Loose Change

[Alek]

You believe in a JFK conspiracy? Okay...

Drop the condescension, ignoramus.

"An official investigation by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), conducted from 1976 to 1979, concluded that President Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. This conclusion of a conspiracy contrasts with the earlier conclusion by the Warren Commission that the President was assassinated by a lone gunman."

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination

I know, I know. Wikipedia isn't sourceable, and the HSCA never existed. Get your head out of the sand, ostrich.

[gtc]

The US Government's theories are no more valid than the theories of others because they are offered from a position of authority.

Every time someone discredits Charlie Sheen's comments on the basis that he is a drug addled celebrity, people retort with argue the facts not the person.

But here you are discounting the government because they are in a position of authority.

I guess arguing from a position of celebrity trumps arguing from a position of authority?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Alek, any comments regarding this analysis of the collapse events?
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline02/0502feat.html

[Regnad Kcin]

That seems perfectly reasonable but unfortunately it isn't. The US Government's theories are no more valid than the theories of others because they are offered from a position of authority.Nice try with the suggestive "US Government" shading.

You're also assuming that what is "commonly accepted" is reasonable, which isn't true either.I don't assume. And the general explanation of the 9/11 events is not only reasonable, but beyond a reasonable doubt.

In this case, I'm going to have to turn your little argument on its ear and insist that you provide me evidence for the 9/11 Commission's account of how WTC 7, a 47-story steel skyscraper, collapsed in a spectacular 6.6 second near-free-fall symmetrical fashion...That you find it unlikely doesn't make it so.

And again, you are making the claim that the "US Government" was behind the event(s), so you, my arrogant friend, must provide the proof.

Drop the condescension, ignoramus.

...Get your head out of the sand, ostrich.One more ad-hom and you're on Ignore, bub.

[Alek]

Both schools would agree that the probability that particular passport fell out of that particular plane and landed on that particular sidewalk is equal to one, because we observed that it happened and it is now a certainty. You just have to be careful that you don't confuse the two definitions when you're around pedantic mathematicians.

I hope that clarifies things a bit.

Wrong. "We" didn't observe anything, speak for yourself. I didn't observe a passport flying out of a plane and landing on a sidewalk, therefore, it isn't a certainty. Even if I observe something happening, it isn't a certainty. Your idol Randi was a magician who spent a large amount of his time using tricks to convince people that they saw what in fact they did not. The probability that the passport story is true depends not only on the likelyhood of this event actually occuring, but on the credibility of those in the chain of custody of the evidence. Since human beings have been known to plant evidence and lie from time to time, especially yourself, this means that the probability that the passport story is true is necessarily less than one. I'm beginning to understand your particular problem as you reveal more about yourself. You have an irrational trust of authority, and you make regular appeals to it. You even use it in attempts to cause grief for other people, even perfect strangers who you disagree with, like Dr. Wood.

Did you study statistics, or statism?

[Regnad Kcin]

Actually, I've given you enough consideration. Bye!

[emperorchaos]

Interesting how Controlled Demolition was the same company that cleaned up the Alfred P. Murrah building - under armed guard - in the government sponsored Oklahoma City bombing.

You don't have to commit the perfect crime. You just have to control the investigation that follows.

Interesting how Controlled Demolition is a company that does controlled demolitions and removes the debris caused by them.

They also cleaned up a building that collapsed during construction in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia?
*gasp*
Terrorists!
*gasp*
They all must be involved in some conspiracy!

The fact that you think the Oklahoma City bombing was government-sponsored is ridiculous. Who were they out to get?

[Alek]

Every time someone discredits Charlie Sheen's comments on the basis that he is a drug addled celebrity, people retort with argue the facts not the person.

But here you are discounting the government because they are in a position of authority.

I guess arguing from a position of celebrity trumps arguing from a position of authority?

You're confusing your fallacies here. Attacking Charlie Sheen so as to invalidate the information he presents is an example of argumentum ad homenim.

The government is an authority. The government theorizes that 19 hijackers wielding box cutters commandeered commercial jetliners and crashed them into the World Trade Center. The damage from impact plus jet-fuel fires weakened the steel in the buildings, and they collapsed. The government theory is true. This is an example of an appeal to authority.

Charlie Sheen's celebrity status says nothing about the validity of the statements he is making. The government's authority is likewise irrelevant.

The government theory is bunk not because it is authoritative (that would be just an inverted appeal to authority), but because its theory is contradicted by factual evidence.

[Alek]

Alek, any comments regarding this analysis of the collapse events?
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline02/0502feat.html

Thanks for the link, it looks interesting. I will read it tomorrow morning.

You may wish to read this, an analysis of jet fuel and the WTC:

http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064

This is a critical analysis of the movie Loose Change (the predecessor to LC2E) by a conspiracy theorist that I found interesting. He raises some good points:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/loose_change.html

[Alek]

The fact that you think the Oklahoma City bombing was government-sponsored is ridiculous. Who were they out to get?

Instead of speculating on motive, I'll just refer you to the movie 9/11 The Road to Tyranny. It contains incredible footage that you likely have not seen which refutes the theory that Timothy McVeigh was a lone bomber, and points the finger at elements within the US government. You can find it using p2p file sharing software.

[Curnir]

The government is an authority. The government theorizes that 19 hijackers wielding box cutters commandeered commercial jetliners and crashed them into the World Trade Center. The damage from impact plus jet-fuel fires weakened the steel in the buildings, and they collapsed. The government theory is true. This is an example of an appeal to authority.

Wow...
Ok let me try.

The goverment says that the United States sent forces to europe during WW2. The goverment is telling the truth.

Yet... My grandfather fought in europe during WW2 and didn't see a single american soldier/sailor/marine/airman.

So if you say the Uncle sam sent troops to europe you are calling my grandfather a liar!

All the evidence that the US were involved in the european theater of war are fabricated and all te veterans who claim to have fought are in on the conspiracy or brainwashed!

Oh and btw I was beeing sarcastic...

The government theory is bunk not because it is authoritative (that would be just an inverted appeal to authority), but because its theory is contradicted by factual evidence.
.....
factual evidence

Show me.

[Alek]

Not necessarily. Some are merely missguided and/or missinformed.



So, the set of conspiracy theorists consists of people who are any of nutty, unstable, misguided, or misinformed, is that right? Apparently, conspiracies don't exist! I suspect that the number of people rotting in prison for the conspiracy to commit one crime or another might agree with you, after all, there is ne'er a guilty man in prison.



Interesting. Which conspiracy theory are you talking about?



I was referring to the official one which involves nineteen hijackers conspiring with an arabic mastermind in a cave to commandeer jets and fly them into buildings. That does fit the definition of a conspiracy, does it not?



As far as I know my goverment hasn't lied to me about the terrorist attacks on 9/11. You know... when the (mostly) Saudi Nationals crashed passanger jets into WTC and the Pentagon.



As far as you know.



Incidently, when I saw the second plane crash into the building, I said out loud:
Someone is going to try to blame this on the US goverment.



Your prescience is as remarkable as the government's credibility, it seems.



no no don't worry I won't apply for the million dollars :D

Is that a reference to the JREF prize? I'm not too familiar with that. What are the elgibility requirements?

[Z]

Instead of speculating on motive, I'll just refer you to the movie 9/11 The Road to Tyranny. It contains incredible footage that you likely have not seen which refutes the theory that Timothy McVeigh was a lone bomber, and points the finger at elements within the US government. You can find it using p2p file sharing software.

I know from personal information that you're full of crap here. I personally knew several members of McVeigh's unit. McVeigh was more than capable of pulling off the OK city bombing solo, and more than willing to do so. He was several decks short of a full house.

Interestingly, he was also, like you, a conspiracy theorist nut-job.

I'll never forget how one of my best friends, a former member of his unit, was yanked from the field by the FBI when the OK city bombing thing happened. This poor guy spent almost two days in questioning, just because he had the technical expertise to pull off the bombing. In fact, that interview was one of the first major clues they had as to WHO had done the bombing.

Sorry, Alek - that one is B.S.

My suggestion: stop placing empty faith in anonymous or amateur conspiracy videos and books. They are even less credible than the documents provided by the government, and FAR less credible than the information supplied by actual experts in-field. And that's part of the problem with the 9/11 nonsense - actual experts in-field agree with the official account of the events of that day. Only amateurs and anonymous conspiracy nut-jobs disagree.

[Alek]

Actually, I've given you enough consideration. Bye!

Before, you said this:


You believe in a JFK conspiracy? Okay...


Condescending remarks like that which are made out of ignorance and denial aren't "considerate".

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

...
The government is an authority. The government theorizes that 19 hijackers wielding box cutters commandeered commercial jetliners and crashed them into the World Trade Center. The damage from impact plus jet-fuel fires weakened the steel in the buildings, and they collapsed. The government theory is true. This is an example of an appeal to authority.
...

An appeal to authority would be Professor X. has a PhD in <field unrelated to WTC collapse analysis> and he believes the gov't's theory. So you should too.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Thanks for the link, it looks interesting. I will read it tomorrow morning.

You may wish to read this, an analysis of jet fuel and the WTC:

http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064

This is a critical analysis of the movie Loose Change (the predecessor to LC2E) by a conspiracy theorist that I found interesting. He raises some good points:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/loose_change.html

I'll make an effort to find the time to look at these. This week has been full of OT at work, so no promises on a quick turnaround.

[Alek]

I know from personal information that you're full of crap here. I personally knew several members of McVeigh's unit. McVeigh was more than capable of pulling off the OK city bombing solo, and more than willing to do so. He was several decks short of a full house.

Interestingly, he was also, like you, a conspiracy theorist nut-job.



Ahh yes. So not only am I an anti-jewish nut-job, but I'm now a terrorist equivalent to Timothy McVeigh. Good work.

Here we have another fallacy. Whether McVeigh was "capable of pulling off the OK city bombing solo" is entirely irrelevant, and ignores the factual evidence to the contrary, which I referenced in a film.



I'll never forget how one of my best friends, a former member of his unit, was yanked from the field by the FBI when the OK city bombing thing happened. This poor guy spent almost two days in questioning, just because he had the technical expertise to pull off the bombing. In fact, that interview was one of the first major clues they had as to WHO had done the bombing.



This is relevant how?



Sorry, Alek - that one is B.S.

My suggestion: stop placing empty faith in anonymous or amateur conspiracy videos and books. They are even less credible than the documents provided by the government, and FAR less credible than the information supplied by actual experts in-field. And that's part of the problem with the 9/11 nonsense - actual experts in-field agree with the official account of the events of that day. Only amateurs and anonymous conspiracy nut-jobs disagree.

My suggestion is that you stop placing empty faith in so-called government experts with conflicts of interest who happen to be contradicted not only by a mountain of evidence, but by other experts. My beliefs aren't spoon fed to me by government and corporate shills. I reject their lies as easily as I reject the lies of laymen.

I also suggest you alleviate your abject ignorance of this matter by obtaining the film, and fast-forwarding to the section on the Oklahoma City bombing. It's called 9/11 The Road to Tyranny, by Alex Jones. I'm not going off track and enumerating the evidence here.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

...
Here we have another fallacy. Whether McVeigh was "capable of pulling off the OK city bombing solo" is entirely irrelevant, and ignores the factual evidence to the contrary, which I referenced in a film.
...

For the sake of brevity, and the benefit of the forum members who may not have the time to devote to the entire film, could you highlight some of the more compelling evidence from the film in a post here?

[Curnir]

So, the set of conspiracy theorists consists of people who are any of nutty, unstable, misguided, or misinformed, is that right?
Well now we get into how you define 'conspiracy theorists'

Apparently, conspiracies don't exist!
Really?

I suspect that the number of people rotting in prison for the conspiracy to commit one crime or another might agree with you, after all, there is ne'er a guilty man in prison.

oh that's just precious... Intimating that I have claimed that there is no such thing as conspiracies...
A very interesting debate technique you used there by the way... to expand the term 'conspiracy theories' from the normal definition (the communists are putting fluoride in the water supply to brainwash americans, black helicopters, roswell coverup, JFK shooting, RFK shooting, moon hoax or other conspiracy theories where there are NO evidence to be had) to ALL conspiracies (where there are evidence for conspiracies)... way to go I applaud your sly debating technique. You wouldn't happen to post on GFS would you?



I was referring to the official one which involves nineteen hijackers conspiring with an arabic mastermind in a cave to commandeer jets and fly them into buildings. That does fit the definition of a conspiracy, does it not?

See above.

(concerning wether my goverment has lied to me about 9/11)

As far as you know.

Show me where my goverment lied to me concerning 9/11

(concerning my prediction)

Your prescience is as remarkable as the government's credibility, it seems.

yeah right...


Is that a reference to the JREF prize? I'm not too familiar with that. What are the elgibility requirements?
yupp it's a reference to the JREF prize.

Check the main site for the rules.

[WildCat]

Of course, that doesn't explain the massive pyroclastic-like dust clouds and the horizontal ejection of debris near the top of the towers as they collapsed. But then again, neither does the official conspiracy theory.
I'm still in shock that you compared the dust cloud of the WTC collapse w/ pyroclastic flows. If they were even slightly comparable to pyroclastic flows everything the dust cloud touched would have been incinerated by the 500 degree C temps.

[chipmunk stew]

I agree, except that if we are to assume that resourceful people were responsible for this demolition, and I think that's a reasonable assumption to make, they would only use just enough explosives to allow gravity to take over and do the work:

“If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure.”

- http://www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/NEW_SEISMIC_/new_seismic_.html

Of course, that doesn't explain the massive pyroclastic-like dust clouds and the horizontal ejection of debris near the top of the towers as they collapsed. But then again, neither does the official conspiracy theory.I never understood this line of speculation. Supposedly there were explosions in the sub-basements of the towers and "admissions" such as the above, and yet the towers collapsed top-down! There's no indication based on the way they fell that the foundations were compromised.

[WildCat]

More questions for Alek:

1. Do controlled demolitions result in pools of molten steel that persist for weeks on end? This seems to be a cornerstone of your theory. please don't interpret this as me conceding that there were such pools of molten steel at the WTC, because I'm not.

2. Pulverised concrete also seems to be a cornerstone of your theory. Have you calculated how much exposives would be necessaryto pulverize 100,000 tons (conservative estimate) of concrete? Bear in mind that your explosives must have greater energy than the kinetic energy of over 200,000 tons of WTC falling 1300 ft, since you seem to think that was inadequate for the job.

eta: and wouldn't such a huge quantity of explosives send debris flying for miles around?

3. Have you found a single structural engineer who contends the impact of the planes and resulting fires were insufficient to bring down the towers? Seems to be another cornerstone of your theory. Please don't cite the 9/11 scholars for truth, unless they have added an actual structural engineer to their ranks.

4. Since you have been unwilling or unable to find a single contemporary account by a reputable news source of anything but a 757 hitting the Pentagon, is the entire worldwide media also in on the conspiracy? Or, was everyone who saw the 757 hit the Pentagon and quoted in the days following 9/11 by the various media planted there by the gov't?

5. Is the US (and the world?) really run by a secret shadow gov't independent of or in complicity w/ the Democratic and Republican parties, who have orchestrated and then covered up the Kennedy assasination, the OKC bombing, and now the 9/11 attacks?

Of course, I expect the answer to these questions, as usual, to be (crickets chirping).

[kookbreaker]

How come CT'ers never consider Squeaky Fromme to be a patsy?

t'ain't fair!

[Longstreet]

Isn't it obvious that the towers' collapse was largely due to structural weakening from when King Kong climbed up them back in 1976?

Of course, they covered that one up, too...

SJ

[aggle-rithm]

You're confusing your fallacies here. Attacking Charlie Sheen so as to invalidate the information he presents is an example of argumentum ad homenim.

The government is an authority. The government theorizes that 19 hijackers wielding box cutters commandeered commercial jetliners and crashed them into the World Trade Center. The damage from impact plus jet-fuel fires weakened the steel in the buildings, and they collapsed. The government theory is true. This is an example of an appeal to authority.

Charlie Sheen's celebrity status says nothing about the validity of the statements he is making. The government's authority is likewise irrelevant.

The government theory is bunk not because it is authoritative (that would be just an inverted appeal to authority), but because its theory is contradicted by factual evidence.


The whole idea that the US government is a monolithic entity is laughable. Which branch of the government? Which political party? The government is organized in such a way that it CANNOT be monolithic. Also, the political realities of Washington mean that each side is constantly watching the other, waiting for a single misstep that they can crow triumphantly to the press.

What you're proposing is that there was an enormous conspiracy. Watergate was a small conspiracy, but was uncovered almost immediately, and justice was quickly served (well, Nixon got off scott free, but...).

Also, you can't say that it was a GOVERNMENT conspiracy, because it was limited to a small group of people within a single branch of the government -- as ANY conspiracy would have to be!

[aggle-rithm]

Isn't it obvious that the towers' collapse was largely due to structural weakening from when King Kong climbed up them back in 1976?

Of course, they covered that one up, too...

SJ

I remember someone from the movie saying they couldn't use the real World Trade Center to do the filming, because, unlike the Empire State Building, which was made back when they built things to last, the WTC would collapse under the weight of a giant ape. I found that interesting, but I don't think it's true. Especially since the giant ape was just a guy in an ape suit.

[aggle-rithm]

I never understood this line of speculation. Supposedly there were explosions in the sub-basements of the towers and "admissions" such as the above, and yet the towers collapsed top-down! There's no indication based on the way they fell that the foundations were compromised.


Come on! You're just not thinking like a conspiracy theorist!

Obviously, they had synchronized charges near the top of the building, so it would LOOK like it was collapsing from the top down, thus creating a red herring to distract the gullible from the realities of a sub-basement explosion.

Dastardly globalists!

[ferd burfle]

What forensic investigation? Controlled Demolition was the only entity allowed on the scene following the disaster, and the evidence was shipped off to China for recycling.
...
You don't have to commit the perfect crime. You just have to control the investigation that follows.

Wildcat already followed up as I would have for most of your points, but let me be sure of what you're saying above. You're asserting that no FBI explosives specialists examined the debris?

Ferd

[kookbreaker]

I remember someone from the movie saying they couldn't use the real World Trade Center to do the filming, because, unlike the Empire State Building, which was made back when they built things to last, the WTC would collapse under the weight of a giant ape. I found that interesting, but I don't think it's true. Especially since the giant ape was just a guy in an ape suit.

They actually built a complete full size 'robot giant ape' for the 1976 movie at hideous expense. It was clunky and clumsy. They had high hopes for it, but it could never do much more than stand up straight and raise its arms. The result was the need for the guy in the ape suit. If can stand watching the movie, you can see it in a couple of the shots for about a second when Kong escapes from his cage. It really looks clunky, but not rotoscoped. The robot arm fared much better

I don't know if they ever planned to put the thing on the WTC, however.

[rwguinn]

Wildcat already followed up as I would have for most of your points, but let me be sure of what you're saying above. You're asserting that no FBI explosives specialists examined the debris?

Ferd

Folks:
Do Not bother Alek and his ilk with facts. They are, putting it in a diplomatic form, "stupider than a box of rocks".
The merely ignorant can be educated. Alek is incapable of learning anything, as demonstrated herein.
What happend to the towers?
There was an actual technical discussion, starting here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1485239#post1485239) with my answer, along with agreement from structural engineers in the following posts. We cannot educate the stupid. At this point, it becomes painfully obvious that they are beyond help

[GrnMtSkeptic]

Controlled Demolition was the only entity allowed on the scene following the disaster, and the evidence was shipped off to China for recycling.

Actually this is quite a strange thing to say. There were four firms handling the clean up: AMEC, Bovis Lend Lease (British Companies), Turner (subsidiary of Hochtief based in Germany), and Tully Construction of Flushing, New York. CDI was brought in as a subcontractor to Tully, and there were innumerable other subcontractors, including D.H. Griffin Wrecking Co. Not to mention all the Teamsters and Laborers who actually did the work.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/14/health/main643329.shtml

http://triangle.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/2002/09/09/focus5.html

[kookbreaker]

Folks:
Do Not bother Alek and his ilk with facts. They are, putting it in a diplomatic form, "stupider than a box of rocks".
The merely ignorant can be educated. Alek is incapable of learning anything, as demonstrated herein.
What happend to the towers?
There was an actual technical discussion, starting here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1485239#post1485239) with my answer, along with agreement from structural engineers in the following posts. We cannot educate the stupid. At this point, it becomes painfully obvious that they are beyond help

At this point I know there is no convincing someone like Alek. Conspiracies are his faith, his religion. My comments are mostly reserved for any who are on the fence, or seeking answers.

Alek has chosen his cult. It gives the same warm-fuzzy feeling as b'leevers of jeebus. Look how often he says 'I am free' and other such comments. He's wrapped in this faith.

Like X-tian witnessers, CT champion themselves as seekers and guaridans of the truth. In reality, CT'ers are like a guard dog that growls at every shadow. They think they are doing a great job, but they are worse than useless*


* comment obtained from the bautforum.

[Manny]

Not to mention all the Teamsters and Laborers who actually did the work.Like, 10,000 majorly pissed off firefighters? The Ironworkers, some of whom were the very same people who put the Trade Center up in the first place? Yeah, the NWO could have snuck evidence right past those guys without a word of dissent.

[ferd burfle]

Folks:
Do Not bother Alek and his ilk with facts. They are, putting it in a diplomatic form, "stupider than a box of rocks".
...
What happend to the towers?
There was an actual technical discussion, starting here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1485239#post1485239) with my answer, along with agreement from structural engineers in the following posts. We cannot educate the stupid. At this point, it becomes painfully obvious that they are beyond help

RW, I read this entire thread before posting and very much appreciated (and yes, understood) your summary of the basics. I realized a few pages ago that we were trying to teach a pig to whistle here and I intended my previous post to be the last before I began Googling for an appropriate recipe.

Thanks,

Ferd

[delphi_ote]

Wrong. "We" didn't observe anything, speak for yourself.
You're confounding "observation" in the statistical sense with "observation" in the layman's sense. They don't mean the same thing. In statistics "observation" means that you've conducted the experiment and you know the outcome. If we believe the story of the passport, the probability of it happening doesn't matter at all. It happened.
Even if I observe something happening, it isn't a certainty.
In the statistical sense, it is a certainty. That's what certainty means: p(x)=1. In the casual sense of the word, observation clearly doesn't imply certainty.
The probability that the passport story is true depends not only on the likelyhood of this event actually occuring, but on the credibility of those in the chain of custody of the evidence.
I wasn't discussing the probability that the passport story was true. You can really only speak of such a thing in a Bayesian sense. I was discussing the probability that the event happened, given that we've observed it. No matter how unlikely an event is, if it's happened, the odds or probability just don't matter. Even if you maintain the odds were a trillion to one against it, I could easily find a series of events that have happened that are equally unlikely (e.g. the string of all lottery numbers selected in every U.S. state lottery since they were started.)
Since human beings have been known to plant evidence and lie from time to time, especially yourself, this means that the probability that the passport story is true is necessarily less than one. I'm beginning to understand your particular problem as you reveal more about yourself.
Care to point out a place where I've lied or planted evidence? Your paranoia is getting a little out of hand.
You have an irrational trust of authority, and you make regular appeals to it.
I make appeals to authority? Whose? Do you even know what that means? So far, I've backed up more of my arguments than anyone else here with my own calculations.
You have an irrational trust of authority, and you make regular appeals to it. You even use it in attempts to cause grief for other people, even perfect strangers who you disagree with, like Dr. Wood.
The woman is violating professional ethics. That's a problem.
Did you study statistics, or statism?
I'm starting to wonder if you study anything at all, Alek. So far, I've brought my understanding of probability and physics to bear on this subject. You've only contributed images and insults (and neither have been very clever.)

