Is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative*?

[pgimeno]

Take care you are not assuming Heiwa style solid blocks. What is the actual problem you see? Why do you think it is a problem? I'm not familiar with the details but what makes you think that a cascading failure could not produce two corners dropping at similar times?

What the **** is that? And how does it work. And more importantly, can anyone replicate even a portion of this effect in the lab?

I already posted this video that shows a cascading failure in action, and serves as a replication:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bgucy_b5FKk

By the way, it came with the question of: why does it matter which member failed first in that example? And in the towers?

I'd like to see your answer.

 

[pgimeno]

Your reason for disagreeing with me about the poll was that it's malformed. Your answer is that the best thing would be to abstain.

I am not necessarily disagreeing with you on that like you say, but raising another issue: Rather, my conclusion is that in the poll, "unsure because the question is unclear or malformed" is better than "Yes", which got an 83% response among self avowed skeptics.

The question is ambiguous. You interpret it as "is there a legitimate reason to question any part of the official narrative?", but there's another interpretation: "is there a legitimate reason to question the main part of the official narrative?"

Two examples of people who have given it the second interpretation:

To me, the official narrative is 19 terrorists took four planes and crashed them to murder Americans, UBL promised, and he found idiots to do his work.

I don't see a few areas of doubt on minor specifics as a good reason to vote "Yes" here.

You can't blame those who answered "No" for interpreting the question with the second meaning.

And quoting a previous post:

If that's the case, then the answer should be "Unsure"- because you are unsure what the question is asking.

The third answer is "Undecided", not "Unsure". I am not undecided on either of the two interpretations (my answer to the first one is a clear "yes"; my answer to the second one is a clear "no"), so I abstained.

And even if the third answer was "Unsure", that would not be a reply to the question posed. "Unsure" may be a reply to "What does this poll's question mean?" but not to "Is there a legitimate reason...?"

Had there been an answer like "Only in minor details that wouldn't change the main body of the narrative", I would have voted that.

 

[pgimeno]

Jay Howard:

1) What IS the official narrative on 9/11

and

2) Why does your version not include the entire day's events

and

3) Why won't you respond?

In all fairness, he already said this:

I've said it before and I'll say it now: I have every reason to believe 19 crazy ****ups tried to hijack 4 planes and run them into buildings. No doubt, the kerosine from 2 of those planes caused multi-floor fires in both buildings.

which partly responds your 2nd question, and this:

I have a pet theory, but this thread isn't about inserting an alternative explanation

which may be the answer to your 3rd question.

I bumped this thread for him. I hope he stops by and gives his alternative explanation.

 

[jaydeehess]

This is simple, Jay. As long as the inaccuracy is the most "likely explanation" and any doubt can remain about the report at all, it remains a reason for a question.

Perhaps in detail but not in the wider scenario.
In physics we have the velocity limit of any object with mass as the speed of light. Some might suggest this is not strictly true. Does that make the predictions of general relativity untrue? Nope, they are accurate. Does GR make Newtons laws untrue? Nope they are accurate until SofL is approached.

You can go over something 1000000000000000000000000000000 times, but as long as it leaves a reasonable doubt, then you can still ask a question about that doubt.

Therein lies the sticky point. Is it reasonable to question that 19 fanatics hijacked 4 planes and performed suicide missions to kill Americans?

Is it reasonable to question if crash damage and fires can bring down a structure especially if no other mechanism can be shown to be in play?

 

[Jango]

So you do apply the same standard of proof to 9/11 truth scenarios as you do to do called official story narratives?

My message board posting history reflects that. I've argued against many of the "nukes went off on 9/11" theorists as well the "there were no victims they were all fake" kind of people too. Believe it or not, but I don't believe every conspiracy that comes down the pike.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

When a false dichotomy between perfectly ductile and perfectly brittle materials is not invoked, this question goes away.

Not an expert, but load path redistribution seems a sensible reason. It's not necessary to overload an entire group of members to cause progressive failure, they just need to go one at a time. Again, once you realise you can't simply handwave and say "Steel is ductile," this question also goes away.

There certainly is a difference between how failures occurring in brittle and ductile materials. Ductile materials do not instantaneously snap when overloaded and the process takes time. At least you admit that you aren't an expert on this because it is clear you aren't. You obviously don't have an answer for why the horizontal propagation across the entire North Tower's 98th floor occurred in less than a second. I am not the one handwaving here Dave.

Because verinage demolitions are controlled demolitions, and this wasn't. In a verinage, large parts of the support structure are removed over the height of a storey, and the remaining parts are pushed sideways so that the upper block falls unimpeded through a known distance, more or less level. In the WTC collapses there was no such material removed; there was a chaotic series of failures of support members, so that any impacts were distributed and averaged out over time.

