10 of 91
10
Any scientific evidence to support official WTC 7 fall theory?
Posted: 24 February 2013 02:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 136 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  428
Joined  2013-02-16
Coldheart Tucker - 23 February 2013 11:54 AM
jomper - 23 February 2013 10:03 AM
Coldheart Tucker - 23 February 2013 03:50 AM

What would proving that the government is concealing the real reason for the collapse of WTC 7 accomplish, exactly?  Its been effectively proven that there were no WMDs in Iraq, but nobody from the Bush Administration is in jail.  Its been effectively proven that the heads of the various banks knowingly engaged in behavior which caused the economic collapse a few years ago.  None of them are in jail (and few, if any of them, have been fired).  HSBC knowingly, and actively engaged in subverting international law and laundered money for drug cartels and the government of Iran.  They got hit with a fine that didn’t even erase their profits from those activities.  What makes you think that the result would be any different if it turned out that the government is hiding something about the events of 9/11?

Hi Coldheart. I don’t know if that question was addressed to me or was even just rhetorical. My response though would be to say that establishing the truth of events like these matters for its own sake, even if the consequences of establishing the truth are not what one might hope for.

It wasn’t rhetorical, and if you’re truly serious of uncovering the truth for the sake of truth, then asking questions on message boards is a waste of time.  Buy a copy of The Investigative Reporter’s Handbook, and use that to ferret out the truth.  Otherwise, you’re just wasting your time.

You seem to think posting on the Center For Inquiry forum is a curiously pointless exercise for someone who has done so more than 200 times. I found this thread via Google and perhaps others will do the same—it’s not unheard of for ‘investigative reporters’ to use the internet, you know.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 February 2013 02:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 137 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  428
Joined  2013-02-16
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 23 February 2013 08:08 PM

It is deeply frustrating to receive this kind of response to a direct question on a supposedly skeptical forum. I reformulated my point as a direct question to you in the evidently vain hope that you would answer it for everyone’s benefit;

Your question is irrelevant IS the answer to your question and I already explained why.

Of course you have not. As I said, every time you dismiss the question without making a single substantive point—as you have once again done—you prove yourself to be a pseudo-skeptic and not genuinely skeptical at all.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 February 2013 07:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 138 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1283
Joined  2011-03-12

Of course you have not.

Yes I did.

I can’t help your poor reading comprehension skills.

 Signature 

Question authority and think for yourself. Big Brother does not know best and never has.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 February 2013 07:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 139 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  428
Joined  2013-02-16
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 24 February 2013 07:35 AM

Of course you have not.

Yes I did.

This is not a pantomime.

I asked you a direct question at post 124 and reiterated the question at post 129, together with the prediction that you would never directly answer it. You have proved me right so far—unless you can indicate the post number that features your direct response?

If not, this is at least the third time you have shown yourself to be a pseudo-skeptic by failing to answer a direct question while pretending to have done so.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 February 2013 09:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 140 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  438
Joined  2012-02-02
jomper - 24 February 2013 02:10 AM
Coldheart Tucker - 23 February 2013 11:54 AM
jomper - 23 February 2013 10:03 AM

.

Coldheart Tucker - 23 February 2013 03:50 AM

What would proving that the government is concealing the real reason for the collapse of WTC 7 accomplish, exactly?  Its been effectively proven that there were no WMDs in Iraq, but nobody from the Bush Administration is in jail.  Its been effectively proven that the heads of the various banks knowingly engaged in behavior which caused the economic collapse a few years ago.  None of them are in jail (and few, if any of them, have been fired).  HSBC knowingly, and actively engaged in subverting international law and laundered money for drug cartels and the government of Iran.  They got hit with a fine that didn’t even erase their profits from those activities.  What makes you think that the result would be any different if it turned out that the government is hiding something about the events of 9/11?

Hi Coldheart. I don’t know if that question was addressed to me or was even just rhetorical. My response though would be to say that establishing the truth of events like these matters for its own sake, even if the consequences of establishing the truth are not what one might hope for.

It wasn’t rhetorical, and if you’re truly serious of uncovering the truth for the sake of truth, then asking questions on message boards is a waste of time.  Buy a copy of The Investigative Reporter’s Handbook, and use that to ferret out the truth.  Otherwise, you’re just wasting your time.

You seem to think posting on the Center For Inquiry forum is a curiously pointless exercise for someone who has done so more than 200 times. I found this thread via Google and perhaps others will do the same—it’s not unheard of for ‘investigative reporters’ to use the internet, you know.

I think its pointless if you’re seeking real information on the subject.  Few, if any posters here, have the necessary expertise to give you an answer to a technical question in any kind of detail.  If you sway anyone’s opinion here, it will not be because you made a compelling case based on facts and reason, it’ll be because of someone’s ignorance.  An investigative reporter would not waste his or her time on a forum like this, trying to find answers to a subject like 9/11.  They’d be poking around on message boards dedicated to things like engineering, aircraft, and demolitions.  On boards like those, they’d get meaningful information, which would enable them to build their case.

 Signature 

“There will come a time when it isn’t ‘They’re spying on me through my phone’ anymore. Eventually, it will be ‘My phone is spying on me’.” ― Philip K. Dick

The Atheist in the Trailer Park

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 February 2013 10:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 141 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  428
Joined  2013-02-16
Coldheart Tucker - 24 February 2013 09:17 AM
jomper - 24 February 2013 02:10 AM
Coldheart Tucker - 23 February 2013 11:54 AM
jomper - 23 February 2013 10:03 AM

.

Coldheart Tucker - 23 February 2013 03:50 AM

What would proving that the government is concealing the real reason for the collapse of WTC 7 accomplish, exactly?  Its been effectively proven that there were no WMDs in Iraq, but nobody from the Bush Administration is in jail.  Its been effectively proven that the heads of the various banks knowingly engaged in behavior which caused the economic collapse a few years ago.  None of them are in jail (and few, if any of them, have been fired).  HSBC knowingly, and actively engaged in subverting international law and laundered money for drug cartels and the government of Iran.  They got hit with a fine that didn’t even erase their profits from those activities.  What makes you think that the result would be any different if it turned out that the government is hiding something about the events of 9/11?

Hi Coldheart. I don’t know if that question was addressed to me or was even just rhetorical. My response though would be to say that establishing the truth of events like these matters for its own sake, even if the consequences of establishing the truth are not what one might hope for.

It wasn’t rhetorical, and if you’re truly serious of uncovering the truth for the sake of truth, then asking questions on message boards is a waste of time.  Buy a copy of The Investigative Reporter’s Handbook, and use that to ferret out the truth.  Otherwise, you’re just wasting your time.

You seem to think posting on the Center For Inquiry forum is a curiously pointless exercise for someone who has done so more than 200 times. I found this thread via Google and perhaps others will do the same—it’s not unheard of for ‘investigative reporters’ to use the internet, you know.

I think its pointless if you’re seeking real information on the subject.  Few, if any posters here, have the necessary expertise to give you an answer to a technical question in any kind of detail.  If you sway anyone’s opinion here, it will not be because you made a compelling case based on facts and reason, it’ll be because of someone’s ignorance.  An investigative reporter would not waste his or her time on a forum like this, trying to find answers to a subject like 9/11.  They’d be poking around on message boards dedicated to things like engineering, aircraft, and demolitions.  On boards like those, they’d get meaningful information, which would enable them to build their case.

As I said when I first posted, I found this thread via Google because I was interested in why NIST has refused to publish all the data it used to make its computer simulations of WTC 7 collapsing. The evidence I have for this includes scans of NIST responses to FOIA requests which you can see here http://cryptome.org/wtc-nist-wtc7-no.pdf and here http://cryptome.org/nist070709.pdf. These scans show that NIST used the NCST Act to refuse FOIA requests on the grounds of public safety.

The public funded the WTC 7 report and there is an obvious public interest in having collapse research made available for independent verification and examination. What kind of public safety risk is sim data of a building collapse supposed to represent, more than a decade after the event? This is obviously not a question that should be considered beyond the understanding of the public, and it is in that spirit I hoped to address the forum.

If all I establish from an attempt to raise questions like this on skeptic forums such as CFI is a Google cache recording your indifference and Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon’s pantomime act, so be it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 February 2013 11:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 142 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  438
Joined  2012-02-02

As someone once said ages ago, “The first instinct of a government official is to classify, never declassify, a document.”  That the government is withholding information on anything is no surprise. Nor are the reasons necessarily involved with concealing a covert ops plan to bring the building down.  Far more likely scenarios include, but are not limited to, information showing the building was not properly built (thus exposing the government, as well as a potentially politically connected government contractor, to various lawsuits), the use of classified equipment to perform the inspections by the NIST, use of classified methods to determine how those sections failed, and plain old government stupidity.  The classified equipment and methods need not be anything nefarious, either.  Robots capable of crawling into tight, dangerous places, have a number of military applications, and the government is probably loathe to let folks know they have a robot that can crawl up a 1 inch diameter pipe.  The classified methods could simply have to do with things like failure rates and material stresses.  Controlled Demolitions Inc. is not exactly forthcoming with the fomulas they use.

However, no piece of information possessed by the government resides within a single document, or even a single agency.  People serious about finding classified information, have discovered that while one agency will refuse to hand over a document, another agency is more than happy to give them the document, or that by examining dozens of other documents, they’ve been able to piece together the information contained in the document that they were looking for.  The government’s refusal to release information isn’t the end of an investigation, nor is it an indication of anything nefarious on the government’s part.  Hell, it was only fairly recently that the government declassified its WWII-era code breaking equipment and that’s been obsolete for decades!

 Signature 

“There will come a time when it isn’t ‘They’re spying on me through my phone’ anymore. Eventually, it will be ‘My phone is spying on me’.” ― Philip K. Dick

The Atheist in the Trailer Park

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 February 2013 05:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 143 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  428
Joined  2013-02-16
Coldheart Tucker - 24 February 2013 11:44 AM

As someone once said ages ago, “The first instinct of a government official is to classify, never declassify, a document.”  That the government is withholding information on anything is no surprise. Nor are the reasons necessarily involved with concealing a covert ops plan to bring the building down.  Far more likely scenarios include, but are not limited to, information showing the building was not properly built (thus exposing the government, as well as a potentially politically connected government contractor, to various lawsuits), the use of classified equipment to perform the inspections by the NIST, use of classified methods to determine how those sections failed, and plain old government stupidity.  The classified equipment and methods need not be anything nefarious, either.  Robots capable of crawling into tight, dangerous places, have a number of military applications, and the government is probably loathe to let folks know they have a robot that can crawl up a 1 inch diameter pipe.  The classified methods could simply have to do with things like failure rates and material stresses.  Controlled Demolitions Inc. is not exactly forthcoming with the fomulas they use.

However, no piece of information possessed by the government resides within a single document, or even a single agency.  People serious about finding classified information, have discovered that while one agency will refuse to hand over a document, another agency is more than happy to give them the document, or that by examining dozens of other documents, they’ve been able to piece together the information contained in the document that they were looking for.  The government’s refusal to release information isn’t the end of an investigation, nor is it an indication of anything nefarious on the government’s part.  Hell, it was only fairly recently that the government declassified its WWII-era code breaking equipment and that’s been obsolete for decades!

Perhaps what was not clear from the scanned NIST documents I linked to is the relevance of the ANSYS and LS-DYNA files. ANSYS and LS-DYNA are commercially available software systems that can model buildings and fire. There is nothing secret about them or the values they respond to, and how the values have been obtained is not relevant to how the model works or explains the evidence. NIST is refusing to release input and results files from ANSYS and LS-DYNA models that are central to its allegedly scientific conclusion that WTC 7 suffered progressive collapse due to fire. Consider this first and above all with respect to the demands of the scientific method. Then consider it with respect to the global public interest in understanding exactly how a building like WTC 7 could collapse the way it did. Then consider how you would respond to a child who insists it has solved an arithmetic problem, but has incorrect results and refuses to show you the calculations it made to get them.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 February 2013 07:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 144 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  438
Joined  2012-02-02

No, I got that.  None of what you said negates anything I said.  Suppose, for example, they found out that the contractor skimped on a support beam.  Now, given that the ambulance chasing lawyers were calling the survivors of 9/11 and offering their “services” to sue anyone and everyone who might even be remotely connected to 9/11.  Even if that beam made no difference in the collapse of WTC 7, having that information out there, would have caused innumerable lawyers to launch thousands of frivolous lawsuits.  No point in that at all.

Nor does the fact that they used commercial software mean that the software is identical to what you can buy in the store.  All such software has add on modules tailored to the specific needs of the end user.  Its entirely possible that some of the modules they used were classified software.

And again, none of this rules out that the data was collected using equipment which is classified.

 Signature 

“There will come a time when it isn’t ‘They’re spying on me through my phone’ anymore. Eventually, it will be ‘My phone is spying on me’.” ― Philip K. Dick

The Atheist in the Trailer Park

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 February 2013 11:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 145 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1283
Joined  2011-03-12

If not, this is at least the third time you have shown yourself to be a pseudo-skeptic by failing to answer a direct question while pretending to have done so.

Please read the No True Scotsman Fallacy at http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/notruescotsman.htm

The reason I’m dismissing your stand as irrelevant is because of the cognitive dissonance I’m seeing here. Whether you want to acknowlage it or not, there isn’t an issue you’ve raised which has not already been falsified or shown to be immaterial years ago. Articles have been written and published both in Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer where all this has been addressed and the best that anybody on your side of this can manage is to stick their fingers in their ears and scream: “LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA ....IT AIN’T SOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

More to the point, an large number of refutations and falsifications of the claims of the “Truthers” have been posted and supported here and the best anybody on your side can manage is the same tired : “LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA ....IT AIN’T SOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” which I’ve been seeing for years.

I’m not going to go over the same ground again and I’m not going to indulge your cognitive dissonance. (Or your political agenda for that matter.)

I’m completely done with this subject.

 Signature 

Question authority and think for yourself. Big Brother does not know best and never has.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 February 2013 02:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 146 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  428
Joined  2013-02-16
Coldheart Tucker - 24 February 2013 07:10 PM

No, I got that.  None of what you said negates anything I said.  Suppose, for example, they found out that the contractor skimped on a support beam.  Now, given that the ambulance chasing lawyers were calling the survivors of 9/11 and offering their “services” to sue anyone and everyone who might even be remotely connected to 9/11.  Even if that beam made no difference in the collapse of WTC 7, having that information out there, would have caused innumerable lawyers to launch thousands of frivolous lawsuits.  No point in that at all.

Nor does the fact that they used commercial software mean that the software is identical to what you can buy in the store.  All such software has add on modules tailored to the specific needs of the end user.  Its entirely possible that some of the modules they used were classified software.

And again, none of this rules out that the data was collected using equipment which is classified.

As I said, how the information may have been collected is irrelevant to how the software behaves and how well the models NIST represent the evidence (a child could see how inaccurate they are).

Let us consider what you have said in light of lead NIST investigator Shyam Sunder’s comment “our job was to come up with the best science” and the fact that classifying computer model data makes a mockery of the scientific method.

Your arguments to explain why NIST would classify its data on public safety grounds include:

1. You imagine that data input into computer simulation software can somehow be reverse engineered to discover classified methods you suppose may have been used to collect the data, eg robots, although there was actually no physical structure for robots to examine

2. You imagine that NIST used classified add-ons to the commercially-available software it used to model the collapse, the effect of which could somehow reverse-engineered from raw data to reveal the classified aspect of their function, although you cannot suggest what that might be (and who could?). NIST makes no reference to using additional software in its report—would that be because you imagine it’s so classified it can’t even be referred to?

3. You imagine that there was a conspiracy between NIST and government officials to cover up bad workmanship when the building was constructed in the 1980s, in order to avoid the legal implications of ignoring building codes at the time, although you apparently do not recognise you are accusing Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, one of the largest and most reputable construction firms in the US and the architects of countless iconic buildings since the 1930s (including the new Freedom Tower) of gross incompetence

Do any of these sound reasonable enough to you to outweigh the obvious public interest case in fully understanding how WTC 7 could collapse the way it did—and the betrayal of the scientific method, the only standard worth holding research against? Please address the importance of the scientific method if you choose to reply, and show how the power of your imagination is greater than the standard against which all science must be judged.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 February 2013 02:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 147 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  428
Joined  2013-02-16
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 24 February 2013 11:32 PM

If not, this is at least the third time you have shown yourself to be a pseudo-skeptic by failing to answer a direct question while pretending to have done so.

Please read the No True Scotsman Fallacy at http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/notruescotsman.htm

The reason I’m dismissing your stand as irrelevant is because of the cognitive dissonance I’m seeing here. Whether you want to acknowlage it or not, there isn’t an issue you’ve raised which has not already been falsified or shown to be immaterial years ago. Articles have been written and published both in Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer where all this has been addressed and the best that anybody on your side of this can manage is to stick their fingers in their ears and scream: “LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA ....IT AIN’T SOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

More to the point, an large number of refutations and falsifications of the claims of the “Truthers” have been posted and supported here and the best anybody on your side can manage is the same tired : “LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA ....IT AIN’T SOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” which I’ve been seeing for years.

I’m not going to go over the same ground again and I’m not going to indulge your cognitive dissonance. (Or your political agenda for that matter.)

I’m completely done with this subject.

Tremendous stuff. All those words and not one argument that addresses the subject; no link to an argument that addresses the subject; no indication of what kind of cognitive dissonance you think you’re outraged by—and of course, no direct answer to a relatively simple question (for the third time): why do you think NIST was right not to bother testing for explosive residue, in view of the video evidence showing an undeniable period of free-fall?

You’re done with this subject all right. You’ve contributed nothing to it except bad spelling.

[ Edited: 25 February 2013 01:47 PM by jomper ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 February 2013 09:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 148 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
psikeyhackr - 20 February 2013 05:05 PM
Lois - 20 February 2013 01:30 PM

What are you suggesting, then?  It sounds like speculation, which can easily lead to conspiracy theories.  What do you think the NIST report implies? What would have caused the south tower to deflect one foot horizontally below the impact? You must have an idea.  What is it?

You’re going to have to come up with a lot more specifics before you get intelligent people to give your ideas the time of day.

Are you one of those intelligent people?

You seem to have a problem with science.  I took for granted that you understood the significance of the deflection.

The plane hit the south tower at 550 mph with a mass of about 150 tons.  The formula for momentum is mass times velocity.  So that much momentum had to be imparted to the building.  The conservation of momentum means the building had to move.  How much and how fast would depend on the mass and the stiffness of the building.

The NIST report has a graph of the deflection and oscillation of the south tower but the camera only photographed up to the 70th floor and the plane impacted at the 81st.  So 11 storeys below where the plane impacted, the momentum of the plane caused the building to deflect 12 inches.  That is an empirical “scientific” fact.  (unless the NIST is lying) Extrapolation indicates the building moved about 15 inches at the level where the plane hit.  But that is only my extrapolation and I have never seen anyone else bring up the subject.  So what are those “intelligent people” doing?

But the Purdue simulation, which they claim is “scientific”, does not even simulate the building 11 storeys below the impact point on the north tower.  The have their 20 storey stub of a building immovable 6 storeys below their simulated impact.  So their “scientific” simulation has a problem.  What happened to the momentum?  Did all of the energy go into structural damage?  If so that would mean their simulation reported too much damage.

All you do is throw around the words “conspiracy” and “speculation” and “intelligent” but do not demonstrate that you comprehend the “scientific” aspects of the 9/11 incidents for yourself.  You treat science like a religion and the people you designate as scientific like priesthood.  Science is about UNDERSTAND THINGS and not just by experts who do not demand and publicise relevant data.  How many tons of steel and tons of concrete were on each and every level of the towers?  If you can’t understand the relevance of that then how can you evaluate if anything is “scientific” about any paper or article on 9/11?
psik

—You apparently don’t understand it yourself.  How can you presume to evaluate any paper or article on 9/11?  You bring up all these speculations about what was happening within a few moments after impact, without evidence, incidentally, but you never say what you think that means.  If you are so sure someone else was involved in the collapse of the towers, who was it and what did they do?  You have provided not even a rational guess and certainly not a scintilla of evidence that anyone else was involved in any way.  You just have “a feeling” that something wasn’t right. That is at the heart of conspiracy theories: wild speculation without evidence.

