“Hand Waving” the Physics of 9/11

It works the same with the NIST computer models. They had to tweak them so high that it was unrealistic. If the collapse could have been natural, they wouldn't have to do that and spend over 6 years to come up with an excuse for WTC 7.

Not bother doing the calculations? What the hell?

So, when we build the next skyscraper(s), shall our stress engineers and design team just "guestimate" what measures need to be taken to ensure if a plane hit it, it would stay up?

Madness!

Griff ~

Thanks for your input on this. I appreciate your honesty in this forum. I don't agree with everything you post in here, but at least you are civil and admit when something is your "opinion".

C.O.

Originally posted by Sunsetspawn

Really, perhaps you could post a link to that hypothesis.



Because this here only mentions one plane.


Hand waving indeed.

www.drivehq.com...

There are PDF files at this site. Thanks

thats the point. in this case the cause for collapse does not fit the collapse. we know how they work as you pointed out and this one did not work as it should have, or could have according to the given cause.

the specific parts? sure...
the building would handle 20x load. according to garcias work based on the nist report the falling of the building produced 6.8x load. this is not enough force to overcome the floors underneath the building. the number he (garcia) used to calculate this was arbitrary. furthermore, all of the support beams would have had to give out 100% AND simultaniously. beyond that, if there was a variation in the angle on the plane that the floors dropped on of only 1 degree, it would change the 6.8x load to 1.8x. the building tilted over 20 degrees.

and of course...

Moreover, even neglecting the different strengths of steel at different temperatures, it is astronomically improbable that approximately 250 steel columns would fail due to “natural causes” within the same very short time interval. In more popular language, this hidden assumption underlying Dr. Garcia's calculation is "statistically impossible."

Yes it absolutely does fit the collapse. Would you care to present some calculations as to why it didn't work as you say it should? Because the calculations by NIST show exactly how it could work.

And no, the building most certainly would not have withstood 20x the load presented that day. And the claim about all the beams having to have collapsed 100% simultaneously is also simply not true. This is also well explained in the NIST report as to why. It doesnt seem like the guy has a very good understanding of engineering.

Originally posted by Griff
It works the same with the NIST computer models. They had to tweak them so high that it was unrealistic. If the collapse could have been natural, they wouldn't have to do that and spend over 6 years to come up with an excuse for WTC 7.

It was an unnatural situation so of course they would have to use an unnatural calculation. And it showed that it indeed was possible. And the reason calculations have to be tweaked is because it's simply impossible to know the exact variables.

And of course those findings are very acceptable to the world engineering body in general.

I guess it also makes sense for Griscom to have little engineering experience since his expertise is in studying optics and non of his 33 years of work ever involved structural engineering.

So I think it's being a bit disingenuous to use the research of someone with no real expertise to attempt to discredit those who do.

Yes it absolutely does fit the collapse. Would you care to present some calculations as to why it didn't work as you say it should? Because the calculations by NIST show exactly how it could work.

care to share your source? dont bother if you dont have the calculations.

So I think it's being a bit disingenuous to use the research of someone with no real expertise to attempt to discredit those who do.

like who? isaac newton has yet to be debunked and his laws state the building would have fallen at an angle UNLESS the entire core was negated instantaniously. no one has shown the math as to how this happened yet.

I/ think it's being a bit disingenuous to use the research of someone that doesent show their math to do anything but post on the internet.

Originally posted by snoopy
It was an unnatural situation so of course they would have to use an unnatural calculation.

I'm so sick of hearing this argument I can't stand it anymore. EVERYTHING that happened that day has physics to back it up. NOTHING in this world is unnatural, unless you want to start talking about ghosts, chi, and the boogey man. Stop with the "It was an unnatural occurance, therefore we can't find out what happened" crap. It's not working on me and others.

And it showed that it indeed was possible.

What exactly showed that indeed it was possible?

And the reason calculations have to be tweaked is because it's simply impossible to know the exact variables.

But when you have to tweak them to unrealistic (insert not observed) phenomenon, then you really do start to get into the world of unnatural. I'd rather stay with what we saw, what we know, what the investigation (what little there was) of the steel reveals. Not some guy sitting at a computer saying "you know, if I make the temperature of the steel higher, it might work". No, you experiement and test the steel to see what temperature it got to and THEN do your computer model.

And of course those findings are very acceptable to the world engineering body in general.

Show me one peer review. Just one. You can't. You know why? They won't release enough of the information to do one.

Even people from NIST are asking for an independent review.

www.opednews.com...

Accepted by the world engineering body indeed. Try again.

Originally posted by snoopy
I guess it also makes sense for Griscom to have little engineering experience since his expertise is in studying optics and non of his 33 years of work ever involved structural engineering.

Structural engineering is statics. Structural engineering is a beam sitting across two columns, and you find the forces the weight causes on "nodes" where the columns/beams meet. That kind of stuff. It's not dynamic systems, and it's not metallurgy, and it's not 95% of everything else we talk about.

Analyzing a steel structure that not only has unbalanced forces working on it, but is falling apart, is not a structural engineer's field of expertise. Ask Griff. He's had all of the material.

And you can't apply dynamic loads to static loading ratings and assume you will know anything about what will happen when they impact.

[edit on 6-9-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by jprophet420

Yes it absolutely does fit the collapse. Would you care to present some calculations as to why it didn't work as you say it should? Because the calculations by NIST show exactly how it could work.

care to share your source? dont bother if you dont have the calculations.

Post them, snoopy! Post the calculations that prove it! You don't know what you're talking about.

Everybody that keeps referencing these calculations, especially from NIST, is talking out of their ass. How hard could it be to find this stuff? Everyone that seems to think they exist, probably has never even looked through any part of the NIST report.

[edit on 6-9-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by snoopy
I guess it also makes sense for Griscom to have little engineering experience since his expertise is in studying optics and non of his 33 years of work ever involved structural engineering.

Are these people experienced enough for you?

www.ae911truth.org...

I'm sure you'll "hand wave" them away too.

So I think it's being a bit disingenuous to use the research of someone with no real expertise to attempt to discredit those who do.

How about someone with more qualifications then? Good enough for you? Probably not.

www.911blogger.com...

Try Charles Pegelow.

Also, this thread is a good read.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 9/6/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 9/6/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 9/6/2007 by Griff]

No they aren't. It takes more than simply a credential. How many of them have a legitimate peer revieweed paper that proves that same point?

griff you're right everything has phsyics to back it up and the calculations prove it. We definitely agree on that. That is why I don't agree with the guys findings.

it seems obvious there are some people here posting just for one reason, to spread doubts and disInfo.thats their job.dont forget that.

this is SICK.

Griscom

[edit on 7-9-2007 by anti72]

I'm really flabbergasted that there are some members here who disagree with the Controlled Demolition Hypothesis when the evidence for this is so compelling, I would be willingly lay down my life just to show how convinced I am that this Hypothesis is the absolute true one for the demise of these buildings!

Those who are saying that this Hypothesis is nonsense are obviously not reading over the hard-core undisputable facts that are presented by those in the know i.e. hundreds of architects and engineer's from all over the world!


[edit on 7-9-2007 by Palasheea]

Originally posted by Palasheea
I would be willingly lay down my life just to show how convinced I am that this Hypothesis is the absolute true one for the demise of these buildings!

You would die for a hypothisis? Where are these "hundreds" of professionals that have submitted papers? What are their names? What are their credentials?

What proof do you have? Even IF and thats a BIG if...you somehow prove NIST was not 100% accurate .... How does that prove a CD? As many "smoking guns" that have been posted on this forum, not one has provided any hard evidence to that of a controlled demolition. Squibs, Marvin Bush, Jones thermite, etc..etc.. There is ZERO evidence that proves the CD hypothisis.

Originally posted by snoopy
No they aren't. It takes more than simply a credential. How many of them have a legitimate peer revieweed paper that proves that same point?

How many have peer reviewed NIST?

A big whopping NONE.

What did you say in another thread? Let's see.

Originally posted by snoopy

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by snoopy
First of all, it's an issue of structural engineering

No it's not. What about structural engineering makes it the primary field for dynamic (moving) bodies in a system, or the effects of fire on steel (metallurgy)? I've actually been in strength of materials classes, etc., they don't learn what you seem to think they learn. You aren't even qualified to know who an expert would be here.

yes it IS an engineering issue. You have to take into account eh whole structure and how it works, which is what structural engineers do. The structural engineers disagree with the guy who studies optics. They have far more experience than him. It seems like you are simply upset because you really want to believe that what the guy is saying is correct because it fits your beliefs.

Emphasis mine. Funny how it's all an engineering issue when it suits you but when I show you many engineers who disagree, you hand wave them away as if they didn't have the credentials. Who's being biassed? I don't know, but to me it doesn't look like BsBray.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Where are these "hundreds" of professionals that have submitted papers? What are their names? What are their credentials?

See my response to Snoopy. Or have we forgotten this thread started by you?

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

reply to post by Griff


Griff, you are correct in that NIST was not peer reviewed by others outside of the organization. But, if you recall, throughout NIST's investigation they held several meetings with scientists, engineers, and even citizens all outside of the NIST organization to give updates and analyisis to thier current findings. These people were encouraged to give their input, and I believe some changes were made.If you would like, I can try to find some sources for you.

I think the point we (skeptics) are trying to make is that if Steven Jones writes a paper to explain a hypothisis, it would not be appropriate for Jim Fetzer, Judy Woods, and Alex Jones to be the ones to review it.