1 Chop, 2 Chop & ALL 3 Fall Down, page 3

Here at ATS, we are encouraged to question everything.
Nothing is sacred, no exceptions... and this includes science, especially science funded by one source... and even more important to question when that one source is a government that has a long rap sheet of lying to us.

What you are essentially doing is reading the side of a box, that has been purposely mispackaged. If you open the box and pull the product out to take a look at it from every conceivable angle... you would know this.

Willingly allowing the package designers and their hired lab techs to dictate to you how and why the product performs as it does, is being irresponsible and intellectually lazy. You have invested all of your trust in them to tell you the truth, when they have proven to not deserve such blind faith... or are you so thoroughly convinced that science can't be used to support a fallacy?

For hundreds of years science has been used by governments, businesses and religion to sell lies. Creationist have spun science to serve their objectives with "Intelligent Design" in a attempt to debunk Evolution. Tell me, we're we ever told the truth about the health hazards of tobacco back in the heyday of smoking? And speaking of smoking, the tobacco, cotton & pharmaceuticals industries/lobbyists have used politics and science to convince us that marijuana is more dangerous then alcohol and is a "gate-way drug". All bunk and all science... just purposely abused and misused.

You show a very strong allegiance to ornate scientific explanations for 911, and in the process fail to comprehend how straight forward the evidence is... as i have already proven, all that is required is a basic understanding of science and math. If you are looking for more detailed explanations... Scholars for 911 Truth & Justice is a good place to start.

yes adam thank you for popping in to share that golden nugget of wisdom...
rush already pointed that out on the previous page
www.abovetopsecret.com...

... and just a couple posts a head of this one, i had already responded to this.

Maybe next time, read the whole thread before making a "contribution" to the discussion.

What's up with you debunkers, do you all have ADD?

Maybe that's the real reason you only bother to review data that has been packaged with the OS brand/label?



Another prime example of being intellectually lazy.

[edit on 8-1-2009 by The All Seeing I]

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
yes adam thank you for popping in to share that golden nugget of wisdom...
rush already pointed that out on the previous page
www.abovetopsecret.com...

... and just a couple posts a head of this one, i had already responded to this.

Whoops...my mistake for skipping that post.

As to your question of why they collapsed as if they were made out of a deck of cards. The problem with comparing the WTC to a tree, or a deck of cards, or any other such comparison is not just a problem of materials, but of SCALE. Various properties of materials scale differently...some linearly, some logarythmically. Scale the material strengths in the WTC down to a desktop-sized model and you're going to end up with a model that's about as strong as those playing cards.

reply to post by The All Seeing I

---

Thanks for the link, however I'll stick to the people who know the subject matter better than anyone else.

www.ae911truth.org...

People who build buildings. People who build steel frame buildings. People who build steel frame buildings who were completely shocked that one built to the specifications of the WTC collapsed due to an impact and office fire.

All chemistry is physics, all physics is math. Ever heard that before? Any evidence that can be produced in a lab must be backed up by that math you seem to want so badly, yet utterly reject when placed in its proper context. If you can't reproduce it yourself using the exact same methodology it's not science and it doesn't matter who originated the equation. If you can't it's not science... it's called "snake oil" or "pseudo-science" and properly scorned.

Your disdain for science and math shows only your ignorance of how it is produced and disseminated in modern society. Furthermore, you pose straw man arguments (evolution) to try to justify your ignorance. ID and Lung Cancer are not sciences like architectural engineering, metallurgy and physics. No one builds buildings are puts satellites in space or fights diseases with the tenets of intelligent design. It's not an applicable or congruent argument.

More is required than a basic understanding of science and math. What is required is an understanding of what that science and math is used for and how to properly apply it.

The facts are right there in plain sight. What's required is observation and critical thinking. Not subjective "common sense". Your OP is ridiculous in its construction.

Test your own argument and you'll see how it fails. Build a 400:1 scale model of a WTC tower with playing cards. Make sure your construction at least attempts to mimic the tubular construction of the WTC so that the core column grid is evident. Now remove some cards in various places and record the collapse with a slow motion camera. Play that side by side with the WTC collapses at the same scaled frame rate. You'll see how your analogy is utterly incorrect in that the collapse pattern does not mimic the WTC collapses in any way.

Stick to the TinWiki. Pursuing real facts and creating experiments to test theories are not your forte.

EDIT: LOL adam... we were thinking the exact same thing. I should have read your post closer. My card tower is bigger than yours. I figured you'd have to use at least one playing card's worth of thickness for the concrete floors. And yet we still disagree on the fundamental subject matter. Isn't science awesome.


[edit on 8-1-2009 by cogburn]

Originally posted by cogburn
reply to post by The All Seeing I

---

Thanks for the link, however I'll stick to the people who know the subject matter better than anyone else.

www.ae911truth.org...

Since you brought up ae911truth.org...I was wondering if you could clear something up...as their leader Richard Gage has refused to comment on the matter.

On their website they list the WTC towers that collaped on 9/11 as having "all of the characteristics of a controlled demolition with explosives". 2 of the "characteristics" they list are as follows:

"Collapses into its own footprint"

"1200-foot-dia. debris field: no "pancaked" floors found"

I'm wondering how collapsing into its own footprint...and collapsing outside its footprint can BOTH be characteristics of cd.

Also, gage doesn't seem to understand the whole "Path of least resistance". (He doesn't factor gravity into it)

reply to post by adam_zapple

---

At the risk of inadequately defending someone else's research, I'd be happy to attempt address the error.

I think it's just that... an error in the statement of the relevance of the debris field diameter. What I'm assuming, and I'm left to assume since you are correct in that it has never been clarified, is that the ejecta from the tower was measured at the maximum diameter indicated of 1200ft. Assuming the demolition story to be accurate as posed by AE911, the distance of the ejecta is a result of improper detonation timings resulting in a greater energy than expected, thus the increased debris field diameter. Those improper timings are what contributed to the debris field being larger than a standard commercial demolition. One could argue that were there a conspiracy, the conspirators could have determined that the demolition itself didn't have to be perfect... just good enough to get the job done. In fact, a certain amount of "slop" would only serve to obscure the true nature of events.

What I feel is also important to the discussion is the quantity of the debris field that is considered "outside" the footprint of the building. While the diameter indicated shows covers the entire debris field, it does not show the concentration of debris within that field. It could only be a few, by percentage, tons of material within an acceptable margin of error.

The best one can say is that the information presented is incomplete.

I think the inconsistencies that are present in the AE911 version do not amount to enough to dismiss the entire theory as proposed. It's also worth noting that AE911 is one of the few organizations that reviews and reworks it's information when new data becomes available. That, for me, puts them worlds above the fray of a "twoofer group".

@TASI: Thanks for taking the raze in the spirit in which it was given. I don't know you, I don't assume to and I try very hard (and sometimes fail) not to assume things not in evidence from postings. Were we two fellows in a bar having the same discussion, the context would be the same. Next round is on me.

[edit on 8-1-2009 by cogburn]

reply to post by The All Seeing I

---

Science doesn't lie. People do. Science doesn't fail. People fail to apply it properly through intent or ignorance.

Your comparison to tobacco companies distorting scientific research is accurate to the NIST simulations of the WTC collapse. They are both bad science. However the occasional mis-application of scientific principals or the deliberate falsification of input data does not mean that science cannot be trusted. That kind of thinking puts us on track for another Dark Age. What it does mean is that the average man on the street needs to be a smarter, more educated, more critical individual lest they be swayed by manufacturers of junk science.

I'm still not sure why you continue to assert that I am someone who accepts the OS. I think that it's quite plain that I'm someone who refuses to take any of this at face value. I always allow that I could be wrong because I could be ignorant of relevant facts. When new facts become available it's the duty of the intellectually honest to review their pet theories and revise or refute them when necessary.

To the point at hand, I don't necessarily disagree with your overall point. I am specifically taking issue with the sloppy manner in which you posed the argument.

[edit on 8-1-2009 by cogburn]

Originally posted by cogburn

Thanks for the link, however I'll stick to the people who know the subject matter better than anyone else.

www.ae911truth.org...

You seem like a reasonable guy... what do you think of this critique of ae911troof?

www.cool-places.0catch.com...

reply to post by Seymour Butz

---

I think I would very much like to see the calculations that support the claims. The claim of 15% pulverization seems to relate to several other calculations. I'm looking for some data regarding the amount of material hauled off the site. So far the number at the Staten Island dump site is 1,462,000 tons of debris. How much of that was concrete? How much concrete was initially involved in construction? Again, I'd like to see the calculations and some independent figures. It may take a couple days, but I'll find it. My access to material is limited at home.

There are some things in that letter that I've never heard before.

"It is possible that people heard or saw something else, for example, reflections of lights from emergency vehicles or cars exploding."

Cars exploding before the collapse? I don't claim to be an expert on every single detail of 9/11, but I've never heard of any reports of cars exploding prior to collapse. Was there? Were they in the vicinity of the witnesses? If not, why suggest such a thing?

"6. Vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves
This is only one interpretation of the visual records of the collapses. Another interpretation is that the pressures due to impacts were blowing out the windows. The characterization as “demolition waves” has no support in the evidence or scientific analyses to date."

What is agreed upon is the fact that there were extreme pressures evident inside the building that appear symmetrical. Worst thing you can say is that it is a feature of the collapse that requires further definition to be categorized.

"7. Symmetrical collapse – through the path of greatest resistance – at nearly free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance
This is simply incorrect. Neither collapse was symmetrical. In WTC2, most debris falling outside the footprint went east and south. In WTC1, most debris falling outside the footprint went north and west. Engineers at STJ911 have calculated that the structure provided resistance to the extent that 40-60% of the original PE was dissipated prior to debris impact at the foundation."

This is an incorrectly posed argument. While that does refute the symmetrical collapse, it does not address the other three points. I've noted somewhere in the past 24 hours that I'd take to task the debris pattern statements. They are misleading and incomplete. No effort is made to address the ~10 second collapse time.

"9. Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away
The characterization of blast waves is not supported. Since most of the broken windows were broken lower down on the surrounding buildings, the most likely cause was winds caused by the expulsion of air from the building as described in #5. The winds described above would certainly be capable of blowing in windows."

Windows began breaking as the building was collapsing or so my grandmother says. I wasn't aware this was something that was in dispute, however a few weeks ago I asked her to recount her experiences that day. She specifically mentioned that the windows in surrounding buildings were breaking as the building collapsed. She was frozen in place in fear until then they got hit in the face with a hot cloud of dust and she ran back inside the place where she worked for cover. Did she specifically mention that the windows were breaking "in order"? No, she did not. It could have been random breakages prior to the final expulsion of air.

What does that do for the quote above? You tell me.

In all I think it's an excellent document that raises avenues to either prove or disprove the theory posited by AE911, but it's woefully light on the supporting calculations or even links to them. I half expected an appendix of calculations or links at the end and was a bit disappointed.

It's what plagues most 9/11 discussions. Either there's no calculations to support the claims or the calculations involve gross misapplications and mystery assumptions that are never provided.

[edit on 9-1-2009 by cogburn]

9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 14 days ago with 14 member flags

9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 7 days ago with 13 member flags

An Overview and Debunking of the AE9/11T\'s List of Demolition Signs
  Posted 16 days ago with 12 member flags

Wikipedia categorizes 9/11 truth as \'denialism\'
  Posted 18 days ago with 11 member flags

Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 14 days ago with 6 member flags

new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 8 days ago with 6 member flags

Final Decision: Court sanctions lawyers behind September 11 conspiracy case
  Posted 9 days ago with 6 member flags

you must try this youre self ????
  Posted 14 days ago with 4 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: