C-130 slams into ten story building and guess what?

[wildbilln864]

Flames roared but no collapse! :shrug:link

[AZCat]

1. Hmmm. I'm going to guess that...

nobody in the "truth movement" has the requisite skills to determine how relevant (if at all) this is to - well - anything about September 11th.

[Realityhack]

5. Come on AZCat...

One person might. But I am not putting money on it.

[whatchamacallit]

6. Of course if the building had suddenly pancaked itself into a pile of metal and concrete coleslaw

It would instantly be on every debunk site on the web.:eyes: What a bunch of bullshit artists...

[AZCat]

7. Said by someone with an obvious engineering deficiency.

Maybe you should get that checked out. I've heard ignorance of the fundamentals of physics can be lethal.

[whatchamacallit]

8. You an engineer AZ?

Cuz if not, you should STFU!

[AZCat]

9. And if I am?

Will you do the same?

[whatchamacallit]

10. No.

[AZCat]

12. Ahh, hypocrisy.

It's such a human thing.

[whatchamacallit]

14. So, are you an engineer, or do you just play one on the internets?

[AZCat]

15. Why does it matter?

Shouldn't my arguments be judged on their own merit, regardless what my c.v. says?

For what it's worth, I don't "play" anything on the internet. It is usually very obvious when someone is trying to pretend they have knowledge or experience in certain areas when the reverse is actually true. I am not a genius or an expert, and there are hundreds of thousands of people more capable than I am in the areas relevant to this sub-forum. A degree, in and of itself, confers no cloak of omniscience. It is what a person puts into the degree and/or years of experience that count.

[whatchamacallit]

17. Just as I suspected

:eyes:

[AZCat]

18. What - that I'm an anonymous poster on the internet?

Good fucking guess.

[whatchamacallit]

19. Every time one of you brilliant OCTer-Experts claims someone doesn't know shit

about science or physics, you are inferring that you do. Expect to get called out on your credentials when you make such statements. You AZ, have been measured, weighed, and found wanting.

[SDuderstadt]

20. Ummm, AzCat makes a hell of a lot more sense than you do....n/t

[whatchamacallit]

21. I love how you guys answer for each other - Is it your shift?

:wtf:

[Realityhack]

22. No it's mine, he is just filling in for me... you should check the schedual

Honestly, has it occurred to you that there might be a reason we often think along the same lines and CTers don't?

[SDuderstadt]

23. The headline of your post read "one of you..."

In answer to your question, no, it's not "my shift". Is it yours?

[Realityhack]

25. Stop confusing ResetButton with the facts. n/t

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

72. You'd better watch who you call....

an "operative" or accuse of "RW talking points". I'll put my liberal credentials up against yours anyday. I'd also invite you to study Logic, as you seem to think there are only two choices: be a "truther" or "push the government line". For the life of me, I don't know how one can look at the disparate sources of eyewitness testimony as to the events of that day (I mean, how many witnesses have to state that it was a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon?) and reason that sifting through it in its totality, then drawing conclusions from it amount to "obnoxious obfuscating". My own question is whether you "truthers" ever bother to read the large volumes of testimony and evidence outside of CT websites.

I despise the Bush administration with all my being. It would be delicious if MIHOP or even LIHOP were true and it could be proven. I'd lead the charge for Bush's indictment and conviction (which should happen even notwithstanding 9/11). As it is, I think they are most guilty of gross incompetence in the lead-up, the response, covering up their incompetence and using 9/11 as a rationale for truly stupid foreign policy and military moves. However, that doesn't mean they "planned it" or even "let it happen". If you find hard evidence that stands up to scientific, logical and evidentiary scrutiny, I'm all ears, If, instead, the "truth movement" persists in "rebunking" myths that have been repeatedly debunked or things that defy logical sense, it shouldn't surprise you that, after nearly 7 years, the "truth movement" is, at best, a fringe movement and, at worst, a total laughingstock.

Again, I would tread very carefully while questioning or even seeming to question the liberal credentials of people who simply disagree with you on the facts.

[Realityhack]

24. That is actualy not true.

Poster CT1 makes argument X
Poster 2 says CT1 doesn't understand physics/engineering/science/etc.

This does NOT imply poster 2 is an expert on whatever. It only indicates that poster 2 knows enough about physics/engineering/science/etc. to find at least one glaring error in argument X. If even one glaring error exists it is fair to say that the poster probably has no clue WTF they are talking about. You do not need to be an expert to point out that someone else is not.

[whatchamacallit]

27. OCT1's declaration of error could be predicated on OCT1's potentially flawed or inadequate knowledge

Therefore, your pretense to expertise is BULLSHIT.

[SDuderstadt]

28. I hate to say this, but....

I have no idea wtf you're trying to say here. Could you try it again and aim for coherence this time?

[whatchamacallit]

31. I'll slow it down for you

Just because you claim someone's argument is in error, doesn't make it so. Your own understanding of the science/engineering/physics involved may be insufficient to make that determination.

Get it?

[SDuderstadt]

32. Except the respondent does not have to disprove the claim...

the maker of the claim has to prove it. All the respondent has to do is point out the maker of the claim failed to prove it.

[whatchamacallit]

34. If I've learned anything from this place it's proof is in the eye of the beholder. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

37. You can "prove" anything that you want to yourself...

if you expect to prove it to others, don't whine when you're challenged for hard evidence.

[AZCat]

38. We do not leave our bias at the door.

All of us judge evidence and arguments differently. Sometimes those who have gone through a "system" (like a university program) share a methodology, which can make us seem monolithic. Nothing could be further from the truth (watching engineers argue is quite interesting).

[whatchamacallit]

39. Thanks for the shade of grey AZ

You *are* a dem!:thumbsup:

[AZCat]

40. At least THAT's apparent...

even if the "engineer" part isn't.

[Realityhack]

45. Are you implying others are not? n/t

[AZCat]

49. I'm not implying it.

You may not have been posting here yet, but recently a DU member was outed (and subsequently banned, although I don't know if this was specifically the reason) as a non-Democrat and a right-winger who posted almost exclusively in the 9/11 sub-forum. Plenty of other right-wing trolls have been outed over the years, but I don't have a good idea how many.

It is unfortunate, because it would be nice if once could assume that all members of this forum share that, at least. But it appears we can't assume so.

[Realityhack]

55. I remember that...

I wasn't responding to you BTW. I was responding to Resetbutton saying that you (azcat) are a dem. It seemed a bit stupid.

[AZCat]

57. I'm sorry.

If the posts get far enough over, they stop stacking and I can't always tell to whom someone is responding.

[Realityhack]

44. It's an example...

By definition the error sited in my example was real.

You are correct that someone could be mistaken about the mistake (wow that sounds stupid), but my example stands.

In addition a lot of the so called 'OCTers' here know a fuckload (that's a technical term) more about physics and engineering than you ever will so their is a good chance they would catch such an error.

[whatchamacallit]

48. Got some aggression issues don't ya?

Yelling insults at me proves nothing but your lack of imagination.

[Realityhack]

56. FYI. Online YELLING LOOKS LIKE THIS!!! I was not yelling.

And I think my point stands.

[AZCat]

33. Frankly, I don't give a shit if you don't think I'm an engineer.

Everything I've ever posted here is pretty much common knowledge for any engineer, and can easily be verified (most of it even by laypeople). It's not like we're having a highly technical discussion about heat transfer in a particular situation where one person might have knowledge (i.e. data taken from an experiment) not easily accessible to another.

[whatchamacallit]

35. I'm just sayin

if you're gonna drag your balls all over the place, make sure you have some.

[AZCat]

36. One thing I always try to do (as I've said before)...

is make very clear when I'm talking about a subject where I have significant knowledge or experience (although it generally should be obvious). The topics discussed here are not usually covered at a level beyond (at the most) typical undergraduate engineering curricula. There are millions of people with a level of knowledge sufficient to carry on a conversation at this level - I am not unique. If you want to know how much I know about something, just ask - but don't ask to see my credentials, because I like my anonymity.

[whatchamacallit]

41. Fair enough

Just remember, no matter how significant your general engineering knowledge, given the unique nature of the events of 911 and the imperfect information we all base our assumptions on, you could be wrong.

[Realityhack]

43. And no matter how little engineering knowledge you have at all

you will feel qualified to speak on issues you have no clue about and call other people out.

Your attacks on AZCat's knowledge are pathetic given that you have demonstrated an abject lack of understanding of even the most basic concepts.

[whatchamacallit]

46. Here we go again

some anonymous internet a-hat making unfounded claims about my education without substantiating his own. And you are who hotshot?

[Realityhack]

58. Absolutely nobody.

And I spoke to your knowledge not your education.

As far as any of us know all the rest could be ten year olds. The fact is that our ages and education doesn't matter. What matters is the strength of our arguments. I haven't seen a single strong engineering argument out of you.
I have seen a clear understanding of engineering from AZCat and Flatulo for example.

Now I could read an insiteful post from you and change my mind. I could read a retarded post from one of them and change my mind. But right now I have every reason to think they know WTF they are talking about and you do not.

[AZCat]

47. One of the interesting things about systems...

is how certain kinds (physical and non-physical, although most examples are physical) behave. The behavior of of the three buildings (WTC 1, 2 and 7) was what we call nonlinear (a.k.a. complex, a.k.a. dynamic). A brief explanation would be: we know all the rules that determine how the various elements that compose the system behave (including how they behave when interacting with each other) but the outcome of the system given certain initial conditions depends strongly on the sequence of interaction. A common example is the pool table. We know pretty much everything about the behavior of individual components, and understand (to a degree) the interaction between two components. If you put a cue ball on a pool table (minus the other balls) and hit it, we can predict the motion of the cue ball somewhat accurately, because it doesn't differ that much with a slight variation in initial conditions (i.e. the location of the cue ball, the spot where you hit it with the cue, the force you impart). If you try to use the cue ball to hit another ball, it becomes much more difficult to predict the motion of the second ball because the second interaction depends on the results of the first, and our system has become more sensitive to initial conditions.

Now think about the behavior of those buildings. Instead of pool balls, you have structural members (and, in the case of the towers, aircraft) - thousands of them. The behavior of these various members under different conditions is very well known, but analyzing a system of these components can be quite difficult and (just like the pool balls) depends strongly on the initial conditions. Modeling this can be quite difficult once the components start changing (lengthening because of heating, failing because of shear, etc), and it was my opinion that such a simulation was beyond the capabilities of the state-of-the-art software and hardware at the time of the inception of the NIST investigation of the WTC tower collapses. I was surprised when the NIST said they were going to model the collapses, but when I read the report I realized they had chosen to model discrete parts of the pre-collapse behavior. In the recently released WTC 7 report, they finally tried to model the first moments of collapse, and there are a few short videos on their website of the simulation.

While there are some important differences between the type of collapse for WTC 7 and the towers that make it much easier to model, I still think the NIST relied too much on a simulation of a dynamic system. In Chapter 9 (Section 9.3.3) they discuss sensitivity of the fire model but I haven't read enough of the rest of the report to see if they also tested the sensitivity of the structural model, nor am I comfortable with their verification process. Unfortunately this wasn't the Cardington test, and information regarding the behavior of WTC 7 is scarce (relatively).

[whatchamacallit]

50. Thank you for a very good explanation AZ

But 3 pool tables in one day???

[AZCat]

51. It is very bizarre...

but you have to remember that two of the collapses were preceded by other unusual events (i.e. the impact of large aircraft). WTC 7 shouldn't have fallen, but it did (hence the recommendations by the NIST to the various building code organizations).

[whatchamacallit]

52. Feasible

but given the meta-game surrounding 911, I remain skeptical.

[AZCat]

54. Always remain skeptical.

Just don't be tricked into accepting one thing because of an emotional response to another. Bush is an idiot and an asshole, but that doesn't make him the cause of everything bad.

[SDuderstadt]

62. "Meta-game"???

What "meta-game"?

[whatchamacallit]

53. dupe

[SDuderstadt]

61. Since the destruction of WTC 1 & 2 was deliberate.....

why would anyone be surprised they both fell in the same attack? You could potentially make a stronger case for WTC 7 but, again, buildings perform based upon their design and construction. I'm not sure why anyone thinks the fact that three buildings collapsed in a deliberate and calculated attack is all that unusual.

[AZCat]

63. That was my point.

They didn't just collapse - they were both subjected to an unusual event. WTC 7 was subjected to a different, but also unusual event (interruption of water supply for fire sprinklers on several floors).

[SDuderstadt]

64. I assume you're responding to ResetButton or....

alternatively, you're reinforcing my point to him?

[AZCat]

65. I was responding to your response to me.

You responded to Post #51 (mine), so I responded to you.

Dammit, I hate it when the posts don't "stack". It get so confusing. :(

[SDuderstadt]

66. I think I may have been trying to respond to ResetButton's incredulity...

(like an aside) but through your post. Sorry for the confusion.

[AZCat]

68. No sweat.

The confusion was all on this side of the table.

[Make7]

69. The re-stacking posts trick.

Sometimes when the replies get all stacked up with numerous people in the discussion, I do the following to get the normal indented viewing for those posts...

1. Pick a post at the beginning of a particular sub-thread that will include the stacked posts as subsequent responses.


2. Find the message ID of that post by placing your mouse over the link to it in the list of posts and reading the address in the status bar of your browser. (If the thread is in 'view all' mode, the ID is the number after the '#' in the link - otherwise it is the number after '&mesg_id=".)


3. Use the new message ID in the link to 'view all' messages in a thread. (If the thread is already in 'view all' mode, just change the number after the 'x' in the web address - otherwise copy the web address from the 'view all' link at the top of the page and replace the message ID after the 'x'.)

That may sound more complicated than it actually is. For example, if you were to start with your Post#36 in this thread, take the address for this thread in the 'view all' mode:

  http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x221272

And replace the message ID it starts at with the message ID from your Post#36 (which is 221583):

  http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x221583


Although if people are referring to post numbers (e.g. Post#36) in the original thread, it can cause confusion in the 'sub-thread' view because the post numbers will not be the same. But I find re-stacking a sub-thread will help me follow the conversation when the posts start all lining up right underneath each other in the original thread.

-Make7

ETA:

If you don't want to use the 'view all' mode, you can replace the topic ID number in the individual view mode. For example, to start viewing the sub-thread at Post#36, use the permalink from that post:

  http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=221272&mesg_id=221583

And replace the topic ID with the same number as the message ID:

  http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=221583&mesg_id=221583

This is for the broadband impaired among us. To get back to the original thread view, you can use one of the permalinks to a post in the re-stacked thread, or just go back to viewing topics in the forum and click on the thread again.

[AZCat]

70. Wow! Thanks, Make7!

This makes browsing threads much easier (especially for the "broadband impaired").

[Realityhack]

74. Never tried that. THANKS Make. n/t

[Realityhack]

59. That was a very well thought out post.

And some very interesting points.
You should post the same thing in the technical issues thread.

[AZCat]

60. It's a common simulation problem.

Sensitivity and error propagation can be quite problematic. There are entire books written on simulation methodology. Mostly we just try to linearize things so we don't have to worry so much.

[Realityhack]

73. Oh absolutely.

I understand the problem and it can be quite an easy mistake to make.

-- On edit --
I would like to gather the technical critisims like this in one place for discussion. If you don't mind posting it again here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x220639
I would appreciate it. IMO it is way to easy for these good posts to get lost in the sea of junk.

[SDuderstadt]

67. This is, perhaps, one of the goofiest call-outs....

I've ever read in a post.

You AZ, have been measured, weighed, and found wanting

[Bolo Boffin]

2. "Before firefighters extinguished the blaze, flames roared from the roof and windows"

Before what, wildbill?

[LARED]

3. Thanks for posting this "important" story, Is it important? Why? -nt

[wildbilln864]

11. Well...

if you say it's important, maybe it is. Thanks for playing.

[hack89]

4. Those pictures don't show a concrete building, do they? nt

[SDuderstadt]

13. And, of course, Bill omits the fact that it's NOT...

a steel-framed building. Do "truthers" believe all buildings are designed the same? Do "truthers" believe that al buildings are built the same? If not, why in the world do they pretend that differently designed and built buildings perform the same when subjected to the same force?

In this case, even the incident is not similar, unless you want to believe the pilot of the C-130 was trying to slam it into the building. Of course, he was trying to make an emergency landing when the plane crashed.

[Flatulo]

16. Only the wing hit the building. nt

[Realityhack]

26. Oh the things that get left out when you are experiencing confirmation bias. n/t

[wildbilln864]

29. you are correct Flatulo!

and..."gouging out a huge crater and causing a fire that spread through the structure.
Gouged out a huge hole. Fire spread throughout the structure."
No collapse! :shrug:

[SDuderstadt]

30. It wasn't a steel-framed building....

why you think that concrete buildings perform the way steel-framed buildings do is unfathomable.

[Realityhack]

42. What's your point? n/t

[KDLarsen]

75. Might want to try with the FULL quote..

I know truthers like to quote-mine, but this is pathetic.

"But officials, including Police Chief Mortaza Talaei, said one wing of the transport plane hit the second floor as the fuselage crashed to ground, gouging out a huge crater and causing a fire that spread through the structure."

Presumably that means the fuselage made the crater on the ground.

[Realityhack]

76. I dissagree...

Given the "and causing a fire that spread through the structure." I would say it meant the building.

However, either way this is not particularly relevant (in the way Bill suggests) to 9-11

[KDLarsen]

77. Fair enough

I didn't realise the crash was nearly 3 years ago, but that might explain a bit about the lack of news articles on the subject. The beeb quotes an eye witness (and I realise that eye witness accounts should be taken with a hefty dose of salt): "I saw the aeroplane. There was smoke coming out of one engine. It went into the ground very fast, very close to the building," said 30-year-old Mohammad Rasooli, a local resident. "There was a huge explosion which engulfed the housing block."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4502966.stm

[wildbilln864]

78. yes, perhaps your reading comprehension is lacking.

I was merely adding to what Flatulo already pointed out. He had already mentioned the wing is what hit the building. Why should I repeat that? I added that the fire spread through the building.

[wildbilln864]

79. and the fire spread through the building. No collapse! nt

[Realityhack]

80. To which you assign significance that is unwarented n/t

[wildbilln864]

81. "unwarranted" in your opinion! nt

[Realityhack]

82. Ok, show me why I am wrong.

What specifically about this incident is significant to the events of 9-11?