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

[DGM]

Dave, how can you claim sagging floor trusses pulled the exterior columns inward when the NIST FEA analysis did not produce that effect?

Logic would suggest it was because the NIST did not have all the conditions of the building exactly correct to duplicate the observed inward bowing and truss sag. It does not support any contention of intentional demolition or a need to "fudge" the time line.

You simply need something to be true so you make it that way in your world.

 

[NoahFence]

Thousand words argument, "debunked" in a sentence, deflected with a "tell it all" demand in a minute. It isn't a nice picture you're painting here, Dave.

So....

Gravity.

 

[Dave Rogers]

What the ... is this even supposed to mean, Dave? Fact is that you have spent years defending something you have no clue about, because you have no scientific education at all. You just trusted the "debunker heros" until they vanished and then repeated their mantra. And your lame attempt at making me claim something I didn't is futile. I wear the "no-claimer" medal I earned years ago with pride.

If you really want to destroy any credibility you may have had, telling people lies about themselves is a good way to go about it. But since it's clear that you have no idea what's going on here or what this conversation is all about, clearly credibility isn't much of an issue when anyone can simply scroll up and read the claim you're pretending you didn't make. I like the way, though, that you find it offensive that anyone could suggest that one of your posts has significant content.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Dave, how can you claim sagging floor trusses pulled the exterior columns inward when the NIST FEA analysis did not produce that effect?

I already explained that. Learn to read.

Dave

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Dave, how can you claim sagging floor trusses pulled the exterior columns inward when the NIST FEA analysis did not produce that effect?

What if I told you I had proof thermite was used at the world trade center site to cut the diagonal columns, and that Jones knew it before his first paper, making thermite usage and the claims by him nothing more than a scam?

 

[DGM]

What if I told you I had proof thermite was used at the world trade center site to cut the diagonal columns, and that Jones knew it before his first paper, making thermite usage and the claims by him nothing more than a scam?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

He was trying to prove his claim that the Diagonal cut columns could not be cut with a torch,
He sent me some links on torches, in an email in 2005,
He screwed up and sent me a link to a company that manufactured, an oxygen lance,
With aluminum and steel rods inside, that bragged on the website about donating the cutters for use at ground zero.
I have known for years Jones was a fraud.

 

[DGM]

He was trying to prove his claim that the Diagonal cut columns could not be cut with a torch,
He sent me some links on torches, in an email in 2005,
He screwed up and sent me a link to a company that manufactured, an oxygen lance,
With aluminum and steel rods inside, that bragged on the website about donating the cutters for use at ground zero.
I have known for years Jones was a fraud.

I had a feeling it had to have something to do with that. I seriously doubt the "diagonal cut" pictured were made with anything other that oxy-propane torches only because the lances are far harder to use and frankly rather nasty (safety wise).

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I had a feeling it had to have something to do with that. I seriously doubt the "diagonal cut" pictured were made with anything other that oxy-propane torches only because the lances are far harder to use and frankly rather nasty (safety wise).

Here is one of the lances being used, to cut the column pictured in Jones's paper.
You start at the bottom and continue up at 45 degrees to let the slag run out.

I removed the color so the cut can be seen, Jones knew before he wrote his paper
Thermite residue would be found, and what the source was, he was and is a fraud,
Always will be.

 

[chrismohr]

I think the appropriate way to answer the questions involves objectivity. Can you be objective and stop meandering into subjective areas like who has what credibility? It doesn't address the points Jay has brought up about the seeming dearth of thermal energy required to heat the structure enough to cause it to collapse.

Hi Tony,
As you well know, I am in no position to "do the math" with this question. This is why, several years ago, I went on a mission to talk to as many degreed physicists as possible about this very question. They all had Masters or PhD's, and most were teaching in local colleges. None worked for NIST or the government (except as employees of public universities etc). The idea was to get away from 9/11 Truth advocates like you and "debunkers" like the people here. I asked almost 100 physicists, almost all of whom refused to talk to me about this because they considered the whole debate to be beneath them. 14 were willing to talk with me and answer my questions. The questions I posed: "When the Twin Towers began to collapse, is there enough energy for the collapse of one floor to initiate progressive collapse of all floors? And approximately how much dynamic energy is released by the collapse of a single floor?" Without hesitation, every physicist said absolutely yes there was enough dynamic energy generated by gravity to initiate progressive collapse.
The second question was a little tougher. The amount of dynamic energy depends on how high the floors are, the materials, the amount of flexibility in the columns and beams, etc. But in general, the rough-guess answers were that the dynamic energy of collapse was about 30x the static energy of the building just standing there. Considering that the building was designed to handle 3 to 5 times the static load, every physicist told me that there was such an enormous margin of error that none of the variables would make any real difference in the inevitability of the collapse.
This isn't all the numbers you are talking about, of course, but since doing this very long and rather scary exercise (I'm a little thin-skinned about rejection ya know) I have been pretty firmly convinced that real experts are pretty much unanimous about this question.

 

[DGM]

Here is one of the lances being used, to cut the column pictured in Jones's paper.
You start at the bottom and continue up at 45 degrees to let the slag run out.

[qimg]http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj132/chainsawprof/diagonalcut-1122_zpsmm10j0i1.jpg[/qimg]

I removed the color so the cut can be seen, Jones knew before he wrote his paper
Thermite residue would be found, and what the source was, he was and is a fraud,
Always will be.

I don't doubt they were used, just not on the ones pictured above grade. The collapse stripped all the fire protection off the columns above grade. Down lower the very large columns likely had most of their protection intact. This would be a good place to use a lance because the fire proofing is no match and would not need to be removed before cutting.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I don't doubt they were used, just not on the ones pictured above grade. The collapse stripped all the fire protection off the columns above grade. Down lower the very large columns likely had most of their protection intact. This would be a good place to use a lance because the fire proofing is no match and would not need to be removed before cutting.

Agreed, but Jones's picture was of one at the base of the towers not at or above the impact Zone where explosives or thermites would not survive.

 

[DGM]

Agreed, but Jones's picture was of one at the base of the towers not at or above the impact Zone where explosives or thermites would not survive.

Like the picture of the fire fighters looking down at the "glowing thermite", Jones' disconnect with reality knows no bounds.



(they would all be toast if they were stupid enough to be there)

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Like the picture of the fire fighters looking down at the "glowing thermite", Jones' disconnect with reality knows no bounds.

Tell me about it, It took me about 5 seconds to of talking to him to figure out he didn't understand reason.
He was and always will be a fraud, only trying to fool the stupid.
Have you read the paper on Areojel thermites, totally worthless for bringing the towers down, they would
Make electric matches, shot gun primers, and fire works though, but the low burn rate makes them useless for
anything else.
Jones was always the clown prince of the truth movement until Gage took over, and replaced him.

 

[JayUtah]

The "thousands of practicing professionals" argument is as old as it is lame...

Age is irrelevant, as facts do not go away. Age also works against your rebuttal, as Gage has had a decade or so to spread the gospel -- which he does vigorously. But his numbers don't seem to increase. There has even been time for many of the Truthers literally to go to college and become licensed structural engineers in the time they have had to convert the field.

...given that most "professionals" never came across this argument. Gage said this about it...

Every conspiracy theorist in every genre argues that the only reason more people don't believe him is that they haven't heard him. *yawn* In Conspiracy Land there can only be two groups of critics: those who haven't heard the gospel and those who are "in on it."

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Hi Tony,
As you well know, I am in no position to "do the math" with this question. This is why, several years ago, I went on a mission to talk to as many degreed physicists as possible about this very question. They all had Masters or PhD's, and most were teaching in local colleges. None worked for NIST or the government (except as employees of public universities etc). The idea was to get away from 9/11 Truth advocates like you and "debunkers" like the people here. I asked almost 100 physicists, almost all of whom refused to talk to me about this because they considered the whole debate to be beneath them. 14 were willing to talk with me and answer my questions. The questions I posed: "When the Twin Towers began to collapse, is there enough energy for the collapse of one floor to initiate progressive collapse of all floors? And approximately how much dynamic energy is released by the collapse of a single floor?" Without hesitation, every physicist said absolutely yes there was enough dynamic energy generated by gravity to initiate progressive collapse.
The second question was a little tougher. The amount of dynamic energy depends on how high the floors are, the materials, the amount of flexibility in the columns and beams, etc. But in general, the rough-guess answers were that the dynamic energy of collapse was about 30x the static energy of the building just standing there. Considering that the building was designed to handle 3 to 5 times the static load, every physicist told me that there was such an enormous margin of error that none of the variables would make any real difference in the inevitability of the collapse.
This isn't all the numbers you are talking about, of course, but since doing this very long and rather scary exercise (I'm a little thin-skinned about rejection ya know) I have been pretty firmly convinced that real experts are pretty much unanimous about this question.

Chris, you have never seen or heard me say there was not enough potential energy to cause collapses of the Twin Towers naturally if it was delivered impulsively and caused an amplified dynamic load. The generation of a dynamically amplified load requires deceleration of the impacting object. With that in mind it seems your set of questions to these physicists was incomplete, as they were not told there was no deceleration observed. I would bet if I had explained the full scenario to them they would have had a different point of view as to what would have actually had to be happening for the collapses to propagate without deceleration observed.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Why do you think Dave is limited to NIST?

Does this statement represent your thinking Dave? Is this what you mean when you say you already explained why you can still claim that sagging trusses caused the inward bowing even though the NIST FEA analysis could not produce this effect?

 

[DGM]

Chris, you have never seen or heard me say there was not enough potential energy to cause collapses of the Twin Towers naturally if it was delivered impulsively and caused an amplified dynamic load. The generation of a dynamically amplified load requires deceleration of the impacting object. With that in mind it seems your set of questions to these physicists was incomplete, as they were not told there was no deceleration observed. I would bet if I had explained the full scenario to them they would have had a different point of view as to what would have actually had to be happening for the collapses to propagate without deceleration observed.

Detection to you're satisfaction also requires a specific set of conditions that you can not justify. This being that a model is not the same as reality.

You start with an unrealistic assumption and argue that it defies observed reality.

Strange you have over-whelming support while you're argument is so transparently wrong.

 

[LSSBB]

Does this statement represent your thinking Dave? Is this what you mean when you say you already explained why you can still claim that sagging trusses caused the inward bowing even though the NIST FEA analysis could not produce this effect?

How has this question I asked, now morphed into some apparent gotcha for Dave by you, Tony? Why do YOU only frame the question in terms of NIST?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

How has this question I asked, now morphed into some apparent gotcha for Dave by you, Tony? Why do YOU only frame the question in terms of NIST?

NIST is irrelevant, NIST can actually be wrong, and it does not prevent the collapses from being the natural occurace of a fire, weakening the steel.
Also there is deceleration in the collapses, shown by the way the structure absorbs the energy of the collapses.