[delphi_ote]

So, if the above is what a frequentist would say (I am assuming you are one of them) Then, what would be the minimum acceptable for them to have considered that an experiment?? Would it have had to be 2 choices between A&B???
It's a little more subtle than that, but you're sort of on the right track. The frequentist would basically want to be able to conduct an actual experiment and make observations. They wouldn't like, "There are two things you know nothing about.." They need, "There is a fair coin being flipped landing randomly..."
Wouldn't the difference in philosophy prohibit them from coming to the same answer because the frequentist would not consider the same problem in the case you gave ??
Unfortunately, this is true. A lot of work using Bayesian statistics cause frequentists to look down their nose and say "Hogwash! That's not scientific at all!" It's controversial, even today. Bayesians who publish a paper or go to a conference have to watch out for the grumpy frequentists (and there are a lot more of them than there are Bayesians!) :D
Thanks for your patience
Thanks for your patience and careful questioning. I'm more than happy to do my best to explain.

I feel like I should point out that this isn't all just abstract nonsense grumpy mathematicians use. Any time you use Google or common e-mail spam filters, the software is using Bayesian statistical inferences!

[Graham S1]

The whole idea that the US government is a monolithic entity is laughable. Which branch of the government? Which political party? The government is organized in such a way that it CANNOT be monolithic. Also, the political realities of Washington mean that each side is constantly watching the other, waiting for a single misstep that they can crow triumphantly to the press.

What you're proposing is that there was an enormous conspiracy. Watergate was a small conspiracy, but was uncovered almost immediately, and justice was quickly served (well, Nixon got off scott free, but...).

Also, you can't say that it was a GOVERNMENT conspiracy, because it was limited to a small group of people within a single branch of the government -- as ANY conspiracy would have to be!

You can't say it was the WHOLE government because that is simply not true, and not necessary either. Beleive it or not, there are good people that genuinely want to help in government.

What we are talking about here, is a small minority, who were able to carry out their plans, as most of the people who were involved, would have simply been following orders, ie military, secret service, agency staff etc. Others who tried to speak up later, would have been paid off, "accidented/suicided", or BLACKMAILED into keeping quite.

Why did I capitalise blackmail? Simply because there are many people in government, (far more than are actually evil), are fallible, to sexual urges. Those urges can be used and abused.

Anyone thinking this is far fetched, should look up "The Franklin Cover Up", by Senator John W Decamp. This book has nothing to do with 911, but stars many of the same players.

[kookbreaker]

What we are talking about here, is a small minority, who were able to carry out their plans, as most of the people who were involved, would have simply been following orders, ie military, secret service, agency staff etc. Others who tried to speak up later, would have been paid off, "accidented/suicided", or BLACKMAILED into keeping quite.


Somehow they've managed to intimidate and blackmail every structural engineer in the world. I rather doubt it.

[CurtC]

"An official investigation by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), conducted from 1976 to 1979, concluded that President Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. This conclusion of a conspiracy contrasts with the earlier conclusion by the Warren Commission that the President was assassinated by a lone gunman."This would be an interesting subject to pursue after this one is hashed out. I suggest we start a new thread at that time.

As a preview, the HSCA conclusion was based entirely on an analysis that has since been vacated, namely the acoustic analysis of gunshot echoes. You called him an ignoramus, but I think you'll find that every single regular here agrees that Oswald was the lone gunman. But let's save that for the new thread.

[Shrinker]

RW, I read this entire thread before posting and very much appreciated (and yes, understood) your summary of the basics. I realized a few pages ago that we were trying to teach a pig to whistle here and I intended my previous post to be the last before I began Googling for an appropriate recipe.

Thanks,

Ferd

As a neutral observer of this debate, I just wanted to pipe up and say you're being a little harsh an Alek. He's logical and open minded, as evidenced by this post on the Loose Screws forum...

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1413&st=68

It doesn't make sense to argue with people who refuse to entertain the possibility that your argument may be correct, does it? That pretty much sums up my experience at the JREF forum.

Personally, it isn't likely that anyone, whether they're considered to be an "expert", or whether they have a PhD behind their name is going to convince me that the WTC 7 building wasn't a controlled demolition. My own intelligence and intuition are paramount on this matter.

[Graham S1]

Somehow they've managed to intimidate and blackmail every structural engineer in the world. I rather doubt it.


With a quick Google (or other) search, please show me how many engineers back up the official story 100%. If this is the case, then why are NIST having trouble finding engineers to help them explain WTC7. Because they still haven't.

[DavidJames]

What we are talking about here, is a small minority, who were able to carry out their plans, as most of the people who were involved, would have simply been following orders, ie military, secret service, agency staff etc. Others who tried to speak up later, would have been paid off, "accidented/suicided", or BLACKMAILED into keeping quite.
and your evidence for this is?

[delphi_ote]

You can't say it was the WHOLE government because that is simply not true, and not necessary either. Beleive it or not, there are good people that genuinely want to help in government.
And none of those people have spoken up in almost 5 years?
What we are talking about here, is a small minority, who were able to carry out their plans, as most of the people who were involved, would have simply been following orders, ie military, secret service, agency staff etc. Others who tried to speak up later, would have been paid off, "accidented/suicided", or BLACKMAILED into keeping quite.
You don't understand government work very well. You're talking here about local and federal law enforcement agents, the intelligence community, The State Department, The CIA, the NSA, the Army, the Navy, The Airforce, the local fire department all cooperating to pull this off, with paperwork and gossip flying everywhere. Someone who wasn't supposed to know would find out eventually and leak it to the press.
Why did I capitalise blackmail? Simply because there are many people in government, (far more than are actually evil), are fallible, to sexual urges. Those urges can be used and abused.
So every good person in government has a sexual urge they're ashamed of? I'm not ashamed of any of my sexual encounters. Perhaps you are projecting some of your own insecurities?
Anyone thinking this is far fetched, should look up "The Franklin Cover Up", by Senator John W Decamp. This book has nothing to do with 911, but stars many of the same players.
You're pointing us to another conspiracy theory to back this one up?

[DavidJames]

As a neutral observer of this debate, I just wanted to pipe up and say you're being a little harsh an Alek. He's logical and open minded, as evidenced by this post on the Loose Screws forum...



I've corrected his quotePersonally, it isn't likely that anyone, whether they're considered to be an "expert", or whether they have a PhD behind their name is going to convince me that the WTC 7 building wasn't a controlled demolition. My own intelligence and intuition are paranormal on this matter.

[kookbreaker]

With a quick Google (or other) search, please show me how many engineers back up the official story 100%.


I'd say the burden of proof is on you. To date, no Structural engineer has made any strong disagreement with the events as described by NIST. There are countries in this world that are hostile to us, and yet the structural engineers from that part of the world haven't exactly been breaking down the doors.

By comparison, Structural Engineers in China have made reports describing the model for failure of the WTC 1 & 2. I don't have the link handy right now, but can provide it later.


If this is the case, then why are NIST having trouble finding engineers to help them explain WTC7. Because they still haven't.

You greatly (and probably deliberately) misunderstand the purpose of NIST. They are not there to grunt 'fire burn, building fall' . They are determined to find the exact points and causes of failures. This is not to appease CT'ers, it is for future sttructural study and implementation. This process takes time, and they are not going to rush due to the catcalls of CT'ers.

In the meantime, no structural engineer has said anything about explosives or any other cause of failrue for WTC7 other than fire and structural damage from debris.

[Manny]

So every good person in government has a sexual urge they're ashamed of? I'm not ashamed of any of my sexual encounters. Perhaps you are projecting some of your own insecurities?Well yeah, but that's because you already buy off on the NWO's story. Start raising any serious questions and they'll send over the really, really kinky girl.

Hey, wait. I got an idea...

[aggle-rithm]

You can't say it was the WHOLE government because that is simply not true, and not necessary either. Beleive it or not, there are good people that genuinely want to help in government.

What we are talking about here, is a small minority, who were able to carry out their plans, as most of the people who were involved, would have simply been following orders, ie military, secret service, agency staff etc. Others who tried to speak up later, would have been paid off, "accidented/suicided", or BLACKMAILED into keeping quite.




OK, let's say it was a small group of people in government, contrary to what we've been told by Alek in post after dreary post. In order for the conspiracy to work, this small group would have to have, at the very least, total control over the 911 Commission. This commission was under a political and jouralistic microscope for months, and yet no one was able to tell that it was being manipulated?

You said most of the people involved would have just been following orders. Well, there you have it! We now KNOW who is responsible -- There is only one govt. entity charged with giving such orders, so it can't be anyone else but... the Executive branch of the government, led by GW Bush! Dang, he must be craftier than he appears to be!

What are you waiting for, man! Get down to Washington and make a citizen's arrest!

[Shrinker]

With a quick Google (or other) search, please show me how many engineers back up the official story 100%. If this is the case, then why are NIST having trouble finding engineers to help them explain WTC7. Because they still haven't.

Why do they have to agree 100%. Do experts in every other field always agree 100%? What percentage variation in expert opinion = solid evidence of a coverup?


And why do they have to be accessible via a quick Google search? How many of these experts are really so bothered about the whole thing that they'll set up websites announcing their opinions? That kind of behaviour is more indicative of cranks than anything else.

Besides, it's only fair that you first list all of the information sources that you consider to be 'in on it', so others don't waste time looking for evidence you won't accept. Can you do that?

Edited to add quote

[delphi_ote]

Well yeah, but that's because you already buy off on the NWO's story. Start raising any serious questions and they'll send over the really, really kinky girl.

Hey, wait. I got an idea...
Damn! Quick! Someone get me a copy of every pamphlet the John Birch Society and 9/11 Scholars for Truth have ever published!

[rwguinn]

With a quick Google (or other) search, please show me how many engineers back up the official story 100%. If this is the case, then why are NIST having trouble finding engineers to help them explain WTC7. Because they still haven't.

Yo. That's 1
RWGuinn, PE

[LordoftheLeftHand]

...It's called 9/11 The Road to Tyranny, by Alex Jones. I'm not going off track and enumerating the evidence here.

Ah poor Alex. I actually used to know him. Alex is a great human being, but he has gotten wackier and wackier with his "journalism". I still read some of his websites from time to time, but he has gotten so far out there, I don't think he will ever return. Sometimes I feel sorry for him. I suppose he is making a decent living doing this. Sometimes I wonder if he does not believe this garbage and is just making a buck, but maybe I'm giving him too much credit...

And yes, I've seen his 9/11 road to tyranny video. Actually I own several of his videos (but mostly his older ones).

LLH

[Graham S1]

aggle ... so bush never listens to his advisors? he just dreams things up and says "do it". do you think he's aware of much of anything that goes on under his nose in other Government Departments. How do we know Cheney and Rumsfeld haven't got their fingers crossed behind their backs when they talk to him?

Do you think your dad might have an influnce slightly more than yours if you are GW Bush himself.

Love the attacks and lack of any credibility on this forum. Shout, shout , shout, you're wrong cause your an ass.

Shrinker... hence why I said "(or other)" as in any kind of reference, be it in a library or an office filing cabinet somewhere. If there is a document, it still has to be scanned and put on "the web", the means by which we are communicating now. So you would still have to do a search to find it.

[kookbreaker]

Love the attacks and lack of any credibility on this forum. Shout, shout , shout, you're wrong cause your an ass.


Would you like to bring some evidence of demolition to the table? This litle uncalled for tantrum is not going to be very convincing.

[Graham S1]

My evidence is the speed at which it fell. If there were no explosives/accelerators, it would have been a LOT slower.

Yours?

[DavidJames]

Love the attacks and lack of any credibility on this forum. Shout, shout , shout, you're wrong cause your an ass. All you need to do is provide evidence of your claims, it's that simple. Claims without evidence may result in ridicule.

[Curnir]

My evidence is the speed at which it fell. If there were no explosives/accelerators, it would have been a LOT slower.

Yours?

So no evidence from you then?

[rwguinn]

:trollface My evidence is the speed at which it fell. If there were no explosives/accelerators, it would have been a LOT slower.

Yours?:dl:

What you don't know about physics fills the entire physics section at the Library of Congress and several universities!
And Numerous elementary and Jr. high scools...

[DavidJames]

My evidence is the speed at which it fell. If there were no explosives/accelerators, it would have been a LOT slower.
That's not evidence, that's an opinion.

Please answer the following questions with verifiable supporting data.

1. How fast did the building fall?
2. What explosives/accelerators were used?
3. What other evidence exists that explosives/accelerators were used?
4. How fast should the building have fallen without the explosives/accelerators?

[bob_kark]

My evidence is the speed at which it fell. If there were no explosives/accelerators, it would have been a LOT slower.

Yours?

Ok, how slow should it have fallen?

[Shrinker]

Shrinker... hence why I said "(or other)" as in any kind of reference, be it in a library or an office filing cabinet somewhere. If there is a document, it still has to be scanned and put on "the web", the means by which we are communicating now. So you would still have to do a search to find it.

Why would the structural engineers of the world be writing documents stating their agreement with somebody else's findings? People don't produce documents unless they feel they have to. Those who had to produce documents, did so becuase it was their job to do so, as part of the official investigation. But official documents don't interest you.

Why don't you produce documents that disagree. And produce them in volumes significant enough to counterbalance the thousands of structural engineers that haven't raised any concerns at all.

Why don't you identify real organisations (eg insurance companies, building contractors, architects etc) which employed structural engineers to investigate the collapses, but who's opinions you would actually respect. Then perhaps we can find out what their opinions are.

[kookbreaker]

My evidence is the speed at which it fell. If there were no explosives/accelerators, it would have been a LOT slower.


Can you show your work as to how fast the building should have fallen, in your expert estimation?


Yours?

Building collapse has been studied for decades, if not for a whole century. It is well understood by Civil and Structural Engineers. Demolitionists also are quite familiar with what it takes to make a building fall and how fast it would fall if explosives were used. You don't just run in with a backpack of C4 and bring the building down.

[rwguinn]

OK, here we go:

Green Chili Stew:
2 lb Hatch Green Chili, roasted, peeled, and seeded
(I recommend "Medium" hot for maximum flavor )
Large Onion (yellow or White)
1 Lb good lean pork, cubed
1 large Potato
1 lb tomato, diced with seeds and pulp
2 cloves garlic, choped
Cilantro leaves
Black Pepper
salt
2 Tbsp Olive Oil
In large pot, brown the pork in the olive oil. Add onion and garlic, stirring until just starting to carmelize. Add everything else, plus enough water to cover.Bring to a boil, reduce heat cover and simmer. Continually adjust seasoning to taste (You can always add more--but its hard to remove it once its there.)

[senorpogo]

The whole idea that the US government is a monolithic entity is laughable. Which branch of the government? Which political party? The government is organized in such a way that it CANNOT be monolithic. Also, the political realities of Washington mean that each side is constantly watching the other, waiting for a single misstep that they can crow triumphantly to the press.

And what I don't get is, assuming this shadowy government conspiracy plotted 9/11 to allow us to invade Iraq, wouldn't they also have fabricated weapons of mass destruction to ensure domestic support of the war?

I'm reading Demon-Haunted World by Sagan and in a chapter on Roswell he quotes an Air Force Report that notes that if the United States Government and the Armed Forces had the ability to completely vanish all traces (paperwork, memos, correspondence, etc.) of an alien crash landing then the government would have undoubtedly used those techniques to protect our atomic secrets from the Soviet Union.

In the same way, if those shadowy conspirators have power to the mind-boggling extent necessary to execute 9/11 then wouldn't they have had more effective ways to dupe the American populace? Couldn't they have used their power in such a way to achieve their end result and avoid Alek discovering it all?

Seriously. Blowing up buildings in downtown New York, in broad daylight, in front of countless people and television cameras. Talk about unnecessary risks.

[DavidJames]

And what I don't get is, assuming this shadowy government conspiracy plotted 9/11 to allow us to invade Iraq, wouldn't they also have fabricated weapons of mass destruction to ensure domestic support of the war?

I'm reading Demon-Haunted World by Sagan and in a chapter on Roswell he quotes an Air Force Report that notes that if the United States Government and the Armed Forces had the ability to completely vanish all traces (paperwork, memos, correspondence, etc.) of an alien crash landing then the government would have undoubtedly used those techniques to protect our atomic secrets from the Soviet Union.

In the same way, if those shadowy conspirators have power to the mind-boggling extent necessary to execute 9/11 then wouldn't they have had more effective ways to dupe the American populace? Couldn't they have used their power in such a way to achieve their end result and avoid Alek discovering it all?

Seriously. Blowing up buildings in downtown New York, in broad daylight, in front of countless people and television cameras. Talk about unnecessary risks.It's in this respect that CT's are much like the religious. Instead of answering all the tough questions with God did it, they blame it on the conspiracy elements. No evidence is required, the conspiracy just covers it up.

[chipmunk stew]

I'm reading Demon-Haunted World by Sagan and in a chapter on Roswell he quotes an Air Force Report that notes that if the United States Government and the Armed Forces had the ability to completely vanish all traces (paperwork, memos, correspondence, etc.) of an alien crash landing then the government would have undoubtedly used those techniques to protect our atomic secrets from the Soviet Union.Hey, I just got finished reading that chapter! Oooooo!! *cue Twilight Zone music*

[/off topic silliness]

I agree with its relevance to the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

[chipmunk stew]

It's in this respect that CT's are much like the religious. Instead of answering all the tough questions with God did it, they blame it on the conspiracy elements. No evidence is required, the conspiracy just covers it up.And it's all about an omnipotent power that works in mysterious ways.

[bob_kark]

In the same way, if those shadowy conspirators have power to the mind-boggling extent necessary to execute 9/11 then wouldn't they have had more effective ways to dupe the American populace? Couldn't they have used their power in such a way to achieve their end result and avoid Alek discovering it all?

Seriously. Blowing up buildings in downtown New York, in broad daylight, in front of countless people and television cameras. Talk about unnecessary risks.

For that matter, why bother slamming planes into the buildings if they were only going to use explosives to demolish the buildings? Why not just send up a boat load of explosives to the 99th floor and set them off? Still could be blamed on terrorists. Why blow up WTC7? It wasn't hit by a plane. It only serves to fuel the conspiracy theories.

[kookbreaker]

I call it the Sinister Intelligence Agency faith. The beleif in some shadowy, mean-spirited, murderous agency that makes the darkest works of the CIA look like a Girl Scout Campfire meeting. This agency is 100% efficient in intimdating and murdering all the required experts, even though no CT can ever get a handle on how many need to be required. The agency manages to pull stunts that are unheard of, such as planting explosives in a burning building. Unlike every single other agency in the US government, it operates with perfect, 100% efficiency in what it strives to do.

Yet somehow, the SIA never tries to bump off the more prominent CT'ers.

[kalen]

Some time was spent on "Loose Change" saying that the steel used at the WTC was of some specified standard. Let us also assume that this steel really doesn't weaken in a jet fuel fire as the conspiracy buffs contend.

Instead of a vast conspiracy, I offer this theory of a smaller conspiracy: Not all the steel in the WTC was not really up to the specs that were required because 1) It's not uncommon for developers to cut costs by cutting corners. 2) The number of people that would have to "be in on it" is considerably smaller. 3) There would only have to be some substandard steel melting/weakening at certain points to initiate a collapse.

To test this theory, it would be nice to have a few pieces of WTC steel.

The video also said something about all the steel being hauled off to be recycled. Is there really no samples or pieces left at all? None?

[kookbreaker]

To test this theory, it would be nice to have a few pieces of WTC steel.

The video also said something about all the steel being hauled off to be recycled. Is there really no samples or pieces left at all? None?

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery.htm

The Video lies. Are we surprised?

[senorpogo]

And why do they have to be accessible via a quick Google search? How many of these experts are really so bothered about the whole thing that they'll set up websites announcing their opinions? That kind of behaviour is more indicative of cranks than anything else.

I'm a librarian and nothing bothers me more than the "Google is all" thinking. Granted, Google is amazing, but it does not contain all information ever produced for the human record.

I'd have to guess that if you're looking for the opinions of structural engineers then you'd be best to go to your library and find some structural engineering journals. Since most of those are published by for-profit entities, they probably would not be available for free consumption on the internet.

[Dr Adequate]

I call it the Sinister Intelligence Agency faith. The beleif in some shadowy, mean-spirited, murderous agency that makes the darkest works of the CIA look like a Girl Scout Campfire meeting. This agency is 100% efficient in intimdating and murdering all the required experts, even though no CT can ever get a handle on how many need to be required. The agency manages to pull stunts that are unheard of, such as planting explosives in a burning building. Unlike every single other agency in the US government, it operates with perfect, 100% efficiency in what it strives to do. ... well, not quite 100% effeciency, since apparently every kook in town knows about the conspiracy.

While the government was perfectly efficient in hushing it up, y'see, they blundered by making it completely obvious that 9/11 was a controlled demolition ... so obvious that this is apparent even to people who have no knowledge of demolition or explosives.

[kalen]

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery.htm

The Video lies. Are we surprised?

Ah. Thank you so much. What a great forum this is.

[Z]

The Alex Jones video is full of misconceptions, outright lies, and terrible fallacies.

The Oklahoma City bombing was what it was... just an act of general terrorism.

[DavidJames]

... well, not quite 100% effeciency, since apparently every kook in town knows about the conspiracy.

While the government was perfectly efficient in hushing it up, y'see, they blundered by making it completely obvious that 9/11 was a controlled demolition ... so obvious that this is apparent even to people who have no knowledge of demolition or explosives.

While that may sound reasonable, you're forgetting the CT's incredible intellegence and intuition :rolleyes:Personally, it isn't likely that anyone, whether they're considered to be an "expert", or whether they have a PhD behind their name is going to convince me that the WTC 7 building wasn't a controlled demolition. My own intelligence and intuition are paramount on this matter.
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1413&st=68

[Hellbound]

Bah.

Obviouslt, WTC 7 fell because of a horrendous miscalculation while testing a new government anti-gravity device. THe wires were connected in opposing phase, thus making a pro-gravity device instead. This actually pulled the planes into the WTC 1 & 2. WTC 7, although at the center of the device, was built strongly enough (secret CIA labs and the Illuminati swimming pool, you know) that it hung around a bit before the building finally gave way.

This also explains why all the rescue workers got so tired, and had so much trouble in WTC7, as well as explaining why it fell so much faster than freefall (I mean, really, if I watch it at 4x in WMP, it falls in, like, 1 second!!).

It also only requires a very small conspiracy. Most of the explanation was cover up after the fact.

Of course, like every other CT that's been put forward here, my little fantasy offers no explanation for much of the events, such as reports from the planes via cell phone and/or plane phone of terrorists, Flight 93, the plane targetting the Pentagon (why not wire that to blow, too?), why use planes instead of just blowing the things up, why would this even be required to start a war in Iraq (seems it'd be much easier to manufacture chemical weapon attacks from Iraq to Isreal, for example, would be enough to incite a large percentage of the population without damaging the U.S., and would more than justify a war). There are too many things that don't make sense. The only way any of this fits together is if you start with an axiom like "THe gubmint always lies" and work from there.

Of course, that boils down to an "AD Hominem" argument, rather than anything based on actual evidence.

Not to mention that the entirety of the arguments rely on extreme misundertsandings of explosives and demolitions. Here's a hint...what you see on TV and in the movies is NOT what real explosions look like. Real building demolitions do NOT cause things to fall "faster than freefall". If the buildings had been wired to blow, they would have had to sneak in TRUCKLOADS of explosives over a period of DAYS just to get the amount of material there that was needed, as well as more days and weeks to get it properly wired and make sure it would go. Not to mention that damage from the airline crashes and subsequent fires would have ruined any sort of detonation system that would have been in place.

Does the official story account 100% for everything? No, it doesn't, and there are some things we may never know the exact nature of. Does this mean it's a conspiracy? No, it doesn't. They're using the same reasoning used by creationists..."evolution doesn't explain everythign so that means God did it!". We can add the Either/Or fallacy to their list of invalid argument techniques, as well.

Not to mention "Poisoning the Well" (if you don't believe it you're just snother dupe of Big Gubmint), a sort of historical Slippery Slope (the Gubmint lied before, so they would pull off a conspiracy to kill thousands of their own people and we're headed to a NWO), Ad Hominem attacks (you're just naysaying and refusing to see anything, you're stupid, you're a dupe, etc, etc), Appeal to Authority (this English Professor says that the buildings were demolished, so forget your Structural Engineer!), and probably more.

ETA: Oh, and Argument from Ignorance (no structural engineer can convince me, I know what it is, even if I have no expertise in the subject), thanks for reminding me David :)

These peopel are as deeply in love with thier CT as deep-south fundies are with thier religion, and I'd think for much the same reason. They're part of a "select club" of people who are "smart enough to have figured it out" and have "secret knowledge" about how things "really work". If you can't understand reality, make your own.

[delphi_ote]

[S]o obvious that this is apparent only to people who have no knowledge of demolition or explosives.
:D

[senorpogo]

I call it the Sinister Intelligence Agency faith. The beleif in some shadowy, mean-spirited, murderous agency that makes the darkest works of the CIA look like a Girl Scout Campfire meeting. This agency is 100% efficient in intimdating and murdering all the required experts, even though no CT can ever get a handle on how many need to be required. The agency manages to pull stunts that are unheard of, such as planting explosives in a burning building. Unlike every single other agency in the US government, it operates with perfect, 100% efficiency in what it strives to do.


I think it was mentioned somewhere else in this thread (or maybe somewhere else completely), but in some strange way it's more reassuring to believe that the u.s. government is in total control but just very evil versus the opposite (what the real 9/11 story really suggests) that our government is pretty incompetent and we're no where as safe as we believe.

[delphi_ote]

My evidence is the speed at which it fell.
Then you don't have any evidence. Please read this report:
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
The analysis doesn't get any better than that.

[Hellbound]

senorpogo:

That was me!!

Yeah, I'm remembered!

Heh, I made that point before. One thing I've discovered is that people are more afraid of uncertainty than evil. Look at dictatorships and tyrannies all over the world. It's almost unilaterally a very small percentage that's part of the total power group. But peopel are more afraid of what would happen if that government falls than they are of what the government does. Even though it's evil, evil can be predictable and understandable, and one can learn the "bounds" within which one can survive and possibly even gain advantage. It's more comforting to think it's planned (and thus, logical and rational), than a random act of a few violent, fanatical men who were able to slip through our trillion dollar defenses, because of incompetence, sloth, inattention, lack of manpower, apathy, infighting, and plain old bad luck.

[Belz...]

My evidence is the speed at which it fell. If there were no explosives/accelerators, it would have been a LOT slower.

And you know this how ?

[rwguinn]

And you know this how ?

Yeah, Graham S1:
"Show me the Math!"

editied to add: it was done in this thread here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1532270#post1532270)

[senorpogo]

That was me!!

Heh, I made that point before. One thing I've discovered is that people are more afraid of uncertainty than evil. Look at dictatorships and tyrannies all over the world. It's almost unilaterally a very small percentage that's part of the total power group. But peopel are more afraid of what would happen if that government falls than they are of what the government does. Even though it's evil, evil can be predictable and understandable, and one can learn the "bounds" within which one can survive and possibly even gain advantage. It's more comforting to think it's planned (and thus, logical and rational), than a random act of a few violent, fanatical men who were able to slip through our trillion dollar defenses, because of incompetence, sloth, inattention, lack of manpower, apathy, infighting, and plain old bad luck.

Awesome. I thought it was made somewhere by someone in this thread.

People do seem to prefer orderly systems (however foolish) to anarchy or change. I'd have to imagine that a certain amount of religious devotion comes from the same place.

[Graham S1]

OK, here we go:

Green Chili Stew:
2 lb Hatch Green Chili, roasted, peeled, and seeded
(I recommend "Medium" hot for maximum flavor )
Large Onion (yellow or White)
1 Lb good lean pork, cubed
1 large Potato
1 lb tomato, diced with seeds and pulp
2 cloves garlic, choped
Cilantro leaves
Black Pepper
salt
2 Tbsp Olive Oil
In large pot, brown the pork in the olive oil. Add onion and garlic, stirring until just starting to carmelize. Add everything else, plus enough water to cover.Bring to a boil, reduce heat cover and simmer. Continually adjust seasoning to taste (You can always add more--but its hard to remove it once its there.)


sounds nice. what about "scotch bonnet" chillies instead? proper hot. :boggled:

the only thing I haven't got on my spice rack is cilantro leaves.

[rwguinn]

sounds nice. what about "scotch bonnet" chillies instead? proper hot. :boggled:

the only thing I haven't got on my spice rack is cilantro leaves.
There you go, derailing the subject.
What part of "Green Chili" do you have trouble understanding?:jaw-dropp

[Dave_46]

I don't recall seeing this site mentioned before. If it is of no use please ignore.

http://wtc.nist.gov/

Dave

[hellaeon]

Oh yes! I'm officially a conspiracy theorist, and everybody knows that conspiracy theorists are nutty and unstable. Unless of course the conspiracy theories are official, and the theorists are you. Hey, I think I've got you figured out. You're one of those conspiracy theory debunkers, aren't you? The sort of statist who likes to teabag the government as it lies to you.

Alek, since you have this all figured out....im just wondering why your still around...surely your a risk to such a controlled government? Are you waiting to be brisked away to a secret location or approached by agents like Molder (spelling?) was in the x-files?

There is a sweet DVD collection im to buy soon (have to get my arnie movies first) you would love, the James Bond collection. Its all about this sort of thing. Big secret governments conspiring with business to destroy the world!

[hellaeon]

I'm reading Demon-Haunted World by Sagan...

That opened me up to a lot of my 'belief' systems.

Check out shermers 'why people believe weird things'

[delphi_ote]

I don't recall seeing this site mentioned before. If it is of no use please ignore.

http://wtc.nist.gov/

Dave
Thanks, Dave! Great link.

[hellaeon]

Im proposing that the information on loose change is actually disinformation put out there by the government.

[CurtC]

He's logical and open minded, as evidenced by this post on the Loose Screws forum...Personally, it isn't likely that anyone, whether they're considered to be an "expert", or whether they have a PhD behind their name is going to convince me that the WTC 7 building wasn't a controlled demolition. My own intelligence and intuition are paramount on this matter.Don't forget, it was Alek his own self, back in post #93 of this very thread, who wrote:One of the premises behind the accusations of people like me is that the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the "9/11 Commission") is full of liesSo he starts with the position that the 9/11 Commission was full of lies, and goes from there. No wonder he ends out in the weeds.

[senorpogo]

That opened me up to a lot of my 'belief' systems.

Check out shermers 'why people believe weird things'

it's actually next on my list

[senorpogo]

Im proposing that the information on loose change is actually disinformation put out there by the government.

maybe bush would prefer arguing that he didn't blow up the wtc rather than spend all his time answering tough questions about iraq?

[WildCat]

What we are talking about here, is a small minority, who were able to carry out their plans, as most of the people who were involved, would have simply been following orders, ie military, secret service, agency staff etc. Others who tried to speak up later, would have been paid off, "accidented/suicided", or BLACKMAILED into keeping quite.
Wow, now you're on to something! Now I know the reason no structural engineers have signed on to the Loose Change conspiracy theory - they were BLACKMAILED!!!!!!! Because who licenses the structural engineers - the GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!!!!!! And w/o a license, they can't work, so of course they'll do what the government asks of them!!!

Why did I capitalise blackmail? Simply because there are many people in government, (far more than are actually evil), are fallible, to sexual urges. Those urges can be used and abused.
I would like to point out to any secret gov't agents who may be listening that I am 100% certain of the CT and will make a video proving this w/ 100% certainty.

And btw, I have a weakness for tall leggy blondes w/ long hair who are willing do anything.

;)

[Alek]

For the sake of brevity, and the benefit of the forum members who may not have the time to devote to the entire film, could you highlight some of the more compelling evidence from the film in a post here?

If you accept the possibility that what I'm saying is true, and you aren't willing to make the time to view the film, I would say that is apathetic, and negligent.

There is overwhelming evidence that not only was McVeigh part of a conspiracy, but that the Ryder truck bomb was not responsible for the vast amount of damage present at the Murrah building. The evidence is in the form of local TV news footage spanning not only the day in question, but the weeks and months following the event. The footage includes evidence that there were multiple bombs in the building, eyewitness testimony corroborating multiple explosions, eyewitness testimony of a second passenger in the Ryder truck, evidence of jury tampering, BATF complicity, tampering of evidence, and cover-up, expert testimony that the structural damage the buliding suffered could not have been done by the truck bomb. There is also a plethora of other circumstantial evidence which taken into context implicates elements of the US government. As with the pentagon, surveillance footage was seized. This footage was not used in the trial of McVeigh. All of this is corroborated by multiple local TV stations, reporters, and eyewitness accounts, most of which people outside of Oklahoma City have not seen.

[Ducky]

If you accept the possibility that what I'm saying is true, and you aren't willing to make the time to view the film, I would say that is apathetic, and negligent.

There is overwhelming evidence that not only was McVeigh part of a conspiracy, but that the Ryder truck bomb was not responsible for the vast amount of damage present at the Murrah building. The evidence is in the form of local TV news footage spanning not only the day in question, but the weeks and months following the event. The footage includes evidence that there were multiple bombs in the building, eyewitness testimony corroborating multiple explosions, eyewitness testimony of a second passenger in the Ryder truck, evidence of jury tampering, BATF complicity, tampering of evidence, and cover-up, expert testimony that the structural damage the buliding suffered could not have been done by the truck bomb. There is also a plethora of other circumstantial evidence which taken into context implicates elements of the US government. As with the pentagon, surveillance footage was seized. This footage was not used in the trial of McVeigh. All of this is corroborated by multiple local TV stations, reporters, and eyewitness accounts, most of which people outside of Oklahoma City have not seen.



Negligent? Mighty powerful accusation. Whatever.

As for the rest of your post, since you are making very specific and testable assumptions, I suppose you could provide evidence of your assertions? What broadcasts? Will you post links to the transcripts or video footage?

Since you are making the claims (and shifting the discussion away from 9/11 rather bluntly) you can provide some evidence to back this up.

Or is this going to be the same rehash of your 9/11 conspiracy in which you post no credible evidence and yell at us and insult us for tearing your arguments and theories apart?

[Dr Adequate]

While that may sound reasonable, you're forgetting the CT's incredible intellegence and intuition :rolleyes:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1413&st=68 Intelligence, intuition ... and the use of the Idiot's Syllogism ... "If I can't explain it, then I can explain it."

They should meet these people (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=34164) :

Is it strange how, when we are in the middle of summer, it can be raining out, and one day it is very 'hot,' the next day it is 15 degree cooler, and two days later, it is 'hot' again? Does this seem strange? How about earthquakes in parts of the world, that are so devastating, that if they were to happen here, our whole economy could be ruined. Do you think it is 'odd' that people would suggest that the government can and does control the weather? I know it sounds a little paranoid, but if you do the research to investigate, you will undoubtably arrive at the same conclusions. Our weather is controlled!

[senorpogo]

eyewitness testimony corroborating multiple explosions, eyewitness testimony of a second passenger in the Ryder truck

Are these the same eyewitnesses who saw something other than an AA 757 hit the Pentagon?

[diggingdeeper]

I’m proposingthat the information on loose change is actually disinformation put out there by the government.

Perhaps, though not that they might be the producers, but they could always turn it to their benefit... What better way of knowing all the people who might have the attitude, highly emotional charge, network, radicalism to rise up against an authoritarian government???

Get right into all the puters, have access to all their information, whereabouts, mobility, etc.; See where I'm going with all this?

The conspiracy has a life of its own. Just look at The Protocols. It does not find an audience, the audience finds it.

So, by altering a few things here or there (perhaps for the sole reason of making it look more conspiratorial) are able to draw more and more people out of the woodwork.

Perhaps, they simply registered the amount of times one might go to any of the Conspiracy sites?

Maybe I might be a 20 per mo., someone else a 200, 2000 and so on.
They (there’s that old they again, you know who I mean, the Powers that be)
might not begin to monitor you until you hit certain # of hits per mo, and I would think it pretty simple to have differing degrees for the various sites for classification.

I think it entirely possible that during the saucer days and possibly until now they love the fact that when people see things in the sky they have another choice to think about rather then the experimental aircraft and weaponry being tried out.......

[Z]

If you accept the possibility that what I'm saying is true, and you aren't willing to make the time to view the film, I would say that is apathetic, and negligent.

There is overwhelming evidence that not only was McVeigh part of a conspiracy, but that the Ryder truck bomb was not responsible for the vast amount of damage present at the Murrah building. The evidence is in the form of local TV news footage spanning not only the day in question, but the weeks and months following the event. The footage includes evidence that there were multiple bombs in the building, eyewitness testimony corroborating multiple explosions, eyewitness testimony of a second passenger in the Ryder truck, evidence of jury tampering, BATF complicity, tampering of evidence, and cover-up, expert testimony that the structural damage the buliding suffered could not have been done by the truck bomb. There is also a plethora of other circumstantial evidence which taken into context implicates elements of the US government. As with the pentagon, surveillance footage was seized. This footage was not used in the trial of McVeigh. All of this is corroborated by multiple local TV stations, reporters, and eyewitness accounts, most of which people outside of Oklahoma City have not seen.

In other words, no reliable evidence at all.

McVeigh admitted to doing it. He received the death penalty, death by lethal injection. His partner is serving 160 consecutive life sentences without parole. The federal government has instituted regulations requiring protection for federal buildings against bombings of this exact same type, at a rather hefty cost. The evidence - and the admissions of guilt - clearly point to this bombing being exactly what it appeared to be.

If there was a conspiracy, and McVeigh were part of that conspiracy, why'd he have to die? He played his part perfectly. His partner got life. Doesn't sound like a conspiracy theory to me.

Anyway, feel free to present your 'overwhelming evidence'. And please don't include that moronic digitally-altered 'Ryder truck at secret Government compound' pic. That's been debunked twelve ways to Sunday.

[Alek]

Alek, any comments regarding this analysis of the collapse events?
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline02/0502feat.html

Ok, I've read that article, it was informative. Here is my review:


In the aftermath of the events, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE)—in association with several other federal agencies and professional organizations-dispatched a team of civil, structural, and fire protection engineers to study the performance of the buildings at the site.


SEI/ASCE, I would point out, isn't qualified to do an official forensic criminal investigation. Are we to assume that civil engineers have all of the expertise of say, the FBI? Neither is FEMA an investigative body.


In particular, the team studied the immediate effects of the aircraft impact on each tower, the spread of fire following the crashes, the reduction in structural strength caused by the fire, and the mechanism that led to the collapse of each tower.


It sounds like they're putting the cart before the horse here. Have they already assumed a significant reduction in structural strength due to fire occured?


What follows is essentially a distillation of portions of the draft that focus on the twin towers.


I'd like them to focus on WTC 7, a building which wasn't hit by an airplane, and yet collapsed in a symmetrical freefall. Surely if this building collapsed due to fire, it would merit the attention of the engineering community, as it was an unprecedented occurence.


It will subsequently be believed that this fuel burned off within a few minutes of impact;


Indeed.


The passage of this debris through the building causes some degree of damage across the floor plate—damage to perhaps the interior framing, core columns, and framing at the east, south, and west walls; the full extent of the damage inflicted by this passage will never be known, however.


Perhaps the jetliner, after smashing through the facade of steel columns and the 5" thick concrete floor and ceiling slabs had enough inertia to damage the 47 massive steel columns at the core. Perhaps.


The impacts from the aircraft have substantially degraded the towers' ability to withstand additional loading and have increased the susceptibility of the structures to fire-induced failure.


In this paragraph the engineers went from speculating as to the extent of the damage to stating conclusively that the aircraft "substantially degraded the towers ability to withstand additional loading". This BPAT team strikes me less as investigators, and more as a group trying to assess how they can secure future buildings from jets and kerosene fires. They've taken the offical story for granted, and this is not an objective forensic investigation of what brought the towers down.

It is clear to me that the jets severely damaged the facade of the building through the impacted floors, and I agree with their analysis. However, I remain unconvinced that the steel columns in the core were severely damaged, and they have offered no scientific evidence that they were. It's also apparent to me that the core columns bore the overwhelming load of the towers, not the facade.


Additionally, some of the columns are now experiencing elevated stress due to the transfer of load from destroyed and damaged elements, and portions of the floor framing directly beneath the partially collapsed areas are carrying a substantial degree of additional weight from the resulting debris—in some cases, carrying greater weight than they were designed to resist.


This is an interesting assertion, and I would like to see scientific analysis backing this up. The concrete floor and ceiling slabs for each floor weighed approximately 1,400,000 kg. The takeoff weight of a Boeing 767 is 312,000, or approximately 141,521 kg. It seems to me that the mass of this plane is well within the load redundancy engineered into most modern steel structures (typically 5:1 as I have read), even given the collapse of over thirty columns on each facade. Certainly I'm no expert, but I would expect the experts to comment on these terms, instead they offer only conjecture.


The fires spread, and there are significant temperature variations throughout those areas where the fires are located, depending on the type and arrangement of combustible material being consumed and the availability of air supporting combustion. The advancing fires elevate the temperature within the tower. Future estimates will place it between 1,700º and 2,000ºF—further stressing the structure.


Where is the scientific evidence to back this up? Are we supposed to just take their word for these temperatures? This contradicts a scientific analysis of the jet fuel fires made on the web (http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064) indicating that the jet fuel could not have raised the temperature beyond 280C (536F). Burning office materials are an example of a cellulosic fire, which burns cooler than hydrocarbon fires. So whence this inferno? Additionally, the steel columns would have acted as a giant heat sink. The thermal conductivity of steel is such that even if we are to assume such outrageous air temperatures of 2000F, it would not necessarily cause the steel to weaken enough such that it would no longer bear the load of the structure above.

Kevin Ryan of UL emailed Frank Gayle about the infeasibility of the temperatures as estimated. He got no response and was fired from his job. UL provided no rebuttal of his claims, simply stating that he misrepresented his credentials with them. Ryan also stated that UL certified the steel in the WTC, a claim which was denied by a UL spokesman. Who is telling the truth here?


At the 80th floor of WTC 2—in the northeast corner, where office furnishings had been deposited by the rapid path of the plane—the fire burns at such a high temperature that a stream of molten metal begins to pour over the side of the tower.


This is documented on video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11), and it is quite interesting, especially given the web analysis I sourced earlier. I know that the jet fuel or office materials could not burn hot enough to weaken the steel past the point of failure, so obviously I don't accept the notion that kerosene would *melt* it. So we're looking at something that either isn't steel, or something besides kerosene was in that building to generate the necessary temperatures to create molten steel.


It will later be estimated that, prior to the impact from the aircraft, core columns were loaded to approximately 60 percent of their theoretical ultimate capacities.


I'd like to see the science behind this conjecture.


This would have been particularly significant in the upper portion of the damaged building. In this region, the original design load for the core columns was less than at lower floors, and the column sections were relatively light. The increased stresses caused by the impact of the aircraft could easily have brought several of these columns close to their ultimate capacity, and thus relatively little additional effect from the fires would have been required to initiate the collapse.


This is an interesting point, and deserves further investigation. However, it still ends with the necessary fire damage, which I reject until I see proof of why those fires were so hot.


The structural damage sustained by each of the two buildings as aircraft impacted them was massive. The fact that the structures were able to sustain this level of damage and remain standing for an extended period of time is remarkable and is the reason that most building occupants were able to evacuate safely. Events of this type, resulting in such massive damage, are generally not considered in building design, and the fact that these structures were able to successfully withstand such damage is noteworthy.


Can I have scientific evidence of the massive damage, as opposed to conjecture?


Collapse of the twin towers astonished most observers, including many knowledgeable structural engineers. These were structures notable for their robust, redundant framing systems. Many believed that their structural anatomy would have enabled them to withstand the attacks. The twin towers of the World Trade Center were the primary components of the seven-building World Trade Center complex, and although they were similar, they were not identical.


I would say everyone was astonished.


Following the impact of the aircraft the structure was able to successfully redistribute the building weight to the remaining elements and to maintain a stable condition. However, the structure's strength was severely degraded. Although the structure could have remained standing in this weakened condition for an indefinite period, it had limited ability to resist additional loading and could have collapsed as a result of any severe loading event, such as that produced by high winds or earthquakes. In this case, the first extreme event encountered was that of the fires that followed the impact of the plane.


In other words, look to the fires, for which I've already offered evidence that they should have been no higher than 280C (536F). They offer no scientific analysis of their vastly higher estimates. This is a big problem.


Building codes do regard fire as a credible hazard and include extensive requirements to control the spread of fire throughout buildings, to facilitate the safe egress of building occupants in a fire event, and to delay the onset of fire-induced structural collapse. For fire-protected steel-frame buildings such as WTC 1 and WTC 2, these code requirements had been deemed effective. Prior to September 11, there was no record of fire-induced collapse of such structures, despite some very large uncontrolled fires. However, these other buildings did not suffer extensive structural damage.


Here we have a startling admission: "Prior to September 11, there was no record of fire-induced collapse of such structures, despite some very large uncontrolled fires." This is fine in the context of the analysis of WTC 1 and WTC 2, since we all know Boeing 767s impacted these buildings. But what of the unmentioned WTC building 7 that wasn't struck by an airplane?


The scope of this study was not without limits, and many issues should be explored before final conclusions are reached. Additional study of the performance of WTC 1 and WTC 2 during the events of September 11, 2001, is warranted, together with an investigation of related building performance issues. In any such studies attention should be given to the following points:


You're damn right it's warranted. Not likely though.

This report strikes me as something written to appease laymen. It doesn't offer any hard scientific evidence, but a lot of speculation, estimation, and conjecture. For a group of experts, I must say I'm disappointed. Perhaps there is a more technical analysis, or some FEA models they have done somewhere?

The paper is obviously not a criminal investigation either, as neither the ASCE or FEMA are investigative bodies. In short, the paper is insubstantial and only serves to parrot the official theory of why the buildings collapsed. It makes no mention of the imposing 47 story skyscraper which was WTC 7, which I find convenient. Since video of the collapse of this building isn't shown on mainstream media, I doubt much of the public besides New Yorkers know this building even existed.

Most importantly, it provided no proof of these intense fires which, in order to weaken steel to 50%, would have had to reach at least 600C. Note that isn't the necessary *air* temperature, but the actual temperature of the steel itself! The fire would have to be so hot, and so concentrated, such as those found in a blast furnace to overcome the thermal conductivity of the mass of 47 core steel columns, acting as a giant heat sink. Until I see this proof I will remain unconvinced.

[Z]

Just a minor point:

There seems to be a lot of conjecture about the nature of jet fuel, that it is basically kerosine. If it was Jet-A, then it is a kerosene-based fuel that can burn even hotter than 425 C (its autoignition temperature). Granted, by itself, that's not enough to melt steel - but it is enough to ignite almost everything else in the building - including flooring and ceiling materials, furniture, paperwork, and almost any non-steel materials present. The resulting burn could well exceed the stress point of those steel cores.

I do have to wonder about the 'heat sink' properties of the steel beams, though - That sounds like it's worth a little research.

EDIT: Scratch that. The idea of the steel cores acting as a 'heat sink' fails to take into consideration the necessary expansion of those cores as they heated... which would lead to further structural failure along the cores. In fact, the very idea that the beams were expanding due to excessive heat could very well be what ultimately led to a total collapse.

Think about it. The average heat-sink is a free-standing metallic radiator, designed to release heat safely into the air. High-temperature heat-sinks are designed to safely allow for expansion of the metals and ceramics involved. Steel cores, with concrete structural elements attached to them, would have been piss-poor heat sinks - sure, they might have transfered much of the heat along their length, but in doing so, would have disrupted huge amounts of the lateral support on the affected floors.

It's like this: dip a balloon in plaster, let it dry... then inflate the balloon just a bit. What happens to the plaster?

Steel expands when heated. What happened to all those cross-supports???

[Alek]

oh that's just precious... Intimating that I have claimed that there is no such thing as conspiracies...



I didn't "intimate you claimed that", I'm merely using sarcasm to ridicule you.


A very interesting debate technique you used there by the way... to expand the term 'conspiracy theories' from the normal definition (the communists are putting fluoride in the water supply to brainwash americans, black helicopters, roswell coverup, JFK shooting, RFK shooting, moon hoax or other conspiracy theories where there are NO evidence to be had) to ALL conspiracies (where there are evidence for conspiracies)... way to go I applaud your sly debating technique. You wouldn't happen to post on GFS would you?


The problem here is that it is you who are being dishonest (not very sly, however). You're trying to capitalize on the fact that the term "conspiracy theorist" has a negative connotation in popular culture, and that people who identify as such are typically nutty, eccentric, or are otherwise not credible.

Now, after I exposed your subtle attack, you attempt to redefine the term by distinguishing between legitimate conspiracy theorists, such as law enforcement, and illegitimate conspiracy theorists, such as people who believe governments have lied and gotten away with murder, but either can't prove it or don't have the resources to expose the truth. Then you use the method of bracketing, or what I like to call "negative association" in an attempt to discredit me by associating every ridiculous and impossible theory dreamed up by television producers and/or imaginative people, with very real criminal conspiracies populated by conspirators who have thus far eluded justice.

In summary, conspiracies exist, and occur all of the time. Conspirators are typically brought to justice by conspiracy theorists, usually in the form of law enforcement. Conspiracies vary in the number of conspirators, and the scope of the crimes. Conspiracy theorists are a diverse group of skeptics with no presumption of a consensus on anything, let alone far-fetched, implausible, and irrelevant theories.

The fact that you resort to these subtle and deceptive methods of attempting to discredit me is just evidence of your own ignorance, and lack of facts with respect to the specific discussion at hand. You repeating the words "conspiracy" and "theory" ad nauseum may discredit me in the eyes of some here. Fortunately, these aren't the type of people I'm trying to convince.

[Alek]

I never understood this line of speculation. Supposedly there were explosions in the sub-basements of the towers and "admissions" such as the above, and yet the towers collapsed top-down! There's no indication based on the way they fell that the foundations were compromised.

The point is, evidence contradicts the official theory and supports a controlled demolition. Neither is the top-down near free-fall collapse of the buildings evidence against a controlled demolition.

What is speculation is the notion that kerosene caused hydrocarbon fires in excess of 280 Celsius in the towers, and that the 47 core columns of the towers were damaged by the airplanes, and that cellulosic fires in the 47 story WTC 7 were responsible for its spectacular collapse.

[GrnMtSkeptic]

SEI/ASCE, I would point out, isn't qualified to do an official forensic criminal investigation. Are we to assume that civil engineers have all of the expertise of say, the FBI? Neither is FEMA an investigative body.

The ASCE is certainly more than qualified to do forensic failure analysis.

http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWsrchkwx.cgi?Failure+investigations

Are you telling us we should assume the FBI has the civil engineering forensics expertise of the ASCE? The FBI is not an engineering body.

[Alek]

The whole idea that the US government is a monolithic entity is laughable. Which branch of the government? Which political party? The government is organized in such a way that it CANNOT be monolithic. Also, the political realities of Washington mean that each side is constantly watching the other, waiting for a single misstep that they can crow triumphantly to the press.


The idea isn't laughable. In fact, the Federal government has done nothing but expand and amass more power since its inception. So-called conservatives have all but abandoned even the lip-service regarding smaller government. Convenient security crisis always seem to arise during "conservative" administrations, which end any phony debate over fiscal responsibility. George W. Bush has grown government at a faster rate than any other president in history. His FY 2003 budget of $2.13T was record-setting. He is transforming the welfare state into the warfare state.

The political realities of Washington are a completely polarized set of bureaucrats supported by a completely polarized electorate. Far from one party keeping the other accountable, Washington has devolved into a sea of corruption, with members of neither party being accountable as the truth about one's own party is overlooked in favor of blind partisan support. While the rhetoric indicates extreme polarization, the synthesis represents a monolith.



What you're proposing is that there was an enormous conspiracy. Watergate was a small conspiracy, but was uncovered almost immediately, and justice was quickly served (well, Nixon got off scott free, but...).

Also, you can't say that it was a GOVERNMENT conspiracy, because it was limited to a small group of people within a single branch of the government -- as ANY conspiracy would have to be!

The conspiracy is enormous in its scope, but not in the number of parties involved. You are correct, I don't believe 9/11 was a "government" conspiracy, it merely included powerful elements of the government, for private benefit.

I'd rather not talk about motive, or politics. I'd rather concentrate on the facts about 9/11.

[WildCat]

Where is the scientific evidence to back this up? Are we supposed to just take their word for these temperatures? This contradicts a scientific analysis of the jet fuel fires made on the web (http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064) indicating that the jet fuel could not have raised the temperature beyond 280C (536F). Burning office materials are an example of a cellulosic fire, which burns cooler than hydrocarbon fires. So whence this inferno? Additionally, the steel columns would have acted as a giant heat sink. The thermal conductivity of steel is such that even if we are to assume such outrageous air temperatures of 2000F, it would not necessarily cause the steel to weaken enough such that it would no longer bear the load of the structure above.
In my job (remodeling/rehabs) I have been inside many buildings that have had damage from fires. On several occasions, I have seen aluminum windows that had completely melted into a pool on the window ledge, I used to keep one such blob as a paper weight. The melting point of aluminum is 1220 F, and this temperature obviously occurred in a normal apartment fire where the damage was contained to a single apt. So I have no problem believing that a fire on the scale of the WTC could have produced even higher temps.

[GrnMtSkeptic]

Controlled Demolition was the only entity allowed on the scene following the disaster, and the evidence was shipped off to China for recycling..


Actually this is quite a strange thing to say. There were four firms handling the clean up: AMEC, Bovis Lend Lease (British Companies), Turner (subsidiary of Hochtief based in Germany), and Tully Construction of Flushing, New York. CDI was brought in as a subcontractor to Tully, and there were innumerable other subcontractors, including D.H. Griffin Wrecking Co. Not to mention all the Teamsters and Laborers who actually did the work.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/14/health/main643329.shtml

http://triangle.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/2002/09/09/focus5.html

Bump for Alek

[Alek]

Wildcat already followed up as I would have for most of your points, but let me be sure of what you're saying above. You're asserting that no FBI explosives specialists examined the debris?

Ferd

I'm ignoring Wildcat, as he has poor reading comprehension, and I don't believe he is willing to accept the possibility that elements in the US government were responsible for 9/11. He is also highly condescending, and is mostly just trolling me.

From what I understand, only 2% of the steel was examined by NIST. I'm not aware of any FBI investigation at all.

I haven't done an extensive investigation of the investigation yet, other than reading the NIST report about WTC 7 (which was highly inadequate, and admittedly inconclusive). What I have read indicates there wasn't much of an investigation at all, as the steel was shipped almost immediately to China.

[Alek]

Actually this is quite a strange thing to say. There were four firms handling the clean up: AMEC, Bovis Lend Lease (British Companies), Turner (subsidiary of Hochtief based in Germany), and Tully Construction of Flushing, New York. CDI was brought in as a subcontractor to Tully, and there were innumerable other subcontractors, including D.H. Griffin Wrecking Co. Not to mention all the Teamsters and Laborers who actually did the work.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/14/health/main643329.shtml

http://triangle.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/2002/09/09/focus5.html

As I indicated above, I haven't investigated the investigation yet. Do you have any timeline evidence for when these firms started work?

[delphi_ote]

The idea isn't laughable. In fact, the Federal government has done nothing but expand and amass more power since its inception. So-called conservatives have all but abandoned even the lip-service regarding smaller government. Convenient security crisis always seem to arise during "conservative" administrations, which end any phony debate over fiscal responsibility. George W. Bush has grown government at a faster rate than any other president in history. His FY 2003 budget of $2.13T was record-setting. He is transforming the welfare state into the warfare state.
You realize not one statement in here backs up your assertion that this idea isn't laughable, right? They're not even vaguely related to one another. It's more paranoid rambling.

There are millions of federal employees. Millions! You expect all of them to act in concert? You conspiracy nuts can't even agree whether all federal employees are blackmailed and frightened into the evil plot or if are all federal employees part of one monolithic entity. How are millions of vaguely connected people all going to communicate in secret and agree to all the horrible things you accuse them of doing?

I'd rather not talk about motive, or politics. I'd rather concentrate on the facts about 9/11.
And by "facts about 9/11" you mean "insults and vague paranoia totally divorced from reality"

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

...
SEI/ASCE, I would point out, isn't qualified to do an official forensic criminal investigation. Are we to assume that civil engineers have all of the expertise of say, the FBI? Neither is FEMA an investigative body.
...

Who (person or group of people), in your opinion, would be qualified to carry out the investigation?


It sounds like they're putting the cart before the horse here. Have they already assumed a significant reduction in structural strength due to fire occured?

Not at all, they are acknowledging that they need to determine to what extent the fire affected the structural integrity.


I'd like them to focus on WTC 7, a building which wasn't hit by an airplane, and yet collapsed in a symmetrical freefall. Surely if this building collapsed due to fire, it would merit the attention of the engineering community, as it was an unprecedented occurence.

The NIST report does touch all three towers.


Indeed.

Word games with the executive summary grammar.


Perhaps the jetliner, after smashing through the facade of steel columns and the 5" thick concrete floor and ceiling slabs had enough inertia to damage the 47 massive steel columns at the core. Perhaps.

per http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_200prod.html

Engines
maximum thrust
Pratt & Whitney PW4062 GE CF6-80C2B7F
63,300 lb (281.6 kN) 62,100 lb (276.2 kN)

Maximum Fuel Capacity 23,980 U.S. gal (90,770 l)
Maximum Takeoff Weight 395,000 lb (179,170 kg)
Typical Cruise Speed at 35,000 feet Mach 0.80 530 mph (851 kph)

I'm sure one of the forumites can run the numbers, I won't pretend to do so since I am in database work, not physics/engineering, to provide kinetic energy and impact on the building.

That aside, you imply with "5" thick concrete floor and ceiling slabs" that the planes were penetrating them at something approaching a 90 degree angle, when in fact they would have been colliding with the buildings in such a manner as to direct their kinetic energy into the building and not having to directly punch through the floor/ceiling to enter the building.


In this paragraph the engineers went from speculating as to the extent of the damage to stating conclusively that the aircraft "substantially degraded the towers ability to withstand additional loading". This BPAT team strikes me less as investigators, and more as a group trying to assess how they can secure future buildings from jets and kerosene fires. They've taken the offical story for granted, and this is not an objective forensic investigation of what brought the towers down.

This is conjecture and opinion on your part


It is clear to me that the jets severely damaged the facade of the building through the impacted floors, and I agree with their analysis. However, I remain unconvinced that the steel columns in the core were severely damaged, and they have offered no scientific evidence that they were. It's also apparent to me that the core columns bore the overwhelming load of the towers, not the facade.

There is ample scientific evidence, you have dismissed it out of hand, or labeled as caused by "other" means that those to which it is ascribed.



This is an interesting assertion, and I would like to see scientific analysis backing this up. The concrete floor and ceiling slabs for each floor weighed approximately 1,400,000 kg. The takeoff weight of a Boeing 767 is 312,000, or approximately 141,521 kg. It seems to me that the mass of this plane is well within the load redundancy engineered into most modern steel structures (typically 5:1 as I have read), even given the collapse of over thirty columns on each facade. Certainly I'm no expert, but I would expect the experts to comment on these terms, instead they offer only conjecture.



Where is the scientific evidence to back this up? Are we supposed to just take their word for these temperatures? This contradicts a scientific analysis of the jet fuel fires made on the web (http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064) indicating that the jet fuel could not have raised the temperature beyond 280C (536F). Burning office materials are an example of a cellulosic fire, which burns cooler than hydrocarbon fires. So whence this inferno? Additionally, the steel columns would have acted as a giant heat sink. The thermal conductivity of steel is such that even if we are to assume such outrageous air temperatures of 2000F, it would not necessarily cause the steel to weaken enough such that it would no longer bear the load of the structure above.

Kevin Ryan of UL emailed Frank Gayle about the infeasibility of the temperatures as estimated. He got no response and was fired from his job. UL provided no rebuttal of his claims, simply stating that he misrepresented his credentials with them. Ryan also stated that UL certified the steel in the WTC, a claim which was denied by a UL spokesman. Who is telling the truth here?


The NIST report touches all of these points I believe.


This is documented on video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11), and it is quite interesting, especially given the web analysis I sourced earlier. I know that the jet fuel or office materials could not burn hot enough to weaken the steel past the point of failure, so obviously I don't accept the notion that kerosene would *melt* it. So we're looking at something that either isn't steel, or something besides kerosene was in that building to generate the necessary temperatures to create molten steel.

Of course there were things in the building on than kerosene to fuel the fire: the office furniture, whatever other things that were flammable. Additionally, they do not make the claim that it was molten steel; they state it was molten metal. Could have been any source of metal that had melted, not necessarily a steel support beam.


I'd like to see the science behind this conjecture.

NIST Report



Let me phrase it this way, is there any evidence that can be sighted, any authoritative statements that can be quoted (and cited), that you will believe, and would cause you to rethink your position?

[delphi_ote]

... I don't believe he is willing to accept the possibility that elements in the US government were responsible for 9/11.
In other words, "I refuse to speak with people who challenge my beliefs too strongly."

[GrnMtSkeptic]

As I indicated above, I haven't investigated the investigation yet. Do you have any timeline evidence for when these firms started work?

You were the one who made the claim "Controlled Demolition was the only entity allowed on the scene following the disaster, and the evidence was shipped off to China for recycling." Yet now you deny any knowledge. Curious. Were you just making up the part about Controlled Demolition being the only entity allowed in?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I'm ignoring Wildcat, as he has poor reading comprehension, and I don't believe he is willing to accept the possibility that elements in the US government were responsible for 9/11. He is also highly condescending, and is mostly just trolling me.

From what I understand, only 2% of the steel was examined by NIST. I'm not aware of any FBI investigation at all.

I haven't done an extensive investigation of the investigation yet, other than reading the NIST report about WTC 7 (which was highly inadequate, and admittedly inconclusive). What I have read indicates there wasn't much of an investigation at all, as the steel was shipped almost immediately to China.

I'm ignoring Alek, as he has poor reading comprehension, and I don't believe he is willing to accept the possibility that no elements of the US government were responsible for 9/11. He is also highly condescending, and is mostly just trolling this thread.

[Alek]

Actually this is quite a strange thing to say. There were four firms handling the clean up: AMEC, Bovis Lend Lease (British Companies), Turner (subsidiary of Hochtief based in Germany), and Tully Construction of Flushing, New York. CDI was brought in as a subcontractor to Tully, and there were innumerable other subcontractors, including D.H. Griffin Wrecking Co. Not to mention all the Teamsters and Laborers who actually did the work.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/14/health/main643329.shtml

http://triangle.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/2002/09/09/focus5.html

Interesting quote from the 2nd of your links:

"I just went," says the 34-year-old Griffin from his small, cluttered office on Hilltop Road. "Because I knew — I felt — we had something to offer. The more I looked at the pictures on the news, I knew this was a demolition job. I just wanted to go. My wife knows how I am. If I hadn't gone, I would've thought about it the rest of my life. I should've gone up and helped."

I'm well aware of what he probably meant, but I find that quote interesting nonetheless.

[GrnMtSkeptic]

I'm ignoring Alek, as he has poor reading comprehension,

Indeed, his interpretation of the ASCE article http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline02/0502feat.html demonstrates he has no knowledge of what purpose an introductory paragraph serves.

[kookbreaker]

Alek's complaint seems to be a lot of 'I doubt the word of experienced Structural Engineers because i say I am right'. At one point he arrogantly states what the engineers should be impressed by. Don't worry, Alek, they'll be studying WTC7 alright, but not to the conlusion or for the reasons you would like.

The rest of his complaint is a variation of 'If I ran the zoo' nonsense.

Again: To date, no structural engineer or expert in another relevant field has supported the claim of the use of explosives. All we have are rank amatuers who claim to know better than experts.

[GrnMtSkeptic]

Interesting quote from the 2nd of your links:

"I just went," says the 34-year-old Griffin from his small, cluttered office on Hilltop Road. "Because I knew — I felt — we had something to offer. The more I looked at the pictures on the news, I knew this was a demolition job. I just wanted to go. My wife knows how I am. If I hadn't gone, I would've thought about it the rest of my life. I should've gone up and helped."

I'm well aware of what he probably meant, but I find that quote interesting nonetheless.

And I am sure that you will nonetheless use it entirely out of context at some future time.

[Alek]

This would be an interesting subject to pursue after this one is hashed out. I suggest we start a new thread at that time.

As a preview, the HSCA conclusion was based entirely on an analysis that has since been vacated, namely the acoustic analysis of gunshot echoes. You called him an ignoramus, but I think you'll find that every single regular here agrees that Oswald was the lone gunman. But let's save that for the new thread.

Wow. So a group of so-called skeptics here thinks Oswald was the lone gunman, and that the magic bullet theory on which this all depends, is true. How convincing. Appeal to Consensus - another fallacy? I'm not going to discuss the JFK murder here. You may commence with the circle jerk in another thread.

[Alek]

As a neutral observer of this debate, I just wanted to pipe up and say you're being a little harsh an Alek. He's logical and open minded, as evidenced by this post on the Loose Screws forum...

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1413&st=68

Hey! Thanks for at least linking to my post after you took me out of context. I do appreciate that.

[WildCat]

This site (http://www.interfire.org/features/fire_experiment.asp) shows that a house fire can easily exceed 1300F in less than 3 minutes.

[WildCat]

Wow. So a group of so-called skeptics here thinks Oswald was the lone gunman, and that the magic bullet theory on which this all depends, is true. How convincing. Appeal to Consensus - another fallacy? I'm not going to discuss the JFK murder here. You may commence with the circle jerk in another thread.
They re-created the Kennedy assasination on Mythbusters and the "magic bullet" did exactly as described in the official version of events.

Now, a wacko paranoid CT would simply brush that off as further disinformation by the conspirators, so the Mythbusters are now part of the conspiracy. And guess who were featured guests at TAM this year? Mythbusters!!! Thereby proving a direct link between the Kennedy conspirators (who we are told by Alek are the same folks who brought us the Murrah bombing and the 9/11 attacks) and the JREF.

Yes, we are all-powerful world-controlling conspirators of the highest degree!!!!! :cool:

[Regnad Kcin]

I'm ignoring Alek, as he has poor reading comprehension, and I don't believe he is willing to accept the possibility that no elements of the US government were responsible for 9/11. He is also highly condescending, and is mostly just trolling this thread.What say you and I form a club!

[Alek]

Some time was spent on "Loose Change" saying that the steel used at the WTC was of some specified standard. Let us also assume that this steel really doesn't weaken in a jet fuel fire as the conspiracy buffs contend.

Instead of a vast conspiracy, I offer this theory of a smaller conspiracy: Not all the steel in the WTC was not really up to the specs that were required because 1) It's not uncommon for developers to cut costs by cutting corners. 2) The number of people that would have to "be in on it" is considerably smaller. 3) There would only have to be some substandard steel melting/weakening at certain points to initiate a collapse.

To test this theory, it would be nice to have a few pieces of WTC steel.

The video also said something about all the steel being hauled off to be recycled. Is there really no samples or pieces left at all? None?

According to the ASCE report posted earlier, the integrity of the steel in the WTC ranged from 42 to 100 kips. This is irrelevant, as my point is the fire was not hot enough to cause even the weakest 42 kips steel to weaken significantly. From what I've read, the quality of structural steel doesn't vary nearly as much as the quality of concrete.

[WildCat]

According to the ASCE report posted earlier, the integrity of the steel in the WTC ranged from 42 to 100 kips. This is irrelevant, as my point is the fire was not hot enough to cause even the weakest 42 kips steel to weaken significantly. From what I've read, the quality of structural steel doesn't vary nearly as much as the quality of concrete.
Will someone please show Alek the link (http://www.interfire.org/features/fire_experiment.asp) that shows even a simple house fire burns at 1400F?

[Regnad Kcin]

They re-created the Kennedy assasination on Mythbusters and the "magic bullet" did exactly as described in the official version of events.

Now, a wacko paranoid CT would simply brush that off as further disinformation by the conspirators, so the Mythbusters are now part of the conspiracy. And guess who were featured guests at TAM this year? Mythbusters!!! Thereby proving a direct link between the Kennedy conspirators and the JREF.

Yes, we are all-powerful world-controlling conspirators of the highest degree!!!!! :cool:I didn't know about the Mythbusters recreation. Cool.

The term "magic bullet" is meant to prejudice analysis as to its likelihood. But there was nothing "magic" about it.

We should perhaps take this to another thread. (No doubt Rouser2 will show up within an hour. Yikes!)

[delphi_ote]

Will someone please show Alek the link (http://www.interfire.org/features/fire_experiment.asp) that shows even a simple house fire burns at 1400F?
I'll try, though I imagine he's ignoring me as well.

[hellaeon]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1537093#post1537093

replace grahams name with alek, and alek also please check this link (http://www.interfire.org/features/fire_experiment.asp)

[Alek]

Im proposing that the information on loose change is actually disinformation put out there by the government.

That is a distinct possibility:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/loose_change.html

It seems that is more likely with the video "9/11 In Plane Sight". Errors in Loose Change are probably just the result of sloppy research.

[Alek]

Negligent? Mighty powerful accusation. Whatever.

As for the rest of your post, since you are making very specific and testable assumptions, I suppose you could provide evidence of your assertions? What broadcasts? Will you post links to the transcripts or video footage?



I made the name of the film pretty clear. I'm not here to do your homework for you. If the truth is important enough to you, you'll do the research. If not, you're not worth convincing anyway.



Since you are making the claims (and shifting the discussion away from 9/11 rather bluntly) you can provide some evidence to back this up.



Are you serious? Your reading comprehension is poor. I specifically stated that I didn't want to get sidetracked by the OKC bombing. Then the most polite and objective participant in the thread asked me to summarize the evidence, which I did, and now you're accusing me of shifting the discussion.



Or is this going to be the same rehash of your 9/11 conspiracy in which you post no credible evidence and yell at us and insult us for tearing your arguments and theories apart?

I'm not yelling at anyone. I respond with insults to insult. You haven't torn up anything but your own credibility, as evidenced by the above.

[kookbreaker]

According to the ASCE report posted earlier, the integrity of the steel in the WTC ranged from 42 to 100 kips. This is irrelevant, as my point is the fire was not hot enough to cause even the weakest 42 kips steel to weaken significantly. From what I've read, the quality of structural steel doesn't vary nearly as much as the quality of concrete.

Steel loses strength at temperature starting at 500C+, by the time it hits 700C it is signifigantly weaker than its cool state.

NIST demostrated that uninsulated steel exposed to the fires in the WTC could easily reach those and temperatures.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5B.pdf

Without reference to NISTs fire report, Alek is basicly just guessing.

And, as Wildcat just showed with his link, a simple housefire can reach 1300F in mere minutes.

edit because I messed up some temperatures.

[hellaeon]

alek for gods sake you believe the wtc building came down as part of a demolition based on watching a VIDEO. You do realise that they demolished others after so why are they not part of the conspiracy - was this not done to cover up there tracks?

Answer me PLEASE:

1) how many 'agencies' were involved

2) how many people

3) how much explosives were used

4) where were the explosives used

5) do you have any proper evidence - I mean, residue from explosives, detonators, wires - anything that would help push this part of the story to the fore. Please dont expect ANYONE to believe this was 'removed' before anyone had a chance to see it. it took them ages to clean up the WTC area!!!!

6) Why bother using aircraft. Why not biological weapons. Anthrax? (let me guess, that was the governments plan too!)

7) Give me another example where a passport was not found in an airplane disaster. Then compare that to the average number of airplane disasters where ones were found.

8) Do you enjoy smoking pot?

9) what kind of work do you do (serious)

PLEASE answer these short and sharp with maybe a link or two to a reputable site. PLEASE dont send me to another looney site because your only insulting your own mind reading it. Why do you so distrust science so much ??

Why do you continually assert that because you dont get it, it cant be true.

As for the disinformation - your going to be debating this for aeons and aeons, the same arguements.

* bangs head on wall *

[Ducky]

I made the name of the film pretty clear. I'm not here to do your homework for you. If the truth is important enough to you, you'll do the research. If not, you're not worth convincing anyway.

Perhaps you aren't familiar with the burden of proof. You came here with these claims. You are the one to provide the evidence. We are not going to scurry off and do your work for you.



Are you serious? Your reading comprehension is poor. I specifically stated that I didn't want to get sidetracked by the OKC bombing. Then the most polite and objective participant in the thread asked me to summarize the evidence, which I did, and now you're accusing me of shifting the discussion.

Still not evidence.


I'm not yelling at anyone. I respond with insults to insult. You haven't torn up anything but your own credibility, as evidenced by the above.


What credibility have I torn up by asking you to provide evidence to your own claims? You made specific claims abotu OKC and I asked for that evidence. If you don't want to provide it here, then start a new thread, but back up your statements.

Please show where in this thread *I* have insulted you. Your tone is very fitting someone who is attacking because they are losing a debate.

[Alek]

Intelligence, intuition ... and the use of the Idiot's Syllogism ... "If I can't explain it, then I can explain it."

They should meet these people :




Is it strange how, when we are in the middle of summer, it can be raining out, and one day it is very 'hot,' the next day it is 15 degree cooler, and two days later, it is 'hot' again? Does this seem strange? How about earthquakes in parts of the world, that are so devastating, that if they were to happen here, our whole economy could be ruined. Do you think it is 'odd' that people would suggest that the government can and does control the weather? I know it sounds a little paranoid, but if you do the research to investigate, you will undoubtably arrive at the same conclusions. Our weather is controlled!


Congratulations. Your arrogant condescension is matched only by your abject ignorance.

S.517 Weather Modification Research and Technology Transfer Authorization Act of 2005 (Reported in Senate) (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.517:)

[hellaeon]

alek is under pressure as his peers are watching from over in the other forum.

[Ducky]

Congratulations. Your arrogant condescension is matched only by your abject ignorance.

S.517 Weather Modification Research and Technology Transfer Authorization Act of 2005 (Reported in Senate) (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.517:)


:dl:


Do you have any idea what the content of those are?

Here I'll quote and bold the relevant parts:

It is the purpose of this Act to develop and implement a comprehensive and coordinated national weather modification policy and a national cooperative Federal and State program of weather modification research and development.


now, do you have any evidence that anyone has this ability currently?

[RandFan]

I made the name of the film pretty clear. I'm not here to do your homework for you. If the truth is important enough to you, you'll do the research. If not, you're not worth convincing anyway.Hey Alek,

I think that is a bit unfair. If you have an argument you should make it. If you have some evidence you should link to it. It's not other people's homework it is yours since you are making the claim.

Why do many independent experts disagree with the CT conclusions?

From the Popular Mechanics web site that explored the conspiracy theory.


CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."


FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

[hellaeon]

regarding the weather thingo:

It is the purpose of this Act to develop and implement a comprehensive and coordinated national weather modification policy and a national cooperative Federal and State program of weather modification research and development.

(3) RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT- The term `research and development' means theoretical analysis, exploration, experimentation, and the extension of investigative findings and theories of scientific or technical nature into practical application for experimental and demonstration purposes, including the experimental production and testing of models, devices, equipment, materials, and processes.

(4) WEATHER MODIFICATION- The term `weather modification' means changing or controlling, or attempting to change or control, by artificial methods the natural development of atmospheric cloud forms or precipitation forms which occur in the troposphere.

note how its research to see how it may be possible, not that it is possible.
Also what does this do to further purport your cospiracy theory?
Evidence is not shown by trying to discredit someone.

edit: doh fowlsound beat me to it!

[Alek]

The ASCE is certainly more than qualified to do forensic failure analysis.

http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWsrchkwx.cgi?Failure+investigations

Are you telling us we should assume the FBI has the civil engineering forensics expertise of the ASCE? The FBI is not an engineering body.

Read the paper. The intent of the ASCE in that paper was to ascertain if and how other buildings could be secured from a similar attack. Their conclusion was to secure airplanes instead. That paper did not document a forensic investigation, and it had more conjecture than science. I'm not claiming the paper was misrepresented as an investigation, I'm merely saying it wasn't one.

[WildCat]

now, do you have any evidence that anyone has this ability currently?
d00d, that's what the chemtrails are for...

[Gravy]

who would have thought we would have probes on mars remotely controlled from earth - we cant actually see them. We rely only on what nasa tells us. A cover up of that would be much easier then 911.

Rely on what NASA tells us about Mars? Are you mad?
imdb.com/title/tt0077294/ (sorry, can't post links yet. getting there.)

[Alek]

Who (person or group of people), in your opinion, would be qualified to carry out the investigation?



The FBI, in conjunction with experts from the ASCE and elsewhere. The FBI should have established a chain of custody of the evidence, as well as managing the investigation. Experts like those in the ASCE are there to answer questions, not run criminal investigations.


The NIST report does touch all three towers.


I've read the NIST report. It's a joke. Indeed it "touches" on the WTC 7 building. It's best hypothesis indicates a "low probability of occurence".


Word games with the executive summary grammar.


Word games? I agree with their assertion that the majority of the jet fuel was consumed shortly after impact.


per http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_200prod.html

Engines
maximum thrust
Pratt & Whitney PW4062 GE CF6-80C2B7F
63,300 lb (281.6 kN) 62,100 lb (276.2 kN)

Maximum Fuel Capacity 23,980 U.S. gal (90,770 l)
Maximum Takeoff Weight 395,000 lb (179,170 kg)
Typical Cruise Speed at 35,000 feet Mach 0.80 530 mph (851 kph)

I'm sure one of the forumites can run the numbers, I won't pretend to do so since I am in database work, not physics/engineering, to provide kinetic energy and impact on the building.

That aside, you imply with "5" thick concrete floor and ceiling slabs" that the planes were penetrating them at something approaching a 90 degree angle, when in fact they would have been colliding with the buildings in such a manner as to direct their kinetic energy into the building and not having to directly punch through the floor/ceiling to enter the building.



I wasn't implying that at all. I'm saying the planes impacted a number of floors on each tower, and in addition to penetrating the steel column facade, they would meet the resistance of the floors and ceilings themselves. I'd like to see a scientific analysis of this. I want to know how much inertia those planes had if and when they reached the core columns.



There is ample scientific evidence, you have dismissed it out of hand, or labeled as caused by "other" means that those to which it is ascribed.



I don't see any equations of note in that report. Do you?



Of course there were things in the building on than kerosene to fuel the fire: the office furniture, whatever other things that were flammable. Additionally, they do not make the claim that it was molten steel; they state it was molten metal. Could have been any source of metal that had melted, not necessarily a steel support beam.



Once the kerosene burns off, you go from a hydrocarbon to a cellulosic fire. Cellulosic fires not only burn much cooler, but they also don't cause steel structures to collapse. Keep in mind the volume of combustible material doesn't affect the temperature. You could have dumped 100,000 gallons of jet fuel in the WTC as opposed to the 10,000, and the building would have remained standing, even among the most optimal fire conditions. The fuel would have simply taken longer to burn off, it wouldn't burn hotter.



Let me phrase it this way, is there any evidence that can be sighted, any authoritative statements that can be quoted (and cited), that you will believe, and would cause you to rethink your position?

Yes, I want to see scientific evidence that contradicts this:

http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064

And I would like to see an analysis of the structural damage inflicted by the jets themselves. The ASCE report offers a lot of estimates, but no science to back them up.

[Ducky]

Rely on what NASA tells us about Mars? Are you mad?
imdb.com/title/tt0077294/ (sorry, can't post links yet. getting there.)


Rely on a fictional movie to tell you what NASA does? Are you mad?

[WildCat]

Yes, I want to see scientific evidence that contradicts this:

http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064

And I would like to see an analysis of the structural damage inflicted by the jets themselves. The ASCE report offers a lot of estimates, but no science to back them up.
Yes, very scientific. Particularly the assumption that 20,000 gallons of burning jet fuel didn't set anything else on fire... w/ science like that, who needs to publish in a peer-reviewed journal?
:dl:

[WildCat]

Rely on a fictional movie to tell you what NASA does? Are you mad?
He was joking. At least I hope he was joking... he was joking, wasn't he? :confused:

[Alek]

You were the one who made the claim "Controlled Demolition was the only entity allowed on the scene following the disaster, and the evidence was shipped off to China for recycling." Yet now you deny any knowledge. Curious. Were you just making up the part about Controlled Demolition being the only entity allowed in?

No, I wasn't "making it up". I read it. What I read about that may be wrong, I don't know. Like I said, I haven't investigated the investigation.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

...

Yes, I want to see scientific evidence that contradicts this:

http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064

And I would like to see an analysis of the structural damage inflicted by the jets themselves. The ASCE report offers a lot of estimates, but no science to back them up.

Like this? http://www.interfire.org/features/fire_experiment.asp

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

No, I wasn't "making it up". I read it. What I read about that may be wrong, I don't know. Like I said, I haven't investigated the investigation.

So, you're basing your opinion on the validity of the investigation upon whether or not it meets your preconceived notions?


Edit to correct grammar.

[Ducky]

So, you're basis your opinion on the validity of the investigation upon whether or not it meets your preconceived notions?



Not unusual when he comes from a forum that is very willnig to ban and censor dissenting opinions. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1534471#post1534471)

[Alek]

Hey Alek,

I think that is a bit unfair. If you have an argument you should make it. If you have some evidence you should link to it. It's not other people's homework it is yours since you are making the claim.



I'm starting to get angry now. Do you *********** people know how to read english? I said I'm not going to get sidetracked by the OKC bombing. Then I get asked for a summary of the evidence. I provide it. Then I get accused of trying to shift the discussion.

I don't know how to make this any clearer. I am not going to try and prove any claims about OKC, because I'm not going to get sidetracked. For those who aren't apathetic, and negligent, and who care about the matter, you will either view the film I referenced, or you won't. You are entitled to reject the claims about OKC. Either way, I'm not going to discuss it here.

Stop trolling, and post something substantial about 9/11.

[Ducky]

I'm starting to get angry now. Do you *********** people know how to read english? I said I'm not going to get sidetracked by the OKC bombing. Then I get asked for a summary of the evidence. I provide it. Then I get accused of trying to shift the discussion.

I don't know how to make this any clearer. I am not going to try and prove any claims about OKC, because I'm not going to get sidetracked. For those who aren't apathetic, and negligent, and who care about the matter, you will either view the film I referenced, or you won't. You are entitled to reject the claims about OKC. Either way, I'm not going to discuss it here.

Stop trolling, and post something substantial about 9/11.



It was requested you start a new thread on that, not continue here. DO you read english?

How about addressing the points made since that?

[Gravy]

alek is under pressure as his peers are watching from over in the other forum.

And the thing is, Alek IS a voice of reason over there. Some of them believe that NO plane hit the south tower. Really. Alek, foolish as he is, is a step in the right direction as far as the Loosers go.

[WildCat]

Loosers
Brilliant, Gravy! Oh, and welcome to the JREF.

I'm now positive you were joking w/ the Capricorn 1 link. :D I swear, after reading all that lunacy over there I can't tell any more... :eye-poppi

[WildCat]

Hehehe! Chipmunk Stew has been declared a troll (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1413&view=findpost&p=2802686) now at the Looser forum. He will be banned if he posts anywhere but in the special troll forum, apparently reason and logic and linking to proper scientific investigations will not be tolerated there! :D

[Ducky]

Hehehe! Chipmunk Stew has been declared a troll (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1413&view=findpost&p=2802686) now at the Looser forum. He will be banned if he posts anywhere but in the special troll forum, apparently reason and logic and linking to proper scientific investigations will not be tolerated there! :D



Very compelling evidence of their "skepticism."

[RayG]

So the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE),
the state of New York,
the New York City Department of Design and Construction,
the Structural Engineers Association of New York,
the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations,
the National Fire Protection Association,
the Society of Fire Protection Engineers,
the American Concrete Institute,
the American Institute of Steel Construction,
the Masonry Society,
the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat,
the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
the Federal Advisory Committee,
the NYPD,
the FBI,
the Secret Service,
the CIA,
the New York Port Authority,
the NYFD,
the National Law Enforcement and Security Institute,
United Airlines,
the US Department of Defense,
the US Department of Justice,
the US Department of State,
North American Aerospace Defense Command,
the National Military Command Center,
the Federal Aviation Administration,
the Pentegon,
the Counterterrorism and Security Group,
the US Army’s Communications-Electronics Command,
Otis Air National Guard Base,
Langley Air Force Base,
Andrews Air Force Base,
Offutt Air Force Base,
the Air National Guard,
three E-4B National Airborne Operations Center planes,
the New York flight control center,
the Air Traffic Control System Command Center in Washington,
the La Guardia Airport control tower,
the New York Times,
the Boston Globe,
the Wall Street Journal,
the Washington Post,
Newsday,
United Press International,
Associated Press,
CNN,
ABC,
NBC,
CBS,
and Emma E. Booker Elementary School were all cooperating in a widespread conspiracy to conduct a controlled demolition, thereby reducing the WTC to a pile of rubble, provide misinformation to the American public, and divert attention from the REAL culprits -- the government?

Holy bat crap Robin... :jaw-dropp

RayG

[SpaceFluffer]

Yes, I want to see scientific evidence that contradicts this:

http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064
That analysis makes a calculation of the total heat released when the gasoline undergoes combustion. It's conclusions would be correct if the plane had spread the fuel through the building, and then someone lit a match. An explosion is quite different in terms of the amount of energy dumped into the surroundings. Compare what an exploding gastank would do to a car, with what would happen if the gas were dumped on the car and set on fire.

That analysis has lots of impressive numbers but starts with a false assumption.

[RandFan]

I'm starting to get angry now. Oh shoot, not angry? If you don't want to respond to the claim that's fine but don't get angry at me. You could always withdraw it.

Stop trolling, and post something substantial about 9/11.Right, you ignore my post and call me a troll. I did post something substantial about 9/11. Ignoring it is poor form.

[geni]

Yes, I want to see scientific evidence that contradicts this:

http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064


The most obvious flaw is the assumption that all the concrete will heat up. It won't concrete is a pretty poor conductor. Steel by comparison is a pretty good one. The result is that most of the heat hitting the concrete will probably be radiated back off. The same will not be the case for the heat hitting the steel.

[RandFan]

So the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE),
the state of New York,
the New York City Department of Design and Construction,
the Structural Engineers Association of New York,
the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations,
the National Fire Protection Association,
the Society of Fire Protection Engineers,
the American Concrete Institute,
the American Institute of Steel Construction,
the Masonry Society,
the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat,
the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
the Federal Advisory Committee,
the NYPD,
the FBI,
the Secret Service,
the CIA,
the New York Port Authority,
the NYFD,
the National Law Enforcement and Security Institute,
United Airlines,
the US Department of Defense,
the US Department of Justice,
the US Department of State,
North American Aerospace Defense Command,
the National Military Command Center,
the Federal Aviation Administration,
the Pentegon,
the Counterterrorism and Security Group,
the US Army’s Communications-Electronics Command,
Otis Air National Guard Base,
Langley Air Force Base,
Andrews Air Force Base,
Offutt Air Force Base,
the Air National Guard,
three E-4B National Airborne Operations Center planes,
the New York flight control center,
the Air Traffic Control System Command Center in Washington,
the La Guardia Airport control tower,
the New York Times,
the Boston Globe,
the Wall Street Journal,
the Washington Post,
Newsday,
United Press International,
Associated Press,
CNN,
ABC,
NBC,
CBS,
and Emma E. Booker Elementary School were all cooperating in a widespread conspiracy to conduct a controlled demolition, thereby reducing the WTC to a pile of rubble, provide misinformation to the American public, and divert attention from the REAL culprits -- the government?

Holy bat crap Robin... :jaw-dropp

RayGYup, but you are a troll if you don't buy that. Go do some research you coward.

[Regnad Kcin]

And to that list the tiger that killed JFK. I'm certain he was in on the 9/11 deal too.

[Curnir]

I didn't "intimate you claimed that", I'm merely using sarcasm to ridicule you.
Oh no! Sarcasm whatever shall I do?

The problem here is that it is you who are being dishonest (not very sly, however). You're trying to capitalize on the fact that the term "conspiracy theorist" has a negative connotation in popular culture, and that people who identify as such are typically nutty, eccentric, or are otherwise not credible.
Dishonest? Oh my...
Now, after I exposed your subtle attack,
Ha ha ha ha ha.
you attempt to redefine the term by distinguishing between legitimate conspiracy theorists, such as law enforcement,
Only after you implied that I claimed that there were no such thing as a conspiracies...
and illegitimate conspiracy theorists, such as people who believe governments have lied and gotten away with murder, but either can't prove it or don't have the resources to expose the truth.
Which is the normal definition of 'conspiracy theorist'... Then you use the method of bracketing, or what I like to call "negative association" in an attempt to discredit me by associating every ridiculous and impossible theory dreamed up by television producers and/or imaginative people, with very real criminal conspiracies populated by conspirators who have thus far eluded justice.No I was merely decribing what I thought of when I heard/read 'conspiracy theory'

In summary, conspiracies exist, and occur all of the time.
I never claimed otherwise Conspirators are typically brought to justice by conspiracy theorists, usually in the form of law enforcement. I never claimed that Law Enforment never caught criminals. Conspiracies vary in the number of conspirators, and the scope of the crimes. Aye. Conspiracy theorists are a diverse group of skeptics with no presumption of a consensus on anything, let alone far-fetched, implausible, and irrelevant theories.
By your definition of the word...
The fact that you resort to these subtle and deceptive methods of attempting to discredit me is just evidence of your own ignorance, and lack of facts with respect to the specific discussion at hand.
Then educate me, show me the evidence. Not just conjecture, speculation,cherrypicked photos and false assumptionsYou repeating the words "conspiracy" and "theory" ad nauseum may discredit me in the eyes of some here.What other words should I use when trying to defend myself against your implications (you know where you implied that I claimed that there were no such thing as conspiracies...). And I have not tried to discredit you, there's no need for that you do such and admirable job of it yourself. Fortunately, these aren't the type of people I'm trying to convince.
So you admit that you are here to troll the board?

[Alek]

Not unusual when he comes from a forum that is very willnig to ban and censor dissenting opinions. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1534471#post1534471)

Uh, I registered on this forum before the LC forum, genius.

[Ducky]

Uh, I registered on this forum before the LC forum, genius.


Registration to a forum that can be viewed anonymously does not establish how long you lurked, but regardless, it is clear to which forum you feel more attached.

[Shrinker]

Hey! Thanks for at least linking to my post after you took me out of context. I do appreciate that.

You're welcome, but these statements of yours (quoted below) are perfectly self contained. Please show how the context makes them look any less hypocritical and pompous. The debate has moved on so I'm going to let you have the last word on this. Knock yourself out. Hell, rewrite the context if you want. Write anything that makes the guy who stands by these four statements sound logical and rational....

It doesn't make sense to argue with people who refuse to entertain the possibility that your argument may be correct, does it? That pretty much sums up my experience at the JREF forum.

Personally, it isn't likely that anyone, whether they're considered to be an "expert", or whether they have a PhD behind their name is going to convince me that the WTC 7 building wasn't a controlled demolition. My own intelligence and intuition are paramount on this matter.

[Indolent Wretch]

Well sometimes you can just mooch around the net and then come across the site of a train wreck of a thread, and it hurts that you missed it unfurl.

But my lord what a glorious wreck of reasoning Alek has laid out before us. I'll just pick one.




It sounds like they're putting the cart before the horse here. Have they already assumed a significant reduction in structural strength due to fire occured?




Well shucks I don't know, they're civil and structural engineers who have experience in matters not necessarily of this scale but certainly of this type. The buildings WERE ON FIRE after being hit BY TWO FREAKING 1000KPH JETLINERS. What in Satans Portion would you have them check for, GREMLINS REMOVING ALL THE RIVETS!


