So, you disagree that the sea level will rise significantly in the 100 years?

Furthermore, I think you have the problem backwards. The issue is not that people are doing too much to deal with global warming, the issue is that not enough is being done. I am not advocating a global freakout, but at this point the science needs to be taken seriously and assination and politically motivated pieces like these need to stop. My impression, and this could be wrong, is that in the US there is an overwhelming opinion that Science is wrong when it comes to global warming. And I believe that is ridiculous, without any proof otherwise people are taking it on FAITH that science is wrong.

I believe you are mistaken about scientists recieving political pressure to confirm or disprove a result, it may happen but if it does it is extremely rare. If it was prevalent, then NIST, which is headed by a Bush appointee, would never have come out so strongly in the case of global climate change. Have you had personal experience in this matter? My guess is no. Because that is not how grant writing works. In my experience in physics(myself) and biology(my fiancee), when we write grants we explain the proposed theories or experiments and state the possible outcomes, but a grant is never submitted stating the conclusion ahead of time.

And the squiggly...

lol. Tous Chez.

I understand your explanation, but you are talking about the tower as if it were two seperate objects. You cannot go from the resistance offered by the undamaged tower below the crash to no resistance in under a second, it is physically impossible.

NIST have themselves said that they can offer no explanation for the collapse, and several British universities have found no explanation with their own work; only one of these universities has went public so far.

However, your method would probably work, but it still relies entirely on a uniform collapse starting right at the very top of the tower. Correct me if I am wrong.

It is true that since the Clinton administration NIST has been headed by a political appointee, but the director of NIST has incredibly little control over the science done there. I think Doc_M already addressed this, so I am not going to repeat what he said.

You still haven't explained why my physics is wrong.

And, no, I not a government agent. I can't tell you how funny I find that.

Sure, Lurch.

9/11 happened just exactly like Bush said it did, and he would never stoop to having people silence dissent. He's such an honest man, and he would never lie to get what he wants.

Wow – you are naïve.

Remember the Los Alamos scientist who publically claimed the building's shouldn't have fallen like they did? Remember how he was forced to recant his statement only days later?

And:

"Jeffrey, 45, was nominated by President Bush on May 25, 2005, to succeed Arden Bement, who was appointed director of the National Science Foundation in November of last year. NIST Deputy Director Hratch Semerjian has served as acting director in the interim."

I think it's quite possible you're one of the people in charge of bashing 9/11 theories and spreading lies.

WTC7 fell EXACTLY as a building rigged with demos.

So did the other two buildings.

All of those floors that were unaffected by the impact essentially disappeared. All resistence to those buildings falling within their own footprint was removed.

All I'm hearing from you are bad excuses trying to explain away a real crime.

The NIST is a sham, and it sure as hell is in Bush's pocket.

The NIST admitted that it did not even consider a "controlled demoltion" hypothosis.

How convenient that they could debunk such a claim when they didn't bother to consider it in the first place.

And:

"The position of NIST director is a presidential appointment. Bement, 69, was nominated by President Bush on Oct. 23, 2001, to be the 12th director of the agency. He succeeds Raymond Kammer, who retired in December 2000. NIST Deputy Director Karen Brown has served as acting director in the interim."

Yes, absolutely the impulse is practically negiglible from the start. We are talking about 12 stories falling into one. Let alone that fact the superstructure is not made up of independent parts. All things considered, it is not only reasonable to discover that the towers fell at an acceleration close to gravity, it is expected.

I should remark that the estimates for the collapse are just that, and more than likely a lower bound. Realistically, the collapse probably started many seconds before the visual or seismic data could have measured.

The 11 seconds is obtained for the seismic data. If you can find me a citation which proves otherwise I'd like to see it.

I am not sure my equation needs anything. I mean if the speed was faster the acceleration of gravity then it would need something.

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).



In reply to this comment by Irishman:
The total distance...

This isn't right surely, what you are saying would mean that I would only have to knock out about 8 inches of my house for the entire thing to collapse into rubble. There isn't enough time for the falling part to gather enough inertia and therefore total mass.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
When you calculate total mass, the value of the mass you are using should already take into account its inertia.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
The total distance fallen by the taller building was 416.97 metres.

g at sea level is 9.81m/s

t (time taken for collapse) is 10 seconds from the seismic records and video footage.

