Abstract and Distract, is Wak that gets That.
And in other news...
Here is the Abstract from a Keynote Speech and Paper written by one of the guys who first proposed the Pancake Theory. See if you can find any problems with it.
Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions
Zden·ek P. Ba·zant, F. ASCE, and Mathieu Verdure
Abstract: Progressive collapse is a failure mode of great concern for tall buildings, and is also typical of building demolitions. The most infamous paradigm is the collapse of World Trade Center towers. After reviewing the mechanics of their collapse, the motion during the crushing of one
floor (or group of floors) and its energetics are analyzed, and a one-dimensional continuum model of progressive collapse is developed. Rather than using classical homogenization, it is found more effective to characterize the continuum by en energetically equivalent snap-through. The collapse,
in which two phases crush-down followed by crush-up must be distinguished, is described in each phase by a nonlinear second-order differential equation for the propagation of the crushing front of a compacted block of accreting mass. Expressions for consistent energy potentials are formulated
and an exact analytical solution of a special case is given. It is shown that progressive collapse will be triggered if the total (internal) energy loss during the crushing of one story (equal to the energy dissipated by the complete crushing and compaction of one story, minus the loss of gravity potential
during the crushing of that story) exceeds the kinetic energy impacted to that story. Regardless of the load capacity of the columns, there is no way to deny the inevitability of progressive collapse driven by gravity alone if this criterion is satisfied (for the World Trade Center it is, with an order-
of-magnitude margin). The parameters are the compaction ratio of a crushed story, the fracture of mass ejected outside the tower perimeter, and the energy dissipation per unit height. The last is the most important, yet the hardest to predict theoretically. Using inverse analysis, one could identify
these parameters from a precise record of the motion of floors of a collapsing building. Due to a shroud of dust and smoke, the videos of WTC are useless here. It is proposed to obtain such records by monitoring the precise time history of displacements in different modes of building demolitions.
The monitoring could be accomplished by real-time telemetry from sacrificial accelerometers, or by high-speed optical camera. The resulting information on energy absorption capability would be valuable for the rating of various structural systems and for inferring their collapse mode under
extreme fire, internal explosion, external blast, impact or other kinds of terrorist attack, as well as earthquake and foundation movements.
OK, just for simplicity let us look at the proposed method of acquiring the information which will be used as the base values for; validating events previously theorized to have been progressive collapses, figuring out if an event is a progressive collapse, and predicting the likelihood of any progressive collapse in the future.
It is proposed to obtain such records by monitoring the precise time history of displacements in different modes of building demolitions.
Using inverse analysisis, (backwards scientific methodology?) these guys will utilize information gathered at controlled demolitions to extrapolate the likelihood of a completely disimilar event. Not, mind you, to contrast the differences, but to equate the similarities of the events even though one of them has explosives and the other one does not. I assume that the variable, blew up/ did not blow up, will be a major factor and not just a control group.
33 comments:
That is a masterfully crafted piece of scientific-sounding hogwash. Arguments against it would sound just as convoluted, making it nearly impossible for a layman such as a judge or jury member to understand. They're cute aint they.
How stuff breaks is some pretty gruesome science. I think it is mainly material science/engineering.(Non linear dynamics meets engineering meets chemistry meets physics meets biology ... horrible stuff.)
What really perplexes me is the lack of response from the scientific comunity. Especially engineers and demolition experts. Surely no engineer with at least half a brain knows that buildings dont disintegrate like that.
Any demolition people reading this, ask yourself this: if you went and slammed a big thing like a plane into the side of one of the world trade cente buildings, and then lit a fire with the appropriate amount of jet fuel, do you think that would make the buildings fall straight down? Is that how you would do it?
Well, I think you nailed the problem. There isn't club or consortium of structural engineers publicly debating anything. I do not know if you caught any of my argument from my previous post, but my adversary, for lack of a more demeaning term, kept reffering to an absolute archetypye of structural engineer agreement. An overmind set if you will. The venue does not exist for an all inclusive debate. I was especially piqued by Professor Jones narration of how he was initially brought into the 9-11 Truth movement. He waw at a NDE speaking event as the husband of a person interested in that phenomenon. The speaker made a point in fact referrence tothe physical possibilities of 9-11, which was greeted with an overwhelmingly knowledgaeble and approving spectator response. Prior to that moment he had not considered the 9-11 story to be opento debate. Finding that it was and that the event was well within hes field of expertise he looked into it. Luckily he found Hoffman first.
I'll be the first to admit that I don't hold a candle to Hoffman's analytical nature. I like to argue. It is a hobby of mine. Hoffman is thorough, precise and exact. I am preachy. I hope to hook the curiousity of the average person. I point them towards hoffman for proof.
Back to my point. We all have our reasons for doubting and our catalyst for copming to the troubling truth we share. The structural engineers of the world who have not yet, will find there's eventually. It just won't be en masse.
"What really perplexes me is the lack of response from the scientific comunity. Especially engineers and demolition experts. Surely no engineer with at least half a brain knows that buildings dont disintegrate like that."
What is interesting is that the 9/11 Denial Movement is unable to bring any evidence to the table of "explosive demolition", any structural engineers or forensic scinece whose expertise is in building collapses to refute the NIST findings, but instead claim that a physics professor has "proven" that there was explosives with already-refuted evidence.
As we have seen with the easy debunking of the owner of this blog, you guys are completely off your rockers, are unable to think rationally nor critically, and are happy to lie your heads off.
At least the majority of humanity is here to expose you all for what you really are.
The truth always wins despite your efforts to the contrary.
Snoop... please for the love of God stop. You are liek a broken record at the special olympics. You can not possibly think you even held your own on the last debate. Come on... just one expert with varifiable experience in the field, who supports your position. Jsut one. You have claimed they all do. Tens of thousands do. Well, one shouldn't be hard to find. One equation. How bout that. One equation that can mathematicaly show an acceleration bordering on 9.8m per second/second through significant resistance. I dare you.
Anyone care to show this guy a little light?
Poor reverend x. Having been thoroughly debunked by the evidence, he'll continue to pretend the evidence doesn't exist. Having been shown that none of the WTC towers remotely collapsed anywhere near "free-fall speeds", the little squirmy denier insists that it was free-fall speeds. Unable to come up with a single structural engineer who questions the data, calculations, and methodology of the hundreds of independent structural engineers and forensic scientists whose investigation and NIST report are open to all, reverend squirmy x desperately tries to shift the burden of proof.
What better example of a 9/11 Denial Movement member could ask for other than this little immoral twit who bows before his Holocaust Denial idols.
/bark bark bark
revvy: have you ever read maddox's response to "loose change?"........you wont agree, but it's funny. check it out. im glad you have s. king to spar with....keeps ya workin'
/howl
course you know i dont believe the 911 conspiracy for reasons haveing zero to do with structural engineering and physics. just too big to contain if it was a native plot. c'mon!
the link:
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons
how you is, otherwise?
/grrrrrrrrr
Containment is easy when murder is an option. Unfortunately, unless you have personal experience with curruption in high places you are not really equipped to make judgements on such matters.
Hollywood has us believe that gangsters rob banks, murder a few people and at worst deal drugs. What the average person doesn't realise is that they run countries, start wars and sell arms. They have killed millions of people.
K9, I'd like to hear why you think the 9-11 scam would be uncontainable. In my mind, having almost total control over media outlets and having the ability to murder almost anybody in the world would make containment a doddle.
/bark bark bark
anon: mostly because of the phenomena of celebrity. how many people come out of the woodwork to tell their dark tale -even at the point of exposing themselves as creeps. i dont disgree that heads of states can be murderous butchers. i just dont think this is one of those times.
if this admisitration has control over the media outlets they sure arent using it to their advantage very well. if there was any real proof it would come to light because W is so hated both here and abroad.
ya'll think they did this so as to instill a fear based control over us? to what end? a totalitarian stranglehold? what is the end game if your scenario is true?
grrrrrrrr
Total control over world resources would seem to be one main goal but there are as many goals to be achieved as there are personality types. I personally know two people(monsters actually) who's humble aspirations are the consumption of amphetamines and raping little boys. (One is a paratrooper and one is(was) a policeman.)
It's not as simple as "one goal" being sought after by one super villian....think of a network of badness. Of course the closer to the top of the pile, the more homogenous the ideas become..ie total domination of the world in whatever manner is deemed neccesary by the concerned individuals. And think of the relationships that exist between the top of the pile and their more lowly ranked like my child raping policeman uncle. The networks are big and powerful.
As to the media. Give me a moment....
I sympathise with people who can't imagine that corruption is as total as is being implied by people such as myself. I remember being that ignorant. We all nod knowingly at the corruption implied by hollywood gangster movies but when the scale of corruption is raised to the international level peoples brains shut down and refuse to consider the facts. Our glorious leaders make Al Capone look like a schoolyard bully. They are worse than can be imagined by the uninformed public which is how they get away with this stuff.
OK, the media. As far as I can tell, the media is doing a crack job in hiding the truth about the wtc from the public. I'd like to hear specifically how you think this is not so K9.
honestly im leaning towards the idea that it was a compleat and total fuckup by the admin, and that theve been running total de to cover their asses to make it look like the terrorist were masterminds, but at the same time try to tell us that they were a bunch of backwards extremeist who barely have the technical ablility to work a camera or post a website, let alone circumvent the worlds most expensive security network.
but still they should have been stopped at so many times before 9/11 and a dozen more on 9/11.
forget the towers, we let them hit, canada had planes in the air before the us.
Hmmmm...letting airliners who's transponders have been shut off roam the countryside for an hour is not an accidental fuck up in my books. Honestly, go and look at the wtc7 falling down. It's pretty incredible.
http://www.wtc7.net/
People should have a look at this pdf:
http://www.notinourname.net/downloads/gardiner-truth.pdf
/bark bark bark
anon: i am a simple dog. i respond to positive reinforcement. i cannot learn from a faceless entity and i cannot be motivated by charges of ignorance and being ill-equipped even if the observation is correct.
i like the revvy for his smoking raps and sense of humor. want to sell? consider your pitch.
/grrrrrrrrrrr
Snippy-n-slighted,
You say "wrong", then no reason why/
Call me "squirmy" trying to make me cry/
Are ya blind? I'm asking why is it/
with your head up your ass, you still can't see shit?
You misdirect, in effect and never reply/
with a damn thing I ask for and you lie./
I asked you for the expert... what the fuck?/
these tricks work for you? No, you're outta luck./
MIT Engineer. Yeah the real thing./
Who is not on your side, my man Jeff King./
Click the link, you'll be seeing it/
but you'll not understand cuz you're an idiot./
"Immoral twit" "Squirmy" is that your best, hag?/
Run on home. Papa got a brand new bag./
Call me names. Makes one determined X./
Kickin your ass now as Reverend Squirmin X./
K9,
"i cannot learn from a faceless entity"
Damn dog. That's discrimination. What you got against those who got no faces? Don't profile those with no profile. They people too. Don't hate.
hahahahahaha
Fair comment K9. Apologies for the condecending attitude but you have to understand that if you see the way these bastards do things from the inside you tend to lose patience with those ignorant of the matter. Faceless? No, just couldn't be bothered with the pushing buttons, logging on kind of thing. My name is David. I'm a musician, I like studying. I like truth, love and stuff. I hope that satisfies you as it's a better indication of who I am as would be any email address I might post. Or any evasive profile. As for a sense of humour, I do have one, honestly! Why did the chicken cross the road? To get to the other side!!! see! I'm hilarious!
Anyhow, back to the issues at hand. I understand that you think that if the media is being manipulated as to hide a mojor scam such as the wtc demolition, they are not doing a good job. I say, no, they are doing a wonderful job. Case/s in point...note how only idiots get mainstream attention on the subject. Alex Jones, the Sheen boy etc. And if anyone with credentials gets airtime the story is cut to peices. (was it the Jones physicist fellow or was it Griffin? Don't recall)Anyhow, only iterviewing dubious people or editing any serious info seems to be all you need to keep the ideas under lock and key. It's all down to common perceptions. The "people" swallow the official line...end of story. Whadaya reckon?
Maybe I'm a little harsh on Alex Jones and Sheen. They're just not equipped to convince anyone who is not already open to the ideas....see, I can be reasonable!
And I listen to King Crimson.
/bark bark bark
anon: you can never be too harsh on charlie sheen.
revvy: hahaha. i aint no dick and i aint no hater
im a rock and rolling rottie with a smile like a gator
(okay i am tired and lame)
/howl
Whoever wrote such nonsense should be send to Sierra Leone.
"It's easy to speculate when you have a conspiratorial mindset and have never been involved in the businesses involved that awful morning."
That's the entertaining thing about conspiracists. They instantly become "experts" in whatever's involved in their pet theory (sometimes multiple theories). People who have never shot a firearm in their lives are suddenly experts on how to kill JFK. People whose only experience in photography is "point lens away from you for best results," suddenly become experts in what shadows in Apollo photographs should look like. People who can't tell a rad from a banana peel suddenly know everything about cislunar radiation. People who've never coordinated anything more complicated than a backyard cookout suddenly become experts in cross-discipline military command structures. And people who've never built anything more complicated than a bookshelf suddenly become experts in structural mechanics.
Conspiracism appeals in part because it purports to provide an arena where one's rudimentary skills seem to count for something more. Most conspiracy theories take the archetypical form: "Those guys thought they were pretty slick to put one over on us, but we're too smart and we saw right through it." That's why the pro-conspiracy places such as the Loose Change forum rely so much upon ego-reinforcement and despise the intrusion of actual expertise that reduces their self-proclamations to mere pretention.
http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=803190&postcount=26
"It's easy to speculate when you have a conspiratorial mindset and have never been involved in the businesses involved that awful morning."
That's the entertaining thing about conspiracists. They instantly become "experts" in whatever's involved in their pet theory (sometimes multiple theories). People who have never shot a firearm in their lives are suddenly experts on how to kill JFK. People whose only experience in photography is "point lens away from you for best results," suddenly become experts in what shadows in Apollo photographs should look like. People who can't tell a rad from a banana peel suddenly know everything about cislunar radiation. People who've never coordinated anything more complicated than a backyard cookout suddenly become experts in cross-discipline military command structures. And people who've never built anything more complicated than a bookshelf suddenly become experts in structural mechanics.
Conspiracism appeals in part because it purports to provide an arena where one's rudimentary skills seem to count for something more. Most conspiracy theories take the archetypical form: "Those guys thought they were pretty slick to put one over on us, but we're too smart and we saw right through it." That's why the pro-conspiracy places such as the Loose Change forum rely so much upon ego-reinforcement and despise the intrusion of actual expertise that reduces their self-proclamations to mere pretention.
http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=803190&postcount=26
you ever notice how people who have no expertise in a subject can put down anyone of equal levels of expertise ideas on the subject. they are suddenly able to judge that somebody who knows about as much as they do wrong, as thought they were the supreme athority beacuse they might have reference a sourse online(hey just like the conspiracy theorist)
dubunking conspiracy theorist appeals to the lowest form of personalities. the most common archetypes are those who feel the overwhelming need to be superior to anyone they can demean or belittle, since it is the only way they can possibly appear intellegent.
it comes down to " hey these guys are saying something crazy or anti-goverment, we are obviously better and smarter than them becase we dont say what they say" thats why anti-conspiracy theory sites like screw loose change forum rely so much on ego-reinforcement, each person contributing to the self ego stroking/masturbation by simply declaring sombody else wrong and inferiror to their own (and by proxy the group because they all agree) expertiese and knowlage despite not having experts backing or real experience just their own self-proclamations that have nothing but merely smug confidence and pretention.
Anon and War,
People rarely choose to speak out on any subject without the support of others. Regardless of validity, they wait for an inductive value to their theory. I call this Choir Preaching. I hate choir preaching.
For the last year I have tracked my logs, found anyone referencing my work, then chosen to go to the sites that are slamming me. It is way more fun. I do not need ego reinforcememnt. I need targets and conflict. i am in it to win it. But the fight is better than the win.
So far the only place I have failed logically was Democratic Underground. I failed there for 2 reasons;
1. I opened with a statement that I could not back up.
2. I lost the link and have not been able to finish the debate.
My point here is that if you both find forums where I might play, let me know. Oh yeah, sorry bout the pics disappearing. I am having troubles paying my web hosting fees. My legal issues bit me big this week out of no where. So if anyone has a couple hundred, I'd be much obliged.
K9,
Have that thing we discussed, to you asap.
i belive i understand your position, and you m.o. with dealing with opposing veiws. and for that i repect you, despite some differences in how i see it went down. the whole thing was really me just snaping at that guys letter. as mentioned ive seen many people who look to debunk the conspiracy theorist with just as little or less evidence, straw man arguments and screwy logic. but what i most notice is that those anti-conspiracy theorist are the first to resort to personal insults , indeed most of their refutation comes down to attacking the character of whoever they are critisizing rather than fully counter their evidence,reports,claims ect.
just like the last guy you tussled with here, from the very start he began with wild accusations that you were a holcaust denyer(see faulty logic and character attacks) they dont refute the conpiracy theorist they make them look bad and suddenly whatever evidence they have presented is moot whether valid or not.
you see the same thing in the media, even now as more and more people question 9/11 (even cnn guy were saying we were lied to) they still bring up conspiracy theorist and rather than counter their claims they just attack them or create circular shouting matches. sure the con guy goes away looking bad but nothing he said was really debunked. why dont they bring on sombody like one of the scholars for 9/11 truth aswell as a structural engineer or demolitionist. essentially counter their claims with an expert. but they dont.
heres one thing ive been thinking about dealing more to do with the current wars, did you ever notice how whenever somthing bad happens (the civilian deaths,rapes, tourtures ect) it is always always blamed on the subordanates. the guilt never goes anywhere up the chain of command. during the nuremburg trials we had trouble convicting subordanates because they claimed to be just following orders , but today we cannot convict the superiors because the blame is always shifted strait to the low man on the totem pole, even though they were "just following orders"
(we even have evidence that the orders come strait from the top too)
ps good luck with the money problems, im sort of in the same boat with collage coming up.
Anon,
Yeah, you summed it up well. Prime examples can be found on youtube. Keywords 911 hannitty, bowman fox and fetzer will bring up clips which show just what you are talking about. Hannitty has the balls to call em nuts and weirdos. No one asks, "who the fuck are you to even debate anything outside of a hair salon?" To the Fox Model.
But they are losing the battle. Some of the CT's cann not only debate, but they can play the game too. Watch Fetzer.
The Chain of Command has become obfuscated. Orders are ambiguous with their meaning implied by subtext rather than decree. We need to make the Higher ups accountabnle for intentionally clouding the message.
you ever notice how people who have no expertise in a subject can put down anyone of equal levels of expertise ideas on the subject. they are suddenly able to judge that somebody who knows about as much as they do wrong, as thought they were the supreme athority beacuse they might have reference a sourse online(hey just like the conspiracy theorist)
Did you ever notice that is exactly what 9/11 conspiracists do?
That is why amateurs like Steven Jones and Jim Fetzer proclaim themselves "scholars" but are easily debunked by actual experts in structural engineering and forensic science - professional fields outside their expertise. It is why hoplessly incompetent bloggers like the owner of this site claim that amateurs know more than experts and foam at the mouth when you prove to them otherwise, claiming that one must be a government disinfo agent not to believe complete idiots like Jones and Fetzer.
It is easy to debunk arrogant 9/11 Deniers like the owner of this blog who can't even add 2 + 2 but claim they know more about structural engineering than the world's structural engineers.
And 9/11 Deniers go apoplectic when you present them with rational and easy debunking of whacko 9/11 conspiracy theories at sites like these:
http://www.911myths.com
http://www.debunking911.com/
Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories
Last, but not least, 911 Deniers hate to be reminded of their enduring hatred of rational thinking when you remind them they never have learned out to think logically:
http://www.criticalthinking.org/
No matter, 9/11 Deniers are going the way of Holocaust Deniers. Remember that as you desperately try to fight reason and truth.
Snippy,
2+2=4..
any other questions?
Bogs,
That i san understatement. Yopu have to look at what that implies. If WTC 7 was brought down for insurance purposes, then it was intentionally demolished. If it was intentional, then it would have to have been planned and prepared long before that day. If someone was planning to use the events of that day to cover up their crime, who had the capabilities to do that? At the very least it means that our govt. knew what was going to happen and allowed it. That means that the are guilty of allowing the worst mass murder in American history to happen. That alone is treason.
Now add that to all the other info and you get a better picture of the crime.
Our debunked friend wrote for all to see...
"If WTC 7 was brought down for insurance purposes, then it was intentionally demolished.
But it wasn't intentionally demolished and you are wholly incpapable of proving your fantasy, son, since you have no evidence to back you up.
But you already knew that.
In the meantime your inability to debunk the real evidence does not go unnoticed.
It's the nature of the beast.
S. Kank,
One expert to back your claims. That was all you had to do. You failed. Don't embarass yourself, unless you wanna. In that case, keep it up.
"One expert to back your claims."
Always in denial, aren't you? I gave you many and you refused to debunk them. It's on the record.
It must be nice living a life unburdened by reality, eh, reverend?
S kank,
Just one.. name.. still waiting...
When you're finish running away from debunking all the experts I provided, you can try your hand at debunking these guys:
Mohsen Altafi
Robert Anleitner
Elisa Baker
Stephen Banovic
Howard Baum
Carlos Beauchamp
Dale Bentz
Charles Bouldin
Paul Brand
Lori Brassell
Kathy Butler
Nicholas Carino
Sandy Clagett
Ishmael Conteh
Matthew Covin
Frank Davis
David Dayan
Laurean DeLauter
Jonathan Demarest
Stuart Dols
Michelle Donnelly
Dat Duthinh
David Evans
Richard Fields
James Filliben
Tim Foecke
Jeffrey Fong
Glenn Forney
William Fritz
Anthony Hamins
Edward Hnetkovsky
Erik Johnsson
Dave Kelley
Mark Kile
Erica Kuligowski
Jack Lee
William Luecke
Alexander Maranghides
David McColskey
Chris McCowan
Jay McElroy
Kevin McGrattan
Roy McLane
George Mulholland
Lakeshia Murray
Kathy Notarianni
Joshua Novosel
Long Phan
William Pitts
Thomas Ohlemiller
Victor Ontiveros
Richard Peacock
Max Peltz
Lisa Petersen
Rochelle Plummer
Kuldeep Prasad
Natalia Ramirez
Ronald Rehm
Paul Reneke
Michael Riley
Lonn Rodine
Schuyler Ruitberg
Jose Sanchez
Raymond Santoyo
Steven Sekellick
Michael Selepak
Thomas Siewert
Emil Simiu
Monica Starnes
David Stroup
Laura Sugden
Robert Vettori
John Widmann
Brendan Williams
Maureen Williams
Jiann Yang
Robert Zarr
[snicker]
Mohsen Altafi- NIST
Robert Anleitner- NIST
Elisa Baker- NFC
Stephen Banovic-NIST
OK, I see the pattern. Did you just copy the contributor page from the NIST report? Cause if you did, after a month of BS, finally figure that little trick out... moron. Look, the NIST used imaginary variables, unproven facts and complete denial of construction blue prints in order to come up with a theory that still had only a low probability of occurrence. Do you get it? They lied about the numbers and still could not make it add up. And by the way, I know you are real proud of yourself for that list... But could you link some of them or maybe give more than a 2 name total, each of which brings back 100's on a search?
Post a Comment