Evidence of a Top-Down Explosive Demolition

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Pages:
1
2

Evidence of a Top-Down Explosive Demolition; by Physics Analysis
Topic Started: Aug 13 2008, 02:39 PM (1,461 Views)
Freq Band	Dec 1 2008, 09:29 PM Post #26
Posts: 85 Group: Skeptics Member #583 Joined: 05/17/08	Headspin Dec 1 2008, 02:38 PM Freq Band Dec 1 2008, 01:38 PM That article was poppycock..... But what you do prove, is that there are some quaky peer paper referee's. here is his Curriculum vitae: http://arkadiusz-jadczyk.org/jadczyk_cv.html are YOU qualified to refute what he says? His mathematics....No. (see his quote below, in red) But his contradictions of method/judgment...yes. He himself states in that blog... "" Whatever a given scientist may have in mind at the beginning, he can always choose a model that will confirm his preconceptions. If he then covers his tracks by using incomprehensible (to the average reader) jargon, no one will have the patience to go through the details or no one will care. "" (italics = again, see quote in red.) ...which is the exact tactic he uses on us a few paragraphs down. He wants to change the model, to suit his preconceptions.... "" Yes, indeed, there were sounds of each successive impact. But there were also sounds of explosions and there are other important factors (for instance unusually melted steel, angularly cut beams, insufficient temperature to melt steel, and so on). The author seems to not care about these factors. Why? Because taking them into account would force him to choose a different model and he is either not willing or not able to do so. "" ...he wants those factors built into the model. And when he does, he is "change(ing) the model, to suit his preconceptions"...so inevitably, he will arrive at a different conclusion. His preconceived conclusions are that the angle cut beams are not from the site clean-up (cutting torches), and that there was melted steel due to temperature. These conclusions are without evidential merit, and he is breaking his own rules as a scientific referee. ""So, accusing someone of lying with math needs, as a rule, someone else who is math literate."" Near and at the end of the article/blog, he proceeds to engage in his previously stated no-no, and ...."covers his tracks by using incomprehensible (to the average reader) jargon, no one will have the patience to go through the details or no one will care." =FB=
Posts: 85 Group: Skeptics Member #583 Joined: 05/17/08


Headspin	Dec 2 2008, 07:45 AM Post #27
Posts: 956 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	freq-band <snip> I do not understand your post. I have read Jadczyk's article once more in case i missed something first time. http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2007/11/keith-seffens-wtc-collapse-folly-not.html I find Jadczk's unwinding of Seffen's obfuscation very clear and helpful in understanding what the Seffen paper actually means, proves and doesn't prove. But in the above post you appear to accuse Jadczk twice of using "incomprehensible jargon" to "cover his tracks". I am left wondering whether you have paid little attention to the article and mixed up Seffen's masterful obfuscation with Jadcyk's illuminating clarity. Jadczk blows away the smoke and examines the foundations on which Seffens paper is built, and simply destroys it. It also crossed my mind that freq-band may want to lead the discussion onto the well trodden ground regarding matters of molten steel and such like, in order to detract from some of Jadczk's crushing statements like: "Progressive collapse indeed – of Science"; " 'spirit of obfuscation' permeates every word of this pseudo-scientific paper"; "He clearly tells us that it is his assumption <of progressive collapse> that enables him to choose “a simpler formulation”. And what if he had taken a different assumption?" These are truely damning comments from a seasoned peer reveiwer, and yet no doubt Seffen's paper will continue to be fanned by the anti-truth movement, as proof of "expert" validation.
Posts: 956 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


Miragememories	Dec 2 2008, 08:08 AM Post #28
Posts: 752 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	Of particular interest, was this statement which focuses on people like Freq Band who spend so much time and effort attacking those who raise valid criticism of the Official Story. "I am not one known for foaming at the mouth. In fact, I find conversing with spooks to be a pleasant past-time. And please, know that I don't take it personally. I know you are simply reading from a list of "talking points". Chances are you don't even believe a word you're writing, which is some consolation to me. You're just doing your job, after all. For those readers observing this exchange, please know that (for further reference), when "anonymous" refers to "facts" he is referring to "un-facts"; "truth" is "propaganda"; etc. A re-read of Orwell's principles of newspeak will come in handy. Anonymous is also continuing (quite predictably, I may add...) to engage in gaslighting; that is, he is repeatedly denying facts (lying), in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This self-certainty is seen by others with a normal world view in the following way: "Well, he's so certain, and certainly no one lies that well, so he must be telling the truth. Unfortunately, this is the point. He is aware of the effect his lying has on others. That is why he is paid to do it. How else do you think he found this blog? Who goes around scouting for blogs with any mention of any critical view of 9/11 and posts talking points, but a paid propagandist? Think about it." MM
Posts: 752 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


Freq Band	Dec 2 2008, 11:51 AM Post #29
Posts: 85 Group: Skeptics Member #583 Joined: 05/17/08	Headspin Dec 2 2008, 07:45 AM I do not understand your post. I have read Jadczyk's article once more in case i missed something first time. http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2007/11/keith-seffens-wtc-collapse-folly-not.html But in the above post you appear to accuse Jadczk twice of using "incomprehensible jargon" to "cover his tracks". I find Jadczk's unwinding of Seffen's obfuscation very clear and helpful in understanding what the Seffen paper actually means, proves and doesn't prove. If you think the few criticisms Jadczk made are enough to conclude what Seffen proved and didn't prove, then your requirements for decision making are extremely lightweight. Quote: Jadczk blows away the smoke and examines the foundations on which Seffens paper is built, and simply destroys it. He cherry-picked two paragraphs out of many, and focuses on one or two words within those paragraphs....hardly destroying the entire paper. Quote: But in the above post you appear to accuse Jadczk ~~twice~~ of using "incomprehensible jargon" to "cover his tracks". Only once. Twice = I was agreeing with the "quote in red". Quote: It also crossed my mind that freq-band may want to lead the discussion onto the well trodden ground regarding matters of molten steel and such....(snip) Jadczk brought it up. Quote: (snip).....in order to detract from some of Jadczk's crushing statements like: "Progressive collapse indeed – of Science"; ...a comedic opinion. " 'spirit of obfuscation' permeates every word of this pseudo-scientific paper"; ........another opinion, exaggerated by the use of the word "every". "He clearly tells us that it is his assumption <of progressive collapse> that enables him to choose “a simpler formulation”. And what if he had taken a different assumption?" .......Both you and Jadczyk may have missed the paper's title "Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: a Simple Analysis" Quote: These are truely damning comments from a seasoned peer reveiwer... No. Those are embarrassing quotes from a peer reviewer. He entered his preconceptions into the mix. If he was actually asked to become peer reviewer for this paper, he would have to exclude himself, as he already has formed opinions as to what the outcome "should" be. Here is a good comment someone left on that blog that I did not see until just now...... Quote: This is pretty funny. Ark is clearly desperate to discredit Seffen's paper regardless of anything but his own agenda. First, he implies it's a mathematics paper. It's not. It's an engineering paper. Yes, it uses math along the way, as engineering is wont to do, but the author is not so much interested in mathematical certainty as he is with a simple model of the collapse -- per the title of the paper! So no, we should not find absolute mathematical rigor here; and yes, we should expect to find simplification. Why simplify? To obtain a closed-form solution. Here Ark has flat-out lied about what that means when he twists it to say Steffen is looking for one solution in particular. He is rather looking for a particular kind of solution. For the benefit of those who have never encountered the term, a closed-form solution is one that can be expressed in terms of a limited set of functions. With such a solution, one can just substitute the values for the particular case under consideration, run it through your calculator, and get a number out. Very simple to use. However, many -- indeed, most -- physical problems cannot be solved this way without simplification. Without simplification, solutions must usually be obtained by numerical methods. This is when you use approximations of the solution to obtain a result. Often this is done repeatedly with each repetition yielding greater precision. The precision obtainable depends on a number of factors, but it is not infinite. Both a closed-form solution reached by simplification, and a numerical solution obtained from refined approximations, are by nature imprecise, and it's impossible to say in the general case which is more likely to be better. You choose depending on the data and mathematical tools available, and the goal of the exercise. In this case, the goal of simplicity and the ability to draw a few general inferences at the end dictate seeking a closed form solution. A physicist ought to know that. They simplify in order to obtain closed-form solutions all the time. As the old joke goes, "Assume a spherical cat." But Ark pretends this is a new and strange procedure to him. That should be a red flag. It's utter mendacity. Finally, when pressed for an example of exactly how Steffen went wrong, the one he gives is entirely bogus! Yes, that typo omitting g above equation 18 is embarrassing. Good thing it wasn't picked up in any subsequent derivation then, wasn't it? It had no effect whatsoever on the result. Probably happened at the press. One imagines such things are not uncommon in prepublication copies of papers, such as this one. If that was the best Ark could do, then he has nothing at all. He should be embarrassed for such a public display. =FB=
Posts: 85 Group: Skeptics Member #583 Joined: 05/17/08


Freq Band	Dec 2 2008, 01:37 PM Post #30
Posts: 85 Group: Skeptics Member #583 Joined: 05/17/08	Just a side note...if you're interested on what goes on in Arkadiusz's household, Laura Knight-Jadczyk is the author of several books, dealing with alien mind control, abductions, secret history, and alternative religions. There is much to read on the net about her.... some bad, some in agreement....so to be fair, here is both.... The bad... Quote: "According to her, Laura, in 1994, after the Shoemaker-Levy comet slammed into Jupiter, Laura Knight Martin (now Jadczyk) began to channel the Cassiopaeans via a trumped up version of an Ouija Board with fellow board experimenter Fred Ireland. The board used the same type of communication techniques as the original Ouija. In 1996 she divorced the father of her five children Lewis Martin claiming he was a reptilian zombie replacement sent to destroy her ability to evolve on her pathway with the Cassiopaeans." http://www.maar.us/laura_knight_jadczyk.html The good (if you believe in this stuff) http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php Want even More ?? 9/11 Truth Now youTube video .... and if you think that being married to, and living in an environment with such a person has no effect, Arkadiusz remarks: ""After all this time, I cannot begin to tell you what is truly happening with Laura. I do know that she remains as intriguing as ever. From the moment I met her, she has made me consider possibilities that would not have occurred to me otherwise. She has forced me to see and think in new ways." Here is their Cassiopaea website: http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/index.html She apparently had a financial fiff with the (google results link) MAAR (Malevolent Alien Abduction Research) =FB= Edited by Freq Band, Dec 2 2008, 02:04 PM.
Posts: 85 Group: Skeptics Member #583 Joined: 05/17/08


Miragememories	Dec 3 2008, 10:40 AM Post #31
Posts: 752 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	Freq Band, I suggest you challenge the man's argument and credentials rather than nit picking and muck raking, which appears to be your preferred style. "I know you are simply reading from a list of "talking points". Chances are you don't even believe a word you're writing, which is some consolation to me. You're just doing your job, after all." It's seems to be a tag team operation the pseudo skeptics have going on here. As soon as one takes a break (Grit 1645) another, Freq Band, takes their place. The Loose Change documentary got unprecedented attention. Thinking the Loose Change Forum would be ignored by those whose work was exposed by the documentary, would be very naive. MM
Posts: 752 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


Lin Kuei	Dec 3 2008, 11:45 AM Post #32
Posts: 1,293 Group: Admins Member #5 Joined: 12/22/07	Freq Band Dec 2 2008, 01:37 PM if you're interested on what goes on in Arkadiusz's household no, we're not. There may be people in his personal life with some strange ideas - but who cares? why don't you focus on the subject matter at hand, rather than desperately trying to find something to smear someone looking at the evidence with... in the skeptic's section (to which you're now confined). See you there 'Freq Band'
Posts: 1,293 Group: Admins Member #5 Joined: 12/22/07


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · World Trade Center · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2