I would also like to recommend Zeitgeist. You can watch it for free at Zeitgeistmovie.com I've seen parts of it. I don't care for very much for the style in which is was done. If that sounds snobbish, let me expand by saying that I found it incredibly distracting to the point that it was difficult to watch.

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm sure it's not your intent, however that is how it is coming across.

What I am saying is that LooseChange (I believe you're asking about LooseChange) are not only asking questions (questions are fine) but they are supplying answers to their own questions. The problem is with that is that SOME of their answers have been wrong... And therefore they should get their answers RIGHT before answering their questions.. Which comes back to my point about what to do when you find new evidence. Kinda hard to know what you don't know. Which still sounds like "don't ask the question until you know the answer" (or more specific to what you've added here "don't put forth something as a possible explanation until you've already refuted it" :)).

I think what you're proposing makes sense in an ideal situation, however the larger problem here is that not all the information is available.

I never meant for it to sound like I thought it was all garbage. I just thought that people should keep it in-mind so they are not as confused/upset as I was after watching the third installment. I agree that healthy skepticism is required for all sides of the story especially because not everything is known.

I don't really have a problem for the movies to cost money.since it takes money to make the film in the first place.However, the money they may make from merchandising may be different in its-self. Agreed, however as I stated, none of the films I've seen have required money. I know Loose Change does have merchandising, and that does add some question marks, however it's entirely optional, so...

I know Loose Change does have merchandising, and that does add some question marks, however it's entirely optional, so...


And that makes a difference how? All merchandising is entirely optional when it comes to the consumer.

What do you mean "separately"? There was one continuous collapse. The collapse started, continued, then ended.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v93/RayJones/lucasforums/collapse.png)

collapse A

The part below the crashed plane collapses top-to-bottom (destruction happens at the top) due to its mass bearing on itself, gravitating down and creating pressure from above. This part of the building is not moving itself, it's height decreases by the time from the height of where the plane crashed into the building to the final height of the pile of debris. All that happens within approximately 10 seconds with a velocity v(4).


collapse B

The part above the plane collapses bottom-to-top (destruction happens at the bottom) due to the mass of itself and the thrusts working against the structure every time the whole thing is crushing upon the top of the lower part of the building. This upper part, as it is located on the lower part of the tower with decreasing height, is moving down as a result. That movement's velocity v(2) is equal to the downward velocity v(4) of collapse A's "roof".

If we'd place that upper part of the tower on the ground the whole thing would go down (collapse) with a velocity of v(3). The height of that second collapse is the distance from where the plane crashed into the building up to the roof. All that happens within 10 seconds as well.

The total velocity v(1) of the upper block relative to the ground is a result of the velocities of both, the moving vector and the crushing vector. However, that does not change the height where it's coming down from, namely where the plane crashed into the building.



So, what *really* was going on were two separate collapses happening simultaneously within the same 10 seconds. Neither collapse is happening at free fall speed, because we have two lesser heights (both with far lesser free fall times) but still a 10 seconds time frame. That one collapse happens to a structure which is also moving at a (starting from 0 and increasing) velocity v(2) as a whole is irrelevant in this case.


Now what you do with your free fall comparison is that you take all those separate processes and throw them into one pit, and take *only* the total height and time making it statistically look like a free fall process, which it is not.



Which leads us to Mistake 2: believing in statistics

I know Loose Change does have merchandising, and that does add some question marks, however it's entirely optional, so...And that makes a difference how? All merchandising is entirely optional when it comes to the consumer.

Ooooh, look!!! I can get a t-shirt, a hoodie, a baseball cap, and even an 'Investigate 9/11!' rubber stamp!! And if I order in the US, I'll even get a free bumper sticker!! What a deal from a company with no other motive than to let innocent, uninformed people like me know Teh Truth!!!

Edit: Ray--here's an academic paper (http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf) describing what you're trying to describe above. And before anyone screams, yes, it's hosted on a conspiracy debunking site which has a section devoted to just the demolition theories and myths (http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc__demolition_.html). However, there are links to a lot of academic papers that you can then confirm via other sources.

collapse A

The part below the crashed plane collapses top-to-bottom (destruction happens at the top) due to its mass bearing on itself, gravitating down and creating pressure from above. This part of the building is not moving itself, it's height decreases by the time from the height of where the plane crashed into the building to the final height of the pile of debris. All that happens within approximately 10 seconds with a velocity v(4). Except that even the photos you sourced yourself in post #122 don't reflect this. "Collapse B" happened first.

And the total time for both "Collapse A" and "Collapse B" (i.e. from the time the structures started falling to the time they stopped) is approximately 10 seconds.


collapse B
<snip>
The total velocity v(1) of the upper block relative to the ground is a result of the velocities of both, the moving vector and the crushing vector. However, that does not change the height where it's coming down from, namely where the plane crashed into the building.So we just ignore the fact that the buildings were 1350/1360 feet tall why?

So, what *really* was going on were two separate collapses happening simultaneously within the same 10 seconds. Neither collapse is happening at free fall speed, because we have two lesser heights (both with far lesser free fall times) but still a 10 seconds time frame.:lol:

The building came down in approximately 10 seconds. Free fall would have been approximately 9.2 seconds. So again, you can call it one collapse, two collapses, 110 collapses or whatever number of collapses that you would like to, the building came down at nearly free fall speed.

Now what you do with your free fall comparison is that you take all those separate processes and throw them into one pit, and take *only* the total height and time making it statistically look like a free fall process, which it is not.Think of it like trying to break a world relay record. You may try to argue that some legs of the race were faster than others (source please) or slower than others (also, source please) however if the total time is not less (or in this case more) than the record (i.e. the rate of free fall) then you don't win.

And before anyone screams, yes, it's hosted on a conspiracy debunking site which has a section devoted to just the demolition theories and myths (http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc__demolition_.html). However, there are links to a lot of academic papers that you can then confirm via other sources.*Reads this*
*Reads post #67*
*Reads this again*
:thumbsup:

Except that even the photos you sourced yourself in post #122 don't reflect this. "Collapse B" happened first.No, they happen simultaneously.

So we just ignore the fact that the buildings were 1350/1360 feet tall why?Physics.


The building came down in approximately 10 seconds. Free fall would have been approximately 9.2 seconds. So again, you can call it one collapse, two collapses, 110 collapses or whatever number of collapses that you would like to, the building came down at nearly free fall speed.I do not argue that most of the towers came down in 10 seconds. The point is that the story by story collapse took place at a lower rate/speed than free fall, what actually results in some time/place for resistance coming from the stories, which you were asking for. I just tried to give you some explanation regarding the physics behind it.

You are of course entitled to your belief that someone managed to bomb every single story away with the correct timing so it won't look like someone did actually use explosives. No way that thousands of tons of steel and concrete are able to cause what happened, especially after a plane did some good job in weakening the structures. No way physical models are correct. The planes were just part of some strategy to obfuscate what's really going on - a plan to cause the WTC to free fall collapse and make everyone pull out models and formulas which will prove it happened on its own because of the planes. How evil.


Think of it like trying to break a world relay record. You may try to argue that some legs of the race were faster than others (source please) or slower than others (also, source please) however if the total time is not less than the record (i.e. the rate of free fall) then you don't win.Bad example. A better one: walking up an escalator. If you're walking as if you would walk up the stairs, you still need less time for the same way.

No, they happen simultaneously. Again, this is where your refusal to familiarize yourself with the subject does you a disservice.

Physics.If the upper portions of the building remained intact, I might think that you had a point. However since they did not, I'm still left to wonder how you are getting your conclusions.

I do not argue that most of the towers came down in 10 seconds. Oh? Ok.

The point is that the story by story collapse took place at a lower rate/speed than free fall, what actually results in some time/place for resistance coming from the stories, which you were asking for. Well of course Ray. The buildings didn't fall in a vacuum. I think this is why everyone refers to it as "nearly free fall". However you've yet to address the matter of resistance, even though you claim here that you have.

I just tried to give you some explanation regarding the physics behind it.I must have missed it. All I saw was a bunch of guessing based on...I'm not sure what.

You are of course entitled to your belief that someone managed to bomb every single story away with the correct timing so it won't look like someone did actually use explosives. Thank you. It means a lot to have your permission :)

P.S. Explosives wouldn't have been necessary on every floor. I believe professional demolition crews only use explosives on every other floor. Not being a demolitions expert, I don't know what kind of set up would have been required here.

No way that thousands of tons of steel and concrete are able to cause what happened, especially after a plane did some good job in weakening the structures. I'm sure there's a way. I just haven't seen an explanation that doesn't violate some law of physics or insults my intelligence. Perhaps if one were made available I would be inspired to set some portion of my skepticism aside.

No way physical models are correct. Which physical models, Ray? Source please.

The planes were just part of some strategy to obfuscate what's really going on - a plan to cause the WTC to free fall collapse and make everyone pull out models and formulas which will prove it happened on its own because of the planes. How evil.Interesting.

Bad example. A better one: walking up an escalator. If you're walking as if you would walk up the stairs, you still need less time for the same way.Oh. So something was actually propelling the debris down? Like little rockets affixed to the beams to make them fall faster than free fall? Well who snuck in and attached the rockets to the beams, Ray? Who ever it was, I'm sure it will make for one great conspiracy theory.

P.S. Just so we're clear, it's not a bad example. If I drop two object from a specific height and they both hit the ground at about the same time, then they are falling at rough the same rate. If one of those objects (the one that hits the ground first) encounters nothing but air as it falls and the other encounters 110 stories of welded steel frame,concrete floors, etc, then I would expect that second object to take significantly longer.

If the upper portions of the building remained intact, I might think that you had a point. However since they did not, I'm still left to wonder how you are getting your conclusions.Huh? They don't have to stay intact.


Well of course Ray. The buildings didn't fall in a vacuum. I think this is why everyone refers to it as "nearly free fall". However you've yet to address the matter of resistance, even though you claim here that you have.The fact that you don accept my explanation doesn't mean I didn't gave some explanation regarding the resistance, nor that I'm wrong.


Which physical models, Ray? Source please.#126


Oh. So something was actually propelling the debris down? Like little rockets affixed to the beams to make them fall faster than free fall?Faster?


Well who snuck in and attached the rockets to the beams, Ray?Maybe the same person that snuck in and placed the explosives on every other story.

Alternatively, since we're talking about 10 seconds for 1350 feet, gravity should be a sufficient explanation for the go down of the upper section.

Opinions...

found this video clip on the second site Ray had posted for some pictures...

http://www.wtc-terrorattack.com/videos/wtc1-collaps.MPE)

Now, is it just me or does the bottom of the WTC actually appear to give out without the top of the tower actually collapsing? (keep an eye on the movement of the antennae at the top in the smoke).

I don't have the best eyes (eye) in the world and the picture is granny but would appreciate some thoughts on the video.


Thanks!!

Edit: And if you watch the right side of the building closely you can actually tell when it hits the ground.

Huh? They don't have to stay intact. Of course they do if your "we only calculate free fall based on the height of the impact" argument is to carry any weight. Like I said, otherwise I'm not sure how you're getting that.

The fact that you don accept my explanation doesn't mean I didn't gave some explanation regarding the resistance, nor that I'm wrong.But you haven't Ray.

