This free-fall thing is stupid. The Towers did not collapse unimpeded at free-fall acceleration as you can plainly see in this video ( watch?v=xf6-Ln_8LPY ).
It's obvious because debris from the upper floors passes the 'cascading failure' of the floor decking. Large sections of the building are crashing all around and even dust (which has a lower terminal velocity) is coming down around the still-standing structure.
The structure is obscured, you are speculating. Stop it. All of you.
All the experts - like the world-class engineers at NIST and Zdenek P. Bazant use the term 'free fall' to describe the incredible speed of the destruction.
While I don't think it's actually equal to free fall acceleration in a vacuum, absolute free fall is not required of demolitions either.
@proudfootz Well, stop using it. It's intentionally misleading. NIST was talking about the initial drop of the upper stories. They were not talking about the avalanche of debris blasting through the lower floors.
Is there one factual error in my summation of the video ( watch?v=xf6-Ln_8LPY ) that I listed? You must have seen these videos before, so why keep peddling this "free-fall" nonsense? Besides, 'The Spire' is never mentioned by FF-ers (free-fallers).
Not peddling anything - except the truth of the matter.
When people like tooltime go on a rant about 'freefall' they are undermining the credibility of Bazant and NIST - the very experts whose fire-did-it theories we're supposed to be taking seriously.
@proudfootz Did you watch the video ( watch?v=xf6-Ln_8LPY ) ? It's only 29 seconds and CLEARLY demonstrates that the collapse was not at free-fall speeds. Nobody has ever seen the last 50 stories come down because they are obscured by the debris cloud.
I don't care who 'tooltime' is or what he's said, I'm asking you to be honest. I don't care about Bazant or NIST. Watch the video and post whether you still believe Tower Two fell at free-fall speeds.
I have only stated that world-class engineers have used the term 'freefall' to emphasize the amazing speed with which these landmark buildings were annihilated.
As I have repeatedly written - I don't think they were demolished at freefall acceleration.
Just a quick remark concerning what you said at the end of this video.
The fact that someone has erronous premises doesn't entail that their conclusion is false. It can most certainly still be true, albeit completely unrelated to and irregardless of the premises.
"If you drop something and it doesn't stop or get slowed its in freefall"
False...the speed of an object doesn't equal it's rate of acceleration. Freefall acceleration = 9.8m/s^2. If that rate is decreased, the speed will still increase based on its current velocity.
Science requires factual proof to support a proposed hypothesis. Criticism of NIST is not proof of a conspiracy. Can't present evidence? Then you need to accept your beliefs are based in faith...not science.
proudfootz....it doesn't matter what proof you reference to support your claim if the claim itself is false. The source of material is not the problem - it's the conclusion you reach from the material that is flawed. Following statement is incorrect:
@ 3:00 "if you drop something and doesn't get stopped or slowed it's in freefall"
Since a claim based on a fictitious formula / basis can't be substantiated, the notion is trumped before any method can be applied. *you fail to back the claim*
You conveniently omit the first sent. from the NIST response that provides the context for subsequent narrative. This 'cut-n-paste' behavior is hallmark of somebody who's trying to manipulate the content rather than convey material as originally intended. 1'st sentence of NIST reply:
"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the FIRST EXTERIOR PANELS to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC2"
That's the time for the first fragments of debris to hit the ground...this DOESN'T equal the collapse time of the towers themselves. In every video, we can see columns & debris far outpacing the collapse sequence of the building. This alone proves the buildings fell well below free fall acceleration. (That is, unless the debris had rockets pointing towards the ground attached to them). Skip to 1:00 of following video for a more detailed analysis of the collapse times:
Now you're claiming NIST's work is based on a 'fictitious formula'?
The theory of Bazant and NIST *depend* on 'freefall', so it's clear that the 'no freefall' claim refutes the leading official explanation for what happened at WTC.
My claim was simply that 'freefall' is used - and I cited uses of it - by virtually everyone to describe the destruction of the towers. If it if 'crap' then NIST and other experts are guilty of selling that term to the public.
Tooltime is doing a psychoanalysis of someone he conversed with and posting a personal testimonial of his experience with HIM. Not you. I don't know each claim you've made, I'm just responding to the claims made in this video. I'm sure freefall is mentioned many times in the 10000+ page NIST report, but it's NOT used to describe anything in regards to the towers descent. Learn to decipher variables of speed from acceleration and quit drawing foolish conclusions for the requirements of freefall
Sorry, but looking at what NIST published it very much does use the term 'free fall' to describe the destruction of the towers, and the 'peer reviewed' paper published by Bazant whom they cite *requires* freefall for their theory to work.
Learn to familiarize yourself with the literature before you make a fool of yourself.
I would also ask, how long do you think the collapses should have taken?
You can ask any CD expert and they will tell you gravity alone is responsible for rapid collapse speeds. I spoke with Brent Blanchard of pro-tech, and he told me exposives are to get the building moving. But once the support is removed from a single floor, gravity pulls it down fast. Note also that the truthers' favorite CD expert, D Jowenko, doesn't question the twin towers' collapses.
You can ask any CD expert and they will tell you that it requires careful planning to ensure that the existing structure must be weakened at key points to prevent the building's strength from resisting the desired collapse.
Clearly something caused the structure beneath the fire zones to achieve this effect.
". . . .means that claims that for the first time ever it happened (3 times in one day) is an extraordinary claim in need of extraordinary evidence"
Proudfootz,
I hear what you're saying and know where you're coming from. But you seem to assume that structural engineers the world over were baffled by the collapse speeds. I don't think they really were. We already have several science papers explaining the physics. What exactly is the extra evidence you seek?
There are several scientific and technical papers explaining why any potential local collapse should significantly slow the falling parts if not arrest collapse completely.
It's not clear how many structural engineers have studied this event. But clearly the paper NIST cites - Bazant's 'crush down/crush up' theory - is flatly contradicted by video evidence and likely impossible by well-established physical laws.
I am familiar with the term, and I had a few exchanges with Dr. Greening at JREF a few years ago. However, I have found the technical aspects of the collapse are complex, and most people - debunkers and truthers alike - are apt, I think, to think they understand the concepts even when they do not. It's not, in other words, obvious to the untrained observer that the WTC collapses did or did not "violate physics."
I've looked again pretty carefully at several videos of both twin towers. I'm not seeing the contradiction you are talking about. What's the problem with them?
It has to do with Bazant's theory - if you're not familiar with it you won't see where it is contradicted by the facts evident in videos of the annihilations of the towers.
I'm familiar with the basics - the "crush down" phase is said to end when the highest floor below the plane impacts reaches the ground, thereby initiating the "crush up" phase. I'm still not seeing any contradiction with the WTC vidoes I've watched. I think it's fair to say the videos by themsleves leave it an open question.
"Bazant's alleged 'pile driver' disintegrates before the majority of the skyscraper below is demolished"
I'm not seeing that. The only thing I can conclude with any confidence is that the top block starts moving downwards before we see the lower block start to move. If you want to link a particular video, let's analyze it second by second. I may not have seen the exact videos you have.
The other element is that Bazant's 'rigid bloc' supposedly 'crushes down' the core with everything else - while in real life the cores stood some time after the outer columns and floors were annihilated.
"This also debunks the often heard OCT claim that controlled demolition cannot occur without loud explosions."
It also shows that weakening of only a few floors can cause crush down. If explosives aren't needed, it leaves open the possibility the fires sufficed to do the damage. No matter how you look at it, a gravity collapse was entirely possible.
Can you also tell me exactly where Bazant states that the crush down phase included ALL of the lower block (including all the central columns)? I've looked at three of his essays, and can't find that particular claim.
Bazant and Zhou published a paper within hours of the attack: "Why did the WTC collapse? - A Simple Analysis"
"...the brunt of vertical impact must have gone directly into the columns of the framed tube [exterior columns] *and* the core..." p.7
Bazant consistently combines the core with exterior columns throughout the paper and *never* mentions the survival of the core or what the real-life survival of the core would do to his putative 'rigid block' allegedly crushing down.
I'm aware there is legitimate criticism of Bazant, even among gravity collapse proponents. The first paper you mention was really a speculation.
I'm wondering how important this is, though. It seems from the videos that a sliver of the core remained in the North Tower, very thin at the top.
Every theory has its legitimate criticisms. But that doesn't necessarily mean controlled demolition emerges as the better explanation here. I am more impressed overall by the "debunker science."
Obviously Bazant's paper was pure speculation. It was published within 48 hours of the WTC annihilations - hardly time for any kind of proper 'peer review'.
However, it is telling that NIST cited Bazant's speculations when it decided it was unnecessary to model the alleged collapses.
If we want to talk about proper peer review, the debunkers side of the debate would win handily, it seems to me. That's one reason I'm more impressed with it.
"I was simply pointing out 'peer review' doesn't seem to keep blatant falsehoods out of technical journals"
That I would agree with. BUT, as Michael Shirmer once remarked, as a general rule, it's the best method ever devised for separating sense from nonsense.
Apart from from the specific points you raise in objection to Bazant, I don't understand why a gravity collapse is so impossible in general terms. Don't the videos I linked make the basic case?
Once we have come to the point of agreement that 'peer review' is not some magical talisman that guarantees truth the OCT mantra loses its persuasive power.
As for the controlled demolition techniques seen in the videos it has never been denied by me that gravity plays a major role in the deliberate destruction of large structures.
Once we have come to the point of agreement that 'peer review' is not some magical talisman that guarantees truth the OCT mantra loses its persuasive power.
That said, the odds are, all other things being equal, random stuff floating around the internet is much more likely to be garbage. The more interesting question to me is, why do most of the truth science authors choose the venues they do, rather than submit their work to actual science journals? My impression . . . .(cont'd)
But 'all things are *not* equal' once we discover that Bazant has made fatal errors in his description of the events he pretends to explain.
IMO 9/11 skeptics choose the venues they do in an effort to directly address the public - just as many 'debunkers' do (see Ryan Mackey's work published in popular places like YouTube rather than obscure science journals).
But 'all things are *not* equal' once we discover that Bazant has made fatal errors in his description of the events he pretends to explain.
IMO 9/11 skeptics choose the venues they do in an effort to directly address the public - just as many 'debunkers' do (see Ryan Mackey's work published in popular places like YouTube rather than obscure science journals).
"just as many 'debunkers' do (see Ryan Mackey's work published in popular places like YouTube rather than obscure science journals"
The difference is that debunkers/mainstreamers do it in both places. It's also difficult to educate the public in regards to physics questions that are rather complex and not at all as obvious as they are frequently made out to be.
My impression is they aren't, as a whole, interested in subjecting their work to real experts. They seem to flee from debate with people who know the most about the physics. For instance, have you by any chance seen Ryan Mackey's 3 part youtube presentation explaining the physics of the collapses, and his challenge to truthers to prove it wrong?
"It was my impression that Wieck and Mackey chose to stage their 9/11 'debate' "
This particular show was not designed as a debate. As far as challengers, to my current knowledge, no one has yet taken him up on it. What does that tell you? Mackey was scheduled to debate with three different skeptics on Hardfire. Two of them dropped out, and that left Mackey with Tony Szamboti. The debate was about a month ago, and should be posted on Google video or youtube within a few weeks.
I would also point out that Hardfire is the one place that always welcomes truthers, but they habitually turn down the opportunity. But there have been exceptions, including debates with Richard Gage, James Fetzer and the LC producers, which should all still be up on Youtube. Wieck worked hard to get DR Griffin on, but ever since Mackey published his lengthy paper on Griffin, he went running. Again, what does that say?
I cannot confirm anything about Griffin allegedly 'running' from a debate with Mackey, but I have seen several articles debunking Mackey's paper.
Comparing Griffin's written arguments with Mackey's I would say that Griffin makes the superior arguments without reliance on rhetorical methods to 'win' a technical argument.
What does that say?
It would be interesting to see a real debate with a neutral moderator.
"I would be interested in seeing a real debate between a skeptic and a 'debunker'. "
In addition to Hardfire, a few exchanges may interest you at the JREF 911 forum. The 1st is a post debate "debate" between Mackey and Szamboti. The thread title is Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey and starts on page 8 post #295
Rather than attempt a URL at this silly place, Google the phrase The 3.00 to 1 factor of safety for the core columns was calculated using Gregory Urich's
The other is the closest anyone has come to Mackey's challenge - by a poster named femr2.
Thread title Hardfire: Physics of 9/11
Begins: page 22 post #857
Google look up phrase: "Ryan, you have now been fully aware of the model"
My impression is no truther has yet to provide an objection which Mackey cannot show to be erroneous.. Why don't you pose your Bazant objection to him and see what he says? He's always open to e-mail questions.
"Apparently Jim Hoffman has written an article detailing some of Mackey's many mistakes"
The question I would ask is: since I don't pretend to understand all the physics involved, and I'm going to be a bit presumptuous and assume you probably don't either, how can you or I know which side's technical science papers are superior to the other's?
I suppose we do. Well, thanks for being such a good sport. I will do some more reading. In fact I think I will ask some of your questions to JREF. But I won't mention you, as they can be a little abusive over their, frankly. But if I get some interesting answers, I'll let you know.
You may also have noticed as of 2008 in a paper with Le, Greening and Benson that Bazant still seems to believe the top 'rigid block' crushed everything below it until it reached the ground - see illustration labeled Fig. 2.
Still no explanation of how the real-life core punching through the center of this alleged 'rigid block' would effect his theory.
That even years after the fact that Bazant either is unaware of or merely ignores the persistence of the cores is good evidence that his work is not in any meaningful sense 'science'.
That NIST depends on Bazant's legerdemain is an indictment of NIST's investigation.
"Bazant either is unaware of or merely ignores the persistence of the cores is good evidence that his work is not in any meaningful sense 'science' " I think there's some exaggeration to that claim. As I stated, it's not as if the entire, or even most of the core remained.
As far as ignorance, scientists accuse one another of this all the time. I could just as well say Tony Szamboti's work is not meaningful science . . . .
as he cannot and will not acknowledge what video, pictures, frame by frame analysis, and everyone else sees in the South Tower videos: that the tilt starts before the collapse. Does this prove conclusively that "CD science" is pure rubbish? Or is it better to look at the totality of an argument before completely dismissing it?
You can also observe these panels hitting the ground ahead of the main structure on video, which is obvious confirmation the total collapse times were several seconds longer than the free fall time of the debris which broke off and fell through the air.
Everyone who has examined the phenomenal annihilations of these skyscrapers has remarked on the amazing speed with which they progress, comparing them to freefall - even NIST.
Apparently no one was much impressed by a second here or a second there. Not even CD would be expected to progress at absolute freefall.
"Not even CD would be expected to progress at absolute freefall."
A good estimate of the total collapse times of each twin tower is between 12 and 16 seconds. Again, without explaining how much longer you think these collapses should have taken, I'm not sure where the borderline is supposed to between a fantastic collapse time and a reasonable collapse time.
It *is* difficult to 'draw the line' on an apparently first-time-ever phenomenon such as the 'gravity-driven global collapse' of not just one, but three massive steel-framed buildings in one day.
But there are technical and scientific papers which argue that any potential collapse should be significantly slowed (if not stopped altogether) by the 80-90 story skyscrapers between the falling section and the ground.
NIST's FAQ on the collapse times is indeed confusingly presented. But a careful reading of their answer does make clear that the entire collapse times were not at free fall ( 9.2 seconds.) NIST stated that it took 9 & 11 seconds for the FIRST EXTERIOR PANELS to reach the ground. So the obvious conclusion is the last exterior panels took more than 9 & 11seconds to reach the ground, thus slower than free fall.
You are correct that NIST's work is written in a confused manner.
However, one can hardly blame 'truthers' for using the term 'freefall' which virtually everyone who has studied the WTC annihilations uses.
To show that the extraordinary speed of the destructions of the three skyscrapers is a purely 'gravity driven' phenomenon will require extraordinary evidence.
"To show that the extraordinary speed of the destructions of the three skyscrapers is a purely 'gravity driven' phenomenon will require extraordinary evidence. "
The fact that jets hitting buildings or building fires have never in history annihilated a steel-framed skyscraper means that claims that for the first time ever it happened (3 times in one day) is an extraordinary claim in need of extraordinary evidence.
"Scientists, presupposing the regularity of nature, operate on the principle that like effects generally imply like causes. Scientists are, therefore, loathe to posit unprecedented causes for common phenomena."
When they said that the falling stuff was not stopped or slowed, I think what they meant was that it was not slowed significantly. They can't have meant it as an absolute, because to say that it absolutely was not slowed at all would be to claim something that defies the laws of physics.
the alleged significance is what is crap. that is comes down to for most truthers is an argument from incredulity in regards to the "official story" on how the towers fell "well i just cant believe they would come down that fat on their own" is not a solid argument.
It's a bit late now to say what you should have said then. You made it sound like the 'freefall' description was itself crap.
But let's say you 'forgot' that NIST and other OCT sources refer to freefall - there are plenty of technical papers detailing exactly why 70 or 90 stories of skyscraper might stop or slow a falling mass.
People's intuition is in place when they see something that doesn't fit their intimate daily knowledge of physics - they'd be incredulous with good reason.
could you please show me exactly where there is proof that it is impossible for the building to have fallen at near free fall speed without controlled demo?
so first off, i never said they don't have facts. I said they mix facts with possible facts (unverified information) with a plausible view of the world with a less plausible view of the world.
"The 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The details of this massive cover-up are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission."
Looks like the official investigation was a tissue of lies.
The OCTs and 'debunkers' have been rooked - should be outraged that they were hoodwinked and made to look like fools.
Where NIST is in agreement with everyone else -as in describing the incredible speed of the annihilations of the towers in terms of 'freefall' - they are probably on safe ground.
NIST never analyzed or tested any aspect of the demolition hypothesis, therefore that they 'rule out' something they never considered doesn't count for very much.
NISTs findings also do not support the controlled demolition theory since there is conclusive evidence that:
* the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;
* the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure...
...to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.
Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of...
...any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation."
Since efforts of investigators were hampered in the collection of evidence, it is not conclusive that they did not find evidence which they never searched for.
Still - none of your 'points' shows that tooltime's ignorance of the simplest facts regarding 9/11 makes him a credible armchair psychologist.
If it were controlled demolition, the destruction could be initiated at any floor.
So NIST's 1st point is a fal.
Since no steel-framed highrise has ever been caused to completely collapse from weakening by fire it remains to be demonstrated that it happened in these 3 cases.
NIST's second point is an assertion without foundation.
This free-fall thing is stupid. The Towers did not collapse unimpeded at free-fall acceleration as you can plainly see in this video ( watch?v=xf6-Ln_8LPY ).
It's obvious because debris from the upper floors passes the 'cascading failure' of the floor decking. Large sections of the building are crashing all around and even dust (which has a lower terminal velocity) is coming down around the still-standing structure.
The structure is obscured, you are speculating. Stop it. All of you.
fascistcat 5 months ago
@fascistcat
All the experts - like the world-class engineers at NIST and Zdenek P. Bazant use the term 'free fall' to describe the incredible speed of the destruction.
While I don't think it's actually equal to free fall acceleration in a vacuum, absolute free fall is not required of demolitions either.
proudfootz 5 months ago
@proudfootz Well, stop using it. It's intentionally misleading. NIST was talking about the initial drop of the upper stories. They were not talking about the avalanche of debris blasting through the lower floors.
Is there one factual error in my summation of the video ( watch?v=xf6-Ln_8LPY ) that I listed? You must have seen these videos before, so why keep peddling this "free-fall" nonsense? Besides, 'The Spire' is never mentioned by FF-ers (free-fallers).
Stop it. Stop it. Stop it.
fascistcat 5 months ago
@fascistcat
Not peddling anything - except the truth of the matter.
When people like tooltime go on a rant about 'freefall' they are undermining the credibility of Bazant and NIST - the very experts whose fire-did-it theories we're supposed to be taking seriously.
So, yes - tooltime is being stupid.
proudfootz 5 months ago
@proudfootz Did you watch the video ( watch?v=xf6-Ln_8LPY ) ? It's only 29 seconds and CLEARLY demonstrates that the collapse was not at free-fall speeds. Nobody has ever seen the last 50 stories come down because they are obscured by the debris cloud.
I don't care who 'tooltime' is or what he's said, I'm asking you to be honest. I don't care about Bazant or NIST. Watch the video and post whether you still believe Tower Two fell at free-fall speeds.
Or, is this 'willful ignorance?'
fascistcat 5 months ago
@fascistcat
I have only stated that world-class engineers have used the term 'freefall' to emphasize the amazing speed with which these landmark buildings were annihilated.
As I have repeatedly written - I don't think they were demolished at freefall acceleration.
Why do you willfully ignore what I write?
proudfootz 5 months ago
@proudfootz because he's trolling on every 9/11 video :)
antonfilth 4 months ago
@proudfootz "I don't think they were demolished at freefall acceleration."
So you think the report is inaccurate and disagree with people you call "world-class engineers".
Cool.
AstronautJ 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@AstronautJ
If you read the post carefully you'll have a chance of understanding what is meant.
proudfootz 1 month ago
@blackjerryboymetal
Sorry, but it's tooltime who's exposed himself as a fool.
...figures that's the very thing you agree with him on.
proudfootz 7 months ago
@blackjerryboymetal
Instead of engagiung in silly rhetorical games, why don't you try having a point and stating it straight out?
Or would that be too scary for you?
proudfootz 7 months ago
@blackjerryboymetal
If you don't know why they put fire protection on the steel I suggest you bone up on some of this before you try to engage in any discussion.
I don't have the time to hold your hand and instruct you on every little thing.
proudfootz 7 months ago
Just a quick remark concerning what you said at the end of this video.
The fact that someone has erronous premises doesn't entail that their conclusion is false. It can most certainly still be true, albeit completely unrelated to and irregardless of the premises.
forestloves 1 year ago
@forestloves
I suppose it's possible - but there's no good reason to believe his conclusions when his premises are false.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz I couldn't agree more :)
forestloves 1 year ago
@ 3:00
"If you drop something and it doesn't stop or get slowed its in freefall"
False...the speed of an object doesn't equal it's rate of acceleration. Freefall acceleration = 9.8m/s^2. If that rate is decreased, the speed will still increase based on its current velocity.
Science requires factual proof to support a proposed hypothesis. Criticism of NIST is not proof of a conspiracy. Can't present evidence? Then you need to accept your beliefs are based in faith...not science.
Algonquien 2 years ago
@Algonquien
I've backed up all my claims with evidence - it is tooltime who makes unsubstantiated and false statements.
The fact is that 'free fall' is the term used by virtually everyone to describe what happened at WTC - even NIST.
proudfootz 2 years ago
proudfootz....it doesn't matter what proof you reference to support your claim if the claim itself is false. The source of material is not the problem - it's the conclusion you reach from the material that is flawed. Following statement is incorrect:
@ 3:00 "if you drop something and doesn't get stopped or slowed it's in freefall"
Since a claim based on a fictitious formula / basis can't be substantiated, the notion is trumped before any method can be applied. *you fail to back the claim*
Algonquien 2 years ago 3
You conveniently omit the first sent. from the NIST response that provides the context for subsequent narrative. This 'cut-n-paste' behavior is hallmark of somebody who's trying to manipulate the content rather than convey material as originally intended. 1'st sentence of NIST reply:
"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the FIRST EXTERIOR PANELS to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC2"
Algonquien 2 years ago
That's the time for the first fragments of debris to hit the ground...this DOESN'T equal the collapse time of the towers themselves. In every video, we can see columns & debris far outpacing the collapse sequence of the building. This alone proves the buildings fell well below free fall acceleration. (That is, unless the debris had rockets pointing towards the ground attached to them). Skip to 1:00 of following video for a more detailed analysis of the collapse times:
watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4
Algonquien 2 years ago
@Algonquien
I put the link to the NIST site so that interested parties could see the sentence in context - you charges of 'manipulation' are overwrought.
Clearly you are struggling to salvage something from this.
proudfootz 2 years ago
@Algonquien
Now you're claiming NIST's work is based on a 'fictitious formula'?
The theory of Bazant and NIST *depend* on 'freefall', so it's clear that the 'no freefall' claim refutes the leading official explanation for what happened at WTC.
My claim was simply that 'freefall' is used - and I cited uses of it - by virtually everyone to describe the destruction of the towers. If it if 'crap' then NIST and other experts are guilty of selling that term to the public.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Tooltime is doing a psychoanalysis of someone he conversed with and posting a personal testimonial of his experience with HIM. Not you. I don't know each claim you've made, I'm just responding to the claims made in this video. I'm sure freefall is mentioned many times in the 10000+ page NIST report, but it's NOT used to describe anything in regards to the towers descent. Learn to decipher variables of speed from acceleration and quit drawing foolish conclusions for the requirements of freefall
Algonquien 2 years ago
@Algonquien
Sorry, but looking at what NIST published it very much does use the term 'free fall' to describe the destruction of the towers, and the 'peer reviewed' paper published by Bazant whom they cite *requires* freefall for their theory to work.
Learn to familiarize yourself with the literature before you make a fool of yourself.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Tooltime is not qualified to do any kind of psychological analysis of anyone.
Given tooltime's ignorance of the facts and his willingness to simply make stuff up as he goes, I don't think he is a very credible witness.
proudfootz 2 years ago
great video. five stars.
xSammBAM 2 years ago
I would also ask, how long do you think the collapses should have taken?
You can ask any CD expert and they will tell you gravity alone is responsible for rapid collapse speeds. I spoke with Brent Blanchard of pro-tech, and he told me exposives are to get the building moving. But once the support is removed from a single floor, gravity pulls it down fast. Note also that the truthers' favorite CD expert, D Jowenko, doesn't question the twin towers' collapses.
What does that tell you?
cchris874 2 years ago
cchris -
You can ask any CD expert and they will tell you that it requires careful planning to ensure that the existing structure must be weakened at key points to prevent the building's strength from resisting the desired collapse.
Clearly something caused the structure beneath the fire zones to achieve this effect.
proudfootz 2 years ago
". . . .means that claims that for the first time ever it happened (3 times in one day) is an extraordinary claim in need of extraordinary evidence"
Proudfootz,
I hear what you're saying and know where you're coming from. But you seem to assume that structural engineers the world over were baffled by the collapse speeds. I don't think they really were. We already have several science papers explaining the physics. What exactly is the extra evidence you seek?
Cheers
Chris
cchris874 2 years ago
cchris -
There are several scientific and technical papers explaining why any potential local collapse should significantly slow the falling parts if not arrest collapse completely.
It's not clear how many structural engineers have studied this event. But clearly the paper NIST cites - Bazant's 'crush down/crush up' theory - is flatly contradicted by video evidence and likely impossible by well-established physical laws.
proudfootz 2 years ago
"Bazant's 'crush down/crush up' theory - is flatly contradicted by video evidence"
Exactly how?
cchris874 2 years ago
cchris -
Are you at all familiar with Bazant's notion?
proudfootz 2 years ago
Bazant "crush down/crush up"
I am familiar with the term, and I had a few exchanges with Dr. Greening at JREF a few years ago. However, I have found the technical aspects of the collapse are complex, and most people - debunkers and truthers alike - are apt, I think, to think they understand the concepts even when they do not. It's not, in other words, obvious to the untrained observer that the WTC collapses did or did not "violate physics."
cchris874 2 years ago
cchris -
Even if someone were to argue that Bazant's theory doesn't violate physical laws, it is still flatly contradicted by video evidence.
In short, NIST relies on a patemtly false theory to 'explain' WTC annihilation.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Hi,
I've looked again pretty carefully at several videos of both twin towers. I'm not seeing the contradiction you are talking about. What's the problem with them?
cchris874 2 years ago
cchris -
It has to do with Bazant's theory - if you're not familiar with it you won't see where it is contradicted by the facts evident in videos of the annihilations of the towers.
proudfootz 2 years ago
I'm familiar with the basics - the "crush down" phase is said to end when the highest floor below the plane impacts reaches the ground, thereby initiating the "crush up" phase. I'm still not seeing any contradiction with the WTC vidoes I've watched. I think it's fair to say the videos by themsleves leave it an open question.
Chris
cchris874 2 years ago
I think it's fair to say that the videos indicate that the upper section is 'crushed up' first before it 'crushes down' and reaches the ground.
Bazant's alleged 'pile driver' disintegrates before the majority of the skyscraper below is demolished.
proudfootz 2 years ago
"Bazant's alleged 'pile driver' disintegrates before the majority of the skyscraper below is demolished"
I'm not seeing that. The only thing I can conclude with any confidence is that the top block starts moving downwards before we see the lower block start to move. If you want to link a particular video, let's analyze it second by second. I may not have seen the exact videos you have.
regards
Chris
cchris874 2 years ago
cchris -
The other element is that Bazant's 'rigid bloc' supposedly 'crushes down' the core with everything else - while in real life the cores stood some time after the outer columns and floors were annihilated.
proudfootz 2 years ago
"while in real life the cores stood some time after. . . "
True. But is that a fatal flaw to the basic theory?
cchris874 2 years ago
cchris -
It would seem that a theory that leaves out such a remarkable feature has some rather large 'gaps' in its explanatory power.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Earlier you wrote:
"and likely impossible by well-established physical laws. "
Here's a link to a video which proves crush down can happen. watch?v=prwvj-npt5s&feature=player_embedded#
cchris874 2 years ago
We are not shown in this video whether this demolition proceeded to the ground as at WTC.
But it is interesting that what happened at WTC most resembles controlled demolition.
But what is 'impossible' about Bazant's theory is that his 'rigid block' falling on the undamaged structure below is not damaged by the collision!
There used to be a rule about 'equal and opposite reactions' in physics until Bazant came along...
See 'The Missing Jolt' by Graeme MacQueen & Tony Szamboti.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Here's another example where again, support is weakened in a few floors, and w/o explosives you get a similar result as the twin towers.
watch?v=3GNhEpHfgfI&feature=player_profilepage#
cchris874 2 years ago
I agree what happened at the twin towers most resembles controlled demolition.
This also debunks the often heard OCT claim that controlled demolition cannot occur without loud explosions.
proudfootz 2 years ago
"This also debunks the often heard OCT claim that controlled demolition cannot occur without loud explosions."
It also shows that weakening of only a few floors can cause crush down. If explosives aren't needed, it leaves open the possibility the fires sufficed to do the damage. No matter how you look at it, a gravity collapse was entirely possible.
cchris874 2 years ago
Can you also tell me exactly where Bazant states that the crush down phase included ALL of the lower block (including all the central columns)? I've looked at three of his essays, and can't find that particular claim.
Thanks
cchris874 2 years ago
cchris -
Bazant and Zhou published a paper within hours of the attack: "Why did the WTC collapse? - A Simple Analysis"
"...the brunt of vertical impact must have gone directly into the columns of the framed tube [exterior columns] *and* the core..." p.7
Bazant consistently combines the core with exterior columns throughout the paper and *never* mentions the survival of the core or what the real-life survival of the core would do to his putative 'rigid block' allegedly crushing down.
proudfootz 2 years ago
I'm aware there is legitimate criticism of Bazant, even among gravity collapse proponents. The first paper you mention was really a speculation.
I'm wondering how important this is, though. It seems from the videos that a sliver of the core remained in the North Tower, very thin at the top.
Every theory has its legitimate criticisms. But that doesn't necessarily mean controlled demolition emerges as the better explanation here. I am more impressed overall by the "debunker science."
cchris874 2 years ago
cchris -
Obviously Bazant's paper was pure speculation. It was published within 48 hours of the WTC annihilations - hardly time for any kind of proper 'peer review'.
However, it is telling that NIST cited Bazant's speculations when it decided it was unnecessary to model the alleged collapses.
This is hardly science - it is mere guesswork.
proudfootz 2 years ago
"proper 'peer review'."
If we want to talk about proper peer review, the debunkers side of the debate would win handily, it seems to me. That's one reason I'm more impressed with it.
cchris874 2 years ago
I was simply pointing out 'peer review' doesn't seem to keep blatant falsehoods out of technical journals.
proudfootz 2 years ago
"I was simply pointing out 'peer review' doesn't seem to keep blatant falsehoods out of technical journals"
That I would agree with. BUT, as Michael Shirmer once remarked, as a general rule, it's the best method ever devised for separating sense from nonsense.
Apart from from the specific points you raise in objection to Bazant, I don't understand why a gravity collapse is so impossible in general terms. Don't the videos I linked make the basic case?
regards
Chris
cchris874 2 years ago
cchris -
Once we have come to the point of agreement that 'peer review' is not some magical talisman that guarantees truth the OCT mantra loses its persuasive power.
As for the controlled demolition techniques seen in the videos it has never been denied by me that gravity plays a major role in the deliberate destruction of large structures.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Once we have come to the point of agreement that 'peer review' is not some magical talisman that guarantees truth the OCT mantra loses its persuasive power.
That said, the odds are, all other things being equal, random stuff floating around the internet is much more likely to be garbage. The more interesting question to me is, why do most of the truth science authors choose the venues they do, rather than submit their work to actual science journals? My impression . . . .(cont'd)
cchris874 2 years ago
cchris -
But 'all things are *not* equal' once we discover that Bazant has made fatal errors in his description of the events he pretends to explain.
IMO 9/11 skeptics choose the venues they do in an effort to directly address the public - just as many 'debunkers' do (see Ryan Mackey's work published in popular places like YouTube rather than obscure science journals).
proudfootz 2 years ago
cchris -
But 'all things are *not* equal' once we discover that Bazant has made fatal errors in his description of the events he pretends to explain.
IMO 9/11 skeptics choose the venues they do in an effort to directly address the public - just as many 'debunkers' do (see Ryan Mackey's work published in popular places like YouTube rather than obscure science journals).
proudfootz 2 years ago
"just as many 'debunkers' do (see Ryan Mackey's work published in popular places like YouTube rather than obscure science journals"
The difference is that debunkers/mainstreamers do it in both places. It's also difficult to educate the public in regards to physics questions that are rather complex and not at all as obvious as they are frequently made out to be.
Cheers
cchris874 2 years ago
cont'd . . . .
My impression is they aren't, as a whole, interested in subjecting their work to real experts. They seem to flee from debate with people who know the most about the physics. For instance, have you by any chance seen Ryan Mackey's 3 part youtube presentation explaining the physics of the collapses, and his challenge to truthers to prove it wrong?
cchris874 2 years ago
cchris -
It was my impression that Wieck and Mackey chose to stage their 9/11 'debate' on Hardfire without any opponent at all.
Judging by the responses to Mackey's presentation it seems there are plenty of people willing to take up the challenge
I would be interested in seeing a real debate between a skeptic and a 'debunker'.
proudfootz 2 years ago
"It was my impression that Wieck and Mackey chose to stage their 9/11 'debate' "
This particular show was not designed as a debate. As far as challengers, to my current knowledge, no one has yet taken him up on it. What does that tell you? Mackey was scheduled to debate with three different skeptics on Hardfire. Two of them dropped out, and that left Mackey with Tony Szamboti. The debate was about a month ago, and should be posted on Google video or youtube within a few weeks.
cchris874 2 years ago
cchris -
According to Pilots for Truth they have a standing challenge to debate Mackey which he had been dodging before staging the Hardfire appearance.
proudfootz 2 years ago
I would also point out that Hardfire is the one place that always welcomes truthers, but they habitually turn down the opportunity. But there have been exceptions, including debates with Richard Gage, James Fetzer and the LC producers, which should all still be up on Youtube. Wieck worked hard to get DR Griffin on, but ever since Mackey published his lengthy paper on Griffin, he went running. Again, what does that say?
cchris874 2 years ago
cchris -
I cannot confirm anything about Griffin allegedly 'running' from a debate with Mackey, but I have seen several articles debunking Mackey's paper.
Comparing Griffin's written arguments with Mackey's I would say that Griffin makes the superior arguments without reliance on rhetorical methods to 'win' a technical argument.
What does that say?
It would be interesting to see a real debate with a neutral moderator.
proudfootz 2 years ago
"I would be interested in seeing a real debate between a skeptic and a 'debunker'. "
In addition to Hardfire, a few exchanges may interest you at the JREF 911 forum. The 1st is a post debate "debate" between Mackey and Szamboti. The thread title is Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey and starts on page 8 post #295
Rather than attempt a URL at this silly place, Google the phrase The 3.00 to 1 factor of safety for the core columns was calculated using Gregory Urich's
cchris874 2 years ago
cchris -
I am less than impressed by the goings-on at JREF. But I have visited there plenty.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Comment removed
cchris874 2 years ago
The other is the closest anyone has come to Mackey's challenge - by a poster named femr2.
Thread title Hardfire: Physics of 9/11
Begins: page 22 post #857
Google look up phrase: "Ryan, you have now been fully aware of the model"
My impression is no truther has yet to provide an objection which Mackey cannot show to be erroneous.. Why don't you pose your Bazant objection to him and see what he says? He's always open to e-mail questions.
regards
Chris
cchris874 2 years ago
cchris -
Apparently Jim Hoffman has written an article detailing some of Mackey's many mistakes.
If Mackey's methods are as described a 'debate' would hardly be possible without rigorous moderation.
proudfootz 2 years ago
"Apparently Jim Hoffman has written an article detailing some of Mackey's many mistakes"
The question I would ask is: since I don't pretend to understand all the physics involved, and I'm going to be a bit presumptuous and assume you probably don't either, how can you or I know which side's technical science papers are superior to the other's?
cchris874 2 years ago
cchris -
I suppose we'll have to depend on our wits. ;)
proudfootz 2 years ago
I suppose we do. Well, thanks for being such a good sport. I will do some more reading. In fact I think I will ask some of your questions to JREF. But I won't mention you, as they can be a little abusive over their, frankly. But if I get some interesting answers, I'll let you know.
Chris
cchris874 2 years ago
cchris -
Good luck!
proudfootz 2 years ago
cchris -
You may also have noticed as of 2008 in a paper with Le, Greening and Benson that Bazant still seems to believe the top 'rigid block' crushed everything below it until it reached the ground - see illustration labeled Fig. 2.
Still no explanation of how the real-life core punching through the center of this alleged 'rigid block' would effect his theory.
proudfootz 2 years ago
That even years after the fact that Bazant either is unaware of or merely ignores the persistence of the cores is good evidence that his work is not in any meaningful sense 'science'.
That NIST depends on Bazant's legerdemain is an indictment of NIST's investigation.
proudfootz 2 years ago
"Bazant either is unaware of or merely ignores the persistence of the cores is good evidence that his work is not in any meaningful sense 'science' " I think there's some exaggeration to that claim. As I stated, it's not as if the entire, or even most of the core remained.
As far as ignorance, scientists accuse one another of this all the time. I could just as well say Tony Szamboti's work is not meaningful science . . . .
cchris874 2 years ago
It is Bazant's claims that are exagerrated.
As you say - he is speculating. But NIST uses his wild speculation as if it were fact.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Szamboti, cont'd. . . .
as he cannot and will not acknowledge what video, pictures, frame by frame analysis, and everyone else sees in the South Tower videos: that the tilt starts before the collapse. Does this prove conclusively that "CD science" is pure rubbish? Or is it better to look at the totality of an argument before completely dismissing it?
cchris874 2 years ago
Really? Does 'everyone else' see tilt before the destruction of WTC South?
Hardly as destructive to demolition hypothesis as 70 storey core piercing Bazant's alleged 'rigid block' is.
proudfootz 2 years ago
cont'd. . . .
You can also observe these panels hitting the ground ahead of the main structure on video, which is obvious confirmation the total collapse times were several seconds longer than the free fall time of the debris which broke off and fell through the air.
Cheers
Chris
cchris874 2 years ago
cchris -
Everyone who has examined the phenomenal annihilations of these skyscrapers has remarked on the amazing speed with which they progress, comparing them to freefall - even NIST.
Apparently no one was much impressed by a second here or a second there. Not even CD would be expected to progress at absolute freefall.
proudfootz 2 years ago
"Not even CD would be expected to progress at absolute freefall."
A good estimate of the total collapse times of each twin tower is between 12 and 16 seconds. Again, without explaining how much longer you think these collapses should have taken, I'm not sure where the borderline is supposed to between a fantastic collapse time and a reasonable collapse time.
Thanks
cchris874 2 years ago
cchris -
It *is* difficult to 'draw the line' on an apparently first-time-ever phenomenon such as the 'gravity-driven global collapse' of not just one, but three massive steel-framed buildings in one day.
But there are technical and scientific papers which argue that any potential collapse should be significantly slowed (if not stopped altogether) by the 80-90 story skyscrapers between the falling section and the ground.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Hi,
NIST's FAQ on the collapse times is indeed confusingly presented. But a careful reading of their answer does make clear that the entire collapse times were not at free fall ( 9.2 seconds.) NIST stated that it took 9 & 11 seconds for the FIRST EXTERIOR PANELS to reach the ground. So the obvious conclusion is the last exterior panels took more than 9 & 11seconds to reach the ground, thus slower than free fall.
cchris874 2 years ago
cchris -
You are correct that NIST's work is written in a confused manner.
However, one can hardly blame 'truthers' for using the term 'freefall' which virtually everyone who has studied the WTC annihilations uses.
To show that the extraordinary speed of the destructions of the three skyscrapers is a purely 'gravity driven' phenomenon will require extraordinary evidence.
proudfootz 2 years ago
"To show that the extraordinary speed of the destructions of the three skyscrapers is a purely 'gravity driven' phenomenon will require extraordinary evidence. "
What do you base this on, may I ask?
cchris874 2 years ago
cchris -
The fact that jets hitting buildings or building fires have never in history annihilated a steel-framed skyscraper means that claims that for the first time ever it happened (3 times in one day) is an extraordinary claim in need of extraordinary evidence.
"Scientists, presupposing the regularity of nature, operate on the principle that like effects generally imply like causes. Scientists are, therefore, loathe to posit unprecedented causes for common phenomena."
proudfootz 2 years ago
When they said that the falling stuff was not stopped or slowed, I think what they meant was that it was not slowed significantly. They can't have meant it as an absolute, because to say that it absolutely was not slowed at all would be to claim something that defies the laws of physics.
Heathenfidel 2 years ago
heath -
It may be sloppy writing on their part.
But reading the text what they say amounts to 'freefall'.
Agreed that such a phenomenon would defy the known laws of physics.
proudfootz 2 years ago
BTW, a conclusion can be true and the premises false. all that means is that the argument is invalid
tooltime9901 2 years ago
But your false premises give us no confidence in your invalid conclusions.
proudfootz 2 years ago
ok, now explain why what they say is false. tell us why those 12 - 28 stories crashing down would have been at less then free fall speed.
tooltime9901 2 years ago
Tool -
You said 'freefall' was crap, and NIST says it was free fall.
NIST is on the side of the 'truthers' on the only matter of fact you addressed in your video.
proudfootz 2 years ago
the alleged significance is what is crap. that is comes down to for most truthers is an argument from incredulity in regards to the "official story" on how the towers fell "well i just cant believe they would come down that fat on their own" is not a solid argument.
tooltime9901 2 years ago 2
It's a bit late now to say what you should have said then. You made it sound like the 'freefall' description was itself crap.
But let's say you 'forgot' that NIST and other OCT sources refer to freefall - there are plenty of technical papers detailing exactly why 70 or 90 stories of skyscraper might stop or slow a falling mass.
People's intuition is in place when they see something that doesn't fit their intimate daily knowledge of physics - they'd be incredulous with good reason.
proudfootz 2 years ago
again that's an argument from incredulity.
could you please show me exactly where there is proof that it is impossible for the building to have fallen at near free fall speed without controlled demo?
tooltime9901 2 years ago
tooltime -
Are you *really* ignorant of the technical papers detailing exactly why skyscrapers should be expected to slow or even arrest down a falling mass?
Now I am incredulous that anyone would go spouting off about 9/11 without doing any research!
proudfootz 2 years ago
so first off, i never said they don't have facts. I said they mix facts with possible facts (unverified information) with a plausible view of the world with a less plausible view of the world.
tooltime9901 2 years ago
You are in no position to judge what is or is not a plausible view of the world.
Thus there is no need for any 'psychological explanation' of skepticism.
proudfootz 2 years ago
and you are? you bitch and moan about my analysis being invalid and then turn around and state one of your own about me.
tooltime9901 2 years ago 6
Oh? Did I condemn you as a 'psychological case' simply because we might disagree about the significance of certain facts?
The whole 'truthers are crazy' paradigm is played out - still useful for Glenn Beck and similar demagogues - but unworthy of a freethinker...
proudfootz 2 years ago
Just FYI:
"The 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The details of this massive cover-up are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission."
Looks like the official investigation was a tissue of lies.
The OCTs and 'debunkers' have been rooked - should be outraged that they were hoodwinked and made to look like fools.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Skeptics have facts, yes; cherry-picked facts.
If you keep reading the document you cite, NIST ruled out the controlled demolition hypothesis.
I suppose that bit is crap...
Dashes000 2 years ago
dash -
Where NIST is in agreement with everyone else -as in describing the incredible speed of the annihilations of the towers in terms of 'freefall' - they are probably on safe ground.
NIST never analyzed or tested any aspect of the demolition hypothesis, therefore that they 'rule out' something they never considered doesn't count for very much.
proudfootz 2 years ago
NISTs findings also do not support the controlled demolition theory since there is conclusive evidence that:
* the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;
* the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure...
Dashes000 2 years ago
...to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.
Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of...
Dashes000 2 years ago
...any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation."
Dashes000 2 years ago
Since efforts of investigators were hampered in the collection of evidence, it is not conclusive that they did not find evidence which they never searched for.
Still - none of your 'points' shows that tooltime's ignorance of the simplest facts regarding 9/11 makes him a credible armchair psychologist.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Even *air* will cause resistance and slow the downward movement of a falling mass.
If the tons of steel and concrete could not resist the falling mass above, something must have caused this undamaged structure to lose its integrity.
Again, NIST seems unaware that a *controlled* demolition could progress top down, from the middle both up and down, or from right to left.
proudfootz 2 years ago
If it were controlled demolition, the destruction could be initiated at any floor.
So NIST's 1st point is a fal.
Since no steel-framed highrise has ever been caused to completely collapse from weakening by fire it remains to be demonstrated that it happened in these 3 cases.
NIST's second point is an assertion without foundation.
proudfootz 2 years ago