TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?
Pages (162): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 »

does anyone know wether the palisaides seismic readings were in richter scale or moment magnitude? this would make a significant difference


as richter scale being a manual graphic method has alot of internal error sources. moment magnitude method was addopted in 1979 and is an equation based scale that is farmore accurate

if they infact used the richter scale which from my quick reaserch they did, then graphical error might very well have caused the difference in values

^^ You could try googling for when they were installed, and making an educated guess based on that. Not that it's terribly scientific, especially considering the degree of precison with which you're trying to recreate a virtual model.

EDIT: What exactly would the implications be (as far as strengthening eighter theory goes)?

might i again quickly point out that i dont know that the gov't wasnt involved in the 911 fiasco or not, frankly i could care less, the american gov is fucked in the head either way. my only arguments are with the controlled demolition / thermite / laser weaponry theories of building collapse... and yes there is a laser weapon theory now too.

the coalition for 911 truth should stick with what they know, political conspiracy, and leave the structural analysis to us engineers. they even discredited the ASCE (american society for civil engineering) report.....

all engineers take an oath, or obligation, in canada its more of a formal affair than in the states but, this oath outlines the duties of the engineer, our primary duty is to the public at all costs. engineers can lose their liscenece if they are found in breach of public trust. we take this oath very seriously

in canada we have the iron ring, which is made from the steel left over from the quebec bridge disaster back in the late 1800's. engineering oversight led to the death of 79 bridge workers. after the accident, the camp of the 12 wardens (12 members of the engineering council of canada also konwn as the CSCE at taht time) performed an inquiry and found the engineers to be negligent in the design of what was at the time the largest cantilevered span bridge in teh world.
then in 1922 the members of the engineering governing body of that time wrote to rudyard kippling in england to create "the ritual of the calling of an engineer" this is where the iron ring was born. each graduating engineer in canada takes part in this secret ceremony (even i dont know what happens yet, 4 months left and i will) and they recieve their iron ring as a symbol of their oath.

it is for this reason i have the utmost faith in the studies done by teh engineering bodies in both the US and Canada over the structural failure of the two towers.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z More of "your" copy paste "arguments" and zero independent analysis. Wow, with your debating skills, you could blow anyone out of the water .

actually, that was more a tongue-in-cheek response to your jones' article. you know damned well i cant take jones on. im not a physicist. i actually thought my response was what you were expecting?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I think it's best if I ignore your posts regarding 9-11 from now on (unless it becomes unbearable). You're clearly incapabile of holding your own ground and have no interest making any effort on your own (short of the painstaking effort required to google and paste material). I'm sick of wasting my time, especially since you cuss me out when you have trouble googling for "your" response. Have fun pretending someone else's "infallible expert analysis" is your own .

like i care. so what youre saying is you can quote anyone you like but i cant? whats the difference between your cut n paste and my own? hypocrite. i could have just noted that jones' paper hasnt received peer review from anyone, but you ignore that fact over and over again.

so, whats your point? pkc cant disprove jones? well you dont say! well done. so what exactly are you trying to achieve? posting information you know im not qualified to assess isnt going to convince me of anything, especially given what the world's engineering faculty has to say about jones' research.

one NON-expert versus dozens of experts

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I suppose I could easily do the same, but that wouldn't be my arguments, and neigther am I interested in sinking to your level of verbal abuse.

you dont say?!

and, please highlight which part of my last post was the least bit abusive??

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z If that's what your idea of a debate is, you could easily make your own thread (or you could do this here, doesn't really bother me one way or another), fill it up with copy paste material from eigther side, and mix it up with whatever amount foul language floats your boat. Don't forget to ask for help when you really piss yourself off .

oh no. poor shaolin doesnt like foul language. which of course didnt exist in my last post. but its ok to be arrogant and condescending isnt it mate? in our most recent arguments i was more than civil until your arrogance got the better of you. dont blame me sunshine.

quote:

the only reasonable approximation that you can calculate would be by using an iterative incremental method. and since his analysis wasnt 123542334 pages long, i dont buy it. to be quite honest, his numbers are most likely far short of any real approximation. i dont think any of the estimates out there are close to the real thing because most people who have any sort of a life wouldnt have the time to model that building in matlab and then subdivide it into about 10 milion layers and then calculate the energy generated by the falling mass of each layer....... i had to do it for a monolithic 10m tall concrete cylander and it took me two hours to get the right answer. there are only a few people in teh academic community who could write an algorithm to accuratly calculate the total net energy of each collapse. and for that oyu would need a cluster array to calculate it.

haha, im more than happy to be corrected i accept that. and i wont repeat the innaccurate info again. unlike someone like shaolin that is so desperate to cling to their beliefs because it fits nicely with their world view.

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp it is for this reason i have the utmost faith in the studies done by teh engineering bodies in both the US and Canada over the structural failure of the two towers.

and i would like to hear shaolin's rationale for believing ONE physicist over the world's engineering elite? i cant think of a single good reason you would rationally favour the former.

colonelcrisp, I'm not sure if this helps you at all, but it's something I found:

quote:

Forensic Seismology Of 911 - Update By Steve Davis Geologist & Researcher 7-25-5 The seismographic analysis of WTC 911 is still undergoing research. From the initial reports that these seismographs were recording the buildings as they were hit by the planes and as they hit the ground, to more recent intense scrutiny of events, videos, eyewitnesses by experts and other researchers, a more complex sequence of events and causes for these collapses is developing. Also initially, the seismographs were studied to determine the timing of events rather than vice versa. This gov't. request didn't make much sense, as seismographs are never used for that, and everyone already knows what time the events happened. The real science is in trying to determine exactly what generated these graphs and other explanations of what really happened. We believe that even with the many difficulties of interpreting unusual seismographs, there is enough historical seismic evidence to make fairly precise and accurate determinations. We rounded up evidence that shows there were ground motions consistant with the 2+M quakes just before the collapses, rather than as they hit the ground. Videos are also backed up by eye witnesses and reporters of such motions. Plus, testimonies of those who survived the destruction of the sublevels, and those who confirmed all sorts of smaller explosions throughout the building. Just seconds after the ground motions, which are probably due to huge secondary basement blasts, the videos showed huge black plumes shooting up from the roofs. Then within a minute showed the bursting of the impacted floors with an incredible explosion and shattering of steel beams, hurling them upwards and far and wide, plus total pulverization of everything else into fine dust. No other building was ever so completely destroyed, not even the Palaces and Gov't. Bldgs. of Baghdad hit by full shock and awe cruise missiles and bunker busters burned or exploded like the WTC. The seismographs for the WTC change with distance and geologic conditions, but the analysis of the P and S waves of many of them show such sharp and close arrival times that they are most closely matched with explosions rather than smaller amplitude dispersed waves of the collapses seen after these spikes. Some of the graphs closely match those of some of the largest chemical explosions and the smallest nuclear explosions, mini nuclear explosions. Years of monitoring nuclear test ban treaty events has refined this analysis, but so far the most sophisticated seismic modelling of 911 has not been done. Nevertheless, the graphs which show any extreme spiking are very suspect and the burden of proof is on those who claim that they were not explosions to show how anything can mimic major explosions and also that all the other evidence can be explained away to make the timing fit the initial simpler speculations. More exact seismic matches may lie hidden in the vast CTBT archives to which we do not have access, and researchers should attempt to obtain more data there. Also, the gov't. nuclear labs, LANL & LLNL, have sophisticated nuclear test modelling softwares that can be used to do complete analysis and make quite accurate and precise comparisons. The witnesses to the major basement explosions were not fully aware of what was happening above, and were not inside at the time of the seismograph spikes, and many witnesses described smaller explosions throughout the buildings, so it is hard to piece this all together, but whatever the full extent, location and timing of the basement and cutter explosions, the seismographs and videos recorded the tremendous grand finale blasts below and above which took the buildings down. We then tried to find info on mini nuclear tests, of which there have been an increasing munber not only at the Nevada Test Site but worldwide. This new refined nuclear technology is highly desired by the world's military to expand options for destruction and warfare. Such infamous mini nukes as suitcase bombs, artillery shells, mines, mirvs, cruise missiles and the deep penetrating bunker busters and many more are not part of most people's memories of the vast blasts and tremendous mushroom clouds they terrorised the world with in the early days. We found that the photos of mini nukes were far different than our old nuke memories, and the resemblance of these unique 'dredlock' clouds to the 'dredlock' clouds of WTC 911 are so close they are absolutely hair raisingly terrifying. To further this investigation we are asking that samples of the dusts, that still are all over NYC, be given a whole new range of the most sophisticated tests to determine what unusual contaminants and or isotopes may be present. At the time, the iniital dusts were sampled for asbestos, toxins and so forth, and were not tested for things beyond the usual spectrographic or microscopic work up. Plus, no one ever really got to see the real data, just what the gov't. said it showed, no peer review nor independent tests. We need to do these tests with the finest and widest range of technologies and labs available and compare results.

>> link <<
EDIT: ^^ Link fixed.

Forensic Seismology?

That's an interesting one...

You'd think those same people would be able find the Lost City of Atlantis by now!

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Forensic Seismology? That's an interesting one... You'd think those same people would be able find the Lost City of Atlantis by now!

It's already been found in 1971, off the coast of Bahamas and Cuba, hundreds of feet under the ocean floor, patched in several places across the Atlantic.

I guess you missed all the photo and journalist reports since then ;-)

quote:

New Seismic Data Refutes Official WTC Explanation By Christopher Bollyn Exclusive to American Free Press 9-5-2 Two unexplained "spikes" in the seismic record from Sept. 11 indicate huge bursts of energy shook the ground beneath the World Trade Center's twin towers immediately prior to the collapse. American Free Press has learned of pools of "molten steel" found at the base of the collapsed twin towers weeks after the collapse. Although the energy source for these incredibly hot areas has yet to be explained, New York seismometers recorded huge bursts of energy, which caused unexplained seismic "spikes" at the beginning of each collapse. These spikes suggest that massive underground explosions may have literally knocked the towers off their foundations, causing them to collapse. In the basements of the collapsed towers, where the 47 central support columns connected with the bedrock, hot spots of "literally molten steel" were discovered more than a month after the collapse. Such persistent and intense residual heat, 70 feet below the surface, in an oxygen starved environment, could explain how these crucial structural supports failed. Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at the World Trade Center. Tully was contracted after the Sept. 11 tragedy to re move the debris from the site. Tully called Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Md., for consultation about removing the debris. CDI calls itself "the innovator and global leader in the controlled demolition and implosion of structures." Loizeaux, who cleaned up the bombed Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, arrived at the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean-up plan for the entire operation. AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site. "Yes," he said, "hot spots of molten steel in the basements." These incredibly hot areas were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels," Loizeaux said. The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon. Construction steel has an extremely high melting point of about 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit. Asked what could have caused such extreme heat, Tully said, "Think of the jet fuel." Loizeaux told AFP that the steel-melting fires were fueled by "paper, carpet and other combustibles packed down the elevator shafts by the tower floors as they 'pancaked' into the basement." However, some independent investigators dispute this claim, saying kerosene-based jet fuel, paper, or the other combustibles normally found in the towers, cannot generate the heat required to melt steel, especially in an oxygen-poor environment like a deep basement. Eric Hufschmid, author of a book about the WTC collapse, Painful Questions,* told AFP that due to the lack of oxygen, paper and other combustibles packed down at the bottom of elevator shafts would probably be "a smoky smoldering pile." Experts disagree that jet-fuel or paper could generate such heat. This is impossible, they say, because the maximum temperature that can be reached by hydrocarbons like jet-fuel burning in air is 1,520 degrees F. Because the WTC fires were fuel rich, as evidenced by the thick black smoke, it is argued that they did not reach this upper limit. The hottest spots at the surface of the rubble, where abundant oxygen was available, were much cooler than the molten steel found in the basements. Five days after the collapse, on Sept. 16, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) used an Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) to locate and measure the site's hot spots. Dozens of hot spots were mapped, the hottest being in the east corner of the South Tower where a temperature of 1,377 degrees F was recorded. This is, however, less than half as hot at the molten steel in the basement. The foundations of the twin towers were 70 feet deep. At that level, 47 huge box columns, connected to the bedrock, supported the entire gravity load of the structures. The steel walls of these lower box columns were four inches thick. Videos of the North Tower collapse show its communication mast falling first, indicating that the central support columns must have failed at