The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

[Miragememories]

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.

You would find it much easier if you read back in the thread first.

This was posted on November 11, 2010;

"I note that you have failed to back-up you claim by providing any evidence of calculation or provision for the effects of fire on the structure.

It is not contested that an analysis for impact damage was conducted, for a slow-flying 707.

Is it worth asking again? What evidence can you provide of an allowance made for structural effects of subsequent fires?"

You are either ignoring or did not read;

"3. The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707 - DC 8) travelling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."

This detailed analysis was performed at the request of the NYC Port Authority in response to public concerns about the safety of such tall buildings in the event of aircraft collisions and subsequent fires, and largely on the basis of this WWII event reported in the NY Times;

"Saturday morning in July 1945, when a B-25 bomber, lost in the fog, barreled into the 79th floor of the Empire State Building. Most of the 14 people who died were incinerated by a fireball created when the plane's fuel ignited, even though the fire was quickly contained. The following year, another plane crashed into the 72-story skyscraper at 40 Wall Street, and yet another one narrowly missed the Empire State Building, terrifying sightseers on the observation deck."

Are you seriously suggesting that while designing the Towers to cope with such a crash, the designers somehow overlooked the possibility of fire?

Prior to 9/11, Leslie Robertson was making a different, more ego-serving claim;

http://snurl.com/j54gc (Report From Ground Zero page 188

A few quotes from that page;



"After the bombing of the WTC in 1993, Leslie Robertson, one of the engineers who worked on the towers' structural design in the 1960s, claimed that each had been built to withstand the impact of a fully fueled 707. The 707 was the state-of-the-art airplane, and the Port Authority was quite amenable to considering the effect of an airplane as a design criterion...I don't know if we considered the fire damage that would cause. Anyway, the architect, not the engineer, is the one who specifies the fire system."

"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."

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
"John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8."

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698
Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision
By Eric Nalder
as reported in the Seattle Times Februaury 27, 1993

"In the wake of the WTC bombing, the Seattle Times interviews John Skilling who was one of the two structural engineers responsible for designing the Trade Center. Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the Twin Towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. He says, “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.”

I hope that helps flesh out your memory.

MM

[amused]

Also, keep in mind that in the early 1960's when the buildings were in design, any analysis of an airplane hitting the buildings was done using sliderules. No way to model the resulting firestorm. If an analysis of an impact was actually done, it was probably done for the benefit of the leasing agents so they could tell prospective tenants that the buildings can't be knocked over. But withstanding an impact and then surviving the fires with a compromised structure are two completely different scenarios.

[Weaver]

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.

You would find it much easier if you read back in the thread first.
...
MM

Oh, the irony.

And thus we get yet another chance to go over and over and over the same topics.

[Miragememories]

Appeal to emotion.

Yes, well for some of us, 9/11 still remains an emotional subject.

MM

[Miragememories]

"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."

An interesting response from someone supposedly sincerely interested in a truthful discussion about 9/11/.

In spite of strong reasons to question the validity of the NIST WTC 7 findings, you casually, and arrogantly, handwave them away as "nonsense".

In spite of strong evidence that thermitic materials were pervasive in the WTC dust, you also, casually, and arrogantly, handwave this away as "nonsense".

No maybes, or needs further examination. Just an arrogant; "Yes. Both are nonsense."

And more mocking arrogance in your unequivocal statement, that drawing logical connections between the existence of massive volumes of thermitic materials, and the credibility-lacking NIST Final WTC 7 Collapse Report, with the collapses of WTC Twin Towers, are nothing more than loser technical issues creating a laughing stock case.

You might like to explain your belief that none of the material that could be put forward by the 9/11 Truth Movement at this time would withstand the scrutiny of a judicial approach?

In particular how can you so casually, and I might say callously, disregard the thermitic material findings?

Much of that disclosure has been presented already in this thread, and your confident point of view suggests either much familiarity, or unconcerned ignorance. I can cite some of the strongest findings if you wish?

MM

[Xaihe]

"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."

An interesting response from someone supposedly sincerely interested in a truthful discussion about 9/11/.

In spite of strong reasons to question the validity of the NIST WTC 7 findings, you casually, and arrogantly, handwave them away as "nonsense".

In spite of strong evidence that thermitic materials were pervasive in the WTC dust, you also, casually, and arrogantly, handwave this away as "nonsense".

No maybes, or needs further examination. Just an arrogant; "Yes. Both are nonsense."

And more mocking arrogance in your unequivocal statement, that drawing logical connections between the existence of massive volumes of thermitic materials, and the credibility-lacking NIST Final WTC 7 Collapse Report, with the collapses of WTC Twin Towers, are nothing more than loser technical issues creating a laughing stock case.

You might like to explain your belief that none of the material that could be put forward by the 9/11 Truth Movement at this time would withstand the scrutiny of a judicial approach?

In particular how can you so casually, and I might say callously, disregard the thermitic material findings?

Much of that disclosure has been presented already in this thread, and your confident point of view suggests either much familiarity, or unconcerned ignorance. I can cite some of the strongest findings if you wish?

MM

Why do you accuse econ of hand waving away your claims when there have been so many posts that deal with those claims? Maybe you didn't read them or maybe you just hand waved them away?

[Miragememories]

"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."

An interesting response from someone supposedly sincerely interested in a truthful discussion about 9/11/.

In spite of strong reasons to question the validity of the NIST WTC 7 findings, you casually, and arrogantly, handwave them away as "nonsense".

In spite of strong evidence that thermitic materials were pervasive in the WTC dust, you also, casually, and arrogantly, handwave this away as "nonsense".

No maybes, or needs further examination. Just an arrogant; "Yes. Both are nonsense."

And more mocking arrogance in your unequivocal statement, that drawing logical connections between the existence of massive volumes of thermitic materials, and the credibility-lacking NIST Final WTC 7 Collapse Report, with the collapses of WTC Twin Towers, are nothing more than loser technical issues creating a laughing stock case.

You might like to explain your belief that none of the material that could be put forward by the 9/11 Truth Movement at this time would withstand the scrutiny of a judicial approach?

In particular how can you so casually, and I might say callously, disregard the thermitic material findings?

Much of that disclosure has been presented already in this thread, and your confident point of view suggests either much familiarity, or unconcerned ignorance. I can cite some of the strongest findings if you wish?

MM

Why do you accuse econ of hand waving away your claims when there have been so many posts that deal with those claims? Maybe you didn't read them or maybe you just hand waved them away?

What makes you so damn sure I haven't read them?

I have been involved for a long time.

I accuse econ41 of handwaving, because speaking from my engineering background, one does not casually dismiss the sincere work performed selflessly by credible scientists as "nonsense" unless you can provide irrefutable rebuttal.

The research finding thermitic materials to be pervasive in all the random WTC dust samples is particularly compelling.

Nothing like this material should have been found. Finding it in every sample is especially strong evidence we need a proper investigation.

Unless working in support of those responsible, I do not understand why people are so strongly opposed to opening a proper investigation and getting some real answers?

How much would it cost the government to just investigate and analyze the WTC dust?

They have the facilities, and such a cheap and easy investigation would go a long way towards shutting down the call for a full investigation just by explaining this thermitic material in context with the Official Story.

MM

[Weaver]

[quote0"MirageMemories"]I accuse econ41 of handwaving, because speaking from my engineering background, one does not casually dismiss the sincere work performed selflessly by credible scientists as "nonsense" unless you can provide irrefutable rebuttal.[/quote]Yet the selfish work performed by non-credible "scientists" and which remains unconfirmed by independent sources due to the aforementioned "scientists" reticence can be dismissed out of hand.

The research finding thermitic materials to be pervasive in all the random WTC dust samples is particularly compelling.

No, it isn't. Unless and until it is corroborated and confirmed, and compared to true "laboratory designed thermitic materials" it remains a bullshit assertion.

How much would it cost the government to just investigate and analyze the WTC dust?

Very, very little. Independent researchers could also examine the samples claimed to be such a smoking gun. They cannot, though, because the samples aren't being released.

[Miragememories]

"How much would it cost the government to just investigate and analyze the WTC dust?"

"Very, very little. Independent researchers could also examine the samples claimed to be such a smoking gun. They cannot, though, because the samples aren't being released."

Bullshit.

"Now, back to the chain of custody. So it is not from collapsing buildings. It did come from the dust of the WTC.
As I said, samples were sent separately to Dr. Farrer and myself. These samples all showed the same red/gray material. A separate sample was sent to a scientist, Mark Basile working in New England and he also sees the same active red/gray material. I have to say one thing while I am discussing the efforts by Mark Basile. He was the first one to ignite a red/gray chip and observe the spheres, the tiny iron-rich spheres in the residue after the red/gray chip is ignited. And so I think it is important to give him credit for that observation and we looked in our residues from the red/gray chips and we also found these spheres. I would just like to say that was found independently, and first, by Mark Basile."

Most of the contributing collectors (except for an anonymous NYC museum) have been named, and all have kept portions of their samples.

They have also dealt directly with people other than Dr. Jones.

And certainly the EPA must have samples.

You fail to make your point.

MM

[Weaver]

And the peer-reviewed lab analyses of these samples are where, again? Where has Mark Basile published? Only you haven't cited anything by him ...

One claim published in a vanity journal - whose editor quit in protest. No corroborating publications of independent analysis.

This is not science.

[Thinking Aloud]

You would find it much easier if you read back in the thread first.

This was posted on November 11, 2010;

I hope that helps flesh out your memory.

MM

Thanks - actually it was just easier to post that when it popped into my head than read 100-odd pages! Don't mind me, I was just passing!

[econ41]

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.

Thanks and welcome to ratskep.

It is somewhat surprising to see the closed minded lack of ability to think objectively as displayed on JREF. It leads to "...all the while missing the bigger picture(s) which need not involve demolition." For both "sides" you have to be in one camp or the other and you are regarded as "sus" if you dare to engage with a "truther". On one occasion I was reprimanded by one of the big names (RM) for attempting to engage with Tony Szamboti. IIRC I was told it was a waste of time so don't try. In fact it was a waste of time. Tony is so deeply locked into his position that he evades any pointedly accurate debate. But the "reprimand" was based on don't even try.

Currently "ergo", classed as "truther", has been asking some genuine questions about the need for engineering skills to understand 9/11. He is simply being shot down with no-one as far as I can see even recognising the real question. The presumption that nothing said by a truther can make sense. If he was here I would try but over there any attempt to do so would be swamped. See also my recent posts here offering to and attempting to engage with Patriots and Miragem.. Whether they will take up the offer is still moot.

My style hasn't shifted much since I started posting on the Dawkins net forum which was the predecessor of this forum. I am more into explanation than argument with the implicit goal of win or lose. And my explanatory skills are most applicable to the WTC collapses given my background as Civil/Structural engineer and with military engineering training in demolitions.

Hence one of several reasons for my repeated suggestion that folks who are genuinely concerned about the political and conspiracy aspects of 9/11 disconnect from the technical claims. The questions of demolition or not at WTC can be answered independently of conspiracy. My usual claim "the explosives don't care who bought them, who placed them, who fired them or who miraculously managed to leave no evidence".

So, again, welcome and thanks for the comments.

Eric C

[econ41]

"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."

An interesting response from someone supposedly sincerely interested in a truthful discussion about 9/11/....

My reasons quite understandable. Two will suffice for now:

1. The technical question "Was there demolition or not?" is answerable completely independent of the questions about conspiracy and political decision making. There either was or was not demolition and that is completely independent of who bought the explosives, who placed them, who fired them. The explosives do not know who was in the conspiracy. A facetiously worded claim to illustrate a simple truth; AND
2. After four or five years studying and explaining the collapses - mostly Twin Towers - I am aware that there was no demolition. I can provide reasoning to support that and have done so many times. I remain prepared to do so for any person who will engage in reasoned discussion. Conversely I won't engage in discussion of sideline deviations and other evasive trickery.

...In spite of strong reasons to question the validity of the NIST WTC 7 findings, you casually, and arrogantly, handwave them away as "nonsense".

In spite of strong evidence that thermitic materials were pervasive in the WTC dust, you also, casually, and arrogantly, handwave this away as "nonsense".

No maybes, or needs further examination. Just an arrogant; "Yes. Both are nonsense."...

Categorising my forthright claims as "arrogant" is not conducive to reasoned discussion.
However these are my reasons, briefly stated and with backup available if you wish to progress to reasoned discussion:

1. I discount the concerns about WTC7 - that is claims that it was demolished - on reasons which are a subset of my reasons for dismissing demolition of the twin towers. For the Twin Towers the technical evidence is that:
   1. There was no need for demolition assistance of the collapses; AND
   2. There was no actual deployment of demolition techniques even though such would have been redundant.
   Those technical aspects fall within a more strategic context which includes two groups of factors:
   1. The logistic and security aspects involved in demolition were so improbable as to be effectively impossible;
   2. The technical requirements could not be achieved without discovery for pre installed devices and claims for post impact installation are ridiculous.
   Those latter two factors apply to WTC7 plus two more at least. The nature of the WTC7 collapse mechanism was hidden and cannot be described with the same assurance of detail as applies to the twin towers.
2. My interest in WTC collapses is in the question "Was there demolition or not?" I have no real interest in whether NIST was right or not. The NIST explanation for WTC7 collapse is plausible and nothing more than "plausible" is needed. Other plausible explanations may be possible.
3. The debate about "thermXte" is an amusing sideline which I decline to join in. The argument from my perspective is either a trick to keep endless debate going OR a way to lead to demolition. From my perspective it is backwards. There was no demolition - provable by multiple paths of logic - therefore the questions about thermXte are irrelevant. I have said many times "it does not matter if there was a ten tonne cache of thermXte on site, it wasn't used. Therefore end of debate."

So, in summary, every one of the questions in those areas I describe as "nonsense" has been answered by me and others many times.

Which brings us to your interest. Are you interested in understanding the position that I and others hold? Do you want to present another explanation? I would probably explain my position and/or discuss yours. But only in the frame of a counter claim for demolition - not in pursuit of never ending moving goalposts of technical diversions. So, for themXte, how was it put in place undetected? What structural members were cut? would be one approach to an alternate explanation. Claims in the form of "Thermate was on ground zero - you prove it wasn't demolition" I will reject with the contempt they deserve.

...And more mocking arrogance in your unequivocal statement, that drawing logical connections between the existence of massive volumes of thermitic materials, and the credibility-lacking NIST Final WTC 7 Collapse Report, with the collapses of WTC Twin Towers, are nothing more than loser technical issues creating a laughing stock case....

Actually you have identified the commonest failure of all the truther claims.

If there was a truther claim which drew "...logical connections between..." the relevant elements we would have something to discuss. But we do not see truther claims expressed with "...logical connections between..."

There are two generic problems with claims of the type you make here.

1. the elements or "bits" of your claim are irrelevant OR wrong; AND
2. There is no logical structure holding those "bits" together. Your claim does not have any "...logical connections between..."

...I will pass on the detailed critique at this stage.

...You might like to explain your belief that none of the material that could be put forward by the 9/11 Truth Movement at this time would withstand the scrutiny of a judicial approach?....

I think that I already have. To put something to a "determiner of fact", be it judge or jury, you need supported elements of evidence AND a sequence of logic which ties those elements towards the conclusion. (And all of it beyond reasonable doubt but let's not take the analogy too far.) Nothing I am aware of from the truth movement consists of elements which are true and a consistent train of logic leading to a conclusion. And the challenge to prove that claim wrong has been on the table (multiple tables in fact) for many years.

...In particular how can you so casually, and I might say callously, disregard the thermitic material findings?...

I am reasonably convinced that the findings are false BUT whether that is true or not the findings are irrelevant. Why do you refer to thermXte? Surely it is to support demolition? Put before me an argument that supports demolition and I will probably discuss it. But no one has put that argument anywhere AFAIK.

...Much of that disclosure has been presented already in this thread, and your confident point of view suggests either much familiarity, or unconcerned ignorance. I can cite some of the strongest findings if you wish?...

... again the personal insult "...unconcerned ignorance..." Be assured after a career in the public service I am pretty well immune to personal insults presented in lieu of argument.

But your strongest findings of what? ThermXte? I don't care about thermXte. I am interested in demolition. I have already said "I don't care if there was a ten tonne cache on site" So present the argument that matters and show how thermXte could plausible have been used and you will get my 100% attention. And, if you can show a reasoned argument in favour of demolition, I may need then to look at the thermXte evidence. But not till that reasoned argument is presented.

[hotshoe]

Right, the problem with the truthers is that they're stuck at the false logic of "thermxte, therefore demolition" when they need to be able to prove "demolition, therefore thermxte".

[Kat Dorman]

It is somewhat surprising to see the closed minded lack of ability to think objectively as displayed on JREF.

Well, it is and it isn't surprising, to me. Initially, I suppose it was, but it's what I've come to expect and it was undoubtedly part of my evolution in thinking about human psychology and sociology. There seems to be more of an ideological divide than any sort of technical or rational one. Not to say there are no such divisions, but the prime motivator seems to be faith since so many argue with certainty either using known falsehoods to promote their side or without the requisite skills to make their technical point. Lots of trash on both sides. It is sad that a bastion of critical thinking would turn out to be cauldron of pathology, but it is what it is.

For both "sides" you have to be in one camp or the other and you are regarded as "sus" if you dare to engage with a "truther".

Very frustrating. To CTers, I'm an OCTer, and vice versa. I'm a human being, for goodness sakes.

On one occasion I was reprimanded by one of the big names (RM) for attempting to engage with Tony Szamboti. IIRC I was told it was a waste of time so don't try. In fact it was a waste of time. Tony is so deeply locked into his position that he evades any pointedly accurate debate. But the "reprimand" was based on don't even try.

I remember a specific instance where Mackey came down on you with negativity that I felt was wholly undeserved, not sure if this is the same incident. In the matter you describe, I side with you. I, too, have spent too much time arguing with Tony to no avail, and would fault no one for walking away, but staying and fighting is no cause for disparagement, either. It's all in how you want to spend your time. Mackey, despite having solid intellect and background, has disappointed me with behavior I dare call religious on numerous occasions, but everyone has their flaws. Mine are... well, never mind.

Currently "ergo", classed as "truther", has been asking some genuine questions about the need for engineering skills to understand 9/11. He is simply being shot down with no-one as far as I can see even recognising the real question. The presumption that nothing said by a truther can make sense. If he was here I would try but over there any attempt to do so would be swamped. See also my recent posts here offering to and attempting to engage with Patriots and Miragem.. Whether they will take up the offer is still moot.

I've seen countless examples of it.

I believe I understand where you're coming from and, in that, we share a lot. I don't believe in CD, though I may not have the high confidence from the logistical standpoint you do, it's compelling enough at this time that I can keep an open mind yet CD is not the conclusion I reach. I fully agree the technical aspects have little promise if there were deliberately engineered stealth assistance, and have long maintained that CDers are wasting their time with the engineering aspect. Interestingly enough, though, there's a thorny problem I'm considering as a hobbyist mechanician which you might find intriguing. It certainly presents a minor challenge. Unfortunately, it would take a substantial amount of verbage to explain, especially as to eliminate more superficial objections satisfactorily and thus save time cutting to the meat. At some point, though, I'd like to run it by you.

However, I'd be a little disappointed if you whacked it down right away, it would take the fun out of it.


Edit: thanks for the welcome.

[econ41]

Right, the problem with the truthers is that they're stuck at the false logic of "thermxte, therefore demolition" when they need to be able to prove "demolition, therefore thermxte".

That is the pivotal point of logic I was referring to. There are others no doubt.

A difficulty I face, in common with long term posters on this topic such as yourself, is that it is hard to separate the game players from those who genuinely have a limited understanding combined with weak reasoning skills. The composition of "9/11 poster demography" has shifted significantly since 2007 when I first became involved. Also the topics for discussion have changed.

In 2007-8 there were significant numbers of genuine sceptics, mostly on the Twin Towers collapse because that was the OP of the single thread we inhabited. There were far less obsessive conspiracy theorists. And the discussion was about the "big ticket items" - mainly directly related to "demolition or not at WTC?" Sure the discussion strayed often from the straight and narrow but only into matters that were directly related to the main question.

Now all the real questions have been answered many times. We have "truthers" since the terminology has changed. But there is little if any serious debate of the real issues. The "thermXte" discussions are characteristic. "thermXte" is at least two or three levels remote from the main question for one issue. But the bigger issue is that today's truthers are not prepared to even attempt to put a case for demolition. The usual "debate" these days, if you can call it that, is structured as a remotely relevant technical claim - "there was thermite on site"; a claim, usually not even put explicitly - "therefore demolition" - ignoring the several quantum leaps of missing logic followed immediately by a pair of logical fallacies, again stated more likely than not by innuendo - "you prove that the thermite wasn't used in demolition" - so an attempt to shift burden of proof AND a demand to prove a negative. Meanwhile all the implicit claims and innuendo so that the "truther" can draw back, deny what was intended and move the goalposts.

Sure all those bits of trickery were used in those earlier years but not with the boring repetition that they occur now.

Then the truthers wonder why they get short shrift.

[econ41]

It is somewhat surprising to see the closed minded lack of ability to think objectively as displayed on JREF.

Well, it is and it isn't surprising, to me. Initially, I suppose it was, but it's what I've come to expect and it was undoubtedly part of my evolution in thinking about human psychology and sociology. There seems to be more of an ideological divide than any sort of technical or rational one. Not to say there are no such divisions, but the prime motivator seems to be faith since so many argue with certainty either using known falsehoods to promote their side or without the requisite skills to make their technical point. Lots of trash on both sides. It is sad that a bastion of critical thinking would turn out to be cauldron of pathology, but it is what it is....

A hell of a lot of the "debunker side" are running in waters deeper than their technical skills and relying on posted material which they treat as holy writ. The thread on the limits of Bazant's work showed that clearly. The whole of the Bazant et al "Crush up Crush down" stuff is bullshit if applied to WTC but no way would I be game to say so. RM has done some fantastic work - far more than I have but his theoretical base is only about 70% accurate in the way he applies it to WTC. Meanwhile Major_Toms "ROOSD" is very good and I have to say that because much of it parallels my explanations of global collapse first published on RDNet 2007- early 2008. But daring to support MT is also a capital offence. And I don't rely on NIST or any other authorities - a strategic decision from first days on RDNet. Too many from either side mix up their objectives - decide "demolition or not" should be independent of "Did NIST get it right" but they get confused and overlaid.

...I remember a specific instance where Mackey came down on you with negativity that I felt was wholly undeserved, not sure if this is the same incident. In the matter you describe, I side with you....

That was the one - I have avoided any further confrontation but still taken Tony Sz to task on the foundation flaws in his Missing Jolt paper.

...I believe I understand where you're coming from and, in that, we share a lot. I don't believe in CD, though I may not have the high confidence from the logistical standpoint you do, it's compelling enough at this time that I can keep an open mind yet CD is not the conclusion I reach. I fully agree the technical aspects have little promise if there were deliberately engineered stealth assistance, and have long maintained that CDers are wasting their time with the engineering aspect....

These days I rarely try to put my conclusions in "scientific hypothesis" terminology with all the disclaimers about falsification. Two reasons - I choose to make impact without all the disclaimers watering down the force of any statement I want to make AND the "scientific method" is not the fully appropriate approach. And don't let me get started on "peer review". The test of a claim is "is it right" not "has it been published in a peer reviewed paper". We are engaged in engineering forensic analysis of a non-replicable one-off past event. Not trying to work towards a replicable hypothesis. More details later if appropriate.

... Interestingly enough, though, there's a thorny problem I'm considering as a hobbyist mechanician which you might find intriguing. It certainly presents a minor challenge. Unfortunately, it would take a substantial amount of verbage to explain, especially as to eliminate more superficial objections satisfactorily and thus save time cutting to the meat. At some point, though, I'd like to run it by you....

I'll send you my email by PM

...However, I'd be a little disappointed if you whacked it down right away, it would take the fun out of it.

Hint taken and I will comply.

...Edit: thanks for the welcome.

[Miragememories]

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

"Yes. Both are nonsense."

"An interesting response from someone supposedly sincerely interested in a truthful discussion about 9/11/.

In spite of strong reasons to question the validity of the NIST WTC 7 findings, you casually, and arrogantly, handwave them away as "nonsense".

In spite of strong evidence that thermitic materials were pervasive in the WTC dust, you also, casually, and arrogantly, handwave this away as "nonsense".

No maybes, or needs further examination. Just an arrogant; "Yes. Both are nonsense."

And more mocking arrogance in your unequivocal statement, that drawing logical connections between the existence of massive volumes of thermitic materials, and the credibility lacking NIST Final WTC 7 Collapse Report, with the collapse of WTC Twin Towers, are nothing more than loser technical issues creating a laughing stock case.

You might like to explain your belief that none of the material that could be put forward by the 9/11 Truth Movement at this time would withstand the scrutiny of a judicial approach?

In particular how can you so casually, and I might say callously, disregard the thermitic material findings?

Much of that disclosure has been presented already in this thread, and your confident point of view suggests either much familiarity, or unconcerned ignorance. I can cite some of the strongest findings if you wish?"

"My reasons quite understandable. Two will suffice for now: 1. The technical question "Was there demolition or not? <snipped all the self-indilgent verbiage that followed>"

A Modest response developing? No. Hip waders needed for sure..and a good gas mask.

"My reasons quite understandable. Two will suffice for now: 1. The technical question "I discount the concerns about WTC7 - that is claims that it was demolished - on reasons which are a subset of my reasons for dismissing demolition of the twin towers. <snipped unrelated references>... The nature of the WTC7 collapse mechanism was hidden and cannot be described with the same assurance of detail as applies to the twin towers.<snipped more self-indulgent proselytizing>...The NIST explanation for WTC7 collapse is plausible and nothing more than "plausible" is needed. Other plausible explanations may be possible. "

So, without any attempt to explain your reasoning, other than clouding the issue with excessive pontification, you simply state "The NIST explanation for WTC7 collapse is plausible and nothing more than "plausible" is needed.".

I am totally underwhelmed by your acceptance of "plausible" as being sufficient justification for not further questioning the NIST findings as to the cause of WTC 7 unique collapse.

That is the kind of response I would expect from someone who has not even read the NIST Final Report on the Collapse of WTC7. Obviously a subject that needs re-opening in this thread.

"The debate about "thermXte" is an amusing sideline which I decline to join in. The argument from my perspective is either a trick to keep endless debate going OR a way to lead to demolition.<snipped irrelevant babble>"

This is beginning to feel like the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, with myself in the position of arguing Darwinian theory and you representing the creationists.

You are aware that there are over 1,300 architects and engineering professionals who have signed a petition demanding a proper 9/11 investigation because they totally disagree with your shallow views on WTC 7 and the importance of thermitic material pervading the WTC dust?

Well of course you are. You are smugly comfortable in your unquestioning belief that you have all the answers.

"So, in summary, every one of the questions in those areas I describe as "nonsense" has been answered by me and others many times"

Well, there is no arguing with a brick wall. An arrogant mind that is so consumed by a perception of infallibility, that it is too afraid to question evidence that clearly might undermine its beliefs.

"Dr. Farrer found that the iron and oxygen are in a phase that is Fe2 O3. Dr. Farrer conducted studies in the differential scanning calorimeter (DSC), and found that the material ignites, reacts vigorously at a temperature of approximately 430 C, consistent in each sample. This is approximately the temperature at which nano-thermite ignited in a study published by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Also the narrowness of the heat trace, the DSC trace, indicates that a very rapid reaction has occurred. Both in the study with known nano-thermite and in the study with the red material as found in the WTC dust. We found that the spheroids that are rich in iron produced by the DSC test, that is, by the ignition of the red material in the DSC, these have a signature that is rich in iron but not enough oxygen to make even FeO. So that indicates to us that the iron has been reduced which again is a signature for the thermite reaction. So the formation of the spheres which implies a very high temperature, over 1400 C and the reduction of the iron oxide to an iron-rich phase indicates that a thermitic reaction has occurred and therefore we are able to call this material, an active thermitic material. Both from our DSC studies and from the results from the electron microscopes. Let us not forget that the red material also contains a significant amount of carbon and the formulation of nano-thermite as described by National Laboratory publications also implies the presence of carbon, very typically. The organic is used with nano-thermite in order to produce gas, that is a very high pressure gas that makes the nano-thermite an explosive. So all these results are consistent with the presence of a pyrotechnic or explosive in the WTC dust, in large quantities that really should not be present in an office building in downtown New York City."

Food for thought, if you still get hungry for thought Mr. 'Name removed as per request'?

MM

[Nicko]

More than a few pages have been devoted to why Jones' results are not being accepted, what it would take for them to gain some credibility, what his refusal to do so suggests about his honesty, and why analysis of dust is irrelevant unless the CD scenario was supported by video evidence.

You do not get to ignore the very real problems with Jones' "research" whilst accusing others of hand waving.

The composition of the dust is only relevant if CD is first shown to be credible.

[uke2se]

In defense of JREFers, they have been at this for a long time, devoting an entire forum section to 9/11 conspiracy theories. It is the general conclusion that all ideas have been discussed and debunked ad nauseum, and that most of the remaining 9/11 conspiracy theorists are trolls. I'm sure there are a few exceptions, but since I arrived there, the trolling behavior of conspiracy theorists have been noticeable. When it comes to newly arrived 9/11 conspiracy theorists, most of them tend to ask the same old questions, not accepting the answers and resorting very quickly to simple denialism. All this has the effect of drawing out the worst in people. Despite all this, in my view JREF remains the best repository of knowledge for skeptical so called "debunkers".

Econ mention a particular conspiracy theorist, ergo. I don't think he's really worth defending as he has shown that he doesn't know anything about the subjects he attempts to discuss (to the point of getting fundamental grade school level physics wrong) and that he has no interest in learning. That people get on his case isn't surprising to me at all.