Our vision is to provide a home to sincere 9/11 researchers free from biased moderation and abusive tirades from other members.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which only gives you access to view the discussions. New registration has been suspended.
femr2 wrote:I've been sitting in the background having a good giggle at tfk suggesting his pretty damn low-order series of poly fits shows "near instantaneous" acceleration from data derived from my Dan Rather data
And the rest.
I'm inclined to post a symmetric difference "smoothed" version using adjacent samples, as tfk did when he claimed my data showed +/-60G accelerations, and quote him as "proof". I might then also quote him suggesting that piece-meal poly fits over a 1s period would be the best way to go about it. Might forget to remind that the SG method does that *at each sample*, and that care must be taken when interpreting the data...especially if you're dumb enough to think that any acceleration profile is going to show you anything like "near instantaneous"
OneWhiteEye wrote:What tfk was trying to say (in a uncharacteristically muddled fashion) is the fact that the fall was observed to be sub-g indicates the presence of force opposing downward motion.
What's weird is, Tony is arguing against high peak force when considering a rubble-driven collapse, but refuses to recognize the converse when applied to jolts in descent of the upper block. His opponents are doing almost the same thing, unwittingly arguing for jolts by taking the stance that loose rubble produces the same peak force in collision as a rigid body. They're both arguing past each other, and being self-contradictory depending on which context is being argued.
ozeco41 wrote:I must be slow on the uptake because I am only just realising how ego driven the 'big names' are in resisting any input which questions their own self assessed position of superiority.
SanderO wrote:We're talking less than four seconds of tumble... and that doesn't produce all that much dust. It's mostly heavy falling building debris. OUCH... big time.
I take it you are familiar with the WTC scenario - what happened with WTC1 on 9/11 - summarised as:
a) Aircraft flies into North Side, starts fires, fires not fought, initial damage plus damage from fires accumulating until;
b) Inwards bowing of South Side perimeter columns occurs quickly followed by;
c) failure of all other columns evidenced by the 'top portion' of the tower descending.
Now what occurred was a 'cascade failure' - put simply a self perpetuating sequence where one failure causes some other part to overload and fail and..the process continues. And it is inherently 'exponential' i.e. as it goes further it gets faster and faster because the more bits fail the greater the overloads transferred to other members causing them to fail in turn.
We have visual evidence for the key points and this NIST summary from NISTAR 1-6 page 304 explains it:Buckling of South Wall and Collapse Initiation
The inward bowing of the south wall increased as the post-buckling strength of bowed columns continued to reduce. The bowed columns increased the loads on the unbuckled columns on the south wall by shear transfer through the spandrels. Consequently, instability progressed horizontally, and when it engulfed the entire south wall, it progressed along the east and west walls. Moreover, the unloading of the south wall resulted in further redistribution of gravity loads on the south wall to the east and west walls and to the thermally weakened core via the hat truss. ......
Now the highlited bits are the key four elements and they are facts of the visual record. So if anyone produces figures that suggest those facts are wrong OR FEA analyses that suggest otherwise....they have a big job of explaining to do .
So let's take those observed facts as facts. Summarised they say:
A) Perimeter columns on south face failed by buckling inwards therefore they dropped their loads onto something;
B) The obvious something being the rest of the south perimeter columns - which failed in their turn;
C) overloading the columns around the corners on the east and west sides.
Now all of that is fact from visual evidence or undeniable consequences thereto.
So I will pause there - we can go further but those two facts (1) redistribution follows spatial layout AND (2) visual evidence says all the columns failed with failure of inwards bowed south face leading to rest of south face leading around the corners to the southern most columns of the east and west faces.
And notice that we got that far without needing mathematics. (Someone may call 'foul' on that. They will be wrong but leave it till it happens. If it does. )
...the general tacit assumption in thought is that it's just telling you the way things are and that it's not doing anything - that 'you' are inside there, deciding what to do with the info. But you don't decide what to do with the info. Thought runs you. Thought, however, gives false info that you are running it, that you are the one who controls thought. Whereas actually thought is the one which controls each one of us. Thought is creating divisions out of itself and then saying that they are there naturally. This is another major feature of thought: Thought doesn't know it is doing something and then it struggles against what it is doing. It doesn't want to know that it is doing it. And thought struggles against the results, trying to avoid those unpleasant results while keeping on with that way of thinking. That is what I call "sustained incoherence".
Bohm thus proposes in his book, Thought as a System, a pervasive, systematic nature of thought:
" Now, I say that this system has a fault in it - a "systematic fault". It is not a fault here, there or here, but it is a fault that is all throughout the system. Can you picture that? It is everywhere and nowhere. You may say "I see a problem here, so I will bring my thoughts to bear on this problem". But "my" thought is part of the system. It has the same fault as the fault I'm trying to look at, or a similar fault. Thought is constantly creating problems that way and then trying to solve them. But as it tries to solve them it makes it worse because it doesn’t notice that it's creating them, and the more it thinks, the more problems it creates. (P. 18-19)"
Free fall is possibly the cornerstone of the Truth Movements argument and
David Chandler's contribution, the subject of so much rapture. I
will now explore these claims in detail and show that most of this is
bluster, huge assumption and sleight of hand. David Ray Griffin lays out
his wears very clearly. He makes three claims.
In conclusion, we now see that the claims made by David Ray Griffin are very
far from proven: the equation of free fall with controlled demolition is
simply an unproven assumption, with no research data to back it up; that
NIST denied that free fall was occurring in the average acceleration of the
building downward, and that resistance was typical of its descent was
and finally, that David Chandler did nothing to change this position which
NIST maintained from the draft to final report.
But invoking Newton's second law of motion leaves me completely stumped, I
can not see its relevance to this question at all. However, accepting
Chandler's credentials as a physics high school teacher, I obviously bow to
But this leaves me wondering what he thought of Gage, Ryan,
Harrit and the Truth Movements use of such a measurement? Well actually
Chandler answered this question in an interview with Visibility911. Did he
scold his fellow academics for their useless calculations in the face of
But NIST listened to what Chandler had to say and set out to refine its
analysis and show Chandler why free fall acceleration was not typical of the
north façade collapse to the 29th floor. NIST developed its analysis and
now focused on the instantaneous acceleration. It showed that the 5.4
seconds could be broken down into three stages. It showed that
gravitational acceleration was not typical due to the first and third
stages, especially the first, which had seen the façade collapse 7ft in 1.75
seconds. This is where most of the resistance came from and accumulated the
40% greater time over all. It is true that NIST acknowledges 2.25 seconds
of gravitational acceleration for the next 100ft, but it is still only
2/5 of the collapse time to the 29th floor, still less than half way through
the collapse of the façade(20). In the third stage, NIST found the
acceleration was less than gravitational, which means the collapse of the
façade from the 29th floor to the ground could very feasibly take another 5
to six seconds, possibly more meaning the free fall would have been less
than a 1/5, very atypical of the collapse. There is nothing in this
fundamentally changes what NIST had said previously.
NIST's conclusions for the causes of the collapses of WTC1,2,7 remain correct.
He had me as main target for~~2 years on the RichardDawkins Forum. Nearly every post had a pseudo technically framed insult directed at me. I was the leading responder to the engineering aspects of WTC collapse - the only engineer contributing at that time. AND moderator of the subforum which imposed "conflict of interest" concerns so I did not deal with his trolling/insults myself. And the other mods rarely went near the sub-forum - too much woo and too technical the topic. I think he came here and started his wordwide web broadcasting of his single nonsense claim after he was eventually banned off Dawkins Forum. My memory may be wrong on that but he lasted very little time here or on JREF - don't know about other forums.SanderO wrote:...A perfect example of this is psikeyhackr, who is constantly scream where are the physicists and tries disprove a progressive collapse ergo to prove CD with a non scalable mechanical destruction model made from paper loops....and who asserts that....
Sure. So time to ask "What is our objective?":SanderO wrote:... And as Tom has pointed out dragged us in to an absurd dichotomy of false choices... where science is out the door.
I do not see anything changing in the foreseeable future... and it's useless to try to get either side to come to their senses. It's like the struggle between Islam and Christianity.
Once again we find ourselves on similar tracks.SanderO wrote:Ozzie,
You raise an interesting point at the end of the last post. I wouldn't even consider publishing something about 9/11. Who is the audience? What would the purpose be?...
I am familiar with the outline of that sad situation.SanderO wrote:... I found myself on the board of AE911T....thought they would clean up there act.. . I was sent packing as a infiltrator and a disruptive force... What to do?..
As you know I also described the ROOSD mechanism back in 2007 but without the label and I made no attempt to promulgate it outside the RichardDawkins Forum. So that is me plus Tom plus a few supporters here and a few at JREF but most of them not taking on the battle with the entrenched authorities over there. Me included - it would be a losing battle - I don't join battles unless I have sufficiently strong arguments to win. There doesn't seem to be many more supporters of "the mechanisms which really happened" - if any... So you have the false dichotomy in play on that aspect of collapse progression. Both sides still having the columns taking load and buckling. BUT - and I haven't counted it - there are increasingly numbers of JREF participants recognising ROOSD (M-T's version with the acronym label - sound marketing - not mine which never had a catchy label. ) They are still in the minority - JREF 9/11 postings are currently dominated by trolling and counter trolling - little real discussion. And IMO only one deluded but genuine truther still posting - so 9/11 discussion seems to be over. Same story here but without the massive noise barrier of trolling and counter trolling. BTW I have many times made the point about WTC7 collapses being "hidden inside". My view being that is the reason for so much focus of discussion on WTC7. Relatively speaking the Twin Tower collapses were easy to analyse and prove "No CD required?" for the global collapse phase. We will never "prove" anything for WTC7.SanderO wrote:...It was in early 2010 that I ....discovered the ROOSD acronym and the rigorous work being done here. I've only this spring tried to come up with some explanation for WTC 7 as a thought experiment. As I believe Tom has mentioned we have less to work with because it's mostly inside and we can't see inside the building....
That is where my engineering and physics background helps. BUT so many of the "debunker' side are limited in those fields and it is well nigh impossible to get serious discussion of the relevant engineering/physics issues properly in context.SanderO wrote:But I've come to see the destruction as cascading progressive failures of very complex systems with multiple inputs varying over time...systems which have not as much capacity to arrest the progression of a local failure into a global one. We don't seem to ever see much of the stuff coming apart as much as the result of it coming apart... falling, flying and then in a pile on the ground. There is nothing in my education to help me figure this out....
Which is why I flagged it is a FALSE dichotomy. The two extremes of self satisfied delusion will never come to the grey area/middle ground of rational explanations. (What we used to call "truth' before the word got purloined and bastardised by friends and foes alike. )SanderO wrote:...In a few years I've come to accept the false dichotomy and that the two side will never budge or learn a thing and so the loudest voices drown out the few voices of reason.
Agreed. Which I what I most dislike about AE911Truth. There could well be scope for investigation of the socio-political aspects of decisions made surrounding and flowing from 9/11. If they are serious why premise it on "CD of WTC" which is so easily disproved? Or discredited for those who still, in 2012/3 don't accept "disproved". Gage et al do the cause no favour by prostituting the search for truth to a world tour agenda - as per your earlier comments.SanderO wrote:I don't see a repeat of the event... towers dropping from plane strikes or a placed devices. I do see more of the usual BS taking away our rights and starting wars of opportunity to plunder and control.
It is already happening. The idea that regulation changes within the US jurisdiction are needed and will prevent WTC style collapses is ridiculous. The worlds professionals designing high rise buildings will have got and dealt with the lessons from 9/11 - with or without NIST. "They" certainly will not be limited to either NIST recommendations OR changes in US building codes.SanderO wrote:I don't see more dumb designs such as the twin towers. Leslie Robertson probably will feel like a jerk for the rest of his life and not make the same bone headed designs again. We do need to rethink the egress from burning out of control high rises... and making them less flammable to begin with. That will happen...
Together with the slipping of US from dominance of the world economy.SanderO wrote:...The MIC and their supporters, like a hammer will see every problem as a nail... and we'll get war after war unless we go too broke to wage them.... and that too is coming...
Not just here as in 911Forum. The technical needs revealed by WTC 9/11 will be addressed by the industry and even this forum is of near zero significance in that arena.SanderO wrote:...I don't think arm chair researchers can do much more than what's been done here...
I'm not sure who you mean with guilty - otherwise I agree. I may respond on the legal issues you raised in the other thread. (Ford Pinto and "product liability")SanderO wrote:...They're evidence and resource limited. I have no interest in publishing anything. I am not an expert.
The energy for truth will evolve into anti government / libertarian / peace activism using historical events as cartoon rallying calls. And the guilty seem to walk away scott free as always.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests