Which is the more reasonable sensiate premise?

reply to post by Cassius666


You are not an authority who decides the quality of science, which is a good thing. So according to you the engineers at NIST are in on the conspiracy and they know about the government involvement? How about engineers at FEMA? The engineers at Purdue University? The engineers at Northwestern University? The engineers at MIT? The American Society of Civil Engineers, Society of Fire Protection Engineers, National Fire Protection Association, American Institute of Steel Construction, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc., Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, and the Structural Engineers Association of New York?

All in on it? And yet I am delusional because I do not believe your claim that a large part of the people at your local university which names you do not wish to disclose believe it was an inside job. But don't let reality get in your way, for some people faith works very good.

Originally posted by Cassius666


Also the authors themselves admit that their "best explanation" had a very low probability to occour. Its the best explanation they can give excluding the use of explosives, thats correct.

Could you provide a source for this just so we know that this isn't just your interpretation of what they said.

reply to post by -PLB-


Of course I am not an authority on science or architecture. And unlike some people on this forum on both spectrums on the debate I dont pretend to be one. However I do trust people who are qualified. The NIST report is pretty much only recognized by the people who composed it, if that.

Take the moonlanding on the other hand for example. That America went to the moon with admittably a little help from former German scientists is a well established fact, not only recognized by Nasa, but by the scientific community at large, national and international. Opposing voices are pretty much just kids on the internet and as far as I know you can count the people who have some kind of education on related subjects who do question the moonlanding on one hand.

Originally posted by Cassius666
The NIST report is pretty much only recognized by the people who composed it, if that.

Completely baseless assertion. I dare to claim the opposite, based on the nearly complete lack of negative response and publications from structural engineers in general and the additional independent publications and work in favor to NIST from many renowned structural engineers.

If you are going to base you opinion on the authority of experts you can not just cherry pick the experts that agree with your presupposed position. And expecting from others to do the same without even disclosing the names of these supposed experts is even more unreasonable.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Cassius666

 

You are not an authority who decides the quality of science, which is a good thing. So according to you the engineers at NIST are in on the conspiracy and they know about the government involvement? How about engineers at FEMA? The engineers at Purdue University? The engineers at Northwestern University? The engineers at MIT? The American Society of Civil Engineers, Society of Fire Protection Engineers, National Fire Protection Association, American Institute of Steel Construction, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc., Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, and the Structural Engineers Association of New York?

This is a real tragedy of 9/11 but it does expose something about our educational and professional systems.

Most of these people are more interested in making their areas of expertise look complicated than they are in solving the problem in a manner that most people can understand.

This year is the 80th anniversary of the Empire State Building. In 2000 I would have regarded the physics of skyscrapers as too trivial for any halfway decent physicist to pay attention to. But their letting this trivial and idiotic crap drag on for TEN YEARS shows a definite lack of integrity and possibly a lack of intelligence.

Talking about the potential energy of the WTC without talking about having accurate data on the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level is hysterical. Frank Greening wrote a 32 page paper on the potential energy and divided the mass of the building by 110 on page 3. Not only does that assume the same mass on every level but it ignores the SIX BASEMENT LEVELS. I have never seen that above ground versus below ground masses specified so presumably he put the basement mass above ground. LOL

And then there is the Purdue simulation where the core columns don't move due to the impact of the plane which contradicts the empirical evidence of the NIST. Should I even mention that History Channel documentary?

9/11 is the STUPIDEST scientific farce in human history.

The Piltdown Man Incident is intelligent by comparison.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Either nearly the complete scientific community is wrong or you and some fellow truthers are. Cassius argument has been that we should listen to the experts as most of us are not qualified to form an educated opinion. I mostly agree with that. Main difference is that he is cherry picking anonymous experts that agree with his presupposed opinion, to come to the conclusion he wants, and not to the conclusion experts come in general.

You seem to be unaware that scientists and engineers make simplifications to their models as much as they can. If a certain simplification does not greatly influence the accuracy of a model, they are justified. If they do, it is your task to demonstrate that. In the past I have already pointed out why the simplifications you made in your model are flat out wrong. For some reason you seem to reject or ignore that. Again I get a feeling of irony.

If you put so much trust into the people who compiled the NIST report, especially into the leadership of that task force, to be have been indipendent, unbiased and objective, then may the force be with you, what can I say.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Either nearly the complete scientific community is wrong or you and some fellow truthers are. Cassius argument has been that we should listen to the experts as most of us are not qualified to form an educated opinion. I mostly agree with that. Main difference is that he is cherry picking anonymous experts that agree with his presupposed opinion, to come to the conclusion he wants, and not to the conclusion experts come in general.

You seem to be unaware that scientists and engineers make simplifications to their models as much as they can. If a certain simplification does not greatly influence the accuracy of a model, they are justified. If they do, it is your task to demonstrate that. In the past I have already pointed out why the simplifications you made in your model are flat out wrong. For some reason you seem to reject or ignore that. Again I get a feeling of irony.

It should be rather obvious that most of the scientific community is SAYING NOTHING.

But most of the scientific community does not say anything about the planned obsolescence of automobiles either. But John Kenneth Galbraith wrote about that in 1959, ten years before the Moon landing.

So are we supposed to believe that planned obsolescence does not happen because of the silence of the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY? And then our economists don't talk about the depreciation of all of the consumer junk world wide. But the purchase of more consumer junk gets added to GDP. What is the annual depreciation on 900,000,000 cars?

We need to accept the fundamental fact that the world runs on the hiding of important information and the vast majority of information that is distributed is not worth paying attention to.

Shouldn't the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY be able to build a physical model that can completely collapse it that is what happened to the north tower? So where is it?

psik

reply to post by Cassius666


I put trust in all the engineers at the universities and organizations I listed. I don't put trust in your anonymous supposedly experts and a hand full of people, often from a completely different field than structural engineering, who posted some articles on the internet which even I can often easily debunk. If you think the work of people who agree with the OT is crap, you must find the work coming from truthers an abomination. But that requires you to be unbiased and objective.

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Corporations deliberately shortening the lifetime of a product doesn't have anything to do with what happened on 911. Why should a scientist comment on that anyhow? It is a political/business issue.

And yes they are able to build a model, but they wont do it just to satisfy a couple of truthers who will just shift the goalposts. They have better things to do. And like I already pointed out to you, a model was made, and the person who did that even disagreed with the conclusions from NIST. Look for "Scale Modeling of the 96th Floor of World Trade Center Tower 1". What more do you want? A 1:1 scale reconstruction? With real Boings crashing in to it?

reply to post by psikeyhackr

It should be rather obvious that most of the scientific community is SAYING NOTHING.

Yes, it is rather obvious. It's obvious that they don't care about your opinions. Suprise, suprise.

But most of the scientific community does not say anything about the planned obsolescence of automobiles either. But John Kenneth Galbraith wrote about that in 1959, ten years before the Moon landing.

If this nonsense has anything to do with 9/11 please clarify.

So are we supposed to believe that planned obsolescence does not happen because of the silence of the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY?

Huh? You want to argue about "planned obsolence" be my guest. Its a fairly obsurd notion and it has nothing to do with science, it is a matter of marketing. Can you make a product that will last lifetimes? Sure, in most cases. However, the cost would be prohibitive and therefore pursuing the manufacture of such products would be nonsensical.

And then our economists don't talk about the depreciation of all of the consumer junk world wide. But the purchase of more consumer junk gets added to GDP. What is the annual depreciation on 900,000,000 cars?

Actually economist often discuss these kinds of issues. As do accounts, tax attorneys and financial professionals. They just don't discuss them with you, or like the NIST report, you just refuse to read was is produced.

We need to accept the fundamental fact that the world runs on the hiding of important information and the vast majority of information that is distributed is not worth paying attention to.

Maybe, just maybe, some of that "hidden important information" that you so desire is somewhere in that backlog of information that you don't think is worth paying attention to.

Shouldn't the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY be able to build a physical model that can completely collapse it that is what happened to the north tower? So where is it?

Why would they do that? To satisfy your misunderstandings of physics, construction and engineering? Who else needs a "model" for something everyone else quite readily understands?

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Corporations deliberately shortening the lifetime of a product doesn't have anything to do with what happened on 911. Why should a scientist comment on that anyhow? It is a political/business issue.

If a man doesn't understand the physics of 9/11 I sure as hell don't care what he thinks about any automobile.

Physics is physics!

The aerodynamics of a skyscraper matters because it must withstand the wind. The aerodynamics of a car matters because it must move through the air.

The crush zones in two impacting cars would do the same things as the falling upper portion of the north tower impacting the lower stationary portion.

Physics makes the world go 'round. This 9/11 crap drags on due to mass lack of understanding of physics. It also applies to people giving a damn about useless variations in consumer junk year after year. This compartmentalization of knowledge and everybody staying in their official pigeon hole is nonsense.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


I agree that this 9/11 crap for a significant part drags on due to mass lack of understanding of physics. For the rest I am not really sure what to make of your post but a general disagreement with the way you think the world works.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

I agree that this 9/11 crap for a significant part drags on due to mass lack of understanding of physics. For the rest I am not really sure what to make of your post but a general disagreement with the way you think the world works.

I used to work for IBM. All of the machines I was trained on were von Neumann machines.

I never saw the term "von Neumann machine" on any documentation or heard anyone use it.

IBM hired John von Neumann as a consultant in 1952. You are free to search the Internet to see how often the term is used in relation to computers.

Search on "how computers work" and see how many hits you get.

Then search on "how computers work" "von neumann" and see how many hits you get.

But try finding a good explanation. www.youtube.com...

The vast majority of so called information is shallow superficial crap. Like the NIST report.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The vast majority of so called information is shallow superficial crap. Like the NIST report.

I would rephrase that to "The vast majority of so called information on the internet is shallow superficial crap. The NIST report isn't that bad compared to for example the crap produced by truthers.

reply to post by psikeyhackr

If a man doesn't understand the physics of 9/11 I sure as hell don't care what he thinks about any automobile.

Ditto

Physics is physics!

Which is another way of saying that whatever you declare is right and what everyones else may think is wrong!

The aerodynamics of a skyscraper matters because it must withstand the wind. The aerodynamics of a car matters because it must move through the air.

Well, there you go. Both instance offer situations where approach can be totally different. But physics is physics, right? Yet there may be more than one way to solve a problem, or in the case of cars, almost completely ignored!

The crush zones in two impacting cars would do the same things as the falling upper portion of the north tower impacting the lower stationary portion.

Bad, bad analogy.

Physics makes the world go 'round.

No, what makes the world go round in what we call physics.

This 9/11 crap drags on due to mass lack of understanding of physics.

Well, hate to burst your bubble on this one, but this "9/11 crap" is not dragging on. Its over. You may not be satisfied, but everyone else is done.

It also applies to people giving a damn about useless variations in consumer junk year after year.

People do give a damn, kind of. Its called "product differentiation" and its been going on for a long time and everyone knows about. People choose wether or not to buy a product simply because there is a small variation in the style or function, this is by and far not a secret to consumers.

This compartmentalization of knowledge and everybody staying in their official pigeon hole is nonsense.

It is speacilization that has allowed us to progress to where we are now.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The vast majority of so called information is shallow superficial crap. Like the NIST report.

I would rephrase that to "The vast majority of so called information on the Internet is shallow superficial crap. The NIST report isn't that bad compared to for example the crap produced by truthers.

That report talks about two skyscrapers more that 400,000 TONS each supposedly COMPLETELY DESTROYED by two airliners less than 200 TONS with 34 tons of fuel. But they don't specify something as simple as simple as the total amount of concrete in the towers.

That concrete has to be held up by the steel. So the farther down the building the more weight has to be supported at every level. So the amount of steel at every level has to be important to the analysis. But that 10,000 page report does not supply that information even though in 3 places it says the information is important.

The idea of the top 15% of a skyscraper crushing down the lower 85% is TOTALLY RIDICULOUS. The way the strength and therefore the steel must make it IMPOSSIBLE.

So after TEN YEARS the absurdity of the physics profession is more important than who originally did the deed.

psik

Originally posted by ANOK
Tell me Dave, where did all the steel floor pans and rebar go from the floors?

Here's some.



OOPS!! Here's some more.



Here's some more rebar and steel pans too.


I am sure I could find plenty more.





Yep, I sure did.

Originally posted by ANOK
How did wt7 land in it's own footprint?

It didn't. Fitterman Hall, remember?

Originally posted by ANOK
Why did the collapses ignore equal opposite reaction and moment conservation laws?

Show me the math that it did.

Originally posted by ANOK
Why do you ignore known physics for illusionary new phenomena?

Steel weakening in heat is not in any way new.

Originally posted by ANOK
All you ever do is make derogatory comments about 'twoofers'.

That knife cut's both ways.

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by ANOK
How did wt7 land in it's own footprint?

It didn't. Fitterman Hall, remember?

So you're saying WTC7 collapsed into Fitterman Hall, but not into its own footprint?

Originally posted by ANOK
Why do you ignore known physics for illusionary new phenomena?

Steel weakening in heat is not in any way new.

That is also not why the buildings collapsed according to the government reports.

Originally posted by FDNY343
Here's some.

Notice none of that is in the footprint, a requirement for your progressive/pancake collapse hypothesis.

I was actually looking for the complete floor pans and concrete that was supposed to have done all this crushing.

It didn't. Fitterman Hall, remember?

Yes it did. All four walls sitting on top of the debris pile is the definition of in its own footprint.

What has Fitterman Hall have to do with it?

Show me the math that it did.

Maths didn't do it mate. You don't need maths to understand the laws of motion. It can only be proven with math if we knew the distribution of steel and concrete. But it isn't my job to prove anything.

WTC landed in its footprint, you don't need math to see that, just common sense.



If you can explain how all four outer walls can land on top of the collapsed building, without it being controlled then I will listen, but all you do is try to deny the obvious.

Steel weakening in heat is not in any way new.

Steel buildings collapsing from fire is new. Sagging trusses putting a pulling force on columns is new. Thermal expansion, as admitted by FEMA, is a new phenomena that we're supposed to replace known physics with.

That knife cut's both ways.

No, my posts also contain facts to back up my claims, not just empty heckling that adds nothing to the debate.