416.97 metres will take 9.22 seconds to fall in a vacuum. The taller tower collapsed in 10 seconds.

That means that the 80 lower floors offered less than one second of resistance; this is not including air resistance.

That leaves less that one second for the amount of inertia to build up, not the 11 seconds that I think your equation needs. But correct me if I am wrong.



In reply to this comment by MycroftHomlz:
Yes.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Go to 6. There is the answer.

Right, so let me know if I lose you, and I will try to make it more clear-

The basic idea is that as the mass collapsed the initial collapsing floors collapsed at a total acceleration less than gravity at STP. At the floors collapsed onto each other their total momentum increased.

Or an easier way to see it,

F= (M+dm)*a = (M+dm)*g_STP-Fimpulse

Here I represented the force downward as an increasing quantity and Fimpulse as the force due to the collision of the total mass at time t-1 to time t. So, as the mass falls it gains more mass, until eventually the total force of the mass falling can be approximated F~(M+dm)g_STP.

Not that more mass falls at a faster rate, rather as more mass falls the effect of the other forces becomes negligible.

This means that for the most part the acceleration can be effectively described by something in freefall, and hence g_STP~a.

Note Fimpulse is a constant as a function of time.
In reply to this comment by Irishman:
I back Choggie's comments.

My own thoughts,
The thermite theory addressed the problem of the freefall speed of the tower's collapse.

There is still no official or third party theory that addresses that problem.

A freefall speed of collapse explicity implies no resistance, and that is impossible for 3 of the buildings that collapsed at freefall speed unless they were demolished.

If someone can explain how the freefall collapses were caused by the fire, then they will have solved the riddle.

When you calculate total mass, the value of the mass you are using should already take into account its inertia.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
The total distance fallen by the taller building was 416.97 metres.

g at sea level is 9.81m/s

t (time taken for collapse) is 10 seconds from the seismic records and video footage.

416.97 metres will take 9.22 seconds to fall in a vacuum. The taller tower collapsed in 10 seconds.

That means that the 80 lower floors offered less than one second of resistance; this is not including air resistance.

That leaves less that one second for the amount of inertia to build up, not the 11 seconds that I think your equation needs. But correct me if I am wrong.



In reply to this comment by MycroftHomlz:
Yes.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Go to 6. There is the answer.

Right, so let me know if I lose you, and I will try to make it more clear-

The basic idea is that as the mass collapsed the initial collapsing floors collapsed at a total acceleration less than gravity at STP. At the floors collapsed onto each other their total momentum increased.

Or an easier way to see it,

F= (M+dm)*a = (M+dm)*g_STP-Fimpulse

Here I represented the force downward as an increasing quantity and Fimpulse as the force due to the collision of the total mass at time t-1 to time t. So, as the mass falls it gains more mass, until eventually the total force of the mass falling can be approximated F~(M+dm)g_STP.

Not that more mass falls at a faster rate, rather as more mass falls the effect of the other forces becomes negligible.

This means that for the most part the acceleration can be effectively described by something in freefall, and hence g_STP~a.

Note Fimpulse is a constant as a function of time.
In reply to this comment by Irishman:
I back Choggie's comments.

My own thoughts,
The thermite theory addressed the problem of the freefall speed of the tower's collapse.

There is still no official or third party theory that addresses that problem.

A freefall speed of collapse explicity implies no resistance, and that is impossible for 3 of the buildings that collapsed at freefall speed unless they were demolished.

If someone can explain how the freefall collapses were caused by the fire, then they will have solved the riddle.

Yes.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Go to 6. There is the answer.

Right, so let me know if I lose you, and I will try to make it more clear-

The basic idea is that as the mass collapsed the initial collapsing floors collapsed at a total acceleration less than gravity at STP. At the floors collapsed onto each other their total momentum increased.

Or an easier way to see it,

F= (M+dm)*a = (M+dm)*g_STP-Fimpulse

Here I represented the force downward as an increasing quantity and Fimpulse as the force due to the collision of the total mass at time t-1 to time t. So, as the mass falls it gains more mass, until eventually the total force of the mass falling can be approximated F~(M+dm)g_STP.

Not that more mass falls at a faster rate, rather as more mass falls the effect of the other forces becomes negligible.

This means that for the most part the acceleration can be effectively described by something in freefall, and hence g_STP~a.

Note Fimpulse is a constant as a function of time.
In reply to this comment by Irishman:
I back Choggie's comments.

My own thoughts,
The thermite theory addressed the problem of the freefall speed of the tower's collapse.

There is still no official or third party theory that addresses that problem.

A freefall speed of collapse explicity implies no resistance, and that is impossible for 3 of the buildings that collapsed at freefall speed unless they were demolished.

If someone can explain how the freefall collapses were caused by the fire, then they will have solved the riddle.

Yes.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Go to 6. There is the answer.

Right, so let me know if I lose you, and I will try to make it more clear-

We must agree that as the floors collapsed onto each other the total momentum of the falling object increases. We can express this as a force equation, in the following way-

F= (M+dm)*a = (M+dm)*g_STP-Fimpulse

Here I represented the force downward as an increasing quantity and Fimpulse as the force due to the collision of the total mass at time t-1 to time t. So, as the mass falls it gains more mass, until eventually the total force of the mass falling can be approximated F~(M+dm)g_STP.

Not that more mass falls at a faster rate, rather as more mass falls the effect of the other forces becomes negligible.

This means that for the most part the acceleration can be effectively described by something in freefall, and hence g_STP~a.

Note:
Fimpulse is a constant as a function of time.
g_STP is gravity at Standard Temperature and Pressure, which is negligibly different than g in a vacuum.

I'm staying out of this argument this time since it never gets anywhere really, but I'd like to provide at least a little info on how science and research funding works since people seem to have been missinformed:

I'll use NIH as a model for us since most gov't funding agencies work like NIH.
First, Mr. Scientist writes his grant detailing his hypothesis, preliminary data, planned experiments, expected or possible results, and why the study is worth funding.
That grant is submitted and reviewed... NOT by some government bureaucrats, but by panels of experts in the field that pertains to the submitted grant. So if I submit a grant for funding for HIV research, the grant will be reviewed and scored by a group of retrovirus researchers at a meeting.
It makes me snicker when people say the Bush administration is controlling which grants get funded to control the science. This couldn't be farther from the truth. The scientists that select where the money goes are never in contact with any government stooges and make their decisions on scoring without considering any government opinion. In addition, a vast majority of scientists (this means most of the people giving out the money) are liberal democrats.

So your tax money is being doled out to scientists by scientists who are mostly liberals. Soooo, you don't need to be worried about the White House ever tampering with that research. Now on the other hand, research from places like the DoD and such is not quite as independent, so you can suspect that if you want. NIST research is very certainly not influenced by the administration in office. Scientists are far too self-important to allow themselves to be bullied by higher-ups. They'd in fact love it if it happened since they'd get a chance to tell everyone that they're being bullied. It'd make great headlines and they'd get famous in science in a snap.

Now, after the research is funded and done, it is not published by some government periodical that has been sifted by the administration. Scientific papers are submitted directly to private periodicals such as "Science" or "Nature" or "Journal of Virology" or whatever. The papers are reviewed by at least 2 other scientists who are experts in the field (this is done on a rotation so people don't get to many review requests). If the paper looks complete, it gets published. If not, it gets bounced back to Mr. Scientist with written reviews on what needs to be done to make it publish worthy. At no point does any government person see this paper. The magazines that publish the papers never interact with the government and are also run by mostly liberal democrats if you want to know.

So, funding agencies don't care what Bush thinks and disagree with him all the time: see global warming.
Scientists are mostly liberal democrats who don't give a crap what Bush thinks and disagree with him all the time without fear... with pride even.
No scientists are afraid to lose their jobs, cause they won't.
No scientists are worried about losing their funding because the government is not deciding who gets funded. The Scientists are.
Should I say most scientists are liberal democrats again?
And finally, periodicals are not influenced by government authority and would love to defy them given the opportunity.
Also, not all science is done in the US.

You can argue all day that the science is wrong and that the buildings were demolished, but don't try to tell me that the scientists are in Bush's pocket, because that is simply and completely untrue. Most scientists would love to stick it to Bush.

...unless of course you think that all of us scientists are in on it. <.< >.> <.< Dun. Dun. DUUUUUUHHHHH.

Yeah, that's not true. Like I said, the government has absolutely no influence of the researchers it awards grants to, and that includes federal agencies like NIST, LNL, NIH, NRL. If they did, then-

a) No colleague I know would work there.
b) Global Warming science at NIST would have died 8 years ago.

"As it stands, all of the scientific evidence examined and computer simulations done by NIST and other universities such as UMD, and CU supports the thesis that the collapse of all of the Towers(Including WT7)"

The NIST is in the Bush administration's pants pocket. They will not dare reach a conclusion that they know the Bush administration won't approve.

The universities know that their funding will dry up like a plate of water in the Sahara if they come to any conclusion other than the one decided upon by Bush.

Scientists, too, know that speaking out against the conclusion will result in their being targeted and harrassed and probably even be fired.

WT7 is the best evidence of all that the lie is big and well organized.

In the debate between evolution and creationism, the creationist claim that science has not found the transitional fossils necessary to confirm the theory of evolution, i.e. 'we don't have all the evidene'. Yet, scientists, like myself, don't see that as a valid critique, because of the overwhelming amount of evidence that supports evolution.

My point being that, you don't need the whole story to find enough evidence to draw a conclusion, or at least eliminate an erroneous alternative hypothesis. As it stands, all of the scientific evidence examined and computer simulations done by NIST and other universities such as UMD, and CU supports the thesis that the collapse of all of the Towers(Including WT7) was initiated by the airplanes crashing. The fact that you and others like you have not read NIST's report to effectively know the points you are arguing against is similar to a creationist saying "I don't need to understand the theory of evolution, because I have read the bible".

Read the report. If you still don't agree with it, then your opinion, at least, is based on scientific fact and not conjecture. I should reiterate the fact that no accredited scientific source supports your conjecture. According to Wikipedia, Steven Jones, is regarded very poorly, and at the least is seen as incompetent and in the worst case a fraud.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

Jeff King, as I pointed out in a previous post, cannot be confirmed as a research scientist of any kind, let alone at MIT.

You asked me to present you three scientists who were not related to the NIST investigation. That is a very challenging task, primarily because the federal government essentially charged NIST with the scientific investigation. In order to be involved in this research a significant part of the structural and metallurgical engineering community have collaborated. In fact, the way scientific research is done in most countries virtually NO SCINETIFIC RESEARCH IS DONE WITHOUT FEDERAL FUNDING. As a scientist in my experience, these granting agencies have absolutely no influence over the findings of the researchers. Moreover, unlike small research efforts like the cold fusion experiments in the 1980s, such a large collaborative effort makes the likely hood of scientific fraud exceedingly unlikely.

That said there are numerous examples of researchers who are not affiliated with NIST - here are three.

MIT civil engineers Oral Buyukozturk and Franz-Josef Ulm
UMD fire protection engineer Howard R. Baum

A simple literature research would reveal more, but I am at home and I don't have time to go into work today and do a literature search for you.

I encourage you to go to your local library or university and do a literature search for yourself.

In reply to this comment by choggie:
....

You may compile a mountain of data, that describes in detail the whys and hows this event was as they say....and you forget, the most important aspect of arriving at a conclusion that there is.

How can you draw a conclusion, without all the information? You can't-and close don't cut it-There are too many holes in the data that any of these websites whose mission it is to prove it was a conspiracy, and the ones that say it can't possibly be. We are quite simply, not in the need to know group-...

LiquidYogi,

I am interested in your point of view, and I have some follow up questions.

Do you think NIST, NIH and other government research and granting institutions do not help the American economy, science, or business? Do you believe it is unrealistic to think that a president can significantly diminish funding for those institutions? If research was completely funded by industry, do you think that would have an effect on scientist ability to share information?

MH