The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

Discussions on 9/11, moon landing etc.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2061  Postby cursuswalker » Nov 12, 2010 4:36 pm

Nicko wrote:
amused wrote:Real professionals did a real investigation and arrived at real conclusions.


103 pages in and the truthers have still not managed to get past this simple point.

There is no evidence that the towers were subject to any sort of controlled demolition. The towers did not fall as if they were subject to controlled demolition. There was no credible evidence of explosives at the scene. There has never been suggested a credible method by which a controlled demolition could have been set up without drawing the attention of everyone who worked in the buildings. There has never been suggested a credible motive for the US government to blow up two landmark buildings full of campaign contributors, risking total financial paralysis on a national scale.

There is, however, overwhelming evidence that the the towers were each hit by a very fucking large aeroplane and then caught on fire. There is ample evidence that agents in the field obtained information that could have prevented the attack (without torture or illegal wiretaps I might add), but which was not acted upon by higher ups. There is ample evidence that goverments the world over used 9/11 as an excuse to engage in violence that could not otherwise be "justified" or, at the very minimum, to pass laws to restrict civil liberties.

There is real stuff here for Americans to be angry about. The truthers need to stop looking in the shadows for conspiracies and pay attention to the crimes and negligence occurring in broad daylight.


^^^
Fucking THIS
Image http://www.caerabred.org/

Space Corps Directive 723. 'Terraformers are expressly forbidden from recreating Swindon.'
User avatar
cursuswalker
 
Posts: 3311
Age: 55
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2062  Postby Miragememories » Nov 12, 2010 5:07 pm

GrahamH wrote:"I am not ignoring what you write. I note again that you have not supplied evidence of a detailed analysis of the structural impact of fire. That the designers understood there would be a fire, and that fires weaken steel structures, is plain enough. The point in question is how did they apply that basic knowledge in the design. What parameters did they use. How many floors on fire, for how long, with what impact damage and re-distributed loads? Did they consider sagging floor trusses?

It is one thing to consider that jet fuel would result in fires, and perhaps take some measures to limit that spread. It is an entirely different matter to do a detailed structural analysis of the impact of fire."


I never claimed that I would provide a detailed analysis so I fail to see why you feel compelled to informed me of this note taking?

The relevant point as I see it, is that professional designers, being well aware that ensuing fires would represent a big part of the structural and human consequences that would follow in the wake of the impact of the largest commercial aircraft at that time, claim to have carefully engineered the Towers for such an eventuality.

I have already cited statements by John Skilling, the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center, and one of the authors of the analysis cited by the NIST, who claimed;

"the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707" and who also said; "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.”

If you are really that interested in all the technical details, many of them can be easily Googled.

GrahamH wrote:"This was an interesting point."
Report From Ground Zero wrote: "Of course, when Yamaski was designing the buildings he was aware that steel, when it reaches an inherent temperature of 1200 degrees, will stretch at the rate of 9 1/2 inches per 100 feet. He undoubtedly took into account the possibility of a plane's hitting the building and causing the steel to stretch in a resulting fire. There might even be a collapse, but only on the side of the building that was 'hit. Partial collapses often happen in burning buildings."

bolded portion you indicated as being interesting

Yes, I thought that statement was interesting as well. Another reason why I have problems with how fires ultimately were supposed to have totally felled WTC 1,2 and 7.

GrahamH wrote:"Note that two sides were hit, since the plane went right through two faces of the exterior column wall. Did the calculations include the pane smashing holes in two sides and damaging the core columns?"


I really have to take serious issue with claim. Whatever reached the opposite side from the original impact was certainly not a plane.

The opposite side did not lose perimeter columns but certainly suffered blown out windows from exiting debris.

MM
User avatar
Miragememories
 
Posts: 69
Age: 71
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2063  Postby GrahamH » Nov 12, 2010 5:58 pm

Miragememories wrote:
GrahamH wrote:"I am not ignoring what you write. I note again that you have not supplied evidence of a detailed analysis of the structural impact of fire. That the designers understood there would be a fire, and that fires weaken steel structures, is plain enough. The point in question is how did they apply that basic knowledge in the design. What parameters did they use. How many floors on fire, for how long, with what impact damage and re-distributed loads? Did they consider sagging floor trusses?

It is one thing to consider that jet fuel would result in fires, and perhaps take some measures to limit that spread. It is an entirely different matter to do a detailed structural analysis of the impact of fire."


I never claimed that I would provide a detailed analysis so I fail to see why you feel compelled to informed me of this note taking?

The relevant point as I see it, is that professional designers, being well aware that ensuing fires would represent a big part of the structural and human consequences that would follow in the wake of the impact of the largest commercial aircraft at that time, claim to have carefully engineered the Towers for such an eventuality.


Then show evidence of what engineering they did to account for the effects of fire on the damaged structure.
All you have presented is evidence of a claim that they designed for impact damage and realised that there would be fires that would kill people. It seems obvious enough that did not perform failure analysis such as that done by NIST, since they had far less data to go on and no FEA systems capable of performing the calculations needed.

Miragememories wrote:I have already cited statements by John Skilling, the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center, and one of the authors of the analysis cited by the NIST, who claimed;

"the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707" and who also said; "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.”

If you are really that interested in all the technical details, many of them can be easily Googled.

It is you that is suggesting that effects of fire were taken into account to a degress that would lead us to doubt that fire could have contributed to collapse. You seem to have no evidential basis for that claim, so you shouldn't keep repeating your error. It is a misleading claim.

Miragememories wrote:
GrahamH wrote:"This was an interesting point."
Report From Ground Zero wrote: "Of course, when Yamaski was designing the buildings he was aware that steel, when it reaches an inherent temperature of 1200 degrees, will stretch at the rate of 9 1/2 inches per 100 feet. He undoubtedly took into account the possibility of a plane's hitting the building and causing the steel to stretch in a resulting fire. There might even be a collapse, but only on the side of the building that was 'hit. Partial collapses often happen in burning buildings."

bolded portion you indicated as being interesting

Yes, I thought that statement was interesting as well. Another reason why I have problems with how fires ultimately were supposed to have totally felled WTC 1,2 and 7.

You should be aware that fire induced partial collapse is not unprecedented and has never occurred in such a structure, damaged so extensively, as was the case for WTC 1&2.

Miragememories wrote:
GrahamH wrote:"Note that two sides were hit, since the plane went right through two faces of the exterior column wall. Did the calculations include the pane smashing holes in two sides and damaging the core columns?"


I really have to take serious issue with claim. Whatever reached the opposite side from the original impact was certainly not a plane.

I retract this point. Although a few exterior columns were severed (WTC2) or damaged on the opposite side to the impacts it probably isn't very significant. The real point is whether the design calculations can be said to match the actual damage observed, from impact and fire. Since the design calculations are not available we can't rely on them to conclude that the design should have withstood the event.

You may recall that the Titanic was designed to be unsinkable.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20419

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2064  Postby econ41 » Nov 12, 2010 6:10 pm

Patriots4Truth wrote:
econ41 wrote:There was no free fall (acceleration) of the main structural elements of wTC1

I suppose you have proof? ...
Not off hand - I no longer keep an index of 9/11 topics. The issue of free fall of WTC1 & WTC2 was a "hot issue" some years back with claims that both towers fell at free fall. You will be aware of the truther "myth by implication" that free fall only occurs with demolition. That myth and the claims for global free fall of WTC1 & 2 have been rebutted many times. In that context there are video clips which show peeled off outer tube columns falling faster than the main tower collapse. They would be falling at near free fall - for such heavy sections the "terminal velocity" effects of air resistance would be minimal. Then the other possible area of free fall is in the more detailed aspects of collapse such as the first downward movement of the top block. The work of Szamboti and Chandler shows (non controversially I suggest.) that there was not free fall at that stage. So, bottom line is, I or "we" could dig up some proof but I am feeling lazy if I can avoid the work.
Patriots4Truth wrote:
econ41 wrote:...you actually mean video analysis looking for "big jolts",
flawed in that purpose and deliberately structured so that mini-jolts are dampened out.

Okay, let's agree that we should analyze the video at 30fps and search for these minijolts. Has anyone done this? If so please link to me their analysis
econ41 wrote:
Look at what you are trying here. You are deflecting into discussion of video measurement. An evasive ploy.
The real issue is that the falling top section of tower falling onto the bottom section would have shown a "big jolt"
if there had been demolition as per Szamboti and Chandlers claims. There was no big jolt so their claims were wrong.
Sorry you don't like "black and white" when it goes against you. That's life.

I told you that a big jolt isn't an issue for me. a small-medium sized jolt is. and a small-medium sized jolt would fall into the realm of your hypothesis. "only mini-jolts" is the extreme end of your hypothesis and that appears to be what you agree with because it might be able to be supported with video evidence...
I appreciate your reasoning approach. However I approach it from the opposite direction. The direction of "thinking through what could happen" before looking for video proof rather than leading from video and risking becoming obsessed with the techniques of video (ref femr2 and Major_Tom in another place)

At this stage I think you see my position as having only two options viz "one big jolt" versus "lots of little ones". You see the possibility of one or more "medium jolts". My two categories probably come from my need to discriminate between an initial collapse with demolition assistance and one without. And my "with demolition" scenario is implicitly the one Szamboti used - recalling that he misconstrued the premise assumptions of Bazant and Zhou. I then ask "How would that affect the interaction of the two colliding bits of tower?" Still coming at the issue my way BUT allowing that "at this stage of logic I cannot discount demolition" your "medium jolt" suggestion could result from a different form of demolition to that proposed by Szamboti. So, at this stage, the way is open to explore your ideas on that different form of demolition.

