Posts by Steve 222 publicly visible posts • joined 21 Feb 2007
People who actually know the basics of how GPS works can easily figure out how an earth-orbiting GPS system can still allow receivers to work when on the moon (nearside only), but let's not let simple facts dull the entertainment provided by the next lot of would-be conspiracy theorists!
I am well aware what Kevin Ryan (whose field was environmental health, not building integrity) has claimed. The whole truth is that he has conveniently/stupidly missed out a critical fact from his evaluation, something both I and another poster in this thread have already highlighted. A penalty was warranted given his subsequent lack of judgement of publicly broadcasting his woefully inadequate claim. It could be argued that it didn’t warrant his termination but we don’t know what went on behind the scenes.
“yes my kerosene heater lies here in a pool of molten metal, please don't make me laugh...”
This is an utterly poor analogy.
Thanks to gravity, air density and the forced ejection of the gas, the heater itself will be subjected to very little heat because the flame is projected away form the gas canister – not nearly the same as what occurred on 911.
Also, it will be subject to very little pressure – it only has to contain the gas pressure within, not the weight of half a skyscraper.
Furthermore, the canister hasn’t been whacked by a 400mph sledgehammer.
And last but not least – no one is claiming that the steel framework had melted.
“Since you seem obsessed with my simple grammatical error “
Nope, I’m demonstrating your logical error; I have already made this clear. You’ve made many errors which I haven’t highlighted.
“Hmmm, seems to fit the definition of logical fallacy well.”
Why? You can’t just state that is does. What is the flaw?
The difference between you and me is that I have explained your logical fallacy whereas you, again, are unable to.
“what sources are you citing that observed this imagined damage?”
Imagined? It is well accepted that the area within the ‘bathtub’ underneath suffered damage – unless you are even disputing this?
The upper floors could not stop the fall of a fraction of a skyscraper, given this what is the probability of the underground floors stopping the whole scraper from collapsing it?
Did you know the towers were built on reclaimed land? Does this suggest anything of significance to you?
“If you read carefully (hard for you I know, in your rush to criticize) you will see I never said it WAS an accidental press release.”
Previously you also said: “I know many of you do not believe in any alternative theory pertaining to the WTC collapse. I am curious how you would explain this video...”
Your motives are crystal clear. By linking the video you have attempted to give your ‘alternative’ views credibility; you failed.
“Who said anything about evil henchmen? I certainly didn't.”
You believe in the alternative theories right? What are these if they don’t involve planning or cover-ups? Why did you link that video?
OK, let’s put this to bed - do you or do you not lend credence to the notion that the collapse of WTC7 was planned and accidentally leaked? (as per the video you linked)
“Yeah...and?”
Hence I know some facts that others clearly don’t.
“Again, you ignore the glaring flaw in your own point, the fact that you are using your own assumption as an argument, that is what's laughable. Clear?”
My reasoning (which you cutely call ‘assumptions’) are based on fact and logic, something you have not been able to counter on any level except to say ‘no it aint’. If you can’t find a flaw with it then just say so!
“You try so hard to sound smart.”
That is a basic rule of logic. If you don’t understand that then there’s really no hope for you.
“Yet again, you conveniently ignore the point I am making, that you are making many assumptions. Assumptions don't hold water, sorry.”
Nope! You miss my original point. I have given fact based reasoning.
Also, you again claim my answers as false but seem to skirt around why you believe them to be so – you cannot claim to have made any point.
“I am open to new ideas, not suggestions based on imagined underground collapses”
A self-contradiction (unless you have already considered these possibilities, in which case what grounds do you have to dismiss them or render them as being unlikely?)
“hateful rhetoric”
Hateful? Rhetoric? Oh dear! Now you’re at the bottom of the barrel.
"You haven’t hypothesized anything at all (pro or con)...."
“Thank you for noticing,”
You at last admit that you haven’t given any reasoning behind your claims of my hypotheses being invalid.
“however do you care to name the collapses of the other 107 story buildings of the same construction and materials with the implied different "causal events"?”
Irrelevant! We are focussing on what is, not what isn’t.
"why don’t you comment on my ‘formulation of the hypotheses’"
“Okay,”
Go on then. Quoting more from Google doesn’t make it happen!
“However you seem to be lacking on the testing end of things, good old step four of the scientific method. Without conclusive tests and verification, your arguments hold about as much water as a sieve, steve. And back to square one.”
Just let me get my spare 747………anyone got a spare skyscraper? Even then you would think the experiment rigged if it didn’t meet your prejudice.
This is your position summed up nicely. You see, we (or at least some of us) are able to deduce cause and effect, or have an appreciation of the likelihood of, based on accepted knowledge or experience and reason. Much of scientific theory was accepted (at least as a representative model) long before there was a way of testing for the actual existence of it.
I have given you probable explanations based on good physics so satisfying criteria 1, 2 and 3, whereas you have not satisfied any of the 4 but somehow feel you are in the position to pass judgement on my hypotheses. How can that be?
In fact, all you are doing is basing your opinions on the (IMO flawed) arguments of some who give you hope that there is a global conspiracy; you’re blind to anything else.
Me: I have the ability to reason and make an informed and balanced judgement – I can make up my own mind!
.
Now let me put it to you all: if not due to the planes (fire and impact), what do you believe caused the collapse of the buildings?
Well I Never, another rant that doesn’t address any issue raised!
Nice to see you can quote a scientific method, pity you don’t seem able to apply it – at any stage; yet based on nothing you somehow believe you are in a position to confidently state:
“So, this does away with....”
Which is quite funny as it doesn't really tie in with your prior claim of:
“I am seriously open to any alternative suggestions”
Which you’re clearly not!
“No, I don't see. I see a bunch of probably's and likely's. Not exactly fact based, or logical.”
Ah, so you also have selective eyesight!
Tell you what: instead of just blankly quoting some of my posts, why don’t you comment on my ‘formulation of the hypotheses’ like you should have done. Until you do there is no reason to accept my explanations as being erroneous.
“There has been no event, past or present, with which to compare the collapse of the three WTC buildings.”
I put it to you there have been no (causal) events which compares with the lead up to collapse of the three WTC buildings. This is something else that I have already commented upon. Keep up!
“Congradulations, you can hypothesize. Join the club.”
Errr, no! As of yet you cannot consider yourself to be part of this club. You haven’t hypothesized anything at all (pro or con) even though I’ve tried to push you towards it. Let’s try again with the "accidental early press release":
‘Why would the ‘evil henchmen’ risk leaking out information of an imminent collapse? What possible use could come of it?’
“Irrelevant considering many other people with letters after thier names disagree with your assessment.”
....and many others agree. Logic dictates that variable is redundant.
My original comment was actually in response to another poster’s background. However, unlike many I also have experience with fire regulations (it’s been my job for 10 years), mostly EN but some UL.
“Using your own speculation on unverified "damage to the underground structure" as an argument is laughable.”
Yet you’ve never given an explanation as to how you conclude why this “alternative suggestion” is laughable, you just state that it is – given your last post that quite ironic, don’t you think?
Do you believe it impossible for the underground structure to have sustained any damage?
“Besides, what you "find impossible" in those circumstances is irrelevant, you were not there.”
Neither were you (in any useful manner); hence more redundant logic. Do I need to remind you of your logical fallacy?
BTW, I’m not spelling police, I just wanted to demonstrate that you couldn’t apply your ‘logical fallacy’ statement and found it aptly humorous that you didn’t spell it correctly – notice how even that question is still outstanding.
Nice try but all you’ve achieved is re-enforcement of the perception of you as a common conspiracy nut!
Unfortunately for you: I can justify my ridicule of you. How? See my very first post in this thread. Now read our subsequent posts and see how they relate!
See how I have given logical arguments and factual based responses, these mixed in with some telling questions – all of which remain unanswered. In return you have dodged all the issues raised then masking that by resorting to writing wholly irrelevant posts; I have already pointed this out to you yet you continue. You’re approach is “not very scientific” is it?
You will not accept that my points are valid, let alone more valid than most, simply because they are not in agreement with your prejudice – and now you are backing out because you have nothing to support it!
You discredit your entire movement. You are indeed a 911 nutjob and I claim my £5!
To the anon:
“I said he "tried" to enter, he was denied access”
Irrelevant. Both my points remain standing.
“Speaking of logical fallicy...”
Do you even know what one is? (you certainly can’t spell it) If so please show what text it relates to.
“however it seems you will simply keep making assumptions and arguing them as fact”
Where? Please feel free to disprove anything I have stated as fact – not the conjecture but the claimed facts!
And what about your ‘early press release’? How laughable! You’re not nearly ‘open to any theory’ as you make yourself out to be. Yes you’re asking questions but you don’t seem to be accepting answers that don’t tie in with your obvious bias.
Answer me this: why would the ‘evil henchmen’ risk leaking out information of an imminent collapse? What possible use could come of it?
“Sadly, the people on both sides of this argument are equally defensive and delusional”
That description does not include me. I am not on ‘a side’ neither am I defensive and I’, certainly not delusional; I’m merely debunking the junk science around the event, regardless of who spouts it.
Dan M Nalven:
“Buildings, being 85 - 90 % air, when collapsed result in observed rubble piles of 10 -15% of the original heights, including underground structures.”
The storey height was 3.6m, yet the concrete floor slabs between floors were only 10cm deep – that’s 2.8% concrete. The steel structure will be a small percentage of that given the beams are of a ‘H’ design, so that’s 0.6% by my maths (= 44.5kg/m3 density used / solid density). So how on earth did you end up with 85-90%? Were you guessing/hoping?
Further, the underground structure isn’t solid matter, right?
I’ll give you some hints: air conditioning plants and service facilities, underground railway and rapid transit lines, and last but not least – the multilevel car park!
All of a sudden it starts to add up, yes? If not then please state and quantify why not.
“You fail to answer where the core columns ended up. Steel of this type does not break up and collapse with the balance of the structure.”
No I didn’t. I had hoped that would have been really obvious from reading my post. To reiterate: those beams which are not vertical would likely be smashed straight downwards. The remaining vertical beams would simply bend then break (assuming they are too tall to support its own weight especially against the lateral forces below). This is discounting rivet sheer.
“there would have been no stress on the core as the floors would have "pancaked" around them breaking”
I have already answered this. Most of the core will have been immediately stripped away.
Your line of enquiry is intriguing; are you trying to suggest the buildings were made from paper or something?
My response was not intended to be hostile, it’s more a case of a lack of respect of those who by choosing to publish wild and baseless accusations without proper consideration, so undermining examination of what could have been genuinely nefarious deeds.
As for your father entering WTC7 5 minutes before the building fell, there are 2 things wrong with this claim:
1) the 4:57 event was around 15 minutes before your father entered, hence he could well have not been close enough to be aware. You have used a negative proof “no perceived” which is a logical fallacy.
2) I find it impossible to believe anyone would have been allowed to (let alone want to) enter the building given the near ground level fires raging within it and damage to the underground structure beneath it.
If your post regarding secrets is in reference to my henchmen post, as opposed to a spurious rant: it does not address the nonsensical notion of the "accidental early press release" - why reporters need to be informed of a pending collapse prior to it occurring.
I have given you ‘alternative suggestions to the "accidental early press release" idea. Other than pure luck or coincidence’, as well as reasonable explanations to the questions regarding WTC collapse. I can’t help but notice you haven’t actually addressed the given arguments…….
“I would like it explained to me why the rubble piles of the each of the two towers was only some fifty feet high and contained entirely within their own footprints if the steel did indeed soften to the point of failure to enable total collapse.”
Oh this is so obvious, as pointless as it is (are you trying to suggest the buildings fell into a black hole?).
There are 3 factors:
1) These buildings when standing are probably around 95% air. The concrete will take up the most volume; when smashed like that, concrete it will crumble and fill up the small pockets underneath.
2) the buildings collapsed into the underground train and car park system.
3) If you check out the replays you will find that a significant amount of matter was actually falling outside of the building footprint. Your own video link confirms this: “filling the streets with yet more debris and dust”.
“Logic and physics dictate that a bending structure will fall towards its weakest point.”
Which they did, exactly where the planes hit (most structural damage, greatest heat intensity). The momentum from the upper floors did the rest, resulting with the floor-by-floor avalanche.
“A pancake collapse, as described by the penultimate poster, would leave a significant height of the core structure standing.”
The core structure is only good for forces in a certain directions at certain places. Any beams not completely vertical will fail due to the impact from the momentum of concrete falling on them. The remaining vertical beams won’t be strong enough to support their own weight (as well as being subjected to the lateral forces built up at the bottom so exerting more pressure); hence they will quickly fail too.
“The failure of building 7, the 3rd building to collapse later that day even though it was not struck by a plane, is an even greater mystery.”
The same underground network would likely have been upset be the nearby skyscrapers crashing to the ground with such high momentums. It’s also known that fires were raging – you could see that in the photos. No fire-fighter would dare or bother to extinguish them (given the obvious danger and priorities) - this is what makes this collapse of a steel structure seemingly notable.
Water held!
Oh, I also have an engineering background: letters after my name: a string of patents in my name: its part of my job to know about fires and fire regulations…..
Next!
http://www.truthring.org/?p=3600
What a waste of time that was!
We agree the building was not collapsed.
The most obvious answer is that the 4:57 event was a partial collapse, probably of the underground structure.
What was given was only a report of a collapse, an early report at that. A partial collapse would seem like a full collapse to underground (or nearby ground) workers. Given the nature of the event you can’t blame people for being jumpy with their descriptions.
I guess there were no reports of ‘explosions’ coming from WTC7 <rolls eyes>
Next!
A further thought on http://www.truthring.org/?p=3600:
Why on earth would the supposed evil henchmen risk informing various staff of what is planned? Doing so achieves absolutely nothing given that it will be pretty dammed obvious when the building actually does come down. It is also at the risk of the whistle being blown. Much better for the evil henchmen to keep their plans to themselves don’t you think?
This theory does not add up, not at all!
Here we go…..
Yes, the fires were not burning at the melting point of steel; the trick here is that the steel framework does not have to melt in order for the integrity of the framework to fail, it just needs to soften. Once softened it will creep and ultimately bend (not melt); what could cause the bending – the weight of half a skyscraper acting upon it!!!
It’s a lot like butter:
- it will become hard when frozen (you will have difficulty putting your finger through it)
- it will melt when put in a hot pan
- it will be soft at room temperature (enough to push your finger through) – but it won’t be molten.
It is expected that the towers will collapse when the steel framework is subjected to temperatures significantly below its melting point.
'911 truthers' indeed!
Additional: the reason why the towers took as long as they did too fall is because it is a ‘standard’ requirement for such buildings to have fire protection that must last a minimum of 30 minutes (I know this because it is part of my job). The developers generally aim for the minimum time because it is cheaper to realise (and it is reasonably expected that all personnel will be evacuated in that time).
Next!
911 conspiracy theorists – idiots all of them!
I don’t doubt there could have been financial irregularities during the run up to the event, but the people highlighting this immediately lose all credibility by aligning themselves with the junk science surrounding it. There are perfectly straightforward explanations for things like the ‘mysterious explosions’ and the ‘framework collapsing without melting’ (there are many more but I won’t waste my time). Even the descriptions of an event put forward by the film ‘Loose change’ are in direct contradiction.
The real conspiracy, if indeed there is one, is that the US government managed to successfully cover up financial irregularities by planting these junk science based theories into the heads of nutjobs!
Robert Ramsay:
"...with the constant tone of "moral high ground" from people who profess to detest Second Life and go out of their way to belittle it, but seem, at the same time, to know an awful lot about it. "
I suppose you would also rant had the author slagged off the game without knowing much about it!
Those who think the fuel duty is enough to cover road pricing aren’t seeing the bigger picture.
The government are preparing for the day when the population switch over to electric cars - yes it will eventually happen. When it does the government will have a super-massive black hole in their finances (of course that dismisses the fact the money is wasted anyway). Road pricing will ensure a constant stream of revenue.
Martin Gregorie:
You are wrong "by staying within the speed limit and avoiding hard acceleration"
Speed limits are being continually dropped, typically to well below the speed of peak efficiency (generally 55mph). Also, hard acceleration if the most efficient way of getting power from engines; strictly speaking it's the used torque that's important (so long as it is coupled with some coasting).
Matt Kimber is on the money - that's exactly what happened in the London CC zone after it was introduced. Go figure!
....would likely exceed the pitiful amount derived from the passing traffic!
Then there's the risk of component failure (relatively high given these are power mechanical devices) and the regular maintenance, both needing human intervention - itself 'costly'.
Next!
Unless we have a step in battery and magnet/conductor technology, the lecky car will prove to be just as sustainable as the internal combustion equivalent.
However, such a car will be pretty good in cities and congested areas, using next to no energy when moving at slow speeds, even regenerating the kinetic energy when braking.
At least the lecky car will be a doddle to maintain, short of the user electrocuting themselves.
The real problem is that national adoption of such cars will lead to our governments introducing heavy national congestion charging, what with the loss of all that lovely fuel duty. Ultimate financial saving to the end user – none!
Still, it might end much world conflict…..might……
A pedestrian accidentally walking out in front of a vehicle because the driver didn’t give them a chance to reliably judge the situation correctly, can hardly be viewed as causing an obstruction (where’s the intent/neglect?).
Your first sentence in the matter doesn’t come across very t-i-c; I can only hope it was (I've debated with many drivers of that persuasion). I had guessed you were joking with your second post!
Roads are for everyone and you must not exceed the 30 limits within urban areas, even if you think you can drive faster safely (unless you have a flashy thing that goes nee-naw loudly to warn others of your unusual actions).
Mike Lovell
“That's where we disagree, the road is for vehicles”
WRONG!
The law recognises the right for pedestrians and cyclists to use any road at any time (except motorways), so long as they are not causing an obstruction (the latter part applies to all road users).
Deliberate failure for you to give way to, or do your utmost to avoid, a pedestrian in your path will lead you directly to jail.
Perhaps pedestrians are ‘idiots’, but it is your lawful duty to ensure they are not fooled into making idiotic judgements.
If you don’t like it, then move to America where jaywalking is an offence and traffic light is king; you’ll find you’ll be going a lot slower there.
I pray you hit a large oak tree before you hit a pedestrian.
As for everyone else, please drive safely – safely for all road users not just yourself.
(Support Safespeed.org.uk)
Mike Lovell,
Your attitude to road safety is, quite frankly, appalling.
Many drivers don’t consider the variables affecting ability of pedestrians to predict their actions; the major factor in this is driver behaviour – specifically the speed of approach. Your driving at unexpected, unreasonable and excessive speeds leaves pedestrians, especially the young or those who have little driving experience (unlike yourself), no real chance of being able to reliably judge your time of arrive at their position. If you are speeding: their tending to cross when they shouldn’t is your doing.
Have you ever tried crossing an NSL dual carriageway?
Pavements are for pedestrians, roads are for everyone!
THIS IS THE REASON WHY IT IS 30 – THINK!
The biker, whoever they are, deserves jail.
Smeggy – supporter of safespeed.org.uk
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
