Split Thread SAIC, ARA and 9/11 (split from "All 43 videos...")

[Lyrandar]

Actually, Lyrandar, your assertion that listing the proof that has already been posted would make the discussion move a little faster is not correct based on my experience. I say that because I have listed the proof I have put forward more than once in this thread and yet, requests like yours for more listing, a variation on the 'more proof demand' fallacy, will very likely continue to exist and will persist, irrespective of the observed and observable data

In the preceding sentence is contained a hint about some of the types of proof put forward in this thread. I wonder do you get it?

No. I don't get it. And while I could go back through and make sure my interpretations of your posts in this thread are correct, I think it would be quicker for you to tell me what you think constitutes evidence and link to or repost it.

You might still receive demands for more proof after that, but only if what you submit isn't sufficient evidence. If you're worried about that, I suggest you do your best to post sufficient evidence the first time. You may wish to consult with someone else as to what constitutes sufficient evidence - a second opinion will probably help.

Did it hurt to make the decision to post a claim rather than put forward lazy rhetoric? I hope not.

It "hurt" because what I posted was essentially a challenge asking you to read and respond to some of the previous refutations of the DEW theory dressed up in pretty words. It's been done before, albeit not quite with such a word salad.

Anyway, on to your points:

1--You appear to want to place the focus on the device, gizmo or gadget that was used, (henceforth: DEWgizmo). It is wrong to do that.

Why? If we can prove that such a device is not physically possible with current technology, it is then quite simple to prove that DEW weren't a factor in 9/11.

If we do find that such things are possible, then knowing how the device works will tell us exactly what effects to look for - the observed effects from an X-ray laser are different from a near IR laser for example. If we don't see any pattern of observed effects that matches what we expect to for any known type of DEW, then again, that should tell us something about whether or not they were used.

2--It is wrong to select a method of proof that will, inevitably, lead you into a realm where you cannot get the information you need.

Depends on why you end up with no information/evidence. In some cases, you would be right. In others, a method of proof leading to no information or evidence is a clue that what you're looking for doesn't exist/ is false.

3--DEW are secret devices. Let me give you an example. I here assert DEW were used about a year or so ago to zap a falling satellite. Do you remember that episode? What was noteworthy about it was that it wasn't videoed so that the public could see it. The military spokesperson who spoke about said things that made no sense and the identity of that spokesperson, to and including his name and rank, were hidden so that not even the identity of the spokesperson could be known.

Basically, you're saying we have no idea what "current technology" even is. Which is true, but only to a point. If the DEW technology currently in existence was one order of magnitude below what the WTC destruction would require, I might be willing to believe that the government had something that good. Five orders of magnitude... not so much. Secret technology is better than what the public gets (sometimes), but not that much better.

On top of that, there are certain physical limits. No matter how much better the technology gets, it would take a major breakthrough in the sciences to overcome those. You can't really hide breakthroughs of that sort forever, so we can assume that those limits are valid.

4--Thus, by placing the focus on the DEWgizmo, you set yourself up for failure. You do not want to fail, do you?

I want to know what the truth is. I think focusing on the weapon itself is a good test to see if this theory can possibly be the truth.

5--Separate and apart from the practical limitations on placing the focus on DEWgizmo, there exists an even more important reason for not going there; namely, the best evidence of the event consists in assessment of the lethality effects. That is what Dr. Judy Wood did and that is what NIST, aided and abetted by SAIC and ARA, did not do. Dr. Wood investigated the event where the lethal effects occurred. NIST did not investigate that event.

6--Neither you nor anyone else that I know of who has gone down the DEWgizmo path has done an assessment of the lethal effects. For that reason, the approach you suggest and seem to embrace is flawed to the point of being completely useless, irrelevant and an improper distraction.

I'll take these points together... I assume you are talking about analyzing the effect this theoretical DEW had on the WTC. In short, we do. We think about what we would expect to see if a weapon of given parameters was used and compare that with what actually happened. If they don't match, that's a very strong hint that a weapon with those parameters wasn't used.

This is where Dr. Wood's analysis falls short. In that she has yet to define any type of parameters, there is no way of knowing whether her theory is plausible. Looking at the effects and then assuming they match a type of DEW she has yet to define is a very clear instance of fallacious reasoning, as it assumes that DEW were used before it proves that DEW were used.

You do not indicate what 'observed events' you are talking about. Nonetheless, your post may be the first one that even dares to mention the 'observed events' in connection with DEWgizmo assertions. I think R.Mackey went through an entire spiel on the matter without posting a single solitary reference, let alone detailed analysis, of any aspect of any observed event of destruction of the WTC complex. And then had the nerve to claim he had debunked something.

I was referring to the absence of things such as ionized air indicating the beam's path or a flash effect affecting the area around the beam. These were actually mentioned in the refutations that have been thrown around before, so that wasn't my idea.

 

[DGM]

You may wish to consult with someone else as to what constitutes sufficient evidence - a second opinion will probably help.

.

Don't say that! He already talks to himself enough.

 

[Oystein]

Upon reading Lyrandar's reply to this post, an obvious short reply occurred to me:

...
5--Separate and apart from the practical limitations on placing the focus on DEWgizmo, there exists an even more important reason for not going there; namely, the best evidence of the event consists in assessment of the lethality effects. That is what Dr. Judy Wood did and that is what NIST, aided and abetted by SAIC and ARA, did not do. Dr. Wood investigated the event where the lethal effects occurred. NIST did not investigate that event.

6--Neither you nor anyone else that I know of who has gone down the DEWgizmo path has done an assessment of the lethal effects. For that reason, the approach you suggest and seem to embrace is flawed to the point of being completely useless, irrelevant and an improper distraction.
...

In 5. you claim that the lethality effects ought to be assessed.
You claim that Judy Wood has done that.

In 6. you claim that no one has done such an assessment.
Logically, that includes Judy Wood.
And Judy Wood include it does! Because Judy Wood has not defined the physical or technical properties of any DEW. It is impossible to assess the lethal effects of something whose physical and technical properties are unknown and undefined.

I conclude, taking 5. and 6. together, that Judy Wood has not done any work on what you deem to be the "the best evidence of the event". This evidence has simply not been presented. Not by you, not by Judy Wood. Both of you actually insist on not defining the properties that would have a lethal effect.


I must disagree however with claim 6.: It is not true that "anyone else that I know of who has gone down the DEWgizmo path has done an assessment of the lethal effects"
You know me, and I have gone down that path, and I have done such an assessment. As you know:
I have looked at the DEW that really exist, and found their "lethality" to be such: They can heat materials, and can melt a few ounces of steel in order to destroy the surface of certain projectiles. Their "lethality"is about 5 orders of magnitude short of the "lethality" of burning jet fuels, office contents, or the gravity of 110-story buildings.

If you want to refute that finding, I think it is high time that you start to "assess the lethality effects of DEW".

Start now.
No at all.

 

[jammonius]

No. I don't get it. And while I could go back through and make sure my interpretations of your posts in this thread are correct, I think it would be quicker for you to tell me what you think constitutes evidence and link to or repost it.

Oh boy, I'm afraid you may have just sounded the death knell for any possible discussion between us that is at meaningful depth.

Do you actually mean to say you are not familiar with and fully apprised of the proof of DEW put forth by Dr. Judy Wood at the following website:

http://drjudywood.com


That is where the claims of DEW and 9/11 can be found.

More specifically, as it relates to the published proof, that can be found at:

http://ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Information_Quality/PROD01_002619

*
Request for Correction from Dr. Judy Wood dated March 16, 2007 [PDF File]
- Supplement #1 (March 29, 2007) to Request for Correction [PDF File]
- Supplement #2 (April 20, 2007) to Request for Correction [PDF File]
- Extension (June 29, 2007) of NIST review [PDF File]
- Response (July 27, 2007) to Dr. Judy Wood Request for Correction [PDF File]
- Appeal by Dr. Wood of NIST Initial Denial dated August 22, 2007 [PDF File]
- NIST Extension to Wood Amendment to Appeal [PDF File]
- Amendment to Appeal dated August 23, 2007 [PDF File]
- Response (Jan. 10, 2008) to Wood Amendment to Appeal [PDF File]

You might still receive demands for more proof after that, but only if what you submit isn't sufficient evidence.

In '20 question' gaming, the request for more proof is inevitable. I do not ever engage in that kind of gaming as it is stupid, useless and counterproductive. It is not designed to further knowledge; rather, it is only designed and only results in control of discussion until the level of frustration is reached. The objective of '20 questions' is to continue with questioning until the answerer grows weary of the game.

If you're worried about that, I suggest you do your best to post sufficient evidence the first time. You may wish to consult with someone else as to what constitutes sufficient evidence - a second opinion will probably help.

Lyrander, you appear to be unfamiliar with the difference between dialogue and 20 questions gaming. I am here seeking to keep the discussion at the level of dialogue and to not let it descend into mere childish games.

It "hurt" because what I posted was essentially a challenge asking you to read and respond to some of the previous refutations of the DEW theory dressed up in pretty words. It's been done before, albeit not quite with such a word salad.

DEW proof has not been refuted and you will not be able to cite one source that engages in successful refutation. I dare you to try to do so.

Anyway, on to your points:



Why? If we can prove that such a device is not physically possible with current technology, it is then quite simple to prove that DEW weren't a factor in 9/11.

You have posed an absurdity, Lyrandar. And, compounding your error, you do so in the form of a hypothetical declaration that has not been proven and won't ever be (you cannot prove a negative assertion). Would you kindly fix that error please.

If we do find that such things are possible, then knowing how the device works will tell us exactly what effects to look for - the observed effects from an X-ray laser are different from a near IR laser for example. If we don't see any pattern of observed effects that matches what we expect to for any known type of DEW, then again, that should tell us something about whether or not they were used.

Your thoughts are not sufficiently anchored in the realm of DEW, the MIC and TOP SECRET manipulation. I do wish you would consider taking the proper context of the matter into consideration. Doing so would advance the dialogue.

Depends on why you end up with no information/evidence. In some cases, you would be right. In others, a method of proof leading to no information or evidence is a clue that what you're looking for doesn't exist/ is false.

Sounds like there might be points of agreement between us. Hopefully, the dialogue will be advanced on that basis.

Basically, you're saying we have no idea what "current technology" even is. Which is true, but only to a point. If the DEW technology currently in existence was one order of magnitude below what the WTC destruction would require, I might be willing to believe that the government had something that good. Five orders of magnitude... not so much. Secret technology is better than what the public gets (sometimes), but not that much better.

Well, if that is your opinion, then fine. Unfortunately, the observed data, consisting in the <11second annihilation of 110 story buildings, not once but twice within minutes, proves the technology was 'current' as of 9/11.

I do wish more posters would link their musings about technology to the observed data.

On top of that, there are certain physical limits. No matter how much better the technology gets, it would take a major breakthrough in the sciences to overcome those. You can't really hide breakthroughs of that sort forever, so we can assume that those limits are valid.

Lyrander, on a certain level, after you post the above, you are left with the logical absurdity of attributing to lowly kerosene and gravity the ability to actually do what you say the most powerful DEW cannot accomplish. I know that since so many posters make the same energy/technology claim that there must be some sort of powerful blind spot that enables the making of the impossibility claim, based on energy and technology limits, on the one hand, and the fact that the common storyline says that a jetliner with a few thousand, at most, gallons of unburned kerosene could cause the annihilation that DEW could not accomplish because DEW aren't powerful enough, on the other.

Can you provide some insight into how what I am calling that 'blind spot' works to accomplish that dichotomy? Put simply, if DEW can't destroy the WTC; then, how could kerosene and gravity have done it?

I want to know what the truth is. I think focusing on the weapon itself is a good test to see if this theory can possibly be the truth.

You know, unlike other posters, I detect that you are, indeed, interested in the truth of the matter. I will dialogue with you as best I can, Lyrander.

I'll take these points together... I assume you are talking about analyzing the effect this theoretical DEW had on the WTC. In short, we do. We think about what we would expect to see if a weapon of given parameters was used and compare that with what actually happened. If they don't match, that's a very strong hint that a weapon with those parameters wasn't used.

I'm not sure I fully understand the above. Can you say more about what you mean. As for me, I continue to think that the key is the observed data. Like others, you have not really referred to the observed data; namely, the event of destruction. I have already referenced a link to the published version of DEW proof, found at the NIST website and placed there by Dr. Wood.

I think you and I could make better progress if we were to jointly look at the event of destruction as Dr.Wood has done. Her website is where the observed data has been analyzed to a point that far exceeds that done elsewhere.

In addition to Dr. Wood, you could also consult a very useful 127pg. slide presentation entitled "World Trade Center Performance Study" put out by FEMA that is well worth reviewing in order to place the observed data in a reasonable perpsective.

If there is one segment of this post that may be said to be the key to it, I would say that review of the links to Dr. Wood's published work at the NIST website and the FEMA slide presentation would be useful for all to do:

http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=1728

You have to then download the pdf version.

This is where Dr. Wood's analysis falls short. In that she has yet to define any type of parameters, there is no way of knowing whether her theory is plausible. Looking at the effects and then assuming they match a type of DEW she has yet to define is a very clear instance of fallacious reasoning, as it assumes that DEW were used before it proves that DEW were used.

I don't think you can accurately say that Dr. Wood falls short in that respect. I say that because the all important observed data has not been taken into consideration by you. In fact, you haven't begun to do that. Would you please consider getting yourself up to speed with respect to the observed data.

I was referring to the absence of things such as ionized air indicating the beam's path or a flash effect affecting the area around the beam. These were actually mentioned in the refutations that have been thrown around before, so that wasn't my idea.

Claims about 'the absence of' this that or the other need to be referenced and linked for meaningful discussion. However, to the extent that you have chosen to respond with a generalization, I will here refute it:

No valid scientific refutation of what Dr. Wood has proven has been done.

 

[Sabretooth]

Oh boy, I'm afraid you may have just sounded the death knell for any possible discussion between us that is at meaningful depth.

I'm pretty sure you do that all on your own there, Jams...

 

[Oystein]

...the proof of DEW put forth by Dr. Judy Wood ... In '20 question' gaming... The objective of '20 questions' ... 20 questions gaming... DEW proof has not been refuted ... <11second annihilation of 110 story buildings, not once but twice within minutes...

Hahahahaha Gotcha six times

Put simply, if DEW can't destroy the WTC; then, how could kerosene and gravity have done it?

Kerosene brought 2*10¹² Joules to the playing field
Gravity brought > 10¹² Joules to the playing field
The chemical energy contained in office contents is even larger.

The most advanced and powerful DEW as of 2009 can bring at most 10⁷ Joules to the playing field.
That is 5 orders of magnitude less.

Gravity can unleash 5*10¹⁰ Watts of power, when a 110-story building collapses. Plenty of power to dustify a lot of material in 15 seconds.

The most advanced and powerful DEW as of 2009 can unleash at most 5*10⁶ Watts - four orders of magnitude less.

If you understood physics, and lasers, and DEW, ans material science, you'd realize immediately the implications of these numbers. They mean, in effect:

You, jammonius, are utterly utterly wrong when you think DEW are more powerful than kerosene or the gravity of highrise buidlings.

...I will dialogue with you as best I can ...the published version of DEW proof... Her website is where the observed data has been analyzed to a point that far exceeds that done elsewhere... No valid scientific refutation of what Dr. Wood has proven has been done.

Moooaaaahhahahahahahaha

 

[Lyrandar]

Lyrander, you appear to be unfamiliar with the difference between dialogue and 20 questions gaming. I am here seeking to keep the discussion at the level of dialogue and to not let it descend into mere childish games.

*sigh* I'll refrain from asking you too many questions, if only because this will become very obviously pointless if I do so.

You have posed an absurdity, Lyrandar. And, compounding your error, you do so in the form of a hypothetical declaration that has not been proven and won't ever be (you cannot prove a negative assertion). Would you kindly fix that error please.

I submit that you regard it as an absurdity because you are assuming that DEW capable of producing the effects observed on 9/11 exist. I am not, which is why I bother bringing this up. My examinations into the topic have so far led me to believe that such a DEW does not, in fact, exist. Therefore I conclude that Dr. Wood's DEW theory is wrong.

Your thoughts are not sufficiently anchored in the realm of DEW, the MIC and TOP SECRET manipulation. I do wish you would consider taking the proper context of the matter into consideration. Doing so would advance the dialogue.

