A New York judge has tossed out a case alleging Larry Silverstein should've foreseen 9/11 and thus should've forbade occupants of WTC7 from installing gas-fueled generators. The burning gas was a likely contributor to the building's collapse.
If only the judge hadn't done that.
One of the most stable findings in psychology is the hindsight bias, which is precisely what it sounds like: Now that 9/11 has happened, people tend to think that 9/11 was eminently foreseeable. They're wrong, and they're especially wrong if their point is that some partial leaser of property near the sight of an unprecedented terrorist attack with no responsibility for national security (or even, technically, the protection of the building's occupants from terrorism).
Seeing a court case paper trail detailing precisely what it means to be unable to foresee something would be fascinating, to me anyway. I love risk. It is my specialty. As concepts, risk and uncertainty are my bread and butter (this is rather ironic, as I'm such a boring guy generally). Having documentation on hand to demonstrate to people the vast chain of improbabilities disconnecting Larry Silverstein's liability from the tragedy would have been very interesting. I love reading the intellectual non-entities in the 9/11 denial movement asserting that person X should've foreseen event Y given some vastly skewed probability distribution. Norman Mineta should've had flashbulb memory. The USAF should've had a fully fueled, fully armed squadron of fighter pilots armed and hot on the tarmac to shoot down a civilian aircraft at a moment's notice. Give me a break.
Showing posts with label NIST. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NIST. Show all posts
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Sunday, August 28, 2011
The "First Claim" Test
ae911truth has slapped together a pdf of old claims against the exhaustive NIST report. Readers of this blog are familiar with our approach to the glut of old information posing as new information 9/11 deniers pour out: The first claim is a smell test. It's their first stab at trying to convince you of something, so it's got to be good. If it isn't, the rest of the piece isn't going to be any better.
Here's the first claim from "How NIST Avoided a Real Analysis of the Physical Evidence of WTC:"
Wouldn't you know it, this claim's completely false. First, from page 118 of the NIST report:
So one, tests were performed on their entire sample. Possibly not for impact effects, but that would have been wildly inappropriate as not all of those columns were from a sample of the area directly impacted.
The only excuse I can think of is that ae911truth did not quote from the latest version of the final report; indeed, their cited text doesn't appear anywhere in the NIST final report. So, they're either lazy and incompetent, or outright dishonest.
What'll it be, ae911?
Here's the first claim from "How NIST Avoided a Real Analysis of the Physical Evidence of WTC:"
The 236 pieces of structural WTC steel that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) “catalogued” 2 for its WTC investigation included 55 columns that NIST discuss in paragraph 4.1 “CORE COLUMNS” in NIST NCSTAR 1-3C.4 NIST analyzed only four of these 55 columns for damage and failure modes. The remaining 51 columns were excluded from being examined for damage and failure modes based on the argument that only columns with a known as-built location in or near the impact and fire areas were of interest for the WTC investigation.
Wouldn't you know it, this claim's completely false. First, from page 118 of the NIST report:
NIST performed confirmatory tests on samples of the 236 pieces of recovered steel to determine if the steel met the structural specifications. Making a definitive assessment was complicated by overlapping specifications from multiple suppliers, differences between the NIST test procedures and the test procedures that originally qualified the steel, the natural variability of steel properties, and damage to the steel from the collapse of the WTC towers. Nonetheless, the NIST investigators were able to determine the following:
There were 14 grades (strengths) of steel that were specified. However, a total of 32 steels in the impact and fire floors were sufficiently different (grade, supplier, and gage) to require distinct models of mechanical properties.
The steels in the perimeter columns met their intended specifications for chemistry, mechanical properties, yield strengths, and tensile properties. The steels in the core columns generally met their intended specifications for both chemical and mechanical properties.
[…]
The mechanical properties of steel are reduced at elevated temperatures. Based on measurements and examination of published data, NIST determined that a single representation of the elevated temperature effects on steel mechanical properties could be used for all WTC steels. Separate values were used for the yield and tensile strength reduction factors for bolt steels.
So one, tests were performed on their entire sample. Possibly not for impact effects, but that would have been wildly inappropriate as not all of those columns were from a sample of the area directly impacted.
The only excuse I can think of is that ae911truth did not quote from the latest version of the final report; indeed, their cited text doesn't appear anywhere in the NIST final report. So, they're either lazy and incompetent, or outright dishonest.
What'll it be, ae911?
Sunday, May 8, 2011
"International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001"
For what may be the third or fourth consecutive year the denier movement won’t be able to get enough attention in America to host a full-scale event and so is hosting its big conference in Toronto. I cut my teeth in Toronto at a CFI event debating AE911truther Doug Plumb. Toronto is the hub of 9/11 denial, and it makes sense in a lot of ways. The movement is driven by a handful of obscure postmodern academics – the staple of Canadian academia’s history departments.
This one looks to be pretty dull. The usual round of faces will headline the event – David Chandler, Richard Gage, Steven Jones… No new “whistleblowers” or fresh faces, unless you count the shockingly lame 9/11 newcomer du jour Niels Harrit.
In case you couldn't tell, this event won't actually include "hearings," in the technical sense of the word (though technical accuracy was never the movement's strong suit). Judging by the lineup its going to be yet another PowerPoint parade that takes itself far too seriously and accomplishes far too little except in terms of repeating the same hashed-out arguments about shoddy thermite research and since-refuted attacks on NIST and "the American government" (whoever that is) in general.
I base my cynicism purely on the event’s thus-far announced objectives, which read like a how-to guide for creating an echo chamber:
Guesses: The event is going to be well-attended but not sold out. We will hear at least one presentation about “molten steel.” The movement will continue not to recognize its complete failure to gain a foothold in the mainstream. No one will present a case for bin Laden’s innocence. It will go largely unnoticed.
This one looks to be pretty dull. The usual round of faces will headline the event – David Chandler, Richard Gage, Steven Jones… No new “whistleblowers” or fresh faces, unless you count the shockingly lame 9/11 newcomer du jour Niels Harrit.
In case you couldn't tell, this event won't actually include "hearings," in the technical sense of the word (though technical accuracy was never the movement's strong suit). Judging by the lineup its going to be yet another PowerPoint parade that takes itself far too seriously and accomplishes far too little except in terms of repeating the same hashed-out arguments about shoddy thermite research and since-refuted attacks on NIST and "the American government" (whoever that is) in general.
I base my cynicism purely on the event’s thus-far announced objectives, which read like a how-to guide for creating an echo chamber:
(1) To present evidence that the U.S. government’s official investigation into the events of September 11, 2001, as pursued by various government and government-appointed agencies, is seriously flawed and has failed to describe and account for the 9/11 events.
(2) To single out the most weighty evidence of the inadequacy of the U.S. government’s investigation; to organize and classify that evidence; to preserve that evidence; to make that evidence widely known to the public and to governmental, non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations.
(3) To submit a record and a summary of the Hearings, together with signed Statutory Declarations by witnesses, to relevant governments, groups and international agencies with the request that a full and impartial investigation be launched into the events of September 11, 2001, which have been used to initiate military invasions and to restrict the rights of citizens.
(4) To engage the attention of the public and media through witness testimony as well as through public talks and media events during the four day event.
Guesses: The event is going to be well-attended but not sold out. We will hear at least one presentation about “molten steel.” The movement will continue not to recognize its complete failure to gain a foothold in the mainstream. No one will present a case for bin Laden’s innocence. It will go largely unnoticed.
Monday, December 27, 2010
A “Free Fall” Piece? Really, Guys?
This week saw the appearance of a WTC 7 free-fall post over at AE911. The post contains prime examples of everything that is wrong with your average Truther post.
I’m surprised that skeptics have made less light of the incredibly mediocre nature of the average 9/11 denier’s screed. Tell me if the apparent flow of each such “big-claim” type article, each “final proof” disseminated from bobbing head to bobbing head is a mutually assured annoyance, or if I’m just crazy:
1. The meandering, banal prologue.
The post I’m griping about begins with the groan-inducing phrase, “Galileo was the first to describe the amazing fact that…” Does anything make you reach for the scroller faster? Does anything prompt more urgent zoning out of the eyes in desperate search of valuable keywords like “gravity,” “data,” or “the goddamn point of all this?”
This introduction reminds me of an epically bad blog post from the cargo-cult version of an academic organization, the Journal of 911 Studies. The post was as useless as one must come to expect from frauds like Frank Legge, and it managed to open with a
The hinge on my laptop lid just rusted a little. Can’t we just get to the point? Can’t your evidence and your reasoning speak for itself?
So we first get a post-modern statement that everything is a mere matter of interpretation, then a passive assertion that the authors have got it all figured out. That is, after all, one of the apparent points of the droning intro:
2. The in-your-face appeal to authority.
We all recognize this. Not a post goes by these guys where it isn’t asserted with resolute failure to get the joke that the “authors have studied this issue for year.” They have “thought hard about the evidence.” They have “carefully considered all sides of the issue.” When making his shocking and novel claims about free-fall collapse speeds, the author of this post asserts in describing his methodology,
The “video analysis tool” is unnamed, the video is unidentified and relies on you to use a broken hyperlink, and the provision of the calibration points is completely unexplained. Which part did he rely on? Why did he use the wrong version of the report (the NIST Building 7 report has been updated multiple times – heck, updates to the report were released the very next day)? What’s worse is that this is one of the more “subtle” appeals to authority 9/11 deniers make – especially when they clothe themselves in the rank condescension of wannabe academic seriousness.
Make your point and be done with it. I don’t care where you worked for twenty years. I don’t care where you got your BS, your MD, your PhD. You don’t impress me.
3. The seemingly overt disrespect for the viewership.
This is the point that inspired this post in the first place: 9/11 deniers condescend to their readers and insult their intelligence. (And yes, it goes without saying, they lie to them as well – that’s a separate point) Why does David Chalmers just expect his readers to take his calibration method on faith? Why does he expect they will just believe him because he told them to do so? I think its because he really doesn’t give a shit about his audience anymore. He doesn’t expect to “convert” anyone anymore. He may very well understand that his cult has failed. Sloppy science is allowed because, well… because who cares?
This blog operates under the possibly naive premise that such technicalities are actually at the core of why conspiracy movements succeed or fail. The Internet has allowed arguments to play out rapidly and thoroughly, with near-instantaneous back-and-forths of links, citations, and back-up claims. The side with the most hyperlinks wins, and the other side has stopped bothering altogether. I think it goes beyond the mere fact that the 9/11 denier blogosphere is an echo chamber for people who already agree with its creators – because that’s true of every blogosphere to some extent (including the skeptical one). I think it goes to the fact that the 9/11 deniers are uniquely unequipped to handle serious refutations of their work – they fundamentally don’t know the science, and unless they’re the OPs, they can’t check the post or the author’s previous works for backup. In a world where everyone who disagrees with you is a CIA spook, your theories get little wiggle-room – it seems hard for 9/11 deniers to recalibrate their refuted ideas without making their audience raise their pitchforks and cry “heretic!” After all, in a world where Dylan Avery, Amy Goodman, Judy Wood, and Sibel Edmonds have all been variously accused of being “plants,” it is unlikely that people are going to be willing to leave their camps. The movement, as Faulkner once wrote, is fucked.
Oh and, just to be clear, the free-fall theory is bullshit – not that Chandler gives us a specific claim of any kind to refute.
I’m surprised that skeptics have made less light of the incredibly mediocre nature of the average 9/11 denier’s screed. Tell me if the apparent flow of each such “big-claim” type article, each “final proof” disseminated from bobbing head to bobbing head is a mutually assured annoyance, or if I’m just crazy:
1. The meandering, banal prologue.
The post I’m griping about begins with the groan-inducing phrase, “Galileo was the first to describe the amazing fact that…” Does anything make you reach for the scroller faster? Does anything prompt more urgent zoning out of the eyes in desperate search of valuable keywords like “gravity,” “data,” or “the goddamn point of all this?”
This introduction reminds me of an epically bad blog post from the cargo-cult version of an academic organization, the Journal of 911 Studies. The post was as useless as one must come to expect from frauds like Frank Legge, and it managed to open with a
It has been said that the world is one continuous Rorschach inkblot test: we see what we expect to see based on our fears and desires.
The hinge on my laptop lid just rusted a little. Can’t we just get to the point? Can’t your evidence and your reasoning speak for itself?
It has been said that the world is one continuous Rorschach inkblot test: we see what we expect to see based on our fears and desires. All sides of the World Trade Centre (WTC) collapse issue can see definitive corroboration in the same photos and videos, the same laboratory tests and the same reports. In this way both authors of this paper initially accepted the official explanation for the collapse of the buildings, as set out in the technical report of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),[2] but they now undeniably approach the report from a skeptical perspective.
So we first get a post-modern statement that everything is a mere matter of interpretation, then a passive assertion that the authors have got it all figured out. That is, after all, one of the apparent points of the droning intro:
2. The in-your-face appeal to authority.
We all recognize this. Not a post goes by these guys where it isn’t asserted with resolute failure to get the joke that the “authors have studied this issue for year.” They have “thought hard about the evidence.” They have “carefully considered all sides of the issue.” When making his shocking and novel claims about free-fall collapse speeds, the author of this post asserts in describing his methodology,
I used a video analysis tool to carefully measure the velocity profile of the falling building using CBS video footage from a fixed camera aimed almost squarely at the north wall. A video detailing this measurement is available at YouTube/user/ae911truth. I calibrated my measurements with the heights of two points in the building provided in the NIST Building 7 report released in August 2008, so I know the picture scale is good.
