Is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative*?

[ozeco41]

I'm not confused and neither are the others.

Connections would fail long before a 90° flex could happen allowing these "knees" to meet. Connection failure would be asymmetric and unpredictable. No knees meeting in axial impact.

Spot on.

Whatever the actual failure mode - forming knees or failing before knees form or any other.... (including - believe it or not - cut by aircraft OR cut by CD neither of which change reality but let's not go there.......YET! )

The ends of the individual column pass each other as the Top Block moves downwards shortening the gap that the column previously occupied and therefore requiring that the column be shorter or broken or folded or however it gets its ends closer together to remain in the shorter gap. (Pause for breath....)

 

[ozeco41]

That may have been my fault as I'm very interested in how those who ascribe to some of these theories develop their belief systems.

Thought it was your fault - go sit in the corner and ponder this:

Are you aware of the factor - that part of the picture I describe by my "Twin Hypotheses"?

 

[ozeco41]

You really expect knees to form as in Glenn's post above do you?

Why don't we see that in the picture of the buckling column in WTC 5? IIRC beachnut posted it in this thread just a few pages back .

ETA: correction, its pgimeno


Does that look like the alignment in Bazant's limiting model?

There is no doubt where those two ends would go:

Actually Tony is partly right. Knees are forming.

Those two ends which are forming are the knobs of the "knees"

And they prove my point - They are already past each other as they are forming.

I'll post version two of the graphic...just a minute.

Here - try this: (oops - linux is case sensitive Eric - t'aint Windows - buckle300a.jpg is not buckle300A.jpg )

EDIT: - see my following post responding to GlennB - I've put the second graphic there.

 

[DGM]

There came* a time where "truther" comments where deemed interesting.

* this was now a mistake in wording.

 

[ozeco41]

The 'knees' of which you speak only exist in Bazant's diagrams:

In reality connections failed or columns ruptured.

We discussed this a few years ago. Your claim was ridiculous then and remains ridiculous now.

Spot on Glenn.

Let me correct my previous post - you were ahead of me and I wasn't keeping up with the discussion.

Actually Tony is a little bit right and a lot wrong.

This is what that diagram looks like in a real situation
- a shortish mess which looks like only two knees forming
- not long legs with separated knees but still "knees". As per this:

There with acknowledgement of help from beachnut, jaydeehess, GlennB, any I missed in that team effort.

 

[ozeco41]

There came* a time where "truther" comments where deemed interesting.

* this was now a mistake in wording.

Possibly:
There WAS a time when many truther comments WERE interesting.

Because it was the era of "Genuine Truthers" who were seeking "truth" as in veracity - correctness- being right. Long before the word "truth" became meaningless or damaged.

We do not see Genuine Truthers these days. Hard line denialists don't count.

 

[beachnut]

... Controlled demolition is what caused the drops of the three buildings and I only say that because the evidence points to it. ...
No deceleration or free fall acceleration means controlled demolition. It really is that simple.

Did you tell the FBI you have the evidence of an inside job.

lol, you have BS, and nonsense. Waving your hands and saying, Controlled Demolition, is the BS, and then the free fall, and no deceleration is the nonsense.

What did the FBI say to you?

You have evidence of a crime, did you tell the FBI? This is a very simple yes or no. Maybe ziggi will do it for you, or Jay Howard?


Did the FBI laugh at the silent explosives?

http://www.fbi.gov/report-threats-and-crime

Have you reported the crime? If not then you are blowing smoke, spreading lies, making up fantasy, and making false claims. Are you making false claims? Where is your evidence locked up?

 

[DGM]

Because it was the era of "Genuine Truthers" who were seeking "truth" as in veracity - correctness- being right. Long before the word "truth" became meaningless or damaged.

Truth is, I can count on two hands (that's generous) the number of "genuine truthers". I'm struggling to find any now...........

 

[chrismohr]

The one aspect of the "Official Narrative" I absolutely question is the claim that torture is OK now and that the Geneva Convention is quaint. Apparently, the New York Times agrees with me: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/12/...prosecuted-for-torture/#.VRbPlmNABwA.facebook
Now wouldn't that be an interesting investigation?

