Loose Change

[delphi_ote]

Every single person who claims the planes and resulting fires could not have brought down the towers is not a structural engineer, and have not submitted any articles to engineering journals. Instead, they write books and produce movies hoping to turn a profit on this calamity.

And their elementary physics can be debunked by a Computer Science graduate student with just one year of calculus-based college physics.

 

[chipmunk stew]

First of all, I personally recall watching this news being reported on CNBC, and then waiting for a follow-up which never occurred. It's as if the story just completely vanished.

Perhaps because the story was a dead-end? Thousands of skilled investigative reporters out there, and none has found anything more than a suspicious coincidence. Hmmm...

 

[delphi_ote]

I might as well drop this in another post, since I was doing the calculations.

The kenetic energy of the top 20-40 floors falling at 5m/s (I approximated their weight at 30k tons) is rougly equal to the energy released by blowing up a ton of TNT (give or take.)

 

[Alek]

Umm... that site supports the BS. And it a horribe analysis. The planes hit the buildings at the 77th and 93rd floor, so both towers would have started to collapse at or below those floors. The towers both collapsed in just under 10 seconds. The building was 417 meters tall. Free fall under gravity takes:
t=(2h/g)^(1/2)

My mistake. I thought you wanted a site that debunks the myth that a modern steel structure could turn to jelly and collapse symmetrically at a free fall rate due to kerosene fires. Sorry, can't help you there.

They assume the building fell from the very top when they derive their 9.22 figure. If you calculate from the point where the plane hit the building (i.e. where the collapse actually started) WTC2 would have taken 7.7 seconds to collapse and WTC1 would have taken 8.5 seconds.

Their understanding of momentum is also way off.

All of the momentum would not have been transferred in the collapsing towers scenario, and gravity would have continued to act on both bodies. Think about their example for a couple seconds. If you fall on top of your friend, do you stop at any point in mid-air while your friend falls to the ground? No. You both collapse in a heap.

I haven't fallen on any of my friends from height, but I understand the analogy. I'm no physicist, but it seems you have misrepresented Mrs. Wood (the owner of that research). She never claimed gravity would not continue to act on both bodies, she asserted that "Block-A will stop moving".

Welcome to the forum. I hope you posted this link by accident. These people clearly did not pass college physics.

Thanks. I didn't post the link by accident. I posted it in sarcastic response to your slanted and biased request for a link to convince your roommate of what you were apparently unable to convince him of yourself. It's somewhat miraculous how you've gone from initiate to adept-physicist on the free fall subject in the span of one thread. I'm not convinced either.

Perhaps you can take it up directly with the owner of that research. You can find her at scholarsfor911truth.org, Judy Wood Ph.D. I would be sincerely interested in reading that thread.

 

[Jon.]

My mistake. I thought you wanted a site that debunks the myth that a modern steel structure could turn to jelly and collapse symmetrically at a free fall rate due to kerosene fires. Sorry, can't help you there.

What makes you think the steel would have to turn to jelly?

I haven't fallen on any of my friends from height, but I understand the analogy. I'm no physicist, but it seems you have misrepresented Mrs. Wood (the owner of that research). She never claimed gravity would not continue to act on both bodies, she asserted that "Block-A will stop moving".

If it's moving down, and it stops moving, then it would seem to me that gravity has somehow ceased to act upon it.

Thanks. I didn't post the link by accident. I posted it in sarcastic response to your slanted and biased request for a link to convince your roommate of what you were apparently unable to convince him of yourself. It's somewhat miraculous how you've gone from initiate to adept-physicist on the free fall subject in the span of one thread. I'm not convinced either.

Perhaps you can take it up directly with the owner of that research. You can find her at scholarsfor911truth.org, Judy Wood Ph.D. I would be sincerely interested in reading that thread.

Perhaps if you want her help in bolstering the arguments that you are trying to present here, you could invite her to come here.

 

[Alek]

Did you treat these conspiracy theory videos with any skepticism? Obviously not. Almost none of their claims hold up to any kind of scrutiny.

There is certainly a lot of disinformation regarding 9/11 out there, this much is certain. That it will be negatively associated with much more compelling evidence, and serve to discredit the truth movement in general is even more certain. I like to think of myself as skeptical across the board, I'm interested in the truth, and I've gotten past the emotional barrier which doesn't want to accept the most disturbing truths.

It's apparent that the emotional cost of the realization that elements in your government were responsible for the deaths of nearly 3,000 people is too high for you. You have a vested interest in the status quo. Most people do. It's easier that way, the path of least resistance. It's easier to go along with the monolithic media and assume that Bin Laden was responsible even when there is a mountain of evidence which suggests otherwise.

