Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
Dave,....It can be shown structurally that if the outer core columns were dropping they would in fact pull the perimeter columns inwardly through the floor system, which would then cause them to buckle....
...that bit is true. Only bit missing is that there was no demolition.
...It is very plausible that a demolition could be set up to remove the outer core columns. If the corners of the perimeter are then cut the building will come straight down with the perimeters losing their orthogonal support and petaling outward as observed.
...don't forget that, as you fantasise situations, the real process was happening and it was already peeling off the outer wall columns in the sheets which fell unbuckled etc....
So again the reality of no demolition does not require the fantasy mechanisms....whether they are plausible or not....they did not happen.
The NMSR site misrepresents what the Missing Jolt paper is saying
Dave,
On your site you mention the Missing Jolt paper, of which I am a co-author. You claim that we are trying to measure the impulse itself and are unable to do so since it occurs over a shorter duration than what the frame durations are. In other words, you claim we can't measure it because the impulse is a few milliseconds long and the videos are composed of frozen frames with 33 milliseconds between them.
While it may be true that the impulse could be shorter in duration than the time between frames, it is not true that we are trying to see the impulse itself. What we actually did was determine the energy of dissipation and looked for the attendant velocity loss, which would then take about 600 to 800 milliseconds to recover and would be very observable with a 30 frame per second video and measurements taken every 167 milliseconds.
I would appreciate a retraction on your website to clarify the matter.
I also don't see how you can possibly determine that a velocity loss of just 1 mph would be sufficient to accomplish the task of column deformation required to continue the collapse. We conservatively calculated the loss to be 76% of the velocity during the first impact. 76% of 19 mph is about 14.5 mph, not 1 mph. You have a serious error here and I can't correct it for you as you show no calculations to back up your assertion.
You've already garnered a modbox warning about staying on-topic, the topic being the actual debate. So stop trying to derail this thread to other 'pet' topics. As has already been mentioned, there are plenty of other threads to discuss those.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: LashL
You have the second part twice in there. The part around 20 minutes in to 45 minutes is being repeated. Thanks!
God did that bore me. I skipped and skipped through creepy Gage and when they both came together I was so bored of listening to the crap Gage would dish out I couldn't but shut it off.
On your site you mention the Missing Jolt paper, of which I am a co-author. You claim that we are trying to measure the impulse itself and are unable to do so since it occurs over a shorter duration than what the frame durations are. In other words, you claim we can't measure it because the impulse is a few milliseconds long and the videos are composed of frozen frames with 33 milliseconds between them.
While it may be true that the impulse could be shorter in duration than the time between frames, it is not true that we are trying to see the impulse itself. What we actually did was determine the energy of dissipation and looked for the attendant velocity loss, which would then take about 600 to 800 milliseconds to recover and would be very observable with a 30 frame per second video and measurements taken every 167 milliseconds.
I would appreciate a retraction on your website to clarify the matter.
Tony, will you please insist to your association that they correct the multiple mistakes in their web?
For example, the "pyroclastic flow". The dust cloud is in no way a pyroclastic flowWP, and especially, the dust cloud is not an distinctive indication of a controlled demolition unlike what is stated here:
Instead, it is a characteristic of collapses due to fire as can be seen e.g. here:
and here:
and here:
They also state that "pools of molten metal" are a distinctive characteristic of controlled demolition, something that can't be seen in any demolition whatsoever. Could you please also direct them to get this fixed?
[nfurl]www.ae911truth.org/ppt_web/10min/slideshow.php?i=37[/nfurl]
Also, they say that a free fall is a characteristic of controlled demolition:
[nfurl]www.ae911truth.org/ppt_web/10min/slideshow.php?i=26[/nfurl]
However, we know well that the towers did not fall in free fall, thus they lack at least one characteristic of controlled demolition, yet they are insinuating that the towers meet the 10 criteria they state for controlled demolition, of which some are clearly wrong as stated above. This is obviously incorrect and needs clarification.
Also, in this article:
[nfurl]www.ae911truth.org/info/7[/nfurl]
it says the following:
NIST has not yet released a final report on the proposed cause for the collapse of WTC 7, nor did the Commission mention that building in its Final Report.
By the time that news item was released, NIST had indeed not yet released its report, that part is accurate. However, the second part stating that the Commission didn't mention that building is blatantly inaccurate, as can be quickly checked by going to any online version and doing a text search for "7 WTC". These kinds of mistakes make one think that the basis for accusing is only hearsay and not a reading of the criticized material, which clearly undermines the credibility of the 9/11™.
The same mistake appears actually several times in that web, e.g. here:
Also the 9/11 Commission Report did not mention the 47-story WTC 7, which fell the afternoon that the two towers fell in the morning! A sure sign of a false report.
which is a bit strong an accusation for being based on hearsay, or also here:
World Trade Center 7, a 47-story, properly secured steel building, in which the CIA and the secret service resided, collapsed about seven hours after the Twin Towers did, although it was never hit by any plane. In the official "9/11 Commission Report", this building is not mentioned at all.
So, please take the necessary steps within your association to get all of these corrected. You surely can find many more mistakes, being part of the association.
Dave Thomas and the debunkers won this debate. They won it by actually showing up and talking. Because when anything as obvious as the controlled demolition of three huge skyscrapers is left "open" for "debate" the debunkers automatically win.
It's like saying, "The earth is flat!" and then walking out. "I win!! I win!!"
Dave Thomas and the debunkers won this debate. They won it by actually showing up and talking. Because when anything as obvious as the controlled demolition of three huge skyscrapers is left "open" for "debate" the debunkers automatically win.
It's like saying, "The earth is flat!" and then walking out. "I win!! I win!!"
I went to your NMSR site per the link provided on this thread and have to say I was surprised to see that you had Dr. Bazant's early hypothesis of a 31 g dynamic load posted there. This has been shown to be impossible by those arguing for the present official hypothesis as well as those arguing against it.
First, it isn't possible for an impacting object with a factor of safety of 3.00 to 5.00 to transmit a dynamic load of 31 g's. The upper section would have come apart and that would have been the end of the pile driver.
Second, Dr. Bazant is off by a factor of ten on the axial stiffness of the columns in the tower. Their stiffness was 7.1 GN/m not 71 GN/m. Maybe it was a misplaced decimal point, but nonetheless his stiffness estimate is seriously erroneous.
Third, your test of loose rice in a bag does not legitimately represent loose rubble as the bag provides a restraint causing the rice to act somewhat in unison, which would not be true of loose rubble developed in a building collision.
With the real axial stiffness of 7.1 GN/m the largest dynamic load possible was 11 g's and even then, with the full mass of the upper section participating, the impacting structure could not survive that and thus could not transmit it. This is not to say that a dynamic load was not possible but it would have to be a lower value to conform to the observation of the upper section remaining somewhat intact past the first several floor collisions.
However, to have a dynamic load the the impacting object needs to decelerate at a rate greater than 1 g and the amplification depends on how many multiples of g the deceleration value is. There was no deceleration in the descent of the upper section of WTC 1 and the perimeter walls of the upper section were stiff enough to transmit it if there had been any. Thus the lack of deceleration or constant acceleration of the upper section proves there was no dynamic load.
Apparently, in an article to be published in the Sept. 2010 issue of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Dr. Bazant himself has finally entered the debate on this issue and attempts to argue that the velocity drop would have been imperceptible at the roofline. His opinion is refuted by every single Verinage demolition, where deceleration of the upper section does occur and is very perceptible and measureable at the roofline.
The evidence is that there was no dynamic load in the collapse of WTC 1. Ryan Mackey recognized this in our debate on Hardfire and tried to argue that the upper section fell on the floors due to the tilt causing misalignment of the upper and lower columns. Unfortunately for his argument, it has been shown that the tilt was not nearly significant enough to cause the columns to miss each other, and there should have been a perceptible jolt if the collapse was natural. The only reason there wouldn't be is if the column strength below was being largely removed in an unnatural way.
Please keep on-topic. This thread is about the actual debate. There are plenty of other threads to discuss specific 9/11 issues.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: Gaspode
Mods, I beg your indulgence to respond to this comment on the thread I started about the C2C debate.
Tony, I tried out your lower value of the stiffness parameter (7.1 GN/m), and while the dynamic forces were reduced accordingly, they were still more than enough to exceed the safety factor you cite, 3.00 to 5.00. In other words, the towers still fell.
I show that the average acceleration of the series of freefalls and brief decelerations I calculated in this article is 6.19 m/sec^2.
I submit as supporting evidence the careful measurements of David Chandler, which show that the average acceleration of WTC1 for the first four seconds of descent was 6.31 m/s^2.
That is, unless you think the collapse was some weird sort of quantum or cosmic physics that locally reduced the acceleration of gravity to two-thirds of its actual value.
You made a comment at the end of the debate that no controlled demolition mechanism can account for the inward pull on the perimeter columns.
It can be shown structurally that if the outer core columns were dropping they would in fact pull the perimeter columns inwardly through the floor system, which would then cause them to buckle.
It is very plausible that a demolition could be set up to remove the outer core columns. If the corners of the perimeter are then cut the building will come straight down with the perimeters losing their orthogonal support and petaling outward as observed.
On your site you mention the Missing Jolt paper, of which I am a co-author. You claim that we are trying to measure the impulse itself and are unable to do so since it occurs over a shorter duration than what the frame durations are. In other words, you claim we can't measure it because the impulse is a few milliseconds long and the videos are composed of frozen frames with 33 milliseconds between them.
While it may be true that the impulse could be shorter in duration than the time between frames, it is not true that we are trying to see the impulse itself. What we actually did was determine the energy of dissipation and looked for the attendant velocity loss, which would then take about 600 to 800 milliseconds to recover and would be very observable with a 30 frame per second video and measurements taken every 167 milliseconds.
I would appreciate a retraction on your website to clarify the matter.
I also don't see how you can possibly determine that a velocity loss of just 1 mph would be sufficient to accomplish the task of column deformation required to continue the collapse. We conservatively calculated the loss to be 76% of the velocity during the first impact. 76% of 19 mph is about 14.5 mph, not 1 mph. You have a serious error here and I can't correct it for you as you show no calculations to back up your assertion.
Hey there. You're right! I recognize you from a video response you made to musicmaker. He's such a clown! I can't even engage him anymore because he's just so ridiculous. He constantly asks for proof and then hand waves that proof away when you show it to him. Short of him actually being on one of the planes that were hijacked himself, he's simply not going to believe anything! I like to stop by and ridicule him every so often because that's all he's worth. I'm trying to get him to answer how many people were involved in "the conspiracy" and he's doing his best to weazel out of an answer.
For those of you who probably don't know, musicmaker on youtube is most probably (and someone may know defintitvely) Ace Baker.
Otherwise, things are good! Have you engaged mooners40 over there? He's the only other thorn in my side, as he has a new cut-and-paste theory every week, yet easily defeated because he doesn't really understand what he is talking about and doesn't have a readily available cut-and-paste response. Another Griffin follower who can't think for himself and actually thinks Griffin has debunked NIST!
It's sad really!
His latest theory is that NIST's explanation hinges on thermal expansion of shear studs and since concrete has an equal expansion coefficient it shouldn't have happened. Five minutes of research shows what an ignoramus he is!
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
