9/11 Controversy Strikes Again at UC Boulder Face-Off

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


In other words, no matter what kind of evidence is found, or what investigation is done, it can be discounted because if it's not what you want it to be, then it has been faked or tampered with.

You can't just claim that everything that contradicts you isn't real. It's literally crazy to think that only the stuff that agrees with you is correct.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Solasis
I don't get involved in these debates ever, but I have to on this one. And not because I just graduated from CU!

Do we have any videos of non-controlled demolitions of large buildings to compare to? What does it look like when a plane hits a skyscraper and the skyskraper falls down? Why wouldn't that be a free-fall?

Graduated with a degree in WHAT?

English lit and Philosophy. Not physics, so I don't know what your criticism of me is. The arguments on both sides are so muddled and disjointed that I don't care to waste my skills on them most of the time. It's a hassle, as I am sadly reminding myself too late.

www.youtube.com...

The Laws of Physics do not care what people want to BELIEVE.

psik

That video is good and helpful, but once again, it doesn't actually provide what I was asking for. What would the dust billowing look like in an uncontrolled collapse? If the official story were true, what would the event of the collapse look like? I am not asking about the aftermath, I am not asking about the actual physics of the falling floors. I am asking to know what it would have looked like from the angles that we saw it from as it happened.

reply to post by ANOK


Good god, could you be any more freaking dense? You are doing this on PURPOSE. I'm not digging to do the searching because it's a freaking hassle to do that if you don't care that much. I'm kind of assuming that in a field where everyone is saying "I have done all the research and I know exactly how it works," someone will have done the research.

And you know exactly what I mean by "should have looked like." Your response to that part was just evasive and annoying, serving no purpose except for a vague failure of an attempt to make me look heartless.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal

Has anyone produced an accurate simulation of what this "should" have looked like?

No; because the people who have the money and power to produce this "accurate simulation" are the same ones who produced the actual event. I don't think they'd be stupid enough to incriminate themselves be reproducing a simulation of the actual event.

I may be wrong, but I suspect that you're overestimating the cost of physics simulators. But I haven't researched that, so maybe you're right

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal

For one thing, anyone coming in and testifying on how Al Qaida operates is by definition a gov't intelligence agent from some country or another.

Oh, I see you're still hung up on that AL-Qaida myth; pretty much explains how you came to your ill informed conslusion on 9/11.

Anyone who insists that Al Qaida is a myth is forcing reality to conform to their uninformed and ignorant personal political agenda, particularly in light of the fact they recently sentenced some Pakistani for trying to set off a car bomb in Times Square...but this is neither here nor there, as your world is soon to come crashing down around you. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the mastermind of the 9/11 attack and he's very much alive and in custody, and he's about to be given a public trial. This means that everything said and presented in court will become public. From what I hear, he's intending to use the trial as a soapbox to vent on all the bad things the US is doing that justified the attack. What pitiful excuse are you going to come up with to keep your conspiracy stories alive then?

...and what precisely does that have anything to do with the UC Boulder face off? I don't believe Gage has made a stand on who was in control of the planes either way.

Originally posted by Solasis
I don't get involved in these debates ever, but I have to on this one. And not because I just graduated from CU!

Do we have any videos of non-controlled demolitions of large buildings to compare to? What does it look like when a plane hits a skyscraper and the skyskraper falls down? Why wouldn't that be a free-fall?

Well,
If it is a natural collapse of high rise you are looking for then try looking at earthquakes or the aftermath, there should be some about. As for a plane hitting a high rise and falling down, there isn't one to my knowledge. The only perpetrator for that scenario is Godzilla, sorry!

reply to post by ANOK

 

Good god, could you be any more freaking dense? You are doing this on PURPOSE. I'm not digging to do the searching because it's a freaking hassle to do that if you don't care that much. I'm kind of assuming that in a field where everyone is saying "I have done all the research and I know exactly how it works," someone will have done the research.

And you know exactly what I mean by "should have looked like." Your response to that part was just evasive and annoying, serving no purpose except for a vague failure of an attempt to make me look heartless.

Sorry if you can't understand what I'm saying. Digging to do what research?

Look bro if you come to a gun fight don't bring a knife. We are disusing physics which is obviously over your head. Laws of physics do not need to be seen to know they are ALWAYS in effect, for every single type of interaction between physical objects.

You do not need to see inside the building, or see another similar event, to know what was happening.

We have some indisputable facts, and can surmise from there what happened.

FACT, all the concrete floors and their steel beds were gone post collapse.

FACT, it takes energy to destroy steel and concrete.

FACT, Newtons laws of motions apply to all and every physical contact between objects.

FACT, if no floors were left post collapse they must have been destroyed during the collapse, which means, going by the OS, floors were destroying floors as they contacted each other. 30 floors will run out before 80 floors will.

So where did the rest of the mass go that should have been in the footprint, as required by Bazants paper btw?
If all the mass was ejected out of the footprint then there is no mass to crush floors, so there should be un-crushed floors in the footprint, which is what happens in a progressive/pancake collapse...

[imgwww.istructe.org...[/img]







But having said all that I don't think there should have been a collapse to start with. NIST only covered the collapse initiation, with BS, and completely failed to address the actual collapse, because they couldn't and knew they couldn't. They know it couldn't collapse completely from its own weight, so they ignored it and tried to cover it up with BS. It's enough to fool the ignorant, and that's about it.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Anyone who insists that Al Qaida is a myth is forcing reality to conform to their uninformed and ignorant personal political agenda

On the contrary, you have to look through an already-clouded lens to see every terrorist attack as "al Qaeda," or even any formal organization at all. People blow themselves up or shoot at American soldiers in their home country for all number of reasons, and not just because they were just having coffee with OBL or because they all keep up with each other like a big club, and just take turns dying. The US media just tries to paint every single act of aggression towards the US by Arabs/Muslims as "al Qaeda" regardless of who they were actually working with, or if they acted alone, or whatever the case was. It just consolidates the idea that the US military is fighting an organized enemy, when in reality there's nothing to show it's any more than the expected assortment of pissed off civilians.

reply to post by ANOK


Okay, yes, I understand all that. It's a strong case. But IT IS NOT THE PART OF THE INVESTIGATION THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. Please try not to make me repeat myself again.

This whole discussion was sparked by the following statement/sentiment:

"Anyone who watches 5 minutes of videos of controlled demolitions will be able to see that the collapse of the towers was controlled."

The idea under discussion is that the process of the collapse was optically identical to a controlled demolition. That watching the collapse occur makes it clear that the collapse was controlled. The rest of the evidence comes afterwards.

What I am trying to find out is if visually, the collapse would have looked different under the circumstances of the official story. If this argument that everyone's suspicions ought to be aroused by this visual data of the collapse as it happens is valid. Is it a niggling thing? Yes.

But the argument being made was that absolutely anyone can see that things are not as they seem due to this visual evidence, and I feel that this argument is not conclusive. I do not need to hear any more about the steel beams. I do not need to here any more about the energy required to pulverise concrete.

smurfy was kind enough to actually answer the question I was asking, and while the answer is not perfectly satisfying, it helps, and is a good answer. why couldn't you just do that rather than make other parts of the argument?

Originally posted by Solasis
What I am trying to find out is if visually, the collapse would have looked different under the circumstances of the official story. If this argument that everyone's suspicions ought to be aroused by this visual data of the collapse as it happens is valid. Is it a niggling thing? Yes.

I thought this was the question I answered already?

Yes the collapse would have looked differently IF it had fell according to the OS. IF it had fell according to the OS there would still be a lot of debris in the footprints, there would HAVE to have been according to the physics I explained to you already.

I posted pics of pancake collapses, that is what it should have looked like IF the collapse could have been initiated as the OS claims. Floors would still be visible in the footprint. Floors spread in a 360d circle around the towers proves the floors did not crush floors as in a progressive/pancake collapse.

But the argument being made was that absolutely anyone can see that things are not as they seem due to this visual evidence, and I feel that this argument is not conclusive. I do not need to hear any more about the steel beams. I do not need to here any more about the energy required to pulverise concrete.

The visual evidence is

1. The buildings collapses were global, complete, and symmetrical.
2. The collapse wave accelerated.
3. Post collapse there were no floors left in the footprint.
4. Debris was ejected in a 360d arc, leaving no mass to crush floors.

smurfy was kind enough to actually answer the question I was asking, and while the answer is not perfectly satisfying, it helps, and is a good answer. why couldn't you just do that rather than make other parts of the argument?

I thought I was answering your question, sorry I went into too much detail for you. Smurfy didn't tell you anything I haven't already said lol.

reply to post by ANOK


Not. The. Footprints. Not the goddamn footprints.