....

[ Edited: 25 February 2013 09:37 AM by Lois ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 February 2013 11:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 149 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2424
Joined  2007-07-05
Lois - 25 February 2013 09:31 AM

—You apparently don’t understand it yourself.  How can you presume to evaluate any paper or article on 9/11?  You bring up all these speculations about what was happening within a few moments after impact, without evidence, incidentally, but you never say what you think that means.  If you are so sure someone else was involved in the collapse of the towers, who was it and what did they do?  You have provided not even a rational guess and certainly not a scintilla of evidence that anyone else was involved in any way.  You just have “a feeling” that something wasn’t right. That is at the heart of conspiracy theories: wild speculation without evidence.

....

The Conservation of Momentum is not speculation.

I don’t care who did it or why.  If that is your concern don’t talk to me about it.

You are insisting that I speculate and then accuse me of it.  I am just talking about the physics.  You are not dealing with the science of the problem.

If airliners weighing less than 200 tons with 10,000 gallons of fuel could totally destroy buildings 2,000+ times their own mass in less than 2 hours then the physics profession should have explained it in good detail by now.

If airliners weighing less than 200 tons with 10,000 gallons of fuel COULD NOT totally destroy buildings 2,000+ times their own mass in less than 2 hours then the physics profession should have EXPLAINED THAT in good detail by now.

But instead they have done neither.  So at this point the issue of why they have not resolved the problem is more important than the cause of the problem.

Here is the page from the NIST report with the south tower oscillation:

1-5-26.jpg
http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/01/south-tower-oscillation-as-evidence-of.html

Since you apparently have not studied the subject for yourself.

psik

[ Edited: 25 February 2013 11:22 AM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 February 2013 11:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 150 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
psikeyhackr - 25 February 2013 11:07 AM
Lois - 25 February 2013 09:31 AM

—You apparently don’t understand it yourself.  How can you presume to evaluate any paper or article on 9/11?  You bring up all these speculations about what was happening within a few moments after impact, without evidence, incidentally, but you never say what you think that means.  If you are so sure someone else was involved in the collapse of the towers, who was it and what did they do?  You have provided not even a rational guess and certainly not a scintilla of evidence that anyone else was involved in any way.  You just have “a feeling” that something wasn’t right. That is at the heart of conspiracy theories: wild speculation without evidence.

....

The Conservation of Momentum is not speculation.

I don’t care who did it or why.  If that is your concern don’t talk to me about it.

You are insisting that I speculate and then accuse me of it.  I am just talking about the physics.  You are not dealing with the science of the problem.

If airliners weighing less than 200 tons with 10,000 gallons of fuel could totally destroy buildings 2,000+ times their own mass in less than 2 hours then the physics profession should have explained it in good detail by now.

If airliners weighing less than 200 tons with 10,000 gallons of fuel COULD NOT totally destroy buildings 2,000+ times their own mass in less than 2 hours then the physics profession should have EXPLAINED THAT in good detail by now.

But instead they have done neither.  So at this point the issue of why they have not resolved the problem is more important than the cause of the problem.

Here is the page from the NIST report with the south tower oscillation:

1-5-26.jpg
http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/01/south-tower-oscillation-as-evidence-of.html

Since you apparently have not studied the subject for yourself.

psik


I’ve studied it enough to know that it is highly unlikely that there is evidence that any conspiracy was involved beyond the actions of the known bombers, that the collapse of the towers could have been caused and most likely was caused by the jets flying into the towers alone and that to this day, despite all the conspiracy theories we’ve all heard, not one piece of scientific evidence supports the idea that anyone else was involved. 

So you apparently have not studied the subject yourself, you have only engaged in wild and unsupported speculations and called it “studying the subject.”  That doesn’t mean youve studied the subject in any rational way.  It means you’ve come to it with your mind already made up.

Profile
 
 
   
10 of 91
10