9/11 Conspiracies nonsense? I think not

I dont know about you all, but I'm getting more than a little bored of people who claim that theories of "conspiracies" (9/11, etc.) are nonsense on a forum such as this - yet in fact, they wouldn't bore me at all (quite the opposite) if they would but adhere to a few basic axioms of logic and present an ARGUMENT with EVIDENCE to augment. It would also be helpful if they knew the difference between an argument and a proof. It would be even more helpful still if they would be specific in their assertions rather than give their theses ridiculous titles such as the one alluded to in the title of this post.

It is my view that the abundance of physical and historical evidence about 9/11 that is available and verifiable is more than enough in summation for any reasonable person to suspect that certain cabals of individuals within government were at least guilty of criminal negligence or at most of high treason and crimes against humanity. Certainly it is enough to DEMAND a truly transparent and independant public enquiry without impedance from the state. This idea seems anathema to authorities, who in the cases of both 9/11 and 7/7 in my own country have vigorously denied such an enquiry.

Not only are the contributions of some of the detractors to the above view on various threads I have read inflammatory in nature, but do not at all address the large-scale problems with the official story - they incessantly attempt to railroad discussion into debate over infinitesimal details which cannot in any case present conclusive evidence in themselves without being presented as part of a bigger picture, precisely the bigger picture some of these people seem so afraid of that they turn away from it towards less threatening details. In the area of the scientific analysis of the events of 9/11 this overspecialisation in argument is abundant. I'll be more specific.

All this discussion about heating steel structural members within the buildings cannot be resolved either way given the data thus far presented, imho. (I have expressed already my views on what the available data EXTREMELY STRONGLY SUGGESTS elsewhere and they have not yet been spoken to, but this is not the point of this post).

Successful, rigorous modelling of specific systems (such that conclusions can safely be drawn) in engineering and by physical scientists rests crucially upon the necessity to have adequate data to formulate the model. This applies separately to both the mechanics and the thermodynamics of he collapse of the buildings on 9/11. This should, of course, be intuitive to any scientist worthy of the title. However, there is far more to this than just generalities when considering 9/11.


Regardless of how long steel takes under specific laboratory conditions to heat up to specific temperatures, the data recorded about such SPECIFIC experiments can only be quantitatively applied to the modelling and analysis of other situations (eg. how long would it take for the steel support beams of a building, in a complex geometrical arrangement with conducting AND non conducting interfaces between elements, to reach a thermodynamic general equilibrium at a temperature high enough to remove sufficient load bearing capacity so as to allow collapse of the buildings) ONLY IF all the other thermodynamic data required to adequately model the system under scrutiny are also known.

For example, the following data would be required for a borderline-adequate scientific model to be formulated for the collapses of the buildings, let alone a comprehensive and rigorous one:


1 - Regarding the steel and other thermally conductive load bearing elements of the structure

Dimensions, shapes and geometric configuration of load bearing members with respect to each other
Stress/strain and other load bearing parameters and tolerances of each structural element
Total masses of each type of material used as load bearuing members
Specific heat capacity of the steel and other thermally conductive load bearing elements of the structure
Specific thermal conductivities (including of the insulation, for which dimensions and masses would also be needed)

2 - Regarding the concrete

Dimensions, shapes and geometric configuration with respect to each other of load bearing members and their linkages
Crystalline characteristics, and stress/strain and other load bearing parameters and tolerances of each structural element


3 - Regarding the fires

Masses of primary and secondary combustibles in each specific instance of fire and specific (enthalpic) chemical characteristics
Time periods of burning, again in each case, with adequate data on extent of combustion of the fuel and its efficiency
Exact locations of the heating within the structures
Quantification of effects of insulators and retardants (requiring again detailed data on mass, materials and spatial configuration with respect to the thermal loci)
Fluid dynamic data on the air/fuel mixtures (incorporating the layout data)

4 - Generally

Overall load as weight acting on strustural members and the magnitudes, vectors, distribution and geometry of stress/strain loci in reference to an accurate dimensional model drawn from known architechtural schematics.
Momentum, kinetic energy and other considerations of impacts by aircraft (in itself an entire sub-system to be modelled also requiring data on similarly numerous parameters) upon the structures, where applicable, would also be an obvious consideration.


I could go on, but consider the above as being the MINIMUM necessary to be able to model these events even at a very basic level and expect valid results. In the absence of (at the bare minimum) this specific data and, just as importantly, rigorous, peer reviewed analysis of the model(s) thus created, it is an absurdity to assert that science can prove or debunk any physical theory about these collapses. Science can only provide informed suggestions at this stage.


Therefore it is my opinion that endless debate of phenomenological details that seems to erupt whenever adherents of the official story butt heads with its opponents here is not only counterproductive but also ignores the arguments that can be made fruitfully concerning the physics of 9/11, including the integration of other non-scientific data about the incidents into a conclusive argument for a truly independant enquiry to be conducted with full public transparency.

Continued...

[edit on 4-7-2006 by fulcanelli]

...continued from above


I'm sure it's not just me that tires of all this incessant quibbling over details. When looking at all the data (scientific and non-scientiic) holistically, you'd have to be excercising some serious doublethink at this stage of the game to have any further doubt that it wasn't simply fires plus-or-minus aircraft impacts that caused these collapses. Either that or just plain ignorant/deluded of the broader questions of physics that hang over the events.

As I say, I and many others here have expounded upon these things before and at length, but leaving out all the (massively significant) non-scientific data about the incidents, the biggest problem a supporter of the official theory (in part or whole) has is the SYMMETRY, SPONTANEITY and for lack of a better word, NEATNESS of these collapses, to mention nothing of the numerous other indications of controlled demolition.

I notice also that there appear to be, in my view as part of the overall organised counter-intelligence campaign being conducted to micromanage the information fallout of 9/11 on the web and elsewhere, fleeting murmurs to the effect that building 7 was somehow an overladen camel in engineering terms, its flawed design just waiting for the last straw to break its back - poppycock. I'll believe this when I see some truly rigorous scientific analysis that is indicative of it rather than the poor and transparently inconclusive "sources" that I have stumbled across thus far.

Until then I'll rely on among other indications the common sense notion that the various tenant organisations of that particular building (CIA, FBI, SEC, OEM/FEMA etc. - you know who I mean) would hardly have taken up residence in a deathtrap - strategic planners at intelligence and "emergency management" agencies are highly unlikely in my view to overlook such basics as the structural inegrity and defensibility when deciding upon locations in which to embed their command and control centres. The very thought is a ridiculous one. This says nothing of the abundant evidence that these buildings were, if anything, overengineered.

I hope Dr. Fetzer's appearance the guest speakers forum will go some way to making a more holistic argument incorporating both the scientific and historical data of 9/11, and maybe highlight the most important areas we should be looking at with the scientific data in order to avoid needless circular discussions on tiny details.

Anyway, sorry for the long post - I guess I had to get my point across somehow.

I think you got your point across clearly.
Scientific method doesn't matter to you and everyone who doesn't agree with you is a gullible sheep.


Those guidelines you posted---do you really think these type of things were not accounted for?

the biggest problem a supporter of the official theory (in part or whole) has is the SYMMETRY, SPONTANEITY and for lack of a better word, NEATNESS of these collapses, to mention nothing of the numerous other indications of controlled demolition.

Problem?- SPONTANEITY???--NEATNESS??? have you seen the sites after collapse?

'll believe this when I see some truly rigorous scientific analysis that is indicative of it rather than the poor and transparently inconclusive "sources" that I have stumbled across thus far.

Then wait for the final report.

Vushta,

I suggest you re-read my original post CAREFULLY. You clearly are either deliberately misreading/misrepresenting me or you are doing so from genuinely having misunderstood the point I was trying to make. For example:

Originally posted by vushta

I think you got your point across clearly.
Scientific method doesn't matter to you and everyone who doesn't agree with you is a gullible sheep.

If you read my post carefully, you will see as will everyone else that I never made any assertion of the sort that you are implying - I invite you to quote me if you can (but you can't - otherwise you would have done already, right?) to illustrate where I have made any such judgement upon anyone. But you won't

My argument rests on the scientific method. It is an evaluation that a truly comprehensive set of thermodynamic and mechanical data is required before any scientific model that can make any explanation of the events can be said to have been formulated. Such a set of data is not yet to my knowledge inarguably available to any of us. Until such data is available and the analysis conduted upon it is subjected to peer review, as I stated clearly in my post, anyone proposing that science ALONE has PROVEN their point of view regarding 9/11 is mistaken, whether they are for or aganst the official story. ESPECIALLY anyone that makes such an assertion based upon specific, particular and highly specialised details of the incident rather than looking at ALL available data, scientific and otherwise. THIS was (part of) my point, and I find it amusing that you have the ability to so bastardise it in your interpretation to such a diametrically opposite as you have made.

As far as my references to the spontaneity and symmetry (an yes, although you are attempting to take my words out of context, the NEATNESS) of the collapse, these were references to the process of the collapse itself. Trying to repudiate this aspect of my argument by saying that the collapse sites were a mess is, frankly, laughable.

Vushta, I have observed these tactics you try to use in other threads, but I am afraid they simply won't wash with me. By attempting to misrepresent my statements you only invite ridicule (and believe me you will receive it). How about you speak to what I have ACTUALLY said, rather than what you either intentionally or unintentionally have read into my statements.

Oh, and to WHAT final report do you refer in you post? Is there an independant public scientific investigation being conducted into 9/11 at this moment that I am not aware of? Would you like to elaborate?

You'll have to do better than that to subvert this thread, if that is what you are attempting - if not, and you have truly and honestly misunderstood my original post, then, as I have said, REREAD my post CAREFULLY. I am very specific with my words, vushta, and judging by your track record on other threads you seem just as specific in your "interpretation" of what people write - just don't do yourself a disservice by trying those tactics on my watch.

Well you're right.
I only read a bit of the verbose post.
I glazed when it was inplied the the shape of the collapse et.al. should be a part of the investigation.

Why do you think the items you brought up were NOT addressed?
Can you point out any flaws in the investigative methodology?

Aren't all those things you talk about taken into account in NIST's investigation?

Is there some specific part of the NIST report you have a problem with?

They certainly took what you listed into accounct.

Originally posted by fulcanelli When looking at all the data (scientific and non-scientiic) holistically

Hold on, what "non scientific" data should we be taking into account? Numerology? Your gut feelings? What data is this referencing and why on earth should we take non-scientific data into account?

My argument rests on the scientific method.

Not if it relies on "non scientific" evidence.

Orginally posted by fulcanelli

Certainly it is enough to DEMAND a truly transparent and independant public enquiry without impedance from the state.

What do you think the NIST report was? In what areas do you think that the report needed more transparency? How were they impeded by the state?


How can you demand more rigorous scientific data, yet be convinced that it was a demolition by the "non-scientific" evidence which you seem to think has "massive signifigance."


How about this idea?

Why don't you hold the demolition theory to the same standard you demand from the "official" story?

Where is the model showing exactly where they placed the charges on every floor. Show us how the where the planted thermite happened to initiate and/or helped the collapse. Since no scientific model exists for demolition that meet your standards, should we assume that you are basing your opinion on the "non-scientific" evidence, which is all that seems to exist to back up the CD argument?

[edit on 4-7-2006 by LeftBehind]

Vushta, I have observed these tactics you try to use in other threads, but I am afraid they simply won't wash with me. By attempting to misrepresent my statements you only invite ridicule (and believe me you will receive it). How about you speak to what I have ACTUALLY said, rather than what you either intentionally or unintentionally have read into my statements.

What you actually say does all the work for me.

But Oh MY!...so wordy.

Oh, and to WHAT final report do you refer in you post? Is there an independant public scientific investigation being conducted into 9/11 at this moment that I am not aware of? Would you like to elaborate?

ummm..the final report on #7. You didn't know about that? Hows that possible

[edit on 4-7-2006 by Vushta]

Originally posted by fulcanelli

I notice also that there appear to be, in my view as part of the overall organised counter-intelligence campaign being conducted to micromanage the information fallout of 9/11 on the web and elsewhere, fleeting murmurs to the effect that building 7 was somehow an overladen camel in engineering terms, its flawed design just waiting for the last straw to break its back - poppycock. I'll believe this when I see some truly rigorous scientific analysis that is indicative of it rather than the poor and transparently inconclusive "sources" that I have stumbled across thus far.

Here's some info you might not have read before.


www.popularmechanics.com...

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."
Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

Mod Edit: Fixed Link.

[edit on 5/7/2006 by Mirthful Me]

Originally posted by fulcanelli
I dont know about you all, but I'm getting more than a little bored of people who claim that theories of "conspiracies" (9/11, etc.) are nonsense on a forum such as this - yet in fact, they wouldn't bore me at all (quite the opposite) if they would but adhere to a few basic axioms of logic and present an ARGUMENT with EVIDENCE to augment. It would also be helpful if they knew the difference between an argument and a proof. It would be even more helpful still if they would be specific in their assertions rather than give their theses ridiculous titles such as the one alluded to in the title of this post.


Continued...

Excellent post. I am constantly amazed to see people try and explain WTC 7 collapse. Anyone who has seen that building fall straight down, and still holds to a belief of ANYTHING other than a controlled demolition is not worth the time or breath to waste on them.

The poo is going to hit the fan soon, lead, follow or get out of the way. These lousy bastards that did this are going down.

Bet the ranch.

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 5/7/2006 by Mirthful Me]

Obviously the 'trademarks' of 9/11 being 'man made' are there. There was nothing 'natural' about the fall of the towers.

As for WTC7, to believe anything other than the building was deliberately pulled borders on insanity. But then I guess there are a lot of insane people in this world, then there are those that have an interest in trying to cover it up, then there are those that wont believe the govt did unless they admit they did it on CNN.

Such is the nature of man.

Originally posted by dscomp
Obviously the 'trademarks' of 9/11 being 'man made' are there. There was nothing 'natural' about the fall of the towers.

As for WTC7, to believe anything other than the building was deliberately pulled borders on insanity. But then I guess there are a lot of insane people in this world, then there are those that have an interest in trying to cover it up, then there are those that wont believe the govt did unless they admit they did it on CNN.

Such is the nature of man.

What trademarks? I'm guessing that in reality the only thing you really mean is the way the buildings fell and that is the only 'trademark' of being 'man made'?

How else were they supposed to fall? Let me gyess...over like a tree.

Originally posted by Vushta


How else were they supposed to fall? Let me gyess...over like a tree.

That's the problem that this thread is trying to address. People like you guess as to what we think and then ridicule it before we even say it. And yes, the spire should have fallen like a tree. Try and find anything from NIST et al that explains the way the spire fell. You can't. Try and find anything from NIST et al that explains the fall of the buildings..you can't. All NIST says is that it was inevitable. I for one would like that explained a little further.

Originally posted by Griff


That's the problem that this thread is trying to address. People like you guess as to what we think and then ridicule it before we even say it. And yes, the spire should have fallen like a tree. Try and find anything from NIST et al that explains the way the spire fell. You can't. Try and find anything from NIST et al that explains the fall of the buildings..you can't. All NIST says is that it was inevitable. I for one would like that explained a little further.

Not sure what you mean by 'people like me'---so I'll just assume you mean incredibly intelligent--

But I'm not ridiculing it before you say it...I'm ridiculing it AFTER its been said many times. Well actually no..I'm not ridiculing it at all. I'm just pointing out that if you think about it a bit more you can understand how it couldn't possibly fall over 'in one piece'--if that what you mean by 'like a tree'.
Is that what you mean?
Nist didn't look at why it fell like it did because they understand this and it had nothing to do with the investigations scope.

NIST doesn't explain the pancaking?

[edit on 5-7-2006 by Vushta]

[edit on 5-7-2006 by Vushta]

Gosh, yet another 9-11 thread. Why didn't you just post your thoughts on this in the '9/11 Conspiracies are nonsense' thread? I just think y'all love baiting each other into these endless debates. Drama, drama, drama. Carry on!

Originally posted by Vushta

Not sure what you mean by 'people like me'---so I'll just assume you mean incredibly intelligent--

Didn't mean it like it sounded. I just ment people that ridicule any type of conspiracy theory. You can't say that you or Howard don't ridicule people for not understanding something. That's all. BTW, Howard does alot more than you.

But I'm not ridiculing it before you say it...I'm ridiculing it AFTER its been said many times. Well actually no..I'm not ridiculing it at all. I'm just pointing out that if you think about it a bit more you can understand how it couldn't possibly fall over 'in one piece'--if that what you mean by 'like a tree'.
Is that what you mean?

Depends on what we are talking about. If you mean the whole structure...then no. If you mean the spire (and it was pointed out to me that part of it did in fact fall like a tree) then yes.

Nist didn't look at why it fell like it did because they understand this and it had nothing to do with the investigations scope.

Nothing to do with the investigation? Already understood it? Oh...you mean they started with a preconcieved notion and went from there....you're absolutely right.

NIST doesn't explain the pancaking?

Could you show me where because I'm hard pressed to find it.

Originally posted by zenlover28
Gosh, yet another 9-11 thread. Why didn't you just post your thoughts on this in the '9/11 Conspiracies are nonsense' thread? I just think y'all love baiting each other into these endless debates. Drama, drama, drama. Carry on!

Because it's hard to go through 500 pages of a thread to make a point. Plus, if it gets to you so bad, why do you read the 9/11 threads?

It gets to me because it's the same ol' discussion everytime. I read them because I keep thinking someone will point out some new info in each new thread that is created, but alas that very rarely happens. Anyhow, as I said, carry on!

Originally posted by Griff
You can't say that you or Howard don't ridicule people for not understanding something.

Hey, don’t drag me into this catfight.

I try not to ridicule people for being ignorant. If, however, they deliberately choose to remain ignorant after I point out the errors in their ways. . . .

Seriously, there is such a thing as being intentionally ignorant; you see it here on ATS a lot. The moon hoax threads are a perfect example.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Hey, don’t drag me into this catfight.

Sorry, shouldn't talk behind people's back. My bad.

Depends on what we are talking about. If you mean the whole structure...then no. If you mean the spire (and it was pointed out to me that part of it did in fact fall like a tree) then yes.

Well then we may have been more on the same page than I thought. I took everyone who thought it should have fallen over like a tree to mean that the whole tower should have tipped over.
I can't imagine why I thought that.

Nothing to do with the investigation? Already understood it? Oh...you mean they started with a preconcieved notion and went from there....you're absolutely right.

Well..no.
I mean they understood what we both agree on.. that it was impossible for the entire structure to just tip over like a tree. So thats a moot point. No preconceived notion just an understanding of the physics involved. To investigate that would be like reinventing the wheel.