• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Loose Change - Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
brumsen said:
Again, it need not be a simulation. And if you want to know why the collapse occurred, you also need to know why it did not stop. Limited money: sure, but of course I'd be arguing that more resources should have been made free for this study.
Click to expand...

They looked at the construction of the world trade center in detail. What did they miss in the construction that would cause the collapse to stop once started?

The timelines I see in the reports go up until the evidence they have is obscured in the dust. Should they create evidence for what happened after this?
 
Joytown said:
Certainly the WTC collapses were unique in many ways, but once the collapse had initiated, they will still a progressive collapse - which pretty much followed every aspect about what they already know about progressive collapses. And that the main focus of fire safety people is to stop the collapse from starting in the first place - because they know from experience that once they start, there's no stopping it.
Click to expand...
Thanks Joytown. However, this would only work if there were no high-rise buildings that have partially collapsed in the past. I believe that is not true.
If some have completely collapsed and others partially, the question is: why would WTC 1, 2 & 7 fall in the former rather than the latter category?
 
WildCat said:
brumsen, have you ever consulted w/ actual structural enhineers on this subject? If you're working at or studying at a university, or even have one nearby, why not talk to one and get his thoughts on the matter?
Click to expand...
I have talked to one, yes. He told me the conspiracist stuff was all nonsense. When I asked him for references he said that he got his knowledge from a documentary on Discovery Channel. Pressing him further gave no reply.

WildCat said:
Would anything change your mind on this? Or would you, given a satisfactory explanation for the above, move on to some other perceived fatal flaw in the NIST reports?
Click to expand...
Yet another typical response to a perceived CT'er. This is starting to be fun, I think I'll keep scores.

Based on what evidence do you ask me this? And do you intend it to be anything other than a rhetorical question?
 
brumsen said:
Well, no. My question is: they address it - they say that they have found no evidence for it - so where can I read about how exactly they did exclude the CD hypothesis? Given that they did address it with a conclusion - where is their reasoning justifying that conclusion?
Click to expand...
And this is the crux of the problem for you - there is no CD hypothesis in the scientific sense. Before you have a hypothesis, you must have evidence leading to that hypothesis. And the evidence for CD is what, exactly?
 
brumsen said:
I must have missed it. Could you give me a precise reference?
Click to expand...
Dear brumsen...

Can you point us to specific issues you have with the NIST report. Reference the page number, articulate your concern and support it with logic, reason and analysis. Analysis meaning, math, physics, that kind of thing.

Wildcat asked something similar a couple of days ago but I don't believe he ever got a reply. That wouldn't be surprising, as CTers get asked this on a regular basis but, to my knowledge, have never responded. Why is that? My theory is that they don't have a clue how to perform such an analysis. But you can prove us wrong by accepting this challenge.

The facts have been clearly documented and laid out for everyone's analysis. Why don't you challenge that analysis, refute it with equivalent levels of research and details. Or you could keep employing arguments from ignorance. Which will it be?
 
brumsen said:
Yet another typical response to a perceived CT'er. This is starting to be fun, I think I'll keep scores.

Based on what evidence do you ask me this? And do you intend it to be anything other than a rhetorical question?
Click to expand...
It is not a rhetorical question. There are mountains of evidence contained in the NIST reports that support their theory of collapse, there is absolutely none to support a CD. Yet you cling to the possibility that it may have been a CD, why?
 
brumsen, instead of this dancing around the subject, why don't you just tell us what you think is the single best piece of evidence supporting CD?
 
DavidJames said:
Dear brumsen...

Can you point us to specific issues you have with the NIST report. Reference the page number, articulate your concern and support it with logic, reason and analysis. Analysis meaning, math, physics, that kind of thing.

Wildcat asked something similar a couple of days ago but I don't believe he ever got a reply. That wouldn't be surprising, as CTers get asked this on a regular basis but, to my knowledge, have never responded.
Click to expand...
I have responded here. I have also referred to a thread elsewhere in which I have set out clearly what I find the problem is. So don't tell me I haven't taken up that challenge.
 
brumsen said:
Thanks Joytown. However, this would only work if there were no high-rise buildings that have partially collapsed in the past. I believe that is not true.
If some have completely collapsed and others partially, the question is: why would WTC 1, 2 & 7 fall in the former rather than the latter category?
Click to expand...