Patriots4Truth wrote:
econ41 wrote:
freefall acceleration is irrelevant to freefall acceleration is irrelevant to what we are discussing. And it does not support "demolition" over "no demolition" - I am well aware of the canards of truther lore. That one is wrong.

controlled demolition can take away support on entire floors - it would be easy to figure out how freefall acceleration could happen when beam connections on multiple stories or beams themselves are demolished

controlled demolition can also create a collapse very much like that of of "verinage"...
Understood
Patriots4Truth wrote:
econ41 wrote:
Patriots4Truth wrote:...I would like to mention one thing that you didn't consider in your post (something that I've had to repeat already for someone else). There was no measurable deceleration when the upper section hit the bottom section. not even a mini-jolt. The Verinage collapse graphs show measurable deceleration. Szamboti's video analysis does not show measurable deceleration. Therefor Verinage does not in fact support what actually happened.

Take a while to think that one through again. Starting at "The Verinage..." from there on plus some knowledge of what "Verinage" is is all you need to get the answer right.
I'm not sure what you are getting at here actually.
I was probably too obtuse.

Lets take the first bit first: "There was no measurable deceleration when the upper section hit the bottom section. not even a mini-jolt." I'm not sure about the "no mini jolt" but the real issue here is that a "no demolition scenario" has the initial collapse occurring as columns progressively release load, causing load distribution leading to more collapsing columns and the sequence becomes an exponential runaway. The top block starts to move and gains speed. But it is already in contact with the lower tower through the "mish mash" of bent buckled failed columns and the ditto failing columns. So there is no point of contact which is reached in time after a period of not in contact. And the speed is increasing all the way hence no decelleration or associated "jolt" (again I can come back to the "mini jolt" issue if we need to - simply put I posit there would be multiple mini-jolts superimposed on the smoothly increasing speed of descent - but leave it for now.)

So those are the premises for the "no demolition" scenario. Whereas the Szamboti "pro demolition" scenario has a period of "no contact" after which there is contact which occurs with a moving top block therefore a "jolt".

...and your "medium jolt" scenario falls between those extremes - but we need to explore it further.

...then, moving on to the second part: "The Verinage collapse graphs show measurable deceleration. Szamboti's video analysis does not show measurable deceleration. Therefor Verinage does not in fact support what actually happened." Verinage creates a near enough to "not in contact" situation which allows the top section to fall into contact after attaining some velocity. Hence a bloody big jolt to destroy what is below and the falling bit then self destructs. (Bazant "crush down - crush up" if you wish to consider that model.) Controlled demolition usually follows the same model. ("Usually" because there may be exceptions which I am not aware of.) So the point I was making too obscurely is that Verinage does support CD but does not negate "what actually happened". And there is a logic failure there for those who would be pedantic. :oops: I thought it was worth the risk. :naughty2:

Comments? Further elaboration of "medium jolts"?
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1286
Age: 81
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2065  Postby econ41 » Nov 12, 2010 6:11 pm

@Miragememories.
The basic way this sort of discussion proceeds is that one of us states an hypothesis and the other party then faces the challenge to do two things:
  1. rebut the presented hypothesis by reasoned argument; AND
  2. Present a better one which includes reasoned support.
I am prepared to assist persons posting in these threads to understand the events of 9/11 as they affected the Twin Towers. I have not the slightest interest in attempting to rebut the twisted logic and scattering claims of bare assertions which are typical of current popular "truther" game playing.

With that in mind some comments on your recent post:
Miragememories wrote:....Actually, I made it perfectly clear that my interpretation of drop explicitly meant descend at free fall, only impeded by air resistance...
You are misrepresenting the sequence of posts and the parties involved to make a point out of nothing. You prefer to use the word "drop" only in situations of free fall. I agreed. Why waste time trying to address a none existent disagreement? Move on.

Miragememories wrote:...Well this is rather important do you not think?

A rigid or solid body impacting a structure is going to have a totally different effect than a not rigid or not-solid body....
I am the engineer and you choose to lecture me on the very issue which I had already identified. But using an irrelevant example:
Miragememories wrote:...Take a bag of sand for example. It has a fixed mass and while tightly contained, represents a solid and rigid body. Drop it, or if you prefer, make it move downward, when it impacts an object below, it will have a certain amount of concentrated momentum....
So what? Why make a point that you do not use when I had already made a more relevant comment on the same issue?

then you move to matters of possible substance:
Miragememories wrote:...Well we have a more fragile upper block suffering pre-existing physical damage from the aircraft impact, on several of its floors, combined with whatever damage has resulted from 102 minutes of unfought fire, making contact with the undamaged, intact structure below it.

The intact structure below is rigidly interconnected by a perimeter of structural steel columns linked by concrete covered steel trusses joined to heavy structural steel core columns....
I note the attempt to "pre-set" the following discussion by emotively loaded assertions. There was no difference between the structural integrity of the top block above the impact zone and the lower tower below that zone. If you need the top block to be weaker you will need to show how and why.

Eventually you get to the crux of the matter:
Miragememories wrote:...Are you suggesting that an error in understanding what caused the initial collapse is irrelevant to what followed?...
Yes. The Twin Towers collapses both involved an initial collapse and a global collapse. There was a defining point in the collapse when the top section of tower started to fall. How it started to fall preset some of the condition of the interface between the top sections and the lower tower - with any bits caught in between depending on how you want to explain it. What "caused" the collapse matters little other than as it affects the condition of the contact between the bits.

Miragememories wrote:...I think the basic premise on which you draw your forward conclusions must be proven to be reasonable before you can proceed with any analysis.

You are in effect asking that the reader accept your assumptions so that you can present conclusions which are wholly dependent on the legitimacy of your unsubstantiated assumptions.

The rest of your response just continues in the same vein.
The only assumption is the line I draw in the sand of the point of downwards movement of the top section of tower. The condition of the bottom of the top block and the top of the lower tower (and any broken bits of impact zone between them) can be defined at that "point of downward movement".

If you want to deny that there was a point of downward movement our discussion can end right here.
Miragememories wrote:...The reason I make such a big issue about this, is that I believe for both of the Towers, the upper sections did D R O P....
I fully comprehend your need to have a drop meaning a freefall drop. Its unfortunate for your case that there was no such drop. The work of T Szamboti and D Chandler is evidence in support of no free fall drop.

Miragememories wrote:...What I do not believe is that they dropped as a consequence of fire-induced thermal expansion....
Agreed, naturally.

So, have we progressed? Nearly 800 words to this stage of this post and most of them used by me correcting misinterpretations which you didn't need to post. They add nothing to the substance of wherever your claim might be going.

I think the substantive points made are:
  • Whatever case you may be moving towards making requires that the top block be more fragile than the lower tower. You will have to show why it was if it is a relevant factor.
  • You need some undefined at this stage aspect of the cause of initial collapse to be available as a factor in global collapse. I have clarified a "line in the sand" which may help in that regard;
  • Your as yet undefined claims as to collapse mechanism require a free fall drop at about the same time as my "line in the sand" ie the initial downward movement of the top section. Evidence is there was no free fall drop.

Over to you!
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1286
Age: 81
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2066  Postby amused » Nov 12, 2010 11:29 pm

cursuswalker wrote:
Nicko wrote:
amused wrote:Real professionals did a real investigation and arrived at real conclusions.


103 pages in and the truthers have still not managed to get past this simple point.

There is no evidence that the towers were subject to any sort of controlled demolition. The towers did not fall as if they were subject to controlled demolition. There was no credible evidence of explosives at the scene. There has never been suggested a credible method by which a controlled demolition could have been set up without drawing the attention of everyone who worked in the buildings. There has never been suggested a credible motive for the US government to blow up two landmark buildings full of campaign contributors, risking total financial paralysis on a national scale.

There is, however, overwhelming evidence that the the towers were each hit by a very fucking large aeroplane and then caught on fire. There is ample evidence that agents in the field obtained information that could have prevented the attack (without torture or illegal wiretaps I might add), but which was not acted upon by higher ups. There is ample evidence that goverments the world over used 9/11 as an excuse to engage in violence that could not otherwise be "justified" or, at the very minimum, to pass laws to restrict civil liberties.

There is real stuff here for Americans to be angry about. The truthers need to stop looking in the shadows for conspiracies and pay attention to the crimes and negligence occurring in broad daylight.


^^^
Fucking THIS


Yep.

Also, it would not be necessary for the buildings to have actually fallen down for the government(s) to have used 9/11 as an excuse to do the things it did. 9/11 would still have been the biggest act of terror against the US. There is simply no reason to even start down the road to demolition once those planes hit the buildings. If they were still up, the entire top portions would probably by now have been removed, certainly gutted, and standing as testimony to the event.

Truthers do great violence to the integrity of the professionals who did the investigation, simply to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt. It's dishonest and it certainly ain't patriotic.
amused
 
Posts: 468

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2067  Postby econ41 » Nov 12, 2010 11:47 pm

amused wrote:...Also, it would not be necessary for the buildings to have actually fallen down for the government(s) to have used 9/11 as an excuse to do the things it did. 9/11 would still have been the biggest act of terror against the US. There is simply no reason to even start down the road to demolition once those planes hit the buildings. If they were still up, the entire top portions would probably by now have been removed, certainly gutted, and standing as testimony to the event.

Truthers do great violence to the integrity of the professionals who did the investigation, simply to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt. It's dishonest and it certainly ain't patriotic.

They also undermine any genuine concerns that some people may have about conspiracy/collusion/cover up.

If there is a genuinely held concern about conspiracy that warrants further investigation it will need political motivation to bring it about. Few if any politicians would want to have any part in it. And linking it to the ridiculous technical claims such as demolition at WTC will give the politicians the easy way out to do nothing.

Every sensible person looking at WTC 9/11 can either see for themselves that there was no demolition OR realise that genuine professionals say "no demolition". The lies of most of the leading truthers are readily discernible. Probably the simplest examples being the "opening broadsides" of their powerpoint presentations which simply ooze misleading propaganda trickery.

So a crazy political strategy tying genuine concerns about conspiracy to a dead set loser in demolition.
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1286
Age: 81
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2068  Postby econ41 » Nov 13, 2010 12:06 am

For uke2se

My memory works but slowly. Old age? :nono: Remember this comment and my response:
econ41 wrote:
uke2se wrote:This is the JREF thread on Tony Szamboti's "Missing Jolt" paper. I'm fairly sure econ participated in it. Szamboti certainly did, and his paper got a thorough trashing....

(My emphasis added.)
Not quite. I came late to the JREF discussions. I have confronted Tony Szamboti several times showing the flaws in his "Missing Jolt" paper. But it was not in the main "Missing Jolt" thread.....

It was in the thread titled "Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world" which was started by another member because I had drawn attention to the misuse of the work of Bazant et al. Bazant collaborated in various papers but the main one of interest is the Bazant & Zhou paper of 2001. One of my later comments is at: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=184076&page=16

My challenges to Tony Szamboti and his evasions are earlier in the thread. Some at page 10. The rest easy to find. If anyone needs a more detailed explanation of what is wrong with "Missing Jolt" I could oblige. But the key points are included in my recent posts. The main "killer" issue is that Szamboti falsely assumes a "post demolition" starting point for his logic then circles to prove that starting point "true". So no big surprise. GIGO!

Edit: Corrected for clarity.
Last edited by econ41 on Nov 13, 2010 12:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1286
Age: 81
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2069  Postby Patriots4Truth » Nov 13, 2010 12:15 am

amused wrote:
cursuswalker wrote:
Nicko wrote:

103 pages in and the truthers have still not managed to get past this simple point.

There is no evidence that the towers were subject to any sort of controlled demolition. The towers did not fall as if they were subject to controlled demolition. There was no credible evidence of explosives at the scene. There has never been suggested a credible method by which a controlled demolition could have been set up without drawing the attention of everyone who worked in the buildings. There has never been suggested a credible motive for the US government to blow up two landmark buildings full of campaign contributors, risking total financial paralysis on a national scale.

There is, however, overwhelming evidence that the the towers were each hit by a very fucking large aeroplane and then caught on fire. There is ample evidence that agents in the field obtained information that could have prevented the attack (without torture or illegal wiretaps I might add), but which was not acted upon by higher ups. There is ample evidence that goverments the world over used 9/11 as an excuse to engage in violence that could not otherwise be "justified" or, at the very minimum, to pass laws to restrict civil liberties.

There is real stuff here for Americans to be angry about. The truthers need to stop looking in the shadows for conspiracies and pay attention to the crimes and negligence occurring in broad daylight.


^^^
Fucking THIS


Yep.

Also, it would not be necessary for the buildings to have actually fallen down for the government(s) to have used 9/11 as an excuse to do the things it did. 9/11 would still have been the biggest act of terror against the US. There is simply no reason to even start down the road to demolition once those planes hit the buildings. If they were still up, the entire top portions would probably by now have been removed, certainly gutted, and standing as testimony to the event.

Truthers do great violence to the integrity of the professionals who did the investigation, simply to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt. It's dishonest and it certainly ain't patriotic.


It's amazing how unprofessional much of Nist's report is. You should look into it. Nist purposely avoided any evidence of explosives. I would go on and reply to other people's posts but I am terribly busy for a while

Saying "it would of been an act of terror no matter what" doesn't justify lives lost in the Middle East and lives lost on 9/11 which may have very well been attributed to terrorist masterminds that aren't even Musllim. I live in a country that honors truth and justice. Saying "so what" about the biggest crime of our century is unpatriotic. Not giving 9/11 a proper investigation is unpatriotic. I care about why we went to the Middle East and why we are there today so I especially care about 9/11 - the pretext for everything. People who know enough of 9/11 truth and don't support a reinvestigation invariably come off as not caring about 9/11 or "justice for all". sad but true.
User avatar
Patriots4Truth
 
Posts: 169

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2070  Postby econ41 » Nov 13, 2010 12:33 am

Patriots4Truth wrote:...It's amazing how unprofessional much of Nist's report is. You should look into it. Nist purposely avoided any evidence of explosives....
Whether that claim is true or not is one matter but remember the context. There never was, never has been any serious question of demolition. The engineering profession world wide set about working out "why" the collapse. Most of us were surprised and it took some time for the profession to work out the details. But the question of demolition is purely a creation of the truth movement as we now label it OR "conspiracy theorists" as was more common terminology some years back.

It is only within the limited confines of discussion with the truth movement that the fantasies of demolition are given any prominence. Within professional circles the movement is ignored or treated with contempt/ridicule. The truth movement seems to have recently gained a renewed life but at a trivial level of discussion. All the real questions were answered years ago so the current "discussion" consists of little real argument. Merely the raising of truther canards for the umpteenth time and responses which more often than not are discourteously brief and directed against the person.

Now whether you or others are comfortable with that situation is a separate matter.

Patriots4Truth wrote:... I would go on and reply to other people's posts but I am terribly busy for a while...
no urgency on my part. We all have lives in the real world apart from this hobby.

Patriots4Truth wrote:... Saying "it would of been an act of terror no matter what" doesn't justify lives lost in the Middle East and lives lost on 9/11 which may have very well been attributed to terrorist masterminds that aren't even Musllim. I live in a country that honors truth and justice. Saying "so what" about the biggest crime of our century is unpatriotic. Not giving 9/11 a proper investigation is unpatriotic. I care about why we went to the Middle East and why we are there today so I especially care about 9/11 - the pretext for everything. People who know enough of 9/11 truth and don't support a reinvestigation invariably come off as not caring about 9/11 or "justice for all". sad but true.
Many of us would share your concerns about those non-technical matters. But trying to get something done about the political and conspiracy/collusion type concerns must be on a political loser whilst ever it is tied to nonsense claims about demolition at WTC for one example.

I cannot see any critical mass of US politicians supporting further investigation whilst it is tied to "demolition at WTC" nonsense. It is so easy to disprove. So dump it and run the real agenda.

EDIT PS ..and try to get away from the "false globalisations" as included in your last paragraph. I am one person who automatically discounts any claim which is "global". You do not need an investigation into WTC collapse or plane into Pentagon or the Shanksville crash. You need investigations into the political decision making which flowed from the 9/11 events.
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1286
Age: 81
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2071  Postby Miragememories » Nov 13, 2010 1:01 am

econ41 wrote:"...@Miragememories.The basic way this sort of discussion proceeds is..."


Get over yourself.

I've seen how discussions proceed here.

You ignore what you do not have answers for and seek out the presentations that look to be the most vulnerable.

Meanwhile members who will remain nameless, take pot shots from the sidelines while never contributing anything of their own to the thread except the odd regurgitation from JREF.

So I will respond in detail, but under my own terms, terms that satisfy the user agreement which is the only law in effect here.

I do have to say though; it is truly sad that you view your participation in this thread, one that is discussing an event that cost thousands of innocent lives, as nothing more than a "hobby".

I lost a close friend in WTC2 on 9/11.

Whenever I hear someone who opposes a proper and full investigation into 9/11 describe their forum participation as a hobby or entertainment, it absolutely disgusts me. When it comes from someone of my own generation, I am truly at a loss for words.

Do we ask for that much?

Is the evidence of 19 stooges with box cutters that comic-book compelling for you?

Is it that easy to dismiss WTC 7 and the findings of thermitic material?

When so many people choose to think this way, because it is so much easier, comfy, and safe, I wonder if it is too late, investigation or no investigation.

There is so much truth in the expression; "you can run, but you cannot hide".

MM




!
MODNOTE
The report regarding this post has been dealt with and closed.

Durro
User avatar
Miragememories
 
Posts: 69
Age: 71
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2072  Postby byofrcs » Nov 13, 2010 1:19 am

Appeal to emotion.
In America the battle is between common cents distorted by profits and common sense distorted by prophets.
User avatar
byofrcs
RS Donator
 
Name: Lincoln Phipps
Posts: 7906
Age: 58
Male

Country: Tax, sleep, identity ?
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2073  Postby Nicko » Nov 13, 2010 1:27 am

Patriots4Truth wrote: I live in a country that honors truth and justice. Saying "so what" about the biggest crime of our century is unpatriotic. Not giving 9/11 a proper investigation is unpatriotic. I care about why we went to the Middle East and why we are there today so I especially care about 9/11 - the pretext for everything. People who know enough of 9/11 truth and don't support a reinvestigation invariably come off as not caring about 9/11 or "justice for all". sad but true.


But what you are doing is the equivalent of leaving your child in the care of a complete stranger whilst you go and check under every bush in your neighborhood for child molesters. Why did you "go" to the Middle East? Wake up "patriot". You've been there for over half a century. The two wars launched after 9/11 were simply the continuation of foreign policy objectives that have been in place for decades.

You want to "honor truth and justice"? You do the former by paying attention to what is really going on. You do the latter by requiring that your country applies the same standards to itself that it judges the rest of the world by.
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8641
Age: 45
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2074  Postby Patriots4Truth » Nov 13, 2010 1:35 am

Nicko wrote:
Patriots4Truth wrote: I live in a country that honors truth and justice. Saying "so what" about the biggest crime of our century is unpatriotic. Not giving 9/11 a proper investigation is unpatriotic. I care about why we went to the Middle East and why we are there today so I especially care about 9/11 - the pretext for everything. People who know enough of 9/11 truth and don't support a reinvestigation invariably come off as not caring about 9/11 or "justice for all". sad but true.


But what you are doing is the equivalent of leaving your child in the care of a complete stranger whilst you go and check under every bush in your neighborhood for child molesters. Why did you "go" to the Middle East? Wake up "patriot". You've been there for over half a century. The two wars launched after 9/11 were simply the continuation of foreign policy objectives that have been in place for decades. I repeat, saying "it would of been and is an act of terror no matter what" doesn't justify the explanation why lives were lost in the Middle East and lives were lost on 9/11 which may have very well been attributed to terrorist masterminds that aren't even Musllim. People should know the real reason

You want to "honor truth and justice"? You do the former by paying attention to what is really going on. You do the latter by requiring that your country applies the same standards to itself that it judges the rest of the world by. justice in due process. honor in supporting our troops and supporting reinvestigation

to continue your analogy - if there is plenty of evidence that child molesters might have your child then you follow up with an investigation
Last edited by Patriots4Truth on Nov 13, 2010 2:48 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Patriots4Truth
 
Posts: 169

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2075  Postby Durro » Nov 13, 2010 1:49 am


!
MODNOTE
.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post5 ... ml#p573869

Miragememories, with regard to the above post, settle down please. Econ41 was referring to participation in internet forums such as this one on Ratskep.org as a hobby, not the discussion of 9/11 and anything associated with 9/11. I know that Econ41 views the 9/11 events as a tragedy, as I'm sure we all do, and his comments were certainly not meant to diminish or belittle this fact. You've misunderstood his reference to a "hobby" and reacted emotionally, which is understandable given your close association with the tragedy, but please take a breath and tone it down a bit.

Thanks,

Durro
I'll start believing in Astrology the day that all Sagittarians get hit by a bus, as predicted.
User avatar
Durro
RS Donator
 
Posts: 16737
Age: 55
Male

Country: Brisbane, Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2076  Postby econ41 » Nov 13, 2010 2:28 am

Miragememories wrote:
econ41 wrote:"...@Miragememories.The basic way this sort of discussion proceeds is..."


Get over yourself.

I've seen how discussions proceed here.

My offer to explain 9/11 technical events and to discuss them rationally is long standing. It is available to you if you choose to take me up on it. It is no issue with me if you do not wish to engage.

I note your emotive comments which you took totally out of the context of the post you quote mined from.
My position remains clear:
The events of 9/11 were part of one of the most offensive acts ever committed by one group against another and no misrepresentation of my position will change it;
Many people have a genuine desire for further investigation into those acts AND the political choices which followed them.
And, I should not need to restate that, as explained in several recent posts, it is my opinion that the political goal of achieving another investigation would be better served if it was not hampered by false claims for demolition at WTC.

As for some of your other comments:
Miragememories wrote:...You ignore what you do not have answers for and seek out the presentations that look to be the most vulnerable...
A false claim if it is your intention to include me in the plural "You".
Miragememories wrote:...Meanwhile members who will remain nameless, take pot shots from the sidelines while never contributing anything of their own to the thread except the odd regurgitation from JREF...
Not relevant to me as you can see from two recent posts which go to some detail to engage with you and one other member.
Miragememories wrote:...Is the evidence of 19 stooges with box cutters that comic-book compelling for you?...
that is not under discussion. Raise it as a topic if you wish.
Miragememories wrote:...Is it that easy to dismiss WTC 7 and the findings of thermitic material?..
Yes. Both are nonsense. Hence my advice - if anyone has an interest in the conspiracy and political aspects of 9/11 and what flowed from it then debate those issues. But don't tie them to loser technical issues such as demolition of WTC. Doing so makes your whole case a laughing stock. Remember that both the process of achieving a further investigation and the conduct of such an investigation if it is achieved will involve a quasi judicial approach to the material presented. Nothing which I have seen being put forward by the truth movement up to this time would withstand such a scrutiny.
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1286
Age: 81
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2077  Postby uke2se » Nov 13, 2010 4:46 am

Miragememories wrote:
Is the evidence of 19 stooges with box cutters that comic-book compelling for you?


It is for me. The evidence is overwhelming.

Miragememories wrote:
Is it that easy to dismiss WTC 7 and the findings of thermitic material?


Given the fact that no such material was found, yes, it is. Harrit and Jones are liars as they have shown this on numerous occasions by not getting their results verified by independent researchers. They are bad at their job as they show in the shoddy collection of words they call a "paper". There is no reason for anyone to listen to them.

The best thing they could have done from the start was to get their results verified independently and if they stood up to scrutiny (which they probably wouldn't, which is probably why Jones et al never bothered to verify them independently), to write a paper for publishing in a proper peer-reviewed journal.

These people want your money, and as you claim to be the friend of a victim, you should be outraged at this.

Miragememories wrote:
When so many people choose to think this way, because it is so much easier, comfy, and safe, I wonder if it is too late, investigation or no investigation.


It's not easier, comfier or safer. It's hard to get through the barrages of conspiracy theories without having them rub off on you. Conspiracy theories are appealing because they present easy solutions to hard problems. Some people can't live with the fact that the US, by some called the greatest nation on Earth, could fall prey to such an attack as on 9/11. Instead they invent an omniscient and omnipresent boogie man in the form of the Big Gubmint - alternatively the Joos. It makes it easier for these people to cope. That by doing so they retreat from reality isn't a concern for them.

I wouldn't have a problem with 9/11 conspiracy theories if it didn't involve people making excuses for the murderers of around 3000 people. I think that's vile, and when I hear someone do it, I need to speak up. This is the same reason - but to a lesser extent - why I speak up against holocaust deniers. To me, 9/11 conspiracy theorists are doing the same thing that holocaust deniers are doing, and I feel equally sickened by it. I don't think you're a Nazi, MM. I just think you're wrong, and what you're doing is wrong.
User avatar
uke2se
 
Posts: 641

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2078  Postby Kat Dorman » Nov 13, 2010 11:56 am

econ41 wrote:It is a good climate. But they are not beset by idiotic truthers OR idiotic opponents of idiotic truthers. And their moderation would keep it that way.

Thanks for the kind words.

It could be interesting because they certainly bring a reasonably high level of discussion skills. Those skills being used on JREF to avoid debate however.

There is a reflexive dynamic there, I'm sure you know. Those guys are pestered non-stop with inane, off-topic distractions from an extensive peanut gallery, much of which is repetitive, illiterate accusations of "backing in CD", even when they aren't. Who cares what their end game is? The stuff along the way can be quite interesting. I'll take one of them over any gaggle of average JREFers (you're excepted because you aren't an average JREFer by a long shot). In fact, I'd prefer to throttle the average JREFer, whereas I enjoy working with these guys.

As far as "avoiding debate", I don't really see that. femr2 is constantly being nitpicked up, down and back up again about his measurements and he patiently explains time and time again the most basic facts surrounding that work. I'd call that debate. The clever people (e.g., W.D. Clinger, Newton's Bit) see no problem and even some potential utility of these measurements but throngs line up - or at least they did for a while, on a daily basis* - to take the same old ill-founded potshots, all the while missing the bigger picture(s) which need not involve demolition.


*and will again the moment he makes another post in the thread tfk started.
Last edited by Kat Dorman on Nov 13, 2010 1:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Kat Dorman
 
Posts: 1065

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2079  Postby BlackBart » Nov 13, 2010 1:15 pm

uke2se wrote:
Miragememories wrote:
Is the evidence of 19 stooges with box cutters that comic-book compelling for you?


It is for me. The evidence is overwhelming.



+1

No evidence that they were 'stooges' - other than that they were under the impression that they were going to get 72 virgins.

Add to that, that neither Muslim suicide attacks or airline hijackings were unprecedented at the time.

Plenty of evidence that the destruction of world trade centre was an Al Qaeda goal.

Then compare the problems of smuggling a boxcutter blade onto an airliner with the problems of wiring two skyscrapers with demolition technology that can withstand a 400mph airline strike. Without anyone noticing.

Plus no evidence of what controlled demolition would achieve over and above the airline strikes.

It's pretty compelling which one is the comic-book scenario.
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Name: rotten bart
Posts: 12600
Age: 59
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2080  Postby Thinking Aloud » Nov 13, 2010 2:23 pm

Just recalling a snippet I once read, re the WTC's ability to withstand impact from an airliner, if I recall correctly:

There had been concern that such a tall structure would be vulnerable, particularly in poor visibility, low cloud and fog, to being hit by a lost aircraft trying to land at a nearby airport. The inference I got was that the structures had been built with that scenario in mind: an aircraft the size of a 707, flying relatively slowly and cautiously, nearly empty fuel tanks, preparing to land. That's quite a different scenario to a fully fuelled 767 doing twice or three times the speed.

I'm afraid I don't recall exactly where I read this, but it was in some kind of report on the structures after 9/11; but I've always found it a useful thing to bear in mind when discussing what the buildings would likely have been built to (or claimed by the builders to be able to) withstand.
User avatar
Thinking Aloud
 
Posts: 90
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracy Theories

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 3 guests

cron