So, about 9/11....

A forum for the discussion of heuristic questions relating to Druidry using verifiable methods. Fo-fúair!
Life is short, the art long, opportunity fleeting, experiment treacherous, judgment difficult. — Hippocrates

Sturgeon's Law: Ninety percent of everything is crap.

This is a public forum, viewable by guests as well as members, and is cataloged by most search engines.
Forum rules
If you find a topic of interest and want to continue the discussion then start a new topic under The Hearthfire with a similar name and add a link back to the topic you want to continue.
User avatar
DJ Droood
OBOD Druid
Posts: 5558
Joined: 02 Feb 2003, 18:52
Gender: Male
Location: North Eastern North America
Contact:

Re: So, about 9/11....

Postby DJ Droood » 08 Dec 2014, 16:58

Regardless, I don't understand what 9/11 has to do with druidry?
I think for Druidry to be relevant, beyond just a hobby for amateur antiquarian enthusiasts, it should engage with questions of the day...political, social, economic, military....employing reason (and spirituality) in a search for truth and justice. And I'm pretty sure Aemilius is coming at this from a truth/justice perspective, even if we don't all agree with his (largely unstated) opinions on the matter. Give me a dust up about current events and modern society any day over some snoozefest thread about the Brehon Laws or recipes for lavender potpourri.
Image
2010 LI
2011 LI
2013 BS
Image
12/10-Ancestors
"If organized religion is the opium of the masses, then disorganized religion is the marijuana of the lunatic fringe."
Kerry Thornley

User avatar
Whitemane
OBOD Ovate
Posts: 1440
Joined: 19 Jan 2012, 21:21
Gender: Male
Location: Columbus, OH, USA
Contact:

Re: So, about 9/11....

Postby Whitemane » 08 Dec 2014, 17:07

Agreed, and I am sometimes dissappointed by the lack of
discussion of current events.

There is a lot going on in the world that impacts our belief
system directly, such as climate change, that we should be more
active in discussing and acting upon. These things are also the
concern of many others, such as Greenpeace, Medecins sans
Frontieres, the Nature Conservancy and so on, and we can contribute and have
a greater impact than acting on our own.

This doesn't mean that we shouldn't discuss such things because
of a lack of resources, but that we should discuss them to add a
dimension to the discussion.
May the long time sun shine upon you,
All love surround you,
And the pure light within you,
Guide your way on.

User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 122
Joined: 29 Nov 2010, 22:39
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: So, about 9/11....

Postby Aemilius » 09 Dec 2014, 00:35

The problem isn't about the kinetics of falling bodies, it's about how the bodies came to fall in the first place. It's about the structure, failure modes and the behavior of materials. Young's modulus matters a lot more than Newton's laws.
That addresses the analysis.... but animations (6), (7) and (8), along with surrounding text, clearly illustrate why Youngs modulus/Euler buckling isn't applicable. It explains clearly why the mechanism of buckling absolutely cannot match or give rise to the conditions required for gravitational acceleration of any load atop a naturally failing column to occur, and the more columns one adds (an 81 column progressive failure in the case WTC7 starting with column 79), the more impossible an already clearly established impossibility becomes.... there is no such thing as progressive gravitational acceleration.
Swiss scientist Lily with the beautiful mind? I don't know...I haven't seen her post in a long time. I'm sure her contributions to this thread would be incisive and thought-provoking.
Right.... I almost feel cheated!
I think the deployment of Ockham's Razor is perfectly legitimate from posters in this thread. "The principle states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.
Agreed, but in order to logically compare competing hypotheses (in the scientific method sense of the word) we first need to be able to look at and evaluate the relative merits of the empirically verifiable data supporting each one before applying Ockhams Razor. If only one employs empirically verifiable data.... How can we then compare hypotheses? Empirically unsupported skepticism cannot break an empirically founded graphical target system analysis.
Where did you get that Idea? First, I don't have an argument (an analysis is not the same as an argument). Second, the analysis is built solely on the law of conservation of energy as applied to a falling object, not on concepts in civil and structural engineering at all.
So not a thorough analysis, which wouldn't help if the buidling were structured like an accordian, for example, with layers and weak supports between those layers. It wasn't not a solid block after all, and other principles may apply here.
No.... this exact same target system analysis can be sucessfully applied to literally any building of any shape or size made of any kind of material where a period of gravitational acceleration is observed during it's destruction.
To investigate the basic physical principle you mention, of course, you just need a dusty old laptop. That's simple. But this involves more than a simple 8th grade science experiment, this involves thousands of victims and witnesses, tons of evidence to sort through (who's kept track of it all?), concepts from civil and structural engineering, knowledge of planes, aerodynamics and high-speed impacts, knowledge of explosives, investigation into how the explosives can be snuck into and hidden within the building - during or after its construction, and if there is any evidence to confirm this, etc.. I'm sure there's more stuff I could mention, but this is just from the top of my head.

Surely all this deserves consideration, too? Or does it just boil down to gravitational acceleration and the effect of obstructions?
When it comes to the free fall descent of the visible upper part of World Trade Center building 7 (the focus of the analysis).... yes, it literally does just boil down to gravitational acceleration and the effect of obstructions, or, more precisely, the lack of them.
Regardless, I don't understand what 9/11 has to do with druidry?
I think for Druidry to be relevant, beyond just a hobby for amateur antiquarian enthusiasts, it should engage with questions of the day...political, social, economic, military....employing reason (and spirituality) in a search for truth and justice.
Couldn't have said it any better DJ.

That said, the analysis and the conclusion it naturally arrives at still stands.... the building was brought down by explosives.

Thanks for the comments.
Last edited by Aemilius on 09 Dec 2014, 01:19, edited 1 time in total.
WTC7.... http://aemilius.sosblog.com/ .... A Conclusive Empirically Verifiable Graphical Target System Analysis

User avatar
Mountain Lily
OBOD Bard
Posts: 50
Joined: 23 Jul 2012, 00:37
Gender: Female
Location: Arizona, USA
Contact:

Re: A Silly Question

Postby Mountain Lily » 09 Dec 2014, 01:07

This BS 9/11 claim has been debunked multiple times: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... re/4278927

From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Tr ... d_collapse:
The NIST report found no evidence supporting conspiracy theories that 7 World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition. Specifically, the window breakage pattern and blast sounds that would have resulted from the use of explosives were not observed.[7] The suggestion that an incendiary material such as thermite was used instead of explosives was considered unlikely by NIST because of observations of the fire and the building's structural response to the fire, and because it is unlikely the necessary quantity of material could have been planted without discovery.[8]
My Real Beef on this post:

My country seems to be in the midst of a "Kill all the black men" craze.

Far from shrinking from the possibility that my own government may have in the past, over a decade ago, acted contrarily to the better judgment and support of my own society... Yeah, they were awful back then if they did that, and I'm not convinced by your "evidence". BUT NOW, in the Real World--

The fact is that NOW, TODAY, my society appears to be in yet another round of "Let's Kill All the Brown Folk". And yes, the government seems complicit in this horror. No need for conspiracy theorists here, no endless debate in the face of actual facts at this point. This is happening NOW, and the facts are not even in dispute. We even have video! No conspiracy theories necessary. And I am horrified!

For those of you admonishing me with palliatives about how "we need to understand the grievances of the past", let me assure you: we KNOW what happened to cause this. We KNOW who did it, we KNOW when they did it, we KNOW what they did, we KNOW how they did it. We have it in their own handwriting, on documents in the public record, and in the national archives. The ENTIRE historical context is within our total understanding. WE EVEN KNOW THE SOLUTION! BUT...

BUT. We somehow cannot make the carnage stop. We cannot stop white men from killing black men. WTF?

And you, Troll, with your 9/11 conspiracy theory and your snotty "don't you care that the government is complicit?" trip? There are more important, more immediate issues happening NOW, and that have much better factual substantiation than your goofy thesis about activities (possibly but almost certainly untrue) taken over a decade ago. You and your ilk can titillate endless electrons on the Internet over the "true" specifications of structural steel and all that crap, but from my perspective it looks like disruption and distraction from the current problem in which PEOPLE ARE DYING because the police are running amok, NOW. Maybe later we can care about your little issue, ok?

And at this point, on the issue we're actually having now (in the US), there's this: we know why, we know who, we know when, we know how. We don't need to consult the past anymore: we have done that, and we KNOW. We don't need to consult the ancestors anymore. The endless "Recitation of the Grievances" doesn't really get anyone closer to a solution, does it? Ever? We need a real, practical resolution. Soon. Because people are being killed over this.

We know what to do. But DRUIDS, PLEASE, tell us how to implement that solution. Because people are dying, and I'd really like to make that stop, right away.

You Troll, you want to punk me because you "don't recognize my name"? You want to disallow my comments by declaring me a non-person? Bite me!

Similarly, you declared the other Lily incompetent to comment on your claim of a perpetual motion machine, even though she actually works at CERN. No wonder she doesnt bother commenting on your latest idiocy here.

The fact that you haven't been banned here (as you HAVE been on apparently all other sites) is a shame on this site.
SB2014
The true harvest of my daily life is somewhat as intangible and indescribable as the tints of morning or evening. It is a little star-dust caught, a segment of the rainbow which I have clutched. --Thoreau

User avatar
Whitemane
OBOD Ovate
Posts: 1440
Joined: 19 Jan 2012, 21:21
Gender: Male
Location: Columbus, OH, USA
Contact:

Re: So, about 9/11....

Postby Whitemane » 09 Dec 2014, 01:22

The problem isn't about the kinetics of falling bodies, it's about how the bodies came to fall in the first place. It's about the structure, failure modes and the behavior of materials. Young's modulus matters a lot more than Newton's laws.
That addresses the analysis.... but animations (6), (7) and (8), along with surrounding text, clearly illustrate why Youngs modulus/Euler buckling isn't applicable. It explains clearly why the mechanism of buckling absolutely cannot match or give rise to the conditions required for gravitational acceleration of any load atop a naturally failing column to occur, and the more columns one adds (an 81 column progressive failure in the case WTC7 starting with column 79), the more impossible an already clearly established impossibility becomes.... there is no such thing as progressive gravitational acceleration.
Your website is long on exhortation, but short on verifiable proof, such as a few eighth grade physics calculations, and the the graphics only show what you want them to show, not necessarily what really happened. Also, who around here do you think is qualified to engage and rebut your arguments?

I still want to know what happened when you took this theory to science-centred forums.
May the long time sun shine upon you,
All love surround you,
And the pure light within you,
Guide your way on.

User avatar
Mountain Lily
OBOD Bard
Posts: 50
Joined: 23 Jul 2012, 00:37
Gender: Female
Location: Arizona, USA
Contact:

Re: A Silly Question

Postby Mountain Lily » 09 Dec 2014, 02:37

And popular mechanics doesn't qualify?
SB2014
The true harvest of my daily life is somewhat as intangible and indescribable as the tints of morning or evening. It is a little star-dust caught, a segment of the rainbow which I have clutched. --Thoreau

User avatar
Whitemane
OBOD Ovate
Posts: 1440
Joined: 19 Jan 2012, 21:21
Gender: Male
Location: Columbus, OH, USA
Contact:

Re: A Silly Question

Postby Whitemane » 09 Dec 2014, 02:58

And popular mechanics doesn't qualify?
The Popular Mechanics article was very interesting and did make a very good job of making clear how complicated a problem the analysis was.
May the long time sun shine upon you,
All love surround you,
And the pure light within you,
Guide your way on.

User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 122
Joined: 29 Nov 2010, 22:39
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: So, about 9/11....

Postby Aemilius » 09 Dec 2014, 03:33

This BS 9/11 claim has been debunked multiple times: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... re/4278927

From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Tr ... d_collapse:
The NIST report found no evidence supporting conspiracy theories that 7 World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition. Specifically, the window breakage pattern and blast sounds that would have resulted from the use of explosives were not observed.[7] The suggestion that an incendiary material such as thermite was used instead of explosives was considered unlikely by NIST because of observations of the fire and the building's structural response to the fire, and because it is unlikely the necessary quantity of material could have been planted without discovery.[8]
Neither of the links you posted mention anything about the confirmed (both independent researchers and the NIST agree) 2.25 second period of gravitational acceleration (8 stories, approximately 105 feet) the building underwent.... the subject of the analysis.
My Real Beef on this post:

My country seems to be in the midst of a "Kill all the black men" craze.

Far from shrinking from the possibility that my own government may have in the past, over a decade ago, acted contrarily to the better judgment and support of my own society... Yeah, they were awful back then if they did that, and I'm not convinced by your "evidence". BUT NOW, in the Real World--

The fact is that NOW, TODAY, my society appears to be in yet another round of "Let's Kill All the Brown Folk". And yes, the government seems complicit in this horror. No need for conspiracy theorists here, no endless debate in the face of actual facts at this point. This is happening NOW, and the facts are not even in dispute. We even have video! No conspiracy theories necessary. And I am horrified!

For those of you admonishing me with palliatives about how "we need to understand the grievances of the past", let me assure you: we KNOW what happened to cause this. We KNOW who did it, we KNOW when they did it, we KNOW what they did, we KNOW how they did it. We have it in their own handwriting, on documents in the public record, and in the national archives. The ENTIRE historical context is within our total understanding. WE EVEN KNOW THE SOLUTION! BUT...

BUT. We somehow cannot make the carnage stop. We cannot stop white men from killing black men. WTF?
Why not start another thread about it?
And you, Troll, with your 9/11 conspiracy theory and your snotty "don't you care that the government is complicit?" trip?
More name calling, and now making up quotes.
You Troll, you want to punk me because you "don't recognize my name"? You want to disallow my comments by declaring me a non-person? Bite me!
Yet more name calling.
Similarly, you declared the other Lily incompetent to comment on your claim of a perpetual motion machine, even though she actually works at CERN. No wonder she doesnt bother commenting on your latest idiocy here.
Now fabrication.... Anyone who takes even a cursory glance at the thread Not Perpetual Motion will immediately see that it was a perfectly friendly exchange, with no hint of anything like what you're saying having occurred....

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=40947
The fact that you haven't been banned here (as you HAVE been on apparently all other sites) is a shame on this site.
More fabrication.... I don't suppose by any chance you'd care to share this long list you've compiled of all the sites you say I've been banned from.
Last edited by Aemilius on 09 Dec 2014, 05:18, edited 4 times in total.
WTC7.... http://aemilius.sosblog.com/ .... A Conclusive Empirically Verifiable Graphical Target System Analysis

User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 122
Joined: 29 Nov 2010, 22:39
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: So, about 9/11....

Postby Aemilius » 09 Dec 2014, 04:02

Your website is long on exhortation, but short on verifiable proof, such as a few eighth grade physics calculations, and the the graphics only show what you want them to show, not necessarily what really happened.
Exhorting? The formatting of the animations was guided by a forty year veteran research physicist, Dr. Alan Calverd, Ph.D, over at TheNakedScientists (a forum which, by the way, I have not been banned from). The analysis sits unrefuted for almost three months now at the end of a six page two month long exchange I had with him devoted exclusively to the topic called "What Is Free Fall....

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum ... ic=49603.0

If what you say was true (an increasingly shaky proposition) and I was trying to tailor the animations to show only what I wanted them to show, or they did not accurately descibe what would really happen, he would have closed in on me faster than a ravenous Hyena closing in on an abandoned newborn Wildebeest.
Also, who around here do you think is qualified to engage and rebut your arguments?
No one now, and that's why this will be my last post in the thread.... I guess it's back to the science and debate forums.
I still want to know what happened when you took this theory to science-centred forums.
Well, the forums that lean toward the truther perspective accept it immediately, all the rest are pretty much the same as here, marked by name calling, personal attack, smear tactics, derisive language and a complete inability/refusal to simply copy and paste any aspect of the analysis followed by anything like "This animation and the accompanying descriptive information is incorrect, the scenario would not play out as described and here's why...."

Hey Art, like I said, last post, and thanks again for your diplomatic PM and advice (I hope I get to speak with you again sometime). So, no more "Customer Complaints" on my account.... maybe something a little less controversial next time, like the Holocaust maybe (just kidding).

Talk to you later DJ, take care.
WTC7.... http://aemilius.sosblog.com/ .... A Conclusive Empirically Verifiable Graphical Target System Analysis

User avatar
ShadowCat
OBOD Ovate
Posts: 1527
Joined: 06 Nov 2012, 13:12
Gender: Female
Location: The highlands of the Low Lands by the North Sea
Contact:

Re: So, about 9/11....

Postby ShadowCat » 09 Dec 2014, 07:56

Spoiler: metapost

Since I'm not a technical gal I've steered clear of the fundamental part of the discussion. But, as a succesful lawyer who has also worked as a judge previously, I believe I do know a thing or two about debating and exchanging and comparing opposing views.

1.
It's always easy (but hollow) to simply undermine any opposing view by nonstop asking questions and "proof", without actually providing the same level of solid, unquestionable proof oneselves. I've seen this "technique" used in this post quite a few times. In a courtcase, it might have a function, but I would rather feel that here we work together, comparing notes, finding flaws in our reasoning and accepting them with grace. And, as will always be the conclusion, acknowledging that in the end we weren't around when plans where hatched and executed, so we will never "know", we can only deduce possibilities to an "most likely scenario". And that is where the famous razor has a roll of significance.

2.
Discrediting peoples opinions by namecalling in any way, by questioning their authority on the matter or by dismissing people because you feel they are more noob than oneselves are also weak techniques. It happens on a regular basis to me and my collegue that when we have won a case on clear arguments and solid proof, that the opposing counselor starts threathening us with complaints to the local authority for lawyers. Playing at those things is just an underhand way of trying to get unfavorable arguments of the table instead of recognising them and working with or around them. In Dutch we have a saying: play the ball, not the players.

3.
In my opinion, propper constructive debate happens when people put their views, proof (with clear distinction between direct and indirect proof) and reasoning completely on the table in the first round of exchanges. Then the common ground will surface first and from that one can work together comparing the other elements. Its basically the same as playing together with buildingblocks in kindergarden.

4.
Things go mostly wrong when one identifies him/herselves with a certain view. Then, one becomes invested in maintaining their truth even if better arguments against it are presented. Then we get "truthers and haters" and other 180 degree-oppositions where non will budge, even against better knowledge. As a lawyer, the clients problems aren't my own problems. I wasn't around when sh*t hit the fan. All I do is listen to their story, check it for obvious flaws and ask deeper questions until I can in good conscience present their case as best as can be. After that, it's up to the judge to weigh the stories. If I get a verdict and it turns out something wasn't clear to the judge, then I beat myself up for not having done the best of a job. If I see that the judge has gotten the message correctly, but still decides against my client than that is basically not my problem. I'll help the client deal with it as best as can be basically in accepting a new reconstructed reality decreed by judge over his/her own memories of the triggering incident, or take it to a higher court. Even if, unlike me, you aren't required by law to place yourselves above the dispute (i.e. don't get invested personally) it would make for better debates.

5.
Just to round things off: one has to accept that things don't always are as important to others as they seem to you. For instance: This isn't an American board. 9/11 happened for me halfway across the world. I was in attenting university at the moment. Class was interrupted, tv's went on and especially our American co-students freaked out completely. Understandably so. We went home and on trains and busses everyone was talking about it. I sat glued to the TV the rest of the day in horror at what humankind was capable of doing to itself. But since then, many years have passed. Europe has huge social and economical problems in the here and now that are, in my view, more important, urgent and interesting. Since I can only spend every moment of my life once, 9/11 theories aren't very high on my personal to-do-list. Druidry is though, since it plays a significant role in keeping me sane in an insane world... hence why I took the time to write this post.

Disclaimer: the above are my 2 cents in observation of the topic until sofar. I'm not bothered with "knowing the truth about 9/11" as such, neither am I siding with or against anyone connected to this thread. Take away from the above what you want. Or not. Your choice. No need to make it into a whole meta-discussion here. Got questions? Just PM me.
Three sounds one should treasure:
the whisper of the wind through the leaves
the songs of one's heart
the callings of the universe

BS13 I BS13 II LI13 SB13 IL14 LI14 SB14 BS15 LI 15
Sacred spaces and places

User avatar
DaRC
OBOD Ovate
Posts: 4678
Joined: 06 Feb 2003, 17:13
Gender: Male
Location: Sussex
Contact:

Re: So, about 9/11....

Postby DaRC » 09 Dec 2014, 13:35

A great post Shadowcat
For instance: This isn't an American board. 9/11 happened for me halfway across the world. I was in attenting university at the moment. Class was interrupted, tv's went on and especially our American co-students freaked out completely. Understandably so. We went home and on trains and busses everyone was talking about it. I sat glued to the TV the rest of the day in horror at what humankind was capable of doing to itself. But since then, many years have passed.
For me the meta narrative is that it is an event within the Oil conflicts of our time which essentially started in the late 60's and certainly started with the oil crisis of the early 70's when OPEC realised they had political power through oil.

As a Druid what this suggests is that, as a planet, we need to reduce our reliance upon fossil fuels for a more sustainable route to progress.

As a Brit on 9/11 there was shock and horror for the event, after the event - and this is difficult to express - there was a certain resignation. The reality of the 70's and 80's in Britain was that the IRA exploded bombs in many places Manchester, Birmingham and my home city of Brighton. As a society we became much more resilient to terrorism.
Much of the funding for the IRA came from NORAID - the Irish communities of New York and Boston, many of whom were Police and Firemen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_te ... at_Britain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NORAID
Most dear is fire to the sons of men,
most sweet the sight of the sun;
good is health if one can but keep it,
and to live a life without shame. (Havamal 68)
http://gewessiman.blogspot.co.uk Image

User avatar
Sciethe
OBOD Ovate
Posts: 552
Joined: 03 Oct 2012, 22:34
Gender: Male
Location: Berkshire UK
Contact:

Re: So, about 9/11....

Postby Sciethe » 10 Dec 2014, 21:40

Interesting stuff. My favourite people came up trumps. :shake:
It makes me realise exactly how fortunate I am to be able to share ideas with women and men who are rocks of coherent thought in an uncertain world.

And for what it's worth at this stage:
Having no expertise in this field I asked a chartered engineer that I know. Answer: It was real, 9/11 really happened much as portrayed. Good enough for me. I doubt he's a government lackey somehow. :)
S
For in his morning orisons he loves the sun and the sun loves him. For he is of the tribe of Tiger. Christopher Smart

User avatar
Whitemane
OBOD Ovate
Posts: 1440
Joined: 19 Jan 2012, 21:21
Gender: Male
Location: Columbus, OH, USA
Contact:

Re: So, about 9/11....

Postby Whitemane » 10 Dec 2014, 23:04

I looked at the thread on the Naked Scientist, and it is a fairly low-grade tutorial on gravitational acceleration and the possible impact of the atmosphere on a falling object. Building collapse is not mentioned at all.

I would not call it an analysis of the collapse of any of the World Trade Center buildings.
May the long time sun shine upon you,
All love surround you,
And the pure light within you,
Guide your way on.

User avatar
Sciethe
OBOD Ovate
Posts: 552
Joined: 03 Oct 2012, 22:34
Gender: Male
Location: Berkshire UK
Contact:

Re: So, about 9/11....

Postby Sciethe » 10 Dec 2014, 23:31

Good of you to have a look Whitemane. Somehow I'm not surprised. Quite a lot of actual real people saw it all...
S
For in his morning orisons he loves the sun and the sun loves him. For he is of the tribe of Tiger. Christopher Smart

User avatar
MountainGnome
Posts: 145
Joined: 05 Oct 2009, 03:55
Gender: Male
Location: États Unis
Contact:

Re: So, about 9/11....

Postby MountainGnome » 11 Dec 2014, 22:30

I got about chest-deep into 9/11 discussions for several years, until about 2010 or 2011 when I think I'd had about enough of it.


If you're not satisfied with simply being "told" what happened and you want to put all the pieces together for yourself, it becomes obvious that all the people simply "telling" us what happened were making things up out of nowhere. If you don't care to put it together for yourself then you'll simply believe whatever you're told. We're at the point in history now where even the 9/11 Commission members have went on record and said themselves that they were stonewalled by the Pentagon and that their final report was a whitewash. This is just the beginning. The real question is where it ends.

NIST has lawsuits now pending against it for withholding information in their reports and also for some blatant neglect in considering some basic principles of physics and engineering, particularly in their WTC7 report. They've had FOIA requests sent to them by engineers requesting omitted structural data and repeatedly come up with either excuses for not being able to provide the information, or huge price tags to release the information, or both. They also never released the structural documentation for the Twin Towers, only old architectural blueprints which are like the artistic version of what the work that the structural engineers themselves would have done, which is what is vital for various analyses.


The only investigations done into the mechanics of what happened at the WTC complex on 9/11 were done by FEMA and NIST. No one else was given the resources, including physical evidence and access to the original structural and other documentation. FEMA did the initial report and came up with two completely contradictory hypotheses (either trusses expanding outward and causing perimeter column deflection, or trusses contracting inward and causing deflection -- literally two completely opposite directions that they couldn't decide between), which gives an early indication as to how clueless these people actually were. NIST went with one of these hypotheses. They tried to replicate the expansion mechanism in a lab setting by recreating the truss/perimeter column setup, but the test completely refuted their hypothesis. So instead they called this a "calibration" for computer tests, and proceeded to run computer simulations with increasingly elevated temperatures and amounts of heat until finally they produced some arbitrary amount of sag in a truss which they then concluded was proof of their entire hypothesis. The lack of professionalism in the report was appalling and as I mentioned earlier, after the report being out for a few years, and NIST refusing FOIA requests, finally they have lawsuits pending against them.


With any luck the people who were ultimately responsible for all of this will be arrested and held accountable within our lifetimes. I think the motions are already in place to see that this happens. This is a world that we all have to live in, and we have to be aware of these kinds of things and prevent them from happening again. To know who was responsible is a responsibility every citizen should take seriously and not just be satisfied with it being delegated away to a lot of beaurocrats who you couldn't trust as far as you could throw them.


As far as listening to people who haven't read and considered the actual government reports, even if they're engineers, frankly they don't really know what they're talking about. The only investigation was done by the government. Lots of people "think" they know what happened but don't even know what these reports officially state. If they don't agree with these reports, then where are they coming up with this stuff? I was taking a physics class in college several years ago and the professor was rambling one day, got onto the subject of 9/11 and explained to the class why the Twin Towers fell. And he's an engineer and a physics professor, so he should know, right? I didn't bring it up in class, but what he described was what is known as a "pancake collapse" model which was dismissed by the government investigations as irrelevant to the Twin Towers, and they went with the truss contraction hypothesis instead.

So without reading these reports my professor was just basically relaying a rumor he had heard from somewhere else that was investigated and dismissed even by the government. I've seen many other people, professional engineers or not, relate similar theories that are easily debunked even by official reports. What the government came up with is not so simplistic. They simultaneously came up with a more realistic hypothesis and yet also found so many "devils in the details" that they refused to even publish all of the details of their own work. Which brings us to the situation we are in today.

User avatar
treegod
OBOD Druid
Posts: 2141
Joined: 26 Apr 2007, 16:28
Gender: Male
Location: Catalonia, Spain
Contact:

Re: So, about 9/11....

Postby treegod » 11 Dec 2014, 23:23

Thanks, Bsbray. That makes a whole lot of sense to me.

I'm guessing the pancake effect must be what I imagine to be and accordian?

User avatar
Sciethe
OBOD Ovate
Posts: 552
Joined: 03 Oct 2012, 22:34
Gender: Male
Location: Berkshire UK
Contact:

Re: So, about 9/11....

Postby Sciethe » 12 Dec 2014, 02:03

Hi Bsbray,
I may be being really naïve or unbelievably cynical or both, but I can't actually see what the problem is. Help me out here. The towers were hit by aircraft. The aircraft were hijacked by terrorists. The towers unsurprisingly fell over to great loss of life and property. A truly terrible thing had happened and it might be someone's fault, so much @rse covering by the US administration, what a shock. The end. Surely. :where:
S
For in his morning orisons he loves the sun and the sun loves him. For he is of the tribe of Tiger. Christopher Smart

User avatar
MountainGnome
Posts: 145
Joined: 05 Oct 2009, 03:55
Gender: Male
Location: États Unis
Contact:

Re: So, about 9/11....

Postby MountainGnome » 12 Dec 2014, 04:00

Thanks, Bsbray. That makes a whole lot of sense to me.

I'm guessing the pancake effect must be what I imagine to be and accordian?
Yes. This is a phenomenon associated with poorly-built concrete structures where the floors just fall one on top of another like a stack of pancakes. If this happened with the Twin Towers then you would have a large stack of floors at the foundation of each building, but instead the most you had in either case was a short stub of the core structure with no floors on top. Anyway this just isn't something associated with steel-framed high-rises.


Hi Bsbray,
I may be being really naïve or unbelievably cynical or both, but I can't actually see what the problem is. Help me out here. The towers were hit by aircraft. The aircraft were hijacked by terrorists. The towers unsurprisingly fell over to great loss of life and property. A truly terrible thing had happened and it might be someone's fault, so much @rse covering by the US administration, what a shock. The end. Surely. :where:
S
I read once that one of the most convincing arguments that the Catholic Church made against the Earth orbiting the Sun, is that if the Earth really orbited the Sun, it would have to be traveling so incredibly fast through space (and it is undeniably traveling incredibly fast) that severe hurricane-force winds would constantly be generated throughout our atmosphere that would constantly be blowing down buildings and blowing people off the face of the Earth. Therefore, the Earth must be relatively stationary and the Sun and other bodies are moving around the Earth, which makes sense anyway because God created the Earth for mankind to live on, and mankind is God's greatest creation because we were created in His image.

I realize you're probably not a Christian (and certainly not living in the Medieval era) and I hope you don't take offense to the comparison. The problem with ideas like this is that they make so much sense intuitively (within a certain worldview, anyway), that they're hard to argue against. If something just sounds like it makes so much sense, why go through so much trouble to question it, especially if it means you might even come across challenging things you wouldn't want to hear or know about in the first place? It takes looking at a lot of details to make this kind of picture ultimately seem impossible, but we can still get there, because obviously that argument against the Earth revolving around the Sun was wrong, and in this case what NIST published is also demonstrably wrong -- by their own data.

So in this case one could point out first of all that the planes alone did not bring down either tower or else they would have collapsed instantly. No one is arguing that the planes alone did bring down the buildings. Okay, so we move on. It must have been the planes and the fires. This becomes interesting. Steel-framed skyscrapers are actually very resistant to fires, and such a catastrophic collapse was a new phenomenon (and still hasn't been seen since), so we should study this just to understand how this could be possible, so we can protect buildings from these types of failures in the future. It's not just about the politics of 9/11 and what exactly happened there, but this is potentially a huge weakness of all steel-framed skyscrapers that we never knew of before, and there are hundreds of steel-framed skyscrapers in big cities all over the world that regularly experience fires. See how scary that is?


There was a structural engineer who was part of the original FEMA BPAT team and who testified before Congress later about this initial study. His name is Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and he's a professor of civil engineering at the University of California in Berkeley. He then went on to do indpedent studies on the problems of the building collapses on his own. It took him a few years but he finally figured out that something really weird was going on here.

This is probably the only time you'll see me link to Fox News as if it's credible, but this was actually an Associated Press article and I can't find any other websites besides forums that are mirroring it:
NEW ORLEANS —
The professional organization for engineers who build the nation's roads, dams and bridges has been accused by fellow engineers of covering up catastrophic design flaws while investigating national disasters.

After the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center and the levee failures caused by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the federal government paid the American Society of Civil Engineers to investigate what went wrong.

Critics now accuse the group of covering up engineering mistakes, downplaying the need to alter building standards, and using the investigations to protect engineers and government agencies from lawsuits.

Similar accusations arose after both disasters, but the most recent allegations have pressured the organization to convene an independent panel to investigate.

[...]

In 2002, the society's report on the World Trade Center praised the buildings for remaining standing long enough to allow tens thousands of people to flee.

But, the report said, skyscrapers are not typically designed to withstand airplane impacts. Instead of hardening buildings against such impacts, it recommended improving aviation security and fire protection.

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, a structural engineer and forensics expert, contends his computer simulations disprove the society's findings that skyscrapers could not be designed to withstand the impact of a jetliner.

Astaneh-Asl, who received money from the National Science Foundation to investigate the collapse, insisted most New York skyscrapers built with traditional designs would survive such an impact and prevent the kind of fires that brought down the twin towers.


He also questioned the makeup of the society's investigation team. On the team were the wife of the trade center's structural engineer and a representative of the buildings' original design team.

"I call this moral corruption," said Astaneh-Asl, who is on the faculty at the University of California, Berkeley.

Gene Corley, a forensics expert and team leader on the society's report, said employing people with ties to the original builders was necessary because they had access to information that was difficult to get any other way.

Corley said the society's study was peer-reviewed and its credibility was upheld by follow-up studies, including one by the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

"I hope someone looks into the people making the accusations," Corley said. "That's a sordid tale."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/03/25 ... s-katrina/


What this article doesn't mention is that Mr. Astaneh-Asl simulated aircraft impacts into several different New York City skyscrapers and found that all of them could withstand the impacts and prevent severe fires. Also this article never went anywhere else, so I guess neither did the Congressional investigations. That doesn't mean there was no cover-up of course, especially since even members of the Kean Commission (9/11 Commission) have since stated that they were stonewalled and that their report was a political whitewash, and they were only spoonfed certain information.



If you want to get into the specifics of the NIST report in particular, it's like I said in the post above.

Here's the trusses and perimeter columns:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/reyn ... russes.jpg


NIST's hypothesis is really pretty simple. Their hypothesis is that the fires heated the trusses. The trusses "sagged," as steel will do when sufficiently heated. When the trusses sagged, this is where it gets kind of fuzzy for NIST, at least in the technical details. The suggestion is that the sagging caused the perimeter columns to be deflected, as the trusses "pulled" on them. Here's the problem: the sagging is caused by the truss trying to expand (thermal expansion -- the steel gets hotter and tries to expand), which is really causing a pushing onto the perimeter columns. (This is why FEMA had trouble deciding if the trusses were pulling or pushing, the two completely contradictory motions. NIST decided that the photographic evidence was more in favor of the perimeter columns deflecting inwardly, which is debateable, but nonetheless this was their conclusion.) So the trusses sag because they are trying to expand but the perimeter columns are firmly in place, leaving the expansion nowhere to go but in the center of the truss, causing it to bow outward in the middle.

In physics classes you have to draw free-body diagrams, so if you've done this just try to imagine this picture. You have a truss trying to expand from thermal expansion. It can't expand evenly because it's held firmly in place by the perimeter columns, so it bends in the middle instead. How does the outward-pushing thermal expansion, which caused the bowing in the first place, result in an inward pulling of the perimeter columns? Now that's a pretty good puzzle, isn't it? In fact it makes absolutely no sense, but it's buried so far into the technical details of this report that unless you're actually trying to read this 10,000+ page report to make sense of it, you'll never even see it. Most of all of those pages, by the way, are absolutely nothing to do with this hypothesis. They discuss just about everything else you can think of, like at what time people went down the stairwells while evacuating.

NIST did lots of tests and simulations, and the heat and temperatures from the fire would pretty obviously not be enough to weaken the columns directly. Strength loss due to heating simply wouldn't cause enough loss of integrity even on the floors where the planes had caused the most damage (something like a loss of 13% of the perimeter columns on those floors, probably much less of the core columns -- NIST determined only engines could have taken out the core columns, maybe 1 each, out of 48 or 49). This is why they had to go with the truss deflection theory in the first place. Instead of the columns losing integrity due to heating, they lost integrity (according to NIST) because the trusses got hot, and while trying to expand, pulled the columns inward somehow, and this deflection from the inward pulling is what caused -- eventually -- enough integrity to be lost to initiate a "global collapse sequence." Once NIST reaches this part in theory study, they call it a day and don't attempt any sort of analysis whatsoever on what exactly happens after the "global collapse sequence" begins, which is when everything starts moving as you see on all the videos of the collapses.


Also as I mentioned before, while NIST was testing their hypothesis in the early stages of their report, they put some megawatt burners under a replica of the truss/perimeter column setup and put a lot of heat onto the assembly, until the trusses were glowing red hot. They were expecting to see the trusses deflect the perimeter columns, but this didn't happen. So this became a "calibration" for computer modeling, and no further physical tests were done. So everything from that point forward was carried out on a computer, and all the simulations were trying to achieve was a certain amount of sagging in trusses from being heated so much. I have yet to see anywhere in their report how they translate this sagging into an amount of force applied to the exterior columns or even a reasonable amount of deflection that it could achieve. They only show pictures where they try to measure visually how much the columns in the towers were actually deflection, which says nothing about how this happened, and the scientific method demands that they recreate this for their hypothesis to be validated.


Anyway this is getting very long so I hope this helps explain my thoughts on this. Aside from all of this, NIST also failed to publish all of the details necessary for other engineers to do their own simulations and check NIST's work. So though they did not do any more physical tests besides the "calibration," even their computer modeling is not reproduceable because they didn't provide their data. If someone wanted to do any kind of analysis on the WTC Tower structures they would be unable to do so, because not enough data was published in the NIST reports. Out of 10,000+ pages you'd think there would be enough for their peers to actually be able to review their analyses independently, but this is one reason why they're now being sued. They've been issued multiple FOIA requests and still haven't provided the full data. I knew a structural engineer personally who requested this data and they told him he'd have to pay something ridiculous like $125,000 for NIST to process his request and print the pages off. And this is data that in a real, professional report would have already been published.

User avatar
Sciethe
OBOD Ovate
Posts: 552
Joined: 03 Oct 2012, 22:34
Gender: Male
Location: Berkshire UK
Contact:

Re: So, about 9/11....

Postby Sciethe » 12 Dec 2014, 10:54

Thanks Bsbray,
that is very well written and explanatory. And actually it seems that there is a "conspiracy" of sorts, although hardly worth the name in my understanding- clearly I really am a cynic because I would expect no less from government and big money interests, I've seen this mentality in operation so often. And my engineer friend is [seems to be] right in fact, because what I asked is words to the effect "did aircraft collision bring down the twin towers?". My only brief excursion into this debate happened because someone brought that into question and I had already had a first hand account from someone who was there. (Chilling). There is clearly a whole raft of theories, some more credible than others.
Thanks again. :applause:
S
For in his morning orisons he loves the sun and the sun loves him. For he is of the tribe of Tiger. Christopher Smart


Return to “The Skeptical Druid”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests