The Great 9/11 Challenge.

04-05-2011 12:56PM

Hookah wrote: »

You appear to be saying that if nano-thermite is used to demolish a building, the building cannot possibly collapse in the way a traditional demolition would cause it to.

Is that correct?

For the third time: No.

Hookah wrote: »

Some of the 'debunkers' held Harrit's report to be inconclusive for the lack of one test.

I'm surprised nobody else would follow up such claims, even out of curiosity.

Well I'm holding it to be inconclusive due to the lack of that test, sloppy scientific rigour and plain out dishonesty.

Do you think there is any merit to the paper?

Hookah · 04-05-2011 01:01PM

King Mob wrote: »

For the third time: No.

What is it your saying then?

I obviously haven't got it yet. Care to explain it in a way a simpleton like myself could understand?

Well I'm holding it to be inconclusive due to the lack of that test, sloppy scientific rigour and plain out dishonesty.

I appreciate your opinion.

Do you think there is any merit to the paper?

I'd like to see independent experts try to replicate the results.

The claim itself should be sufficient cause for concern for somebody to do this.

04-05-2011 01:15PM

Hookah wrote: »

What is it your saying then?

I obviously haven't got it yet. Care to explain it in a way a simpleton like myself could understand?

Premise 1: the buildings where taken down with an exotic method.
Premise 2: the buildings where taken down by demolition because they exhibit signs of a typical demolition.

These things are not compatible with each other.
If you are holding the position that it was taken down by exotic means (meaning it is not a typical demolition) you cannot use signs of a typical demolition to show it was a demolition, and vice versa.

I have explained this 4 times now in the simplest of terms. I am not going to do so again.

Hookah wrote: »

I'd like to see independent experts try to replicate the results.

The claim itself should be sufficient cause for concern for somebody to do this.

Why? There's nothing of merit at all in the paper, as you seem to agree since you didn't answer my question.
All of the bad science has been addressed in various ways. The dishonesty and underhandedness of the authors has been exposed.
Why waste time, effort and paper to publish it in a journal? Especially when conspiracy theorists aren't going to pay attention to it anyway?

Hookah · 04-05-2011 01:21PM

King Mob wrote: »

Premise 1: the buildings where taken down with an exotic method.
Premise 2: the buildings where taken down by demolition because they exhibit signs of a typical demolition.

These things are not compatible with each other.
If you are holding the position that it was taken down by exotic means (meaning it is not a typical demolition) you cannot use signs of a typical demolition to show it was a demolition, and vice versa.

I have explained this 4 times now in the simplest of terms. I am not going to do so again.

They are not necessarily incompatible, no matter how many times you tell yourself they are.

Why? There's nothing of merit at all in the paper, as you seem to agree since you didn't answer my question.
All of the bad science has been addressed in various ways. The dishonesty and underhandedness of the authors has been exposed.
Why waste time, effort and paper to publish it in a journal? Especially when conspiracy theorists aren't going to pay attention to it anyway?

I thought the way to address scientific method was to use scientific method, experimentation, verificatrion etc., but if you're happy with the opinions of the JREF forum members, so be it.

04-05-2011 01:27PM

Hookah wrote: »

They are not necessarily incompatible, no matter how many times you tell yourself they are.

Except the crank you're defending has claimed that the nano thermite is soundless....

Hookah wrote: »

I thought the way to address scientific method was to use scientific method, experimentation, verificatrion etc., but if you're happy with the opinions of the JREF forum members, so be it.

Not relying on anyone's opinion on this. It's a fact they used sloppy science and it's a fact they acted dishonestly.
They didn't use the scientific method, or produced any scientific results. So neither are really needed to debunk their nonsense.

But you've already agreed that there's no merit to their paper, so this line of questioning you're chasing down is a bit pointless.

Hookah · 04-05-2011 01:38PM

King Mob wrote: »

Except the crank you're defending has claimed that the nano thermite is soundless....

So what's the non-conspiracy theory on what did cause the explosions that morning.

Not relying on anyone's opinion on this. It's a fact they used sloppy science and it's a fact they acted dishonestly.
They didn't use the scientific method, or produced any scientific results. So neither are really needed to debunk their nonsense.

So no need for anyone else to test for traces?

But you've already agreed that there's no merit to their paper,

:pac:

Di0genes · 04-05-2011 02:02PM

Hookah wrote: »

So what's the non-conspiracy theory on what did cause the explosions that morning.

Parts of the building blowing up due to fire. Power substations, electrical equipment, and so forth.

Hookah · 04-05-2011 04:19PM

Interesting reading on the JREF forum here...http://s15.zetaboards.com/Jref_Alternative/topic/649689/1/

And here...http://911blogger.com/news/2007-04-03/dr-frank-greening-jref-nist-report-seriously-flawed

Di0genes · 04-05-2011 04:31PM

Hookah wrote: »

Interesting reading on the JREF forum here...http://s15.zetaboards.com/Jref_Alternative/topic/649689/1/

A subforum dedicated to bitching about the JREF

And here...http://911blogger.com/news/2007-04-03/dr-frank-greening-jref-nist-report-seriously-flawed

Frank Greening believes the towers were brought down by the planes, the impact damage, and the subsequent fires.

His issues with the NIST report are very much esoteric about certain calculations.

Whats your point Hookah

Hookah · 04-05-2011 04:38PM

Di0genes wrote: »

A subforum dedicated to bitching about the JREF

Is MirageMemories who writes that first post not a JREF moderator?

Frank Greening believes the towers were brought down by the planes, the impact damage, and the subsequent fires.

He claims to be an agnostic.

Thus, by the start of 2007, I still had plenty of questions about the official version of the collapse of the Twin Towers. And this is essentially where I stand today. Unlike the self-assured posters on PhysOrg and JREF who claim to KNOW what happened to the Twin Towers, I remain a 9/11 agnostic.

I believe an agnostic viewpoint is where true scepticism stems from.

Di0genes · 04-05-2011 04:47PM

Hookah wrote: »

Is MirageMemories who writes that first post not a JREF moderator?

Laughing....of course he isn't.

He claims to be an agnostic.

Thus, by the start of 2007, I still had plenty of questions about the official version of the collapse of the Twin Towers. And this is essentially where I stand today. Unlike the self-assured posters on PhysOrg and JREF who claim to KNOW what happened to the Twin Towers, I remain a 9/11 agnostic.

I believe an agnostic viewpoint is where true scepticism stems from.

Most JREF forum members will happily admit they are wrong, if solid evidence of a controlled demolition or any of the conspiracy theories about 9/11 showed any merit.

They've been waiting a long time to be proved wrong.

Hookah · 04-05-2011 04:53PM

Di0genes wrote: »

Laughing....of course he isn't.

My mistake.

Most JREF forum members will happily admit they are wrong, if solid evidence of a controlled demolition or any of the conspiracy theories about 9/11 showed any merit.

They've been waiting a long time to be proved wrong.

Yet, they are happy to accept that a fire caused supporting columns to simultaneously fail, causing a building to collapse at freefall speed, almost into it's own footprint?

Has the NIST report been subject to the same level of scrutiny on that forum, as other theories?

Di0genes · 04-05-2011 05:19PM

Yet, they are happy to accept that a fire caused supporting columns to simultaneously fail, causing a building to collapse at freefall speed, almost into it's own footprint?

The main supporting column failed. The entire building did not collapse at freefall speed, for the duration of the full collapse. And as a large amount of debris spilled out onto the surrounding streets, and into surrounding buildings, you cannot say the building collapsed into it's on footprint, almost or anything.

So nought out of three there kiddo.

Has the NIST report been subject to the same level of scrutiny on that forum, as other theories?

If you're so obsessed with the forum, sign up. They like fresh meat. Otherwise quit trying to derail this forum and thread (which King Mob set up specific rules governing posting) .

Thanls.

04-05-2011 05:19PM

Hookah wrote: »

So what's the non-conspiracy theory on what did cause the explosions that morning.

So you don't believe in your crank's claim about magical soundless explosives?

Penn · 04-05-2011 05:26PM

Hookah wrote: »

My mistake.

Yet, they are happy to accept that a fire caused supporting columns to simultaneously fail, causing a building to collapse at freefall speed, almost into it's own footprint?

Has the NIST report been subject to the same level of scrutiny on that forum, as other theories?

just with regards your comment about structural columns simultaneously failing, that iisn't necessarily correct.

Structural members (beams/columns) are designed to take a certain load. As well as that, for safety, additional loading is taken into consideration. For example, if a column is designed to take 10kN dead Load and 10kN imposed load, it will actually be designed to take 14kN dead and 16kN imposed as a safety design, in case additional loads are added later, or just as a general safety precaution. But this design is based on the member staying where it is.

When the plane hit the towers, some structural members were knocked out or bent. Even without the fire, these members will have lost strength, possibly even past their safety factor of the additional loading calculated. This means other steel members have to try and carry the loading, possibly being pulled in another direction having lost stability.

With the fire then weakening more steel members, it would have only taken some of them to fail to bring the building down. If structural members are being pulled in another direction, coupled with having to carry additional loading, they will fail.

So with the planes and fire weakening some of the steel members, the other ones were not designed to carry those loads in those directions, so they failed also. The supporting columns didnt simultaneously fail, they couldn't carry those loads in the first place.

And I don't agree that the buildings fell at freefall speed. With the amount of dust and debris, it is very difficult to establish when the top of the building would have reached the ground. As for falling nearly in its own footprint, again, once the structural members failed, the weight of several floors above falling would cut right through the rest of the building, and as more began to fall with each floor, the next floor would have offered less resistance. Everything fell down, through the existing, into its own footprint (almost) because once 20+ floors fell onto one, you then have a complete domino effect for the rest.

Hookah · 05-05-2011 11:50AM

Di0genes wrote: »

The main supporting column failed.

Ok.

The entire building did not collapse at freefall speed, for the duration of the full collapse.

I've stated already it was in freefall for 2.25 seconds, but if it's necessary to be precise every time I mention it, so be it.

And as a large amount of debris spilled out onto the surrounding streets, and into surrounding buildings, you cannot say the building collapsed into it's on footprint, almost or anything.

Yes, I can

If you're so obsessed with the forum, sign up. They like fresh meat. Otherwise quit trying to derail this forum and thread (which King Mob set up specific rules governing posting) .

I'll post within the rules of the forum. I haven't even read King Mob's rules, tbh.

Thanls.

You're welcome.

Hookah · 05-05-2011 11:50AM

King Mob wrote: »

So you don't believe in your crank's claim about magical soundless explosives?

No, I don't believe in stuff that defies the laws of physics.

Hookah · 05-05-2011 11:55AM

Barrington wrote: »

just with regards your comment about structural columns simultaneously failing, that iisn't necessarily correct.

Structural members (beams/columns) are designed to take a certain load. As well as that, for safety, additional loading is taken into consideration. For example, if a column is designed to take 10kN dead Load and 10kN imposed load, it will actually be designed to take 14kN dead and 16kN imposed as a safety design, in case additional loads are added later, or just as a general safety precaution. But this design is based on the member staying where it is.

When the plane hit the towers, some structural members were knocked out or bent. Even without the fire, these members will have lost strength, possibly even past their safety factor of the additional loading calculated. This means other steel members have to try and carry the loading, possibly being pulled in another direction having lost stability.

With the fire then weakening more steel members, it would have only taken some of them to fail to bring the building down. If structural members are being pulled in another direction, coupled with having to carry additional loading, they will fail.

So with the planes and fire weakening some of the steel members, the other ones were not designed to carry those loads in those directions, so they failed also. The supporting columns didnt simultaneously fail, they couldn't carry those loads in the first place.

Appreciated.

Though, when mentioning the buildings I've generally had WTC7 in mind.

And I don't agree that the buildings fell at freefall speed.

NIST agree building 7 fell at freefall speed for a time.

With the amount of dust and debris, it is very difficult to establish when the top of the building would have reached the ground. As for falling nearly in its own footprint, again, once the structural members failed, the weight of several floors above falling would cut right through the rest of the building, and as more began to fall with each floor, the next floor would have offered less resistance. Everything fell down, through the existing, into its own footprint (almost) because once 20+ floors fell onto one, you then have a complete domino effect for the rest.

I'd love if Mythbusters got a skyscraper, flew a jumbo jet into it, and put this to rest, once and for all.

05-05-2011 12:12PM

Hookah wrote: »

No, I don't believe in stuff that defies the laws of physics.

So then how can you both believe his theory and yours at the same time?

Penn · 05-05-2011 12:53PM

Hookah wrote: »

Appreciated.

Though, when mentioning the buildings I've generally had WTC7 in mind.

NIST agree building 7 fell at freefall speed for a time.

I'd love if Mythbusters got a skyscraper, flew a jumbo jet into it, and put this to rest, once and for all.

Well, WTC7 is really the same. The damage from the falling debris of the Twin Towers, coupled with fires which burned for several hours meant that many steel members were weakened, placing addition loads on others and causing them to fail.

Now, from what I've seen of WTC7 it would appear that columns beneath where the 'kink' appeared in the roof failed. If a column further down on a lower floor failed due to fire and damage, the column and section of floor above that would fail. As would the columns and floor above that etc. Which means that internally, floor after floor is collapding, being pulled in towards where the columns failed. Once this reached the columns under the roof, the kink would appear where the column failed.

When the building then collapsed, so much internal damage had already occurred by members failing and being pulled/pushed inwards that there would have been little resistance. So I wouldn't argue with NIST saying it fell at freefall for a bit.

Di0genes · 05-05-2011 12:55PM

Hookah

It's incredibly dishonest and disingenuous to claim the building fell at freefall speed, and almost into it's own footprint.

When you've been forced to admit that both these things aren't true.

I'd love if Mythbusters got a skyscraper, flew a jumbo jet into it, and put this to rest, once and for all.

Not really within their budget.

Try reading the NIST report. Do you know architects and engineers around the world use the information from NIST report to help support and stabilise large structures around the world, since it's release?

Hookah · 05-05-2011 01:13PM

King Mob wrote: »

So then how can you both believe his theory and yours at the same time?

I don't really believe it.

I've been investigating it these last few days, sounding off you two.

The power of the internet and all that.

Nor do I believe the NIST, since it also defies the laws of physics.

You can see the bind I'm in.

05-05-2011 01:18PM

Hookah wrote: »

I don't really believe it.

I've been investigating it these last few days, sounding off you two.

The power of the internet and all that.

Nor do I believe the NIST, since it also defies the laws of physics.

You can see the bind I'm in.

So have you noticed how you've been forced to abandon each conspiracy claim as we go on? Why is that?

So what about the NIST defies the laws of physics? And how do you know it does?

Hookah · 05-05-2011 01:19PM

Di0genes wrote: »

Hookah

It's incredibly dishonest and disingenuous to claim the building fell at freefall speed,

THe NIST said it, in 2008.

and almost into it's own footprint

That's what it looks like to me. The debris appears to have been confined to a very tight area around the footprint, in the photo you gave. Fairly neat for an 'office fire collapse'.

When you've been forced to admit that both these things aren't true.

Why do you and King Mob keep putting words in my mouth?

Try reading the NIST report. Do you know architects and engineers around the world use the information from NIST report to help support and stabilise large structures around the world, since it's release?

I'll feel much safer the next time I'm in a skyscraper and I see an airliner headed my direction.

Hookah · 05-05-2011 01:21PM

King Mob wrote: »

So have you noticed how you've been forced to abandon each conspiracy claim as we go on? Why is that?

Not quite.

So what about the NIST defies the laws of physics? And how do you know it does?

I posted that ages ago.

This one, I think...http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2010/08/nist-admit-their-report-on-wtc-7-is-not-consistent-with-basic-principles-of-physics/

05-05-2011 01:28PM

Hookah wrote: »

Not quite.

But you've admitted that the thermite paper is unreliable and poses a theory you don't agree with.
And you've given up trying to prove the dancing Israelis were in on it.
And you couldn't show that the secret service's reactions indicate that they were in on it.
And after each of these thing became apparent, you threw out a new topic and went with that, ignoring the fact your previous argument was torn apart.

Hookah wrote: »

I posted that ages ago.

Can you point it out, or reiterate it?
You link doesn't work.

And again could you please detail what you think rather than copy pasting from some site?

davoxx · 05-05-2011 01:42PM

This seems like a good idea.

So i thought i'd jump in :rolleyes:

Question: why would the terrorists target the buildings before they opened and were full of people?

Conclusion: since flying a plane into them when they were full would have been a better goal, this raise the concern that this was an inside job, where they tried to minimise loss of life.

PS: l'm not looking for a "they just did" or "they made a mistake" as a valid reason.

Hookah · 05-05-2011 01:43PM

King Mob wrote: »

But you've admitted that the thermite paper is unreliable and poses a theory you don't agree with.

I'm still curious to see if and when somebody else tests the dust.

An investigation.

And you've given up trying to prove the dancing Israelis were in on it.

I've given up arguing with you about it. The activities of the 'documenters' and the other lads in the van, is highly suspicious.

And you couldn't show that the secret service's reactions indicate that they were in on it.

It's a matter of opinion. You have one opinion, I have a different opinion.

And after each of these thing became apparent, you threw out a new topic and went with that,

That's what the forum is for.

ignoring the fact your previous argument was torn apart.

Bearing in mind you suffer from a high degree of confirmation bias, and growing tired of circular arguments and some of your questionable tactics, I'm happy to leave a subject alone, and move on.

Your confirmation bias applies to your 'victories' as much as it does to the official version of the 9/11 events.

I have conceded once or twice where I was wrong, but that doesn't prove the non-conspiracy theory right, or the conspiracy theory wrong.

Many questions remain.

Can you point it out, or reiterate it?
You link doesn't work.

http://darkpolitics.wordpress.com/2010/08/01/nist-admits-their-report-is-not-consistent-with-basic-principles-of-physics/

Di0genes · 05-05-2011 01:48PM

Hookah wrote: »

THe NIST said it, in 2008.

For a small portion of the collapse.

That's what it looks like to me. The debris appears to have been confined to a very tight area around the footprint, in the photo you gave. Fairly neat for an 'office fire collapse'.

It's spread across massive road....These aren't little two lane streets, and it spills into the buildings beside it.

It's not a tight area and it's not neat.

Why do you and King Mob keep putting words in my mouth?

We're not we're trying to explain the flaws in your logic.

I'll feel much safer the next time I'm in a skyscraper and I see an airliner headed my direction.

Hilarious. It's more to do with building fires and structural stability.

http://www.skyscrapersafety.org/html/nist.html

clever_name · 05-05-2011 01:54PM

davoxx wrote: »

Question: why would the terrorists target the buildings before they opened and were full of people?

Conclusion: since flying a plane into them when they were full would have been a better goal, this raise the concern that this was an inside job, where they tried to minimise loss of life.

PS: l'm not looking for a "they just did" or "they made a mistake" as a valid reason.

Maybe they would have liked too but waiting until later might have meant more people on the flights, more people to subdue = increased risk of failure.

The Great 9/11 Challenge.

Comments