The Angle-Cut Column Photo Source

[jberryhill]

In 2001, Sam Hollenshead was a staff photographer for Labor Research Associates.

For example, if you search the articles from the union site workinglife.org, you will find a lot of examples of his work.

http://wbff.org/films/detail.asp?fid=664

Sam Hollenshead worked as a photographer from 2001-2003 documenting union labor throughout NYC. In 2004 his photographs of the rebuilding of subway infrastructure at the World Trade Center site were exhibited at the Museum of the City of New York.


http://www.samhollenshead.com/bio01.html

After 9/11, he documented workers at the World Trade Center site clearing debris and rebuilding damaged subway lines. Images from this project were published in the New York Times Magazine and displayed at the Museum of the City of New York in a group show with Magnum photographer, Bruce Davidson and MacArthur fellowship recipient, Camillo Jose Vergara. A solo exhibition of his subway photographs is currently on display at the New York City Transit Museum until December 2006.


http://www.samhollenshead.com/escontacts/wtccontact.html


http://www.lraphotography.com/essays/sep11/essay_wtc.php

When historians sit down to write about September 11th and its aftermath, they will have to reserve a page of History for the workers at ground zero whose tireless efforts saved lives and helped New York City rebuild itself. Here is the story of workers at ground zero. Photography by Sam Hollenshead.



http://www.lraphotography.com/photos/wtc/gzworkers/wtc.g0.b2.2.jpg
http://www.lraphotography.com/photos/wtc/gzworkers/wtc.g0.b2.3.jpg
http://www.lraphotography.com/photos/wtc/gzworkers/wtc.g0.b2.4.jpg
http://www.lraphotography.com/photos/wtc/gzworkers/wtc.g0.b3.1.jpg
http://www.lraphotography.com/photos/wtc/gzworkers/wtc.g0.b3.2.jpg
http://www.lraphotography.com/photos/wtc/gzworkers/wtc.g0.b3.3.jpg

The fact that Mr. Hollenshead spent a lot of time documenting ironworkers renders it no surprise that many of his WTC photographs involve people working with torches.

Mr. Hollenshead is currently residing in India, and I have written to ask him whether he specifically recalls what had transpired prior to taking the picture with Richard Gage touts as "smoking gun" proof of CD.

[DGM]

The fact that Mr. Hollenshead spent a lot of time documenting ironworkers renders it no surprise that many of his WTC photographs involve people working with torches.

Mr. Hollenshead is currently residing in India, and I have written to ask him whether he specifically recalls what had transpired prior to taking the picture with Richard Gage touts as "smoking gun" proof of CD.

This is another example of the "truther" propaganda. The name of the person that cut that column would not be hard to find by a real researcher. Instead they choose ignore evidence and continue to use this picture to spread their lies. They don't need subpoena power or a new investigation to find this out, just basic research.

If that picture was used by NIST to prove their theory they would know:
Who cut it
The date
The names of the fire fighters in the pic.
The exact column number
So on and so on

[twinstead]

This is another example of the "truther" propaganda. The name of the person that cut that column would not be hard to find by a real researcher. Instead they choose ignore evidence and continue to use this picture to spread their lies. They don't need subpoena power or a new investigation to find this out, just basic research.


They are counting on their members to NOT do any research and simply quote their websites and blog articles verbatim--just like they did.

And they call US sheep! :covereyes

[scooby]

Mr. Hollenshead is currently residing in India, and I have written to ask him whether he specifically recalls what had transpired prior to taking the picture with Richard Gage touts as "smoking gun" proof of CD.

He must have read this thread - he's removed all mention of the photo from his list, sneaky eh?

As seen in this revealing photo the Twin Towers' destruction (http://911research.wtc7.net/materials/wtc/twintowers.html) exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosions:
1. Extremely rapid onset of “collapse”
2. Sounds of explosions (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/explosions.html) at plane impact zone — a full second prior to collapse (heard by 118 first responders as well as by media reporters)
3. Observations of flashes (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/explosions.html) (seen by numerous professionals)
4. Squibs (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/squibs.html), or “mistimed” explosions, 40 floors below the “collapsing” building seen in all the videos
5. Mid-air pulverization (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/concrete.html) of all the 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people – mostly to dust
6. Massive volume (http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3.html) of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/dust.html)
7. Vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/explosions.html)
8. Symmetrical collapse (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/symmetry.html) – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance
9. 1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris – outside of building footprint
10. Blast waves (http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/expulsion.html) blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away
11. Lateral ejection (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/mushrooming.html) of thousands of individual 20 - 50 ton steel beams up to 500 feet
12. Total destruction of the building (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/steel.html) down to individual structural steel elements – obliterating the steel core structure.
13. Tons of molten Metal (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html) found by FDNY under all 3 high-rises (no other possible source other than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)
14. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf) by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
15. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html) on structural steel samples
16. More than 1000 Bodies are unaccounted for (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/bodies.html) — 700 tiny bone fragments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Bank_Building) found on top of nearby buildings
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm) capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html) with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”

http://www.ae911truth.org/

[DGM]

He must have read this thread - he's removed all mention of the photo from his list, sneaky eh?

Should we expect a public retraction of the this claim soon?

It would have made the "truthburn" project easy to just torch cut it huh.

[scooby]

Should we expect a public retraction of the this claim soon?

It would have made the "truthburn" project easy to just torch cut it huh.

No, I'd be content with the small ah, 'cosmetic' victory you might have if the photo wasn't taken in the early days of the rescue effort. Other than that you're heading for a fall - it's not even mentioned on the list he touts.

[Dave Rogers]

As seen in this revealing photo the Twin Towers' destruction (http://911research.wtc7.net/materials/wtc/twintowers.html) exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosions:

Affirming the consequent fallacy follows.

1. Extremely rapid onset of “collapse”

Since the assertion has been made that collapse due to fire and impact damage has never occurred, how is it possible to determine how rapid the collapse onset should have been?

2. Sounds of explosions (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/explosions.html) at plane impact zone — a full second prior to collapse (heard by 118 first responders as well as by media reporters)

Things explode in building contents fires.

3. Observations of flashes (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/explosions.html) (seen by numerous professionals)

Things explode in building contents fires.

4. Squibs (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/squibs.html), or “mistimed” explosions, 40 floors below the “collapsing” building seen in all the videos

Ejection of debris from pressurisation by the collapse. The behaviour of these "squibs" can clearly be seen to be inconsistent with explosions as they increase to a steady flow before being obscured by the collapse wave.

5. Mid-air pulverization (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/concrete.html) of all the 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people – mostly to dust

Unproven speculation. Sheetrock and plasterboard is easily pulverised to dust. There is no evidence that the remaining contents were not pulverised over the course of collapse and on impact with the ground.

6. Massive volume (http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3.html) of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/dust.html)

A characteristic of volcanic eruptions, not explosive demolitions. Based on the fallacious assumption that dust clouds cannot mix with ambient air.

7. Vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/explosions.html)

A virtually meaningless statement. Since the towers were vertical, the collapse could not have propagated in any other direction.

8. Symmetrical collapse (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/symmetry.html) – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance

Contradicts point 9, and the effect of column resistance has been calculated and found to agree with the observed collapse times.

9. 1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris – outside of building footprint

Contradicts point 8, and not characteristic of explosive demolition - in fact, this is exactly the result controlled demolitions are intended to avoid.

10. Blast waves (http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/expulsion.html) blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away

Debris from the collapse travelled at least this distance.

11. Lateral ejection (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/mushrooming.html) of thousands of individual 20 - 50 ton steel beams up to 500 feet

Easily explained by glancing impacts. Any pool player can explain.

12. Total destruction of the building (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/steel.html) down to individual structural steel elements – obliterating the steel core structure.

Expected from any collapse mechanism.

13. Tons of molten Metal (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html) found by FDNY under all 3 high-rises (no other possible source other than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)

(a) Evidence for molten metal is third-hand and anecdotal.
(b) Many metals were present which could easily have been melted by a contents fire.
(c) Thermate could not have kept metal molten for several weeks (note that the recent Truth Burn thermate experiment recorded cooling over a period of order 1 hour).

14. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf) by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.

Thermate contains barium, none of which has been found anywhere in Jones's samples, proving that there was no thermate involved. Thermate is not an explosive, so not a characteristic of explosive demolition.

15. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html) on structural steel samples

Not a characteristic of explosive demolition. To be expected from long exposure of steel to high temperatures in the presence of sulphur-containing compounds (e.g. sheetrock wallboard).

16. More than 1000 Bodies are unaccounted for (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/bodies.html) — 700 tiny bone fragments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Bank_Building) found on top of nearby buildings

To be expected from multiple high-energy collisions during a collapse due to impact and fire damage.


And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations

Large visible deformations were observed several minutes before collapse initiation, gradually increasing up to the point of collapse.

2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)

(a) The collapse was asymmetrical in all cases.
(b) The collapse did indeed follow the line of least resistance - there was enormous structural resistance to prevent a falling mass toppling off the lower block.
(c) The laws of conservation of mumentum would not cause any such thing.

3. Evidence of fire temperatures (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm) capable of softening steel

Normal fire temperatures are capable of softening steel; softening of steel has been observed in many other, less severe fires.

4. High-rise buildings (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html) with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”


The dynamics of a fire initiated rapidly throughout several floors with large quantities of jet fuel as an accelerant and a ready source of air for combustion would be expected to result in drastically different behaviour to a fire initiated in a localised area and spread gradually through the building. No evidence is presented that steel-framed buildings have experienced larger, hotter and longer-lasting fires, and other steel framed structures have collapsed due to contents fires.

I know Scooby won't read this, but for the lurkers, every single point here has been debunked.

Dave

[scooby]

Affirming the consequent fallacy follows.
Dave

Does it?

Affirming the consequent is a formal fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy), committed by reasoning in the form (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_form):

If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.

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

Where is this construct in Richard Gage's list - please illustrate.
What is P?
What is Q?

[Gravy]

No, I'd be content with the small ah, 'cosmetic' victory you might have if the photo wasn't taken in the early days of the rescue effort.Scooby, that column is below grade.

[scooby]

Scooby, that column is below grade.

That appears to be the case - but does it date the cut?
Not really.
I'm open minded, the photo looks early, they don't look like people weary from weeks of cleanup, they look to be searching and exploring the pile. But unless it can be established that the photo was taken of the beam in situ as it was found, its not something I'd call a smoking gun and stick on a list. I hope one of your researchers can track down the photographer and get some confirmation from him, if you can knock this one off the list, it'll free you up to look foolish on some of the other more pertinent issues raised.

[Spins]

12. Total destruction of the building (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/steel.html) down to individual structural steel elements – obliterating the steel core structure.Significant portions of the core remained intact after the initial collapse of both buildings, roughly 60 stories for WTC 1 and 40 stories for WTC 2...

http://www.mugen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/southcorestands.gif

...so if explosives were used to bring down the WTC why did such large portions of the core remain?

[boloboffin]

Does it?

Affirming the consequent is a formal fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy), committed by reasoning in the form (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_form):

If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.

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

Where is this construct in Richard Gage's list - please illustrate.
What is P?
What is Q?

A building undergoing controlled demolition shows all of these characteristics (P implies Q).

in the fall of Building 7, you can see all of these characteristics (Q).

Therefore, the fall of Building 7 is a controlled demolition (Therefore, P)

This is affirming the consequent.

Richard Gage tries to alleviate this by an massive appeal to authority in the first fifteen minutes of his speech (setting himself up as an authority) and his "characteristics" slides when completed bear his business card as a stamp of approval. But his list is fraudulent, his characteristics remind me of someone drawing targets around his bullet holes (another example of affirming the consequent), and very frequently he is simply wrong (there was no sudden rapid onset of collapse, for example - all three buildings demonstrated the slow creeping deformation that he says aren't present in any of them).

[Dave Rogers]

Does it?

Affirming the consequent is a formal fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy), committed by reasoning in the form (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_form):

If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.

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

Where is this construct in Richard Gage's list - please illustrate.
What is P?
What is Q?

If a building is demolished using explosives, it displays certain characteristics.
The WTC collapses displayed those characteristics.
Therefore, the buildings were demolished using explosives.

P is explosive demolition.
Q is Richard Gage's list.

If Q were actually true, then Gage would be affirming the consequent. Since, for the most part, his list of Q is either incorrect or irrelevant, he's barely even doing that.

Dave

ETA: Rats, Boloboffin beat me to it.

[Disbelief]

That appears to be the case - but does it date the cut?
Not really.
I'm open minded, the photo looks early, they don't look like people weary from weeks of cleanup, they look to be searching and exploring the pile. But unless it can be established that the photo was taken of the beam in situ as it was found, its not something I'd call a smoking gun and stick on a list. I hope one of your researchers can track down the photographer and get some confirmation from him, if you can knock this one off the list, it'll free you up to look foolish on some of the other more pertinent issues raised.

If it is early, the column most likely would have been cut because of safety concerns (something very unstable) or to facilitate access for search and rescue.

[ref]

and very frequently he is simply wrong

Like, when claiming nearly a million people have died in US wars since 9/11, or claiming that WTC7 had fires on only 3 floors.

[DGM]

That appears to be the case - but does it date the cut?
Not really.
I'm open minded, the photo looks early, they don't look like people weary from weeks of cleanup, they look to be searching and exploring the pile. But unless it can be established that the photo was taken of the beam in situ as it was found, its not something I'd call a smoking gun and stick on a list. I hope one of your researchers can track down the photographer and get some confirmation from him, if you can knock this one off the list, it'll free you up to look foolish on some of the other more pertinent issues raised.
Scooby:
Do you know the meaning of the words "burden of proof"? I know you don't as the same can be said about the "truth" Movement.

[scooby]

A building undergoing controlled demolition shows all of these characteristics (P implies Q).

Implies is ok ...

If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.

[Dave Rogers]

Implies is ok ...

If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.

Are you questioning the use of the word "implies"? It's entirely correct. Let's look at an example.

All buildings that are exploded make very loud bangs.
P is a building exploding.
Q is a very loud bang.
P implies Q; in other words, if P then Q.

Dave

[Alferd_Packer]

2. Sounds of explosions at plane impact zone — a full second prior to collapse (heard by 118 first responders as well as by media reporters)

So, how did the people in the field that day know the exact second when the collapse actually began?

[Alferd_Packer]

10. Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away

A blast or pressure wave capable of breaking a tempered glass window in a high rise would have been felt in the chest cavity of everyone in Manhattan that day. How come there are no reports of this?

[JimBenArm]

A blast or pressure wave capable of breaking a tempered glass window in a high rise would have been felt in the chest cavity of everyone in Manhattan that day. How come there are no reports of this?
They were paid off. Every last one of them.

[Par]

Does it?


Analogously, Gage could point out that Lewis Hamilton’s McLaren F1 exhibits many of the characteristics of a Fiat Punto. It has four wheels; it’s powered by an internal combustion engine; it has pneumatic tires, etc. These characteristics, however, do not serve as compelling reason to think that Lewis Hamilton’s McLaren in fact is a Fiat Punto.

[scooby]

If a building is demolished using explosives, it displays certain characteristics.
The WTC collapses displayed those characteristics.
Therefore, the buildings were demolished using explosives.

P is explosive demolition.
Q is Richard Gage's list.

Yeah I can see where you're going wrong there, Q needs to be a premise not a list, its very clear there are examples ...

If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.

If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.
Bill Gates is rich.
Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

If I have the flu, then I have a sore throat.
I have a sore throat.
Therefore, I have the flu.

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

Richard Gage's list appears to be a list of premises e.g "Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds". Taken together it is claimed they would imply a controlled demolition, and this is reasonable.

If anything Gage's argument seems to be of the form ...

If P and P1 and P2 ... Pn
then probably Q.
P.
P1.
P2.
P3.
P4.
P5.
P6.
P7.
P8.
P9.
P10.
P11.
P12.
P13.
P14.
P15.
P16.
Probably Q.

I'd say the probability would increase with 'n'.

Any problems with the list?

Well ignoring the specifics all anyone has to do is compare it with a known controlled demolition to see broadly how it fares at describing the event ...

1. Extremely rapid onset of “collapse”- check, that kind of thing.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

In summary, I see no use of the formal fallacy "Affirming the consequent" here.

[Dave Rogers]

Yeah I can see where you're going wrong there, Q needs to be a premise not a list, its very clear there are examples ...


A dog has four legs.
A dog has teeth.
A dog has fur.
A dog has two eyes.
A dog has a tail.
A dog has a mouth.
A dog has ears on top of its head.
A dog has two lungs.
A dog has a stomach.
A dog has a large intestine.
A dog has a small intestine.
A dog is carnivorous.

Is it a cat yet?

Dave

[Alferd_Packer]

Kaching!!!!!!

sorry, scooby, but no scooby snacks for you.

[einsteen]

A dog has four legs.
A dog has teeth.
A dog has fur.
A dog has two eyes.
A dog has a tail.
A dog has a mouth.
A dog has ears on top of its head.
A dog has two lungs.
A dog has a stomach.
A dog has a large intestine.
A dog has a small intestine.
A dog is carnivorous.

Is it a cat yet?

Dave

It has a lot of features a cat has, but I think a dog is also great, not a table.

[Dave Rogers]

It has a lot of features a cat has, but I think a dog is also great, not a table.

:confused:

Dave

[scooby]

Are you questioning the use of the word "implies"? It's entirely correct. Let's look at an example.

All buildings that are exploded make very loud bangs.
P is a building exploding.
Q is a very loud bang.
P implies Q; in other words, if P then Q.

Dave
LOL, yeah its the other words that are the problem, it needs to be in the same ones.
'Implies' and 'then' are not interchangeable and equivalent logical terms.

[scooby]

Scooby:
Do you know the meaning of the words "burden of proof"? I know you don't as the same can be said about the "truth" Movement.

It's not something I've ever needed but I know what it is.
No, probable cause is my bag, are you hip to probable cause? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause

[Dave Rogers]

LOL, yeah its the other words that are the problem, it needs to be in the same ones.
'Implies' and 'then' are not interchangeable and equivalent logical terms.

I see you can still dance.

Dave

[jberryhill]

He must have read this thread - he's removed all mention of the photo from his list, sneaky eh?

It, along with other Hollenshead photographs, is used in various of the slide shows available on Gage's site.

[Totovader]

I'd say the probability would increase with 'n'.

Classic "truther" mistake: Gambler's fallacy. The odds of your claim being correct do not "increase" by committing the same error over and over. Two wrongs don't make a right, and neither do 'n' wrongs. All you're doing is creating multiple fallacies in a chain. This is how conspiracists attempt to get around the scientific methods- and it's also why we have fallacies to understand our own bias. Of course... one would have to understand bias and logic, first- if one were so inclined to be more correct.

Any problems with the list?

Tons- not the least of which is that it's a list of fallacious assertions.

Well ignoring the specifics all anyone has to do is compare it with a known controlled demolition to see broadly how it fares at describing the event ...

Ignoring- of course- the obvious... a controlled demolition requires explosive material, planning, people, etc- and... THERE WERE THESE PLANES...

1. Extremely rapid onset of “collapse”- check, that kind of thing.

Does that even mean anything? What was extremely rapid about the "onset" of this collapse? It took hours. Under what definition of "rapid" does that fit? In what context?

In summary, I see no use of the formal fallacy "Affirming the consequent" here.

Despite the fact that it has been explained- quite extensively- to you several times? The failure is on your end, rest assured.

[einsteen]

Sorry Dave, I mean

grav_collapse:unknown_method1:unknown_method2 = table:cat:dog :D

this notation sucks even more...

[DavidJames]

Thanks scooby, I didn’t have my stundie for this month.
Scooby:
Do you know the meaning of the words "burden of proof"? I know you don't as the same can be said about the "truth" Movement.
It's not something I've ever needed but I know what it is.

[Totovader]

It's not something I've ever needed but I know what it is.
No, probable cause is my bag, are you hip to probable cause? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause

Holy crap. I didn't even see that before- yes... that is stundie material...

Probable cause? That's your bag, scooby?

In what way is probable cause more effective at discovering the truth than the scientific method and logic? When does "probable cause" enter the science lab?

Please explain.

[Spins]

Well ignoring the specifics all anyone has to do is compare it with a known controlled demolition to see broadly how it fares at describing the event ...

1. Extremely rapid onset of “collapse”- check, that kind of thing.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

In summary, I see no use of the formal fallacy "Affirming the consequent" here.
But the onset of collapse was not rapid, the sequence of events that lead to the collapse essentially started at the point when the planes hit the buildings...

In a nutshell the Twin Towers collapsed because the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing (some people think the fireproofing was already substandard prior to the plane impact, this is still point of discussion) and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors. The subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence, as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse, support this sequence for each tower.

At WTC 1 the inward bowing of the perimeter columns was first observed at 10:23 from floors 94 to 100 and continued to get worse right up until the collapse at 10:28, the maximum amount of inward bowing has been estimated to be about 55 inches.

At WTC 2 the inward bowing of the perimeter columns was first observed at 9:21 from floors 78 to 84 and continued to get worse right up until the collapse at 9:59, the maximum amount of inward bowing was approximately 20 inches.

So in conclusion both towers showed visible signs of instability for several minutes prior to the collapse, it wasn't sudden it just appeared that way to the untrained (paranoid, delusional, and agenda driven) eye.

The idea that the Twin Towers were brought down in a controlled demolition is and always has been ridiculous notion, I'm amazed people are still promoting it.

[scooby]

I see you can still dance.

Dave

What - but I can't hide? LOL
Dave, nobody dull enough to fall for this crap would even be here - and if they were, well ...

[scooby]

It, along with other Hollenshead photographs, is used in various of the slide shows available on Gage's site.

'Touted as a smoking gun' is the unsubstantiated claim - it's not even on his homepage, though his principle arguments are.

[Spins]

It's touted as a smoking gun by many conspiracy theorists, especially with regards to thermite, they claim it is proof of it's use when we all know that cut was made by an ironworker, period.

[scooby]

Classic "truther" mistake: Gambler's fallacy.

Who's gambling, what 'same error'?

Extremely rapid onset of “collapse” - check
Sounds of explosions - check
Observations of flashes - check
Squibs - check ... http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

[Spins]

Who's gambling, what 'same error'?

Extremely rapid onset of “collapse” - check
Sounds of explosions - check
Observations of flashes - check
Squibs - check ... http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ


I sense the woo is strong with this one! :p

[Par]

Who's gambling, what 'same error'?

Extremely rapid onset of “collapse” - check
Sounds of explosions - check
Observations of flashes - check
Squibs - check ... http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ



The error of affirming the consequent; you just did so four times in a row.

[Dave Rogers]

What - but I can't hide? LOL
Dave, nobody dull enough to fall for this crap would even be here - and if they were, well ...

I just meant I'd forgotten how quickly you can start quibbling over minutiae when you've been publicly proven wrong.

Dave

[Totovader]

Who's gambling, what 'same error'?

You are- with the facts. Gambler's fallacy is as follows:

"The gambler's fallacy is a formal fallacy. It is the incorrect belief that the likelihood of a random event can be affected by or predicted from other, independent events."

Extremely rapid onset of “collapse” - check

Ambiguous and non-sequitur, as already explained to you.

Sounds of explosions - check

Affirming the consequent, as already explained to you.

Observations of flashes - check

Affirming the consequent, as already explained to you.

Squibs - check ...

Affirming the consequent- or more accurately, ipse dixit.

It's not rational to simply repeat your claims when there is a rebuttal waiting to be addressed. Repeating them will not suddenly make them logically consistent. I would suggest that you have issues with understanding how critical thinking and logic work. Read a book or take a course- you will benefit tremendously.

[scooby]

Holy crap. I didn't even see that before- yes... that is stundie material...

Probable cause? That's your bag, scooby?

In what way is probable cause more effective at discovering the truth than the scientific method and logic? When does "probable cause" enter the science lab?

Please explain.

I'd like you to explain to me first what we're doing in a lab?
Court of public opinion this is currently sitting in as far as I can see, and the guilty verdicts keep coming in every day. Probable cause, is the grounds they have for a new investigation. The 'truth' is something that this new investigation may reveal. Scientific method and logic cannot use legal US methods of interrogation that can in no way be defined as torture, to beat the truth out of people.

[Totovader]

I'd like you to explain to me first what we're doing in a lab?

That's where scientists go. This concept should not be foreign to you.

Court of public opinion this is currently sitting in as far as I can see, and the guilty verdicts keep coming in every day. Probable cause, is the grounds they have for a new investigation.

As I and others have repeatedly explained to you- this is no substitute for science.

The 'truth' is something that this new investigation may reveal.

I believe you just shot yourself in the foot.

Scientific method and logic cannot use legal US methods of interrogation that can in no way be defined as torture, to beat the truth out of people.

Mind clarifying that statement? I want to see if you'll shoot yourself in the other foot.

[Dave Rogers]

Court of public opinion this is currently sitting in as far as I can see, and the guilty verdicts keep coming in every day.

Yes, from a massive 4.5% of the population.

Dave

[Par]

Court of public opinion this is currently sitting in as far as I can see, and the guilty verdicts keep coming in every day.


Oh, yes. The “Court of Public Opinion”. The one that rules that evolution is a sham. The last resort of the demagogue.

[scooby]

It's touted as a smoking gun by many conspiracy theorists, especially with regards to thermite, they claim it is proof of it's use when we all know that cut was made by an ironworker, period.

Richard Gage we're talking about, it's claimed he's touting it as a smoking gun. I'm not convinced thats the case as I've never seen the photo reliably dated - so how could it be? Regardless, it is certainly not 'the' smoking gun. His list is, when you compare it to the collapse of the buildings. It implies, with a high degree of probability, that explosives were used. This is absent any other credible explanation that can withstand criticism. But people shouldn't take my word for it, they should check for themselves ... http://www.ae911truth.org/

[scooby]

You are- with the facts. Gambler's fallacy is as follows:

"The gambler's fallacy is a formal fallacy. It is the incorrect belief that the likelihood of a random event can be affected by or predicted from other, independent events."

Yeah we're describing the known characteristics of a real event here not game theory. A spark followed by an explosion is not a set of random events.

[Totovader]

Yeah we're describing the known characteristics of a real event here not game theory. A spark followed by an explosion is not a set of random events.

Who said anything about game theory? What the crap are you babbling about?

Are you going to respond to the post, or just ignore it? I suggest you ignore it- it's not looking good for you at this point.

[twinstead]

Richard Gage we're talking about, it's claimed he's touting it as a smoking gun. I'm not convinced thats the case as I've never seen the photo reliably dated - so how could it be? Regardless, it is certainly not 'the' smoking gun. His list is, when you compare it to the collapse of the buildings. It implies, with a high degree of probability, that explosives were used. This is absent any other credible explanation that can withstand criticism. But people shouldn't take my word for it, they should check for themselves ... http://www.ae911truth.org/

The problem with that is that it is NOT true. Forget about 'absent any other credible explanation that can withstand criticism'--the list itself cannot withstand credible criticism.

You can't change that fact just because you happen to think the list is a 'smoking gun'. Franky, your bias precludes you from having any credible opinion about 911 whatsoever.

[Disbelief]

Who said anything about game theory? What the crap are you babbling about?

Are you going to respond to the post, or just ignore it? I suggest you ignore it- it's not looking good for you at this point.

No, he will cignore posts that don't support his beliefs. He says that the list can not stand up to criticism, but Dave Rogers destroys it on the first page.

[Spins]

I know, I didn't claim it has been touted by Richard Gage because I don't know for sure if it has, that's why I said "by many conspiracy theorists" instead.

[Alferd_Packer]

Scientific method and logic cannot use legal US methods of interrogation that can in no way be defined as torture, to beat the truth out of people.

As Totovader requested, please clarify this statement. Is this a method that you propose for your “new investigation?”

[scooby]

The problem with that is that it is NOT true. Forget about 'absent any other credible explanation that can withstand criticism'--the list itself cannot withstand credible criticism.

You can't change that fact just because you happen to think the list is a 'smoking gun'. Franky, your bias precludes you from having any credible opinion about 911 whatsoever.

And he storms off in an 'intellectual huff' - 9.9 mate. Bravo!

[scooby]

Who said anything about game theory? What the crap are you babbling about?

Are you going to respond to the post, or just ignore it? I suggest you ignore it- it's not looking good for you at this point.

I'm going to ignore it, nobody's talking about gambling - I'm not reading your prosaic arguments based on the subject.

[jberryhill]

'Touted as a smoking gun' is the unsubstantiated claim - it's not even on his homepage, though his principle arguments are.

Bullpuckey:

http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-127.php

Text of slide:

"Smoking Gun: WTC steel core columns with the typical diagonal cut & thermate residue

-the thick previously molten slag in this photo is proof of a cutting charge used in controlled demolition such as Thermite"

Richard Gage is a liar. Richard Gage touts this photograph as a "Smoking Gun" in his own words. There are no two ways around it.

And lying about what he says doesn't make one the most honest person in the world either.

I have written to the individual who took the photograph - Sam Hollenshead - and he wrote to me:


hi john,

my computer is down right now so i don't have access to the dates and specifics of those original photos. please give me a few days and i will get you the info you need.

i do recall that the photo of the firefighters was taken almost a month after
9/11 and the cut beam in the background was almost certainly cut by a worker, not the result of "intentional demolition."

sam

And, oh yes, Richard Gage is a copyright infringer, but that's coming later.

[Totovader]

And he storms off in an 'intellectual huff' - 9.9 mate. Bravo!

twinstead- that was storming? Or was scooby just dying to use the word "intellectual" in a sentence?

[Totovader]

I'm going to ignore it, nobody's talking about gambling - I'm not reading your prosaic arguments based on the subject.

Exactly.

:dig:

[scooby]

Bullpuckey:

http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-127.php

Text of slide:

"Smoking Gun: WTC steel core columns with the typical diagonal cut & thermate residue

Fair enough - it looks like this is his reasoning ...

"the oxy-acetylene torches used by ironworkers during clean-up do not produce the copious amounts of slag that thermite does"
http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-128.php

It's a fair point, but without a firm date I wouldn't call it a smoking gun - its too easy to argue into the ground. What do you think?

[Dave Rogers]

Classic "truther" mistake: Gambler's fallacy. The odds of your claim being correct do not "increase" by committing the same error over and over. Two wrongs don't make a right, and neither do 'n' wrongs. All you're doing is creating multiple fallacies in a chain. This is how conspiracists attempt to get around the scientific methods- and it's also why we have fallacies to understand our own bias. Of course... one would have to understand bias and logic, first- if one were so inclined to be more correct.

I'm not convinced that this is the same, exactly, as the gambler's fallacy. That, as I understand it, is exemplified by the belief that nine successive coin tosses that give "heads" result in a greater than 0.5 probability that the next result will be "tails". While this is clearly wrong, it is quite correct to say that the odds of achieveing a particular result will be increased by making more attempts; in other words, if you toss a coin ten times, it's more likely that you will achieve at least one "tails" than if you toss it only nine. I would suggest that, on some level, this is the reasoning behind the classic conspiracy theorist approach of citing many different pieces of evidence, in the hope that at least one will prove the point being argued. Killtown's "250 smoking guns" is the classic example; the supposition is something along the lines that, even if each individual piece of evidence has only a 1% chance of being valid, the overall probability of at least one proof being valid is over 90% [1].

This leads to what I suspect is a new and uncategorised logical fallacy - the belief that a sufficiently large number of invalid proofs sums up to a single valid proof. It's a technique commonly described as "if you throw enough mud at the wall, some of it will stick". Richard Gage is committing a fairly typical example of this fallacy while combining it with affirming the consequent, as all of us but Scooby can see.

I may be wrong in that this may be a well known and already named fallacy. If not, I would like to propose the formal name, "Conspiracy Theorist's Fallacy", as we on this forum have all seen it so often employed.

Dave


[1] Specifically, 91.89% to 4sf.

[Gravy]

Thanks scooby, I didn’t have my stundie for this month.Killer material!

[Spins]

Richard Gage we're talking about, it's claimed he's touting it as a smoking gun. I'm not convinced thats the case as I've never seen the photo reliably dated - so how could it be? Regardless, it is certainly not 'the' smoking gun.
Yes I agree it's not the "smoking gun" and I feel I can say with some certainty that it was made by an ironworker during the clean up operation.

There are numerous pictures of ironworkers at ground zero during the clean up operation cutting the columns, they had to reduce them to a maximum of 22,000lb and 30ft long so they could be lifted and taken off site.

The pattern of the cuts is quite evident in the photo, here is the order starting with the hole at the top...

http://www.mugen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ColumnCuts.jpg

The reason the cuts are all at an angle is because it's the standard technique used when cutting steel with an oxyacetylene torch or a thermal lance. The angle preheats the area ahead so it's ready to be blown when the torch or lance gets to that point.

Also the slag deposits are very reminiscent of those in this (http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/04/real-world-tests-cut-through-steel.html) real world test.

Anyways, if the people invloved in the clean up operation came across a column already cut like that then I'm sure we'd have known about it by now, it's not something you can hide or cover-up because, for what you guys are proposing, there should have been hundreds if not thousands of columns with similar angled cuts.

In fact it's been estimated that as many as 30,000 people may have helped in the clean up operation at ground zero that sure is a hell of a lot of people to silence. It's simply not possible, as I said previously the controlled demolition theory is and always has been a ridiculous notion (for a number of reasons) and I'm amazed there are people still promoting it.

[jberryhill]

"the oxy-acetylene torches used by ironworkers during clean-up do not produce the copious amounts of slag that thermite does"

Then why do these ironworkers think differently:

http://www.hobartwelders.com/mboard/showthread.php?t=19417&highlight=thermite


but without a firm date I wouldn't call it a smoking gun

Hollinshead is currently looking up his notes, but believes he took the picture at least a month after 9/11.

[Spins]

Hollinshead is currently looking up his notes, but believes he took the picture at least a month after 9/11.
Excellent stuff m8, lets hope he can find out the exact date to put the final nail in the coffin (so to speak) with regards to this picture, not that there was ever any doubt that it was a cut made by an ironworker during the clean up operation.

[jberryhill]

What's utterly astounding is the fact that Gage also uses this one, where you can see the torch rig next to the columns:

http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-129.php

[Totovader]

I'm not convinced that this is the same, exactly, as the gambler's fallacy. That, as I understand it, is exemplified by the belief that nine successive coin tosses that give "heads" result in a greater than 0.5 probability that the next result will be "tails". While this is clearly wrong, it is quite correct to say that the odds of achieveing a particular result will be increased by making more attempts; in other words, if you toss a coin ten times, it's more likely that you will achieve at least one "tails" than if you toss it only nine. I would suggest that, on some level, this is the reasoning behind the classic conspiracy theorist approach of citing many different pieces of evidence, in the hope that at least one will prove the point being argued. Killtown's "250 smoking guns" is the classic example; the supposition is something along the lines that, even if each individual piece of evidence has only a 1% chance of being valid, the overall probability of at least one proof being valid is over 90% [1].

Except that this is not a simple binary solution- the conclusion of the conspiracists claims would be complex, and would necessarily require that every claim they make be correct- but also that the facts that they ignore be excluded for some justifiable reason.

If the answer is 1 or 0, you do not increase the odds of hitting a 1 on each try. That is the Gambler's Fallacy.

More to the point- citing many specious and unspecific claims over and over does not increase the odds of the conclusion being right- not only because of the Gambler's Fallacy, but because it's essentially non-sequitur. The individual claims themselves are not rational, stringing them together doesn't change that. This was very eloquently demonstrated in post #24 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2974900&postcount=24), by Dave Rogers.

This leads to what I suspect is a new and uncategorised logical fallacy - the belief that a sufficiently large number of invalid proofs sums up to a single valid proof.

I'm not sure that this can be defined as fallacious as much as it can be defined as stupidity.

It's a technique commonly described as "if you throw enough mud at the wall, some of it will stick". Richard Gage is committing a fairly typical example of this fallacy while combining it with affirming the consequent, as all of us but Scooby can see.

I think scooby does see it- he's conceded that he must ignore it- which shows so much cognitive dissonance on his part that he's essentially admitting that he's wrong- though he would never do it publicly.

I may be wrong in that this may be a well known and already named fallacy. If not, I would like to propose the formal name, "Conspiracy Theorist's Fallacy", as we on this forum have all seen it so often employed.

Unfortunately- conspiracists often swim in a pool of fallacious reasoning... pointing to one specific fallacy and naming it a culprit would be impossible.

[twinstead]

What's utterly astounding is the fact that Gage also uses this one, where you can see the torch rig next to the columns:

http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-129.php

Utterly astounding? To me it's simply par for the course

[Spins]

What's utterly astounding is the fact that Gage also uses this one, where you can see the torch rig next to the columns:

http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-129.php
Yeah, the clue is in the picture. :boggled:

It never ceases to amaze me how such a simple and mundane explanation for the source of these angled cuts just doesn't register in the average conspiracy theorist's mind, talk about agenda driven and dishonest.

Same thing applies with regards to the "squibs" and eye-witness testimony regarding "explosions" etc, there is always a simple and mundane explanation.

[Alferd_Packer]

Scientific method and logic cannot use legal US methods of interrogation that can in no way be defined as torture, to beat the truth out of people.


I'm still waiting for a clarification on this statement.

Scooby, does the truth movment intend to "beat the truth out of people" in this new investigation they keep caling for?

[rwguinn]

I'm still waiting for a clarification on this statement.

Scooby, does the truth movment intend to "beat the truth out of people" in this new investigation they keep caling for?

I think he means that a theory must be rejected if Mother Nature is not read her rights before any/every observation is recorded?
Or perhaps that explosion would have ocurred had the scientists not blackmailed the substances with facts?
Whatever, its a Stundyism...

[Alareth]

I'm still waiting for a clarification on this statement.

Scooby, does the truth movment intend to "beat the truth out of people" in this new investigation they keep caling for?

They don't want an investigation, they want a 21st century version of the Spanish Inquisition.

[CptColumbo]

Squibs - check ...[/b] http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

You have yet to prove those are squibs, or rather whoever is doing your reseach for you has yet to prove those were squibs.

Have you done any research into squibs? Do you know what they are and how they are used in CD? If you answered no, go to the library and read about them. Then come back and tell us what you found out.

[technoextreme]

Who's gambling, what 'same error'?

Extremely rapid onset of “collapse” - check
Sounds of explosions - check
Observations of flashes - check
Squibs - check ... http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ


I never quite got the whole logic behind the sounds of explosions when the sound of a steel beam breaking sounds just like an explosion.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I never quite got the whole logic behind the sounds of explosions when the sound of a steel beam breaking sounds just like an explosion.
There isn't any logic behind it. W/o flawed logic and poor deductive (as opposed to inductive) reasoning the CT movement would be DOA.

[DGM]

Tell you what Scooby, if you (or anyone else in the "truth" movement) can reproduce this cut with thermite I'll support and campain your cause to congress/FBI/or whoever. I'll even supply the column. How's that?

[scooby]

You have yet to prove those are squibs, or rather whoever is doing your reseach for you has yet to prove those were squibs.

Prove what were squibs?

[twinstead]

Prove what were squibs?

The squibs in your 'squibs - check' in your post. Remember?

[Arus808]

can we not refer to them as "squibs" they aren't squibs. squibs are tiny explosive devices (like small dynamite), and are not even used in demolition . They are mainly used by Hollywood for SFX ( to simulate bullet hits, or to explode blood/dye packs), and in airplanes (military for the eject canopy and parachutes) and for fire extinguisher systems

[DGM]

can we not refer to them as "squibs" they aren't squibs. squibs are tiny explosive devices (like small dynamite), and are not even used in demolition . They are mainly used by Hollywood for SFX ( to simulate bullet hits, or to explode blood/dye packs), and in airplanes (military for the eject canopy and parachutes) and for fire extinguisher systems
Now that's not playing fair. You can't take away their cool sounding buzz words. BTW "pull it" is of limits also.

[scooby]

Tell you what Scooby, if you (or anyone else in the "truth" movement) can reproduce this cut with thermite I'll support and campain your cause to congress/FBI/or whoever. I'll even supply the column. How's that?

You know where to go with offers like that - www.stj911.org, but regardless, if making this cut with thermite would tip you over the edge you must already have strong reasons to doubt the official story.

[scooby]

They don't want an investigation, they want a 21st century version of the Spanish Inquisition.

Yes - current US law.

[DGM]

You know where to go with offers like that - www.stj911.org, but regardless, if making this cut with thermite would tip you over the edge you must already have strong reasons to doubt the official story.
Nope! I'm in constuction and an iron worker and I know the cut claim is BS. Thermite/mate will not do this, torches do.

[NYCEMT86]

This by far the funniest thread I have read, aside from any of the Kevin Ryan vs UL.



12. Total destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements – obliterating the steel core structure.

As I have brought this up in a previous thread. Can you please than explain to me if this is case, how did Firefighters, a woman, and a Port Authority Cop survive in Stairwell B of the North tower, if there was total destruction of the building?

[Totovader]

You know where to go with offers like that - www.stj911.org, but regardless, if making this cut with thermite would tip you over the edge you must already have strong reasons to doubt the official story.

This demonstrates a significant misunderstanding of scientific principles. He presented you with a falsification of the prevailing scientific theory- and you try to turn around and claim that it's evidence of doubt, instead of evidence of critical thinking. You don't seem to be able to understand the difference.

One can only assume that this means you would not accept any evidence that would contradict your predetermined conclusion. Your reluctance to address the comments in this thread are further evidence of that.

If your goal is to be scientific- to understand the truth and discover the facts- then you're clearly going the wrong way.

[scooby]

Nope! I'm in constuction and an iron worker and I know the cut claim is BS. Thermite/mate will not do this, torches do.

Do you use thermite in construction then?
How are you familiar with its abilities?

[DGM]

Do you use thermite in construction then?
How are you familiar with its abilities?
I don't have to be. If you look at that cut you will see lines that are caused by the torches flame pushing the metal away. If I was to see that cut in person I could tell you how many jet holes were in the cutting head. Give it up. You have no legs left on this one. I even showed this to Gage for all the good it did. I can demonstrate this cut any time. Can you reproduce the thermite cut?

[Alferd_Packer]

Yes - current US law.

So, you have failed to answer the question again. Do you advocate torture and beatings to get your "truth?"

[scooby]

So, you have failed to answer the question again. Do you advocate torture and beatings to get your "truth?"

There you go, I rest my case on that one.
A promise to obey current US law is no longer a guarantee not to use torture.
It's not good enough for Alfred, and it shouldn't be for anyone else either.

[Alferd_Packer]

There you go, I rest my case on that one.
A promise to obey current US law is no longer a guarantee not to use torture.
It's not good enough for Alfred, and it shouldn't be for anyone else either.

Don't get me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry. Where's the ketchup?

[CptColumbo]

There you go, I rest my case on that one.
A promise to obey current US law is no longer a guarantee not to use torture.
It's not good enough for Alfred, and it shouldn't be for anyone else either.So you are in favor of using torture, rather than science to find what you believe is the "truth?" Is toture the only way you think you can get the answers you want? Why is that? I just want to be clear on this.

[ktesibios]

I don't have to be. If you look at that cut you will see lines that are caused by the torches flame pushing the metal away. If I was to see that cut in person I could tell you how many jet holes were in the cutting head. Give it up. You have no legs left on this one. I even showed this to Gage for all the good it did. I can demonstrate this cut any time. Can you reproduce the thermite cut?

On the principle that a picture is worth a thousand words (not to mention the only kind of evidence other than a Youtube video that troofers ever look at), take a gander at this photograph from an online handbook on oxy-fuel cutting:

http://www.esabna.com/EUWeb/OXY_handbook/589oxy21_5.htm

Compare the striations on those edges (they're called "drag lines" and mark the progress of the torch along the cut) to those seen on the cut column. So, as DRG said, the cut edges show markings that are characteristic of oxy-fuel cutting.

Also, if you check out the oxygen cutting demonstration photos on henry62's blog (referenced by spins; here's the link again (http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/04/real-world-tests-cut-through-steel.html), notice how the slag accumulates on the face away from the torch, where it's been pushed by the pressure of the oxygen jet. Now look at the cut column photo again. The slag on the top cut and the angled cut farther from the camera is clinging to the inner faces of the steel; the inner side of the angled cut closer to the camera is hidden but no slag is visible on the outer face. The bottom cut shows slag clinging to the outer face. This is consistent with the column being cut in the sequence proposed by spins; the top cut was made first, then the two angled cuts, the column was bent over towards the foreground of the picture and then the final cut was made through the remaining face from the inner side of the steel, which was now accessible.

To produce that pattern with the putative therm*te charges some would have had to be applied to the outer faces of the column and at least one would have had to be on an inner face- an impossibility unless the column were already cut open.

Finally, if you look at the debris around the column below the cut, you can see that some of the slag from the bottom cut has dripped onto the debris surrounding the column. That means that the debris was already there when the slag was produced; since the debris is a product of the collapse the collapse had already taken place when the column was cut, therefore the cut in the column cannot have been a cause of the collapse.

I applaud jberryhill's initiative in seeking information from the photographer, but I can't help but note that the photo already contains more than enough of what my high school English teachers called "internal evidence" to show that anyone interpreting it as evidence of CD is grossly misinterpreting it.

[Horatius]

There you go, I rest my case on that one.
A promise to obey current US law is no longer a guarantee not to use torture.
It's not good enough for Alfred, and it shouldn't be for anyone else either.



That should be:

"A promise to obey current US law as scooby understands it is no longer a guarantee not to use torture."


Trying to find out what you think US law is is not the same as agreeing with your concepts of what US law is. So answer the question: Do you think that current US law allows the use of torture? And if so, does that mean you are advocating the use of torture in your "investigation"?

Stop trying to be clever and just answer the damn question. No one here is going to be fooled by you playing the fool.

[leftysergeant]

That appears to be the case - but does it date the cut?
Not really.
I'm open minded, the photo looks early, they don't look like people weary from weeks of cleanup, they look to be searching and exploring the pile. But unless it can be established that the photo was taken of the beam in situ as it was found, its not something I'd call a smoking gun and stick on a list.

There are other photos showing fields of cut columns, with the pile all leveled around them. That means that it was an on-going process. So what if it is early in the process? Did you see the man in tan Carhart gear standing on a beam over the fire fighter? The pile is still relatively new and the welders are there already to help.

I hope one of your researchers can track down the photographer and get some confirmation from him, if you can knock this one off the list, it'll free you up to look foolish on some of the other more pertinent issues raised.

Sometimes the photos speak for themselves.

Holy crap. I didn't even see that before- yes... that is stundie material...

Probable cause? That's your bag, scooby?

In what way is probable cause more effective at discovering the truth than the scientific method and logic? When does "probable cause" enter the science lab?

Please explain.

They arer trying to establish probable cause so that another investigation can take place.

And they introduce improbable evidence to do so. Brilliant!

[jberryhill]

I applaud jberryhill's initiative in seeking information from the photographer, but I can't help but note that the photo already contains more than enough of what my high school English teachers called "internal evidence" to show that anyone interpreting it as evidence of CD is grossly misinterpreting it.

Oh, I agree with that. I've seen that photo so many times, and picked over it so many ways, that I'm about ready to write an entire thesis on that picture alone.

The fact that Hollenshead was there to document the work of union iron workers is cumulative to the many, many observations which have been made about the photo in various fora.

[scooby]

On the principle that a picture is worth a thousand words (not to mention the only kind of evidence other than a Youtube video that troofers ever look at), take a gander at this photograph from an online handbook on oxy-fuel cutting:

http://www.esabna.com/EUWeb/OXY_handbook/589oxy21_5.htm

Compare the striations on those edges (they're called "drag lines" and mark the progress of the torch along the cut) to those seen on the cut column. So, as DRG said, the cut edges show markings that are characteristic of oxy-fuel cutting.

Also, if you check out the oxygen cutting demonstration photos on henry62's blog (referenced by spins; here's the link again (http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/04/real-world-tests-cut-through-steel.html), notice how the slag accumulates on the face away from the torch, where it's been pushed by the pressure of the oxygen jet. Now look at the cut column photo again. The slag on the top cut and the angled cut farther from the camera is clinging to the inner faces of the steel; the inner side of the angled cut closer to the camera is hidden but no slag is visible on the outer face. The bottom cut shows slag clinging to the outer face. This is consistent with the column being cut in the sequence proposed by spins; the top cut was made first, then the two angled cuts, the column was bent over towards the foreground of the picture and then the final cut was made through the remaining face from the inner side of the steel, which was now accessible.

To produce that pattern with the putative therm*te charges some would have had to be applied to the outer faces of the column and at least one would have had to be on an inner face- an impossibility unless the column were already cut open.

Finally, if you look at the debris around the column below the cut, you can see that some of the slag from the bottom cut has dripped onto the debris surrounding the column. That means that the debris was already there when the slag was produced; since the debris is a product of the collapse the collapse had already taken place when the column was cut, therefore the cut in the column cannot have been a cause of the collapse.

I applaud jberryhill's initiative in seeking information from the photographer, but I can't help but note that the photo already contains more than enough of what my high school English teachers called "internal evidence" to show that anyone interpreting it as evidence of CD is grossly misinterpreting it.

Thats fair enough, those diagrams do look similar to the photo. Plus the more I look at it, I wonder about the metal being rusty but the cut looking fresh. But the photo is a minor point really. I don't think it's provinence is going to swing public opinion significantly either way.

[scooby]

That should be:

"A promise to obey current US law as scooby understands it is no longer a guarantee not to use torture."

Trying to find out what you think US law is is not the same as agreeing with your concepts of what US law is. So answer the question: Do you think that current US law allows the use of torture? And if so, does that mean you are advocating the use of torture in your "investigation"?

Stop trying to be clever and just answer the damn question. No one here is going to be fooled by you playing the fool.

No, even Alfred's afraid of US law with regards to torture and with good reason, last I heard you can pretty much brand someone and its still not torture unless you're asking them a question while you do it.

[leftysergeant]

Thats fair enough, those diagrams do look similar to the photo. Plus the more I look at it, I wonder about the metal being rusty but the cut looking fresh. But the photo is a minor point really. I don't think it's provinence is going to swing public opinion significantly either way.

But then there is the fact that every column, including those that went into the formation of the spires and thus the central support of the building, are seen cut off to ground level in all areas in which the pile has been reduced. That pretty much proves that they were cut as clean-up proceded, because it would, otherwise, have prevented the formation of the spires to have intentionally demolished the core columns at that level.

That, and the fact that we are up to our elbows in photos of workers actually cutting the columns.

So, basicly, you have no corpus delecti here for demolition of the towers.

Whether there is a corpus delecti in the measures that Bush did or did not take before the incident or in response to it is another matter.

[technoextreme]

There isn't any logic behind it. W/o flawed logic and poor deductive (as opposed to inductive) reasoning the CT movement would be DOA.
But it seems to be a common theme among random people because I remember hearing the same thing as rational as to the levees being blown up in New Orleans.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

But it seems to be a common theme among random people because I remember hearing the same thing as rational as to the levees being blown up in New Orleans.
Deductive reasoning is a more intuitive form, and therefore people tend to naturally apply it. Unfortunately, in many cases, it is nothing more than the foundation for a bunch of arguments from ignorance and affirming the consequent fallacies; that is to say, it is confirmation bias at its worst.

[mortimer]

Thats fair enough, those diagrams do look similar to the photo. Plus the more I look at it, I wonder about the metal being rusty but the cut looking fresh. But the photo is a minor point really. I don't think it's provinence is going to swing public opinion significantly either way.

Is public opinion more important than the scientific truth? Note, I didn't say Truth, but scientific truth. The two, while they sound similar, are at direct odds most of the time.

[pomeroo]

Affirming the consequent fallacy follows.



Since the assertion has been made that collapse due to fire and impact damage has never occurred, how is it possible to determine how rapid the collapse onset should have been?



Things explode in building contents fires.



Things explode in building contents fires.



Ejection of debris from pressurisation by the collapse. The behaviour of these "squibs" can clearly be seen to be inconsistent with explosions as they increase to a steady flow before being obscured by the collapse wave.



Unproven speculation. Sheetrock and plasterboard is easily pulverised to dust. There is no evidence that the remaining contents were not pulverised over the course of collapse and on impact with the ground.



A characteristic of volcanic eruptions, not explosive demolitions. Based on the fallacious assumption that dust clouds cannot mix with ambient air.



A virtually meaningless statement. Since the towers were vertical, the collapse could not have propagated in any other direction.



Contradicts point 9, and the effect of column resistance has been calculated and found to agree with the observed collapse times.



Contradicts point 8, and not characteristic of explosive demolition - in fact, this is exactly the result controlled demolitions are intended to avoid.



Debris from the collapse travelled at least this distance.



Easily explained by glancing impacts. Any pool player can explain.



Expected from any collapse mechanism.



(a) Evidence for molten metal is third-hand and anecdotal.
(b) Many metals were present which could easily have been melted by a contents fire.
(c) Thermate could not have kept metal molten for several weeks (note that the recent Truth Burn thermate experiment recorded cooling over a period of order 1 hour).



Thermate contains barium, none of which has been found anywhere in Jones's samples, proving that there was no thermate involved. Thermate is not an explosive, so not a characteristic of explosive demolition.



Not a characteristic of explosive demolition. To be expected from long exposure of steel to high temperatures in the presence of sulphur-containing compounds (e.g. sheetrock wallboard).



To be expected from multiple high-energy collisions during a collapse due to impact and fire damage.




Large visible deformations were observed several minutes before collapse initiation, gradually increasing up to the point of collapse.



(a) The collapse was asymmetrical in all cases.
(b) The collapse did indeed follow the line of least resistance - there was enormous structural resistance to prevent a falling mass toppling off the lower block.
(c) The laws of conservation of mumentum would not cause any such thing.



Normal fire temperatures are capable of softening steel; softening of steel has been observed in many other, less severe fires.



The dynamics of a fire initiated rapidly throughout several floors with large quantities of jet fuel as an accelerant and a ready source of air for combustion would be expected to result in drastically different behaviour to a fire initiated in a localised area and spread gradually through the building. No evidence is presented that steel-framed buildings have experienced larger, hotter and longer-lasting fires, and other steel framed structures have collapsed due to contents fires.

I know Scooby won't read this, but for the lurkers, every single point here has been debunked.

Dave


Excellent job, Dave.