Goodbye, Mr Roberts

[Ghent12]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

No, you have not falsified it. How many ways, how many times, how simple do I have to make it. No!

You have an analysis that shows maybe, maybe not.

They have an analysis that shows not.

Your analysis does not falsify their analysis.

Rather their analysis refines your analysis.

It's over... Nobody with a keen eye, the ability to have honest inquiry, and a background in physics believes Chandler's analysis. Chandler concludes that the 'official story' is impossible, but nobody can draw that conclusion from the analysis he did. You can't draw the conclusion that there were no deaths in the 20th century because the average population went up. You can't draw the conclusion that the WTC towers could not have fallen because, of all things, their average acceleration was less than gravity's.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

Here's another good video, pinpointing a cutter charge that takes out a section of one corner of WTC1:

Available at: David Chandler show proof of cutter charge blowing corner column on WTC North Tower on 911.

[Ghent12]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

Here's another good video, pinpointing a cutter charge that takes out a section of one corner of WTC1:

Available at: David Chandler show proof of cutter charge blowing corner column on WTC North Tower on 911.

Can't believe I wasted my time watching that. Pure speculation from the conspiracy-minded people.

Since we're now resorting to posting vidoes as 'conclusive proof', here's one for ya.

Actual shaped charges in action (i.e. cutter charges).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

Oh, and those ones aren't virtually silent, able to be heard only by those very very close by; very much unlike your alleged uber-quiet miracle explosive.

Of course, you would never, ever admit that the absence of any sort of flame or incindiary color from your "pinpointed cutter charge" in your video indicates the opposite of your claim. C'est la vie. According to Chandler, this "clear evidence of cutter charges" is powerful enough to melt iron but only gives a faint puff of smoke when used to 'take out' a massive column.

I feel as if I'm trying to convince an 11th century Aristotilean theologist of the fundmanetal force of gravity...

[c1ue]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

An analysis of "maybe" does not ipso facto falsify an analysis of "no."

Except I'm not falsifying an analysis of 'no', I am falsifying an analysis of 'impossible'.

There is a big difference. In the former, there can be a dispute as to why and how, in which case there is latitude. If Chandler and Szamboti said that in their analysis, it was unlikely that the WTC towers could have collapsed due to just a 767 impact and jet fuelled fires due to some F=ma calculations but noted that there are other possibilities not specifically explored, that would be fine.

However, these gentlemen both presumed that their analysis was the only one possible and that said analysis was inarguable, thus making a absolute statement.

When you make an absolute statement, it must be correct in every way.

If not, then it is falsified.

Just as AGW-CO2-Catastrophe theory stating that all warming since XXXX is due to human induced CO2 must then conclusively demonstrate that no other causes can matter - a task which primarily has been accomplished by ignoring all other aspects and one which has failed, so too must Chandler and Szamboti's papers have a higher burden of proof than simple analysis of a specific failure mechanism or lack thereof.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

You too are making an absolute statement -- that you are falsifying an analysis of impossible.

Your analysis that there was enough energy to make an unaided collapse possible does not falsify some other analysis that the force applied during the collapse was less than the normally supported weight (hence something other than the impact must have weakened the lower portion before the impact.)

I suspect that what you think we're arguing about here does not match the words you write here.

You keep claiming logical certitude on the grounds that Possible is logically opposed to Impossible.

I keep screaming at the top of my lungs that "Possible according to some particular analysis of some of the evidence is not logically opposite to Impossible according to some other analysis or evidence." Your claim to logical certitude is wrong, invalid, fatally flawed, groundless, nonsensical, ridiculous, baseless, ...

You keep responding with explanations that you are not convinced of Chandlers analysis. You might even allow that perhaps certain evidence of "detonators and timing devices" could alter your conclusions.

I then keep thinking that if I could just awaken you to the above stated fatal flaw in your claims of logical certitude, then I might be able to crack open the window of your mind on this.

I am now convinced that the certitude you feel in your bones is not logical, but rather evidentiary or analytical.

I suspect you're feeling one thing, writing something else, conflating conviction with logical certitude.

What is clear, compelling and conclusive analysis to my understanding (Chandler's analysis of force) is not that to you. This is not about logic, despite your repeated statements to the contrary. This is about physics, evidence and analysis.

My disagreement with your claims to logical certitude was sufficiently compelling in my view that I held out hope of changing your mind.

I do not know how to change your mind on the physics as analyzed by Chandler.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

As perhaps I have mentioned before, there are many doors through which one might pass to a realization of the truth (damn those who made even that word "truth" a term of ridicule) of 9/11.

These doors include:

• Realizing that the collapse of the towers WTC1 & WTC2 was not just due to the fire and plane impact.
• Realizing that the collapse of WTC7 was a classic controlled demolition.
• Realizing that the failure to scramble jet fighter escorts to the hijacked planes required deliberate command and control avoidance of the normal response.
• Realizing that the Shanksville plane was not in that hold in the ground but scattered over many miles of land.
• Realizing that there has been much deliberate coverup and suppression of evidence and testimony (e.g. security camera videos around the Pentagon and first responder testimony from Ground Zero.)
• Realizing that no convincing evidence of Bin Laden's involvement has been presented.
• Realizing that even the best commercial airliner pilots doubt they could have managed the final descent of American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon, much less a novice single engine pilot.
• Realizing that ...

The list goes on and on.

Many people are still reluctant to walk through any of these doors because they instinctively realize that if they were to pass to the other side (take the 'Red Pill') they would have to completely rethink their understanding of our government, our leaders, our media, ... They also know they would be branded "truther conspiracy nutters" by their friends and family.

Enjoy your blue pill, c1ue. I know for long personal experience that it is an easier path to walk, for I spent most of the years since 9/11 comfortably ensconced in the same place (sorry for the mixed metaphors.)

I had focused on video evidence of explosive ejections and on the physics of the WTC collapses earlier in this thread (or was it an earlier 9/11 thread?), because those were the doors through which I first entered this strange land. Then I changed my focus in my responses to your more recent posts to focus on your fatally flawed claims of logical certitude.

All my efforts have failed. Horse, water, no drinkee.

Have a good day, c1ue.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

[then] they would have to completely rethink their understanding of our government, our leaders, our media, ...

... and rethink the path our economy is likely to take (just to bring this back to iTulip concerns.)

[Ghent12]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

These doors include:

• Realizing that the collapse of the towers WTC1 & WTC2 was not just due to the fire and plane impact.
• Realizing that the collapse of WTC7 was a classic controlled demolition.
• Realizing that the failure to scramble jet fighter escorts to the hijacked planes required deliberate command and control avoidance of the normal response.
• Realizing that the Shanksville plane was not in that hold in the ground but scattered over many miles of land.
• Realizing that there has been much deliberate coverup and suppression of evidence and testimony (e.g. security camera videos around the Pentagon and first responder testimony from Ground Zero.)
• Realizing that no convincing evidence of Bin Laden's involvement has been presented.
• Realizing that even the best commercial airliner pilots doubt they could have managed the final descent of American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon, much less a novice single engine pilot.
• Realizing that ...

The list goes on and on.

If you weren't serious, that list would be gallows humor genius. Especially the last entry.

Let me see if I get this straight... the insinuation is that because a 'novice single engine pilot' was unlikely to have been able to fly into the Pentagon, it is more likely that it was the work of 'the gubbermint,' right? Let me get this straight... so even though at least three planes were used previously by your own admission (or maybe they were holographic cruise missiles--that's the Truth to some Truthers, hence why your kind's bastardization of the word leads it to have a negative connotation), but it is more likely to have been a cruise missile striking the Pentagon? Or maybe some kind of UAV? Maybe this 'novice single engine pilot' only had to hit a button on a sophisticated military AI that would take the plane into the Pentagon? Wow, so many possibilities just leap out once you "realize" something.

Yeah, WTC 7 was a classic controlled demolition, except for the numerous aspects that were entirely unlike one. Here's another question your religious beliefs won't allow you to answer: Why was the WTC 7 "controlled demolition" done exactly opposite of WTC 1 & 2's "controlled demolition?" Couple more questions you won't answer: Why blow it up hours and hours after it was evacuated? How did the firefighters know it would collapse on its own?
Of course, you'll be permitted by your religion to answer the last one with, "they were told." That has been your answer in the past (or that of skyson or some other interchangable lightweight). So now we're left with quite a conundrum. Hundreds of firefighters died, and hundreds more of their friends and coworkers "were told" about a controlled demolition, yet all of them particpated in this million-man conspiracy.

Then of course there are questions regarding why your "highly energetic explosive nano-thermite ceiling tiles" chose to ignite well after being exposed to the temperature which they supposedly exhibit "highly energetic reactions," questions about why the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 happened exactly at the areas of most damage, meaning your secret squirrel uber-nanite survived the impact of the planes while several steel columns did not, questions of why you can hear building implosions (or 2000 lb bombs dropped on Baghdad) from miles away yet the WTC 1, 2, & 7 collapses are heard as steady rumblings, questions regarding why your "cutter charges" produce no flash or flame, just puffs of smoke as the supposedly melt the iron and cut through massive columns.

Etc.

You're right that the official story doesn't make sense, but only if you're referring to the Truther's official story.

[c1ue]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

You too are making an absolute statement -- that you are falsifying an analysis of impossible.

Uh ok.

By your definition, showing that the statement: ("the sky is blue") is untrue is an absolute statement.

In my world and grammar, it is not.

But whatever.

I am now convinced that the certitude you feel in your bones is notlogical, but rather evidentiary or analytical.

I suspect you're feeling one thing, writing something else, conflating conviction with logical certitude.

I would, in fact, point out that the one forcefully arguing for a specific viewpoint is not I.

It is you.

I merely point out the numerous inconsistencies - which quite correctly also exist in the 'official' story - but ultimately the inconsistency of the official story doesn't itself prove a specific other alternative.

I examined the alternative posited by nano-thermite and found that it was much less than convincing. I've looked through many of your links - in fact at least in one instance to a significantly greater degree than you did - and did not come away with a strong impression of truth.

Yet you continue to say that I'm an unbeliever...well, I guess in a strict sense that is true.

The belief you exhibit, I cannot share given the evidence shown.

So whatever pill I'm supposedly on, I'll just keep on chewing. I've looked through a large number of your proofs, and am unwilling to look any more.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

I merely point out the numerous inconsistencies

I am learning a lesson. It is not always possible to explain to someone that they are confusing logic with other endeavors when they (apparently) cannot distinguish logic from those other endeavors.

“Never try to teach a cow to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the cow.”

-- modified for my amusement from a quote mentioning pigs, by Robert Heinlein

Back to reality, as best I can ... You should understand c1ue that my advanced academic work was in the areas of logic (especially mathematical logic,) the foundations of mathematics, set theory and (later on) computer science. For me, the word logic has fairly specific and elaborate meanings. It is an abstract study, quite removed from the practicalities of physics, engineering, or such.

There was something you said, repeatedly, that violated my understanding of what was logical. I was trying to object, but so far as I can tell, you have not correctly understood to what I was objecting throughout this thread.

I can imagine Mozart hearing me sing off-tune (the only way I "sing") and thinking that if he could just get me to realize my simple error of tone, then he could open my mind to some more substantial issue of, say, composition. He would end up being very frustrated; perhaps shouting at me that I was tone deaf. Useful communication would not be possible on the subject at hand, for I cannot carry a tune in a bucket.

The statement that "X is possible or it is not possible" sounds sooo convincing and logical. But in this context it is short for "X is possible in one model and not possible in another model." It is quite possible for both models to be valid and these two statements to be true in their respective models, without any contradiction or the implications of either model falsifying the other.

By all the evidence I have seen on this thread (thanks for your patience) you do not correctly understand what I'm talking about, just as I'm quite tone deaf.

Such is life.

Enjoy your blue pill. I hope it tastes better than my red pill.

[Ghent12]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

The statement that "X is possible or it is not possible" sounds sooo convincing and logical. But in this context it is short for "X is possible in one model and not possible in another model." It is quite possible for both models to be valid and these two statements to be true in their respective models, without any contradiction or the implications of either model falsifying the other.

Last chance: I will try to put this in language you will understand.

Chandler's paper is using the wrong gate and the wrong inputs. In order for his output to be one, he says that any all inputs must be one. The problem is that he's only considering a few inputs, and utilizing the wrong gate to achieve the wrong conclusion.

Here's Chandler's model (0 means insufficient or false).
Input ------------------------- Gate ------------- Output
Average Acceleration = 0 ------\
Average Force = 0 ------------- AND -------------- 0
Tower is Homogenous = 1 ------/

Output of zero means collapse is impossible.


But here's a much, much more realistic model (0 means insufficient or false).
Average Acceleration = 0 ------\
Average Force = 0 ------------- OR -------------- 1
Maximum Force = 1 ------------/
Maximum Energy = 1 ----------/
Output of one means collapse is possible, because the maximum applied energy and/or force was found to be beyond sufficient due to a more rigorous analysis.

Remember, you only need one failure condition for material to fail, not all. This means an OR gate is much more appropriate than an AND gate, if you want to use this type of logic. You can have material failure via sufficient compressive strain, sufficient lateral strain, sufficient tensile strain, sufficient shear strain, and etc., all of which are affected by temperature and the crystalline structure of the material.


Hell, one simple, easy mental model will tell you that Chandler's model is insufficient. Take the upper section, increase its height by 10,000 feet, then drop it on the lower section. The average acceleration and hence the average 'resistive' force will be less than than the Normal force under rest, yet even you should be able to admit that the lower section would be crushed.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

the maximum applied energy and/or force was found to be beyond sufficient due to a more rigorous analysis.

Sure, if you drop the upper portion onto the lower portion from a sufficient height, or shoot it out of a Death Star canon as I once suggested , then it could have enough energy to destroy the lower portion.

But if the lower portion were not a priori weakened, it would have enough strength to resist that collapse with at least the force it had always shown while supporting the weight of the upper. This force would cause the upper portion (being of no greater mass than it was moments before the collapse) to decelerate during the impact. Measurements show the upper portion accelerated, not decelerated; therefore the lower portion was a priori weakened.

You keep arguing for a position with which I have not disagreed, while remaining utterly oblivious to my points.

Your subconscious (id) is persuaded, therefore your (conscious ego's) rationale "feels" completely convincing to you (to your id). Thus when someone dissents, you can only present your ego's rationale yet "one more time", imagining that since it has "convinced" yourself, it should convince any other "reasonable" person. Your grasp of physics, logic and the dynamics of your own psyche are each insufficient to shatter the spell that has been cast upon you (and upon so many others.)

P.S. -- Having finally managed to wade through your efforts to "speak my language" with your AND and OR logic gates, I find that you completely misrepresent and utterly FAIL to understand Chandler's analysis. See my paragraph just above with the word "decelerate" for a summary of Chandler's analysis. You represent Chandler's analysis as an effort to determine whether or not collapse was possible. Chandler's analysis shows there was substantial weakening of the lower portion prior to impact from the upper. He's not saying collapse was not possible. Surely the evidence contradicts that, as we agree that collapse did indeed occur that fateful day. He's saying that the lower portion resisted the falling upper with a force substantially weaker than the lower portion was able to sustain prior to the collapse. The impact did not cause this weakening, because the force of impact was too weak to do so. Clearly however I am insane. "The definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over, and then expecting different results." (Usually attributed to Albert Einstein.) I keep explaining this over and over expecting that if I could just make it plain enough, you could understand. Your mind does not allow you to understand.

[Ghent12]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

Chandler's analysis shows there was substantial weakening of the lower portion prior to impact from the upper.

That is not what Chandler's analysis shows. All he did was collect data on an average acceleration value over a long time span and draw erroneous conclusions from that data. He's either a charlatan or ill-trained/incompetent. What both you and Chandler don't seem to understand is that the average acceleration and average force mean virtually nothing when analyzing structural failure*. But by all means, keep claiming that there were no wars during the 20th century because the average population growth rate was positive. I doubt you will ever convince more than 1% of the people who both don't already subscribe to the Truther nonsense and also have a background in engineering or physics.

* - when analyzing an impact-induced failure, that is. Average force has meaning when analyzing creep and failure due to cycling. For analysis regarding structural failure, the maximum component of force is of most interest because the point of fracture has an understood relationship regarding stress (which is pressure, also known as force per unit area) and deformation (strain).

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

There is only one thing left in this thread I don't understand: Why have I responded to Ghent12 the last several times?

[Ghent12]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

There is only one thing left in this thread I don't understand: Why have I responded to Ghent12 the last several times?

Well there's that, and the difference between average and maximum.

You'll probably continue to be lonely in your fantasy world. Hope your future experiences with people that have a physics or engineering background doesn't sour you to those topics. I encourage you to explore them for yourself in earnest and continually challenge your own assumptions.

In fact, go to a regular type of engineering forum (not vested interest ones like AE911truth or NIST if they have ones) and see how far you get with Chandler's analysis.