 

[DGM]

The one aspect of the "Official Narrative" I absolutely question is the claim that torture is OK now and that the Geneva Convention is quaint. Apparently, the New York Times agrees with me: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/12/...prosecuted-for-torture/#.VRbPlmNABwA.facebook
Now wouldn't that be an interesting investigation?

I'd discuss this. I think the link you quoted was a bit over the top but, consider it a starting point..............

 

[Grizzly Bear]

,, and others correctly pointed out that the Bazant model was a limiting case, a thought construct in which the greatest amount of lower section resistance to collapse could be imagined to be in effect, and yet the collapse would still continue. Those others point out that it was not what happened in reality in which the substantial vertical load carrying ability of the columns was bypassed and the collapse was primarily driven by floor destruction leading perimeter and core destruction.

I propose a strike on entertaining any of his "concepts" until he addresses this issue one way or the other. (He won't respond to points made about real world vs limiting case, period)

No magical arsonists, no jolting, no distractions, no attacking, etc. period until he addresses the singular issue that he avoids most. The only way at this point his points should be a concern is if he ever moves past the fallacy that insta-kills his approach

You are heading in the right direction - certainly time for him to "put up or shutup" - but I suggest you need to take one further step.

The actual need is for Tony et al to prove CD - not simply prove the presence of explosives or incendiaries. So I would change your statment to be:

"Tony should focus on proving there actually was CD. Only afterwards are methods of implementation relevant."

I said "prove the presence of explosives or thermite first" because his remarks concern those almost exclusively. No harm - and a likely improvement - to not narrow it to my approach at any rate

Also, "It fell too fast to be natural..."
He needs to establish that the cause of failure is whatever method he thinks makes "CD".

Can't add much much else to that response of yours really...

 

[ozeco41]

Truth is, I can count on two hands (that's generous) the number of "genuine truthers". I'm struggling to find any now...........

IMO David Watts when he first joined this forum. I know that he regressed. Actually he stopped sitting on the fence - and got off the wrong side.

I never kept count of the "genuine" truthers back in 2007-8-9.

I do remember two highlights of my posting career when - two separate occasions - I collaborated with genuine truthers.

I worked with them to help them develop a rigorous pro CD hypothesis. Step by rigorous step.

But both aborted at the same final step.

We needed Fire Suited Suicide Teams in each Twin tower to place devices during the blaze.

It was that silly because up to that stage I made sure the arguments were rigorous. And there was simply nowhere left to go. Except that final idiocy.

Clive Hill and Hog the user names IIRC

Then back in the day there were also a lot of genuine thinking sceptics with views partly overlaying into trutherdom - not today's two way polarisation.

AND it was before "truther" and "debunker" became the preferred labels.

[/EndOldFartReminiscences]

EDIT: ooops - and I agree there are none evident these days.

 

[ozeco41]

The one aspect of the "Official Narrative" I absolutely question is the claim that torture is OK now and that the Geneva Convention is quaint. Apparently, the New York Times agrees with me: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/12/...prosecuted-for-torture/#.VRbPlmNABwA.facebook
Now wouldn't that be an interesting investigation?

I have long held to two related opinions:
1) That there are many 9/11 related issues in the socio-political domain which warrant further discussion; AND
2) That the truth movement arrow headed by R Gage et al has been its own worst enemy by relying on strategies based on CD and other technical lies long after the technical truths were well known.

Demands for "new investigations" based on or including CD at WTC are guaranteed to fail politically because they spoon feed the politicians an easy cop out WHILST the real issue - political mis, mal or non feasances - are in territory that most politicians would be reluctant to enter.

 

[ozeco41]

I propose a strike on entertaining any of his "concepts" until he addresses this issue one way or the other.

Good idea - it is really only troll feeding at this stage - I’ve long lost track of how many twists and turns the rabbit burrows of evasion have taken.

I would settle for "Addresses any relevant issue with reasoned argument" THAT would be a big first step.

Can't add much much else to that response of yours really...

Thank you.

 

[DGM]

Then back in the day there were also a lot of genuine thinking sceptics with views partly overlaying into trutherdom - not today's two way polarisation.