the very beginning of the collapse. Loizeaux told AFP, "Everything went simultaneously." "At 10:29 the entire top section of the North Tower had been severed from the base and began falling down," Hufschmid writes. "If the first event was the falling of a floor, how did that progress to the severing of hundreds of columns?" Asked if the vertical support columns gave way before the connections between the floors and the columns, Ron Hamburger, a structural engineer with the FEMA assessment team said, "That's the $64,000 question." Loizeaux said, "If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure." SEISMIC 'SPIKES' Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded strange seismic activity on Sept. 11 that has still not been explained. While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse. The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 8-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31. However, the Palisades seismic record shows that-as the collapses began-a huge seismic "spike" marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the Earth. These unexplained "spikes" in the seismic data lend credence to the theory that massive explosions at the base of the towers caused the collapses. A "sharp spike of short duration" is how seismologist Thorne Lay of University of California at Santa Cruz told AFP an underground nuclear explosion appears on a seismograph. The two unexplained spikes are more than 20 times the amplitude of the other seismic waves associated with the collapses and occurred in the East-West seismic recording as the buildings began to fall. Experts cannot explain why the seismic waves peaked before the towers actually hit the ground. Asked about these spikes, seismologist Arthur Lerner-Lam, director of Columbia University's Center for Hazards and Risk Research told AFP, "This is an element of current research and discussion. It is still being investigated." Lerner-Lam told AFP that a 10-fold increase in wave amplitude indicates a 100-fold increase in energy released. These "short-period surface waves," reflect "the interaction between the ground and the building foundation," according to a report from Columbia Earth Institute. "The seismic effects of the collapses are comparable to the explosions at a gasoline tank farm near Newark on Jan. 7, 1983," the Palisades Seismology Group reported on Sept. 14, 2001. One of the seismologists, Won-Young Kim, told AFP that the Palisades seismographs register daily underground explosions from a quarry 20 miles away. These blasts are caused by 80,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate and cause local earthquakes between Magnitude 1 and 2. Kim said the 1993 truck-bomb at the WTC did not register on the seismographs because it was "not coupled" to the ground. "Only a small fraction of the energy from the collapsing towers was converted into ground motion," Lerner-Lam said. "The ground shaking that resulted from the collapse of the towers was extremely small." Last November, Lerner-Lam said: "During the collapse, most of the energy of the falling debris was absorbed by the towers and the neighboring structures, converting them into rubble and dust or causing other damage-but not causing significant ground shaking." Evidently, the energy source that shook the ground beneath the towers was many times more powerful than the total potential energy released by the falling mass of the towers. The question is: What was that energy source? While steel is often tested for evidence of explosions, despite numerous eyewitness reports of explosions in the towers, the engineers involved in the FEMA-sponsored building assessment did no such tests. Dr. W. Gene Corley, who investigated for the government the cause of the fire at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco and the Oklahoma City bombing, headed the FEMA-sponsored engineering assessment of the WTC collapse. Corley told AFP that while some tests had been done on the 80 pieces of steel saved from the site, he said he did not know about tests that show if an explosion had affected the steel. "I am not a metallurgist," Corley said. Much of the structural steel from the WTC was sold to Alan D. Ratner of Metal Management of Newark, N.J., and the New York-based company Hugo Neu Schnitzer East. Ratner, who heads the New Jersey branch of the Chi ca go-based company, sold the WTC steel to overseas companies, reportedly selling more than 50,000 tons of steel to a Shanghai steel company known as Baosteel for $120 per ton. Ratner paid about $70 per ton for the steel. Other shipments of steel from the WTC went to India and other Asian ports. Ratner came to Metal Management after spending years with a metal trading firm known as SimsMetal based out of Sydney, Australia.

>> link <<

interesting article. my main questions are however


- how is 2.1, and 2.3 considered extreeme spiking as they are not even detectable by humans. we cant really feel quakes till they pass the 3rd magnitude usually


- do we have seismic readings from other building collapses to show as a comparison to the seismic readings of the WTC collapses.

my first thought and inclination onto the whole "explosions" in the sub level reports is load shifts. the tube design of the WTC was used to maintain structural ridgidity at the high level floors. for instance, teh CN tower in toronto can have a sway amplitude of 6 feet at the top. if you were sitting in your 110th floor office and you were swaying 6 feet back and forth you would get pretty damn seasick. so by increasing the ridgidity, the building can resist movement generated by the 11 million pound force wind load on each face of the building

in such a ridgid structure, extreemly large load shifts or impulse to the fram may have caused all sorts of consequences in the lower regions of the building from buckling to foundation shearing and a host of other resultants. buildings as tall as the twin towers require increadibly ridgid foundations in order to prevent the sway effect from seismic activity. as such they are very strongly coupled to the earth with a large number of piles (large steel memebers pounded into the ground to the bedrock)the foundation of the buidling would ahve allowed the collapse to generate a better seismic wave while the majority of the structure was still intact as opposed to when the building finally collapsed into the heap of rubble.

quote:

Conspiracy sites like to bring up molten metal found 6 weeks after the buildings fell to suggest a bomb must have created the effect. The explanation doesn't go into the amount of explosive material needed because it would be an absurd amount. There is another explanation which is more plausible... Oxidation of iron by air is not the only EXOTHERMIC reaction of iron (= structural steel which is about 98 % Fe, 1 % Mn, 0.2 % C, 0.2 % Si.....). There is at least one additional reaction of iron with the capability of keeping the rubble pile hot and cooking! The reaction between IRON AND STEAM is also very EXOTHERMIC and fast at temperatures above 400 deg C. This reaction produces Fe3O4 AND HYDROGEN. It is the classic example of a REVERSIBLE REACTION studied in Chemistry labs at high school. But believe it or not, back at the turn of the century, the reaction of iron and steam was used as an industrial process for the manufacture of hydrogen. I think iron and steam could have reacted in this way (at least for a while) and generated a lot of heat. What is more, the hydrogen released would have been converted back to water by reaction with oxygen, thereby generating even more heat. In this case spraying water on the rubble pile was like adding fuel to a fire! Now add in gypsum reactions with H2 and CO and we have a great source of SO2 and/or H2S to sulfide the steel! Perhaps the endless spraying of water on the rubble pile was not such a good idea! In the usual lab experiment on the reversible reaction of iron and "steam", nitrogen (or some inert gas) is bubbled through water to create a gas stream saturated with water vapor at room temperature. This gas is then allowed to flow into a glass tube about 1 meter long containing iron in an inert boat at its center. This assembly is heated in a tube furnace to some desired temperature, say 500 deg C. The hydrogen/ nitrogen gas mixture is collected at the outlet of the tube furnace. In the industrial process the feed gas might also be "water gas" which is a mixture of CO and water vapor. The outlet gas contains mostly H2 and CO2. I am sure there was plenty of water vapor AND oxygen in the void spaces in the rubble pile. This is the "steam" I am referring to. Please remember that the recovered pieces of structural steel were heavily OXIDIZED as well as sulfided. The most important oxidizing agents available in the rubble pile were obviously O2 and H2O. The rubble pile was not only inhomogeneous with regard to its composition, it was inhomogeneous with regard to its temperature. This was due to localized chemical reactions. Such reactions were capable of generating high temperatures in these localized hot spots. The demolitionists much beloved thermite is a good example, BUT NOT THE ONLY EXAMPLE. AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF WHATSOEVER THAT THERMITE, THERMATE, SOL-GEL NANO-THERMITE WAS EVER PRESENT AT THE WTC SITE!!!!!! It is irrelevant whether or not the steam was wet or dry, that is a chemical engineering notion only of interest in a closed and controlled system, usually under high-pressure, such as a steam generator in a power station. Water vapor was present in the rubble pile and water vapor reacts with iron releasing HYDROGEN. ITS CALLED A CORROSION REACTION: METAL + WATER = METAL OXIDE + HYDROGEN WHEN IT HAPPENED AT THREE MILE ISLAND IT CREATED A HYDROGEN BUBBLE

link

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Forensic Seismology? That's an interesting one... You'd think those same people would be able find the Lost City of Atlantis by now!

The U.S. Department of Energy is supporting the U.S. National Data Center (USNDC) at Patrick Air Force Base, Florida, as it prepares to monitor the treaty. As part of DOE's effort, teams at Livermore and Los Alamost have been working to improve ways to seismically characterize clandestine underground nuclear explosions and differentiate them from other sources of seismicity, such as earthquakes and mining explosions. Much of Livermore's work has centered on developing regional discriminants, which are characteristic features of a seismic waveform (for example, the peak amplitude at a particular frequency, within a specific time frame) recorded at distances less than 2,000 kilometers away. These discriminants are used to differentiate between explosions and other types of seismic sources. (See the September 1998 Science & Technology Review, "Forensic Seismology Supports the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty," pp. 4-11.)

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL)

quote:

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) is a premier applied science laboratory that is part of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) within the Department of Energy (DOE). LLNL has been managed since its inception in 1952 by the University of California for the U.S. government.

Yeah, clearly "tinfoilhatter" terminology .

Source: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL)

So the spikes do look consistant with a strong [edit: underground] blast as opposed to ground shaking.

this is a seismogram for an earth quake and it shows a spike as well
\



this is from the big quake in cali back in 92 again you can see a large spike

if you look at THIS you can see that earth quakes have a vast variety of signatures seismographically depending on the nature of the quake. the difference between a subteranean blast and a quake is the s and p wave time differentials

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Umm... no! I've posted articles about it and this video before. Did you miss them? EDIT: And This:

sorry shaolin but i had to lol at this video. he starts off sounding credible.... 40 peer reviewed articles in scientific journals...... then he drops the big one "i was lead investigator for the cold fusion...." once he mentioned cold fusion.......... i loled so hard i almost peed my pants.....

physicists are smart as fuck..... but they know fuck all about engineering and they know even less about real world systems. essentially they are glorified math geeks that live in a world where everything is built to spec with a tolerance of +- 0 mm. when even with todays technology buildings are often feet longer than they are supposed to be by drawing.....

the difference between a physicist and an engineer is that an engineer understands the physics, but understands complex real world systems.... and also knows that pocket protectors shouldnt be worn out in public

I'm only responding to your unfounded accusations and "intellectual dishonesty"

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN actually, that was more a tongue-in-cheek response to your jones' article.

That wasn't a "Jones" article. Steven Jones is not the author.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN like i care. so what youre saying is you can quote anyone you like but i cant? whats the difference between your cut n paste and my own? hypocrite.

No, that not what I said at all. I don't quote other people's analysis in response to someone's arguments, I rely on facts and evidence[/c] for basing [b]my arguments on, or atleast demonstrate a logical connection between the two. When I do post other people's analysis, it's not as refutation to any praticular post by any particular person, but something for other's to evaluate for themselves and form their own opinion on.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN so, whats your point? pkc cant disprove jones? well you dont say! well done. so what exactly are you trying to achieve? posting information you know im not qualified to assess isnt going to convince me of anything

The same is true for the "experts" who's analysis and comments you keep posting which are disputed, as opposed to facts or scientific theory that are not and basing your own arguments on those instead. Arguing for a disputed theory is fine, but you won't convince anyone by presenting analysis they're higly skeptical of in the first place on analysis. If you present facts that aren't dispute, and base an argument on those undisputed facts, that will be recieved quite differently. So far you've failed to do that. Anlysis is not fact.

And that compels me have you apply the exact same question to yourself that you just asked of me, as this is probably the only opporunity I'll have to get my point accross. "So what exactly are you trying to achieve? Posting information you know I'm not qualified to assess isn't going to convince me of anything." Except in your case, it would be more accurate to substitute the word "information" for "analysis."
But I did give plenty of rationale for why I find their conlcusion highly improbable (I don't even really need to do that, as the FEMA reports even admit to it), especially in conjunction with evidence they didn't include or refused to explain, evidence that is consitent with the alternative theory.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN one NON-expert versus dozens of experts

There's tons of "experts" supporting both propositions and Steven Jones is more than qualified to determine the scientific plaussibility and possibility by virtue of the fact that he's a highly qualified Phyics P.H.D. Engineering, Arcitechture etc are disciplines based on Physics, and only a sub-section of it, not the other way around. Keeping his credentials in mind, Jones is easily qualified to assess the plausibility and probability of any of the theories about the WTC collapse in accordance with the laws of Physics and available evidence. And it's not like he hasn't consulted engineers, architects, demolition experts, and other relevant experts while conducting his research and performing his analysis. You're not going to convince me of anything repeating by trying to discredit Jones just because he doesn't have a particular professional title/document in possesion.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN you dont say?! and, please highlight which part of my last post was the least bit abusive?? oh no. poor shaolin doesnt like foul language. which of course didnt exist in my last post. but its ok to be arrogant and condescending isnt it mate? in our most recent arguments i was more than civil until your arrogance got the better of you. dont blame me sunshine.

And calling people "intellectually dishonest," "conspiracy theorists," "idiots," "fuckheads," and "dicks" etc. is not arrogant, condescending, or uncivil? A subjective claim is not an objective statement, asserting it as one is pretty damn arrogant. You've done that repeatedly to anyone disagreeing with you (wheather it's a PDD poster or professional researcher). Instead of demonstrating how your claims/views are valid, or atleast rationalizing them with something more concrete, you assert them and post lengthy analytical quotes. Not considering any alternate theory that coherently explains and incorperate all the evidence already present in the other and inclusive of evidence the other fails to address, is inconsistent with it, and conveniently leaves out, doesn't come across as very rational, open-minded, intellectualy honest, humble, or a result of critical thinking.

I've ignored/tolerated your abuse and pretencious attitude all this time and tried to tone down my responses as much as possible, so please forgive me if I finally got frustrated after you refused to acknowledge glaring contradictions with elementary laws of physics and clear logical fallicies I demonstrated in great detail (and I spent a while articulating it and making sure the calculasions/proofs etc were correct). I mean, what kind of a response it "so what?" to "hey, the seismic data presents a major problem for this theory, contradicting the laws the laws of Physics!" If that's not arrogance/intellectual dishonesty/shody research (to use your own terms), then I don't what is. Or how about "you've got nothing." Isn't that a fairly arrogant assertion with condecending overtones reflective of "shody research," especially considering it was part of your response to point made by me you didn't address? No offense, but you asked for it.

well its fri arvo and im getting on the piss and dont have time to address this right now. just know that i do really respect your opinions shaolin and i apologise for, shall we say, my passionate comments, now and in the past i always attempt to remain civil, but i guess thats just one of my many flaws

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp sorry shaolin but i had to lol at this video. he starts off sounding credible.... 40 peer reviewed articles in scientific journals...... then he drops the big one "i was lead investigator for the cold fusion...." once he mentioned cold fusion.......... i loled so hard i almost peed my pants.....

he has also written a paper on jesus' visits to ancient america, lol

behold my hands

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp ... this is a seismogram for an earth quake and it shows a spike as well \ ... this is from the big quake in cali back in 92 again you can see a large spike if you look at THIS you can see that earth quakes have a vast variety of signatures seismographically depending on the nature of the quake. the difference between a subteranean blast and a quake is the s and p wave time differentials

I took a look at it (and a few other with seismographs for earthquakes before you posted that one, some of which had spikes somewhat resembling ones for undergournd explosions). But the spike looks far less pronounced and dense relative to and the spike for an underground blast. I have a question though, how often does you see clearly pronounced and "dense" spikes for seismographs of earthquakes (or 'ground shaking')? More specifically, what's the statistical probability of seeing one like that?

The reason why I'm asking is that there seems to be way too many anomolies/unusal occurances in the edivence for the WTC collapse (this obviously just being one of them). And most of them seem to be explained away by the possibility of their occurance, eventhough they have a very low probability. A large enough collection of a significant number of low probability occurances simoultaneously taking place in one incident makes me rather skeptical of the pancake thoery, especially considering how most of them fit in very well with the controlled demolition theory, as they don't have a low probability of occurance in that case. [EDIT: I guess to summarize, simplify, and clarify what I meant is that new and suppressed evidence that's emerging only makes the pancake theory more and more problematic with time, especially keeping in mind FEMAs original statement of it having a low probability of occurance in the first place (hidden in the appenices), which NIST left out in their final report]

NOTE: The spike in the example you posted was clearly visible, but it didn't seen anywhere near as pronounced or dense in comparison to spikes on seismographs for underground explosions. It was noticeably more spread out.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN well its fri arvo and im getting on the piss and dont have time to address this right now. just know that i do really respect your opinions shaolin and i apologise for, shall we say, my passionate comments, now and in the past i always attempt to remain civil, but i guess thats just one of my many flaws

That's cool man . We might have this exact same conversation a few days from now, since I didn't expect having another one again, especially this soon .

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp sorry shaolin but i had to lol at this video. he starts off sounding credible.... 40 peer reviewed articles in scientific journals...... then he drops the big one "i was lead investigator for the cold fusion...." once he mentioned cold fusion.......... i loled so hard i almost peed my pants..... physicists are smart as fuck..... but they know fuck all about engineering and they know even less about real world systems. essentially they are glorified math geeks that live in a world where everything is built to spec with a tolerance of +- 0 mm. when even with todays technology buildings are often feet longer than they are supposed to be by drawing..... the difference between a physicist and an engineer is that an engineer understands the physics, but understands complex real world systems.... and also knows that pocket protectors shouldnt be worn out in public

I understand there's somewhat of a gap between theory and practice/science and engineering in general. As a Computer Science major having know plently of Electrical/Computer Engineers, I have some frame of reference to understand that. But as far as my understanding goes, the gap between predictions based on theory and practical results isn't that great, although it's certainly something that needs to be taken into consideration. Bah, I'm pretty tired at this point and can't really properly articulate myself, but hopefully you got what I meant.

Just out of curiosity, why exactly did his mentioning cold fusion make you "pee in your pants?"

EDIT: Did you post that response after watching the entire interview (1st video)/lecture (2nd video) or did you pee your pants before you got that far ?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN he has also written a paper on jesus' visits to ancient america, lol behold my hands

He is a Mormon, so his wacky religious ideas don't come as a complete shock to me.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I understand there's somewhat of a gap between theory and practice/science and engineering in general. As a Computer Science major having know plently of Electrical/Computer Engineers, I have some frame of reference to understand that. But as far as my understanding goes, the gap between predictions based on theory and practical results isn't that great, although it's certainly something that needs to be taken into consideration. Bah, I'm pretty tired at this point and can't really properly articulate myself, but hopefully you got what I meant. Just out of curiosity, why exactly did his mentioning cold fusion make you "pee in your pants?" EDIT: Did you post that response after watching the entire interview (1st video)/lecture (2nd video) or did you pee your pants before you got that far ?

first minute of the first video lol.....

lets put it this way, he was involved with the fleischmann-pons debaucle back in 89 and thats why i lol'd

that team claimed to have invented cold fusion (the opposite of nuclear fission) basically clean safe energy for the world. except it didnt do shit.

basically claiming that they can make energy out of pure H20 and that the only byproduct was helium gas....


while it has been proven possible since, it sure as hell wasnt with water, and it sure as hell isnt the be all end all of the worlds problems. it requires a rediculasely expensive torroidal reactor inorder to contain the super heated plasma trail required to give hydrogen atoms enough energy to bond by collision with to form helium. the main problem is, to get teh reaction started, you need two fission reactors running at 80% efficiency..... and even then with the current model you dont get much out of it

basically the study of cold fusion is looked upon like alchemy by the majority of the science and math community

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I took a look at it (and a few other with seismographs for earthquakes before you posted that one, some of which had spikes somewhat resembling ones for undergournd explosions). But the spike looks far less pronounced and dense relative to and the spike for an underground blast. I have a question though, how often does you see clearly pronounced and "dense" spikes for seismographs of earthquakes (or 'ground shaking')? More specifically, what's the statistical probability of seeing one like that? The reason why I'm asking is that there seems to be way too many anomolies/unusal occurances in the edivence for the WTC collapse (this obviously just being one of them). And most of them seem to be explained away by the possibility of their occurance, eventhough they have a very low probability. A large enough collection of a significant number of low probability occurances simoultaneously taking place in one incident makes me rather skeptical of the pancake thoery, especially considering how most of them fit in very well with the controlled demolition theory, as they don't have a low probability of occurance in that case. [EDIT: I guess to summarize, simplify, and clarify what I meant is that new and suppressed evidence that's emerging only makes the pancake theory more and more problematic with time, especially keeping in mind FEMAs original statement of it having a low probability of occurance in the first place (hidden in the appenices), which NIST left out in their final report] NOTE: The spike in the example you posted was clearly visible, but it didn't seen anywhere near as pronounced or dense in comparison to spikes on seismographs for underground explosions. It was noticeably more spread out.

one point i will make is the seismographs from the WTC toweres didnt show the scale very clearly, which makes me wonder if they were zoomed in closely, because after all, 2.1 is pretty lame for a quake so the resolution of the seismograph would have to be pretty tight, and to make it look big they probably zoomed in on the pic significantly.

secondly i think i can explain the spike in earthqakes quite simply. basically there are two basic conditions, the slip fault (slow grating action) and the build and release (think of a bike chain on the main cog, put alot of force on it then a tooth on the cog breaks off and the chain slips quickly) these cause a large short release of energy
http://mceer.buffalo.edu/infoservice/faqs/eqlist.asp

New york state is the 3rd most active earthquake zone in the US. mind you, the activity in california is 100 times more active, but the fact taht new york is so far from any plate margins, makes it interesting as to why it is so active. the reason is that it lies on a network of faults that were created when the theoretical supercontinent pangea separated some 750 million years ago, slightly before margret thatcher was born.....these faults were filled with sediment from an ancient mesozoic sea and average about 400 quakes every 150 years.

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp it lies on a network of faults that were created when the theoretical supercontinent pangea separated some 750 million years ago, slightly before margret thatcher was born.....

I think that qualifies for my next signature!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.