9/11

[PolyNewbie]

actually ive seen several documentaries backed up with testimony by civil engineers and demolitian experts via the history channel that explain the collapse. im inclined to believe them personally.

They have told you what happened not explained how it happened (collapses). No one has done this.

Anyone curious about the scientific aspects of 911 should look at Hoffmans site. He explains the technical misinformation and exposes the technical lies.

[moderateamericain]

actually ive seen several documentaries backed up with testimony by civil engineers and demolitian experts via the history channel that explain the collapse. im inclined to believe them personally.

They have told you what happened not explained how it happened (collapses). No one has done this.

Anyone curious about the scientific aspects of 911 should look at Hoffmans site. He explains the technical misinformation and exposes the technical lies.

alright poly, i try to look at a situation as unbiased as i possibly can but im going to have to go ahead and disagree with you on the collapse of the WTC buildings.

However in the spirit of looking at all options the best site i found which argues in your favor is

http://www.journalof911studies.org/volume/...elyCollapse.pdf

however if you go to asce and read the nist report

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

a list of memebers of asce who followed up this study

http://www.asce.org/responds/wtc_team.cfm

[Riverwind]

The NIST report DOES NOT explain the collapses. It only explains the events leading up to the collapse. Their explanation as to how the buildings collapsed is based on pure hypothesis only.

You cannot explain how the explosives were rigged. You cannot explain how the relatively small amount energy added by explosives would make up the energy deficit that you claim exists. You cannot explain how the the explosions in a burning could have been precisely controlled to start at the point of jet impact.

Your claim does not even deserve the label 'hypothesis'. It is idle speculation that not supported by the evidence.

[na85]

na85:I am a civil engineering student and the explanation given by the NIST and others is quite plausible; just because a building collapses downward into itself does not mean it was done by controlled demolition.

Yes it does and I have a degree in electrical engineering. Any engineer that says this is possible is a fool or a liar.

If the buildings fall straight down its a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Its impossible - or about as possible as dropping 3 basket balls and have them land directly on top of one another.

The second law of thermodynamics? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... *cough* *wheeze* oh man, that's a good one.

The second law of thermo states that the entropy of an isolated system will increase over time, unless the system is in equilibrium.

What on god's green earth does this have to do with a plane hitting a building? Neither of those two objects are isolated systems (thermally or otherwise). Since there's a gaping hole in the building, heat and mass are free to flow across the system boundary. Poly, PLEASE tell me how a jet hitting a building is in some way NOT increasing the entropy of the system. Please. I would LOVE to hear it.

---

I've looked at some of the materials on Hoffman's site, and the manner in which he "debunks" the scientific articles and "exposes" the "lies" are laughable. His argument merely appeals to the layperson's general lack of knowledge of the exceedingly complicated science of structures and materials.

[na85]

For those of us who are not very scientific; Entropy is, at its basic form, chemical/molecular disorder. If you think of a rock, its molecules are more or less fixed in their relative positions. If you compare that rock to a gas (whose molecules are free to float around and bounce off of eachother and other things), you will find that a rock has less entropy than a gas.

[Riverwind]

For those of us who are not very scientific; Entropy is, at its basic form, chemical/molecular disorder. If you think of a rock, its molecules are more or less fixed in their relative positions. If you compare that rock to a gas (whose molecules are free to float around and bounce off of eachother and other things), you will find that a rock has less entropy than a gas.

I am an engineer as well and have tried to argue science with Poly. It is a waste of time - he deliberately misreads scientific arguments and simply starts throwing insults when he realizes his 'science' does not stand up to scrutiny.

A couple things to note about the 'thermodynamics argument':

1) The calculations are based on the the assumption that all concrete was completely pulverized as each floor collapsed. They have no evidence that this happened but they insist it is true because it increases the 'energy required' for the collapse at the speed observed.

2) The potential energy of the building from gravity is dominant source of energy which means that exploding a tonne of TNT would not add enough energy to make up the supposed deficit. That is why truthies talk about mini-nukes and energy beams from space - the idea is these things would release enough energy to make up the deficit.

Of course any reasonable engineer would conclude that there must be an error in the energy deficit calculation before resorting to claims of nuclear bombs. However, we are not dealing with reasonable people.

[na85]

However, we are not dealing with reasonable people.

Too true.

he calculations are based on the the assumption that all concrete was completely pulverized as each floor collapsed.

This is not necessary for the building to collapse. It is eminently possible for the concrete to merely have been fractured during the collapse - i.e. broken into smaller chunks which are not structurally competent.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind: am an engineer as well

No you are not and you have already admitted that on this post ! You have had "some courses but did not finish so stop it.

Riverwind:1) The calculations are based on the the assumption that all concrete was completely pulverized as each floor collapsed. They have no evidence that this happened but they insist it is true because it increases the 'energy required' for the collapse at the speed observed.

2) The potential energy of the building from gravity is dominant source of energy which means that exploding a tonne of TNT would not add enough energy to make up the supposed deficit. That is why truthies talk about mini-nukes and energy beams from space - the idea is these things would release enough energy to make up the deficit.

That has nothing to do with the second law arguement.

If you were an engineer you would not have made the error on the free body diagram of the table with the missing leg and you wouldn't have accused me of using non Newtonian physics when I introduced the idea of a rotation. If I point this out will you stop responding to my posts ?

I will explain how the second alw of thermo applies to this.

na85 if you want to sit with Riverwind in this then you should re read some of the Riverwind physics that have been presented on this thread first.

Riverwind:he calculations are based on the the assumption that all concrete was completely pulverized as each floor collapsed.

Anyone can see this from the video. There wasn't a big pile of...anything at ground zero center.

[PolyNewbie]

na85:The second law of thermo states that the entropy of an isolated system will increase over time, unless the system is in equilibrium.

What on god's green earth does this have to do with a plane hitting a building?

The building wasn't in equilibrium while it was collapsing.

[PolyNewbie]

The arguement about energy is about the first law of thermodynamics, not the second law. Riverwind shows his scientific ignorance once again.

If you assume that the concrete was converted to about a 100 micron dust particles - all perfect spheres and assume a chemical bonding energy of 100 J / m^2 then you get a couple of extra seconds in the time of collapse. The buildings initial rate of collaspe was very close to the speed of freefall. wtc7 collapses at freefall speed.

These are generous assumptions given the pyrocrastic flow observed as the buildings collapsed.

So na85, tell me if you think the Bin Laden in the confession tapes was actually Bin Laden. I really want to hear this.

Also, did you know that the government set up the whole thing in the wtc93 attack ? Its on tape and its been on mainstream media but everybody forgot about it. The Oklahoma Murrah building bombing had the authorities find an additional 3 bombs inside the building. There is a navy bomb expert that says a firtilizer bomb could not have possibly done the damage at Oklahoma. I'd like to hear your opinions on how he is wrong.

Congressional Report On Oklahoma Bombing

I will get to the second law explanation.

[Riverwind]

If you were an engineer you would not have made the error on the free body diagram of the table with the missing leg and you wouldn't have accused me of using non Newtonian physics when I introduced the idea of a rotation. If I point this out will you stop responding to my posts ?

Defensive aren't you? You try to use your 'qualifications' to some how add credibility to your ridiculous arguments, however, when faced with people that have the same or better qualifications you try to dismiss them.

So na85, tell me if you think the Bin Laden in the confession tapes was actually Bin Laden. I really want to hear this.

This is another Poly tactic - he avoids addressing scientific counter arguments by randomly changing the topic.

[PolyNewbie]

Defensive aren't you? You try to use your 'qualifications' to some how add credibility to your ridiculous arguments, however, when faced with people that have the same or better qualifications you try to dismiss them.

You are a charlatan and I can prove it using your own posts so shut up and go away.

Riverwind:This is another Poly tactic - he avoids addressing scientific counter arguments by randomly changing the topic.

The explanation for the second law is a simple one but I have to look it up again to explain it properly. I have not avoided a single challenge against me. You have.

If I can point out where I bring rotations into the arguement to correct your free body diagram and you subsequently accuse me of using non Newtonian physics will you go away ?

.

[Riverwind]

You are a charlatan and I can prove it using your own posts so shut up and go away.

You cannot 'prove' whether I have a degree or not based on my posts. You might form an 'opinion' but that is not a 'proof'. The fact that you think it is possible to prove such things demonstrates how low your standards are when it comes to declaring things 'proven'.

The explanation for the second law is a simple one but I have to look it up again to explain it properly. I have not avoided a single challenge against me. You have.

Go back and look at the discussion about heat and sagging beams. You changed the topic once I demonstrated that the conditions inside the WTC could have easily caused the floor supports to sag.

If I can point out where I bring rotations into the argument to correct your free body diagram and you subsequently accuse me of using non Newtonian physics will you go away ?

Go ahead. It will just make you look like a fool because you cannot understand the basic physics involved.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:You cannot 'prove' whether I have a degree or not based on my posts. You might form an 'opinion' but that is not a 'proof'.

I can prove you are incompetent scientifically and I can find where you stated that you did not have an engineering degree. I can point out several obvious scientific errors.

Riverwind:Go back and look at the discussion about heat and sagging beams. You changed the topic once I demonstrated that the conditions inside the WTC could have easily caused the floor supports to sag.

Ryan explains in the letter I posted that the heat would not cause failure. If I put a penny on a 3 foot thick I beam it will sag.

Riverwind:Go ahead. It will just make you look like a fool because you cannot understand the basic physics involved.

You cannot because you agree to stop oposting on this topic if I show this. Wanna try - I hate liars.

[PolyNewbie]

If you are an engineer Riverwind you would know what the letter "s" represents in engineering equations. You would know this in second year at the very start - possibly sooner.

[Riverwind]

I can prove you are incompetent scientifically and I can find where you stated that you did not have an engineering degree. I can point out several obvious scientific errors.

Go ahead find where I said I did not have a degree - you won't find it because I never did. That fact that you make that claim further illustrates that you have serious problems with reading comprehension.

Ryan explains in the letter I posted that the heat would not cause failure. If I put a penny on a 3 foot thick I beam it will sag.

Ryan says no such thing. He claims that the beams were tested to meet ASTM E119 specs without explaining what that means. When steel are tested to ASTM E119 they must have fire insulation applied because unprotected steel cannot pass the ASTM E119 tests. The beams in the WTC has their fire protection knocked off so the ASTM E119 test results are not relevant.

You cannot because you agree to stop oposting on this topic if I show this. Wanna try - I hate liars.

I don't have a clue what you are talking about.

F(s) is the Laplace Transform of F(t). s is used in place of t when solving equations in the frequency domain.

[PolyNewbie]

Your science has been shown to be wrong. I use a first law of thermo above and you think its the second. You get a basic free body diagram wrong and you thing that rotations are non Newtonian physics. You didn't finish engineering you have said this because I know this and the only way I would know is if you finished.

You may know what "s" is from a second year math class on DE's or you looked it up on google or wiki somehow.

Me:" If I can point out where I bring rotations into the argument to correct your free body diagram and you subsequently accuse me of using non Newtonian physics will you go away ?"

Riverwind: "Go ahead. It will just make you look like a fool because you cannot understand the basic physics involved."

Me:"You cannot because you agree to stop oposting on this topic if I show this. Wanna try - I hate liars."

Riverwind:I don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Now you know what I am talking about.

So, back to the original question:If I can point out where I bring rotations into the argument to correct your free body diagram and you subsequently accuse me of using non Newtonian physics will you go away ?

[obsidian]

excuse me, but what is all that toxic carcinogenic dust that was released after they collapsed? those huge plumes rising hundreds of feet into the sky? was that smoke from the 4-19(dun make a differnce) story fire capable of producing so much smoke? well it wasnt smoke, dust collected. you can see it throughout the city, it accumated in the inches, there is no disputing this. now your argument is based on concrete doesnt have to be pulverised for the building to collapse, and that is your defense because you claim that the planes and did not exert enough force for them to fall at nearly 9.8 m/s [down] (freefall). Now engineer, explain the pulverised concrete that is evident in the dust. and show me a picture of a concrete slab at grounds zero before the cleaned it up. it was shut off right after, and coincidentally FEMA was there instantly to quarantine the entire area (i have read on 9/12 they were to be practising a response to terrorist attack). and also tell me why the vertical steel columns at the base would still remain, even though if there had been all that force on the building, it would have recieved a large amount, almost the highest gravity potential(right?)i pose that argument assuming that you know then when a building is demolished the amount of fource is minimalized, especially with modern techniques making it possible to demolish stadiums and 80 stories building safe in urban areas. and if your rebuttal involves WTC 7 or even if it doesnt,which should remain a part of this discussion just as much as WTC1 & 2, justify the amount of force that would of caused WTC 7 to fall at nearly freefall speed

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind is a gate keeper.

Riverwind:F(s) is the Laplace Transform of F(t). s is used in place of t when solving equations in the frequency domain.

That is actually wrong but given that you know something about it means I can't use this as proof. s is a complex frequency variable and used as the transform variable. it is never used "in place of t". (I scored 91 in DE's)

[PolyNewbie]

I want to know what he na85 thinks of the Osama tapes - what us "conspiracy theorists" refer to as the "obviously fake Osama confession tapes". I just about choked on my dinner when I saw those tapes on CNN - I'll never eat again when I watch mainstream media 8-)

[ft.niagara]

Convince me that the government didn't kill 3000 people on Sept 11. Show me some evidence that AlQuaeda did it. Show me an unbiased investigation.

It is quite possible that it wasn't the US government. It might have been Isreel. As far as AlQ wanting to do it, that is pretty well documented going back to 1991, and the first WTC bombing.

Israel? What an unfounded and unsupported slur.

It has to do with motive. What would be a motive to demolish the buildings. The Arab motive might have been a desire to fight someone powerful, anger over the influence of the West in Moslim world, etc. An Israeli motive might have been to mobalize the anger of the West against the Arabs, and sympathy in their direction. Motive for the US government to demolish the buildings, they wanted an urban renewal project?

BTW, slur is a poor word for a speculation with a strong basis in possibility. What was the reason for the attack on the USS Liberty by Israel? It was not likely a mistake, and it definately was Israel. It might have been the same reason as for the WTC.

[na85]

na85:The second law of thermo states that the entropy of an isolated system will increase over time, unless the system is in equilibrium.

What on god's green earth does this have to do with a plane hitting a building?

The building wasn't in equilibrium while it was collapsing.

That's your proof? The building wasn't in equilibrium? Please explain how the second law of thermodynamics was violated.

[na85]

If you are an engineer Riverwind you would know what the letter "s" represents in engineering equations. You would know this in second year at the very start - possibly sooner.

Oh please. S is used for all kinds of things. Entropy, specific gravity, the length along an arc, etc. Drop the ad hominem attacks.

[na85]

I want to know what he na85 thinks of the Osama tapes - what us "conspiracy theorists" refer to as the "obviously fake Osama confession tapes". I just about choked on my dinner when I saw those tapes on CNN - I'll never eat again when I watch mainstream media 8-)

I haven't watched them yet, I'm busy studying for midterms. I'll watch them later this week and get back to you.

[geoffrey]

Oh please. S is used for all kinds of things. Entropy, specific gravity, the length along an arc, etc. Drop the ad hominem attacks.

Orrrrrrr.... this argument is S-illy.

People that crown themselves engineers are an interesting breed. I've also been told by the same character that my financial education is controlled by UNESCO to keep me in the dark and that he knows more from spending a month watching internet videos and reading books.