Thank you for points 1 and 2. How would the process of falling look in the circumstances of the official story? How asymmetrical would it be? What would be the rate of collapse? (Edit: Sorry, you actually did already address that one. My mind glazed over it; the collapse would have decelerated due to the collisions. My bad on that!) How would the dust have billowed out? that is what I am asking for, but you have only given me the footprints and aftermath, save for points 1 and 2.

Originally posted by Solasis
English lit and Philosophy. Not physics, so I don't know what your criticism of me is. The arguments on both sides are so muddled and disjointed that I don't care to waste my skills on them most of the time. It's a hassle, as I am sadly reminding myself too late.

What skills?

How much philosophy does it take to figure out that skyscrapers must hold themselves up?

So how much philosophizing does it take to figure out that the distributions of steel and concrete must be important analyzing the physics of skyscrapers before and after they are hit by airliners? That is what is so curious about Steven Jones and Richard Gage. Neither of them bring up the subject.

So it looks like a deliberately created hassle to alienate people.

Why don't you check out some LITERATURE written before 9/11 which contains incidents similar to 9/11.

Flag in Exile by David Weber has the collapse of a dome. Komarr by Lois McMaster Bujold has a space ship colliding with a large satellite. Both fictional incidents discuss computer analysis to determine their causes.

It's NEWTONIAN PHYSICS. The Empire State Building was designed without electronic computers. The fact that this 9/11 business has dragged on so long is a testament to how much pseudo-intellectuals can maintain confusion.

psik

Originally posted by Solasis
What I am trying to find out is if visually, the collapse would have looked different under the circumstances of the official story. If this argument that everyone's suspicions ought to be aroused by this visual data of the collapse as it happens is valid. Is it a niggling thing? Yes.

But the argument being made was that absolutely anyone can see that things are not as they seem due to this visual evidence, and I feel that this argument is not conclusive.

There may be a matter of UNDERSTANDING what you see.

When you see a building more than 1000 feet tall can you CONCEIVE of what is involved in making the structure hold itself up?

Suppose you had 110 pizzas in boxes and each was 4 pounds. Imagine stacking all of those pizzas. The bottom pizza box would have to support 436 pounds. Do you think pizza boxes are designed to do that? But the WTC had to be designed to hold itself up. So what you SEE when you watch WTC 1 & 2 destroyed from the top down should be affected by what you KNOW about structures that big.

psik

reply to post by ANOK


Anok you are right and one of my favorite people on this www these are the same things i have been asking for a long time and i have seen no one put forth this argument as you have . the way you are trying to guide the people into realizing that the IMPOSSIBLE happened when those towers fell . all done with h.s. math. may i ask you what your ideas are in regards to the impossible ? i have mine

reply to post by psikeyhackr

How much philosophy does it take to figure out that skyscrapers must hold themselves up?

Obviously more than you have tried, because you still don't seem to understand why buildings don't fall down unless acted upon.

So how much philosophizing does it take to figure out that the distributions of steel and concrete must be important analyzing the physics of skyscrapers before and after they are hit by airliners? That is what is so curious about Steven Jones and Richard Gage. Neither of them bring up the subject.

Well, neither of them or anyone else in the world. Ever. Only you. But we've already established that you believe yourself to be intellectually superior to every other human on earth.

So it looks like a deliberately created hassle to alienate people.

Yep, thats all it is. And everyone is "alienated".

Why don't you check out some LITERATURE written before 9/11 which contains incidents similar to 9/11.

Because there is none. Nothing similar to 9/11 happened before 9/11. Its a one-off. Unique.

Flag in Exile by David Weber has the collapse of a dome. Komarr by Lois McMaster Bujold has a space ship colliding with a large satellite. Both fictional incidents discuss computer analysis to determine their causes.

Oh good, science fiction shall guide us. Got any L. Ron Hubbard?

It's NEWTONIAN PHYSICS.

OK, there's the magic word "Newtonian"! Once you say that all other statements thereafter are then assumed to be rigorously and scientifically vetted. ALL HAIL NEWTONIAN!!

The Empire State Building was designed without electronic computers. The fact that this 9/11 business has dragged on so long is a testament to how much pseudo-intellectuals can maintain confusion.

Actually, this "9/11 business" is well over. It is not dragging on. Its settled law, as it were. You may think there are "open" areas but there really aren't.

reply to post by psikeyhackr


The "skills" I refer to are my research skills. I don't want to peck through all the BS about this incident -- such as comparing it to fictional space station explosions -- to find out the truth. Other people are supposedly doing that, so once one of them can actually compress all their arguments and all the facts into one clear and concise location, which they still have yet to do, I'll read that. I can't believe how much time and effort in my fields -- which taught my clarity of argument and the ability to find that clarity, which you and anok sorely lack -- I'm wasting trying to get people to answer one single, solitary question, either.

Speaking of which, you're still answering all the wrong questions. And, yes, you were kind enough to at least tell me to imagine what it would look like. But as you may have noticed, I've said at least 3 times that I'm not good at visualizing physical events based on Newtonian equations.

So why don't you describe it for me? Can you do at least that much? Describe how the collapse would have looked under the circumstances of the OS? How the process of the collapse would have visually differed, externally, from what we saw?

reply to post by hooper


hooper, I'm sorry I forgot to thank you for posting this. You did actually answer my question, and I'm glad you did. The fact that you read the question I asked and answered it in what I suspect is an accurate way really makes me feel better about the fact that these other people can't seem to figure out what I'm saying. And thank you for backing me up against this psik dude just now, too.

Originally posted by Solasis
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

I can't believe how much time and effort in my fields -- which taught my clarity of argument and the ability to find that clarity, which you and anok sorely lack -- I'm wasting trying to get people to answer one single, solitary question, either.

I've said at least 3 times that I'm not good at visualizing physical events based on Newtonian equations.

Well that settles the issue right there. It is not my fault that PHILOSOPHERS can't handle physics.

This is not medieval Europe anymore where most people did not know how to read. There is nothing impressive about philosophy and literature. Here is a demonstration of the physics showing something like what should have happened strictly on the basis of structural damage and fire causing a straight down gravitational collapse.

www.youtube.com...

The mass and strength of the towers had to increase all of the way down. Not having accurate data on that after NINE YEARS is utterly absurd. For people like Steven Jones and Richard Gage to not be making a big deal about that in interestingly peculiar.

which taught my clarity of argument and the ability to find that clarity, which you and anok sorely lack

Clarity of argument is merely a claim about words. Physics is incapable of caring about words. A supposed collapse of a skyscraper would involve thousands of tons impacting thousands of tons. Nine years of not knowing how many tons and then trying to compare what we see to what should have happened is anything but clear.

psik

Originally posted by hooper
Obviously more than you have tried, because you still don't seem to understand why buildings don't fall down unless acted upon.

The entire dispute is about 1300 foot buildings that should not have fallen down on the basis of the KNOWN ENERGY INPUTS. But then we are not supplied with accurate data about what should be known about the buildings.

We can't even say how many tons of steel were on the 81st level of the south tower where the fuselage of the plane impacted.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Solasis
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

I can't believe how much time and effort in my fields -- which taught my clarity of argument and the ability to find that clarity, which you and anok sorely lack -- I'm wasting trying to get people to answer one single, solitary question, either.

I've said at least 3 times that I'm not good at visualizing physical events based on Newtonian equations.

Well that settles the issue right there. It is not my fault that PHILOSOPHERS can't handle physics.

Uhm no. No one person has to be good at everything. I am, in fact, good with the equations themselves, and even many of the concepts at the high school level. But what should it matter that I can't visualize from that, when others can, and could perhaps put that into words? I don't need to have a PhD in physics to live, buddy.

This is not medieval Europe anymore where most people did not know how to read. There is nothing impressive about philosophy and literature.

I seriously don't even know what you're trying to get at. I'm an idiot because I studied something that interested me, I suppose? Maybe that's what you mean? But let's get into the important stuff.

Here is a demonstration of the physics showing something like what should have happened strictly on the basis of structural damage and fire causing a straight down gravitational collapse.

www.youtube.com...

You already posted that video, and I already replied to it. It is helpful, but does not actually demonstrate what I'm looking for. It does indeed demonstrate how the collapse would have happened, to a certain extent, but not a satisfactory one. It does not demonstrate how the collapse would have looked from outside -- only how it would have occurred. I suppose that this is the closest that I can expect, but it is still not addressing my actual concern. So stop acting like it is.

which taught my clarity of argument and the ability to find that clarity, which you and anok sorely lack

Clarity of argument is merely a claim about words. Physics is incapable of caring about words.

Again, all I can say is, what the hell do you mean by that? Are you trying to tell me that words are insignificant? I'm not saying that your physics is unclear, I'm saying that what you're saying is unclear. If you could unfocus from your bizarrely incessant hatred for Gage and Jones, maybe you could wrap your head around that.

Originally posted by Solasis
Again, all I can say is, what the hell do you mean by that? Are you trying to tell me that words are insignificant? I'm not saying that your physics is unclear, I'm saying that what you're saying is unclear. If you could unfocus from your bizarrely incessant hatred for Gage and Jones, maybe you could wrap your head around that.

Words are nothing but SYMBOLS. It is possible to be extremely clear with symbols.

That does not necessarily mean the symbols correspond to reality. One can be very clear about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. That does not PROVE that angels exist.

But skyscrapers MUST hold themselves up. The steel on every level of every of every skyscraper MUST be strong enough to support all of the weight above. That is FACT! It is not philosophy. So not knowing how much steel was on every level of the WTC is ridiculous. Even a philosopher should have sufficient intellectual clarity to see that. Numbers are better than words if you can be sure they are correct.

Why should we have correct numbers about buildings designed before the Moon landing?

Uhm no. No one person has to be good at everything. I am, in fact, good with the equations themselves, and even many of the concepts at the high school level. But what should it matter that I can't visualize from that, when others can, and could perhaps put that into words? I don't need to have a PhD in physics to live, buddy.

9/11 is grade school physics BUDDY.

But nobody can do the physics without the DATA. Even philosophers should be able to figure out what data is needed.

But this is the trouble with this 9/11 business. It turns into ego games with people trying to show how smart they are rather than addressing the problem. Even the NIST admitted that the distribution of weight of the building was important to analyzing the problem. But then they do not supply the information or do the analysis.



psik

Here's how I would imagine the collapse would take place under the OS.

The top 30 stories, above the impact, would eventually fall into the "weakened" steel beams. That is if the beams could melt under those conditions of jet fuel atomizing and "flashing" instead of a "hotter" burning fuel source. Kerosene (i.e. Jet Fuel) doesn't burn with the intensity that say gasoline or diesel would burn under. Anyways, if those steel beams did infact bend and gave due to the mass above, you would see approximately 70 stories of the WTC's standing. The building would have found the path of least resistance, and would have eventually toppled to one side. There is a video of the tower with the radio tower that starts to angle as it falls then corrects itself. Had the collapse occurred under "real" conditions, the radio tower would have sheared off and fallen to some side of the building, and would be under a good portion of the rest of the building that did break off. It would not have collapsed into itself.

*edit:
I think the visual evidence you are looking for is the earthquake photos of the buildings "pancaking". Just put that on a much larger scale. The WTC towers would still be "mostly" standing if using the "OS" in real-time physics applications.

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Alright, I give up on you. There is something terribly wrong with your comprehension skills, and it's never going to be fixed.

Originally posted by saabster5
Here's how I would imagine the collapse would take place under the OS.

The top 30 stories, above the impact, would eventually fall into the "weakened" steel beams. That is if the beams could melt under those conditions of jet fuel atomizing and "flashing" instead of a "hotter" burning fuel source. Kerosene (i.e. Jet Fuel) doesn't burn with the intensity that say gasoline or diesel would burn under. Anyways, if those steel beams did infact bend and gave due to the mass above, you would see approximately 70 stories of the WTC's standing. The building would have found the path of least resistance, and would have eventually toppled to one side. There is a video of the tower with the radio tower that starts to angle as it falls then corrects itself. Had the collapse occurred under "real" conditions, the radio tower would have sheared off and fallen to some side of the building, and would be under a good portion of the rest of the building that did break off. It would not have collapsed into itself.

*edit:
I think the visual evidence you are looking for is the earthquake photos of the buildings "pancaking". Just put that on a much larger scale. The WTC towers would still be "mostly" standing if using the "OS" in real-time physics applications.

edit on 3/19/2011 by saabster5 because: (no reason given)

Thank you thank you THANK YOU for actually answering my question and including some descriptive evidence as you did it. THANK YOU. How in the world did everyone else find that so hard?

I'm having trouble finding the video of the radio tower slanting downwards -- is this what you mean? Radio Tower falls first. I think it must be, since now that I've watched it a bit more it does start to angle. But whether it would continue to fall at that angle depends on a lot of complex momentum vectors; is it absolutely definite that the angle should have kept increasing? My intuition says that there are properties of the fall which could cause that correction, but like I said, I'm not that great at physics.

And again, thank you for actually addressing what I was asking for, concisely and clearly.