Do yourself a favour Alek, stop listening to other people, and stop letting them do your thinking for you. Not them, Them or us.

Think about what happened, actually think about it, don't be someone elses mouthpiece.

look up the maths and work out the energy involved when a 120,000KG Jet at 950KPH hits another object.

Work our how much fuel and other combustibles were involved.

Look up the details on the structure of the building, how the pillars were protected, the fragility of the material used to do so and the way the floors were supported.

Look up all the information on how steel loses 50% of it's strength at a moderately low temperature and think about how that would have reduced the load bearing capabilities of an already damaged floor.

Think about how the collapse of one floor would increase the load on the one below.

Think about the torque and torsion acting against weakened steel pillars.

Think about all of these things yourself and try and do it without any massively preconceived notions. Think about how likely is one thing above another, think about how hard it must be to keep a 'conspiracy' like this a secret.

Close you eyes and imagine the poor building and play out the events in your head and just go with the flow.

Do something.

But don't just keep believing what you read or see, it just leaves you as a follower of the deluded or the corrupt. If after everything you still can't believe the buildings fell the way they did because of their design and because they were hit by a 950KPH 120Kt missile then tell us what you think did it not what other people have told you to think.

[Indolent Wretch]

I'm the 666th reply to the original thread.... Just more fuel for the conspiracy fire.

[Alek]

It was requested you start a new thread on that, not continue here. DO you read english?



Uh, the fact that I don't take orders doesn't have anything to do with my ability to read english.



How about addressing the points made since that?
Rule 8 breach removed.

Alex removed the previous edit I made of his breach of Rule 8 therefore he has been suspended for 7 days. Any similar behaviour once the suspension is lifted will result in a ban.

[Alek]

That analysis makes a calculation of the total heat released when the gasoline undergoes combustion. It's conclusions would be correct if the plane had spread the fuel through the building, and then someone lit a match. An explosion is quite different in terms of the amount of energy dumped into the surroundings. Compare what an exploding gastank would do to a car, with what would happen if the gas were dumped on the car and set on fire.

That analysis has lots of impressive numbers but starts with a false assumption.

The explosive energy of the jet fuel was only destructive enough to blow out the windows, this according to the ASCE report that was linked earlier. Do you have evidence that indicates otherwise?

[Alek]

Well sometimes you can just mooch around the net and then come across the site of a train wreck of a thread, and it hurts that you missed it unfurl.

But my lord what a glorious wreck of reasoning Alek has laid out before us. I'll just pick one.





Well shucks I don't know, they're civil and structural engineers who have experience in matters not necessarily of this scale but certainly of this type. The buildings WERE ON FIRE after being hit BY TWO FREAKING 1000KPH JETLINERS. What in Satans Portion would you have them check for, GREMLINS REMOVING ALL THE RIVETS!



I would have them do a forensic investigation, as if it were the biggest crime scene on earth. Or, is Bush and the FBI's word that Osama Bin Laden did it enough to simply call off an investigation?



Do yourself a favour Alek, stop listening to other people, and stop letting them do your thinking for you. Not them, Them or us.



I'm not the lapdog being spoon fed lies here. If I let other people do my thinking for me, then I would be like you.



Think about what happened, actually think about it, don't be someone elses mouthpiece.



I've thought about it ever since it happend.



look up the maths and work out the energy involved when a 120,000KG Jet at 950KPH hits another object.



How many jets hit the World Trade Center 7 building?



Work our how much fuel and other combustibles were involved.



Already been done, read the fire analysis I linked earlier. The jet-fuel weakening steel theory is bunk.



Look up the details on the structure of the building, how the pillars were protected, the fragility of the material used to do so and the way the floors were supported.



Now the building is fragile, because you say it is?



Look up all the information on how steel loses 50% of it's strength at a moderately low temperature and think about how that would have reduced the load bearing capabilities of an already damaged floor.



It's 600C. I've thought about it. Still not convinced.



Think about how the collapse of one floor would increase the load on the one below.

Think about the torque and torsion acting against weakened steel pillars.



Yeah. Thanks for the sage advice. Maybe if I "think" some more, I'll be as enlightened as you are. I can only hope.



Think about all of these things yourself and try and do it without any massively preconceived notions. Think about how likely is one thing above another, think about how hard it must be to keep a 'conspiracy' like this a secret.



It doesn't have to be a secret. Hardly anyone is capable of believing it could be true anyway.



Close you eyes and imagine the poor building and play out the events in your head and just go with the flow.



Go with the flow. Indeed. Follow the lemmings off of the cliff.



Do something.

But don't just keep believing what you read or see, it just leaves you as a follower of the deluded or the corrupt. If after everything you still can't believe the buildings fell the way they did because of their design and because they were hit by a 950KPH 120Kt missile then tell us what you think did it not what other people have told you to think.

I already have. You just aren't listening.

[Alek]

You're welcome, but these statements of yours (quoted below) are perfectly self contained. Please show how the context makes them look any less hypocritical and pompous. The debate has moved on so I'm going to let you have the last word on this. Knock yourself out. Hell, rewrite the context if you want. Write anything that makes the guy who stands by these four statements sound logical and rational....

It's pretty straightforward for those who can read english. Nothing I said was either hypocritical or pompous. All of what I said is reasonable. Why should one bother to argue with those who aren't willing to accept the possibility that they're wrong? It amounts to nothing more than mutual masturbation.

As for the WTC 7, I made a specific statement concerning what I know about how it collapsed. The video evidence is overwhelming. I'm not going to be lied to and led around by "experts", or ignorant, patronizing, so-called skeptics. My own intelligence and intuition have served me well. The NIST has no viable hypothesis for why this building fell. The burden is on the government apologists, like you, to explain why it fell. If you put me in context, it means I accept the possibility that I'm wrong about it, but there had damn well better be extraordinary proof. I don't see that coming from the likes of you or your pals here anytime soon, frankly.

[Gravy]

I'm the 666th reply to the original thread.... Just more fuel for the conspiracy fire.
I don't have a reference for it, and a brief Google hasn't helped, but I've read that due to a mistranslation in the Book of Revelations, the number of the Beast is actually 653. I AM feeling beastly this morning.

[Euromutt]

I'd rather not talk about motive, or politics. I'd rather concentrate on the facts about 9/11.As any reader of detective novels knows, the three cardinal elements of identifying a suspect in a criminal investigation are establishing means, opportunity and motive. The only reason I can surmise for your being unwilling to discuss motive is because you can't come up with a plausible motive which fits your predetermined conclusion. Which means you don't actually have a case. You can go on about the combustion temperature of jet fuel and the tensile strength of steel all day, but if you can't provide a plausible argument why the US government, or certain elements within it, would have orchestrated the events of 9/11, it's all so much hot air.

[Alek]

Stop editing my posts, or ban me. I've had enough of the patronizing ignorance here anyway.

[Alek]

I did it again. Ban me.

Have fun in the camps after the government sponsored biological weapons attack.

[Belz...]

In summary, conspiracies exist, and occur all of the time. Conspirators are typically brought to justice by conspiracy theorists, usually in the form of law enforcement.

Yeah. Don't they usually involve 2-3 people ?

[Z]

Stop editing my posts, or ban me. I've had enough of the patronizing ignorance here anyway.

The only person acting truly ignorant on this thread, Alek, is you. You'd take the word of a few college videos, and a couple of whack-job websites, over actual detailed analysis of the physics and chemical reactions involved. Evidence has been offered to you, multiple times, as to how a common house fire can reach sufficient temperatures to soften steel in under three minutes. You choose to ignore that evidence, because that evidence indicates that a basic fire could have brought down all three buildings with ease. That they stayed standing as long as they did is amazing.

And on top of that, you honestly believe - against all evidence and the admission of the two guilty parties and their collaberators - that the government was behind the OKC bombing. You also honestly believe that JFK was assassinated as part of a government plot, and that our government has weather-control technology beyond cloud-seeding.

In short, you're not a skeptic at all.. you're a creduloid who blindly and mutely accepts what you're told, if it makes the government seem more evil and underhanded to you, while stubbornly denying any evidence at all, if it weakens your precious theories. For example, you keep begging for people to watch the Alex Jones video, yet I highly doubt you've looked into the claims of that video for yourself.

OK, keep it relevant to 9/11 - how much actual fact-checking have you done on that front? What research have you done on the resulting temperatures of office fires over extended periods, on the weakening points and buckling points of steel during stress, or on what actually happened to the buildings themselves - or the resulting steel debris, some of which is STILL being studied by qualified engineers?

Or do you just watch conspiracy videos and read conspiracy web-sites, and think you're getting the whole truth?

You're a willfully ignorant troll, a creduloid, and a total idiot for blindly believing what you've been told by the C-T crowd. I'm not saying you should blindly accept the government theory, either - I don't. But I think the facts point to the truth lying somewhere more moderate on both sides. I also think we don't have enough facts to make a qualified judgement as to what's REALLY going on.

I do think that two airplanes crashing into the two towers caused sufficient fire and structural damage to lead to the collapse of both towers, and that the collateral damage from the collapse was sufficient to cause WTC-7 to burn sufficiently long enough to collapse as well - given the additional damage caused to the south side of the building.

It's the facts around Osama and Bush that I'm cynical of... and the resulting use of 9/11 as an excuse for Bush to go after Saddam that I question.

Alek, I bid you farewell. If you continue on your current course, you will undoubtably be banned. Only because you're being incivil, abusive, and foul-mouthed. Willful ignorance and stubborn refusal to consider evidence is never a cause for banning here - just ask Ignorant Ian!

[Belz...]

Are you serious? Your reading comprehension is poor.

You know, Alek. If you don't want people to insult you, perhaps you should return the favor.

The point is, evidence contradicts the official theory and supports a controlled demolition. Neither is the top-down near free-fall collapse of the buildings evidence against a controlled demolition.

Not against, but not in favor of.

What is speculation is the notion that kerosene caused hydrocarbon fires in excess of 280 Celsius in the towers, and that the 47 core columns of the towers were damaged by the airplanes, and that cellulosic fires in the 47 story WTC 7 were responsible for its spectacular collapse.

Like WildCat said, 1400 degrees in a HOUSE fire. No Kerosene there.

Wow. So a group of so-called skeptics here thinks Oswald was the lone gunman, and that the magic bullet theory on which this all depends, is true.

Ooohhh... you believe in THAT CT too ? Tell me, Alek. Wouldn't it be MUCH easier for the instigators of this conspiracy to ONLY send Oswald for the murder ? Wouldn't a single person with a gun be enough to kill another person ? Get your facts straight.

[Z]

My guess is, he believes in every Evil Gub'ment conspiracy.

He might even think the Evil Gub'ment faked the lunar landings, too.

I bet 1984 would be one of his favorite books - if he ever learned to read books.

[ranson]

I did it again. Ban me.

Have fun in the camps after the government sponsored biological weapons attack.

Whoop. Up until this point, I simply considered him passionate, if wrong.

Now I'm just pretty sure he's a nutbag.

[WildCat]

As for the WTC 7, I made a specific statement concerning what I know about how it collapsed. The video evidence is overwhelming. I'm not going to be lied to and led around by "experts", or ignorant, patronizing, so-called skeptics. My own intelligence and intuition have served me well. The NIST has no viable hypothesis for why this building fell. The burden is on the government apologists, like you, to explain why it fell. If you put me in context, it means I accept the possibility that I'm wrong about it, but there had damn well better be extraordinary proof. I don't see that coming from the likes of you or your pals here anytime soon, frankly.
Paranoid delusional post of the year!

I've said it before, but stupid people don't ever realize that they're stupid.

Because they're stupid.

[Gravy]

Alek, I'm curious to know if you've done any independent research about 9/11, and if so, what facts you've turned up that you think might be significant or interesting.
Thanks,
Gravy

[kookbreaker]

Stop editing my posts, or ban me. I've had enough of the patronizing ignorance here anyway.

'Patronizing Ignorance', means that we don't accept your assertions of "I don't beleive it' in face of the actual evidence.

You are trying for a pathetic martyr ban. Get over yourself. If there was a Big Brother, he wouldn't even think you worth watching.

[kookbreaker]

I would have them do a forensic investigation, as if it were the biggest crime scene on earth. Or, is Bush and the FBI's word that Osama Bin Laden did it enough to simply call off an investigation?


Translation: They didn't investigatte the way I wanted them to


I'm not the lapdog being spoon fed lies here. If I let other people do my thinking for me, then I would be like you.


Translation: I read a few kewl konspiracy sites and now I think I know more than you and all the relevant experts in the world.


I've thought about it ever since it happend.


Translation: I want a conspiracy!


How many jets hit the World Trade Center 7 building?


Translation: If I keep changing the subject from one building to the other I can avoid the fact that my ideas are crap,


Already been done, read the fire analysis I linked earlier. The jet-fuel weakening steel theory is bunk.


Translation: I haven't read the material I claimed to have read.


Now the building is fragile, because you say it is?


Translation: Since I know nothing, I'll pull one word out of the sentence I quoted and make a straw-man.


It's 600C. I've thought about it. Still not convinced.


Translation: I am ignoring all the evidence that says otherwise.


Yeah. Thanks for the sage advice. Maybe if I "think" some more, I'll be as enlightened as you are. I can only hope.


Translation: I'm bitter and getting my butt kicked. All I can do is spit. So spit I shall


It doesn't have to be a secret. Hardly anyone is capable of believing it could be true anyway.


Translation: I'll pretend I'm smart a 'leet 'cause I can make up bad fiction about an event.


Go with the flow. Indeed. Follow the lemmings off of the cliff.

I already have. You just aren't listening.

Translation:Spit Spit spit.

[ferd burfle]

Additionally, the steel columns would have acted as a giant heat sink. The thermal conductivity of steel is such that even if we are to assume such outrageous air temperatures of 2000F, it would not necessarily cause the steel to weaken enough such that it would no longer bear the load of the structure above.

I call BS. Alek, just what, praytell, is the thermal conductivity of steel? After you scurry off to Google a reference, please be prepared to explain the units and how that fits into your calculations that show the steel sinking away buttloads of heat, necessitating the use of explosives.
Careful now, I work for a company that designs and manufactures heatsinks and cooling products for everything from ICs to locomotives. I'll have the gang here, including guys with Ph.Ds in thermal analysis, review your work. And I'll even give you a little hint---absolutely none of our products uses any form of steel for heat conduction.

What's that noise? Why, it sounds like, like, like....more crickets.

Ferd

[ferd burfle]

You mean like this?

http://www.explosive911analysis.com/D5.jpg

Note the smoking beams in the lower left. Must be kerosene.



Alek, dude, you are good! When I did material analysis and contamination identification, I had to use all sorts of expensive equipment. I'd start with polarized light microscopy and sometimes that was enough to identify the material by size, morphology and behavior under polarized light. But I usually had to use either Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy or a scanning electron microscope equipped with energy-dispersive X-ray analysis to get a confirmation.

But you're able to tell me what the material trailing the ends of the steel in this photo is not (and presumably is) simply by looking at it! You don't need a sample or even to see it directly, you can just look at a photo!

When my former bosses hear about your abilities they are going to be really, really pissed that I misled them into spending so much money on training and instruments when they could have hired you to just glance at some photos.

Ferd

[kookbreaker]

I call BS. Alek, just what, praytell, is the thermal conductivity of steel? After you scurry off to Google a reference, please be prepared to explain the units and how that fits into your calculations that show the steel sinking away buttloads of heat, necessitating the use of explosives.
Careful now, I work for a company that designs and manufactures heatsinks and cooling products for everything from ICs to locomotives. I'll have the gang here, including guys with Ph.Ds in thermal analysis, review your work. And I'll even give you a little hint---absolutely none of our products uses any form of steel for heat conduction.

What's that noise? Why, it sounds like, like, like....more crickets.

Ferd

Once again, Alek makes an off the cuff comment that brings up the question: Why do firemen fight fires in skyscrapers?

According to Alek, they are invulnerable to fire. The only thing firemen would need to do is keep the other buildings from catching and save anyone inside. After that, let it burn and keep people away. You aren't going to save the office materials, since they will be water damaged anyway.

I mean, sure, go in and spray down a little flame in the wastebasket. But once the fire is burning in more than a couple of offices, why risk firemen's lives to save an invincible building?

Golly. Perhaps Alek, the SOOOPER FIREFIGHTING GEEENIUS, can start to lecture firemen around the world about how buildings are invincible and cannot be brought down with fire.

[kookbreaker]

When my former bosses hear about your abilities they are going to be really, really pissed that I misled them into spending so much money on training and instruments when they could have hired you to just glance at some photos.

Ferd

Ah, so now its also: Alek, SOOOPER MATERIAL ENGINEER GEEEENIUS!!

He is quite the Rennaissance man, isn't he?

[Hellbound]

I would have them do a forensic investigation, as if it were the biggest crime scene on earth. Or, is Bush and the FBI's word that Osama Bin Laden did it enough to simply call off an investigation?

So, because their intent wasn't specifically to find a criminal, but simply to find whatever caused the failure, the science they did is invalid?

I'm not the lapdog being spoon fed lies here. If I let other people do my thinking for me, then I would be like you.

Considering the quality of your thinking so far displayed, it might be a good idea for you to sub-contract it out.

How many jets hit the World Trade Center 7 building?

About 0.2, rough estimate. And probably 0.01 of a building when WTC 1 & 2 collapsed.

Already been done, read the fire analysis I linked earlier. The jet-fuel weakening steel theory is bunk.

Good thing the jet fuel was not a requirment, just fire from any and all sources, contained within a structure, were temperatures would rise. You do understand the difference between temperature and heat, don't you?

Yeah. Thanks for the sage advice. Maybe if I "think" some more, I'll be as enlightened as you are. I can only hope.

No, I don't think you can. I'd try learning how to use a spatula well, if I were you. Or a shovel. Pitchfork, maybe, if anyone will allow you near sharp objects.

Go with the flow. Indeed. Follow the lemmings off of the cliff.

You do know that lemmings don't run off cliffs, right?

I already have. You just aren't listening.
Oh, we are listening. Which is precisely why we don't agree with you. I'd suggest you listen to yourself.

[RayG]

As any reader of detective novels knows, the three cardinal elements of identifying a suspect in a criminal investigation are establishing means, opportunity and motive. The only reason I can surmise for your being unwilling to discuss motive is because you can't come up with a plausible motive which fits your predetermined conclusion.

Haven't you been following events since 9/11? Hello? Bush needed a way to increase the budget and save face with his daddy. What better way than going to war? To declare war however, means he needed a fullproof plan. After consulting with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE),
the state of New York,
the New York City Department of Design and Construction,
the Structural Engineers Association of New York,
the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations,
the National Fire Protection Association,
the Society of Fire Protection Engineers,
the American Concrete Institute,
the American Institute of Steel Construction,
the Masonry Society,
the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat,
the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
the Federal Advisory Committee,
the NYPD,
the FBI,
the Secret Service,
the CIA,
the New York Port Authority,
the NYFD,
the National Law Enforcement and Security Institute,
United Airlines,
the US Department of Defense,
the US Department of Justice,
the US Department of State,
North American Aerospace Defense Command,
the National Military Command Center,
the Federal Aviation Administration,
the Pentegon,
the Counterterrorism and Security Group,
the US Army’s Communications-Electronics Command,
Otis Air National Guard Base,
Langley Air Force Base,
Andrews Air Force Base,
Offutt Air Force Base,
the Air National Guard,
three E-4B National Airborne Operations Center planes,
the New York flight control center,
the Air Traffic Control System Command Center in Washington,
the La Guardia Airport control tower,
the New York Times,
the Boston Globe,
the Wall Street Journal,
the Washington Post,
Newsday,
United Press International,
Associated Press,
CNN,
ABC,
NBC,
CBS,
and Emma E. Booker Elementary School he had his diabolical plan. Bush would be innocently reading to elementary students as his co-conspirators put into motion events that would enrage fellow Americans, and spur them on to support a declared war.

The hardest part of 'the plan' was picking the group or country to blame. North Korea? Nah, they have nukes and just might use them. Iceland? No way, this war has to drag on for a few years. Iceland would be blown off the map in a matter of days. Who hates Americans the worst? Canadians. No, no, that wouldn't work, no sense spoiling your neighbor's lawn, you may be moving in to his house. Ok, who else hates Americans? Libya? Yeah baby yeah. Wonderful chance to get back at them for shooting down 189 Americans on Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1988. Well, as appealing as that might be, it paled in comparison to the embarassment caused to daddy Bush by Saddam Hussein. Think about it. President George H. W. Bush (former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency) never got a chance to really flex his military muscle in the first Gulf War. What better way to make sure you're the apple of daddy's eye, than by kicking the snot out of daddy's former tormenter? Do you really think it's a coincidence that Bush senior was the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency? I think not.

What I find most curious about 9/11 is very little, if any, mention of signals intelligence gathering organizations of the Western world (NSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency), CSE, GCHQ, DSD, and GCSB).

General Michael Hayden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_V._Hayden) (NSA director during 9/11 and present deputy director of national intelligence) was surprisingly quiet during and prior to 9/11 events. He wasn't so quiet afterwards (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=1533702) when he defended a controversial NSA eavesdropping program in January 2006.

"Had this program been in effect prior to 9/11, it is my professional judgment that we would have detected some of the 9/11 al Qaeda operatives in the United States, and we would have identified them as such," said Hayden.

Umm, General, maybe if you had spent more time during your tenure as NSA director listening to suspected terrorist conversations/communications instead of your own citizens, you may have caught them without any additional "warrantless eavesdropping program" legislation.

You can go on about the combustion temperature of jet fuel and the tensile strength of steel all day, but if you can't provide a plausible argument why the US government, or certain elements within it, would have orchestrated the events of 9/11, it's all so much hot air.

Now you're claiming it was hot air not hot steel that caused the massive demolition effect? I'd like to see you prove THAT one. :eek:

RayG

[Hellbound]

You know, the motive of making an excuse for war doesn't fit at all, anyway.

Why take such a risk? If evidence of this ever got out (and with a crime this large and comprehensive, that's almost inevitable), it would pretty well polarize the U.S. populace against the current government and end any thought of war. Even if the war went on, those who wanted to benefit would not. The risks are far too high, when there are other methods that could be used for war.

Besides, the primary result of this was war in Afganistan. If Iraq was the actual target, why didn't the government simply go after them first? Iraq was targetted because of Saddam's efforts to gain WMDs (which erroneous intelligence thought he already had). Not because of 9/11. Of course, I have my own thoughts about the Iraq situation, but this is not the forum for them (basically, I think we needed to be there...the idea was good, the execution of it was severely lacking at the higher levels).

The suggested motives are non-sensical, the methods are far too high-risk for the slight reward, and the actual mechanics of an attack of this nature are mind-boggling.

And why in the Ed-driven H3ll would WTC 7 have to be demolished? Although you seem to flop back and forth about whetherWTC 1 & 2 were demolished or just fell, you still insist 7 was demolished. Why? What motive?

Asinine. Absolute, breathtaking illogic.

As I have stated before, the ONLY way this makes sense is if you pre-suppose, before knowing anything about the event, that the government is lying.

[kookbreaker]

And why in the Ed-driven H3ll would WTC 7 have to be demolished? Although you seem to flop back and forth about whetherWTC 1 & 2 were demolished or just fell, you still insist 7 was demolished. Why? What motive?


The arguement, as I understand it, is that the CIA, and other TLA agencies had offices in there where there were plans and stuff that would have given away the secrets. So they blew up the building.

Of course, this is hollywood fantasy. In reality, demolishig a building is a terrible way to destroy evidence inside it. In fact it exposes evidence to being discovered by random clean-up crews. It would be far easier, and in fact far less risky to wait it out, and flash the needed badges and say 'we're going in to get sensitive materials'.

The lowest of the low scumbucket CTers try to hint that Mayor Guilliani was involved by noting that he had a 'bunker' in WTC7 or somesuch. Having seen Guilliani in action I can safely say that whatever you might think of him as a mayor: He truly loved the city of New York. The idea that he would be complicit in an act designed to destroy a important part of his proud city is beyond ludicrous. If Bush had suggested such a idea to the Mayor, I suspect the President's face and nose would have been completely bashed in before the Secrete Service could pull Guilliani off him.

But since when has reality ever intruded into the CT'ers fantasy-land?

[Belz...]

I'm not the lapdog being spoon fed lies here. If I let other people do my thinking for me, then I would be like you.

Again with the insults. You assume that, if someone disagrees with you, obviously, they're lapdogs.

How many jets hit the World Trade Center 7 building?

None. How many 110-floor buildings collapsed near WTC7 ?

Already been done, read the fire analysis I linked earlier. The jet-fuel weakening steel theory is bunk.

Ah, so heat CANNOT weaken steel. Got it.

It's 600C. I've thought about it. Still not convinced.

Then let me ask: What WOULD convince you ?

It doesn't have to be a secret. Hardly anyone is capable of believing it could be true anyway.

:rolleyes:

Go with the flow. Indeed. Follow the lemmings off of the cliff.

Lemmings don't jump off cliffs. That's an urban myth.

As for the WTC 7, I made a specific statement concerning what I know about how it collapsed. The video evidence is overwhelming.

Yes. It fell down. That's about all the video evidence can tell you. How could YOU possibly tell the difference if explosives were used ?

I'm not going to be lied to and led around by "experts", or ignorant, patronizing, so-called skeptics. My own intelligence and intuition have served me well.

Just for an instant, re-read the quote above and imagine someone else is saying it. Can you see how arrogant this sounds ? Never mind the "experts", my armchair analysis is much better.

The NIST has no viable hypothesis for why this building fell. The burden is on the government apologists, like you, to explain why it fell.

They did. You just don't believe them.

Have fun in the camps after the government sponsored biological weapons attack.

Now you're off the deep end, pal.

[fsol]

Heh, "call me insane..."

http://www.bonjour-america.com/

Charlie Sheen and the Conspiracy Theory

He does say f*ck at one point, just incase you are in an office or somewhere similar.

[delphi_ote]

Heh, "call me insane..."

http://www.bonjour-america.com/

Charlie Sheen and the Conspiracy Theory

He does say f*ck at one point, just incase you are in an office or somewhere similar.

:dl: The nose of Alf the alien... :dl:

[chipmunk stew]

delphi,

Here are the conclusive expert analyses that Roxdog keeps referring to:


My interview with Jeff King:

http://www.theeffectivecitizen.com/goat/ftg17_king.mp3 (http://www.theeffectivecitizen.com/goat/ftg17_king.mp3)
(right click, save target as)

http://www.reallynews.com/images/911/wtcstructure080605.jpg
VIDEO PRESENTATION:

QUOTE Engineer Breaks Down WTC Controlled Demolition
Jeff King
14 min 35 sec - Mar 17, 2006

Jeff King goes into detail why the WTC Towers and WTC 7 were brought down by explosives
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=18...ff+King&pl=true (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1822764959599063248&q=Jeff+King&pl=true)


Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
by: Dr. Steven Jones, PHd

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v491/reprehensor/jones%20blog%20entry/0003.jpg

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html (http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html)


QUOTE ABSTRACT

In this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned cutter-charges. I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus impact damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings. And I present evidence for the controlled-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government.


QUOTE Y. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html (http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html)


BYU Physics Professor, Steven E. Jones' 2/1/06 9-11 academic seminar - video download (260megs)
http://madcowpolitics.com/byu.wmv (http://madcowpolitics.com/byu.wmv)

Audio version of the seminar, right click save as:
MP3 of Prof. Jones' Utah 9/11 Seminar - Feb.1, 2006 (63megs)

Jones' 9-11 academic seminar powerpoint presentation (30megs)
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy...resentation.zip (http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/files/Presentation.zip)

Professor Jones' website:
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ (http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/)

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1413&st=147

[RayG]

For example, you keep begging for people to watch the Alex Jones video, yet I highly doubt you've looked into the claims of that video for yourself.


Can't say I've watched the Jones video, but I DID watch the 14 minute video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5403286136814574974&q=shayler&pl=true) of former MI5 employee David Shayler as per the request put forth by Mathias over on Loose Change.

Maybe you find this a more credible man. Ex MI5, gives a very reasonable assessment of the events.

As a great skeptic, you must watch this. Till the end, I might add.

How on earth could you judge a movie by not seeing it completely, in the film world, that's what we call: Unfair Judgement.

Come on. I mean, I can very fairly say now that all skeptics will not like you for dismissing a movie after four minutes, and not even making it to minute five. If you're so keen on logic, this defies ANY form of logic, or fairplay. And hey, remember, not attacking you, we're on the same team.

Watch the link above. I beg of you.

Sorry, but I simply don't find him credible or reasonable. Now I never worked for five years at MI5, nor have I stayed at a Holiday Inn recently, but I did work for nine years in SIGINT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIGINT), where my organization communicated regularly with NSA, CSE, GCHQ, DSD, etc. etc. That didn't make me qualified to speak about the structural integrity of buildings, the effects of fire on buildings, damage caused by crashing aircraft, or departments outside my own. Is Shayler somehow qualified? Someone no longer even employed by the agency (he left in 1997), making non-specific statements about events he's unqualified to speak about, that happened years afterwards, is simply not credible. His 14 minute video was filled with speculation, assumption, conjecture, guesstimates, and wishful-thinking. He didn't present a single piece of viable evidence to support his "traitors within the American government" theory. His conspiracy is no more valid than the far-fetched one I posted earlier, even though he's trying to be serious and I wasn't.

If you listen to him (and believe him), if a plane hit the Pentegon it must have "evaporated" because there's no evidence a plane was the culprit. He suggests instead, that the damage was caused by a missle. Why a missle would leave behind commercial aircraft tire rims in the rubble is not explained. :rolleyes:

It's rather tiresome watching non-experts being trotted out as though they had something valid to contribute.

Now, don't get me started about the dark side of the moon. If you only knew... ;)

RayG

[delphi_ote]

delphi,

Here are the conclusive expert analyses that Roxdog keeps referring to:


http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1413&st=147
If it's the same guy, Stephe E. Jones is awesome! (http://members.iinet.com.au/~sejones/)

[delphi_ote]

If it's the same guy, Stephe E. Jones is awesome! (http://members.iinet.com.au/~sejones/)
Dude! It's even better. This is the cold fusion guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones)!

[delphi_ote]

Dude! It's even better. This is the cold fusion guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones)!
Dang. Not the cold fusion guy I thought it was.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

For anyone that has watched the entire film; do they ever cite their sources for the quotes/docs/etc?

[delphi_ote]

Why indeed did Christ visit American (http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext%20and%20figures.htm)?

[chipmunk stew]

Why indeed did Christ visit American (http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext%20and%20figures.htm)?That would be the guy!

[delphi_ote]

That would be the guy!
I can only hope he applies the same devastating research techniques to structural forensics that he does to anthropology.

[bunker]

Then you don't have any evidence. Please read this report:
911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf (link removed because I can't post urls - bunker)
The analysis doesn't get any better than that.
Hello delphi_ote,

At the risk of sounding foolish, I must admit that I am greatly bothered by the free fall issue. I am so bothered, it has actually kept me up some nights. For the past two months or so, since I found out about this problem, I've been searching for a detailed analysis which might explain the physics behind it. When I saw the paper you referenced and how excited you were about it, I thought, finally, this must be my answer. As I read it, I got the feeling that, yes, this is a truly objective paper, but, unfortunately, I see a major problem with it. I'm totally open to the idea that I'm wrong, and if you can tell me what I'm not seeing, I will forever be in your debt, because until this free fall problem goes away, I'm a nervous wreck.

The problem is this: Page 13, paragraphs 4 and 5, and page 14, paragraph 1Let’s now consider the beginning of the 1st sage of the collapse of each tower. For WTC 1 we will take as an example 14 floors, and for WTC 2, 29 floors impacting the floor below with a maximum velocity of 8.6 m/s. It follows that the kinetic energy on impact was ½ x 14 x (510,000,000/110) x (8.6)^2 joules = 2.4 x 10^9 J for WTC 1, and the K.E. was ½ x 29 x (510,000,000/110) x (8.6)^2 joules = 5.0 x 10^9 J for WTC 2. If we assume 50 % of this energy was available to crush concrete, we have 1.2 x 10^9 J available for WTC 1, and 2.5 x 10^9 J available for WTC 2. This is sufficient to crush the concrete on the impacted floor to 175 um particles.

Consider now the newly formed mass of (14 + 1) floors of WTC 1, and (29 + 1) floors of WTC 2, impacting on the floor below. Because of momentum transfer, the impact velocities are slightly lower than the 8.6 m/s impact speed for the first floors hit: 8.1 m/s for WTC 1, and 8.3 m/s for WTC 2. The maximum kinetic energy prior to impact is ½ x 15 x (510,000,000/110) x (8.1)^2 joules = 2.3 x 10^9 J for WTC 1, and ½ x 30 x (510,000,000/110) x (8.3)^2 joules = 4.8 x 10^9 J for WTC 2. This is essentially the same result as the previous impact calculation and the kinetic energy released is therefore also sufficient to crush the concrete on the impacted floor to 175 um particles.

However, if we continue this method of calculation to the 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc, impacts on successively lower floors the kinetic energy increases substantially. For example, for the 5th impact of the less energetic WTC 1 collapse, the kinetic energy is about 1 x 10^10 J which is sufficient to crush the concrete on the impacted floor to sub-20 um particles.
The problem I run into is between the last two paragraphs. That is, I think there is something missing between them. In the first one quoted, he calculates the total kinetic energy available for each initial impact: 2.4 and 5 Gigajoules for towers 1 and 2, respectively. In the second, he calculates the total KE for the second impacts. He states that the impact velocity for each falling mass has now decreased. The falling mass decelerates upon impact, exactly as one would expect. He calculates the total KE, and it is now less than the first impact. We can surmise that this means that the increase in mass, 14 floors + 1, is not sufficient to cause the available KE to rise after impact. The decrease in velocity is too much to make up for.

My question is how then can he make what I would consider a leap in the next paragraph: "However, if we continue this method of calculation to the 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc, impacts on successively lower floors the kinetic energy increases substantially." He states that for the 5th impact of WTC1, 14 + 4, the total KE is now 10 Gigajoules. If we plug this value into the formula, we get a value for impact velocity of 15.5 m/s, or nearly double the second impact. (Please check my math for that value.) Why would he choose not to show the calculations that get us here?

8.6 --> 8.1 --> X --> Y --> 15.5?

Help. :confused: :(

[The_Fire]

ETA: Sorry ignore.....misunderstood previous post....

[kookbreaker]

Dang. Not the cold fusion guy I thought it was.

Oh, he was deep into that nonsense. Perhaps not as bad as Pons & Fleischmann, but he was well into it.

Now of course he's been telling his followers that he was one of the first to debunk P&F. Yeah, rigght.

[Manny]

Why indeed did Christ visit American (http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext%20and%20figures.htm)?You don't wanna go there. A lot of people believe that Christ visited America and other religious things, and it would be a mistake to conflate the two disagreements. Keep to the science, and let the religionists keep to the religion. You certainly wouldn't want the other side to start discrediting structural engineers simply because they also believe, for example, that they consume the literal body and blood of Christ every Sunday.

[Graham S1]

"a LOT slower" = anything from 7 seconds, to it not collapsing at all and any combination inbetween, such as partial structural collapses.

Green chillie, red chillie.... meh. Ever tried scotch bonnets? :jaw-dropp

senorpogo... if that was directed at me I did actually mention libraries in my post. :p

[delphi_ote]

Hello delphi_ote,

At the risk of sounding foolish, I must admit that I am greatly bothered by the free fall issue. I am so bothered, it has actually kept me up some nights. For the past two months or so, since I found out about this problem, I've been searching for a detailed analysis which might explain the physics behind it. When I saw the paper you referenced and how excited you were about it, I thought, finally, this must be my answer. As I read it, I got the feeling that, yes, this is a truly objective paper, but, unfortunately, I see a major problem with it. I'm totally open to the idea that I'm wrong, and if you can tell me what I'm not seeing, I will forever be in your debt, because until this free fall problem goes away, I'm a nervous wreck.

The problem is this: Page 13, paragraphs 4 and 5, and page 14, paragraph 1
The problem I run into is between the last two paragraphs. That is, I think there is something missing between them. In the first one quoted, he calculates the total kinetic energy available for each initial impact: 2.4 and 5 Gigajoules for towers 1 and 2, respectively. In the second, he calculates the total KE for the second impacts. He states that the impact velocity for each falling mass has now decreased. The falling mass decelerates upon impact, exactly as one would expect. He calculates the total KE, and it is now less than the first impact. We can surmise that this means that the increase in mass, 14 floors + 1, is not sufficient to cause the available KE to rise after impact. The decrease in velocity is too much to make up for.

My question is how then can he make what I would consider a leap in the next paragraph: "However, if we continue this method of calculation to the 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc, impacts on successively lower floors the kinetic energy increases substantially." He states that for the 5th impact of WTC1, 14 + 4, the total KE is now 10 Gigajoules. If we plug this value into the formula, we get a value for impact velocity of 15.5 m/s, or nearly double the second impact. (Please check my math for that value.) Why would he choose not to show the calculations that get us here?

8.6 --> 8.1 --> X --> Y --> 15.5?

Help. :confused: :(
Remember that gravity is still accelerating the mass as it falls between floors. That seems to be the missing fact in there. I have to go to class right now, but we can work out the exact math for this later if you're still nervous. I'd be more than happy to help.

[Belz...]

"a LOT slower" = anything from 7 seconds, to it not collapsing at all and any combination inbetween, such as partial structural collapses.

I still don't understand WHY people think the buildings should've collapsed slowed, or why explosives would make any difference.

[rwguinn]

"a LOT slower" = anything from 7 seconds, to it not collapsing at all and any combination inbetween, such as partial structural collapses.

Green chillie, red chillie.... meh. Ever tried scotch bonnets? :jaw-dropp

senorpogo... if that was directed at me I did actually mention libraries in my post. :p
Now we know why these guys are so adamant! They are part of the Government coverup!
Eating Scotch Bonnets without a tinfoil hat on is dangerous. The SB's lower your natural resistance to the governments mind-control rays.
Hatch Green Chilis are raised in New Mexico, 75 miles downwind from the first Nuclear bomb test site, and a short distance from White Sands Missile range, 201 miles down-river from Los Alamos Labs.m The modified soil from all the tests causes interference with the mind-controlrays, making you impervious

[Hagrok]

The modified soil from all the tests causes interference with the mind-controlrays, making you impervious
Must be why everyone here is so damned stubborn.

[Thanz]

I haven't read all 18 pages, so forgive me if this has been asked and answered.

Why all the focus on WTC7? If you expect me to believe that it was a gov't conspiracy, I'm going to need a reason why the gov't would destroy WTC7 hours after the twin towers fell. What is the point? I would imagine that most, if not all, of the public would feel just as horrified at the events of 9/11 if WTC7 was still standing. If forced to give a thumbnail summary of what happened that day, would anyone even include it?

No, I think it far more likely that if fell because of what happened to the twin towers next door.

[ranson]

Thanz, you're making sense. That goes against the whole spirit of this thread.

[bunker]

Remember that gravity is still accelerating the mass as it falls between floors. That seems to be the missing fact in there. I have to go to class right now, but we can work out the exact math for this later if you're still nervous. I'd be more than happy to help.
Because of momentum transfer, the impact velocities are slightly lower than the 8.6 m/s impact speed for the first floors hit: 8.1 m/s for WTC 1, and 8.3 m/s for WTC 2. (Original italics)

Is this a mistake on Dr. Greening's part? The concept of momentum transfer indicates that the mass is giving up kinetic energy in order to cause the stationary floor to collapse. In this paper, Dr. Greening cites a figure of 629 MJ to cause a single floor to collapse, although he uses a figure of 1 GJ in his calculations to be safe, I assume.

2.4 GJ of KE is available for the first impact of WTC1. That seems clear. Using the lower figure of 629 MJ to cause the first collapse, it seems there is plenty of energy to get the job done. The energy absorbed by the impact is 26.2% of available KE. However, according to Newton's Third Law of Motion, it seems undeniable that the available KE is being applied to both the impacted and the impacting floors. If one floor is absorbing this energy, the other floor must do the same, so that brings us to 1.258 GJ being absorbed, or 52.4% of available KE.

Yes, I am still nervous. :boggled:

[bob_kark]

Just wondering if any CTers had read these:

The Towers Lost and Beyond, Civil Engineering Department, MIT (http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/)

When the Twin Towers Fell. SCIAM article, similar to first, a bit more brief (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000B7FEB-A88C-1C75-9B81809EC588EF21&sc=I100322)

Collapse of WTC Towers by G. Charles Clifton, Structual Engineer (http://www.caddigest.com/subjects/wtc/select/clifton/p1.htm)

The Collapse, an Engineer's Perspective. Nova Online. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html)

Nova also created this site showing why the towers fell after following a team of Forensic Engineers. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/)

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html)

[chipmunk stew]

I haven't read all 18 pages, so forgive me if this has been asked and answered.

Why all the focus on WTC7? If you expect me to believe that it was a gov't conspiracy, I'm going to need a reason why the gov't would destroy WTC7 hours after the twin towers fell. What is the point? I would imagine that most, if not all, of the public would feel just as horrified at the events of 9/11 if WTC7 was still standing. If forced to give a thumbnail summary of what happened that day, would anyone even include it?

No, I think it far more likely that if fell because of what happened to the twin towers next door.Having hashed a lot of this out on the Loose Change forum recently, I can tell you there are different angles of speculation about the motive for 7: a) hiding evidence, b) insurance money, c) audacity. a & b are the main ones I've heard. c I really only heard once (I think Alek suggested it).

But they'll admit that they're just speculating about the true motive. The point is, they'll continue, for reasons x, y, and z it must have been a controlled demolition, and therefore they demand a criminal investigation.

There's so much focus on it because: a) the official accounts of what happened to it are inconsistent and inconclusive, b) in the videos it looks a whole lot like controlled demolition, c) the fire and damage visible in the pictures and footage doesn't look like enough to take it down (even though I've never seen a shot of the south side, where the extensive damage is supposed to have been), d) WTC 6, which is closer to where the North tower stood, sustained significant damage and yet remained standing. The slightly less credulous stopped using argument d after I pointed out the fact that 6 is 1/4 the height of 7 and has a larger footprint, giving it a much more stable height/width ratio, and the fact that 6 wasn't burning.

Essentially, there's so much focus on 7 because it's the one event from that day that has the most convincing imagery and the most legitimate mystery.

[bob_kark]

My evidence is the speed at which it fell. If there were no explosives/accelerators, it would have been a LOT slower.

Yours?

From The Nova interview I posted a link for earlier. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html)

NOVA: I've read that the collapse was a near free-fall.

Eagar: Yes. That's because the forces, it's been estimated, were anywhere from 10 to 100 times greater than an individual floor could support. First of all, you had 10 or 20 floors above that came crashing down. That's about 10 or 20 times the weight you'd ever expect on one angle clip. There's also the impact force, that is, if something hits very hard, there's a bigger force than if you lower it down very gently.

[The_Fire]

<from a non-explosives/free fall expert>
Besides: wouldn't explosives etc. be placed ONTOP of the falling rubble and detonated from an ABOVE position in order to accelerate the falling rubble according to that theory?

That would mean visible evidence in the shape of the flash of small, continious explosions as the rubble falls and yet there are no evidence of that.

[Thanz]

Having hashed a lot of this out on the Loose Change forum recently, I can tell you there are different angles of speculation about the motive for 7: a) hiding evidence, b) insurance money, c) audacity. a & b are the main ones I've heard. c I really only heard once (I think Alek suggested it).

But they'll admit that they're just speculating about the true motive. The point is, they'll continue, for reasons x, y, and z it must have been a controlled demolition, and therefore they demand a criminal investigation.
None of those reasons actually holds any water. The explosives that they say must have been used would have to have been set up well in advance. What is the motive for doing that? Wouldn't motive be a necessary element here?

There's so much focus on it because: a) the official accounts of what happened to it are inconsistent and inconclusive, b) in the videos it looks a whole lot like controlled demolition, c) the fire and damage visible in the pictures and footage doesn't look like enough to take it down (even though I've never seen a shot of the south side, where the extensive damage is supposed to have been), d) WTC 6, which is closer to where the North tower stood, sustained significant damage and yet remained standing. The slightly less credulous stopped using argument d after I pointed out the fact that 6 is 1/4 the height of 7 and has a larger footprint, giving it a much more stable height/width ratio, and the fact that 6 wasn't burning.

Essentially, there's so much focus on 7 because it's the one event from that day that has the most convincing imagery and the most legitimate mystery.
That makes sense. It also distracts from the main issue of the two towers. I think it is an attempt to make the whole theory sound more credible by pointing to and emphasizing the one building that didn't get hit by a plane. Otherwise, they'd be left with only the two towers and trying to explain why they should have stayed standing despite being hit with, in essence, a massive bomb.

Over at the other forum, is mentioning "Occam's Razor" a bannable offence?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Because of momentum transfer, the impact velocities are slightly lower than the 8.6 m/s impact speed for the first floors hit: 8.1 m/s for WTC 1, and 8.3 m/s for WTC 2. (Original italics)

Is this a mistake on Dr. Greening's part? The concept of momentum transfer indicates that the mass is giving up kinetic energy in order to cause the stationary floor to collapse. In this paper, Dr. Greening cites a figure of 629 MJ to cause a single floor to collapse, although he uses a figure of 1 GJ in his calculations to be safe, I assume.

2.4 GJ of KE is available for the first impact of WTC1. That seems clear. Using the lower figure of 629 MJ to cause the first collapse, it seems there is plenty of energy to get the job done. The energy absorbed by the impact is 26.2% of available KE. However, according to Newton's Third Law of Motion, it seems undeniable that the available KE is being applied to both the impacted and the impacting floors. If one floor is absorbing this energy, the other floor must do the same, so that brings us to 1.258 GJ being absorbed, or 52.4% of available KE.

Yes, I am still nervous. :boggled:

IANAP(1), but I believe it is not only the downward force being applied to the lower floor that contributed to its collapse, but also the total weight of the floors above it. So, even if the force of the impact would not cause loss of integrity, the sheer weight of the matter would.



(1) I Am Not A Physicist

[Hellbound]

<from a non-explosives/free fall expert>
Besides: wouldn't explosives etc. be placed ONTOP of the falling rubble and detonated from an ABOVE position in order to accelerate the falling rubble according to that theory?

That would mean visible evidence in the shape of the flash of small, continious explosions as the rubble falls and yet there are no evidence of that.

I made that point earlier. You'd also have to time explosions precisely to achieve the effect.

In short, if you wanted it to fall faster than freefall, it wouldn't be something that happened by accident. You would have to specifically plan for this, and set the charges accordingly.

That is something I'd like to hear a motive for.

Btw, I'm not a demolitions expert either, but I do have experience with it. I was military-trained in non-electric blasting, improvised munitions, and some instruction on demolitions (mostly for breeching walls, cutting columns, downing bridges, and similar work). Actually, I still have a copy of the military's "Engineer's Bible", that details some of the calculations for various breeches and charges.

[rwguinn]

IANAP(1), but I believe it is not only the downward force being applied to the lower floor that contributed to its collapse, but also the total weight of the floors above it. So, even if the force of the impact would not cause loss of integrity, the sheer weight of the matter would.



(1) I Am Not A Physicist
not quite--The mass of the floors above the collapsing floor has always been there. When the collapsing floor is overloaded, it falls on to the next floor, along with the stuff above it. The mass supported from below hasn't changed- the force required is still F=Mg, but that force has been increased by the energy of the falling stuff impacting. the fact that it likely falls on a portion of the structure not designed to actually resist that load we will ignore for now!:) )
The ability of the lower structure to slow the rate of fall is a function of its force capability--remember F=MA? so if the force is very large, the capability of the structure to slow it down to less than free-fall speed becomes smaller and smaller as more floors collapse, to the point wher the load-carrying capability of the remaining structure issome infinitestimal portion of the loads imparted on it.
This is true:) -even though those lower floors had not been affected by the strength-reducing temperatures.

[bunker]

IANAP(1), but I believe it is not only the downward force being applied to the lower floor that contributed to its collapse, but also the total weight of the floors above it. So, even if the force of the impact would not cause loss of integrity, the sheer weight of the matter would.
The weight is what is being used to calculate the total available kinetic energy.

(1) I Am Not A Physicist
Good! Neither am I. :)

[DavidJames]

None of those reasons actually holds any water. The explosives that they say must have been used would have to have been set up well in advance. What is the motive for doing that? Wouldn't motive be a necessary element here?


That makes sense. It also distracts from the main issue of the two towers. I think it is an attempt to make the whole theory sound more credible by pointing to and emphasizing the one building that didn't get hit by a plane. Otherwise, they'd be left with only the two towers and trying to explain why they should have stayed standing despite being hit with, in essence, a massive bomb.

Over at the other forum, is mentioning "Occam's Razor" a bannable offence?I haven't seen much explanation regarding their theories. They seem to be pretty much like creationists/IDers. They seem to feel finding a flaw in the "official" theory proves their theory. They don't seem to apply the same requirements for rigorous proofs to their own ideas as they do to others.

[chipmunk stew]

Over at the other forum, is mentioning "Occam's Razor" a bannable offence?No, but they'll just flip it and tell you that Occam's Razor is on their side. :con2:

[chillzero]

OK. I don't really buy any of these weird conspiracy theories, but I thought I would watch a program that just started here on UK tv 15 mins ago - it's part of a series called 'Conspiracies..'. I wanted to watch the faces of the theorists as they made the claims, I guess.

First annoying thing is that the narrator keeps calling the theorists 'skeptics'. He keeps saying that the skeptics just would not stop asking questions, and uncovering facts... leading to stranger and stranger theories. :(

A few points have been made that I haven't previously seen:

The plane that crashed in Pennsylvania had a crash site of over 8 miles, which has never happened before with any other plane crash - ever. Apparently an engine was found 8 miles away from the main site, and a wing part (I think that was what he said) was found 4 miles away. Does anyone know if this is true?

President Bush did not react appropriately when told of the situation. To many he looks llike he is in shock, but the fact that he sits on for a further 7 minutes while the children's book is read apparently indicates that he is callous, and has just had his brain pushed into overload at the realisation of the whole plan. Yeah. He looked to me like he was in shock, and considering the best way to extract himself from the classroom. I do feel, however, that his advisors should have called him out from the room to discuss the events with him in private.

What makes me more upset about this, is that the news did an article this evening about the rescue workers from that day in New York. Most of them now suffer from breathing problems and illnesses caused by all the dust and things they breathed and swallowed while they worked. They made some points about what the dust was comprised of, that was really horrible to think about. But the worst thing was the clip they showed of Bush. He stood there a few days later and told them that he heard them all. That they would always be loved and remembered for their efforts, and would never be forgotten. NEVER be forgotten. The fact that these peoples' illnesses were not diagnosed until after a certain tight timeframe, means they are not entitled to any insurance coverage, and their drugs are costing them huge amounts of money. Most can't work any longer - it's called WTC cough - and many are already dead. Bush has not even discussed the issue with any of those trying to get help, and is doing nothing about obtaining free healthcare for them.

This is disgusting. Why can't the energy and efforts of these theorists be directed toward some good - like fighting to help the rescue workers? Why not do some good with all those noise raising skills they have? Why not combine their numbers to put pressure on the government for appropriate treatment of the 9/11 heroes? Why not try to create something good, from all the mess that this whole situation has created - whichever theory you believe in?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Well, I was trying to find documentation on the debris field, but I can't filter through all the CT websites to find neutral information on the subject.

[Gravy]

OK. I don't really buy any of these weird conspiracy theories, but ... A few points have been made that I haven't previously seen:

The plane that crashed in Pennsylvania had a crash site of over 8 miles, which has never happened before with any other plane crash - ever. Apparently an engine was found 8 miles away from the main site, and a wing part (I think that was what he said) was found 4 miles away. Does anyone know if this is true?

Nah. One engine tumbled downhill 300 yards after the impact, that's it. The 8-mile figure is only off by 4700%.

[CurtC]

So for all those people who say that the WTC7 collapse was obviously an intentional demolition, I have an observation/question.

When buildings are intentionally demolished, they use just enough explosives to take out some key supports, and let the building's weight do the rest. A building wants to fall straight down, because that's the way gravity is pulling. Once it loses its structural integrity, it collapses straight down. The demo teams attempt to do it so that the middle falls first, that way the outer walls are pulled inwards a little, and fall inside the building's footprint.

But you can see when the small blasts occur, they're strategically located - they don't obliterate the whole structure, they take out just enough at key points to make sure that it falls. Then gravity simply pulls the building down on top of itself.

If a tall building for any reason fails from the lower center portion, I don't see any reason that it would look any different from a controlled demolition. So I would like to ask an inside-jobber: what would you expect that a tall building would look when it falls due to structural failure? Wouldn't it look pretty much like an intentional demolition, especially if its first failure point were low and in the middle?

[CurtC]

Nah. One engine tumbled downhill 300 yards after the impact, that's it. The 8-mile figure is only off by 4700%.I read recently that there were some papers found about a mile and a half away, in a lake that was downwind of the crash site. That's the farthest I've heard, and it's not surprising.

[bunker]

Because of momentum transfer, the impact velocities are slightly lower than the 8.6 m/s impact speed for the first floors hit: 8.1 m/s for WTC 1, and 8.3 m/s for WTC 2. (Original italics)

Is this a mistake on Dr. Greening's part? The concept of momentum transfer indicates that the mass is giving up kinetic energy in order to cause the stationary floor to collapse. In this paper, Dr. Greening cites a figure of 629 MJ to cause a single floor to collapse, although he uses a figure of 1 GJ in his calculations to be safe, I assume.

2.4 GJ of KE is available for the first impact of WTC1. That seems clear. Using the lower figure of 629 MJ to cause the first collapse, it seems there is plenty of energy to get the job done. The energy absorbed by the impact is 26.2% of available KE. However, according to Newton's Third Law of Motion, it seems undeniable that the available KE is being applied to both the impacted and the impacting floors. If one floor is absorbing this energy, the other floor must do the same, so that brings us to 1.258 GJ being absorbed, or 52.4% of available KE.

Yes, I am still nervous. :boggled:

I apologize for the shameless self-quotation, but I need to continue this thought. The figure of 629 MJ does not include the energy necessary to crush the concrete to any given particulate size. In Appendix 2, Dr. Greening calculates the energy required to crush all 48,000,000 kg of concrete in one tower to 60 um would be 3.2 x 10^11 J. Divide that by 110, the number of floors, and we get 2.9 GJ. Of course the size of the resulting particles is inversely proportional to the energy input, so he is certainly consistent when he says on page 13 that we have 1.2 GJ available to crush the concrete of one floor of WTC1 to 175 um particles.

The problem I see is that we cannot possibly be talking about crushing only one floor with the calculated 2.4 GJ of available energy. Everyone knows "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction", so when these two floors of the same building meet and start "reacting", they will react in similar ways, much like two similar cars colliding head on. That is, they will crush each other. But the energy required to do this remains the same for each floor, and I don't see much, if any, energy leftover to continue this collapse after we take the concrete into account.

This paper becomes even more confounding when on page 17, Dr. Greening states:

"It is finally worth noting that because E1(energy required to collapse one floor) is a small fraction of the available kinetic energy, the WTC collapse times would not substantially increase even if we allow for the simultaneous crushing of two floors – the floor impacted by the falling mass and the floor just above the lowest floor of the falling mass."

Small fraction? Even completely discounting the energy absorbed by the second floor and the energy to crush the concrete of the first and second floor, we end up with 26.2% of the available 2.4 GJ of KE being absorbed. Add in the absorption of the impacting floor, and we get 52.4%. Add to that the concrete of just one floor, and I'm not sure we have enough energy to continue this collapse at all, much less accelerate it all the way to the ground. :jaw-dropp

[hellaeon]

So the ...
...were all cooperating in a widespread conspiracy to conduct a controlled demolition, thereby reducing the WTC to a pile of rubble, provide misinformation to the American public, and divert attention from the REAL culprits -- the government?

RayG


hahahahaha put that way it sounds even more ridiculous.

[hellaeon]

I'm the 666th reply to the original thread.... Just more fuel for the conspiracy fire.

god damn it, that should have been me

[Manny]

If a tall building for any reason fails from the lower center portion, I don't see any reason that it would look any different from a controlled demolition. So I would like to ask an inside-jobber: what would you expect that a tall building would look when it falls due to structural failure? Wouldn't it look pretty much like an intentional demolition, especially if its first failure point were low and in the middle?I'm no inside jobber, of course, but I'll give this one a crack and see what the real engineering types have to say about it. I think the CTers are erroneously assuming that all steel-column buildings are created equal.

A typical steel-column building is peppered throughout with structural colums. In the building I'm sitting in, they're about 20 feet apart one way, 40 feet apart the other. Each of these columns bears some load. Now weaken a big swath of them with fire. The load those columns were bearing now is transferred to the neighbors. If there's enough load transfer, those columns in turn would collapse, sending the load further out, etc.

Yes, the direction the building would fall is "down." But I imagine it wouldn't be all at once, and I certainly don't imagine that it would be symmetrical. If I were to take out a bunch of columns in the north-center of the building, say half way up, I'd expect the building to kind of fall into that -- the upper floors push down on the damaged columns AND the undamaged ones neighboring first, then gradually pulling the building in that direction. It wouldn't slump very far -- no "toppling over" or anything like that, but I imagine that it would look different from a controlled demolition where all the columns are taken out at once. Additionally, with shearing and the wider initial distribution of load, I suspect there would be a lesser potential of a full collapse -- the north face of the building might fall, leaving the rest of the building unstable but still standing, at least for a bit. Or the remaining columns might hold up the whole building, leaving damaged steel where it was weakened but an intact structure.

7 World Trade (and 1 and 2, for that matter, but let's leave them out for now because they got hit by planes) was different. It didn't have spaced out columns like in traditional steel structures. All the "columns" were in the very center of the building. Here, I would expect that a catastrophic failure would look a lot like a controlled demolition. Why? Because wherever the failure occurred, it would have to be near the center of the building, and the columns' neighbors (the next ones to fail) would also be at the center, and so on until the last column failed. So the only direction for the building to be pulled is "in," not "toward the north" or whatever. And the only way for the building to fail is for all of it to fail -- no partial collapses unless the failure were very high in the structure.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I apologize for the shameless self-quotation, but I need to continue this thought. The figure of 629 MJ does not include the energy necessary to crush the concrete to any given particulate size. In
<snip for brevity>
concrete of just one floor, and I'm not sure we have enough energy to continue this collapse at all, much less accelerate it all the way to the ground. :jaw-dropp

If I am reading your interpretation correctly, you are saying that there would be insufficient energy left over, after floor x and x-1's concrete had been crushed to allow for floor x-1 to collapse. This would be incorrect, as there is nothing preventing floor x-1 to collapse prior to the complete crushing of the concrete. All is needed is for there to be sufficient force to cause x-1 to lose structural integrity. The concrete from floor x and x-1 can finish being crushed any time between floor x-1 and ground level.

ETA: It, I believe, is also needed to take in to account the energy input into the structure from the impact of the aircraft themselves and the effect of that on load bearing structure.

[delphi_ote]

You don't wanna go there. A lot of people believe that Christ visited America and other religious things, and it would be a mistake to conflate the two disagreements. Keep to the science, and let the religionists keep to the religion. You certainly wouldn't want the other side to start discrediting structural engineers simply because they also believe, for example, that they consume the literal body and blood of Christ every Sunday.
Even if they're "researching" it and posting his research to his university website? And teaching a course in the subject?

http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/fossils.htm
http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/neardeath.491.htm
http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/taitpaper.r491.htm
http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/TheCreationSalisbury.htm

I think I do want to go there. The man does not understand what "science" and "evidence" mean. He's also speaking from the lecture podium and using his title as a physics professor to bolster data mining. From what I've read so far of his 9/11 research, this seems to be a trend:
An intriguing photograph (below right) taken by Rob Miller, photojournalist with the New York Post, provides additional photographic evidence (Swanson, 2003) for the use of thermite or a sulfur-containing derivative such as thermate. We see debris and dust as WTC 1 collapses, with WTC 7 seen in the foreground, across the street from WTC 1. The photograph on the left shows, for comparison, the thermite reaction with a grayish-white aluminum-oxide dust plume extending upwards from the white-hot molten iron "blob" from the reaction
He has abused his credentials and is not to be taken seriously.

[Regnad Kcin]

...Go with the flow. Indeed. Follow the lemmings off of the cliff.Even though I have the gent on Ignore, others will quote him, giving me fun glimpses into his continued thoughts.

So why quote the above? Because it illustrates the importance of a little thing I like to call proof (http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.htm).

Has "lemmings" entered the vernacular anyway, and thus become immune to a need for a factual basis? Yes. But it's a change that harms and bothers no one (except, maybe, the Lemming Anti-Defamation League). On the other hand, it's important to remain vigilant against those who would cry "Wolf!" at the slightest provocation, thereby diminishing the need when the situation actually warrants the response.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

7 World Trade (and 1 and 2, for that matter, but let's leave them out for now because they got hit by planes) was different. It didn't have spaced out columns like in traditional steel structures. All the "columns" were in the very center of the building. Here, I would expect that a catastrophic failure would look a lot like a controlled demolition. Why? Because wherever the failure occurred, it would have to be near the center of the building, and the columns' neighbors (the next ones to fail) would also be at the center, and so on until the last column failed. So the only direction for the building to be pulled is "in," not "toward the north" or whatever. And the only way for the building to fail is for all of it to fail -- no partial collapses unless the failure were very high in the structure.

Wow, I agree with Manny! I guess nothing is impossible. Of course this isn't the politics section either...

LLH

[senorpogo]

I may have missed it in the multitude of arguments being tossed around, but has it been mentioned that debris ignited diesel fuel lines that ran in the base of WTC 7? Doesn't that explain why it collapsed?

[WildCat]

I may have missed it in the multitude of arguments being tossed around, but has it been mentioned that debris ignited diesel fuel lines that ran in the base of WTC 7? Doesn't that explain why it collapsed?
The LC lunatics aren't impressed by such things, not even the fact that one generator was supplied by an enormous pressurized fuel tank in the basement of WTC 7.

[bunker]

If I am reading your interpretation correctly, you are saying that there would be insufficient energy left over, after floor x and x-1's concrete had been crushed to allow for floor x-1 to collapse. This would be incorrect, as there is nothing preventing floor x-1 to collapse prior to the complete crushing of the concrete. All is needed is for there to be sufficient force to cause x-1 to lose structural integrity. The concrete from floor x and x-1 can finish being crushed any time between floor x-1 and ground level.
Granted, not all the concrete needs to be pulverized right away, but from the video, I think we can agree that at least some it was being pulverized immediately. But, yes, it's hard to say how much from each floor.

I think perhaps my problem is that I'm looking at this event not so much as a collapse, but more like a "vertical collision". In the case of WTC1, we have a 14 story building colliding with a 96 story building. Floors 96 and 97 hit each other ejecting quite a bit of material outward. That material is no longer having any effect on the building, and that's something Dr. Greening leaves out of his calculations. How much material that debris constitutes I am not qualified to estimate, and therefore I can't say what effect this has on available KE, except that it is something negative. It sure looks like a lot of material, but I'm not silly enough to claim my perception as evidence. (That's NOT directed at anyone.)

Using the Dr.'s number of 629 MJ per floor and 2.4 GJ available KE for the first collapse, then adding the pulverization of at least 10% of the concrete of each floor, 290 MJ, we end up with 1.8 GJ consumed in the initial impact. That's at least 75% being taken out of this mass' momentum. These numbers aren't exact of course, but it seems like if they are even in the ballpark, this doesn't look like a slam dunk case for a gravity-only collapse.

I'll give you an example I've been thinking of for a while. Imagine a duplicate of WTC1 (this works for WTC2 also). Imagine both copies of the building are damaged and burning identically. Now imagine we have the ability to pick up the damaged 14 floor portion of each building, completely separating them from the lower sections. We hold these structures in our God-like hands just a few feet off their original resting places. Now, we are about to drop these top sections straight down, but while one is going to drop straight back on to its remaining tower, we move the other one over and out of the way, so that it drops straight to the ground.

Which one will hit the ground first? The answer is obviously the one that drops straight to the ground, but the question is how much faster would you expect it to get there? How many thousands of times more resistance will 96 stories of steel and concrete offer over the resistance of air? I can't answer this as it is beyond my ability, but I will say that this example, along with Dr. Greening's theory, imagines the top section as a giant anvil, which of course it is not. It is just as fragile as the object it's hitting, just as capable of absorbing energy.

That brings me to another problem with this paper. Toward the beginning, Dr. Greening proposes a two-stage collapse scenario, where the top of each building crushes the bottom in the first stage, and then the top crushes itself in the second stage. He says this second stage adds 1 - 2 seconds to the collapse time. I know I keep harping on the 3rd Law of Motion, but, you know, it's the Law, one that you can't fight.

ETA: It, I believe, is also needed to take in to account the energy input into the structure from the impact of the aircraft themselves and the effect of that on load bearing structure.
Dr. Greening addresses that, but I haven't reviewed that section enough to comment.


I'd also like to note, for those who chide anyone questioning the collapse of WTC7, even Dr. Greening at the end of an addendum titled Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf (can't post links yet) writes:

"Finally, let me say that although I have not done any calculations for other WTC structures, the collapse of WTC 7 is a problem! I say this mainly because WTC 7 was not hit by an aircraft; therefore I admit it is very surprising that this high-rise building should have collapsed without being subject to an aircraft impact." (Underline original)

I don't bring this up to be confrontational, just appealing to our senses of civility. :)

[Regnad Kcin]

...Personally, it isn't likely that anyone, whether they're considered to be an "expert", or whether they have a PhD behind their name is going to convince me that the WTC 7 building wasn't a controlled demolition. My own intelligence and intuition are paramount on this matter."Intuition?"

Reminds me of the optical illusion* where, if I remember it correctly, there's a gray square that sure looks gray, seems gray, and pretty much is gray. Except it isn't.

Our senses can be notoriously unreliable.



*Randi once showed this in one of his weekly commentaries.

[delphi_ote]

However, according to Newton's Third Law of Motion, it seems undeniable that the available KE is being applied to both the impacted and the impacting floors. If one floor is absorbing this energy, the other floor must do the same, so that brings us to 1.258 GJ being absorbed, or 52.4% of available KE.

Yes, I am still nervous. :boggled:
You did not read the paper closely enough. The author assumed a totally inelastic collision. This means the two bodies join as one and dissapate a certain amount of energy as heat.
Thus, in the case of one floor collapsing onto the floor below, 50 % of the kinetic energy is dissipated as heat! However, we have shown that as we increase the number of collapsing floors, the fractional loss of kinetic energy, fc, decreases as 1/(1 + N), where N is the number of falling floors.
So then this combined mass accelerates under gravity to transfer its energy to the next floor, and that combined mass to the next floor... and so on and and so on. The energy is not transfered to one entity by another as in an elastic collision. It is disappated as heat during the inelastic collision itself into the structures.

Edited to clarify a bit.

[delphi_ote]

That material is no longer having any effect on the building, and that's something Dr. Greening leaves out of his calculations. How much material that debris constitutes I am not qualified to estimate, and therefore I can't say what effect this has on available KE, except that it is something negative. It sure looks like a lot of material, but I'm not silly enough to claim my perception as evidence. (That's NOT directed at anyone.)
It's a small enough mass to be blown into a large cloud around the structure and float slowly down to the ground. I'd imagine the effect of losing that mass is negligible.

[Regnad Kcin]

Found it! (Re: Post 745 above.*)

http://www-bcs.mit.edu/people/adelson/images/checkershadow-AB.jpg

My memory of the illusion was flawed. Still, my "intuition" tells me they're not the same color. And I'm mistaken there, too.



*Post 745?!

[delphi_ote]

Which one will hit the ground first? The answer is obviously the one that drops straight to the ground, but the question is how much faster would you expect it to get there? How many thousands of times more resistance will 96 stories of steel and concrete offer over the resistance of air? I can't answer this as it is beyond my ability, but I will say that this example, along with Dr. Greening's theory, imagines the top section as a giant anvil, which of course it is not. It is just as fragile as the object it's hitting, just as capable of absorbing energy.
At least part of the "anvil" is assumed to fragile and absorbing energy, because each floor crushed becomes part of the "anvil." Once again, it's an inelastic collision. You could just as well assume half of a floor in the upper structure is crushed and half a floor in the lower structure is crushed. The mass falling is the same, the energy transfered into the structure is the same, and the time to fall is only slightly longer (because his simplified calculations assume that the "anvil" stories collapse at free fall. You could instead calculate how much of them isn't crushed during the fall and then calculate how long it takes that smaller structure to fall at free fall.)

The author does address this in his conclusions section:
The calculated times represent the minimum theoretical times of building collapse. If shorter times are to be physically achieved they must involve an unknown additional source of energy acting in a downward direction. Such a source of energy does not appear to have been involved in the collapse of the twin towers.

[Regnad Kcin]

This one's a favorite. (http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/mot_rotsnake/index.html) What does your "intuition" tell you is happening there?