not with explosives OR thermxte.

2- I'll go with NIST's explanation.

3- my rejection of ae9/11 troof does not hinge on their imprecise USAGE of the term freefall, just like it doesn't hinge on Griff's objection over the "blueprint" issue. These are, as you say, mere usage of language that will be familiar to laymen, so I see no problem with that. My objection is that they claim that they fell at - and I'll use the term freefall to just go with the flow - freefall speed, when that is false. Just like them using a photo of several compacted floors and using it as an example of molten metal.... there's more, but you get the idea. My rejection also hinges on the fact that as professionals, they should be able to produce..... something.... that includes calcs, that can get published in a journal other than one of their own making, has no peer review, or as the only qualification to getting published requires a publishing fee. Many other professionals have produced papers that dispute aspects of the NIST report, Fire engineers, the tall building folks, and a couple others come to mind, so the whole argument about how a reputable journal would be scared, etc pretty much "falls into its own footprint"

4- sorry, but there's no such thing. That is delusional.

5- this is what the TM does. Just asking questions avoids the responsibility of proving their points.

Curious - what do you hope to achieve by just asking questions?

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

3- my rejection of ae9/11 troof does not hinge on their imprecise USAGE of the term freefall, just like it doesn't hinge on Griff's objection over the "blueprint" issue. These are, as you say, mere usage of language that will be familiar to laymen, so I see no problem with that. My objection is that they claim that they fell at - and I'll use the term freefall to just go with the flow - freefall speed, when that is false. Just like them using a photo of several compacted floors and using it as an example of molten metal.... there's more, but you get the idea. My rejection also hinges on the fact that as professionals, they should be able to produce..... something.... that includes calcs, that can get published in a journal other than one of their own making, has no peer review, or as the only qualification to getting published requires a publishing fee. Many other professionals have produced papers that dispute aspects of the NIST report, Fire engineers, the tall building folks, and a couple others come to mind, so the whole argument about how a reputable journal would be scared, etc pretty much "falls into its own footprint"

I can agree with some of what you post here. But, I'd also like to say that NIST falls into this as well. The bolded words by me are the important ones. But, I am not arguing your point by saying "they do it too, therefore, we can do it". That is not right IMO. On either side.

Anyway, on topic, and as a side note. I still haven't heard a word from A&E? I wonder why they are taking so long to contact me when they have already spoken through another poster on my other thread about NIST and the ICC codes. Twice.

[edit on 11/17/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
1-Didn't happen. Not with explosives OR thermxte.

Yes it did.

2- I'll go with NIST's explanation.

And that was?

3- my rejection of ae9/11 troof . . . is that they claim that they fell at - and I'll use the term freefall to just go with the flow - freefall speed, when that is false.

People reading this might think you actually tell the truth when you post, so I'm quoting here what they say from their own website, with added emphasis.

7.
Symmetrical collapse – through the path of greatest resistance – at nearly free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance

Just like them using a photo of several compacted floors and using it as an example of molten metal.... there's more, but you get the idea.

There are numerous testamonials to molten metal at this link, linked through the A@E website:

wtcinvestigation.com...

Seymour, I hate to be a pest but would it be too much trouble for you to give me a link to that photo you are talking about?

My rejection also hinges on the fact that as professionals, they should be able to produce..... something.... that includes calcs,

Debunkernation has such a fetish for calculations, although most of the time they give the impression of not even being able to add or subtract. Would just plain statistics do sans calculations? How about a fifteen second collapse of a 110 story building through it's path of greatest resistance? Or four million gallons of water failing to put out the jet fuel fire?(See above link.)

Therefore, a total of 4 million gallons of water percolated through the debris in the first 10 days and collected at the bottom of the Bathtub." (llnl.gov)

that can get published in a journal other than one of their own making, has no peer review, or as the only qualification to getting published requires a publishing fee.

Don't you think they review these papers before pubishing them? Who do you want to review the papers? Do you think they have their papers reviewed by the guy who brings in the coffee and donuts at break time?

Many other professionals have produced papers that dispute aspects of the NIST report, Fire engineers, the tall building folks, and a couple others come to mind, so the whole argument about how a reputable journal would be scared, etc pretty much "falls into its own footprint"

They are way more reputable than the institutions that produced some of those laughable computer simulations.

4- sorry, but there's no such thing. That is delusional.

Sorry Bud, the history of science is replete with shills cooking up phony papers on controversial topics or topics where their bosses have a financial interest in the results.

5- this is what the TM does. Just asking questions avoids the responsibility of proving their points.

Curious - what do you hope to achieve by just asking questions?

The truth movement hopes to achieve indictments and prison convictions for the people behind the 9/11 fraud and subsequent war crimes.

[edit on 17-11-2008 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by Griff

I can agree with some of what you post here. But, I'd also like to say that NIST falls into this as well. The bolded words by me are the important ones. But, I am not arguing your point by saying "they do it too, therefore, we can do it". That is not right IMO. On either side.

But there HAVE been papers that discuss the findings, correct?

And these have been published.

ALL of the a&e papers haven't, other than the pay-to-publish, or the self published and peer reviewed by reviewers with conflicting interests.

Originally posted by ipsedixit

1-People reading this might think you actually tell the truth when you post, so I'm quoting here what they say from their own website, with added emphasis.

2-Seymour, I hate to be a pest but would it be too much trouble for you to give me a link to that photo you are talking about?

3-How about a fifteen second collapse of a 110 story building through it's path of greatest resistance?

4- Do you think they have their papers reviewed by the guy who brings in the coffee and donuts at break time?

5-Sorry Bud, the history of science is replete with shills cooking up phony papers on controversial topics

6-The truth movement hopes to achieve indictments and prison convictions for the people behind the 9/11 fraud

[

1- ok, it looks like they use BOTH terms then, i already gave the link to it earlier.

2-www.ae911truth.org...

3- Gravity works in the vertical plane. What direction should it fall, if not down?

4-From the looks of it,yes. The purpose of peer review is to get neutral, qualified persons in the required fields to see if your paper holds water. Theirs don't. My evidence of this is that they can't get them published.

5- I agree. Just go to ae9/11 troof to read some of them

6- by this I guess you mean some NWO type guys, right? how does asking questions achieve that? And how does supplying answers to those questions that convince noone but the already conspiracy minded gonna achieve that? The burden is yours. I've already stated that I already believe that the 9/11 Commission report was a cya affair, so it's not like I'm blind to that sort of garbage. So if you can't even convince me, how do you think that you can convince anyone else?

reply to post by ipsedixit


Just for giggles, here's a troofer paper ABOUT a&e 4 9/11 twoof.

Notice that even though he's a troofer, he thinks that Gage is junk.

Will you debunk what he says?


www.cool-places.0catch.com...

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by ipsedixit

3-How about a fifteen second collapse of a 110 story building through it's path of greatest resistance?

3- Gravity works in the vertical plane. What direction should it fall, if not down?

I don't mind a guy who wants to score a debater's point. I do it myself. Just as long as no-one thinks it constitutes a real rebuttal of anything.

By the way your're not really Seymore Butts are you? If you are I'd much rather hear your version of the collapse of Tiffany Towers than anything you have to say about the WTC.

reply to post by ipsedixit



Just in case you missed it:

www.cool-places.0catch.com...

Any rebuttal?

Here is the photo we were talking about.



Here is A@E's caption for it.

Previously molten metal was found "flowing like lava" by the FDNY in the basements of all 3 WTC High-rises. Hydrocarbon fires can burn at a maximum temperature of 1,800°F which is about 1,000° short of the beginning melting temperature of steel. Where did the molten metal come from? Why do FEMA and NIST deny its existence?

Now are you saying that NIST says that this is a photo of several collapsed floors?

[edit on 18-11-2008 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by ipsedixit



No, I'm saying ae uses this photo to depict molten metal. Do you agree with them?

Have you had a chance yet to rebut this?

www.cool-places.0catch.com...

reply to post by Seymour Butz


I read the letter you linked too. Here's the funniest part of it.

Please don’t mistake me for a NIST apologist or an official cover-up story believer.

And at the end:

My conclusion is that there is no claim favoring the controlled demolition hypothesis over NIST’s impact/fire/gravitational collapse hypothesis. Most important, there are no tell-tale sharp cracking sounds in the sound video given above and there is no comparison between the sounds in that video and the sounds in videos actual demolitions. This means we can rule out demolition using conventional means.

Semour, I don't mean to be cruel or insensitive, but you should know that when people read this sort of thing, they start to wonder about the mental state of the person writing it.

Between the two quotes are some interesting and debatable observations and some stuff that I would rate as narrowly focused, myopic assertions.



[edit on 18-11-2008 by ipsedixit]