They don't remove the columns in the Verinage technique until they drop the building. Your answer here is a poor attempt at handwaving too.

And, of course, as I pointed out to you years ago and you still are unable to see, your raw data (once you stopped accidentally smoothing it because of your poor understanding of mathematics and mechanics) shows precisely the deceleration you are looking for at precisely the time you expect to see it. I'm sure it's coincidental and just a noise artefact, but the fact remains that your entire "Missing Jolt" thesis is predicated on the absence of a feature which was clearly visible in the raw data.

There is no legitimate deceleration in anybody's data for the measurement of the descent of the upper section of the North Tower (Chandler measured it also). Once the data I had was corrected for the smoothing it was even worse. This argument of yours reminds me of someone who disagrees emotionally with what a technical paper shows and when they find a typo want to use it to dismiss the paper's premise. You are being disingenuous here and you have to know it.

 

[beachnut]

There certainly is a difference between how failures occurring in brittle and ductile materials. Ductile materials do not instantaneously snap when overloaded and the process takes time. At least you admit that you aren't an expert on this because it is clear you aren't. You obviously don't have an answer for why the horizontal propagation across the entire North Tower's 98th floor occurred in less than a second. I am not the one handwaving here Dave.



They don't remove the columns in the Verinage technique until they drop the building. Your answer here is a poor attempt at handwaving too.



There is no legitimate deceleration in anybody's data for the measurement of the descent of the upper section of the North Tower (Chandler measured it also). Once the data I had was corrected for the smoothing it was even worse. This argument of yours reminds me of someone who disagrees emotionally with what a technical paper shows and when they find a typo want to use it to dismiss the paper's premise. You are being disingenuous here and you have to know it.

There is deceleration at each impact, but it averages out for the WTC collapse, and the acceleration/velocity matches a momentum transfer. For 911 truth it is standard procedure to avoid physics, use nonsense, and 13 solid years of failed claims.

The realcddeal is the hand waving.

Where do you get the silent explosives?

 

[ozeco41]

There is no legitimate deceleration in anybody's data for the measurement of the descent of the upper section of the North Tower (Chandler measured it also).

Of course there isn’t.
The cascade failure was an accumulation of a sequence of column failures - most failed by axial overload. They fail that way because the structure supported by the column imposes the axial load AND when the load is excessive the column gets shorter and then buckles - the "gets shorter" the key and how it buckles or otherwise fails not of importance. BUT to push the column down into failing the Structure above it HAS to follow it - so the complications of elastic structure and load redistributions come into play - the adjacent/nearby columns tending to still support and prevent the upper structure falling. (And I can explain all that in rigorous 3D if anyone is interested.). However as failure of the column progresses the top part passes the bottom part and it is a smooth process due to all the interactions in play.

The relevant bottom lines:
A) There is NO "drop to impact" - it is contact all the way till breakage;
B) The ends of the columns are already bypassing - each column in the column by column sequence;
C) hence the Bazant premises of the limiting case do not apply; AND
D) All those arguments about tilt causing/preventing axial impact were a waste of effort. By the time there was tilt the columns had already got shorter and the top end of the column was closer to the bottom end - no space for a drop through a gap and each pair of column ends already bypassing.

Stated even more simply by the time there was tilt the opportunity for column broken end impact was past. Except it never existed because there was never a gap to fall though.

And that was the primary error of both your and D Chandler's work - looking for an event in a false scenario. A scenario which NEVER existed.

And I am aware that a lot of debunkers also got so focussed on trees that they also forgot to back off and consider the forest. They also fell for the trap set by the arse about logic. And at the time many were still confused about Bazant's limit case model which never applied in the real event.

Now the first two "yes buts" are:
A) "Yes but -- what about the columns cut by the aircraft impact"? AND
B) "Yes but -- what about the columns cut by CD"

I'll leave it for you Tony and other members to ponder what really happened and see if you or they can explain why the aircraft OR CD cut columns do not change the explanation.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

There certainly is a difference between how failures occurring in brittle and ductile materials. Ductile materials do not instantaneously snap when overloaded and the process takes time. At least you admit that you aren't an expert on this because it is clear you aren't. You obviously don't have an answer for why the horizontal propagation across the entire North Tower's 98th floor occurred in less than a second. I am not the one handwaving here Dave.

No as I have shown there are thousands of studies
and experiments, that prove that statement false.
it takes time for steel Crystals to realine in tensile deformation.
Fracture that produces shear lag is an instant tear of the ferrite to
Ferrite bonds. Do to energy acting upon the steel faster than tensile
Realinement can occur.
The first studies pointing this out were done in the 1800, you Idea
Of brittle vs. Ductible failure died over two centuries
Ago. Do you really want to argue 19th century ideas in the 21st
Century?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

They also fell for the trap set by the arse about logic. And at the time many were still confused about Bazant's limit case model which never applied in the real event

A point he's been made well aware of over the years and steadfastly ignores like the bubonic plague. Not to mention clear words stating this from the work itself in full excerpts and probably 5 million other different ways.

The way the argument went, bazant could be far off base and his argument still a bunk just for the fact the the criticism he makes is against a scenario said work never pushed as an application of anything other than a limit case

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

A point he's been made well aware of over the years and steadfastly ignores like the bubonic plague. Not to mention clear words stating this from the work itself in full excerpts and probably 5 million other different ways.

The way the argument went, bazant could be far off base and his argument still a bunk just for the fact the the criticism he makes is against a scenario said work never pushed as an application of anything other than a limit case

He is starting off with a fallacy, that the rest of his argument rests upon,
That fracture, requires time for tensile deformation, the exact reverse
arguement is true.
Tony's 19th century understanding of structural engineering is,
So to say putting the cart before the horse.

 

[Dave Rogers]

There certainly is a difference between how failures occurring in brittle and ductile materials. Ductile materials do not instantaneously snap when overloaded and the process takes time. At least you admit that you aren't an expert on this because it is clear you aren't. You obviously don't have an answer for why the horizontal propagation across the entire North Tower's 98th floor occurred in less than a second. I am not the one handwaving here Dave.

Yes you are. Materials are not divided into two distinct classes; rather, they fail in different ways according to the way excessive force is applied. If steel is loaded quickly enough, it can snap rather than bending. You might also want to consider the behaviour at the various bolted and welded connections, which can also fail very quickly. And, finally, you're pulling a good old Unevaluated Inequality Fallacy; you say the propagation was too fast, but you're not giving numbers for how fast it should have been, or even how fast it was. In effect, you're claiming I should accept an argument you haven't even articulated.

They don't remove the columns in the Verinage technique until they drop the building. Your answer here is a poor attempt at handwaving too.

Look at some videos. The whole point of the technique is to remove any structures that prevent shear failure of a floor, then induce that shear failure with hydraulics. Large amounts of the structure are removed, so that an entire floor's worth of columns fail simultaneously, leading to a well-defined drop.

But actually, your whole argument here is quite hilarious. You say that an aspect of the WTC collapses doesn't resemble an aspect of a type of controlled demolition, therefore the WTC collapses must have been a controlled demolition. Let's look at the logic:

P1: If a subset of A, then B (Verinage, a form of CD, produces a deceleration).
P2: Not B (no deceleration was seen).
C: Therefore A (the collapse was a CD).

I don't think there's even a name for that fallacy. Congratulations, you've invented a new way of being wrong.

There is no legitimate deceleration in anybody's data for the measurement of the descent of the upper section of the North Tower (Chandler measured it also). Once the data I had was corrected for the smoothing it was even worse. This argument of yours reminds me of someone who disagrees emotionally with what a technical paper shows and when they find a typo want to use it to dismiss the paper's premise. You are being disingenuous here and you have to know it.

Tony, I can re-post your data, and everyone can work out the deceleration for themselves. And once you corrected it for the smoothing - not, of course, a typo, this was a major error in interpretation - then as expected it gets less smooth, and the type of excursion you're looking for becomes visible.

What the hell, let's look at it. Here's your data, with accelerations calculated from it.



Here's a plot of the accelerations, not smoothed.



Look at all those jolts in your data. That's why you had to pretend that a 31G deceleration was expected, possibly the most bizarre suggestion you've ever made.

All these years. You learn nothing.

Dave

 

[ozeco41]

A point he's been made well aware of over the years and steadfastly ignores like the bubonic plague. Not to mention clear words stating this from the work itself in full excerpts

I have more "fun" with the explanation of what actually happened which was the bulk of that post and another equally explicit recent one.

Though I've explained the cascade process numerous times over the years for Tony who has taken to ignoring me as you will have noticed.

BUT the amusing thing is the way debunkers pay it no attention. And I don't think it is simply that they are still Bazant loyalists.

Recall that era when there was a battle over whether tilt could or could not prevent the falling ends of columns impacting. Tony usually saying missing impact was impossible. And he made silly false references to the massive horizontal force needed to move the top block far enough for columns to miss. Totally missing the point that each column was failing in buckling and the processes involved in buckling: (1) Were large enough for each and every column as it failed to push the falling top bit out of line with the bottom bit; AND (2) The fact that the top of column was falling PROVED that the two "ends" had already passed each other. Talk about engineers losing the plot.

So we had everyone - both sides - madly calculating away and missing the bleeding obvious. Too late. Once tilt has occurred the low side of the tilt has already failed the columns and the column ends have already missed. Failing columns allowing dropping of one side is what created the ruddy tilt in the first place.

Talk about crazy anachronisms. Waiting for the race to finish so it can be started.

Because the way a column fails IS that the ends fold over OR break OR...whatever ----and miss. The scenario for "impact" NEVER arose.

A couple of years back after I had posted that comment for about the tenth time - and got the usual zero response - I had one colleague ask me in PM "Are you sure?" I said "Yes." A sign of our mutual respect - he hadn't got the point but trusted my answer.

And Missing Jolt is only one specific aspect - a sub-set - of the tilt and NOT dropping scenarios. Sure it is an easy cop-out if we blame Bazant for the confusion. But after so many years surely some people should have put brain in gear and done some thinking??? "Now let me see - if the Top Block settles down a bit lower on one side - what must happen to the columns???" Taint rocket science.

[/EndAdrenalineRant]

 

[Animal]

This is simple, Jay. As long as the inaccuracy is the most "likely explanation" and any doubt can remain about the report at all, it remains a reason for a question.

You can go over something 1000000000000000000000000000000 times, but as long as it leaves a reasonable doubt, then you can still ask a question about that doubt.

The "reasonable doubt" only exists within the lunatic fringe.....not the 99.7% of relevant professionals.

 

[Sunstealer]

There certainly is a difference between how failures occurring in brittle and ductile materials. Ductile materials do not instantaneously snap when overloaded and the process takes time.

What effect does (increasing) strain rate have on the ductile to brittle transition of body centred cubic (BCC) materials such as low carbon steels?

 

[JayUtah]

At least you admit that you aren't an expert on this because it is clear you aren't.

Strain. Rate.

 

[jay howard]

I already posted this video that shows a cascading failure in action, and serves as a replication:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bgucy_b5FKk

So are you claiming this is a demonstration of this "fire-driven cascade miracle"? Or did you not realize that heat was the primary driver of the failure according to the NIST report?

Otherwise, it's a cool video. But I'm not sure how watching it helps you or anyone understand what happened to the towers. They were not continuously loaded with thousands upon thousands of times the weight of the structure below. Nor were they made of wood. And according to the people who you can't get yourself to doubt, heat alone was the ultimate reason the towers collapsed. There's no heat source here.

I just don't get why you waste everyone's time with silly, unscientific wanderings. It's not like you're the first one to do this, but the point at which people start pulling out tangentially related videos as if they "closed the case" on any doubts about the NIST report is when it becomes very clear they have jack crap for an argument.

The amount of heat necessary for a "heat-induced failure" to turn these buildings into a pile of rubble simply was not possible with office materials only.

Come on, pgimeno. You're not an idiot. You know your link is irrelevant to the NIST report on the collapses--or at best, demonstrative of how much stronger a material is when it is interlocked and braced in 3 dimensions--like the steel in the WTC towers.

By the way, it came with the question of: why does it matter which member failed first in that example? And in the towers?

I'd like to see your answer.

Because I don't believe that's what happened. There is only a suggestion (an unverified hypothesis) that the towers would fail under heat, so supplying an initial failed member would go a long way in corroborating this FDCM.

As it stands, there aren't any structural members found for which we can infer the temperatures necessary for any kind of heat-induced collapse. That's another data point that would go a long way towards substantiating a goddamned thing NIST says: the temperatures in the towers.

How hot do you think it got?

If you say "hot enough to fail," then I say "ok, I guess it probably got about 4000-5000F. That's hot enough to fail, right?"

 

[DGM]

So are you claiming..................

Was the heat the only force the simulation applied to the trusses? Be honest............

No rush, take your time.

 

[Spanx]

http://www.journalof911studies.com/index.html

There you go Jay

Just what you are looking for.

Is this the kind of research you are looking for Jay ?

 

[jay howard]

Is this the kind of research you are looking for Jay ?

Does this mean you've given up? Are there no more attempts to show how the NIST theory of collapse has any real-world corroboration whatsoever?

I suppose this means you've decided to join the twoofer camp and call for a new, independent investigation? Glad to know you've been able to tell the difference between data and a salesman's interpretation of data.