But that there weren't people on the plane? Come on now. We all know people directly or indirectly that boarded the flights that "allegedly" struck the buildings. Those people disappeared that day. Are you going to claim they're all hanging out with Elvis in the Bermuda triangle or they're all buried in a mass grave somewhere?Changleen said:
Finding a Place for 9/11 in American History
- Thread starter syadasti
- Start date
When they have to drill big-ass holes through a few feet of concrete and steel on a couple of dozen floors, and then refinish the walls so no one will notice their handiwork, and they have to do it over a weekend, and they have to haul around generators and compressors with them because the buildings have no power (big ol' generators and compressors too... have you ever seen how long it takes a road crew to break up a concrete sidewalk with a jack-hammer? And that's with gravity working for them. Imagine trying to do that horizontally)? Not to mention the airport personal and other support staff necessary for every other part of the operation? Then yes, hundreds.Changleen said:
No I read the article the last time you posted it. And I just read it again. I only bothered with Chapter 1 because it was so clearly full of ****, it's not worth my time to read the whole thing. I will try to keep this brief, but would really like to bury the issue for good. If the author of that article is right, it's by accident, because he's an idiot:Changleen said:
No Prior Collapse Induced by Fire - Show me any previous fire from a plane of that size and with that much fuel. He tries to compare the tempuratures to historical fires that burned available combustables with no additional fuel source. There is NO discussion of what the relative available fuel sources were in each case.
But steel, when heated, does not suddenly buckle or break This is a man who has never in his life seen the stress strain curve of steel, let alone a tensile test.
Pulverization of Concrete and Other Materials: If this crackpots claim holds true, and only explosives could have pulverized concrete, there would have been much MORE large concrete debris than there was. The small amount of concrete that was between the explosives (which surgically slice the steel) and the steel would have been pulverized, but everything else would have remained in large chunks.
But gravitational energy is, of course, vertical, so it cannot even begin to explain these horizontal ejections. He's got to be kidding with this one. I mean seriously, do I really need to explain how this works? Go skiing if you don't believe that gravity can creat horizontal motion. This is after he tells us it was so carefully planned to be contained.
Molten Steel: This one's my favorite. After going on and on about how hard it would be to heat the steel, he expects us to believe that explosives which burned for a fraction of a second transferred enough heat to the steel that it was still red hot or molten when it was pulled from the rubble days and weeks later. You couldn't ask for better evidence that available fuel (including but not limited to jet fuel) was enough to melt the steel than the fact that it was continuing to do so in a pile of rubble and the steel had absorbed that much heat. I keep looking for some statement about the combustion tempurature and rate of the explosives he refers to, or soe calculations showing the conductivity of steel and given that conductivity and the combustion tempurature of the explosives the length of time and volume of explosives it would have taken to transfer that much heat to the steel, but it's just not there. You want to know why? Because there's no way high explosives could ever have transferred that much heat to steel.
I just pulled this out of the above and made it its own post, because it's that really needs to be said:
--------------------------------------------------
How about this?... he keeps referencing Eagar. Why don't we have a look at what Eagar had to say on the subject:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
That is the writing of an MIT engineer. You can not only note the difference in academic rigor, you'll note just how out of context Griffin's quotations are.
--------------------------------------------------
How about this?... he keeps referencing Eagar. Why don't we have a look at what Eagar had to say on the subject:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
That is the writing of an MIT engineer. You can not only note the difference in academic rigor, you'll note just how out of context Griffin's quotations are.
Hmm, I've never posted this before. It's only a couple of days old. Look at the date. Oh and the authour holds a PhD. You've read the summary in chapter one only. As a result you've completely missed the point about these points - well done. As a result you've almost entirely missed the marks:ohio said:
1) Most of the fuel burned in the initial explosion. The resultant fire of office equipment, even according to FEMA, would have only lasted a couple of hours tops.
2) The fire, as evidence by the majority of the flames and smoke was oxygen starved and didn't burn hot enough to do **** all to the steel.
3) It had also basically gone out in less than an hour after the crashes. (The collapses occured at around 50mins and 1hr 20m after their respective impacts)
4) Look at other fires that have burned with a greater ferocity; e.g. Milan 14hrs, building still held.
5) Since the fires were largely out before the collapse occured, the structure would have been cooling and stiffening (in it was even softening worth ****) when the collapse finally happened. Since the buildings stood straight for a around an hour through the peak of the fire what's up?
You really believe that? Look at the range of people who have contributed to the article. Look at the references. You can't judge this when you haven't even read it dude. That's pretty lame.
Anyway, he's right.
No, you've missed the point. For ANY AMOUNT to be pulverised to the extent it was (min 80 microns) the energy level is higher than would have been generated by a pure collapse. And some large lumps did remain. You need to read the whole report and not rebute the absolutes of your summary because you don't even fully understand what you're attacking. The report is a summary of other research done by various other people. Look at the references. All your other points are the same.
Apparently you read even less of the article than I did. It states in the beginning that this is a collection from a series of articles. If you weren't the one to post it previously, someone else in this forum was, but I have a hard time believing there was any discussion of crackpot 9/11 theories in the PD that you WEREN'T a part of.Changleen said:
edit 2: never posted it, eh?
http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134457&highlight=griffin
Also, you missed the last two of my statements. I'll wait to respond to the first three till you've hit all of them.
edit: also, I don't know where you get off still claiming I didn't read the article. I just told you I re-read it. No need to bother with "2. Testimonies" as the pseudo-science and engineering in part 1 were enough to know I was wasting my time. Part 2 won't add anything to the science. It's just the same yammering you get on the evening news from trailer trash after a tornado comes through. I don't know how you can be critical of intelligent design pseudo science, but completely uncritical of this jackass's pseudo-science. They're the same thing. They have the exact same stamp of half-assery all over them.
A) if you don't think Eagar is credible or rigorous, how can you possibly swallow the statements of someone referencing him (and badly at that) as their expert testimony?Changleen said:You have got to be joking. You think Eagar's work has more "academic rigour"? Did you go to Uni
B) when I say academic rigor, I mean that Eager was at least willing to run some basic numbers and align his statements with that of a basic materials and structures text. Griffin didn't go to the effort to crunch a single number to support his statements... he just strings together some highly selective and out-of-context references to support his pre-determined thesis.
C) "The author holds a PhD..." To paraphrase a paraphrase: I can **** in a box and find someone to give it a PhD. Do you know what his PhD is in?
I'll side with the MIT professor when it comes to structural mechanics, materials science, and thermodynamics, thank you.
Um, have you seen our government in action?Changleen said:
That's a different article by the same guy. As you can see by the date on the one I posted, it's just beeen written. Anyway, this is OFF TOPIC.ohio said:
Translation: "I'm doing better attacking the source than the facts, so I'll stick to that like my name was DT, thanks.."
Ohio, have a look at this lot (where this **** came from in the first place):
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/
Various engineers, physicists, military types, journalists, a pretty well rounded group from many fields. Writing the messenger who pulled stuff together off as a crackpot is not a decent argument. You sound like a republican.
Argue on the facts of the case. WTC7 collapsed, yet is not even mentioned in the 9/11 commision report. Why not?
The planes flew around for 2 hours without being intercepted. Why not?
The boat loads of testimont that multiple explosions occured in the towers was ignored by the 9/11 commision. Why?
There are hundreds of questions like these. All of them deserve a decent answer, not just "It's a bunch of crackpots."
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/
Various engineers, physicists, military types, journalists, a pretty well rounded group from many fields. Writing the messenger who pulled stuff together off as a crackpot is not a decent argument. You sound like a republican.
Argue on the facts of the case. WTC7 collapsed, yet is not even mentioned in the 9/11 commision report. Why not?
The planes flew around for 2 hours without being intercepted. Why not?
The boat loads of testimont that multiple explosions occured in the towers was ignored by the 9/11 commision. Why?
There are hundreds of questions like these. All of them deserve a decent answer, not just "It's a bunch of crackpots."
Well, at the expense of my joke, I was referring to incompetency. If you believe our gov. couldn't be THAT incompetent, wait around a few minutes and they'll probably prove you wrong.Changleen said:
A recent study showed that 2% of 'rank and file' Government employees are incompetent, BUT, 20% of the managers are. And the percentages of upper management (political appointees) are probably much higher.
Why weren't planes shot down? Risk Adversion. No one wants to be the guy that ordered Aunt Sally shot out of the sky. No one wants to stand trial if they make a mistake like that.
Why weren't planes shot down? Risk Adversion. No one wants to be the guy that ordered Aunt Sally shot out of the sky. No one wants to stand trial if they make a mistake like that.
Yeah, but the planes were not even intercepted. There is testimony that Cheney himself was watching the plane flying towards the Pentagon from the white house bunker for over half an hour, knowing it had been 'hijacked' yet not even an F-16 flying alongside?Reactor said:
In regards to the previous article, shooting the messenger was wholly appropriate, as two things were very clear:Changleen said:
1. He didn't have an effing clue about materials engineering or structural mechanics. I established this by arguing his "facts." Feel free to go back and re-read what I wrote.
2. He clearly had an agenda. His references were completely abreviated and he ignored obvious questions regarding his own hypotheses. There's no point in arguing facts presented when they're in such an abbreviated form they only have a loose connection to the statement the author is trying to make. This is a common methods among ID advocates. Make a claim, throw out 15 random semi-related "facts" that usually can't be argued but also don't really prove the point, and then sit back and act smug.
So I checked out the scholars for truth site. Basically it's still Griffin's writings (all articles except one). In all seriousness, I cannot take the writing seriously. It is so disconnected from reality and so driven by a pre-supposed solution, that it's not worth examining. The only article on the collapse not written by him, the Jones piece, is actually much better. Though he too, is very clearly pre-supposing an answer to his question, he is at least somewhat familiar with the terms he's using, and his conclusion is mereloy that there should be much more vigorous investigation. That is something I can agree to.Changleen said:
However, the site claims "peer reviewed" articles. I didn't see a single peer review. This is not shooting the messenger, this is exactly what is needed. Neither you nor I are an expert in this field and I have yet to see someone who truly is chime in. Facts are easy to manipulate, and false arguments easily made to non-experts (including ourselves) which is why peer review is absolutely essential.
There are huge questions regarding both hypotheses and the above authors seem to be ignoring some major ones: what volume of thermite would be necessary to see the volume of molten metal observed? How fast does thermite explode and is that sufficient time to explain the heat transfer they claim occured? How high would the pressures have been inside the buried rubble and how would this have affected the combustion tempuratures of available materials?
A credible proof requires rigorous testing of ones own hypothesis. Both of these articles fail on that front. They fail to ask themselves basic questions, and are demonstrably unrigorous. That leads me to question their use and ommission of facts. Again, this is not shooting the messenger; this is being critical about the likelihood of expertise of the author given some obvious failures. In the case that I am not an expert in the field and have not examined and tested materials from the collapse myself, this is simply how one must filter information.
Lastly, it is difficult to take seriously any article that claims to be taking a rigorous and scientific approach, but uses exclamation points.