Merged Summing up the evidence against Controlled Demolition

[beachnut]

My watch reads 12:07
My computer displays 12:06
My alarm clock displays 12:02

It would be cool if these truthers would take a page from Einstein; "time is relative".

My computer is reading 1:14
The kitchen says 1:15
Bedroom alarm clock 1:11 : too scared to check the rest!

A CT in my own house!

 

[Thunder]

there are still problems with putting explosives in a high heat environment, heat can render them inert. Not to mention the aircraft impact can physically destroy the shaped charges, and it is possible for them to even explode on impact.

very very good points. the heat of the fires and the impact of the plane could have rendered the explosives ineffective.

imagine if the explosives actually failed to bring down the buildings...or only caused a partial collapse. then the FDNY and NYPD would have discovered tons of undetonated explosives and the NWOs goose would have been cooked.

logic and reasoning is ending the truth movement every day.

 

[Drudgewire]

It would be cool if these truthers would take a page from Einstein; "time is relative".

My computer is reading 1:14
The kitchen says 1:15
Bedroom alarm clock 1:11 : too scared to check the rest!

A CT in my own house!

I have one which just flashes 12:00!! OMG DOOMSDAY CLOCK HAS STRUCK MIDNIGHT, TAKE COVER EVERYONE!!

 

[Shalamar]

Here's a question:

What would it take to PLACE the explosives to bring both towers down?
In an occupied/used building.
Could only be done when no-one else is in the building.

How long would this take?
How many people?
What planning?

Wouldn't office workers notice this? 'Hey, Bob.. What that hole in the wall there yesterday?'
If they covered up the work, people would still likely notice. Fresh paint STINKS. Tools laying around. Ceiling tiles dislodged. People would NOTICE. And it would be done on every floor. A stupidly large undertaking. And you have to do it with prior knowledge that large airplanes would impact each building, causing massive fires.

So.. How would it be done?

 

[tsig]

It would be cool if these truthers would take a page from Einstein; "time is relative".

My computer is reading 1:14
The kitchen says 1:15
Bedroom alarm clock 1:11 : too scared to check the rest!

A CT in my own house!

I have an analog clock on my wall it says 3:35 and that proves clocks can talk.

 

[roundhead]

there are still problems with putting explosives in a high heat environment, heat can render them inert. Not to mention the aircraft impact can physically destroy the shaped charges, and it is possible for them to even explode on impact.

It wasnt hot above and below the impact zones was it?? In other words, the VAST majority of the towers never got hot at all.

 

[johnny karate]

It wasnt hot above and below the impact zones was it?? In other words, the VAST majority of the towers never got hot at all.

And yet the impact zones are where the collapses initiated.

 

[X]

It would be cool if these truthers would take a page from Einstein; "time is relative".

My computer is reading 1:14
The kitchen says 1:15
Bedroom alarm clock 1:11 : too scared to check the rest!

A CT in my own house!

I'm normally rather obsessive about my watch displaying an accurate time.
I have an atomic clock synchroniser on my PC, which I use to set it accurately. Then I set my watch off of that.
Realizing that they were off by over a minute (I didn't post the second count due to my alarm clock not displaying seconds, but it is over a minute between the watch and computer), I have just re-pinged the atomic clock and re-set my computer and wristwatch.
But now the clock on my cell phone and time display in my car are both out.
One of my other watches runs counterclockwise, I set it too.
And my third wristwatch has no numbers of markings at all on the face or bezel. Completely blank. Difficult to tell time to the minute with that one (one-of-a-kind watch, I had it custom made. 'twas cheap.).


Really, it's a pity rm86 hasn't read my post yet. I hink it makes a good point.

 

[rm86]

Welcome to the Forum.

I beat this issue to death with Craig Furlong in person. The Commission time is incorrect. The LDEO time has been verified against videos of the impacts, therefore it is correct.

The Commission time is wrong because it relies, as you say, on FAA radar returns. These returns overestimate the flight time because (a) they assume end-of-flight at zero altitude, whereas both aircraft hit at about 1,000 feet altitude; and (b) you can get a radar return from the debris field after impact, and this appears to be what happened in the case of the WTC 1 impact.

See my discussion [***] for details. This is a solved issue.

I read your linked posts. I take issue with your theory that the zero altitude return reflects post-impact signal scatter of ground debris, or of a fireball 1000 feet above ground. How could ground level debris, regardless of its metal content, be distinguished from, say, motor vehicles? And how exactly does a thermal disturbance 1000 feet in the air return as if it occurred at ground level?

Also, you assert that the radar refresh rate was 12 seconds, but I counted 38 returns for AA11 during the five-minute interval from 8:40-8:45 a.m. Doesn't that suggest a shorter refresh rate, i.e, in the range of 7.9 seconds?

Finally, I realize that a significant amount of the plane impact force would have been transferred to the bedrock. The question is, how much? What portion of the impact would have been dissipated by the steel, concrete, and office furnishings, the bones and flesh as it were, and not transferred to the bedrock? And what degree of seismic event would this entail?

 

[R.Mackey]

I read your linked posts. I take issue with your theory that the zero altitude return reflects post-impact signal scatter of ground debris, or of a fireball 1000 feet above ground. How could ground level debris, regardless of its metal content, be distinguished from, say, motor vehicles? And how exactly does a thermal disturbance 1000 feet in the air return as if it occurred at ground level?

That's exactly the point -- it can't. Primary radar is getting a return from ground clutter all the time, but it's thresholded and beams are shaped so that the operator never sees this. However, if you suddenly crash an aluminum aircraft into an aluminum-clad structure, all of a sudden the primary radar gets a whomping big return from that same ground clutter. Big enough, in all probability, to exceed the threshold and show up as a blip. The point is that radar cannot easily distinguish between an intact aircraft and a cloud of metallic fragments.

Also, it is just one possibility. As I remarked before, it's also possible that the return is a software glitch, an echo, could be anything. There's a lot of software in between the dish and that plot, and it would be nearly impossible to chase down every scenario. It's also rather pointless. We know the final radar plot is wrong, because the video says the impact happened earlier, at a time that also happens to correspond with LDEO. This is not worth investigating further.

Also, you assert that the radar refresh rate was 12 seconds, but I counted 38 returns for AA11 during the five-minute interval from 8:40-8:45 a.m. Doesn't that suggest a shorter refresh rate, i.e, in the range of 7.9 seconds?

I did not make such an assertion. Nobody did, in fact. The radar most precise in altitude estimation has a 12 second sweep time, but we do not know what radar was used in that plot, or even if multiple radars contributed.

It really doesn't matter. Every return is on that plot. Note that there are no returns between 8:46:10 and the final return at zero altitude. However fast the refresh rate was, it missed the aircraft after it passed below 1800 feet, no doubt because of ground clutter. This is also why we should not rely on the radar for a precise estimate of impact time. The error of ~13 seconds, which incidentally can be retired if we curve fit to all the radar returns instead of simply fixating on the anomalous final return, is in no way surprising given the performance of the instrument.

Finally, I realize that a significant amount of the plane impact force would have been transferred to the bedrock. The question is, how much? What portion of the impact would have been dissipated by the steel, concrete, and office furnishings, the bones and flesh as it were, and not transferred to the bedrock? And what degree of seismic event would this entail?

I calculated this using the mass and estimated speed of the aircraft to get impact energy, and the measured Richter magnitude of the ground disturbance, to get approximately 2% of the energy transferred to bedrock. Since each Tower would have to (and did) sway after impact according to conservation of momentum, and a large fraction of this sway would be transmitted to bedrock in a relatively efficient process, I find this to be a wholly credible number.

The rest of the momentum (perhaps 50-80%) would have been dissipated by the structure's viscoelastic dampening system, originally installed to dampen sway in windy conditions. However, the Tower was underdamped with respect to the impact. See Appendix K to NCSTAR1-5A for a thorough treatment of the Tower sway as estimated by video and modeled as a coupled harmonic system.

 

[cmcaulif]

It wasnt hot above and below the impact zones was it?? In other words, the VAST majority of the towers never got hot at all.

thats fine.

But truthers insist that fire and damage could not have initiated collapse, and that explosives did.

Collapse is observed to have on the floors affected by fire and damage. I think this is something that everyone agrees on. Thus, the points I raise are valid.

 

[rm86]

rm86:

to determine if I put you on ignore or not, could you tell me if you believe the USG helped to orchestrate the attacks of 9/11?

Thanks in advance.

TAM

TAM, I don’t generally submit to loyalty oaths, but okay, just this once.

As for what I believe, for starters, I believe that neither you nor I know what happened on 9/11, in no small part because we weren't there and didn't participate in the crimes (I trust).

You say you want to know what my beliefs are, but let’s be honest. What you really want to know are my biases. I’ll save you the trouble of asking, because from where I stand the two are the same. (Whoops, there goes one.) Anyway, you asked, so I'll tell you. But before I go any further, I think you should also tell me what sort of biases govern your views, or those of your friends on this board.

In particular, I’d be interested in knowing whether, by claiming the mantle of scientist, you and/or your fellow posters believe you’ve managed to sidestep the corrupting influences of biases, emotions, and finite mental capacity that afflict the rest of us, regardless of one’s station in life.

The arrogance displayed in these pages is plentiful, and often gleeful, but I don't think it advances anyone's case. My experience in the reality-based world tells me that arrogance and credibility are usually inversely proportional; if you can’t be trusted to admit that you're as human and fallible as the rest of us, then why, regardless of all the intellectual bludgeoning you dish out, should the rest of us believe anything you have to say (not you personally, since I confess I haven’t seen a lot of your stuff yet)? That said, a lot of folks here don't seem interested in much more than intellectual [sic] masturbation, group style, nor in their ability to persuade anybody outside of the clique.

Here are a couple more of my biases/beliefs: in the reality-based world, it’s power that determines what we call truth, and science is no less malleable than statistics when someone has an agenda to declare the truth, and the power to enforce it. Those of you in the science academies who aren’t liars, naifs, or fools must admit to at least a passing familiarity with theory wars, tenure battles, and publishing intrigues that had little to do with the scientific merit of another’s work, and everything to do with professional- or institutional- or interpersonal-politics, or the threats that paradigm-shifters pose to the old guard, or gender, or age, etc. Scientists are no less worried about their statuses, careers, incomes, and reputations as anyone else, and it’s simply a myth to suppose that they’d be unwilling to chuck the pursuit of some greater cosmic truth were any of the former interests seriously threatened, and fight as dirty and dishonestly as anyone. When that happens, the minority-view science usually gets trashed, and the majority, old-guard science lives to see another day.

And while we’re at it, let’s please not forget all of the accepted science that not so long ago was marshaled in support of such obscenities as superiority based on race, ethnicity, or gender; nuclear war; frontal lobotomies; forced sterilizations and other experimentation on unwitting or involuntary human subjects; non-carcinogenic tobacco; and the introduction of countless toxins into the environment for the benefit of industry, etc. What proof do you have that the impulses that drove the scientifically-minded consensus of other eras to pursue such ignoble ends has somehow vanished from ours? And if you agree that these impulses are still present among the contemporary consensus, then tell me, how, and in what way? Who are the latter day victims of ostensibly “reputable” science in service of power for the few, against the interests of the less powerful, and often, the many less powerful?

Here’s another bias/belief: I think that in our country, whenever there’s an attack on one of our “vital national interests” that needs to be explained, our government and other powerful institutions have always reserved for themselves the presumption of truth, and the right to define the status quo—which means that anyone who disagrees is required to rebut that presumption, like a prosecutor who has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. You must admit, that’s a pretty steep hill to climb for those of us who are neither government-issued nor institution-approved.

Now, for 9/11. To date, what the US has told us is that it has provided an accurate accounting of the destruction of the WTC buildings that is consistent with physics, structural engineering, fire science, metallurgy, you name it. To which I say, they missed a step, because when the government or other powerful institutions go about the task of altering the status quo—and what was the status quo in the immediate aftermath of the planes hitting the towers, if not a vacuum of knowledge regarding causation?—they, not we, have the burden of proof, and to meet that burden, they cannot assert theories which substitute plausibility for demonstrability.

Here's what I mean: I have yet to see a plausible, let alone convincing case to explain how two steel highrises could be made to mostly dissolve due to plane impact and fire, or in the case of WTC7, due to impact by falling debris and a fire. Nor have I seen one that would explain how three buildings, on the same day, in the confines of several New York City blocks, could be reduced to mostly steel beams and dust despite their being subjected to assaults that were significantly different from each other, and in the case of WTC7, vastly so.

On the other hand, what I have seen with my own eyes is, for example, that when WTC1 started its final descent, the upper floors did not fall as a block, as many of the posters here contend, but rather began listing heavily, and dissolving, before passing through the plane impact zone. Nor could the upper block have fallen symmetrically, unless one accepts the plainly implausible notion that virtually every single central core and perimeter column failed simultaneously. And yet, this supposed block was somehow the sledgehammer that caused that building to telescope into itself.

As I see it, the consensus, majority view of most of the scientists on this forum proceeds from the hypothesis that the buildings were probably brought down by plane impact, debris impact, and fire. If that’s your hypothesis, then it necessarily follows that you’re going to place a high value on evidence and theories which support your hypothesis, and comparatively less value on evidence and theories that suggest your initial hypothesis was wrong. More to the point, there are multiple biases underlying such a hypothesis—chiefly, that the mechanism of the building’s destruction is more relevant than the improbability of any number of anomalous events occurring that day (incompetent pilots flying commercial jets with dead-on accuracy and no military intercepts; virtually straight down collapses in free fall time despite asymmetric and non-global defects in the tower support columns; the utter pulverization of virtually all the concrete and office furnishings; molten non-aluminic metal flowing out of one of the towers pre-collapse as a result of hydrocarbon-fueled fire at normal atmospheric pressures, et al.).

If, by comparison, one of your biases is that the anomalies are too numerous, and that governments (not just ours, but all governments) usually lie, you probably start with a different hypothesis, namely, that plane impact, debris impact, and fire did not cause the destruction of the three WTC buildings, and that something else was afoot.

Are you on to me yet? Well hold up, because here’s just a few more: I don’t think that conventional CD can explain the buildings’ collapses, nor high energy weapons for that matter. Nor do I think that objects other than planes were flown into the towers. I also don’t believe the USG was behind it. I don’t know who was behind it. The point is, and here’s my last one for now, if you mostly agree with the main conclusions of NIST or the 9/11 Commission, you don’t know, either.

Cheers.

 

[Pardalis]

Now, for 9/11. To date, what the US has told us is that it has provided an accurate accounting of the destruction of the WTC buildings that is consistent with physics, structural engineering, fire science, metallurgy, you name it.

What do you mean "the US"?

 

[Pardalis]

That said, a lot of folks here don't seem interested in much more than intellectual [sic] masturbation, group style, nor in their ability to persuade anybody outside of the clique.

Except the "clique" here is the entire scientific community.

When that happens, the minority-view science usually gets trashed, and the majority, old-guard science lives to see another day.

The minority view here hasn't even tried to submit anything to the scientific community, remember?

More to the point, there are multiple biases underlying such a hypothesis—chiefly, that the mechanism of the building’s destruction is more relevant than the improbability of any number of anomalous events occurring that day (incompetent pilots flying commercial jets with dead-on accuracy and no military intercepts; virtually straight down collapses in free fall time despite asymmetric and non-global defects in the tower support columns; the utter pulverization of virtually all the concrete and office furnishings; molten non-aluminic metal flowing out of one of the towers pre-collapse as a result of hydrocarbon-fueled fire at normal atmospheric pressures, et al.).

You would first need to get rid of your false ideas (the bolded part) in order to fully understand the reports.

Nor do I think that objects other than planes were flown into the towers.

OK, so you can start with the "bias" that the planes did something to the towers?

 

[DavidJames]

...deleted verbal diarrhea...

For crying out loud, it was a yes or no question. Instead you provided 1335 words of pure mental masturbation.

Answer the ****ing question.

 

[rm86]

What do you mean "the US"?

NIST and the 9/11 Commission. Bush. Cheney. Rumsfeld. Wolfowitz. Rice. Tenet. The Congress. In other words, and in no particular order, the elected, the appointed, the appropriated, and the Supreme Court-installed.

 

[Pardalis]

NIST and the 9/11 Commission. Bush. Cheney. Rumsfeld. Wolfowitz. Rice. Tenet. The Congress. In other words, and in no particular order, the elected, the appointed, the appropriated, and the Supreme Court-installed.

You're talking about the collapses, so that would be the NIST.

 

[AZCat]

NIST and the 9/11 Commission. Bush. Cheney. Rumsfeld. Wolfowitz. Rice. Tenet. The Congress. In other words, and in no particular order, the elected, the appointed, the appropriated, and the Supreme Court-installed.

So.... How do you feel about the ASCE? They don't fit any of those criteria.


ETA: Or SEA? (more relevant to the collapse of the towers)

 

[rm86]

For crying out loud, it was a yes or no question. Instead you provided 1335 words of pure mental masturbation.

Answer the ****ing question.

See what I was saying about emotions? David, dear, do you know nothing about the art of cross-examination? It was a loaded and leading question. Those kinds of questions are only asked to validate the interrogator's views.

In any event, I answered it, but your apoplectic reaction must have prevented you from seeing it. Take a few breaths and try again.

T.A.M. wanted an interrogation, but I never agreed to that. My consent went no further than to have a discussion. And you, not I, made the choice to read my post and get so incensed about it.

 

[e^n]

NIST and the 9/11 Commission. Bush. Cheney. Rumsfeld. Wolfowitz. Rice. Tenet. The Congress. In other words, and in no particular order, the elected, the appointed, the appropriated, and the Supreme Court-installed.

Is this the only evidence you will discount? Would papers from non US or non governmental sources hold sway with you?