Offer to the Truth Movement: Let's Settle It

Newtons Bit said:
I didn't see it live. I was a mixture of numb and enraged for the rest of the week. I imagine I felt much like people in the US in 1941.
Click to expand...

i just wondered, because afaik i readed in one of Bazant's paper that he and alot other engineers was indeed supriced.

and i have no clue how ppl in the US in 41 felt.
i also didnt see it live. but i saw it on TV the same day and the days after it. i didnt spend a second thinking about the collapses, i was just shocked.
till a friend of mine, normaly a very same man, no contact to any conspiracy theorys, out of nothing he said, someone blew up the towers.
 
GregoryUrich said:
I don't expect anyone to believe me but I do expect people to read the article and think about it a bit before they accept or reject it.
Click to expand...

The objective is not to believe the objective is to understand and know. It looks like Urich is just making the best of bad data to me. We are talking about buildings designed in the 60s when computers had core memory. This should be a simple problem that should have been solved at least 5 years ago. I haven't read the entire NIST report but I have searched it a lot and read sections of it. It mostly pisses me off. I regard it as a snow job. If anything Gregory's work should be an embarrassment to all of the architects and structural engineers in the US. An EE doing what plenty of them should have done within months of 9/11.

Do you think it would make a significant difference?
Click to expand...

Knowing the number of each type of panel would make it possible to figure out where the transitions occur and give more exact data on perimeter weight per level. But I regard this as another example of the snow job. How could they make a 10,000 page report and not specify the quantity of each type of perimeter wall panel? That has to be deliberately left out. But telling us that one plane had 9 tons of cargo and the other had 5 makes it look like they did a really thorough job.

By the way I looked at Greening's paper again. I hadn't looked at it in months. He talks about the E1 being the energy necessary to crush one floor, what I would call a level. But he is talking like that is constant through the entire building. It had to take more energy to crush the 5th level than the 50th level which had to be more than needed to crush the 105th. Did that paper pass a peer review?

psik
 
I can't believe it's taken me so long to find this thread! This is excellent. (Well, it was until the last couple of pages, but...)

I just wanted to comment on the following post:

tanabear said:
It seems as though that the people who believe in the official 9/11 story always seem to come up with a new epistemology(theory of knowledge) to dismiss their critics with and not answer questions. Let me see if I follow your reasoning correctly. Someone makes a claim, then it is incumbent on the person questioning that claim to show that it is 100% impossible. The person actually making the claim is under no obligation to marshal evidence and arguments in its favor. If the critic can't show that it is 100% impossible we have to accept the claim as truth. This method gives us no way to discriminate among claims that can't be shown to be 100% impossible. So if this is your epistemology then use it in this circumstance. I assert that Jimmy Hoffa is buried on the dark side of the moon. You have to show me this is 100% impossible, if not, it is true. My standards for showing the impossibility of such a claim is for you to dig up the whole dark side of the moon and photograph the entire endeavor. If you can't do this, then you have to believe that Jimmy Hoffa is buried on the dark side of moon. Remember, I have no obligation to present any evidence in support of my claim.
Click to expand...

Here is a circumstance that more accurately reflects the question at hand:

Two people witness a train wreck. Person #1 turns to Person #2 and makes a claim:

Person #1: That was a horrific train wreck.

Person #2 questions the claim:

Person #2: I would disagree. That was a horrific flea market.

Personally, I would say that Person #2 is the one who needs to explain his position, not Person #1, even though he is the one who made the initial claim.

'Nuff said, IMHO.
 
psikeyhackr said:
If anything Gregory's work should be an embarrassment to all of the architects and structural engineers in the US. An EE doing what plenty of them should have done within months of 9/11.
Click to expand...

Making controversial claims on topics outside their areas of expertise?
 
Erm... going back to the bullet analogy, isn't it more important whether it's .22 or .38 calibre than whether the guy was wearing a sweater?

If NIST is a whitewash, why haven't engineering departments in nations hostile to the US pulled it apart?
 
Dictator Cheney said:
Newtons Bit, you was not supriced when the tower came down?
Click to expand...

Do you remember when those comet fragments hit Jupiter? This event was predicted, then witnessed, by the best minds in astronomy/astrophysics.

I GUARANTEE you that at least some of these experts were surprised by the devastating effect these tiny pieces of dirty ice had on a giant gas planet.

Does that mean that something suspicious was going on? Hardly. It simply means that there are some events that are so rarely seen that we cannot know exactly how things will play out. With all of our scientific knowledge and ability to predict how different objects will interact in theory, we sometimes just need to see it happen in real life before we can know all the intricacies involved. That's why experimentation is so important to the scientific process.

So, why didn't engineers build a life-sized model of the WTC beforehand and crash airliners into it to see what would happen? I'll leave it to you to decide whether that is a stupid question or not.
 
psikeyhackr said:
The objective is not to believe the objective is to understand and know. It looks like Urich is just making the best of bad data to me. We are talking about buildings designed in the 60s when computers had core memory. This should be a simple problem that should have been solved at least 5 years ago. I haven't read the entire NIST report but I have searched it a lot and read sections of it. It mostly pisses me off. I regard it as a snow job. If anything Gregory's work should be an embarrassment to all of the architects and structural engineers in the US. An EE doing what plenty of them should have done within months of 9/11.
Click to expand...

How do you know they didn't? Maybe they did some calculations and realized that it was inevitable that the towers were doomed. Maybe they did not feel compelled to come out publicly and state this, as it was what NIST also concluded.

Since we do not know one way or the other, your contention that architects and SEs in the US should be embarassed falls flat.

By the way, have you ever trotted out your credentials?
 
Dictator Cheney said:
till a friend of mine, normaly a very same man, no contact to any conspiracy theorys,
Click to expand...

So if he DID have contact with conspiracy theories, then he would have been some other man...?

Just kidding. I knew what you meant.

out of nothing he said, someone blew up the towers.
Click to expand...


Well, that's usually the problem. People saying things out of nothing.
 
GregoryUrich said:
Bush was clearly aware of the possibility of terrorist crashing airplanes into buildings
Click to expand...
SOMEWHERE in the world
and that UBL was determined to strike in the US.
Click to expand...
Does this administration give you the impression of having great curiosity, foresight, and analytical decision-making, such that they could put these two things together? And that, once they had done that, they would be able to come up with a plan that would guarantee the attacks wouldn't happen?

All the top administration officials stated afterward that (in the words of Ari Fleischer) "Never did we imagine what would take place on September 11 where people use those airplanes as missiles and weapons." More evidence of a cover-up.
Click to expand...

Or it could be evidence of something far more common -- politicians putting a positive spin on a highly publicized failure, even if it means distorting the truth or outright lying. If it were actually a cover-up, we never would have found out that Bush was indeed briefed on the possibility of an attack from an enemy that he, frankly, didn't take very seriously and wasn't paying that much attention to. (Remember, Bush was concerned about former Soviet states at that time, not Muslim extremists. )
 
i think who saw the public hearing from ms Rice and is not getting skeptical about the way she "answered" is not a real skeptic :)
 
why should they hide that Bush was informed, like we see today, its not even needed to hide, like the WMD lies. they didnt even have to plant WMD's, US ppl just dont care......
 
aggle-rithm said:
Making controversial claims on topics outside their areas of expertise?
Click to expand...

No, people with the expertise or claiming to have it not mentioning what is obviously important.

I worked for IBM for 4 years. I never saw the term von Neumann machine in any documentation or heard anyone use it. John von Neumann worked as a consultant to IBM in the early 50s. I never saw the term benchmark in the documentation either. But I wrote my own benchmarks to test the Datamaster 23 against the 5100 it was replacing. The old machine was almost twice as fast. The new one had a bigger screen and an 8" floppy instead of tape so it would probably have won on a storage speed test. But it lost on my two processing test.

Most computer books don't mention the term and the ones that do rarely have good explanations. For a good description and explanation see The Art of Electronics chapter 10. The funny thing is they never use that term either. It belongs in computer science not electrical engineering. :D They way this society compartmentalizes knowledge is absurd and experts pretend things are difficult to understand when they are not. The Empire State building was completed long before the first electronic computer or the transistor but we are supposed to believe electrical and mechanical engineers can't understand the math and physics of the WTC and its supposed gravitational collapse. What a joke. Greening is a chemist by the way. Why is he involved?

