Loose Change - Part II

[Pardalis]

First I want to clarify a few things about me. I’m not a Holocaust denier, I don’t believe or care if Oswald had co-conspirators, don’t buy Pearl Harbor conspiracy, faked lunar landing, etc. So please don’t lump all of us into “CTers” (It took me a while to figure out what that stood for.) Right now, I’m just talking science/physics. As I said, a step at a time. On CSI, the first thing they would do, is examine the crime scene. I think you all would agree, the WTC was a crime scene. I’m not talking conspiracy now. I want to know what occurred from the time the first plane hit, to the time the last tower fell. Right now, I have absolutely no interest in who was involved. Arabs or not. UFOs or not.

Some of your comments that jump out at me.

This thread, as you might notice, has been going on for quite some time. The comments you felt attacked with weren't directed at you, but were a part of more general discussions about other conspiracists that clearly are nuts (not you). So far, you have seemed to me reasoned and well intentioned. Hope this will clear some of the misunderstanding.

 

[Abbyas]

Prove it. Otherwise it is no different than saying, "There is an invisible, heatless fire-breathing, flying dragon in my garage."

Here is a list of some of the groups that were involved with the creation of the NIST report:

The Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers
Society of Fire Protection Engineers
The American Institute of Steel Construction
The Council of Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat
The Structural Engineers Association of New York
The American Concrete Institute
The Council of American Structural Engineers
The New York Dept. of Design and Construction
The New York Dept. of Buildings


And this is an incomplete list of all the experts involved in the development of the NIST report. This is why I (an individual who doesn't have a large grasp of physics) would be loathe to believe a seperate theory without at least one or two structural engineers behind it.

Edited for grammar

 

[chipmunk stew]

First I want to clarify a few things about me. I’m not a Holocaust denier, I don’t believe or care if Oswald had co-conspirators, don’t buy Pearl Harbor conspiracy, faked lunar landing, etc. So please don’t lump all of us into “CTers” (It took me a while to figure out what that stood for.) Right now, I’m just talking science/physics. As I said, a step at a time. On CSI, the first thing they would do, is examine the crime scene. I think you all would agree, the WTC was a crime scene. I’m not talking conspiracy now. I want to know what occurred from the time the first plane hit, to the time the last tower fell. Right now, I have absolutely no interest in who was involved. Arabs or not. UFOs or not.

Some of your comments that jump out at me.

“NIST used finite element analysis to arrive at their conclusions. Do you know what that is?
If you'd like to look at some math that's a little more accessible, I suggest you look at Dr. Frank Greening's work. Links to his papers can be found here:”
In order to determine the cause of collapse, the investigators got off their asses, and looked at real evidence on-site. With the help of people who know what to look for, they found physical clues to the cause of the collapse. They failed to find clues for the alternative theories.
the people doing the work are professionals, whose knowledge in the field is recognized by other professionals in the field, etc.
Prove it. Otherwise it is no different than saying, "There is an invisible, heatless fire-breathing, flying dragon in my garage."

I find it interesting, once again, that you are expecting exact numbers from me, that the NIST did not provide. It’s like a case of “My expert is smarter than your expert.” Yes, I know of Dr. Greening. I don’t think much of his report. There is a big consensus that he over exaggerated the mass of the towers. If you search, I think you’ll find that even he admits this.

Here is my question to the people convinced by Dr. Greening’s paper: Have you read and compared Dr. Stephen Jones’ paper also? Why do you favor Greening over Jones?

Why do you think your experts are better than my experts? You appear to not be exercising the same level of skepticism to your own beliefs.

“the people doing the work are professionals, whose knowledge in the field is recognized by other professionals in the field, etc.”I’m sorry, but this statement really seems to show a large amount of blind faith. Very non-skeptical.

To everyone who has read studied the NIST, or the Dr. Greening report, or the Nova special….. Take a few hours, (or how ever much time you spent looking at the preceding) and read Dr. Steven Jones’ paper. Unless you only want to look at things that reinforce your already formed opinion.

Ignore anybody talking about missiles shooting out of planes, swapping planes, etc. They are no my brethren.

Oh and thanks to Shrinker. Quite often in online debates, I use the name “Mutton-Head.” Because at some point somebody will say, “Listen here Mutton-Head..” And no matter how polite they are, they sound abusive and insulting. So you win the prize Shrinker.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

At least several of us have read Steven Jones' paper. Here is one glaring point of idiocy in the paper:

He (wrongly) concludes that there was literally molten steel at Ground Zero, and from this, he hypothesizes thermite. From what you know about thermite, based on Jones' paper or your own further research, is thermite capable of providing the continuous heat source that would be required to keep steel molten for hours, much less days, much less weeks at a time?

Jones' leaps of illogic are abundant. Red flags pop up all over his paper.

Greening's has its own set of problems, but he's open to criticism and has reworked his calculations on several occasions. Not that it's unassailable, but it's clearly much stronger as an academic analysis.


edit: Did you look at that NIST link I gave you, or any of the other math links I gave you? There's a slew of numbers and calculations for you to explore at your leisure.

 

[Gravy]

As Admin:

Can I suggest that if the major participants are happy with the idea that I close this thread and you start a new one? No one in their right mind is going to wade through 120+ pages!

Well, I waded through 200 pages in the last week to create my index, but no one has ever accused me of being in my right mind.

I'm certainly in favor of a split.

ETA: my index goes up to midnight last night (12:01 am today). Not that anyone will ever read it (sulks in corner), but that's my suggestion for a cut-off point. I chose to do it this week because it was quiet in terms of actual debates on this thread.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Here is a list of some of the groups that were involved with the creation of the NIST report:

The Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers
Society of Fire Protection Engineers
The American Institute of Steel Construction
The Council of Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat
The Structural Engineers Association of New York
The American Concrete Institute
The Council of American Structural Engineers
The New York Dept. of Design and Construction
The New York Dept. of Buildings


And this is an incomplete list of all the experts involved in the development of the NIST report. This is why I (an individual who doesn't have a large grasp of physics) would be loathe to believe a seperate theory without at least one or two structural engineers behind it.

Edited for grammar

Now, if Mutton-Head, has some evidence as to why these groups should not receive provisional agreement as to their expertise of the matters involved, I'm all for it being presented.

 

[chipmunk stew]

I heard about this DVD from seeing it advertised on E-Bay for $1 a pop ad nauseum. I read the screenplay on a website that debunked it, and got very angry after reading it.

Stuff like "Loose Change" and all these conspiracy theories are a massive insult to the cops, firefighters, PA cops, and PA employees who died in that building on September 11. Through my wife, I know 85 of the PA guys who died in it. A high school classmate died in it (a big wheel in the PA), and so did the brother of another alumnus (and son of one of my teachers).

My pal Mike Sheridan was operations manager of the WTC during the 1993 blast. Not AN operations manager, THE operations manager. He had a key ring that would cost him $75,000 to replace. He could open every door in the building. He saved lives in 1993, then retired to Florida. But because of his post and importance in the union, he was in touch with all the PA people from top to bottom. He got to see the people he saved in 1993 die horribly in 2001, watching it from his lounger in Boca Raton.

Mike and I have discussed the WTC bombings many times, and he's made it clear that the conspiracy theories are horse manure on a grand scale. Yes, the building could be knocked down by planes full of jet fuel. Yes, it was knocked down by planes full of jet fuel. Yes, the official story is what happened. No, George Bush, the Mossad, the Masons, the Bilderbergers, and the World Wildlife Fund did NOT blow up the buildings and kill thousands of innocents to cover up launching a war, stealing gold, or imposing a Fascist dictatorship on the United States.

The real problem, as I see it, is that thanks to Vietnam, Watergate, and the scandals since then, we now have whole generations of intelligent people in the United States, who simply do not believe anything authority tells them. They are completely cynicized, regard everything but urban legends, conspiracy theories, and Comedy Central as being part of some grand conspiracy, and nothing but liars.

They don't trust anybody...except their psychic.

My suggested starting post for split.

???

 

[kookbreaker]

Here is my question to the people convinced by Dr. Greening’s paper: Have you read and compared Dr. Stephen Jones’ paper also? Why do you favor Greening over Jones?

Simple: Jones paper isn't good engineering, and its isn't good physics. Greening, whatever your opinion of his figures, at least does proper mathematics and physics calculations, even if his assumptions of mass were initially wrong.

Jones work is little more than the usual conspiracy junk with his Physics PHD stamped on them. Where Jones does strike out on his own, he embarasses himself. Examples of this would include his comments that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics means 'Things topple over'. Equally embarassing are his attempts to declare a piece of concrete with rebar sticking out of it to be a piece of cooled, formerly molten steel.

Jones' knowledge of structures is weak, his knowledge of explosives even weaker, and his evasion of peer review is pathetic. I don't know what review process Greening has put his paper under, but I have not heard about Engineers in Greening's school saying he was way out of line and completely wrong. They may not agree with his conclusions, but they are not claiming he's completely off base either. The structural engineers at Jones school pretty much stated that Dr. Jones was far off base.

What Jones is doing is decidedly not science. It is rumor mongering dressed up as science.

 

[Hellbound]

Not to mention thet Steven Jones is not a recognized or current structural engineer. IN other words, he's a false expert, and he has no idea what he's talking about.

IIRC, isn't he the one currently practicing medicine without a license? Chipmunk...I think you found the data out? Or was it delphi?

[Edited for correction, this was another expert, not Jones. Thanks to chipmunk for the correction.]

In any case, it's a matter of [vast majority of physicists, almost all demolition experts, almost every structural engineer in the world, NIST] on one side and [a few biologists, a few lawyers, a very few physicists, and Loose Change] on the other. You tell me whose experts you'd trust.

Just to chime in, his knowledge of explosives is woefully inadequate (and thermite is not an explosive, either). I nthyis area, at least, my own expertise tells me he failed to do even basic research on the subject matter. And of course, if he can't spend a few hours to understand the basics of explosives, which make up a major part of his hypothesis, it immediately brings the rest of his assertions into question as well.

FYI I have been trained in explosives and incendiaries by the U.S. Military, I'm authorized for non-electric blasting, assisted in EOD operations on small and large scales, and have been trained in improvised explosives and improvised incendiaries as well.

 

[Pardalis]

As for the firemen, do a search for interviews with them. (If you’re interested.) I was shocked at the number of on camera interviews where the firemen say they heard explosions, “boom boom boom boom boom.” (Gestures with his hand from top to bottom with each “Boom.”) Describing it like controlled demolition.

You have to be able to discern between something that "looks" like a controlled demo, and something that "is" a controlled demo. Especially if the only evidence you have is eyewitness accounts by people obviously in shock.

Written interviews where firemen say they were told by superiors not to discuss explosions they say they saw. A fireman who stormed out of NIST testimony because they would not listen to his claims of explosions.

Alot of things could sound and look like explosions without beeing explosions. Probably these alledged "superiors" were just doing these firemen a favour so that they wouldn't make fools of themselves.

 

[rwguinn]

Hello again, Thanks for the comments. You are all correct in that I don’t have specific numbers.

That is obvious

.......

Is the top of a building able to fall very fast, pulverize all of the concrete, break or bend all of the steel so that no full lenths remain, eject steel out in a complete circle around its footprint?

I say no.

You would be wrong, in that case. Absolutely, 100% wrong.

I chose not to discus energy, because in my opinion/experience, it relies too much on references, which, can be a little confusing and too complicated. (Yes, I know you’re all laughing at me right now.) An entry in wikipedia says, “For example, a speeding bullet has kinetic energy in the reference frame of non-moving observer, but it has zero kinetic energy in its proper (co-moving) reference frame -- because it takes zero work to accelerate a bullet from zero speed to zero speed.”

Ah--let's try to make a simple issue complex, by posting quotes which sound complex to anyone who has not accomplished a passing grade in elementary algebra

How about if we come up with an equation that balances the work done (the amount of time the top floors fell + the pulverizing of all of the concrete + the breaking of most vertical steel welds + horizontal ejection of many steel beams)

With

The energy available, which was the mass of top floors accelerated until they hit the ground. We will take as a given the steel cut by the plane. We will also take as given that the fires melted/weakened a vast quantity of steel above the crash. I think it safe to assume the steel below the crash was still sound.

This will be our equation. Let me hear your opinions for how to set up this equation. I’m sure you all will have no problem with general numbers (for weight of steel, weight of concrete, strength of steel, etc.), since you had no problem with the NIST version that had absolutely no specifics.

Because we can look up numbers and do the math ourselves

KE=PE=mgH=w*h where g= your favorite gravitaional constant, m is mass (not weight)m and h is the building height at the mass location.
It ain't hard.

snip of meaningless drivel

Anybody who wants to participate the formulation of this equation, please submit your opinions. If you feel the NIST report with no specifics is adequate, please explain why.

Thanks.

go get a beer can and 3 cinder blocks. Empty the beer can, if you're old enough, drink it.
Place 2 blocks on top of the beer can. Gently place the 3rd block on top of them. The can holds up easily.
Now, take the 3rd block off, and hold the 2nd block exactly 1 block's thickness above the remaining block.
Drop it.
The can will smash flat (pretty much within its own footprint), and you will have a lot of rubble (broken cinder blocks, since I doubt that you know what rubble actually is) on the ground.
Multiply this by a factor of a couple of billion, and you can see why we seriously doubt you guys explanation

 

[chipmunk stew]

IIRC, isn't he the one currently practicing medicine without a license? Chipmunk...I think you found the data out? Or was it delphi?

That was Jeff King, not Jones. I think delphi dug that up from his plaguepuppy bio.

 

[Hellbound]

Thanks, chipmunk. I struck out my comment and posted a correction up there

 

[Shrinker]

Why do you think your experts are better than my experts? You appear to not be exercising the same level of skepticism to your own beliefs.

I'll leave others to discuss the specifics of the experts you mention as its not my field. If you look around this forum however you'll see the same argument come up over and over. Others will have different answers but here's mine.

One thing you have to bear in mind at this forum is that many people here are actually 'experts'. Only yesterday one of our regulars was on the BBC discussing his field. I've been on TV and radio too and in the press (once described as a 'boffin' in the tabloids), doing my little bit. Aside from anything else, being an expert gives you an insight into experts. You find that they are just ordinary people. Some of them are idiots, some of them are geniuses. Most are average (obviously by definition) but almost all, know a heck of a lot more about the subject than the average joe.

Therefore being an expert in one field, gives you a little respect for experts in other fields, but at the same time you're aware that anyone, no matter what their credientials, could be a complete blagger. So the safest position, I've learned, is to side temporarily with the majority of experts in the field, while analysing in detail (and being prepared to accept), the claims of the maverick.

It is at this point usually, that the frauds usually expose themselves by using faulty logic, dishonest debating, or downright lies. You don't need to be an expert in a particular field to spot those. At that point I can comfortably embrace the Generally Accepted Theory for the time being.

Of course I may be wrong at this point. By sheer chance the maverick may have been right, but was an idiot who didn't know how to present his argument. Thankfully however I know that fields of expertise are always filled with rivalries and conflicting opinion, and if there is any weakness in the Generally Accepted Theory, a pretty damn smart person will be along soon to pick it apart.

Of course it ain't perfect, but that's humanity for you.

Oh and thanks to Shrinker. Quite often in online debates, I use the name “Mutton-Head.” Because at some point somebody will say, “Listen here Mutton-Head..” And no matter how polite they are, they sound abusive and insulting. So you win the prize Shrinker.

Well, Mutton-Head, after typing your name I find myself overcompensating in the politeness department. It is a little disconcerting.

 

[dubfan]

“NIST used finite element analysis to arrive at their conclusions. Do you know what that is?

You didn't answer that question.

I find it interesting, once again, that you are expecting exact numbers from me, that the NIST did not provide. It’s like a case of “My expert is smarter than your expert.” Yes, I know of Dr. Greening. I don’t think much of his report. There is a big consensus that he over exaggerated the mass of the towers. If you search, I think you’ll find that even he admits this.

Oh yes, I'm quite familiar with that, and spoke to Dr. Greening about it personally. You're making an exaggerated claim yourself, here -- he did not over-exaggerate the mass. The figure he used initially came from a professor at MIT, IIRC. There is no commonly accepted engineering consensus (that I've seen) on the live load mass of a single WTC tower. The mass figures range from 3.5M tonnes to 5.0M tonnes, with the most likely value (again, from what I've seen on the net) being somewhere in the neighborhood of 4.0M tonnes.

When doubt was cast on that 5.0Mt figure, he re-ran his computations (well, some of them) over the range of possible mass values. They did not affect his conclusions regarding the term "t" in his model, which is the estimated time for each tower to collapse. I posted these results over at the LC forum.

There are other calculations in Greening's model which are dependent on M which I am not sure yet if he's re-worked. I have been meaning to do them myself, and when I do, I'll post my results.

Here is my question to the people convinced by Dr. Greening’s paper: Have you read and compared Dr. Stephen Jones’ paper also? Why do you favor Greening over Jones?

Yes, I have. Without writing a book about it, I'll just say briefly, because Greening's science is better. Greening's paper describes a mathematical model based on verifiable facts and assumptions. Jones' paper -- while perhaps raising legitimate issues regarding the NIST report -- fails to propose any sort of verifiable, testable model for his hypothesis. Jones seems to be saying in effect, the NIST report is imperfect, therefore we need to investigate the possibility of controlled demolition. I don't find his "evidences" convincing that CD necessarily had to be involved, and I don't find his line of reasoning that the flaws in the NIST report point to CD as the cause very convincing either.

That said, I'm not a structural engineer, and if Jones could get a panel of professional structural engineers (heck, I'd settle for ONE) to support what he's saying, I'd be more inclined to believe him.

 

[Pardalis]

Mutton-Head, what I don't personally understand about your way of thinking is, as though there might be discrepencies and anomalies about the WTC towers collapse, what makes you jump to the explosives devices explanation so quickly? How can you make such a leap?

 

[dubfan]

Alot of things could sound and look like explosions without beeing explosions.

And a lot of things explode that aren't bombs, or demolition charges.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Closing this thread and starting a new one will be fine. However, expect that one to go on and on, and then the next thread to go on and on, and so forth. 9/11 conspiracy theorists seem not to be much interested in anything outside their comfort zone, certainly not to the point of spending time actually reading that which might challenge it.

 

[CurtC]

I find it interesting, once again, that you are expecting exact numbers from me, that the NIST did not provide.

The NIST report used real mathematical models. Now let's look back at your post.

You said, in essence, that the towers' gravitational energy was amost all converted to downward kinetic energy, with hardly enough left over to pulverize the concrete and fling steel beams outward. What you did not do, is to show how much energy it would take to pulverize the concrete and fling the beams, nor how that would be too large to account for the observed amount of slowing down. You're making specific claims, ones that are normally expected to be backed up with numbers, yet you put no numbers to them. Can you see the problem?

 

[Belz...]

Troll time

Well, well...

It seems as though 911 CT's are starting to gain momentum.

Popularity does not mean veracity.

Is this because the loose change group is the biggest/strongest or most threatening? Or is this because they are the weakest and easiest targets?

False dichotomy.

Is this a common belief within this form that there is no chance that 911 was not an inside job?

If you don't grasp language enough to avoid double-negatives, I have nothing further to say.

 

[Belz...]

I've heard Holocaust deniers spout the same thing...that Holocaust denial is gaining momentum. That the "Holocaust is unraveling faster than a three-dollar suit."

For some reason it seems to be the kind of argument that convinces people, as though we were talking about a company whose stocks just went up. People don't seem to understand that popularity means nothing when evidence is concerned.