Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Previous Posts
- Excellent Job by Kevin Barrett on H&C
- 7/11
- Ugh
- It's About Time
- Conflicting Plane Path-- Critique and Reply
- Re-posted by Popular Demand
- Connecting a Lot of Dots
- Welcome New Visitors!
- Worth Another Look
- How Propaganda Works and How to Counter It
Recommended Reading
- The "Ultimate List" of Improbabilities and Coincidences Around 9/11
- Manifesto for All Present and Future Military Personnel
- The Nine Circles of Conspiracy
- Ultimate Truths (Deep Conspiracy)
- Nuclear Demolition of the WTC
- China Syndrome at the WTC
- Dead 9/11 Whistleblowers
- Bogus Official 9/11 Science
- Anonymous Physicist's book site
- 120 Reasons for the No-Plane Theory
- People Who Should Have Seen UA175 Hit the South Tower But Didn't
- 9/11: All Roads Lead to MIHOP
- 9/11: Possible Versus Impossible
- Ghost Gun UA175
- Morgan Reynolds, We Have Holes
- Hunt the Boeing, Shanksville Edition
- Hunt the Boeing, WTC2 Edition
- The No Planes Evidence Kit
- Why Don't More Engineers Question the WTC Collapses?
- Evidence of advanced fusion devices at the WTC
- The Problem with the 9/11 "Truth" Movement
- Brainwashed, In Deep Denial, A Government Shill, Or Some Combination of the Three
- 9/11 Conspiracy.tv
- 9/11 Conspiracy.tv blog
- International Center for 9/11 Studies - NIST Cumulus Video Database
- 9/11 "U"
- Killtown's Overview Site
- Killtown's 9/11 Smoking Guns
- Killtown's 2nd Hit Video Compilation
- Killtown's NIST figure gallery
- Morgan Reynolds
- The 9/11 Airplane Video Composites
- Ace Baker
- Killtown's Blog
- Genghis' 911 Taboo
- Ningen's Blog
- 9/11 Truthlings Watch
- Judy Wood's 9/11 site (focuses on WTC demolition)
- 9/11 Logic
Interesting and/or Useful 9/11 Sites
Archives
- August 2004
- September 2004
- October 2004
- November 2004
- December 2004
- January 2005
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- December 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- May 2008
- June 2008
- July 2008
- August 2008
- September 2008
- October 2008
- November 2008
- December 2008
- January 2009
- February 2009
- March 2009
- April 2009
- May 2009
- June 2009
- July 2009
- August 2009
- September 2009
- October 2009
- November 2009
- December 2009
- January 2010
- February 2010
- March 2010
- April 2010
- May 2010
- June 2010
- July 2010
- August 2010
- September 2010
- October 2010
- November 2010
- December 2010
- January 2011
- February 2011
- March 2011
- April 2011
- May 2011
- June 2011
- July 2011
- August 2011
- September 2011
- October 2011
- November 2011
- December 2011
- January 2012
- February 2012
- March 2012
- April 2012
- May 2012
- June 2012
- July 2012
- August 2012
- September 2012
- October 2012
- November 2012
- December 2012
- January 2013
- February 2013
- March 2013
- April 2013
- May 2013
- June 2013
- July 2013
- August 2013
- September 2013
- October 2013
- November 2013
- December 2013
- January 2014
- February 2014
- March 2014
- April 2014
- May 2014
- June 2014
- July 2014
- August 2014
- September 2014
- October 2014
- November 2014
- December 2014
- January 2015
- February 2015
- March 2015
- April 2015
- May 2015
- June 2015
- July 2015
- August 2015
- September 2015
- October 2015
- November 2015
- December 2015
- January 2016
- February 2016
- March 2016
- April 2016
- May 2016
- June 2016
- July 2016
- August 2016
- September 2016
- October 2016
- November 2016
- December 2016
- January 2017
- February 2017
- March 2017
- April 2017
- May 2017
- June 2017
- July 2017
- August 2017
- September 2017
- October 2017
- November 2017
- December 2017
- January 2018
- February 2018
- March 2018
- April 2018
- May 2018
- June 2018
- July 2018
- August 2018
- September 2018
- October 2018
- November 2018
- December 2018
- January 2019
- February 2019
- March 2019
- April 2019
- May 2019
- June 2019
- July 2019
- August 2019
- September 2019
- October 2019
- November 2019
- December 2019
- January 2020
- February 2020
- March 2020
- April 2020
- May 2020
- June 2020
- July 2020
- August 2020
- September 2020
- October 2020
- November 2020
- December 2020
- January 2021
- February 2021
- March 2021
- April 2021
- May 2021
- June 2021
- July 2021
- August 2021
- September 2021
- October 2021
- November 2021
- December 2021
- January 2022
- February 2022
- March 2022
- April 2022
- May 2022
- June 2022
- July 2022
- August 2022
- September 2022
- October 2022
- November 2022
- December 2022
- January 2023
- February 2023
- March 2023
- April 2023
- May 2023
- June 2023
- July 2023
- August 2023
- September 2023
- October 2023
- November 2023
- January 2024
- February 2024
- March 2024
- April 2024
- May 2024
- June 2024
- July 2024
- August 2024
- September 2024
- October 2024
- January 2100
My Other Blogs
- WTC Demolition
- WTC China Syndrome
- 33 Watch
- Al-CIA-duh
- Ghost Plane
- Flight 93 Hoax
- Pentagon Hit
- The AIG Scam
- THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER!!!!
- Bush Administration War Criminals
- Fake Opposition Democrats
Some of My Findings Regarding the Attack on the WTC South Tower
- Summary of Evidence for No Plane at the South Tower
- Clearest Evidence of Conflicting Plane Paths in Two Different 2nd Hit Videos
- Freak Plane
- The Curious Plane in the "Live" Video
- Too Small of a Plane in Both "Live" 2nd Hit Videos
- Mutant Tail Section on UA175
- Evidence of 2nd Hit Video Fakery
- Proof that the engine part at Church and Murray Street is not from UA175, a Boeing 767
- 9/11 Blimp
- 9/11 Blogger
- 9/11 Closeup (Gerard Holmgren)
- 9/11 Complicity
- Conspicuous Plot
- Conspiracy Smasher!!!
- 9/11 Cover-Up
- 9/11 Encyclopedia
- 9/11 Exposed
- 9/11 Foreknowledge
- 9/11 Hoax
- 9/11 Oddities
- 9/11 Overview
- 9/11 Oz (Australian)
- 9/11 Plot
- 9/11 Proof
- 9/11 Research (Jim Hoffman)
- 9/11 Resources
- 9/11 Review.org
- 9/11 Review.com
- 9/11 Stealth
- 9/11 Strike
- 9/11 "U"
- 9/11 Verses
- Complete 9/11 Timeline (Paul Thompson)
- Finnish 9/11 Site
- Finnish 9/11 Site in English
- German Engineers 9/11 site
- Hybrideb's 9/11 site
- Icelandic 9/11 site
- Jane Doe's 9/11 site
- Oil and Empire 9/11 (Mark Robinowitz)
- Portland Indy Media 9/11
- 119 Questions about 9/11
- Let's Roll 9/11
- Nerdcities 9/11
- Patriots Question 9/11
- RINF 9/11 Archive
- The Mysteries of 9/11
- Shunned
- Physics 911
- Plague Puppy's Cafe
- Plague Puppy: Alternate Site
- Question 911
- Scholars for 9/11 Truth
- Serendipity (various essays on 9/11)
- Steven Warran
- Stop the Lie 9/11
- Unanswered Questions
- Questions Questions
- The Web Fairy
- Wing TV
- 9/11 Blogger
- 9/11 Citizens' Court
- 9/11 Citizens' Watch
- 9/11 Skeptics Unite!
- 911 Truth.org
- 911 Truth LA.us
- 911 Truth LA.org
- 911 Truth Emergence
- 911 We Know
- 911 Truth Movement Musings
- 9-11 Visibility Project
- 9-11 UK
- 9/11 Family Steering Committee
- NY 9/11 Truth
- San Francisco 9/11 Truth
- Scholars for 9/11 Truth
- Community Currency 9/11
- Summer of Truth
- Proposition 911
- Reopen 911
- Deception Dollars
- Justice for 9/11
- Team 8 Plus
- Flight 93 Hoax
- WTC Demolition
- The Ultimate Hijacker Compilation
- 9/11 Photo Analysis
- Evidence of Explosives on 9/11
- Demolition, the Truth of 9/11 and the WTC
- 9/11 and the Impossible: the WTC collapse
- WTC Streaking Object, WTC7 theories
- Flight 77 FOIA site
- Flight 93 Crash.com
- Pentagon Research
- Brad's Pentagon Analysis
- 9/11 chronology (network footage)
- Buddy Buddy
- Pentagon Strike
- 911 Questions
- FKN News
- Rigorous Intuition v2.0
- Wing TV
- Xymphora
- The Bulldog Manifesto
- Center for an Informed America
- George Washington
- Centre for Research on Globalization
- Prison Planet (Alex Jones)
- Daily Two Minutes of Hate
- The Emperor's New Clothes
- Public Action (Carol Valentine)
- Propaganda Matrix
- Daniel Hopsicker
- What Really Happened
- From the Wilderness (Mike Ruppert)
- Arctic Beacon
- Cryptome
- Crimes and Corruptions of the New World Order News
- Break for News
- Tom Flocco
- Rense
- "The New Pearl Harbor, Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11" by David Ray Griffin
- "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions" by David Ray Griffin
- 9/11 Revealed by Rowland Morgan and Ian Henshall
- "9/11 Synthetic Terror, Made in USA" by Webster G. Tarpley
- "The Terror Timeline" by Paul Thompson
- "Crossing the Rubicon" by Michael C. Ruppert
- "Welcome to Terrorland" by Daniel Hopsicker
- Pig Lipstick
- Weazl's Revenge
- Alex Constantine
- Buzzflash
- The Raw Story
- Democratic Underground
- Progressive Independent
- Think Progress
- Citizens for a Legitimate Government
- Common Dreams
- Consortium News
- Center for Cooperative Research
- Cursor
- Guerrilla News
- Online Journal
- The Memory Hole
- Information Clearing House
- Press Action
- News from Babylon
- Unknown News
- TV News Lies
- After Downing Street
- Eschaton
- Glenn Greenwald (old blog))
- Daily Kos
- Talking Points Memo
- Hullabaloo
- The Brad Blog
- Jesus' General
- The Rude Pundit
- The Poor Man
- Juan Cole (Informed Comment)
- Today in Iraq
- Antiwar.com
- Iraq Coalition Casualties
- Clusterfuck Nation
- Donkey Rising
- Salon
- Slate
- The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas
- The Oil Drum
- Land of Black Gold
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Richard Heinberg
- Grist
- 9/11 was a conspiracy, as it involved several people conspiring to commit a crime. The official 9/11 narrative, as codified by the 9/11 Commission Report, is NOT proven as the most likely explanation for the events of 9/11/01. The official 9/11 story is therefore a theory. This means that the OFFICIAL 9/11 Story is really a "CONSPIRACY THEORY"!
- I have no fondness for any religion, as I think it makes people do extreme and violent things. Islamic terrorists do exist and I detest them as much as I detest the true perpetrators of 9/11. Most likely Islamic terrorists were used as patsies in 9/11, as part of a highly organized covert operation by a group affiliated with the US goverment and US military.
33 Comments:
Thanks for posting.
Sure, my pleasure!
looking at clips of the 2 towers being rapidly rendered into dust from the top down i knew instinctively that something wasn't kosher, but not having the math/engineering background to figure it out i could only point at them in dismay.
prof. wood's BILLIARD BALL example spelled out for me in black and white (color!) what i was unable to convey to others.
ms. howard's addendum to prof. wood's BBE is well written and an important aspect in it's own right. very good for you ms. howard!
Spooked,
The problem with the model is that if you drop more than one floor (using the same assumptions or a set quantity of energy required to both pulverize and get the next floor to buckle), you will actually get free fall times.
Of course, nobody in the "truth movement" wants to hear this, but hey... what's good for the movement supersedes all.
-Rick Rajter
rick, it seems to me as if the BBE has addressed your point already - see: case4, where she has the balls dropping at every 10 floors. what i gather from that section of the model is that in order for the top floor to make the ground in the time allotted, the supports for the lower floors would have to be removed somehow ahead of the upper floors landing on them. if i'm wrong about the conclusion that section (case4) makes, i hope someone will clarify that for me.
James,
I assume you actually mean case 2? Case 4 is the controlled demolition scenario.
Regardless, here is the problem. Case 2 and 3 cannot be true simultaneously. Think of it this way. If there is a large sliding glass window, and I walk into it and barely break it, coming to a complete stop. Will it also bring me to a complete stop if I'm moving at a dead sprint?
Alright, so what if running into it at a dead sprint is the required energy. Well, then walking into it will not damage it at all!
So it's one or the other.
Now, case #2 or #3 can be adjusted to have multiple floors dropping at the beginning, giving near free fall speeds. Think about it. If you run through a glass window and it barely stops you... what's going to happen when you hit the next, and the next? Absolutely nothing.
NOTE: I know the buildings fell by controlled demolition. I'm not supporting the official story. I just think the billiard ball model is way overrated and doesn't actually refute the official version (due to it's lack of multiple floors dropping).
Cheers
run through a glass window and it barely stops you... what's going to happen when you hit the next, and the next? Absolutely nothing.
what do you mean by barely? that the 1st window drains some of your energy before you hit the next window? if that is the case then wouldn't each window drain your energy a little more until the energy is gone or the process of running thru windows gets slower and slower? or do you mean that the window barely stops you from making it to the next window?
model is way overrated and doesn't actually refute the official version (due to it's lack of multiple floors dropping)
due to the model's lack? or due to the actual tower's lack of multiple floors dropping? it seemed to me that the actual floors were dissolving just a tad slower than the collapse wave which would prove that there were not actually multiple floors dropping onto the floors below anyway. doesn't it?
i think that her model does refute the official version for that very reason, but it's entirely likely that i just don't see what you're saying. have you emailed her with your critique? if you are correct then she would have no legitimate reason for not at least discussing it. right?
by the way, i think the good for the movement superceding all mindset can go jump off of a tall something. the movement makes it's own bed and i (hopefully)won't lie in it.
I stopped reading when I got to this point:
"Graduated from University of Texas at Austin, 1971, summa cum laude
Major: classical languages; minor: music (flute)"
We've only been asking for structural engineers since Prof Jones first started spewing his bilge.
When are you truthers ever going to give us one?
moron - prof woods is better than one and even if she were a simple escalator repairman her work speaks for itself. your sword of nonsense is more than a little dull.
but let's assume for a moment that you have sharpened your sword somewhat and that a strutural engineer had actually made the leap of understanding that it would take to compose that billiardball example - what would you say then?
Rick and Dr. Wood have gone back and forth quite a bit over the billiard ball thing. It's a major point of contention, which is why Ginny wrote her article.
I'm not clear on:
1) whether Rick actually read the linked piece
2) why Rick thinks he understands the physics and engineering better than Dr. Wood
3) whether Rick thinks the top thirteen floors of WTC1 really can break off and crush the remaining tower structure at close to free fall speed.
Spooked,
Simply put
1) Yes
2) I'm majoring in field heavily linked to physics. I don't claim to be "better"
3) If there was one failure point at WTC1, all the floors above it would fall simultaneously and hit the next floor no?
Spooked,
If you could answer me the following question, I would be much obliged.
When WTC1 began collapsing did it begin falling from the very top or from the impact zone?
Cheers
Know what, nevermind. The demolition is so obvious it defies description. However bad the model may be, i guess it's at least pointing at people to look at it.
But still, ugh...
oh that's what that was all about? the top 13 floors of wtc1?
rick, you actually have the temerity to go back and forth with prof. wood? my friend, if she hasn't agreed with you by now that should tell you something - no offense but i'm not going to discard her billiardball model in favor of your glass window and it barely stops you model.
dude you've truly got some stones if you have been holding your own even slightly with her - right or wrong, kudos to you rick!
Holding my own? It hasn't really been a debate. It's just others forcing me to shut up "for the good of the movement".
So yeah, imagine 110 evenly spaced glass floors. There are 3 options when dropped upon the top one. I either a) don't break it b) smash through it losing a little speed or c) barely break it after coming to a complete stop before continuing on.
In case a), my collapse stops.
In case b), I have near free fall speeds
In case c), the collapse progresses in the start stop 96 second collapse that Professor Woods claims.
I believe a), Woods also believes a) but models c). The problem is b and c are so close that only a 20% increase of kinetic energy switches the timeing from c to b (free fall).
Anyway... more important things to do
Anybody who listens to Rick is being misled.
He's doing here what he's been doing incessantly for months -- dogging the Billiard Ball Example like he was being paid to discredit it. One technique he uses is to change the subject from what the BBE is actually, legitimately doing and then attack it on completely irrelevant grounds -- i.e., on what it’s NOT doing (and doesn’t need to do) -- so as to tie up in concocted detail and junk science anyone foolish enough to engage with him.
This is a TECHNIQUE guys!! He's trying to disempower you at the same time he’s working to disempower the BBE!!
As soon as he saw there was something here about the BBE he could attack, he came right over to keep on doing it.
He CLAIMS he's a supporter of 9/11 Truth. But if you watch his BEHAVIOR, you'll see that he's doing everything he can to distract people with endless blah, blah, blah so that they don't do useful work.
Seems his latest ‘thing’ is talking about crashing through glass! Really!!
PLEASE DO NOT BE TAKEN IN BY THIS GAMBIT!
The beauty of the BBE, as I explained, is that you don't need to be a structural engineer or successful at school work to understand the issue. You just need to be able to follow the simple, irrefutable logic of a well-constructed thought experiment to see that the WTC buildings could not have come down from 'pancaking' and gravity in the time they did.
Think of the BBE as a Ninja way to prove the main point -- i.e., the OCT lies!!
It certainly isn't the ONLY way to make the case; there are numerous other elegant and effective ways to do it. We need more of them.
But throwing up a fog of so-called 'expertise' does not happen to be one of them. See my last section: “WHY, INDEED, DO THE OCTers NEED TO DESTROY THE BBE?”
Anybody who is serious about getting the word out about 9/11 Truth (or to understand what it is) needs to quit allowing themselves to get tangled up in knots with Rick Rattler, who is quite clearly not what he makes himself out to be.
You want another opinion on the Billiard Ball Example? Here’s a nice one:
http://wotisitgood4.blogspot.com/2006/03/judy-woods.html
See what ‘damien’ has to say down in the comments. People who have a sound grounding in Newtonian mechanics have NO PROBLEM with the BBE.
Rick claims to have the appropriate background and talks a blue streak like he’s oh-so knowledgeable, but it’s a scam.
Once again, please don't allow yourself to be taken in.
Ginny
Ginny,
Emotional pleas and appeals to authority?
Check out the 25 rules of disinfo
http://www.matriots.com/bh/25.html
and btw, I come to this site often for spooked's excellent analysis of the flight 11/175 analysis. I just happen to see this same ole same ole posted again.
btw Ginny, if the model is so "solid", why does Judy evade debate when she can't answer the simple questions I just posed to spooked?
BTW. The tower couldn't have collapsed. Duh. And even if the failure initiation could have occured, it would have stopped after several floors.
Ya hear that? STOPPED. And yet I somehow support the official story? Your undying support for Professor Wood's model is bordering religious faith.
Nope.
It comes from understanding!
Are you trying to be some kind of gatekeeper for me? ;-))
Ginny
Certainly not. Who would ever want to claim responsibility for you :)
btw. In your letter, you contradicted the BBE
There's this huge 'stack' of floors, and what gets them moving, one by one, from zero velocity is that they're struck from above. There's this chain reaction, and the minimum time in which it can occur is DEFINED by Newton's irrefutable Law of Gravity.
Actually, that is what the explanation says. But in the strict visualization, the balls pass by one another.
BTW, how many floors began falling when the collapse initiation started for WTC1 and WTC2?
Greening claims 14 and 29. What does Judy use? :)
I can't wait for the dead silence...
When good argument fails, do insults work for you?
Please re-read my post above. We're onto you.
Ginny
"I can't wait for the dead silence..."
Hmmmm. Must be a shift change.
Ginny
ms. howard my dear, ms. doe's BBE speaks for itself and your addendum to it was fine indeed!
but there's really no need for you to worry about anyone on this of all blogs to be taken in by any menacing disinfo actions.
moron - prof woods is better than one and even if she were a simple escalator repairman her work speaks for itself. your sword of nonsense is more than a little dull.
That's like saying a gynecologist can do brain surgery becuase he (or she) is a doctor.
You're an idiot.
It seems to me as though for both WTC1 and WTC2, the top sections broke off and started downward. This improbability of this event, is of course, a large reason why people think there had to be demolition.
As far whether the billiard ball model starts with a collapse at the same place as WTC1 (97th floor) or WTC2 (79th floor), is a legitimate point-- though ultmately, I think it doesn't matter since ALL the floors still have to collapse down.
Overall, I think the argument is something like this:
1) the collapse should never have started because it required too much column weakening at one specific time
2) even if the collapse started, it shouldn't have progressed to a complete collapse (either the collapse should have stopped or the top section should have fallen off the side asymmetrically)
3) even if the collapse did start and did progress, the timing was WAY too short.
Dr. Wood's model addresses this last point. I think the overall idea is that her model is conceptually easiest to grasp, and thgerefore is a good tool for the general public. Moreover, as far as I know, other mechanical and structural engineers have not had a problem with her model. Definitely some people have a major problem with her model or "example", and it is not entirely clear why.
Spooked.
I completely agree with bullet point 1) and 2). The problem with number 3 (if you assume no columns and only conservation of momentum or energy), you can go from 96 seconds to 12 seconds with only a 20% fluctuations in the initial kinetic energy.
Am I making mountains out of mole hills? Perhaps. But from a strictly modelling standpoint (which is what I and my entire research group essentially do... nothing but theoretical modelling of various phenomenon), this represents an instability.
Therefore, Professor Woods explanation of the collapses is completely solid. But using the BBM as the "proof" is where I cringe... because it is true only for extremely narrow set of parameters that needs to be set for EACH "case"
That is my whole point. I'll leave this thread for now, having already presented my case. Thanks for not censoring.
Cheers
James --
I admit I haven’t carefully followed the discussions here. Just noted that someone seemed to at least start engaging Rick. That was the basis of my comment -- intended more for visitors who might show up and be confused.
However, I’m glad to know the group here is common-sense and reality based!
Must say -- Spooked is a paragon of calm, unflappable reasoning.
With respect to Rick, what I’m really interested in is his modus operandi. Take what’s below as just for the record:
If you look at Ricky’s last post, you’ll see he continues with the gobbledy-gook. After claiming that I unreasonably base my view on ‘authority’ alone, what does he do?
Claim it for himself!!
_____________________________________________________________________
…“from a strictly modeling standpoint (which is what I and my entire research group essentially do... nothing but theoretical modelling of various phenomenon)….”
_____________________________________________________________________
Apparently, we’re to be awestruck with the mystical ‘expertise’ of his ‘entire research group’ -- whoever they are and whatever that means.
And the real issue is simple mechanics, taught in high school!
What a joke!
Here’s another technique. It’s become clear he’s not having the desired effect; so he’s backing down -- seeming to agree:
______________________________________________________________________
“Am I making mountains out of mole hills? Perhaps.”….
“Therefore, Professor Woods explanation of the collapses is completely solid.”
______________________________________________________________________
But he’s STILL going to continue backhandedly to sow doubt, based on distortions of the BBE, in combination with his own junk science:
______________________________________________________________________
“But using the BBM as the ‘proof’ is where I cringe... because it is true only for extremely narrow set of parameters that needs to be set for EACH ‘case’”
______________________________________________________________________
First of all, the BBE isn’t a ‘proof’; it’s a disproof, and Rick knows that. Moreover, a major point of the BBE is that you can change all kinds of ‘parameters’ -- e.g., how about hollow out everything in between every 10th floor -- and you STILL can’t get the towers down in 10 seconds.
Finally, Rick says he’s leaving. A common pattern he’s established is that he makes the promise -- and then he comes back to try to grab the ‘last word’ yet again.
We’ll see.
Ginny
If the billiard ball model is so bulletproof, then it should be easy to find a structural engineer to support it.
Find the nearest university and call thier Civil Engineering faculty. There's nothing stopping you.
Unless you're afraid of the truth, that is.
sword of nonsense - if you think that one of your structural engineer fools can discredit the BBE then you should get one of them on it post-haste!
there is nothing stopping YOU.
------------------------
anonymous:
But from a strictly modelling standpoint (which is what I and my entire research group essentially do...
dude, if that's what you guys do then you should make a model/example of your own that you feel would be more accurate rather than trying to get prof. woods to change her BBE - by your own words you have no excuse man!
-----------------------
ms. howard:
With respect to Rick, what I’m really interested in is his modus operandi.
i find it most likely that rick is just what he says; part of a group that models examples - he has said that he disbelieves the official version of collapses - anything beyond that is up to his modelling agency to model, right?
ginny, quit sweating it!
One fatal flaw with the billiard ball theory is that the various floors are
assumed to be independent of each other, until one happens to impact the next.
But this does not hold, as all the floors were supported by the same set of
outer steel columns. It is entirely possible that deformation of that steel
column structure precedes the arrival of the falling concrete floor above.
That in turn makes it possible for the floor below to fall slightly earlier
than it would be smashed into by the floor above. In other words, the "steel
column distortion wave" could easily travel faster than "free falling concrete
wave".
as all the floors were supported by the same set of
outer steel columns.
i have read that all the floors were supported for the most part by the 47 inner core columns. here's a nice photo of some:
photo
Post a Comment
<< Home