The distribution of steel and concrete have to be important in the design of a skyscraper, so the EXPERTS should have all been talking about that years ago. What is Richard Gage's problem, that he doesn't bring it up? When do you ever hear how many tons of steel were in the impact zone and had to heat to the point of weakening? And do it in 56 minutes for the south tower. INCREDIBLE!

psik
 
psikeyhackr said:
The distribution of steel and concrete have to be important in the design of a skyscraper, so the EXPERTS should have all been talking about that years ago. What is Richard Gage's problem, that he doesn't bring it up? When do you ever hear how many tons of steel were in the impact zone and had to heat to the point of weakening? And do it in 56 minutes for the south tower. INCREDIBLE!

psik
Click to expand...

While I'm no car expert by any stretch, an engine is vitally important in the design of a car. So, should the EXPERTS investigating an accident talk about my engine after someone rear-ends my car? You're arguing from your own ignorance and incredulity.
 
Last edited:
Oh, lets not forget about responding to this request from Dr. Greening ...

I therefore challenge you to post your alleged e-mail to me on this thread and I will answer it on this thread.
Click to expand...

Why is this so difficult for you to do? You did email him. Didn't you, psikeyhackr?
 
Last edited:
Dictator Cheney said:
Newtons Bit, you was not supriced when the tower came down?
Click to expand...

If someone is in a serious road accident and is rushed to hospital with severe head injuries are we surprised if that person dies? Not everyone hit by a car dies from their injuries but it can and does happen.

I would suggest that most people with any knowledge of construction would have watched the collapse of the towers with a degree of surprise but also acceptance that such a thing is not only possible but also is also very likely. It is this very possibility which leads firefighters to create collapse zones around severely damaged buildings.

'Truthers' would prefer to believe that multistorey steel framed structures cannot be brought down by anything other than controlled demolition or maybe earthquakes, simply because we have seen controlled demolition of large buildings and we have seen the damage caused by earthquakes. That is their sole frame of reference and there is something very strange about the mental capacity of some 'truthers' whereby if they haven't seen it before, they can't imagine it happening now.
 
Last edited:
psikeyhackr said:
No, people with the expertise or claiming to have it not mentioning what is obviously important.

I worked for IBM for 4 years. I never saw the term von Neumann machine in any documentation or heard anyone use it. John von Neumann worked as a consultant to IBM in the early 50s. I never saw the term benchmark in the documentation either. But I wrote my own benchmarks to test the Datamaster 23 against the 5100 it was replacing. The old machine was almost twice as fast. The new one had a bigger screen and an 8" floppy instead of tape so it would probably have won on a storage speed test. But it lost on my two processing test.
Click to expand...

That word. You keep using it. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Most computer books don't mention the term and the ones that do rarely have good explanations. For a good description and explanation see The Art of Electronics chapter 10. The funny thing is they never use that term either. It belongs in computer science not electrical engineering. :D They way this society compartmentalizes knowledge is absurd and experts pretend things are difficult to understand when they are not. The Empire State building was completed long before the first electronic computer or the transistor but we are supposed to believe electrical and mechanical engineers can't understand the math and physics of the WTC and its supposed gravitational collapse. What a joke. Greening is a chemist by the way. Why is he involved?
Click to expand...

A.. von Neumann machine has nothing to do with CS. (Seriously. Computers will never self replicate, and any program that does so is usually called a virus.)

Secondly, Netwon.. explained it.. and he's a structural engineer.... and Bazant ... Let's explain this in another way. Do you only read what you want to?

The distribution of steel and concrete have to be important in the design of a skyscraper, so the EXPERTS should have all been talking about that years ago. What is Richard Gage's problem, that he doesn't bring it up? When do you ever hear how many tons of steel were in the impact zone and had to heat to the point of weakening? And do it in 56 minutes for the south tower. INCREDIBLE!

psik
Click to expand...

Because.... they a) saw it happen and b) the load bearing units are steel. Distribution is relatively unimportant for a hypothesis, and as has been explained over and over, NIST addresses this.
 
A brief interruption, if I may...

My thread seems to have gotten chaotic in the last 36 hours...

I see a number of new questions, but I believe they were all answered. Please feel free to reformulate, succinctly please, if this is not the case.

I also remind all parties to keep this thread respectful. I don't want to see any more disparaging of Dr. Greening. If people want to rip on psikeyhackr, please take it to Forum Management. The signal to noise is dropping. Let's not do that here.

Thanks in advance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom