WTC Collapses

[leeray666]

Hey Tony, over at richarddawkins dot net there are some people taking your paper apart. I just wondered if you would come over and give a response? The guy disputing your case has posted his theory of collapse if you so wish to see where he stands. This is in the politics section if you would like to respond.
I can't cut and paste any quotes as I'm using an iPhone. Also I can't post links either, sorry.

 

[Headspin]

Hey Tony, over at richarddawkins dot net there are some people taking your paper apart. I just wondered if you would come over and give a response? The guy disputing your case has posted their theory of collapse if you so wish to see where they stand. This is in the politics section if you would like to respond.
I can't cut and paste any quotes as I'm using an iPhone. Also I can't post links either.

I don't see anyone there "taking the paper apart". I see one person attacking the paper with sophistry. It seems the poster econ41 has attributed NISTs assertions (as stated in the paper) to Szamboti and MacQueen.

He fails with his first word:

"Their explanation which is artificial. It is not crucial to mine. Weight hitting or even being placed on the next floor in sequence would have cause the "inevitable global collapse". That is one where NIST was undoubtedly right even though it is not my objective to defend NIST"

The obfuscatory word "Their" should read "NIST", but I think econ41 is happy for the reader to believe he is referring to Szamboti and MacQueen.
He follows with "NIST was undoubtedly right" which reinforces the false attribution.
so he conjurs a trick where the reader is encouraged to believe that "Their" is a reference to Szamboti and MacQueen. This is also evidenced by his deletion of the footnote reference numbers following his cut and paste from the paper:

He quotes the paper as:

"1. Because of damage to stories 93 to 98, and especially because of column buckling due to fire, the top 12 stories of the North Tower (99-110) plus the roof were, in effect, separated from the rest of the Tower and began to behave as a unit.

2. This “rigid block” of 12 stories plus the roof began to move. First it tilted, and then it abruptly fell onto the stories beneath it.

3. The fall of the rigid block caused such damage to the lower structure that “global collapse began.”"

A cut and paste from Szamboti and MacQueen's paper would have read :

"1. Because of damage to stories 93 to 98, and especially because of column buckling due to fire,the top 12 stories of the North Tower (99-110) plus the roof were, in effect, separated from therest of the Tower and began to behave as a unit. [2]

2. This “rigid block” of 12 stories plus the roof began to move. First it tilted, and then it abruptlyfell onto the stories beneath it. [3]

3. The fall of the rigid block caused such damage to the lower structure that “global collapse began.”[4]"

Footnotes
2. There is some ambiguity in the NIST study on which stories are included in the upper rigid
block, but the analysis given in this paper appears to represent NIST’s best estimate. See, e.g.,
NIST NCSTAR 1, p. 150-151.
3. NIST NCSTAR 1, p. 151.
4. NIST NCSTAR 1, p. 151.

Is there any point in pursuing his other points, when he fails like this off the block?

 

[Headspin]

..oh, and this comment by econ41 : "Weight....being placed on the next floor in sequence would have cause the "inevitable global collapse".

if his above statement (which he makes several times) is true, how did the building ever stand for all those decades?

His continual reference only to "floors" and "perimeter columns" makes me think he is unaware of the massive VERTICAL internal interconnected core column structure that supported the majority of the building.

Either that or he wants to wave away the core supports with the use of some sort of imaginary shape charges which weren't actually shape charges.

Look at the big structure in the foreground he simply wants to wish away!
Look at the truss structure in the middle of the picture - how is that truss supposed to destory the core column foreground structure, by "sagging"? we know that even the perimeter columns in the background resisted any thermal expansion of the floor trusses.

 

[leeray666]

I don't see anyone there "taking the paper apart".

Well I said that because there really isn't anyone there that appears to be able to counter his argument.

I would love to be able to, because his theories appear quite loose. But I'm not really that clued up on the finer details.
All I can say is that to me, from merely watching the videos, I don't think that the towers would have fallen like that without some kind of incendiary devices. It just doesn't seem to react the way it should.

I was hoping someone more experienced on the subject would come over and offer some kind of balance there.

 

[Headspin]

there really isn't anyone there that appears to be able to counter his argument.

What argument? Ask him to explain what happened to the core structure pictured above.

 

[psikeyhackr]

I don't see anyone there "taking the paper apart". I see one person attacking the paper with sophistry. It seems the poster econ41 has attributed NISTs assertions (as stated in the paper) to Szamboti and MacQueen.

ROFLMAO

That is all econ41 does.

He is a moderator that helped get me banned. He claims to be a structural engineer but he got the velocity calculation wrong for an object dropped from 1000 feet.

It is rather amusing that anyone would call what he does "taking the paper apart" but it shows what kind of crap so many people will take seriously. Just present bullshit in a pompous authoritarian manner and a lot of people will fall for it. :shrug:

He quotes the paper as:

A cut and paste from Szamboti and MacQueen's paper would have read :

econ is constantly accusing me of what he calls "quote mining" but he does it and distorts what other people say. But won't come up with a LOGICAL refutation of an accurate and relevant quote. He is very good at leading dummies where they want to go.

psik

 

[Headspin]

yes you're right, psikeyhackr.

Its clear they hide in sites like JREF, Dawkins and Skeptic, so that if you disagree with their bullshit, it appears to others not paying attention that you are against those attacking spoon bending and telekinetics, etc. They are virtually all anonymous which gives them flexibility to hide behind fake identities and fake expertise. All their arguments tend to gravitate to appeals to authority rather than logic and evidence.

 

[leeray666]

OK. I understand what you're saying. And I agree.

I joined that forum because I thought it was supposed to be a place for rational clear thinking. I was a bit dismayed at the responses I saw regarding various issues though.

I don't know if psikey remembers that I created a thread about the very thing.

I gave up attempting to argue with them over the issue as I don't know enough about the subject to hold my own ground. If I was to be questioned on any particular piece it may take me a couple of days reading to come back with a reply.
I spend a lot of time reading historical documents, stuff on psychology and philosophy. So I can easily debate away anything regarding intent and social control.
Physics and chemistry aren't my thing (yet - I will at some point educate myself there) and I was hoping to find someone who could 'take apart' - in the proper sense - Econs theories.

It's annoyed me a little because I occasionally read the thread and see poor Gretavo struggling and the huge poll in favour of the 'official' account; and the pack of hyenas following Econ blurting out asinine statements which in some respects is kinda bullying.
It's just a bit disappointing.

Anyway f*ck it. Who cares?

 

[psikeyhackr]

Physics and chemistry aren't my thing (yet - I will at some point educate myself there) and I was hoping to find someone who could 'take apart' - in the proper sense - Econs theories.

It's annoyed me a little because I occasionally read the thread and see poor Gretavo struggling and the huge poll in favour of the 'official' account; and the pack of hyenas following Econ blurting out asinine statements which in some respects is kinda bullying.
It's just a bit disappointing.

Anyway f*ck it. Who cares?

Well I'm banned until Jan 26. It is my second time. LOL I look in now and then but it has gone back to the usual stuff. I am going to have to shoot some PMs at some people for not getting any support when I accused someone of claiming that I said things I obviously never said. He couldn't provide links. He just put his interpretation on what I said. "Two week" is not "right away".

But I go to the Dawkins' forum for probably the same reason as econ41.

What I find funny is that so many atheists want to promote this image of themselves as being intelligent, rational and scientific but then their idea of science is accepting what they regard as a SCIENTIFIC AUTHORITY and don't seem to make any effort to understand the science for themselves. That is turning science into religion.

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

Physics and chemistry aren't my thing (yet - I will at some point educate myself there) and I was hoping to find someone who could 'take apart' - in the proper sense

On the subject of physics I just found this:

http://beta.legaltorrents.com/torrents/158-physics-textbooks

psik

 

[scott3x]

On the subject of physics I just found this:

http://beta.legaltorrents.com/torrents/158-physics-textbooks

psik

I'm downloading it, maybe it will help me better understand some of your arguments. Anyway, I started a thread over in SF Open Government here in sciforums, requesting that this thread be moved over to Architecture and Engineering. The response has been completely negative, but I thought that you and others might want to take a look at my effort in any case.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Hey Tony, over at richarddawkins dot net there are some people taking your paper apart. I just wondered if you would come over and give a response? The guy disputing your case has posted his theory of collapse if you so wish to see where he stands. This is in the politics section if you would like to respond.
I can't cut and paste any quotes as I'm using an iPhone. Also I can't post links either, sorry.

Leeray, I took a look at the Richard Dawkins forum and this guy (econ41) provides no basis for what he is saying. He has no argument, it is all blather. He just doesn't think there needs to be much of an impulse to cause an overload to collapse the lower stories. I guess he doesn't understand what a factor of safety is in design. His reasoning sounds like the "just because" argument.

