Burden of Proof

[Myriad]

Now talking about my own physical intuition.. I don't know how accurate mine is, but I surely don't think that if superman lifted the twin towers, it would remain intact for more than 2 seconds, depending how fast he would try lifting it...

Warning: Unrestrained nerdiness follows.

You're getting the idea. But Superman actually couldn't lift one of the towers (or any large building) at all. No matter how strong he is, his hands just aren't big enough. Assume he reaches through the glass, facade, etc. and grabs an exterior column. He might be able to rip one section of it out of position if it's poorly welded, but more likely the metal he grasped would just deform where he pulled on it. He'd be left holding two handfuls of twisted steel, looking foolish. It would be like trying to lift a wedding cake by holding onto the cake.

The same kind of thing happens anytime one, in the process of messing around with tools (and messing around with tools is another, less nerdy, way of gaining physical intution), attempts to push or pull something with the force too concentrated (such as too small a pushing tool, or too small an anchor for a tow cable), and ends up punching a hole or tearing out a piece instead.

Now suppose Superman decides to get really serious, so he goes into the basement and grabs the biggest core column in a bear hug, and lifts it straight up (no twisting). Assume whatever he's standing on is strong enough to resist the pressure of the entire weight of the building bearing on two size-11 footprints. What happens? A lot of twisted metal, adjacent columns ripped up, horizontal beams bent, elevator shafts jammed, a big mess. By the time he's moved it a foot, the building is damaged beyond repair and will have to be condemned. But most of it still doesn't leave the ground.

Now a super-villain comes along with a repulsor ray, and levitates the whole tower a hundred feet. (Since the repulsor ray's force is spread over the entire building, the structure stays intact. Super-technology always gets a free pass in comic book scenarios.) Then the evil-doer turns the repulsor ray off, leaving the building to plunge to its doom. Superman to the rescue! He flies to the bottom of the building, takes a good hold on a core column, and uses his super-strength to try to hold the building up or at least bring it to a soft landing. What happens?

All the columns except one are unsupported. Let's look an a similar scenario where all the columns except one are unsupported: starting with the building in its normal place, you remove the bottom ten feet of all the columns except one. Or another scenario: you put explosive cutting charges on all the columns in the basement, then set them off, and just one of them fails to detonate. The answer is the same in each case: the sucker's gonna collapse anyhow, starting immediately. (In the repulsor-ray case, the building just tears itself apart without waiting to reach the ground first, as most of it simply continues falling, slowed down only negligibly by Superman's efforts.)

This all gives me an idea for a new super-villain: The Skeptic. The Skeptic's only power is to be able to enforce the laws of physics in the presence of super-heroes. So Cyclops gets an equal and opposite blow to the eyes whenever he uses his force-blasts, telepaths become no more accurate than chance expectations, Superman's can't inhale more than the volume of his lungs with his super breath, Ant Man suffers from hypothermia, and 10-storey-tall samurai robots find that rocket motors the size of cans of air freshener suddenly become insufficient to get them airborne. (His weakness, of course, is that he's powerless against the little-known superhero Some Dude With A Machine Gun. And also against Wolverine. "Not fair! Your superpower is sharp knives!)

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Loss Leader]

This all gives me an idea for a new super-villain: The Skeptic. The Skeptic's only power is to be able to enforce the laws of physics in the presence of super-heroes.

The Skeptic should be able to enforce social and political laws as well. Villains like Lex Luthor actually have to show balance sheets as to how they can afford to build secret lairs inside mountains. Bruce Wayne has to survive an IRS audit. Bruce Banner has to give some explanation as to where he finds one-size-fits-human-and-gamma-ray-mutated-monster purple pants. And somebody in the media has to get smart enough to figure out that the guy who keeps landing exclusive stories about Superman looks EXACTLY LIKE HIM IN GLASSES.

 

[gumboot]

NIST has proven that it is possible for a plane to knock down to buildings
They did not prove the Boeings made it collapse under the conditions witnessed.

Well that's just completely false. All of their work was event-specific. They were investigating why those particular buildings collapsed, and they found out why.

That isn't a criminal investigation at all. It wasn't one to begin with, I reckon.

Of course it wasn't. Why would NIST conduct a criminal investigation? The criminal investigation was conducted by the FBI.

What was, and still is in doubt, is how could the tower's global collapses take place under such short interval between plane crashes, and how could they collapse so fast. It is an unusual event, since no such high rise structure had collapsed before. IT requires investigation, full investigation, not to rule out every minor possibility such space beams or atomic bombs, but to at least make sure that the planes+fires made such collapses happen the way we saw them.

You have a new strange phenomena. You propose a hypothesis. Test it out multiple times, and if correct, you got a sound theory. That's frigging elementary science basics.

But not this time. Here we have the NIST saying fires could do it. They prove fires could do it. But they don't address how could the massive upper floors could smash all the way down under 11 seconds. That is irrelevant to their investigation, as mentioned before. Is that a sound theory to prove it happened due to fire+crash? It might be for you who is able to connect the dots yourself, but I can't, I have to be spoon-fed all the way. I'm that pathetic. Is it dishonest to think that the government failed to provide the american public with a conjunctive and complete report about what happened, or is everyone obligated to read into each every little separate report to be able to understand what really happened?

The fact is it's very very very basic physics. I nearly failed physics in 6th form, and didn't do it in 7th form. I've never studied it at university. And yet I am without doubt that there's no way the towers would have stopped collapsing once it had started. Do the match. Calculate the forces you're talking about. The building ain't gonna stay up.

Good, I didn't know that. There has to be a way to express the temperatures through scientific quotations though. There has to be a way to at least roughly measure the amount of heat energy present in those points.. then somehow calculate the ammount of metal debris located there... and finally calculate how high was the initial temperature at the spots on 9/11. This aint quite accurate since there's no way to tell the kind or ammount of metal present in the spots but still it might give us an idea. If it was anywhere over 1000 degrees Celsius, be it alluminum, steel, iron or whatever, then we know something is definitely wrong, eh. Fires can't elevate it that high.

Here's the thing... no one but conspiracy theorists think this is important. Fires CAN elevate temperatures that high. Fires buried underground with sufficient fuel will burn quite literally for CENTURIES at extremely high temperatures. Anything heated and buried underground will retain that heat for a very long time. We KNOW this. The native Maori of New Zealand have been using this principle to cook food for thousands of years.

Should they investigate the collapse sequence of the towers though?
Besides, not everyone is an expert. Don't you think they could have done a better job at explaining all that complicated stuff to our fellow citizens? Myself included.

Why should they? Seriously... why should the government?

But to even admit the lowest probability of LIHOI is an awesome and daring move of your part, considering only a handful here in this whole forum have done so. Expect to be chastised by your skeptic friends once you agree with me, if you ever do! And thanks.

Actually you'll find a number of people on these forums believe in LIHOI. Me, I don't. I believe in LIHOA - Let It Happen Out of Americanism - that being that it was the very nature of the USA itself - its love of freedom, its belief in a fair judiciary, its willingness to welcome its arms to foreigners and it's firm confidence (arrogance) in the ability of its military and intelligence services to protect it - that ultimately assured this attack would go ahead without a hitch.

Are they obligated to put all findings together in one open report, though?

I don't think so.

Well said. Although I got one question: Do you think it's unnecessary to explain the collapse sequence of the Twin towers as seen, along with collapse initiation, in one unified model?

Yes I think it is unnecessary.

If there's anything I can be certain of, is that the government has not been honest in providing the public with the least trivial answers to what happened that day. There are hundreds of critiques over the web, and that's not limited to CTers as you know. Left-winger liberals are starting to question the gov't in direction of LIHOP (or at least deep LIHOI). If thats anything at all, it goes to say that they haven't been honest, and they have been smoking the evidence around, no matter which side it supports.

All of that has nothing to do with what the government has said, and everything to do with Anti-American sentiment (in the case of foreigners) and paranoia and mistrust of government in general (in the case of Americans).

But is that how it's supposed to be?

It's not "supposed" to be anything at all. Life does not have designs and intentions and how things are "meant" to be. There's what is, and what isn't. And that's all.

Is the american public supposed to connect the dots themselves, or should the government fulfill their burden of proof with a thorough, complete report pluging it all together for us?

No I don't think the government is required to explain every single aspect of the day. They would be writing reports for all eternity.

The NIST report is anything but a criminal investigation, and does not account for the tower's collapse sequence. Have we seriously thought about to what extent can we use it as proof of how the towers fell? Is this arguable at all, I wonder.

I don't know why you keep going on about NIST and a criminal investigation. The FBI did the criminal investigation. Criminal investigations are not generally released for public consumption. Although, in the very rare example of this investigation, they DID release enormous amounts of evidence. Something unique in legal history, I suspect.

lf-evident, if it's all true, why haven't they packed all the stuff together and put foward a proper 9/11 Commission report?
Why do I have to go HERE, in the JREF forums to look for trivial answers such as the ISI connection, the collapse sequence of the towers, the NORAD wargames, instead of their own publicized report? Which does not satisfy them?
Which does not, therefore, satisfy their burden of proof, in my own opinion?

You don't actually have to come here. We got our information from somewhere other than here. You could just do some research of your own. The Government are there to run your country for you, not change your children's nappies and put your trash out. Take some responsibility for your own learning.

I'm so sick of people demanding that everything is handed to them on a silver platter with operating instructions.

You have a brain, you have eyes, you have a computer. If an adult westerner in this day and age is ignorant of anything at all, they have only themselves to blame.

-Gumboot

 

[The Almond]

I didn't say it was explicitly a criminal investigation, I meant to illustrate how I feel that the NIST report does not bring anything to the table.

Except, of course, for 3 years worth of scientific research. That's not "nothing".

Of course it naturally wouldn't say who did it. It's a technical report. But it didn't get anywhere close to saying what did it, it only stated a possible and probable scenario given certain conditions were met...

Actually, it proves the stated collapse initiation point. It uses experimental, empirical, video and physical evidence to prove what happened. What you define as, "only a possible scenario," I would define as the most likely scenario. It was the scenario that most closely matched the physical evidence.

And that scenario does not include the collapse sequence. Is that accurate enough now?

No. You seem fixated on the idea that NIST's report is somehow incomplete. Proving the collapse initiation state does indeed prove what caused the towers to fall.

I'm not even going to ask again if you think that's enough of an investigation because you're probably going to say so.

There's no probably about it, I am indeed going to say so. My opinion does not change if you ask me a question more than once.

I however do not think it's enough to settle the issue.

What issue?

If NIST's purpose was to investigate the collapse initiation as to improve building codes.

How would modeling the collapse progression improve the building codes? Do you think the codes can be changed to cause buildings to halt collapse once it begins?

IMO congress should have evoked them to include the collapse sequence as to be able to conclusively say what caused it.Awesome. Agreed.

We don't agree. I don't think that viewing the collapse of a building can provide any conclusive evidence as to what caused it. Consider that looking at only one damaged car does not allow you to reconstruct the accident.

1)That's your opinion and I appreciate that. Science can't judge what is valid or not since it depends on the viewer's doctrine in analyzing a situation.

Woah, what? Science measures objective reality, and yes it can judge what is valid. It does not change based on the scientist, or how they view it.

You may say that you're more scientifically able to judge that, but in such an odd and chaotic event, which hasn't been completely modeled nor explained, my opinion counts as much as yours.

Chaos? Oddity? These have nothing to do with the validity of a scientific experiment.

2)It wasn't. But it is the most relevant to argue on, considering that it is the best and most recommended scientific report which explains most phenomenas in the collapses while being in check with the building's blueprint.

I agree.

Because the collapses were an unusual event, never witnessed in demolition history. I mean, collapse history.

I honestly got a chuckle out of this one.

Several factors that can be pointed out by 3rd graders indicate that something else besides buckling of the external columns was necessary to get enough intact columns below out of the collapse wave, as the falling mass wen through in about 80% free fall acceleration... you know the deal.

Ummm...No I don't. I don't know any third graders who assert this. Your statement that something else was necessary has been addressed numerous times on this forum, and to date, no conspiracy theorist has provided sufficient proof for this assertion.

Your answer to my question is that only by modeling the collapse itself can we prove that controlled demolition took place. Is that correct?

Cool, thank you very much. I understand you point and I appreciate you taking your time to answer me. And sorry for all the trouble.

Please, it's no trouble. I'm enjoying this debate, and I hope you are too.

 

[R.Mackey]

Warning: Unrestrained nerdiness follows.

As an unrestrained nerd, please accept my nomination of your post for the coveted Language Award. Your explanation was not only novel and entertaining, but also correct. Well done.

 

[beachnut]

Now talking about my own physical intuition.. I don't know how accurate mine is, but I surely don't think that if superman lifted the twin towers, it would remain intact for more than 2 seconds,

I've seen greening's paper critiques and his model ain't comparable to the collapse of the towers. he doesn't account for debris ejection nor for tri-dimensional invariables present in the steel frame. Those which certainly represent your chaos theory. How the heck would the load transfer systems react, while being crushed by massive loads of debris, there's no way to know. But a single formula ain't gonna cut it, that's for sure.

I was looking for this, tri-dimensional invariables present in the steel frame. You found them! Darn, I missed that year in engineering, the invariables. Or was it the Invincibles, or superman?

Darn, they forgot to fit the building with a the cartoon superman attachment points. DARN.

I think your invariables, and superman stuff say it all. You need some math and physics courses before you go back to backing CT ideas.

At least you pack in some warnings of this is your "opinion.

But then Greening does account for the ejection of material you missed it. You missed his whole point. What do you think about his calculations, and why are the CT calculations wrong?

 

[Myriad]

Beachnut, it's not fair to ridicule Yurebiz for talking about "Superman stuff." I was the first to bring up Superman, as part of an illustrative hypothetical example; he just played along in his response.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[JonnyFive]

Bruce Banner has to give some explanation as to where he finds one-size-fits-human-and-gamma-ray-mutated-monster purple pants.

One word: Spandex.

 

[Z]

One word: Spandex.

Two words: unstable molecules.

OK, so Spandex is much less expensive. But Bruce was friends with Reed. ALL those scientist-types pretty much ate at the same bistro, except Victor.

 

[JonnyFive]

OK, so Spandex is much less expensive. But Bruce was friends with Reed. ALL those scientist-types pretty much ate at the same bistro, except Victor.

Yeah, but how do you know that Reed is going to keep supplying Bruce with special pants? I'd get kind of pissed that my friend was always mooching off of me.

I'd be all like "Hey man, why don't you buy some of your own f-ing pants for once?"

and he'd be all like "RARGH RAGH [turns into Hulk]"

and then I'd be like "See, that's what I'm talking about! Whenever you get upset you go and turn into a goddamn green monster! No one can freaking talk to you about anything because you're so sensitive about everything. Now go and buy some more pants, there's a hole in the crotch of those."

Victor was always an a-hole anyway. He always had to "go to the bathroom" and then he'd just skip out on the check. Jackass.

 

[Z]

Yeah, but how do you know that Reed is going to keep supplying Bruce with special pants? I'd get kind of pissed that my friend was always mooching off of me.

I'd be all like "Hey man, why don't you buy some of your own f-ing pants for once?"

and he'd be all like "RARGH RAGH [turns into Hulk]"

and then I'd be like "See, that's what I'm talking about! Whenever you get upset you go and turn into a goddamn green monster! No one can freaking talk to you about anything because you're so sensitive about everything. Now go and buy some more pants, there's a hole in the crotch of those."

Victor was always an a-hole anyway. He always had to "go to the bathroom" and then he'd just skip out on the check. Jackass.

Dude... unstable molecules. Reed just tosses the pants back in the bin, gives it a good shake (potentizes it???), and pours it into the pants mold again. Instant fix.



You forgot to mention that Vic was also the one always ordering the Lobster and Serloin Combo Deluxe Platter and just nibbling at the salad. Before skipping out on the check.

 

[Pardalis]

Yurebiz, you seem to think the collapse was the crime. It wasn't. The highjackings of the planes and flying them into buildings were.

The collapse was the consequence of the planes hitting the buildings. The NIST had to study why the towers fell, they did exactly that.

You have the confirmation bias that the towers fell because of a controlled demolition, and you don't budge away from it.

Think about it, four planes were highjacked and rammed into three buildings, what possible motive could there be to demolish these buildings? Don't you think that this multiplies the complexity of this operation, that it multiplies the level of involvement and the risks of mistakes slip ups by a thousand?

 

[JonnyFive]

Dude... unstable molecules. Reed just tosses the pants back in the bin, gives it a good shake (potentizes it???), and pours it into the pants mold again. Instant fix.

I guess so, but what kind of pain the butt is that? He can't even pour his own pants?

You forgot to mention that Vic was also the one always ordering the Lobster and Serloin Combo Deluxe Platter and just nibbling at the salad. Before skipping out on the check.

He's no longer welcome at social functions for this very reason. He's got all kinds of money for his castle and everything, but he can't shell out thirty bucks for dinner? Cheap bastard.

 

[JimBenArm]

I guess so, but what kind of pain the butt is that? He can't even pour his own pants?



He's no longer welcome at social functions for this very reason. He's got all kinds of money for his castle and everything, but he can't shell out thirty bucks for dinner? Cheap bastard.

To say nothing of the royalty checks the SOB gets for his autobiography!

 

[R.Mackey]

There's one comment I've not seen from anyone on whether NIST should have modelled the collapse, so I may as well make it myself. Based, I should stress, on speculation rather than expertise, so take it with the customary pinch of salt.

Chaos theory is a branch of nonlinear dynamics that describes the behaviour of systems whose dynamics are highly sensitive to initial conditions. Although they are deterministic, chaotic systems appear to behave randomly, because any attempt to predict the behaviour of the system is frustrated by the disporportionate effects of variations in the initial conditions on the outcome. [...]

It seems to me - and I'd be open to correction on this - that the actual collapse of the WTC twin towers is a good example of a chaotic system. There are too many variables, in terms of the initial locations and velocities of all the components of the towers, too many uncertainties over the precise impact points of elements on other elements, on the distribution of strengths of different structural elements, and too many possible outcomes - if you try to model the fine detail. [...] Therefore, I would submit that a major reason why NIST did not even attempt to model the collapses - rather than the collapse initiations - is that they were well aware that any such investigation would be a colossal waste of time and money, and would shed no light whatsoever on what actually happened.

This is an excellent point. The WTC collapse isn't entirely a chaotic system, per se, but only in the sense that it can only evolve in one direction (downward) and thus doesn't have a well-defined attractor. It is an example of deterministic chaos in that its final state is not truly random, but involves so many interactions that it cannot be precisely predicted.

Individual elements of the WTC collapse can be viewed as each undergoing a Random Walk, eventually coming to rest at a position that can only be described statistically. These random trajectories also intersect each other, making the problem inordinately complicated. While we can put some limits on how far any individual piece can travel, we cannot say where any one piece will land, nor can we accurately predict the shape of the pile after collapse beyond a modest level of confidence.

Stat Mech babble follows, skip if this is likely to bore you:

The WTC collapses are so complicated that they may be treated as a problem in Statistical Mechanics, with the final location of structural elements forming an ensemble state, but our case is radically different from typical stat mech problems -- our initial state is artificially frozen in a highly ordered configuration, then suddenly being released by impact (or gradually released by successive impacts), and being free to relax into a vastly higher entropic state. However, after relaxation, the amount of remaining free energy is extremely low, and the system is essentially frozen in its final state again. While the collapse feels like a state transition, i.e. crystal dissolution, it's really not the same thing. This would not be well-modeled by classical stat mech cases such as the Ising model, but would require an entirely new solution. This would be further complicated if we incorporated damage to individual elements as part of the model, but it is already so complex that we would be better off to simplify by not including this admittedly important detail.

I've argued against the usefulness of collapse simulation elsewhere, notably here. Again, simulation can't even predict what side of a die will come up, so why should we think it can predict the final state of a half million tons of building materials?

Such a simulation has no scientific value, indeed no value other than "entertainment," and I hold a dim opinion indeed of those who seek entertainment from the tragedies of Sept. 11th.

 

[Horatius]

Such a simulation has no scientific value, indeed no value other than "entertainment," and I hold a dim opinion indeed of those who seek entertainment from the tragedies of Sept. 11th.

Such a simulation could have educational value, in that it might teach the twoofers why such simulations aren't done as a routine matter. However, twoofers have shown such a resistance to education, that the return on the investment is likely to be far too low to be worth the effort.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Such a simulation could have educational value, in that it might teach the twoofers why such simulations aren't done as a routine matter. However, twoofers have shown such a resistance to education, that the return on the investment is likely to be far too low to be worth the effort.

When it comes to ROI, the "Truth Movement" is a moneypit.

 

[Yurebiz]

Yurebiz said:

Now see this honesty will gain you respect. You are right, we do demand evidence, because it is too important a topic not to have proof when allegations are made. As I said, if you are satisfied with posting things here as opinion, that is fine, but without evidence most people here, through sheer fatigue in dealing with so many others similarly, will likely brush you off and give your comments little more than criticism.

If you want my opinion on any aspect of 9/11, just ask, and I'll give it.

TAM

Thank you for everything TAM.

CTers take note of how a normal discussion can progress.

They'll just claim he's a shill, ya know.

:<
More like an Inexperienced CTer trying to find a middle ground to sit in.

Warning: Unrestrained nerdiness follows.

You're getting the idea. But Superman actually couldn't lift one of the towers (or any large building) at all. No matter how strong he is, his hands just aren't big enough. Assume he reaches through the glass, facade, etc. and grabs an exterior column. He might be able to rip one section of it out of position if it's poorly welded, but more likely the metal he grasped would just deform where he pulled on it. He'd be left holding two handfuls of twisted steel, looking foolish. It would be like trying to lift a wedding cake by holding onto the cake.

The same kind of thing happens anytime one, in the process of messing around with tools (and messing around with tools is another, less nerdy, way of gaining physical intution), attempts to push or pull something with the force too concentrated (such as too small a pushing tool, or too small an anchor for a tow cable), and ends up punching a hole or tearing out a piece instead.

Now suppose Superman decides to get really serious, so he goes into the basement and grabs the biggest core column in a bear hug, and lifts it straight up (no twisting). Assume whatever he's standing on is strong enough to resist the pressure of the entire weight of the building bearing on two size-11 footprints. What happens? A lot of twisted metal, adjacent columns ripped up, horizontal beams bent, elevator shafts jammed, a big mess. By the time he's moved it a foot, the building is damaged beyond repair and will have to be condemned. But most of it still doesn't leave the ground.

Now a super-villain comes along with a repulsor ray, and levitates the whole tower a hundred feet. (Since the repulsor ray's force is spread over the entire building, the structure stays intact. Super-technology always gets a free pass in comic book scenarios.) Then the evil-doer turns the repulsor ray off, leaving the building to plunge to its doom. Superman to the rescue! He flies to the bottom of the building, takes a good hold on a core column, and uses his super-strength to try to hold the building up or at least bring it to a soft landing. What happens?

All the columns except one are unsupported. Let's look an a similar scenario where all the columns except one are unsupported: starting with the building in its normal place, you remove the bottom ten feet of all the columns except one. Or another scenario: you put explosive cutting charges on all the columns in the basement, then set them off, and just one of them fails to detonate. The answer is the same in each case: the sucker's gonna collapse anyhow, starting immediately. (In the repulsor-ray case, the building just tears itself apart without waiting to reach the ground first, as most of it simply continues falling, slowed down only negligibly by Superman's efforts.)

This all gives me an idea for a new super-villain: The Skeptic. The Skeptic's only power is to be able to enforce the laws of physics in the presence of super-heroes. So Cyclops gets an equal and opposite blow to the eyes whenever he uses his force-blasts, telepaths become no more accurate than chance expectations, Superman's can't inhale more than the volume of his lungs with his super breath, Ant Man suffers from hypothermia, and 10-storey-tall samurai robots find that rocket motors the size of cans of air freshener suddenly become insufficient to get them airborne. (His weakness, of course, is that he's powerless against the little-known superhero Some Dude With A Machine Gun. And also against Wolverine. "Not fair! Your superpower is sharp knives!)

Respectfully,
Myriad

Holy snap. OK, well I didn't picture him grabbing a column with both armos but.. I don't know, kinda like lifting a car from below, you know, extending his arms in some trusses together. If he can extend his arms in between a couple central core trusses then it might be able to resist a little and not just snap in an instant.. I don't know, the building is quite heavy (oh really? haha) so it might just snap as you say...
Eh, ok, it's not physically possible given the surface area of his arms being so small. If he could grow as large as Hulk though.. then maybe... oh crap, I just started another debate, lawl.

Well that's just completely false. All of their work was event-specific. They were investigating why those particular buildings collapsed, and they found out why.

I got the wrong wording there. I meant to say they had proven the collapse working only before and until the collapse initiation event started. The "witnessed conditions" I stated was meant to include the collapse sequence witnessed as well. But yeah sorry for that.

Of course it wasn't. Why would NIST conduct a criminal investigation? The criminal investigation was conducted by the FBI.

I know. We don't know much about them, not that I got a problem with that. Well, I do have a problem with that. But thats totally understandable and tolerable. The folks who should have done us the favor to provide more answers was the 9/11 Commission, and congress.

The fact is it's very very very basic physics. I nearly failed physics in 6th form, and didn't do it in 7th form. I've never studied it at university. And yet I am without doubt that there's no way the towers would have stopped collapsing once it had started. Do the match. Calculate the forces you're talking about. The building ain't gonna stay up.

I know there's no stopping to the upper forces. What i doubt is a total collapse. Part of the intact building below could have resisted, since that debris didn't simply fall 90 degrees straight down. much was peeled away, and ejected away. So when the collapse wave is down to the 30th, 20th, there shouldn't be enough energy to keep demolishing the floors down. It's like there was no core columns at those points either. The collapse wave went straight down on both towers, no matter what the starting mass was.

Here's the thing... no one but conspiracy theorists think this is important. Fires CAN elevate temperatures that high. Fires buried underground with sufficient fuel will burn quite literally for CENTURIES at extremely high temperatures. Anything heated and buried underground will retain that heat for a very long time. We KNOW this. The native Maori of New Zealand have been using this principle to cook food for thousands of years.

:O
Ok. Gotta ask some New Zealand natives to help us out here. Our scientists from NIST could use their knowledge.

Why should they? Seriously... why should the government?

Because in my opinion it was an odd event that deserved attention.

But that goes along with many other things that CTers, LIHOPers, LIHOIers doubt as well, you know. We may be discussing "why do I think they should have investigated the collapse" right now, but few here have brought up their opinion to why the 9/11 Commission Report also didn't talk about the warnings, the few NORAD drills as you know, the molten metal, any other foreknowledge issue known out there that I didn't mention before... like Mineta's testimony (which has just recently been further confirmed to be more reliable due to early white house evacuation), and that's been called by the commission itself! Why didn't the commission follow up that lead? Or the ISI lead? The money trail? list goes on of what they didn't investigate... I know other agencies did, which is how we might have got some answers over time, but case stands that the 9/11 Commission didn't follow up by itself.

Actually you'll find a number of people on these forums believe in LIHOI. Me, I don't. I believe in LIHOA - Let It Happen Out of Americanism - that being that it was the very nature of the USA itself - its love of freedom, its belief in a fair judiciary, its willingness to welcome its arms to foreigners and it's firm confidence (arrogance) in the ability of its military and intelligence services to protect it - that ultimately assured this attack would go ahead without a hitch.

I never heard that one before. Thanks for the input.

I don't think so.

"Obligated" was an awful choice. I agree with you. They weren't. They never are.

Yes I think it is unnecessary.

Thanks.

All of that has nothing to do with what the government has said, and everything to do with Anti-American sentiment (in the case of foreigners) and paranoia and mistrust of government in general (in the case of Americans).

If I change "government" to "9/11 commission that whole paragraph would make more sense. I would have done so had I reviewed it at all.. darn. But I get your point. It's all a matter of opinion whether you think they're being dishonest or ignorant up to this point. Simply because there's only a handful of direct evidence which directs to willful omission or distortion, if anything at all. And even those can be dismissed as ignorant mistakes. Literally everything they report can be brushed aside as misinformation or error in communication between second hand informants or whatever.
A funny saying about the government I heard before, goes something like "Working for the government means never having to say you're wrong". I forgot how it goes exactly.

It's not "supposed" to be anything at all. Life does not have designs and intentions and how things are "meant" to be. There's what is, and what isn't. And that's all.

Yeah thats was a rhetorical question instigating low-class philosophy reflection to whoever cares to read what I say. Extremely low level. Ok, it wasn't anything like that at all. I just tried a Loose Change-esque line which meant to support my baseless assumptions about our government's role. There you go.

No I don't think the government is required to explain every single aspect of the day. They would be writing reports for all eternity.

They do when they're properly requested to.

I don't know why you keep going on about NIST and a criminal investigation. The FBI did the criminal investigation. Criminal investigations are not generally released for public consumption. Although, in the very rare example of this investigation, they DID release enormous amounts of evidence. Something unique in legal history, I suspect.

That's not it. You see, I have a grudge on the NIST. They give us a report on collapse initiation, but don't explain the collapse sequence. Which means, are they talking about the Twin Towers at all? Those towers blew up and fell in their own footprints at free fall speed. Ignore that last line, it's copy paste from a random forum. Actually forget that whole point at all. It doesn't make much sense now that I thought about it.

You don't actually have to come here. We got our information from somewhere other than here. You could just do some research of your own. The Government are there to run your country for you, not change your children's nappies and put your trash out. Take some responsibility for your own learning.

I'm so sick of people demanding that everything is handed to them on a silver platter with operating instructions.

You have a brain, you have eyes, you have a computer. If an adult westerner in this day and age is ignorant of anything at all, they have only themselves to blame.

-Gumboot

Thanks. If there's someone in here who has every right to be tired of replying to me is you Gumboot. I gotta thank you for giving me some of your time. Thank you.

Except, of course, for 3 years worth of scientific research. That's not "nothing".

I meant "my table". My.. collapse sequence table. Gosh I have to remember myself to quit using expressions I barely know the meaning of so arbitrarily.

Actually, it proves the stated collapse initiation point. It uses experimental, empirical, video and physical evidence to prove what happened. What you define as, "only a possible scenario," I would define as the most likely scenario. It was the scenario that most closely matched the physical evidence.

Agreed it is the most likely scenario given the evidence. But again, there was not that much evidence to start with. Most beams got shipped away and all that.

No. You seem fixated on the idea that NIST's report is somehow incomplete. Proving the collapse initiation state does indeed prove what caused the towers to fall.

To fall. To fall in what manner?

There's no probably about it, I am indeed going to say so. My opinion does not change if you ask me a question more than once.

I'm deeply sorry, I thought I hadn't asked you before. If there's anything I hate, is asking unnecessary questions. Except the ol' rhetorical, CTer ones, of course.

What issue?

The "how the heck did they fall that way" issue. Which is not considered an issue for most (darn Greening), but for me it still is.

How would modeling the collapse progression improve the building codes? Do you think the codes can be changed to cause buildings to halt collapse once it begins?

You got me there. It's a moot point, but, I wanted to say that, had the NIST also investigated the collapse sequence, it would eliminate other possible scenarios. Now thats partially true, but I have to agree with you that it doesn't make a difference at all if they do or not. The codes could be changed nonetheless. (I heard that they weren't, but I don't want to derail this thread.And that doesn't make any difference at all either, since buildings aren't meant to survive planes crashing into them)

We don't agree. I don't think that viewing the collapse of a building can provide any conclusive evidence as to what caused it. Consider that looking at only one damaged car does not allow you to reconstruct the accident.

Sure no problem with that. It certainly depends on how damaged the car is, what type of damage, what your experience tells you what might have caused it. Physical intuition like Myrad said.

Woah, what? Science measures objective reality, and yes it can judge what is valid. It does not change based on the scientist, or how they view it.

How can you tell an investigation is scientifically valid before even seeing it? I reckon my line was somehow confused, but you can't just invalidate a hypothetical investigation like that ...

Chaos? Oddity? These have nothing to do with the validity of a scientific experiment.

Which experiment? The collapse sequence investigation which was never thoroughly carried out? As many have said it was pretty chaotic, but that doesn't mean it can't be modeled in a plausible scientific explanation... there has to be some logic behind the collapse, especially if you can compute the collapse initiation even if limited by speculation.

I honestly got a chuckle out of this one.

I chuckle when reading my own posts all the time. I do exaggerate sometimes but this particular time it wasn't that bad. Where could have you observed a 110 story building collapse before? That in itself is quite extraordinary.

Ummm...No I don't. I don't know any third graders who assert this. Your statement that something else was necessary has been addressed numerous times on this forum, and to date, no conspiracy theorist has provided sufficient proof for this assertion.

Your answer to my question is that only by modeling the collapse itself can we prove that controlled demolition took place. Is that correct?

That was pathetic (my post), I agree. You didn't get the point I was making though.
It's not necessary to prove a CD. CD could be proven by many other ways and this ain't the topic for it. I'm not trying to prove CD and I never were. I have only tried debunking the NIST on certain aspects, and haven't been able to do so because I don't know enough specifics in the subject. I only mention CD as an alternate hypothesis which hasn't been disproven, and as a likely rival, second to the official. Second by far.
I'm saying the NIST doesn't account for the collapse, therefore we can't take it as fact of what made them fall. It's the most probable scenario, but still, we knew the fire+damage hypothesis since the day it happened (big thanks to the Harley guy, you're my favorite shill), but there was no government led investigation that modeled the collapse sequence successfully, as to conclude it wasn't anything else. I know it wasn't NIST's job. But IMO it should have been. Had they done this, there would be less remaining doubt against the official story. You guys think it's enough, and congress had no need to pay em more to do it; but we think it is, because we're CTers, and thats it.

Please, it's no trouble. I'm enjoying this debate, and I hope you are too.

I get tired fast, lol. Time passes by, and here's me typing for more than one hour on each huge reply I make. One and a half. Figures I don't even review anymore, because If i do thats an extra 20 minutes at the very least. It just never ends, haha.
I'm sure I'll get used to it over time though. I only feel sorry for you people who have to go through the same issues and questions over and over again, only due to my crummy writing. Thanks.

I was looking for this, tri-dimensional invariables present in the steel frame. You found them! Darn, I missed that year in engineering, the invariables. Or was it the Invincibles, or superman?

Darn, they forgot to fit the building with a the cartoon superman attachment points. DARN.

I think your invariables, and superman stuff say it all. You need some math and physics courses before you go back to backing CT ideas.

At least you pack in some warnings of this is your "opinion.

But then Greening does account for the ejection of material you missed it. You missed his whole point. What do you think about his calculations, and why are the CT calculations wrong?

I crack myself up in every post you make beachnut. Please keep em coming, I feel like I'm the only one making fun of.. myself here. I appreciate it.
About Greening's stuff. I'm going to check it out? As far as I remember he didn't account for it at all. I only remember one relatively simple formula where he applied the force of each story upon the next one.. till it gets to the ground. Now of course I didn't reviewed it myself, but there were people saying that, had the towers collapsed the way his model proposes, they would have to end up in a single pile like FEMA first proposed with the pancake theory. Am I sort of right or dreadfully wrong again? Please verify, as you know I personally won't. Plus you get a couple cookies and extra laughs as compensation!

Beachnut, it's not fair to ridicule Yurebiz for talking about "Superman stuff." I was the first to bring up Superman, as part of an illustrative hypothetical example; he just played along in his response.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Yeah Superman sucks anyway. The Hulk is way stronger.

Yurebiz, you seem to think the collapse was the crime. It wasn't. The highjackings of the planes and flying them into buildings were.

The collapse was the consequence of the planes hitting the buildings. The NIST had to study why the towers fell, they did exactly that.

You have the confirmation bias that the towers fell because of a controlled demolition, and you don't budge away from it.

Think about it, four planes were highjacked and rammed into three buildings, what possible motive could there be to demolish these buildings? Don't you think that this multiplies the complexity of this operation, that it multiplies the level of involvement and the risks of mistakes slip ups by a thousand?

There is no reason to demolish them. What most likely happen is just as you say.

I'm only questioning how open investigations were carried out by congress. and if they fulfill our doubts. I take the instance of CD CTer as to ask how much did the NIST explain about the collapses, and if that was enough to settle the questions.

I didn't only question the collapse though, but whatever. Enough people gave me their opinions and that's what I was looking forward to!

 

[T.A.M.]

So here is a question.

If the towers had collapsed in, lets say, 25-30 seconds, do you think the majority of truthers would be asking for the collapse itself, beyond initiation, to be investigated?

You see I do not buy the idea that most truthers feel the collapse itself needs investigation simply because it is something that a "thorough and complete" investigation should have addressed. The MAIN reason they whine about no study of the collapse itself is because they cannot get their heads around the "near freefall" collapse time...plain and simple.

TAM

 

[beachnut]

Yurebiz sounds like he is just talk vs facts on 9/11. Could he be the David Ray Griffen of JREF; a free version? Anyone find any facts, evidence, or sign of intelligent thought in his posts? (As interrelated to 9/11)


Or is yureeebizzz a kind of random generator of posts based on nonsense responses to our inputs. Just a computer program. I use to have a program that talked to me just like this but it made more sense. That was in the 80s and 70s.

Added; I bet I will not be seeing any numbers or real answers to my questions. Just talk. Yure, you could get a physics teacher to help you.