Metatheory and the NIST report

[A W Smith]

Are you sure that p-dope knows the word "unsubstantiated"? I could be wrong, but this guy doesn't sound like the truly singular dunce who manages to get himself booted off loon sites.

Your right Ron. My suspicions were. ...unsubstantiated. This has got to be a whole nuther dunce. Hey I'm just trying to get my post count up

 

[GregoryUrich]

Jimbenarm and Apollo made good points about the dust, but you seem to be getting close to making an actual CD hypothesis, I like it. I don't think any truthers have done that.

So how would you blow up a building floor by floor in a top down demolition?

you have the added hurdles of:

BLBG demonstrating that it would take 158 tons of TNT per tower, drilled into small holes the concrete floor slabs to produce the concrete pulverization observed.

Columns ejected 500 feet, there is some discussion of that in a number of posts on this thread, but it is by no means conclusive.

large portions of the core remaining standing after the collapse front reaches the ground.

I'm quite interested in how a CD hypothesis holds from a metatheoretical standpoint, especially since no truther has offered a coherent hypothesis with quantifiable data.

BLBG think the building weighed 576,000 tons and that the top part did not collapse at all until it hit the basement. Could they be correct about the amount of TNT?

 

[beachnut]

do you even understand BLBG model?

BLBG think the building weighed 576,000 tons and that the top part did not collapse at all until it hit the basement. Could they be correct about the amount of TNT?

I am an engineer, and you have not convinced me that you can even get the amount of wall board right. I have run projects as an engineer and after seeing your work, I find it wrought with major errors. You have a bias, you have already made a conclusion about 9/11 with no facts or evidence. Why are you even posting about the weight of the building when a lighter weight still presents the same result for global collapse? The lighter you make the building, the weaker the resistance is to 10 percent of the building falling on the remaining 90 percent. By you not supporting your ideas, or lack of ideas, with real math and physics I doubt you have done serious work to check the effects of less weight per floor on the global collapse model. It is amazing you even say anything about other engineer's work without showing why it is wrong. You just wave you hands and say they used the wrong number, but you did not show that mathematically that means their conclusion is wrong. You are not doing the work, you are just talking the truther talk of bs. Scaling back the weight is fine, you cannot change the acceleration of gravity, or the fact steel becomes weak in fire. Did you learn that in your EE courses or was it your music degree that makes you incredibly unprepared to present a coherent reason for what ever you say happen on 9/11. You have no facts to support your 9/11 petition ideas. Do you feel bad as an engineer as you spew the lies of 9/11 truth with no evidence to back it up? (if you do not understand this, read the 9/11 truth petition you signed)

 

[cmcaulif]

BLBG think the building weighed 576,000 tons and that the top part did not collapse at all until it hit the basement. Could they be correct about the amount of TNT?

I believe the amount of TNT they give is the lesser point. The greater point is that the explosive would have to drilled into small holes in order to arrive at this figure, under their assumptions.

So if the explosive were not drilled into the floors, and strapped to support columns, the way CD is done, the amount would need to go up by a great deal to produce the observed pulverization, regardless of the difference between the mass they used, and what the building may have actually been, because of how inefficient chemical explosives are at pulverizing. And if it were drilled into the floors, it would make another very unique characteristic of already very unique CD.

 

[GregoryUrich]

I believe the amount of TNT they give is the lesser point. The greater point is that the explosive would have to drilled into small holes in order to arrive at this figure, under their assumptions.

So if the explosive were not drilled into the floors, and strapped to support columns, the way CD is done, the amount would need to go up by a great deal to produce the observed pulverization, regardless of the difference between the mass they used, and what the building may have actually been, because of how inefficient chemical explosives are at pulverizing. And if it were drilled into the floors, it would make another very unique characteristic of already very unique CD.

Personally, I don't see pulverization as evidence of CD. So we can skip the drilling all together.

 

[cmcaulif]

Personally, I don't see pulverization as evidence of CD. So we can skip the drilling all together.

Ok, but the concrete was pulverized, this was one of the observed events that a CD hypothesis must account for in one way or another. BLBG laid out how it would be done most efficiently with explosives, although perhaps when constructing your own hypothesis, you might say, for example, that the falling building provided the pulverization energy, as in a crush down/crush up collapse, and that explosives were only needed to initiate the collapse on the few impact floors. If you reject the notion of a falling body impacting the concrete to provide the pulverization energy, however, an alternate explaination must be provided, or your hypothesis will be somewhat incomplete.

Although this is just a suggestion and I do not wish to misrepresent your position here. If you could elaborate further so I know where you are coming from I would appreciate it.

 

[CJOKUSAP]

Your right Ron. My suspicions were. ...unsubstantiated. Hey I'm just trying to get my post count up

I'd never have guessed, A.W.

 

[pomeroo]

I'd never have guessed, A.W.

See post no. 920

 

[CJOKUSAP]

See post no. 920

I want an argument with you, not to marry you!

 

[CJOKUSAP]

Engage this:- Who has the more noble cause? The person striving to share his fears for the way of life he holds dear, whilst risking ridicule and worse, against the hatred of a group of people intent on shouting down every plea for consideration he makes, OR the "Fanatical Forum Freedom Fighters" waging a war on ignorance, in defence of 'the dead' and their highly honorable members of govt. (who somehow are unable to defend their selves against a rag-tag army of morons, and traitors out to make a quick buck.) When the govt. you trust implicitly has marched the whole world on to the plains of Armageddon, will you offer your apologies then? And don't ask me, "Where are my facts", or I will scream.(Get ready to cover your ears! )

 

[twinstead]

Wow. CJOKUSAP I certainly don't accept your definition of what the two sides are like...it's almost as if you are biased.

And, I think you've posted this before; it was biased then, and it is still biased. Untruth doesn't get any truer just by repeating it.

Perhaps some objectivity would be in order here.

 

[e^n]

Can someone give me the background on this P'doh? Is this the same person as 'j911ob' at LC?

The reason I ask is that I live in Manchester, and I would be more than happy to meet up with P'Doh in person and go through exactly why he is wrong about oh so many things, but I suspect he would simply take pictures of me from a few hundred feet away and brag about exposing a government shill

 

[H'ethetheth]

Engage this:- Who has the more noble cause? The person striving to share his fears for the way of life he holds dear, whilst risking ridicule and worse, against the hatred of a group of people intent on shouting down every plea for consideration he makes, OR the "Fanatical Forum Freedom Fighters" waging a war on ignorance, in defence of 'the dead' and their highly honorable members of govt. (who somehow are unable to defend their selves against a rag-tag army of morons, and traitors out to make a quick buck.) When the govt. you trust implicitly has marched the whole world on to the plains of Armageddon, will you offer your apologies then? And don't ask me, "Where are my facts", or I will scream.(Get ready to cover your ears! )

State argument, Ignore counter arguments, Repeat ad infinitum/nauseam. I can't help thinking I've seen this before somewhere.

First, your characterisations of the people in question are cartoonesque at best, though rediculous is probably a better description.
Second, the nobility of the cause has nothing whatsoever to do with what is real. Therefore, this is a moot topic from the start. I think this is what most people here are trying to tell you.
And finally, some facts would be nice. I'd like to know why you fear for the way of life you hold dear.

 

[jay howard]

Does anyone want to explain, or even understand NIST's reasons for beefing up the simulations?

 

[beachnut]

Does anyone want to explain, or even understand Jones's reasons for making up thermite?

 

[Spins]

He probably understands that there is no evidence for explosives, audible and seismic etc, so decided to go with thermite as a possible reason behind the collapse...

No, scratch that idea it's probably because he's just plain nuts like the rest of them.

 

[GregoryUrich]

Ok, but the concrete was pulverized, this was one of the observed events that a CD hypothesis must account for in one way or another. BLBG laid out how it would be done most efficiently with explosives, although perhaps when constructing your own hypothesis, you might say, for example, that the falling building provided the pulverization energy, as in a crush down/crush up collapse, and that explosives were only needed to initiate the collapse on the few impact floors. If you reject the notion of a falling body impacting the concrete to provide the pulverization energy, however, an alternate explaination must be provided, or your hypothesis will be somewhat incomplete.

Although this is just a suggestion and I do not wish to misrepresent your position here. If you could elaborate further so I know where you are coming from I would appreciate it.

I don't reject the notion of a falling body impacting the concrete to provide the pulverization energy. I'm not a CDer...yet. I just haven't seen a convincing model that can fall down in 12 sec. BLBG blew it (no pun intended) with crush down first and using 81% more mass than the building actually contained with 67% too much mass in the crushing block.

 

[GlennB]

Ok, but the concrete was pulverized, this was one of the observed events that a CD hypothesis must account for in one way or another...

In which case, we must -

1. Define "pulverised"
2. Define how much of the concrete needs to meet that definition in order to justify the statement "the concrete was pulverised"

- simply in order to justify the statement that this was "one of the observed events".

If somebody could offer acceptable definitions then maybe we can progress.

 

[cmcaulif]

I don't reject the notion of a falling body impacting the concrete to provide the pulverization energy. I'm not a CDer...yet. I just haven't seen a convincing model that can fall down in 12 sec.

fair enough, I'm happy to scrutinize various engineering writings supporting a gravity driven collapse, but I would also like to rule out CD if possible. Since no truther has presented a theoretical case for CD that can be evaluated on a scientific basis, this is very hard to do.

BLBG blew it (no pun intended) with crush down first and using 81% more mass than the building actually contained with 67% too much mass in the crushing block.

I read your post on the mass calculation, and yes, the mass should be corrected, but essentially, this will likely have a limited effect on the outcome of progressive collapse since it will reduce the overall mass, but essentially the proportions of the upper block to the lower will be similar.

And can you explain what you mean by 'crush down first'? If you are talking about what I think you are, I believe this is accounted for, but I'm really not sure what you mean so I'll wait to explain.

 

[cmcaulif]

In which case, we must -

1. Define "pulverised"
2. Define how much of the concrete needs to meet that definition in order to justify the statement "the concrete was pulverised"

- simply in order to justify the statement that this was "one of the observed events".

If somebody could offer acceptable definitions then maybe we can progress.

hehe, crap writing on my part, I know.

Dr. Greening has done a great deal of work on the pulverization of the concrete. Some of this also appears in BLBG paper, in which it is stated on page 10 that all of the concrete, meaning for both towers(mass of 14.6*10⁷kg, though I believe GU provides a lower number) was pulverized to dust particles ranging from .1mm to .01mm.