99% Undeniable Conclusive Evidence That 9/11 Was An Inside Job

reply to post by -PLB-


I find it highly amusing that you chose to link this line from here: en.wikipedia.org...

It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory—if we look for confirmations.

Because Popper uses that as the starting point for his argument that confirmation has no bearing on the scientific status of a theory.

IT WAS POPPER I WAS REFERRING TO when I said that a theory is scientific IF AND ONLY IF it makes falsifiable predictions.

Just a couple of lines down:

One can sum up all this by saying that according to Popper, the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.

Unlike you I am not simply linking out of context quotes, I actually understand the basis of the argument.

Now scroll back up a couple of lines to this:

The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no predictions that can be observed is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is hardly applicable. In practice a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a minimum empirical basis, according to certain criteria: It is consistent with pre-existing theory, to the extent the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense. It is supported by many strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation, ensuring it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.

That would seem to support you, lets look at the source...

Oh, boy...

No source...

This is just something someone made up. You have to read Wikipedia with intelligence.

As for the rest of your quotes: They reveal the same misunderstanding and double standard. Jones subjected, and is still subjecting his samples to repeated testing and it was AFTER such repeated testing that he concluded it was thermite. That conclusion violates no established physical law and requires known processes well established in the literature.

YOUR ideas that it was fly ash or paint violates known physical law, has not survived ANY empirical testing and you are actively resisting further testing in a formal legally constituted setting.

It seems obvious which one the rational person should believe.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK

 

You have been ignoring several of my posts where I explain things to you in detail. As for your question, you can't be serious. It just shows your level of physics. I know, me not answering your stupid irrelevant question is proof to you I do not know physics. Your truther line of reasoning is noted.

I have a question for you. How much is (10+3-1)/2. If you do not answer this you do not know maths.

edit on 26-7-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

I have ignored nothing, you have explained nothing. What has your math question got to do with anything?

Answer that question I ask, what is so hard? It is a fundamental question, that will show whether you understand the basic physics we are disusing. It is a simple answer, you could look it up. Answering it will prove you know something actually related to what we're talking about. I have given the answer so you obviously know what it is, and obviously know it contradicts your whole claim. Your maths is just a distraction. You are not intellectually honest.

BTW it's 6

reply to post by Darkwing01


Man you are stubborn and close minded. If you really think that Jones work is a scientific theory, then have a good life in lala land.

reply to post by ANOK


My math questions has about the same relevance as your physics questions. Yes you need to know the basics of the basics, but it is saying nothing about the mechanics of the collapse. By just knowing some laws you can't know what happens when two random object drop on each other.

It took you so long to give that answer, I think you either looked it up or used a calculator. Just to confirm your math skills a bit more, how much is 3+3-1. If you do not answer this you do not know math. (Yes, this is how pathetic your reasoning is).

But anyway, you have ignored several posts. Like that post I pointed you to earlyer. But it is pretty much useless with you anyhow.

reply to post by -PLB-


Wasn't Rancourt the guy who started a debate with Harrit with a crass easily disproven ad hominem which revealed his failure to do proper research, and later claimed that high-rise buildings are nothing but large bombs waiting to explode?

Wasn't Rancourt the guy who first claimed that you can make thermite by rubbing steel and aeroplane parts together?

Wasn't Greening the guy who once claimed that Newton's laws don't always apply?

I don't mean to attack them personally, but if you are saying that these two guys substantially contributed to your understanding of what went on that day I am starting to understand how you could have been so terribly misguided.

reply to post by Darkwing01


I think I am better off with them than with this guy: www.youtube.com...

Or what about that guy who thinks he broke the law of conservation of energy, on of the most fundamental laws in physics. Whats his name, ah, yes Jones.

reply to post by -PLB-


Just putting silly music over a video doesn't change the fact that it is more accurate than than OS version of the same thing: The bendy straw analogy.

Gage's boxes actually have some relevance to the point he is making.

reply to post by Darkwing01


And that is exactly why you are stuck in a truther mindset. You think a model like that shows anything relevant with respect to the WTC collapses. Open your mind and look a bit further. Draw a couple of diagrams of internal floors crashing into each other. Look what the forces do, where the weakest link lies. Try to understand why "an average force of 1/3g" is a very misleading representation, making that model completely useless.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK

 

My math questions has about the same relevance as your physics questions. Yes you need to know the basics of the basics, but it is saying nothing about the mechanics of the collapse. By just knowing some laws you can't know what happens when two random object drop on each other.

Dude the laws of motion DOES explain what happens when two random objects are dropped on each other...

Newton's laws of motion are three physical laws that form the basis for classical mechanics. They describe the relationship between the forces acting on a body and its motion due to those forces. They have been expressed in several different ways over nearly three centuries,[2] and can be summarized as follows:

en.wikipedia.org...

In physics, classical mechanics is one of the two major sub-fields of mechanics, which is concerned with the set of physical laws describing the motion of bodies under the action of a system of forces. The study of the motion of bodies is an ancient one, making classical mechanics one of the oldest and largest subjects in science, engineering and technology.

en.wikipedia.org...

Stop being intellectually dishonest PLB. What an incredibility stupid claim.

It took you so long to give that answer, I think you either looked it up or used a calculator. Just to confirm your math skills a bit more, how much is 3+3-1. If you do not answer this you do not know math. (Yes, this is how pathetic your reasoning is).

Huh how can you claim that, you have NO idea how long it took me to reply after I read your post? Another stupid math question? 3+3-1, How old are you, five? I didn't ask you my question to test your knowledge, I did it to prove a point and I have done that, you won't answer the question because you know it contradicts your claims.

You know the answer is BOTH OBJECTS FEEL THE SAME FORCE! You know that answer contradictions ALL your claims, that is why you refuse to answer the question, and keep throwing silly irrelevant maths questions at me. Me knowing maths has nothing to do with the laws of motion, and how they work. You are acting extremely immature here mate. You came to the discussion claiming to be an electrical engineer, and you can't answer a simple physics question, so you are either bare faced lying, or you know the answer contradicts your claims.

If I answer your math question, right or wrong, it does NOT contradict my claims, do you notice the difference there genius? Quit ignoring the question.

reply to post by -PLB-

Try to understand why "an average force of 1/3g" is a very misleading

Newton's law is what what Newton's law is. Unless you have some other source of downward acceleration that is the only value that net force can be on average.

Any equation that does not arrive at this figure is wrong a priori. You cannot discard Newton's laws of motion because they conflict with your model.

Draw a couple of diagrams of internal floors crashing into each other. Look what the forces do, where the weakest link lies.

I was actually unsure of why the pancaking theory as you describe it was discarded after all the rubble pile is much less than what NIST ignored about other things.

That was until I saw this image, posted by NewAgeMan here www.abovetopsecret.com...



THAT was why NIST was forced to drop the pancake theory and go with the crush-down theory. Honestly I am not sure that crush-down is less plausible but at least it is apparently complex enough that it can bludgeon with math.

In this image you can see why the repeated attempts to re-invoke pancaking is doomed.



So drop the pancake, crush down is your only viable model.

Except I haven't seen anyone attempt to defend that one in a while, I wonder why.

reply to post by Darkwing01


The problem continues, because even assuming a perfectly inelastic collision the velocity of the falling floors does not translate directly to the lower floors:



Assume that the top floor has fallen for 1 second, impacting at 10m/s, and that each floor has a mass of 100 tonnes. Plug that in and you get a velocity of 5 m/s, nowhere near enough since the fresh start scenario is an order of magnitude off the real collapse time.

So you have now reduced the collapse time from 100s to about 50s, so you are still 30s off and you have made an unrealistic assumption in favor of the collapse (perfect inelasticity) and haven't accounted for the breaking the connections or frictions.

Can you see now why NIST dropped the pancake theory?

Originally posted by ANOK
Dude the laws of motion DOES explain what happens when two random objects are dropped on each other...

No it DOESN'T. You need to know the composition, shape and inner structure of the objects. You can't just take two random objects and say "The law of motion say that this and that will happen". And that is exactly what you are doing.

Huh how can you claim that, you have NO idea how long it took me to reply after I read your post? Another stupid math question? 3+3-1, How old are you, five? I didn't ask you my question to test your knowledge, I did it to prove a point and I have done that, you won't answer the question because you know it contradicts your claims.

You know the answer is BOTH OBJECTS FEEL THE SAME FORCE! You know that answer contradictions ALL your claims, that is why you refuse to answer the question, and keep throwing silly irrelevant maths questions at me. Me knowing maths has nothing to do with the laws of motion, and how they work. You are acting extremely immature here mate. You came to the discussion claiming to be an electrical engineer, and you can't answer a simple physics question, so you are either bare faced lying, or you know the answer contradicts your claims.

If I answer your math question, right or wrong, it does NOT contradict my claims, do you notice the difference there genius? Quit ignoring the question.

So you don't know that answer to this simple question. You don't know math (Yes, truther logic is annoying). If you don't ask those questions to test my knowledge, why are you spreading slander saying that I don't know physics because I didn't know the answer to your stupid questions because I didn't answer them?

And again, I answered your misconception in a previous post. I explain there why the forces on the top and lower floor connections are different. Look it up and answer that.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by -PLB-

 

Newton's law is what what Newton's law is. Unless you have some other source of downward acceleration that is the only value that net force can be on average.

Any equation that does not arrive at this figure is wrong a priori. You cannot discard Newton's laws of motion because they conflict with your model.

A master of deception uses truths to make people come to a wrong conclusion.

Sure, the average force is 1/3gm. But this says nothing about the internal forces. On t=x1 the force on bolt y1 could have been 10gm, making it fail. On t=x2 the force on column y2 could have been 5gm, making it fail.

The notion that the lower building should be able to hold 1/3 of its static load is pure deception.

I was actually unsure of why the pancaking theory as you describe it was discarded after all the rubble pile is much less than what NIST ignored about other things.

That was until I saw this image, posted by NewAgeMan here www.abovetopsecret.com...



THAT was why NIST was forced to drop the pancake theory and go with the crush-down theory. Honestly I am not sure that crush-down is less plausible but at least it is apparently complex enough that it can bludgeon with math.

In this image you can see why the repeated attempts to re-invoke pancaking is doomed.



So drop the pancake, crush down is your only viable model.

Except I haven't seen anyone attempt to defend that one in a while, I wonder why.

Crushdown is pancaking. Why can't truthers phatom this?

But since you are constantly stuck with definitions lets drop both definitions, both pancaking and crush down, and forget about them. Lets just write down what happened and not give it a name, as that only confuses people.

What happened was that the top section fell down on the floor below. The floor below failed and its mass added to the falling top section. This process repeated itself till the ground.

Your graphs do not take in consideration the mass of the top section, nor the mass of added floors. I have already told you this by the way. Open your mind.

reply to post by -PLB-


Actually I was off on my 50s figure, if you iterate it it would come closer to 20s or so, still well over the actual collapse time, but even here I speak under correction not being a virtuoso with these equations.

However, what part of me including the mass in the equation did you miss?

The simple fact is that in an inelastic collision the velocity must decrease each time there is an impact, a massive decrease for the first couple of impacts in fact (hence the missing jolt). This decrease is PRECISELY because of the masses involved. The net force on the stationary floor is ZERO, because it is not accelerating and not accelerating is the definition of being subjected to a zero net force.

This is BEFORE we add frictions and the floor supports.

But why do you have these magical 50gram rated bolts? Of course the floor would break from the impact but they still needed to support up to four times its own mass PLUS whatever live loads could be expected. now you are trying to sell us breakaway bolts.

That is BEFORE we calculate the coefficient of restitution, which will increase with each successive impact because the material is not compacted.

It is BEFORE we estimate the friction from imperfect alignment of the floors.

It is BEFORE we correct for losses noise and heat.

It is BEFORE all these things, and already the collapse time is too long.

Crushdown is pancaking. Why can't truthers phatom this?

Crushdown is NOT pancaking.

In pancaking you have an iteration of collisions. In crush down you have a single equation describing an accreting mass accelerating through a medium of some density.

They are COMPLETELY different conceptually.

For one thing it is much easier to rig crush-down to yield whatever collapse time you desire, and this is exactly what Bazant did.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by -PLB-

 

Actually I was off on my 50s figure, if you iterate it it would come closer to 20s or so, still well over the actual collapse time, but even here I speak under correction not being a virtuoso with these equations.

However, what part of me including the mass in the equation did you miss?

The simple fact is that in an inelastic collision the velocity must decrease each time there is an impact, a massive decrease for the first couple of impacts in fact (hence the missing jolt). This decrease is PRECISELY because of the masses involved. The net force on the stationary floor is ZERO, because it is not accelerating and not accelerating is the definition of being subjected to a zero net force.

This is BEFORE we add frictions and the floor supports.

But why do you have these magical 50gram rated bolts? Of course the floor would break from the impact but they still needed to support up to four times its own mass PLUS whatever live loads could be expected. now you are trying to sell us breakaway bolts.

That is BEFORE we calculate the coefficient of restitution, which will increase with each successive impact because the material is not compacted.

It is BEFORE we estimate the friction from imperfect alignment of the floors.

It is BEFORE we correct for losses noise and heat.

It is BEFORE all these things, and already the collapse time is too long.

We have a mass of at least 12 floor + life loads + core columns + perimiter columns + mast falling on a floor with a mass of just one floor + life loads. How much do you think this mass will slow down the falling mass? Besides, when you think explosives or thermite was used, this effect still happens.

Crushdown is NOT pancaking.

In pancaking you have an iteration of collisions. In crush down you have a single equation describing an accreting mass accelerating through a medium of some density.

They are COMPLETELY different conceptually.

For one thing it is much easier to rig crush-down to yield whatever collapse time you desire, and this is exactly what Bazant did.

Like I said, lets just drop these terms, as we do not agree on their definitions. The only thing they do is create confusion.

reply to post by -PLB-

We have a mass of at least 12 floor + life loads + core columns + perimiter columns + mast falling on a floor with a mass of just one floor + life loads. How much do you think this mass will slow down the falling mass? Besides, when you think explosives or thermite was used, this effect still happens.

Why does it matter how big the mass was in absolute terms?

Surely the only thing one should consider is the mass RELATIVE to the load the floors could support.

reply to post by Darkwing01


Sure. And how do you think this relation is? If we assume a 4 times safety factor (not sure where this comes from but ok), then the mass of the floors in the top alone already outweighs the load capacity by a factor 3. Add to that the mass of the columns, antenna, lifts, plane etc, this ratio only becomes larger. And then we aren't even considering dynamic loads, but pure static loads. How could the floor ever have stopped this mass? How could the collapse ever have arrested?

reply to post by -PLB-


Cross Post

Like I said, lets just drop these terms, as we do not agree on their definitions. The only thing they do is create confusion.

No, it is a crucial distinction, dropping the terms is what is adding to the confusion.

What you were describing is a pancake collapse, you can call it what you like. Some people like calling it ROOSD, but it is still a pancake collapse.

It is no use conflating it with crush down collapse, because both the benefits and advantages of using each model makes an immense difference to the calculations you need to do to see if it is realistic.

The name isn't important, but it is important to classify it into a broad category.

reply to post by Darkwing01


To get this clear, the distinction you make between pancake collapse and crush down collapse is that in a pancake collapse the floor connections fail, and in a crush down collapse the support columns fail?

reply to post by -PLB-

Sure. And how do you think this relation is? If we assume a 4 times safety factor (not sure where this comes from but ok), then the mass of the floors in the top alone already outweighs the load capacity by a factor 3. Add to that the mass of the columns, antenna, lifts etc, this ratio only becomes larger. And then we aren't even considering dynamic loads, but pure static loads. How could the building not collapse?

That is all wrong.

1) I said "up to four times", I have seen various figures and it depends on the actual live loading in place at the time of the collapse. I didn't say 4x.

Okay it is a bit of marketing speak, but we are guesstimating.

2) If the floor has a safety factor of three that means it can support its own weight three times without failing.

You need to have up to five floors on that assembly to make it fail in the static mode.

3) The antennas were supported by the perimeter columns, the lifts by the core. Neither were supported directly by the floor assemblies themselves.

Even if these WERE supported by by the floors that load would be calculated in the safety margin at the start, so you cannot re-invoke them here.

4) If you want to argue that antenna FELL ON the floors, then the big problem becomes entanglement and asymmetry: We know that the idealized pancaking condition could in no way shape or form have occurred with the tilting antenna, and if it is only the hat truss that allows the floor weight to be overcome, what made the far side collapse?