You can say that you have all you want, but that isn't going to help.

#126 The post where you said you were leaving and then didn't? Oh, the paper! The paper isn't a physical model, Ray. And they didn't use a physical model either (which is why I asked you way back in post #130 if you had read it). Also, the author's seem to think that the top fell intact (Fig. 1), so either your source is wrong or you are.

Faster? Indeed, as the person on the escalator would be moving through space faster than the person using the traditional stairs. Or did you not consider that/mean to demonstrate something else with your "better" example?

Maybe the same person that snuck in and placed the explosives on every other story. Maybe. :)

Alternatively, since we're talking about 10 for 1350 feet, gravity should be a sufficient explanation for the go down of the upper section.I'm assuming that was supposed to be "10 seconds"? Yes I agree...if it had nothing underneath it offering resistance. I certainly hope that you'll agree that this has been my point all along.

Now, is it just me or does the bottom of the WTC actually appear to give out without the top of the tower actually collapsing? (keep an eye on the movement of the antennae at the top in the smoke).What I say.




Achilles, I'm done laying out my points. You asked where there's place for resistance, I offered a possible explanation, you reject it, fine.

Have fun there with your little invisible pink unicorn.

Agreed, however as I stated, none of the films I've seen have required money. I know Loose Change does have merchandising, and that does add some question marks, however it's entirely optional, so...

My concluding point is that as long as a conspiracy movie doesn't require for people to pay, I would say it makes it more credible.

I guess all my questions have been answered relating to Loose Change. However, if they ever try to make any other documentary I will keep my eye open, as I would any other documentary.

What I say. Even though you yourself posted pics showing the opposite. :)

My concluding point is that as long as a conspiracy movie doesn't require for people to pay, I would say it makes it more credible. I agree. To the best of my knowledge, there aren't any (but that doesn't mean that they don't exist).

I guess all my questions have been answered relating to Loose Change. However, if they ever try to make any other documentary I will keep my eye open, as I would any other documentary.As would I. They called their last film "Final Cut" so I would be very suspicious of another film.

As would I. They called their last film "Final Cut" so I would be very suspicious of another film.

Who knows. As you've said, there is always new evidence.


Also Ray,

I didn't see the collapse point bellow the top of the tower like Kinchy hinted to. However, if you agree with Kinchy on the collapse point then you would have proven yourself wrong on your own opinion of the collapse point.

Here's the bottom line--there's a ton of solid evidence supporting the theory that the WTC collapsed without explosives. There's no evidence of explosive residue found in the debris that I know of to the degree required for building demolition--and there would have to be a lot of explosives for that. Yes, there are things that the reports don't explain adequately. There are things we may never know because we didn't have the engineering knowledge to predict such a unique event, and the science and advanced math is still being worked on for that. However, there's far less evidence and far less engineering science to back up the conspiracy claims.

You'd have to have a perfectly trained pilot who, while flying through a city at 590 mph, could fly into exactly the right floor of the WTC required so that everything would work right for demolition. On top of that, for the top sections of the buildings, you'd have to have the explosives wired just right so that they'd still explode correctly even when the electricity/wiring to them got severed by the planes crashing into floors below them. If the planes sever the connections, no explosions happen in the affected section(s). You're telling me that the conspiracy folks managed to cross wire redundant detonation systems in to account for the possibility that the planes might not hit the planned floor?

Building demolition is a precise and very controlled process. Flying 767s into the buildings completely screws up that precise control. Build me a model where you have the buildings wired up for demolition and then simulate a plane flying into them, along with all the other variables on that day such as wind speed and direction, in order to recreate the building's collapses in just the same way, and I might consider such a conspiracy more seriously. Surely that's not too hard for the conspiracy people to do, is it?

Here's the bottom line--there's a ton of solid evidence supporting the theory that the WTC collapsed without explosives. No there isn't and that's the point.

None of the sources that you or Ray have put up as evidence can answer this very simple question: How did the buildings come down at nearly free-fall speed?

No one has put forth a computer simulation that can reproduce the conditions that "the experts" tell us "must have" occurred. No one has put forth a physical model that behaves this way. No one can even point to examples of similar phenomenon, even though we do have examples of plane hitting buildings, steel frame buildings on fire, and buildings that have experienced a pancake collapse.

What we have is a bunch of people starting with a conclusion and trying to shoe-horn the facts to fit. Science doesn't work that way.

There's no evidence of explosive residue found in the debris that I know of to the degree required for building demolition--and there would have to be a lot of explosives for that. That you know of. Does that mean you'd be willing to take a look at some sources or does that mean that you're inclined to try to prove a negative.

Yes, there are things that the reports don't explain adequately. There are things we may never know because we didn't have the engineering knowledge to predict such a unique event, and the science and advanced math is still being worked on for that. However, there's far less evidence and far less engineering science to back up the conspiracy claims. And you feel comfortable saying this because you've exhaustively researched the other claims and found them to be lacking? If you say you have, then we can certainly have a discussion about that, however everything you've said here leads me to suspect that you haven't seen any of the video that are available or visited any of the websites. If my suspicions are correct, then I'm not clear how it is that you hope to counter an argument that you don't understand.

You'd have to have a perfectly trained pilot who, while flying through a city at 590 mph, could fly into exactly the right floor of the WTC required so that everything would work right for demolition. How does that work? If the building was already rigged with explosives, then the pilot could have struck the building anywhere.

Please help me understand how you came to this conclusion.

On top of that, for the top sections of the buildings, you'd have to have the explosives wired just right so that they'd still explode correctly even when the electricity/wiring to them got severed by the planes crashing into floors below them. Computer-controlled timers? Redundant wires? Or simply run the wires through a part of the building that wouldn't have taken much damage from the impact (i.e. the cores)? Radio controlled demolitions on a timer?

How do you rule these out?

If the planes sever the connections, no explosions happen in the affected section(s). You're telling me that the conspiracy folks managed to cross wire redundant detonation systems in to account for the possibility that the planes might not hit the planned floor? I'm saying it makes a lot of sense to cross-wire (or some equivalent alternative) if there is no "planned floor".

Building demolition is a precise and very controlled process. Flying 767s into the buildings completely screws up that precise control. Really? Why?

Build me a model where you have the buildings wired up for demolition and then simulate a plane flying into them, along with all the other variables on that day such as wind speed and direction, in order to recreate the building's collapses in just the same way, and I might consider such a conspiracy more seriously. Surely that's not too hard for the conspiracy people to do, is it? You go first (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/challenge.html).

None of the sources that you or Ray have put up as evidence can answer this very simple question: How did the buildings come down at nearly free-fall speed?You haven't either. Even less, all you have done is proposing some idea, without delivering at least some kind of document that supports your claim that only explosives can bring a building down at free fall speed.

No one has put forth a computer simulation that can reproduce the conditions that "the experts" tell us "must have" occurred. No one has put forth a physical model that behaves this way. No one can even point to examples of similar phenomenon, even though we do have examples of plane hitting buildings, steel frame buildings on fire, and buildings that have experienced a pancake collapse.You neither came up with a computer simulation to underline your claim or to prove ours wrong.

Science doesn't work that way.It doesn't work your way either. Deliver proof/evidence/sources that eliminate doubt that we need explosives to have a WTC event. Everything else is alike to waving the bible to proof god exists.

Does that mean you'd be willing to take a look at some sources or does that mean that you're inclined to try to prove a negative.If we only had seen some source...all we have is the fact that two towers crashed within 10 seconds.

You asked how that can be possible when there should be resistance coming from each floor. I delivered you a whole document about the physics behind such type of collapses, it dealt with the timings, the forces, the whole mechanics behind it. It shows very well that the whole process doesn't need explosives.

So far you came up with nothing but "you're wrong", which carries not much substance for any argument. You have not even tried to point out WHY you think I'm wrong.

So, I'd say you should give us some hard core evidence that make your claim not only useful but also possible. I'm afraid your video evidence is not enough here. We need studies about how buildings (construction type a la WTC) behave when they are demolished using explosive on every floor. We need studies on how these buildings behave when you fly a plane into them.
Give me a reliable source that supports (even mentions?) your claim, and that shows me that the WTC (or a similar building) had not come down at free fall speed without explosives.

If you don't then I am afraid all that's coming from you is basically "it only can be this way, every other explanation is wrong/unlikely, don't you see this?"

And seriously that does sound like some freaking religious nut.

Building demolition is a precise and very controlled process. Flying 767s into the buildings completely screws up that precise control. Build me a model where you have the buildings wired up for demolition and then simulate a plane flying into them, along with all the other variables on that day such as wind speed and direction, in order to recreate the building's collapses in just the same way, and I might consider such a conspiracy more seriously. Surely that's not too hard for the conspiracy people to do, is it?
:lol::lol::lol:
How big do you want the model?

I know for a fact that Santa Claus exists. I have pictures. :D
:lol::lol::lol:

You haven't either. Even less, all you have done is proposing some idea, without delivering at least some kind of document that supports your claim that only explosives can bring a building down at free fall speed.I need to provide evidence for skepticism?

You neither came up with a computer simulation to underline your claim or to prove ours wrong. Burden of proof, Ray. The official story is that the planes and subsequent fires alone caused the buildings to collapse. It's not on me to disprove this story. I have lots of reasons to be skeptical. Thus far I've only focused on the one and no one here has been able to satisfy that.

It doesn't work your way either. Deliver proof/evidence/sources that eliminate doubt that we need explosives to have a WTC event. Everything else is alike to waving the bible to proof god exists. Burden of proof, Ray (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html). :disaprove

If we only had seen some source...all we have is the fact that two towers crashed within 10 seconds.:lol: Yes, we certainly have observed an event. I think the point here is that we're trying to determine what caused it.

Arguing that the observation is evidence for your explanation kinda sorta skips over the part where you have to the actual explaining :)

You asked how that can be possible when there should be resistance coming from each floor. I delivered you a whole document about the physics behind such type of collapses, it dealt with the timings, the forces, the whole mechanics behind it. It shows very well that the whole process doesn't need explosives. No it did not. I'll ask you one more time: did you actually read the document, Ray?

P.S. As I already point out above, they authors didn't even accurately represent the collapse :(

So far you came up with nothing but "you're wrong", which carries not much substance for any argument. You have not even tried to point out WHY you think I'm wrong. :lol: You've spent the last several pages trying to argue against the "why" and now you're saying it was never presented. Nicely done. ;)

So, I'd say you should give us some hard core evidence that make your claim not only useful but also possible. I'm afraid your video evidence is not enough here. We need studies about how buildings (construction type a la WTC) behave when they are demolished using explosive on every floor. We need studies on how these buildings behave when you fly a plane into them.Just cause I like saying it: Burden of proof, Ray.

Give me a reliable source that supports (even mentions?) your claim, and that shows me that the WTC (or a similar building) had not come down at free fall speed without explosives. :lol: Prove a negative, eh?

If you don't then I am afraid all that's coming from you is basically "it only can be this way, every other explanation is wrong/unlikely, don't you see this?" Please don't hold it against me that I recognize that your sources don't answer the question even if you do not.

And seriously that does sound like some freaking religious nut.Ooo, please don't turn this into a theism/atheism thread, Ray. Jae doesn't like it when people do that.

Take care.

I need to provide evidence for skepticism?And yet you do so eagerly pull out evidence supporting your scepticism in any religious debate I have seen you take part in. Are you trying to have it both ways?


Burden of proof, Ray. The official story is that the planes and subsequent fires alone caused the buildings to collapse. It's not on me to disprove this story. I have lots of reasons to be skeptical. Thus far I've only focused on the one and no one here has been able to satisfy that.Reasons, Achilles, reasons.

Reasons. :dozey:

You say the official story is wrong because you have reasons?

OK then that's great -- because all I have to say then is *you* are wrong because *I* have reasons. What now?


No it did not. I'll ask you one more time: did you actually read the document, Ray?Of course I did. What's your point?


P.S. As I already point out above, they authors didn't even accurately represent the collapseIt's an article from the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (http://pubs.asce.org/journals/engineeringmechanics/) and presents a scientifically correct established model about the physics behind WTC like collapses. It cites a ton of sources, and deals with a great of questions regarding this process and is made by people (read: engineers) who know much about this entire matter in particular.

So as long as you don't specify what about it is wrong, and, more important, why, ideally supported with some sources, your personal denial of it alone means nothing, nada, rien.


Please don't hold it against me that I recognize that your sources don't answer the question even if you do not.Quick to say for someone who has not delivered but one source.


Ooo, please don't turn this into a theism/atheism thread, Ray. Jae doesn't like it when people do that.I'm sure the LF staff is able to take care of my actions pretty well, thank you.



Admit it, Achilles, you have nothing to support your claim. You have delivered no single source about the physics of collapses of building controlled or uncontrolled, or about how the model I presented is wrong, or about how to make a "cross wiring" plane proof. Instead you now go and say the burden of proof is on me. It is not, because at least it is on you to prove that a you can demolish a building at free fall speed using explosives, which you did not until now. And until you can make at least this plausible, your argumentation has the consistence of wet toast at best and you know this, otherwise you would not weasel around providing sources or evidence like you do.

If nothing else, we've been able to establish that when you say you're finished, you don't really mean it. :D
And yet you do so eagerly pull out evidence supporting your scepticism in any religious debate I have seen you take part in. Are you trying to have it both ways? Not at all, Ray. As I've pointed out repeatedly, no source has been able to explain how the buildings were able to collapse at nearly free fall speed. I am skeptical of the "official story" because it has yet to put forth a working hypothesis for how this could happen.

At this point, sir, it seems that you're arguing in circles.

Reasons, Achilles, reasons.

Reasons. :dozey:

You say the official story is wrong because you have reasons? Indeed. I think the "official story's" inability to provide a working explanation for what happened a pretty good reason for doubting it.

OK then that's great -- because all I have to say then is *you* are wrong because *I* have reasons. What now? I suppose we could evaluate each others reasons. I suppose we could look at the evidence and have a discussion about the basis for each others reasons.

Is there some cause for impasse that I am not aware of?

Of course I did. What's your point? Because you seem rather unfamiliar with what it says as evidenced by the fact that it's models don't match yours. So as I stated several posts ago, either you are mistaken or your source is. Which is it?

(hint: this question is not rhetorical).

It's an article from the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (http://pubs.asce.org/journals/engineeringmechanics/) and presents a scientifically correct established model about the physics behind WTC like collapses. It cites a ton of sources, and deals with a great of questions regarding this process and is made by people (read: engineers) who know much about this entire matter in particular. Yet it doesn't match the video (and the pictures you sourced). I guess the video (and the pictures) must be wrong then :dozey:

So as long as you don't specify what about it is wrong, and, more important, why, ideally supported with some sources, your personal denial of it alone means nothing, nada, rien. Ray, I've repeatedly invited you to watch the footage. Why do you insist on refusing to do so?

Quick to say for someone who has not delivered but one source. One source for what? That the buildings came down at nearly free fall speed? I've repeatedly invited you to watch the videos with a stop watch. I've provided you with freeware tool to help you calculate the rate of free fall. You stated yourself a few posts ago that you didn't argue that the buildings came down in approximately 10 seconds (even though anyone following this thread can clearly see that you spent several days doing precisely that).

You'll have to do better, sir.

I'm sure the LF staff is able to take care of my actions pretty well, thank you. Just pointing out that Mama Jae no likey.

Admit it, Achilles, you have nothing to support your claim. You have delivered no single source about the physics of collapses of building controlled or uncontrolled, or about how the model I presented is wrong, or about how to make a "cross wiring" plane proof. Instead you now go and say the burden of proof is on me. It is not, because at least it is on you to prove that a you can demolish a building at free fall speed using explosives, which you did not until now. And until you can make at least this plausible, your argumentation has the consistence of wet toast at best and you know this, otherwise you would not weasel around providing sources or evidence like you do.The rules regarding burden of proof haven't changed since my last post, Ray. So long as you continue to support the official story, the burden of proof is on you to support it. I've already provided my reasons for doubting it (which is not the same thing as making a claim). You're free to present as many sources to support your argument as you would like, however until one of them provides a plausible explanation for how the buildings could have come down at nearly free fall speed (and matches the evidence that we do have) I am under no obligation to roll over and accept any of them as gospel.

If nothing else, we've been able to establish that when you say you're finished, you don't really mean it. I said I am done laying out my points, which is true, since I can't remember extending my argumentation in any way. I can't remember saying I'll stay out of this thread as well. As you might notice this is not so much about the thread's topic but about the way you put your "arguments" regarding it.

Be assured, I say it, I mean it. :dozey:


Not at all, Ray. As I've pointed out repeatedly, no source has been able to explain how the buildings were able to collapse at nearly free fall speed. I am skeptical of the "official story" because it has yet to put forth a working hypothesis for how this could happen.Poppycock. You're sceptical of both (religion & WTC) official stories, and while you provide tons of evidence to support one scepticism with no end, you refuse to provide something useful supporting the other. Thus you are trying to have it both ways.


Indeed. I think the "official story's" inability to provide a working explanation for what happened a pretty good reason for doubting it.I'd on the other hand say that your "unofficial story's" inability to provide a working explanation for what happened is a good reason to doubt it.


I suppose we could evaluate each others reasons. I suppose we could look at the evidence and have a discussion about the basis for each others reasons.

Is there some cause for impasse that I am not aware of?Your source/evidence please? To say "just look at the video it takes 10 seconds" is only evidence it took those 10 seconds, a fact we are both clear about already.

I already delivered a qualified document giving a plausible, physically correct model that shows involvement of explosives is not necessary for the event as it took place.

Yes, yes, we all know, 10 seconds, free fall equivalent, rana, rana, rana. I think we have established that.

Maybe you want to provide something that makes it plausible how those 10 seconds and the whole scenery of the incident, and even the free fall analogy inevitably point us towards the use of explosives. And by "providing" I do not mean that you now cant another "if you drop a ball..." or "the video shows..."

I want something that stands against the document I linked to, ideally it should once for all render it's content utter nonsense.


Because you seem rather unfamiliar with what it says as evidenced by the fact that it's models don't match yours. So as I stated several posts ago, either you are mistaken or your source is. Which is it?What doesn't match? The fact that I put a simplified version of it? Saying they don't match is not enough I'm afraid. Point out what you're having difficulties with to abstract, and I'm more than willing to clarify. However since you continuously refuse to specify what your concerns are I have reasons to doubt there are any incompatibilities/uncertainties and assume you're just trying to cover the fact that you are unable to rebut using foul tactics once more.


Yet it doesn't match the video (and the pictures you sourced). I guess the video (and the pictures) must be wrong thenAgain, what doesn't match? The pictures show clearly that the top part crashed down the way the document describes. Please, don't let this get so silly that I have to gpaint the obvious into those pictures.


One source for what? That the buildings came down at nearly free fall speed? I've repeatedly invited you to watch the videos with a stop watch. I've provided you with freeware tool to help you calculate the rate of free fall. You stated yourself a few posts ago that you didn't argue that the buildings came down in approximately 10 seconds (even though anyone following this thread can clearly see that you spent several days doing precisely that). I said more than once and pretty clear what kind of source you'll have to provide. I'm *not* going to repeat this but once more.


The rules regarding burden of proof haven't changed since my last post, Ray. So long as you continue to support the official story, the burden of proof is on you to support it.So far, I've have yet to state something like that.

If I remember correctly I merely tried to give you some clue about how the WTC could come down in 10 seconds without the use of explosives, nothing else.


You're free to present as many sources to support your argument as you would like, however until one of them provides a plausible explanation for how the buildings could have come down at nearly free fall speed (and matches the evidence that we do have)Have you provided a plausible explanation how the only possible explanation is the use of explosives?
No.





Achilles, due to the fact that you refuse to underline your argumentation with some evidence/source/material so inherently, I reckon you either have no source or are not willing to provide one, burden of proof or any of your silly attempts to weasel out put aside.

I mean, that kind of proof coming from your side could have ended this discussion pages ago, and it would be only in your interest, so why bother us with burden of proof crap? That's right - again - you either have no source or are not willing to provide one.

Whatever it is, it does not support your argumentation that the only possible explanation for the WTC to collapse in this time frame is the use of explosives, thus all you have offered is your opinion and personal interpretation of facts, which is not enough, as you have stated so often in the countless threads (here and in the Chambers) you participated in.

You continuously refuse to give substance to your arguments, and are rather repeating yourself, and, even worse, make me repeat myself over and over again. Furthermore you chose to deny the credibility of my sources, but cannot or are not willing to underline in a constructive manner how you came to that conclusion. Simply saying so is something you would not accept as well (as you have also stated that in the threads you participated in).

Furthermore, as long as you do not change your argumentation to something that can actually be worked with I consider your "thesis" of explosives being the only possible explanation for the 10 second time frame of the WTC collapse as refuted and thus untrue.

Finally, should you continue to babble about burden of proof, sandbagging others to repeat themselves in every other post or use any other of your questionable strategies (which we all know so well now) with the more than obvious goal *not* to add the necessary substance to your argumentation within the next post, I'll more than happily file a closure request for this thread to Mama Jae as it currently gets more silly every time you post.

Mama Jae's standard comment on religion: Religious discussions belong in the relevant religion threads. Thanks.

Achilles, if you're only arguing that the official report does not answer all the questions, then the burden of proof is on the gov't officials who wrote the report. However, you're also making the allegation that only explosives could bring down the WTC. In that case, you/the conspiracy people do have a burden of proof. Any criminal investigation would require proof of explosives to support that claim. The pile of rubble is still out in whatever dump NYC took it to--finding 40-odd floors' worth of explosive residue (assuming every other floor was wired) shouldn't be too hard if it's true. Speculation and analysis of the video is all well and good, but without the physical forensic evidence, it's still just speculation. If conspiracy folks want the explosive theory taken seriously, finding significant amounts of that residue would be the best and most damning evidence. They haven't been able to do that in almost 7 years.

Achilles, Ray...and everyone else I suppose

Ummm...isn't this whole thread kind of the point? No stories really have enough evidence to support what took place. You have the "explosions" theory which more accurately would account for the way the buildings fell. Then there is the fire weakening the building theory, however, science seems to contradict this explanation as the fire shouldn't have technically made the buildings fall the way they did.

Personally, I think a giant penguin organized the whole thing to try and stop global warming. You can't prove me wrong as maybe the Giant Penguin was working with the terrorists...or maybe...Bin Laden is a Giant Penguin!! Bet no one thought of that now did you?! And, best of, this is a valid theory as no one can prove a giant penguin wasn't involved. :xp:

Quite honestly...I really don't care how the buildings fell. The simple fact of the matter is that they did, whether it's by plane or maybe a deeper plot by terrorists than anyone is willing to admit...Who knows...but the end result is the same. Over 3000 people lost their lives and in some strange way this got wrapped up into thousands more people losing their lives in Iraq. It's an unfortunate tragedy and that's how it will be remembered.

P.S. - My last post was more of a question than a statement, so if anyone has a link to a better video of the event, it would be appreciated. Thx!

Poppycock. You're sceptical of both (religion & WTC) official stories, Correction: I'm skeptical of all the hypothesis, as none of them have the complete story. There are some aspects of the various explanations that deserve more skepticism than others.

and while you provide tons of evidence to support one scepticism with no end, you refuse to provide something useful supporting the other. Thus you are trying to have it both ways. Huh? Is the former comment a reference to religion? I've provided "evidence"? Or do you mean to say I've presented arguments?

Because I will contend that I've been pretty consistent with the latter.

I'd on the other hand say that your "unofficial story's" inability to provide a working explanation for what happened is a good reason to doubt it. Burden of proof, Ray.

Your source/evidence please? To say "just look at the video it takes 10 seconds" is only evidence it took those 10 seconds, a fact we are both clear about already. Okay, so we both agree that the building came down at nearly free fall speed. Now let's have a discussion as to why/how this happened.

I'm assuming that you're going to want to go with the progressive collapse story, however I'm going to point out that progressive collapse should have taken significantly longer than ~10 seconds because progressive collapse would imply that parts of the building would have encountered resistance from the floors below as they fell. The fact that they fell at nearly free fall speed means that there was no resistance (the alternate theory, which you're welcome to present evience for, is that resistance was present and that the various building parts were therefore propelled downwards, thereby making up the "lost time").

I already delivered a qualified document giving a plausible, physically correct model that shows involvement of explosives is not necessary for the event as it took place. No you didn't, Ray. The document you provided explained a collapse scenario that doesn't match any of the video evidence or the pictures you yourself posted. You've already asserted that you read the document (after I asked twice), so now I'm left to wonder if you understood what it said.

Yes, yes, we all know, 10 seconds, free fall equivalent, rana, rana, rana. I think we have established that. Thank goodness for that.

Maybe you want to provide something that makes it plausible how those 10 seconds and the whole scenery of the incident, and even the free fall analogy inevitably point us towards the use of explosives. And by "providing" I do not mean that you now cant another "if you drop a ball..." or "the video shows..." Ray, it's physics man. I thought we were past the point that you wanted to debate physics.

Nearly free fall is nearly free fall.

I want something that stands against the document I linked to, ideally it should once for all render it's content utter nonsense.How about the fact that the collapse hypothesis it suggests doesn't match the video or photographic evidence.

Going back to your MS Paint scenario, it suggests that "Collapse B" happened last. You suggest that "Collapse B" happen simultaneously (which made me ask if you read the document). The video evidence show that "Collapse B" happened first (which made me ask why you're arguing something you haven't taken the time to educate yourself about).

Therefore the document that you provided is garbage because it tries to explain a collapse that didn't happen. That means it's not useful.

What doesn't match? The fact that I put a simplified version of it? Saying they don't match is not enough I'm afraid. Point out what you're having difficulties with to abstract, and I'm more than willing to clarify. However since you continuously refuse to specify what your concerns are I have reasons to doubt there are any incompatibilities/uncertainties and assume you're just trying to cover the fact that you are unable to rebut using foul tactics once more. The fact that you and your source provide differing collapse scenarios. Generally, when things aren't the same, we consider them to be different or we say that they "don't match". I hope that helps.

Again, what doesn't match? The pictures show clearly that the top part crashed down the way the document describes. Please, don't let this get so silly that I have to gpaint the obvious into those pictures. No, it doesn't. I now have no choice other than to believe that your previous assertion that you read the document is not true.

I said more than once and pretty clear what kind of source you'll have to provide. I'm *not* going to repeat this but once more. Good news is that you don't have to repeat it at all :)

So far, I've have yet to state something like that. :dozey:

All those links and posts weren't yours, huh? Someone else posting from your account? You should have someone look into that for you.

If I remember correctly I merely tried to give you some clue about how the WTC could come down in 10 seconds without the use of explosives, nothing else.Let me know when you get around to doing so.

Have you provided a plausible explanation how the only possible explanation is the use of explosives?
No. Burden of proof, Ray.


Achilles, due to the fact that you refuse to underline your argumentation with some evidence/source/material so inherently, I reckon you either have no source or are not willing to provide one, burden of proof or any of your silly attempts to weasel out put aside. Burden of proof requires a claim, Ray. Skepticism isn't a claim (as I've pointed out about three times now).

I mean, that kind of proof coming from your side could have ended this discussion pages ago, and it would be only in your interest, so why bother us with burden of proof crap? That's right - again - you either have no source or are not willing to provide one. Proof/source for what? That the buildings came down a nearly free fall speed? You keep saying that you aren't contesting this, but then you turn around and bring it up again.

Whatever it is, it does not support your argumentation that the only possible explanation for the WTC to collapse in this time frame is the use of explosives, thus all you have offered is your opinion and personal interpretation of facts, which is not enough, as you have stated so often in the countless threads (here and in the Chambers) you participated in.What I've offered, Ray, is my skepticism of the "offical story" on the basis that it doesn't match reality. This is the same "argumentation" that I've used here and in the Chambers. Perhaps it isn't me that's being inconsistent in their reasoning.

You continuously refuse to give substance to your arguments, and are rather repeating yourself, and, even worse, make me repeat myself over and over again. Furthermore you chose to deny the credibility of my sources, but cannot or are not willing to underline in a constructive manner how you came to that conclusion. Simply saying so is something you would not accept as well (as you have also stated that in the threads you participated in). My apologies for assuming that you actually read the source you provided. I attempted several times to verify this with you, however you ignored my first few tries. Now that it is obvious that you did not, I understand your confusion. I've offered my explanation above. I hope that you find it helpful.

Furthermore, as long as you do not change your argumentation to something that can actually be worked with I consider your "thesis" of explosives being the only possible explanation for the 10 second time frame of the WTC collapse as refuted and thus untrue. Please direct me to the post where I asserted this.
(anyone offering odds that this part of my post is ignored in subsequent responses?)

Finally, should you continue to babble about burden of proof, sandbagging others to repeat themselves in every other post or use any other of your questionable strategies (which we all know so well now) with the more than obvious goal *not* to add the necessary substance to your argumentation within the next post, I'll more than happily file a closure request for this thread to Mama Jae as it currently gets more silly every time you post.I'm sorry you feel as though you're being sandbagged, Ray. Having participated in many debates in which you actually took the time to understand the subject matter first, I'm sure that you're aware that people that get "sandbagged" generally do it to themselves a vast majority of the time.

As far as the rest goes, feel free to do whatever you feel you have to.

"If you can't beat 'em, get the thread closed" :D

Achilles, if you're only arguing that the official report does not answer all the questions, then the burden of proof is on the gov't officials who wrote the report. Correct, or anyone offering that claim as an explanation.

However, you're also making the allegation that only explosives could bring down the WTC. Really? Where?

I certainly do think that the evidence overwhelmingly points in that direction, however without the complete story, a better understanding of chemistry, and/or a certification in demolitions, I certainly wouldn't try to argue that position as my own.

In that case, you/the conspiracy people do have a burden of proof. Indeed, the people putting forth specific claims certainly do have the burden of proof. "Official story" skeptics are under no such obligation though.

Any criminal investigation would require proof of explosives to support that claim. Indeed. And once evidence that supports that claim was provided, then party defending the official story would be responsible for counter-arguing the claim or accepting it (assuming that the evidence was reasonably persuasive).

I'd be more than happy to discuss what evidence is available, however it seems as though the discussion is still stuck on this first point. There is nothing to be gained by introducing other parts of the argument until this one has been resolved.

The pile of rubble is still out in whatever dump NYC took it to-- You mean "China"? That's where we shipped the steel to...for recycling. FEMA hung on to about 200 beams for their examination, and it just so happens that some people argue that they have explosive residue on them.

finding 40-odd floors' worth of explosive residue (assuming every other floor was wired) shouldn't be too hard if it's true. Indeed and are you quite certain that none was found?

Speculation and analysis of the video is all well and good, but without the physical forensic evidence, it's still just speculation. :)

If conspiracy folks want the explosive theory taken seriously, finding significant amounts of that residue would be the best and most damning evidence. They haven't been able to do that in almost 7 years.Again, are you quite certain of this?

Thanks for reading.

Quite honestly...I really don't care how the buildings fell. I disagree. I think how (why?) they fell is incredibly important.

If it was the result of a fire, then we have a major public safety issue on our hands that has been known about and ignored for the past (almost) 7 years.

If it was the result of explosives then we need to investigate how they got there and bring the people responsible to justice. If those people are from within our own government, then I think that's indicative of a much bigger problem.

FEMA hung on to about 200 beams for their examination, and it just so happens that some people argue that they have explosive residue on them.

Explosive Residue on Beam (http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341238.shtml)

FWIW...google...Dr. Jones Explosive Residue... several articles and pieces of info will come up.

NIST report advising that they did not test for what Dr. Jones found in the steel. NIST Report (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm) (do a search for "Residue" in the document.)

Achilles, Ray...and everyone else I suppose
Personally, I think a giant penguin organized the whole thing to try and stop global warming.


Thank god! I thought I was the only one...

CIA intelligence leaked this to the media...

Here you can clearly see what looks like a terrorist penguin. This is what we believe to be Osama Binladin.

No wonder we can't find him!

http://www.pissedonpolitics.com/happyfeet_terrorist.jpg)

Ah...UBL was a covert eco-terrorist secretly trained by Greenpeace?! It all makes sense now.

Thanks you two. :)

Links for 9/11 Research (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home)

"In this paper, we examine the claims of Dr. David Ray Griffin regarding the NIST
investigation into the World Trade Center disasters, and find those claims to be
unfounded. All 18 major claims are discussed and rigorously dismissed, and a further
analysis of the text reveals an overwhelming density of factual and logical errors. This
paper refutes Dr. Griffin’s major claims, supporting with evidence that the aircraft
impacts were expected to significantly damage the structures, that the resulting fires were
of both sufficient temperature and duration to cause structural collapse, that a progressive
collapse resulting in total destruction of the Towers was the likely result, and that the
“controlled demolition” hypothesis is speculative and unsupported by any evidence." (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/Mackey_drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf)

Collapse versus Demolition: Burden of Proof

Mr. Hoffman next addresses the burden of proof, responding to the author’s charge (on
page 4 of this whitepaper, and again on page 136) that Dr. Griffin has failed to provide
any coherent hypothesis of his “controlled demolition” ideas. He begins by indulging in
red herring:
Griffin has no more failed to identify a controlled demolition theory than NIST has failed to
identify a collapse theory. In their most general forms, the collapse hypothesis and the demolition
hypothesis encompass two mutually-exclusive accounts of the destruction of the Twin Towers,
where each has many possible detailed scenarios.
This reasoning is invalid – NIST’s performance, or lack thereof, does not absolve Dr.
Griffin of his own burden of proof. Whoever advances a theory must support it,
regardless of what other teams may produce. Additionally, the premise of this reasoning
is not accurate. While it is true that NIST largely assumed that structural collapse after
initiation would be total, NIST provided an extremely detailed and quantified pair of
hypotheses (one for each Tower, with subtle but important differences) for the causes and
early stages of the collapses, in accordance with NIST’s mandate.
Furthermore, NIST’s assumption about the likelihood of progressive collapse was based
on the published work of others, such as Dr. Bazant [21] (N.B.: Mr. Hoffman rejects Dr.
Bazant’s calculations without just cause, as we will examine again below). Taken in
total, NIST and the scientific community have indeed provided a complete collapse
theory – several, in fact, if we compare differences between such models as Dr. Bazant’s
[21] and Dr. Seffen’s [285]. In like fashion Dr. Griffin would be perfectly within his
rights to cite published theories of a WTC controlled demolition, rather than producing an
entire theory on his own. However, he has not provided this, nor are there any such
theories to be found anywhere in published literature. We are left to guess about the
details of Dr. Griffin’s hypothesis, whereas NIST’s hypothesis is detailed enough to
permit independent analysis, such as those from Arup and Purdue. The two situations are
therefore not comparable, and Mr. Hoffman’s excuse is insufficient.



the free fall fallacy (http://debunking911.com/freefall.htm)
the collapse (http://debunking911.com/collapse.htm)

http://debunking911.com/wtc-southtower.jpg)

Links for 9/11 Research (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home) Yes, I'm familiar with it. Which part did you feel was particularly helpful to your argument (assuming that you read this one this time)?

"In this paper, we examine the claims of Dr. David Ray Griffin regarding the NIST
investigation into the World Trade Center disasters, and find those claims to be
unfounded. All 18 major claims are discussed and rigorously dismissed, and a further
analysis of the text reveals an overwhelming density of factual and logical errors. This
paper refutes Dr. Griffin’s major claims, supporting with evidence that the aircraft
impacts were expected to significantly damage the structures, that the resulting fires were
of both sufficient temperature and duration to cause structural collapse, that a progressive
collapse resulting in total destruction of the Towers was the likely result, and that the
“controlled demolition” hypothesis is speculative and unsupported by any evidence." (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/Mackey_drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf) Is this as far as you made it?

the free fall fallacy (http://debunking911.com/freefall.htm) The first line: "The towers did not fall at or below free fall speeds…"

Oh, so they fell faster than free fall? :lol:

"Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground."

Well which is it? Faster or not faster?

I'm glad the site was able to thoroughly discipline the straw man of "free fall speed", but nothing here seems to address the actual argument of "near free fall speed".

(hint: we already knew that free fall wasn't possible because the building didn't collapse in a vaccum, but maybe the intended audience wouldn't know the difference)

This is my favorite part:

"Below are calculations from a physics blogger..." :D

Hey Ray, does this mean we're debating the ~10 seconds thing again? I can't keep track and I don't want to post a bunch of counter-sources just to find out that you "aren't" debating it again.

Thanks in advance.


the collapse (http://debunking911.com/collapse.htm)

*photo of "sagging trusses"*

Interesting that the trusses don't actually align that way. ;) (they would be running perpendicular to the direction suggested in the picture).

*other picutures*

"Here's what it looked like when it started to fall. Here's what it looked like afterwards. What happened in between? Oh, don't worry about that. It complicated.".


*pictures and reference to Nova's simulation*

Anyone wanna play "Guess What's Missing"?

(Hint: the entire outside of the building)

That one was too easy. Let's play "Guess What's Still Standing After the Simulation".

(Hint: the intact core columns)

It's too bad that's just a pic and not an actual video of the simulation. Then we could all see that it took nearly 9 seconds just to get a few of the floors to collapse (with no external columns and the core columns intact). I wonder if the authors of your source considered that when they posted the pic rather than the vid. Hmmm...

*skip over a bunch of pics that aren't loaded*

"Below is another interesting photo. It shows the perimeter columns laid out as if they simply tilted over. The only explanation is that the floors went straight down and the unsupported perimeter columns pivoted over in large sections."

<snip>

"The last piece of evidence is the standing perimeter columns. You can see what's left of the steel plates which hold the floors up. The tremendous weight stripped them off as the floors were on their way down."

Love this. Both laying and standing columns support their claim. That's awesome.

Do you have any more sources, Ray?

Furthermore, as long as you do not change your argumentation to something that can actually be worked with I consider your "thesis" of explosives being the only possible explanation for the 10 second time frame of the WTC collapse as refuted and thus untrue.Please direct me to the post where I asserted this.
(anyone offering odds that this part of my post is ignored in subsequent responses?) No takers, Ray. Apparently the betting community didn't think you were going to come through either :(

Explosive Residue on Beam (http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341238.shtml)

FWIW...google...Dr. Jones Explosive Residue... several articles and pieces of info will come up.


Anyone can post to this site without going through an editor first (http://portland.indymedia.org/en/static/about.shtml). You can tell by Hamblin's misspelling, too. I did a search on Hamblin himself, and as far as I can tell in a relatively short search, this is the only piece he's written, i.e. he's not a journalist. His story quotes an article written by Dr. Jones in the 'Journal of 9/11 Studies', which says it's peer-reviewed. However, it is not 'peer-reviewed' in the typical sense of other academic journals. It's 'peer-reviewed' by people who are 9/11 conspiracy theorists. That doesn't mean their science is necessarily bad, but it's certainly biased since it's not peer-reviewed by a decent cross-section of scientists in that field. They're pretty much publishing whatever they want and calling it 'peer-reviewed' since they pretty much agree with each other. I could put together an eye journal with a few of my colleagues and call it peer-reviewed, but that doesn't mean it would be taken seriously in the rest of the academic community.

@Achilles--and this is not meant to be snarky in the least, I'm asking seriously--if you have no intention of defending the explosives conspiracy, then why do you keep bringing it up?

As for the idea of explosives--if there were 40+ floors' worth of explosives, I'm sure the residue would be all over the place, not just the steel beams. If there was significant proof of that much residue, why hasn't it been brought to light? I will not completely rule out materials that could create explosions being present, because it would not surprise me in the least if the maintenance guys had stuff in their department like blowtorches and other flammable materials. However, there's been nothing brought to light describing the amount of residue required to explain building demolition.

@Achilles--and this is not meant to be snarky in the least, I'm asking seriously--if you have no intention of defending the explosives conspiracy, then why do you keep bringing it up?I guess we'd have to clarify what you mean by "keep bringing it up". My last reference to them was in post #157, which I posted 3 days ago.

As for the idea of explosives--if there were 40+ floors' worth of explosives, I'm sure the residue would be all over the place, not just the steel beams. This is why I didn't want to bring it up. Now we're going to spend the next week arguing this and ignore the physics (which no one can adequately explain). It would have been nice to resolve one part of the debate before moving on to the next :(

Dust analysis (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/dust.html)
Thermite residues (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/residues.html)

If there was significant proof of that much residue, why hasn't it been brought to light? By whom? The EPA? Perhaps you'll recall that they just got raked over the coals for the last several weeks over accusations of cronyism.

The people that are trying to bring it to light are being arbitrarily dismissed as "conspiracy theorists" by people that refuse to listen to what they have to say. You can't have it both ways Jae. You can't kill the messenger and then complain that no one is trying to tell you.

I will not completely rule out materials that could create explosions being present, because it would not surprise me in the least if the maintenance guys had stuff in their department like blowtorches and other flammable materials. Indeed. An argument that I agreed with way back on the first or second page. As I've stated repeatedly, I am skeptical of all claims because no one has the whole story. Likewise, you should be skeptical of the "official story" because you can't rule out that explosives weren't used.

However, there's been nothing brought to light describing the amount of residue required to explain building demolition.I'm not sure I follow this part of your post. Could you please clarify what you meant? Thank you.

Anyone can post to this site without going through an editor first (http://portland.indymedia.org/en/static/about.shtml). You can tell by Hamblin's misspelling, too. I did a search on Hamblin himself, and as far as I can tell in a relatively short search, this is the only piece he's written, i.e. he's not a journalist.

This is pretty much irrelevant since I was referring to the work of Dr. Jones, hence the information about what to look for. This was just one example of many...

His story quotes an article written by Dr. Jones in the 'Journal of 9/11 Studies', which says it's peer-reviewed. However, it is not 'peer-reviewed' in the typical sense of other academic journals. It's 'peer-reviewed' by people who are 9/11 conspiracy theorists. That doesn't mean their science is necessarily bad, but it's certainly biased since it's not peer-reviewed by a decent cross-section of scientists in that field.

Gotta love the irony...someone with bias trying to discount other people using bias as an argument. :) If you truly want to discount the peer review status how about some resumes and background on those who peer reviewed the work instead. If you have some additional information that led you to this conclusion maybe it could actually sway the argument...

Also, if we are looking at peer reviews we have to completely discount the NIST report as it is not peer reviewed...

Apparently these guys (and gals) feel confident enough in their process to encourage submission to mainstream journals.

Journal of 9/11 Studies (http://www.journalof911studies.com/)

While I'm certainly not going to roll over for some letters after their names, I do think this shows that we're not just dealing with some bored kids with a lap top and too much free time.

Mainlining journal, maybe, but hardly mainstream. :lol:

Journal of 9/11 Studies is not a 'peer-reviewed journal' that's taken seriously in the rest of the academic community, as I mentioned just 3 posts up. It certainly is not a mainstream journal. It was started by a group of conspiracy theorists only 2 years ago, and they're 'peer-reviewing' their own stuff--that's hardly unbiased and certainly does not meet the same academic rigors that articles in real mainstream journals receive. Just because it says 'Journal of X' doesn't make it reliable if the rest of the academic community for that particular field is not also reviewing the material. My bias is irrelevant in this case--that particular journal would be biased even if I agreed 100% with them. We have that sort of thing going on in medicine, too--there are some 'journals' out there that are doing 'science' on really fringy stuff, and the people who started them are reviewing the work of like-minded colleagues and calling it 'peer-reviewed' to give it the appearance of greater credibility. If the Journal of 9/11 Studies had articles peer-reviewed from a variety of scientists in the relevant fields, not just their own hand-picked conspiracy-theory buddies, I'd take it more seriously. As it is, it really should be called "Journal of Conspiracy Theory" rather than "Journal of 9/11 Studies", because that's exactly what it is.

Kinchy--The NIST and FEMA reports are not scientific articles, they're gov't reports. They do need to meet certain criteria, yes, but reports on something of this magnitude can't go through the exact same process because of the sheer scope of the project. There is no "Journal of What Happens to Skyscrapers After Planes Crash Into Them". Engineers and physicists handled the engineering parts, crash experts had to handle the effects of the plane crash itself, chemists and chemical engineers had to handle the discussions about combustible materials and the behavior of steel at given temperatures, etc. There were no scientists prior to 9/11 who had devoted their lives entirely to studying the behaviors of skyscrapers after planes crash into them. Scientists did contribute in their particular area of expertise and reviewed those sections later, and the reports themselves have certainly received a great deal of scrutiny since their publication.

Achilles--I don't discount the conspiracy theory 100%, because as windu6 would say, "Anything is possible!!!"
However, the evidence seems to fit the standard theory better at this point.

This is why I didn't want to bring it up. Now we're going to spend the next week arguing this and ignore the physics (which no one can adequately explain). It would have been nice to resolve one part of the debate before moving on to the next.We could probably argue that point until cows crap ice cream and get nowhere close to any resolution of the physics, which you've noted already no one can adequately explain. It's going to take years for scientists to work through all the multiple variables and none of us here has the physics or engineering expertise to address that. The evidence and what I know about physics, having studied 3 years of general physics to go along with the 2 years of grad-level optics and physics of light, tell me that while the current model leaves a number of issues unresolved, it still works better at this time than the conspiracy of planted explosives. If someone comes up with a better model or comes up with new evidence that substantially changes the current working theories, great, we'll move on to that. I'm fine with saying 'there's no agreement on this point' and bifurcating on to another aspect of this case.

The page on the dust analysis doesn't get my panties in knots. If there were any kind of medical or dental offices on site, particularly any x-ray equipment or other radiological equipment, or any other scientific/engineering offices that handled radioactive materials, that could easily explain the radioactive particles. This page also notes that there's no way to distinguish whether this was different from the normal background radiation present all the time. The nice list of organic chemicals can all come as byproducts of burning plastics and other chemical reactions that happen at high heat. Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and the related dibenzofurans can come from burning PVC and other plastics (like computer cases, among many other things). Many of these chemicals can be created by burning furniture, especially the foam inside sofas and stuffed chairs (or airplane seats). Cleaning solvents can react at high temperatures and pressures to produce toxic chemicals like those listed on that page, as well. I would expect to see dust contaminated with combustible materials--a plane loaded with jet fuel crashed into the buildings and burned, after all. I'd be very concerned if we didn't find evidence of combustibles.

Thermite and explosives can explain the dust components, however, everyday items could also explain those components, too. The presence of those chemicals does not automatically mean thermite was present.

Regarding the thermite page--barium is used very often in radiology, and there was at least 1 medical office in the WTC 1. There was a Kodak imaging center in WTC 2 where a variety of chemicals undoubtedly were housed. Aluminum? The planes had a lot of aluminum in them, and anyone with Reynolds foil wrap has aluminum sitting around. Iron is used in making steel and a lot of pipes, so no surprise to see that in the dust. Sulfur is easily found in great quantities in calcium sulfate (i.e. gypsum) which is used to make drywall. Normal burning temperatures might not be able to create some of the compounds or spheres, however, dramatically increasing the pressure (as would happen with the weight of a skyscraper collapsing on itself) would also drive the temperature up (physics formula p1V1/T1=p2V2/T2), and given the enormous pressure could theoretically melt a number of metals that wouldn't normally melt at normal pressures. The iron-rich and aluminosilicate spheres can also be found in [url=http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/content/full/31/3/979#FIG4]the) flyash from burning coal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychlorinated_dibenzodioxins). Zinc is extremely common--it's in all our coins, diecasting, galvanized steel, parts of batteries, and is a white pigment in paint (and likely on many of the walls in the WTC).

All these chemicals are found in thermite? Absolutely. All these chemicals can be found in normal everyday life, like painted drywall, galvanized steel and steel alloys, too? Absolutely.

Journal of 9/11 Studies is not a 'peer-reviewed journal' that's taken seriously in the rest of the academic community, as I mentioned just 3 posts up.Finger on the pulse, eh?

It certainly is not a mainstream journal. Indeed it is not, however as I mentioned 1 post up, they do appear to be confident enough in their process to encourage contributors to submit to mainstream journals as well.

It was started by a group of conspiracy theorists only 2 years ago, and they're 'peer-reviewing' their own stuff--that's hardly unbiased and certainly does not meet the same academic rigors that articles in real mainstream journals receive. Considering that all of these people were "lettered" prior to 9/11, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that they are plenty familiar with "the academic rigors of mainstream journals". Hence why I find it significant that they feel that as though their articles are up to the test.

Just because it says 'Journal of X' doesn't make it reliable if the rest of the academic community for that particular field is not also reviewing the material. Right, hence the part about submitting to mainstream journals.

If the Journal of 9/11 Studies had articles peer-reviewed from a variety of scientists in the relevant fields, not just their own hand-picked conspiracy-theory buddies, I'd take it more seriously. *debates trying to make the point one more time*

You're right, Jae. It certainly would be fantastic if other journals had a chance to review their stuff. Maybe they should consider it.

As it is, it really should be called "Journal of Conspiracy Theory" rather than "Journal of 9/11 Studies", because that's exactly what it is.Yes, and you're clearly in a position to judge being completely unfamiliar with the subject matter. :)

Achilles--I don't discount the conspiracy theory 100%, because as windu6 would say, "Anything is possible!!!"
However, the evidence seems to fit the standard theory better at this point. Really, Jae. Both you and Ray have been sing-songing that point for several pages now but have yet to produce a single source that matches the evidence that we do have and in some cases, have presented materials that contradict your own arguments.

Repeating something doesn't make it true, Jae.

We could probably argue that point until cows crap ice cream and get nowhere close to any resolution of the physics, which you've noted already no one can adequately explain. Yet you'll argue the evidence fits your notions better. This is not intellectual rigor.

It's going to take years for scientists to work through all the multiple variables and none of us here has the physics or engineering expertise to address that. That's fine. I'm more than happy to accept a source that does, even if the arguments are not your own. Can you produce one or not? If not, then I think it's pretty obvious that you've accepted a conclusion without any evidence. Now where have we heard that before?

The evidence and what I know about physics, having studied 3 years of general physics to go along with the 2 years of grad-level optics and physics of light, tell me that while the current model leaves a number of issues unresolved, it still works better at this time than the conspiracy of planted explosives.This isn't an argument. This is your endorsement of your own opinion.

If someone comes up with a better model or comes up with new evidence that substantially changes the current working theories, great, we'll move on to that. First, there is no "current model" that a "better model" can replace. Second, the hypothesis we do have don't match the evidence, therefore they are worthless. Third, therefore you've arbitrarily decided to accept one opinion over another with absolutely no evidence to support your choice.

You're, of course, free to do whatever you'd like, but I think it would help the "honesty factor" of the thread if we could stop pretending that what we have is more than it really is.

I'm fine with saying 'there's no agreement on this point' and bifurcating on to another aspect of this case. This, too, sounds familiar.


deleted off-topic comment on panties due to member complaint --Jae

If there were any kind of medical or dental offices on site, particularly any x-ray equipment or other radiological equipment, or any other scientific/engineering offices that handled radioactive materials, that could easily explain the radioactive particles. Yes, in the World Trade Center. I'm sure that you could find a listing of tenets somewhere on the web. Would you care to do a little research and perhaps replace your speculation with some actual data? It sure would go a long way toward strengthening your argument.

This page also notes that there's no way to distinguish whether this was different from the normal background radiation present all the time. Hmmm, that little bit of intellectual integrity must have somehow slipped past the obviously-defunct peer-review process. I'm sure it was a mistake.

The nice list of organic chemicals can all come as byproducts of burning plastics and other chemical reactions that happen at high heat. Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and the related dibenzofurans can come from burning PVC and other plastics (like computer cases, among many other things). Many of these chemicals can be created by burning furniture, especially the foam inside sofas and stuffed chairs (or airplane seats). Cleaning solvents can react at high temperatures and pressures to produce toxic chemicals like those listed on that page, as well. I would expect to see dust contaminated with combustible materials--a plane loaded with jet fuel crashed into the buildings and burned, after all. I'd be very concerned if we didn't find evidence of combustibles. I'm waiting for the part where you rule out explosives based on the evidence.

Thermite and explosives can explain the dust components, however, everyday items could also explain those components, too. The presence of those chemicals does not automatically mean thermite was present. I'll take this to mean that you won't be ruling out explosives in this post?

Regarding the thermite page--barium is used very often in radiology, and there was at least 1 medical office in the WTC 1. The source indicates that there was a high amount of barium. Please address that.

Aluminum? The planes had a lot of aluminum in them, and anyone with Reynolds foil wrap has aluminum sitting around. Indeed.

Iron is used in making steel and a lot of pipes, so no surprise to see that in the dust. Iron and steel are not the same thing. Extra carbon is added to iron to make steel, so finding high amounts of iron isn't a given.

Sulfur is easily found in great quantities in calcium sulfate (i.e. gypsum) which is used to make drywall. Normal burning temperatures might not be able to create some of the compounds or spheres, however, dramatically increasing the pressure (as would happen with the weight of a skyscraper collapsing on itself) would also drive the temperature up (physics formula p1V1/T1=p2V2/T2), and given the enormous pressure could theoretically melt a number of metals that wouldn't normally melt at normal pressures. I'm beginning to wonder if there isn't anything the weight of this building can't do. It can pulverize concrete (which take quite a bit of energy to do, so there's some of that right there). It can snap throught thousands of bolts and welds, causing the floors to collapse at a rate that makes it seems as though they aren't even there (which would also take up quite a bit of that energy). It can create such tremendous pressure that it can cause large amounts of steel to become so pressurized that it undergoes a chemical change (I imagine that also takes some energy). It can project steel beams hundreds of feet outward, lodging them in surrounding buildings. And it does all this simultaneously. At some point you'd think the law of conservation of energy would kick in, but it doesn't. It almost seems too much to believe.

The iron-rich and aluminosilicate spheres can also be found in [url=http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/content/full/31/3/979#FIG4]the) flyash from burning coal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychlorinated_dibenzodioxins).Was) a lot of coal stored in either of the WTC towers?

Zinc is extremely common--it's in all our coins, diecasting, galvanized steel, parts of batteries, and is a white pigment in paint (and likely on many of the walls in the WTC). You know, part of me wonders if they thought of all this when they said "high amounts". :)

All these chemicals are found in thermite? Absolutely. All these chemicals can be found in normal everyday life, like painted drywall, galvanized steel and steel alloys, too? Absolutely.So again, no ruling out in this post then?

Thanks for your response.

Finger on the pulse, eh?Recognize a flake journal when I see it.

Indeed it is not, however as I mentioned 1 post up, they do appear to be confident enough in their process to encourage contributors to submit to mainstream journals as well.Good, let's see them publish in mainstream journals then.

Considering that all of these people were "lettered" prior to 9/11, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that they are plenty familiar with "the academic rigors of mainstream journals". Hence why I find it significant that they feel that as though their articles are up to the test. I'm sure they know how to write a scientific article. I'd like to see them submit it through the mainstream peer-review process now.


You're right, Jae. It certainly would be fantastic if other journals had a chance to review their stuff. Maybe they should consider it.You're right, Achilles. It certainly would be fantastic if other journals had a chance to review their stuff. But since they know the likelihood of getting published in those mainstream journals is low, they just decided to make up their own journal instead.

Yes, and you're clearly in a position to judge being completely unfamiliar with the subject matter. :) Oh, my mistake then. The subject matter isn't about 9/11 or their conspiracy theories. Of course.

Really, Jae. Both you and Ray have been sing-songing that point for several pages now but have yet to produce a single source that matches the evidence that we do have and in some cases, have presented materials that contradict your own arguments.There are plenty of sources, links, sites, and papers that have been presented that support the prevailing theory. Bazant's paper is very compelling in showing WTC collapse does not require explosives. You have not explained what you find objectionable in that paper, yet you label it as 'not matching the evidence'. Do you always do that when a source doesn't agree with your theory?

Repeating something doesn't make it true, Jae.Repeating something in different ways is what I often do with patients to make sure they fully understand what I'm trying to get across to them. Sometimes it looks like you're not on the same track as I am so I feel the need to clarify. Sometimes it's just me being repetitive.

Yet you'll argue the evidence fits your notions better. This is not intellectual rigor. Show me how Bazant's paper is wrong, then. Show me that it's impossible for multiple floors to separate from the columns at the same time when the columns bowed or broke off in large sections, and that it's impossible for several floors to be falling at the same time before landing on ones below. Some of the videos and pictures I've seen show large, irregularly shaped chunks of the outer columns failing right before floor collapse.

That's fine. I'm more than happy to accept a source that does, even if the arguments are not your own. Can you produce one or not? If not, then I think it's pretty obvious that you've accepted a conclusion without any evidence.What part of Bazant's paper or the other papers make them unacceptable as sources? You have done nothing to disprove these sources. Nor do I think you can, given your chosen field of expertise is business and not engineering.

Now where have we heard that before?As usual, an off-topic barb designed to shut down the argument when you don't like the direction it's going.

This isn't an argument. This is your endorsement of your own opinion.No, it's just part of the discussion.

First, there is no "current model" that a "better model" can replace.The prevailing model, and what most scientists agree on, is the one that says the planes crashing into the buildings were what ultimately caused the collapse. I didn't think that needed to be stated outright, but now it is.
Second, the hypothesis we do have don't match the evidence, therefore they are worthlessNo, some of the evidence is incomplete. There is a lot of evidence for the current model in the many links Ray's provided and the few I've added. The hypothesis is not worthless just because we don't have all the answers. If that were the case, all of science would be worthless.

We saw the planes hit the buildings, we saw massive damage done to the buildings, we saw the buildings collapse, we saw, tragically, thousands die as a result. The current model doesn't require super-spy secrecy to accomplish that, either.

Third, therefore you've arbitrarily decided to accept one opinion over another with absolutely no evidence to support your choice. There's a mountain of evidence in this thread. I don't know how you can continue to say I've chosen a theory based on no evidence.

You're, of course, free to do whatever you'd like, but I think it would help the "honesty factor" of the thread if we could stop pretending that what we have is more than it really is.Good. Start with accepting that Bazant's paper provides one possible explanation for how the buildings fell without explosives.

This, too, sounds familiar.This, too, sounds like yet another off-topic barb.

Yes, in the World Trade Center. I'm sure that you could find a listing of tenets somewhere on the web. Would you care to do a little research and perhaps replace your speculation with some actual data? It sure would go a long way toward strengthening your argument.I did. (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=189270&page=4)I) figured you'd be looking it up anyway since you don't trust any other sources here. In addition, buildings around the WTC were also heavily damaged, and those places also contributed to the materials found in the dust.

I'm waiting for the part where you rule out explosives based on the evidence.Never said I did rule it out, and won't, though on the continuum of believability it ranks really low for me.

I'll take this to mean that you won't be ruling out explosives in this post?If you can find me high levels of explosive residue all over everything and remains of explosive devices, I'll give it more credence.

The source indicates that there was a high amount of barium. Please address that.Medical office for one. Barium is used in a lot in GI tests. Define 'high amount' for me, please.


Iron and steel are not the same thing. Extra carbon is added to iron to make steel, so finding high amounts of iron isn't a given. Yeah, it's an alloy, but it doesn't become a new chemical--it's still iron. Iron is the element, steel is not.

I'm beginning to wonder if there isn't anything the weight of this building can't do.... It almost seems too much to believe.[/quote]The papers quoted above deal with the energy aspect that you bring up here.

Was a lot of coal stored in either of the WTC towers?I don't know. I brought it up to show you that the little spheres can be created in ways other than thermite explosions.

You know, part of me wonders if they thought of all this when they said "high amounts". :)They don't specify, so I don't know.


So again, no ruling out in this post then?Why do I need to rule out explosives entirely? Is it possible they were used? Sure. Is it probability high that they were used? I don't think so. The chemicals found in the dust can be explained more easily with mundane materials than with the extra layer of an explosive conspiracy.

Thanks for your response.You're welcome. I appreciate the time and energy you spent on looking at much of this.

I don't mean to be rude, Achilles, but I could found a Journal of Pyramidology - that doesn't mean that Mary Magdalene married Tacitus atop Khufu's purely because I put it in my wonderful new JoP... ;)

Of course, that said, I do know a thing or two about the structure in question... although I'll admit I'm no expert on pyramids...

Further, doesn't your explosives argument get into trouble with Ockham's Razor?

Further, doesn't your explosives argument get into trouble with Ockham's Razor? :lol: That sounds familiar like something that may have been brought up in this thread before. I knew I liked Darth InSidious for some reason.

Recognize crap when I see it. Based on the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I am unable to accept this claim as true.

Good, let's see them publish in mainstream journals then. Indeed. As appears to be their intent.

But since they know the likelihood of getting published in those mainstream journals is low, they just decided to make up their own journal instead. Just curious, is there some central authority that hands out "bona fide" journals that I'm not aware of? My understanding of the process is that any group of scientists can create whatever journal they would like and then build a reputation from there.

Oh, my mistake then. The subject matter isn't about 9/11 or their conspiracy theories. Of course.I'm afraid that I don't understand how this comment addresses your lack of familiarity with the subject matter.

There are plenty of sources, links, sites, and papers that have been presented that support the prevailing theory. Bazant's paper is very compelling in showing WTC collapse does not require explosives. You have not explained what you find objectionable in that paper, yet you label it as 'not matching the evidence'. Err...it not matching the evidence is the explanation, Jae. It describes one process. The video evidence shows another. Therefore, this source is useless (because it tries to explain something that didn't happen).

Do you always do that when a source doesn't agree with your theory? Point out that the source is faulty? Yes, I'd like to think that I do.

Repeating something in different ways is what I often do with patients to make sure they fully understand what I'm trying to get across to them. Sometimes it looks like you're not on the same track as I am so I feel the need to clarify. Sometimes it's just me being repetitive. We've been over this before, Jae. Ignoring a counter-argument and repeating your first argument as though it hasn't been addressed/refuted is not the same thing. One of these things is good communication. The other is a dishonest debate technique (ala William Craig, etc).

Show me how Bazant's paper is wrong, then.Jae, at this point I'm considering the possiblity that you don't even read my posts before responding.

Bazant's paper argues that the upper floors remained (mostly) intact, drove the collapse, then "crushed up" in the final stages of the process. The problem is that these sections were the first to collapse. Therefore the claim and the evidence do not match.

Show me that it's impossible for multiple floors to separate from the columns at the same time when the columns bowed or broke off in large sections, and that it's impossible for several floors to be falling at the same time before landing on ones below. Some of the videos and pictures I've seen show large, irregularly shaped chunks of the outer columns failing right before floor collapse. Relevance to the discussion?

What part of Bazant's paper or the other papers make them unacceptable as sources? How about the fact that the process they descibe didn't happen?

You have done nothing to disprove these sources. Except point out (repeatedly) that they don't match what actually happened. That is something of a show-stopper, Jae.

Nor do I think you can, given your chosen field of expertise is business and not engineering. Amazingly enough, a little common sense (and years of studying various fields of science, both academically and as a hobby) goes a long way. I don't think one needs a engineering degree in order to read a paper and recognize that the process it describes doesn't match what the videos and the pictures show. Especially when the discrepancy is something large and fairly noticable...like 20+ floors of a building.

As usual, an off-topic barb designed to shut down the argument when you don't like the direction it's going. Not at all. Simply pointing out that you have a history of accepting things without evidence. I think it's rather relevant, considering that it's happening here as well.

The prevailing model, and what most scientists agree on, is the one that says the planes crashing into the buildings were what ultimately caused the collapse. I didn't think that needed to be stated outright, but now it is.Which one is that? The papers that don't flat out admit that they don't know each have their own guess.

So if you mean the claim that "the planes hit the buildings and then the fell down", then yes, I think we all agree that happened. What we're fuzzy on (and what would actually constitute a "hypothesis" rather than an "observation") is if we had some sort of explanation for what happened in between that caused the collapse. Preferrably something based on science that is also consistent with the evidence.

No, some of the evidence is incomplete. There is a lot of evidence for the current model in the many links Ray's provided and the few I've added. The hypothesis is not worthless just because we don't have all the answers. If that were the case, all of science would be worthless. The hypothesis is worthless because it doesn't match the evidence. That's precisely how science works.

If it match all the evidence but still had holes, that would be ok because that's still workable. That's not what we have here (so far as Ray's paper goes).

There's a mountain of evidence in this thread. I don't know how you can continue to say I've chosen a theory based on no evidence. Repeating it won't make it true, Jae. Not one single source provided matches the envidence.

Good. Start with accepting that Bazant's paper provides one possible explanation for how the buildings fell without explosives. I'd love to but I keep getting stuck at the part where Bazant's paper doesn't actually match the footage.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I intend to prove to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that that man right there-"
"It's a woman."
"What?"
"It's a woman."
"Whatever do you mean?"
"You said 'that man'. That 'man' is a woman."
*Looks*
*Dainty woman in pretty dress smiles and waves kindly*
"No matter. I shall proceed with my arguments anyway."

This, too, sounds like yet another off-topic barb. Just pointing out that when you encounter an argument that you can't address that you like to bifurcate on to something else. Generally in another thread.

I did. (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=189270&page=4)I) figured you'd be looking it up anyway since you don't trust any other sources here.Link takes us to the fourth page of this thread. :(

In addition, buildings around the WTC were also heavily damaged, and those places also contributed to the materials found in the dust. Indeed, but I plan on bringing that up another time.

Never said I did rule it out, and won't, though on the continuum of believability it ranks really low for me. Because of the lack of evidence? That can't be it, as you just got finished acknowledging that this isn't the case.

If you can find me high levels of explosive residue all over everything and remains of explosive devices, I'll give it more credence. Hooray for moving goal posts :D

Yeah, it's an alloy, but it doesn't become a new chemical--it's still iron. Iron is the element, steel is not. Then clearly it would have had to have undergone some process to lose the carbon and revert to iron. I think that's their point.

The papers quoted above deal with the energy aspect that you bring up here.Which one? Which page? Does it address all of the points that I raised, or just one?

I don't know. I brought it up to show you that the little spheres can be created in ways other than thermite explosions. I'm sure that's true. However if the evidence is consistent with thermite, then I'm wondering on what basis you're willing to toss it aside and happily go along with whatever 30 second news segment you accepted 7 years ago.

They don't specify, so I don't know.I appreciate the honest answer. (<=snark-free zone, just to be clear)

Why do I need to rule out explosives entirely? Is it possible they were used? Sure. Is it probability high that they were used? I don't think so. The chemicals found in the dust can be explained more easily with mundane materials than with the extra layer of an explosive conspiracy.Your earlier argument seems to be that you would have an easier time accepting understanding the hypothesis that explosives were used if there was some evidence for them. Now with some evidence for them, the question becomes: "what next?"

You're welcome. I appreciate the time and energy you spent on looking at much of this.Thank you for the kind words :)
I hope that this conversation will continue to be educational for the both us.

I don't mean to be rude, Achilles, but I could found a Journal of Pyramidology - that doesn't mean that Mary Magdalene married Tacitus atop Khufu's purely because I put it in my wonderful new JoP... ;) :lol: That's awesome! :)

I think you'll agree though that science tends to be a little more...exact...than history. A lot of the principles and processes are the same. However being able to go into a lab and produce a detailed report on the chemical composition of Apparatus XYZ is a little bit different than trying to comb through texts, archalogical finds, etc and trying to piece together a story.

Of course, that said, I do know a thing or two about the structure in question... although I'll admit I'm no expert on pyramids... Just as I know a thing or two about science, even though I am not a scientist :)

Further, doesn't your explosives argument get into trouble with Ockham's Razor?Not at all. Ockham's Razor simply seeks to remove unnecessary steps from an explanation.

For instance, you probably would agree that 2+2+x=4 has an unneccessary step. You could easily say that 2+2=4. This is Ockham's Razor. Ockham's Razor is not simply declaring "4".

That's the very-brief-I'm-trying-to-post-this-before-a-meeting explanation. I can go into deeper detail if you would like.

Take care! :)

Journal of 9/11 Studies is not a 'peer-reviewed journal' that's taken seriously in the rest of the academic community

Sources? I would like to know who you talked to and what information you found that supports this statement. Ideally you should site individuals with at least a PHD in Physics...ideally...as the person refuting the argument should at least be on the same playing field as the person who proposed the argument.

My bias is irrelevant in this case--that particular journal would be biased even if I agreed 100% with them.

This same exact argument can be made for every single journal and peer reviewed article in existence. How is this relevant?

there are some 'journals' out there that are doing 'science' on really fringy stuff, and the people who started them are reviewing the work of like-minded colleagues and calling it 'peer-reviewed' to give it the appearance of greater credibility.

So would this also include the first articles claiming that the world is actually round and not flat?...Just because they do not agree with what you think doesn't make them any less credible.

See post 173--snipped off-topic comment

The NIST and FEMA reports are not scientific articles, they're gov't reports.

Oh that's right! I forgot the government is flawless and has never lied to anyone...ever. *cough*

Good, let's see them publish in mainstream journals then.

Open Civil Engineering Journal....http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM)

This article was published and peer-reviewed. It details 14 points where they agree with the NIST, however, they do note that in the end they disagree with how the towers eventually came down.

They do need to meet certain criteria, yes, but reports on something of this magnitude can't go through the exact same process because of the sheer scope of the project.

~snipped flame-bait~ See Kavar's corners rules on what constitutes a flame-bait here--Jae Saying that the scope of the project is too large for it to be peer reviewed is complete fallacy. One does not automatically exclude the other.

There were no scientists prior to 9/11 who had devoted their lives entirely to studying the behaviors of skyscrapers after planes crash into them

Conveniently this completely avoids the topic of researching the evidence (or lack of researching if you're the NIST) that there was more than just a plane crash that brought down the buildings.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/speed.html) --

In a vacuum, a block of wood (or lead) would take 9.2 seconds to fall from the tower's roof. In the air a block of wood, say ten inches on a side, might take 50 percent longer than in a vacuum. Fifteen seconds, a good estimate for the total time of collapse of the North Tower, is about the time it would take our block to fall from the roof. The rubble from the Tower probably had similar average density to our block of wood, since the floor slabs consisted of corrugated sheet metal and lightweight concrete, and the perimeter steel columns were hollow with walls only 1/4th inch thick at the Towers' tops. Air resistance alone could account for the slowing of the falls to the point where each Tower took about 15 seconds to completely come down.



http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/demolition/seismic.html) --

Video Records Show 15-Second+ Durations

Unlike seismic records, video recordings of the Towers' destruction allow the conclusive determination of lower bounds for the durations of each event, and those are much greater than ten seconds. Several live television broadcasts showed these events from their precipitous onsets to their explosive dust-shrouded conclusions. In each case, portions of the Tower below the exploding rubble clouds are visible up to at least the 12 second mark.
Figure 2: The North Tower at about 10 seconds into its destruction. About two-thirds of the Tower is still standing.

Lacking access to the uncut original broadcasts, I assembled timelines for each Tower using multiple video clips. These timelines clearly show that, in the case of each Tower, the process of destruction lasted a minimum of 15 seconds, not counting the persistence of fragments of core structures. This is true even accounting for uncertainties in precise times of onsets, greater uncertainties in the times of completions, and margins of error in the compositing of the timelines.

The onsets of the events are different in the two Towers. The South Tower's top leans for about two seconds before the roof starts to plunge downwards, whereas the North Tower's roof begins its plunge about a half second after its radio antenna begins to drop. In both cases I used the first evident motion -- the rotation of the South Tower's top, and the drop of the North Tower's antenna -- to set the timeline origin. Using these timelines, it is clear that large portions of each Tower below the descending debris clouds remained intact at the 10-second mark. Reasonable estimates for the duration of these events are around 17 seconds.

Tower took about 15 seconds to completely come down.

But we've already said that the towers took 10 seconds! Not 15.


Also, you haven't explained why they found sulfur and traces of Thermate in the debris...

EDIT: I would also like to point this out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CuBNB4dB1o)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBPuu9o89dk&feature=related)

I take it this means that you are contesting it again?

(I also take it that you're not finished laying out your points?)
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/speed.html) -- It's short enough, Ray. Let's go ahead and post the whole thing:
Each of the Twin Towers fell completely in intervals of time similar to that taken for a block of wood dropped from a tower's roof to reach the ground. A block of wood has about the same average density as the main components of the towers near their tops.

In a vacuum, a block of wood (or lead) would take 9.2 seconds to fall from the tower's roof. In the air a block of wood, say ten inches on a side, might take 50 percent longer than in a vacuum. Fifteen seconds, a good estimate for the total time of collapse of the North Tower, is about the time it would take our block to fall from the roof. The rubble from the Tower probably had similar average density to our block of wood, since the floor slabs consisted of corrugated sheet metal and lightweight concrete, and the perimeter steel columns were hollow with walls only 1/4th inch thick at the Towers' tops. Air resistance alone could account for the slowing of the falls to the point where each Tower took about 15 seconds to completely come down.

The official story requires that more than air resistance was slowing the descents. The falling rubble would be having to crush every story below the crash zone -- ripping apart the steel grids of the outer walls and obliterating the steel lattice of the core structure. The resistance of the intact building itself would be thousands of times greater than air resistance.

If air resistance is able to increase total collapse times by even 20 percent, then shouldn't the addition of the resistance of the buildings themselves increase the time several thousand percent, to at least tens of minutes?

Of course the idea of a collapse lasting minutes is absurd. So is the idea of a steel frame building crushing itself. So according to this source, nearly free fall should have been closer to 15 seconds than 10? Okay. 11 floors of resistance instantly disintegrated per second as compared to 7.3 floors of resistance instantly disintegrated per second.

At what point does the "floors of resistance instantly disintegrated per second" begin to register for you?

Assuming that enough energy was present (and we could explain where it came from) to cause the building to collapse at a rate of one floor per second, we're talking about nearly two minutes. Compared to 15 (or 10 or 11) seconds.

I'll fully concede the 15 seconds collapse time if it will help you perhaps maybe start to kinda sorta address the physics.

But we've already said that the towers took 10 seconds! Not 15. Clearly, Ray has changed his mind about accepting that, and that's fine. The quicker we can agree on a time that he's happy with, the quicker we can get the part where he actually gets to start how a collapse in that time-frame is possible within the laws of physics (as we know them).

Both quotes/excerpts in #192 are from Achilles' source he linked to in #182.

So is also the second one (the one he left out while quoting from #192 so happily in #194) which states that 17 seconds is a reasonable estimate for the time frame of both collapses.

Like the one that he left away so happily which states that 17 seconds are reasonable estimates for the collapses.

Huh??

Huh??IIRC, Ray is German, therefore I tend to assume that English is not his primary language. I'm not entirely sure what he hoped to convey there either, but hopefully that helps to explain why we're both confused by his post.

EDIT: Also, now that I'm home and can view YT clips...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CuBNB4dB1o) The radio tower starts to collapse first either because:
a) the core started to collapse first (consistent with controlled demolition) or
b) it was rigged with explosives to collapse first (also consistent with controlled demolition).

I suppose "a" could arguably be explained by core damage, however it doesn't stand to reason that the core would have sustained more damage than the outside of the building, as the part of the plane that struck the core would have been slowed by their impact with the outer beams (thereby reducing the force of their impact).

What's also interesting is this progression (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/north_tower.html) (use the right arrow buttons to advanced through the first 6 or 7 frames).

You'll notice that just as the radio tower starts to go before the top of the roof, so does the roof start to go before the lowest floor with fire. Of course, since both Ray and his source both claim that this portion of the building fell mostly intact, we can easily conclude that the photographs are obviously wrong and/or our eyes are deceiving us. Positing that the footage is accurate and that neither Ray nor the authors of Ray's source bothered to review any footage of the actual collapse before offering their hypothesis will be frowned upon with great earnestness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBPuu9o89dk&feature=relatedCredentials) mean nothing. Clearly he's nutters. ;)

Credentials mean nothing.... ;)


Well......I guess that explains why Achilles is so quick to dismiss the professionals that argue against his position. :lol:

Maybe the school should replace one of those 3 years of basic physics with a critical thinking course...? Saying that the scope of the project is too large for it to be peer reviewed is complete fallacy. One does not automatically exclude the other.http://lucasforums.com/picture.php?albumid=16&pictureid=611)

:lol: That's awesome! :)

I think you'll agree though that science tends to be a little more...exact...than history. A lot of the principles and processes are the same. However being able to go into a lab and produce a detailed report on the chemical composition of Apparatus XYZ is a little bit different than trying to comb through texts, archalogical finds, etc and trying to piece together a story.
Given that there's next-to-no writing from the fourth dynasty, no. In fact, this is a useful example, since the pyramids are as much an engineering puzzle as they are archaeology.

Just as I know a thing or two about science, even though I am not a scientist :)
Really? And which area is your doctorate in?

Not at all. Ockham's Razor simply seeks to remove unnecessary steps from an explanation.

For instance, you probably would agree that 2+2+x=4 has an unneccessary step. You could easily say that 2+2=4. This is Ockham's Razor. Ockham's Razor is not simply declaring "4".

That's the very-brief-I'm-trying-to-post-this-before-a-meeting explanation. I can go into deeper detail if you would like.

Take care! :)
OK. Thanks for the info. If I have further questions, I'll PM you. :)


Credentials mean nothing.
You know that this comment isn't going to be taken lightly... :p