I learned a lot back in the day. Never would I think I would read a 10k page engineering report.

I think I got a better understanding from "debunking" then any "truther" will ever hope. I've also made friends and met players involved in the day. I never would have become involved in the local 9/11 memorial or met the wife and brother of the flight AA 11 captain (who I still maintain contact). I also lost a dear friend in the South Tower.

"Truthers" are irrelevant but the subject to me is deeply personal.

 

[ozeco41]

I learned a lot back in the day. Never would I think I would read a 10k page engineering report.

Me too. but my eyes glaze over if I have to wade through anyone’s maths. I've quoted my first post many times where it says "The complex calculations may even be correct but the base premises are faulty and the resulting conclusions can readily be demonstrated to be totally wrong.." I wont name the author at this time BUT that is one lazy manager's reason I go for the false foundation of arguments. If the starting points are wrong then the answers are wrong - no need to sweat the details - even if the numbers look right. "Right for the wrong reasons" is an insidious error. This "Missing Jolt" is one of that genre - wrong starting assumptions. So is Tony's claim of NIST WTC7 explanation errors. So was all the "tilt v axial contact" debate. And back in the day - all of those proofs that the speeds/accelerations of falling was reasonable - all were based on Bazant's false assumptions - all "right answers for wrong reasons". And academia at large is still in that wrong camp.

I think I saw a clip in someone’s sig recently -- '"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest. ' Says it all IMO.

I think I got a better understanding from "debunking" then any "truther" will ever hope.

Me too. Some came easily - I was running against the pseudo Bazantian tide and posting a "ROOSD" style explanation of Twin Towers "progression" within 12 days of starting to post - Nov 25? 2007. Some took a lot longer. Wasn't till 2010 on this forum that I decided to get my head around the "limits of Bazant applicability" issues. And probably 2012-3 before I would confidently explain "Why the Top Blocks didn't topple" OR the current stuff - "how the cascade failure really worked in 3D". And by that time interest in the more complicated technical stuff had died - no point being too clever as recent posting sequences confirm. And no new truthers to seriously challenge us to think.

I've also made friends and met players involved in the day. I never would have become involved in the local 9/11 memorial or met the wife and brother of the flight AA 11 captain (who I still maintain contact). I also lost a dear friend in the South Tower.

"Truthers" are irrelevant but the subject to me is deeply personal.

My best wishes for you and in your ongoing sharing with those affected. I have zero links for obvious reasons. I'm even more isolated that the obvious geography. I've never had contact ever with large scale disaster - even though I'm trained and experienced in emergency incident management. Even as a child both sides of my north of England family were in WW2 wartime "protected industries" so not a single casualty of war in my extended family.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You really expect knees to form as in Glenn's post above do you?

Why don't we see that in the picture of the buckling column in WTC 5? IIRC beachnut posted it in this thread just a few pages back .

ETA: correction, its pgimeno


Does that look like the alignment in Bazant's limiting model?

That is not the kind of buckling that would allow the collapse. It is these kind of silly arguments that makes me say you have to be a shill because nobody can be this stupid.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

That is not the kind of buckling that would allow the collapse. It is these kind of silly arguments that makes me say you have to be a shill because nobody can be this stupid.

We have WTC 2 where this is easier to see, and more analagous

 

[beachnut]

... It is these kind of silly arguments that makes me say you have to be a shill because nobody can be this stupid.

LOL, unlike the silent explosives inside job controlled demolition evidence free nonsense. What did the FBI say when they got your evidence for the CD crime of 911?

? you failed to take your evidence to the FBI? Why have you failed to take action and get the FBI involved?

Shills? Nobody can be what? Where do you get the silent explosives and the bad guys who murdered thousands?

 

[ozeco41]

That is not the kind of buckling that would allow the collapse...

What kind of buckling was involved Tony? We have written you a "Buckling For Dummies" textbook in recent posts - which options are not covered?

And why demean yourself by the unwarranted insulting behaviour?

It is these kind of silly arguments that makes me say you have to be a shill because nobody can be this stupid.