The “video analysis tool” is unnamed, the video is unidentified and relies on you to use a broken hyperlink, and the provision of the calibration points is completely unexplained. Which part did he rely on? Why did he use the wrong version of the report (the NIST Building 7 report has been updated multiple times – heck, updates to the report were released the very next day)? What’s worse is that this is one of the more “subtle” appeals to authority 9/11 deniers make – especially when they clothe themselves in the rank condescension of wannabe academic seriousness.
Make your point and be done with it. I don’t care where you worked for twenty years. I don’t care where you got your BS, your MD, your PhD. You don’t impress me.
3. The seemingly overt disrespect for the viewership.
This is the point that inspired this post in the first place: 9/11 deniers condescend to their readers and insult their intelligence. (And yes, it goes without saying, they lie to them as well – that’s a separate point) Why does David Chalmers just expect his readers to take his calibration method on faith? Why does he expect they will just believe him because he told them to do so? I think its because he really doesn’t give a shit about his audience anymore. He doesn’t expect to “convert” anyone anymore. He may very well understand that his cult has failed. Sloppy science is allowed because, well… because who cares?
This blog operates under the possibly naive premise that such technicalities are actually at the core of why conspiracy movements succeed or fail. The Internet has allowed arguments to play out rapidly and thoroughly, with near-instantaneous back-and-forths of links, citations, and back-up claims. The side with the most hyperlinks wins, and the other side has stopped bothering altogether. I think it goes beyond the mere fact that the 9/11 denier blogosphere is an echo chamber for people who already agree with its creators – because that’s true of every blogosphere to some extent (including the skeptical one). I think it goes to the fact that the 9/11 deniers are uniquely unequipped to handle serious refutations of their work – they fundamentally don’t know the science, and unless they’re the OPs, they can’t check the post or the author’s previous works for backup. In a world where everyone who disagrees with you is a CIA spook, your theories get little wiggle-room – it seems hard for 9/11 deniers to recalibrate their refuted ideas without making their audience raise their pitchforks and cry “heretic!” After all, in a world where Dylan Avery, Amy Goodman, Judy Wood, and Sibel Edmonds have all been variously accused of being “plants,” it is unlikely that people are going to be willing to leave their camps. The movement, as Faulkner once wrote, is fucked.
Oh and, just to be clear, the free-fall theory is bullshit – not that Chandler gives us a specific claim of any kind to refute.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
NIST Tested Bomb, Demolition Hypotheses!
The torrent comes in at a massive forty GB, but if you're interested, 9/11 deniers have epically shot themselves in the foot by obtaining the NIST burn video database, much of which includes video of the various computerized tests NIST ran while trying to assess how the buildings collapsed on 9/11. In theory, this dataset includes virtually every test NIST engineers ran in devising their explanation for what happened.
Kind of makes you wonder why this wasn't bigger news in the conspiracy theory echo chamber.
These videos are just nails in the coffin of an already-defunct movement. Rather than vindicating the faith, this archive proves that not only were the NIST and 9/11 Commission reports based on rigorous testing, but that engineers, academics and scientists working for the government explicitly tested conspiratorial claims. We have gigs and gigs of video proof that NIST and its affiliates considered every possible angle of the event, and were able to rule out the kinds of hypotheses that today guide what remains of the faith's holy writ.
The 9/11 Datasets Project is run by The "International Center for 9/11 Studies" and apparently all of its content was freely obtained by FOIA suit. Has anything ever so beautifully refuted anti-government paranoia? Maybe its the afternoon coffee kicking in, but I'm positively giddy that this has happened. IC911 has destroyed the 9/11 truth movement.
In fact, searching for "International Center for 9/11 Studies" on PrisonPlanet returns the incredibly flaccid response deniers had to actually surveying the footage: All that they cared to report about were things like 'CBS reporters heard explosions on ground floor before collapse' and 'CNN reported third explosion on 9/11' and 'firefighters heard explosions!' All that they really seemed able to deal with was the same old laughably tired fact that mainstream journalists suck at their jobs, and turns out 9/11 was a confusing day. They apparently have no interest in the substantive evidence. There's really no question as to why.
At the very least, we now have definitive proof that NIST didn't "whitewash" jack when it came to their investigation. There is terabytes of data here to deal with. These guys worked damn hard. As 9/11 deniers have themselves demonstrated, anyone who calls the 9/11 investigation a bogus effort is either lying or stupid. We now have a few weeks of video with which to address that claim.
I downloaded one of the archives, "42A0016," which is about 300mb of video and photographic depictions of NIST laboratory activity and photographs of the buildings. One video shows the hours of construction that went into recreating just one of the sections of the tower for a NIST in-lab test, and another shows a theoretical bomb blast on another such in-lab rendering. The files are too big to upload to Blogger and, for some reason, aren't in the uploads the deniers have been making to YouTube...
There really are too many photos, bits of video, and other such stuff to deal with, but make sure to check out the data yourself. Nothing I've seen to date stands as a better refutation of 9/11 denial than the evidence they themselves are presenting here.
Kind of makes you wonder why this wasn't bigger news in the conspiracy theory echo chamber.
These videos are just nails in the coffin of an already-defunct movement. Rather than vindicating the faith, this archive proves that not only were the NIST and 9/11 Commission reports based on rigorous testing, but that engineers, academics and scientists working for the government explicitly tested conspiratorial claims. We have gigs and gigs of video proof that NIST and its affiliates considered every possible angle of the event, and were able to rule out the kinds of hypotheses that today guide what remains of the faith's holy writ.
The 9/11 Datasets Project is run by The "International Center for 9/11 Studies" and apparently all of its content was freely obtained by FOIA suit. Has anything ever so beautifully refuted anti-government paranoia? Maybe its the afternoon coffee kicking in, but I'm positively giddy that this has happened. IC911 has destroyed the 9/11 truth movement.
In fact, searching for "International Center for 9/11 Studies" on PrisonPlanet returns the incredibly flaccid response deniers had to actually surveying the footage: All that they cared to report about were things like 'CBS reporters heard explosions on ground floor before collapse' and 'CNN reported third explosion on 9/11' and 'firefighters heard explosions!' All that they really seemed able to deal with was the same old laughably tired fact that mainstream journalists suck at their jobs, and turns out 9/11 was a confusing day. They apparently have no interest in the substantive evidence. There's really no question as to why.
At the very least, we now have definitive proof that NIST didn't "whitewash" jack when it came to their investigation. There is terabytes of data here to deal with. These guys worked damn hard. As 9/11 deniers have themselves demonstrated, anyone who calls the 9/11 investigation a bogus effort is either lying or stupid. We now have a few weeks of video with which to address that claim.
I downloaded one of the archives, "42A0016," which is about 300mb of video and photographic depictions of NIST laboratory activity and photographs of the buildings. One video shows the hours of construction that went into recreating just one of the sections of the tower for a NIST in-lab test, and another shows a theoretical bomb blast on another such in-lab rendering. The files are too big to upload to Blogger and, for some reason, aren't in the uploads the deniers have been making to YouTube...
There really are too many photos, bits of video, and other such stuff to deal with, but make sure to check out the data yourself. Nothing I've seen to date stands as a better refutation of 9/11 denial than the evidence they themselves are presenting here.
Friday, October 3, 2008
"Journal of 9/11 Studies" caught in a few more lies
The sorry state of affairs at the world’s most fraudulent Blog
We keep hammering on the Blog that masquerades as an “academic journal” known as http://www.journalof911studies.com/. The predictions I made in a SKEPTIC Magazine article have held out: their content has dried up, and when a wellspring does gurgle up from the muck, it’s something like its last entry, August 2nd’s, by the well-known fraud Kevin Ryan: The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites.
What is a nano-thermite, you ask? Well, as Ryan misinterprets it, it’s a teeny tiny version of a thermite mixture that is orders of magnitude more powerful than its larger-grained namesake. It wouldn’t be a Kevin Ryan entry without a lie or two, and he wastes no time:
And, of course, if we actually go to the source he cites (warning: 255 pages long, one of which he uses), we find this claim to be absolutely untrue. A “high explosive” is something that explodes instead of burns. A “low explosive” is the opposite. The article specifically states that its authors are continuing to test the new mixture’s “rate of burn” and that “Thermitic reactions are extreme exothermic reactions that involve a metal reacting with a metallic oxide to form a more stable oxide and the corresponding metal of the reactant oxide,” virtually precluding anyone from honestly thinking that they’re talking about a high explosive.
But most damning of all, the second to last paragraph of the article Ryan uses states:
Around two hundred and sixty degrees Celsius? Why, that’s cooler than the jet fuel!
How on earth could Kevin Ryan have missed this? Answer: he couldn’t have. No one could honestly be perusing legitimate resources to update their hysterical quasi-Blog and stumble across a mere one-page article, quote from all over it, and miss that one sentence. At the risk of being redundant, it appears that the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are once again trying to deliberately lie to people to give their personal beliefs a veneer of academic plausibility, which they so desperately need but so utterly lack.
We keep hammering on the Blog that masquerades as an “academic journal” known as http://www.journalof911studies.com/. The predictions I made in a SKEPTIC Magazine article have held out: their content has dried up, and when a wellspring does gurgle up from the muck, it’s something like its last entry, August 2nd’s, by the well-known fraud Kevin Ryan: The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites.
What is a nano-thermite, you ask? Well, as Ryan misinterprets it, it’s a teeny tiny version of a thermite mixture that is orders of magnitude more powerful than its larger-grained namesake. It wouldn’t be a Kevin Ryan entry without a lie or two, and he wastes no time:
The high surface area of the reactants within energetic sol-gels allows for the far higher
rate of energy release than is seen in “macro” thermite mixtures, making nano-thermites
“high explosives” as well as pyrotechnic materials (Tillitson et al 1999).
And, of course, if we actually go to the source he cites (warning: 255 pages long, one of which he uses), we find this claim to be absolutely untrue. A “high explosive” is something that explodes instead of burns. A “low explosive” is the opposite. The article specifically states that its authors are continuing to test the new mixture’s “rate of burn” and that “Thermitic reactions are extreme exothermic reactions that involve a metal reacting with a metallic oxide to form a more stable oxide and the corresponding metal of the reactant oxide,” virtually precluding anyone from honestly thinking that they’re talking about a high explosive.
But most damning of all, the second to last paragraph of the article Ryan uses states:
Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) of this energetic nanocomposite showed an exotherm at ~260C, indicating that it is indeed energetic, whereas the trace for neat AP shows no exothermic reaction in the absence of the fuel skeleton.
Around two hundred and sixty degrees Celsius? Why, that’s cooler than the jet fuel!
How on earth could Kevin Ryan have missed this? Answer: he couldn’t have. No one could honestly be perusing legitimate resources to update their hysterical quasi-Blog and stumble across a mere one-page article, quote from all over it, and miss that one sentence. At the risk of being redundant, it appears that the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are once again trying to deliberately lie to people to give their personal beliefs a veneer of academic plausibility, which they so desperately need but so utterly lack.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Analyzing a Typical 9/11 Conspiracy Film
The purpose of this article is to examine a typical 9/11 conspiracy film and to deconstruct its flaws. To support its assertions this film uses copious amounts of bad science. This film assets that WTC 7 fell at “free fall speeds” thus it must have been caused by a controlled demolition. Lets have a look:
1)
The first picture of interest is the reference screen that the author uses to determine scale for their calculations.
A few things of note: The Irvine Trust building that is used for scale is not particularly close to WTC7 and thus, using it as a source of scaling is flawed. This is especially true since the video is shot from and elevated location, this further skews our sense of scale. There is also nothing to indicate that its flooring system is similar to WTC7, this is another source or error. Also note that the video on the left, its indicator of the 21st floor does not correspond well with the scale on the right. The Irvine building is 23 floors tall and the scale on the left, if correct, would be lower than the 21st floor.
2)
Even if the distance covered is correct, we already have a discontinuity in the calculations used by the video’s author. From the picture below the author times the fall to be 4.15 seconds.
The author then says that WTC7 fell 100 meters in 4.5 seconds.
The author then uses a “Science website” to calculate what the free fall times for objects falling 100 meters. In essence this science website is just using a kinematics equation to calculate the fall time. The equation to calculate the time of a falling object in free fall, vacuum is simply:
t= [(D*2)/a]^0.5
Where: D is the distance, a is the acceleration due to gravity, and t is the time.
The author then shows that an object falling in free fall will cover 100 meters in 4.5 seconds.
This is indeed true but this is also where the work by the videos author starts to seriously fall apart. As we showed earlier the video the fall time was 4.15 seconds. If the WTC 7 really did fall 100 meters in 4.15 seconds this would correspond to an acceleration due to gravity of 11.6 m/s2 . Earths gravitational acceleration is 9.8 m/s2 this corresponds to an 18 percent increase. At this point the videos author has lost most if not all footing. Nothing can sustain an accelerated fall over 100 meters without an enormous amount of energy to force it down. Additionally, during a building demolition with explosives, the building falls close but not above the rate cause by gravity. There is no forcing down by the explosives. Controlled demolitions operate by destroying the supporting columns of the building, which then allows gravity to tear down the building. What this means is, the videos scaling calculations are incorrect and misleading. The authors assertions that a building would not collapse at exactly free fall speeds is correct, but this statement in itself causes the whole premise of his video to fail. From his own calculations and numbers the buildings did something that is physically impossible and it causes me to believe that his work is not only flawed, but purposely misleading and doctored.
