Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Your apoinion on 911  

57 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

One of the paper's assumptions it does disclose is that all of the columns of the first story to collapse were heated to 800º C. In that case they would have been glowing red-hot. Perhaps Bazant and Zhou can be forgiven for this oversight and for their wildly innaccurate engineering assumptions, given the short publication deadline they had to meet.
Glowing red hot at 800C? Do you have a link that backs up that claim?

A little background about steel:

As the critical temperature for steel is around 540°C (give or take, depending on whose country's test standards one reads at the time), and design basis fires reach this temperature within a few minutes, structural steel requires external insulation in order to prevent the steel from absorbing enough energy to reach this temperature. First, steel expands, when heated, and once enough energy has been absorbed, it softens and loses its structural integrity. This is easily prevented through the use of fireproofing
The generally accepted explaination is that the aircraft collision ripped the fire protection off the steel exposing to flames of up to 800C. This would have been more than enough to weaken the supports and trigger the progressive collapse using the mechanisms decribed in this paper. Hoffman's counter argument is nothing more than an unproven assertion that the fires could never get that hot.

In fact, almost all truthie analyses does something like this:

1) Make up numbers and assert without proof that these numbers are correct

2) Use these dubious numbers to 'prove' their hypothesis.

In all cases, truthie arguments fall apart when you realize that the initial assumptions are mostly fiction.

I'm done debating with you because I am noi longer going to entertain a fool
You have been most entertaining but not for the reasons you think.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Riverwind debating with Poly is pointless. He believes anyone who doesn't believe what he does is a sychophant, charlatan, lucifarian, etc.

If the fool doesn't want people to debate him, then let the fool debate himself. I'm sure he's has a few voices in his head which are always in conflict with one and other.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Riverwind debating with Poly is pointless. He believes anyone who doesn't believe what he does is a sychophant, charlatan, lucifarian, etc.

If the fool doesn't want people to debate him, then let the fool debate himself. I'm sure he's has a few voices in his head which are always in conflict with one and other.

His agenda, and that of most conspiracy theorists, is to shift the blame from the most obviously responsible group, radical Islam, and from the "moderates" that make common cause with them. Finding explanations that sound "technical" but have an agenda is S.O.P. for conspiracy theorists.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Riverwind debating with Poly is pointless. He believes anyone who doesn't believe what he does is a sychophant, charlatan, lucifarian, etc.
People who respond to a reasoned argument with insults simply discredit themselves. I got in involved in the debate because the junk science PN was peddling sounds superficially logical to anyone who does not really understand the science involved. I am very amused that he constantly points to papers by 'experts' that prove his claims but seems to be unable or unwilling to restate the arguments in his own words. His 'I am not going to explain this to you without getting paid excuse' made me howl with laughter.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I am very amused that he constantly points to papers by 'experts' that prove his claims but seems to be unable or unwilling to restate the arguments in his own words. His 'I am not going to explain this to you without getting paid excuse' made me howl with laughter.

That reminds me of something that happened to me in September 1982. In July, I was driving south on the Henry Hudson Parkway into New York City for a bar review course. I was pulled over for going 62 mph in a 50 mph zone.

I contested the ticket. In September I went to trial. The officer first started to read from the ticket, and I objected. The Judge said he could read from it to refresh his recollection. I said "as soon as he says he doesn't remember anything I won't object to his reading".

Next, the officer explained in very technical language how he tuned the radar that day (since it has to be tuned daily for its "evidence" to be admissible in New York). I asked that the officer repeat what he said in simple terms "since I don't have the technical training to understand what he just said". The officer repeated, word for word, his earlier testimony.

The Judge then asked me to testify. I asked "don't I get cross" (meaning to cross-examine the officer). The Judge said "I'm going to do it a bit differently". I testified that I was going 50 mph, maybe a mile or two faster or slower, but certainly not 62". The Judge said "I'm going to cut off the testimony and find you not guilty".

The point of that story is that the Judge even understood, on a speeding ticket where the People (in your country the Crown or Regina) always wins, that lack of ability to restate things in other terms means the person doesn't understand it. In this case, it meant that the officer never tuned the radar.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe this is one of polynewbies more memorable quotes.

No one is safe in a Luciferian police state. All someone has to do is report you saying "George Bush looks like a monkey" and its off to the torture chamber for your kid and an observation room for you to watch some thug manipulate the kids genitalia with pliars until you confess.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe this is one of polynewbies more memorable quotes.
No one is safe in a Luciferian police state. All someone has to do is report you saying "George Bush looks like a monkey" and its off to the torture chamber for your kid and an observation room for you to watch some thug manipulate the kids genitalia with pliars until you confess.

I remember that. I live in the states and have rarely seen that happen.

Then again, many Canadians don't like Americans.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some Canadian's are just complete idiot's though. I'm debating one right now that basically claim's the US is the cause for all of the world's problem's.

In all honesty its just a bunch of BS. I've never had a problem with the American's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I happen to like the USA very much. The only people that I can honestly say that I hate is Canadian lawyers. The reason for this is the moral relativism that they support in laws. If you are a Canadian lawyer the law doesn't hinder you in any way in what you may do or wish to do. Canadian lawyers are affectively above the law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the official story for 911 doesn't add up any way you look at it. None of the official story makes sense. The people argueing science in it are arguing that 2+2=5. I've read the official papers and studied them - they all skip over important facts as if they do not exist. They are white washes and incomplete, none of them represent reasonable science. They don't make errors like Riverwind does in his "analysis" they just skip over important things, such as showing how the buildings could have collapsed straight down into their own footprint. No paper explains this. The NIST report doesn't address is and will not create visualizations of their simulations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As the critical temperature for steel is around 540°C (give or take, depending on whose country's test standards one reads at the time), and design basis fires reach this temperature within a few minutes, structural steel requires external insulation in order to prevent the steel from absorbing enough energy to reach this temperature. First, steel expands, when heated, and once enough energy has been absorbed, it softens and loses its structural integrity. This is easily prevented through the use of fireproofing

Most of the steel never got beyond 250 degrees Celcius and even from the NIST diagrams of the collapse area and temperatures one can easily conclude that the towers should have remained standing. The center core was built with a 6 times over build factor, the outside columns had a 20 times overbuild factor since they absorb the wind load. Even if all supporting ( internal & external) columns were heated to 840 degrees, the building still would have remained standing. Verification of this can be done with simple arithmetic applied to the NIST report data.

With less than half the building damaged at the most critical floor and the fact that the buildings remained standing after the impact with no change in the natural vibrational frequency of the building proves that there was enough strength to hold the buildings up. The 1975 fire in the wtc burned hotter and for much longer. No parts of the strucure were even damaged.

JBG: why not argue facts instead of tertiary ideas ? You can't argue that 911 wasn't an inside job at all. Riverwind can't even understand basic free body diagrams or the realities of conservation of momentum. He doesn't understad what the difference is between Newtonian physics and relativistic physics. Canadian Blue wants to paint me as an anti semite instead of winning based on facts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
JBG:His agenda, and that of most conspiracy theorists, is to shift the blame from the most obviously responsible group, radical Islam, and from the "moderates" that make common cause with them.

Why do these Muslims want to attack us. I asked you this before and you said that they have declared a "celiphate". Why...because they hate our freedoms ?

You are the one that cannot answer questions and use BS instead of answering questions directly.

You really think this whole deal is going to work in your favour don't you. Lawyers often have an aggagerated sense of their own worth because of the money they make. I know most of money lawyers make is just hush money. The law society wants all lawyers employed so that they don't go around telling people how the system really works. Its easier to keep all the ones in the know on side and eating well.

Here you have a couple of guys that have no idea how professionals are governed - great buddies to have - the only ones that respect lawyers are the ones who don't know how they operate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to thank PolyN008E for starting this thread because it produced this post:

I am very amused that he constantly points to papers by 'experts' that prove his claims but seems to be unable or unwilling to restate the arguments in his own words. His 'I am not going to explain this to you without getting paid excuse' made me howl with laughter.
That reminds me of something that happened to me in September 1982. In July, I was driving south on the Henry Hudson Parkway into New York City for a bar review course. I was pulled over for going 62 mph in a 50 mph zone.

I contested the ticket. In September I went to trial. The officer first started to read from the ticket, and I objected. The Judge said he could read from it to refresh his recollection. I said "as soon as he says he doesn't remember anything I won't object to his reading".

Touche!

I have been trying to follow this thread. The tag-team / Punch-and-Judy comedy element has been the primary fuel for keeping my attention. I am ever so grateful that it did. Thank you Jbg for recounting your experience and your simple and straight-forward courtroom strategy. This is probably the most valuable and useful post in this whole thread -- in my opinion. In the end, freedom of speech and freedom to listen have won. We should all pay close attention, otherwise we may miss that tree falling in the forest. Long live spirited debate!

I wonder how the legal business will evolve if more and more people remember to keep the JBG Strategy in their back pocket.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Most of the steel never got beyond 250 degrees Celcius and even from the NIST diagrams of the collapse area and temperatures one can easily conclude that the towers should have remained standing.
Nobody knows for certain how hot the fires were are where they were burning. You are trying to claim that you have a 'proof' based on a unproveable data. That makes your conclusion irrelevant. That said, the lastest NIST report claims fires were as high as 1000 degrees.
The center core was built with a 6 times over build factor, the outside columns had a 20 times overbuild factor since they absorb the wind load. Even if all supporting ( internal & external) columns were heated to 840 degrees, the building still would have remained standing. Verification of this can be done with simple arithmetic applied to the NIST report data.
Again, where did these 6 or 20 times overbuild factors come from? Did a truthie just make up the number or does it have some basis in fact? Even if it does have some basis you still must remember that these designed load factors only apply where there is no structural damage.

If you look at the NIST report you find this explanation:

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.
In other words, the perimeter columns with a 20 times overbuild factor failed because the sagging floors caused them to bend.

Here is a simple experiment you can do at home to illustrate what happened to the WTC. Find two empty aluminium cans with no dents. Place one can on the floor and pile books/bricks on it until it collapses. Note how many books/required were required. Dent the other aluminum can and repeat the experiment. You will find that a small dent in the can significantly reduces its load bearing capacity. The sagging floors caused by the fires and the missing beams were the 'dent' that caused those 20x over built columns to collapse.

Incidently, most of your claims regarding the what the NIST report said are based on initial reports that even NIST agrees had errors. NIST has a detailed FAQ that directly debunks all the truthie claims in more detail than I can.

Link to post
Share on other sites
They don't make errors like Riverwind does in his "analysis" they just skip over important things, such as showing how the buildings could have collapsed straight down into their own footprint. No paper explains this. The NIST report doesn't address is and will not create visualizations of their simulations.
Most scientific analysis will jump over points that an intelligent reader should be able to understand without explanation. The buildings collapsed straight down because that is the only direction they could move in once the structure collapsed. However, I did attempt to explain to with my static body analysis why everyone assumes that the buildings had no where to go but straight down. You can rant as much as your want about how my analysis is 'wrong' but you have zero credibility unless you come up with something resembling a counter argument/analysis.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Riverwind:Most scientific analysis will jump over points that an intelligent reader should be able to understand without explanation.

You don't have a clue about anything to do with physics.

The buildings collapsed straight down because that is the only direction they could move in once the structure collapsed.

more like:

The buildings collapsed straight down because that is the only direction they could could not move in once the structure collapsed !!!!

Its one scientific fact that is intuitive as well as ealily understood.

Once one part of the building collapses it starts to rotate. The sytem gets more unstable as the center of gravity shifts with the rotation on a the downward moving mass. The path of least resistance is through the air, not through the building so the top part of the building eventually rotates of while falling and goes through the air leaving part of the building standing.

The system has a built in instability in that once the building top starts tipping in any direction it will not stop because only air is the resistance to it doing this. The path through the building has a LOT more resistance. The air has LITTLE resistance and the building falls through the air. Its impossible to get the building to collapse down straight because in order for this to be sustained, every single floor must collapse at the exact same point and time all the way around its perimeter. Once it starts to collapse a little bit one one side the building top falls off rather than going straight down.

This is intuitive and doesn't take any scientific traing to understand (but its hard to explain without having gone to school) but this arguement about 911 allowed Riverwind to show a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous.

However, I did attempt to explain to with my static body analysis why everyone assumes that the buildings had no where to go but straight down. You can rant as much as your want about how my analysis is 'wrong' but you have zero credibility unless you come up with something resembling a counter argument/analysis.

You "analysis" is just like the other 911 scientific analysis, it is an attempt to bridge the impossible - except for the fact that their science is correct (it makes erronous assumptions). No one has ever explained how the official version is possible. They assume that the buildings naturally collapsed and people write stuff that makes erroneous assumtions in order to provide a believeable premise that is based on flaws or bad assumptions. "must have" "would have" is not science.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Once one part of the building collapses it starts to rotate. The sytem gets more unstable as the center of gravity shifts with the rotation on a the downward moving mass. The path of least resistance is through the air, not through the building so the top part of the building evntually rotates of while falling and goes through the air leaving part of the building standing.
A building cannot rotate unless there is a pivot point capable of exterting a force over a period of time. These kinds of structures do not have enough redundancy that to allow part of the structure to act as a pivot point for long enough to impart significant rotational momentum. Once the pivot pint gives way the structure can only accelerate straight down and the small amount of rotational momentum will be lost as soon as the top starts colliding with the floors below.
Its impossible to get the building to collapse down straight because in order for this to be sustained, every single floor must collapse at the exact same point and time all the way around its perimeter. Once it starts to collapse a little bit one one side the building top falls off rather than going straight down.
Again, the collapse of each floor does not have to be symmetric to prevent tipping. The supports on each floor would collapse randomly but no support would remain standing long enough to impart any significant rotational momentum. The building has no where to go but down. This is intuitively obvious to everyone except a few conspiracy wackos.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You "analysis" is just like the other 911 scientific analysis, it is an attempt to bridge the impossible - except for the fact that their science is correct (it makes erronous assumptions). No one has ever explained how the official version is possible.
We know it is possible for buildings to collapse symmetrically from asymmetric damage because we saw three buildings do exactly that. The only question now is to figure out the science that explains why.

Incidently, the NIST report now addresses the controlled demolition claims directly:

NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that: the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and; the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.
In other words, if a CD actually occurred then the bombers would have had to known in advance exactly what floors were going to get hit and they would have needed to time the demolitions so they would collapse in manner consistent with the damage received.

PN, you are the only one who is insisting that the impossible must have occurred.

This is intuitive and doesn't take any scientific traing to understand (but its hard to explain without having gone to school) but this argument about 911 allowed Riverwind to show a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous.
The first thing that anyone without scientific training is going to ask is how an administration shown to be incompetent in so many ways could possibly orchestrate such an elaborate hoax. You can throw around as much scientific terminology as you want but you will get no where unless you can address that fundamental flaw in your arguments. The fact that you cannot see that flaw clearly indicates that you have a problem with critical thinking and analysis and no amount of scientific knowledge can compensate for that deficit.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Riverwind:We know it is possible for buildings to collapse symmetrically from asymmetric damage because we saw three buildings do exactly that. The only question now is to figure out the science that explains why.

Ha Ha !! At least we agree on something :D

Riverwind:The first thing that anyone without scientific training is going to ask is how an administration shown to be incompetent in so many ways could possibly orchestrate such an elaborate hoax.

They are far from incompetent because everything is falling apart according to plan. See "Clash Of Civilizations". Iraq was supposed to be broken up into pieces and it will be . 911 accomplished exactly what they wanted in PNAC. None of this is by accident but they just want you to think its all happening because the president is a moron and not something else. The president isn't really a moron, you are for buying what they are selling.

Again, the collapse of each floor does not have to be symmetric to prevent tipping. The supports on each floor would collapse randomly but no support would remain standing long enough to impart any significant rotational momentum. The building has no where to go but down. This is intuitively obvious to everyone except a few conspiracy wackos.

No, rotation can occur without a "pivot point". Yopu really really have no idea about what you are talking about when it come to science.

Link to post
Share on other sites
They are far from incompetent because everything is falling apart according to plan. See "Clash Of Civilizations". Iraq was supposed to be broken up into pieces and it will be . 911 accomplished exactly what they wanted in PNAC. None of this is by accident but they just want you to think its all happening because the president is a moron and not something else. The president isn't really a moron, you are for buying what they are selling.
Right. You have zero proof for any one of those assertions. In fact, I am willing to bet that if a miracle happened and Iraq did not break up then you would claim that Bush planned it all along. Nobody believes that crap and they never will - the fact that you do is more evidence of your problems with critical thinking.
No, rotation can occur without a "pivot point". Yopu really really have no idea about what you are talking about when it come to science.
ROTFL. You are not serious? You believe that the top of building can rotate without out a pivot point? No wonder you believe in the truthie crap.

A body that only has gravity acting on can only move down. A body with gravity plus another force acting on it can rotate depending on the magnitude of the force and its position relative to the center of mass. If you say the top of the building must tip then you must explain where that second force comes from. Furthermore, even if you do explain where the second force came from then you must prove that this force lasted long enough to cause the building to tip. It is impossible to prove this given the data available so your statement that the WTC should have tipped over is false.

I noticed you ignored this:

Incidentally, the NIST report now addresses the controlled demolition claims directly:

NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that: the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and; the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.
The physical evidence clearly indicates that a demolition is an extremely unlikely explanation. This means that any gaps in the explainations provided to date cannot be explained by a demolition since a demolition has been excluded by other evidence.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Riverwind:I quoted the relevant parts of the NIST report. Follow the link to the NIST report if you want more details.

Ha Ha - you know I will find something in there which is why you won't post it. If NIST says it couldn't have been CD then they are ignoring evidence shown by FEMA sect 8 (sulfidization). I'd like to know how they explain the high temperature sulfidization of beams without the explanation of explosives :blink:

Black Dog:Actually, it looks nothing like a controlled demolition.

So this looks nothing like a controlled demolition ? Why don't you provide a link to a controlled demolition that doesn't look like that.

Riverwind:ROTFL. You are not serious? You believe that the top of building can rotate without out a pivot point? No wonder you believe in the truthie crap.

If you push a cup of the end of a table it will rotate through the air as it hits the ground - No pivot point. Stop with your "scientific" analysis. Its really sounding rediculous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you push a cup of the end of a table it will rotate through the air as it hits the ground - No pivot point. Stop with your "scientific" analysis. Its really sounding rediculous.
It should be obvious that the edge of the table is the pivot point. If you slowly push the cup off the table then there will be a period of time when the cup is partially off the table. If this period of time is long enough the cup will gain some rotational momentum as it pivots about the table edge and continue to rotate as it falls. If this period of time is too short then the cup will not rotate before it hits the ground.

This is an effect you can confirm at home. Take some coins (I used quarters) and flick them off a table. If you flick them fast enough you will see that they do not rotate while they are in the air. If you push them slowly they will rotate.

So your example does not disprove my original point that the top of a building cannot tip unless another force is acting on it. If you cannot explain where this force would come from then you cannot claim that the building will tip over.

PN, you are just embarrassing yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...