Notices
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 787

Thread: 9/11 science

  1. #101  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Generally, in science, when you want to prove a given experimental result is not an artefact of the mechanism being used to produce it, you set up another experiment using a different mechanism. The likelihood that two separate mechanisms would lead to the same anomalous behavior, or create the same artefacts, is considered unlikely,
    So you tend to believe that fish, dolphins and ichthyosaurs are very closely related, then?
    No. I'm suggesting that there exists a unifying theory that explains all three, and it isn't to be found in the specifics. (Exactly like I think there's a chance there might be a unifying theory to all 3 collapses, that isn't to be found in the specifics)

    Evolution drives any species that enters the water to adapt to it, even very diverse species, and sometimes in diverse ways (dolphins don't use gills). There's the common bond.

    Sabotage can cause buildings to collapse in very diverse ways, even very different buildings. Sabotage by an individual who doesn't want to damage too much of the surrounding infrastructure of the city would tend very strongly toward symmetrical collapses.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Here we have two very different mechanisms, and one result: symmetrical collapse.
    We do not have one result. WTC 1 and 2 collapsed outward, WTC 7 collapsed inward. 1 and 2 collapsed from the top-down, 7 collapsed from the bottom-up. 1 and 2 each collapsed within an hour, 7 took seven hours. We're not talking past eachother, I'm talking and you appear to be ignoring what I'm saying so that you don't have to address it.
    And a dolphins adaptation to water life is very different than the adaptation of a fish. The only thing in common between the 2 animals is that both their physiologies adapt them to the water.

    Would you rather attribute that to the random caprices of "god", imagine that both species simply got very lucky, or look for a unifying theory of some kind that can explain both?

    There's more than one way to deliberately bring down a building. Just like how there's more than one way to skin a cat. The fact two different cats are skinned in two radically different ways doesn't mean they aren't being skinned artificially. Rather, it suggests very strongly that they *are* being skinned artificially.

    Or maybe you prefer to assign the symmetry to the random caprices of fate. It's not that fate can't do things like that. It's just that we should be reluctant to believe explanations that appeal to fortunate coincidence. If I told you that a dolphin's ability to hold its breath and use sonar had evolved while the predecessors of the species lived on land, just because they felt like holding their breaths..... I like to hope you'd doubt me.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I've already cited a source pointing out that a substantial amount of the tenant space in the WTC buildings was going unused. The owner could easily send a work crew into any unused office he wanted and simply tell the other tenants they were busy remodeling.
    Again, you say these things like they're simple. We're no longer talking about months of preparation here, now we're talking years. Possibly decades. Silverstein only had ownership for two months, how could he possibly have done this? Your explanation doesn't really explain a whole lot and relies heavily on assumptions. Still want to talk about Occam's Razor?

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Silverstein secured a 99 year lease to the building in July of 2001, for about 3.5 billion dollars (mostly from other investors). He was the first private individual to ever obtain such a lease. The building's ownership and control was entirely public until then. After the 911 attacks, he collected 4.5 billion in insurance. (He actually attempted to collect 7 billion, claiming the 2 planes counted as 2 instances)
    This isn't the movies, policies are specifically set up to pay for the restoration of the property and nothing else. Insurance companies often have legal safeguards to prevent the recipient from using the awarded money on anything other than restoration. So the $4.6 billion is his, but it isn't. His name was on the check, but if he spent the money on anything other than the reconstruction of the property, he would likely be sued to hell and back and charged with insurance fraud. He evidently hasn't done this, since your own source (the Wikipedia page) says that the $4.6 billion is "currently being used to rebuild the World Trade Center." If this was his plan, then it was a bad plan.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    He only had the buildings for 2 months before they fell. (He still holds the lease for the lot until 2100) That is a very fast billion dollars. If there was a conspiracy involved, then it's virtually certain he was part of it. If there wasn't one, then he's just a very lucky guy.
    No, he evidently was a very unlucky guy. Two months after purchasing a very lucrative asset, it gets destroyed. Leaving him with a 99 year lease that has no positive cash flow. He's been paying $102 million a year for eight years rent on a property that isn't making him any money. If you factor in the amount that the World Trade Center could have been making in that time, his total losses could be estimated in the billions.
    Now that is a very solid point. Checking through the article it also mentions that the 4.5 billion won't be sufficient for the rebuilding effort, which adds additional credibility to his misfortune. I guess that means the short duration of his ownership is really evidence in the opposite direction to where I had it.

    I like points like that because they're not just appeals to burden of evidence (That everyone should believe the official story unless they have infinity evidence), but they're points that are convincing to someone that initially doubts the official story.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Sabotage by an individual who doesn't want to damage too much of the surrounding infrastructure of the city would tend very strongly toward symmetrical collapses..
    If I had planned to bring down the twin towers I would have been delighted by any adjacent damage. Why would I have wanted to restrict it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    hell yeah, I would have wanted so much lateral movement that the twin towers would have fallen on the white house. If I had been a terrorist/illuminati/republican planning this event.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Or maybe you prefer to assign the symmetry to the random caprices of fate. It's not that fate can't do things like that. It's just that we should be reluctant to believe explanations that appeal to fortunate coincidence. If I told you that a dolphin's ability to hold its breath and use sonar had evolved while the predecessors of the species lived on land, just because they felt like holding their breaths..... I like to hope you'd doubt me.
    What symmetry? Video of its collapse clearly show the east interior of Building 7 collapsing several seconds before the rest of the building. You can see the roof on one side cave in, and you can even partially see the collapse through the windows. There's footage of this in NIST's video, Why the Tower Fell (at about 00:10.) I tried to find raw footage of the collapse, but its very difficult. Most videos about WTC 7 are conspiracy videos and have a tendancy to start after the roof had already caved in, deceptively leaving the impression that the collapse started later than it actually did (and consequentially, the impression that it was a uniform collapse.) So NIST's video will have to do as it is the only video I could find of that angle that shows the collapse in its entirety. This higher angle shows the east roof collapse too, but in less detail.

    In both principle and occurrence, the collapses of WTCs 1&2 and WTC 7 shared very little in common. You continue to insist that they are "the same result," presumably relying on a vague and generalized understanding of their collapse that begins and ends with deceptively edited video circulated by conspiracy theorists. This is why you've presented no evidence to support your claim. Instead relying almost entirely on conjecture about probability which you then use to assume your preferred conclusion even though the evidence does not support it.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I like points like that because they're not just appeals to burden of evidence (That everyone should believe the official story unless they have infinity evidence), but they're points that are convincing to someone that initially doubts the official story.
    Why am I not surprised that a conspiracy theorist would be "not like" having to provide evidence?
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Or maybe you prefer to assign the symmetry to the random caprices of fate. It's not that fate can't do things like that. It's just that we should be reluctant to believe explanations that appeal to fortunate coincidence. If I told you that a dolphin's ability to hold its breath and use sonar had evolved while the predecessors of the species lived on land, just because they felt like holding their breaths..... I like to hope you'd doubt me.
    What symmetry? Video of its collapse clearly show the east interior of Building 7 collapsing several seconds before the rest of the building. You can see the roof on one side cave in, and you can even partially see the collapse through the windows. There's video of this in NIST's video, Why the Tower Fell. I tried to find raw footage of the collapse, but its very difficult. Most videos about WTC 7 are conspiracy videos and conspiracy videos have a tendancy to start after the roof had already caved in, deceptively leaving the impression that the collapse started later than it actually did (and consequentially, the impression that it was a uniform collapse.) This higher angle shows the east roof collapse too, but in less detail.

    In both principle and occurrence, the collapses of WTCs 1&2 and WTC 7 shared very little in common. You continue to insist that they are "the same result," presumably relying on a vague and generalized understanding of their collapse that begins and ends with deceptively edited video circulated by conspiracy theorists. This is why you've presented no evidence to support your claim. Instead relying almost entirely on conjecture about probability which you then use to assume your preferred conclusion.
    Now you're dancing around my issue. The only symmetry I'm referring to is the tendency not to tip in either direction during the fall. (Thus inflicting minimal damage to the surrounding buildings.)

    Are you suggesting that it is typical for tall buildings not to tip disproportionately in either direction when they collapse?

    To me, the "final result" is where the debris ended up, and what happened to surrounding buildings. It's fitting that we've brought evolution into this discussion because what I'm trying to compare, in this situation, is the likelihood of intelligent design as opposed to random chance. The only "final results" in an intelligent design question are those which an intelligent being would base decisions on.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I like points like that because they're not just appeals to burden of evidence (That everyone should believe the official story unless they have infinity evidence), but they're points that are convincing to someone that initially doubts the official story.
    Why am I not surprised that a conspiracy theorist would be "not like" having to provide evidence?
    No. What I don't like is dealing with other people who think *they* don't need to provide any evidence. I'm happy to provide it. I just don't like it to be a one way street.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Now you're dancing around my issue. The only symmetry I'm referring to is the tendency not to tip in either direction during the fall. (Thus inflicting minimal damage to the surrounding buildings.)

    Are you suggesting that it is typical for tall buildings not to tip disproportionately in either direction when they collapse?

    To me, the "final result" is where the debris ended up, and what happened to surrounding buildings. It's fitting that we've brought evolution into this discussion because what I'm trying to compare, in this situation, is the likelihood of intelligent design as opposed to random chance. The only "final results" in an intelligent design question are those which an intelligent being would base decisions on.
    Talking about the evidence in its entirety is "dancing around the issue?"

    And buildings only tip when they're off balance. Typically when one corner of the building is structurally weak. In buildings 1 and 2, all corners were weakened by the planes. In building 7, no corners were weakened, the collapse originated from within.

    But ok, lets talk about the "final result." How did the buildings effect their surroundings? Towers 1 and 2 rained death and destruction down on all surrounding buildings damaging several beyond repair. Tower 7 collapsed inward onto itself and caused no additional damage to any surrounding buildings. Still not seeing any symmetry here.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    No. What I don't like is dealing with other people who think *they* don't need to provide any evidence. I'm happy to provide it. I just don't like it to be a one way street.
    And yet you've failed to provide any evidence that pans out while NIST's investigation has provided a great deal that is corroborated by visual evidence, as well as seismic evidence and expert eye-witness accounts, rendering an explanation that has been successfully replicated under laboratory conditions.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Kojax,

    three things are evident:

    1. Finger knows his stuff.
    2. He has debating skills that leave yours in the dust.
    3. In consequence of 1 and 2 you have been handed your ass on a plate.

    I'd suggest you quit while you are behind, but I'm enjoying it too much.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    No. What I don't like is dealing with other people who think *they* don't need to provide any evidence. I'm happy to provide it. I just don't like it to be a one way street.
    Providing evidence to someone who provides none would be a good way to end an arguement. I would suggest either provide your alleged evidence, or a graceful retreat.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Kojax,

    three things are evident:

    1. Finger knows his stuff.
    2. He has debating skills that leave yours in the dust.
    3. In consequence of 1 and 2 you have been handed your ass on a plate.

    I'd suggest you quit while you are behind, but I'm enjoying it too much.
    I just keep going on a topic until I get answers that satisfy me. In the conspiracy debate, I've always suspended final judgment, but when I see debates on it, I tend to side with the underdog (which in this case was Viper-X)

    I decided from the beginning that I either wanted to be able to fully articulate why it wasn't a conspiracy, or fully articulate why it was. I've been undecided for a very long time.

    You know, if someone could write a concise, compelling book on this topic, that fully convinced the reader without preaching to the choir, they'd probably make a lot of money. But it's that last part everybody fails at. They always preach to the choir. I find that both sides want to convince the other, so it's best to fill the book with arguments that are likely to appeal to the other side's reasoning system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Now you're dancing around my issue. The only symmetry I'm referring to is the tendency not to tip in either direction during the fall. (Thus inflicting minimal damage to the surrounding buildings.)

    Are you suggesting that it is typical for tall buildings not to tip disproportionately in either direction when they collapse?

    To me, the "final result" is where the debris ended up, and what happened to surrounding buildings. It's fitting that we've brought evolution into this discussion because what I'm trying to compare, in this situation, is the likelihood of intelligent design as opposed to random chance. The only "final results" in an intelligent design question are those which an intelligent being would base decisions on.
    Talking about the evidence in its entirety is "dancing around the issue?"
    If you're discussing things that seem like Red herrings. You don't want to try and win a debate by overwhelming your opponent with unnecessary information. "Evidence in its entirety" could mean that you dump 200 boxes of papers on my doorstep and demand that I read every page before I reply.

    When perhaps one single sheet, strategically chosen, would have been sufficient to convince me. After pointing out that the collapses had very different mechanisms and that those mechanisms prevented wide spread damage, you've made all the point you're going to make. Additional details aren't going to enhance it.



    And buildings only tip when they're off balance. Typically when one corner of the building is structurally weak. In buildings 1 and 2, all corners were weakened by the planes. In building 7, no corners were weakened, the collapse originated from within.
    That's what I was looking to understand. So, symmetrical collapses are actually highly common when dealing with falls from fire damage, provided that the fire was happening more or less evenly throughout the floor where it happens?

    After the initial hammer effect of the upper building falling through the areas that had been on fire, we shouldn't expect a tipping effect? And, we did get a small tipping effect on at least one of them, but not enough to actually tip the building.

    That's basically what I've been wondering. It seemed to me like one side or the other would have a tendency to fail first, due to differences in ventalation, but it also might not matter, since it's a heat effect, and heat tends to spread out.




    But ok, lets talk about the "final result." How did the buildings effect their surroundings? Towers 1 and 2 rained death and destruction down on all surrounding buildings damaging several beyond repair. Tower 7 collapsed inward onto itself and caused no additional damage to any surrounding buildings. Still not seeing any symmetry here.
    Yeah, but not as much as if they had tipped. Nothing is ever perfect, or at least not unless you really work at it.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    No. What I don't like is dealing with other people who think *they* don't need to provide any evidence. I'm happy to provide it. I just don't like it to be a one way street.
    And yet you've failed to provide any evidence that pans out while NIST's investigation has provided a great deal that is corroborated by visual evidence, as well as seismic evidence and expert eye-witness accounts, rendering an explanation that has been successfully replicated under laboratory conditions.
    I've provided evidence. It just wasn't sufficient to prove my point. You're the first person in a long time who has bothered to provide me with any back, and that makes you exceptional.

    NIST itself gives wonderfully detailed descriptions in terms of the story narrative style of detail, but I sometimes find it extremely hard to get the specific reasons why their story is going the way its going.

    I wish that the engineering community, instead of thumbing its nose at conspiracy nuts, would bother to help them understand why they're wrong. Our economy is in shambles because of peoples' fears. You don't dispel fear by thumbing your nose at somebody. When you engage conspiracy nuts, it seems like you're not doing a lot of good, but you actually are doing quite a lot of good. It's just a different good than what you might have been hoping to accomplish. ( Bringing down their anxiety level instead of fully convincing them, but their anxiety is the real problem, not their opinion. )
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Bringing down their anxiety level instead of fully convincing them, but their anxiety is the real problem, not their opinion.
    The anxiety has been nursed, built and manipulated by governments. If you wish to bring the anxiety levels down, then bring down a government.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Now you're dancing around my issue. The only symmetry I'm referring to is the tendency not to tip in either direction during the fall. (Thus inflicting minimal damage to the surrounding buildings.)

    Are you suggesting that it is typical for tall buildings not to tip disproportionately in either direction when they collapse?

    To me, the "final result" is where the debris ended up, and what happened to surrounding buildings. It's fitting that we've brought evolution into this discussion because what I'm trying to compare, in this situation, is the likelihood of intelligent design as opposed to random chance. The only "final results" in an intelligent design question are those which an intelligent being would base decisions on.
    Talking about the evidence in its entirety is "dancing around the issue?"

    And buildings only tip when they're off balance. Typically when one corner of the building is structurally weak. In buildings 1 and 2, all corners were weakened by the planes. In building 7, no corners were weakened, the collapse originated from within.

