Invitation for Java Man to discuss his 9/11 theory

[ElMondoHummus]

Correct. Thus not complete. To say that the buildings collapsed in such and such seconds and call it a complete report is like replacing the whole NIST report with a page that says: "Two airplanes crashed into the buildings and they fell".

Are you dense? Nobody's saying the FAQ is anything less than a portion of what NIST has published.

You are really barking up the wrong tree with this one. Whether NIST published that in a FAQ, put it in a press release, or stated it during an interview with one of their spokespeople is irrelevant. What matters is what they measured, and how it fits into the overall narrative.

 

[Java Man]

Are you dense? Nobody's saying the FAQ is anything less than a portion of what NIST has published.

You are really barking up the wrong tree with this one. Whether NIST published that in a FAQ, put it in a press release, or stated it during an interview with one of their spokespeople is irrelevant. What matters is what they measured, and how it fits into the overall narrative.

You're just trying to disguise a simple statement in a FAQ as a complete report it is not. You're also trying to raise an issue regarding the "presence" of time values to counter my claims and also a smoke screen to draw attention from the fact that the report does not address the collapse.

The presence of such values in a FAQ does not make a report complete. You can dress it up all you want, but it remains lacking.

 

[Dave Rogers]

So, we're still waiting for Java Man to get to A in his A to Z exposition of what he thinks happened on 9/11. Will it be this year, or has he got another three months' worth of whingeing about how the investigations didn't meet his personally chosen and thoroughly unreasonable standards before he actually says anything substantive?

Dave

 

[Justin39640]

excaza, one of my main concerns is that a country that spends so much in defense (more than China, France, UK, Russia, Japan, Germany... etc together [aprox following 16 countries]) fails to prevent an incident like this and then fails to fully investigate it.

Trillion dollar defense systems are designed to defend against trillion dollar aggression. There were cracks in the system and Al Queda took advantage of it.

 

[Newtons Bit]

You're just trying to disguise a simple statement in a FAQ as a complete report it is not. You're also trying to raise an issue regarding the "presence" of time values to counter my claims and also a smoke screen to draw attention from the fact that the report does not address the collapse.

The presence of such values in a FAQ does not make a report complete. You can dress it up all you want, but it remains lacking.

Bull.

What is it that investigation lacked that would otherwise show "inside job"? You say it's incomplete. I say bull. And I'm coming from the viewpoint of a structural engineer. That report provided me everything I needed to know about the buildings and why they stood up for as long as they did.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Trillion dollar defense systems are designed to defend against trillion dollar aggression. There were cracks in the system and Al Queda took advantage of it.

I have to wonder why our trillion dollar defense system didn't stop <insert local murderer>. It's supposed to defend, right?

Why did we create the Department of Homeland security if the military is what defends us against 9/11 events?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

You're just trying to disguise a simple statement in a FAQ as a complete report it is not. You're also trying to raise an issue regarding the "presence" of time values to counter my claims and also a smoke screen to draw attention from the fact that the report does not address the collapse.

The presence of such values in a FAQ does not make a report complete. You can dress it up all you want, but it remains lacking.

You're kidding me. That's your response?

For the second (third, whatever) time: No one is making that claim! We are correcting your error in stating that the collapse times are not addressed. They are. See previous link. We know your claim is that the report is "incomplete"; the point is that your complaint about the collapse times is 1. Wrong, and 2. Irrelevant to your claim about the rest of the report.

Furthermore, it's been discussed time and time again why NIST never considered anything beyond the point the collapse became unstoppable, and that is due to the difficulties in computer modeling past the point. NIST analyzed the conditions leading up to the collapse and modeled the initiation of it, but analysis beyond the building being compromised to the point of failure is not only irrelevant, it's a practical impossibility. There were millions of elements to model, and God knows how many interactions (collisions, etc.) between them to account for, and because of that, after a certain point, the model gets too complex to analyze. The only thing that's known by (in actuality, before) that point is that the towers are already collapsing, and that there's nothing to stop that before the collapse reaches the ground.

Now, if you choose to call that "incomplete", you have to lay out why it is so. From the engineering world's point of view, the analysis is entirely complete because it does determine why the towers collapsed. It shows how it started, and gets to the point where the collapse is unstoppable; any modeling after that is as irrelevant to engineering concerns as a discussion of where the pieces of a shattered headlight landed in a car accident report: It's already enough to know that one guy ran a red light, or swerved into another lane.

 

[Java Man]

That report provided me everything I needed to know about the buildings and why they stood up for as long as they did.

Right, exactly my point. It provides everything you need to know as to why they stood up for so long. But as soon as they begin to collapse the report goes blank. Thus not covering the collapse that followed.

I see we are not in disagreement as to what is and what is not covered in the NIST report.

 

[Myriad]

I have to wonder about defense in the NFL. Teams of men who have devoted years or decades of their lives to training, conditioning, and practice, men so elite that they can demand and receive millions of dollars per year for their services, utterly devoted to success, go out every week of the season with a clear and specific mission: to stop the other team from gaining yards and scoring points.

Yet every week, offenses gain thousands of yards and score hundreds of points. The NFL defense system, which costs billions of dollars a year, fails to meet even its minimal acceptable objective half the time.

Yes, this is relevant, if you think about the reasons why.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Bull.

What is it that investigation lacked that would otherwise show "inside job"? You say it's incomplete. I say bull. And I'm coming from the viewpoint of a structural engineer. That report provided me everything I needed to know about the buildings and why they stood up for as long as they did.

It is BS, because his statement of it being "incomplete" shows a total ignorance of the purpose of the NIST report. It accomplished it's goal: It established what failures caused the structure to collapse, and even went above and beyond that to model the collapse initiation itself. If JM wants to continue with his claim that this is somehow incomplete, he must state why it is so. The causal elements were identified.

 

[Java Man]

Now, if you choose to call that "incomplete", you have to lay out why it is so.

I already did. Because all that NIST addresses about the collapse is two time figures in a FAQ. Why the do that? Well you just answered it, it was to "hard" for them. Or maybe that's another way of saying they ran out of budget.

Regardless of the cause there is a serious lack of information and modeling regarding the collapse that is at the same level and quality as the information explaining the cause of the collapse.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Right, exactly my point. It provides everything you need to know as to why they stood up for so long. But as soon as they begin to collapse the report goes blank. Thus not covering the collapse that followed.

I see we are not in disagreement as to what is and what is not covered in the NIST report.

You've already been linked to the portion of the NIST investigation that showed why the collapse continued after initiation. Why are you returning to a subject that has been already debunked? It was just a few hours ago. Is your memory that poor or are you just dishonest?

Based on your behavior thus far in this thread, I'm going to go with dishonest.

 

[Java Man]

I have to wonder about defense in the NFL. Teams of men who have devoted years or decades of their lives to training, conditioning, and practice, men so elite that they can demand and receive millions of dollars per year for their services, utterly devoted to success, go out every week of the season with a clear and specific mission: to stop the other team from gaining yards and scoring points.

Yet every week, offenses gain thousands of yards and score hundreds of points. The NFL defense system, which costs billions of dollars a year, fails to meet even its minimal acceptable objective half the time.

Yes, this is relevant, if you think about the reasons why.

Respectfully,
Myriad

So let me see if I understand you. You're equating the importance of a quarterback to that of the Pentagon?

 

[Myriad]

Right, exactly my point. It provides everything you need to know as to why they stood up for so long. But as soon as they begin to collapse the report goes blank. Thus not covering the collapse that followed.

I see we are not in disagreement as to what is and what is not covered in the NIST report.

When a dam breaks, you demand a report explaining why the dam broke.

You don't demand a report explaining why, after the dam broke, the water poured out and rushed downhill and knocked over buildings in its way.

You don't need to explain that because everybody already knows that's how water behaves.

Not everyone knows why once the top of a building starts moving downward, the rest of the building underneath it gets crushed. It's a much rarer event, after all. But those who do have reason to know it, know it with just as much certainty as you know that water flows downhill.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I already did. Because all that NIST addresses about the collapse is two time figures in a FAQ. Why the do that? Well you just answered it, it was to "hard" for them. Or maybe that's another way of saying they ran out of budget.

Regardless of the cause there is a serious lack of information and modeling regarding the collapse that is at the same level and quality as the information explaining the cause of the collapse.

Aha. So, the root cause of your misunderstanding is that the NIST report did not discuss anything beyond collapse initiation. Is that correct?

 

[Newtons Bit]

I already did. Because all that NIST addresses about the collapse is two time figures in a FAQ. Why the do that? Well you just answered it, it was to "hard" for them. Or maybe that's another way of saying they ran out of budget.

Regardless of the cause there is a serious lack of information and modeling regarding the collapse that is at the same level and quality as the information explaining the cause of the collapse.

Engineers don't waste money. The collapse was nearly impossible to model with state of the practice technology but, more importantly, POINTLESS. There is no mechanism to stop the upper-block. Even the columns of the lower block could not resist the moving mass of the upper block. See the paper by Bazant and Zhou. NIST references it as part of their report.

 

[Java Man]

You've already been linked to the portion of the NIST investigation that showed why the collapse continued after initiation. Why are you returning to a subject that has been already debunked? It was just a few hours ago. Is your memory that poor or are you just dishonest?

Based on your behavior thus far in this thread, I'm going to go with dishonest.

I understand the report says that after collapse was initiated it was unstoppable, etc etc etc.

But that's like cutting out thousands of pages of the NIST report and reducing to "The buildings collapsed because the fires couldn't be stopped" and on top of that calling this "Cliffs Notes" edition complete.

 

[Myriad]

So let me see if I understand you. You're equating the importance of a quarterback to that of the Pentagon?

You do not understand me. For one thing, quarterbacks do not play defense.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Justin39640]

Right, exactly my point. It provides everything you need to know as to why they stood up for so long. But as soon as they begin to collapse the report goes blank. Thus not covering the collapse that followed.

I see we are not in disagreement as to what is and what is not covered in the NIST report.

Why would it be? After initiation (fire, CD, or otherwise) the building is going to fall down. The idea was to figure out why the buildings failed (in the amount of time that they did) and how to prevent or prolong that in the future (to give more time to evacuate a structure). How they fell after initiation is irrelevant. This is something "you people" can't grasp.

 

[triforcharity]

So let me see if I understand you. You're equating the importance of a quarterback to that of the Pentagon?

Quarterback does not play on defense. That would be the offense.