Let this be a warning to all physics Professors

[dorbie 0]

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=476951

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=476951

All professions have their quota of nutters.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[pirana 0]

What a freakin goof. The flaw in the story is the reference to "unnamed government agencies. No government agency can go without a name. The bureaucrats are way too in love with acronyms to let that happen.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=476951

All professions have their quota of nutters.

NUTTER!!!!!

*j/k... this is NOT a PA!

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[Skyrad 0]

In true SC form I'd suggest attacking the post rather than the poster, what I mean is whats his alledged proof? I waould like to see it and critically review his study and findings before writing him off as a crank.
If he really does have evidence which may suggest that more than just the hijackers were responsible for commiting mass murder then shouldn't that be objectivly reviewed? If it turns out he is a crank then nothing lost.

http://www.911blogger.com/2006/02/dr-steven-jones-utah-seminar-video.html

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Bdog 0]

Mormons, nuff said

_________________________________________

---Future Darwin Award recipient-

[dorbie 0]

The problem is it's just a string of ill-founded assertions, it's pure bunk. The most serious problem here is unfortunately that he's a professor of physics and that lends credibility to his bullshit for no reason that an appeal to his own authority.

There are teams of structural engineers including the original architect (who I've seen discuss the design limits of the fire control system and why it couldn't cope) that believe they understand the nature of the collapse and there's nothing much mysterious about it. For example after the metal weakened and the collapse was initiated the impact loads would have been absolutely massive inside the building.

The sheer impracticality of planting explosives alone is a far bigger disconnect from reality with the conspiracy nuts that any of the alleged inconsistencies with his flawed views on what the collapse should have looked like.

It's depressing to see how cynical peopel can be and how wilfully idiotic they will be to support that cynicism. For me this professor and others like him represent the epitome of how low the intellectual mind can sink and it's a disgrace that the guy can call himself a physicist or a scientist.

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

The problem is it's just a string of ill-founded assertions, it's pure bunk. The most serious problem here is unfortunately that he's a professor of physics and that lends credibility to his bullshit for no reason that an appeal to his own authority.

.

Why does being a physics prof lend any extra credibility to his opinions on structural engineering and demolition? Science != engineering.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Skyrad 0]

But he is only one of 50 academics who agree with his findings. Don't get me wrong like you said just the shear logistical issuses in bringing down a building on its footprint using explosives rule it out for me. I think people mayhave noticed something amiss But I'd still like to know what their argument is. I know what brought those buildings down, two planes controled by suicidal mass murderers.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

The problem is it's just a string of ill-founded assertions, it's pure bunk. The most serious problem here is unfortunately that he's a professor of physics and that lends credibility to his bullshit for no reason that an appeal to his own authority.

.

Why does being a physics prof lend any extra credibility to his opinions on structural engineering and demolition? Science != engineering.

Because physics explains how the natural world works and is the bedrock of all the physical sciences, including all of their practical applications.

As far as giving credence to their "theory" by bothering to examine it, a waste of time since what they claim can not be disproven. To borrow a point from a previous thread; prove the towers were not brought down by The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

All ideas and opinions are not equally valid just because some nut spewed them forth.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Skyrad 0]

Have you never noticed what Kallend does for a living?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

The problem is it's just a string of ill-founded assertions, it's pure bunk. The most serious problem here is unfortunately that he's a professor of physics and that lends credibility to his bullshit for no reason that an appeal to his own authority.

.

Why does being a physics prof lend any extra credibility to his opinions on structural engineering and demolition? Science != engineering.

I think I answered that at the end of the same sentence you quoted.

Maybe it doesn't seem like it to you given your own position & specialties but you're in a small minority. Personally I'd expect at least some trained objectivity and better judgement from a physics professor. The true impact though comes from the perception of people who listen to his bullshit and aren't equipped to really understand the distinction and get sucked into his reality warp field. I'd personally hope and expect that the average physics professor would in fact be more capable than most of commenting rationally on a collapse like this.

My own training is in architecture which included structural engineering and a lot of the calculations w.r.t loading, moments on beams and failure was pretty well physics based, with most of the non-physics engineering coming from knowledge based tables & safety margins (design aside).

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The problem is it's just a string of ill-founded assertions, it's pure bunk. The most serious problem here is unfortunately that he's a professor of physics and that lends credibility to his bullshit for no reason that an appeal to his own authority.

.

Why does being a physics prof lend any extra credibility to his opinions on structural engineering and demolition? Science != engineering.

I think I answered that at the end of the same sentence you quoted.

Maybe it doesn't seem like it to you given your own position & specialties but you're in a small minority. Personally I'd expect at least some trained objectivity and better judgement from a physics professor. The true impact though comes from the perception of people who listen to his bullshit and aren't equipped to really understand the distinction and get sucked into his reality warp field. I'd personally hope and expect that the average physics professor would in fact be more capable than most of commenting rationally on a collapse like this.

My own training is in architecture which included structural engineering and a lot of the calculations w.r.t loading, moments on beams and failure was pretty well physics based, with most of the non-physics engineering coming from knowledge based tables & safety margins (design aside).

Well, speaking as a physics prof. I can assure you that a typical physics curriculum, all the way to PhD, contains nothing whatsoever about beam strength,elasto-plastic buckling, safety margins, steel properties at high temperature, combustion processes, fire protection, or anything at all that would enable a physicist to have any more insight into this than, say, an accountant.

Now, if relativity or quantum mechanics is the issue, a physicist is "the man".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=476951

All professions have their quota of nutters.

Only those that think the virtue of their degrees makes them experts in EVERYTHING else.

We had a math professor get written up in a national enquirer type mag insistent that the moon needs to be destroyed NOW (for our own safety). Apparently tidal forces are tearing us apart. He was very odd otherwise. Now that I think about it, the math department contributed, overwhelmingly, the oddest profs throughout my college years.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

Quote

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=476951

All professions have their quota of nutters.

Only those that think the virtue of their degrees makes them experts in EVERYTHING else.

We had a math professor get written up in a national enquirer type mag insistent that the moon needs to be destroyed NOW (for our own safety). Apparently tidal forces are tearing us apart. He was very odd otherwise. Now that I think about it, the math department contributed, overwhelmingly, the oddest profs throughout my college years.

Every university I have been at had its strangest faculty in the mathematics department. Physics is usually pretty lucid (although Brian Josephson - Nobel laureate for superconductivity, is pretty wierd).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

Quote

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=476951

All professions have their quota of nutters.

Only those that think the virtue of their degrees makes them experts in EVERYTHING else.

.

What does having a degree have to do with it? Lots of people without degrees also think they are experts on everything.

In fact, research indicates that you are more likely to hold a favorable impression of your expertise if you don't actually have any.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10626367&dopt=Abstract

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[pirana 0]

Yeah, but I was explaining why people might give the guy credibility. I understand that a physicist won't necessarily understand the mechanics of a macro system like a skyscraper, but there is physics behind the mechanics of a building getting hit by an airplane (gravity, kinetic energy, acceleration, conservation of energy, conservation of angular momentum, and stuff like that). A physicist is more than likely to be seen by the public as being credible even if they do not specifically know the impact of certain stresses on a beam of a particular shape and material. So yeah, I'm agreeing the guy is not credible, but just saying the general public is likely to see him as credible.

BTW, did anyone see the clip of the engineer being interviewed where he was explaining how they considered an airplane impact in their design. They were very confident that the building could take a hit from a large plane. Then in a very sad tone he added "but we didn't think about the fuel." They never considered that they could have an instantaneous multi-floor fire.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[bch7773 0]

Quote

BTW, did anyone see the clip of the engineer being interviewed where he was explaining how they considered an airplane impact in their design. They were very confident that the building could take a hit from a large plane. Then in a very sad tone he added "but we didn't think about the fuel." They never considered that they could have an instantaneous multi-floor fire.

Yeah the fuel fire is what caused the collapse. One of the towers had previously survived an aircraft crash, a B-17.

I read the article about this proffessor, he says that thermite traces is what caused him to think the military did it....

but wouldn't thermite be a crappy way to blow apart a structural beam? I think that a shaped charge would be the way to go.

also, since thermite is made of rust and aluminum, I'm pretty sure we will find thermite traces in all burned buildings after an aircraft hits them.

MB 3528, RB 1182

[champu 1]

The buildings were designed to survive a run in with the largest commercial airliner around at the time (the 707 iirc) but only in an accidental scenario where presumably the plane would be near the end of it's journey (low fuel) and lost in fog/clouds (low airspeed.)

[dorbie 0]

I suspect you're thinking of the B-25 that struck the Empire State building in 1945.

I don't think thermite would blow so much as burn unless it was confined. It's highly exothermic, so it'd melt steel it came in contact with, it's used in welding.

You'd need a lot of it piled in strategic points above beams and of course the beams are coated in fire resistant foam.

Someone looking at the twin towers and saying they've found traces of thermite and it's evidence of sabotage is a retard. It's typically an aluminium and rust mix and it burns to produce iron and aluminium oxide.

There's no mystery, we saw the planes, we saw the fire, heck the architect was watching the TV waiting for them to fall.