1 Chop, 2 Chop & ALL 3 Fall Down

Blinders?

Feel free to view my profile and review my post history and you tell me if I have blinders on or if I refuse to take any version of events on face value.

I'm sorry if it appears like pseudo-intellectual garbage. It is the exacting requirements of science and the scientific method that have provided all of the wonderful things in your life, including that PC you're sitting behind.

You're exemplifying twoofer ignorance in by constructing incorrect arguments and when called on it, claim the other is blind or an apologist or what have you.

What's worse is the new trend of incorrectly applying science and physics in order to justify some pet theory.

I can't say this enough: one does not take a theory and attempt to fit the evidence to it. One examines the evidence and allows it to tell the story.

In the very first paragraph of your OP you posit the question "is the devil in the details?" You're darn tootin' it is.

What is the temperature at which a regular office fire burns?

What is the temperature at which jet fuel burns?

What is the aggregate temperature of an office fire with jet fuel?

Is that hot enough to melt steel to the point to create a catastrophic failure in a steel frame skyscraper built to the specifications and tolerances of the WTC towers?

Repeated computer simulations have determined that the physical impact of the plane alone was insufficient to cause the structural collapse of WTC1 and WTC2.

How about you answer those questions and then apply Occam's Razor and tell me what you come up with for the collapse of the towers?

That's not pseudo-intellectualism... that's how you properly construct and argument. Your OP is ridiculous.

[edit on 8-1-2009 by cogburn]

Here at ATS, we are encouraged to question everything.
Nothing is sacred, no exceptions... and this includes science, especially science funded by one source... and even more important to question when that one source is a government that has a long rap sheet of lying to us.

What you are essentially doing is reading the side of a box, that has been purposely mispackaged. If you open the box and pull the product out to take a look at it from every conceivable angle... you would know this.

Willingly allowing the package designers and their hired lab techs to dictate to you how and why the product performs as it does, is being irresponsible and intellectually lazy. You have invested all of your trust in them to tell you the truth, when they have proven to not deserve such blind faith... or are you so thoroughly convinced that science can't be used to support a fallacy?

For hundreds of years science has been used by governments, businesses and religion to sell lies. Creationist have spun science to serve their objectives with "Intelligent Design" in a attempt to debunk Evolution. Tell me, we're we ever told the truth about the health hazards of tobacco back in the heyday of smoking? And speaking of smoking, the tobacco, cotton & pharmaceuticals industries/lobbyists have used politics and science to convince us that marijuana is more dangerous then alcohol and is a "gate-way drug". All bunk and all science... just purposely abused and misused.

You show a very strong allegiance to ornate scientific explanations for 911, and in the process fail to comprehend how straight forward the evidence is... as i have already proven, all that is required is a basic understanding of science and math. If you are looking for more detailed explanations... Scholars for 911 Truth & Justice is a good place to start.

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
Why didn't these towers fall like trees?

apply occam's razor in sharing "your own" conclusions based on what you learned in your high school or college level physics class... and share your own thoughts.

How's this for Occam's razor? They didn't fall like trees because they weren't trees.

yes adam thank you for popping in to share that golden nugget of wisdom...
rush already pointed that out on the previous page
www.abovetopsecret.com...

... and just a couple posts a head of this one, i had already responded to this.

Maybe next time, read the whole thread before making a "contribution" to the discussion.

What's up with you debunkers, do you all have ADD?

Maybe that's the real reason you only bother to review data that has been packaged with the OS brand/label?



Another prime example of being intellectually lazy.

[edit on 8-1-2009 by The All Seeing I]

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
yes adam thank you for popping in to share that golden nugget of wisdom...
rush already pointed that out on the previous page
www.abovetopsecret.com...

... and just a couple posts a head of this one, i had already responded to this.

Whoops...my mistake for skipping that post.

As to your question of why they collapsed as if they were made out of a deck of cards. The problem with comparing the WTC to a tree, or a deck of cards, or any other such comparison is not just a problem of materials, but of SCALE. Various properties of materials scale differently...some linearly, some logarythmically. Scale the material strengths in the WTC down to a desktop-sized model and you're going to end up with a model that's about as strong as those playing cards.

You can't possibly believe this...

Scale the material strengths in the WTC down to a desktop-sized model and you're going to end up with a model that's about as strong as those playing cards.

...no wonder you buy the OS/BS.

Suggesting that SCALE dismisses this analogy, completely missing my point.

ALL THREE buildings collapsed like a deck of cards... a physically impossible occurrence that has never taken place prior or after... except under the means of a controlled demolition.

[edit on 8-1-2009 by The All Seeing I]

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
You can't possibly believe this...

Scale the material strengths in the WTC down to a desktop-sized model and you're going to end up with a model that's about as strong as those playing cards.

...no wonder you buy the OS/BS.

Suggesting that SCALE dismisses this analogy, completely missing my point.

ALL THREE buildings collapsed like a deck of cards... a physically impossible occurrence that has never taken place prior or after... except under the means of a controlled demolition.

[edit on 8-1-2009 by The All Seeing I]

Physically Impossible? Do explain.

As to your flawed analogy...yes...it's flawed due to scale. It's the same reason that an ant can easily carry 10-20x its body weight, but an incredibly strong elephant cannot do the same.

If we were to scale down to 20.5" tall (making it 1/800 scale for simplicity):

- The concrete floors would be the thickness of a human hair (Thinner than playing cards)
- The steel columns would be .0175" x .0175" (The width and thickness of the columns would be about the same as the thickness of a playing card)

Edit: Scale is an important consideration in any experiment, and cannot simply be "dismissed".

[edit on 8-1-2009 by adam_zapple]

reply to post by The All Seeing I


Thanks for the link, however I'll stick to the people who know the subject matter better than anyone else.

www.ae911truth.org...

People who build buildings. People who build steel frame buildings. People who build steel frame buildings who were completely shocked that one built to the specifications of the WTC collapsed due to an impact and office fire.

All chemistry is physics, all physics is math. Ever heard that before? Any evidence that can be produced in a lab must be backed up by that math you seem to want so badly, yet utterly reject when placed in its proper context. If you can't reproduce it yourself using the exact same methodology it's not science and it doesn't matter who originated the equation. If you can't it's not science... it's called "snake oil" or "pseudo-science" and properly scorned.

Your disdain for science and math shows only your ignorance of how it is produced and disseminated in modern society. Furthermore, you pose straw man arguments (evolution) to try to justify your ignorance. ID and Lung Cancer are not sciences like architectural engineering, metallurgy and physics. No one builds buildings are puts satellites in space or fights diseases with the tenets of intelligent design. It's not an applicable or congruent argument.

More is required than a basic understanding of science and math. What is required is an understanding of what that science and math is used for and how to properly apply it.

The facts are right there in plain sight. What's required is observation and critical thinking. Not subjective "common sense". Your OP is ridiculous in its construction.

Test your own argument and you'll see how it fails. Build a 400:1 scale model of a WTC tower with playing cards. Make sure your construction at least attempts to mimic the tubular construction of the WTC so that the core column grid is evident. Now remove some cards in various places and record the collapse with a slow motion camera. Play that side by side with the WTC collapses at the same scaled frame rate. You'll see how your analogy is utterly incorrect in that the collapse pattern does not mimic the WTC collapses in any way.

Stick to the TinWiki. Pursuing real facts and creating experiments to test theories are not your forte.

EDIT: LOL adam... we were thinking the exact same thing. I should have read your post closer. My card tower is bigger than yours. I figured you'd have to use at least one playing card's worth of thickness for the concrete floors. And yet we still disagree on the fundamental subject matter. Isn't science awesome.


[edit on 8-1-2009 by cogburn]

Originally posted by cogburn
reply to post by The All Seeing I

 

Thanks for the link, however I'll stick to the people who know the subject matter better than anyone else.

www.ae911truth.org...

Since you brought up ae911truth.org...I was wondering if you could clear something up...as their leader Richard Gage has refused to comment on the matter.

On their website they list the WTC towers that collaped on 9/11 as having "all of the characteristics of a controlled demolition with explosives". 2 of the "characteristics" they list are as follows:

"Collapses into its own footprint"

"1200-foot-dia. debris field: no "pancaked" floors found"

I'm wondering how collapsing into its own footprint...and collapsing outside its footprint can BOTH be characteristics of cd.

Also, gage doesn't seem to understand the whole "Path of least resistance". (He doesn't factor gravity into it)

Cute really cute... i don't recall referencing tinwki in this tread but ok i can take the raze

What can i say but WOW. You guys are so immersed in this stuff you can't see how misleaded you are. I'll tell you what is "ridiculous", once again going completely out of your way to not see the merit of my analogy/model or OP for that matter.

Maybe you guys could go fetch your ridellin, this is going to require more then a gerbil attention span... don't blink you might miss it again. It's "ridiculous" that i have to point out the obvious, the cards aren't joined but the medal beams of the building are... yet the buildings fell like a deck of cards... as if there was no connection between the beam or material resistance as it fell... remember conservation of momentum? poof gone i guess in this example.. you guys have single handily found a flaw in Newton's theory. I see a Nobel in your near future.

This is science expressed in the simplest way... not to gain peer reviews in an academic/professional journal... but to illustrate how very basic information right in front of your faces should register as a red flag.

Pseudo-science is full of omissions and fabrications... research supporting the OS fits this bill. ... red flag ... How is this possible with so many experts/authorities behind it? ... red flag ... why are so many experts/authorities asking for an independent re-investigation ... red flag.

Need i also point out, that weight doesn't matter, both fall at the same rate... free fall speed into footprint ... where have we seen this before ... in controlled demolitions, bingo! Despite a lack of support and harsh opposition Dr. S. Jones researches the evidence of a controlled demolition and finds confirmation. ... red flag

red flag = OS flawed

[edit on 8-1-2009 by The All Seeing I]

What you been smoking ?...

Your disdain for science and math shows only your ignorance of how it is produced and disseminated in modern society. Furthermore, you pose straw man arguments (evolution) to try to justify your ignorance. ID and Lung Cancer are not sciences like architectural engineering, metallurgy and physics. No one builds buildings are puts satellites in space or fights diseases with the tenets of intelligent design. It's not an applicable or congruent argument.

I brought up these examples to illustrate how science has been successfully used in the past and still to day to perpetuate a lie(s). This was in response to you going on the assumption that the OS is truth, for it is backed by "science" and in your book science never lies.

[edit on 8-1-2009 by The All Seeing I]

reply to post by adam_zapple
At the risk of inadequately defending someone else's research, I'd be happy to attempt address the error.

I think it's just that... an error in the statement of the relevance of the debris field diameter. What I'm assuming, and I'm left to assume since you are correct in that it has never been clarified, is that the ejecta from the tower was measured at the maximum diameter indicated of 1200ft. Assuming the demolition story to be accurate as posed by AE911, the distance of the ejecta is a result of improper detonation timings resulting in a greater energy than expected, thus the increased debris field diameter. Those improper timings are what contributed to the debris field being larger than a standard commercial demolition. One could argue that were there a conspiracy, the conspirators could have determined that the demolition itself didn't have to be perfect... just good enough to get the job done. In fact, a certain amount of "slop" would only serve to obscure the true nature of events.

What I feel is also important to the discussion is the quantity of the debris field that is considered "outside" the footprint of the building. While the diameter indicated shows covers the entire debris field, it does not show the concentration of debris within that field. It could only be a few, by percentage, tons of material within an acceptable margin of error.

The best one can say is that the information presented is incomplete.

I think the inconsistencies that are present in the AE911 version do not amount to enough to dismiss the entire theory as proposed. It's also worth noting that AE911 is one of the few organizations that reviews and reworks it's information when new data becomes available. That, for me, puts them worlds above the fray of a "twoofer group".

@TASI: Thanks for taking the raze in the spirit in which it was given. I don't know you, I don't assume to and I try very hard (and sometimes fail) not to assume things not in evidence from postings. Were we two fellows in a bar having the same discussion, the context would be the same. Next round is on me.

[edit on 8-1-2009 by cogburn]

reply to post by The All Seeing I


Science doesn't lie. People do. Science doesn't fail. People fail to apply it properly through intent or ignorance.

Your comparison to tobacco companies distorting scientific research is accurate to the NIST simulations of the WTC collapse. They are both bad science. However the occasional mis-application of scientific principals or the deliberate falsification of input data does not mean that science cannot be trusted. That kind of thinking puts us on track for another Dark Age. What it does mean is that the average man on the street needs to be a smarter, more educated, more critical individual lest they be swayed by manufacturers of junk science.

I'm still not sure why you continue to assert that I am someone who accepts the OS. I think that it's quite plain that I'm someone who refuses to take any of this at face value. I always allow that I could be wrong because I could be ignorant of relevant facts. When new facts become available it's the duty of the intellectually honest to review their pet theories and revise or refute them when necessary.

To the point at hand, I don't necessarily disagree with your overall point. I am specifically taking issue with the sloppy manner in which you posed the argument.

[edit on 8-1-2009 by cogburn]

In the very first paragraph of your OP you posit the question "is the devil in the details?" You're darn tootin' it is.

What is the temperature at which a regular office fire burns?

What is the temperature at which jet fuel burns?

What is the aggregate temperature of an office fire with jet fuel?

Is that hot enough to melt steel to the point to create a catastrophic failure in a steel frame skyscraper built to the specifications and tolerances of the WTC towers?

Repeated computer simulations have determined that the physical impact of the plane alone was insufficient to cause the structural collapse of WTC1 and WTC2.

How about you answer those questions and then apply Occam's Razor and tell me what you come up with for the collapse of the towers?

Will attempt to answer your points:

Temperature of office fires

Most office fires reach temperatures of 1000 C (1800 F) to 1100 (2000F)
Most offices are built mostly of synthetic (Plastics) which are derived from
petroleum and burn with some 50 to 100% more heat energy than organic
(12000-16000 btu/lb vs 8000-8500 btu/lb). It is not the temperature
but the total amount of thermal energy releases which matters.

JET Fuel

It is not how hot the jet fuel burns - the jet fuel at WTC acted as
accelerant , It set fire to other combustibles in the area - much like how
lighter fluid on charcoal in grill.

Again it is not how hot the fire burns, but how long and how much heat
is produced by the fire

As steel is heated it begins to lose strenght and under goes deformation

At 600C (1100F) steel has half the strenght versus room temp, at 1000 C
(1800F) only 10% of original strenght. Steel also expands as heated -
if the ends are restrained the steel will sag and buckle. As the steel deforms out of plumb will affect the load carrying ability.

The aircraft impact did not cause the building to collapse - it was the fires
which heated the steel sufficently to cuase it to buckle and lose its structural strenght and integrity. The compromised steel gave way and the
top floors collapsed down onto the lower floors crushing them.

This does not mean that the aircraft impacts did not play a large role in the collapse. It was a synergistic effect - aircraft impact and fires

The aircraft impacts blasted huge holes in the outer shell of the WTC
building, Because of its unique design the exterior walls were part of
the buildings structural support.

The impacts damaged many of the interior support columns in addition to the exterior columns

The holes in the building shell allowed large volumes of air in to feed the
fires

The impacts also started the fires and sprayed almost 10,000 gal of jet
fuel inside each tower to stoke the fires on multiple floors

The impacts blasted off the fireproofing on the structural steel which began to heat up from the fires.

The impacts damaged many of the interior support columns in addition to the exterior columns

Impact severed all the elevators which prevented the FDNY from reaching the fires to attempt to extinguish them

It also severed or blocked all the stairways (except one) above the impact area preventing survivors of the initial impact from evacuating the
building.

If there had only been only fire, WTC would not have collapsed

Same if there had only been aircraft impact (think Empire State Building
and crash of B25 into it in 1945)

but aircraft impact + fire + collapse

Originally posted by cogburn

Thanks for the link, however I'll stick to the people who know the subject matter better than anyone else.

www.ae911truth.org...

You seem like a reasonable guy... what do you think of this critique of ae911troof?

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

reply to post by Seymour Butz


I think I would very much like to see the calculations that support the claims. The claim of 15% pulverization seems to relate to several other calculations. I'm looking for some data regarding the amount of material hauled off the site. So far the number at the Staten Island dump site is 1,462,000 tons of debris. How much of that was concrete? How much concrete was initially involved in construction? Again, I'd like to see the calculations and some independent figures. It may take a couple days, but I'll find it. My access to material is limited at home.

There are some things in that letter that I've never heard before.

"It is possible that people heard or saw something else, for example, reflections of lights from emergency vehicles or cars exploding."

Cars exploding before the collapse? I don't claim to be an expert on every single detail of 9/11, but I've never heard of any reports of cars exploding prior to collapse. Was there? Were they in the vicinity of the witnesses? If not, why suggest such a thing?

"6. Vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves
This is only one interpretation of the visual records of the collapses. Another interpretation is that the pressures due to impacts were blowing out the windows. The characterization as “demolition waves” has no support in the evidence or scientific analyses to date."

What is agreed upon is the fact that there were extreme pressures evident inside the building that appear symmetrical. Worst thing you can say is that it is a feature of the collapse that requires further definition to be categorized.

"7. Symmetrical collapse – through the path of greatest resistance – at nearly free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance
This is simply incorrect. Neither collapse was symmetrical. In WTC2, most debris falling outside the footprint went east and south. In WTC1, most debris falling outside the footprint went north and west. Engineers at STJ911 have calculated that the structure provided resistance to the extent that 40-60% of the original PE was dissipated prior to debris impact at the foundation."

This is an incorrectly posed argument. While that does refute the symmetrical collapse, it does not address the other three points. I've noted somewhere in the past 24 hours that I'd take to task the debris pattern statements. They are misleading and incomplete. No effort is made to address the ~10 second collapse time.

"9. Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away
The characterization of blast waves is not supported. Since most of the broken windows were broken lower down on the surrounding buildings, the most likely cause was winds caused by the expulsion of air from the building as described in #5. The winds described above would certainly be capable of blowing in windows."

Windows began breaking as the building was collapsing or so my grandmother says. I wasn't aware this was something that was in dispute, however a few weeks ago I asked her to recount her experiences that day. She specifically mentioned that the windows in surrounding buildings were breaking as the building collapsed. She was frozen in place in fear until then they got hit in the face with a hot cloud of dust and she ran back inside the place where she worked for cover. Did she specifically mention that the windows were breaking "in order"? No, she did not. It could have been random breakages prior to the final expulsion of air.

What does that do for the quote above? You tell me.

In all I think it's an excellent document that raises avenues to either prove or disprove the theory posited by AE911, but it's woefully light on the supporting calculations or even links to them. I half expected an appendix of calculations or links at the end and was a bit disappointed.

It's what plagues most 9/11 discussions. Either there's no calculations to support the claims or the calculations involve gross misapplications and mystery assumptions that are never provided.

[edit on 9-1-2009 by cogburn]

Originally posted by cogburn

I think the inconsistencies that are present in the AE911 version do not amount to enough to dismiss the entire theory as proposed. It's also worth noting that AE911 is one of the few organizations that reviews and reworks it's information when new data becomes available. That, for me, puts them worlds above the fray of a "twoofer group".

It's just one problem.

Did you happen to catch Mr. Gage's "cardboard box" demonstration?

That alone should cause anyone with basic physics knowledge to seriously doubt Mr. Gage's abilities in that area.

There are two quotes that come to mind as i review some of these
"dog chasing it's own tail" posts...

Don't let schooling interfere with your education. ~Mark Twain
and... You can't see the forest through the trees. ~

The purpose of this thread was to cut through all the ornate scientific banter bull and get to the essence of what is wrong with the over all picture. In an effort to do this i presented two very fundamental questions that require very basic science and math to answer.

How does 1+1=3 (2 planes took down 3 buildings)?

Why didn't all 3 towers topple over like trees and instead collapsed like a deck of cards?

Many of the explanations were more of the same old OS parroting we have all heard... which doesn't sufficiently answer... though the CT does answer these questions. As for the effort to correct the OS science, the CT science is at a great disadvantage in that the government is not granting access to materials and data obtained on that day... though some CT researcher have been successful in obtaining some samples which have reconfirmed the prevailing CT.

This notion that we need to explain what happened in very complex/sophisticated ways is a silly irony of sorts. Some of you have been naturally drawn to the OS model because of it's perceived authority in the realm of scientific research, yet you fail to see it's incompetencies. This is a detail much like all the other red flags i have already referred to as being the "Devil in the details"... or the lack there of in service to the over emphasis of other less noteworthy features of the buildings.

The Occam's Razer justifies the use of common sense in science;

...the principle states that "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." Isaac Newton stated the rule: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." The most useful statement of the principle for scientists is "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

There is even a modern rendition of this principle, as an acronym and proverbial saying; K.I.S.S. Keep It Simple Stupid, which you can apply to all problem solving endeavors that require critical thinking.

CT provides the simplest explanation, and makes the most sense.
The government sanitized the crime scene, so they are privy to more data, the position we have all been forced into is to take their word for it, and yet their numerous puppet's scripts doesn't make sense.

To say this OP is ridiculous delusional pseudo-science and that my proceeding posts present a sloppy argument... one must step back and re-evaluate the position they so dogmatically embrace, for what they describe is merely a projection.

[edit on 9-1-2009 by The All Seeing I]

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
Why didn't all 3 towers topple over like trees and instead collapsed like a deck of cards?

Perhaps you could point us to an example of another steel-framed skyscraper toppling over like a tree?

With such a question... you are obviously clueless... or just trolling.

I suppose i have to bring a portion of the OP to you and explain this to you in baby steps... for you don't care to take the time to review it yourself... and make the effort to think about it.

Based on the OP the planes knocked off the fireproofing on the beams it came in contact with and close proximity to the collision locale. Therefore the structure of the towers was vulnerable to the effects of high temperature in these areas. Note from these cross-sectional views that there is one side of the tower where the steel beams would be the weakest, failing first. Much like chopping into the side of a tree or a tree rotting-out on one side... it topples over... falls in the direction of the weakest support/portion of the structure/tree/tower.

Noting the angle at which wtc2 was hit, we should have seen the top half of the building tilt and fall in the direction of the corner/side where the plane entered.

[edit on 9-1-2009 by The All Seeing I]