From what I read, his theory tries to put a 1" peg in a 7/8" hole and everything just rolls over nice and neat on the outside while the inside material is collapsing the tower all the way down, with little to no impulse required to gain the overload. The guy seems like a blowhard and is probably not worthy to debate on the issue. I would bet he is a shill and that even if you win an argument with him he will just come right back with more clever sophistry, as if he didn't hear you and hoping others didn't hear you. To me that is the mark of a shill and econ41 seems to fit the description.

Try not to get too aggravated over people like this. If you don't think you have enough skills yourself to debate him, and realize he is a blowhard, then just don't listen. It did not seem like everyone over there was siding with him. Put your time in where it matters most. I would bet you could learn enough very quickly about the physics behind the real events of Sept. 11, 2001 by reading the papers at the Journal of 911 Studies and watching the AE911truth presentation. If you do this you can tell others in your everyday life and be doing something yourself about it. We need to outflank these people by having lots of people like yourself become educated on the subject and informing others who have a clear mind.

I really don't want to get into trying to debate every one of these blowhards/possible shills myself. It would become a fulltime job as people like him seem to have a lot of time on their hands. Have you ever wondered about that? Looking at how many posts econ41 has, it seems like he spends his entire life on the forum.

I have to work everyday and, while I have gotten wrapped up in this 911 thing to some degree, I don't have the enormous amount of time to post all day that people like econ41 seem to.

 

[Headspin]

Econ41's latest wretch is hilariously ignorant.

His second fail at addressing Szamboti and MacQueen consists entirely of circular reasoning and appealing to his own authority, even presenting an argument by quoting himself!

After not presenting a meaningful response he finishes himself off with his finish of "Forget his latest paper. It is nonsense". This would be the archetypal blind faith creationist response so often ridiculed by the Richard Dawkins website....and this guy is a moderator on the forum, his behaviour gives Dawkins a bad name.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Econ41's latest wretch is hilariously ignorant.

How dare you say such things about econ?

YOU'RE BANNED!

LOL

So what does this say about the 9/11 mass psychosis? And this crap is international. econ says he is in Australia. I know if I was in a high school physics class today I would find the entire WTC 1 & 2 business fascinating even if I thought the planes could do it. But apparently people with degrees in physics can accept it without even regarding the distribution of mass of the towers as important.

psik

 

[scott3x]

Comparing the collapse of a steel bridge to the WTC collapses

This post is in response to the 4th part of shaman_'s post 795 in this thread.

A bridge with steel supports collapsed after a gas tanker crashed. That’s kind of a problem for your theory….

It's nothing of the sort. Steven Jones dealt with that issue over at prisonplanet.com.

Have you actually read that article?

Yes.

It is appalling. They completely miss the relevance of the incident – that a gas fire caused steel to weaken and collapse.

Comments like “Jones said that the notion that steel supporting columns completely melted from fire is impossible” are feeble strawmen.

Actually, he's simply stating that, given the laws of physics, it's impossible that the steel melted from mere gasoline. The steel weakened, which is something else entirely.

Comments like

In addition, the "pancake" collapse of the freeway did not even manage to collapse the section of road below it, whereas the collapse of the south tower pulverized over 10 floors a second.

Building 7 was not hit by anything save a small amount of debris from the towers and suffered limited fires across just eight floors. In addition, explosions were being reported by occupants within WTC 7 before the towers had even collapsed.

The columns supporting the freeway were not pulverized into dust as in the case of the towers, but are clearly still standing as can be seen in all the photographs.

… show they are making absurd comparisons and completely missing the point.

I disagree. Why do you feel the comparisons are absurd? And what point do you think they are missing?

The summary

No molten metal and certainly no thermate found
No column failure
No evaporation / pulverization of concrete
No "pancake collapse"

…is just baffling. Evaporation of concrete?

Yeah, you know, like the evaporation of steel that the New York Times reported Glanz mentioned in the 2 New York Times articles he wrote/helped write.

The gasoline caused the metal to soften and collapse.

In the bridge, yes. No evaporation or even melting of steel there, as Astaneh made clear.

Dr Astaneh investigated the steel and confirmed that this was the cause.

Yes. This is what he said on PBS:

Here, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Comparing the collapse of a steel bridge to the WTC collapses

An obvious question here has to do with conduction.

How much steel was connected to how much other steel?

2nd obvious question is, How thick was the steel? That related to how much weight it had to support and conduction.

But all the people who want to say the cases are similar just point to fuel, fire, steel, collapse. You see, THAT'S PROOF!

Yeah Right!

I don't recall hearing how long the fire burned brfore the highway collapsed.

psik

 

[scott3x]

Comparing the collapse of a steel bridge to the WTC collapses

An obvious question here has to do with conduction.

How much steel was connected to how much other steel?

2nd obvious question is, How thick was the steel? That related to how much weight it had to support and conduction.

No idea on either count. The PBS article makes no mention of these issues at any rate.

But all the people who want to say the cases are similar just point to fuel, fire, steel, collapse. You see, THAT'S PROOF!

Yeah Right!

Laugh .

I don't recall hearing how long the fire burned before the highway collapsed.

That's another thing the PBS article doesn't specify...

 

[psikeyhackr]

Off Topic

The JREFers are just endlessly entertaining. They have a thread where people can suggest science books.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84904&page=5

So I decided to tell them about the physics book torrent. But of course I couldn't help being a little humorous about it.

Does E-Physics come from E-Books?

http://beta.legaltorrents.com/torrents/158-physics-textbooks

I guess the people that think a <200 ton airliner can level a >400,000 ton building in less than 2 hours really need that.

DUH, what's momentum.

psik

Some moderator said it was OFF TOPIC moved it and used it to start a new thread. ROFL

[mod=Tricky]Off-topic posts split to AAH. Please take conspiracy theory discussions to the appropriate forum.[/mod]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=133233

They added my response to the move though and closed the thread.

Uh oh, it's a members only thread. This is what I wrote.

ROFLMAO

That wasn't off topic. It included a perfectly good link to a LEGAL torrent with REAL PHYSICS books.

http://beta.legaltorrents.com/torren...sics-textbooks

I just included a joke.

You JREFers are just a bunch of anal retentive jerks that take yourselves way too seriously. LOL

psik

I swear I don't know what those dudes use for brains. :shrug:

psik

PS - But I suppose that was off topic for this sciforum thread though.

 

[scott3x]

The JREFers are just endlessly entertaining. They have a thread where people can suggest science books.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84904&page=5

So I decided to tell them about the physics book torrent. But of course I couldn't help being a little humorous about it.



Some moderator said it was OFF TOPIC moved it and used it to start a new thread. ROFL



http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=133233

They added my response to the move though and closed the thread.

Uh oh, it's a members only thread. This is what I wrote.



I swear I don't know what those dudes use for brains. :shrug:

psik

PS - But I suppose that was off topic for this sciforum thread though.

Brains are complex things. I strongly disagree with many official story supporters, but it doesn't mean I think they're brainless or what not. While there are many psychologists and psychiatrists who are in the truth movement, there are some who aren't. Today I met a friend of the family who's a psychologist; I showed him David Griffin's "Debunking 9/11 Debunking", which I had been reading in a book store. He took a look at the back cover and said "I don't believe a word of it"; we had a brief conversation on the matter but it seems that he was of the same view by the end of it. I think he's a fairly intelligent man but if you're not someone who knows much about engineering, you can easily be fooled into believing the official story. If I hadn't read one of Jim Marrs' books on the subject, perhaps I too would still believe the official story line (although I doubt it; my mother's dealt with high level government officials' callous disregard for human life before so I probably would have been receptive to getting the information from some other good source).

 

[psikeyhackr]

I think he's a fairly intelligent man but if you're not someone who knows much about engineering, you can easily be fooled into believing the official story.

We are dealing with at least 3 different factors, intelligence, knowledge and emotional blocks. Emotional blocks can interfere with intelligence. It is rarely easy to tell what it is.

But the JREFers claiming my post was off topic was outside the box. There wasn't any basis for that. I was just being a little sarcastic in the joke. But why start another thread with it. I don't know if it was a different moderator that closed the thread or not. I just figured somebody would razz me about the sarcasm. I never conceived of that reaction. That entire incident goes in my stupid column.

I asked Tricky to delete my previous suggested books. He hasn't responded.

But there is the problem of people who actually come across as intelligent enough to easily understand why the planes could not do it but argue that they did anyway. That is how R. Mackey comes across to me and most of the time I get that impression with econ41 also. It is often like they are helping the not so smart BELIEVERS to believe what they prefer.

psik