If one looks at 9/11 Truth as a scam it becomes clear...

reply to post by DrNotforhire


Dude please do some reading, this has all been disused already, not about to go through it all again.

Do some reading, get caught up to the arguments and try again.

All you are doing is acting as proxy for someone elses claims, we disagree with those claims. You are putting your faith in that web site telling you the truth. You will get more respect if you can actually explain the collapses yourself without appealing to authority. We don't need you to just point to web sites we've all seen before. Do you have anything new that we haven't seen yet?

Can you explain how sagging trusses can pull on columns, without linking me to something?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
3 years, $20,000,000 and 10,000 pages and it is not OFFICIAL.

The discussion wasn't over the reason why we went to war with Iraq or Afghanistan. The discussion...which YOU started...was over the "official explanation" for the collapse of the towers. If you're acknowledging you've been hoodwinked by those damned fool conspiracy web sites and there is in fact no "official explanation" for their collapse then I would appreciate it if you would just come out and say it.

...mostly because everyone else knows you don't have a microbe of tangible proof of any conspiracy so you need to resort to luring others down a rat hole of strawman arguments that have absolutely no relevence to the discussions about 9/11.

It is not my fault that you consider the word OFFICIAL to be more important than 10,000 pages and $20,000,000. The NCSTAR1 report is the closest thing to any explanation from the government and I don't give a damn whether it uses the word official or not.

Then you want to bring up the word STRAWMAN when in actuality I don't talk about conspiracies. I have not discussed who did it or why because I don't give a damn. You keep bringing up the conspiracy strawman to ridicule people because the physics of this incident being done by an airliner is so ridiculous.

I discuss the distribution of steel information which we don't have because that is necessary for every skyscraper to hold itself up.

psik

reply to post by ANOK

That's easy... The firing coating wasn't up to par, also when you take away the floor.. the building code in that time period the towers were created did not need to meet with the 2 hours of burn time standard. ALSO this is pertaining... and I can't stress this enough to the FLOOR. With the accelerants of the aircraft... you know aluminum alloys can burn up to something like 1200 degrees. (which is FAR behind UL standards)

Oh and something that's not very well known...
THE OXYGEN generators on planes are wrapped in ALUMINUM
so...now we have our conductor our accelerant and our flaw the building design....

reply to post by GoodOlDave
Oh, I totally think you're a secret government agent spying on me. I just didn't want to blow your cover.

Seriously - for the moment I'm just bookmarking your post so I remember to come back and give you the thoughtful response it deserves tomorrow. Looks like a good debate picking up here; I don't have time to join in tonight, but I'm enjoying the discussion.

Originally posted by DrNotforhire
reply to post by ANOK

 

That's easy... The firing coating wasn't up to par, also when you take away the floor.. the building code in that time period the towers were created did not need to meet with the 2 hours of burn time standard. ALSO this is pertaining... and I can't stress this enough to the FLOOR. With the accelerants of the aircraft... you know aluminum alloys can burn up to something like 1200 degrees. (which is FAR behind UL standards)

Oh and something that's not very well known...
THE OXYGEN generators on planes are wrapped in ALUMINUM
so...now we have our conductor our accelerant and our flaw the building design....

Sorry but again all that has been debunked, do some reading. We've been over all this already, lots of threads for you to research.

Fire proofing, or not, the fires could not have got hot enough in one hour to cause thousands of tons of steel to fail.

And you still haven't explained how sagging trusses can put a pulling force on the columns, until you can do that you have nothing we haven't heard before.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

It is not my fault that you consider the word OFFICIAL to be more important than 10,000 pages and $20,000,000. The NCSTAR1 report is the closest thing to any explanation from the government and I don't give a damn whether it uses the word official or not.

It's clear by now that all you're doing is repeating the sexy sounding drivel you're getting off those damned fool conspiracy web sites, which is why you're introducing this whole "official explanation" bit without understanding what the heck it even means. The Purdue report isn't an explanation, but a theory supported by materials engineers and computer simulation, and since it was sponsored wholly by Purdue University rather than the gov't it isn't remotely "official". I myself subscribe to their scenario because it covers a monumental component of the impact the NIST report didn't take into consideration. Another report by former NIST fire expert Dr. James Quintiere released his own report that likewise investigates a condition that the NIST report didn't take into consideration. He's unique in that he's a NIST engineer who likewise doesn't agree with the NIST report, so for all I know, his theory might be correct as well. If you're a genuine researcher and aren't simply drinking Gage's Kool Aid like a mindless follower, you will already know what these alternative theories are suggesting.

There is no such thing as "an official explanation" becauase there are a number of conflicting theories, and even the NIST people said up front that theirs wasn't an "explanation" but a theory. Bickering over this one individual theory on the basis that it's "an official explanation" is spurious reasoning.

Then you want to bring up the word STRAWMAN when in actuality I don't talk about conspiracies. I have not discussed who did it or why because I don't give a damn. You keep bringing up the conspiracy strawman to ridicule people because the physics of this incident being done by an airliner is so ridiculous.

In case it hasn't occurred to you...and it sounds like it hasn't...the very nanosecond you suggest controlled demolitions or any other "inside job" scenario you ARE suggesting there's a conspiracy becusase only a conspiracy could have produced the results you're postulating. Richard Gage likes to play these word games by claiming he's merely discussing the collapse of the towers and refraining from wallowing in conspiracy theories, but he is either monumentally stupid or he's a complete liar when he attempts to claim they aren't one and the same. For all his other faults, I know full well that Gage isn't stupid.

You're attempting to have your cake and eat it too, here. I expected better from you.

Originally posted by ANOK
Sorry but again all that has been debunked, do some reading. We've been over all this already, lots of threads for you to research.

Would you mind terribly pointing out where the substandard fire coating theory had been debunked? This is the basis of NIST fire expert Dr. James Quintiere's report, and to my understanding it has never been debunked for the simple reason that all evidence that would confirm or deny the theory had been destroyed in the collapse.

Or is this yet another "Dr. Quintiere is a secret gov't agent" kind of debunking?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Dave it isn't debunked... It's just the same witch hunt, if you don't agree you are "wrong" automatically.. I like what you said about it being a theory, and how its not a fact... at this point we will NEVER know what really happened.. too much time has passed..

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Since you are of the more rational sort, let's dispense with the "damned fool conspiracy web sites" and "secret gov't agent sent to spy on us" rhetoric. Please explain how an obvious intelligent person such as yourself had been swayed by these conspiracy claims...which you yourself have to admit sound ludicrous on the surface.

Thanks for that - I wanted to answer this part of your post first; I’ll try come back and address the rest, and other points raised on this thread, later on.

The simple answer is that I was not, as you assume, swayed by conspiracy claims. I was swayed by what I saw that day, which prompted me to research all perspectives I could find. I do think many of the claims I’ve heard sound ludicrous - but I think going to the moon sounds ludicrous, and it happened, so I don’t see that as a reason to dismiss a theory.

I remember being swayed - on 9/11 itself - by the reporting of the flight path of AA77 as it circled the Pentagon and hit a mostly empty section; by the interviews with witnesses who heard explosions; by the reports of truck bombs on bridges; by the improbable collapse of three buildings (with Peter Jennings and others noting the obvious similarities to demolition); by the bizarre response of the President throughout the day; and most of all by the almost instant explanation given across all media - that this was the work of bin Laden and al Qaeda, and that (despite Jennings's observation) intense heat from fires inevitably cause skyscrapers to collapse in a matter of hours.

All of that (and probably more) felt weird to me, and I started looking deeper in every direction I could. I saw an administration that was blatantly lying (Rice’s frequent “no one could have imagined planes being flown into buildings”) and misremembering events (Bush’s “I saw the first plane crash on TV in the hall outside the classroom") as it used the attacks to justify major policy changes and military actions. I saw a Commission reluctantly formed, with the insulting choice of Henry Kissinger as its leader (thankfully that didn’t last long, but Zelikow was hardly better). I read the Commission Report, the FEMA and NIST reports, and watched anything PBS or Discovery Channel or whoever put on TV. I felt that everything started with the assumption that al Qaeda was solely responsible, and that it was inevitable that events would happen the way they did. I was having a hard time finding anything objective (with two notable exceptions - this timeline, which I still refer to consistently, and these articles from The Onion of all places, which stood out to me then as the closest thing to the truth anyone in the media was saying).

Then I started watching conspiracy videos - I didn’t agree with all the theories presented, and sometimes got offended by people who I thought were making things up, but on balance I still saw more objectivity there than I had in any of the “official” media. I will admit, I have a high tolerance for considering crazy ideas, and I did accept some ideas that I’ve since abandoned (e.g. oh my god! he said his last name to his mother! it must be a fake call!) after further research.

I wanted these theories to be proven wrong, so I turned to Popular Mechanics, and debunking911, and any other debunking resources I could find. I started to notice a pattern. With the exception of details that do get legitimately debunked (like the cell phone calls), I saw a lot of arguments from incredulity: how can anyone believe such a crazy idea? Arguments like yours, for example:

I don't dismiss it simply because I detest Gage's obvious scamming practices. I dismiss it because it's utterly impossible for anyone to secretly rig an occupied building with controlled demolitions without any of the occupants noticing.

I don’t know for sure that it was demolition, but I know that the fact that you can’t imagine how it was done is not proof that it wasn’t. I can’t make assumptions about what an unknown group of people can do with unknown quantities of time, money, resources and motivation. So I don’t dismiss theories that sound ludicrous; I dismiss theories that prove to be impossible. After ten years of exploring theories, and actively searching for evidence to debunk the inside job theories, I’m more convinced than ever that the “official story” is itself a conspiracy theory which has never been proven, and that - though many are debunked - a lot of the “conspiracy theories” warrant objective consideration and investigation.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

It is not my fault that you consider the word OFFICIAL to be more important than 10,000 pages and $20,000,000. The NCSTAR1 report is the closest thing to any explanation from the government and I don't give a damn whether it uses the word official or not.

It's clear by now that all you're doing is repeating the sexy sounding drivel you're getting off those damned fool conspiracy web sites, which is why you're introducing this whole "official explanation" bit without understanding what the heck it even means. The Purdue report isn't an explanation, but a theory supported by materials engineers and computer simulation, and since it was sponsored wholly by Purdue University rather than the gov't it isn't remotely "official". I myself subscribe to their scenario because it covers a monumental component of the impact the NIST report didn't take into consideration.

You're attempting to have your cake and eat it too, here. I expected better from you.

All you can say is "conspiracy, conspiracy, conspiracy". The Purdue simulation is WRONG and contradicts the NIST report.

The NCSTAR1 report has empirical data on the deflection of the south tower on the impact of the plane. It is simple physics. The conservation of momentum. The south tower deflected 15 inches due to the impact but the Purdue simulation does not show movement of the core columns on impact.

I emailed three people at Purdue about the distributions of steel and concrete. That would affect the response due to the conservation of momentum. I constructed a model and made a video to demonstrate the physics. Purdue could not make the simulation correct without accurate data. Prof. Sozen at Purdue did not respond.



Computer simulations do not really do physics. They follow computer programs. If the programs are wrong for whatever reason then the simulation will contain errors. A physical model cannot defy the Laws of Physics. It is just a question of whether the model is relevant. I demonstrate that the mass and its distribution must affect the structures response to the impact.

Such a model is obviously too difficult for our engineering schools.

psik

reply to post by magicrat
Thanks for your thoughtful input, magic. As you say, the real conspiracy theory IS the official story. In my opinion, Dave is the south end of a northbound horse, and I've learned to ignore everything he has to offer, because I detest wasting time. One day, some way, he'll have to answer for his actions, because they are treasonous. Repeating a lie is the same as telling one.

Originally posted by DrNotforhire
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Dave it isn't debunked... It's just the same witch hunt, if you don't agree you are "wrong" automatically.. I like what you said about it being a theory, and how its not a fact... at this point we will NEVER know what really happened.. too much time has passed..

We will never know exactly what happened because noone was able to see what was happening inside the building as it collapsed, so all they can do is make educated guesses from the remains. For example, when we see steel recovered from ground zero that looks like THIS...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6cc309d1f98a.jpg[/atsimg]

...we can see right away there was massive forces crashing down for it to bend steel girders like it was a pipe cleaner, plus, there ain't no way this girder is going to be holding anything up once it started bending like this. I keep asking these truthers just how secret controlled demolitions would have done this and to a man they all run away the same way vampires run away from sunlight. The reason is obvious- these damned fool 9/11 conspiracy web sites are just a bunch of scammers and this is the first time the truthers have seen genuine information about 9/11 outside of the 9/11 scammer's censorship.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by DrNotforhire
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Dave it isn't debunked... It's just the same witch hunt, if you don't agree you are "wrong" automatically.. I like what you said about it being a theory, and how its not a fact... at this point we will NEVER know what really happened.. too much time has passed..

We will never know exactly what happened because noone was able to see what was happening inside the building as it collapsed, so all they can do is make educated guesses from the remains. For example, when we see steel recovered from ground zero that looks like THIS...

Who said the objective was knowing exactly what happened? That is your STRAWMAN.

The objective is knowing whether airliner impact and fires could cause it in less than TWO HOURS. Because if anything else was involved, even if we don't know what it was, then this is more complicated than Arabs hijacking planes and flying them into the towers.

So we should know the distributions of steel and concrete to analyze that. So why doesn't EVERYBODY on both sides of the issue want to know that? How could having that data be objectionable if airliners did do it?

Your position seems to be if no one can PROVE something else did it then airliners must have done it. You are not interested in understanding how airliners could have done it.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Your position seems to be if no one can PROVE something else did it then airliners must have done it. You are not interested in understanding how airliners could have done it.

Rumor has it that Gage has made 20 mil without proving one single point.
Or should I say by putting forth speculation.

Wouldn't you think he would put some of that money towards lobbying congress?
He's got the plans.
He's got 1500 buddies.
He's got the money.

He just doesn't have any real proof! If he did the world might look at things differently.

So none of these 1500 can put their heads together, funded by Gage, and show with hard numbers why fire could not have brought down the buildings???

Originally posted by samkent

Rumor has it that Gage has made 20 mil without proving one single point.

Rumour has it Cheney's stock in Blackwater/Xe has increased 4000%.

No wait, that's a fact.

reply to post by Tw0Sides

Rumour has it Cheney's stock in Blackwater/Xe has increased 4000%.

Pray tell us exactly how much money he has made from Blackwater stock??

The man has been at the edge of death since he first entered office. Do you really think that more money would make his life happier?

With all this supposed wealth don't you think he would have bought himself a new(er) heart?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

It is not my fault that you consider the word OFFICIAL to be more important than 10,000 pages and $20,000,000. The NCSTAR1 report is the closest thing to any explanation from the government and I don't give a damn whether it uses the word official or not.

It's clear by now that all you're doing is repeating the sexy sounding drivel you're getting off those damned fool conspiracy web sites, which is why you're introducing this whole "official explanation" bit without understanding what the heck it even means. The Purdue report isn't an explanation, but a theory supported by materials engineers and computer simulation, and since it was sponsored wholly by Purdue University rather than the gov't it isn't remotely "official". I myself subscribe to their scenario because it covers a monumental component of the impact the NIST report didn't take into consideration.

You're attempting to have your cake and eat it too, here. I expected better from you.

All you can say is "conspiracy, conspiracy, conspiracy". The Purdue simulation is WRONG and contradicts the NIST report.

This statement is wrong on so many levels. Of course the Purdue report contradicts the NIST report. By definition every other report that says something different than what the NIST report says is going to contradict it. It's only in your propaganda-based outlook on the world that the NIST repost even has to be considered gospel by all other researchers so there's no reason why other reports shouldn't contradict it.

The NCSTAR1 report has empirical data on the deflection of the south tower on the impact of the plane. It is simple physics. The conservation of momentum. The south tower deflected 15 inches due to the impact but the Purdue simulation does not show movement of the core columns on impact.

Of course, this begs the question- so flipping what? The study was on how the initial impact caused more damage to the structure than what NIST took into consideration, not how many inches the building swayed or should have swayed.

Computer simulations do not really do physics. They follow computer programs. If the programs are wrong for whatever reason then the simulation will contain errors. A physical model cannot defy the Laws of Physics. It is just a question of whether the model is relevant. I demonstrate that the mass and its distribution must affect the structures response to the impact.

So what relevency does any of that have on how the initial structural failure occurred and how that initial structural failure caused a chain reaction of structural failure? You're not suggesting that a single domino can't knock down ten pounds of dominos, are you?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

 

Who said the objective was knowing exactly what happened?

Originally posted by magicrat

 

I remember being swayed - on 9/11 itself - by the reporting of the flight path of AA77 as it circled the Pentagon and hit a mostly empty section; by the interviews with witnesses who heard explosions; by the reports of truck bombs on bridges; by the improbable collapse of three buildings (with Peter Jennings and others noting the obvious similarities to demolition); by the bizarre response of the President throughout the day; and most of all by the almost instant explanation given across all media - that this was the work of bin Laden and al Qaeda, and that (despite Jennings's observation) intense heat from fires inevitably cause skyscrapers to collapse in a matter of hours.

To which I would respond...

a) the whole "mostly empty section" bit is yet more conspiracy mongoring. You know as well as I do that the the truthers would have made up whatever excuse they needed to in order to hoodwink people into thinking why the plane hitting any of the five sections would be suspicious. If it wasn't that "wing A was mostly empty" it would be because "some relevent person was at wing B who needed to be assassinated" (like the way they're done with John Oneill), and if not that, it would be because "wing C had computer systems that contained incriminating evidence that needed to be destroyed" (like the way they've done with WTC 7). If those theories about alternate realities are true and the plane hit wing D instead, right now you and I are discussing whether or not "the plane intentionally hit wing D because it was at the optimum angle that kept the number of credible witnesses of the impact at a minimum" (like the way they've done with the Shanksville crash).

b) Noone is refuting that witnesses heard explosions. The question to be answered is whether the explosions were from explosives or from flammable objects known to have been in the buildings that would naturally go BOOM while on fire...electrical transformers, pressurized pipes, fuel tanks, and the like. What concerns me is the steadfast refusal of the truthers to address the fact that no hard evidence exists anywhere of any supposed explosives, but it's an irrefutable fact that the building did in fact contain items that would go BOOM when on fire.

c) the fact that Bush acted oddly throughout the 9/11 attack illustrates the case that he was little boy sent to Washington to do a man's job and he was failing miserably at it, more than it does culpability. The same goes for how they knew it was al Qaida so quickly- the gov't almost certainly has more information about the 9/11 attack than what it's admitting to, but they're keeping mum because they don't want to admit their incompetence got 3000 people killed. I certainly can give you as many examples of prior gov't incompetence as you want.

I appreciate your intellectual honesty, but it still strikes me that you're intentionally gravitating toward these conspiracy scenarios rather than judging both possibilities with equal critical analysis.

I don’t know for sure that it was demolition, but I know that the fact that you can’t imagine how it was done is not proof that it wasn’t. I can’t make assumptions about what an unknown group of people can do with unknown quantities of time, money, resources and motivation.

That's true, as far as it goes, but certain events still have established rules to follow because physics necessarily apply to conspiracies just as it does everything else. Controlled demolitions for example are set up to attack the weak points of a specific structure to make the structure fall straight down, which necessarily means these controlled demolitions must have been at the specific weak points in the towers. Otherwise they're not controlled demolitions- they're just bombs. As each floor was held in air by a horizontal support brace which contributed no support to any other floor, it necessarily means the weak points were at the floors' connection points at the internal core and the external peremeter, both of which were heavily populated and or/constantly monitored by building personnel. To claim that *noone* on any of the 110 floors in two buildinng would have noticed any supicious activity at these locations is a stretch.

At leat with the LIHOP scenario, all the gov't would theoretically need to do to obtain the results it wanted is "nothing". The MIHOP scenario requires just too much unnecessary details and too much suspension of logic to be credible. For one thing, why would anyone waste their time going through the effort to hide the bombs and stage these hijackings when bombs were already used back in 1993?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Of course, this begs the question- so flipping what? The study was on how the initial impact caused more damage to the structure than what NIST took into consideration, not how many inches the building swayed or should have swayed.

How much energy does is take to move 100,000 tons 5 inches in less than two seconds? Knowing how much mass was where would be part of the problem of analyzing the impact. The NIST even admitted that information was necessary in two places in the report.

Talking about figuring out how much damage the impact did to the building without determining how much energy moved the building without doing damage is TOTAL NONSENSE. Skyscrapers are designed to sway in the wind which is a shear force just as the airliner impact was a shear force.

Dismissing these obvious considerations is why this entire issue is so scientifically ridiculous.

And just because we can figure out why airliners could not destroy the buildings does not necessarily mean we can figure out what did. We can probably come up with some of the energy characteristics the cause had to have but that might not be enough. The people who can just believe airliners could do it are just pure unadulterated stupid.

psik