9/11 Occam's Razor

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by NorEaster
Hey Dave,

Think you know your 9/11 stuff then? C'mon hero. Let's party. I got one for you. How is it that these pros all have taken your version of the attacks and decided that it's crap?

Easy- these people aren't basing it upon any professional expertise they have. They're being suckered by those exact same damned fool conspiracy web sites that are suckering you and they just don't know they're being suckered. I know this is exactly what's happening becuase of this gem from the "military professionals question 9/11" link-

"Capt. Daniel Davis is a former U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and
NORAD Tac Director. After his military service, Capt. Davis served for 15
years as a Senior Manager at General Electric Turbine (jet) Engine
Division and then devoted an additional 15 years as founder and CEO of
Turbine Technology Services Corp., a turbine (jet engine) services and
maintenance company.

In a statement to this author, Capt. Davis wrote, “As a former General
Electric Turbine engineering specialist and manager and then CEO of a
turbine engineering company, I can guarantee that none of the high tech,
high temperature alloy engines on any of the four planes that crashed on
9/11 would be completely destroyed, burned, shattered or melted in any
crash or fire. Wrecked, yes, but not destroyed. Where are all of those
engines, particularly at the Pentagon? If jet powered aircraft crashed on
9/11, those engines, plus wings and tail assembly, would be there.”"

Apparently, when he wrote this he doesn't know remains of the engines WERE found at the Pentagon, and have been identified as being the same Rolls Royce ngine that powered flight 77-

Aerospace journal's analysis of engine wreckage found at the Pentagon site

-So either Captain Davis is deliberately lying when he claims that no engine wreckage was found at the Pentagon, or, he's simply repeating some rubbish he heard that all the engine wreckage was completely destroyed at the Pentagon and he's making the mistake of accepting it at face value. He's not available to answer this, but since you are, I'll ask you- which of these two scenarios do you think is really the case?

I can cherry pick too.

Daniel B. Barnum, B.Arch, FAIA – Fellow, American Institute of Architects. Over forty years experience in the practice of architecture. Experience covers all aspects of planning, design, construction technology and project management for a wide range of commercial, institutional, religious and residential projects. His projects have been widely published and have received design awards from AIA. Member and former Vice President of AIA Houston and Founder and Chair of the Houston AIA Residential Architecture Committee, Chair of the Urban Design Committee, and Director for Urban Issues.
Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:

"I have "known" from day-one that the buildings were imploded and that they could not and would not have collapsed from the damage caused by the airplanes that ran into them."

Something to read:
www.journalof911studies.com...

I can add over 1,000 such statements from professional engineers and architects from around the world. Then I can add hundreds of similar statements from military professionals (US and other government) and even high level US government leaders - a few who were actually on the 9/11 Commission staff itself.

You'll need better than this.

Now, about my question - Were the tower collapses progressive or pancake? You shopuld already know the answer to this, but you will have to prove it with scientific data. *hint - the NIST account has already been thoroughly discredited throughout the professional architectural industry.

[edit on 16-2-2010 by NorEaster]

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
-So either Captain Davis is deliberately lying when he claims that no engine wreckage was found at the Pentagon, or, he's simply repeating some rubbish he heard that all the engine wreckage was completely destroyed at the Pentagon and he's making the mistake of accepting it at face value. He's not available to answer this, but since you are, I'll ask you- which of these two scenarios do you think is really the case?

Oh, and dave, I asked you my question first. Answer it and I'll be happy to tell you what I think happened at the pentagon. You don't get to slime out on your question so easy.

Again - Were the tower collapses both progressive collapses, or were they both pancake collapses, (or a mix of the two?) and please cite credible authoritative research to prove your assertion. And, as I already noted, the NIST report has already been thoroughly discredited among non-government contracting engineering and architectural firms and professionals, so that isn't considered a credible source anymore.

[edit on 16-2-2010 by NorEaster]

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by NorEaster
Thermate has been discovered in the dust, and that fact has been verified by a rigorous peer review of the research.

exactly who peer reviewed it? You do realise it was published in a vanity journal, you pay you get published....

Thermate is used regularly in the military (manufactured by military hardware suppliers who have been fingered in the 9/11 conspiracy)

So which military hardware supplier was "fingered", and by whom?

