• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Loose Change - Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Belz... said:
Please, you shouldn't blame your inability to understand words on me.
Click to expand...
Semantics of the word 'belief' aside, let us then state, just for the record, that you believe that the NIST report contains the answer to my question as to how the assumption is justied that once begun the collapse would continue, but that you do not wish to be called upon to justify your belief by giving me a reference.
 
Kent1 said:
I've exchanged e-mails with them.
Brumsen, give me a question or two and I'll see if I get a reply. I can't guarantee anything but I'll try.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the offer, but I don't see why I should communicate with NIST through a 3rd party.
My questions are clear enough from this thread I think. Just to state them once more:
1) How has the conclusion that no evidence has been found for alternative hypotheses like CD by means of explosives been obtained?
2) How is the assumption that once collapse has begun it will continue justified - in other words, how is it justified that what is referred to as collapse-initiation events provide sufficient condition for total collapse?
 
simakperrce said:
So what 'context' is the collapse of the WTC to be seen in? Values? Sometimes it actually seems that way.

Of course 'reasoning' is needed to come to a conclusion. However, if there is no premise (evidence) at the base of an investigation reasoning is either impossible or useless.

But let's cut through the philosophical crap: You ask NIST to reason the possibility of a controlled demolition? Why?
Click to expand...
No, you misunderstand what I have said.

They conclude "we've found no evidence for controlled demolition".

I would like to know how that conclusion has been obtained, since there is no place in the report that I can read about it.
 
brumsen said:
Thanks for the offer, but I don't see why I should communicate with NIST through a 3rd party.
My questions are clear enough from this thread I think. Just to state them once more:
1) How has the conclusion that no evidence has been found for alternative hypotheses like CD by means of explosives been obtained?
2) How is the assumption that once collapse has begun it will continue justified - in other words, how is it justified that what is referred to as collapse-initiation events provide sufficient condition for total collapse?
Click to expand...

Can I ask of you the converse?

1) Do you have any evidence for a CD?
2) Do you have any evidence that the conclusion that total collapse would occur is wrong?
 
gumboot said:
Just a reminder, as per wikipedia, Avengers were deployed to the Pentagon on 9/11 following the attack.

This, to me, clearly indicates the Pentagon had no air defence capabilities installed prior to the attack.

-Andrew
Click to expand...


yeah, im not sure how good of an idea it is to have anti-aircraft defenses at the pentagon since it is less than a mile away from an international airport. something doesnt sound too safe about that.
 
gumboot said:
Brumsen... one thing you do not seem to understand about the NIST report.

It is a summary of findings.

It does not, anywhere, recount the details of their investigation. The report is all about their conclusions.
Click to expand...
It seems to me an awfully thick report if it is only about the conclusions.

gumboot said:
Had they found evidence of explosives, no doubt they would have outlined what these findings were, and made a conclusion based on this.
Click to expand...
But now you seem to be saying something else. For some conclusions, the findings were outlined; for other conclusions, they were not. So why is it that a conclusion saying "we found no evidence for CD" which does not need to be supported by outlined findings?

gumboot said:
As they say, they found no evidence, therefore simply saying "we found no evidence" IS their findings. Would you prefer an enormous data base of materials which were investigated, with "No evidence of explosives or explosive residue found" on every single one?
Click to expand...
Why an enormous database? If the say they have not found any evidence, they could say what they have done to try and find it. Admittedly I am no expert on this, but they could have checked whether the signatures of, say, the ten most likely kinds of explosives were present. That would not have been a big deal, but it would have supported their conclusion. As it stands we have only the claims of Steven Jones to go by.
 
brumsen said:
Would you suggest that somehow my answers to your questions make my questions less valid?
Click to expand...
is 1+1 really 2? how do you KNOW its 2? do you have proof that its 2? what if i told you its actually 3, i have no evidence its 3, nor do i have evidence its not 2, but i can assure that you have been led astray and everything you think you know about arithmetic is wrong
 
defaultdotxbe said:
is 1+1 really 2? how do you KNOW its 2? do you have proof that its 2? what if i told you its actually 3, i have no evidence its 3, nor do i have evidence its not 2, but i can assure that you have been led astray and everything you think you know about arithmetic is wrong
Click to expand...
Arithmetic is based on axioms. Using arithmetic means to accept those axioms.
It is nonsense to ask for evidence that 1+1=2; the question whether that is true or not is simply not one that can be settled by means of evidence.
 
brumsen said:
Hmm, just heard (from Greening) how the 'Scholars' (yes, I'll have to start using scare quotes now) handled the peer review of Greening's paper. It was reviewed by... Gordon Ross. Ahum.
Click to expand...
Apparently the issue is not all that clear. Gordon Ross denies.
 
brumsen said:
Would you suggest that somehow my answers to your questions make my questions less valid?
Click to expand...

I wasn't seeking to imply that. I was wondering if you were implying that you had evidence (for CD) that NIST should have examined.

However, you do seem to be very interested in a theory for which you have no evidence and for which NIST claim to have no evidence.
 
brumsen said:
Thanks for the offer, but I don't see why I should communicate with NIST through a 3rd party.


My questions are clear enough from this thread I think. Just to state them once more:
1) How has the conclusion that no evidence has been found for alternative hypotheses like CD by means of explosives been obtained?

2) How is the assumption that once collapse has begun it will continue justified - in other words, how is it justified that what is referred to as collapse-initiation events provide sufficient condition for total collapse?
Click to expand...

Because I've had luck speaking with them in the past and we shared some information.

NIST does discuss some of this information on page 319 9.3.3 Events Following Collapse Initiation

Failure of the south wall in WTC 1 and east wall in WTC 2 caused the portion of the building above to tilt in the direction of the failed wall. The titlting was accompanied by a downward movement. The story immediately below the stories in which the columns failed was not able to arrest this initial movement as evidenced by videos from several vantage points.
The structure below the level of collapse initation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential enery released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that through energy of demformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, futher incresing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.
The falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it, much like the action of a piston, forcing materical, such as smoke and debris, out the windows as seen in several videos.

NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives panted prior to Sep 11,2001. NIST also did not find any evience that missles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiaing floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.

As for more detail on the collapse page 323 Northerwestern University
Roughly NIST agrees with the assessment of the tower's required structural capacity to absorb the released energy of the upper building section as it began to fall as an approximate lower bound. The likelihood of the falling building section aligning vertically with the column below was small, given the observed tilting, so that the required capacity would be greater if interaction with the floors was also considered, as pointed out in the study.

And I'm sure you can find Bazant's paper and the 2006 version with some corrections.
The subsequent progressive collapse was not simulated at NIST because its inevitability, once triggered by column buckling, had already been proven by Bazant and Zhou's (2002) comparison of kinetic energy to energy absorption capability.

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/ProgressiveCollapse062-REPORT.pdf

I also know NIST has seen Jones paper, and they find nothing of any value.
But I can ask them for more detail on the "explosives/thermite" investigation.
 
Last edited:
Is there anything lacking from that?

They seem to explain why the building collapse continued and also that they did not find any evidence for a CD.
 
gtc said:
Is there anything lacking from that?

They seem to explain why the building collapse continued and also that they did not find any evidence for a CD.
Click to expand...

Brumsen wants evidence of absence of evidence. Perhaps he can explain whether absence of evidence of absence of evidence is evidence or not.
 
Well those pesky fake terrorists are at it again! Brits caught liquid expolsives trying to get on plane plane. No more carry-ons.Flight to US No Bueno!
I hate these jag offs. Flying just got even more of a hassle. Computers, back packs nothin. Purses only.What spin will the Cters have for this?

This is live right now folks!
Scot Yard About to Speak!
 
Last edited:
Dog Town said:
I lasted 20 min there. Can't view!
Click to expand...

Sun Zoo over yonder
That's purely a miniature psy-op to blunt all this talk about 9/11 as an inside job. It's a direct response I suspect.
Click to expand...

Way to big note the LC forum. I wish I was so special that the ZOG had to disrupt air travel.

MJChicago
Just because something isnt a fact does not mean that it is fiction. The Earth was flat before it was round, lest we forget.
Click to expand...

Doh, I always forget that.

FinalStrike
its a shame that some idiot islamics would do this and not wait for 9/11 truth to come out- they have just comepletely dont the opposite- if indeed this is real...
Click to expand...

OK
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom