Goodbye, Mr Roberts

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

But the part you're missing - as is Chandler - is that if the force is sufficient to break the struck object (not pierce),

The part you're missing is that the impact force of the falling upper floors did not break the struck lower floors. Something else broke the lower floors. We know this because the downward acceleration of the falling floors did not even fall close to zero, much less go negative.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

Your basic response, c1ue, seems to be "Aw heck, folks. All h*ll broke loose. This was a really, really big building. Anything could have happened. All is plausible." Your grasp of mechanics (and explosives and demolitions and a few other topics) apparently is sufficiently fuzzy that no evidence depending on such topics is sufficiently shocking to you as to unlock your mind.

The extent and variety of evidence exposing the 9/11 fraud is vast. But all the reluctant doubter need do is to successfully resist any one or two particular pieces of evidence and that becomes suitable justification for not seriously examining the rest of the evidence.

No man can unlock another man's mind who will not allow it.

As I noted in my previous reply, to radon, the fraud runs far deeper than I realized. It has infested the minds of most of our citizens, including many of our smartest and best informed.

I place this thread as evidence in the court of future understanding.

Perhaps someday a new dawn will arise, and the words of those few of us who cursed the darkness unfolding over human civilization at this time will bear witness to the resilience of the human spirit.

[cjppjc]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

===

This thread has been an interesting study in the capacity of the human mind to deceive itself.

I began my efforts to discuss the events of 9/11 on iTulip thinking it was a keystone event; that a correct understanding of what happened that day shed a whole new light on our government and institutions; that a correct understanding of the deeply fraudulent nature of our government and major institutions was essential to a proper understanding of our economic circumstances and futures; that we needed to know what was wrong in order to know both how to survive and how to improve things.

I joined iTulip a year and a half ago after leaving my previous "home on the web", Freerepublic.com (a right wing political site), because it was not open to (heck, it was downright hostile to) the truth about 9/11. iTulip has (reluctantly, but still) allowed this discussion (that it's on Rant & Rave is fine by me) for which I am grateful.

Now I find myself darker, more cynical, more discouraged than I have been since sometime 40 or 50 years ago in late adolescence. The deceit is not just in our institutions. It is deeply embedded in the minds of many if not most of even our smartest, best informed people. The situation is more dire than I realized.

Perhaps this shows the essential reason that those far wiser than I have been encouraging us to think and work locally for now. Find some small garden of life that is still reasonably healthy and focus ones energies there. If one looks over the parapet to see what's happening in the larger world, as I've done the last two years, the risk is that one will be destroyed by the horror one sees, that one will have one's life sucked out. But in times of great change and tension, if one does not look about at the larger situation, one risks being swept aside by a tsunami one could have avoided, had one but noticed the signs of its arrival sooner.

What we've seen here on this thread is an example of the success of modern propaganda methods. Evil has run amok in human civilization in so many ways and on such a vast scale that I've lost track.

I had hoped to shine a small light of truth for others, and instead the darkness envelopes me like a fog in the night.

9/11 was the watershed event of our times. Score: humans 0, sociopaths 1.

Or it is just possible that a group of men trained themselves on how to fly planes and then hijacked them and crashed them into the Twin Towers. Sometimes an ink blot is just an ink blot.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

Or it is just possible that a group of men trained themselves on how to fly planes and then hijacked them and crashed them into the Twin Towers. Sometimes an ink blot is just an ink blot.

In some other parallel universe, with a thousand details altered, such a scenario might have happened.

In this universe what happened that day was not that. That is certain, for a thousand reasons.

I cannot guide others to the truth. I thought I could; I underestimated the power of the spell that "accepted knowledge" casts over most humans, most of the time.

If you are interested further, consider (in alphabetical order) 911blogger.com, 911research.wtc7.net, 911review.com, 911speakout.org, 911truth.org, ae911truth.org, journalof911studies.com, patriotsquestion911.com, pilotsfor911truth.org, and stj911.com .

These sites are of varying quality and focus; they are just copied from my list of useful 9/11 links that I've accumulated over time. There is a good chance that I don't actually recommend one or two sites on this list, but have forgotten. When I did a search on the above site list, I found an article discussing more sources, at Daniel Sunjata: Intellectual Dishonesty In The Age Of Universal Deceit.... There are also various videos, books and other media. I'm sure you can find much relevant material if you take the time.

The precious elements are the ability to think independently and the time to perform the analysis.

[c1ue]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

The part you're missing is that the impact force of the falling upper floors did not break the struck lower floors. Something else broke the lower floors. We know this because the downward acceleration of the falling floors did not even fall close to zero, much less go negative.

TPC,

I've looked through quite a number of the links you've put up, and critiqued the analyses presented.

I repeat again: it isn't that nano-thermite or some other method might have been used in the Twin Towers - the elaborate theories constructed are sophisticated enough to be impossible to disprove.

It is that these theories all require a more simple explanation to be impossible.

I believe I have clearly shown that this is untrue via: examples of other buildings experiencing collapses due to simple fires, analysis of the 'impossible collapse' theories, and a back of the napkin look at the representative energies.

These 'impossible collapse' theories also have done a very poor job in truly analyzing the forces and energies involved. The simplistic approaches used are demonstrably incomplete.

But of course, as always, your opinion is your own.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

I believe I have clearly shown that this is untrue via: examples of other buildings experiencing collapses due to simple fires, analysis of the 'impossible collapse' theories, and a back of the napkin look at the representative energies.

Yes, you have presented examples and analysis which show plausibility of the official story.

Your mind is closed to evidence that the official story is wrong.

When I wrote that even some of the most intelligent and informed have succumbed to the brainwashing, I had yourself first in my mind.

Thanks for patiently sticking with me on this journey. This problem is way bigger than you or I.

[Ghent12]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

Yes, you have presented examples and analysis which show plausibility of the official story.

Your mind is closed to evidence that the official story is wrong.

When I wrote that even some of the most intelligent and informed have succumbed to the brainwashing, I had yourself first in my mind.

Thanks for patiently sticking with me on this journey. This problem is way bigger than you or I.

These statements are such delicious irony. You are distorting the laws of physics to make them tell you want you want to believe, and it is other people who are closed-minded?

Chandler 'proved' that the average acceleration was less than gravity, that's it. You cannot draw the conclusion that no force was greater than the normal load from that conclusion.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

Chandler 'proved' that the average acceleration was less than gravity, that's it.

Yup - that's what he showed. No distortions, no unjustified conclusions of a force greater than normal weight.

Yup - the lower floors couldn't even support the normal weight of the upper floors ...

Yup - I entirely agree that's what Chandler showed.

You're so close Ghent12, yet so far away.

[Ghent12]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

Yup - that's what he showed. No distortions, no unjustified conclusions of a force greater than normal weight.

Yup - the lower floors couldn't even support the normal weight of the upper floors ...

Yup - I entirely agree that's what Chandler showed.

You're so close Ghent12, yet so far away.

Do you really not understand the meaning of average?
Allow me to spell it out:
Ten hours gathering apples in a field. The total apple yield can be calculated by how many apples have been placed in a barrel.
Hour #: total apples in the barrel

Hour 1: 0 apples, I'm still out picking.
Hour 2: 0 apples, I'm still out picking.
Hour 3: 0 apples, I'm still out picking.
Hour 4: 0 apples, I'm still out picking.
Hour 5: 20 apples, I unloaded my pale into the barrel.
Hour 6: 20 apples, out picking again.
Hour 7: 20 apples, out picking again.
Hour 8: 20 apples, out picking again.
Hour 9: 20 apples, out picking again.
Hour 10: 40 apples, I return once again with a pale of 20 apples.

Average hourly apple-picking rate: 4 apples per hour. Yet in no single hour were exactly 4 apples added to the barrel.

Now think in terms of what exactly might happen during a collapse of a real building:
Microsecond 1000: very small downward acceleration (-2 m/s2 to 0), as the warmed steel becomes annealed by the force
Microsecond 2000: increasing acceleration due to more annealing
Microsecond 3000: increasing acceleration due to more annealing
Microsecond 4000: increasing acceleration due to more annealing
Microsecond 5000: major fracture occurs, acceleration instantly becomes -9.81 m/s2
Microsecond 6000: still -9.81 m/s2
...
Microsecond 450,000: still -9.81 m/s2
Microsecond 455,000: impact between upper and lower sections, acceleration reverses direction to become an extremely high positive number (greater than +49.05 m/s2, which is the acceleration associated with a safety factor of 6) to stop the fall of the upper section.
Microsecond 460,000: the extreme force associated with extreme acceleration needed to stop the fall of the upper section causes fracture along weakest points in load-bearing structure due to 'exceeding its safety factor' (a Chandler-friendly term); acceleration resumes at -9.81 m/s2
Microsecond 470,000: impact between lesser load-bearing parts of the building, acceleration changes positive again but to a much lower number (+20 m/s2 maybe).
Microsecond 480,000: fracture of those load-bearing parts of the structure; acceleration resumes -9.81 m/s2 freefall.
Microsecond 490,000: still -9.81 m/s2
...
Microsecond 780,000: impact against next set of major load-bearing support, acceleration instantly reverses direction to a very high degree as the load-bearing parts of the lower section attempt to stop the fall (greater than +49.05 m/s2, again exceeding the safety factor of 6).
Microsecond 782,500: fracture occurs as the force associated with such acceleration 'exceeds the safety factor' (again, Chandler-understandable terminology, since he is unfamiliar with material property analysis).
etc.


Do you get it now? That's a super-simplified mental model of the process. Do you understand just how long 2.5 seconds is when compared to the process of impact between structures? It's like taking my apple example and saying that since the average apple gathering rate was 4 per hour, at no time was there ever more than 4 apples put inside the barrel at once.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

Do you really not understand the meaning of average?

You really do have difficulty starting off a reply without some insult or other outrage, don't you?

Now think in terms of what exactly might happen during a collapse of a real building:

I swore to myself a few days ago I would quit reading or replying to your posts, but your present response deserves a comment. I had been expecting such a response for several days now, as nothing much I had been saying recently explicitly ruled out the scenario you present.

I suppose (not sure, but seems likely) that one could actually build a low-tech, low-cost model that exhibited the manner of collapse you describe. I have in mind a large basket of dried and emptied egg shells with a hammer laying on top of them. If the hammer is place gently, the dried egg shells can support it. If the hammer were dropped a few inches down on the egg shells, then after the hammer cracked the top layer of shell, it might well regain enough momentum to be able to crack the next layer of shell. Perhaps the hammer might even be able to sustain its "average" downward velocity, all the way through the egg shells. Heck, it might even gain velocity (accelerate) in the manner that Chandler reports for the upper portion of WTC1.

The WTC evidence however does not fit any such scenario:

Take a look at the core of each tower. Those cores were not horizontal layers of egg shell (or any other material) separated by layers of marginal support. They were 47 massive vertical steel beams, welded and braced into a continuous vertical support. Vertical steel beams do not provide horizontal layers of greater and "lesser load-bearing parts". I will remind you that the cores by themselves were easily able to support the buildings (even if say the perimeter walls and exterior corner were severed entirely.) So you have to take out those core columns to take the towers down. The original FEMA pancake theory (rather like the one you just presented here) was dismissed by NIST, because it failed to realistically consider the core columns.

Reinforced concrete does not pulverize into fine dust upon impact at these speeds. It cracks and crumbles into rubble of varying size pieces, most larger than the matrix material (sand or gravel.) The bulk of the towers, including the concrete, interior construction materials, office furnishings, and human corpses, was converted to explosively expanding dust clouds during the collapse.

Steel is not brittle like dried egg shell. It does not fracture suddenly unless exposed to a sharp, sudden and very large (for its normal strength) overload. These collapses happened with each entire floor exploding into dust, massive quantities of which was being ejected sideways and upwards, during the collapse. This would have required a truly massive overpressure across the entire area of each floor, including a continuous such overpressure every inch of the way down on the core columns. Only hypothetical scenarios that don't fit the evidence have any chance of behaving this way.

The 47 core columns would have required massive lateral forces, across all of them at once, all the way down, perhaps every three stories or so, in order to break them into the convenient sized lengths for truck transport that we ended up with in the rubble afterward.

Chandler did not find the staircase-like, floor-by-floor, variations in acceleration of your scenario. He found a nearly constant (downward) acceleration. In the particular case of WTC7, that acceleration was only slightly less than "free-fall" acceleration ( -9.8 m/sec² ), leaving not even the hypothetical possibility of averaging in sharp positive spikes in the acceleration of your scenario.

You are describing a hypothetical scenario that is far removed from some of the rather obvious and undisputed facts of this case. Your scenario resembles the since discredited (even by the official NIST report) pancake scenario.

Your behavior is not that of someone examining the evidence to see what actually occurred, but rather that of someone examining just the words of the one you're disagreeing with, to see if there is some rhetorical opening. Your mental model of what happened is an unexamined variant of the since discredited pancake collapse theory, showing little benefit of further serious validation and reconsideration in the light of new evidence and analysis.

Sooner or later, if you want to know what happened, you actually have to look at what happened, with your mind open to the evidence at hand even if it conflicts with your current theory. You will need sufficient expertise in the relevant intellectual disciplines to competently understand the analysis. Most Americans are either not yet able or have not chosen to do that. The only other poster on this thread that I recall able to get outside of the American propaganda fog is Skyson, and he has the distinct advantage (in this situation) of not being American.

[Ghent12]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

Take a look at the core of each tower. Those cores were not horizontal layers of egg shell (or any other material) separated by layers of marginal support. They were 47 massive vertical steel beams, welded and braced into a continuous vertical support. Vertical steel beams do not provide horizontal layers of greater and "lesser load-bearing parts". I will remind you that the cores by themselves were easily able to support the buildings (even if say the perimeter walls and exterior corner were severed entirely.) So you have to take out those core columns to take the towers down. The original FEMA pancake theory (rather like the one you just presented here) was dismissed by NIST, because it failed to realistically consider the core columns.

This post is indicitive of a failure of our communications with each other. We keep seemingly talking right past one another. In this case, my general scenario is applicable directly to the 'pile driver' theory, an inward-collapse of the verticle columns, or the pancake theory. It's a broad mental model, and you would find it useful if you were open-minded.

For instance, let's say there's a gap produced in the middle of a central column (due to heavily-heated steel fracturing after undergoing accelerated creep). This means that the verticle columns will impact each other during collapse, where my simple mental model can be used. Alternatively, the columns impact with the floor areas of the other section, very very rapidly destroying support for the weaker of the two (if not both).

Chandler did not find the staircase-like, floor-by-floor, variations in acceleration of your scenario. He found a nearly constant (downward) acceleration. In the particular case of WTC7, that acceleration was only slightly less than "free-fall" acceleration ( -9.8 m/secē ), leaving not even the hypothetical possibility of averaging in sharp positive spikes in the acceleration of your scenario.

You're right, Chandler did do an incomplete analysis.
Sumarily:
He found very slow acceleration at first (which is likey what I earlier referred to as imperceptible sliding due to steel becoming mush, made perceptible under freeze-frame analysis), then "constant" acceleration. Of course, he just drew a best-fit line among the dots over an extraordinarily long time span. Even if he were to fit every single frame as data points, that's still only narrowing the time span to intervals of 33 ms, which is absolutely not precise enough to accurately describe events that go from start to finish within that entire length of time.

Feel free to both continue to defend the indefensible and to post new nonevidence until the cows come home.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

For instance, let's say there's a gap produced in the middle of a central column (due to heavily-heated steel fracturing after undergoing accelerated creep). This means that the verticle columns will impact each other during collapse, where my simple mental model can be used. Alternatively, the columns impact with the floor areas of the other section, very very rapidly destroying support for the weaker of the two (if not both).

Maybe this, maybe that, maybe heavily heated steel fracturing (below the impact zone, I don't think so), maybe vertical columns collapsing this way or that or impacting this or that, ...

Sure. All things are plausible when you are not constrained by the actual construction of the building, the actual evidence of its falling and remains, and the actual laws of physics.

It is as I thought; I should not have read your posts today.

The mass delusion that envelopes most of my fellow Americans is depressing.

[c1ue]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

Yes, you have presented examples and analysis which show plausibility of the official story.

Your mind is closed to evidence that the official story is wrong.

When I wrote that even some of the most intelligent and informed have succumbed to the brainwashing, I had yourself first in my mind.

Thanks for patiently sticking with me on this journey. This problem is way bigger than you or I.

TPC,

You've missed the primary point I was making.

Chandler and Szamboti both state that the WTC towers could not have collapsed purely due to the 767 impacts and subsequent fires.

I believe I have shown that WTC towers could collapse.

Unless my analysis is wrong, then either Chandler/Szamboti are wrong or incomplete.

My suspicion is the latter, but either way it brings their respective conclusions into doubt.

So you may think I am brainwashed, but equally I think you are letting your suspicion of 'da Man' color your view.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

You've missed the primary point I was making.

Chandler and Szamboti both state that the WTC towers could not have collapsed purely due to the 767 impacts and subsequent fires.

I believe I have shown that WTC towers could collapse.

Unless my analysis is wrong, then either Chandler/Szamboti are wrong or incomplete.

Your analysis may be OK, as I've probably allowed before. But your reasoning in what I just quoted above is wrong.

An analysis showing something to be plausible does not ipso facto invalidate an analysis showing it to be impossible.

P.S. -- See further my example involving driving to New York in Post #220 of this self same thread for a refutation by example of your above fallacy.

P.P.S -- Given the elementary nature of your fallacy, and given my rather strenuous efforts to refute it in Post #220, I am rather disappointed that you would persist in presenting it.

[Ghent12]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

Maybe this, maybe that, maybe heavily heated steel fracturing (below the impact zone, I don't think so), maybe vertical columns collapsing this way or that or impacting this or that, ...

Sure. All things are plausible when you are not constrained by the actual construction of the building, the actual evidence of its falling and remains, and the actual laws of physics.

It is as I thought; I should not have read your posts today.

The mass delusion that envelopes most of my fellow Americans is depressing.

What are these actual laws of phsyics, hm? You're referring to laws which do not include the law of conservation of mass and energy, obviously.

Who's more delusional? Someone who finds plausible the 'official story' based upon actual laws of physics (everyone except conspiracy nutters); or someone who finds implausible the 'official story' based upon half-assed physical analyses (you)? All thorough analyses find the same conclusion; the 'official story' was plausible and the most likely scenario, whereas only analyses guilty of either deliberate or juvenile omissions find the 'official story' to be impossible.

Then again, you don't know what the word average means, so I could see how you might be offended by posts describing it for you.