Superhero terrorists can't force the laws of physics to bend to their iron will.

Which laws of physics were bent?

Do all of you guys devolve to this kind of useless possom defense, or is it just that I always seem to run into those of you who do?

The Thermite Paper - The Open Chemical Physics Journal is a peer-reviewed journal which aims to provide the most complete and reliable source of information on current developments in chemical physics. The emphasis will be on publishing quality papers rapidly and freely available to researchers worldwide.

Affiliation: Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, DK-2100, Denmark.

This journal is no more and no less than any other scientific journal on the planet, and the peer review was extensive and involved many experts over the course of months. In fact, considering the controversial nature of the topic, this paper saw more review than most, and it is still considered by the non-government contracted scientific community as being absolutely sound and verified.

Thermite - here, knock yourself out www.google.com... You add sulfer to thermite to make it more highly charged,. This is the concept behind thermate. Why don't you already know this?

Broken Laws of Physics - Law of Thermal Dynamics (specifically heat distribution/dissipation along metal surfaces), Law of Momentum (specifically those clauses referring to the effect of reinforced/rigid resistance to forward momentum)

I invite you to do a little research for yourself now. Google is your friend.

reply to post by NorEaster

Sorry FAIL!!!
Google is NOT the friend of the trusties in this assylum...

Originally posted by smurfy
]That sounds fair enough Dave, but why presume that these "intelligent people" [your words] are so taken in by anything in the same breath, it's a contradiction.

No it isn't, specifically becuase these people are still human beings and are still subseptible to marketing ploys just like the rest of us are. They buy their Apple Macintoshes becuase just like the rest of us they want to be like the cool counterculture Apple guy in the commercials and not the nerdy corporate PC guy in the suit and tie, never realizing they're really not being counterculture and running against the herd. They're just following some other herd. Welcome to marketing.

Thus, when these damned fool conspiracy web sites take, for example, a corporate jet asked by ground controllers to fly over the Shanksville area to locate where flight 93 went down and deliberately misrepresent it into "eyewitnesses in the Shanksville area report a mysterious white jet was seen over the site only moments after the crash" to imply that something sinister is going on, it isn't the fault of the audience when they're taken in by the misrepresentation. It's the fault of the web sites deliberately misrepresenting everything they touch to begin with. The audience is merely the victim of this con game becuase they aren't being given all the information. These damned fool conspiracy web sites make sure of it.

As for Alex Jones, yes he can be irritating in some ways, and sound over the top, but should he be ignored entirely? he didn't make up Bohemian Grove and its patronage, but he did introduce us to it. What sort of effing place is that to be frequented by world leaders?

The clue to what happens there is from the name: "Bohemian". I have not seen anything that shows it's any different from the goofball antics that occur at, "Burning man". The only difference is paranoid jackasses like Alex Jones tries to make it out to be so mysterious and sinister entirely becuase it's a private estate attended by politically connected people. Burning Man in a public event so people can actually go there to see whether Jones was making up paranoid crap or not.

...and what the heck does Bohemian Grove have anything to do with the 9/11 attack, anyway? Does the particular conspiracy theory you subscribe to believe they're connected?

Originally posted by NorEaster
I can cherry pick too.

If you expect me to document how every single individual on every single list was suckered by conspiracy rubbish, then you're out of your mind. You asked me to look at your sources and explain how these professionals could be suckered by the drivel these damned fool conspiracy web sites are putting out and I gave you an irrefutable example of it. If you don't want to know about the bad examples in your links then don't ask me to point them out to you.

...and what do you mean, "cherry pick"? Someone gave that captain false information about no engine wreckage being recovered from the Pentagon site and he's basing his professional opinion on that false information. I pointed this out to you and your response is to completely ignore it and try to find some OTHER example to bicker about. The only person doing any cherry picking here is you.

Now, about my question - Were the tower collapses progressive or pancake? You shopuld already know the answer to this, but you will have to prove it with scientific data. *hint - the NIST account has already been thoroughly discredited throughout the professional architectural industry.

To put it bluntly, I don't know and I don't care. The question isn't whether the tower collapses were progressive, pancake, or were sucked into another dimension. The questions that need to be answered are a) whether the fires were able to cause structural failure and b) once structural failure occured, whether it would be able to continue a cascading chain of structural failure. If both A and B can be shown, then your arguing over incredibly minute technical details of the physical progression of the collapse is just an act of desperation from trying to justify an unjustifiable position, more than it is anything else. You might as well be arguing over how many toilet seats were up vs. how many were down when it collapsed.

I can't ask this "professional achitectural industry" this, but since you're here, I'll ask you- please show how the statement that structural steel loses 50% of it's structural integrity at 600c-650c (as per MIT materials engineer Thomas Eagar) is incorrect. If you can't refute that, then the claim that "the NIST report has been thoroughly discredited" has one strike against it already.

reply to post by GoodOlDave
Posted by G.O. Dave,

"...and what the heck does Bohemian Grove have anything to do with the 9/11 attack, anyway? Does the particular conspiracy theory you subscribe to believe they're connected?"


Took you a while Dave, but you got there. Bohemian Grove? As G.W. Bush said when asked about the connection between Iraq and 9/11 the reply is "Nothing" you can quote me if you want!





[edit on 16-2-2010 by smurfy]

Originally posted by NorEaster
And, as I already noted, the NIST report has already been thoroughly discredited among non-government contracting engineering and architectural firms and professionals, so that isn't considered a credible source anymore.

Said who, exactly? The only ones I've ever heard say "the NIST report was discredited" are the damned phonies behind those conspriacy web sites I.E Alex Jones, Dylan Avery, Morgan Reynolds, etc, who have zero background to be peer reviewing it. Just becuase they don't want the report to be accurate it doesn't mean it isn't accurate. It just means they don't want their own conspiracy stories to be wrong.

Here's the NIST report, so explain to me exactly how it's supposedly discredited. Don't simply cut and paste what those damned fool conspriacy web sites are putting into your head like some automaton. Explain it to me in your own words.

The NIST report on the collapse of the WTC

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by NorEaster
And, as I already noted, the NIST report has already been thoroughly discredited among non-government contracting engineering and architectural firms and professionals, so that isn't considered a credible source anymore.

Said who, exactly? The only ones I've ever heard say "the NIST report was discredited" are the damned phonies behind those conspriacy web sites I.E Alex Jones, Dylan Avery, Morgan Reynolds, etc, who have zero background to be peer reviewing it. Just becuase they don't want the report to be accurate it doesn't mean it isn't accurate. It just means they don't want their own conspiracy stories to be wrong.

Here's the NIST report, so explain to me exactly how it's supposedly discredited. Don't simply cut and paste what those damned fool conspriacy web sites are putting into your head like some automaton. Explain it to me in your own words.

The NIST report on the collapse of the WTC

The American Society of Civil Engineers seem happy with it. 76,495 members.

Originally posted by smurfy

Took you a while Dave, but you got there. Bohemian Grove? As G.W. Bush said when asked about the connection between Iraq and 9/11 the reply is "Nothing" you can quote me if you want!

I don't need to quote you, as I already know. Bush had proved himself to be such a blithering incompetent idiot in the extreme that I voted for Kerry in the 2004 elections. And I'm a Republican.

Thus, the reason why these secret gov't conspiracies have no credibility whatsoever. Bush and his bunch simply could not ever, EVER, pull off any such stunt with the sheer perfection of coordination that rivaled a supernatural act, in the way the conspiracy people described.

reply to post by NorEaster


What debate? Smurfy saying "it is not from the 9/11 commission report, or the White House, or Boeing" makes Dave's link irrelevant? I wonder why people accuse truthers of avoiding the truth...

What did smurfy even say that had any truth in it?

- Alex Jones exposing that during the gatherings at the bohemian grove they watch plays?

The point is we all have to sift through the dross and the chaff that has been offered to us by both the "official" and the "unofficial" stories, and make up our own minds

The official story has given you the evidence, the "unofficial" theories just pull stuff out of their behind and parade it around as truth to their gullible, uneducated followers. And no, you can't "make up your own mind" if the evidence is contrary to what you believe, then act like you're right.

Nice little NWO messages at the end of your post too, damn them eh? Always crushing your silly little dreams...Glad I get paid for this, am I right?

[edit on 16-2-2010 by Whyhi]