I am a bit of a "know it all." I was rated high for that in my performance reviews at work. But what I do know is solid; I don't much butt in when the matter is not my strength. You, on the other hand, have no credentials and use this opportunity to throw insults at me. The stupid and misguided ones are the Flat-Earthers, Moon-Hoaxers, space travel deniers, chemtrail hawkers, and orbiting DEW believers. (But on the last point, stay tuned. The Chinese have announced they plan to orbit a 1 MW laser next year, and I will be very interested to see if and how they pull it off.)
But I was rated for my breadth and depth of technical knowledge. Not for any lapse of decorum. And what I know is solid. Enough to win military development contracts by competitive procurement (e.g., YAL-1A).
Credentials are public evidence of your competence. Being shy about offering them is basically a cover for not having any. I don't subscribe to the internet principle of egalitarianism, where we are all experts until shown otherwise.
I "understand" insults in only one way: When your opponent is out of argument, they are his last resort. It's playground stuff. I'm long over it.
The stupid and misguided ones lack basic education and logical powers. This is based on listening closely to what they have to say. They are perhaps the most profoundly ignorant lot I have encountered. (The recent flap in these pages over the Mercator map projection illustrates the point.)
The difference between us is that I do bother, to communicate. You seem interested mainly in playing to the Peanut Gallery. I know all about that. So, we've had all this interaction in the spirit of dick-fighting, and there has been no discussion of any important point. Don't you see that as a missed opportunity?
Oh! it's the arrogant stupidity from a misguided person that is obviously intelligent and persistent.
ok
ok
This organization was created in 2007 and is populated with credentialed architects and engineers. What ever your credentials are (and no, assuming you are a fren, you do not want to reveal this online because of the cancel culture we are in, simply posting here may be cause for some people to cause you problems at work) we can reasonably agree that credentialled architects are able to comment on building that were standing one day, and not standing the next.
https://www.ae911truth.org/
in this discussion we do not stray into why things happened. There are all kinds of potential why's and so few hard facts to ground that conversation. So let's stick with just what did happen and what evidence substantiates that understanding of events.
we take one issue at a time. This way we can fully explore a single issue while preventing the confusion of issues.
The first issue, is free fall in WTC 7. Please review this page. Please excuse my prior comments on freefall, I was saying them from memory. We will use what is printed here as the starting point for this discussion.
They are in conflict with the same people---far more credentialed architects and engineers agree with the established case---so that they assert they know the truth by reason of a contrived "theory" is in the same ballpark as the "climate scientists" (who are also credentialed) who serve up a contrived theory. I focus on the theory, not on the argument from authority. When the leading members of this organization say "I knew from the beginning that something was wrong," their bias is unmistakable. So, they go on a quest to confirm their bias---just like a lot of people on this page.
What problem do I have with credentials? I have a bachelor of science, a master of science, and a master's of aeronautics and astronautics from the University of Washington (Seattle). I worked for 40 years at was began as the Boeing Aerospace Company and ended as its Defense and Information Division, interacting from time to time with Boeing Commercial Airplanes. I became an Associate Technical Fellow and had the highest performance ratings throughout my career. A key accomplishment was to edit and re-write what became the winning proposal for the YAL-1A airborne laser system, the most powerful military directed weapon yet constructed. I have 9 patents and preceded by about 5 year's NASA's invention of an afterburning nuclear thermal rocket engine. I had Secret, Top Secret, SCI, NATO Cosmic Top Secret, and Classified Nuclear Weapon Design Information clearances. That's just skimming the record.
I'm good with evidence, as reflected by the fact that I always refer to it. I give no credence to interpretations that are inconsistent with the evidence (e.g., that the Pentagon crash was a "cruise missile."
I'm fine with one issue at a time, but we were not originally discussing WTC7.
As for the video, their own argument is self-refuting. Free fall for 7 seconds at an acceleration of ~32.2 feet/second/second results in a distance of 789 feet. The building itself was 610 feet tall. If one only accounted a distance of 100 feet in 7 seconds, then the acceleration would have been 4 ft/sec/sec or 12.7% of free fall. So, they are cherry-picking the data to find a spot where it was in free fall.
I have already explained repeatedly that, in an environment where the supporting columns have their strength reduced to below structural margins, the time taken for a column to fail in compressive shear is essentially instantaneous and that the interval for the next column to fall is on the order of a millisecond, so that the whole failure process for each floor amounts to about a tenth of a second at most. That would be 4.7 seconds for the whole building, if even that much. No, when the shear failures are happening as fast as a floor can fail, it will look like free fall when the process is running. Reading the data as best I can from the grainy image of the curve plot, it appears that the linear part of the velocity/time trace starts at 1 m/sec @ t = 0.8 second and ends at 26 m/sec at t = 3.2 second (they annotate 3.18 second). This gives an acceleration of 10,4 m/sec2 which is 12% higher than free fall. I'm not saying that is the true acceleration, since it can never be higher than 9.8 m/sec2. What it tells me is that the reconstruction is in error by as much as +/- 12%.
All the self-assured talk about "that's why we have all this structural steel in this building" comes apart once you take into account that high temperatures short of melting will reduce the column strength of the steel to practically nothing, and compressive sheer failures will occur at the speed of sound in the steel.
I am a bit of a "know it all." I was rated high for that in my performance reviews at work. But what I do know is solid; I don't much butt in when the matter is not my strength. You, on the other hand, have no credentials and use this opportunity to throw insults at me. The stupid and misguided ones are the Flat-Earthers, Moon-Hoaxers, space travel deniers, chemtrail hawkers, and orbiting DEW believers. (But on the last point, stay tuned. The Chinese have announced they plan to orbit a 1 MW laser next year, and I will be very interested to see if and how they pull it off.)
"I am a bit of a "know it all." I was rated high for that in my performance reviews at work. "
It shows.
"But what I do know is solid;"
No. You are wrong, but you are highly confident in your ignorance.
"You, on the other hand, have no credentials"
You do not know this for a fact, yet you project this as a conclusion with great confidence. You are ignorant.
" and use this opportunity to throw insults at me."
Because it is a language you understand.
"The stupid and misguided ones are the Flat-Earthers, Moon-Hoaxers, space travel deniers, chemtrail hawkers, and orbiting DEW believers."
Are you evaluating information based upon information, or are you evaluating information within the filter of your prejudice and ignorance?
Don't bother, it was a rhetorical question.
But I was rated for my breadth and depth of technical knowledge. Not for any lapse of decorum. And what I know is solid. Enough to win military development contracts by competitive procurement (e.g., YAL-1A).
Credentials are public evidence of your competence. Being shy about offering them is basically a cover for not having any. I don't subscribe to the internet principle of egalitarianism, where we are all experts until shown otherwise.
I "understand" insults in only one way: When your opponent is out of argument, they are his last resort. It's playground stuff. I'm long over it.
The stupid and misguided ones lack basic education and logical powers. This is based on listening closely to what they have to say. They are perhaps the most profoundly ignorant lot I have encountered. (The recent flap in these pages over the Mercator map projection illustrates the point.)
The difference between us is that I do bother, to communicate. You seem interested mainly in playing to the Peanut Gallery. I know all about that. So, we've had all this interaction in the spirit of dick-fighting, and there has been no discussion of any important point. Don't you see that as a missed opportunity?
Oh! it's the arrogant stupidity from a misguided person that is obviously intelligent and persistent.
ok ok
This organization was created in 2007 and is populated with credentialed architects and engineers. What ever your credentials are (and no, assuming you are a fren, you do not want to reveal this online because of the cancel culture we are in, simply posting here may be cause for some people to cause you problems at work) we can reasonably agree that credentialled architects are able to comment on building that were standing one day, and not standing the next. https://www.ae911truth.org/
in this discussion we do not stray into why things happened. There are all kinds of potential why's and so few hard facts to ground that conversation. So let's stick with just what did happen and what evidence substantiates that understanding of events.
we take one issue at a time. This way we can fully explore a single issue while preventing the confusion of issues.
The first issue, is free fall in WTC 7. Please review this page. Please excuse my prior comments on freefall, I was saying them from memory. We will use what is printed here as the starting point for this discussion.
https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/free-fall-acceleration
What problem do I have with credentials? I have a bachelor of science, a master of science, and a master's of aeronautics and astronautics from the University of Washington (Seattle). I worked for 40 years at was began as the Boeing Aerospace Company and ended as its Defense and Information Division, interacting from time to time with Boeing Commercial Airplanes. I became an Associate Technical Fellow and had the highest performance ratings throughout my career. A key accomplishment was to edit and re-write what became the winning proposal for the YAL-1A airborne laser system, the most powerful military directed weapon yet constructed. I have 9 patents and preceded by about 5 year's NASA's invention of an afterburning nuclear thermal rocket engine. I had Secret, Top Secret, SCI, NATO Cosmic Top Secret, and Classified Nuclear Weapon Design Information clearances. That's just skimming the record.
I'm good with evidence, as reflected by the fact that I always refer to it. I give no credence to interpretations that are inconsistent with the evidence (e.g., that the Pentagon crash was a "cruise missile."
I'm fine with one issue at a time, but we were not originally discussing WTC7.
As for the video, their own argument is self-refuting. Free fall for 7 seconds at an acceleration of ~32.2 feet/second/second results in a distance of 789 feet. The building itself was 610 feet tall. If one only accounted a distance of 100 feet in 7 seconds, then the acceleration would have been 4 ft/sec/sec or 12.7% of free fall. So, they are cherry-picking the data to find a spot where it was in free fall.
I have already explained repeatedly that, in an environment where the supporting columns have their strength reduced to below structural margins, the time taken for a column to fail in compressive shear is essentially instantaneous and that the interval for the next column to fall is on the order of a millisecond, so that the whole failure process for each floor amounts to about a tenth of a second at most. That would be 4.7 seconds for the whole building, if even that much. No, when the shear failures are happening as fast as a floor can fail, it will look like free fall when the process is running. Reading the data as best I can from the grainy image of the curve plot, it appears that the linear part of the velocity/time trace starts at 1 m/sec @ t = 0.8 second and ends at 26 m/sec at t = 3.2 second (they annotate 3.18 second). This gives an acceleration of 10,4 m/sec2 which is 12% higher than free fall. I'm not saying that is the true acceleration, since it can never be higher than 9.8 m/sec2. What it tells me is that the reconstruction is in error by as much as +/- 12%.
All the self-assured talk about "that's why we have all this structural steel in this building" comes apart once you take into account that high temperatures short of melting will reduce the column strength of the steel to practically nothing, and compressive sheer failures will occur at the speed of sound in the steel.