    But ok, lets talk about the "final result." How did the buildings effect their surroundings? Towers 1 and 2 rained death and destruction down on all surrounding buildings damaging several beyond repair. Tower 7 collapsed inward onto itself and caused no additional damage to any surrounding buildings. Still not seeing any symmetry here.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    No. What I don't like is dealing with other people who think *they* don't need to provide any evidence. I'm happy to provide it. I just don't like it to be a one way street.
    And yet you've failed to provide any evidence that pans out while NIST's investigation has provided a great deal that is corroborated by visual evidence, as well as seismic evidence and expert eye-witness accounts, rendering an explanation that has been successfully replicated under laboratory conditions.
    The point of impacts would be the weakest point, naturally. And even without there being a weaker point, it would still only tip, unless apparently there is weakening underneath. That is understandable, but how likely is it that the entire building underneath was weakened by the fire that (shown in videos) did not burn long enough, and not nearly hot enough to weaken the steal? How could the fire have engulfed the entire building (even though we've seen entire buildings engulfed but still standing, without any evidence of possible collapse) Any occurrence of a steel building falling in the passed ever only tilted sideways. You could still recognize the building as you did before, but with an obvious lean to one side... They never just crumble.

    On WTC#7 collapse, for those who still don't believe it fell at free fall for some reason. I will be back tomorrow or later tonight with more. I'm only covering the "obvious" points that have been talked about to death, because they are the ones currently most ignored and have most relevance.

    So this video shows what I was trying to say before but didn't have the maths for. Many of the laws of physics used "against" me would apply in the vacuum of space, but as this video suggests wtc#7 fell faster than Earth's variables would even allow, even had the building (under the point of collapse) been made of toothpicks.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U

    Further evidence of a cover up. There is an incredible amount of suspicious news coverage that never aired again after Sept. 11. All of these were removed. And how on earth could the entire official story on what happened, how they fell, who did, and what America needed to do as a country within merely 24 hours since 9/11...

    More money went into the research of Bill Clinton's sexual escapades than 9/11 before they had their official story.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIgoX...eature=related

    Once again though, I never said for certain 9/11 was an inside job. All fingers point to that direction but you can't know for certain. I thing I do almost know for certain is that explosives were used, the question is why or how and who's responsible?

    One thing that is painfully clear (confiscated footage, revision of physics explanations that have not been clear or contradicted scientific laws, simple questions that have been asked for years gone unanswered...) there is at least cover ups.

    But is the reason they're covering things up to hide their inadequencies or is it to hide their responsibility. These are things we should be questioning. We know there were cover ups, if bombs were used is nearly unimportant but it leads to many important questions also.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168

    Just making sure you still have me on Ignore.
    You couldn't stop yourself from looking, could you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    The point of impacts would be the weakest point, naturally. And even without there being a weaker point, it would still only tip, unless apparently there is weakening underneath. That is understandable, but how likely is it that the entire building underneath was weakened by the fire that (shown in videos) did not burn long enough, and not nearly hot enough to weaken the steal? How could the fire have engulfed the entire building (even though we've seen entire buildings engulfed but still standing, without any evidence of possible collapse) Any occurrence of a steel building falling in the passed ever only tilted sideways. You could still recognize the building as you did before, but with an obvious lean to one side... They never just crumble.
    Again, on what expertise do you base your claim that "it would only tip?" Steel is at 50% its original strength at 1100°F. Various things in office buildings can burn at that temperature and air currents can make them even hotter. You have yet to provide the information I requested about the building that was burned down to its steel frame. What tower was it? What were its dimensions? Where did the fire start? What are some of the architectural similarities between it and WTC 7? Please provide these things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    So this video shows what I was trying to say before but didn't have the maths for. Many of the laws of physics used "against" me would apply in the vacuum of space, but as this video suggests wtc#7 fell faster than Earth's variables would even allow, even had the building (under the point of collapse) been made of toothpicks.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U
    I have already addressed this. That video and others like it are deceptive. It begins the clock after the collapse had already been happening for a good six seconds. If he had shown the footage in its entirety, you would see the east penthouse (watch the roof on the left side) cave in first. This video shows it even more clearly (at about 00:10.) You can even see the internal collapse through the windows.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    More money went into the research of Bill Clinton's sexual escapades than 9/11 before they had their official story.
    All that is evidence of (if true) is that sex sells better than violence. More money may have gone into it, but not nearly as much time and manpower. And there certainly wasn't a detailed, 10,000 page report about the stained dress.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    One thing that is painfully clear (confiscated footage, revision of physics explanations that have not been clear or contradicted scientific laws, simple questions that have been asked for years gone unanswered...) there is at least cover ups.
    Conspiracy theorists keep saying, "Unanswered questions! Unanswered questions!" but these questions have been answered for years! Many times, many ways, and quite thoroughly. The only thing conspiracy theorists can do is declare that all of these people are "in on it" and that every legitimate physicist and structural engineer on the face of the planet is intentionally overlooking what a film school reject and his buddies claim is obvious.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    The point of impacts would be the weakest point, naturally. And even without there being a weaker point, it would still only tip, unless apparently there is weakening underneath. That is understandable, but how likely is it that the entire building underneath was weakened by the fire that (shown in videos) did not burn long enough, and not nearly hot enough to weaken the steal? How could the fire have engulfed the entire building (even though we've seen entire buildings engulfed but still standing, without any evidence of possible collapse) Any occurrence of a steel building falling in the passed ever only tilted sideways. You could still recognize the building as you did before, but with an obvious lean to one side... They never just crumble.
    Again, on what expertise do you base your claim that "it would only tip?" Steel is at 50% its original strength at 1100°F. Various things in office buildings can burn at that temperature and air currents can make them even hotter. You have yet to provide the information I requested about the building that was burned down to its steel frame. What tower was it? What were its dimensions? Where did the fire start? What are some of the architectural similarities between it and WTC 7? Please provide these things.
    Yeah. NIST is pretty clear on the issue. Steel may not melt until something like 2000 degrees, but it gets much, much weaker than normal if it even gets to half that temperature. All you need for a collapse to happen is for the steel to weaken to the point where it's no longer strong enough to hold the building up.


    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    More money went into the research of Bill Clinton's sexual escapades than 9/11 before they had their official story.
    All that is evidence of (if true) is that sex sells better than violence. More money may have gone into it, but not nearly as much time and manpower. And there certainly wasn't a detailed, 10,000 page report about the stained dress.
    No, but it would have been nice to have at least given NIST enough funding to temporarily expand their staff.



    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    One thing that is painfully clear (confiscated footage, revision of physics explanations that have not been clear or contradicted scientific laws, simple questions that have been asked for years gone unanswered...) there is at least cover ups.
    Conspiracy theorists keep saying, "Unanswered questions! Unansswered questions!" but these questions have been answered for years! Many times, many ways, and quite thoroughly. The only thing conspiracy theorists can do is declare that all of these people are "in on it" and that every legitimate physicist and structural engineer on the face of the planet is intentionally overlooking what a film school reject and his buddies claim is obvious.
    A person who really wants, very much, to understand what happened may often find the literature to be very vague and un-detailed. I don't want a thoroughly narrated story. I want an explanation of the story. I find that NIST reports are very hit and miss in that regard.

    For me, the same questions persist as I had on the day of the event. Why did the 2 buildings fail in the particular way they did? NIST does a reasonable job of explaining how they did so, but not why that particular mode of failure was more likely than hundreds of others. They're really great about giving a story line, but not explaining why that sequence of events was inevitable, given the initial conditions. For a nearly identical collapse event to happen the same way twice in a row, to similar buildings, means it's unlikely to be a fluke.

    I figure that, by the time I understand that, I will have learned a great deal about structural engineering, which makes it a productive pursuit, regardless of what I find.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    Viper-X that video of the WTC7 collapse and its so-called scientific commentary is the stinkiest mess I've seen so far on the WTC conspiracy. What high school drop out created that malarky?

    Stupid comments can be summarized by "Observation: WTC7 fell faster than the speed of gravity, equivalent to the speed of a freefall in vacuum.

    Ouch!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    I thing I do almost know for certain is that explosives were used
    I have been over and over this issue with all sorts of folks and I just can't get anyone to say anything other than *thermite. (Fill in * with nothing, nano, femto, pico, or whatever is the soup du jour).

    Somebody help me out here and tell me where are the explosions. Please!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    Viper-X I'm into that second video you posted and it sucks. Making the title the "can't be debunked" video suggests that you need to fool the audience before you show it. Kind of like the intro to a magic act don't you think?

    Where are the reports of the car bombs going off? Did you forget about those reports that turned out to be wrong? Oh no they mentioned the false alarm of the car bomb.

    -- I'm trying to portray the blow by blow as I sit through a "can't be debunked" video.

    Back to the action and even the video crew is confused as they video tape someone in a suit instead of the action going on about them.

    Now there are talks of more bombs. Explosions everywhere. Everyone is so confused. So many people in the dust clouds.

    --------------------------------------

    Alright down to earth again. This is crap.

    Loud sounds are not an explosion. Getting knocked down by a gust is not an explosion. The video does not try to show an explosion, but relies on scared people on the scene to report or more often to repeat what they were told. In a few rare cases the explosions are speculation especially towards the end of the mockumentary.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by hokie
    Making the title the "can't be debunked" video suggests that you need to fool the audience before you show it.
    Would 'Gullible's Travels" have been a better choice?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt

    Just making sure you still have me on Ignore.
    You couldn't stop yourself from looking, could you?
    No I chose not to, although I'm not having anymore (You suck at debating, I'm the master debater) bullcrap. That gets boring fast as you experienced earlier in the thread. :wink:

    Quote Originally Posted by hokie
    Viper-X that video of the WTC7 collapse and its so-called scientific commentary is the stinkiest mess I've seen so far on the WTC conspiracy. What high school drop out created that malarky?

    Stupid comments can be summarized by "Observation: WTC7 fell faster than the speed of gravity, equivalent to the speed of a freefall in vacuum.

    Ouch!
    I know, it's not the greatest, but the evidence I was giving was just a portion of the video, and it clearly shows the amount of time the building took to collapse.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Kojax,

    three things are evident:

    1. Finger knows his stuff.
    2. He has debating skills that leave yours in the dust.
    3. In consequence of 1 and 2 you have been handed your ass on a plate.

    I'd suggest you quit while you are behind, but I'm enjoying it too much.
    If you can't stay on topic and not resort to bashing debating skillz, why is it so hard to just leave... Oh, you're enjoying it too much, did I not mention that before in this thread? Seems it's true that you're only on this forum to bitch and whine about trivial unimportant, unrelated things you happen to find important. You're not smarter than everyone, get over it.

    Nobody likes debating with you it seems, not because it's hard, because it's useless and it goes nowhere, you don't contribute anything relevent.


    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    You misunderstand. I was asking Viper-X for information about the building he mentioned that burned all night and didn't collapse. He claims that it was similar to tower 7, so I'm asking for information about it.
    Structural damage will not increase chances of an entire steel building collapsing into itself. It increases the chance that the section above the impact point will fall, it does not just fall through the structure underneath. This is a key point the official story had to dodge when revising their first, extremely faulty official story, which most people here seem to still believe despite the story being 8 years outdated.

    Now there are talks of more bombs. Explosions everywhere. Everyone is so confused. So many people in the dust clouds.
    I'm not sure if you've seen, but there are many many videos, even of which are near the towers, where you can hear giant explosions near ground level. Their explanation still stands that the explosions were most likely due to gas valves exploding in kitchen, where everything is electric. Still, sort of an odd mistake.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    I know, it's not the greatest, but the evidence I was giving was just a portion of the video, and it clearly shows the amount of time the building took to collapse.
    I'm not so sure what is being timed here. The claim in the video is that the building falls faster than a free fall object. That isn't going to happen. It is more likely that the time at which the video claims the building starts to fall is wrong.

    So the "clearly shows" I feel is wrong just like the pseudo-physics statements in the video.

    I'm not sure if you've seen, but there are many many videos, even of which are near the towers, where you can hear giant explosions near ground level. Their explanation still stands that the explosions were most likely due to gas valves exploding in kitchen, where everything is electric. Still, sort of an odd mistake.
    To label loud sounds as explosions may not be correct. Let me use examples that are not part of the WTC scene. Thunder is a loud sound not due to an explosion. A tree can fall and make a loud sound. Collapsing bridges make loud sounds.

    In the WTC scenario I can imagine falling chunks of building making loud sounds. Cracking of concrete can make loud sounds. I can see actual explosions from accumulated smoke, gas, and who knows what else.

    Again, loud sounds do not mean explosions. Loud sounds might mean explosions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    I know, it's not the greatest, but the evidence I was giving was just a portion of the video, and it clearly shows the amount of time the building took to collapse.
    And it was deceptive in that it did not show the first six seconds of the collapse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    If you can't stay on topic and not resort to bashing debating skillz, why is it so hard to just leave... Oh, you're enjoying it too much, did I not mention that before in this thread? Seems it's true that you're only on this forum to bitch and whine about trivial unimportant, unrelated things you happen to find important. You're not smarter than everyone, get over it.
    From the person who is deliberately ignoring points that I (and others) make.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Structural damage will not increase chances of an entire steel building collapsing into itself. It increases the chance that the section above the impact point will fall, it does not just fall through the structure underneath. This is a key point the official story had to dodge when revising their first, extremely faulty official story, which most people here seem to still believe despite the story being 8 years outdated.
    Once more, on what expertese do you base this claim? Also once more, what is this building you keep talking about? You say it burned down to the steel frame. Links please. You say that it was similar to WTC 7. Links please. You spend all this time complaining when you could just provide me with the information I've asked for repeatedly. If the truth is on your side, then you should be able to show it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    I'm not sure if you've seen, but there are many many videos, even of which are near the towers, where you can hear giant explosions near ground level. Their explanation still stands that the explosions were most likely due to gas valves exploding in kitchen, where everything is electric. Still, sort of an odd mistake.
    Links please. This one shouldn't be a difficult task. 9/11 truthers have pretty much taken over youtube, so you should have no problem finding such a video. I, on the other had, have no problem finding videos with no audible trigger explosions characteristic of a controlled demolition.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Viper, please start showing us some decent evidence. That video sure seems to be misleading conspiracy theory garbage. This thread is circling right now and until you start backing up your stuff with something other than your word it will not progress.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Viper, please start showing us some decent evidence. That video sure seems to be misleading conspiracy theory garbage. This thread is circling right now and until you start backing up your stuff with something other than your word it will not progress.
    Every time I post I'm demanded to offer links, maths, etc... I cannot provide that right now. So if you'd allow me to carry on without bullying for things I can't provide, and removing your bias to certain members, that would be appreciated.

    I will post many videos of the explosions heard before collapse. I guarentee I will have at least 3 videos providing ample evidence of explosions prior to collapse, after planes impact.

    I have a hard time figuring out why you need evidence that the building fell faster than has ever been seen before without a demolition. I will get to that, I'm at work, my ability to do that is somewhat hindered with an internet cap. Please bare with me on that. We already know the buildings fell fast, faster than the laws of physics would allow. I don't see how the conversation will not move forward due to what I am not posting, it seemed to carry on nicely without my involvement at all. If you're going to demand things from me I cannot provide at all/right now I'd rather not take part in the discussion.

    If your objection is with the topic of conversation, please say so. Demanding evidence to what I am saying contributes nothing. I mentioned a builduing that burnt for much longer with hotter fire, and I was told to give a link to that occurence along with structural damage, which to my knowledge doesn't exist.

    At least request viable demands, otherwise what you're doing is bullying. I am at work, I cannot provide what you're asking for.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    We already know the buildings fell fast, faster than the laws of physics would allow.
    This is not possible unless you are going to claim a new physics. It is far more plausible that physics is correct and that there is a mistake in the work done in examining the videos. Finger points out that the clock in the video starts 6 seconds after the collapse began. My feeling on this is that there are other mistakes as well.

    How can the statements of that video be trusted when the overall video is plagued with so many mistakes about basic physics?

