Split from: Debate! What debate?: For truthseeker10

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I've enjoyed reading the posts here since I 1st arrived yesterday. I am truely enlightened by the discussions here.

One problem most Scientist over analyze almost everything. not saying that toward the dicussions about 9/11. but some of the statements I made here were way over analyzed. Don't forget if you are a Scientist it's ok to over analyze 9/11 because that subject needs it.

But you are not psychologists it's not your job to analyze what you think someone means when they say a certain thing. I said yesterday that I thought the Official Story was BS. That in my mind is stating an opinion. and am just not sure what to think about the controlled demolition thoery. I am undecided on that. Although the videos I've looked at looks suspicious, I'm sure there could be another explanation to what looks like bombs going off.

Maybe curcuit breakers and such I don't know that is why I came here to get other views to help me make up my mind.

Peace
Perhaps you could start by stating why you feel that the Commission Report, et al, are wrong.

[Foolmewunz]

As posted in the Debate! What Debate? thread.

Move It


Truthseeker10,
Arkan Wolfshade spun off a whole thread for you. Why don't you post in it. (First couple of days on the forum, and you've got your very own thread!!!)
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=78677


Frankly, this is a mature discussion and you're asking basic CT 101 questions that we've dealt with hundreds of times, already. There are numerous people who'd be happy to respond, I'm sure, but this thread is kind of a graduate course. __________________

[truthseeker10]

Perhaps you could start by stating why you feel that the Commission Report, et al, are wrong.

If you read my post from yesterday on page 9 330 you will see that i never said that I read the Commission Report I have only begun to read it today

[Foolmewunz]

If you read my post from yesterday on page 9 330 you will see that i never said that I read the Commission Report I have only begun to read it today

Okay, then, state what you feel is "BS" about the official version. Claims like that are based on something... Not just a gut feeling. Is it BS because no planes were really involved, and it was missiles, drones, beam weapons, other? Or was it BS because there really were 19 terrorists with evil intentions who used fully-fueled passenger aircraft as weapons, but you're just not comfortable with some of the government actions before after and during the attacks and subsequent investigations.

Controlled Demolition?
WTC - totally faked to hide evidence?
No plane hit the pentagon?
NORAD Stand-down?
Flight 93 shot down by the USAF?

These are just the top five... there are many other sub-topics. The point is you have to tell us what it is you feel is BS, why it's BS, and we can respond.

(I use the "we" in the editorial sense of the word, as it's midnight here in Hong Kong and I've had a long day, so will be signing off soon.)

[truthseeker10]

I just don't see how it's possible for Commercial Jetliners filled with fuel can take down the towers that fast after so little time burning. To me it would be plausible for them to have gone down if the planes hit maybe the bottom half of each tower closer to the ground but then it would look like a tree was choped down.

[Brainache]

I just don't see how it's possible for Commercial Jetliners filled with fuel can take down the towers that fast after so little time burning. To me it would be plausible for them to have gone down if the planes hit maybe the bottom half of each tower closer to the ground but then it would look like a tree was choped down.

I don't want to sound rude Truthseeker10, but what makes you think that? Do you have much expertise in any relevant field? Structural Engineering? Architecture? Demolition?

I'm not trying to tell you to stop asking questions, just wondering what your assessment of what should have happened is based on.

I'm no sort of expert in any of those fields and that's why I don't try to tell those people how to do their jobs.

Maybe I'm naive, but I also don't think that they are all lying to me about it. All the thousands of them from all over the world.

So keep asking questions, but please be prepared to accept the answers even if they don't fit your preconceived notions.

[DavidJames]

I just don't see how it's possible for Commercial Jetliners filled with fuel can take down the towers that fast after so little time burning. To me it would be plausible for them to have gone down if the planes hit maybe the bottom half of each tower closer to the ground but then it would look like a tree was choped down.I believe in the other thread you said you were curious. Let's put that to the test. If you are truly curious, you would do some research into the engineering analysis behind the building collapses. Have you done that?

[westprog]

I just don't see how it's possible for Commercial Jetliners filled with fuel can take down the towers that fast after so little time burning. To me it would be plausible for them to have gone down if the planes hit maybe the bottom half of each tower closer to the ground but then it would look like a tree was chopped down.

It's very difficult to argue with intuition. To me, while I was surprised when the towers came down, it didn't occur to me for a moment that they were demolished.