3)
Perhaps the silliest and most obscene part of this video was when the author compares the free fall lab to the video, to show that the two fall at the same time. The first thing to note is that the author does not show how he scaled the video to match the program, this is a totally different frame from the first frame of the video showing the collapse. By not showing how he scaled the video, you can match the video to any speed of collapse. As we have shown previously the calculations and video scaling are already fatally flawed to begin with, this comparison is another case of serious misrepresentation and bad science.
4)
The final frame of the video acts as a summary. Again, this contains serious flaws that are based on false assertions and bad science. The observation that the WTC 7 fell faster than the speed of gravity is phased incorrectly. Objects in vacuums do fall at the speed of gravity; this shows that the author has deficiencies in his understanding of the basic physics behind the collapse of WTC 7. As we shown before, the author’s calculations and scalings are flawed and incorrect. Any numbers used by the author are not accurate and cannot be trusted. The conclusion that the building was “pulled” down by a vacuum caused by a controlled demolition is totally incorrect. During a controlled demolition there is no vacuum that causes the building to fall. The building falls due to the structural supports being broken and the building then falls under the force of gravity. Furthermore the author indicates that a “large explosion” is heard 9.5 seconds before the collapse. If an explosion was present almost 10 seconds before the collapse it cannot be the source of energy needed to cause the building to fall at the supposed accelerated rate. After almost 10 seconds any force from that explosion would have dissipated and in either case, if a large explosion was the cause of the collapse, if anything, it would have slowed the collapse because of the upward force of the explosion.
In summary, we have shown that this video contains serious flaws in its calculations of the fall timing, scaling of the video and contains numerous continuity errors that make any of its mathematical and physics assertions dubious at best. According to the authors own calculations WTC 7 did things that are not only impossible from an engineering standpoint but also from a basic physics standpoint as well. This shows that the author has serious deficiencies in his understanding of basic physics and analysis. We have also shown that the authors conclusions are inconsistent and lack basic physical sense.
It should be also noted that the NIST has recently released a new study on WTC 7 which has shed new light on the collapse and has conclusively answered many questions asked by conspiracy theorists. http://wtc.nist.gov/ The findings of this study is being used in new building codes concerning fires and impacts on structures. No where did any of the NIST’s reports does it show that WTC 7’s collapse was caused by a controlled demolition or that there was any strange phenomenon that cannot be explained through rational analysis.
In many ways this video is typical of the basic 9/11 conspiracy mindset. A slight inconsistency, based on a false observation is blown out of proportion. Bad science and engineering take over and soon enough a regular phenomenon has become a world class controversy that involves thousands of people in a multifaceted conspiracy. A conspiracy involving a controlled demolition of WTC 7 would have involved hundreds if not thousands of people, yet not one of these people, after 7 years has blown the lid on the biggest conspiracy of the century. By comparison, it is almost common knowledge that the Bush administration had spoken at length about invading Iraq during their fist national security meeting. This meeting would have involved less than several dozen people. In the case of science, the simplest explanation is usually the most correct one. In a simplistic way, a building burning uncontrollably for hours on end, damaged by enormous amounts of falling debris, falling under its own weight seems much more reasonable than, a multi million dollar, national conspiracy, involving thousands of people, through all levels of government, as proposed by shady internet videos.
1)
The first picture of interest is the reference screen that the author uses to determine scale for their calculations.
A few things of note: The Irvine Trust building that is used for scale is not particularly close to WTC7 and thus, using it as a source of scaling is flawed. This is especially true since the video is shot from and elevated location, this further skews our sense of scale. There is also nothing to indicate that its flooring system is similar to WTC7, this is another source or error. Also note that the video on the left, its indicator of the 21st floor does not correspond well with the scale on the right. The Irvine building is 23 floors tall and the scale on the left, if correct, would be lower than the 21st floor.
2)
Even if the distance covered is correct, we already have a discontinuity in the calculations used by the video’s author. From the picture below the author times the fall to be 4.15 seconds.
The author then says that WTC7 fell 100 meters in 4.5 seconds.
The author then uses a “Science website” to calculate what the free fall times for objects falling 100 meters. In essence this science website is just using a kinematics equation to calculate the fall time. The equation to calculate the time of a falling object in free fall, vacuum is simply:t= [(D*2)/a]^0.5
Where: D is the distance, a is the acceleration due to gravity, and t is the time.
The author then shows that an object falling in free fall will cover 100 meters in 4.5 seconds.
This is indeed true but this is also where the work by the videos author starts to seriously fall apart. As we showed earlier the video the fall time was 4.15 seconds. If the WTC 7 really did fall 100 meters in 4.15 seconds this would correspond to an acceleration due to gravity of 11.6 m/s2 . Earths gravitational acceleration is 9.8 m/s2 this corresponds to an 18 percent increase. At this point the videos author has lost most if not all footing. Nothing can sustain an accelerated fall over 100 meters without an enormous amount of energy to force it down. Additionally, during a building demolition with explosives, the building falls close but not above the rate cause by gravity. There is no forcing down by the explosives. Controlled demolitions operate by destroying the supporting columns of the building, which then allows gravity to tear down the building. What this means is, the videos scaling calculations are incorrect and misleading. The authors assertions that a building would not collapse at exactly free fall speeds is correct, but this statement in itself causes the whole premise of his video to fail. From his own calculations and numbers the buildings did something that is physically impossible and it causes me to believe that his work is not only flawed, but purposely misleading and doctored.
3)
Perhaps the silliest and most obscene part of this video was when the author compares the free fall lab to the video, to show that the two fall at the same time. The first thing to note is that the author does not show how he scaled the video to match the program, this is a totally different frame from the first frame of the video showing the collapse. By not showing how he scaled the video, you can match the video to any speed of collapse. As we have shown previously the calculations and video scaling are already fatally flawed to begin with, this comparison is another case of serious misrepresentation and bad science.
4)
The final frame of the video acts as a summary. Again, this contains serious flaws that are based on false assertions and bad science. The observation that the WTC 7 fell faster than the speed of gravity is phased incorrectly. Objects in vacuums do fall at the speed of gravity; this shows that the author has deficiencies in his understanding of the basic physics behind the collapse of WTC 7. As we shown before, the author’s calculations and scalings are flawed and incorrect. Any numbers used by the author are not accurate and cannot be trusted. The conclusion that the building was “pulled” down by a vacuum caused by a controlled demolition is totally incorrect. During a controlled demolition there is no vacuum that causes the building to fall. The building falls due to the structural supports being broken and the building then falls under the force of gravity. Furthermore the author indicates that a “large explosion” is heard 9.5 seconds before the collapse. If an explosion was present almost 10 seconds before the collapse it cannot be the source of energy needed to cause the building to fall at the supposed accelerated rate. After almost 10 seconds any force from that explosion would have dissipated and in either case, if a large explosion was the cause of the collapse, if anything, it would have slowed the collapse because of the upward force of the explosion.
In summary, we have shown that this video contains serious flaws in its calculations of the fall timing, scaling of the video and contains numerous continuity errors that make any of its mathematical and physics assertions dubious at best. According to the authors own calculations WTC 7 did things that are not only impossible from an engineering standpoint but also from a basic physics standpoint as well. This shows that the author has serious deficiencies in his understanding of basic physics and analysis. We have also shown that the authors conclusions are inconsistent and lack basic physical sense.
It should be also noted that the NIST has recently released a new study on WTC 7 which has shed new light on the collapse and has conclusively answered many questions asked by conspiracy theorists. http://wtc.nist.gov/ The findings of this study is being used in new building codes concerning fires and impacts on structures. No where did any of the NIST’s reports does it show that WTC 7’s collapse was caused by a controlled demolition or that there was any strange phenomenon that cannot be explained through rational analysis.
In many ways this video is typical of the basic 9/11 conspiracy mindset. A slight inconsistency, based on a false observation is blown out of proportion. Bad science and engineering take over and soon enough a regular phenomenon has become a world class controversy that involves thousands of people in a multifaceted conspiracy. A conspiracy involving a controlled demolition of WTC 7 would have involved hundreds if not thousands of people, yet not one of these people, after 7 years has blown the lid on the biggest conspiracy of the century. By comparison, it is almost common knowledge that the Bush administration had spoken at length about invading Iraq during their fist national security meeting. This meeting would have involved less than several dozen people. In the case of science, the simplest explanation is usually the most correct one. In a simplistic way, a building burning uncontrollably for hours on end, damaged by enormous amounts of falling debris, falling under its own weight seems much more reasonable than, a multi million dollar, national conspiracy, involving thousands of people, through all levels of government, as proposed by shady internet videos.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)