Why don't Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Fund Research?

Unfortunately Gage has gone down the rabbit hole and can't get out and may not want to. Or would that be quick sand?

He isn't the first nor will he be the last person to exploit, for his own ego and enrichment, legitimate doubts or concerns that people have. Truth is actually like Kryptonite to people like these, it never helps them; rather it injures them.
 
Let's cut to the chase. If AE911T and the rest of the truthers want an "independent investigation", there's an easy way to get one. Only a few weeks from now, there could be independent investigators looking into the notorious red chips.

This won't require a peer-reviewed paper or a conference paper. Just a simple communication to a journal. The great thing about communications is that the level of review is minimal (basically just making sure the person isn't a crank) and journals don't mind if you send them to other journals.

If Jones and Harrit are right, then their "nanothermite chips" will show a large exotherm when heated under an inert atmosphere. Paint chips will not. The funny thing is, their "nanothermite chips" look just like red primer paint chips spalled from steel: Grey iron oxide stuck to a resin matrix containing small platelets that look like the common paint ingredient aluminum silicate, and small particles of ferric oxide.

Send the chips to an analytical laboratory. You don't have to tell them you think it's nanothermite, or where they came from. You don't have to mention 9/11, or "controlled demolition". If you want, tell them they look like paint chips (which they do) and ask them for optical and electron microscope images. Ask them for a differential scanning calorimeter test, to be done under an inert atmosphere. Nanothermite supposedly ignites at 430 deg. C, but to be on the safe side, take it to 500 deg.

If this is really nanothermite, it will ignite violently even under the inert atmosphere, leaving metallic iron and aluminum trioxide product, plus a goo of decomposed resin.

If it's merely paint, all you get is goo and the original iron oxide and aluminum silicate. But at least you'll know not to waste any more time chasing the Nanothermite Wild Goose.

If it really is nanothermite, send out a communication to the appropriate journals that you have found what appear to be paint chips (true!) that react anomalously when heated under an inert atmosphere. Again, you don't have to mention where they came from, 9/11, or any conspiracy notions. Say that you are (wink, wink!) stumped as to where this energy is coming from. Could the resin base be undergoing some kind of exotic peroxidation reaction, turning common paint into a time bomb?

Offer to share samples with responsible parties. Trust me, chemists, especially chemists in the paint industry, will want to test them! Just watch what happens when they report back, "This isn't paint! This is military-grade nanothermite engineered to look like paint!"

Then, you mention, "These came from 9/11 dust samples!"

Whaddaya say, Richard Gage, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Niels Harrit, AE911T, and the rest of Trutherdom? What's the down side?
 
Let's cut to the chase. If AE911T and the rest of the truthers want an "independent investigation", there's an easy way to get one. Only a few weeks from now, there could be independent investigators looking into the notorious red chips.

This won't require a peer-reviewed paper or a conference paper. Just a simple communication to a journal. The great thing about communications is that the level of review is minimal (basically just making sure the person isn't a crank) and journals don't mind if you send them to other journals.

If Jones and Harrit are right, then their "nanothermite chips" will show a large exotherm when heated under an inert atmosphere. Paint chips will not. The funny thing is, their "nanothermite chips" look just like red primer paint chips spalled from steel: Grey iron oxide stuck to a resin matrix containing small platelets that look like the common paint ingredient aluminum silicate, and small particles of ferric oxide.

Send the chips to an analytical laboratory. You don't have to tell them you think it's nanothermite, or where they came from. You don't have to mention 9/11, or "controlled demolition". If you want, tell them they look like paint chips (which they do) and ask them for optical and electron microscope images. Ask them for a differential scanning calorimeter test, to be done under an inert atmosphere. Nanothermite supposedly ignites at 430 deg. C, but to be on the safe side, take it to 500 deg.

If this is really nanothermite, it will ignite violently even under the inert atmosphere, leaving metallic iron and aluminum trioxide product, plus a goo of decomposed resin.

If it's merely paint, all you get is goo and the original iron oxide and aluminum silicate. But at least you'll know not to waste any more time chasing the Nanothermite Wild Goose.

If it really is nanothermite, send out a communication to the appropriate journals that you have found what appear to be paint chips (true!) that react anomalously when heated under an inert atmosphere. Again, you don't have to mention where they came from, 9/11, or any conspiracy notions. Say that you are (wink, wink!) stumped as to where this energy is coming from. Could the resin base be undergoing some kind of exotic peroxidation reaction, turning common paint into a time bomb?

Offer to share samples with responsible parties. Trust me, chemists, especially chemists in the paint industry, will want to test them! Just watch what happens when they report back, "This isn't paint! This is military-grade nanothermite engineered to look like paint!"

Then, you mention, "These came from 9/11 dust samples!"

Whaddaya say, Richard Gage, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Niels Harrit, AE911T, and the rest of Trutherdom? What's the down side?

getting their bubble burst
 
The reason I've heard about why they don't build detailed open source FEM models of the WTC buildings, is that they would need it to be independent. This strikes me as a bit of a cop-out, as there's plenty of useful information that can be gleaned from such a model, even if you doubt the motivations of those involved. One can always check it.
You forgot to add that the drawings haven't been released for the Twin Towers and not all of them for WTC 7. The only structural details we have on the towers is what is in the NIST report, the SAP2000 data on the core columns, and various articles written at the time the towers were built. Can you generate a FEM from that data?
 
Welcome to the madness OWE.

Tony,
The FEAs here are pretty crude on any level because of the absence of data inputs re energy... ya know the forces which cause the structure to come apart. The missing construction drawings, shop drawings, construction logs are only a fraction of what's missing. And though this information is critical.. without the actual energy inputs from a rather large area, no FEA will represent anything close to real world. I don't do FEAs but I can see how managing thousands of varying data inputs would be well nigh impossible to do for even a super computer to do. The heat, for example was a variable through time and well as location in 3 dimensions.

FEAs will prove nothing because they are exceedingly crude compared to real world. The FEA of a single truss or brace or column hardly tells the accurate story of the failure of thousands of elements.

You have to use your imagination and logic, engineering and physics to come up with a reasonable model which suggests a progression from static building to pile of rubble... with the collapse / failure progression being the focus of the exercise.

No... the twin towers were not blown to bits in mid air as AE claims.
No... 81 columns over 8 floors were not blown to bits at 7wtc as AE claims
Yes... there was some manner of loss of capacity progressing through the structure likely caused by heat weakening and mechanical damage to the frame.
Yes... there was destruction of the slabs by mechanical collisions with building parts during the collapse.

AE doesn't fund research because it will shatter the myths they are propagating about CD and that heat and mechanical destruction could not possibly bring those buildings down. And then they be discredited and embarrassed. And so they travel a path to avoid the truth... perpetuating myths and using junk science to do so.
 
You forgot to add that the drawings haven't been released for the Twin Towers and not all of them for WTC 7. The only structural details we have on the towers is what is in the NIST report, the SAP2000 data on the core columns, and various articles written at the time the towers were built. Can you generate a FEM from that data?

Tony,
You know with all that professional power at AE911T and the actual but limited information about the steel,trusses, seats design loads and slabs and so forth which has been released in the NCSTAR addenda for example... and the photos of construction and so on... in 13 years since 9/11/01 those engineers and architects over at AE911T could have re engineered or reverse engineered the building 10 times over... that is instead of complaining that the plans and specs and logs haven't been released. AND those professionals needn't do this for nothing. AE911T collects about $500K a year and a few years could easily fund such a project. What do they do instead? Nit pick of NIST's nonsense about column 79 and web stiffeners.

And give up on the FEA as the holy grail to prove what happened. Can't possibly manage all the inputs even if they were available and they're not.

With the information available and careful analysis of the vids it is pretty clear that the collapse were not CDs.

Time to stop beating a dead horse.
 
Forensic engineering is like many other sciences that must rely on incomplete information such as astronomy, geology, paleontology, etc. Inevitably, there has to be a certain amount of speculation. But it has to be reasonable speculation. NIST's explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 necessarily involves a certain degree of speculation.

I really don't see why anyone who disagrees with NIST's explanation doesn't simply do their own FEA simulations of what they think happened. If you don't know the exact specifications of some structural element, take a reasonable guess. Take several guesses, and see how that affects the simulation. It's over 12 years now. Time to "pee or get off the pot."

It's now easier than ever to come up with a powerful computing system. It seems to me that if AE911T's 2,000 signers each contributed a mere $50, they could now put together a kick-ass "Beowulf"-type arrangement of CPUs that would be the envy of engineers from only 12 years ago.
 
Forensic engineering is like many other sciences that must rely on incomplete information such as astronomy, geology, paleontology, etc. Inevitably, there has to be a certain amount of speculation. But it has to be reasonable speculation. NIST's explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 necessarily involves a certain degree of speculation.

I really don't see why anyone who disagrees with NIST's explanation doesn't simply do their own FEA simulations of what they think happened. If you don't know the exact specifications of some structural element, take a reasonable guess. Take several guesses, and see how that affects the simulation. It's over 12 years now. Time to "pee or get off the pot."

It's now easier than ever to come up with a powerful computing system. It seems to me that if AE911T's 2,000 signers each contributed a mere $50, they could now put together a kick-ass "Beowulf"-type arrangement of CPUs that would be the envy of engineers from only 12 years ago.

I agree... But I don't do FEAs, and don't really think they are too useful with so many inputs and nodes to deal with. More complexity means the FEA becomes less reliable and the more inputs and missing inputs you have it becomes even more of a fantasy.

As far as I know... I am the only person who has proposed any other mechanism aside from NIST. You think I should take this on... on my own? With what resources? Maybe AE911T will? Or JREFians? Or I forgot they are basically NISTians.
 
As far as I know... I am the only person who has proposed any other mechanism aside from NIST. You think I should take this on... on my own? With what resources? Maybe AE911T will? Or JREFians? Or I forgot they are basically NISTians.

Have you proposed it on JREF? Other people have brought models forward for the towers and they've been encouraged to do so. Why not let them know what you need and see what happens?
 
Have you proposed it on JREF? Other people have brought models forward for the towers and they've been encouraged to do so. Why not let them know what you need and see what happens?

Of course... sadly those fellas, smart as some are in the tank for NIST... and consider anything that is counter to NIST truther nonsense.

JREFers are very unwelcoming and hostile to me. But that's not unexpected. No one likes to not be on the right side... No?

Perhaps you want to comment on the attached?
 

Attachments

  • Top Drop Cartoon 2.pdf
    181.3 KB · Views: 664
  • CORE DROP.pdf
    662.6 KB · Views: 742
Last edited:
Of course... sadly those fellas, smart as some are in the tank for NIST... and consider anything that is counter to NIST truther nonsense.

JREFers are very unwelcoming and hostile to me. But that's not unexpected. No one likes to not be on the right side... No?

Perhaps you want to comment on the attached?
Sure I'll take a look at them, thanks. But I'm not an engineer, you'd get more insight from one. Who do you post as on JREF?
 
Sure I'll take a look at them, thanks. But I'm not an engineer, you'd get more insight from one. Who do you post as on JREF?

Sandero and I am an architect and I worked for the architects of the WTC back in 1970. Should I not talk to you because you are not an engineer? Or have you lecture me about structure and so forth? I've been in the towers scores of time and had a business 10 blocks from them... I also has an office on the 74th flr of the ESB... not that it matters. And I've lived in NYC since I was born in 1947 aside from the usual... I'm constantly exposed to all sorts of ill mannered people on the internet. It's getting old.

Of course you will have no comment aside from telling me that you are not competent to comment and others should. and if that is the case... why are you parroting engineering and science and physics etc. which is outside your scope of expertise?

What is your profession?
 
Sandero and I am an architect and I worked for the architects of the WTC back in 1970. Should I not talk to you because you are not an engineer? Or have you lecture me about structure and so forth? I've been in the towers scores of time and had a business 10 blocks from them... I also has an office on the 74th flr of the ESB... not that it matters. And I've lived in NYC since I was born in 1947 aside from the usual... I'm constantly exposed to all sorts of ill mannered people on the internet. It's getting old.

Of course you will have no comment aside from telling me that you are not competent to comment and others should. and if that is the case... why are you parroting engineering and science and physics etc. which is outside your scope of expertise?

What is your profession?
You must have me confused with someone else. I haven't lectured you about structure. If you're referring to the other thread about WTC 7 I'm merely giving you known facts which contradict your engineering suppositions. I don't need to know engineering to do that. :)

Yeah, I know you from JREF. I've only just come back to 9/11 stuff after leaving it for years so I'm not aware of your history there. I told you I would take a look at your materials but I don't promise to have any great knowledge to bring to the discussion regarding them. You don't have to discuss them with me if you don't want to, I'll understand. No offense meant and none taken.

I just don't care to carry on futile arguments, it's unproductive and frustrating. I don't wish to do that with you.
 
You must have me confused with someone else. I haven't lectured you about structure. If you're referring to the other thread about WTC 7 I'm merely giving you known facts which contradict your engineering suppositions. I don't need to know engineering to do that. :)

Yeah, I know you from JREF. I've only just come back to 9/11 stuff after leaving it for years so I'm not aware of your history there. I told you I would take a look at your materials but I don't promise to have any great knowledge to bring to the discussion regarding them. You don't have to discuss them with me if you don't want to, I'll understand. No offense meant and none taken.

I just don't care to carry on futile arguments, it's unproductive and frustrating. I don't wish to do that with you.

sensible... no one does. I am new to JREF, but it's not a good site for exchange of ideas.
 
sensible... no one does. I am new to JREF, but it's not a good site for exchange of ideas.
It seems a number of really bright guys have left the subject of 9/11 conspiracies. You probably would have enjoyed Ryan Mackey, and another engineer named Tom. There are still a couple of architects but I noticed that there are fewer than 3 years ago when I was more active there.

What about Ozco? No luck with him?
 
Welcome to the madness OWE.

Tony,
The FEAs here are pretty crude on any level because of the absence of data inputs re energy... ya know the forces which cause the structure to come apart. The missing construction drawings, shop drawings, construction logs are only a fraction of what's missing. And though this information is critical.. without the actual energy inputs from a rather large area, no FEA will represent anything close to real world. I don't do FEAs but I can see how managing thousands of varying data inputs would be well nigh impossible to do for even a super computer to do. The heat, for example was a variable through time and well as location in 3 dimensions.

FEAs will prove nothing because they are exceedingly crude compared to real world. The FEA of a single truss or brace or column hardly tells the accurate story of the failure of thousands of elements.

You have to use your imagination and logic, engineering and physics to come up with a reasonable model which suggests a progression from static building to pile of rubble... with the collapse / failure progression being the focus of the exercise.

No... the twin towers were not blown to bits in mid air as AE claims.
No... 81 columns over 8 floors were not blown to bits at 7wtc as AE claims
Yes... there was some manner of loss of capacity progressing through the structure likely caused by heat weakening and mechanical damage to the frame.
Yes... there was destruction of the slabs by mechanical collisions with building parts during the collapse.

AE doesn't fund research because it will shatter the myths they are propagating about CD and that heat and mechanical destruction could not possibly bring those buildings down. And then they be discredited and embarrassed. And so they travel a path to avoid the truth... perpetuating myths and using junk science to do so.
It is interesting that someone who can't produce any calculations to back up what they say (that would be you) would venture that the FEAs are crude.

What I would say here is that it is your comments on FEA that are crude and unsupported. Your unsupported by calculation "aircraft impact damage and fire did it" allegations are breathtaking to observe.
 
Last edited:
It seems a number of really bright guys have left the subject of 9/11 conspiracies. You probably would have enjoyed Ryan Mackey, and another engineer named Tom. There are still a couple of architects but I noticed that there are fewer than 3 years ago when I was more active there.

What about Ozco? No luck with him?

I get on fine with Ozzie and have for a long time.
 
It is interesting that someone who can't produce any calculations to back up what they say (that would be you) would venture that the FEAs are crude.

What I would say here is that it is your comments on FEA that are crude and unsupported. Your unsupported by calculation "aircraft impact damage and fire did it" allegations are breathtaking to observe.

Believe what you want. It is obvious to anyone with even basic understanding of a model that FEAs are limited by the accuracy of the inputs. In the case of modeling a progressive system collapse such as a car crash or the collapse of a entire building them magnitude and the complexity of managing all the inputs renders the model almost useless. Witness NISTs which was supposed to model the column 79 scenario and does not resemble real world at all.

Go catch your breath.... those allegations are not only true but they are what 99.99% of engineers, physicists and architects accept as fact. So far your position seems to be held by 2,000 who signed the AE petition and there are something like 600,000 architects and engineers in the USA and when you consider the entire world of engineers, architects and physicists, the percentage who accept that heat and mechanical damage as we saw on 9/11 is probably far greater.

Anyone who asserts that fires don't weaken steel clearly doesn't understand the reason for fire protection and sprinkler systems.
 
Believe what you want. It is obvious to anyone with even basic understanding of a model that FEAs are limited by the accuracy of the inputs. In the case of modeling a progressive system collapse such as a car crash or the collapse of a entire building them magnitude and the complexity of managing all the inputs renders the model almost useless. Witness NISTs which was supposed to model the column 79 scenario and does not resemble real world at all.

Go catch your breath.... those allegations are not only true but they are what 99.99% of engineers, physicists and architects accept as fact. So far your position seems to be held by 2,000 who signed the AE petition and there are something like 600,000 architects and engineers in the USA and when you consider the entire world of engineers, architects and physicists, the percentage who accept that heat and mechanical damage as we saw on 9/11 is probably far greater.

Anyone who asserts that fires don't weaken steel clearly doesn't understand the reason for fire protection and sprinkler systems.
It doesn't sound like you have a basic understanding of FEA so your comments on it have no basis or merit.

As far as the 99.99% of engineers, physicists, and architects who you say accept the allegations that aircraft impact damage and fire caused the collapses, you forgot to mention that 99.99% of them haven't even looked into the controversy for themselves and are merely accepting the present official story on face value. They just don't know and their position on the matter has no merit as they have not entered the controversy and looked into the details and points raised by both sides. It is hard to understand your position, as you have looked into, and seem to deny what becomes obvious once one does so.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't sound like you have a basic understanding of FEA so your comments on it have no basis.

As far as the 99.99% of engineers, physicists, and architects who you say accept the allegations that aircraft impact damage and fire caused the collapses, you forgot to mention that 99.99% of them haven't even looked into the controversy for themselves and are merely accepting the official story on face value. It is hard to understand your position as you have looked into and seem to deny what becomes obvious once one does so.

How do you know how many looked and what they looked out?

My understanding of FEA is fine.

"FEA consists of a computer model of a material or design that is stressed and analyzed for specific results. It is used in new product design, and existing product refinement. A company is able to verify a proposed design will be able to perform to the client's specifications prior to manufacturing or construction. Modifying an existing product or structure is utilized to qualify the product or structure for a new service condition.In case of structural failure, FEA may be used to help determine the design modifications to meet the new condition.

There are generally two types of analysis that are used in industry: 2-D modeling, and 3-D modeling. While 2-D modeling conserves simplicity and allows the analysis to be run on a relatively normal computer, it tends to yield less accurate results. 3-D modeling, however, produces more accurate results while sacrificing the ability to run on all but the fastest computers effectively. Within each of these modeling schemes, the programmer can insert numerous algorithms (functions) which may make the system behave linearly or non-linearly. Linear systems are far less complex and generally do not take into account plastic deformation. Non-linear systems do account for plastic deformation, and many also are capable of testing a material all the way to fracture."

NB that the author refers to testing "A material" and that is why FEA is rather limited for complex SYSTEMS... and

"FEA uses a complex system of points called nodes which make a grid called a mesh (Figure 2). This mesh is programmed to contain the material and structural properties which define how the structure will react to certain loading conditions. Nodes are assigned at a certain density throughout the material depending on the anticipated stress levels of a particular area. Regions which will receive large amounts of stress usually have a higher node density than those which experience little or no stress. Points of interest may consist of: fracture point of previously tested material, fillets, corners, complex detail, and high stress areas. The mesh acts like a spider web in that from each node, there extends a mesh element to each of the adjacent nodes. This web of vectors is what carries the material properties to the object, creating many elements. (Theory)

So tell me, how many nodes of those buildings have been modeled in an FEA? What were the energy inputs? How was the fact that the heat inputs varied with respect to time and location entered into the FEA?

Stop the nonsense and come back to earth.
 
How do you know how many looked and what they looked out?

My understanding of FEA is fine.

"FEA consists of a computer model of a material or design that is stressed and analyzed for specific results. It is used in new product design, and existing product refinement. A company is able to verify a proposed design will be able to perform to the client's specifications prior to manufacturing or construction. Modifying an existing product or structure is utilized to qualify the product or structure for a new service condition.In case of structural failure, FEA may be used to help determine the design modifications to meet the new condition.

There are generally two types of analysis that are used in industry: 2-D modeling, and 3-D modeling. While 2-D modeling conserves simplicity and allows the analysis to be run on a relatively normal computer, it tends to yield less accurate results. 3-D modeling, however, produces more accurate results while sacrificing the ability to run on all but the fastest computers effectively. Within each of these modeling schemes, the programmer can insert numerous algorithms (functions) which may make the system behave linearly or non-linearly. Linear systems are far less complex and generally do not take into account plastic deformation. Non-linear systems do account for plastic deformation, and many also are capable of testing a material all the way to fracture."

NB that the author refers to testing "A material" and that is why FEA is rather limited for complex SYSTEMS... and

"FEA uses a complex system of points called nodes which make a grid called a mesh (Figure 2). This mesh is programmed to contain the material and structural properties which define how the structure will react to certain loading conditions. Nodes are assigned at a certain density throughout the material depending on the anticipated stress levels of a particular area. Regions which will receive large amounts of stress usually have a higher node density than those which experience little or no stress. Points of interest may consist of: fracture point of previously tested material, fillets, corners, complex detail, and high stress areas. The mesh acts like a spider web in that from each node, there extends a mesh element to each of the adjacent nodes. This web of vectors is what carries the material properties to the object, creating many elements. (Theory)

So tell me, how many nodes of those buildings have been modeled in an FEA? What were the energy inputs? How was the fact that the heat inputs varied with respect to time and location entered into the FEA?

Stop the nonsense and come back to earth.
So copying and pasting explanations from others is your proof that you understand FEA. Wow!

Do you understand matrix algebra and how the equation F = Kx is used in FEA? Do you understand the equation modulus of elasticity = stress/strain and how it is modified by heating? Do you understand the equation mgh? Do you understand the difference between a static and dynamic FEA analysis?

It seems your position on the collapses is that they were just soooooooo complex that we can never know, and then you throw in some different unsupported failure mode conjecture to mix it up and confuse things, which would have the effect on some of making it harder to know.

I think it is your take on things here that is bizarre and it is not helpful at all. In fact, it is shameful.
 
Last edited:
So copying and pasting explanations from others is your proof that you understand FEA. Wow!

Do you understand matrix algebra and how the equation F = Kx is used in FEA? Do you understand the equation modulus of elasticity = stress/strain and how it is modified by heating? Do you understand the equation mgh? Do you understand the difference between a static and dynamic FEA analysis?

It seems your position on the collapses is that they were just soooooooo complex that we can never know, and then you throw in some different unsupported failure mode conjecture to mix it up and confuse things, which would have the effect on some of making it harder to know.

I think it is your take on things here that is bizarre and it is not helpful at all. In fact, it is shameful.

Thank you for your opinion.

I understand enough to know someone who is pushing nonsense. You've been caught many times and essentially run away to another forum to try your smoke and mirrors with people who won't take you in and are intimidated by your equations. I've got your number. And now for a slew of ad homs.
 
Thank you for your opinion.

I understand enough to know someone who is pushing nonsense. You've been caught many times and essentially run away to another forum to try your smoke and mirrors with people who won't take you in and are intimidated by your equations. I've got your number. And now for a slew of ad homs.
Where are your equations?
 
The negative personal references are not contributing to this Thread . . . I reserve the right to delete any future violations of our politeness policy . . . please maintain an objective debate referring to the facts not personalities . . . Thanks!
 
The negative personal references are not contributing to this Thread . . . I reserve the right to delete any future violations of our politeness policy . . . please maintain an objective debate referring to the facts not personalities . . . Thanks!

I agree... Please delete any post or text I write you feel inappropriate. Sometimes it's hard to have a discussion when the other side is continually insulting you. And the conversation spirals into the gutter. You have no idea the number and the nature of the insults I have endured for simply stating my "beliefs", opinions or theories or understanding about the events of 9/11.
 
This Forum is about changing the environment around debunking as well debunking . . . it is not perfect but it is one of the best available . . . it is sometimes hard to remain calm and detached with those we disagree with but trading perceived insult for perceived insult ultimately goes nowhere no matter who started the chain of reactions . . .
 
This Forum is about changing the environment around debunking as well debunking . . . it is not perfect but it is one of the best available . . . it is sometimes hard to remain calm and detached with those we disagree with but trading perceived insult for perceived insult ultimately goes nowhere no matter who started the chain of reactions . . .

George,

I am not thrilled with the term of concept of debunking. But I do get it... I think. Apparently the concept implies that there are ideas out there which present as being grounded in science and reason (logic)... but in actual fact they are false, misleading, misrepresentation and what is called "junk science".

A lot of science (and even engineering) involves numbers, formula, numeric data and analysis thereof. But we all should know that numbers (and formulas) can be toyed with to tell the story the author wants. I won't be dragged down the path of number proofs and so forth re 9/11. There are no proofs. But there are unfounded concepts and theories which make no sense and others which do. Clearly we are missing data because there were no transducers, not all the materials was recovered and analyzed. We don't even have all the engineering drawings for the structures. What we do have is some materials recovered... various videos and stills and witness testimony from non experts who obviously were under stress at the time as most everyone was that day. Witness testimony is important but must be taken with a grain of salt... and interpreted perhaps... such as..."I heard an explosion".

I can't debunk anything. I have no interest in that. My interest is personal understanding and sharing my ideas with others and calling BS wherever I see it. I have no intention of writing peer reviewed papers, doing youtubes or producing CD presentations, lectures and trying to convince anyone of anything. Each person will decide based on what they use to inform their decision making. I have produced for my own use and understanding various graphic materials which I share with others and invite comments and criticism. I am continually revising my understanding of 9/11 although there has been very little new material to work with for years.

What I have found is most people are very set in their beliefs despite their thinking they are rational and with no emotional component. People are rather inflexible and do not like to reverse their positions.
 
George,

I am not thrilled with the term of concept of debunking. But I do get it... I think. Apparently the concept implies that there are ideas out there which present as being grounded in science and reason (logic)... but in actual fact they are false, misleading, misrepresentation and what is called "junk science".

A lot of science (and even engineering) involves numbers, formula, numeric data and analysis thereof. But we all should know that numbers (and formulas) can be toyed with to tell the story the author wants. I won't be dragged down the path of number proofs and so forth re 9/11. There are no proofs. But there are unfounded concepts and theories which make no sense and others which do. Clearly we are missing data because there were no transducers, not all the materials was recovered and analyzed. We don't even have all the engineering drawings for the structures. What we do have is some materials recovered... various videos and stills and witness testimony from non experts who obviously were under stress at the time as most everyone was that day. Witness testimony is important but must be taken with a grain of salt... and interpreted perhaps... such as..."I heard an explosion".

I can't debunk anything. I have no interest in that. My interest is personal understanding and sharing my ideas with others and calling BS wherever I see it. I have no intention of writing peer reviewed papers, doing youtubes or producing CD presentations, lectures and trying to convince anyone of anything. Each person will decide based on what they use to inform their decision making. I have produced for my own use and understanding various graphic materials which I share with others and invite comments and criticism. I am continually revising my understanding of 9/11 although there has been very little new material to work with for years.

What I have found is most people are very set in their beliefs despite their thinking they are rational and with no emotional component. People are rather inflexible and do not like to reverse their positions.
Metabunk emphasis is debunking but in the process is a place to debate issues and clarify concepts which allow misconceptions to be addressed . . . we all would love to see the "truth" with a little "t" revealed without such hard work but that just doesn't happen very often and yes changing people's mind is often long and arduous . . . it is measured in millimeters (or even smaller units) not by meters . . . but the effort is important . . .
 
I'm baffled by the Truther focus on the period of freefall of the North Facade of WTC 7 Given that WTC 7 has undergone internal collapse as indicated by the fall of the East Penthouse, 6 seconds later the West Penthouse, and other evidence, I can't see the point of continuing an analysis past the point that the North Facade falls, too. What's the point? But hey, I'm not a structural engineer, just a dumb retired industrial chemist.

It seems to me that Truthers need to show the significance of the 2.25 seconds of freefall. Proposal: run a simulation of just the fall of the North Facade. In your simulation, minimize the internal collapse damage as much as you think you can get anyone to believe. Now, start the collapse of the North Facade and do parallel simulations from there: With, and without, demolition charges causing it to speed up to freefall. What difference do the demolition charges make?
 
I'm baffled by the Truther focus on the period of freefall of the North Facade of WTC 7 Given that WTC 7 has undergone internal collapse as indicated by the fall of the East Penthouse, 6 seconds later the West Penthouse, and other evidence, I can't see the point of continuing an analysis past the point that the North Facade falls, too. What's the point? But hey, I'm not a structural engineer, just a dumb retired industrial chemist.

It seems to me that Truthers need to show the significance of the 2.25 seconds of freefall. Proposal: run a simulation of just the fall of the North Facade. In your simulation, minimize the internal collapse damage as much as you think you can get anyone to believe. Now, start the collapse of the North Facade and do parallel simulations from there: With, and without, demolition charges causing it to speed up to freefall. What difference do the demolition charges make?
Thousands of engineers and nobody has stepped up to do an FEA model which could show how explosives could bring down the building silently like that. And I'd love to see their FEA do the 2.25s of freefall, you have a good point.

Not holding my breath waiting for any research to come from AE911Truth.
 
I'm baffled by the Truther focus on the period of freefall of the North Facade of WTC 7 Given that WTC 7 has undergone internal collapse as indicated by the fall of the East Penthouse, 6 seconds later the West Penthouse, and other evidence, I can't see the point of continuing an analysis past the point that the North Facade falls, too. What's the point? But hey, I'm not a structural engineer, just a dumb retired industrial chemist.

It seems to me that Truthers need to show the significance of the 2.25 seconds of freefall. Proposal: run a simulation of just the fall of the North Facade. In your simulation, minimize the internal collapse damage as much as you think you can get anyone to believe. Now, start the collapse of the North Facade and do parallel simulations from there: With, and without, demolition charges causing it to speed up to freefall. What difference do the demolition charges make?
Do you think that the NIST simulation illustrates the collapse realistically?
 
That's hardly the topic is it?

Clearly AE911 don't think so. So why don't they do something about it, and actually demonstrate it?
It clearly is relevant to the topic. Part of the research that @Redwood is suggesting AE911 undertake is to produce a model of the WTC7 collapse. If the simulation that NIST did was realistic, why would there be a need for anyone else to do an additional simulation?
Very relevant to this topic, just not convenient for redwood, and others to answer, that's all.
 
I'm baffled by the Truther focus on the period of freefall of the North Facade of WTC 7 Given that WTC 7 has undergone internal collapse as indicated by the fall of the East Penthouse, 6 seconds later the West Penthouse, and other evidence, I can't see the point of continuing an analysis past the point that the North Facade falls, too. What's the point? But hey, I'm not a structural engineer, just a dumb retired industrial chemist.

It seems to me that Truthers need to show the significance of the 2.25 seconds of freefall. Proposal: run a simulation of just the fall of the North Facade. In your simulation, minimize the internal collapse damage as much as you think you can get anyone to believe. Now, start the collapse of the North Facade and do parallel simulations from there: With, and without, demolition charges causing it to speed up to freefall. What difference do the demolition charges make?
It is pretty hard to understand how anyone can see the first two views of the collapse shown in this 30 second clip and say the north façade fell at a different rate than the rest of the upper section of the building.
 
That's hardly the topic is it?

Clearly AE911 don't think so. So why don't they do something about it, and actually demonstrate it?
Clearly the investigation is a governmental responsibility and if the NIST model does not represent reality it needs to be redone. Why would you put that responsibility on anyone else?
 
Clearly the investigation is a governmental responsibility and if the NIST model does not represent reality it needs to be redone. Why would you put that responsibility on anyone else?
It clearly is relevant to the topic. Part of the research that @Redwood is suggesting AE911 undertake is to produce a model of the WTC7 collapse. If the simulation that NIST did was realistic, why would there be a need for anyone else to do an additional simulation?
Very relevant to this topic, just not convenient for redwood, and others to answer, that's all.
You both miss the point:

AE911 Makes a claim
AE911 Could verify or disprove that claim with some research
AE911 Instead says that the government should do the research, knowing that they will not
....
?

Pointing fingers is great. But if you can actually do something about it, and you have the money and the people, then why don't you?
 
Back
Top