RemoveBush:
1. Your quote was full of HTML Tags, which I find annoying, hard to read, so I simple cut/paste your post below.
2. I have not read the 2 pages of replies since I posted, so If someone has answered any of the questions etc...I have not seen the answers.
Here, first are a few replies to your replies to me:
"T.A.M.", at least you can debate..... Thanks.... Now to answer your questions.
1) Actually, things can and do have "speed" and "velocity", it just matters on the context.
"Just as distance and displacement have distinctly different meanings (despite their similarities), so do speed and velocity. Speed is a scalar quantity which refers to "how fast an object is moving." A fast-moving object has a high speed while a slow-moving object has a low speed. An object with no movement at all has a zero speed.
Velocity is a vector quantity which refers to "the rate at which an object changes its position." Imagine a person moving rapidly - one step forward and one step back - always returning to the original starting position. While this might result in a frenzy of activity, it would result in a zero velocity. Because the person always returns to the original position, the motion would never result in a change in position. Since velocity is defined as the rate at which the position changes, this motion results in zero velocity. If a person in motion wishes to maximize their velocity, then that person must make every effort to maximize the amount that they are displaced from their original position. Every step must go into moving that person further from where he/she started. For certain, the person should never change directions and begin to return to where he/she started from."
2) The discussion can be based in several ways. Speed is correct for one type, velocity might be for another. "time of free fall" is correct when refering to a CD or simliar collapse.
1. ok, that was a bit over the top, but fine. So I guess my point is taken, that really, when discussing the fall of the WTCs, to do so correctly you either refer to speed of fall at time or distance X, or you do not refer to a speed or velocity at all, but rather to "time of free fall" at distance X. We will leave it at that.
3) I don't claim to be qualified to have all the answer. I do claim to be qualified to the extent that I perfrom mathematical calculations everyday and I rely anylize the data and use that data to come to conclusions. Unlike many of the people commenting here tonight! Many, as I can tell, have no experience or any high level education to have the ability to take data and analyze it. They rely upon "common sense" to form their judgments. Common sense does not always beat out physics.
I do not know the exact qualification of the people posting here. However, many of them do have appropriate qualifications, like yourself. We have several engineers that post here, as well as architects, steel workers, etc...
Most people here rely on EXPERT OPINION and TESTIMONY when the issue is beyond their level of education. I would think given your expertese is Electronics, and that you have a Bachelors (not to knock it, but a PhD in Structural Engineering would be much more qualified than you...and even more than me), that there are many, many issues where you are qualified only in the area of mathematics to examine.
Try not to judge, but rather, ask someone what their qualifications are. R. Mackey, for example is an engineer with NASA, and he post here frequently.
4) NIST and their team was were largely made up of people who rely upon the government to obtain their income. They were directly told by the Bush admin what they should look for. i.e. that it was caused by the plane and the fire. Not to investigate and rule out all possible/plausible situations. NIST violated their own SOP (standard operating procedure) in that they did not investigate all possible senerios. A scientist/engineer will investigate the issue even if they do not feel that it is viable, just to ensure they can 100% rule it out. NIST states they did not pursue this. Against thier SOP.
1. You do realize you are accusing hundreds of your fellow engineers of allowing people to get away with murder simply to save their jobs. Not directly, but indirectly this is what you are saying.
2. If you look at the MANDATE given to NIST, they in no way violated their SOP. Their report is a "BUILDING PERFORMANCE STUDY", not an FBI CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.
3. Has one single scientist or engineer stated in anyway that they were prevented from investigating any aspect of the collapse initiation or building performance, and if so, by whom?
4. Your comment on SOP is a little generic. For example as a Doctor, I have participated in drug trials. Now in these trials their are certain things that are looked at, examined, studied, and other aspects that are not. Either they are of no consequence, or not of concern to those performing the study. If NIST was not charged with looking into certain aspects of the collapse, then they had no need to, and in my opinion did not breech any SOP.
5) "The WTCs were brought down by a combination of (1) Severing of many of the exterior and interior steel columns from plane impact, (2) removal of the majority of the steel structures fireproofing, and (3) Widespread fires intitiated by the airliner jet fuel, then maintained and superheated by the contents of the office buildings that burned as a result. The degree of impact each of the above had on the building collapse initiation, varies between the two towers."
I cannot prove or disprove this, but neither can anyone else.
Based on 10,000 pages of data collection and analysis, the structural engineers of NIST feel the above statement reflects the MOST LIKELY cause of collapse. DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THIS IS INCORRECT, or do you have ANY EVIDENCE OF ANOTHER PLAUSIBLE THEORY, to the extent that it should be considered the MOST LIKELY cause, instead of the one NIST has proposed?
How about providing evidence as to how a pool of molten iron can be formed and flowing within the rubble of all 3 WTC's without an external source to generate the temperatures needed?
If there was proof of molten IRON or STEEL, than I would simply say that temperatures of the fires and embers underneath the debris would have to be of sufficient temperature to maintain such a state. Could this have occured in the collapse, I think so, via alternate fuel sources within the building and with the added heat derrived from the friction of the building collapse.
However, there is no proof, direct or indirect, of molten IRON or STEEL. There is a decent amount of WITNESS TESTIMONY of molten METAL of some form. That is all I have seen. Color temperature charts mean little, when the molten metals are highly contaminated (not just a handful of wood chunks) with hydrocarbon products from the building, so bringing up the color of the molten METAL really has little validity here. I have seen the video and photos, and they prove nothing beyond possible molten METAL of unknown consistency.
6) Grainy video?? How about the fact that FIREFIGHTERS are making statements that the largest piece found was a 1" piece of a phone. "No chairs, desks" etc... Not my words the words of a fireman. You believe that there was piles of debris left from the WTC???? There was nothing left of the buildings, even though both was hit diferently they both fell IDENTICALLY.
I have seen the interview with the SINGLE firefighter who stated they found nothing bigger that a few inches, no phones, no computers.
Here is what I will say about that:
1. I wouldn' t expect to find a whole lot of debris in big chunks, given the distance things fell, and the weight that came atop most of the debris.
2. I doubt he had gone through ALL the debris, and was likely only speaking of what he himself saw, or did not see.
3. 1" Phone pieces, chunks of concrete, are all much bigger than the micronized (50-60 microns I think some of the truther researchers claim) concrete they say was all was left of the WTC concrete.
4. You have not provided me with any proof that the "dust" was micronized concrete, as opposed to drywall.
7) So now you are mind reader?? I don't know what they believe, and they have not stated it in public except to say that 9/11 is not what we were told.
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
I agree, you were the one who brought this weak argument/evidence up. You have confirmed my point, which is that we know very little of what they were thinking on the matter. I would say that to cover my point of them not believing the "inside job" version, that I would expect many of them to say something if they truely believe the govt they work for was guilty of killing 3000 of its own citizens. But that is just opinion, and is a weak argument.
So answer me this then...
1) What allowed the other buildings in the area, which received much more damage to remain standing while only WTC1, 2, and 7 fell? WTC 5 was on fire completely for hours and had extreme damage to it, yet it did not collapse. They had to "pull it" latter after the recovery ended.
1. I would make an educated guess that the factors that caused WTC 1/2 to collapse, versus the others, had to do with (1) WTC 1/2 Unique design, (2) Airliner impact with severing of columns, removal of fireproofing. As for WTC 7. I believe part of it was extensive fires covering multiple floors, unchecked for hours, combined with severe structural damage from WTC debris, wich caused a 10-20 storey hole in the south side of the building, and other factors I do not know of.
2. The "pull it" quote you tried to sneak in there, is of little relevence to your initial question, expected, but will not be addressed in this context.
2) Why was NIST restricted in how it would perform its investigation? Why did it not test for ALL plausible situations per their SOP?
Show me how they were restricted. I do not want some vague blanket statement that they were "restricted". My comments on why they might have been resticted are totally dependent on what the restrictions were or were not. You bring up the SOP over and over again, so please give me a link to the NIST SOP. I have addressed this issue above.
3) Why does the Government still to this day state that only 1 black box was recovered when rescue workers state they helped the FBI recover 3 of the 4 from the WTC? Why deny this when rescue workers state they were found?
This nonsense is based on the testimony of ONE worker, whom I believe was trying to promote a book at the time. It has never been confirmed, and I would ask you to at the very least provide multiple reliable witnesses backing up this claim by a single person before I would take it very seriously.
4) Why does NIST refuse to address the discrepencies found in the FDR from flight 77 and flight 93?
What does NIST have to do with the FDRs? What does a "Building Performance Study" have to do with Flight Data Recorders, and their possible discrepencies...I am calling this one irrelivent.
5) Why has the government refused and faught so hard from ANY investigation into the worst attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor. Why did it take over a year to get Bush to allow them and then only with limited funding to ensure it would fail?
To the BUSH admin, the causative agent of the attacks, as it was and is to most americans, was known...Al-Qaeda. they did not refuse the FBI to investigate the attacks. They did not refuse FEMA. Beyond that, I would guess politics and cheapness would be factors in why they resisted an investigation into something that to them, had an obvious cause. I, however, am not a spokesperson for the BUSH admin.
This should be enough for now, let's see how you answer these and then I'll hit you with some harder questions.
Fine, but let us focus on a couple of topics at a time. I don't want to tackle Griffins 105 points all at once.
REMOVEBUSH, please address my points as you said you would 4-5 pagesof thread ago. Thanks.
TAM
), but it is indeed useless.