UNDER CONSTRUCTION
By John-Michael Talboo and Scootle Royale
Intro
By John-Michael Talboo and Scootle Royale
Intro
What follows is a much belated response (due to still totally unresolved formatting difficulties and laziness) to mechanical engineer "tfk" to counter his responses to John-Michael's post, "One Thing Wrong and a A Lot of Things Right." The retorts of tfk can be found at the JREF Forum link here. If the reader has not seen how this debate has progressed, they probably should for a better understanding of the situation, but most things should be clear enough either way. Our text (as well as quoted) will be in red, tfk's in blue. For the most part these exchanges have been civil and fair, especially in regards to Oystein, so read his replies if you dig into the JREF thread. That said! :)
What this back and forth will eventually devolve into.
JM has written that he wants our communication to be confidential. That way he doesn't have to worry about insulting people. I told him to not write anything that he wouldn't want the other person to hear. I do this to pass on info, so all of the 9/11 stuff we discuss will get posted. I will strip out all personal info.
No, I wrote, so "I don't have to worry about pissing other people off by revealing things that they might not want public." I will say anything I say about somebody to their face and didn't say anything about insulting people. For example, I once, with no ill intent, posted an email exchange with an NYC official, which was sent to him although he never once said to keep things confidential anyway. Then years later, he saw it and got irate and either lied about a confidentiality disclaimer having been on our exchanges, or hid it miles at the bottom of the email exchange in microscopic text. In any event, I pulled the post and got back on a friendly tone with him. I even found out from Tony Szamboti that you don't like your real name out there, which you never told me, but might have thought you did and got pissed.
Mr. Talboo,
Howdy. My name is REMOVED. I post at the JREF forum on issues related to 9/11 under the name "tfk". Not very imaginative, I'm afraid.
I'm pretty informal, so you're welcome to call me REMOVED.
I've always been taught that, if you have something unpleasant to say about someone, you should say it to them directly. Or at least give them a chance to defend themselves.
So that is the nature of this note: an invitation to come & defend yourself. Specifically some posts that you've written on "Debunking the Debunkers".
Howdy. My name is REMOVED. I post at the JREF forum on issues related to 9/11 under the name "tfk". Not very imaginative, I'm afraid.
I'm pretty informal, so you're welcome to call me REMOVED.
I've always been taught that, if you have something unpleasant to say about someone, you should say it to them directly. Or at least give them a chance to defend themselves.
So that is the nature of this note: an invitation to come & defend yourself. Specifically some posts that you've written on "Debunking the Debunkers".
You didn't tell me to "not write anything" that I "wouldn't want the other person to hear," in response to something I said as is implied here, but rather opened by saying that you have "been taught that, if you have something unpleasant to say about someone, you should say it to them directly," meaning directly to me in your email. Myself, I try very hard to not attack people but ideas, so the adage you've been taught wasn't lost on me and rarely applies, if ever, to me and would be manned up to in any cases it did. Ask Oystein, we chatted about such matters in emails.
You said, "I will proceed as if all of these notes between us will be published at some point. If there is anything you wish held in confidence, just let me know &I will comply." To which I replied, " "I like all emails held in confidence," however, you revealed things about me I wrote in the emails. So if you wanted to honor your word then you needed to ask permission to reveal anything. Everything means everything. I don't think I'd have turned down anything much at all, I'd have to go back and look, but it's a matter of principle.
Originally Posted by JM Talboo
It is not only "untenable", it is "wrong". Which is a much bigger problem for Grabbe.
However, Mr. Talboo gives absolutely zero argument or rationale or evidence to back up his assertion that Grabbe's claim is wrong.
I said I agreed with debunkers, they provided the reasons his claim is untenable at the link I provided. See in particular this comment from Oystein.
Peer-review
Peer-review
Grabbe did not write a paper, he wrote a discussion. The peer review process is very different & far less stringent.
And a point that seems eternally lost on those unfamiliar with scientific publishing: a passed peer review does NOT mean that the the paper's conclusions are correct, does not even mean that the reviewers think that the paper's conclusions are correct. Apparently, Mr. Talboo wishes us to castigate JEM for publishing Grabbe's letter. I could not disagree more.
Grabbe wrote a discussion paper that was supposed to be peer-reviewed. They don't have to think he is correct in his interpretations of the data, but they should check his math. I'm begging the question of what this says about the journal and saying "debunkers" should too, because they did it for far less solid reasons with Bentham. The following was written by me on 9/30/12 concerning their peer-review process:
...After being told on YouTube that, "There is a rebuttal to Zdenek Bazant's January 2011 paper with an editor at JEM right now, "grandmastershek" responded, "You mean Bjorkmans comments? Yeah discussion papers are not peer reviewed."
To which mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti retorted:
No, it is not Bjorkman's comments. It is a substantial correction of major errors in the Bazant and Le January 2011 paper in JEM which are not ambiguous and that their claim that deceleration of the North Tower upper section in a natural collapse would be too small to be visible is erroneous. I hate to burst your little bubble here bubba but I would tend to think Discussion papers are more rigorously reviewed than standard papers, owing to the fact that they are criticizing a published paper and the author of the paper being criticized gets to respond.Bjorkman (who has "more than 40 years experience in steel structural design and structural damage analysis") noted at The 911 Forum that he sent his discussion paper into the JEM in February 2009 and that following June was "advised it had been reviewed and was going to be published."
Further backing up Szamboti's argument is chemical engineer James Gourley, who described the process of getting his discussion paper refuting Bazant published in the JEM on 911blogger.com. Gourley states, "Not much is ever written about what we go through to get these papers published. The publication of this paper is a case study in the struggles we face." He notes that he had to "remove language that the editors thought was too argumentative" and that he left out a number of points he could have raised, knowing that "it would be difficult to get a paper critical of the official story published in a mainstream scientific journal" and "didn't want to give JEM any reason to reject it."
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), which oversees the JEM and many other scientific journals, makes essentially the same point, in their "ASCE Authors’ Guide," as Szamboti did, that "Discussions present significant comments or questions about the technical content of a technical paper." The guide goes on to state that "Discussions follow the requirements for other manuscripts except that they do not have abstracts, introductions, or conclusions." [All above emphasis added.]
Considered in sum, it certainly looks like discussion papers are indeed peer-reviewed. But just to make certain, I contacted Szamboti as well as esteemed scientist Dr. Crockett Grabbe, who replied:
I know they are peer reviewed in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, as Richard Johns and I just went through that with our Discussion of the Le and Bazant January 2011 paper [mentioned here]. There was at least one reviewer other than the editor.
Tony Szamboti
JM,
Yes, the discussion papers submitted to JEM are peer-reviewed. I have had 2 papers peer-reviewed & accepted to JEM: one appeared in 4/11 (taking apart Sefen), & the one I submitted early summer of 2011 will appear in October of 2012 (which takes on Bazant).
Crockett Grabbe
PhD in Applied Physics, Caltech, 1978
Originally Posted by JM Talboo
"In doing so, however, does that not put the peer-review of Bazant's papers in question as well? … This paper was also published, and apparently reviewed, in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics during those 48 hours."
Mr. Talboo is undoubtably repeating something that he's been told. The fact is that the statement is wrong. As about 2 minutes of research will show.
(Mr. Talboo doesn't do "research" very we'll. Perhaps not at all.) Nothing in JEM was reviewed in 48 hours. Nothing was published in JEM in 48 hours.
(Mr. Talboo doesn't do "research" very we'll. Perhaps not at all.) Nothing in JEM was reviewed in 48 hours. Nothing was published in JEM in 48 hours.
The original version with equations (1) and (2) was originally submitted to ASCE on September 13...
...Darwinism has been attacked dozens of times by experts in the field, hundreds of times in print by amateurs (before the internet) & thousands of times by the clueless (since the internet).
And yet, Darwinism stands, comfortable, serenely untroubled by the "debunking of the clueless."
I stand corrected on the time frame, but Bazant still formed his theory, and was confident enough to go public, within a couple of days. It doesn't matter who you are, that's not being careful given the unprecedented nature of the Tower collapses, which included the high-speed ejection of structural steel members and assemblies, pulverization of a large fraction of the concrete floors, and near complete destruction down to the ground and even into the basements.
And yet, Darwinism stands, comfortable, serenely untroubled by the "debunking of the clueless."
I stand corrected on the time frame, but Bazant still formed his theory, and was confident enough to go public, within a couple of days. It doesn't matter who you are, that's not being careful given the unprecedented nature of the Tower collapses, which included the high-speed ejection of structural steel members and assemblies, pulverization of a large fraction of the concrete floors, and near complete destruction down to the ground and even into the basements.
Please don't say that the nature of the aircraft impact damage was unprecedented, as most of the structure in the Towers was undamaged by the jetliner impacts and ensuing fires. The official account blames the removal of the fireproofing insulation on the jetliner damage, while also saying that without the fireproofing removal the buildings would still be standing. So it is only by that argument that the impact had anything to do with the collapses of the buildings per the NIST report. Bazant did not assume the widespread removal of fireproofing, so he is in conflict with NIST here. He also initially assumed the fires reached temperatures of 800 degrees to cause the initiation, a point he later had to back away from. Bazant essentially ignored the unprecedented fact that the Twin Towers would have been the first steel-framed high-rise skyscrapers in history to collapse because of fire in his hypothesis. Nothing that I have said here is false, my proof lies in the paper,"Other Collapses in Perspective: An Examination of Other Steel Structures Collapsing due to Fire and their Relation to the WTC," by Adam Taylor, contributor for Debunking the Debunkers blog. Addressed within and debunked are the claims made about widely dislodged fireproofing.
Bazant should have taken his time and seriously considered explosives. He also should have conducted experiments to support his theory as others have done (mentioned later) which don't support his theory.
As I previously pointed out, Bazant's first paper we are discussing, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis," is posted at Hoffman's site with responses in red text. Bazant states that it will "be appropriate to initiate research on materials and designs that would postpone the collapse of the building so as to extend the time available for evacuation..." Hoffman responds, "because even though multi-story steel structures have never 'collapsed before 9-11, now their collapse will be inevitable in the event of fire."
What changes did Bazant's article undergo between the time it was submitted and the official publication date 3+ months thereafter? If it didn't undergo significant changes, then the reviewer rubber-stamped it. If it did undergo significant changes, then Bazant is not the god-king of structural engineering you think he is. It isn't a false dichotomy when it's true. My a priori case stems from my prior knowledge that when people rush through their work they often make mistakes. A bunch of people telling him he did bad work just adds to my case. And it took Darwin 20 years of research before publishing an essay on his theory.
In the Journal of 9/11 Studies paper, "WTC Destruction: An Analysis of Peer Reviewed Technical Literature 2001—2012," by Timothy E. Eastman, Ph.D. (Geophysics), and Jonathan H. Cole, P.E, they argue, "The first submitted draft paper on the mechanism of collapse is that by Bazant, submitted September 13, 2001 (see first entry of Table 2, including its footnote). It is our professional opinion that, by any measure, a responsible, professional research paper on this complex event that was not begun until September 11 could not have been completed and submitted by September 13."
And a point that seems eternally lost on those unfamiliar with scientific publishing: a passed peer review does NOT mean that the the paper's conclusions are correct, does not even mean that the reviewers think that the paper's conclusions are correct.
This statement, with its dripping sarcasm, is PRECISELY the equivalent of someone getting onto some prominent stage & proclaiming, "You must think that I'm an idiot to believe your claim that some guy named Michael Jordan stepped onto a court & led his team to multiple NBA championships." And then stepping back from the mike and smiling smugly, as if they had made a compelling point.
The one & only thing that such a statement would demonstrate is how clueless the speaker was regarding American basketball, MJ & MJ's body of work.
Just as Mr. Hoffman & Mr. Talboo are clueless regarding structural engineering, Dr. Bazant & Dr. Bazant's body of work.
A one minute google search for Dr. Bazant's Bio/CV, plus about 45 minutes actually reading it, would have demonstrated to both Mr. Hoffman & Mr. Talboo how utterly moronic their statements are.
[...]
Now, I strongly suspect that JEM was/is inclined to give Dr. Bazant a certain amount of slack that they would not give complete unknowns like, oh, say, Szudalinski, Gourley, Bjorkman, McQueen & Szamboti, for example, because of his experience & status...
... which includes, as Hoffman & Talboo would have discovered reading Bazant's CV, 8 years as an associate editor of, & 7 years ('88 - '94) as Editor in Chief of, …
... The Journal of Engineering Mechanics.
Editors in Chief (even retired ones) get a couple of perks. They deserve them. They've earned them.
[...]
Bazant is a world-class, renowned expert. He produced the heart of the paper in 2 days, and expanded over the course of the next 3 weeks. Bazant was able to do this for one reason: it is right down the middle of his professional experience.
He knew what he was doing. He was right.
[...]
You, Mr Talboo, are holding yourself up as a "9/11 pundit" when, as a "basketball pundit", you don't know the difference between Michael Jordan Gary Coleman.
Ok, we get it. Bazant is amazing. He's Isaac Newton, Carl Sagan, Albert Einstein, Charles Darwin, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, Brian Cox, Sir David Attenborough, Morgan Freeman, The Doctor, Danger Mouse, Macgyver and Chuck Norris all in one single package of pure, undiluted science.
This love fest is one long exercise in appealing to authority - a logical fallacy which JREFers especially should recognize. Tfk even justifies peer-review bias - saying Bazant has earned the right to special treatment. NO ONE has the right to special treatment in the peer-review process. The peer-review process is supposed to be totally impartial. If it's not impartial, it's nothing. We might as well do away with peer-review altogether.
Unfortunately intelligence is not as simple as basketball skill. Even some of the cleverest people alive can be complete idiots when their ego and belief system requires them to be. You can't just appeal to cleverness when it comes to things like this.
The mainstream and antiwar Left media are once again demonstrating this principle in the way that they are running on top of each other like crazed drunken lemmings on LSD, not only repeating the error they made 10 years ago, but making a worse one, regarding the possession and/or use of weapons of mass destruction by an official enemy of the United States government. Several prominent members of the mainstream media apologized for "getting it wrong" before. Some of them tried to excuse their earlier failure byclaiming that they had no alternative sources with whom to consult. That was bunk then, as any number of intelligence community insiders were offering there contrary and cautionary views. It's even more bunk now. [Long list of references anyone could find with a simple search] So I don't care how many Pulitzers or Nobels somebody has hanging on the wall; the peer review process should remain uncorrupted -- ESPECIALLY when we are called upon to ""six impossible things before breakfast.
Experts and Reporters
Mr. Talboo would have been well advised to check Mr. Hoffman's resume as well. Especially for key words, such as "structural engineering" or "mechanical engineering". He would have come up with a big, fat goose egg. Mr Hoffman's expertise: Computer Graphics.
This can be found with about 2 minutes of research as well.
Jim Hoffman created the website and wrote the vast majority of its original content. Hoffman has a background in software engineering, mechanical engineering, and scientific visualization. Hoffman also created the Web publishing system used to maintain the 9-11 Research website.
There are two distinct roles of people who publish conclusions about any technical topic: 1) the expert, and 2) the reporter. Each role utilize different skills when they are doing their job competently.
The expert sets aside his/her ego & makes absolutely certain that they really, really know what they are talking about. They don't wander outside of their narrow field of expertise. This is exactly the gross error made by Steven Jones, Harrit, Ferrar, Chandler, Szamboti, etc. (Note that any one of these guys has every right to ask hard, demanding questions. Then, being amateurs, they all need to listen very carefully to the answers of real experts, like Bazant, Sunder, Gross, Corley, McAllister, etc., rather than misleading non-tech people about their amateur status & posting ignorant crap.
Then we come to the reporters, like Mr. Talboo or our own Chris Mohr [John-Michael contributes to his debate site] (and in a real sense, almost all of us posters who do not have specific, professional expertise in a pertinent field). They are not expected to provide any technical answers themselves, but are absolutely required to be able to distinguish true answers from BS. And their principle tool for doing this, the specific trait that reporters are required to bring to their profession, is a very highly developed epistemology & BS detector.
This is what really distinguishes you (Chris M & me) from Mr. Talboo: the knowledge that one should question everyone, but that, when it comes to technical, objective questions, one should put a very high value in the consensus assessment of hundreds of real experts, and a very low level of trust in the assessment of abject amateurs.
The expert sets aside his/her ego & makes absolutely certain that they really, really know what they are talking about. They don't wander outside of their narrow field of expertise. This is exactly the gross error made by Steven Jones, Harrit, Ferrar, Chandler, Szamboti, etc. (Note that any one of these guys has every right to ask hard, demanding questions. Then, being amateurs, they all need to listen very carefully to the answers of real experts, like Bazant, Sunder, Gross, Corley, McAllister, etc., rather than misleading non-tech people about their amateur status & posting ignorant crap.
Then we come to the reporters, like Mr. Talboo or our own Chris Mohr [John-Michael contributes to his debate site] (and in a real sense, almost all of us posters who do not have specific, professional expertise in a pertinent field). They are not expected to provide any technical answers themselves, but are absolutely required to be able to distinguish true answers from BS. And their principle tool for doing this, the specific trait that reporters are required to bring to their profession, is a very highly developed epistemology & BS detector.
This is what really distinguishes you (Chris M & me) from Mr. Talboo: the knowledge that one should question everyone, but that, when it comes to technical, objective questions, one should put a very high value in the consensus assessment of hundreds of real experts, and a very low level of trust in the assessment of abject amateurs.
I put it like this, consolidation of and commentary on existing research after careful examination is a type of research. It strengthens causes by connecting disconnected pieces of information and putting things in perspective. When Oystein commented through email (with permission to quote him) that in my post being discussed I should base things on what I "come to find as correct, and not who wrote it," he was right. However, who it comes from has some bearing as long as I include something about why I don't find counter arguments about the issue compelling. In this case the issue is does the "Volume of Dust Clouds Proves Demolition" argument have any merit.
Oystein via email, referring to the dust cloud, told me that "That sucker was cold!," And in the article I wrote, "It is claimed by some that the dust cloud was cold. However, New York Daily News photographer David Handschuh was quoted as saying, "I got down to the end of the block and turned the corner when a wave-- a hot, solid, black wave of heat threw me down the block. It literally picked me up off my feet and I wound up about a block away." Firefighter Timothy Julian also described the dust cloud as being hot.
Is my BS detector working here? Was that sucker cold? No, it wasn't, lending credence to Hoffman's theory because, as he puts it, in Bazant's model "there would be very little heat produced to drive the dust cloud expansion."
It should also be pointed out that others have done different calculations, but have come to the same ultimate conclusion, that the energy wasn't there.
It should also be pointed out that others have done different calculations, but have come to the same ultimate conclusion, that the energy wasn't there.
There are also these energy/momentum calculations by Hoffman and (separately) Keeling:
http://911research.wtc7.net/
http://math.uni-graz.at/
http://911research.wtc7.net/
http://math.uni-graz.at/
One doesn't need to get into all the "fuzzy math" about cloud expansion to see that the energy expended in the destruction exceeded what was available on the official story.
First question: Who is JM Talboo? More specific & pertinent, what are his qualifications?
Of COURSE the first question is "Who is J-M Talboo?", invoking the customary a priori argumentation strategy often employed by "debunkers" that serves to go about negating and/or deflating any cerebral claims made about any issue.
So to answer your question, I'm this cat, who by way of your logic has defeated you in this debate because he need not raise any salient points as long as he demonstrates how amazing he is.
Amateurs Judging Experts
Why do you constantly believe amateurs over experts, JM?
You mean these experts?
From the article: The Admissibility of Expert Testimony When the Expert Fails to Address Alternative Causes of Injury: [In this case the injury of the Twin Towers]
Testimony of an expert witness can be very powerful. But with its power comes danger because juries have great difficulty discerning genuine from junk science. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 595 (1993). Sometimes an expert’s opinion seems grounded on little more than the expert’s inflated resume [Bazant] and say-so. One circumstance where that problem arises is when there is more than one plausible explanation for the plaintiff’s injury, but the expert reaches the conclusion favoring his client without ruling out other potential causes of the injury.So, did Bazant rule out explosives in two days by conducting no forensic tests or physical experiments, even until this day? Yes.
That said, I thought it would be an appropriate time to let a fellow mechanical engineer, Tony Szamboti, address something you said:
No, what happened to the North Tower had a precedent right next door about 1/2 hour earlier. It now seems clear & consistent: in the only two examples of large passenger jets flown into steel tube-within-tube skyscrapers with blown on insulation, the buildings collapsed. That is exactly why we will never again see skyscrapers built in this fashion, with this inherent flaw vis a vis murderous terrorists. As a fine example, look at the completely different design of the Freedom Tower just constructed on the WTC7 site.]
Szamboti replies:
First we need to correct your claim that the Freedom Tower (the name of which was changed to One World Trade Center by the Port Authority on March 30, 2009) was not built on the WTC 7 site. It is built within the confines of the original WTC complex bathtub. It is hard to understand where you might have gotten your information that tube within a tube design for tall buildings was discontinued after 911, as both the new One World Trade Center and the new WTC7 are of that type of design. The one difference between these new buildings and those they replaced is that they have concrete cores. However, this could not have been done to correct any flaw in the original Twin Towers from the perspective of the NIST report, as they said the problem occurred due to bowing of the exterior wall, and One World Trade Center uses the same design as that of the original with a steel moment frame exterior and horizontal steelwork supporting open space floors between it and the central core.
"was adament that nothing less than a literal rebuilding of the towers would do."
As to putting "very high value in the consensus assessment of hundreds of real experts". First off, when AE911Truth reached 1,000 members it was noted that they represented "25,000 years of collective experience" and they are the "consensus assessment." Here is a summary of an article I, John-Michael, wrote for AE911Truth. You can challenge the statement that only a few dozen A/E's have openly supported the NIST reports if you want, but do so by making a list that includes a quote from each individual on the matter. I doubt you'll get anywhere close to 1,700 without having to quote individuals belonging to large organizations, as if all of their members speak with one monolithic authoritative voice. My suggestion is don't nitpick the summary, but read the article.
FAQ #6: Why does AE911Truth represent only a small percentage of architects and engineers?
Most architects and engineers have never been presented with the scientific evidence of controlled demolition. In addition, most of those who take the time to examine this evidence acknowledge that the official story can’t be true. As of the date of this publication, there are almost 1,700 architects and engineers who openly support the findings of AE911Truth vs. only a few dozen who have openly supported the NIST WTC reports. Even so, in the end, the evidence stands on its own, regardless of how many professionals are aware of it. A more detailed answer is available here.
Blog contributor Adam Taylor chimes in, "He acts as if we have no right to question Bazant's conclusions. Bazant certainly has good credentials, but he's not infallible. I refuse to treat Bazant as if he is the absolute authority. If there is one thing I've learned from people like Judy Wood, is that never assume someone is right just because of their credentials."
"There are no scientific authorities.That's a key point. There are scientific experts... But there is no one whose views are not subject to question. And that's the key point. There's no student that should ever be afraid of saying to a professor in a science class 'you're wrong and here's why.'" -Physicist Lawrence Krauss
Squibs
"'[D]ebunkers' do not think these processes are important. Here is a page that i and a few others authored at ae911truth debunking several claims of 'debunkers' relating to squibs." [who cares what a bunch of amateurs "author"?? No professionals care.] "included is the fact that calculations performed by grabbe show that the horizontal ejection rate of the squibs is disproportional to the floor and debris descent speeds that are allegedly responsible for them. One point not in the article, is one made by blog contributor adam taylor. In his video, "9/11 smoking guns: The squibs," he demonstrates that a squib in the south tower that appears approximately 40 stories below the demolition wave, forms approximately 3 seconds into the collapse. If something was falling through the building to cause the squib, as "debunkers" have claimed, it would have to be falling faster than gravitational freefall, which is impossible." [neither taylor nor you, jm, have any clue about the processes involved. The pressure wave from the collapsing upper section travels at over 5000'/sec, even tho the upper block travels much, much slower. The pressure wave from the collapse of wtc2, flying thru underground tunnels connecting the two towers, blew fire fighters in the stairwells of wtc1 off of their feet & is seen to blow smoke out of the top floors of wtc1 during its collapse. If you'd bothered to read the nist report, you would have seen this rather interesting fact.]
Adam Taylor responds:
After going back and looking closer at the videos, I found that the lowest squib from wtc2 actually forms less than 2.5 seconds into the collapse:
http://citizenfor911truth.wordpress.com/288-2/ It must be reiterated to debunkers that we are not just seeing air coming out of the buildings. It is pulverized building material. It's hard to imagine that any pulverized debris could possibly have travelled down the Tower that quickly. We're supposed to believe that this pulverized material travelled down over 550 feet in less than 2.5 seconds? Note that within the first 2.5 seconds of the Tower's collapse, it hasen't even begun to vertically descend. It's still in the process of tipping over. It tips toward the east, yet the squib forms on the southwest side of the building.
As AE911Truth notes:
There was no known mechanism by which pulverized building materials being created up at the zone of destruction could have been transported so far down through the building and to the exterior. Air conditioning vents would not have tolerated such pressures, and there was no other "channel" in the building to deliver "compressed air"... the pulverized building materials would not have been transported so quickly. Air would have been pushed ahead of such materials, resulting in transparent puffs of air flowing through the freshly broken windows. http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/585-faq-8-squibs.html
South Tower's Shift
"In Mackey's tortured scenario, the columns on the east side of the Tower -- those directly under the center of mass of the rotating and falling top -- were somehow able to catch the top and impart the force necessary to reverse the rotation." [This is gibberish. A competent freshman calculus student understands that "slowing down the angular acceleration" is completely different than "revers[ing] the rotation", in the same way that "accelerating slower" means that a vehicle is still increasing in speed, not that it is slowing down.
Mackey's argument is valid. There is an obvious restoring force, but obvious only if you understand the difference between angular acceleration and angular velocity. Hoffman either doesn't understand it, or chooses to mis-portray it.
Blog contributor Steve Weathers responds, "Regardless of how Hoffman is paraphrasing Mackey, it is clear that he is describing Mackey saying that the columns under the laterally moving block arrested the movement. How this is possible I would like to see. The JREFer says that there is an obvious restoring force –yeah, it was blown to bits like the rest of the building. Yes, it obviously stopped its lateral movement. And he writes that we can only understand this if we know the difference between acceleration and velocity. I think someone is over mis-portraying their sense of expertise here to deal out more bluster. …..an obvious restoring force….. sounds like bs .…"
Here is blog contributor Adam Taylor's video "9/11 Un-debunked Version 2.0: South Tower Should Have Toppled."
The South Tower's Top Disintegrated as it Fell - Source
."..It was somewhere between 6.7 and 6.8 seconds. The north tower was 417 meters tall, and WTC7 was 186 meters tall, so the distance between the two roofs was about 230 meters. The amount of time it would take to freefall that distance in a vaccum is about 6.85 seconds. So even if this beam was dropped from the height of the roof of the north tower" [What is Scootie's expertise, if you don't mind my asking. Regardless, ole Scottie sounds like a pretty dim bulb. You ain't exhibiting much luminosity yourself, JM, by being impressed by his nonsense. What on earth makes him think that the beam was dropped from "the roof of the North Tower"?? The destruction was happening about 12 - 18 floors below the roof. Why on earth is he pulling some wild assed guess as to where & when it started its fall, rather than doing a simple tracking of the CG of the object to see what it's height would have been if it had started at a zero vertical velocity. It ain't hard to calculate.] "at the exact moment the tower started to collapse, it still wouldn't have reached the roof of WTC7 in under 6.8 seconds. Put simply, this steel beam had to have been falling significantly faster than freefall." [Wrong.] Obviously this is impossible unless it was launched downwards by something, such as an explosion. [Amazing. A silent explosion. Hush-a-booms. Nope, still wrong.]
John-Michael:
Those so-called silent explosions are addressed in my Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth article here.
Scootle:
If you must know, top of my class in A-Level Physics and Applied Maths with Mechanics. Failed to achieve my target grade in both classes though because I got arrogant after two years of straight As and I didn't do any revision at all for my summer exams, and so I ended up with only Bs overall. It's a life lesson I've learned from though, which is why I'm not a debunker ;).
The reason I didn't track the beam is because I don't have the tools. Also, I don't think there's a good stationary video of the north tower's destruction in which that beam be seen - except for maybe this one, but that might be too far away.But even if the beam originated from say the first floor to be crushed by the upper block, that would actually make the 6.8 seconds to WTC7 even more implausible. The initial height for that would be about 360 meters. Minus WTC7's 186 meters gives you about 175 meters. It takes about 6 seconds to free fall 175 meters. But you have to add the amount of time before such a beam would be ejected. Since it's coming from the first floor of the lower block, it wouldn't be ejected until at least 1 second into the collapse. And in fact, you can see in videos that this beam isn't ejected until about one to two seconds into the collapse. So such a beam, free falling from the moment it was ejected, would not cross the roof line of WTC7 until over 7 seconds into the collapse. Free fall from the north tower's roof at zero seconds is a generous assumption. That was my point. That's why I compared the obsrations to the free fall from roof scenario. I did work all this out before
"There are no scientific authorities.That's a key point. There are scientific experts... But there is no one whose views are not subject to question. And that's the key point. There's no student that should ever be afraid of saying to a professor in a science class 'you're wrong and here's why.'" -Physicist Lawrence Krauss
Squibs
"'[D]ebunkers' do not think these processes are important. Here is a page that i and a few others authored at ae911truth debunking several claims of 'debunkers' relating to squibs." [who cares what a bunch of amateurs "author"?? No professionals care.] "included is the fact that calculations performed by grabbe show that the horizontal ejection rate of the squibs is disproportional to the floor and debris descent speeds that are allegedly responsible for them. One point not in the article, is one made by blog contributor adam taylor. In his video, "9/11 smoking guns: The squibs," he demonstrates that a squib in the south tower that appears approximately 40 stories below the demolition wave, forms approximately 3 seconds into the collapse. If something was falling through the building to cause the squib, as "debunkers" have claimed, it would have to be falling faster than gravitational freefall, which is impossible." [neither taylor nor you, jm, have any clue about the processes involved. The pressure wave from the collapsing upper section travels at over 5000'/sec, even tho the upper block travels much, much slower. The pressure wave from the collapse of wtc2, flying thru underground tunnels connecting the two towers, blew fire fighters in the stairwells of wtc1 off of their feet & is seen to blow smoke out of the top floors of wtc1 during its collapse. If you'd bothered to read the nist report, you would have seen this rather interesting fact.]
Adam Taylor responds:
After going back and looking closer at the videos, I found that the lowest squib from wtc2 actually forms less than 2.5 seconds into the collapse:
http://citizenfor911truth.wordpress.com/288-2/ It must be reiterated to debunkers that we are not just seeing air coming out of the buildings. It is pulverized building material. It's hard to imagine that any pulverized debris could possibly have travelled down the Tower that quickly. We're supposed to believe that this pulverized material travelled down over 550 feet in less than 2.5 seconds? Note that within the first 2.5 seconds of the Tower's collapse, it hasen't even begun to vertically descend. It's still in the process of tipping over. It tips toward the east, yet the squib forms on the southwest side of the building.
As AE911Truth notes:
There was no known mechanism by which pulverized building materials being created up at the zone of destruction could have been transported so far down through the building and to the exterior. Air conditioning vents would not have tolerated such pressures, and there was no other "channel" in the building to deliver "compressed air"... the pulverized building materials would not have been transported so quickly. Air would have been pushed ahead of such materials, resulting in transparent puffs of air flowing through the freshly broken windows. http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/585-faq-8-squibs.html
South Tower's Shift
"In Mackey's tortured scenario, the columns on the east side of the Tower -- those directly under the center of mass of the rotating and falling top -- were somehow able to catch the top and impart the force necessary to reverse the rotation." [This is gibberish. A competent freshman calculus student understands that "slowing down the angular acceleration" is completely different than "revers[ing] the rotation", in the same way that "accelerating slower" means that a vehicle is still increasing in speed, not that it is slowing down.
Mackey's argument is valid. There is an obvious restoring force, but obvious only if you understand the difference between angular acceleration and angular velocity. Hoffman either doesn't understand it, or chooses to mis-portray it.
Blog contributor Steve Weathers responds, "Regardless of how Hoffman is paraphrasing Mackey, it is clear that he is describing Mackey saying that the columns under the laterally moving block arrested the movement. How this is possible I would like to see. The JREFer says that there is an obvious restoring force –yeah, it was blown to bits like the rest of the building. Yes, it obviously stopped its lateral movement. And he writes that we can only understand this if we know the difference between acceleration and velocity. I think someone is over mis-portraying their sense of expertise here to deal out more bluster. …..an obvious restoring force….. sounds like bs .…"
Here is blog contributor Adam Taylor's video "9/11 Un-debunked Version 2.0: South Tower Should Have Toppled."
The South Tower's Top Disintegrated as it Fell - Source
The curvature of the wall shows about 30 stories above crash zone had shattered less than 2 seconds into the collapse
."..It was somewhere between 6.7 and 6.8 seconds. The north tower was 417 meters tall, and WTC7 was 186 meters tall, so the distance between the two roofs was about 230 meters. The amount of time it would take to freefall that distance in a vaccum is about 6.85 seconds. So even if this beam was dropped from the height of the roof of the north tower" [What is Scootie's expertise, if you don't mind my asking. Regardless, ole Scottie sounds like a pretty dim bulb. You ain't exhibiting much luminosity yourself, JM, by being impressed by his nonsense. What on earth makes him think that the beam was dropped from "the roof of the North Tower"?? The destruction was happening about 12 - 18 floors below the roof. Why on earth is he pulling some wild assed guess as to where & when it started its fall, rather than doing a simple tracking of the CG of the object to see what it's height would have been if it had started at a zero vertical velocity. It ain't hard to calculate.] "at the exact moment the tower started to collapse, it still wouldn't have reached the roof of WTC7 in under 6.8 seconds. Put simply, this steel beam had to have been falling significantly faster than freefall." [Wrong.] Obviously this is impossible unless it was launched downwards by something, such as an explosion. [Amazing. A silent explosion. Hush-a-booms. Nope, still wrong.]
John-Michael:
Those so-called silent explosions are addressed in my Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth article here.
Scootle:
If you must know, top of my class in A-Level Physics and Applied Maths with Mechanics. Failed to achieve my target grade in both classes though because I got arrogant after two years of straight As and I didn't do any revision at all for my summer exams, and so I ended up with only Bs overall. It's a life lesson I've learned from though, which is why I'm not a debunker ;).
The reason I didn't track the beam is because I don't have the tools. Also, I don't think there's a good stationary video of the north tower's destruction in which that beam be seen - except for maybe this one, but that might be too far away.But even if the beam originated from say the first floor to be crushed by the upper block, that would actually make the 6.8 seconds to WTC7 even more implausible. The initial height for that would be about 360 meters. Minus WTC7's 186 meters gives you about 175 meters. It takes about 6 seconds to free fall 175 meters. But you have to add the amount of time before such a beam would be ejected. Since it's coming from the first floor of the lower block, it wouldn't be ejected until at least 1 second into the collapse. And in fact, you can see in videos that this beam isn't ejected until about one to two seconds into the collapse. So such a beam, free falling from the moment it was ejected, would not cross the roof line of WTC7 until over 7 seconds into the collapse. Free fall from the north tower's roof at zero seconds is a generous assumption. That was my point. That's why I compared the obsrations to the free fall from roof scenario. I did work all this out before
ADAM ADD YOUR NEW VIDEO ABOUT THIS PILE-DRIVER IN THIS NEXT SECTION
The Pile-Driver
Where is that pile-driving mass ? [Right behind the opaque cloud that Steve pretends to see thru.] It does not exist. [Utterly laughable. The mass existed BEFORE the building began to collapse. The mass existed AFTER the building collapsed. (They had to truck it over to Fresh Kills.) But you assert that, while you can't see the mass behind a cloud, it suddenly ceases to exist. Pretty dang funny, JM.] The building here is being ripped apart by forces other than gravity.
Pile driver? What pile driver?
Talk about overly literal. He didn't mean the mass literally ceased to exist. He meant the upper block structure no longer existed. Without the structure all you have is a load of loose mass which would tend to follow the path of least resistance, so little if any further destruction of the lower block would occur.
In blog contributors Steve Weather's words, "Does the JREFer and Bazant et al have Xray vision? Their hypothetical model has no evidence. Where is that supposed upper block? There is no evidence for it. None. The block will be destroyed as it “crushes”the lower area as seen is so many real world examples like with Cole and CDs where half the building is pulled to fall and crush the lower block – but not with steel framed structures.
Who is the logical one here? Wow. We have the real Superman or is it some visionary ?… who KNOWS that the just behind the clouds must be that …. Falling block, doing all that hypothetical work, without being crushed up. This is what Bjorkman was pointing out. There’s no evidence for the Bazant assertion. And it’s counter to physical principles."
Can you find the pile driver in this image or any of the other images of the collapses of the Twin Towers?
Even if the pile driver is hidden within the dust cloud, it would only have a fraction of the mass of the former top of the building, since most of it was clearly falling outside of the building's profile.
Moreover it is noteworthy that the rubble falling outside of the tower's profile is falling at about the same rate at which the Tower is disappearing. Even the largest and heaviest pieces of rubble at the bottom edges of the rubble cloud are falling less than twice as fast as rubble falling inside the Tower's profile. But the rubble falling inside the Tower's profile is, according to the official explanation, crushing the building.
The top section of the building, above the airplane impact point, is what NIST claimed crushed the rest of the building to the ground. But the top section is seen being destroyed in the first 4 seconds. And after that there is no visual evidence of anything crushing the building. The building is seen tearing itself apart - Source
Does Evidence Support the Pile Driver Theory? - Source
- North Tower's Roof disappears about 4.5 seconds after first movement
- About 90 stories are still visible below explosion
- South Tower's Roof disappears about 7.5 seconds after first movement
- About 70 stories are still visible below explosion
WTC 1, just prior to collapse
At 1 second into the collapse.
At 2 seconds into the collapse.
In the following frame, at 2.6 seconds, the last frame in which we can properly discern the lower portion, we see that it has not yet moved and the top block is about half its original height.
It is clear that the top block, far from being a rigid hammer, is disintegrating and cannot possibly provide the impact which Bazant and Zhou have calculated and depended on. There is now a mass of fragmented material falling, which can deliver many very small blows but we can predict that it will be unable to deliver a blow representing its total mass, as the official story requires.
This prediction is proved to be true. If the top block were to deliver destructive energy through impact to the lower portion of the building, the energy consumed would result in a reduction in its acceleration. No such reduction can be detected, as shown in the paper by MacQeen and Szamboti, The Missing Jolt.
At 2.6 seconds.
See video of and commentary on the pictures above here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoT_Vgr6MxU#t=8m15s
Experiments
"Bazant et al. did author a Closure, which Bjorkman called 'the most shameful Closure in structural damage analysis history' in his response. Is he right?" [Bjorkman's a fool. Bazant is a world class engineer. One of the best. Why do you consort with fools, JM?] "Well, his response also included a challenge that puts his money where his mouth is, offering 10,000 Euro to anyone who can 'come up with some other type of structure that really can collapse from top down,' when the mass of part C is 1/9 the mass of part A. [You're not very up on current events, are ya, JM? Bjorkman didn't originate this idea. He stole it from James Randi, who has had his "million dollar challenge" for about 30 years. Bjorkman decided to imitate Randi, and announced his million dollar wager 2.5 years ago. See "The Heiwa Challenge" over at randi.org. Randi put his money into a secure account outside of his own control, to be awarded on the objective completion of specific tasks. Bjorkman was asked to do the same. Bjorkman refused. There is zero evidence that he ever had that money to pay off the bet. It is certain that, as the only judge, he never had any intent of paying off. Now you're telling me that he has dropped the amount by a factor or 120?? He is 120x LESS SURE now than he was 2 years ago?? Some truther champion you got there.]
I'm we'll aware of Randi's challenge and there is criticism of it too, but forget all that. Let's focus on your statement here:
"Even this egg experiment is more representative than the first above:
[Perhaps concrete block & egg drop experiments are "representative of the Twin Towers collapses to you, an ex-medical professional. But I carry an extra burden that you do not: knowledge of fundamental mechanical engineering principles. This burden forces me to laugh uproariously when I see these "experiments". Perhaps you could tell me the simple principle which renders these models ludicrous, and renders the conclusions derived from them both wrong & absurd.]
First off, the "first above" experiment in my initial post was this one conducted by "debunkers."
II did not say that the concrete block and egg drop experiments below the first above experiment in my initial post was "representative of the Twin Towers collapses." I only stated they were more representative that the first. Again, As Bjorkman noted, "A heavy disc on a pin that breaks the weak fastenings of other discs to same pin is not a collapse of anything. The only things broken are the weak fastenings while the discs and the pin remain intact, the discs having displaced a little."
So here are those two other experiments, plus two more, you decide which are more representative. We would like to build two massive, multi-storey steel structures and drop one on the other but we don't have the budget. Perhaps that's something for the MythBusters! The thing about Newton's third law is it's universal. When testing whether or not such one-way destruction is possible, what the analogues for the upper and lower blocks are doesn't matter. All that matters is, are the two parts of identical construction? They can be eggs, concrete blocks, identical cars smashing into each other or even Lego "floors". If the destruction is two-way for them, which it is, it should be two-way for the tower.
And forget Bjorkman's challenge if you don't trust him and the money shouldn't be an issue because "If this newly discovered mode of structural failure is so likely to happen, why is it so difficult to reproduce." Instead take:
THE PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE CHALLENGE - Source
The challenge is in 5 parts, from the easiest to the most difficult.
All five require building a structure that will undergo top-down progressive total collapse -- i.e.: when disturbed near the top, it will collapse from the top down to the bottom, leaving no part standing. The disturbance can include mechanical force, such as projectile impacts, and fires, augmented with hydrocarbon fuels. Explosives and electromagnetic energy beams are not permitted.
Your structure can be made out of anything: straws, toothpicks, cards, dominoes, mud, vegetables, pancakes, etc.
The designers of the Twin Towers were able to meet all 5 challenges using steel and concrete.
CHALLENGE #1:
Build a structure with a vertical aspect ratio of at least 2 (twice as tall as it is wide) and induce it to undergo top-down total progressive collapse.
CHALLENGE #2:
Build a structure with a square footprint and a vertical aspect ratio of at least 6.5 (6.5 times as high as it is wide), and induce it to undergo top-down total progressive collapse.
CHALLENGE #3:
Build a structure as required by CHALLENGE #2 which, in the process of collapsing, will throw pieces outward in all directions such that at least 80% of the mass of the materials ends up lying outside of the footprint, but their center of mass lies inside the footprint.
CHALLENGE #4:
Build a structure as required by CHALLENGE #2 which is capable of remaining intact in 100 MPH cross wind.
CHALLENGE #5:
Build a structure that meets the requirements of both CHALLENGES #3 and #4.
Verinage Demolitions
"Fig. 5 - from [2] - Upper part C roof line downward displacement versus time. The curve is very smooth. If Upper part C had really "crushed down" 9 or 13 intact storeys below into Part B - Rubble/debris, the curve should be staggered! The smooth curve suggests that Upper part C is simply removed in a computer animation.
Scootle affirmed the above point by making speed-time graphs of the motion of four different verinage demolitions, where the columns on the central floors are weakened to crush the bottom section." [Verinage of a 10 story, traditional construction (i.e., not 1 acre tube within tube skyscraper) building is completely irrelevant to the collapse of the twin towers. If Scootie had the slightest clue about structural engineering, he would IMMEDIATELY recognize this fact. Clearly, since he did NOT recognize this fact … well, I'll let you finish the thought.], The first three were tracked at an angle, however, he notes that "in all three cases there's an initial acceleration and then upon impact the acceleration abruptly ceases and a deceleration trend begins. This is exactly what we would expect using basic physics and common sense." The fourth was tracked from a great frontal view: [All irrelevant.]
Funny, coz it was debunkers like AlienEntity who first brought Verinage demolitions to our attention! The reason I wrote the article "Debunker Verinage Fantasies Are Bunk!" is because JREFers were using them to explain the WTC collapses. I motion-tracked them to show that they appear to actually support our position because the falling sections in those cases experienced a jolt, unlike the north tower. Now you say it's a pointless comparison. I guess they're comparable when they work for you but when they don't, they're not! Much like how you think a 14 story University building and a five story toy factory are comparable, because they collapsed due to fire, but all the skyscrapers that caught fire and didn't collapse - One Meridian Plaza, First Interstate Bank, East Parque Central, Windsor Tower, Mandarin Oriental Hotel etc. - aren't comparable due to their structural differences!
Regarding the "tube in tube construction", the pile-driver theory actually makes even less sense if that is considered, which is why Bazant et al have to work in blocks to begin with.
There are lots of little jolts that your techniques are simply far too crude to see. There is zero expectation that there would be any large jolts. Szamboti knows where he's screwing up. He's been told about 500 times. He simply refuses to admit it. Do YOU know where he's screwing up, JM?
"There were jolts, you just can't see them". How convenient! Again, another faith-based assertion. And the explanations offered by people like Dave Thomas for why we shouldn't expect a large jolt are predicated on the assumption that steel beams behave like soda straws, which is ludicrous.
LMAO. No [the Verinages] are not in the slightest appropriate real world comparisons to either Towers' collapse.
They're more appropriate comparisons than a 14 story University building or a five story toy factory! Or a freeway. Or this church ...
All of which are comparisons that have been made by debunkers! That's why I said "PERHAPS the closEST real-world examples we have for comparison". I never said they were perfect.
Here is what mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti had to say to tfk's comments about verinage:
Verinage of a 10 story, traditional construction (i.e., not 1 acre tube within tube skyscraper) building is completely irrelevant to the collapse of the twin towers. If Scootie had the slightest clue about structural engineering, he would IMMEDIATELY recognize this fact. Clearly, since he did NOT recognize this fact … well, I'll let you finish the thought.],
The construction difference between the towers and those demolished using Verinage do not excuse the lack of deceleration in the North Tower...
"I think that's pretty clear! Just like Chandlers' analysis and MacQueen & Szamboti's analysis, my tracks have produced a reasonably straight line. For at least two seconds the north tower accelerated constantly, further proof of the lack of jolt. [There are lots of little jolts that your techniques are simply far too crude to see. There is zero expectation that there would be any large jolts. Szamboti knows where he's screwing up. He's been told about 500 times. He simply refuses to admit it. Do YOU know where he's screwing up, JM?]
Nothing but BS here. The Verinage buildings show a deceleration as would be expected in a natural collapse. The lots of little jolts claim is nonsense as there was virtually no tilt for the first two to three stories in the North Tower. End.
So tfk, take the progressive collapse challenge, prove our videos silly with superior ones, and prove with data that it is untrue that the Lack of Deceleration of North Tower’s Upper Section Proves Use of Explosives .
Now compare the above velocity graph of the Balzac-Vitry demolition to the velocity graph of the WTC 1 “collapse.”
0 comments:
Post a Comment