What it would take to convince a technically savvy 9/11 Truth Skeptic
Posted November 20th, 2008 by Forge
output
I (and others) have gone back and forth about 9/11 Conspiracy Theories on this site many times. My hope is that this thread does not degenerate into the latest version of that. We are all well aware of the arguments that both sides can bring to the table and, for those who aren't, a few minutes with google can net you plenty of information.
My purpose in starting this thread is to outline what it would take to convince me of some of the 9/11 Truth movement's claims. Most specifically, claims concerning the WTC1, 2, and 7. Aspects of the collapse of those 3 buildings seem to be central to many of the Truth crowd's theories. The best case scenario would be that this thread inspires someone to pursue this degree of analysis (although I'm doubtful and you will soon see why). Worst case scenario, we have a rehash of a 9/11 flamewar. Realistic best case, we discuss my idea a little and refine it... hopefully to someday have someone pursue it.
This might be sort of long, so, get a cup of coffee and get comfy.
First, my credentials. I am a degreed mechanical engineer working for a well known and respected research and development company. While my background is in Mech. Eng., my expertise tends to revolve around computer simulation. That is central to what I'm going to talk about.
My goal: To generate a single piece of comprehensive analysis of the collapse of any or all of the WTC buildings that proves either that the buildings could or could not collapse in the way that they did, assuming that the gov’t story is “mostly” true. In other words, if passenger jets crashed into WTC1 and 2, could that have singlehandedly brought the buildings down?
Methodology: There is a technique used in computer simulation called Finite Element Analysis or FEA. It is a fantastically useful tool that can do some really amazing things. Here’s the basic idea: imagine if we had a hollow aluminum cube. Imagine that we take that metal cube and drop it from 100’ above the ground onto flat concrete. What happens? There is no single equation that can answer that question. We cannot simply and easily calculate what shape the cube will be in after the impact. There are too many unknowns: what angle does it hit at? How does the concrete react? Are there any pre-existing weak points in the cube? Etc.
However, we do have equations for simpler things. Things like just a solid chunk of metal. Newton’s laws can tell us what happens to a rigid body like that. So, now… how can we use that to deal with our more complicated problem of the hollow cube?
We can imagine that the hollow cube is made up of many, MANY small solid chunks. And each one of those tiny chunks is connected to other chunks around it so that, taken all together, they look like our hollow cube. This is called the “mesh”. And now, we can take Newton’s laws (and other basic laws of physics) and apply them to these tiny little pieces, where the basic assumptions hold true. We can see how each little piece affects the piece next to it. That is the basic idea of FEA.
With that simple idea, you can solve some amazingly complex problems. FEA could easily do our dropped hollow cube and predict the shape of the cube with amazing accuracy. I’ve seen simulations that were followed by real world tests and the simulations were almost photo-realistic in terms of predicting very complicated deformations. There are a number of companies who produce and sell FEA software, such as ANSYS and COSMOS.
What’s the downside to FEA? Well, you get thousands or millions of those little pieces and each one of them has many different equations governing its behavior and FEA can get very computationally intensive. 50 years ago, FEA wasn’t around. 20 years ago, it would have taken a ‘supercomputer’ to run our hollow cube example. Today, your desktop could probably simulate a hollow cube impact in a few minutes… perhaps overnight. So, there are practical limitations to FEA. I won’t get into all of them here, but, I wanted to note that they do exist.
You probably see where I’m going with this.
In order to prove with any degree of certainty that either of the WTC stories has scientific weight, I’d want to see an FEA of the impact and subsequent collapse. Here are the requirements:
Include the following physical behaviors in the model – mechanical loading/deformation, all three modes of heat transfer (conduction ,convection, radiation), shock/vibration effects, seismic effects at the building’s foundation, combustion/explosive effects of the aircraft impact
In order to get the best results, you’d have to have the best input. FEA certainly follows the ‘Garbage In, Garbage Out’ axiom. This is the biggest practical challenge of my idea. You would want to have the absolute best information possible concerning the structure of the building. This would start with the “As Built” drawings for the building. However, As Builts and reality are often significantly different. So, you would have to run the simulation several time, study the effects of potential deviations. In other words, what might happen if the bolts were actually this or the fire protection was actually that. This is called “sensitivity analysis” and would be important when it came time to draw any sort of conclusions. You’d have to vary the construction around some to see what really is and is not important to whether or not the building collapses. Getting this sort of information would be really challenging, I think. Perhaps impossible. You would also need similar information concerning the aircraft, the contents of the building, etc. Basically, you want to kill yourself getting as much of the most dead on accurate info you possibly can… and even then, it might not be enough.
But, once you have that information, you could set about building the model. We’re talking about a 110 story structure where we’re going to need to model structural bolts and rivets. The detail level needs to be insane. The time requirements to build the model will be measured in months or perhaps years. But, lets say you do it.
Next, it is time to feed the model into a computer and construct a FEA mesh. The mesh will need to be pretty fine. Considering the size of the building, I’d expect the mesh to contain billions or perhaps trillions of individual elements. We have to make it that fine so that we can study things like vibration and shock.
Also, in any FEA simulation, you have to select a time step. In other words, how quickly do you want the simulation to move. This is a crucial piece of FEA. For things that happen slowly, you can chose big time step. So, if I’m modeling something that happens over the course of many days, perhaps a timestep of 10 minutes or even 60 minutes is enough to study what I’m after. However, if I’m modeling something that happens quickly, I have to have a very small time step so that the software can calculate what happens during the rapid changes. Although the collapse of the WTCs took hours from impact to collapse, there are things going on that happened rapidly. The plane crashing into the building is a rapid shock event. If any structural beams fail, those would also be rapid shock events. The point is, we need as small a time step as possible. Something on the order of milliseconds is probably minimum. Smaller still would be even better.
So, we’re talking about billions or trillions of elements being simulated thousands or hundreds of thousands of times per second over a simulation period of an hour and a half or so. In other words, an unbelievably massive piece of analysis. This will require a modern supercomputer. However, if you could somehow assemble the model with good information and get access to a supercomputer, FEA “should” be able to address this problem.
What would I look for in the results? Well, first I would want to check all the input. I would want to see if due diligence had been done to ensure the highest possible quality input data. Once satisfied there, I’d want to see what sort of things were varied and what, if anything, affected the outcome.
If one of the simulations, either the basic one or one that has some reasonable variation, collapses, then I’m fairly confident in accepting that the planes brought down those buildings. If none of the reasonable variations lead to a result where the building’s collapse, then I will join the ranks of those who suspect a controlled demolition.
If you made it that far, congratulations.
I’d be happy to address any questions or clarify anything. I’m sure I misspoke at least once and I haven’t proofread.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
The 911 Questions to Avoid - an Esoteric Collection
Interesting comments I found on the net and they made me go.....hmmmmmmm.....
The 911 Questions to Avoid - an Esoteric Collection
« on: Today at 01:09:01 PM »
Fully seven years after the largest mass murder in US history, the official version of the events continues to weave it's way into our history books, into the collective consciousness and into popular American mythology.
And as in all things 911, the ongoing infection of cover up, obfuscation and classified evidence continues to fester among those that are paying attention. One reputable poll after another reveals a steadily growing awareness and doubt among the American public - a doubt of the "official version/story/excuse" - a realization that they have been duped in the largest hoax in US history.
As has become a staple upon it's anniversary, on television and in magazine's "special editions" that claim to address the salient facts that surround the 911 attacks dutifully promote the official version - while making light of or even ridiculing the "conspiracy kooks". The "official script" of the crime is ardently followed, each time. Key, incompatible elements of the crime are omitted - most notably, the cloak of secrecy that surrounds the why, the how, the who. Always the information that was quickly formulated and volunteered immediately following the attacks - myriad inconvenient facts that contradict the official rendition are glaringly sidestepped and ignored.
So, the government attacked America, right? No, the government didn't plan and carry out the 911 attacks. This would imply that several million persons that make up the US government secretly conspired to attack it's own citizens. Quite a sizeable cabal, indeed - and equally absurd in it's premise. But key officials with enormous government power to manipulate public opinion have pursued hidden agendas throughout history. Through the use of sophisticated, carefully contrived propaganda campaigns in order to manufacture public consent for adventures and foreign expeditions. This is a fundamental, and all to frequent element and abuse of governance. To create conditions that certain events can occur, without which, previously unimagined agendas may be fulfilled. This underhandedness, this deception and manipulation, this aspect of human psychology is only appreciated with a meaningful study of history's powerful figures and their relation to history's big events. Without a clear understanding of this critical reality, the attacks of 911 can be explained, dismissed as a complete surprise against the American people - with an unsuspecting US government.
This is effectively and compellingly contradicted by an extensive body of known, readily documented facts.
According to the official story, on September 11, 2001, four commercial airliners were hijacked by groups Muslim extremists and three of them were flown into landmark US buildings. A fourth crashed into a Pennsylvania field. Very straightforward - what would be worth hiding?
Much, it seems.
Upon closer examination, many critical, yet lesser known aspects of the crime are poison to key officials and key agencies. The events leading to the attacks, the failures to intervene militarily during the attacks and especially, the stunning secrecy surrounding each aspect of the crime in the aftermath - when agencies and officials are called to account is where the demons reside - in the details.
A sensible collection of questions that any second-rate insurance investigator would persue:
Why were the repeated, urgent and specific warnings of an unprecedented terrorist attack ignored by the Bush inner circle? With the CIA director George Tenet later proclaiming that the US intelligence system was "blinking red", why was antiterrorism expert Richard Clarke removed from Bush's inner circle by Condoleezza Rice in the months before the attacks?
In the first eight months of the Bush administration, with unprecedented warnings coming from at least eleven foreign intelligence agencies in addition to over 40 Daily Presidential Briefs with urgent warnings, the bombing of the USS Cole and the bombings of two US embassies abroad yet to be addressed, why did the Bush administration reduce antiterror funding - right up until the attacks of 911?
Why did the Bush administration ardently oppose ANY investigation from the start? Why did both Bush - and later Cheney - contact the democratic Congressional leadership to warn that "the democrats would pay a high price" for an investigation into 911 of too much depth?
Why was a team of legal specialists assembled by Bush insiders to select the members that would make up the 911 Commission? Why was the 911 Commission staffed with well-engrained, political insiders - all steeped in conflicts of interest in their official duty, supposedly "to offer the fullest possible account of the 911 attacks"?
With subpeona power, why did the 911 Commission receive less than 3,000 of the 12,000 documents that it requested from the White House, while making no objections?
Why did the arrangement that compelled National Security Advisor Rice to testify before the Commission include provisions excluding sworn testimony from Rice's deputy Stephen Hadley, Bush's political adviser Karl Rove, or any other White House officials?
Why were decades long Bush family ties with the bin Laden family and the Saudi Royal family completely suppressed throughout the congressional investigation and deliberately omitted by the 911 Commission?
(A twenty-eight page, highly detailed report of these critical connections was reviewed and suppressed by both "investigative committees", as per White House demands.)
Why were numerous key FBI and intelligence officials surrounding the events of 911 gagged - even threatened, while key military, intelligence and political officials that utterly failed were promptly promoted?
Why was the San Diego FBI "asset", with whom two of the hijackers would be associated with before 911, sequestered by the FBI in a secret location and prevented from testifying before the Commission?
Why did Bush agree to "meet with" the 911 Commission only with Dick Cheney at his side? Why were no cameras, transcript or recordings allowed? Why did neither agree to be sworn? Why were all notes taken by the Commission members confiscated by the Secret Service when Bush and Cheney concluded their "meeting" with the Commission?
Why was Pakistan's Intelligence Chief Mahmud Ahmed not questioned when it was confirmed that he personally authorized a $100,000 wire transfer to lead hijacker Mohammed Atta in the days before the 911 attacks?
Why would the 911 Commission, (or any investigative body), proclaim in their report that "the financing of the 911 attacks is, ultimately, of little importance"?
Why were the connections with and training of several of the alleged hijackers by US intelligence and military agencies in the months and years before the 911 attacks suppressed by the Commission?
Why did Jeb Bush, the president's brother and governor of Florida leave his state aboard a US military C-130 transport aircraft the evening of 911, with the entirety of the records from the flight shool that was attended by several of the hijacker pilots? Why was this ignored by each investigative body? What could warrant this extraordinary action?
Why was the testimony of 118 NY firefighters, that spoke to massive and repeated explosions within the WTC towers following the initial airliner strikes, (as clearly evidenced in a wide array of on-site videotapes and civilian testimony), unaddressed and ignored by the 911 Commission?
(Why did the city of New York fight the release of this testimony for over five years, and release it only after numerous court and FOIA battles?)
Why did the $20 million NIST report, conducted by many experts in the field of explosive technologies, not test for any possibility of explosives in the demise of the WTC towers - including the collapse of WTC 7?
Who had the power to facilitate the unduly fast clearing and disposal of debris at the crime scenes, especially in New York and at the Pentagon? What was the official reason?
Why would it be necessary, in the conduct of military war drills on 911, to inject large numbers of "phantom" radar images into the civilian radar system that made locating the actual hijacked airliners by the FAA impossible?
(All military air drills were taking place hundreds of miles from both the US Capitol and New York City.)
Of the myriad air drills in progress on 911, (the essence of the official version and critical in the staggering failures to respond to the attacks), why was only one briefly mentioned in a footnote deeply buried in the final report by the 911 Commission?
When key, top-level Pentagon officials offer three sharply contradictory versions of their failures over a sixteen month period, (the final one to the 911 Commison), and the members of the Commission know that they are lying, why has this critical aspect of the crime not been addressed?
(The 911 Commission members knew the Pentagon officials were lying and considered referring perjury charges to the Justice department. Perjury by any key witness in any trial is a reverseable error).
Why did agents of the FBI immediately confiscate numerous civilian videotapes of the Pentagon impact, even as people were burning to death in the aftermath? Why are the videotapes of the crash classified, to this day?
Why are the aircraft remains from flights UA93, AA77, UA175 and AA11 classified to this day?
How, by whom and for what purpose were long-established aircraft intercept procedures and protocols significantly revised only four months prior to 911?
How, when, by whom and for what purpose were the numerous air drills, (critical in the failures to intervene), originally planned for October 2001, re-scheduled for the week of 9/10/2001?
How, why and by who's design was vice president Dick Cheney granted unprecedented command and control of all US air defense training and coordination only three months before the 911 attacks?
Was the Pentagon, or was it not, equipped with a missle defense system on 911, and if so, why did it utterly fail in preventing American Airlines flight 77 from crashing into the building?
Why were the results of 'Able Danger', a pre-911 intelligence operation that produced countless red flags about those that would eventually hijack airliners on 911, suppressed by both the congressional investigation and the 911 Commission? Why were libraries of Able Danger records destroyed both before and after the 911 attacks?
Why were so many critical investigations into those that would become hijackers hampered and halted by mid and upper level FBI supervisors?
Why were numerous FBI operatives prevented from testifying?
When two FBI agents that were being repeatedly ignored by their supervisors about suspicious Muslim men taking flight training, they went to former Clinton prosecutor David Schippers. Mr Schippers contacted Attorney General Ashcroft many times, to no avail. Why was this critical failure ignored?
Why was FBI translator Sibel Edmonds fired and gagged, her critical, 3 1/2 hour testimony about widespread inconpetence and outright corruption within the FBI ignored?
Why was the critical testimony by US Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, (that sharply contradicted Cheney's rendition of events during the 911 attacks), not only ignored - but expunged from the Commission transcripts and video archives?
How, and by who's design were the members of Odigo, an Israeli owned text message service, warned fully two hours before the 911 attacks - and why wasn't this pursued by the 911 Commission?
With confirmed, widespread identity theft and mistaken identites among the alleged hijackers, why hasn't the FBI revised the original list of the accused? How can the crime of the century be tied to al Qaeda, or anyone, when identities are known to be fraudulent?
Why would ICTS, the Israeli owned company that provided security at Boston's Logan airport, Washington's Dulles airport and Newark's airport, (departure points for all four hijacked airliners), push for, (and receive), legislation to be inserted into the Patriot Act that gave them immunity from any liability in the 911 attacks?
Why hasn't the FBI or any US law enforcement agency charged Osama bin Laden in the attacks on the United States of America on September 11, 2001?
As in any crime, whether it be petty theft or the crime of the century, there is a motive. Why did every investigative body deliberately ignore the motive - the why - the cause?
Yeah. By complete surprise. No one could have imagined it. Four airliners were hijacked by fanatical Muslims and three reached their targets on September 11, 2001.
Pretty simple, right?
What could be worth hiding? Indeed.
spend some time
at the Drjudywood. com site. very interesting.
Forge, I don't think 1 + 2 we're brought down by a CD...
but I do think building 7 most likely was. Have you come across the eyewitness testimony by Barry Jennings?
He was in WTC 7 that morning. He has reported that explosions went off inside the building before Towers 1 and 2 had collapsed.
I don't know why he has not been mentioned in this thread...it's one of the strongest pieces of evidence that I can think of for the CD of building 7.
Have you seen this..?
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
Firefighters & Police witnessed the lobbies of WTC 1&2 blown up
Before those skyscapers came down too.
Before the buildings fell, the FBI had said they thought two car bombs had gone off in each of the buildings.
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
Not something to worry about at this point.
I would think that anybody with a brain in his head should realize that an exceptionally high probability exists that sleazy trash in the American political arena is thus-far getting away with murder. (…Could also very well be international bankers.) But the people who ponder on the 9\11 thing are just beating a dead horse.
We know that much of the public refuses to think in certain terms. Does that mean they're dumb? Of course not!!! I don't know why (they have their reasons), but they're just not emotionally or psychologically ready. But they have every right to not think however they want.
Think I'm just another voice of ignorance? Well… I've been a constitutionalist since I was 16 (I'm 47 now). My dad was nearly killed in the 1970s for sharing the Fed play money story with the public. Dad was even asked to speak at a public high school. My father, Russel Means, and a handful of other freedom fighters were branded enemies of the state in South Dakota.
--Cliff, Sioux City, Iowa
---------------------------------
My reasoning sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Secret key to happiness: Stay happy. Shhh!
I just wanted to say what an honor it is to have you ...
commenting on this site. The funny thing is that I just sent an email to your father on his blog. I then thought I would see if any one had talked about what a true patriot for freedom your father is, so I did a search on this site and saw your post.
First, I would like to say that I love your stand for a sovereign nation and several of us here have been talking about ways for us to create a constitutional zone or state. It is clear you are way ahead of us. Maybe we could help you and you could help us. This leads me to the next point...
I was asking your father if he new anything about the Lakota Bank based on gold and silver.
http://press.freelakotaba...
This seems to be very consistent with freedom and liberty which you and your father have been a stand for for your whole lives.
Once again, I am honored to be on this site if such great company.
Warm regards,
Whalesurfer
Hey Forge
How many times have you used a torch? I have used a few and it is hard to get a clean cut like that with a torch. Even if that was done with a Plasma torch, it looks awfully clean to me, seeing as how they were working in a recovery mode. It is REALLY peculiar that most of the structural steel that was recovered for "recycling, was a perfect 30' long so it fit on certain carriers...i.e. trucks, trailers, cargo ships.
The ONLY way that any of that metal could have been turned "MOLTEN" would have been through lazer/mazer technology. It really isn't that complicated. You excite atoms to vibrate at a certain rate so they shatter like glass. Think about it. 25 years ago you would have never thought about a cop using a taser or a dentist using a laser, but they are here now.
The amount of thermite/thermate explosives needed to "blow" just one of the inner core structural steel columns on the WTC's, would fill up your garage. That is just for one. There were 42 that had to be blown to make it tip over and fall like a tree. Imagine the amount needed to start at the 84th floor and blow your way down!
Those buildings fell way to fast to have succumbed to the pancake theory.
Think outside the box for a while and get away from the "official" theory and you will get some answers. The UL and NIST testers couldn't even agree on what happened. They should be made to recreate the situation and rerun their tests. The building would still be standing tall unless 20 planes hit the BASE of the building.
If ignited jet fuel actually was responsible for melting concrete and metal,
every aircraft carrier we have would be at the bottom of the ocean from fires.
Think straight.
crazyrustyforpresident
I'm sorry but...
...as far as the NYC-part of 9/11 goes, I can't possibly believe that ANYONE would not see a conspiracy after viewing only one photograph: The picture of the core columns cut off at a 45* angle in the sub-basement with the molten steel running off of them. After all the mathematics, physics and thermodynamic study, one simple photo should be the only thing any objectively-thinking person should require in order to conclude a conspiracy took place.
------------------
BC
'No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders.'
-- Samuel Adams (letter to James Warren, 4 November 1775)
are you talking about
the one cut by the acetylene torch during the cleanup?
First, my credentials:
High School "drop-out" before satisfying California's equivalency test needed to join U.S. Army. Distinguished Honor Graduate (near-maximum score) with Citation[s] from the Army's aviation school for Helicopter Maintenance and Repair (that means I DO have the ability for academics).
Joined 2/1 permanent party in Ft Hood, Texas just in time to witness the DOD/Hollywood production filming of the crap-shit piece "Wings of the Apache", later renamed "Firebirds" starring Nick Cage, Tommy Jones, Sean Young (that means I have the odd fortune, on occasion, to be witness to truly-horrendous-bad story telling funded by tax dollars).
After performing my duties to the best of my ability, available resources, and oath to the Constitution... I had no other choice but to separate, under duress, from the United States Army (that means I have some sense of what true dignity and honorable character is, irrespective fruit salad on a uniform or especially a "DD214").
Entered the world of experimental aircraft design exploration, building and flight characteristics. Blue Ribbon show winner for construction craftsmanship (that means I really, REALLY know how to use my hands).
High-speed NHRA/SCCA metal performance (heavy-load, adverse, high-temp, precession machine, tool and metal fabrication)
FAA pilot's Certificate (with eclectic "stick and rudder" time in multi, heavy, amphibious, rotor, stunt, aerobatic, ground applications, ultra-lite and para-sail)
FAA Airframe and Powerplant Mechanic's Certificate (one of the more "practically" demanding and broad-reaching all-around licenses needed to touch any commercial lawn-dart with a wrench)
Depressing stint as a high-tech trouble-shooter for a fortune five hundred biotech blending over-arching knowledge and familiarity with gas lasers, precision optics, fluidics, photon detection, super-analogue circuitry, digital capture and information storage... (I wanna see you do that).
Woodchopper and water-carrier... BLA BLA BLA.
Finite Element Analysis is pure crap, without Engineering in The Mind's Eye.
Come back when your hands are dirty and you've felt the agony of defeat witnessing your own shit break first hand, so that you THEN know something about what it takes to hold something together. Kay?
It took a HELL of a lot more than box-cutters, tin darts and lamp oil to bring about the stunning destruction of 9/11 and the dark years to follow. Kay?
Hey Erin..
Forge and Rhino both.. They'll attack you at every turn and on every front..
Thank you for pointing out their apparent disinfo.
I could be wrong but I think you forgot to mention ...
your psychology background ...
because everytime I read a post from you it sure seems that you seem to have mastered the art of persuasion.
You say ...
"It took a HELL of a lot more than box-cutters, tin darts and lamp oil to bring about the stunning destruction of 9/11 and the dark years to follow."
I am convinced that this above statement is absolutely correct and therefore, I guess you can conclude that I am now on your side. Have you kept track of all the people that you have persuaded? I would love to know.
You will know that you are right when persuasion is no longer needed.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/...
Mad as a Hatter.
As a kid, I snacked on lead paint chips for dinner and washed 'em down with mercury juice. Even crazier now for refusing to take Meds for my condition.
Good thing that's neither a crime nor has any bearing upon one's character and placement of heart.
As for linguistic persuasion... that's exactly what the weblink of intertubes is all about. Because, if We fail to share it out here... people like you and I might be silly enough to share-out each other's blood over our mutually exclusive world views.
(maybe not your's, rhino. Seeing as you've been reasonably persuaded away from the crazier words of our current governmentus)
Might ya think?
Patronize much?
I have a mentor at work who's motto is "Engineering experience is directly proportional to the amount and value of equipment broken." I tend to agree.
My company is unique (and sought after) precisely because it allows the engineers like me to be the "guys in the field" as well. We design it, we install it, we troubleshoot it, we repair it.
Don't you dare stereotype me. I'm far more than the analysis to paralysis type you seem to assume that I am. I've come home just as many times with grease under my nails as I have with eyestrain from staring at a computer screen.
Come back when you can make an argument that amounts to more than patronization.
KAY?
Patronizing, eh!?
Then don't make a post predominately touting the value of your FEA skill without commenting on the historically critical inadequacies of the multi million dollar NIST and "independent" comp-lab productions such as Purdue's, presenting gross misrepresentations of design and provable construction elements (such as "garbage-in" FEA H-beam, in place of actual box-beam cores in Towers One and Two).
And if you're going to wave your hand to refocus eyes toward other 'more-likely' stress-riser joinery, instead of standing back in awe at the overall BUNKER bracing construction of Building Seven... maybe "patronizing" is deserved.
And if you want anything better than patronizing from me... put your real fucking name, CV, character and life on the line, "forge", ya nameless little shit.
YOU'RE THE ONE starting this subject from "the high-ground" backed up by literally TRILLIONS of dollars in missing money available to hold up a "conspiracy theory", not me.
What's at your risk? A shit-load maybe? Do tell.
I can see now that there may be one other credential ...
that you forgot to mention ....
A list of medications and mental health history.
I could guess and probably be right, but I would love for you to add these to the list of qualifications.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/...
If you really wanted to know, rhino
You could just go to
1606 Woodmoor lane
Mclean, Virginia 22101
and ask. It is a nice little house in what appears to be an older neighborhood... there are some nice big trees in the front yard. You are looking for an individual around 38 years old.
Or you just call 703 893 3866.
Either way, while you're chatting, be sure to ask if he's still curious why I don't put my real name on the internet.
5 minutes... god only knows what I could have found with more time and/or the willingness to spend money.
Be careful Forge ...
Such a post can get you banned ...
I have been banned before, but this kind of post will get you permanantly banned.
Not only is it an extreme violation of the rules, but I think Mr. Nystrom tends to side with these whinny butts.
I only say this because ...
I think you are extremely important to the dailypaul, regardless of rather you give a shit about dailypaul or not. Your level headedness is needed.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/...
If Mr. Nystrom would like to ban me...
he certainly can. My only defense would be that I didn't post anything that cannot be ascertained within 5 minutes on google. I would think that since Erin blatantly uses his real name online in such a brash way, he/she is presumably just fine with everyone on the internet having access to that information.
Whether that would stand up in Mr. Nystrom's court, I dunno.....
You are fascinating!!!
Please, by any and all means... search and post right here whatever you think will either discourage me or "scare" the shit out of me. Please, no need to stop now what you are doing.
Scare?
No, not so much. I'm pretty sure you're too dim to scare easily.... besides, I have no interest in scaring you. I just thought I'd make the point as explicitly as I could.
Well, might I be so dim to point out...
... your point is explicitly pointless. Your intel is incomplete, out of date, and thus rather worthless. I do so hope your irresponsibly cavalier cock-sure nature hasn't endangered innocent people.
If you really want to find and ask me something in person... I'm quite reachable.
For your sake, I hope so...
nt
Your boldness and courage, Forge...
... to post an old address of mine is intriguing to say the least. Maybe it is as you said, you were simply demonstrating how easy it is to find people who use their real name on the internet, to better establish your wisdom in blogging as you do with a screen name. We can debate the merits and short-commings of both ways, later.
However, for your info-war bravery I offer you this:
You and I each drop our silly-ness here for just a few more public exchanges... and I'll doubly offer something in publicweb to you you should have no reason to feel apprehensive nor suspicious over.
I'm not well versed in olive branches, but VERY willing to try my best with you here and now. Such an olive branch IS NOT because I feel I am 'loosing' this debate in anyway, quite to the contrary. Yet because I hold that one should retreat when they can, not when they have to, this is only me offering you a hand-down off the cliff you're now perched upon... NOT a stab in the back. I think that's an honest olive branch. Interested?
Please take as much time as you need formulating any response.
I think I'm interested...
if what you are describing gets us closer to my original intent (a level headed discussion of the merits and requirements of an "ideal" FEA to study WTC collapses), then I'm certainly interested.
Either way, I have no withheld hard feelings towards you. I've spoken my mind, both good and ill, and as far as I'm concerned, the air is clear between us.
However, I would suggest you post any reply at the top of the thread... we're getting a bit crowded down here.
Cool...
... yet we have just enough room down here to conduct a few quieter affairs and post our findings later nearer the top.
My offer: If you're in the area, I'll offer a few times and places, as public or secluded as you wish, where you could see me from a distance armed with nothing more than a pen. You can decide to approach wearing a ski mask, or not, with a van load of friends in ski masks and SAWs, or not. And I will extend my hand to say hello, and we could start from there.
Still interested?
btw, I'm not about to inter-debate one more piece of minutiae with you right now, after your little stunt with my old address. kabish?
Merits? Only if you're preparing to up-stage Purdue and the National Institutes of Standards and Technocracy. I really hope you comprehend the stakes at hand. I'll check back here in the morning.
Why would I have any interest in meeting you?
I mean, not to be offensive, but, you're just a forum poster. It matters not to me who you are or are not. I'm only interested in exchange of ideas via electron... so, sorry.
And yes... what I was proposing in my original post is significantly more complex than the NIST and Purdue studies.... complex enough that I'm not entirely sure it is realistic... but is at least an interesting idea, IMHO at least. That is sort of what I wanted to discuss.
Sorry, not gonna fly that way.
You made this quite personal, motherfucker. Might as well drop that screen name once and for all. If I ever see you on here I'm gonna ride your ass like there's no tomorrow.
You don't know what you're doing, move along and do something different. Quite, if you have to. Go dig a ditch.
More complex? How about you just reach for honest. It's a lower hanging fruit.
You made it personal...
I merely pointed it out.
Don't blame me for your idiocy.
evil bastard.
yes you are. I am open, so I don't mind posting my info.. But what you just did is a dirty thing..
I'll be contacting Mr Nystrom..
Na na na...
Let 'em stay. At this point, they're revealing more about themselves than they learn about us. I see them as extraordinary subjects of interest, either about their deadly incompetence or their deadly deviousness. Deadly things should be studied, intensely. Maybe not by everyone... but I don't mind.
Yes...
I see your thinking now. Learn from the enemy of truth by interacting and studying them.............................
Need a second opionion
I was an Architectural Consultant for 15 years and we designed a few multistory buildings so I am very knowledgeable of Structural Engineering and the way live loads and floor loads react to certain conditions.
I would desperately like for someone to look into what I am about to say and give me a second opinion. I have looked into it enough to satify my own questions.
Let me set the basis for my claims.
1. You CANNOT have an implosion AND an explosion except under extraordinary conditions. Please review the tapes of the WTC 1 and 2 again and watch how the building implodes down the central core yet explodes out enough to throw debris for an estimated 800 feet away from the building. As far as WTC 7, we know for a fact that it was "pulled". Larry the roach Silverstein admitted it on tape.
2. Explosive whiffs were seen coming from strategic points in WTC 1and 2 during their demolition. These were only "guide" charges to steer the building the way it needed to go in case it wasn't a symetrical fall.
3. Concrete was "pulverized" BEFORE it ever got to the ground.
4. Molten steel that ran for 2 weeks.
5. Pictures of structural beams cut with thermite charges.
6. Debris from a crime scene removed and "sold"? to a foreign country.
7. Thick smoke from the fires masking unknown aircraft in the air at the time.
I suppose this list could go on but that will do for starters. It lays enough groundwork to see the direction.
Now you need to go and watch all the videos you can on Phil Schneider.
You will hear Phil (now deceased) talk about MAZER technology that we are using right now in the USAF. It is fascinating technology and the Pentagon just used it to bring down a failed satellite by targeting the fuel tanks and exploding it so it would fall in a designated area. This MAZER technology is so advanced that it is used to pulverize solid rock when the machine is digging tunnels. The USAF is so proud of this machine they even have a picture of it for you to see. So as not to bias your opinion, I will let you find this easily and widely available info on your own. MAybe you will dig up some additional info as well.
Just like out of a scifi movie (Independence Day) laser technology was used to precisely bring both buildings down in their footprint.
I believe the planes were used as diversions so the laser could lock onto a beacon in the building. The central core, which consisted of hundreds of thousands of huge pieces of structural steel, was comprimised in such a way as to make the steel lose it's load bearing integrity. The concrete was lasered and the concrete molecules began vibrating and rotating at some incredible speeds and the building...POOOF..turned to dust before our eyes.
Say it can't be so? You use a microwave machine in your home. Macrowaves will make you deathly ill. We use Mazer wave technology right now in the military.
My question to you is....Show ME why this ISN"T the way it happened.
crazyrustyforpresident
When your only tool is a hammer,
every problem looks like a nail. You like computer sims? It's natural then to think of using them to analyze this problem. But it's completely unreasonable to anyone who just wants to get definitive, binary conclusions regarding whether the government story or the demolition story better fits the actual physical evidence.
That evidence is in, and is indisputable. The pools of molten metal below the wreckage of all three buildings can't possibly be accounted for by the gov't scenario, but fits perfectly with demolition. The tiny metal spheres in dust collected even blocks away can be explained by splattering thermite/thermate, but not by any structure fire absent the violent injection of forced oxygen to give results similar to a cutting torch. The composition of metals found in the dust -- especially the presence of sulphur and barium in quantities completely out of line with building materials -- is exactly what you'd expect from the use of military grade (by far the best fit of all types) of thermate. Finally, the near free-fall speeds of collapse for all three buildings, in each case through the path of GREATEST resistance, can't be explained by any mechanism other than removing the resistance in advance of collapse -- i.e., by controlled demolition.
There's a whole lot more, but just those items are enough to definitively rule out the government's cover story and accept demolition as the default hypothesis for collapse.
Please note that it isn't adequate to come up with a computerized model of how the buildings could have failed in the manner observed without cutting charges being involved. That only addresses a portion of the available evidence (the appearance of the collapses) without addressing the other forensic evidence that actually bears on which mechanism can account for the totality of the evidence.
Over 500 Architects and Engineers
This site has the most scientific evidence I have seen.
http://www.ae911truth.org...
This isn't the FEA you are
This isn't the FEA you are looking for but its the closest thing that has been produced by the truth movement.
http://www.journalof911st...
The bulk of the research being done on 9/11 right now by private scientists concerns the residues of thermate and unexploded "red-gray" chips found in the dust. I find this to be a much more direct line of questioning. Imagine for a moment a group of people looking at a bloody body on the ground. A few guys are saying that we can't determine if the person was shot without running a simulation showing that the person wasn't stabbed. At the same time, another few guys walk around the scene and find the empty casing and the bullet in the body. Who has a more solid argument in the end?
A FEA is useful as a piece of evidence but, as someone who does simulations for a living, its not going to "prove" anything. It would just be another piece to add in to the analysis, a big expensive piece at that.
____________________________________________________
"Freedom suppressed and again regained bites with keener fangs than freedom never endangered." -- Cicero
thanks for the link
It is an interesting piece of analysis. However, I think it contains two critical flaws:
1) It assumes that the initial failure mode would be buckling of the support columns. I doubt that is the case. Those columns weren't made of single continuous pieces of steel. The columns had joints... those joints are stress risers.. and those stress risers are where an initial failure would occur. Look for a bolt or rivet loaded in shear and that is where I'd like to see the affect of the impact energy. At least, that is the first place I'd look.
2) It assumes the collapse is linear (in terms of direction of travel). It doesn't consider torsional loading and non-symmetric impact. That is primarily because that would be difficult to do in any closed form analysis like that paper is attempting to do... hence my recommendation to use FEA.
In order to use a computer sim with any degree of accuracy
You would first need to be able to input the data based on some proven hypothesis for comparison and the only hypothesis available in this scenario is that of controlled demolition. It doesn't take a genious to understand that no matter how much you search for an answer to the collapse of the towers and building 7 you will always and only come up with one possibility for the collapse and that is demolition.
~Mikael / Peace, love, Light and unity ~
I can't believe
aint nobody put up the link yet. Eat your heart out. They have done an excellent FEA of the collision, all though apparently unbiased they give no opinions about remaining structural integrity in their conclusions. I would like to see someone produce a similar graphic FEA analysis of how the redistribution of structural forces would be redistributed and how the newly positioned(post collision)sructural forces are transferred and supported by the remaining core columns.
I found this link by visiting a DPer's myspace page i'll let them step forward and take the credit if they so desire, anyways enjoy if you have not all ready done so.
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
What Conspiracy?
A bunch of guys commanded by some dude on a dialysis machine in a cave to hi-jack four commercial airliners with box-cutters and precision fly them into buildings... now that sounds like a conspiracy theory.
Freedom Isn't Free... Freedom costs a buck 'o five - Trey Parker
Touche'
LOL
May if 9/11 was actually an
May if 9/11 was actually an inside job, you would have an easier time convincing him.
I watched a few minutes of
I watched a few minutes of some video called "loose change" and it seemed to have a lot of technical info in it. You might find it useful. http://www.loosechange911...
How about...
At what speed does titanium have to travel to completely disintegrate on impact with reinforced concrete?
Is it the speed of a jet airplane or faster?
Do 12 tons of titanium traveling at 500 mph have the ability to break glass?
Does enough heat to destroy three steel buildings have the ability to burn paper?
Inquiring minds want to know!
Thought Provoking :)
But I am too tired (yawn)..I'll have to get back to you.. .
Thats funny as hell.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
“Liberty without learning is always in peril... and learning without liberty is always in vain”
- John Fitzgerald Kennedy
Just found these NIST videos today
These videos were produced via FEA.
What I'm proposing is much more comprehensive and challenging than what they've modeled here, but, it at least gives you an idea:
http://www.nist.gov/publi...
Haven't checked them yet, but
I'm more than skeptical of their value. I've read some of the critiques of NIST's draft report on WTC7, and they bespeak only two possible conclusions about the NIST team: either they are totally incompetent or they are intentionally fudging their results. I haven't looked at their final report to see if they have done any better, but I doubt it given that their draft was so seriously flawed.
Here are just two of the assumptions they made that are completely unreasonable. First, they had fire burning on floor 12 for much longer than their initial report. Video evidence showing where fires were burning and when also completely contradicts their assumptions here. Second, they assumed that outer support structures were perfectly fixed -- that is, they wouldn't bow outward in response to expanding horizontal beams, putting all the pressure of expansion on the internal columns they need to show caused the collapse. That completely violates the laws of physics, and there's no way they couldn't know that.