Hardfire: Physics of 9/11

[bill smith]

What would anyone from 911Truth do? They have only delusions. So tell us what you think about this presentation or take your junk ideas and move on to the correct thread.

What do you have to contribute to this thread?

Do you understand 911Truth is full of delusions and how this presentation can be used to understand 911Truth is junk science?

I'm just trying to ascertain whether Ron was being a little economical with the truth about the reasons for there being nobody from the Truth dide to offer a counter to RM on the show. In light of Heiwa, the most obvious candidate not being offered a chance to speak for himself despite having his profesional opinion denigrated in public what is your take on the matter ?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Stop arguing with Heiwa, dammit. You are all making me begin to question whether there's any point to my posting at all. If you just want to play with clowns, go elsewhere and do it.

Maybe the mods can split those posts off into their own thread. I agree, I'd rather not see the lunacy played out here.

Anyway, we don't have Part 3 out but it should be soon. Amusingly, however, there is already a "video response," focusing on comments regarding AA 175:



This is a production from Jeff Hill...

... Needless to say, both points I made on the show were correct. First, Egypt Air 990 does disprove the claim made by Mr. Lear, which is that a Boeing 767 cannot exceed 540 MPH at sea level because of parasitic drag. That's what I was asked. Mr. Hill is turning this from a qualitative argument into a quantitative (viz. gradualist) argument, saying that, OK, they can do it, just not at a given angle... but offers no proof. Just because EA 990's dive angle wasn't identical to AA 175's, it doesn't mean AA 175 could not reach those speeds.

For newbies, lurkers, and others out there, I wanted to expand just a tiny bit on that point I bolded, since to some it may be obscure. Ryan, if you feel this is off topic, I won't object at all to it being split off into it's own thread, but since it arises from the Hardfire show, I figured I'd post this here. Anyway: Contrary to Jeff Hill's erroneous statement at 4:36 in the video, FL175 had not been in level flight. Ron Wieck even mentions this in his statement, and Hill just breezes right by it, the only difference between what Ron was saying and I'm saying here is that the dive was more than 20,000 feet. As I remember it, FL175 had gone from 31,000 feet to 800 feet in roughly 9 minutes. As a poster who pointed this out back in 2007 said, it reached a maximum descent rate of 10,000 feet per minute.

That's not level flight.

FL175 had been building up speed in a dive for a whole 9 minutes. And had been doing so in a dive, which is also what Egypt Air had been doing, just at a different angle. Note that Hill has to misrepresent FL175 as flying straight and level in order to get the statement he wants out of his callers. That's just a flat-out lie, and demonstrates the basic dishonesty of members of the so-called Truth movement. They can say what they want about parasitic drag and quibble about its effects on an airframe, but if they don't present the event itself correctly, then their argument fails. And that's what's happening here: Hill's misrepresenting what UA175 did that day. Ryan here is concentrating on similar events in order to provide concrete proof that such speed is possible, and he's also touching on the issue of drag, but for you others out there let's not forget that Hill is misrepresenting the event in order to make his case.

End of small point. We can now go back to the central topic of this thread, i.e. scientific, rational analysis of Truth Movement claims.

 

[tsig]

OK, you agree that part C, if dropped on part A, cannot crush down part A?

Good, so part A could not have been destroyed by part C, but part A was destroyed anyway. If you read my article at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm you'll find out.

I am asking you what did happen not what didn't happen.

We are both here and here is where the question should be answered not on some other site.

For the record:
I did not agree with you. Please do not misrepresent me again!!

 

[tsig]

I'm just trying to ascertain whether Ron was being a little economical with the truth about the reasons for there being nobody from the Truth dide to offer a counter to RM on the show. In light of Heiwa, the most obvious candidate not being offered a chance to speak for himself despite having his profesional opinion denigrated in public what is your take on the matter ?

Why not ask the members of the truth movement?

Would you really let Heiwa design a building for you?

 

[beachnut]

I'm just trying to ascertain whether Ron was being a little economical with the truth about the reasons for there being nobody from the Truth dide to offer a counter to RM on the show. In light of Heiwa, the most obvious candidate not being offered a chance to speak for himself despite having his profesional opinion denigrated in public what is your take on the matter ?

Heiwa is a fantasy believer and his science is pure junk as even laypeople can see. If you can't see that you need to ask for help on science. You think Heiwa has something? Then you better apply for a Pulitzer Prize because it would be the biggest story in the world; but sad for you it is fictional science manufactured from someone who hates the USA and is laughing at the bar in France at how some dumb Americans believe his made up tripe. Don’t fall for the idiotic ideas of Heiwa. You could ask your high school physics teacher and they will clear up your doubts that Heiwa’s work is junk.

Heiwa's work is a joke. Maybe Ron was trying to goat someone into showing up. Do you want to take your massive evidence for 911Truth to Ron show? You have a bunch of smoking gun stuff; you must you support the terrorist apologist known as 911Truth.

Who in 911Truth has more than delusions? You are hung up on the small talk and can’t comment on the science presented?

 

[bill smith]

Why not ask the members of the truth movement?

Would you really let Heiwa design a building for you?

If you play football you want to have a level playing field....right ? Well the same with the Hardfire show. That was nohere near a level playing field. That loked like only one side with it's own referee. Do you think RM would have had it all his own way if Heiwa had been here to speak for himself ?

 

[Metullus]

Yes

 

[beachnut]

If you play football you want to have a level playing field....right ? Well the same with the Hardfire show. That was nohere near a level playing field. That loked like only one side with it's own referee. Do you think RM would have had it all his own way if Heiwa had been here to speak for himself ?

Second that yes...

Go ahead refute the presentation; present the opposite of science; present your failed 911 ideas based on hearsay, lies and fantasy.

You can do it.

What a debate! Bring on the rebuttal. What was wrong in the presentation? Do you have a list? When will you be ready? So far you have quibbled about no opposition to straightforward science. You can oppose science with delusions?

This is your moment to oppose science and prove your best delusions on 911 to oppose the presentation.
Heiwa's ideas are pure junk; why would you want to see someone present fantasy?
Step back into the dark ages and deny science!

 

[Bad_Doggie]

Ryan, I’d like to congratulate you on your latest contribution to 9/11 related education. The shows and slides are informative, educational and compliment your previous work.

Regarding overall behavior, this is precisely the reason I took to a different form of medium in the first place. The Internet discussions are dead. Have been dead for years. This thread and the misbehavior in it should leave no doubt whatsoever, as if any remained, that the reason people are confused is because they want to be confused. This is why the Truth Movement hardly exists outside the Internet -- this is an environment where such attitudes are common.

As you are aware, the “Truth” moment is in a state of collapse and is unable to put forward any new information or for that matter a coherent hypothesis in the scientific or engineering community. Or, for that matter, even here on JREF.

However, the debate (propaganda?) is still continuing over the internet via less scientifically orientated forums by individuals without the necessary scientific back ground to refute some of the claims made by the “Truth” movement. Where this goes in the future or if this will be exploited, for political aims, no one knows.

The whole 9/11 inside job debate should remind us that the irrational has an attraction even to people of good intent. The sheer volume of some of these claims can overwhelm masses of evidence and persuade people to regard the most outrageous and untenable notions as fact. This is easier to accomplish when the public does not have the technical knowledge necessary to refute these irrational and inherently fantastic claims. Ultimately the ability of some to keep repeating GriffCo’s conclusions even though they have been discredited are another indication that truth is far more fragile than fiction and that reason alone cannot protect it.

Although, all have access to engineering and technical reports the majority have neither the “time” nor the technical expertise to sift through these tombs. I think the true value of your work is not in the way you have constantly driven holes though the “Truth” movement’s claims but that you do it in a way that is accessible, entertaining and educational to the masses. If we look at the actions of The Holocaust deniers this could become of more importance as time passes.

To this end, I am wondering if you have any intent to do a review of the NIST WTC 7 final report and the Truth movement’s claims? I know that I have asked you this before and at that point you stated that you had no intention to. Just wondering if you had reconsidered?

My concern over the actions and methodology of the “Truth” movement has become increasingly heightened by the realisation of the linkages that are being made between 9/11, Holocaust denial and far right political movements which makes accurate and accessible information paramount over as wide a spectrum as possible. But most particularly the internet as that is where the current (future) generation get most if not all of their information from.

Woof!

 

[tsig]

If you play football you want to have a level playing field....right ? Well the same with the Hardfire show. That was nohere near a level playing field. That loked like only one side with it's own referee. Do you think RM would have had it all his own way if Heiwa had been here to speak for himself ?

My post mentioned nothing about football however mention of it did serve to divert attention.

Whenever you are asked a direct question you always dodge, divert or deceive.
Why is that?

Now let's try again, would you hire Heiwa to design a building for you?

 

[bill smith]

My post mentioned nothing about football however mention of it did serve to divert attention.

Whenever you are asked a direct question you always dodge, divert or deceive.
Why is that?

Now let's try again, would you hire Heiwa to design a building for you?

My current architects would be teed off if I did.I would certainly ask him to judge the integrity of the design.Especially if it was a steel framed structure.

 

[tsig]

My current architects would be teed off if I did.I would certainly ask him to judge the integrity of the design.Especially if it was a steel framed structure.

When you build your next building and have Heiwa sign off on the design, could you share the math?

Some are dying to see his calculations others will probably be dying if you follow them.

 

[beachnut]

My current architects would be teed off if I did.I would certainly ask him to judge the integrity of the design.Especially if it was a steel framed structure.

Better run this past your current architects if you want to see how big a joke Heiwa's ideas are. Go ahead and tell us what they think.

Heiwa did not step up to appear on ‘Hardfire,” the producer invited him. Why do you just talk instead of checking the facts and taking the time to investigate.

 

[Klimax]

All three are done. Enjoy. To recap:

First Show: Intro to the Scientific Method, quantification, applying to WTC impacts

Second Show: Part II, finishing WTC impacts, Q&A on AA 175

Third Show: Explaining how and why to model, simple model of WTC collapses, scaling

Again, an annotated and extended version of the slides can be found here and here.

Good video,but there is problem around 16 minutes in - audio/video synchronization disappears;audio is about five seconds ahead.

Otherwise good explanation of models and description of one.

 

[Mr.Herbert]

"There are many more logical fallacies and lies told by Mackey throughout Part 3. ........"

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?s=&showtopic=16647&view=findpost&p=10768741

(don't forget to use your IP hider when accessing blow hard Bob's website.)

• Ron plugs the mug. Priceless, especially when "troofers" are chastized when raising funds to keep operating. Conculsion - those who make excuses for the govt story will continue to attack the support structure of any group/organization attempting to raise funds while researching 9/11, but let Hardfire/Mackey slide on their shameless plugs. Read: Hypocrisy.
• 04:07 - Mackey, "Our model is very simple, we are going to leave out alot of very important things...", such as core columns in his illustration.
• Mackey assumes upper floor mass remains constant, only to increase mass on the way down by adding floors - Conclusion = Logical Fallacy, deceptive.. the upper floors (as well as lower floors) were shedding mass outside floor surface area during collapse. Model is flawed.

Example: Upper floor Mass disintgrates/shed mass outwards as lower floors remain intact.

• Mackey, "You should 'tweak' your model". Conclusion - Mackey has been caught many times "tweaking" his models towards his bias, not to mention flat out wrong.
• 19:55 - Blatant lie from Mackey. NIST does not feel "impact damage" contributed to WTC7 Collapse.
• Mackey claims his opinion that fires were likely cause. Mackey unfamilar with OSHA Class A Skyscrapers. Mackey assumes highly flammable substances are allowed in skyscrapers. Jet fuel is not an excuse as seen in the Edna Cintron photos. Fires were not "large" as claimed by Mackey.
• Mackey completely omitted WTC 7 from entire series. Just as the 9/11 Commission.
• End of show - Ron admits the show is about debate - not lecture. Claims "No one will step up for debate". Blatant lie.

There will be a limit to the amount of laughing dogs allowed after reading this. ( 12 per member)

 

[beachnut]

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?s=&showtopic=16647&view=findpost&p=10768741

(don't forget to use your IP hider when accessing blow hard Bob's website.)

[/list]There will be a limit to the amount of laughing dogs allowed after reading this. ( 12 per member)

Ignorance flows freely from dolts. I think Balsamo has hit the bottom he makes up perverted sexual fantasy at p4tf to insult Mackey since Balsamo failed to get parasite drag right. It proves Balsamo is also failed at personal attacks, aeronautical knowledge, physics, math, and more.

After seeing some of the posts around the Internet on Mackey; it is like a contest for who can be the biggest idiot as they compete to make the dumbest post.

 

[R.Mackey]

Yeah, there's a weird glitch in the middle of the third show. Gary is trying to fix it. I'll probably have another update with the cleaned-up version again.

I actually should thank Cap'n Bob for his continued demonstration of his own ineptness... My particular favorite in the above is where he confuses "impact damage" of WTC 1 and 2 with that of WTC 7 -- leaving us to wonder whether he's being dishonest in his criticism, or is just even more confused than usual -- followed only two lines later by him taking "confused" off the table by confirming that the lecture wasn't about WTC 7 at all. That's just bad.

In the future, if anyone should ask me why I don't waste any time on Cap'n Bob, I'll just refer them to these responses. Whatever his problem is, he just doesn't have what it takes to debate. Can you imagine going live with a guy like that, making things up, dissembling, deliberately confusing the issue at every turn? It would be an utter waste of time.

To bill smith, you might appreciate the fact that Heiwa is at this very moment in touch with Ron and Gary, and if he wants to do his own show with them, I'm sure it could be worked out. But the playing field is completely level. Science is the very definition of a level playing field. All Heiwa has to do is make a valid scientific argument. He can do this at the level of peer-reviewed publications, in which case he'll have to stand up to the likes of Dr. Bazant and Dr. Quintiere; he can attempt it at the conference level, where he'll go head to head with Arup and others; or he can even put together his own lecture.

He's done none of these, of course, and he won't as long as he clings to completely idiotic claims such as "scale doesn't matter." Utter balderdash. I thought everyone learned this at an early age -- why ants can carry fifty times their own weight, while a human-sized ant could not, etc. -- but apparently not.

Science is impartial. What could be more level than that? We don't have to be in the same room, granted equal time, to assure equal truthiness. That's politics, not science. Come up with a valid result, or stop whining. You'll notice in my lecture and my presentation slides I work very hard to tease the Truth Movement into participating, but I have no expectation that they will.

 

[Reheat]

I actually should thank Cap'n Bob for his continued demonstration of his own ineptness... My particular favorite in the above is where he confuses "impact damage" of WTC 1 and 2 with that of WTC 7 -- leaving us to wonder whether he's being dishonest in his criticism, or is just even more confused than usual -- followed only two lines later by him taking "confused" off the table by confirming that the lecture wasn't about WTC 7 at all. That's just bad.

In the future, if anyone should ask me why I don't waste any time on Cap'n Bob, I'll just refer them to these responses. Whatever his problem is, he just doesn't have what it takes to debate. Can you imagine going live with a guy like that, making things up, dissembling, deliberately confusing the issue at every turn? It would be an utter waste of time.

Make no mistake about it Cap'n Bob is a delusional idiot of the first order. He wants so desperately to gain main stream attention, but it has been denied for good reason.

It is amusing, but at the same time sad to watch as he tries to finagle his way through his 9/11 delusions in an attempt to either sell DVD's or fulfill his imaginary dreams. I'm not at all sure of the motivation, but I am sure of the results. He manipulates conclusions to fit with his delusions in virtually everything he says and does.

While his mantra is that the Government provided data does not support an impact with the building at the Pentagon, his subsequent words and actions do not follow that theme. He only uses that as an excuse to hopefully gain more legitimate membership in his organization. The very best example of this is his active support for the CIT idiots. He actively supports them on his Web Site and has appeared on fringe lunatic program with them.

In fact, he has no other alternative, but to support CIT, else his mantra has no legitimate conclusion. AA77 is not levitating in mid air over the skies of Arlington, so something must have happened since the "Government" supplied information does not support the "Government" explanation of what happened at the Pentagon.

To engage in legitimate debate with him only accomplishes HIS objective. All you can hope for is a draw, simply because he will eventually invoke the typical truther cry of "all Government data is fake, has been manipulated, et al".

All he and those like him deserve is utter contempt, ridicule and mockery. To do anything more simply fits with his agenda.

His threats directed toward Gravy are only the tip of the iceberg. If you'll review the implications behind his recent postings it is quite obvious that he possesses an intense hatred toward his detractors that has an undefinable conclusion.

Beware of lions in sheep's disguise..... He is a NO PLANER AT THE PENTAGON and deserves to be treated just like the NO PLANERS at the WTC, IGNORED!

 

[Heiwa]

Science is the very definition of a level playing field. All Heiwa has to do is make a valid scientific argument. He can do this at the level of peer-reviewed publications, in which case he'll have to stand up to the likes of Dr. Bazant and Dr. Quintiere; he can attempt it at the conference level, where he'll go head to head with Arup and others; or he can even put together his own lecture.

He's done none of these, of course, and he won't as long as he clings to completely idiotic claims such as "scale doesn't matter."

I think my three articles on my web site suffice that many link to. Easy to copy/paste from them to avoid misquoting and other tricks.

Just show me a structure A (isotropic or composite), where a piece C of it (C = 1/10A), when dropped on A, crushes A.

This structure is evidently independent of scale = scale doesn't matter. If the structure is big or small doesn't matter the least. Just propose and show one that doesn't behave as I predict in my axiom.

 

[bill smith]

To bill smith, you might appreciate the fact that Heiwa is at this very moment in touch with Ron and Gary, and if he wants to do his own show with them, I'm sure it could be worked out. But the playing field is completely level. Science is the very definition of a level playing field. All Heiwa has to do is make a valid scientific argument. He can do this at the level of peer-reviewed publications, in which case he'll have to stand up to the likes of Dr. Bazant and Dr. Quintiere; he can attempt it at the conference level, where he'll go head to head with Arup and others; or he can even put together his own lecture.

He's done none of these, of course, and he won't as long as he clings to completely idiotic claims such as "scale doesn't matter." Utter balderdash. I thought everyone learned this at an early age -- why ants can carry fifty times their own weight, while a human-sized ant could not, etc. -- but apparently not.

Science is impartial. What could be more level than that? We don't have to be in the same room, granted equal time, to assure equal truthiness. That's politics, not science. Come up with a valid result, or stop whining. You'll notice in my lecture and my presentation slides I work very hard to tease the Truth Movement into participating, but I have no expectation that they will.

The host on the Hardfire show said that he could get no Truther to appear as a counterpart to you.But if, as appears to be the case with Heiwa no invitation to appear was actually extended by the Hardfire Show to any of the more significant Truthers, all the teasing in the world will not get them on the Show. The result was that you had a clear unimpeded run at putting your side of the story.

That would not matter so much had he host not SAID that no Truther would appear. We know from Heiwa that he received no invitation to participate which begs the question 'were any of the other significant truthers asked either ' ?. Given that Heiwa was mentioned by name several times and that he was grossly misquoted- just one example- 'Heiwa says that a structure cannot be destroyed' (and this on a show dealing woith the PHYSICS of the collapse mind you) it is a travesty that you can say it was a level playing field. It is self evident that if you rubbish sombodies work while not giving him a chance to defend himself and then give the clear impression that he had declined to prticipate....why, that is no less than sabotage.

The host of the Hardfire Show could always publish a copy of the invitations he sent out along with a list of adressees. This would go some way towards repairing the damage.

Science is impartial, but scientists may not be. Scale is interesting but plays no part in the argument as we are dealing with the known size and properties of a structure. The scale thing only applies to making a smaller model and is therefore somewhat irrelevent .


I am curious to know if you can in fact provide an answer to Heiwa's question. To wit:-

'' Just show me a structure A (isotropic or composite), where a piece C of it (C = 1/10A), when dropped on A, crushes A.''

Cheers billl.