For your question of why some buildings completely collapse and others only partially collapse it is simply because they had different designs. The design of the WTC towers was such that once you lost the internal bracing of the floors the columns could not stay standing by themselves. And the floors could not support the load of the upper parts of the towers falling on them so they failed.

I think the best analogy of this I have heard is the one about the hammer. Get a 10 pound sledge hammer and set it on your toe, you will feel the pressure of the weight but it wont do any real damage to your foot. Now take that same hammer and let it drop on your toe from ten feet up, you will most likely end up with several broken bones in your foot. What this demonstrates is the difference between a dead load and a live load. The floors of the WTC were designed to carry X amount of dead weight (and they probably had a 2 or 3 time safety margin built in), but when the top of the towers fell they suddenly had X mulitplied by dozens of floors of live load hitting them. This live load was at least an order of magnitude higher than the dead load the floors were designed for so they failed nearly instantly.

It was then the floors that failed in a progressive manner leaving the interior and exterior columns unsupported. Thats why you can see the core and/or wall sections standing for a few seconds in many of the videos of the collapse.
 
brumsen said:
I have responded here. I have also referred to a thread elsewhere in which I have set out clearly what I find the problem is. So don't tell me I haven't taken up that challenge.
Click to expand...
brumsen said:
1) They have not studied / modeled the collapses themselves, but truncated the timeline at the onset of collapse, assuming that total collapse was then inevitable; hence the discussion in eg Gordon Ross's paper;
2) They say that they have not found any evidence corroborating alternative hypotheses such as planted explosives, without actually having researched those hypotheses (well, at least they haven't written up such research)

Will you need page numbers or will this do?
Click to expand...
Thanks, but I hardly consider that a response. Here is what I asked for
Reference the page number, articulate your concern and support it with logic, reason and analysis. Analysis meaning, math, physics
Click to expand...
Yes, I want page numbers which correspond to your claims. Further, you provide no analysis, no refutation, nothing but more unsubstantiated claims. Back them up my friend.
 
What Brumsen finds wrong with the NIST report:

"1) They have not studied / modeled the collapses themselves, but truncated the timeline at the onset of collapse, assuming that total collapse was then inevitable; hence the discussion in eg Gordon Ross's paper;
2) They say that they have not found any evidence corroborating alternative hypotheses such as planted explosives, without actually having researched those hypotheses (well, at least they haven't written up such research)

Will you need page numbers or will this do?"


--------
(1.a) they did study the collapses themselves, they used witness testimony, photographic and videographic evidence. How else would they study the collapse, unless the members were there themselves?
(1.b) So you would like them to create a model? would a computer one be sufficient? Certainly a real world model would be unrealistic, so I am assuming a computer generated model would do.

(2) So what you would like is a subsection in the report indicating that based on analysis of the debris of WTC 7, and based on photographic, videographic, and witness evidence, there were or were not findings of explosive materials, or Controlled Demolition. I assume if they said that there were not, the quote of the "10 signs of CD in WTC 7" would be held to them to contest their conclusions.

I am simply asking, does my grasp of your suggested "faults" with the NIST report of WTC 7 sound correct, because if not, I would like you to expand or clarify.
 
wanna know why the towers collapsed??

take a 40 story and 20 story skyscraper respectively and drop them about 3-4 stories on top of another building. that momentum has got to go somewhere.
 
brumsen said:
I have responded here. I have also referred to a thread elsewhere in which I have set out clearly what I find the problem is. So don't tell me I haven't taken up that challenge.
Click to expand...

I do not see where you have responded to the question here. Here is your quote:

1) They have not studied / modeled the collapses themselves, but truncated the timeline at the onset of collapse, assuming that total collapse was then inevitable; hence the discussion in eg Gordon Ross's paper;
2) They say that they have not found any evidence corroborating alternative hypotheses such as planted explosives, without actually having researched those hypotheses (well, at least they haven't written up such research)

Will you need page numbers or will this do?
Click to expand...

You were asked what specific evidence leads you to believe that CD was a possibility. You respond that NIST didn't cover the possiblility to your satisfaction in the reports. Seems like a non-sequitur to me. NIST doesn't cover the possibility of aliens, but that doesn't seem to be proof that they were involved. What am I missing?

(And by the way, I have a hard enough time keeping up with threads here - if your answer is elsewhere on the internet it would be nice if you could at least summarize here.)
 
ok, fair enough, but yourself or Gravy or Brainster could break it down piece by piece and then put it together as your own paper...A big challenge I know, but if noone does it, than his argument stands...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom