What are the 2-3 best introduction points that have to do with science?

What are the 2-3 best introduction points that have to do with science?

I'm about to give a presentation with a lot of 9/11 research in it.
I want the points to be conclusive and undeniable.

What are you trying to prove exactly?


There hasn't been any competent scientific investigation of 9/11.

If you think there is "indisputable" evidence of anything, you'll soon hear different.

Originally posted by bsbray11
What are you trying to prove exactly?

Generally I like to try and prove that "fire alone" couldn't have brought down the World Trade Towers.Collapse initiation interests me since I practically know for sure that WTC1 was a core-led collapse (maybe 2 as well? I forget). I haven't completely studied core-led collapse and its implications with collapse propagation models such as OOS and ROOSD - the only two possible collapse models that I see being discussed these days (everything else has been ruled out).

Basically if you can list off some scientific facts that might be compelling whether it's about airplane maneuvers, intergranular melting (vs. molten rivers of steel that are deniable) and what it means, sagging/bucking in regards to fire severity, the implications of intergranular melting (more important if there is pieces of steel that exhibit this sort of melting and were also not buried in the rubble - I don't remember), whether or not WTC7 freefall would be possible if that one support column (that Nist singles out) failed, the possibility of that one passport not being destroyed....

reply to post by patriots4truth


many many threads here on the subject..
If you are doing a paper or presentation then I suggest you start with some of them..

Personally I'm almost over discussing the whole issue..
Nothing I say here will change anyone's opinion..They are set...

reply to post by patriots4truth


1) Science explains this universe - it does not prove this universe is the true reality
2) People usually think science is fact when more often it is theory
3) Scientific fact is only scientific fact until someone else prooves the results can be produced with and alternative method and the initial understanding was wrong.

Originally posted by patriots4truth

Originally posted by bsbray11
What are you trying to prove exactly?

Generally I like to try and prove that "fire alone" couldn't have brought down the World Trade Towers.

You can never really prove a negative (ie something can't happen, or that something doesn't exist), because as Donald Rumsfeld unfortunately said to try to justify the invasion of Iraq, you aren't always even aware of what you don't know. That's why asking someone to prove a negative is generally frowned upon as a way for any scientific inquiry to move forward, although in a few cases negative statements can be proven. What people generally want to do is prove something positively, ie this does exist, or this did happen.

You can only point out:

-- No forensic, criminal, or other scientific investigation whatsoever has established what caused any of those three buildings to fall. The federal government, through FEMA and other agencies, secured the vast majority of evidence for itself, from most of the structural debris to the structural documentation, and never released it for independent scrutiny or anything equivalent to peer review. And the best their final reports offered was two untested hypotheses (for the towers and WTC7) that both postulated kinds of structural failures never even considered before, but again only as hypotheses and with no testing.

-- Scores of witnesses reported explosions in all 3 buildings, from just before the first impact to after both towers had fallen and only WTC7 was still standing. Seismograph data published by FEMA even shows seismic events, each labeled by FEMA as "subsequent collapse," all occurring after both towers had fallen and happening in the same regular 15 minute intervals as a witness described when referencing loud explosions that happened during the same time period.

Here's a lot of testimony to explosions: worldtradeconspiracy.com...

You'll quickly see any one "simple" explanation given for the explosions (go ahead, think of one, besides explosives/bombs) becomes insufficient to explain a number of explosions that are occurring in completely different areas of buildings, in completely different buildings, and separated by large spans of time, from morning until afternoon. An explosion was associated with destroying concrete in the basements of the towers, injuring and killing people, and blowing out the lobby of WTC1 as it was impacted, amongst other things. There is more to that than exploding cans of Lysol.

Other than that there is a lot of squabbling and not a lot of actual science going on at the moment.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by patriots4truth

 

many many threads here on the subject..
If you are doing a paper or presentation then I suggest you start with some of them..

Personally I'm almost over discussing the whole issue..
Nothing I say here will change anyone's opinion..They are set...

Dont look at it as 'trying to change anyone's opinoin'.
Look at it as no one (except the non-truthers) know everything that went on that day.
What you're doing is offering other people theories that they otherwise might not have considered.
Most of the new people coming here just want to learn. Except for the new people here that were eyewitness's to certain events or hold a job in a field that was involved directly with that day. Or both.

I Googled: WHAT SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE PROVES THAT 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB?

and I found this link: WIKILEAKS PROVES 911 WAS INSIDE JOB! I aint had time to study it, but what rung out was when it said SS agents (yeah--whats the SS remind you off? Nazis still with us riiight)

Also: Video Proof of the 9/11 Conspiracy, The Kurt Sonnenfeld Story

Kurt Sonnenfeld: There were many things, in hindsight, that were disturbing at Ground Zero. It was odd to me that I was dispatched to go to New York even before the second plane hit the South Tower, while the media was still reporting only that a “small plane” had collided with the North Tower — far too small of a catastrophe at that point to involve FEMA. The Agency was mobilized within minutes, whereas it took ten days for it to deploy to New Orleans to respond to Hurricane Katrina, even with abundant advance warning! It was odd to me that all cameras were so fiercely prohibited within the secured perimeter of Ground Zero, that the entire area was declared a crime scene and yet the “evidence” within that crime scene was so rapidly removed and destroyed. And then it was very odd to me when I learned that FEMA and several other federal agencies had already moved into position at their command center at Pier 92 on September 10th, one day before the attacks!

(read more)

and checkout other links

So look, it cannot JUST be a 'scientific' investigation, but involves detective work, and also a circular investigation. Ie., some people will demand that some parts are already case closed, but you have to ask yourself is that so?

IMAGINE the MIRACLES OF NYC that day--OMG if only MY life were full miracles. Maybe Hollywood should do a movie called The Miracles of 9/11--what you think?!

THREE building fall straight down? Passports of 'terrorists' found? Some general whoever talking on TV that very mornin while its actually happening ALREADY putting the full stop on the 'conclusive evidence'?---it is all so PAT (sy) isn't it???

Keep up the good work and dont let NOONE put you off!!!

Originally posted by patriots4truth
What are the 2-3 best introduction points that have to do with science?

I'm about to give a presentation with a lot of 9/11 research in it.
I want the points to be conclusive and undeniable.

I don't think you should start off talking about 9/11.

I think you should start off talking about SKYSCRAPERS.

Remind the audience that is was not possible to build skyscrapers until steel could be produced in large quantities. So the TALL narrow building must support its own weight throughout its height and it must withstand the wind.

The wind is a SHEER FORCE on a skyscraper just like an airliner would be.

So I would suggest emphasizing the strength and mass of the building then proceed to the effect an airliner and fire might have on it.

So how much steel had to weaken in how little time for the entire building to come down? I swear the more I think about this the more ridiculous it is. But that also means more experts need to keep this issue confused otherwise they look like the idiots and liars that they are.

The nation that put men on the Moon can't tell the entire world the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level of buildings designed before 1969? And yet they want to talk about educating children to compete in the high technology future!!! Excuse me!

The Empire State Building may have been high technology in 1931 but it ain't today.

Maybe you should watch the movie 9/11 Mysteries.

video.google.com...#

psik

PS - I would skip all of the "Inside Job", "Conspiracy Trash"!

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

The wind is a SHEER FORCE on a skyscraper just like an airliner would be.

No, it most certainly is not.

Sheer force is spread over a very large area. Wind does not focus all of it's energy on a small portion of the building like an airplane crash would.

There are just too many variables and factors behind the collapse that it's utterly impossible to document any moment by moment physical progression of the collapse. How much damage did the plane cause to the structure when it impacted it? Noone really knows. What additional damage did the fires cause? Noone knows. At what point in the building did the building first begin to buckle at? Noone really knows. How badly did the impact deteriorate the fireproofing? Noone really knows. How effective was the fireproofing and the fire suppression systems? Noone really knows. Thus, you cannot scientifically prove anything when you have no real evidence to use to prove anything one way or the other.

The only thing anyone actually DOES know is that from the condition of the steel recovered from ground zero...and there are thousands of photos of this as well as steel being stored in a hanger at JFK even now...there weren't any controlled demolitions. All the steel was either ripped like paper, snapped like a twig, or bent into ghastly shapes. None of the steel shows evidence of sabotage from explosives. Yeah, the conspiracy theorists invent excuses on how super duper explosives noone has ever seen were used, and how there are secret gov't agents planted everywhere covering everything up, but these are excuses they're making up as they go along. YOU on the other hand are actually looking for verifiable facts.

yes. I am sure they wont bother with controlled demolition from now on. They will just fly planes into buildings lol
MUCH more effective. You even get free ones coming down within the vicinity. Just set some floors on fire and capoooosh... Miraculous ahhhhhhhhhh

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Even though it may be over your head, there are people in this world capable of at least physically testing the mechanism NIST described in their report.

NIST even set up a replica of a truss/perimeter system and put megawatt burners to it, which is exactly what they would have to do to test their hypothesis, but even at 700 C the truss wasn't able to exert any significant force on the perimeter column so they just said that this was for calibrating computer simulations. And then they tried multiple computer simulations while digitally increasing the fire's intensity in each simulation until they got to a result that they felt justified (but not proved) their hypothesis. This is stuff that would fail a middle school science project, except we're talking about an attempt to investigate the worst engineering disasters in recent history. I never bought the "we're too stupid as a species to figure this out" excuse, and I never will. Maybe you're too ignorant to figure out a way to prove they came down from fire alone, or then again maybe you're just wrong in assuming this must be the right explanation.

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

The wind is a SHEER FORCE on a skyscraper just like an airliner would be.

No, it most certainly is not.

Sheer force is spread over a very large area. Wind does not focus all of it's energy on a small portion of the building like an airplane crash would.

UTTER BULLSH!T!!!

The definition of shear is about the type of deformation it creates in the structure under stress.

121. Kinds of Stress. When the effect of a stress on a section of a body to which the stress is applied is to increase the dimensions of the body at right angles to the section, the stress is a tension; when the effect is to diminish this dimension, the stress is a pressure. A stress which alters the form but not the size of a body is called a shearing stress. The deformation which a body undergoes under a shearing stress may be aptly illustrated by the aid of a pack of cards, lying on a table and forming a rectangular parallelepiped. Imagine a horizontal force so applied as to cause each card to slip forward over the next one below it by the same amount. Each card will then move forward a distance proportional to its height above the table, and the pack has undergone a shear.

"Physics for college students"
www.archive.org...

The impact of the aircraft applied a horizontal force to the buildings as the wind would it was merely concentrated rather than spread out but it was still a SHEAR FORCE.

So people need to lie to cause confusion to keep this crap going.

psik

The WTC collapses have been analysed in some detail by NIST and by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

The NIST report focuses on the onset of collapse and doesn't explain the rest of the collapse at all, not even with the pancake theory, which they ultimately abandoned. A&E for 9/11 Truth have a more comprehensive analysis but also focus on refuting the notion that the upper portion of the towers hammered down on the lower portion, thus initiating the collapse.

The scientific fact that argues most for a controlled demolition of WTC 1,2 and 7 is symmetry.

An unassisted collapse is a progression into asymmetrical disorder.

No two floors of any of those buildings should have collapsed in the same way or at the same speed, if the collapses were purely gravity driven. In fact the buildings were damaged asymmetrically by the plane impacts and further weakened asymmetrically by the fires.

Asymmetries were present from the begining of the process of collapse and should have become progressively more asymmetrical as the collapse went on, until the upper collapsing portions of the towers sheared off from the lower portions and removed any pressure on them, leaving the stumps of the two towers remaining.

The orderly collapse of an entire tower, down to the ground, floor by floor, as on 9/11 is impossible, without assistance, without some agency in place to assert order.

Another important fact is the speed of the collapses. The towers came down at very near free fall speed. It is hard to calculate the exact time it took for the towers to collapse, but at an estimate of approximately 14 seconds, the towers collapsed at only 5/100ths of a second slower, per floor, than free fall speed. That's a conservative number. Some people put it faster, closer to exactly free fall speed.

In other words, the undamaged lower portions of the buildings, which had been supporting the entire structure for thirty years, provided almost no support to the building when sections in the upper third of the buildings began to buckle. That's not possible without explosive assistance.

WTC 1 and WTC 2 were controlled demolitions but they were not typical of controlled demolitions in that the debris field from them was not narrowly contained.

WTC 7, on the other hand, was a classic controlled demolition and looks the part. That kind of speedy symmetrical collapse into a narrowly confined area only happens in controlled demolitions.

Those are scientific facts.

There are some educated people running around here, but you should have a look at the nist report and contact A&EforTruth.

Originally posted by Cassius666
There are some educated people running around here, but you should have a look at the nist report and contact A&EforTruth.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
The WTC collapses have been analysed in some detail by NIST and by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

I have the NIST report downloaded and burned to DVD.

Where does it ever specify the total amount of concrete in the towers? What kind of SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS is that? When has AE911Truth ever talked about the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers?

Doesn't the conservation of momentum have to have something to do with any supposed collapse?

psik

It's true that there are differing accounts and no consistent source as to how much steel or concrete was in either or both of the Twin Towers. Not just trivial differences but differences that create order-of-magnitude differences in various equations.


If anyone wants to model the WTC Towers accurately using the data in the NIST report, they will fail. There is nowhere near enough data. They tell you some generic information about a "typical" floor, and "typical" column dimensions, etc., but that's it, and they don't even give enough information to model a whole floor accurately, or without having to resort to other sources that may or may not be accurate.


The rabbit hole there goes even deeper though. There are pre-9/11 sources that not only differ as to the amounts of materials, but multiple credible pre-9/11 sources (such an encyclopedia entries and articles featuring interviews with the original engineers) that claim the towers had a concrete wall around the outside of the core structure instead of just a gypsum wall. You can look these up online. At this point there is no way of telling as far as I can see.

Originally posted by zimishey
yes. I am sure they wont bother with controlled demolition from now on. They will just fly planes into buildings lol
MUCH more effective. You even get free ones coming down within the vicinity. Just set some floors on fire and capoooosh... Miraculous ahhhhhhhhhh

Yeah, except for all the variables that must be accurately accounted for.

You know, like material, fire progression, ventilation, wind direction, speed, time of burn, window breakage(which causes more ventilation) etc. etc. etc.

You cannot accurately account for all of those variables.

Explosives have 2 variables.

Placement.
Timing.

That's it.

Originally posted by patriots4truth
What are the 2-3 best introduction points that have to do with science?

I'm about to give a presentation with a lot of 9/11 research in it.
I want the points to be conclusive and undeniable.

The perps filmed themselves. The best expose I've seen examines the Naudet film and names names. It's not for the faint of heart or those lacking in time, but it's the most in-depth analysis of the Naudet film I've seen. You will need to drop a few bucks to purchase the film, because this link is like a study guide:

If you want a spoiler, head over to Appendix 4.

Jules Naudet's First Plane Shot Was Staged