    A number of buildings have had longer fires. Off the top of my head I recall a fire in Philly. Time is not the issue. Hotter fire you need to post evidence of that. The one thing I know about these other fires is that they did not involve planes crashing into them that probably removed most of the fire protection from the steel. Also, the building I recall was not as tall or had as much weight above the fire. A collapse of that building was also feared. It did not collapse. So if you point out a particular fire or fires it is possible to discuss what was the same and what was different.

    I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but I'd rather read a cogent response that an off the cuff comment spouted out. Please take your time to think through what you want to state.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by hokie
    We already know the buildings fell fast, faster than the laws of physics would allow.
    This is not possible unless you are going to claim a new physics. It is far more plausible that physics is correct and that there is a mistake in the work done in examining the videos. Finger points out that the clock in the video starts 6 seconds after the collapse began. My feeling on this is that there are other mistakes as well.

    How can the statements of that video be trusted when the overall video is plagued with so many mistakes about basic physics?

    A number of buildings have had longer fires. Off the top of my head I recall a fire in Philly. Time is not the issue. Hotter fire you need to post evidence of that. The one thing I know about these other fires is that they did not involve planes crashing into them that probably removed most of the fire protection from the steel. Also, the building I recall was not as tall or had as much weight above the fire. A collapse of that building was also feared. It did not collapse. So if you point out a particular fire or fires it is possible to discuss what was the same and what was different.

    I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but I'd rather read a cogent response that an off the cuff comment spouted out. Please take your time to think through what you want to state.
    The video started when the building appeared to move downwards. aside from the sketchy parts of the video, the amount of time for collapse seems close to correct, same can be said about wtc1/2 (evidence coming). And how is it that they were so certain the building would come down. News channels had stated the building was going to collapse for certain (evidence coming), and they had to withdraw the firefighter, who were not in the building (evidence coming). When no steel building has ever collapsed before in history, and these buildings being designed not to collapse due to fire or impact, how do you suppose the crew on the sceen knew wtc#7 was going to collapse, and know within time to spread it all through the media, especially considering other buildings that sustained heavy damage had never fallen either. Who's giving information so quickly to the media... Like a video I posted, it would really seem aparent that the media was getting word out to pound into the heads of the viewers the official story before it was even investigated.

    The incredible amount of experience we have in the past is too much to just shrug off and say it doesn't affect the chances. We have three unique anomolies in a 24 hour period. That should be enoguh to at least create suspicion. To you it seems like these anomolies are a completely normal occurence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    The video started when the building appeared to move downwards. aside from the sketchy parts of the video, the amount of time for collapse seems close to correct, same can be said about wtc1/2 (evidence coming). And how is it that they were so certain the building would come down. News channels had stated the building was going to collapse for certain (evidence coming), and they had to withdraw the firefighter, who were not in the building (evidence coming). When no steel building has ever collapsed before in history, and these buildings being designed not to collapse due to fire or impact, how do you suppose the crew on the sceen knew wtc#7 was going to collapse, and know within time to spread it all through the media, especially considering other buildings that sustained heavy damage had never fallen either. Who's giving information so quickly to the media... Like a video I posted, it would really seem aparent that the media was getting word out to pound into the heads of the viewers the official story before it was even investigated.

    The incredible amount of experience we have in the past is too much to just shrug off and say it doesn't affect the chances. We have three unique anomolies in a 24 hour period. That should be enoguh to at least create suspicion. To you it seems like these anomolies are a completely normal occurence.
    This is a joke right? The media gets out of control predicting all sorts of things. In the video you posted there was a quick announcement of a car bomb. No bomb. Alright so some stuff didn't turn out and some things did.

    Are you saying that the media should not have reported a failure of the building? The media has not got a clue as to what to do in a crisis situation other than spread every bit of nonsense that comes within earshot. It's not that someone is feeding the media info, rather that the media regurgitates everything in a crisis without thought of its correctness. To think that the media had a prepared script that day is ludicrous. I doubt you want to debate that thought so we can drop it right now.

    You claim 3 anomalies. Let's see 2 buildings hit my large planes. Yup that's an anomaly. First time ever that the fireproofing of the steel has been stripped off extensive areas of a building. Yup that's an anomaly.

    Like I suggested before if you want to compare fires without comparison it tells me that you did not investigate the Philly fire. Take your time.

    All you told me in this post is a vague claim that something must have happened because you don't understand what happened. I say vague because you hint at all sorts of different reasons.

    The only clearly stated idea so far is that no other building made of steel has collapsed due to fire. I already stated that the protections put in place to prevent collapse had been removed by the impact of the planes. Instead of disputing that you chose to disregard that statement and go back to the mantra it never happened before.

    A number of buildings have had longer fires. Off the top of my head I recall a fire in Philly. Time is not the issue. Hotter fire you need to post evidence of that. The one thing I know about these other fires is that they did not involve planes crashing into them that probably removed most of the fire protection from the steel. Also, the building I recall was not as tall or had as much weight above the fire. A collapse of that building was also feared. It did not collapse. So if you point out a particular fire or fires it is possible to discuss what was the same and what was different.
    Here is what I stated before. I even gave an example of a place you can compare to the WTC. Take your time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by hokie
    The video started when the building appeared to move downwards. aside from the sketchy parts of the video, the amount of time for collapse seems close to correct, same can be said about wtc1/2 (evidence coming). And how is it that they were so certain the building would come down. News channels had stated the building was going to collapse for certain (evidence coming), and they had to withdraw the firefighter, who were not in the building (evidence coming). When no steel building has ever collapsed before in history, and these buildings being designed not to collapse due to fire or impact, how do you suppose the crew on the sceen knew wtc#7 was going to collapse, and know within time to spread it all through the media, especially considering other buildings that sustained heavy damage had never fallen either. Who's giving information so quickly to the media... Like a video I posted, it would really seem aparent that the media was getting word out to pound into the heads of the viewers the official story before it was even investigated.

    The incredible amount of experience we have in the past is too much to just shrug off and say it doesn't affect the chances. We have three unique anomolies in a 24 hour period. That should be enoguh to at least create suspicion. To you it seems like these anomolies are a completely normal occurence.
    This is a joke right? The media gets out of control predicting all sorts of things. In the video you posted there was a quick announcement of a car bomb. No bomb. Alright so some stuff didn't turn out and some things did.

    Are you saying that the media should not have reported a failure of the building? The media has not got a clue as to what to do in a crisis situation other than spread every bit of nonsense that comes within earshot. It's not that someone is feeding the media info, rather that the media regurgitates everything in a crisis without thought of its correctness. To think that the media had a prepared script that day is ludicrous. I doubt you want to debate that thought so we can drop it right now.

    You claim 3 anomalies. Let's see 2 buildings hit my large planes. Yup that's an anomaly. First time ever that the fireproofing of the steel has been stripped off extensive areas of a building. Yup that's an anomaly.

    Like I suggested before if you want to compare fires without comparison it tells me that you did not investigate the Philly fire. Take your time.

    All you told me in this post is a vague claim that something must have happened because you don't understand what happened. I say vague because you hint at all sorts of different reasons.

    The only clearly stated idea so far is that no other building made of steel has collapsed due to fire. I already stated that the protections put in place to prevent collapse had been removed by the impact of the planes. Instead of disputing that you chose to disregard that statement and go back to the mantra it never happened before.

    A number of buildings have had longer fires. Off the top of my head I recall a fire in Philly. Time is not the issue. Hotter fire you need to post evidence of that. The one thing I know about these other fires is that they did not involve planes crashing into them that probably removed most of the fire protection from the steel. Also, the building I recall was not as tall or had as much weight above the fire. A collapse of that building was also feared. It did not collapse. So if you point out a particular fire or fires it is possible to discuss what was the same and what was different.
    Here is what I stated before. I even gave an example of a place you can compare to the WTC. Take your time.
    There is a line between the media's over exageration/extremism, and their reports that a building is going to fall due to fire for the first time in history within an hour of its collapse. This information was given to the media by the fire crew on scene, where the media had reporters. If they were making this up, it would have been an absurd assumption, considering our examples in the past (EVIDENCE COMING, once again), and yet they were still right. That's one coincidental preminition.

    As for examples of burning buildings that stayed stable, I'm at work, I made this clear already, I do not have the resources to give examples. I'm surprised I even have access to this site right now. So if you can wrap your mind around that, please be patient.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Viper, please start showing us some decent evidence. That video sure seems to be misleading conspiracy theory garbage. This thread is circling right now and until you start backing up your stuff with something other than your word it will not progress.
    Every time I post I'm demanded to offer links, maths, etc... I cannot provide that right now. So if you'd allow me to carry on without bullying for things I can't provide, and removing your bias to certain members, that would be appreciated.
    Why should we accept your word without evidence? This is a science forum, albeit the pseduo-science part of it. I'm not bullying you, I'm making a request so that the conversation can progress. Given that this thread has run to 9 pages, I hardly think I'm jumping the gun here.

    If you feel I am being biased, you may take that to site feedback. I will absolutely not entertain a conversation about my moderation here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    If your objection is with the topic of conversation, please say so. Demanding evidence to what I am saying contributes nothing. I mentioned a builduing that burnt for much longer with hotter fire, and I was told to give a link to that occurence along with structural damage, which to my knowledge doesn't exist.
    Topic is not the issue. Controversial or fringe topics are what PS is all about. But it's also about helping you to understand how to make your argument convincing by use of good evidence and verifiable sources. That's all I'm interested in.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    At least request viable demands, otherwise what you're doing is bullying.
    The request is simple, evidence to back up any claims you make if a claim is extraordinary in any way. Evidence need not be videos , it could be images or raw data. Times, forces etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    I am at work, I cannot provide what you're asking for.
    Have you no home internet access? This thread has been around for days, surely you've had time to find some sources on your most basic claims?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Kojax,

    three things are evident:

    1. Finger knows his stuff.
    2. He has debating skills that leave yours in the dust.
    3. In consequence of 1 and 2 you have been handed your ass on a plate.

    I'd suggest you quit while you are behind, but I'm enjoying it too much.
    If you can't stay on topic and not resort to bashing debating skillz, why is it so hard to just leave... Oh, you're enjoying it too much, did I not mention that before in this thread? Seems it's true that you're only on this forum to bitch and whine about trivial unimportant, unrelated things you happen to find important. You're not smarter than everyone, get over it.

    Nobody likes debating with you it seems, not because it's hard, because it's useless and it goes nowhere, you don't contribute anything relevent.
    Dear Viper-Y,
    It is very relevant that Finger has systematically demolished Kojax's argument. Kojax acknowledges this and declares he is learning from the experience. That is a mature, sensible approach.

    Of course I am not smarter than everyone else. I have never claimed to be. (I am smarter than you, but that's hardly something to be proud of.)

    It seems the only the ones who don't like debating with me are people like you who don't know how to debate. (Didn't to check out the results of the poll I arranged to test your claim that I was a boring flamer. It seems the members don't agree with your assessment.)

    Here is the relevant deal Viper: you don't know how to present a a scientific case. Absence of debating skills is one thing, inability to present a reasoned argument is another. Your evidence has either been debunked, or is never actually presented.

    I'm going to take a single example. You say this " Demanding evidence to what I am saying contributes nothing. I mentioned a builduing that burnt for much longer with hotter fire, and I was told to give a link to that occurence along with structural damage, which to my knowledge doesn't exist."

    If what you are saying is controversial then of course we need evidence to support what you are saying. Why would you think this was unecessary? You could say anything. you could make things up. You could be fooled by con artists. You could misunderstand what you had heard or read. Demanding evidence for what you have said allows us to take it seriously if and when you provide the evidence.

    If you cannot provide a reference for this alleged burning building why did you even mention it. You must have read about it somewhere. Give us the newspaper name and date. Or you saw it on a documentary. What was the name of the documentary and who produced it. Asking for this is not bullying it is simply due diligence in enquiring into extraordinary claims. What is it that you don't understand about that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    There is a line between the media's over exageration/extremism, and their reports that a building is going to fall due to fire for the first time in history within an hour of its collapse. This information was given to the media by the fire crew on scene, where the media had reporters. If they were making this up, it would have been an absurd assumption, considering our examples in the past (EVIDENCE COMING, once again), and yet they were still right. That's one coincidental preminition.
    Actually there is no line. The media reported lots of things that day and the following days that were right and wrong. They reported on numerous attacks in the area that were false reports. They reported on the rescue of someone from the rubble when in fact it was a rescuer leaving the site for whatever reason. They claimed other planes were attacking. When the first building collapsed Gunga Dan stated that there had been a partial collapse.

    I personally would be stunned that anyone in the media was aware that no steel building had ever fallen before from fire alone. By media I mean the yackety yacks filling the airways that day, not necessarily the reference people of the organization.

    As Galt has pointed out we want to help you make a reasoned argument. A better way to say "That's one coincidental preminition." might be "That was a prediction that did not agree with past events." Don't use premonition. Sounds a bit paranormal to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Kojax,

    three things are evident:

    1. Finger knows his stuff.
    2. He has debating skills that leave yours in the dust.
    3. In consequence of 1 and 2 you have been handed your ass on a plate.

    I'd suggest you quit while you are behind, but I'm enjoying it too much.
    If you can't stay on topic and not resort to bashing debating skillz, why is it so hard to just leave... Oh, you're enjoying it too much, did I not mention that before in this thread? Seems it's true that you're only on this forum to bitch and whine about trivial unimportant, unrelated things you happen to find important. You're not smarter than everyone, get over it.

    Nobody likes debating with you it seems, not because it's hard, because it's useless and it goes nowhere, you don't contribute anything relevent.
    Dear Viper-Y,
    It is very relevant that Finger has systematically demolished Kojax's argument. Kojax acknowledges this and declares he is learning from the experience. That is a mature, sensible approach.

    Of course I am not smarter than everyone else. I have never claimed to be. (I am smarter than you, but that's hardly something to be proud of.)

    It seems the only the ones who don't like debating with me are people like you who don't know how to debate. (Didn't to check out the results of the poll I arranged to test your claim that I was a boring flamer. It seems the members don't agree with your assessment.)

    Here is the relevant deal Viper: you don't know how to present a a scientific case. Absence of debating skills is one thing, inability to present a reasoned argument is another. Your evidence has either been debunked, or is never actually presented.

    I'm going to take a single example. You say this " Demanding evidence to what I am saying contributes nothing. I mentioned a builduing that burnt for much longer with hotter fire, and I was told to give a link to that occurence along with structural damage, which to my knowledge doesn't exist."

    If what you are saying is controversial then of course we need evidence to support what you are saying. Why would you think this was unecessary? You could say anything. you could make things up. You could be fooled by con artists. You could misunderstand what you had heard or read. Demanding evidence for what you have said allows us to take it seriously if and when you provide the evidence.

    If you cannot provide a reference for this alleged burning building why did you even mention it. You must have read about it somewhere. Give us the newspaper name and date. Or you saw it on a documentary. What was the name of the documentary and who produced it. Asking for this is not bullying it is simply due diligence in enquiring into extraordinary claims. What is it that you don't understand about that?
    Dear Viper-Y? You never fail to lower yourself another level, each post you come off more and more immature. When you know I cannot provide it, at least at the moment, it's bullying. And now once again you're asking for more evidence when I already said at least 5 times today that I am not able to do so. That's adolescent, and somewhat tiresome. As for your immaturety, I won't be responding to it anymore. It's boring and unrelated... Unless you can actually stick to the topic, don't bother. I'm sure you will though, must bring a little meaning to your life.

    Hokie - For the most part you're right and I completely understand what you're saying, but the media said the building was expected to collapse, soon after that, it collapsed. It sounds more like they had knowledge of the collapse rather than presenting an extreme scenario.


    sounds a bit paranormal
    I didn't mean it paranormally. It was to exclamate the likliness of their prior knowledge, I suspect you caught onto that but just want something else to criticize me for...Correct me if I'm wrong. It is very possible that they had no idea what they were talking about, I am not arguing that as a fact, but I don't see it likely that they were not informed by someone on ground zero considering it wasn't long afterwards the building fell, especially when it did not look like it was going to fall at all, and was not a building that had a run in with a plane, and did not have anybody inside. There wouldn't be much reason for escalating the actual story in progress... But that's not quite a viable example of 9/11 being a conspiracy, I get what you're saying.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Learn to read and loose the teenage angst.
    I am giving you advice on how to put together a better argument. I can't be blamed if you are too self obsessed to take advantage of it.

    You stated that you had no link for the burning steel building. You did not say you would provide that link or reference later. You said you did not have it. That is unacceptable.

    Then we have classics like this "I have a hard time figuring out why you need evidence that the building fell faster than has ever been seen before without a demolition."

    So you have a hard time figuring out why we need evidence for what is a) disputed b) a central point, if not the central point in your whole argument. I mean how can you seriously have such a thought. And no, I am not bullying you, I am simply expressing justifiable amazement that any one could make such a statement.

    Finger is doing a perfectly fine job of dealing with your alleged 'facts'. I shall continue to deal with your weak argument structure. You cold benefit immensely by listening to both of us.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    I am giving you advice on how to put together a better argument.
    My advice would be to lose the green.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    421
    You know, if this Viper guy is dead-set on believing that 9/11 was an Illuminati conspiracy, or some other nutty thing, who really cares? I mean, everyone here has had a chance to make their point. One could hardly claim that this forum has implied consent to Viper's theory through silence. What more is there to say on this topic?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    Viper I was not criticizing in the sense of saying that what you said was wrong, rather I was trying to supply constructive criticism. Single words can wreak havoc with a post. Saying 'never' is bad. Saying 'I'm aware of no other cases' at least makes it clear that to the best of your knowledge this is the case. People get whooped bad in discussion by making poor statements.

    One of the problems here is the "especially when it did not look like it was going to fall at all" claim. I've seen shots of the building from 2 sides. One side looks fine. The other side is a nightmare. Many 9/11 truther videos show one side, not the other. Guess which one they show? So what you are stating is that people had just seen 2 buildings collapse. Another building nearby is heavily damaged and now people think that building is going to collapse as well. The yackety yacks ask what is happening. The emergency crews are saying that they are evacuating the area because they've already lost hundreds of personnel. People are out. The building is not an immediate threat to surrounding properties. Everyone is out when the building collapses. Lives are saved.

    I can't vouch for the events I've described. I'm echoing back to you what I've read in these posts. My question is: why is this supportive of a conspiracy?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by hookie
    One of the problems here is the "especially when it did not look like it was going to fall at all" claim. I've seen shots of the building from 2 sides. One side looks fine. The other side is a nightmare. Many 9/11 truther videos show one side, not the other. Guess which one they show? So what you are stating is that people had just seen 2 buildings collapse. Another building nearby is heavily damaged and now people think that building is going to collapse as well. The yackety yacks ask what is happening. The emergency crews are saying that they are evacuating the area because they've already lost hundreds of personnel. People are out. The building is not an immediate threat to surrounding properties. Everyone is out when the building collapses. Lives are saved.

    I can't vouch for the events I've described...
    I can and you are spot on. We can start by going straight to the horse's mouth. FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro's official comment on the conspiracy theorists' claims:

    Quote Originally Posted by Chief Daniel Nigro (Retired)
    Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

    The reasons are as follows:

    1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
    2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
    3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
    4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

    For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

    Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.
    Various quotes from other firefighters can be found here.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    139
    I don't understand you people demanding evidence, nor do I understand the OP refusing to provide even the simplest explanation of his ideas with a simple formula.

    Here is something for discussion:

    The basic equations of motion are well established. Using the kinematic equation D= Vi*t + 0.5 * a*t^2, we can find (by dropping the first term (Vi*t) because Vi=0) that the time it would have taken something on the top of WTC7 (approx 174m tall) about 5.959 seconds to reach the bottom unimpeded. Now this makes everything a perfect world and does not actually make any bit of physical sense in the example we're using of the world trade center. However, it does give a baseline for what is unrealistic.

    Now, if we look at the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6GMddY-lQ, and we time from when you first see the penthouse fall in until the full collapse, you get between 13 and 14 seconds. This is a little over double the expected fall time in a perfect world. That seems like a reasonable delay to me, but I'm not an expert on demolitions.

    If you want to continue arguing, feel free to, but it is neither hard nor tedious to do this little bit of work, and I'm surprised neither side saw fit to do it in this entire thread. (If I remember correctly around page 3 or 4, someone did the kinematic, but nobody appears to have used it.)
    --
    -M

    "Those that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
    safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    -Benjamin Franklin, An Historical Review of Pennsilvanya, 1759
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by alienmindsinc
    I don't understand you people demanding evidence, nor do I understand the OP refusing to provide even the simplest explanation of his ideas with a simple formula.

    Here is something for discussion:

    The basic equations of motion are well established. Using the kinematic equation D= Vi*t + 0.5 * a*t^2, we can find (by dropping the first term (Vi*t) because Vi=0) that the time it would have taken something on the top of WTC7 (approx 174m tall) about 5.959 seconds to reach the bottom unimpeded. Now this makes everything a perfect world and does not actually make any bit of physical sense in the example we're using of the world trade center. However, it does give a baseline for what is unrealistic.

    Now, if we look at the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6GMddY-lQ, and we time from when you first see the penthouse fall in until the full collapse, you get between 13 and 14 seconds. This is a little over double the expected fall time in a perfect world. That seems like a reasonable delay to me, but I'm not an expert on demolitions.

    If you want to continue arguing, feel free to, but it is neither hard nor tedious to do this little bit of work, and I'm surprised neither side saw fit to do it in this entire thread. (If I remember correctly around page 3 or 4, someone did the kinematic, but nobody appears to have used it.)
    That's brilliant

    Pretty much squashes the claims being made here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    My thoughts too alienmindsinc. I was thinking about easing Viper-X into doing the calculations. As I suggested to Viper-X it is not likely that physics is incorrect, but rather that the data being stuffed into the formulas is incorrect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    according to wikipedia:

    An explosion is a sudden increase in volume and release of energy in an extreme manner, usually with the generation of high temperatures and the release of gases. An explosion creates a shock wave.


    Indeed, there is no mention of explosives.

    The last explosion I heard came from my pants, where it temporarily increased the temperature, gases were released, and some kind of shock wave was measured.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by alienmindsinc
    I don't understand you people demanding evidence,
    In that case you don't understand a central tenet of the scientific method, nor how things should be conducted on a science forum.

    Actually, based upon your subsequent useful observation/calculation you probably do. In that case your quoted statement was either an oversight, or a piece of hyperbole. I think you'll agree either of these would be unfortunate in an objective post.

    Science forums are rife with individuals who make extraordinary claims then fail to provide evidence to support them. Science does not work on hearsay, so such behaviour is unacceptable. That is why we have demanded the evidence. Several of us, probably, also suspect that Viper does not have the evidence (and couldn't understand it if he did). By persistently asking for it we demonstrate his inability to deliver, so that his argument disappears for the lack of a foundation.

    (Note that if he offered a single piece of evidence that actually called into question the official view I would change my position in an instance. I am not intrinsically opposed to the idea of conspiracies - I don't think there was a lone gunman for example.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Spurious Monkey
    The last explosion I heard came from my pants, where it temporarily increased the temperature, gases were released, and some kind of shock wave was measured.
    Do you suspect terrorist activity in your clothing? Are your genitals in danger of being held for ransom?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    I don't think there was a lone gunman for example.
    I deffinitely have a few words regarding that. But its for another thread. :wink:
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    139
    I don't understand the people. I understand the request.

    It is a trivial calculation I did. I didn't need my degree, I didn't even need high school physics.

    My point is that you let something trivial go on for 10 pages when Viper himself clearly says, about 10 times, that he does not have the background or ability to provide the information requested. At the first refusal/rebuttal of the issue, a dissenting scientist should provide the reason and explanation of the science behind his dissent. It then falls on the theorist to prove him wrong.

    So, Viper, it is now your turn to take action. Do you dispute my calculations? If you do, why? If you do not, what evidence do you have to prove that 13 seconds is still too short of a fall time? Keep in mind that my calculation is a perfect world calculation, and doesn't include any advanced modeling of static structures.

    However, I also think 13 seconds is too short. Here is my explanation: The building was burning for 7 hours. During that time, the heat melted out the inner structures from the bottom up. Large buildings are often made such that the outer structure is tougher than the inner structure because the outer structure is the load bearing structure. As you clearly see from the video, the middle of the roof/penthouse went in first. Then the outsides started to collapse into the center due to the added weight along the weakened beams connecting to the outer structure. At that point the entire building took 13 seconds to collapse in on itself. What I contend is that the building took 7 hours to "fall", not 13 seconds, and fell inward on itself in a perfectly logical manner due to its construction. During the 7 hours, things that would impede the fall were removed, like most of the matter between the beams at every level, and the beams themselves were pliable.

    Also, if you wish to prove it's thermite, then you must first prove that the beams were not coated with any sealant, protectant, or any other chemical that could react with heat and steel to form little balls of iron. In this case, I'm fairly certain there is something in the building that can react, whether it is the combined forces of the janitorial closets, the floors and their laminate coatings, or just something the construction crew put on the beams during construction.
    --
    -M

    "Those that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
    safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    -Benjamin Franklin, An Historical Review of Pennsilvanya, 1759
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Most conspiracy theorists do the math and come out with the same 5.95 seconds you did. The real problem is when they either start timing the collapse(s) late , or stop timing early. That's pretty much what I was focusing on by providing complete video of the collapses. I knew that Viper-X hadn't done the math, that he was most likely remembering stuff from videos he saw. I can't speak for everyone else, but I was hoping that if Viper-X realized the errors of the videos he's seen, that he would time it himself and realize the error. So much for Socratic method. The rest, I think, can probably be chopped up to the nature of internet arguments to meander and change topics.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #145  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by hokie
    I thing I do almost know for certain is that explosives were used
    I have been over and over this issue with all sorts of folks and I just can't get anyone to say anything other than *thermite. (Fill in * with nothing, nano, femto, pico, or whatever is the soup du jour).

    Somebody help me out here and tell me where are the explosions. Please!
    Why don't people consider a hybrid approach? Or expand their horizons a little bit. I'm pretty sure thermite and bombs aren't the only way. It's just that thermite is the only theory that's actually been endorsed by anybody semi-credible as a probable method. (Prof. Jones at Brigham Young University, Utah)

    Of course, he (was) a physics professor instead of a civil engineering professor, so he might have been outside his expertise.

    Quote Originally Posted by hokie
    I know, it's not the greatest, but the evidence I was giving was just a portion of the video, and it clearly shows the amount of time the building took to collapse.
    I'm not so sure what is being timed here. The claim in the video is that the building falls faster than a free fall object. That isn't going to happen. It is more likely that the time at which the video claims the building starts to fall is wrong.

    So the "clearly shows" I feel is wrong just like the pseudo-physics statements in the video.

    I'm not sure if you've seen, but there are many many videos, even of which are near the towers, where you can hear giant explosions near ground level. Their explanation still stands that the explosions were most likely due to gas valves exploding in kitchen, where everything is electric. Still, sort of an odd mistake.
    To label loud sounds as explosions may not be correct. Let me use examples that are not part of the WTC scene. Thunder is a loud sound not due to an explosion. A tree can fall and make a loud sound. Collapsing bridges make loud sounds.

    In the WTC scenario I can imagine falling chunks of building making loud sounds. Cracking of concrete can make loud sounds. I can see actual explosions from accumulated smoke, gas, and who knows what else.

    Again, loud sounds do not mean explosions. Loud sounds might mean explosions.
    This makes it so the question of whether explosives were used would be entirely unresolvable from evidence. If you entered the discussion believing there were none, you'll leave believing there were none. If you entered the discussion believing there were some used, then you'll leave believing they were used.

    You've just got to call the odds at 50/50 if there's no way to determine something. It's not a proper debate proceedure to assume a default position on something and then demand that other people sympathize with it.

    Any sabateur of any intelligence would have waited to set off their charges until there was already enough noise to mask the sound. The way the charges were set up would have been based on that expectation.

    Quote Originally Posted by hokie
    A number of buildings have had longer fires. Off the top of my head I recall a fire in Philly. Time is not the issue. Hotter fire you need to post evidence of that. The one thing I know about these other fires is that they did not involve planes crashing into them that probably removed most of the fire protection from the steel. Also, the building I recall was not as tall or had as much weight above the fire. A collapse of that building was also feared. It did not collapse. So if you point out a particular fire or fires it is possible to discuss what was the same and what was different.

    I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but I'd rather read a cogent response that an off the cuff comment spouted out. Please take your time to think through what you want to state.
    I keep hearing people say that WTC 1,2 and 7 were the first buildings in history to fall from fire alone. Is that even true? I mean, I keep hearing it, but I've learned a while ago not to take conspiracy theory claims at face value unless I can find a reliable source to compare them with. (Or unless they come from a reliable source)


    The only clearly stated idea so far is that no other building made of steel has collapsed due to fire. I already stated that the protections put in place to prevent collapse had been removed by the impact of the planes. Instead of disputing that you chose to disregard that statement and go back to the mantra it never happened before.

    A number of buildings have had longer fires. Off the top of my head I recall a fire in Philly. Time is not the issue. Hotter fire you need to post evidence of that. The one thing I know about these other fires is that they did not involve planes crashing into them that probably removed most of the fire protection from the steel. Also, the building I recall was not as tall or had as much weight above the fire. A collapse of that building was also feared. It did not collapse. So if you point out a particular fire or fires it is possible to discuss what was the same and what was different.
    Here is what I stated before. I even gave an example of a place you can compare to the WTC. Take your time.
    Building 7 wasn't hit by a plane. It's sprinkler system failed, however, on the lower floors. Maybe that's good enough?

    Quote Originally Posted by alienmindsinc

    Also, if you wish to prove it's thermite, then you must first prove that the beams were not coated with any sealant, protectant, or any other chemical that could react with heat and steel to form little balls of iron. In this case, I'm fairly certain there is something in the building that can react, whether it is the combined forces of the janitorial closets, the floors and their laminate coatings, or just something the construction crew put on the beams during construction.
    Ok.... shall we assume, then, that a sabateur would be unable to strip the protectant off? So a sabateur who is able to gain sufficient access to the building in order to place the thermite in the first place, but doesn't actually try to prep any of the materials the thermite is intended to react with?

    Apparently there was plenty of unused office space in WTC 1 & 2. So : plenty of places where a guy in a maintenance suit can wheel a big box of unknown materials into, and as long as they appear to have the proper clearances, nobody is going to ask what they're doing after they go through the door, lock it behind them, and start their work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #146  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    139
    My point about thermite is that to prove thermite was used they are saying the "residuals" indicate thermite was used. However, that would mean those residuals can ONLY be caused by thermite. So in order to use that as a sound argument, the accuser must prove that the residuals caused by thermite cannot be caused by any other combination of anything, such as jet fuel, heat, sealant and steel.
    --
    -M

    "Those that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
    safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    -Benjamin Franklin, An Historical Review of Pennsilvanya, 1759
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #147  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by alienmindsinc
    My point about thermite is that to prove thermite was used they are saying the "residuals" indicate thermite was used. However, that would mean those residuals can ONLY be caused by thermite. So in order to use that as a sound argument, the accuser must prove that the residuals caused by thermite cannot be caused by any other combination of anything, such as jet fuel, heat, sealant and steel.
    Other possible sources have been offered, and proving to absolute certainty that nothing else could cause the oxides, and etc would be quite a high burden of evidence indeed. One explanation I heard was that some of the oxides might have been introduced in the building process, by using the wrong kind of welding process, but I wouldn't be surprised if much more credible possibilities exist.

    My point is: to prove that something *can't* happen is insanely difficult. How do we ever know for sure?

    Just be careful when trying to rule the possibility out that you don't use over-constructed versions of the theory, like assuming that the vertical steel columns had to be cut straight through in order to initiate collapse, or make the collapse more vertical.

    Why attack a column when you can attack a few bolts? Why go after the vertical supports when the horizontal supports are just as vital?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #148  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    421
    Over the years, this debate has just degenerated to the level of pure absurdity.

    I mean, off the top of my head, to give one example: Something I've never understood about the conspiracy theories involving the WTC buildings: If you're going to go to the trouble of destroying the buildings by planting something inside, why go through the trouble of "conspiring" to have planes crash into the buildings as well? I mean, think about it:

    If the plane crashes themselves are sufficient to cause the buildings to fall down the way they did, then occam's razor suggests that there's no need to postulate that anything was planted in the building.

    If plane crashes are insufficient to cause the collapse that was observed (a big if), why would the people behind the attacks "conspire" to have planes crash into them in the first place? I mean, if you're going to blow up a building and blame it on someone, why not just blow up the building?

    Am I missing something here?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #149  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    Why don't people consider a hybrid approach? Or expand their horizons a little bit. I'm pretty sure thermite and bombs aren't the only way. It's just that thermite is the only theory that's actually been endorsed by anybody semi-credible as a probable method. (Prof. Jones at Brigham Young University, Utah)
    Semi-credible as a method or semi-credible meaning truther?

    Actually Jones learned that the thermite or *thermite as a source of energy would only have heated the steel 50 degrees. Thus Jones considers the *thermite as a fuse rather than as an explosive at the WTC.

    This makes it so the question of whether explosives were used would be entirely unresolvable from evidence. If you entered the discussion believing there were none, you'll leave believing there were none. If you entered the discussion believing there were some used, then you'll leave believing they were used.
    My point is that loud sounds might or might be explosions, but to claim explosions outright is not a correct way of explaining what happened. Your statement "to assume a default position on something and then demand that other people sympathize with it" is the same as mine. I am not saying there were or were not explosions. I am asking that the loud sounds not be attributed to explosions. That a conclusion based on what was experienced.

    Any sabateur of any intelligence would have waited to set off their charges until there was already enough noise to mask the sound. The way the charges were set up would have been based on that expectation.
    So your claim is that some of the sounds might have been explosions, but some were not. Is that correct?

    Building 7 wasn't hit by a plane. It's sprinkler system failed, however, on the lower floors. Maybe that's good enough?
    This makes for an interesting discussion don't you think? All I'm saying is that after 2 building fall to the ground and kill off hundreds of your coworkers don't you think you'd be scared to send anyone else into such a place? You bet your kiester I'd be scared witless.

    Apparently there was plenty of unused office space in WTC 1 & 2. So : plenty of places where a guy in a maintenance suit can wheel a big box of unknown materials into, and as long as they appear to have the proper clearances, nobody is going to ask what they're doing after they go through the door, lock it behind them, and start their work.
    I hate to ask this ... again, but any evidence of this?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #150  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by salsaonline
    Over the years, this debate has just degenerated to the level of pure absurdity.

    I mean, off the top of my head, to give one example: Something I've never understood about the conspiracy theories involving the WTC buildings: If you're going to go to the trouble of destroying the buildings by planting something inside, why go through the trouble of "conspiring" to have planes crash into the buildings as well? I mean, think about it:

    If the plane crashes themselves are sufficient to cause the buildings to fall down the way they did, then occam's razor suggests that there's no need to postulate that anything was planted in the building.

    If plane crashes are insufficient to cause the collapse that was observed (a big if), why would the people behind the attacks "conspire" to have planes crash into them in the first place? I mean, if you're going to blow up a building and blame it on someone, why not just blow up the building?

    Am I missing something here?
    I never took controlled demolition seriously until someone brought up the collapse times, which I knew just enough physics to be able to consider (at the time. I know more physics now.) So, I ran the calculation myself, and found that, if the buildings really fell as quickly as they were claimed to have, then they were right about the collapse being at almost freefall speed. The thing to remember is that fall times don't scale to building size. A giant takes longer to fall than a midget. A collapse that looks natural for a smaller building would be way too fast if it happened to a big building.

    That can (pretty much) only be accomplished via controlled demolition. What causes a controlled demolition to be able to ensure vertical collapse is precisely the fact that it allows the mass of a building to fall (mostly) unimpeded, so you get both a vertical collapse, and a rapid collapse. It's theoretically possible, perhaps for such things to happen on their own, especially in weirdly designed buildings like WTC 1, and 2 (They had a very interesting design), but it happened twice in a row, so I'd want to see evidence of why that result would be likely, not just possible.

    Nist has done a bit to clarify this matter, however. In the first place, seismic evidence allows the collapse time to be interpreted somewhere closer to 25 seconds (maximum), which would not require a controlled demolition to occur.


    There are 2 reasons you'd use a deliberate sabotage:

    1) - To make sure the buildings do, in fact, fall.

    Don't want just the top part to crumble, or for a ventilation problem to cause the fire to burn out all of the combustible materials too slowly to create the needed amount of heat. Just because they've a chance to fall anyway doesn't mean anyone wanted to risk them standing.

    Remember that the bombing in the 90's didn't really motivate the same kind of response as 911, because the buildings stood. If the fire burned long enough without a collapse, it's likely someone might have found a way to put it out, like by using helicopters with buckets to get the needed water up to the top levels (helicopters with buckets are commonly used by the forest service to put out fires, so ... you never know..)


    2) - You don't want to destroy too much of the surrounding area.

    A controlled demolition would ensure the buildings didn't tip sideways and damage structures you don't want damaged. The fewer the number of buildings that get wrecked, the less the strain on insurance companies, and the fewer separate wealthy people who will pay to investigate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #151  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    Whoa kojax! None of the buildings fell at freefall speeds. Prove to use that this is true. That should be simple, right?

    A giant takes longer to fall than a midget.
    What does this have to do with anything?

    That can (pretty much) only be accomplished via controlled demolition.
    Not only does your first statement seem disconnected, but how do this logically follow?

    Why fly planes into your buildings if you wanted to simply knock them down.
    1. You risk making the buildings unstable so they'd hit other buildings.
    2. Ticket prices might go up.
    3. What about the inconvenience created by cavity searches (unless it makes you smile)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #152  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by hokie
    Why don't people consider a hybrid approach? Or expand their horizons a little bit. I'm pretty sure thermite and bombs aren't the only way. It's just that thermite is the only theory that's actually been endorsed by anybody semi-credible as a probable method. (Prof. Jones at Brigham Young University, Utah)
    Semi-credible as a method or semi-credible meaning truther?

    Actually Jones learned that the thermite or *thermite as a source of energy would only have heated the steel 50 degrees. Thus Jones considers the *thermite as a fuse rather than as an explosive at the WTC.
    I was thinking maybe a hybrid approach could have been used, employing 2 or 3 different strategies/devices together.



    This makes it so the question of whether explosives were used would be entirely unresolvable from evidence. If you entered the discussion believing there were none, you'll leave believing there were none. If you entered the discussion believing there were some used, then you'll leave believing they were used.
    My point is that loud sounds might or might be explosions, but to claim explosions outright is not a correct way of explaining what happened. Your statement "to assume a default position on something and then demand that other people sympathize with it" is the same as mine. I am not saying there were or were not explosions. I am asking that the loud sounds not be attributed to explosions. That a conclusion based on what was experienced.
    That's where we agree then. Any number of the noises could have arisen from the explosions, but there's no way to know. They could all come from the building materials breakage too.

    However, for the sabotage theory, some of the loud noises would probably be attributed to explosives, but not attributed in the sense of being used as evidence of anything, just in the sense of being considered to have had that as their source.

    Any sabateur of any intelligence would have waited to set off their charges until there was already enough noise to mask the sound. The way the charges were set up would have been based on that expectation.
    So your claim is that some of the sounds might have been explosions, but some were not. Is that correct?
    Yeah, it would have been like how a sniper tries to mask the sound of their rifle by timing their shot to coincide with other loud noises.


    Building 7 wasn't hit by a plane. It's sprinkler system failed, however, on the lower floors. Maybe that's good enough?
    This makes for an interesting discussion don't you think? All I'm saying is that after 2 building fall to the ground and kill off hundreds of your coworkers don't you think you'd be scared to send anyone else into such a place? You bet your kiester I'd be scared witless.
    [/quote]

    I'm just kind of suspicious of 3 fire-caused collapses in one day, when the third one doesn't really meet any of the same initial conditions as the first two. It wasn't hit by a plane, but it still fell.

    Is it really true that no other sky scrapers had ever collapsed from fire before, or is that all just hype?


    Apparently there was plenty of unused office space in WTC 1 & 2. So : plenty of places where a guy in a maintenance suit can wheel a big box of unknown materials into, and as long as they appear to have the proper clearances, nobody is going to ask what they're doing after they go through the door, lock it behind them, and start their work.
    I hate to ask this ... again, but any evidence of this?
    Yeah, I had a reference in one of my earlier posts. Lack of tenancy was the main reason the city decided to lease the WTC towers in the first place. Silverstein got the lease 2 months before the attack.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #153  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    Prove to use that this is true.
    Did I write this? How embarrassing!

    Well I'm not thinking hybrid. I'm thinking is there any reason to even think explosions. So all I've heard so far is loud noises. What else would indicate explosions? Are there signs of shrapnel? Anything else?

    I'm just kind of suspicious of 3 fire-caused collapses in one day, when the third one doesn't really meet any of the same initial conditions as the first two. It wasn't hit by a plane, but it still fell.

    Is it really true that no other sky scrapers had ever collapsed from fire before, or is that all just hype?
    If you want to make this a part of the claim, then offer the evidence.


    Yeah, I had a reference in one of my earlier posts. Lack of tenancy was the main reason the city decided to lease the WTC towers in the first place. Silverstein got the lease 2 months before the attack.
    Guess again. It wasn't 2 months.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #154  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I'm just kind of suspicious of 3 fire-caused collapses in one day, when the third one doesn't really meet any of the same initial conditions as the first two. It wasn't hit by a plane, but it still fell.

    Is it really true that no other sky scrapers had ever collapsed from fire before, or is that all just hype?
    Arguing from lack of precedent is an excuse to completely ignore all the factors involved. No other steel sky scraper had ever been slammed into by a 200 ton airplane at at 500 miles an hour either. Neither had 15% of any other steel skyscraper's vertical support columns been severed. Nor had the fireproofing of any other steel skyscraper been stripped away before being set on fire by hydrocarbon jet fuel. All of these unprecidented factors combined to produce an unprecidented result. The full collapse of a steel-framed sky scraper. The fact that it happened twice is not suspicious. Both towers were subject to the same circumstances and thus produced the same result.

    In regards to tower 7, no other steel building with wide-set vertical columns had ever been burning on multiple lower floors with a broken sprinkler system before. Independantly, these factors are not unprecidented. But the specific combination of factors were. And as such, produced another unprecidented result. You can trot out all the cases of building fires that you want, but unless those fires have the exact same factors as Tower 7, then your case is flawed.

    Arguing from coincidence is another excuse to ignore the circumstances. For example, there were more than a few employees of the world trade center that called in sick that day. Coincidence?! Did they know 9/11 was going to happen? Of course not. Coincidences happen. Using them in debate is pointless and not different at all from superstition. (Besides, the collapse of the towers weren't coincidental anyway. Towers 1 and 2 were codependent on the same factors and tower 7 was directly effected by the collapse of Tower 1. These were mutually determined events.)
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #155  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by hokie
    Prove to use that this is true.
    Did I write this? How embarrassing!

    Well I'm not thinking hybrid. I'm thinking is there any reason to even think explosions. So all I've heard so far is loud noises. What else would indicate explosions? Are there signs of shrapnel? Anything else?
    Only the fall speeds, and symmetry. And the fall speeds are arguable. Seismic evidence begins 10 seconds after initiation of collapse, and continues another 15, so one could argue that the whole collapse took 25 seconds. Conspiracy theorists usually argue times closer to 14 (which would be near free fall for a building of that size)


    I'm just kind of suspicious of 3 fire-caused collapses in one day, when the third one doesn't really meet any of the same initial conditions as the first two. It wasn't hit by a plane, but it still fell.

    Is it really true that no other sky scrapers had ever collapsed from fire before, or is that all just hype?
    If you want to make this a part of the claim, then offer the evidence.
    What are you talking about? The 3 fire caused collapses is not in debate. If you mean the part about no precedent existing, you might notice that I put a question mark at the end of the sentence.




    Yeah, I had a reference in one of my earlier posts. Lack of tenancy was the main reason the city decided to lease the WTC towers in the first place. Silverstein got the lease 2 months before the attack.
    Guess again. It wasn't 2 months.
    It was less. I know. But I figured saying 2 months would save me typing space. He got it in July, the attacks happened in September, but clearly the lease didn't begin on exactly July 11.

    If you want to pick apart my posts, please .... find facts that are actually worth the trouble of correcting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I'm just kind of suspicious of 3 fire-caused collapses in one day, when the third one doesn't really meet any of the same initial conditions as the first two. It wasn't hit by a plane, but it still fell.

    Is it really true that no other sky scrapers had ever collapsed from fire before, or is that all just hype?
    Arguing from lack of precedent is an excuse to completely ignore all the factors involved. No other steel sky scraper had ever been slammed into by a 200 ton airplane at at 500 miles an hour either. Neither had 15% of any other steel skyscraper's vertical support columns been severed. Nor had the fireproofing of any other steel skyscraper been stripped away before being set on fire by hydrocarbon jet fuel. All of these unprecidented factors combined to produce an unprecidented result. The full collapse of a steel-framed sky scraper. The fact that it happened twice is not suspicious. Both towers were subject to the same circumstances and thus produced the same result.

    In regards to tower 7, no other steel building with wide-set vertical columns had ever been burning on multiple lower floors with a broken sprinkler system before. Independantly, these factors are not unprecidented. But the specific combination of factors were. And as such, produced another unprecidented result. You can trot out all the cases of building fires that you want, but unless those fires have the exact same factors as Tower 7, then your case is flawed.

    Arguing from coincidence is another excuse to ignore the circumstances. For example, there were more than a few employees of the world trade center that called in sick that day. Coincidence?! Did they know 9/11 was going to happen? Of course not. Coincidences happen. Using them in debate is pointless and not different at all from superstition. (Besides, the collapse of the towers weren't coincidental anyway. Towers 1 and 2 were codependent on the same factors and tower 7 was directly effected by the collapse of Tower 1. These were mutually determined events.)
    Arguing from coincidence is perfectly valid if there's a probability issue. If you said you had rolled a series 10 unweighted dice that day, and each of them landed on six, I might make a similar argument from coincidence, and I would be right to do so.

    It's not that a thing like that is absolutely impossible, not by any means, but if it's improbable for such an event to occur naturally, then I might really want strong evidence to convince me to believe that it was natural. (Just as I might want strong evidence to convince me the dice you rolled weren't weighted.)

    3 of the buildings in this attack all happened to meet special circumstances that not only set them apart from all other buildings that have had fires, but also guaranteed they would collapse totally, (not to mention symmetrically)? And the third met those circumstances in a radically different way than the first two?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #156  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Just out of curiosity, how do you know the third wasn't hit by a plane? How do you know that a section of one of those Boeing 767's went clear through one of the skyskrapers and hit the other building? Is that an unreasonable question?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #157  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Just out of curiosity, how do you know the third wasn't hit by a plane? How do you know that a section of one of those Boeing 767's went clear through one of the skyskrapers and hit the other building? Is that an unreasonable question?
    It is a reasonable question, but I think had that happened the fact would have long since emerged.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #158  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    I think they trained monkeys to place demolition charges on building 12. That's why it didn't come down.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #159  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    It was less. I know. But I figured saying 2 months would save me typing space. He got it in July, the attacks happened in September, but clearly the lease didn't begin on exactly July 11.

    If you want to pick apart my posts, please .... find facts that are actually worth the trouble of correcting.
    Here is my problem with this statement. It suggests that Silverstein was a newcomer. He wasn't. He put in his bid 8 months earlier. He also was involved in the construction of WTC7 2 decades earlier.

    Why is it of interest that a government agency took a typical long time to act on a bid? Had they been slower or if the higher bidder had not withdrawn, then the story would have been different. I don't think that difference would have any importance either.

    I don't see anything interesting here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #160  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    I think they trained monkeys to place demolition charges on building 12. That's why it didn't come down.
    I cannot prove you wrong ergo you are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #161  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Arguing from coincidence is perfectly valid if there's a probability issue. If you said you had rolled a series 10 unweighted dice that day, and each of them landed on six, I might make a similar argument from coincidence, and I would be right to do so.
    Ah, the dice argument. The one that is constantly being used by people who don't understand probability. Yes, the probability of rolling 10 six's is 1:60,466,176. But so is the probability of rolling any number of combinations. Any pattern that emerges is only recognized after the fact by people predisposed to believing that coincidence is the product of some sort of higher power (as most people are.)

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    It's not that a thing like that is absolutely impossible, not by any means, but if it's improbable for such an event to occur naturally, then I might really want strong evidence to convince me to believe that it was natural. (Just as I might want strong evidence to convince me the dice you rolled weren't weighted.)
    There's nothing natural about flying a jet into a building at 500 miles an hour. I'm assuming that you mean to say, "random" because you compare it to your dice analogy. But you're failing to recognize a key difference between the collapse of the buildings and the dice. Dice are random, collapses aren't. The individual dice's probability of landing on a six is the exact same no matter how many times it has been rolled. But each building collapse was the product of interdependant circumstances. Claiming that these circumstances are improbable gives the impression that they had nothing to do with one another. It is just a way for conspiracy theorists and pseudoscientists to ignore all evidence against their preferred conclusion and argue safely from the veil of ignorance.

    Say for instance that you run into some stranger in the fiction section of a book store. Then, later that day, you run into them at the supermarket. You may be thinking now that this person is stalking you. But if you put your paranoia aside and started talking to the person (trying to understand the situation) you would find out that the bookstore and the supermarket are in the same shopping center and that this person lives relatively close to it. The section of the book store you were in was a cooking section and you had each decided to get ingredients before going home. Suddenly the encounter was neither random, nor sinister. Given the circumstances, it is very probable. But if you remained in your previous paranoid state, imagining explanations instead of looking for them, then you would never have learned anything about the situation and you would, to this day, believe you were being followed.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    3 of the buildings in this attack all happened to meet special circumstances that not only set them apart from all other buildings that have had fires, but also guaranteed they would collapse totally, (not to mention symmetrically)? And the third met those circumstances in a radically different way than the first two?
    First of all, stop saying "three buildings." Yes, there were three buildings, but buildings 1 and 2 were subject to the exact same circumstances, so their common result is the expected outcome. In a discussion about probability, they should be considered a single event. Second, they didn't "happen" to meet anything. Everything was a result of what came before it. Terrorists crashed a 767 into Tower 1 which severed 15% of its vertical support columns, blew away its fireproofing, and set several floors on fire. Due to the tower's design, it succumbed to these conditions an hour later and collapsed. Debris from it severely damaged a smaller building nearby, scooping out large sections of its lower floors, disabling its sprinkler system, and starting a few fires on several lower floors. Due to the design of this building, seven hours later it succumbed to these unique conditions in a unique way and collapsed in a unique fashion. Neither situation was random, neither situation is unexplainable, and neither situation needed to be specifically engineered, step-by-step, by some intelligent agency. If you wanted to claim that, then you would have to provide evidence that explained everything the "natural" explanation did as well as everything that it doesn't (which isn't much.) No conspiracy theory has ever done this which is why conspiracy theorists do as little actual investigation as possible, instead relying entirely on arguments about probability topped off with their catch-phrase, "Coincidence!?"
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #162  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    I saw a fake news show years ago in which the "investigative reporter" is showing movies of paramilitary groups in uniforms extorting money from drivers. They use hidden cameras to show how heavily reinforced booths have been placed on US roadways and drivers are forced to pay ransoms to continue driving.

    Kind of reminds me of a conspiracy.

    So Silverstein is finally given a lease in which he under insures buildings that are destroyed so he can lose billions of dollars. Patsy or brilliant investor?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #163  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I was thinking maybe a hybrid approach could have been used, employing 2 or 3 different strategies/devices together.
    I'm fairly convinced you haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #164  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Ah, the dice argument. The one that is constantly being used by people who don't understand probability. Yes, the probability of rolling 10 six's is 1:60,466,176. But so is the probability of rolling any number of combinations. Any pattern that emerges is only recognized after the fact by people predisposed to believing that coincidence is the product of some sort of higher power (as most people are.)
    Which is why, to my knowledge, no casino (or conspiracy theory) ever went out of business.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #165  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Ah, the dice argument. The one that is constantly being used by people who don't understand probability. Yes, the probability of rolling 10 six's is 1:60,466,176. But so is the probability of rolling any number of combinations. Any pattern that emerges is only recognized after the fact by people predisposed to believing that coincidence is the product of some sort of higher power (as most people are.)
    The creationists love that one too. It's basically a failure to differentiate between specified outcomes and non-specified outcomes. The probability of the specified haemoglobin protein evolving versus the probability of some protein with an oxygen carrier function evolving. Very different indeed.

    And we do seem hard-wired to seek patterns in what is actually random. Which is why we developed statistics and probability in the first place. We know well we suck at this stuff when we leave it to common sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Ah, the dice argument. The one that is constantly being used by people who don't understand probability. Yes, the probability of rolling 10 six's is 1:60,466,176. But so is the probability of rolling any number of combinations. Any pattern that emerges is only recognized after the fact by people predisposed to believing that coincidence is the product of some sort of higher power (as most people are.)
    Which is why, to my knowledge, no casino (or conspiracy theory) ever went out of business.
    Ever seen the pattern spotters sitting at the roulette wheel searching for bias? That's a sad sight. Most casino games rely on the notion that people cannot deal well with probabilities. Only exception being rake-based games like poker.

    The probability argument seems to be a corner stone of many pseudo-scientific theories. Inevitably outcomes are too highly specified, incremental steps and extra factors ignored and the number of events is not considered. And most crucially, "improbable" is somehow transformed into "impossible" despite the fact that the improbable is by definition always possible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #166  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by hokie
    Whoa kojax! None of the buildings fell at freefall speeds. Prove to use that this is true. That should be simple, right?

    A giant takes longer to fall than a midget.
    What does this have to do with anything?

    That can (pretty much) only be accomplished via controlled demolition.
    Not only does your first statement seem disconnected, but how do this logically follow?

    Why fly planes into your buildings if you wanted to simply knock them down.
    1. You risk making the buildings unstable so they'd hit other buildings.
    2. Ticket prices might go up.
    3. What about the inconvenience created by cavity searches (unless it makes you smile)
    Very close to free-fall speed, it's clear your perception of reality isn't quite in tune with reality. This rate of fall should be impossible (law of conservation of momentum), there's your scientific fact to look up, an established work of science.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LG6i6...eature=related

    This is the second part of the video I posted, considering the conversations I've had with you, and John, you might need help finding it.

    These two videos cover most of everything I was saying, yet I'm only asked for more evidence resources and maths.

    Think of it this way, in a presidential debate, if one candidate fucks up somewhere, does the other come back with a logical debuttle or does he comment on the others poor debating skills?

    So this argument is pretty bogus, and considering how obvious it is that explosives were used, and how impossible it is for you to realize this, and how little we're able to talk about it maturely without insults and without demands I am not able to provide, I'm going to end it here. I wouldn't take it as a victory but I know you will. I've come across your type many times, and it's a little too sad to continue to witness it. I don't know where Galt went wrong but he needs to grow up a little before trying to speak to mature adults.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #167  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    OK, try me instead.

    I've not really been following this topic much, but what evidence do you think you have?
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #168  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    This is the second part of the video I posted, considering the conversations I've had with you, and John, you might need help finding it.

    These two videos cover most of everything I was saying, yet I'm only asked for more evidence resources and maths.
    The two videos are precisely why I have chosen to make fun of your debating skills. You appear to genuinely believe they offer evidence. More than that, you seem to believe the evidence is compelling, even convincing. Such a misperception of what is presented there and such bizarre belief it represents an objective scientific assessment is testimony to your lack of even a basic science education.

    As I believe I have previously noted there is nothing wrong with being uneducated in science. There is perhaps nothing wrong in insisting upon remaining uneducated in science. What is very definitely wrong is in pretending, or believing you have sufficient understanding of science and the scientific method when you very clearly don't.

    Finger and hokie and others have systematically dismantled each argument you have almost presented. They have done so far more efficiently than I could. I leave it to them to dispose of any other comparable material you present.

    without demands I am not able to provide
    If you cannot justify a claim then do not make it. If you have been following any of the other debates on this forum you will have seen that this point is about to be etched into the forum rules, if it is not already there.

    Finally, I do want to congratulate you on coining a new word - debuttle. Nice one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #169  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Ah, the dice argument. The one that is constantly being used by people who don't understand probability. Yes, the probability of rolling 10 six's is 1:60,466,176. But so is the probability of rolling any number of combinations. Any pattern that emerges is only recognized after the fact by people predisposed to believing that coincidence is the product of some sort of higher power (as most people are.)
    The creationists love that one too. It's basically a failure to differentiate between specified outcomes and non-specified outcomes. The probability of the specified haemoglobin protein evolving versus the probability of some protein with an oxygen carrier function evolving. Very different indeed.
    If you didn't specify which number, and just got any number 10 times in a row, then your odds drop to 10,077,696:1. That's if you only rolled 10 times, ever.

    If you rolled thousands of times, then waited for the same pattern to emerge sooner or later within the data, then you'd be making the same mistake as the people who think there's a predictive code in the bible texts.

    If I were arguing purely on the basis that the collapses were complicated, and I believed that only a creator could make something complicated, that might be different too.

    What I'm wondering is: does symmetrical collapse have the same random probability as sidelong toppling collapse? Suppose we're looking at a die that only has 3 sides instead of 6, but one outcome only emerges on a 1:6 chance. Maybe like Russian Roulette with 5 hollow points, and one target practice bullet. Or, let's add a few empty cylinders too, but the target practice bullet came up. So, say 4 hollow points, 1 empty cylinder, and 1 target practice bullet.



    And we do seem hard-wired to seek patterns in what is actually random. Which is why we developed statistics and probability in the first place. We know well we suck at this stuff when we leave it to common sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Ah, the dice argument. The one that is constantly being used by people who don't understand probability. Yes, the probability of rolling 10 six's is 1:60,466,176. But so is the probability of rolling any number of combinations. Any pattern that emerges is only recognized after the fact by people predisposed to believing that coincidence is the product of some sort of higher power (as most people are.)
    Which is why, to my knowledge, no casino (or conspiracy theory) ever went out of business.
    Ever seen the pattern spotters sitting at the roulette wheel searching for bias? That's a sad sight. Most casino games rely on the notion that people cannot deal well with probabilities. Only exception being rake-based games like poker.
    Actually.... yes. That is how you would spot a rigged game. In probability, there's something called the "law of large numbers" which tells you that, over a sufficiently large number of dice rolls, the odds always approximately bear out. So, you really could find a cheating casino by watching its game outcomes. I don't know whether the gaming commissions actually use that tactic or not, but it would be a valid tactic.

    In shorter data sets, if you're playing craps, and you think the casino might be using loaded dice, one method you could use to check might be to seize the dice out of the rollers hand, then roll them a few times to see if they keep coming up on the same outcome.



    The probability argument seems to be a corner stone of many pseudo-scientific theories. Inevitably outcomes are too highly specified, incremental steps and extra factors ignored and the number of events is not considered. And most crucially, "improbable" is somehow transformed into "impossible" despite the fact that the improbable is by definition always possible.
    Probability can be misused. That doesn't mean it's an invalid approach. It just means it's an often abused approach. Are you trying to tell me that insurance companies don't make money, because you can't use probability as a predictive tool? Should they be charging everyone the same rate, whether a driver has 0 tickets, 3 tickets, or 5 tickets, because y'know.... it's probability and you can never know for sure....?

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Arguing from coincidence is perfectly valid if there's a probability issue. If you said you had rolled a series 10 unweighted dice that day, and each of them landed on six, I might make a similar argument from coincidence, and I would be right to do so.
    Ah, the dice argument. The one that is constantly being used by people who don't understand probability. Yes, the probability of rolling 10 six's is 1:60,466,176. But so is the probability of rolling any number of combinations. Any pattern that emerges is only recognized after the fact by people predisposed to believing that coincidence is the product of some sort of higher power (as most people are.)
    So, are you suggesting that I'm predisposed toward believing that symmetrical collapses are less probable than toppling collapses? Usually, in physics, I find that it's symmetry that requires an explanation, not dissymetry (though often there is one).

    If both (or all 3) buildings had toppled, I wouldn't be as confused, because toppling collapses are closer to what I would anticipate. If the WTC 1,2 towers' falls had been radically different from each other, that too would have been a lack of symmetry, and not raised as many flags for me.

    First of all, stop saying "three buildings." Yes, there were three buildings, but buildings 1 and 2 were subject to the exact same circumstances, so their common result is the expected outcome. In a discussion about probability, they should be considered a single event. Second, they didn't "happen" to meet anything. Everything was a result of what came before it. Terrorists crashed a 767 into Tower 1 which severed 15% of its vertical support columns, blew away its fireproofing, and set several floors on fire. Due to the tower's design, it succumbed to these conditions an hour later and collapsed. Debris from it severely damaged a smaller building nearby, scooping out large sections of its lower floors, disabling its sprinkler system, and starting a few fires on several lower floors. Due to the design of this building, seven hours later it succumbed to these unique conditions in a unique way and collapsed in a unique fashion. Neither situation was random, neither situation is unexplainable, and neither situation needed to be specifically engineered, step-by-step, by some intelligent agency. If you wanted to claim that, then you would have to provide evidence that explained everything the "natural" explanation did as well as everything that it doesn't (which isn't much.) No conspiracy theory has ever done this which is why conspiracy theorists do as little actual investigation as possible, instead relying entirely on arguments about probability topped off with their catch-phrase, "Coincidence!?"
    The fact there's a story line doesn't tell you how many different ways the story *could* have gone, nor is the completeness of an account evidence of its accuracy. (Unless it's complete in the sense of offering evidence for each of its separate claims). Completeness of an account is only evidence of the story teller's creativity. I'm impressed that NIST is able to come up with a complete story for the collapse. That shows they're both highly skilled engineers, and very creative.

    I'll agree that the first 2 collapses are fundamentally different from the third, because they had the same initiating conditions.

    The question for the first 2 buildings is: If we had 100 or 1000 such buildings, designed exactly the same way, and they were all struck by planes in the same way, in the same basic scenario, would a statistically substantial portion of the test group all collapse in approximately the same way?

    The kind of explanation you'd give after carrying out that test (admittedly only practical as a thought experiment), is the kind of explanation I would want. NIST's account bears little resemblance to it, so I may have to construct it myself. Once I have it, I'll probably change sides in the debate, and never look back.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #170  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    421
    When people design buildings, they take into account (1) what the structural weaknesses are, and (2) what would happen if a failure in those aspects of the structure precipitated a collapse. Obviously it's important to design a building in such a way that, IF a collapse occurred, it would cause as little collateral damage as possible.

    Specifically, the chief designer behind the world trade center has himself said that, when he designed the building, one of the things they did consider was how the building would fall under certain adverse circumstances, and that the manner in which the building eventually did collapse was consistent with their calculations of what would happen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #171  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by salsaonline
    Specifically, the chief designer behind the world trade center has himself said that, when he designed the building, one of the things they did consider was how the building would fall under certain adverse circumstances, and that the manner in which the building eventually did collapse was consistent with their calculations of what would happen.
    Can you provide a reference for that please?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #172  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    421
    My information is coming from what sounds like a portion of a radio interview inserted into one of Mark Roberts' debunking videos:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...5611926#18m05s

    If that link doesn't work, go to

    http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/wtcn...nlinkstoscenes

    and click on the link "Les Robertson, Twin Towers head engineer, on conspiracy claims".

    I admit I don't know the original source of this recording, but I'm sure if someone is interested they can ask Mark Roberts himself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #173  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    Very close to free-fall speed
    You claim very close. How close? Give me a number?

    So a sky diver falls out of a plane and you are saying that the conservation of momentum tells us he didn't fall?

    Think of it this way, in a presidential debate, if one candidate fucks up somewhere, does the other come back with a logical debuttle or does he comment on the others poor debating skills?
    then you say

    and without demands I am not able to provide
    So I say, if you haven't got a clue about what you are posting, then why did you post? A good way to post something that you don't understand is to say, "can anyone shed some light on this?"

    If there is concern on your part that I mistakenly took any of this out of context please don't flame me, but give me the chance to see where I messed up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #174  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    139
    He isn't going to respond to your request for numbers.

    I provided him with numbers and he outright ignored my post and my theory.

    It will take an object at the top of WTC7 5.95 seconds to fall to the ground. It took WTC approximately 14 seconds in the videos. It fell in a manner consistent with good structural design, and in a manner that logic would dictate given inner structural failure before outer structural failure--- something that is also logical because the "outer structure" would have been the load bearing structure to increase the strength of the building.


    So Viper, if you will kindly tell me where you think my argument is wrong, I'll be happy to debate you further.
    --
    -M

    "Those that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
    safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    -Benjamin Franklin, An Historical Review of Pennsilvanya, 1759
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #175  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by salsaonline
    My information is coming from what sounds like a portion of a radio interview inserted into one of Mark Roberts' debunking videos:
    Thank you for the promptly provided link. (Viper-X, are you listening.)
    I would have preferred something in writing that would have confirmed the interviewee was who he was said to be. With the amount of deceit and self delusion being practised around this topic one is justified in being sceptical.
    I looked at more of the lengthy video link. It included some very interesting information, but I was disappointed that the producers chose to adopt many of the same tactics as the conspiracy theorists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #176  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    421
    I agree it's not a well-verified reference. However, I think you would have no trouble getting Mark Roberts to provide an explanation of the source if you emailed him. I mean, this is the kind of reference that is easily verifiable if you're willing to put the effort into it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #177 found the source 
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    421
    I found the source of the radio interview with Leslie Robertson that I mentioned in an earlier post. John Galt quite rightly wanted to know where this information was coming from, so here is a link to the full interview:

    http://911vids.blogspot.com/2009/03/...ven-jones.html

    The interview took place on KGNU Community Radio, Boulder Colorado, in 2006.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #178  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Thermite... How many people here actually understand what it is, how it's set off, and what it really does? I can't understand the relevance of there being thermite evidence at the wtc site. The proper combination of chemicals is all over every building on the planet that has a steel main structure, and the actual chemicals inside the offices are relatively unknown... To be frank, we don't know EXACTLY what was in those stories of the building hit by the plane, that subsequently began to burn rapidly. I know from personal experience that molten aluminum and rust, if hot enough, will ignite as thermite. they don't NEED to be premixed, and as long as one is a liquid when it meets the other, it does the job it is preordained to chemically do.

    I have a question, though. How does an incendiary mixture that is not specifically explosive burn at an angle?? I know thermite in primer cord does this, but how does thermite alone do this?? I'm perplexed by this, and I am curious not if this means that it may have been a semi inside job, but as to whether or not this is evidence of the act being malicious, meant to kill as many people as possible, or if it means someone was human, and decided to try to only destroy the symbol, and NOT kill every possible person.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #179  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Very close to free-fall speed, it's clear your perception of reality isn't quite in tune with reality. This rate of fall should be impossible (law of conservation of momentum), there's your scientific fact to look up, an established work of science.
    I just noticed this... How does the law of the conservation of momentum even matter here? I figured gravity, friction, and other physical laws and principles would be useful here, not really the conservation of momentum. one thing you must realize, is that your system MUST include the earth, as it's force is the SOURCE of the momentum for the building... and I doubt the velocity of earth changed very much at all...
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #180  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    I have a question, though. How does an incendiary mixture that is not specifically explosive burn at an angle??
    Here's a reenactment of how the whole thermite thing got started...

    Quote Originally Posted by Conspiracy Theorists
    9/11 was an inside job! Explosives are the only thing that could bring those buildings down!
    Quote Originally Posted by Rational People
    Explosives are very loud.
    Quote Originally Posted by Conspiracy Theorists
    Then they must have used silent explosives.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rational People
    There's no such thing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Conspiracy Theorists
    Ok... It was thermite! I just found this picture of one of the support beams on google. It was cut at an angle. That could only be done by a person with thermite!
    Quote Originally Posted by Rational People
    It was done by the cleanup crew. There are videos and pictures of them doing it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Conspiracy Theorists
    But there's thermite components in the dust at ground zero! That proves that thermite was used before the collapse!
    Quote Originally Posted by Rational People
    All that stuff is common in buildings and airplanes. And what happened to explosives? A minute ago you said it was the only explanation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Conspiracy Theorists
    Ok. Ok... It was nano-thermite!
    Quote Originally Posted by Rational People
    Also, salsaonline, thanks for the links.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #181 Re: found the source 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by salsaonline
    I found the source of the radio interview with Leslie Robertson that I mentioned in an earlier post. John Galt quite rightly wanted to know where this information was coming from, so here is a link to the full interview:

    http://911vids.blogspot.com/2009/03/...ven-jones.html

    The interview took place on KGNU Community Radio, Boulder Colorado, in 2006.
    Thank you for this. My original request for the link and the subsequent guarded comments about it relate to my demand, of myself, that I be even handed. I have requested links and evidence from Viper-X. It is essential I make the same requests of anyone who posts claims, or provides questionable sources.

    Viper-X could well take a lesson out of your book for how such requests be addressed. In very little time at all you have come up with a link, then the source interview.

    A final point - you say "this is the kind of reference that is easily verifiable if you're willing to put the effort into it."
    True. But my point is - and always has been - if you are making the claim you are the one who should put the effort into it. (Which you have done admirably.) The only exception is where the claim is so much a part of the consensus it is embedded in text books.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #182  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    Finger that's hilarious.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #183  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    thank you finger, that's what I figured it was, just wondered if any conspiracy theorist here understood what thermite even is... I see the talk of it, and just slam my head into my hand already, the stuff goes through steel like butter, theres no reason for it to move directionally (except 'straight' down)
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #184  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Oh, it goes even further than that. The next step after nano-thermite is to finally make a concession and admit that the buildings could have collapsed from the damage they sustained. But the conspiracy theorist still maintains that an airplane is incapable of doing that sort of damage, so they say that there were missiles launched from each plane right before impact. One more step takes you into the "no plane" conspiracy theorists who say that every video of the planes hitting was doctored. And since we're already several thousand miles past crazy, why not include an orbiting space laser? These people are so far out there that they don't even use youtube.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #185  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Thermite... How many people here actually understand what it is, how it's set off, and what it really does? I can't understand the relevance of there being thermite evidence at the wtc site. The proper combination of chemicals is all over every building on the planet that has a steel main structure, and the actual chemicals inside the offices are relatively unknown... To be frank, we don't know EXACTLY what was in those stories of the building hit by the plane, that subsequently began to burn rapidly. I know from personal experience that molten aluminum and rust, if hot enough, will ignite as thermite. they don't NEED to be premixed, and as long as one is a liquid when it meets the other, it does the job it is preordained to chemically do.

    I have a question, though. How does an incendiary mixture that is not specifically explosive burn at an angle?? I know thermite in primer cord does this, but how does thermite alone do this?? I'm perplexed by this, and I am curious not if this means that it may have been a semi inside job, but as to whether or not this is evidence of the act being malicious, meant to kill as many people as possible, or if it means someone was human, and decided to try to only destroy the symbol, and NOT kill every possible person.
    I would think, if thermite were used, it would be targeted specifically at bolts and weld points, not at columns in their entirety. (Why waste it?) Then conventional explosives might be used to separate the weakened weld/bolt points. The design of the building is really interesting this way. The vertical columns were supported horizontally by much smaller horizontal columns.

    It seems to me that, if you took out the bolts and welds at the points where some of the horizontal columns connected to the vertical ones on the outer wall (which I think is also where the vertical ones were bolted together), and then used an explosive to push the column outward sideways at that same connection point, it would totally buckle.

    Of course, for the non conspiracy theory, that structural information is also useful. If falling rubble hit those horizontal supports, they'd drag the vertical columns inward, and that would probably also cause them to buckle.


    Quote Originally Posted by salsaonline
    When people design buildings, they take into account (1) what the structural weaknesses are, and (2) what would happen if a failure in those aspects of the structure precipitated a collapse. Obviously it's important to design a building in such a way that, IF a collapse occurred, it would cause as little collateral damage as possible.

    Specifically, the chief designer behind the world trade center has himself said that, when he designed the building, one of the things they did consider was how the building would fall under certain adverse circumstances, and that the manner in which the building eventually did collapse was consistent with their calculations of what would happen.
    That's exactly what I've been looking for. I've been wanting to understand why the building would vertically fall like that, and not by chance.

    I'll follow this line of inquiry, and see where it takes me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    I have a question, though. How does an incendiary mixture that is not specifically explosive burn at an angle??
    Here's a reenactment of how the whole thermite thing got started...

    Quote Originally Posted by Conspiracy Theorists
    9/11 was an inside job! Explosives are the only thing that could bring those buildings down!
    Quote Originally Posted by Rational People
    Explosives are very loud.
    Quote Originally Posted by Conspiracy Theorists
    Then they must have used silent explosives.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rational People
    There's no such thing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Conspiracy Theorists
    Ok... It was thermite! I just found this picture of one of the support beams on google. It was cut at an angle. That could only be done by a person with thermite!
    Quote Originally Posted by Rational People
    It was done by the cleanup crew. There are videos and pictures of them doing it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Conspiracy Theorists
    But there's thermite components in the dust at ground zero! That proves that thermite was used before the collapse!
    Quote Originally Posted by Rational People
    All that stuff is common in buildings and airplanes. And what happened to explosives? A minute ago you said it was the only explanation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Conspiracy Theorists
    Ok. Ok... It was nano-thermite!
    Quote Originally Posted by Rational People
    Also, salsaonline, thanks for the links.
    It's sad, but that could very well be how it happened. It's funny in debates to watch how people let themselves get baited, then paint themselves into corners. It's never wise in a debate to allow your argument to be narrowed further than it needs to be narrowed, unless the evidence really justifies it.

    I've watched some debates where both sides did this, and they just keep spinning around in circles, and ignoring possibilities that might have enabled them both to improve their understanding of their perspectives.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #186  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I would think, if thermite were used, it would be targeted specifically at bolts and weld points, not at columns in their entirety. (Why waste it?) Then conventional explosives might be used to separate the weakened weld/bolt points. The design of the building is really interesting this way. The vertical columns were supported horizontally by much smaller horizontal columns.

    It seems to me that, if you took out the bolts and welds at the points where some of the horizontal columns connected to the vertical ones on the outer wall (which I think is also where the vertical ones were bolted together), and then used an explosive to push the column outward sideways at that same connection point, it would totally buckle.
    Its like you're just saying things for the sake of keeping the argument going. Making up random justifications for your forgone conclusion wouldn't be necessary if you had any evidence. Do you have any of that? I'm guessing not, since all you're presenting now are probability arguments and "what if" scenarios.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    It's sad, but that could very well be how it happened. It's funny in debates to watch how people let themselves get baited, then paint themselves into corners.
    Yes, it is funny. I suggest you learn to laugh at yourself.

    I know you like sympathizing with the underdog and all, but there's a reason why 9/11 conspiracy theorists usually get laughed off of forums (which is what's happening here.) They are put down for the same reason members of the Flat Earth Society get put down, because their claims are retarded. Their claims have always been retarded. They rely entirely on an absence of information (if they rely on anything at all.) I know you think you mean well, but people who "want to see both sides" just give the raving lunatic fringe undeserved legitimacy.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #187  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1
    Les Robertson on the aircraft impacts :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yicMy...eature=related

    The towers were not build to withstand HIGH SPEED plane impacts .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #188  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    There is no doubt in my mind that thermite helped bring down the tower, but not in the way any conspiracy theorist says. I do believe that the tower burned hot enough to, in localized points around the remains of the plane, create the reaction of thermite in the steel supports and aluminum parts of both the plane and the building. I'm willing to bet the 'evidence' of thermite PROVES that the burning office material got hot enough to set it off, and therefore, got hot enough to cause structural failure in the support columns (steel). If anything, the thermite traces show that the building was hot enough to NOT NEED any outside help to bring it down...

    Sadly, the argument they are using to boost their conspiracy is the same one that can be used to show EXACTLY how unnecessary their theory is.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #189  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by atmosphere
    Les Robertson on the aircraft impacts :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yicMy...eature=related

    The towers were not build to withstand HIGH SPEED plane impacts .
    I seriously doubt the towers were designed with 'plane impact' as a necessary factor for structural integrity...
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #190  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by atmosphere
    The towers were not build to withstand HIGH SPEED plane impacts .
    I seriously doubt the towers were designed with 'plane impact' as a necessary factor for structural integrity...
    Then you would be wrong. Since the Empire State Building was struck by a B-25 bomber in the 1940's, the possibility of airplane crashes was recognised. It was taken into account for the Twin Towers. My recollection - and I am unable yet to locate a viable reference - is that this assumed a strike by a smaller 707 (the largest commercial aircraft flying at that time). Moreover the effects of a plane fully loaded with fuel was ignored and the attention focused on the impact and immediate damage.

    This is a better link on the B-25 crash.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #191  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Plus, a commercial jet coming in for a landing (at low speed) is the only time it would even be low enough to hit a building. They did not anticipate an intentional crash at 500+ mph. Leslie Robertson makes mention of this in the interview salsaonline provided.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #192  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I am still trying to find a viable link to substantiate my claim that the Twin Towers were designed for a plane impact, but smaller than what actually occured. So far all I can find is anecdotal material equivalent to my own comments, which is more or less worthless.

    However - and Kojax, this is for you - I did find this interesting study by a Japanese engineer who doubted the official explanation, but came up with an alternative one which arose out of mathematical modelling.

    Edit:
    Sometimes I am thicker than a line of pregnant wallabies. The obvious place to look for this information is in the NIST report, specifically NIST NCSTAR 1-1: Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Structural and Life Safety Systems

    Here we read, in Section 5.1.4 Aircraft Impact --
    "No building code in the United States has specific design requirements for impact of an aircraft, and thus buildings are not specifically designed to withstand the impact of fuel-laden airrcraft. However, since the collision of a B-25 bomber into the Empire State Building in 1945, designers of high-rise buildings have become aware of the potential of the crash of aircraft into buildings. A three-page document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ or Port Authority) indicates that the impact of a Boeing 707 aircraft flying at 600mph was analysed during the design stage of the WTC towers in February/March 1964.

    No documents on the aircraft impact analysis are available to review the criteria and method used in the impact of a Boeing 707 aircraft on the WTC tower and to verify the assertion in the three-page document that "...such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endager the lives and saftey of the occupants not in the immediate area of impact." Without the original calculations of the aircraft impact analysis, any comment on the document would be a speculation. In March 1964, a calculation was made by the Port Authority to determine the period of vibration of the tower due to an impact at the 80th floor. Although no conclusion was stated on the calculation sheet, it clearly indicates that the Port Authority recognized during the design stage the possibility of an aircraft impact on the tower
    ."

    Edit: typographical errors in transcription of NIST extract were corrected.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #193  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I would think, if thermite were used, it would be targeted specifically at bolts and weld points, not at columns in their entirety. (Why waste it?) Then conventional explosives might be used to separate the weakened weld/bolt points. The design of the building is really interesting this way. The vertical columns were supported horizontally by much smaller horizontal columns.

    It seems to me that, if you took out the bolts and welds at the points where some of the horizontal columns connected to the vertical ones on the outer wall (which I think is also where the vertical ones were bolted together), and then used an explosive to push the column outward sideways at that same connection point, it would totally buckle.
    Its like you're just saying things for the sake of keeping the argument going. Making up random justifications for your forgone conclusion wouldn't be necessary if you had any evidence. Do you have any of that? I'm guessing not, since all you're presenting now are probability arguments and "what if" scenarios.
    Actually it's the only way I've ever seen it. I watched the NIST documentary a good while before reading about Dr. Jones' thermite theory, so from the start I knew it would take a very stupid/foolish sabateour to actually try and attack the steel columns themselves, rather than strike at the weakest points in the structure.

    All of those massive, thick, vertical steel columns are bolted and/or welded together right around certain key areas where they meet up with the much thinner horizontal supports. The horizontal supports are a much easier target, and just as crucial.

    Basically, without the horizontal supports, the vertical columns would buckle at their weld/rivet points. That's actually the key to NIST's theory of collapse. Their theory wasn't that the fire weakened the vertical columns. It was that the vertical columns retained more or less their original strength, but the horizontal supports gave out. (The vertical columns' size would have given them the ability to dissipate a lot more heat before beginning to actually reach high temperatures themselves.)

    So, if you're a sabateour, then you'd deduce that the key to bringing down the building is to destroy the horizontal supports, or disconnect them from the vertical columns on the outside of the building. The thermite would be burning straight down if you used it that way, and you'd end up needing much less.




    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    It's sad, but that could very well be how it happened. It's funny in debates to watch how people let themselves get baited, then paint themselves into corners.
    Yes, it is funny. I suggest you learn to laugh at yourself.

    I know you like sympathizing with the underdog and all, but there's a reason why 9/11 conspiracy theorists usually get laughed off of forums (which is what's happening here.) They are put down for the same reason members of the Flat Earth Society get put down, because their claims are retarded. Their claims have always been retarded. They rely entirely on an absence of information (if they rely on anything at all.) I know you think you mean well, but people who "want to see both sides" just give the raving lunatic fringe undeserved legitimacy.
    The Anti-conspiracy theorists rely entirely on the say so of authority figures, rather than their own analysis. That makes from a lot of perspectives, because if anyone could say for certain how it all happened, it would be NIST. That's a big "if" of course, given how little there was left of the structure for them to analyze.

    Another possibility is that NIST knows that the whole credibility of their organization depends on the credibility of the law making institution that established them, and so their reaction whenever they don't have enough evidence to be certain of anything will be to tell the story that most supports the official story of events.

    There's nothing in their report that couldn't be true, but there's a lot of things in their chain of logic/evidence that has to be taken on faith in order for it to be true. Most of their account of the collapse doesn't actually refer to specific evidence found in the debris, or in the video footage. Their guess is only better than others because they narrowed the range of possibilities to those that fit with the engineering field's expectations.


    Quote Originally Posted by NIST FAQ

    2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

    ....(Skipping 4 paragraphs down to where they actually start answering the controlled demolition part of the question).....


    NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

    *

    the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

    *

    the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

    Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

    In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view
    http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

    In other words, in order to so much as entertain a sabotage theory, there would have had to be clear evidence of it. NIST's own official theory of collapse, on the other hand, only has to be possible. They don't have to prove it. (And never really attempted to.)

    It's fine for them to hold that perspective, but it means their report can't be used as evidence against sabotage.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #194  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    I think we should rebuild the WTC according to the original specs (not the design specs, the ones it was build with) and then crash two airplanes in it at the appropriate speed, angle, and fuel load.

    Then we will know.



    Of course the conspiracy nuts will still claim it is all a conspiracy and that explosive devices were places also in the new WTC.

    You cannot win.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #195  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    I think we should rebuild the WTC according to the original specs (not the design specs, the ones it was build with) and then crash two airplanes in it at the appropriate speed, angle, and fuel load.

    Then we will know.



    Of course the conspiracy nuts will still claim it is all a conspiracy and that explosive devices were places also in the new WTC.

    You cannot win.
    I think when debating entrenched CT proponents you've usually won by the first reply. They'll just never understand how and why. Besides, how do you rate victory? By the number of people who agree with you maybe. CTs never win in that regard.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #196  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Edit:
    Sometimes I am thicker than a line of pregnant wallabies. The obvious place to look for this information is in the NIST report, specifically NIST NCSTAR 1-1: Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Structural and Life Safety Systems

    Here we read, in Section 5.1.4 Aircraft Impact --
    "No building code in the United States has specific design requirements for impact of an aircraft, and thus buildings are not specifically designed to withstand the impact of fuel-laden airrcraft. However, since the collision of a B-25 bomber into the Empire State Building in 1945, designers of high-rise buildings have become aware of the potential of the crash of aircraft into buildings. A three-page document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ or Port Authority) indicates that the impact of a Boeing 707 aircraft flying at 600mph was analysed during the design stage of the WTC towers in February/March 1964.

    No documents on the aircraft impact analysis are available to review the criteria and method used in the impact of a Boeing 707 aircraft on the WTC tower and to verify the assertion in the three-page document that "...such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endager the lives and saftey of the occupants not in the immediate area of impact." Without the original calculations of the aircraft impact analysis, any comment on the document would be a speculation. In March 1964, a calculation was made by the Port Authority to determine the period of vibration of the tower due to an impact at the 80th floor. Although no conclusion was stated on the calculation sheet, it clearly indicates that the Port Authority recognized during the design stage the possibility of an aircraft impact on the tower
    ."

    Edit: typographical errors in transcription of NIST extract were corrected.
    Actually, john, that technically supports my claim. I honestly didn't know about the B-25 impact into the empire state building, and had I known that, my trap would have remained shut on the subject, but, going by how I originally worded my opinion, the first sentence of that quote agrees with me. Not trying to say anything else on the topic, just wanted to point that out . I do, though, now, completely understand that plane impact should be part of building code FOR SURE. I didn't know it had happened before
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #197  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    I think we should rebuild the WTC according to the original specs (not the design specs, the ones it was build with) and then crash two airplanes in it at the appropriate speed, angle, and fuel load.

    Then we will know.



    Of course the conspiracy nuts will still claim it is all a conspiracy and that explosive devices were places also in the new WTC.

    You cannot win.
    I think when debating entrenched CT proponents you've usually won by the first reply. They'll just never understand how and why. Besides, how do you rate victory? By the number of people who agree with you maybe. CTs never win in that regard.
    I don't think most anti-conspiracy people know how and why either. They just know NIST doesn't agree and that NIST is really smart. I guess really smart people don't actually need to be able to support their claims in evidence, because intelligence gives you the ability to pull truth out of thin air.

    They can certainly pull credibility out of thin air. If NIST has a story line set for the collapse, and that story line would be consistent with engineering knowledge if a number of factors (unprovable factors) persisted, then I guess it's expected that I should quit analyzing the matter.

    It's like the emporer's new clothes. Anybody who thinks the emporer is naked must be a fool, because all of the supposedly smart people have signed off on the theory that he's not actually naked. The clothes are just so refined that you need a certain amount of intelligence in order to see them on his body.

    Some of the supposedly smart people have offered elaborate explanations for how these magical clothes might work, and so it can be assumed that, if I disagree I must either not have read them, or not have understood them. (It couldn't be that I don't buy them)

    I posted the momentum exchange problem both on this thread, and in a thread on the Structural, Mechanical, and Chemical Engineering forum (where I went into more detail), and it's been sitting there over a week with no response. It's had 99 views, which couldn't all be from me checking it.

    I'll admit that the fall time is an unresolved question. The 10 second fall time is probably not correct, 14/16 seconds has a little bit more support, and seismic evidence allows it to be up to 25 seconds. If, however, we go with a fairly short estimate of the time for the fall, then any falling mass that's continually colliding with stationary objects (levels of the building not yet in motion when the falling rubble strikes them), then those collisions should be slowing the fall. That would be true even if the lower structure had been crumbling like bread, without offering any resistance at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #198  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Actually it's the only way I've ever seen it. I watched the NIST documentary a good while before reading about Dr. Jones' thermite theory, so from the start I knew it would take a very stupid/foolish sabateour to actually try and attack the steel columns themselves, rather than strike at the weakest points in the structure.

    All of those massive, thick, vertical steel columns are bolted and/or welded together right around certain key areas where they meet up with the much thinner horizontal supports. The horizontal supports are a much easier target, and just as crucial.

    Basically, without the horizontal supports, the vertical columns would buckle at their weld/rivet points. That's actually the key to NIST's theory of collapse. Their theory wasn't that the fire weakened the vertical columns. It was that the vertical columns retained more or less their original strength, but the horizontal supports gave out. (The vertical columns' size would have given them the ability to dissipate a lot more heat before beginning to actually reach high temperatures themselves.)

    So, if you're a sabateour, then you'd deduce that the key to bringing down the building is to destroy the horizontal supports, or disconnect them from the vertical columns on the outside of the building. The thermite would be burning straight down if you used it that way, and you'd end up needing much less.
    "If... maybe... possibly..." Evidence please. You're still imagining explanations instead of looking for them.

    And it wasn't a failure of just the horizontal supports. The horizontal supports buckled and warped, stressing the vertical columns (that had already been weakened by the plane.) You can see some of the bowing here:


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    In other words, in order to so much as entertain a sabotage theory, there would have had to be clear evidence of it. NIST's own official theory of collapse, on the other hand, only has to be possible. They don't have to prove it. (And never really attempted to.)
    Why didn't you entertain the space laser theory? Or the Alien theory? Or the Hulk Hogan theory? I demand that you prove all of these theories wrong before you start making any claims.

    A positive claim requires positive evidence. "Sabotage did it," is a positive claim, so it would require positive evidence before it would be considered. This is why the justice system is based on the principle of innocence until proven guilt. Its how things work in a rational world. But in the world of conspiracy theories, anything any random coot thinks up is automatically valid and anyone who says they're full of it is "submitting to authority figures."

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I don't think most anti-conspiracy people know how and why either. They just know NIST doesn't agree and that NIST is really smart. I guess really smart people don't actually need to be able to support their claims in evidence, because intelligence gives you the ability to pull truth out of thin air.

    They can certainly pull credibility out of thin air. If NIST has a story line set for the collapse, and that story line would be consistent with engineering knowledge if a number of factors (unprovable factors) persisted, then I guess it's expected that I should quit analyzing the matter.
    The reason I accept NIST's findings is partly because it is the only explanation I have seen that accounts for all the observable evidence. But also, it is because I recognize that I am not an expert on structural engineering. So the fact that the NIST report was a collaboration with (and is supported by) the structural engineering community also indicates that it is the most valid explanation. If that's submitting to authority, then listening to your doctor is the same thing. But if you're saying that I accepted their explanation without question or investigation, then you simply haven't been paying attention to this thread.

    I find it very ironic that you would accuse the NIST report of "relying on faith" and "unprovable factors" when every claim you've made for the past three pages has been complete and utter speculation. Where is your evidence?

    But ok, since you're determined not to talk about the evidence, give an example from the actual NIST report (not the FAQ page) where they make an assumption or a "faith" statement.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #199  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    But ok, since you're determined not to talk about the evidence, give an example from the actual NIST report (not the FAQ page) where they make an assumption or a "faith" statement.
    Indeed, I think the reverse is true. On several occassions they state that they will not go further with a line of thinking because there is insufficient data to form a meaningful conlcusion, or that to do so would be mere speculation. That does seem quite the opposite of taking things on faith.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #200  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Actually it's the only way I've ever seen it. I watched the NIST documentary a good while before reading about Dr. Jones' thermite theory, so from the start I knew it would take a very stupid/foolish sabateour to actually try and attack the steel columns themselves, rather than strike at the weakest points in the structure.

    All of those massive, thick, vertical steel columns are bolted and/or welded together right around certain key areas where they meet up with the much thinner horizontal supports. The horizontal supports are a much easier target, and just as crucial.

    Basically, without the horizontal supports, the vertical columns would buckle at their weld/rivet points. That's actually the key to NIST's theory of collapse. Their theory wasn't that the fire weakened the vertical columns. It was that the vertical columns retained more or less their original strength, but the horizontal supports gave out. (The vertical columns' size would have given them the ability to dissipate a lot more heat before beginning to actually reach high temperatures themselves.)

    So, if you're a sabateour, then you'd deduce that the key to bringing down the building is to destroy the horizontal supports, or disconnect them from the vertical columns on the outside of the building. The thermite would be burning straight down if you used it that way, and you'd end up needing much less.
    "If... maybe... possibly..." Evidence please. You're still imagining explanations instead of looking for them.

    And it wasn't a failure of just the horizontal supports. The horizontal supports buckled and warped, stressing the vertical columns (that had already been weakened by the plane.) You can see some of the bowing here:
    That's actually pretty good.

    Still, sabotage theorists don't doubt that the plane did sufficient damage to initiate the event. The question is whether the event would have proceeded from the moment of initiation to create the kind of symmetry and collapse speed that we saw afterward.

    Salsaonline had the best answer to that. It may be that the building was intentionally designed to fall vertically if ever a collapse were to initiate.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    In other words, in order to so much as entertain a sabotage theory, there would have had to be clear evidence of it. NIST's own official theory of collapse, on the other hand, only has to be possible. They don't have to prove it. (And never really attempted to.)
    Why didn't you entertain the space laser theory? Or the Alien theory? Or the Hulk Hogan theory? I demand that you prove all of these theories wrong before you start making any claims.
    Those are obviously less credible than sabotage theory. Why is sabotage theory obviously less credible than plane initiated collapse to you? Is it because you saw the plane, and you prefer to use an inductive process rather than a deductive one?

    In deduction, you only rule out possibilities that are remote, or extremely unlikely, not possibilities that are reasonably high, but comparatively much smaller than others. Induction is all about comparison, so if one of your options has a very high likelihood, all the others will be eclipsed. I'm the kind of person who will not answer a multiple choice question on a test until I've reviewed all of the options, even if I see the correct answer in the first two.

    So, I'm curious: what, in a purely negativistic sense, not a positivistic sense, makes sabotage theory such a remote possibility that it doesn't deserve any attention? These other 3 you listed are obviously remote. Sabotage theory is not obviously remote in the same way as them, unless you blindly trust in human nature, or don't believe that politically targeted sabotage has ever occurred in human history.


    A positive claim requires positive evidence. "Sabotage did it," is a positive claim, so it would require positive evidence before it would be considered. This is why the justice system is based on the principle of innocence until proven guilt. Its how things work in a rational world. But in the world of conspiracy theories, anything any random coot thinks up is automatically valid and anyone who says they're full of it is "submitting to authority figures."

    By your definition, the police should never investigate a suicide as a possible murder if there's a suicide note and a gun found near the victim with the victim's prints on it.

    To say that sabotage is a possibility worthy of investigation is very different from trying to cram sabotage down your throat as a proven fact. NIST is trying to cram its version of the story down my throat as a proven fact, and for such a strong claim, they're not providing much real evidence.

    The question of what's a "positive" or "negative" claim is just plain silly. They're both positive claims. Positively claiming either one is the same as negatively claiming against the other. And besides: in deductive reasoning, it's the negative claims that require all the evidence, because your goal is to thoroughly eliminate all but one possibility.



    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I don't think most anti-conspiracy people know how and why either. They just know NIST doesn't agree and that NIST is really smart. I guess really smart people don't actually need to be able to support their claims in evidence, because intelligence gives you the ability to pull truth out of thin air.

    They can certainly pull credibility out of thin air. If NIST has a story line set for the collapse, and that story line would be consistent with engineering knowledge if a number of factors (unprovable factors) persisted, then I guess it's expected that I should quit analyzing the matter.
    The reason I accept NIST's findings is partly because it is the only explanation I have seen that accounts for all the observable evidence. But also, it is because I recognize that I am not an expert on structural engineering. So the fact that the NIST report was a collaboration with (and is supported by) the structural engineering community also indicates that it is the most valid explanation. If that's submitting to authority, then listening to your doctor is the same thing. But if you're saying that I accepted their explanation without question or investigation, then you simply haven't been paying attention to this thread.

    I find it very ironic that you would accuse the NIST report of "relying on faith" and "unprovable factors" when every claim you've made for the past three pages has been complete and utter speculation. Where is your evidence?

    But ok, since you're determined not to talk about the evidence, give an example from the actual NIST report (not the FAQ page) where they make an assumption or a "faith" statement.
    Again: The difference is that I'm not trying to pass off my position as a proven fact. NIST is trying to do so.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •