The Twin Towers at free fall speed

[aggle-rithm]

But my deepest criticisms of the official story are about thermodynamics: where did all the energy come from?

Well, it started with the sun, which provided energy to grow plants millions of years ago.

When the plants died, that energy was stored as hydrocarbons in the dead material that became buried and eventually turned into oil.

That oil was then used to make fuel to power the cranes that hoisted millions of pounds of materials to build the Word Trade Center towers.

When the towers collapsed, that energy was released.

Answer your question? Or should I explain where the sun came from?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Let me see if I understand you correctly: it's IMPOSSIBLE to know the details of xyz--despite YEARS and YEARS of study, however, these same people KNOW xyz was inevitable. Does that sum it up?

Yes.

Look at it this way. If I hit an ant with a sledgehammer, do I know exactly the pattern that will be made with the ant's guts? No.

Do I know the ant will die? Yes.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Again, I haven't advocated any particular replacement theory.

Now that is a tremendous surprise.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

That makes good sense. Let's proceed.

I did.

Now it's your turn.

Present your case.

Go on.

OK.

Give us your thoughts.

Describe what you think should have happened.

Put forth your reasoning.

Elucidate your logic.

Propose your theory.

Spit it out.

Express yourself.

Ejaculate your words.

Spew forth your wisdom.

Better out than in, I always say.

Your audience awaits.

Ideate your ideas.

Preach your sermon.

Speak your piece.

Flush your toilet.

If you would be so kind.

Ay, tell me that, and unyoke.

Wa‘s up!

Be my guest.

Let’s hear it.

We are waiting.

 

[Edx]

I don't recall that. However, Ross did a sleight-of-hand trick that magically removed about half of the total available energy from existence. It's sly enough to make James Randi jealous.

This may be hard but if you could try explaining it for someone who has trouble remembering his times tables you can have an internet medal

 

[R.Mackey]

Haven't done my homework? From the guy who had to have falsifiability explained to him over and over and over again? Correct me if i'm wrong but there never was a falsifiable statement pulled out of the entire 10,000+ pages of the NIST report, was there? Did I miss this?

On the off-chance anyone bothered to read this nonsense and is not a JREF Historian, the episode jay is referring to is here.

Readers will note, but not be at all surprised, that jay's claim and reality are exactly 180 degrees out of phase...

Anyway, I'm done. jay is emblematic of remaining Truthers who have had things explained to them, tailored to their specific needs, handed to them on a silver platter, but are either too stupid or too argumentative to benefit from it. Waste. Of. Time.

I think I have one last post in me regarding the Truth Movement, but it will wait until after the New Year.

 

[Newtons Bit]

This may be hard but if you could try explaining it for someone who has trouble remembering his times tables you can have an internet medal

He came up with a list of various energy sources and energy costs for the collapse.

One cost item was the energy lost due to an inelastic collision. In a nutshell, the upper block impacts the lower block and one floor of columns breaks and the upper block gains one story of mass. The momentum (mass * velocity) of the upper block before impact is equal to the upper block after the impact (the mass is larger, the velocity goes down proportionally). The results in a loss of kinetic energy (1/2 mass * velocity ^ 2).

Another cost item was the destruction of the concrete into small bits. He basically pulled a number out of his rear-end for this. But that's not the fib. The fib is that the loss of kinetic energy from the inelastic collision is the energy that is used to crush the concrete. He double dips. And it's a BIG double dip.

He makes a number of other mistakes as well, but nothing quite so large.

 

[NutCracker]

He came up with a list of various energy sources and energy costs for the collapse.

One cost item was the energy lost due to an inelastic collision. In a nutshell, the upper block impacts the lower block and one floor of columns breaks and the upper block gains one story of mass. The momentum (mass * velocity) of the upper block before impact is equal to the upper block after the impact (the mass is larger, the velocity goes down proportionally). The results in a loss of kinetic energy (1/2 mass * velocity ^ 2).

Another cost item was the destruction of the concrete into small bits. He basically pulled a number out of his rear-end for this. But that's not the fib. The fib is that the loss of kinetic energy from the inelastic collision is the energy that is used to crush the concrete. He double dips. And it's a BIG double dip.

He makes a number of other mistakes as well, but nothing quite so large.

Yup. The really funny thing is that the amount of knowledge one needs to have to be able to debunk the Ross paper is limited to 3 concepts or skills:

- conservation of energy
- conversion of energy
- basic bookkeeping

Anyone capable of doing household bookkeeping that knows about conservation and conversion of energy is capable of shredding it to pieces. And this paper was once thrown at me by a TM member as "a highly scientific article."

 

[drainbread]

*Sits down with an industrial sized tub of popcorn and laughing maniacally every time a twoofer gets socked in the jaw by the right hand of logic*

 

[jay howard]

On the off-chance anyone bothered to read this nonsense and is not a JREF Historian, the episode jay is referring to is here.

Readers will note, but not be at all surprised, that jay's claim and reality are exactly 180 degrees out of phase...

Anyway, I'm done. jay is emblematic of remaining Truthers who have had things explained to them, tailored to their specific needs, handed to them on a silver platter, but are either too stupid or too argumentative to benefit from it. Waste. Of. Time.

I think I have one last post in me regarding the Truth Movement, but it will wait until after the New Year.

Of course you have another post. You can't help but waste your time pointing out what a waste of time it is to respond.

What I orginally asked for in that thread (and never got) was a falsifiable statement from the NIST report. It never happened. It might be in there, but I haven't found it, and no one has been able to point me to it.

That should be cause for alarm for anyone interested in making a distinction between science and pseudoscience. It's a clear demarcation point for the vast majority of theories that attempt to sound scientific--without actually being scientific.

Despite the fact that JREF is buoyed by the principle of demarcating science from sales pitches and the like, and the inability of ANYONE to provide a single falsifiable statement from the NIST report, it appears to bother no one that they are defending a theory that isn't falsifiable.

Happy New Year, everybody!

NB: I'm still sifting through your appendices. That sounds terrible, but you know what I mean.

 

[twinstead]

The only logical response anybody who doesn't like the NIST report is to present a better theory. End of story.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Of course you have another post. You can't help but waste your time pointing out what a waste of time it is to respond.

What I orginally asked for in that thread (and never got) was a falsifiable statement from the NIST report. It never happened. It might be in there, but I haven't found it, and no one has been able to point me to it.

That should be cause for alarm for anyone interested in making a distinction between science and pseudoscience. It's a clear demarcation point for the vast majority of theories that attempt to sound scientific--without actually being scientific.

Despite the fact that JREF is buoyed by the principle of demarcating science from sales pitches and the like, and the inability of ANYONE to provide a single falsifiable statement from the NIST report, it appears to bother no one that they are defending a theory that isn't falsifiable.

What part isn't falsifiable? They lay out all of the data they gather and detail to a ridiculous extreme their analysis. If you want to prove it false, show that an assumption is false or do the FEA yourself and show that they fibbed.

Happy New Year, everybody!

NB: I'm still sifting through your appendices. That sounds terrible, but you know what I mean.

Good luck. There's a math error (conversion from degrees to radians that I botched) in one of the appendices, however it's still within my "fudge factor" and doesn't change the conclusions.

 

[johnny karate]

This statement...

... the inability of ANYONE to provide a single falsifiable statement from the NIST report...

... does not logically lead to this conclusion:

... they are defending a theory that isn't falsifiable.

And it's rather disingenuous to pretend that it does.

Because here's an example of someone providing ways in which the NIST report could be falsified:

Here are some examples of evidence that would almost certainly make the NIST report false:

1. The WTC towers were to be found still, in fact, standing.
2. Steel vapor
3. Extremely high concentrations of radiation
4. Undetonated explosives
5. Obscenely high concentrations of unexplainable elements (ahem, barium?)
6. Evidence of a volcanic eruption on 9/11/01 in Manhattan
7. Evidence of a catastrophic earthquake on 9/11/01 in Manhattan
8. Evidence of a meteor strike on 9/11/01 in Manhattan
9. Maybe a video showing the space laser striking on 9/11/01
10. Maybe a video showing a glitch in the holographic planes

Feel free to add your own. This is a fun game.

So despite the fact that perhaps no one met your particular semantic standards, examples of the NIST report's falsifiability were provided.

 

[Furcifer]

The only logical response anybody who doesn't like the NIST report is to present a better theory. End of story.

What's humorous is the fact he's admonishing NIST for its lack of proper science while referring to NCSTAR as a theory.

This is entirely the problem with the detractors. They think NCSTAR is a theory on what happened on 9/11. It isn't, it's an accident investigation, a damage analysis, of the events that led up to the collapse.

Sorry for the side bar. Carry on with the latest episode of Pros v. Joes
- Structural Engineering

 

[carlitos]

No, silly. It gets converted into motion and heat (which, depending on scale can be the same thing.) But my deepest criticisms of the official story are about thermodynamics: where did all the energy come from? We can all see where it went in its various manifestations, but given the (albeit, large) amount of energy from the collapsing structures, can all the leftovers be accounted for?

You say yes. I'm not conviced.

I'm no engineer, so I'll paraphrase tfk - New York City power grid, 1966 - 1971. Do you understand this concept?

 

[Furcifer]

Of course you have another post. You can't help but waste your time pointing out what a waste of time it is to respond.

Some things are better left unsaid jay. Subtly is everything.

 

[sylvan8798]

What I orginally asked for in that thread (and never got) was a falsifiable statement from the NIST report. It never happened. It might be in there, but I haven't found it, and no one has been able to point me to it.

That should be cause for alarm for anyone interested in making a distinction between science and pseudoscience. It's a clear demarcation point for the vast majority of theories that attempt to sound scientific--without actually being scientific.

Despite the fact that JREF is buoyed by the principle of demarcating science from sales pitches and the like, and the inability of ANYONE to provide a single falsifiable statement from the NIST report, it appears to bother no one that they are defending a theory that isn't falsifiable.

Ok, so reading some of the previous thread by Jay, I see he is another one trick pony, aka psikeyhacker, heiwa, etc. Not much point in re-hashing his 2 year old hash.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Despite the fact that JREF is buoyed by the principle of demarcating science from sales pitches and the like, and the inability of ANYONE to provide a single falsifiable statement from the NIST report, it appears to bother no one that they are defending a theory that isn't falsifiable.

And yet, in the face of your awesome semantic gymnastics, reality continues to assert itself, as always.

 

[beachnut]

... they are defending a theory that isn't falsifiable.

...

Not close to free fall and the best you can do is say NIST's findings are not falsifiable. Proves you are not able to say what is falsifiable, not a big surprise since you can't grasp the physics of 911 after 8 years.

If you had a viable theory on the collapse of the towers you would be famous. What happen to stop your meteoric rise to greatness?

The towers did not fall close to free fall speed. Some of the fall was close to the momentum transfer time but then you have sections that never collapsed ( people were alive in them) and parts of the core fell after you truthers stop the clock and ignore physics and cling to delusions made up out of ignorance. Truthers have to ignore the 5 story high pile of debris, and forget to subtract that time. 8 years and the few fringe still clinging to delusions failed to gain knowledge.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Jay Howard - What does the word " falsifiable" mean?