From WTC to WTF: What's your take?

Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
From WTC to WTF: What's your take?

Lately, I have spent some time researching what's on the internet (A LOT!) about the 9/11 events.

I remember well how, at the time, I was watching the television with a friend and business associate. When the twin towers collapsed we looked at eachother in disbelief. There was no doubt that it was somehow a rigged demolition - but we had no idea how they - whoever they are/were - pulled that off. It was just one of those "WOW!" moments. (It should probably be mentioned that at the time, we were running a construction company and that we did a bit of demolition ourselves, so it is fair to say that we both had, and still have, quite a good and hands-on "feel" for how construction materials behave, even though none of us are accredited physicists or engineers.)

As the days went by it became blatantly clear that something sinister was going on. The "explanations" that came out defied as well common sense as known laws of physics. How could the plane that hit the Pentagon simply "evaporate", titanium-steel-alloys and all, but still leave behind DNA material enough to identify the passengers? And that alleged plane crash in Pennsylcania was even more mysterious. Where's the fucking plane?!?

In the months that followed, things got really ugly. An Orwellian "war on terrorism" was launched - and it was declared that America is above international law. Even above its own law! We saw the pictures from Guantanamo Bay. It was like a twisted parody on the movie "Wag The Dog" but it was undeniably real: America had fallen into the hands of a small cabal of so-called neocons, who, true to the teachings of their master and guru Leo Strauss, churned out one wild-eyed fantasy story of conspiracy more phantasmagorical than the next, in a propaganda operation nobody had seen the likes of since the days of Josef Goebbels.

It still goes on, almost ten years later. To this day, nobody as been able to offer a credible explanation for what really happened on that day. But there is a grass root sort of movement who refuse to swallow that ridiculous canard that is the "official" story. Among, frankly, untold amounts of completely idiotic speculations, there are serious people who patiently work towards what should have happened right away: A meticulous criminal investigation, based in scientific principles, under the leadership of a grand jury, which can once and for all establish an explanation that satisfies.

For instance, how can an anisotropic, organic process of fire lead to a symmetric, global collapse of tensile strength in a steel construction? It flies in the face of well known principles of thermodynamics, as well Newton's law of inertia. But most importantly: Why is this issue allowed to remain unresolved for all this time, creating a political state of tension that threatens to rip America apart? Sensible questions that have been raised by inquiring minds, most of them based in critical professionalism, are being met with vile accusations of being "unpatriotic". WTF is going on?

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Perhaps you didn't notice

Perhaps you didn't notice the two airliners that crashed in the buildings that day...

 

I was a foreman in *ALL* of those buildings... (7 WT mostly) ...there was no planned demolition... I think either myself, or the thousands of maintenance and contruction workers... or the people who worked in the buildings would have noticed people mounting explosives on every column in the building......and it wasn't merely a "fire"... rather a chemical fire caused by exploding jet fuel, which in turn caused the electical system to explode... the falling weight of the top floors did most of the work...I'm not sure where you're getting your information... (Jesse Ventura maybe?)... but this doesn't defy any laws of physics as much as its something we just dont see very often on this scale... and I also don't think you're unpatriotic... just paranoid...

 

 I hate George Bush too... But This was a bunch of Islamics...

 

 

Unless of course .... *I* am part of this grand conspiracy.... Muhahahahahahahahahaha

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Only certain parts of the

Only certain parts of the engines use titanium-steel alloys, the bulk of most airliner frames and skin has traditionally been aluminium alloys, which are not particularly strong or resistant to high temperature, but are light and relatively cheap.

So it is hardly a mystery that in the fire and the collapsing steel and concrete debris from that height, not much would have been identifiable. After all, tiny scraps of metal of any kind don't have anything as identifiable unique as DNA to tag them as coming from some very specific source.

The conspiracy theories about those events are a massive beat-up.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Don't buy the conspiracy myself

 

But actual professional studies have been carried out by people at NIST. Blowing up the twin towers would have required a massive and visible operation.

 

http://wtc.nist.gov/

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_fire_resistance_data.htm

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
http://www.bentham-open.org/p

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=11325

http://911research.wtc7.net/materials/wtc/twintowers.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/materials/wtc/twintowers.html

Just a few examples of all that is out there. 

I don't believe there exists any "cover-up conspiracy", merely ignorance about construction and the laws of physics, in combination with a widespread "will to believe" in the official story (even though it isn't even backed by any valid forensic evidence), simply because the possible ramifications of an alternative explanation is too awful to think about. Like I said, I have no idea who did what, much less *how* they did it - but I do know that the official story is bullshit.

You may call me an atheist, if you like.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:But

Atheistextremist wrote:


But actual professional studies have been carried out by people at NIST. Blowing up the twin towers would have required a massive and visible operation.

 

 

Your second assertion is half true. (They WERE blown up, but it's hard to imagine how that was arranged.) The first one (NIST) isn't. The people at NIST have, under specific orders, only produced a *possible* scenario (that even they themselves say is so improbable that it borders on the impossible) which is designed to fit the *official* story.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:The

BobSpence1 wrote:

The conspiracy theories about those events are a massive beat-up.

 

I agree. That's why there should be a proper investigation.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Well, I remember that time

Well, I remember that time fairly well too. Before any explanation at all was out there, I had some doubts as well. Primarily regarding how the buildings could fall straight down. As you say, the fires were far from symmetrical so I did not follow how the buildings would not go over sideways like a tree. That however was right at the beginning of the matter.

 

If you go back and look at the video right before the collapses, you can see that the tops of the buildings did start to break asymmetrically. However, moments after that, the tops of each building did fall straight down and hit the remainder of the towers like a hammer hitting a nail.

 

What happened in the next several thousandths of a second can only be speculated on and computer modeled by competent engineers with the detailed blueprints of the towers. While the reconstructions vary in details depending on who did the modeling and with what software, we are left with a body of several models that are inconsistent with the “truther” speculations.

 

Also, I would note that the truther movement is not even close to coming up with a singular explanation. Some say that there was a traditional demo job done. Others point to a second or two of molten metal coming out of one tower and saying that thermite was involved. Some even say that the base of the buildings were subject to truck bombs.

 

The lack of a single explanation is telling. Even if there was some shadowy conspiracy, they must have done one thing. Several explanations all being valid is an embarrassment of riches for the truther movement.

 

In addition, yes there are people who will swallow whatever the neocons come up with. Of that there is no credible doubt. However, the truther movement is based fully on the blind acceptance of ignorant speculations. If not for people swallowing crap ideas, there simply would be no truther movement.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

If you go back and look at the video right before the collapses, you can see that the tops of the buildings did start to break asymmetrically. However, moments after that, the tops of each building did fall straight down and hit the remainder of the towers like a hammer hitting a nail.

 

Quite so. The first building that fell had its top leaning sideways, to about a 25 degree angle - and by the law of conservation of momentum, this should have meant that the top should have fallen down into the streets below, whereas the rest of the building should have been left standing. But for some msterioyus reason this did not happen. What *did* happen was that the whole structure collapsed at almost free-fall speed, offering no resistance to the straight-down vector of the top. The other collapse makes even less sense... and as for bulding 7, symmetrically collapsing according to the NIST computer model (a weakening of intersection 27 on the 13th floor due to thermal stress), well that's just *impossible*. Then there is of course the problem with 1) lateral ejection of steel beams, and 2) pyroclastic clouds of very fine material that eventually covered pretty much all of lower Manhattan in a several inches thick layer, none of which couls have happened without the detonation of explosives.

Making the blanket statement that "there couldn't have been any explosives because nobody noticed them being placed in the buildings" isn't rational. The forensic evidence has been studied in a peer-reviewed report (linked above; Bentham Open) - and the evidence says there were explosives. The question of who placed them and how they did it is for a criminal investigation to decide.

 

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
OK, I think that we are at

OK, I think that we are at least partially on the same page here.

 

Now earlier, I intentionally avoided saying anything more than I did. Allow me to go a bit further,

 

The part of the top that started to fall sideways did exactly that. If it was not attached to the rest of the building, then it surely would have gone over as you say. However, in that case, the “hammer fall” could not have happened. So something else was at work here.

 

If the goal of some secret cabal is to destroy a huge building, would they have used the experience of the very people who do building demolition? Nobody who does demo work would have done things so that a huge bit of building would have done that.

 

Further, there was a clear hammer fall type of action. If the top of the building was sitting on top of the rest of the building, like a stack of blocks, then sure, I am fine with it going over like a block falling off the top of a stack.

 

Here I need to ask a question that seems relevant. How much of a disaster would the secret cabal have needed to justify further action? Would having the top fall off of the building and hit the ground wherever met the needs of this group of people?

 

Why did they need to destroy the buildings as they did?

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I remember seeing within the

I remember seeing within the last year a TV documentary that reviewed the WTC events, with a reasonably balanced approach. One thing that struck me was that the examples of controlled demolition they showed actually appeared to me much more messy than any of the WTC collapses. Not quite sure what that shows, just that naive reactions to the WTC events are not to be trusted, since the real world is much more complex than what we imagine, especially when confronted with one-off events like this.

Controlled demolition tries to get buildings to collapse inwards, which usually involves destroying the inner core first.

Once the top started to fall more-or-less straight down like it did, I see nothing all that remarkable about the way it continued. I did do engineering, including some structural engineering, so I am not totally guessing about this.

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Here I need to ask a question that seems relevant. How much of a disaster would the secret cabal have needed to justify further action?

 

 

In my opinion, this is where so many go so wrong. They start the investigation at the wrong end by asking "who did this?" before it is established what really happened. Just like some stereotyped racist court of the deep south where they point at the black man, then make the evidence support this idea of who did it. There can be little doubt that the US Government, at the time, stalled, delayed and in some cases directly obstructed a proper investigation of the events - but that doesn't mean they were behind it all. (In fact, I find that hard to believe.) However, they wasted no time in using it for political purposes, to support their agenda - which quite frankly makes me wonder if that reaction was not what the real perpetrators calculated into the equation, i.e. that the sitting administration could be trusted to do something stupid instead of starting a proper investigation. But that is as far as I'm willing to speculate before I know what happened.

I'm not into "conspiracy theories" although I do look at them online and find some of them morbidly hilarious. I had to split the number one place between this one guy who clams that Satan did it, with the help of extraterrestials in (almost) invisible UFO's (and he has a very elaborate investigation going on, with Bible verses,  lots of "followers" and shit), and this other one who claims it was done by Canada (!), under guise of the ongoing war games on the same day (and he also explains in minute detail how he sees it - with a focus on Penagon). There are also some that speculate about nuclear devices. In fact, the Spanish newspaper El Mundo published an article the day after (which has since been removed) where they claimed that it was reported from the US that the demolition of the buildings were done by Russian mini-nukes, so called "suitcases", of the RA-115-01 types (which Alexander Lebed claimed were missing by the 100's right before he was murdered).

It has been established beyond resonable doubt that the dust particles after the demolition of the WTC buildings 1, 2 and 7 contains an abundance of elements that are consistent with an explosive demolition done with some highly exotic materials (see the link up above from Bentham Open) that are void of the chemical markers which law demands from conventional explosives, such as for instance C-4. It seems the demolition was done with some extremely violent, experimental explosives that are not on the market. Which, of course, goes a long way in explaining why the metallurgists were so baffled when they looked at what little steel they were able to retrieve before it was all shipped off to overseas smelters.

As for the "hammerfall" type of action followed by the (official) "pancaking" theory, it should probably also be mentioned that Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder of the WTC, had to conduct his own investigation and come up with a different theory in order to be awarded the insurance money - about 7 billion dollars - because "pancaking" indicates a constructional flaw of the buildings which cannot be blamed on terrorism. So he had his own team of technicians construct a different model of "successive bulging" (which BTW is absolute codwopple) because of "migrating fires" which is inconsistent with the official version. But he got his money.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Once the

BobSpence1 wrote:

Once the top started to fall more-or-less straight down like it did, I see nothing all that remarkable about the way it continued. I did do engineering, including some structural engineering, so I am not totally guessing about this. 

 

Neither am I. But I didn't do engineering, I did demolition. I *know* how hard it is to tear down steel-and-reinforced-concrete buildings. I also *know* that there is no way in heaven or hell you will get lateral ejection of building elements to more than twice the building's footprint (which violates the law of gravity) and pyroclastic flow clouds of dust without using explosives. (BTW, I haven't done any explosive demolition, only conventional, but I have witnessed the utilization of explosive devices many times.) No matter from which height you drop a slab of concrete it will *not* pulverize into nano-particles measurable in microns like that. (But if you blow it up it most certainly will.)

I am guessing that you refer to the BBC documentary which I saw as well. I can but admire the almost religious spirit of *hope* that is embedded in what to me appear as 9/11-denial. Most people *want* it to be perpetrated by rogue terrorists, and they don't *want* to hear things like how the mysterious character Mohammed Atta was financed by the Pakistani secret service ISI (which has been documented). Nor do they *want* to know that some hitherto unidentified people made some substantial amounts of money on insider trading in connection with the events (which has also been documented). The market shows a considerable anomaly of put-option tradings - to the 1600 times larger amount than what is normal - in the days leading up to the events.

Anyway, the question must be: Do you not find it remarkable how FAST the buldings collapsed? Almost as if there was no resistance at all in the building materials underneath the alleged "hammerfall"? Even if the official report were true, which it isn't, you'd expect the collapse to take at least 3-4 times as long to happen, and in a much more disorganised way. Nor would you expect the existence of red-hot building materials in the rubble up to 3 months later. In fact, you wouldn't expect any molten steel at all.

Instead of buying into bullshit, I'd recommend anybody who has any sort of "opinion" on these events to investigate what's out there rather than repeat anybody else's talking points. In fact, don't even take *my* words for anything. Check it out for yourself. Check out the laws of physics, FFS.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2398
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Marquis.

  

 

 

                I always considered you level headed, untill you got onto this WTC conspiricy thingy. This  site has been there before. Deludedgod and myself explained to the Ux charactor what happened and how. His responses were insults and name calling. Please read the postings and do not let yourself fall to the low level of Ux.

 

 

 

 

         http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15202   

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick wrote:I always

Jeffrick wrote:

I always considered you level headed, untill you got onto this WTC conspiricy thingy.

 

Sir, I encourage you to demonstrate to me how I am "onto this WTC conspiracy thingy" in any way, shape or form.

First off, let me just say that I have done my homework on this. And I find it impossible to accept the myth, such as it is right now.

As far as I am concerned, all I am asking for is an explanation for a cluster-fuck of some very strange phenomenons, that actually makes sense. Had I been a conspiracy theorist, my focus would have been on constructing some fanciful explanation for a certain interpretation of facts and observations, probably with a pointed finger of blame towards somewhere or somebody. But I am not. I am merely pointing out that the *official* explanation (both the one delivered by NIST and the 9/11 Commission Report) for, as well, the collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7, as the "vapourization" of aircraft at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania, is bullshit. To this I will also add that the Government's response and political exploitation of this tragedy was (and continues to be) shameful. (I.e. the coverup, the destruction of evidence, the stalling of an investigation, the blanket threats against pretty much the rest of the world, the war on Afghanistan, the war on Iraq, the Patriot Act, the Department of Homeland Security, etc.)

Unless, of course, you consider it conspiratorial to *not* accept an authority's explanation for someting if and when this violates common sense.

 

 

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 I see absolutely nothing

 I see absolutely nothing remarkable with the rate at which they collapse. I understood/assumed that it was very close to free-fall. It would only be remarkable if it was greater.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick wrote:Deludedgod

Jeffrick wrote:
Deludedgod and myself explained to the Ux charactor what happened and how.

 

I read your gentlemen's "explanations" but I fail to see how they are any different than all and any other bending of data (for instance by the NIST) in order to fit a preconceived model which supports a certain political agenda. In other words, your explanations aren't *explanations*, they are the regurgitation of articles of faith.

Why don't you have a look at this instead:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/GrabbeExplosionsEvidence.pdf

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:Neither am I.

Marquis wrote:

Neither am I. But I didn't do engineering, I did demolition. I *know* how hard it is to tear down steel-and-reinforced-concrete buildings. I also *know* that there is no way in heaven or hell you will get lateral ejection of building elements to more than twice the building's footprint (which violates the law of gravity) and pyroclastic flow clouds of dust without using explosives. (BTW, I haven't done any explosive demolition, only conventional, but I have witnessed the utilization of explosive devices many times.) No matter from which height you drop a slab of concrete it will *not* pulverize into nano-particles measurable in microns like that. (But if you blow it up it most certainly will.)

I am not intending to present myself as an expert or even semi-expert.  But I do have a question here--  Wasn't there an explosion?  Two, actually.  Both planes were loaded with jet fuel which exploded on impact.  Am I wrong?

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Both planes were

cj wrote:
Both planes were loaded with jet fuel which exploded on impact.  Am I wrong?

 

Glad you mentioned that. Yes there was impact explosions, with "Hollywood style" fireballs of a "gasoline" type, which is inconsistent with the explosivity of jet fuel (which is more like kerosene in flammability/explosivity). This of course supports the "drone" theory that is heavily advocated by some conspiracy theorists (which in short is about unmanned and remote controlled aircrafts loaded with highly explosive agents, such as gasoline, intended to set off the preplaced chain reaction rigged nano-thermate/explosion devices) but that's all a little too fanciful for me, although the pilots and aviation professionals aren't very happy with that "fireball" thing. Anyway, here's some notes on jet fuel:

http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/EDL/projects/JetA/background.html

And a link to the "Pilots for 911 truth":

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:cj wrote:Both

Marquis wrote:

cj wrote:
Both planes were loaded with jet fuel which exploded on impact.  Am I wrong?

 

Glad you mentioned that. Yes there was impact explosions, with "Hollywood style" fireballs of a "gasoline" type, which is inconsistent with the explosivity of jet fuel (which is more like kerosene in flammability/explosivity). This of course supports the "drone" theory that is heavily advocated by some conspiracy theorists (which in short is about unmanned and remote controlled aircrafts loaded with highly explosive agents, such as gasoline, intended to set off the preplaced chain reaction rigged nano-thermate/explosion devices) but that's all a little too fanciful for me, although the pilots and aviation professionals aren't very happy with that "fireball" thing. Anyway, here's some notes on jet fuel:

http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/EDL/projects/JetA/background.html

And a link to the "Pilots for 911 truth":

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

Neither site is very informative.  If you had a picture - gas explosion vs jet fuel explosion - I might get it.  Told you I'm no expert.  The pilots site seems to be firmly on the fence though I admit I didn't read all the articles.

As for the fireball.  The floors were offices.  Paper was pulverized and then ignited.  I imagined it was rather like setting flour on fire.  If you must try setting flour on fire, I suggest doing it outside with a bare teaspoon of flour.  Stand way way back and toss it over an open flame.  Whoosh.  Now imagine gazillions of particles of paper, many no larger than the flour particles.  A lot of whoosh.  Mega-whoosh.  And there were lots of other things flaring up as well.  Including people.

The drone theory is damned disrespectful.  I assume by this theory all the missing passengers and pilots are being held in a secret facility somewhere?  Disgusting.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
The drone theory is damned

Agreed...The "drone" theory is beyond disrespectful...it's fucking moronic


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:The drone theory is

cj wrote:

The drone theory is damned disrespectful.  I assume by this theory all the missing passengers and pilots are being held in a secret facility somewhere? 

 

Not at all. It requires that the aircraft were remotely guided out over open sea (the Atlantic) and then detonated, i.e. they were all killed. (Boeing has standard remote operating safety equipment like that installed in all their modern passenger jets, so that a plane can be landed by ground control even if both pilots are indisposed.) With regards to the fireballs, they happened instantaneously, upon impact, which can clearly be seen from all the TV footage. (For instance at archive.org) Many have protested this, claiming that this is not how jet fuel behaves. I am no expert on the matter, but I do know the difference between blowing a theatrical fireball (from your mouth) with kerosene (which you're supposed to use) and gasoline (which you should never, never, never, ever try to use like that!!!). The flammability/explosovity ratio is about how fast the agent vapourises in room temperature and this determines the expansivity of the fireball, which is close to nothing with kerosene whereas it's explosive/expansive with gasoline. (Which is why fools who have tried to blow theatrical fireballs with gasoline have gotten severe burn damages to their faces.)

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Rich Woods

Rich Woods wrote:

Agreed...The "drone" theory is beyond disrespectful...it's fucking moronic

 

Not necessarily. It is possible, but I personally don't find it very plausible.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:As the days

Marquis wrote:

As the days went by it became blatantly clear that something sinister was going on. The "explanations" that came out defied as well common sense as known laws of physics. How could the plane that hit the Pentagon simply "evaporate", titanium-steel-alloys and all, but still leave behind DNA material enough to identify the passengers? And that alleged plane crash in Pennsylcania was even more mysterious. Where's the fucking plane?!?

I hope this is a big joke and your thought process does not work like this. But this thread has gone on too long. You seem to be serious. Just, wow. I mean...really?

 

Marquis wrote:

To this day, nobody as been able to offer a credible explanation for what really happened on that day.

Muslim hijackers (mostly Saudi Arabians) seized control of passenger airplanes and flew them into the WTC towers and the pentagon. In a strict sense, it was a conspiracy. But it was a conspiracy amongst Saudis that were pissed off against the US. It was not a conspiracy by the US government.

 

Marquis wrote:

we both had, and still have, quite a good and hands-on "feel" for how construction materials behave, even though none of us are accredited physicists or engineers.

You know how Stephen Colbert jokes about 'truthiness'? About how you just feel in your gut that something is so even though others who actually know what they are talking about contradict you? The engineers are the only one's I would be asking for the opinions of. Your vague 'feel' doesn't count for anything. Imagine a theist came here and told us that he has real 'feel' for how evolution is false, even though he isn't a biologist or scientist or anything. You just did the exact same thing. Don't be that way.

 

Marquis wrote:

For instance, how can an anisotropic, organic process of fire lead to a symmetric, global collapse of tensile strength in a steel construction?

A large mass of burning jet fuel raises average temperatures and that weakens the steel. Throwing around sciency words like 'anisotropic' doesn't change the fact that a lot of burning jet fuel raised the temperature and that weakened the steel.

 

Marquis wrote:

It flies in the face of well known principles of thermodynamics, as well Newton's law of inertia.

No it doesn't. I would like to hear your reasoning for this. And dear god man, do you hear how much you sound like a theist? They love making false, vague claims about thermodynamics that they clearly don't understand. You are doing the exact same thing! But please, tell us how a large mass of burning fuel weakening steel violates the laws of thermodynamics. Off the top of my head, it is clear that the free energy of this system decreased (in a chemical sense, though I suppose it also decreased in a mechanical sense) and all the heat put off increased total entropy. This seems ok by the laws of thermodynamics to me.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:You know

Jormungander wrote:

You know how Stephen Colbert jokes about 'truthiness'? About how you just feel in your gut that something is so even though others who actually know what they are talking about contradict you? The engineers are the only one's I would be asking for the opinions of. Your vague 'feel' doesn't count for anything. Imagine a theist came here and told us that he has real 'feel' for how evolution is false, even though he isn't a biologist or scientist or anything. You just did the exact same thing. Don't be that way.

 

Thank you for your rational and reasoned post.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
To the best of my knowledge,

To the best of my knowledge, I have nowhere in this thread made the claim that it was a conspiracy of the US Government. In fact, I seem to recall that I explicitly stated that I find that hard to believe (even though it is a popular conspiracy theory). I also fail to see why I sound like a *theist* when all I want is an explanation that isnt, to be honest, ridiculous. Such as how 19 hijackers (out of whom at least 7 are confirmed to still be alive and well), armed with box cutters, under the guidance of a man in a cave in Afghanistan (who explicitly denied being involved), were able to hijack four aircrafts and proceed to penetrate the presumably most guarded airspace in the world to carry out a spectacular suicidal operation which has since caused the entire world politics to change.

You can joke about how I used the term "feel" - but I don't want to claim any theoretical knowledge that I don't have. As the case is, I *know* how building materials behave, because of extensive hands-on experience with both construction and demolition, much the same way that you *know* that your hand will get burnt if you immerse it into boiling water. I am sure we can agree on the principle that you can be a good carpenter even if you aren't able to explain what you're doing in physical and mathematical terms.

As for the violation of thermodynamics, I am specifically referring to how an organic process of fire - which is asymmetrical in nature - cannot cause a symmetrical and global collapse in inorganic materials, causing them to implode at free fall speed (which at the very least would require that there is no resistance at all - none whatsoever - in the rest of the structure). This is *impossible*.

However, having said all that, I would probably accept the official version with a *shrug* (even though it looks PERVERSE compared to what I know about buildings and demolition) had the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 been ALL that happened on that day. But it wasn't. The sum total of it all just makes no sense - but I'm happy for you if you are satisfied with the bullshit reports that have been released on the matter.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:To the best of

Marquis wrote:

To the best of my knowledge, I have nowhere in this thread made the claim that it was a conspiracy of the US Government. In fact, I seem to recall that I explicitly stated that I find that hard to believe (even though it is a popular conspiracy theory). I also fail to see why I sound like a *theist* when all I want is an explanation that isnt, to be honest, ridiculous. Such as how 19 hijackers (out of whom at least 7 are confirmed to still be alive and well), armed with box cutters, under the guidance of a man in a cave in Afghanistan (who explicitly denied being involved), were able to hijack four aircrafts and proceed to penetrate the presumably most guarded airspace in the world to carry out a spectacular suicidal operation which has since caused the entire world politics to change.

 

Did you read the news reports?  Maybe you are back east and it didn't make it in your papers.  The 7 hijackers still alive are alive because they were arrested in Los Angeles.  Their plane had not taken off yet when the no fly order went out.  Bad timing on their part.  Which sort of points up how difficult it is to mange a conspiracy from the middle of no where.  Someone forgot about or miscalculated the time zone differences.  Or they miscalculated how quickly the FCC would respond.  Easy mistake to make.

The armed with box cutters worked because the policy at the time was to cooperate with any hijackers until the plane was on the ground and law enforcement could be called in.  We may say in hindsight that was a policy that should have been updated a lot sooner.  But it was made when hijackers would come on a plane with military weapons.  No way to bring those guys down without seriously endangering the other passengers.  I wouldn't like you to tackle one hijacker while 5 others are standing there with ak-47s.  No one had any way of knowing - without tackling and finding out the hard way - if these guys were carrying explosives on their persons.

And, at the time, the US was not the most guarded air space in the world.  I think Israel had that distinction seeing as they had a lot more problems with hijackers at that time.  Most people believed that hijacking happened elsewhere, not in the US.

 

Marquis wrote:

You can joke about how I used the term "feel" - but I don't want to claim any theoretical knowledge that I don't have. As the case is, I *know* how building materials behave, because of extensive hands-on experience with both construction and demolition, much the same way that you *know* that your hand will get burnt if you immerse it into boiling water. I am sure we can agree on the principle that you can be a good carpenter even if you aren't able to explain what you're doing in physical and mathematical terms.

As for the violation of thermodynamics, I am specifically referring to how an organic process of fire - which is asymmetrical in nature - cannot cause a symmetrical and global collapse in inorganic materials, causing them to implode at free fall speed (which at the very least would require that there is no resistance at all - none whatsoever - in the rest of the structure). This is *impossible*.

 

I mentioned a way for an explosion to happen that is very probable given the nature of the materials in the building.  Explosions have many sources of ignition including many thousands of pounds of paper blowing freely around in the air and suddenly ignited.  This is not trivial.  Seriously, run the flour experiment, but watch your eyebrows.

I find the whole thing about explosives just as despicable as the drone theory where the airplanes were blown up over the Atlantic.  Where are the whistle blowers?  There are enough of them for any other government fuck up.  How many people would have to be involved in this conspiracy and why would they not talk after the republicans are out of office?  Where are the book and movie deals?  Convince me why just one would not come forward and say, yeah, I planted some of those explosives and look, now I'm on with Rush & co!

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3391
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
i'm not taking any sides in

i'm not taking any sides in this debate, but i would like to offer my opinion that marquis seems to be the one trying to look at this from an unemotional and rational angle, while most of those challenging his arguments are giving emotionally charged responses that boil down to ad hom (not all, though--bob, for example, is keeping a level head).  also, i would like to agree that marquis does not seem to be crying government conspiracy, so please don't make this into a straw man.

i also appreciate his candor in telling us he is not a complete expert.  i don't find this to hurt his argument, and he does have 100% more experience in the area of demolitions than anyone else on here, as far as i've been able to see, so i think that should be respected.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3391
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:I find the whole

cj wrote:

I find the whole thing about explosives just as despicable as the drone theory where the airplanes were blown up over the Atlantic.  Where are the whistle blowers?  There are enough of them for any other government fuck up.  How many people would have to be involved in this conspiracy and why would they not talk after the republicans are out of office?  Where are the book and movie deals?  Convince me why just one would not come forward and say, yeah, I planted some of those explosives and look, now I'm on with Rush & co!

but cj, he's not saying who could have put explosives there.  he's taking it one step at a time.  he's saying let's establish if that was even a possibility at all before we go the extra mile of pointing fingers.  he's certainly not saying the gov't did it.

let's all calm down and address arguments that are actually offered, not anticipated.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
You'd be correct if you

You'd be correct if you claimed that the Dubya and his administration made all sorts of political capital from 9/11. He also promptly lost all of it on wars and bullshit God and State posturing.

Suggesting he or Cheney had the intelligence and foresight to pull this off? Not a terribly realistic PoV.

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:he's saying

iwbiek wrote:

he's saying let's establish if that was even a possibility at all before we go the extra mile of pointing fingers.

possibility? I think it's a bunch of (undue) paranoia. I say this living under a dad who alway's suspected "the gov't", governments, or even secret evil organizations (just the like the kinds out of Verne's novels) were covering something up. I took him seriously for about the first 13 years or so, then I got tired of it because solid proof was NEVER on his side.

It isn't that we're all out to assassinate Marquis' character, or completely disavow his claims... it's just that The Facts aren't on his side.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:The 7 hijackers

cj wrote:
The 7 hijackers still alive are alive because they were arrested in Los Angeles.

 

Not so. What I mean is that 7 out of the 19 that were named in the 9/11 Commission Report were *known* to be alive and well, living in places like Saudi-Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen and Morocco, at the time, which I find a curious thing. Why name them at all when they are certifiably alive? Of course, there is the possibility that they had had their passports stolen and/or forged, but if so they shouldn't have been put up on public display like that, which I think is a very serious and wrong thing to do, considering the gravity of the crime they were accused of.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:The armed with box

cj wrote:
The armed with box cutters worked because the policy at the time was to cooperate with any hijackers until the plane was on the ground and law enforcement could be called in.  We may say in hindsight that was a policy that should have been updated a lot sooner.  But it was made when hijackers would come on a plane with military weapons.

 

With all due respect, but the pilots and aviation professionals at the link I provided earlier are in disagreement with this assertion.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:It isn't that

Kapkao wrote:

It isn't that we're all out to assassinate Marquis' character, or completely disavow his claims... it's just that The Facts aren't on his side.

 

I would be happy, Sir, if you could provide these facts. I have spent a lot of time looking at the facts, the claims, the assertions, and what may best be described as an assembly of completely insane ideas. The only facts I am aware of are well covered by news media camera footage, photographies and eye witness reports - although the latter have consistently, for reasons unbeknowst to me, never been taken into account. I shall have to conclude that there were political agendas in the Government, at the time, that were considered to be more important than getting everything on the table, out in the open, for all to see, beyond all reasonable doubt. As the matter stands right now, it is an infectuous breeding ground for insane ideas and wild-eyed imagination. In my opinion - which is nothing more than my opinion - the matter deserves a thorough investigation under the leadership of an impartial grand jury, so that everybody (especially the poor "families for 911 truth" ) can have their say and the matter can be closed down for good. But this may not be politically feasible.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:Kapkao

Marquis wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

It isn't that we're all out to assassinate Marquis' character, or completely disavow his claims... it's just that The Facts aren't on his side.

I would be happy, Sir, if you could provide these facts.

Already done for me, by other posters. I'm rarely, if ever, in a mood to debate conspiracy theories as one of my more obnoxious male relatives pretty much wore out all tolerance I have for debating with CTists. If I discuss with them, it's usually to point out the circular/faulty logic, lack of substantial evidence, or to simply mock CTists (like my dad and his paranoid/deluded hippie friends). edit; sometimes I actually like discussing the factual merits of such a discussion!

 

However, since I respect you Marquis, I have no desire to do ANY such thing. I sure as hell don't want to lock horns with you about "controlled demolitions". There are a few individuals I so enjoy verbally abusing, you're not one of them! (I can't honestly debate without feeling an urge to mock/slander/stereotype my verbal opponents, so... there ya have it)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:i'm not taking

iwbiek wrote:

i'm not taking any sides in this debate, but i would like to offer my opinion that marquis seems to be the one trying to look at this from an unemotional and rational angle, while most of those challenging his arguments are giving emotionally charged responses that boil down to ad hom (not all, though--bob, for example, is keeping a level head).

I have noticed that. Conspiracy theorists and psuedoscientists have this aura about them of being the only ones that have an open mind about things. And when you point out that they are spouting off nonsense, they claim that you are just dogmatic and close-minded. They claim to be the only ones really looking at the evidence as a rhetorical ploy in order to discredit people who actually are basing their decisions off of the real evidence. I don't think Marquis has done that though.

There reaches a point where someone's claims are so stupid that it is best to not seriously argue against them. There is a point where you just have to say "Really? You are that stupid? You are really that stupid of a person?" The vague and false claims about thermodynamics are what pushed this over into the "are you that stupid?" territory for me. Sadly, the answer appears to be "yes, he is that stupid." I know that's all ad hominem, but, damn, this is all just so stupid. I can't see the tiniest difference between this and a creationist making vague and false claims about the 'principles of thermodynamics' in order to argue against evolution. Maybe having them rape science like this has made me touchy about people's vague lies concerning the laws of thermodynamics.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:I'm rarely, if

Kapkao wrote:
I'm rarely, if ever, in a mood to debate conspiracy theories as one of my more obnoxious male relatives pretty much wore out all tolerance I have for debating with CTists. If I discuss with them, it's usually to point out the circular/faulty logic, lack of substantial evidence, or to simply mock CTists (like my dad and his paranoid/deluded hippie friends).

 

Heh... I understand these sentiments. I myself get rapidly impatient with crazy speculation. It's just too easy, innit?

However, I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to establish any conspiracy theory, I am only interested in a plausible explanation for some physical events which actually happened, in quite minute and irrefutible detail, as you'd expect and demand from any modern forensic investigation - and particularly so when the case at hand is about nearly 3,000 individual cases of aggravated homicide. What this or that meant to whatever *American pride* matters fuck all to me. I am from Europe. There has been wars, bombings, mass humiliation and terrorism happening here well beyond the relatively mild scopes of the 9/11 events - but there has been and is also quite a different and more accentuated will to bring clarity and rationality into the matter, rather than emotional nationalism and mass hysteria. Sticking your fingers into your ears and going "la la la I don't want to hear" will only favour the unscrupulous and flat out evil people's agendas.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3391
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:iwbiek

Jormungander wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

i'm not taking any sides in this debate, but i would like to offer my opinion that marquis seems to be the one trying to look at this from an unemotional and rational angle, while most of those challenging his arguments are giving emotionally charged responses that boil down to ad hom (not all, though--bob, for example, is keeping a level head).

I have noticed that. Conspiracy theorists and psuedoscientists have this aura about them of being the only ones that have an open mind about things. And when you point out that they are spouting off nonsense, they claim that you are just dogmatic and close-minded. They claim to be the only ones really looking at the evidence as a rhetorical ploy in order to discredit people who actually are basing their decisions off of the real evidence. I don't think Marquis has done that though.

There reaches a point where someone's claims are so stupid that it is best to not seriously argue against them. There is a point where you just have to say "Really? You are that stupid? You are really that stupid of a person?" The vague and false claims about thermodynamics are what pushed this over into the "are you that stupid?" territory for me. Sadly, the answer appears to be "yes, he is that stupid." I know that's all ad hominem, but, damn, this is all just so stupid. I can't see the tiniest difference between this and a creationist making vague and false claims about the 'principles of thermodynamics' in order to argue against evolution. Maybe having them rape science like this has made me touchy about people's vague lies concerning the laws of thermodynamics.

ok, fair enough, but he's not just relying on thermodynamics, nor did he seem to devote a considerable portion of his text to it.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:The vague

Jormungander wrote:
The vague and false claims about thermodynamics are what pushed this over into the "are you that stupid?" territory for me.

 

http://911review.com/reviews/counterpunch/markup/thermo11282006.html

http://911review.com/articles/ryan/garcia.html

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:Kapkao

Marquis wrote:

Kapkao wrote:
I'm rarely, if ever, in a mood to debate conspiracy theories as one of my more obnoxious male relatives pretty much wore out all tolerance I have for debating with CTists. If I discuss with them, it's usually to point out the circular/faulty logic, lack of substantial evidence, or to simply mock CTists (like my dad and his paranoid/deluded hippie friends).

 

Heh... I understand these sentiments. I myself get rapidly impatient with crazy speculation. It's just too easy, innit?

However, I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to establish any conspiracy theory, I am only interested in a plausible explanation for some physical events which actually happened, in quite minute and irrefutible detail, as you'd expect and demand from any modern forensic investigation - and particularly so when the case at hand is about nearly 3,000 individual cases of aggravated homicide. What this or that meant to whatever *American pride* matters fuck all to me. I am from Europe. There has been wars, bombings, mass humiliation and terrorism happening here well beyond the relatively mild scopes of the 9/11 events - but there has been and is also quite a different and more accentuated will to bring clarity and rationality into the matter, rather than emotional nationalism and mass hysteria. Sticking your fingers into your ears and going "la la la I don't want to hear" will only favour the unscrupulous and flat out evil people's agendas.

Talk to edgar allan p... I mean Jormung. He posted just before you did.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:they

Jormungander wrote:
they claim that you are just dogmatic and close-minded. They claim to be the only ones really looking at the evidence as a rhetorical ploy in order to discredit people who actually are basing their decisions off of the real evidence.

 

I would actually be happy to hear a *plausible* explanation.

Let's begin with my two main problems of the WTC: 1) Lateral ejection of building materials, and 2) Pyroclastic clouds.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:Jormungander

Marquis wrote:

Jormungander wrote:
they claim that you are just dogmatic and close-minded. They claim to be the only ones really looking at the evidence as a rhetorical ploy in order to discredit people who actually are basing their decisions off of the real evidence.

 

I would actually be happy to hear a *plausible* explanation.

Let's begin with my two main problems of the WTC: 1) Lateral ejection of building materials, and 2) Pyroclastic clouds.

1) aerodynamics: two collapsing levels of a skyscraper push quite a bit of air out as they start to collapse. This means internal contents being flushed out as well

2) The building(s) was/were on fire apparently after being hit by jumbo jets.

1&2)symptoms of the problem and not the problem itself (not reliable indicators by themselves)

sidenote: WTC looks like no controlled demolition I have ever seen (although I'll admit I haven't seen many.)

Yay. I posted without personally attacking anyone. A plus I think.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
OK, so you do not really get

OK, so you do not really get into the whole truther movement. At least that is what you say. However, almost every question that is raised has you linking to a couple of truther websites or some truther youtube videos.

 

Really, I did watch the first couple of that set of videos from “Architects and Engineers for Truth”. Just from that much, I see a couple of problems.

 

First off, given the name of the organization, I would expect the official mouthpiece of that group to be, well, an architect or and engineer. Sadly, the official spokesman for the group happens to be a high school teacher.

 

Second is how the guy calculated the speed at which building 7 fell. By his own admission, he is taking the NIST supplied number that the building is 924 feet tall. Further, he admits that he does not know that that number is correct because he does not know where the baseline for the measurement was taken.

 

So he admits that his data set could well be flawed and he does not attempt to look up the published height of a very public building. Then he proceeds to do calculations on that anyway. BTW, wikipedia says that it was 610 feet tall. Assuming that number is the one that he ought to have been using, his number is automatically about 50% to high. So yah, the building did not collapse in true free fall.

 

What seems rather more likely is that the NIST report that he is working from had a misprint and the calculations behind the report were based on the correct number and not the published one.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Now let me consider the

Now let me consider the eyewitness reports of molten steel I the debris field. NOAA flew several planes equipped with IR sensors over the debris at that time and they measured temperatures of just above 700c. This is certainly not a temperature consistent with molten steel.

 

However, this is consistent with molten aluminum. Now granting that I have no experience with molten metal of any kind. However this site has pictures of molten aluminum:

 

http://www.basicaluminum.com/index.php?page=manufacturing

 

Assuming that a site called basicaluminum.com is reliable, I don't see how it is possible for an eyewitness with about as much experience as myself to determine the difference between aluminium and steel.

 

Since you are the construction guy, let me put this to you:

 

Given that we are talking about three really huge buildings, how much aluminum would have been present?

 

Obviously not structural stuff like support beams. Given the cost of aluminum, ditto stuff that would not have been seen such as HVAC duct work. But stuff that would make some sense to make from aluminum?

 

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Wait, so they just happened

Wait, so they just happened to rig the towers with explosives and they just happened to set them off at or after a bunch of religious idiots just happened to fly two airliners into the towers?


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

OK, so you do not really get into the whole truther movement. At least that is what you say. However, almost every question that is raised has you linking to a couple of truther websites or some truther youtube videos.

Well, I'm not an American so this concerns me only in an indirect manner. However, were I a US citizen I would no doubt be a member of one or more of these movements. What strikes me as most interesting about this whole thing is the level of scorn and ridicule these people are being met with - by what I suppose should, in this line of rhetoric, most appropriately be called "the believers". Language itself is being twisted to support the believers, and to make fun of the truthers. For instance, on Wikipedia, there is a section called 911 Conspiracy Theories, but they aren't all what I would consider "conspiracy theories" (although many are). How can it be a "conspiracy theory" to work towards a new investigation of the events? This is very strange to me. It is indeed unfortunate that a massive and thorough investigation, down to the most minute details, were not launched immideately. Had that happened there probably wouldn't have existed any "conspiracy theories" now (other than the most kooky ones). If nothing else, there definitely was a "conspiracy" of gross political incompetence at the time.

It seems well-nigh impossible to *avoid* linking to a "truther" website in some form or other if you are questioning the story of the "believers". But I am, and I have been since day one. There are quite simply too many anomalies and inconsistencies in the *official* story. And there's nothing sinister in my motivations, much less any America-hatred. I quite simply DO NOT understand how such a serious issue can be treated with such complacency. I understand of course that most people simply want to get on with their lives and not think about these matters, but this is, in my opinion, a very dangerous attitude indeed. But rather than accusing anybody of anything, I side with the scholars, the architects and engineers, the pilots and the on-site rescue workers (firemen, police and civilian volunteers), and not least the eye-witnesses who observed secondary and tertiary explosions happening, in the claim that the 9/11 events have not been investigated to a satisfactory degree. Inquiring minds want to know, as the saying goes.

As I mentioned earlier, the question "who did it?" is a premature one until it is reasonably established what actually happened. By pointing out a perpetrator (or group of perpetrators) before all the facts are on the table, and all the available evidence have been scrutinized from every possible angle, what you have cannot be called proper jurisprudence. And that's all there is now. A story. A myth. You can "believe" or you can ask for "truth". As the matter stands right now it is neither fowl nor fish - and t is impossible for the matter to be laid to rest. Closure can mean many things. What it can *not* mean, however, is a half-baked cock-and-bull-story which is not supported by all the evidence. It makes America and Americans look bad. It is a sad testament to American justice, as well to the news media, that more than 20 times the amount of money was spent on former President Clinton's extramarital affairs than on the 9/11 events.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Given that we are talking about three really huge buildings, how much aluminum would have been present?

 

 

None. There is no such thing as "aluminum". It is called  aluminium. A-lu-mi-ni-um.

(That's my pet peeve about the American molestation of the English language.)

Anyway, as far as I know, the facades of the twin towers were covered with aluminium sheets. But aluminium has some strange properties like that. It doesn't "melt" in an orderly fashion, due to a thin layer of aluminium-oxide on the surface, that has a much higher melting temperature than aluminium itself. If you try this at home, with a blowtorch, you will observe that it completely "collapses" rather than melt in a drip-drip fashion, as is the case with most metals.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html

Molten steel will glow, aluminium won't. (It looks [quick]silvery in daylight conditions.) The molten metal observed on the WTC site was glowing. And it kept on glowing, and even dripping when pulled out by excavators, for months. There are numerous eyewitness reports, as well photographies and videos, on this. But the power of the "believers" is strong: It doesn't suit the *official* story, so we won't talk about it.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


fortitude
Science Freak
fortitude's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
9/11 Events

I hate to weigh into the fray as I have nothing particular to offer as far as technical expertise in buildings and their collapses.  And yet I find I have nothing better to do this evening than draw scorn from intelligent people.  I'm sure I will survive.

I didn't really give much thought to an alternative explanation of the 9/11 events until about a year ago when I heard about the publishing of the scientific paper on nano-thermite by the danish scientist Niels Harrit et al. (in the Bentham Open journal).  That got me curious and I started reading quite a bit of what was available from both sides (the official version and the 'truthers'. 

One of the sites that I found quite interesting was: 

cms.ae911truth.org/          Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

It does indeed have a professional career architect (Richard Gage) for a spokesman, even though some of the videos they publish may have a different narrator.  They also have 1180 architects and engineers calling for a new independent investigation of the events of 9/11.  They have taken great pains to avoid being grouped with 'conspiracy theorists' and have not been coming up with alternative theories pulled out of thin air. 

  25,000 Years of Architectural and Engineering Experience
Says – ‘New Investigation Needed’

The Media Response to the Growing Influence of the 9/11 Truth Movement

www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/22/inside-the-beltway-70128635/

So while I cannot add to the 'truther' movement or discussion in any particular way, I have been following this particular group's efforts to have their message taken to a wider and wider audience through the media and world-wide speaking events.  They seem to be slowly gaining credibility and recognition.

"There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it because Conscience tells him it is right." Martin Luther King


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
In relation to the building design

 

of the WTC towers, weren't all their steel support beams located on the building perimeter, with little support in the centre? Given this design, shouldn't any weakening of the steel lead to collapse as the steel weakens, producing a domino effect so that once a particular floor has begun to fall, the building will continue to collapse. What strikes me is that the upper part of the towers is intact, with no initial damage and the buildings fall from the point of impact. How could anyone know exactly which floors the airlines would hit? 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


fortitude
Science Freak
fortitude's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
9/11

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

of the WTC towers, weren't all their steel support beams located on the building perimeter, with little support in the centre? Given this design, shouldn't any weakening of the steel lead to collapse as the steel weakens, producing a domino effect so that once a particular floor has begun to fall, the building will continue to collapse. What strikes me is that the upper part of the towers is intact, with no initial damage and the buildings fall from the point of impact. How could anyone know exactly which floors the airlines would hit? 

Here is an article talking about the blueprints for the WTC buildings, also from aetruth.

911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

The buildings had massive central steel columns (some 54 inches by 22 inches) forming a core structure that tapered in size going up to the top as the loads they carried diminished with height (as far as I have ascertained).  This is in addition to the outside columns that were obviously damaged by the aircraft.  The architects and engineers website has blueprints of the north tower (apparently).  911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

I'm not sure what you mean by

Quote:
How could anyone know exactly which floors the airlines would hit?

Since there had been accidents where air planes had intentionally or unintentionally been flown into buildings, it was part of the structural design of the buildings to withstand a large aircraft collision (apparently a Boeing 707Intercontinental, the largest aircraft at the time).  If the whole structure was made to withstand such an impact, it isn't necessary to predict where the strike would happen.

Here is a 1993 article from the Seattle Times about the engineering design.  What happened on 9/11 was roughly anticipated by the engineering design.

Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision

community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/

They even mention in the article that the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a jet with fuel.

 

"There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it because Conscience tells him it is right." Martin Luther King