"Most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker, but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all." - Unknown

It is this fear that you have which clouds your objectivity, and which makes you merely a selective skeptic. I suffer from almost the same problem, but in reverse.

I find it difficult to believe virtually anything the government or media say anymore.

 

[Alek]

In what specifics do you say the official theory does not add up?

A lot of things don't add up. What stands out prominently in my mind, is the collapse of World Trade Center building 7. To save myself keystrokes, just visit wtc7.net and watch the video and view the evidence.

 

[WildCat]

Perhaps you can take it up directly with the owner of that research. You can find her at scholarsfor911truth.org, Judy Wood Ph.D. I would be sincerely interested in reading that thread.

Let's see who these folks are...

Kevin Barrett (FM)

Folklore, UW-Madison; Director, Khidria, Inc.; Founding Member, Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth​

Not a structural engineer.

Philip J. Berg, Esq. (FM)
Attorney at Law

​

Not a structural engineer.

Tracy Blevins (FM)
Bioengineering, Rice University

​

Not a structural engineer.

Robert M. Bowman (FM)
Former Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" Space Defense Program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, and a former Air Force Lieutenant Colonel with 101 combat missions

​

Not a structural engineer.





​

Clare Brandabur (FM)

Assistant professor of English Literature at Dogus University in Istanbul​

Not a structural engineer.

Michiel Brumsen (FM)
Philosophy, Engineering ethics

​

Not a structural engineer.

Andreas von Buelow (FM)
Former assistant German defense minister, director of the German Secret Service, minister for research and technology, and member of Parliament for 25 years

​

Not a structural engineer.





​

Harriet Cianci (FM)

Tunxis Community College, CT​

Not a structural engineer.





​

William A. Cook (FM)

Professor of English, University of La Verne, Author of "Tracking Deception: Bush Mid-East Policy"​

Not a structural engineer.





​

Richard Curtis (FM)

Philosophy, Seattle University​

Not a structural engineer.





​

Lloyd DeMause (FM)

Director of The Institute for Psychohistory, President of the International Psychohistorical Association and Editor of The Journal of Psychohistory​

Not a structural engineer.





​

Alexander L. Dent (FM)

Microbiology and Immunology, Indiana University School of Medicine​

Not a structural engineer.





​

A. K. Dewdney (FM)

Mathematician, Computer Scientist, University of Western Ontario​

Not a structural engineer.





​

Albert Dragstedt (FM)

Classics and Philosophy, St. Mary's College, Oakland, CA​

Not a structural engineer.





​

Ted Elden (FM)

Architect, Communicator​

Not a structural engineer.





​

Jeffrey Farrer (FM)

Physics/ Materials Science, BYU​

Not a structural engineer.





​

James H. Fetzer (FM)

Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, a former Marine Corps officer, author or editor of more than 20 books, and co-chair of S9/11T​

Not a structural engineer.





​

Marcus Ford (FM)

Humanities, NAU​

Not a structural engineer.





​

Ruth Frankenberg (FM)

American Studies, Cultural Studies, Author of four books​

Not a structural engineer.

etc etc etc

Not a structural engineer in the bunch! I wonder why that is?

You know, I've been in the construction (remodeling/rehabs) industry for over 20 years, and never once did the Building Dept. tell me to have a Physicist, Philosopher, Psychologist, Professor of Literature, Professor of Humanities, Mathematician, Biologist, Air Force pilot, Historian, or Ethicist sign off on an architectural drawing or building plan in order to draw a permit... they seem to be partial to structural engineers for some reason.

I bet a historian would do it cheaper though, if only they could!





​

 

[Jon.]

There is certainly a lot of disinformation regarding 9/11 out there, this much is certain. That it will be negatively associated with much more compelling evidence, and serve to discredit the truth movement in general is even more certain. I like to think of myself as skeptical across the board, I'm interested in the truth, and I've gotten past the emotional barrier which doesn't want to accept the most disturbing truths.

It's apparent that the emotional cost of the realization that elements in your government were responsible for the deaths of nearly 3,000 people is too high for you. You have a vested interest in the status quo. Most people do. It's easier that way, the path of least resistance. It's easier to go along with the monolithic media and assume that Bin Laden was responsible even when there is a mountain of evidence which suggests otherwise.

"Most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker, but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all." - Unknown

It is this fear that you have which clouds your objectivity, and which makes you merely a selective skeptic. I suffer from almost the same problem, but in reverse.

I find it difficult to believe virtually anything the government or media say anymore.

(emphasis added)

What "mountain of evidence"? Everything you refer to has been effectively debunked.

You know, you sound just like the fundies with their anti-evolution rants. Make the following substitutions:

Evolution = 9/11 was an al-Qaeda terrorist attack
Scientists = government
Creationism/ID = 9/11 conspiracy theory

There you have it. The tactics are the same. It's called spaghetti-chucking. Throw a bunch of "facts" out there and as soon as people start to show that they are not true, start waving your hands about the "mountain of evidence" and accuse the fact-checkers of being brainwashed.

Yawn. Old hat.

 

[delphi_ote]

She never claimed gravity would not continue to act on both bodies, she asserted that "Block-A will stop moving".

In mid-air? You really believe that?

Perhaps you can take it up directly with the owner of that research. You can find her at scholarsfor911truth.org, Judy Wood Ph.D. I would be sincerely interested in reading that thread.

Her students certainly think she's a very interesting lady.

Like others said, she had good intentions and when she wasn't trying to convince us Bush blew up the WTC she was actually nice, but she wasn't a great teacher. Too many times she starts examples and doesn't finish them. And yes, she was in a coma for 6 years. How crazy is that.

 

[chipmunk stew]

It is this fear that you have which clouds your objectivity, and which makes you merely a selective skeptic.

Gag! Only your tenth post, and you've dropped the argument and resorted to ad hominem.

 

[kookbreaker]

There is a book entitled "Day of Deceit" written by Robert Stinnett. Stinnett proffers evidence that FDR had prior knowledge of the attack and let it happen so as to create a public pretense for US involvement in WW2.

I haven't read the book, but given the Hegelian dialectic and its historical employment plus Roosevelt's status as a traitor, I have little doubt it is true.

Stinnett's tactis in producing 'evidence' were deliberately deceptive. Many historians and code breaker phreaks rightly called him on his deliberate ommissions and deciets. It got so bad for Stinnett he had to close the message board he had set up when the questions got too hot.

Stinnett's basic tactic was to flood his book with footnotes to make it seem like there was genuine hard research involved. In fact, those who looked at the notes would find Stinnett was being deceptive. Several times declaring that the US should have been aware of the attack based on messages that were not finally translated until 1945-46, as well as making up stuff that simply didn't happen. It was easy to check, Stinnett just hoped nobody would.

 

[delphi_ote]

Evolution = 9/11 was an al-Qaeda terrorist attack
Scientists = government
Creationism/ID = 9/11 conspiracy theory

Alternately:

Holocaust = 9/11 was an al-Qaeda terrorist attack
Jews = government
Holocaust denial = 9/11 conspiracy theory

 

[chipmunk stew]

In mid-air? You really believe that?


Her students certainly think she's a very interesting lady.

Is it this Judy Wood? Specializes in the mechanical properties of human teeth?

 

[WildCat]

Her students certainly think she's a very interesting lady.

My favorite:

Like others said, she had good intentions and when she wasn't trying to convince us Bush blew up the WTC she was actually nice, but she wasn't a great teacher. Too many times she starts examples and doesn't finish them. And yes, she was in a coma for 6 years. How crazy is that.

 

[Alek]

Come again? You'd have me believe that ANY kind of steel would slow several 10's of thousands of tons of building (i.e. the top 20-40 floors) traveling at even 5m/s (i.e after the first half second of falling?) Are you familiar by any chance with the equation for momentum?

(in case you've forgotten, it's p=m*v. In this case, 136,077,711 m kg /s. What were you saying again about slowing that down? Maybe you should take some physics courses and get back to us before we continue this discussion.)

ETA While I'm at it, the kenetic energy of the falling floors would be roughly 340 M joules, or roughly the amount of energy released from one ton of TNT.

Don't you think it's somewhat of an over-simplification to suggest a simultaneous structural failure that would send 1/3 of the building hurtling into the other 2/3 is what happend? Am I to believe that the 47 core steel columns all failed simultaneously enabling a symmetrical collapse at virtual free fall speed? Perhaps you could answer this question posed by someone on another forum, I think it's a reasonable question:

"Could the airliner impact, fuel combustion, and subsequent fires have weakened both the floor trusts and the central core sufficiently to initiate a collapse that would proceed in such rapidity that the resistance of the portions of the building below the failure were inconsequential? "

While you're in the habit of debunking, could you debunk Stephen A. Jones, a professor of Physics at BYU?

www-physics-byu-edu/research/energy/htm7.html

I'm not disputing the law of momentum. I'm disputing your implicit assumption that the conditions existed in order to send several tens of thousands of tons of steel moving at 5 meters/sec in one instant, as if a magic carpet had been pulled out from beneath it.

I would also like to hear your analysis of what happend to WTC7, a building not hit by a jet, and slightly farther away from the north tower than the Banker's trust building was from the south tower. The facade of banker's trust was damaged, but miraculously, it remained standing. WTC7 collapsed in a stunningly impressive 6.5 seconds into a tight debris pile, having been hit by no jet, and exposed to only minor fires. It was the third modern steel structure in history to have collapsed by fire, the first two buildings being of course the twin towers.

Maybe after that you could explain how kerosene fires could create the pools of molten steel that were found in the basements of all three buildings.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[delphi_ote]

Is it this Judy Wood? Specializes in the mechanical properties of human teeth?

One and the same. I'm sending an e-mail to the president of Clemson right now.

Dr. Barker,

I am a concerned graduate computer science student at the University of Central Florida writing to make sure you were aware of the behavior of Professor Judy Wood.

According to the organization Scholars for 9/11 Truth (http://scholarsfor911truth.org/) Professor Wood writes the articles located at this site: janedoe0911.tripod.com

Many of the claims on this website are patently false, particularly some of the elementary physics presented. Dr. Wood seems reluctant to publish her name and profession directly on the website, but openly uses them to promote the website (as you can see clearly in this press release from the Scholars for 9/11 Truth http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20060301/bs_prweb/prweb352979_1 and on the Scholars for 9/11 Truth website.)

It seems unethical that she would use her PhD and Professor of Mechanical Engineering status to promote her writings, but not open said writings to proper peer review by hiding her name entirely on the actual documents. It also seems dishonest that she would claim to be a full professor when she is currently an assistant professor.

Thank you for your time,
Ryan Cunningham

 

[WildCat]

Don't you think it's somewhat of an over-simplification to suggest a simultaneous structural failure that would send 1/3 of the building hurtling into the other 2/3 is what happend?

All it takes is one floor falling on the one below it to start the chain reaction. According to every single structural engineer who has studied it, this is what happened.

"Could the airliner impact, fuel combustion, and subsequent fires have weakened both the floor trusts and the central core sufficiently to initiate a collapse that would proceed in such rapidity that the resistance of the portions of the building below the failure were inconsequential? "

Yes, according to every single report by structural engineers that have studied it.

While you're in the habit of debunking, could you debunk Stephen A. Jones, a professor of Physics at BYU?

Yes, he's not a structural engineer and his opinion on the failure of a building is so far out of his discipline as to make his thoughts on the matter as relevant as the homeless guy's living under the I-94 overpass. He has some interesting theories too...

I would also like to hear your analysis of what happend to WTC7, a building not hit by a jet, and slightly farther away from the north tower than the Banker's trust building was from the south tower.

Your statement is simply not true. WTC 7 was extensively damaged, every floor was on fire, and it had a 20-story hole ripped in it by falling debris.

Maybe after that you could explain how kerosene fires could create the pools of molten steel that were found in the basements of all three buildings.

Were there? I don't suppose you can confirm this...

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

That berg isn't made out of ice, it's just a big pile of (rule 8).

 

[Alek]

Your conspiracy theory has a very big problem, and until you address it there's no point in even getting to the other stuff. There have been many articles written in engineering journals (by engineers who are not working for the US gov't, and in fact many are foreigners) more than adequately explaining how the WTC towers failed and collapsed. None required anything more than the planes hitting them and the fires they caused. Every single person who claims the planes and resulting fires could not have brought down the towers is not a structural engineer, and have not submitted any articles to engineering journals. Instead, they write books and produce movies hoping to turn a profit on this calamity.

Do you see the problem here?

Are you implying that the 9/11 truth movement is driven only by hucksters, for profit? Because if you want to get into cui bono, then why don't you calculate the profits of the panopticon security state that's being created here, for the "homeland". Why don't you calculate the profits of war, and oil?

Do you think it's objective to state that "Every single person" making claims counter to the 9/11 commission is not a structural engineer? Are you in fact aware of the credentials of every single person who has made such claims, and have you in fact read every engineering journal? Are you supposed to pass for a skeptic? I suppose all swans are white.

I do see the problem. When one is incapable of attacking the message, one attacks the messenger. We live in a highly specialized world, one which dictates that we delegate an inordinate amount of trust in so-called "experts", experts which have all too often proven unworthy of that trust.

 

[Alek]

That was a rather tedious use of the fallacy of reverse appeal to authority. Unfortunately, fallacies don't invalidate evidence. Why don't you stick to the evidence?