... I'm not sure that really says anything to respond to what I posted about types of DEW and observed effects created by those types. I'm primarily worrying about classified information inasmuch as it can potentially compensate for the gap between the publicly known limits of current technology and the requirements for a DEW that could destroy the WTC. (I don't think it can fully compensate.)

Well, if that is your opinion, then fine. Unfortunately, the observed data, consisting in the <11second annihilation of 110 story buildings, not once but twice within minutes, proves the technology was 'current' as of 9/11.

I do wish more posters would link their musings about technology to the observed data.

... The observed data proves that something destroyed the WTC. The simple fact that the buildings were destroyed can't really prove any more than that though.

No amount of stating that "well it happened" will work as proof. That is begging the question. I can come up with any number of different scenarios in which the WTC is destroyed, including explosives, military weaponry, or aircraft impact. All require more than the destruction itself to prove that they happened, and the DEW theory is no different.

Can you provide some insight into how what I am calling that 'blind spot' works to accomplish that dichotomy? Put simply, if DEW can't destroy the WTC; then, how could kerosene and gravity have done it?

The numbers comparing the gravitational potential energy of the WTC with the power output of the most advanced publicly known DEW have been run for you before. Just because it's advanced DE technology doesn't mean its power output is very high. Off the top of my head, I believe the gravitational potential energy of the towers was several orders or magnitude higher than any DEW's output, even counting those that were only created years after 9/11.

... and Oystein covered that before I finished this post.

I'm not sure I fully understand the above. Can you say more about what you mean. As for me, I continue to think that the key is the observed data. Like others, you have not really referred to the observed data; namely, the event of destruction. I have already referenced a link to the published version of DEW proof, found at the NIST website and placed there by Dr. Wood.

*snip*

I don't think you can accurately say that Dr. Wood falls short in that respect. I say that because the all important observed data has not been taken into consideration by you. In fact, you haven't begun to do that. Would you please consider getting yourself up to speed with respect to the observed data.

I am looking at all the observed data. I'm also thinking about what we did not observe. Then I'm comparing that to what I would expect to observe if DEW were used. (Well, okay, I'm reading the results of other people doing this as opposed to doing it myself.)

Dr. Wood is only bothering with the first of those three steps. She finds what she thinks are inconsistencies and problems and then stops and blames DEW. She does not bother to check her work, listen to criticism, or think about whether what she's seeing matches any theoretically possible DEW. Therefore I say she has fallen short.

 

[jammonius]

Hahahahaha Gotcha six times



Kerosene brought 2*10¹² Joules to the playing field
Gravity brought > 10¹² Joules to the playing field
The chemical energy contained in office contents is even larger.

The most advanced and powerful DEW as of 2009 can bring at most 10⁷ Joules to the playing field.
That is 5 orders of magnitude less.

Gravity can unleash 5*10¹⁰ Watts of power, when a 110-story building collapses. Plenty of power to dustify a lot of material in 15 seconds.

The most advanced and powerful DEW as of 2009 can unleash at most 5*10⁶ Watts - four orders of magnitude less.

If you understood physics, and lasers, and DEW, ans material science, you'd realize immediately the implications of these numbers. They mean, in effect:

You, jammonius, are utterly utterly wrong when you think DEW are more powerful than kerosene or the gravity of highrise buidlings.



Moooaaaahhahahahahahaha

I think the above is absurd in the utttermost. You have flung mere numbers concerning kerosene, gravity and DEW around and come to the astonishing conclusion that kerosene had more energy than DEW.

As usual, you do not relate your claims to anything that was observed, such as what amount of kerosene was arguably left over from the initial fireball that was seen, even though NO PLANE was seen by most who were serious observers. Separate and apart from there having been NO PLANES, the issue remains what amount of kerosene was even present and how did it get dispensed in a manner that could result in the complete annihilation of 2 110 story buildings and 1 22 story building for good measure, that is never even mentioned and was not hit by a plane, not even in the common storyline.

And, this still says nothing whatever about the 47 story that self annihilated a few hours later in an apparent suicide bid, based on seeming sympathy.

Oystein, your use of a large sounding number in your post is pathetic.

And you proclaim a stupid 'gotcha' once again revealing your desire to reduce the dialogue to a game, Oystein. Sheesh

Well, you know what's to follow, right?

That is rich.

 

[jammonius]

Lyrandar,

I have to stop for now. I will likely respond more fully to post # 827 2mro. I note, however, that your commentary is much more measured and appropriately worded than is that of some others around here that shall remain nameless for the moment. For that, the thread can be grateful. You are helping lay a foundation for a proper dialogue.

Thanks

 

[leftysergeant]

Lyrandar,

I have to stop for now. I will likely respond more fully to post # 827 2mro. I note, however, that your commentary is much more measured and appropriately worded than is that of some others around here that shall remain nameless for the moment. For that, the thread can be grateful. You are helping lay a foundation for a proper dialogue.

A dialogue will be possible when you have learned some basic science. There is no form of energy that can work on matter without creating a visible or audible or otherwise detectable effect. All of the effects observed were explainable by other means which were observed to operate in the towers.

Pulverization of concrete can be done mechanically. You had hundreeds of slabs of it gyrating as they fell, colliding with each other. Ask anyone who has jackhammered a sidewalk apart. Concrete will not break without creating massive ammounts of dust.

The structures of the towers and WTC 7 were weakened by ballistic impacts of incredible scale.

All three were subjected to fires and resulting thermal creep of the steel. This tears joints apart and warps steel. Basic fire science.

The car fires were started by burning debris getting into cars or by fuel leaking from other cars getting under them. Nothing about any of the cars shown in her photo galleries looks at all odd in context.

The crazy old bat can't evcen grasp why, with thousands of tons of steel and rubble displacing tons of air, a Subaru was turned over on its roof but and SUV the size of a main battle tank was not.

Dumb.

 

[Oystein]

I think the above is absurd in the utttermost. You have flung mere numbers concerning kerosene, gravity and DEW around and come to the astonishing conclusion that kerosene had more energy than DEW. ...

Oooh - fear of big numbers? Let's do this step by step:


Gravity, for one of the twin towers:
Potential energy (gravity) of a building is calculated by
E = m * g * h (Reference: WP, tutor4physics.com)
Where
* m is the mass, measured in kg.
* g is the (nearly) constant acceleration of earth's gravity - in New York, that value is about 9.805 m/s² * h is the difference in hight, in meters, measured between the "ground" level from which the mass was lifted to where it was lifted. In the case of an object like a building, one would have to consider the height of its center of mass

m - What was the total mass m of a twin tower?
Let's do a back-of-the-envelope calculation:
Compare a Twin Tower to a ship, and estimate its displacement. Looking at steel ships, I'd think that they displace about one sixth of their total volume. Surely, the WTC would float on water like a ship, if you assumed the windows would not break. The volume of the tower is 415m x 63m x 63m = 1647135m³. Displacement might be 1647135m³/6 = 274522.5m³, or 274,522.5 tons = 274,522,500 kg

A very thorough estimate was given by Gregory H. Urich, B.S. Electrical and Computer Engineering, in his whitepaper "Analysis of the Mass and Potential Energy of World Trade Center Tower 1". His result: WTC1 had a mass of 288,100 metric tons (in the Abstract, page 1). That's only about 5% off of my back-of-the-envelope, confirming my method wasn't so bad.


h - What is the height of the center of mass of a building like WTC2?
If mass was evenly distributed throughout the tower, the center of mass would be at half the total building height of 415m, or 207.5m.
All floors are pretty much of the same design, with same live and dead loads.
The perimeter columns are also of nearly the same dimensions from bottom to top.
But the core columns are a lot stronger and heavier at the bottom than at the top, as the load above lower floors is much heavier than the load on higher floors.
Overall, a rough estimate might put the center of gravity at 40% of the total height of the building, or (rounded) at 170m.


Potential energy is thus

E = m * g * h
= 288,100,000kg * 9.805m/s² * 170m
= 480,219,485,000 Joules, or 4.8 * 10¹¹ Joules.




Are you following, jammomius? If not, I am here to help.

 

[jammonius]

Oooh - fear of big numbers? Let's do this step by step:


Gravity, for one of the twin towers:
Potential energy (gravity) of a building is calculated by
E = m * g * h (Reference: WP, tutor4physics.com)
Where
* m is the mass, measured in kg.
* g is the (nearly) constant acceleration of earth's gravity - in New York, that value is about 9.805 m/s² * h is the difference in hight, in meters, measured between the "ground" level from which the mass was lifted to where it was lifted. In the case of an object like a building, one would have to consider the height of its center of mass

m - What was the total mass m of a twin tower?
Let's do a back-of-the-envelope calculation:
Compare a Twin Tower to a ship, and estimate its displacement. Looking at steel ships, I'd think that they displace about one sixth of their total volume. Surely, the WTC would float on water like a ship, if you assumed the windows would not break. The volume of the tower is 415m x 63m x 63m = 1647135m³. Displacement might be 1647135m³/6 = 274522.5m³, or 274,522.5 tons = 274,522,500 kg

A very thorough estimate was given by Gregory H. Urich, B.S. Electrical and Computer Engineering, in his whitepaper "Analysis of the Mass and Potential Energy of World Trade Center Tower 1". His result: WTC1 had a mass of 288,100 metric tons (in the Abstract, page 1). That's only about 5% off of my back-of-the-envelope, confirming my method wasn't so bad.


h - What is the height of the center of mass of a building like WTC2?
If mass was evenly distributed throughout the tower, the center of mass would be at half the total building height of 415m, or 207.5m.
All floors are pretty much of the same design, with same live and dead loads.
The perimeter columns are also of nearly the same dimensions from bottom to top.
But the core columns are a lot stronger and heavier at the bottom than at the top, as the load above lower floors is much heavier than the load on higher floors.
Overall, a rough estimate might put the center of gravity at 40% of the total height of the building, or (rounded) at 170m.


Potential energy is thus

E = m * g * h
= 288,100,000kg * 9.805m/s² * 170m
= 480,219,485,000 Joules, or 4.8 * 10¹¹ Joules.




Are you following, jammomius? If not, I am here to help.

Frankly, Oystein, I am not following. I think your explanation is confusing and does not provide an adequate context, based on what was observed on 9/11. In acknowledging that I am taking you up on your offer of help, do please place your explanation, including calculations, in a more exact context, including photographic evidence of kerosene and visual confirmation of your claims about gravity. Certainly, the destruction of the WTC on 9/11 was an event associated with detailed observational, visual data.

Can you use examples from the observed event to show how and by what means the calculations you have done relate to what happened?

By the way, Oystein, I think the primary and determining advantage that Dr. Wood's published proof has over her detractors, such as you, for instance, is that she demonstrates the reality of and the accuracy of her proof by showing exactly where, when and how the WTC complex was destroyed.

You, on the other hand, do not say much of anything at all, ever, about what destroyed the WTC complex and how it was accomplished.

Your use of math and of physics does not explain, it merely confounds. You, that is.

 

[excaza]

It's first principles. You literally can't make physics any simpler than mgh.

 

[jammonius]

*sigh* I'll refrain from asking you too many questions, if only because this will become very obviously pointless if I do so.

Good. You're catching on.

I submit that you regard it as an absurdity because you are assuming that DEW capable of producing the effects observed on 9/11 exist. I am not, which is why I bother bringing this up. My examinations into the topic have so far led me to believe that such a DEW does not, in fact, exist. Therefore I conclude that Dr. Wood's DEW theory is wrong.

The above is fine as a proposition. I certainly won't try to change your view now any moreso than I've ever done. I am not seeking to persuade you of anything at all. I am posting up claims, assertions and the rationale for making them. A perfectly proper posture for this dialogue is that I assert the evidence that DEW destroyed the WTC, as provided by researcher, Dr. Judy Wood, is the one source of proof we have for what happened on 9/11.

You, on the other hand do not think such a DEW exists. Fine. No problem and no hard feelings. If there's anything more you'd like to say, then do so; if not, I realize our dialogue may have come to an end on the subject of DEW destroying the WTC complex.

... I'm not sure that really says anything to respond to what I posted about types of DEW and observed effects created by those types. I'm primarily worrying about classified information inasmuch as it can potentially compensate for the gap between the publicly known limits of current technology and the requirements for a DEW that could destroy the WTC. (I don't think it can fully compensate.)

Fne, once again, as far as it goes. What you say begs a number of questions and presents a number of possible directions that could be taken from here. Lyrandar, it is up to you as to whether and to what extent you further your review of DEW capabilities. You know that and I know that.

... The observed data proves that something destroyed the WTC. The simple fact that the buildings were destroyed can't really prove any more than that though.

The manner of destruction disproves that it was caused by remnant kerosene from a supposed, but not substantiated, smack from a jetliner and gravity. That claim is preposterous.

No amount of stating that "well it happened" will work as proof.

Try that statement out on the common storyline of 9/11, Lyrandar and see where it takes you.

That is begging the question. I can come up with any number of different scenarios in which the WTC is destroyed, including explosives, military weaponry, or aircraft impact. All require more than the destruction itself to prove that they happened, and the DEW theory is no different.

There is more evidence posted to an official governmental website proving DEW destroyed the WTC complex than there is proof of any other destructive modality, bar none. From the official common storyline to any other, including thermite, cd, mini-nukes or whatever.

On this I stand.

The numbers comparing the gravitational potential energy of the WTC with the power output of the most advanced publicly known DEW have been run for you before.

Repitition of a fallacy does not change its nature. Of all the people currently posting on this topic, I think you are one of the few who has enough objectivity to come to grips with the way the 'energy' issue has been used and misused.

For starters, the issue of gravity has equal applicability to ALL 9/11 explanations, does it not? Gravity is an omnipresent force, equally operative irrespective of the type of destructive force applied and/or postulated concerning the events of 9/11. Gravity was not present for kerosene, but absent for DEW.

Why haven't there been any posts at all that take that factor into consideration is beyond me.

Just because it's advanced DE technology doesn't mean its power output is very high. Off the top of my head, I believe the gravitational potential energy of the towers was several orders or magnitude higher than any DEW's output, even counting those that were only created years after 9/11.

Gravity does not disappear when DEW are applied; and, gravity, neither standing alone nor in conjunction with a few thousand gallons of kerosene, has not ever been shown by any officially mandated and funded explanation to have caused the annihilation of the WTC complex. Not ever. Website claims, that have not ever been posted to an official governmental site, likewise do not prove kerosene and gravity destroyed the WTC complex, imho.

... and Oystein covered that before I finished this post.

You relying on Oystein's post, Lyrandar? I suggest you reconsider your choice of posts to rely on.

I am looking at all the observed data. I'm also thinking about what we did not observe. Then I'm comparing that to what I would expect to observe if DEW were used. (Well, okay, I'm reading the results of other people doing this as opposed to doing it myself.)

Keep researching, Lyrandar, I think you might be on the right path. Keep in mind, it is not my task or objective to convince you of anything, with the possible exception of convincing you to continue your consideration of the issue.

Dr. Wood is only bothering with the first of those three steps. She finds what she thinks are inconsistencies and problems and then stops and blames DEW. She does not bother to check her work, listen to criticism, or think about whether what she's seeing matches any theoretically possible DEW. Therefore I say she has fallen short.

Well, I understand what you say as and for criticism of Dr. Wood; but, I don't think you have substantiated that criticism. Dr. Wood's website is comprehensive and rather vast in scope. How much time have you spent reviewing her material?

In closing, Lyrandar, and as I said before, your posts add a lot of substance to the thread and we can all be grateful for your effort and for your objectivity.

all the best

 

[excaza]

Put simply, since Jammy has trouble doing so:

"I will not respond to anything I cannot word salad or handwave my way out of, rather than admit I am wrong and I do not understand a single thing I post"

You should stick to law, Mr. Lephart.

 

[DGM]

I think I might have discovered conclusive ancient proof the DEWs do in fact exist.

 

[Lyrandar]

The manner of destruction disproves that it was caused by remnant kerosene from a supposed, but not substantiated, smack from a jetliner and gravity. That claim is preposterous.

I'd say that proving this requires some explanation, likely mathematical proof, that the kinetic energy from a jetliner combined with damage to structural steel from fire cannot possibly destroy enough of the load-bearing supports to cause a problem.

Alternately, you have to prove that the resulting collapse would require more damage to different parts of the building than was actually provided. Now, before you jump on that one and say Dr. Wood has done that - I don't believe her math is valid, based on what I've seen here at the forum and on her website as well as my own knowledge of physics and math.

There is more evidence posted to an official governmental website proving DEW destroyed the WTC complex than there is proof of any other destructive modality, bar none. From the official common storyline to any other, including thermite, cd, mini-nukes or whatever.

On this I stand.

I would appreciate some help finding it, then. I reviewed most of the section on Dr. Wood's website labeled "Beam Weapons" and was unable to find anything proving that DEW was used. I was able to find quite a bit about how nothing else could have been used, but I think there are some unfounded assumptions about DEW and the other theories in that work.

For starters, the issue of gravity has equal applicability to ALL 9/11 explanations, does it not? Gravity is an omnipresent force, equally operative irrespective of the type of destructive force applied and/or postulated concerning the events of 9/11. Gravity was not present for kerosene, but absent for DEW.

As I recall, the DEW theory as presented is effectively that the entire mass of the towers or a significant portion thereof were entirely vaporized by the DEW used. Gravity won't play very much of a role in the collapse in that case - it'll bring whatever dust and solid pieces remain to the ground after the destruction is finished, but it won't be one of the primary factors causing damage to the structure.

Now, if you were hypothesizing that a DEW was used to compromise some of the load-bearing supports, then gravity would be a major factor in the resulting collapse. As far as I know that's not what the DEW theory proposes, however.

You relying on Oystein's post, Lyrandar? I suggest you reconsider your choice of posts to rely on.

*shrug* Mostly I'm using his numbers, since I'm too lazy to properly run the calculations myself. It's easier to check his work for mistakes than do it myself.

Well, I understand what you say as and for criticism of Dr. Wood; but, I don't think you have substantiated that criticism. Dr. Wood's website is comprehensive and rather vast in scope. How much time have you spent reviewing her material?

Not a whole lot. No more than an hour or two. I'm focusing on her list of data to be explained and possible theories at the conclusion.

Even assuming all her data points to be explained are correct (they are not, but I lack the time to prove that... for about the fifth time), what she basically does with them is say that no other theory that she can think of would cause all that therefore DEW are the cause. She says all the data is consistent with a DEW, but she appears to only consider the points to be explained which she lists. This fails to realize that the absence of observed phenomena created by DEW is a point that needs to be explained if we are going to hypothesize that DEW were used.

 

[Oystein]

Frankly, Oystein, I am not following. I think your explanation is confusing

Hmm I thought you might be confused. The simplest high-school-level physics confuses you deeply, it is obvious. Hmm... How can I help you? Should my explanations be longer? Or shorter? Would baby-language help? Or do you require impressive buzz-words?

and does not provide an adequate context, based on what was observed on 9/11.

Well, here is the observation:
In the morning, there were buildings, very high and very heavy, standing above ground level.
In the evening, they lay flat on the grund, crushed and bent and broken.

Are you following?

The context is "Energy". And your contention that gravity would be too "weak" to account for the collapse, bending, breaking, crumbling and pulverisation observed on 9/11. I would like to argue against that by finding out just how much energy was available. And later, compare that energy to the amount of energy DEW can bring to the playing field, and the amount of energy needed to disintegrate the buildings.

In acknowledging that I am taking you up on your offer of help, do please place your explanation, including calculations, in a more exact context, including photographic evidence of kerosene and visual confirmation of your claims about gravity.

Do I need to post photos of the pre-9/11 WTC to convince you that there were building with a certain mass and a certain height, or would you do without?
Gravity as such can't be photographed. Is it ok by you if I don't provide images of gravity, and we just agree that gravity was pulling on things in New York City on 9/11 like it does all the time?

To make it easy on you, I am, for the moment, only focussing on the potential energy of the buildings. We'll come to kerosene and other things later. But I suggest we tackle the individual sources of energy one by one. Is that ok?

Certainly, the destruction of the WTC on 9/11 was an event associated with detailed observational, visual data.

We will come to this later. As a first step, I simply want to establish the situation, with a view to the available energy, just prior to the events.

Can you use examples from the observed event to show how and by what means the calculations you have done relate to what happened?

No event yet. Potential energy is a static property of a buildibg standing above ground. Patience, please!

By the way, Oystein, I think the primary and determining advantage that Dr. Wood's published proof has over her detractors, such as you, for instance, is that she demonstrates the reality of and the accuracy of her proof by showing exactly where, when and how the WTC complex was destroyed.

Unfortunately, she (or you) did not give much thought to the initial properties of the WTC. Especially the amount of energy stored within it.

You, on the other hand, do not say much of anything at all, ever, about what destroyed the WTC complex and how it was accomplished.

Your use of math and of physics does not explain, it merely confounds. You, that is.

Well, I am confident you will change that judgement once you have understood what I am trying to explain to you.



So can we get back to the question of available energy?

I'll try again.
When a body of mass m is lifted to a height h against gravity that pulls at the mass with an acceleration of g, then that body acquires an amount of "potential energy" that is calculated by the formula

E = m * g * h (mass times gravitational acceleration times height; g can be considered a constant, its value is 9.805m/s²)

The physical unit of energy is the Joule, abbreviated J, and it is defined as
1J = 1 kg * m²/s²(where kg, m and s are the SI units for mass, distance and time, namely kilogram, meter and second)

This energy can later be converted into other forms of energy (See footnote). In particular, this energy could be used to break and bend things, crumble things, melt things, hurl things, make things shake, etc. Basically, all observable physical effects we are interested in here need and use (dissipate) energy. That's why it is important to get a grasp on how much energy is available, and how much energy is needed.

Are you following so far, jammonius?

Back to our simple formula E = m * g * h.
To estimate the amount of potential energy stored in the twin towers, we need to estimate the 3 components to the right of the equal-sign of that equation:
- m (the mass of the towers, measured in kg)
- g (the gravitational acceleration. Like I said that's 9.805m/s² and constant)
- h (the height of the center of mass of the towers, measured in meters. Think of this as the average heigh of all single pieces of material that a tower contains)

In my previous post I estimated these values, and linked to a paper by Gregory Urich that confirms that my estimate was pretty good. The estimate has a margin of error, of course, but I think it is fairly small. Maybe less than 20%.

So here are the values again:
m = 288,100 metric tons or 288,100,000kg (this is the figure given by G. Urich. My own estimate was about 3% lower, which is a really god match)
h = 170m (my estimate; that is about 40% of the height of the roof)

And this gives us
E = 288,100,000kg * 9.805m/s² * 170m = 480,219,485,000 J

I hope you are still following. It would be nice, jammonius, if you could confirm the following:
- E = m * g * h is the right formula to compute potential energy
- kilograms, meters and seconds are the right units to measure the values
- 1 Joule = 1 kg * m/s²- mass of a tower is (estimated) 288,100,000kg
- height: the center of mass is about 170m above ground level
- g = 9.805m/s² in New York City
If you don't confirm these 6 assumptions, please indicate precisely, which one you disagree with, and tell me what you would assume instead!




Footnote:
(This part, in green, is not required reading. Just a little refresher on "conservation of energy". We'll need this later. You can skip this. And certainly no need to reply to this at his time)
Example: If you lift a cardboard box that contains glasswares and weighs 10kg to a hight of 2 meters, it acquires a potential energy of
E = 10kg * 9.805m/s² * 2m = 196.1 kg * m²/s² or 196.1J
If you let it fall to the ground, the potential energy will first be converted into kinetic energy, which is determined by the formula
E_kin = 1/2 m * v², where v is the velocity, measured in m/s (meters per second)
By the time the box reaches the ground, all the potential energy is converted into kinetic energy, so
E_kin = 1/2 m * v² = 196.1J
which (using m=10kg) we can transform to
v² = 196.1kg*m²/s² * 2 / 10kg = 39,22 m²/s²and
v = 6,26 m/s (rounded)
Now the box hits the ground, comes to a full stop. The kintetic energy is now again converted, this time into several other forms of energy:
- Glas breaks
- Cardboard bends
- Seismic waves go into the ground
- Heat (through friction)

 

[Sabretooth]

Frankly, Oystein, I am not following. I think your explanation is confusing and does not provide an adequate context, based on what was observed on 9/11.
[...]
Your use of math and of physics does not explain, it merely confounds. You, that is.

Good Gawd.

Jammers...you posted all those BS calculations from Judy's website that were far more complex than what Oystein posted...and you can't follow "E=mgh"?? Are you freakin kidding me??

You cannot possibly pretend that you understood Judy's trainwreck and not this. All this proves is that you don't understand basic math or physics. Period.

That lack of knowledge is mindboggling considering that you are basically admitting to blindly follow Judy...just because she fits your agenda.

 

[jammonius]

Good Gawd.

Jammers...you posted all those BS calculations from Judy's website that were far more complex than what Oystein posted...and you can't follow "E=mgh"?? Are you freakin kidding me??

You cannot possibly pretend that you understood Judy's trainwreck and not this. All this proves is that you don't understand basic math or physics. Period.

That lack of knowledge is mindboggling considering that you are basically admitting to blindly follow Judy...just because she fits your agenda.

You happy now?

Meanwhile, back to the substance of the thread:

I have said, many times, in conjunction with the MIC and secrecy, that the MILITARY EXERCISES taking place on 9/11 were a means by which and through which the events of 9/11 could have been carried out.

The essence of 9/11 was the SHOCK & AWE approach embodied in MILITARY PSYOPs and the use of DEW to create a stunning display of destruction that almost no one would understand.

The essence would center on triggering American xenophobia that found it easy for most to believe Osama binLaden did this from a cave in Afghanistan, without so much as one jot or iota of evidence, ever.

Following that, all that remained was the need to control the investigation. Use of the security classification system and political muscle would be used to make sure GZ was so tampered with that forensic analysis would be too difficult to carryout properly, by the official investigatory efforts that would be controlled, in any event.

SAIC controlled access to GZ from the outset, to and including the present.

SAIC and ARA controlled the NIST investigation.

SAIC and ARA are each involved in DEW and in PSYOPs.

Each of the claims posted above has merit and has been substantiated. None of the claims have been refuted in this thread.

Let us turn now to the MILITARY EXERCISES that few have posted anything at all about, other than me. That is ridiculous. The debunkers do themselves a huge disservice by not taking the MILITARY EXERCISES into account and by not demanding full accountability for the lies told by the military to the 9/11 Commission, among other sources to whom the military lied.

Consider page 38 from Lynn Spencer's propaganda book, "Touching History":

Those who are only interested in maintaining their allegiance to the common storyline of 9/11 will, undoubtedly, see nothing odd, unusal, strange, let alone incriminating in the above page.

Fine. Don't see if you don't want to see.

For those who are at least slightly interested in taking into consideration Eisenhower's admonition about the MIC will be flabbergasted by the content of page 38.

Read it and weep. Then, after that, get busy in the effort to uncover 9/11 fraud. Goodness knows, the investigation of military lies has been all but swept under the rug, dropped down the memory hole and wll nigh forgotten.

Scott free