But if the towers really shouldn't have fallen down from the impact of aircraft, then it should be obvious to structural engineers and demolition experts around the world. Many thousands of them would have watched the events unfold. There are a number of possible explanations-


Every structural engineer in the world is mistaken*.
Every structural engineer in the world has been coerced and/or bribed. Even those living in China or Iran.**
The most famous building collapses in world history was largely ignored by engineers, who were watching Kojak reruns on another channel.
Uneducated intuitive opinion has turned out to be wrong, for once.Have I missed out any options there? Think them over.

*I note the exception of Jowenko, who thinks that WTC7 was demolished.

**But he doesn't think WTC1 or 2 were demolished. Since he's spoken out about 7, he's clearly not been intimidated or bribed. So how come he thinks "Commercial Jetliners filled with fuel can take down the towers that fast"?

[R.Mackey]

I just don't see how it's possible for Commercial Jetliners filled with fuel can take down the towers that fast after so little time burning. To me it would be plausible for them to have gone down if the planes hit maybe the bottom half of each tower closer to the ground but then it would look like a tree was choped down.
The taller a building is, the less likely it is to "topple." That height means a much, much higher moment of inertia.

The WTC towers were among the tallest buildings in the world.

You really need to learn much more before declaring the official story is "BS." Questioning is good, asserting without basis is not.

[The Almond]

I just don't see how it's possible for Commercial Jetliners filled with fuel can take down the towers that fast after so little time burning.

I frankly didn't see that either, but then I read the NCSTAR. NIST shows in exhaustive detail how they determined the cause of the collapse, how they modeled the fires, how they accounted for visual and auditory evidence, how they used scale representations to determine the baseline performance of the buildings, and so on.

So an airplane strikes the first tower. It does massive structural damage, sends shrapnel throughout the building and ignites fires which are sustained by office fires for more than an hour. Do we agree on that?

If so, then the next question to answer is how hot the fires got and what type of damage that did to the steel. Contrary to popular belief, steel does not have to melt to significantly weaken itself. So how do we determine how hot the fires were? Well, NIST has spent years developing software that stochastically determines the temperature of a fire based on oxygen supply and available combustibles. They have published their simulations on the web and submitted their calculations to peer review in the fire engineering community.

Now that we know to a reasonable degree of accuracy how hot the fires were, we can determine its effect on the structural steel of the building. So how do we know how the steel was damaged and what happened to it? Well, NIST acquired hundreds of pieces of steel that were of interest to their study, particularly those involved in the impact floors. How do they know it came from the impact floors? Well, it turns out that all of the steel had unique identifiers, most of which survived the collapse. NIST was able to determine the temperature the steel reached before collapse as well as the damaged state of the material.

Following that, the next step is to determine how the damaged steel affected the superstructure of the towers. By consulting architectural and engineering diagrams, NIST developed a model for the collapse initiation whose purpose was to step through each beam to determine temperature, structural capacity and deflection (structural response). As soon as the structural capacity for the floors exceeded the load, the collapse became inevitable.

That's how NIST did it. I know because I read the report, and I would highly suggest that you do so if you're interested in anything mildly close to the truth about 9/11.

[truthseeker10]

I believe in the other thread you said you were curious. Let's put that to the test. If you are truly curious, you would do some research into the engineering analysis behind the building collapses. Have you done that?
I'm no expert either and only just begun serious research just starting to read the Commission Report and trying to find a copy of the NIST report aswell that I cqan't seem to find. I seen some things from PM but I want more.

[R.Mackey]

NIST report: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/

Happy reading. There's quite a lot of it, but it's highly educational.

[~enigma~]

I'm no expert either and only just begun serious research just starting to read the Commission Report and trying to find a copy of the NIST report aswell that I cqan't seem to find. I seen some things from PM but I want more.
You can't find the NIST report?!?!?! Have you thought about...

1. doing a google search
2. see #1

ETA - I see Mr. Sombrero beat me to the link...

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I'm no expert either and only just begun serious research just starting to read the Commission Report and trying to find a copy of the NIST report aswell that I cqan't seem to find. I seen some things from PM but I want more.
Your in luck to have the long weekend. It's a lot of heavy reading, but it's also very educational.

[truthseeker10]

It's very difficult to argue with intuition. To me, while I was surprised when the towers came down, it didn't occur to me for a moment that they were demolished.

But if the towers really shouldn't have fallen down from the impact of aircraft, then it should be obvious to structural engineers and demolition experts around the world. Many thousands of them would have watched the events unfold. There are a number of possible explanations-


Every structural engineer in the world is mistaken*.
Every structural engineer in the world has been coerced and/or bribed. Even those living in China or Iran.**
The most famous building collapses in world history was largely ignored by engineers, who were watching Kojak reruns on another channel.
Uneducated intuitive opinion has turned out to be wrong, for once.Have I missed out any options there? Think them over.

Looks like you nailed it here I will think about this


*I note the exception of Jowenko, who thinks that WTC7 was demolished.

**But he doesn't think WTC1 or 2 were demolished. Since he's spoken out about 7, he's clearly not been intimidated or bribed. So how come he thinks "Commercial Jetliners filled with fuel can take down the towers that fast"?

Seems weird to me he would think one was demolished but the other weren't then yet everyone has their own views on it which is kewl.

[truthseeker10]

Your in luck to have the long weekend. It's a lot of heavy reading, but it's also very educational.

LMAO thanks for the reminder. I guess it would be my own fault for pretty much drawing a conclusion without having really read some of the reports that were released. But I also came here because the controlled demolition thing didn't have me convinced 100% I'm glad I came here you are helping me in some ways but in the debate what debate forum most of them made me sound and feel like an idiot. That wasn't the opinion I was looking for. You know what I mean?

[DavidJames]

Seems weird to me he would think one was demolished but the other weren't then yet everyone has their own views on it which is kewl.As part of your research you may want to dig behind Jowenko comments. Specifically his analysis used to arrive at his opinion. I think you'll find it was limited to watching the video, but you can confirm. I also don't think he had any contact with other engineers who actually were able to perform the detailed analysis which you've been now provided links. Good luck.

[westprog]

Seems weird to me he would think one was demolished but the other weren't then yet everyone has their own views on it which is kewl.

Jowenko, like everyone else, saw for himself live video of WTC 1 and 2 coming down, and hence could clearly see, as an expert, that it was solely due to the impact and fire, and not to any kind of demolition. In the case of WTC 7, it was much less publicised, and he might never have seen film of the collapse before. He was shown a single video carefully picked to look like a demolition, and gave his instant opinion.

AFAIK, Jowenko has never withdrawn his opinion, but he's never officially published either. He's been, unsurprisingly, very reluctant to be drawn on the matter. IMO, he made a quick judgement that turned out to be wrong, and now he's being stubborn about admitting he was wrong.

[truthseeker10]

I frankly didn't see that either, but then I read the NCSTAR. NIST shows in exhaustive detail how they determined the cause of the collapse, how they modeled the fires, how they accounted for visual and auditory evidence, how they used scale representations to determine the baseline performance of the buildings, and so on.

So an airplane strikes the first tower. It does massive structural damage, sends shrapnel throughout the building and ignites fires which are sustained by office fires for more than an hour. Do we agree on that?

I can agree with that

If so, then the next question to answer is how hot the fires got and what type of damage that did to the steel. Contrary to popular belief, steel does not have to melt to significantly weaken itself. So how do we determine how hot the fires were? Well, NIST has spent years developing software that stochastically determines the temperature of a fire based on oxygen supply and available combustibles. They have published their simulations on the web and submitted their calculations to peer review in the fire engineering community.

Now that we know to a reasonable degree of accuracy how hot the fires were, we can determine its effect on the structural steel of the building. So how do we know how the steel was damaged and what happened to it? Well, NIST acquired hundreds of pieces of steel that were of interest to their study, particularly those involved in the impact floors. How do they know it came from the impact floors? Well, it turns out that all of the steel had unique identifiers, most of which survived the collapse. NIST was able to determine the temperature the steel reached before collapse as well as the damaged state of the material.

Following that, the next step is to determine how the damaged steel affected the superstructure of the towers. By consulting architectural and engineering diagrams, NIST developed a model for the collapse initiation whose purpose was to step through each beam to determine temperature, structural capacity and deflection (structural response). As soon as the structural capacity for the floors exceeded the load, the collapse became inevitable.

That's how NIST did it. I know because I read the report, and I would highly suggest that you do so if you're interested in anything mildly close to the truth about 9/11.

I just downloaded the report and I will read that as well I think I'll read the Nist report 1st

[westprog]

LMAO thanks for the reminder. I guess it would be my own fault for pretty much drawing a conclusion without having really read some of the reports that were released. But I also came here because the controlled demolition thing didn't have me convinced 100% I'm glad I came here you are helping me in some ways but in the debate what debate forum most of them made me sound and feel like an idiot. That wasn't the opinion I was looking for. You know what I mean?

There will be a few short-tempered people here, but there will be an amazing amount of information available for anyone who isn't too sensitive about the odd slapdown. Anyone who asks for an explanation about almost any aspect of 911 will get huge amounts of it.

[truthseeker10]

Ok now that I have that about the WTC. How about the Pentagon such a small hole for such a big plane.

[truthseeker10]

Westprog,
I get treated like that just about everywhere I've gone but at least here some questions are being answered. before this the only people willing to answer questions were truth movement people.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Ok now that I have that about the WTC. How about the Pentagon such a small hole for such a big plane.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1
http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon_rings_and_the_exit_ho.html
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=6
http://www.no911conspiracy.com/mythsvsfacts.html

[kookbreaker]

Ok now that I have that about the WTC. How about the Pentagon such a small hole for such a big plane.

It was not small.

Many conspiracy theorists show photos that are obscured by smoke or are on of the inside rings (where a part of the plane went through, not the whole plane).

Which images of a 'hole' are you referring to?

[DavidJames]

Ok now that I have that about the WTC. How about the Pentagon such a small hole for such a big plane.Why not concentrate on one thing at a time. The NIST reports should take a bit of time to digest.

[T.A.M.]

Ok now that I have that about the WTC. How about the Pentagon such a small hole for such a big plane.

Hole was 80 feet wide at the base, extending almost up to the ceiling of the first floor. The hole many CTers quote as being only 16-20 feet wide, hence too small, is the extension of that hole into the second floor.

Answer good enough...you have alot of reading to do, so take what I have told you and research it.

TAM:)

[westprog]

Westprog,
I get treated like that just about everywhere I've gone but at least here some questions are being answered. before this the only people willing to answer questions were truth movement people.

You will get a fair few slaps, but you'll get the information here. Some of it will be fairly indigestible websites, but sometimes some very expert people will use a lifetime's experience to explain things in detail.

You shouldn't need to take things on faith, and you can continue to investigate as deeply as you like. One approach is to sort through evidence until something crops up that supports a preconcieved viewpoint, and then to seize on that and ignore alternative explanations. Another approach is to consider the entire weight of the evidence, to draw a general conclusion, and then to investigate all the apparent anomalies and determine whether there is an explanation that fits will all the other evidence.

I'd suggest a distrust of one's own intuition and common sense, except when dealing in areas with which one is familiar. If you've seen a large number of demolitions, then you might be an excellent judge of them. If you've seen one or two on TV, then assume your understanding and knowlege is limited.

[Regnad Kcin]

This is the kind of exchange that makes me appreciate the JREF, not to mention the open-mindedness of any newcomer re: knowledge and its aid in helping provide a more enlightened viewpoint.

[Brainache]

This is the kind of exchange that makes me appreciate the JREF, not to mention the open-mindedness of any newcomer re: knowledge and its aid in helping provide a more enlightened viewpoint.
Yes.
I can't help but notice the stark contrast between this thread and Godsend's "Black is White" kitty litter debacle.

[stateofgrace]

Ok now that I have that about the WTC. How about the Pentagon such a small hole for such a big plane.

Truthseeker, if I may be as bold, maybe you should just pause and take a breathe, ok.

Debating is good, as you have pointed out, but what is not good is simply formulating an opinion based on speculation and wild claims.

You know in real life, the mundane and boring is the norm. Wild fantasies and outrageous claims that back irrational and silly theories are generally consigned to comic books.

Maybe you should do yourself a favour and simply ask yourself one question before taking any notice of these crazy theories.

“Would you take part in any one of them if you were asked to do so?”

Welcome to the forum,Stateofgrace.

[Mr. Skinny]

You will get a fair few slaps, but you'll get the information here. Some of it will be fairly indigestible websites, but sometimes some very expert people will use a lifetime's experience to explain things in detail.

You shouldn't need to take things on faith, and you can continue to investigate as deeply as you like. One approach is to sort through evidence until something crops up that supports a preconcieved viewpoint, and then to seize on that and ignore alternative explanations. Another approach is to consider the entire weight of the evidence, to draw a general conclusion, and then to investigate all the apparent anomalies and determine whether there is an explanation that fits will all the other evidence.

I'd suggest a distrust of one's own intuition and common sense, except when dealing in areas with which one is familiar. If you've seen a large number of demolitions, then you might be an excellent judge of them. If you've seen one or two on TV, then assume your understanding and knowlege is limited.
That's a nice post, westprog. Concise and well writen (writ?).

[Foolmewunz]

TS10,

First off, you should know that you arrived with an unfortunate nom de plume. TS1234 - aka Ace Baker - is a notoriously stubborn and rather snotty truther of the highest order. You likely had no way of knowing that unless you literally researched every thread in here, and I'm assuming from some of your posts that you hadn't done much directed research in any particular area, much less reading some of the thousand-plus post threads in here.

I apologize if we sounded (well, it was "I") a little condescending in the Debate, What Debate thread, in asking you to move your enquiries over here, but as I said, that one's like a graduate course and you are asking for some rather basic info, and were bound to get all chewed up in that thread. And since Arkan had taken the initiative to open an introductory thread for you, I figured you'd be better off here.

As you've seen, we're not a bunch of ogres. (Well, we can be.... but usually after the first coffee, we calm down...)

I believe a lot of people want to see a nice neat bundle of digested and reconstructed points, and frankly that's not available in a Cole's Notes version. The quickest, and most entertaining shortcut is the threads that are locked at the top of this page of the forum. Read Gravy's thread and SCLC threads. They may be a little more entertaining than trying to make your way through the entire NIST. (To put it mildly.)

And see 911Myths. MikeW has done a lot of terrific work there and it's a fairly user-friendly site. It's probably the best place to get quick information on single points of reference. (MikeW is also a member here.)

To the vets in this thread.... I know it seems we have to go through this a lot, but I think high fives are due, all around. I'm taking this at face value and it sounds like TS10 is a "fence-sitter". I've been wrong before, but my screen name is sincere (Fool me once, shame on you; Fool me twice, shame on me), and I'd rather give it the old college try than let him flounder on the troofer sites where they just throw out conjecture as though it was proof.

FMW

[truthseeker10]

StateOfGrace,

Maybe you should do yourself a favour and simply ask yourself one question before taking any notice of these crazy theories.

“Would you take part in any one of them if you were asked to do so?”

See I have asked myself that question and my answer is NO, but just because I've said no that doesn't mean 100% of the people would give the same answer.

[truthseeker10]

FMW,

I appreciate the apologie and it's accepted. I haven't run away I've just been busy the past couple of days. I look forward to reading and posting here aswell as discussing with everyone what I find out and properly share my views on the whole 9/11 subject

[defaultdotxbe]

wait a sec....theres a truthseeker10 now?


im gonna need a playbill to tell these characters apart

[truthseeker10]

Good one default.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

wait a sec....theres a truthseeker10 now?


im gonna need a playbill to tell these characters apart
Truthseeker (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=1401)
truthseeker10 (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=16185)
Truthseeker1234 (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=11702)
Truthseeker1963 (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=3516)

[stateofgrace]

StateOfGrace,

Maybe you should do yourself a favour and simply ask yourself one question before taking any notice of these crazy theories.

“Would you take part in any one of them if you were asked to do so?”

See I have asked myself that question and my answer is NO, but just because I've said no that doesn't mean 100% of the people would give the same answer.

Of course you would not, neither would I.

Herein lies the dilemma, as you rightly point out plenty of people would given the right incentive involve themselves in something like this, but the bigger dilemma is that people who have absolutely no reason whatsoever to become involved in this would have be involved.

The conspirators like to kid themselves that they are accusing the USG and a select few of elite power brokers, but when you break down each an every one of these conspiracies they all involve perfectly innocent, law abiding citizens.

At some point, those directly involved have to become part of the conspiracy for the conspiracy to work. Of course the conspirators will never acknowledge this, they simply brush over it and start accusing those that will not accuse Americans of being involved in mass murder of 3000 of their own of being sheep , Bush lovers, blind or whatever else they care to come out with.

The point is, it is OK to question your Government, it is OK to object to their decisions, it is more than acceptable to debate, rant and rave but what is not acceptable is to accuse perfectly innocent people of being involved in mass murder without absolute proof.

To date there is none.

[truthseeker10]

SOG,

list me a few in this case surrounding the events of 9/11