New guy here: Questions for official hypothesis

[Foolmewunz]

This thread is dead.

Thanks for all your help guys.

I'm the type of person that does not stop asking questions unless i understand what is happening to a certain degree.

After 11 pages I'm satisfied.

So which two pages frustrate you, then?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Please list another skyscraper designed like WTC 1 and 2.

WTC7. They should really upgrade that one somehow.

Hang on...

Dave

 

[Corsair 115]

were there sacks involved in this collapse that kept all the pieces together?

Lets look at your example.

Try it without the sack. That is more accurate.

Do you think it makes a difference? Mass is mass is mass, the sack is merely for convenience.

If you insist, then try the experiment this way:

Take a 20 lb. piece of lumber and drop it on your foot. Now load 20 lbs. of gravel into a container with a trap door on the bottom so that it can instantly unload its contents. Open the trap door and let the 20 lbs. of gravel land on your foot.

Report the differences in damage to your foot, if any.

 

[Sizzler]

Do wipe off your hand.

Now that this thread is finished, I'd just like to add that you need to learn how to communicate with people better. There were plenty of people willing to help me no matter how stupid my questions and assertions were.

You on the other hand enjoy adding annoying comments get your quick jollies.

Get a life and please learn how to communicate with people better for your own sake.

Peace.

 

[Sizzler]

Do you think it makes a difference? Mass is mass is mass, the sack is merely for convenience.

If you insist, then try the experiment this way:

Take a 20 lb. piece of lumber and drop it on your foot. Now load 20 lbs. of gravel into a container with a trap door on the bottom so that it can instantly unload its contents. Open the trap door and let the 20 lbs. of gravel land on your foot.

Report the differences in damage to your foot, if any.

It has been cleared up, thanks for the your efforts though.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Sizzler is on to something here. We should start building indestructible buildings. If we designed them to withstand anything in the universe, then we would never have anything happen to them. My God! Why didn't we think of this before?

I wonder if all the engineers have considered a terrorist getting a nuclear bomb into a building and setting it off. They better start redesigning buildings now so we don't have to worry about a building collapsing if someone sets off such a bomb.

 

[Gravy]

Also, why did the engineers who built the building not consider what would happen if one of the floors collapsed?

They did.

You seem to have a bizarre idea of what structural engineering is. Time and again, Sizzler, you make false assumptions regarding a subject about which you have almost no knowledge. I'm asking you to stop doing that. Will you? Or will you continue to rely on incompetents, fools, and liars for your information?

Nist said the kenetic energy of 6 floors falling floors was enough to cause global collapse.

Why were these calculations not done before?

They were. It's not an accident that skyscrapers stand up. That happens because engineers design them that way.

And, what about all the other skyscrappers in the world that are designed like the WTC? Have they been upgraded or anything?

How can they be improved now to help this from happening again?

I'm not saying another 9-11 would happen, but perhaps a building fire or earthquake or something like that.

I invite you to review the papers and articles about this subject at my site:

NIST, FEMA reports and critiques, 9/11 Engineering Studies, Alternate Hypotheses, WTC 7 reports, Computer Simulations, more

Fire Safety Engineering and the Performance of Structural Steel in Fires

Rebuilding the World Trade Center Site and Environs

 

[Sizzler]

thanks gravy.

 

[Sizzler]

IF they really are thernite chips

Ok you guys.

So I now understand that the "global collapse" was doomed, based on the calculations done by Bazant and others.

I have accepted this. I will have to keep this position unless they are challenged in a real scientific journal.


But I just saw the video where Jones reports a discovery of thermite chips.

Of course I am skeptical.

He said he sent them to an independent lab for confirmation or rejection.

So, IF they come back a positive for thermite, what does that mean for the truth movement?

What does that mean for the official hypothesis?

This is a big if, but nonetheless not impossible.

So what are your thoughts?

 

[danielk]

I think let's wait until they come forward with the alleged evidence, and then critically examine it.

Oh, and as to your question, if Jones finds overwhelming evidence (that is, more than for the currently accepted narration) that 9/11 was an inside job then it was an inside job.

 

[Gravy]

If the samples have all the characteristics of thermite or thermate residue, their provenance would need to be proven, and all sources that could produce the same signatures would have to be eliminated: probably an impossible task, given the extent and composition of what was exposed to high heat at the site. As NIST says,

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.

Jones is wedded to an idiotic theory. There is simply no evidence that thermite or thermate was used on a single piece of steel, and no reason to think that it could have been used. None. Zero. But I'm sure that a year from now he'll be making the same claims. He has no credibility, he lies, and he's gotten nothing right yet. Don't expect him to start.

 

[Dave Rogers]

But I just saw the video where Jones reports a discovery of thermite chips.

Of course I am skeptical.

He said he sent them to an independent lab for confirmation or rejection.

So, IF they come back a positive for thermite, what does that mean for the truth movement?

What does that mean for the official hypothesis?

This is a big if, but nonetheless not impossible.

So what are your thoughts?

If new, verifiable evidence emerges, it'll have to be examined and our understanding of events will have to be reappraised to incorporate it. That may mean that the possibility of a conspiracy to demolish the towers has to be considered seriously. Anything less would be dishonest. However, at the moment Jones has found some very small objects which appear - to me at least, on the basis of second-hand information - to be chips of primer from the metalwork of the towers.

Note, also, that the concept of testing "positive for thermite" is rather a nebulous one. Thermite, chemically, is a mixture of iron, aluminium and oxygen. The Twin Towers were steel framed, aluminium clad, and surrounded by oxygen, so simply finding iron, aluminium and oxygen in the debris is rather easily explained without invoking a planned demolition.

Dave

 

[Darat]

I've merged the two threads - since they both are dealing with Sizzler's attempts to understand what happened in the 9/11 tragedy.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[Gravy]

I've merged the two threads - since they both are dealing with Sizzler's attempts to understand what happened in the 9/11 tragedy.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

Would you mind merging his sentences into longer paragraphs also?

 

[Sizzler]

If new, verifiable evidence emerges, it'll have to be examined and our understanding of events will have to be reappraised to incorporate it. That may mean that the possibility of a conspiracy to demolish the towers has to be considered seriously. Anything less would be dishonest. However, at the moment Jones has found some very small objects which appear - to me at least, on the basis of second-hand information - to be chips of primer from the metalwork of the towers.

Note, also, that the concept of testing "positive for thermite" is rather a nebulous one. Thermite, chemically, is a mixture of iron, aluminium and oxygen. The Twin Towers were steel framed, aluminium clad, and surrounded by oxygen, so simply finding iron, aluminium and oxygen in the debris is rather easily explained without invoking a planned demolition.

Dave

Are you saying there is no way to tell if they are actually thermite chips?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Are you saying there is no way to tell if they are actually thermite chips?

Not really, no. Even if you collected enough together and showed them burning with a thermite reaction, that would only prove that they were a mixture of iron oxide (i.e. rust) and aluminium, both of which were present in the Twin Towers in abundant amounts. Jones has speculated about the origin of other chemicals in various fractions of the debris, but everything he's found has a simple explanation in terms of the elements that would be expected to be found. The beauty of Jones's theory, from the point of view of conspiracy theorists, is that it's so difficult to prove either way, so with careful shifting of the burden of proof it's possible to sustain a meaningless debate almost indefinitely.

Dave

ETA; It's possible, of course, to prove that they're not thermite; not being mostly iron, aluminium or oxygen would do that nicely. Jones would then claim that this just meant that either the thermite was somewhere else, or that it was all consumed as planned in the demolition. Evidence doesn't tend to affect faith-based conclusions.

 

[T.A.M.]

Wasn't Bazant the one who described the initial collapse as "pancaking", which was later rejected by NIST?

So, doesn't this show that he already got it wrong once?

And wasn't that paper peer reviewed?

Your appeal to authority is flawed.

Please address the photos I posted.

Did NIST reject the "Pancake" Collapse or Pancake Collapse Initiation?

Yes it was peer reviewed.

Appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the person I am appealing to is not a legitimate authority. Please understand the fallacies before you accuse me of them.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

Description of Appeal to Authority

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

I have no desire to address your photos or your socratic arguments. I will merely stand by and watch, and see where all this leads. Now and then, as I have a right to do, I will put out my opinion on things.

TAM

 

[eeyore1954]

Ok you guys.

So I now understand that the "global collapse" was doomed, based on the calculations done by Bazant and others.

I have accepted this. I will have to keep this position unless they are challenged in a real scientific journal.


But I just saw the video where Jones reports a discovery of thermite chips.

Of course I am skeptical.

He said he sent them to an independent lab for confirmation or rejection.

So, IF they come back a positive for thermite, what does that mean for the truth movement?

What does that mean for the official hypothesis?

This is a big if, but nonetheless not impossible.

So what are your thoughts?

Do you know where this sample came from? It isn't from some ladys apartment who kept it for a couple of years and then heard about Dr jones and decided to send it to him is it?

If it is from a legitimate source and it came back "positive for thermite" . The question to address would be is that the only likely source of the chips or are there other good explanations for the "evidence"

 

[GT/CS]

Like i stated in earlier posts, sizzler's presence here stinks of a truther in disguise. He writes like Max Photon (a carriage return after every sentence).

he's now on ignore. Since he wont listen to the experts here, and WONT attempt to contact Bazant, who's paper he is criticizing, its easy to see that he is not here for the "truth" at all. And not "confused".

48 hours, and he's only read Bazant's paper? On the first page, there are links to 20 different reports. NIST's report takes at least a 2 week read.

Yes, that's who I was thinking of. He reminds me of Max, too, but I've had Max on ignore for so long I had forgotten about him.

Thank you Arus!

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Thanks a lot for all the information thus far.

I'm still reading what gravy posted.

A lot of you have expressed the idea that the collapses would have naturally proceeded to the ground after collapse initiation.

This might be clear to those of you that are experts, but, I am in no way an expert. Thus, I've asked for a paper describing the event. Gravy directed me to the right places. Thanks again

_______________________________

To address those that are suspicious of my intentions;

I'm Canadian. I recently learned about this debate via a friend (3 months ago). He passed zietgiest (sp??) over to me and I gave it a watch. I was skeptical because it wreaked of bogus conspiracy, but nonetheless, I was very curious.

I did some of my own research on the net and found a lot of disinformation in the film.

for example;

-quote mining
-squibs
-columns cut on an angle
-"pull it"
-etc etc etc etc.

I remained curious though because I was not familiar with the specifics of the official story and certain aspects of the alternative theory.

I am currently going through my own process of understanding.

I came here and posted because it is the best blog site I have found thus far for this topic.

So anyway, I hope you guys understand where I am at.

Yes I do, I might want to add that in the late collapse you should think of it as an event of mass not structure, of the top block.
To illustrate, If i drop a piece of chat limestone rock-about the same size as an apple seed on you from ten feet above you probably would not feel it hit.
If I drop a 22 ton load of chat rock on you same substance, you probably would not survive.
Mass is the key element not structure, the mass funneling down ahead of the top block is what destroys the floors below then the remainder of the top block crushes what is left.