It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by exponent
I don't believe I'm showing any double standards, and I doubt you can find support for that claim.
Every test you listed had instrumentation and was superficially valid.
Therefore, using your rules, they provide absolute proof. The fireproofing would have been completely dislodged, and the floors undoubtedly sagged under any fire load.
Was the free-fall acceleration confirmed for the given period of time or not?
It was estimated using a regression.
There's no such thing as 'gravitational kinetic energy'.
We've been through this before when you had problems with understanding the term 'free fall'.
It means that very little kinetic energy is lost to heating and friction, and that the majority of gravitational potential energy is being converted into potential energy.
Well if you accept any theory then you would be obligated to back it with something, even if it was evidence provided by someone else.
Sure, and both FEMA and NISTs analysis show nothing suspicious about either occurence.
I don't quite have a JCB and a bunch of land to spare (it is at a premium here in the UK) but I might experiment with heating some steel in the presence of sulphur. I own thermocouples for example, so I can easily do a better job on that part of the test
1) NIST itself never claimed in their reports that they have actually proved why any of the buildings fell, only offered the hypotheses they claimed were "most probable" in their opinion.
Because proof is for mathematicians.
While I agree that they should release the information, it's certainly not going to stop any debate. The release of more information from NIST has always been followed by attempts at picking every hole in the data, without analysing it to see if it is remotely convincing.
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Read what I have posted...
Oh and btw, since you have accepted the claim from the other false research that "they found thermite"
not to mention the several other claims which have been debunked for years, we can easily say that you do not know how to properly research this topic, and that you rather believe lies instead of the facts.
Originally posted by dereks
Originally posted by bsbray11
Unless you are a hypocrite, I assume you will be able to show me the REAL EVIDENCE that proves conclusively it was the planes and fires alone that totally destroyed those towers.
How about you show REAL EVIDENCE it was thermite, or explosives, or whatever silly conspiracy theory you claim it was. That is, unless you are a hypocrite...
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
I am not the hypocrite, the hypocrite is the person, you, who has posted many times the same claims which have been debunked every time...
Originally posted by bsbray11
Well too bad I never claimed I had conclusive evidence of what brought the towers down.
Are you saying you don't have conclusive proof either?
Originally posted by bsbray11
Well on one thread you are being picky as hell with a civilian engineer who actually went out and tested something on his own free will, and then in this thread you say "Nobody should expect complete accuracy everywhere" in regards to government reports that were commissioned by the US Congress.
Okay, can you explain to me how shooting spray-on fireproofing directly with a shotgun is scientifically accepted as comparable to the vibrations from an aircraft impact?
I am very interested in how you think this is any less ridiculous than setting a steel hamster cage on fire to test the effects of fire on structural steel, or any other irrelevant experiment.
Using my rules? What rules are those again?
Do you know what the margin of error in this case was, according to NIST? Do you have a more accurate estimate?
Yes, there is. You are familiar with gravitational potential energy? (If not, do a Google search... though a physics 101 class would be much more appropriate.) When that potential energy is converted to kinetic energy, what is the force that is causing the kinetic energy, or that caused the potential energy in the first place? I'll give you a hint: it's a fundamental force of nature, and there are only 4 of those. Go ahead and tell me what force you think is causing the falling to the Earth, the kinetic energy. You know I am always amazed by the answers I get when I ask these common sense questions. I figure you won't fail to disappoint now either.
Are you sure that was me? Can you find the post?
No, a true free-fall means NO energy is lost, not "little." Though this would be theoretically impossible to achieve 100%, WTC7 fell within a ridiculously close margin of error of this acceleration. We are not talking about a free-fall acceleration that includes drag. We are talking about 9.82 m/s^2, within some small margin of error, which is gravitational acceleration in a vacuum. You do understand that 9.82 m/s^2 is absolute free-fall in a vacuum, don't you? Look it up if you have to.
And neither of them claimed they had actually proven anything. Maybe you would like to read them again to see for yourself. I am always welcome to you showing me a quote from one of them that states otherwise.
Do it! I'm not afraid of the results, more actual experimentation would be exciting if you have the means to do it. Do it, videotape it if you can, and put it up for us to see if you get a chance.
So according to you proof is impossible for physicists and physical scientists?
That's an interesting admission. So you don't think gravity has been proven then. Gravity is not mathematics you know. It's Newtonian physics.
Please differentiate between blind faith in NIST and real science in your answer.
Originally posted by dereks
Originally posted by bsbray11
Well too bad I never claimed I had conclusive evidence of what brought the towers down.
So you have no clue at all.... no surprises there!
No, I have proof, all you have are silly conspiracy theories!
Originally posted by prevenge
makes one wonder... don't you think TPTB already had planned an obviously expected upsurge of people demanding proof?
Originally posted by exponent
Oh come on. I'm not being picky as hell. All I ask for is basic instrumentation and rigor.
Okay, can you explain to me how shooting spray-on fireproofing directly with a shotgun is scientifically accepted as comparable to the vibrations from an aircraft impact?
Sure, they actually used a modified shotgun to shoot different types of projectiles. These projectiles were calibrated so that their kinetic energy was within the same order of magnitude as the aircraft debris would be. They also used representative materials, that is metal shot, nuts, washers etc. They experimented on a couple of different profiles of material to determine what effect that kinetic energy would have. Their results speak for themselves.
The difference is that this test was calibrated and metered
Using my rules? What rules are those again?
In the other thread, you summarised that because the burning video was superficially similar to a potential situation in the WTC, then that was sufficient enough to prove a case.
If you disagree with my interpretation of your standards, please provide some explicit benchmarks we can test an experiment against that will either accept both the ae911truth video and NISTs tests, or the ae911truth video alone.
Unfortunately I do not. I asked you here if you had any idea of the original source of the images, as my search had been fruitless. That was over 10 months ago. I take it you have not managed to find it in your research.
The force is gravity, however, there is no difference between kinetic energy caused by gravitational force or any other force, it is simply kinetic energy. That was my point.
Are you sure that was me? Can you find the post?
No, a true free-fall means NO energy is lost, not "little." Though this would be theoretically impossible to achieve 100%, WTC7 fell within a ridiculously close margin of error of this acceleration. We are not talking about a free-fall acceleration that includes drag. We are talking about 9.82 m/s^2, within some small margin of error, which is gravitational acceleration in a vacuum. You do understand that 9.82 m/s^2 is absolute free-fall in a vacuum, don't you? Look it up if you have to.
There is no need to patronise me, I have repeatedly demonstrated I understand the physics of the collapse equally as well as yourself. I do understand how acceleration due to gravity works, and if you care to read through the thread I linked you will find I explained the regression to you at that time also.
I'm not claiming they proved anything, i'm claiming that they provided a feasible mechanism for the damage to have occured over a prolonged period of burning.
So according to you proof is impossible for physicists and physical scientists?
In the mathematical sense yes, proof in physics is done by finding a theory which more accurately explains the evidence. No theory is considered 'finished'.
The existence of the effect of gravity is of course certain
I believe I have answered all of your questions as fully as I can repeatedly, but it seems that at nearly a year since I last posted, your understanding of 911 has barely advanced, if at all.
Can you tell me in that time, what experiments have been conducted, or facts uncovered that contradict the 'official story'. Please be explicit.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Yes, you apparently demand that from citizen investigators who take the burden upon themselves on their own free will. Yet when the government doesn't demonstrate this in their reports you make excuses for them.
So in other words you are saying they were testing actual aircraft debris impact upon the the spray-on fireproofing and not the actual reverberations through the structure that they claimed may have dislodged fireproofing, correct?
Their own report speaks for itself, and not even they claim their tests were conclusive. There were also other types of fireproofing besides spray-on in that building.
You can "calibrate and meter" setting a hamster cage on fire, but it wouldn't make it any more relevant because of the differences in the actual materials and physical processes that are being measured.
You are missing the entire point of the scientific process. It isn't just an opportunity to hook up equipment, and the equipment itself making it suddenly scientific. There is an underlying logic that must be fulfilled.
You're asking me to set criteria for testing a theory that I don't agree with in the first place. How could I even begin? If you think it would work somehow, then obviously you would have a better idea of how to make it work then I would.
You are asking me for sources for NIST's images that NIST used for their analysis? If it isn't in their report then you can line up behind the rest of us that want additional investigation.
So if kinetic energy caused by gravity exists just like kinetic energy by any other source, why did you just tell me gravitational kinetic energy doesn't exist? Just because you've never seen the word "gravitational" preceding "kinetic energy"? Either way we are both in agreement about what force is pulling the building down, so that's good.
So where exactly did I describe free-fall incorrectly? Show me exactly what you are referring to in that thread.
But that is exactly what NIST is even showing: no significant amount of work was done by the falling mass, because it accelerated right along with the acceleration of gravity in a vacuum. Again, not me showing this, NIST showing this, and many other independent measurements also showing this. You say "little" energy is lost. That is a weasel word and you are trying to say that some amount of energy was still being used to do work during the free-fall. Well where is it? There was obviously no significant amount of work being done, because ALL of the potential energy was being converted to kinetic according to NIST's measurement of the free-fall acceleration.
Unless you are being intellectually dishonest you at least rephrase the word "little" to "insignificant" to acknowledge that NIST's measurements do not show any indication of WTC7's kinetic energy performing work during the ~2 second period of verified free-fall acceleration. If a significant amount of kinetic energy were used to perform work, you would not have a free-fall acceleration curve. Period.
"Feasible" is a fuzzy word. NIST never tested the theoretical mechanism they came up with, let alone validate it rigorously and scientifically. That is not up to your own standards for experimentation. Now you'll come up with an excuse for them too?
Before a theory can be considered proof of anything it's understood that it has to be experimentally validated. Since NIST never bothered to do this you still have no proof even with this less stringent definition.
You mean proven?
You know I'm just going to say right back at ya.
Well I could refer you to what the AE911 engineer did but of course it isn't up to your standards, not by the fault of the engineer conducting it but because of the lack of substance to the theory he was testing in the first place. You admit NIST never proved anything and I suppose you admit that the "drywall caused the melting" theory is not prove either. Well have YOU established anything in the past year to settle up any of this?
Originally posted by exponent
How can you reply like this and then type the paragraph below? You're saying that I don't require instrumentation, right above a paragraph in reply to me saying that I definitely do require instrumentation and that NIST provided it.
So in other words you are saying they were testing actual aircraft debris impact upon the the spray-on fireproofing and not the actual reverberations through the structure that they claimed may have dislodged fireproofing, correct?
It was both, a mixture of items ensures a mixture of kinetic energies throughout the scale, and as they shot it as some rather slender targets, the items impacting are randomly selected.
Their own report speaks for itself, and not even they claim their tests were conclusive. There were also other types of fireproofing besides spray-on in that building.
So now you agree that a plane impact is likely to largely dislodge SFRM from the towers.
Perhaps you think gypsum wallboard can survive a plane impact? If not, what other fire protection existed to protect the towers?
You can "calibrate and meter" setting a hamster cage on fire, but it wouldn't make it any more relevant because of the differences in the actual materials and physical processes that are being measured.
That depends on what's being measured doesn't it!
No, the point of the scientific process is not some hidden logic
Tell me, in the ae911 burn test, how can you know you've repeated it accurately?
What measurements can you take from your repeated experiment and compare them against the original.
Frankly I can't believe you're still arguing this
I said I would stop in the other thread and if you don't stop claiming that an elaborate bonfire was a better scientific test than NISTs efforts I will stop here.
You're asking me to set criteria for testing a theory that I don't agree with in the first place. How could I even begin? If you think it would work somehow, then obviously you would have a better idea of how to make it work then I would.
Yet whenever I try and set criteria, you accuse me of favouritism, even though I apply identical criteria to both sides. How can I win?
You are asking me for sources for NIST's images that NIST used for their analysis? If it isn't in their report then you can line up behind the rest of us that want additional investigation.
Wait so your opinion is that if it's not in the NIST report it's not worth investigating on your own?
If it is identical to any other imparted kinetic energy, there is no need to use the word 'gravitational'
So where exactly did I describe free-fall incorrectly? Show me exactly what you are referring to in that thread.
I'm not about to enter this debate again, if you really want to you can PM me or start a new thread.
Except exactly the same as 10 months ago and rather predictably, you're ignoring both the period before and after the brief period of free fall acceleration
Unless you are being intellectually dishonest you at least rephrase the word "little" to "insignificant" to acknowledge that NIST's measurements do not show any indication of WTC7's kinetic energy performing work during the ~2 second period of verified free-fall acceleration. If a significant amount of kinetic energy were used to perform work, you would not have a free-fall acceleration curve. Period.
That of course depends on error bars, but I'm fine with changing 'little' to 'insignificant'. In the end there was very little significant resistance due to the laws of motion.
"Feasible" is a fuzzy word. NIST never tested the theoretical mechanism they came up with, let alone validate it rigorously and scientifically. That is not up to your own standards for experimentation. Now you'll come up with an excuse for them too?
No I'll just repeat exactly what I did before. FEMA and NIST employed competent scientists
to analyse this phenomena, they identified the mechanism of attack and NIST speculated as to the potential cause. What evidence do we have to refute this?
Before a theory can be considered proof of anything it's understood that it has to be experimentally validated. Since NIST never bothered to do this you still have no proof even with this less stringent definition.
I think my point was that you never have proof, you have experiments which match observation.
You mean proven?
Well you can call it proven if you like
I am not the truther here. I am not the one demanding answers. Do you really think it's acceptable that your only example of 10 months worth of research into the murder of thousands is this
I mean, when you have to accuse someone who doesn't agree with you of not working hard enough because I don't believe that your government killed their own people then you are getting desperate.
I want to help but you seem to take the viewpoint that you don't need my help
Then prove that the aircraft reverberations would have been equivalent to being shot with a shotgun. I assume there was another scientific study done to verify this, otherwise the assumption is trash and renders the whole experiment trash.
And I am telling you the way they "tested" this was ridiculous. Shooting a piece of steel with a shotgun. Come on man. If a "truther" did that you would have a field day and you know it.
By watching what he does in the video. Does it give you that much trouble? Do you want me to take notes on the video and explain step-by-step what you are looking at? Are you going to make me repeat the fact that the theory he was testing was vague to begin with and originated from you "debunkers"?
All the types of fireproofing present in the WTC towers is dealt with in the NIST report. I don't recall off the top of my head exactly what kinds there were, except that there were other cementitious forms of fireproofing. Yes, some/most of the gypsum wallboard would have also inevitably survived the aircraft impacts. There is no reason to believe the airplanes would have knocked it all out and I find it absurd to make such an assumption.
That's saying something quite different than denying gravitationally-imparted kinetic energy exists at all. You're changing your arguments as you go.
Do you know what instantaneous values are in physics? You do realize that instantaneous values have to follow the laws of physics just like values that change over time, correct? You are not allowed to do something impossible for any amount of time (performing work collapsing while not losing ANY detectable amount of kinetic energy) and then say "oh well the average over time isn't free-fall so it's all good." So during this whole free-fall period the building can NOT be having a "progressive collapse" and accelerating at free-fall at the same time. This is YOUR fundamental misunderstanding. You are trying to average everything together to smooth-over the time period that completely and instantly debunks the official theory. It's trash science.
You don't need evidence to refute something that had none to begin with.
You just told me you can't prove physics, only mathematics. Yet now you are saying I can call verification of the effect of gravity on Earth proof. Once again you are shifting around as you please and changing what you are saying as you go along.
No, which is exactly why I'm still complaining and still wanting a real investigation. The experiment you're referring to was still infinitely more than any "debunker" or NIST themselves provided on this issue.
I never asked you to come on here and defend the official government reports. You took that burden upon yourself. If you want to back out of it and don't actually want to verify anything then you have no reason to even be talking to me right now.
How are you helping? You'll be helping when you actually come up with a solid theory and test it and demonstrate it. So far all I've seen is a bunch of excuses being made on NIST's behalf. I don't want that.
Originally posted by Crimelab
......
Those buildings sure look "disintegrated" to me. A steel frame building turns to dust as it is falling. It looks more like an eruption than a collapse, and that is what I can't understand at all.
Originally posted by bsbray11
I read through this rant and didn't see the proof that the towers came down from fires and planes alone either.
You keep asking us for proof, do you know what proof actually is?
Posted 9/17/2003 9:02 AM Updated 9/17/2003 4:01 PM
Spanish judge indicts Osama bin Laden, 34 others for terrorism
MADRID, Spain (AP) — Spains leading investigating judge issued the first known indictment against Osama bin Laden in the Sept. 11 attacks on Wednesday, accusing al-Qaeda of using the country as a base to plot the devastating strikes on New York and Washington.
The indictment charged bin Laden and nine others with membership in a terrorist organization and "as many crimes of terrorist murder ... as there were dead and injured" in the deadly Sept. 11 attacks.
Investigative magistrate Baltasar Garzon indicted 35 people for terrorist activities connected to bin Laden's al-Qaeda network. In a nearly 700-page document, Garzon wrote that Spain served "as a place or base for resting, preparation, indoctrinating, support and financing" of al-Qaeda.
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Originally posted by bsbray11
I read through this rant and didn't see the proof that the towers came down from fires and planes alone either.
You keep asking us for proof, do you know what proof actually is?
... You did not read what was provided, AND IT DOES SHOW YOUR FANTASIES ARE NOTHING MORE THAN EXAGGERATIONS AND LIES...
Bentham Publishing Exposed For The Fraud's They Are
Submitted by Just dropping by on Thu, 06/11/2009 - 17:48
in
* Daily Paul Liberty Forum
Here's an excerpt
Earlier this year, Davis started receiving unsolicited emails from Bentham Science Publishers, which publishes more than 200 "open-access" journals – which turn the conventional business model of academic publishing on its head by charging publication fees to the authors of research papers, and then making the content available for free
As the emails stacked up, Davis was not only encouraged to submit papers, but was also invited to serve on the editorial board of some of Bentham's journals – for which he was told he would be allowed to publish one free article each year. "I received solicitations for journals for which I had no subject expertise at all," says Davis. "It really painted a picture of vanity publishing."
So Davis teamed up with Kent Anderson, a member of the publishing team at The New England Journal of Medicine, to put Bentham's editorial standards to the test. The pair turned to SCIgen, a program that generates nonsensical computer science papers, and submitted the resulting paper to The Open Information Science Journal, published by Bentham.
Read the rest here. www.newscientist.com...
So as the debunkers were saying months ago, this Bentham journal is pay-for-publish vanity journal and the fact that Stephen Jones got his little thermite paper published in it hold no fact because they were willing to publish a paper that made no sense whatsoever, as long as the $800 publication fee cleared..
After the first flush of enthusiasm, however, researchers began to question Benthams activities, not least because many of the invitations they were receiving seemed decidedly badly targeted. For instance, psychologists were being invited to contribute papers on ornithology, health policy researchers were being invited to submit papers on analytical chemistry and economists were being invited to submit papers on sleep research...
To add insult to injury, some of the invitations researchers were receiving were addressed to a completely different person, or the name field was empty, and addressed simply to "Dear Dr.,"...
By March of this year, senior health care research scientist at the University of Toronto Gunther Eysenbach had had enough. Publicly criticising Bentham's activities on his blog, Eysenbach complained..., "All pleas and begging from my side to stop the spamming, as well as clicking on any 'unsubcribe' links did not stop the spam plague from Bentham."
For others, the experience of being targeted by Bentham proved even more frustrating. When Professor John Furedy, Emeritus Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto, received an invitation to be editor-in-chief of the Open Behavioral Science Journal he initially accepted. But after doing so he found himself being bombarded with further invitations. And when Bentham failed to reply to the questions he raised about the new role he had taken on he decided the best course of action was to withdraw his acceptance, reluctant to be associated with a company that behaved in this way. Even though he had resigned, however, Furedy was surprised to see that his name had been added to the list of editors on the journal's web site. And despite repeated requests to Bentham to remove it his name remains there to this day.
I too had by now begun receiving copies of Bentham's invitations — not because I was on its mailing list, but because frustrated researchers were forwarding them to me, and asking me to find out what the dickens was going on.
So I emailed various Bentham directors (including Richard Scott and Matthew Honan), all of whom — with the exception of publications director Mahmood Alam — completely ignored my messages. Moreover, while Alam replied, he proved decidedly unwilling to answer my questions, despite repeated promises that he would. He was equally unwilling to put me in contact with anyone else at the company.
911 NanoTech Thermite Publisher Accepts Fake Paper, Editors quit
By John R Moffett, Posted by John R Moffett
.....
Previously, the chief editor of the Bentham journal that the Thermite article was published in resigned, and denounced the journal with this statement: “I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Period.” Despite supposedly being the chief editor, she had not been informed that the thermite article was going to be published in her journal.
The advocates for the nanotech thermite theory of the WTC collapse will never accept the fact that the Bentham Group journals are not actual peer reviewed scientific publications, but scientists all around the world are now convinced of the fact.
...
Marie-Paule Pileni
Adjunct Professor
Professor Dr. Marie-Paule Pileni
Director of the Mesoscopic & Nanometric Materials Laboratory
Chair of Institut Universitaire de France
University P & M Curie, Paris VI
Postal Address: Université Pierre et Marie Curie Case 52, 4 Place Jussieu, 75252 Paris cedex 05
Phone: 33 1 44 27 25 16
Fax: 33 1 44 27 25 15
Website: www.sri.jussieu.fr...
E-mail Marie-Paule Pileni
...
Research Interests
Organization of nanomaterials in mesoscopic scale : collective properties
Nanomaterials : synthesis, characterisation and physical properties
Chemical modification of enzymes
Physical chemistry in condensed matter
Colloids sciences
Solar energy
Photophysic and photobiology
Photochemistry in gas phase
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
LOL Again you post that BS research from Bentham Science Publishers?... THAT HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE FALSE?...
BTW BSbray, LEARN TO STAY ON TOPIC... the war has NOTHING to do with this topic...but of course since you have no real argument to back your claims you try to derail YOUR OWN THREAD....