25 Intolerable Contradictions: The Final Undoing of the Official 9/11 Story

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
reply to post by gottago

 

As far as the failure to recreate the desired deflection; I agree. Why this happened and the overall affect on the complete volume of evidence is where we differ.

I agree the recreation did not yield the results that were expected. However, this is but one, out of hundreds, of analysis and experiments conducted. I am looking at the entire body of evidence and where it points. You are looking at this one test and claiming this is a definitive experiment that refutes all the other amassed evidence.

The explanation I tend to agree with, and you tend not to agree with is the "Chaos Theory". As a laymen, what this means is it is impossible to recreate every detail of an event at a later time. Therefore, some experiments may not yield the expected results.

The difference, IMO, between me and you is I am looking at the preponderance of evidence and you are looking for evidence that supports your already for drawn conclusion; that 9-11 was an inside job.

Well, first off I wasn't born believing this, I came to these conclusions by looking at the preponderance of the evidence.

I want to stick with the subject of the NIST experiment and how it was handled, and not drag in Rick Renzi (who I've never even heard of) and the whole kitchen sink around the subject, as that just sets this one vivid element of the discussion in a miasma of easily manipulated subjectivity. So let's stay focused for a minute please, and ponder what happened with that truss experiment, and its implications.

The crucial, I repeat, crucial, element of NIST's theory about the collapse of the towers was that the sagging trusses and floors acted to pull in the outer columns and initiate collapse. To be clear, this is the central element to proving their theory of how the towers fell.

So they set up an actual experiment, and weighted all the parameters in favor of collapse--2000 degree heat, no fireproofing, overloaded floors, two hours instead of the actual times, etc.--but only managed to get a 2-inch deflection.

This has nothing to do with chaos theory; the buildings were not collapsing; they were about to collapse, and their integrity was still intact. The test was created to examine the reaction of the trusses/floors in this context.

Yet here they had empirical evidence their theory was wrong, even though they tricked all the parameters in favor of collapse, but what did they do? They turned to computer modeling and ran 8 versions until they arrived at the 54 inch deflection they were after, and that is what they went with.

Now, you tell me, in all honesty, is this legitimate methodology? Or is this hackery? Would you put your name to such a report?

We can even go beyond these NIST experiments. SAP posted that truthers have no peer reviewed papers. I have conclusively shown that there are no peer reviewed papers in support of the government story either.

For a scientific peer review to happen they must show ALL their data, evidence, etc. Since the structural documentation is impossible to come by, the transperancy of their paper is null and void. Making their papers NOT peer reviewed.

Now, on to reproducibility. Gottago has it down.

There is no reproducible scientific analysis that suggests that their hypothesis is correct.

Again. A major failure for "peer review".

SAP, you want to make it so that we have to recreate the "exact" modeling. This is preposterous. All modeling in the scientific world is not exact. Or do they model streams and rivers by building the mississippi?

It's nonsense to say that the "official" reports are peer reviewed. Period.

Originally posted by gottago
Edit to add: And that was only one "suitable" result of nine tries with their computer bs. Sorry but it enrages me to no end re: NIST's deceit.

NIST used a finite element model (FEM) to try and simulate the alleged plane hitting the tower. With all of its computing power, why couldn't NIST make sure that its FEM correctly summed the load of jet fuel to 62,000 pounds? I'm also wondering why the FEM used the figure of 62,000 pounds of jet fuel, when the jet would have burnt a portion of that fuel by the time it allegedly hit the tower? Similarly, the FEM failed to correctly sun the weight of the plane wreckage that was allegedly strewn over the various floors of the tower.

Small errors in a FEM can propogate into large errors by the conclusion of the simulation. The NIST FEM is guess-work. They guessed some of the initial parameters and plainly got others wrong, to produce a good, wholesome apple-pie collapse of the tower.

I got a feeling some people think a computer simulation is going to give you exactly what happened. A computer will only compute what is put into it.

Garbage in garbage out...

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Serial numbered parts that did, in fact, match the correct airframes were recovered.

Well please show me FBI or NTSB reports that match these serial numered parts to the airframes and will gladly agree with you.

Problem is we both know that these reports have not been released. I would know if they had becasue i have some good resourses.

I have been doing a lot of research and posting FOIA request also e-mailing companies that were at ground zero to find the truth of what happened that day. What have you done to find the truth of what happened that day?

reply to post by ANOK

If you can't reproduce an effect in the lab and repeat that test and get the same result then no other evidence matters.

Your claim, as I understand it, as you wrote it, is everything else, all of the other evidence is irrelevant because of this one test?

So, conversely, any analysis or experiment that has the desired results, proves 9-11 was not an inside job, correct? So we agree, based on the massive amount of data contained within the 9-11 report 9-11 was not an inside job?

You do realize why we are fixated on this one test is because that's the "best shot"? That's all they've got, six years later and counting? If "they" were trying to cover up a conspiracy, why would they make a test publicly available if it didn't support the "official" story?

Do you really understand what you're supporting, or are you blinded by your nationalism?

I do. Are you so blinded by your “NWO” paranoia and political activism that you cant see the forest, because of the trees?

So one experiment did not accurately recreate what happened to that Towers. Big deal. Sandia Labs tried over 1,000 times before they actually achieved a result similar to the explosion that decimated turret two on the USS Iowa.

As has been said before, no one knows, and no one ever will know, just how badly the towers were damaged by the impacts of the jets, so ANY experiment is going to be based largely on supposition.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999



And why did they do it 1,000 times? To make their hypothesis reproducible.

It's a big deal to you that you parrot a report that has no science behind it?

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Your claim, as I understand it, as you wrote it, is everything else, all of the other evidence is irrelevant because of this one test?

I love the way you guys take a statement and then try to assume what a person is thinking.

I've said this before why don't you get some steel, some jet fuel and office furniture and see if you can get the steel to become malleable. Do you understand how the results of the test would teach you something about how steel reacts in a known situation?

If you can't get the steel to fail then how did the buildings globally collapse?
If you can't get the steel to fail, and still claim fire caused the stall to fail, then you are ignoring the scientific process. Either do that or shut up because you are arguing something that's just not possible. Prove me wrong. Even NIST couldn't do it.

You are all still hanging on to the plane damage as the reason they globally collapsed but you ignore the fact that even NIST said the planes didn't cause the collapse. You ignore simple laws of physics that tells us no matter what damage the plane did it would not have caused global collapse.

This stuff has been proved over and over again you just choose to ignore common sense and basic physics. But as soon as we prove the fires didn't do it you say the plane did and visa versa. All I can conclude is your knowledge of basic physics is flawed.

The NIST computer model concluded that plane imact and fire did not cause the collapse.

wtc.nist.gov...

The tower maintained its stability with the removal of columns in the
exterior walls and core columns representative of aircraft impact and
also after losing columns in the south wall due to fire effects with some
reserve capacity left, indicating that additional weakening or loss of
other structural members is needed to collapse the tower.

[edit on 31-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
The NIST computer model concluded that plane imact and fire did not cause the collapse.

That's the realistic model, though, right?

See, after that they just kept ramping up variables for how hot the fires were, etc., until they finally got something to move (ie some level of deflection or deformation in columns).

That's when they said, "Aha! "Initiation point"!" And asserted everything else was "inevitable." Now that's what I call science.

Originally posted by bsbray11
That's the realistic model, though, right?

That is the computer model test from June 2004.

[edit on 31-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ANOK



In case you forgot what you wrote:

If you can't reproduce an effect in the lab and repeat that test and get the same result then no other evidence matters.

To which I replied:

Your claim, as I understand it, as you wrote it, is everything else, all of the other evidence is irrelevant because of this one test?

I didn't characterize you incorrectly or even wrong. You just don't like having to answer the tough questions that give real insight into how you are thinking.

So, why are you still arguing about one test when I have already agreed with your summation?

Now that we agree this one test did not yield the expected results, I ask again: Your claim, as I understand it, as you wrote it, is everything else, all of the other evidence is irrelevant because of this one test?


[edit on 31-3-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


If I may interject. If the overall government theory is proven to be wrong at any point, the entire theory becomes invalid. This is the fourth step in a hypothetico-deductive model for scientific method. You have to start the whole process over again. New investigation in other words.

reply to post by jackinthebox


Yes, but we are arguing about a single data-point in an otherwise massive data set.

The contention is this one data-point invalidated the entire set.

They say the set (overall theory) is moot, I say no, only one data-point within the overall set is.

And to be clear, the fourth step is:

Wait for corroboration. If there is corroboration, go to step 3. If not, the hypothesis is falsified. Go to step 2.

[edit on 31-3-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar

So what research have you done?

What FOIA requests have you filed?

What e-mails have you sent to companies?

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Yes, but we are arguing about a single data-point in an otherwise massive data set.

The contention is this one data-point invalidated the entire set.

But it does as I've already explained. If fire cannot cause steel to become malleable enough for failure then what caused the steel to fail?

There are no other events that caused the collapse, according to the official story, other then plane impacts and fire. The problem is we can show, and have done using basic physics and the scientific method of testing, that the impact nor the fire could have caused global collapse.

The reason NIST failed to explain the collapses is because of this reason, they couldn't. The closest they got in testing was some deflection of outer columns, and that was after they ramped up the figures used. They couldn't explain global collapse at all, so they didn't. They hoped that people like you would not understand enough physics to understand why their explanation isn't complete, and really explains nothing at all.

How can they conclude that a small movement of columns would conclude with a global collapse? What is this conclusion based on? Definitely not anything scientific that's for sure.

Sry but NIST has blinded you with pseudo-science.

Originally posted by ANOK
Sry but NIST has blinded you with pseudo-science.

Most reports including FEAM and Homeland Defense disagree with the NIST final report.

The NIST final report contridicts their own computer model.