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

[000063]

I think it's adorable that you think a person needs a technical background to destroy truther theories.

I like to point out that I'm an art major.

A really smart one, but still, art major.

Funny, your cartoon describes precisely what I think the present official narrative believers here are doing, if not worse.

You mean the folks constantly asking you for evidence which you either ignore or refuse to provide? The ones who aren't constantly insulting their opposition just for disagreeing and trying to Poison the Well? The ones who would be on the majority, fact-supported side?

Yep, clearly we're the minority sticking fingers in our ears.

 

[pgimeno]

Here are more problems for Tony's made-up claim of "picture was taken just as the building collapsed".

These are clearly separated in time. Or, maybe the smoke quickly vanished from some spots and Allen Murabayashi was in a moving vehicle when he took the pictures, and he's "in on it" too in this inflationary conspiracy.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

No, you can't. You're trying to redefine what happened to fit the mechanism you've thought of.

Dave

His own posts show he hasn't thought of
a mechanism, stop confusing him he might come up
With an actual mechanism for CD in the next 100, 000 years
Or so at this rate, longer if you keep confusing
Him,.with facts.

Ps. It would take 36 tons of sand around
Each column to muffle the detonation waves, from monrue cutter charges.

 

[Oystein]

Here are more problems for Tony's made-up claim of "picture was taken just as the building collapsed".

[qimg]http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/cache/NCSTAR1-6fig6-17.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/cache/NCSTAR1-6fig6-19.jpg[/qimg]

These are clearly separated in time. Or, maybe the smoke quickly vanished from some spots and Allen Murabayashi was in a moving vehicle when he took the pictures, and he's "in on it" too in this inflationary conspiracy.

You don't get it! Tony can't imagine this was possible, so it was impossible. It follows loigically that reality has a problem and must be discarded!

 

[chrismohr]

Please provide a mechanism for inward bowing of the exterior minutes before collapse and maybe you will be taken seriously. Absent that you are just blowing smoke without a basis for anything you say.

Maybe i missed it, bit I proposed we revisit CTBUH's claim that thermal shrinking of beams after partial ccooling may have contributed to this phenomenon. To my knowledge, only Tony responded to that hypothesis.

BTW Tony, do you now deny inward bowuing based on all these photos severaln minutes prior rto collapse?

 

[tsig]

By what super stealthy method?

Super powerful implosives.

 

[JayUtah]

I like to point out that I'm an art major.

Which obviously means you can tell whether a column is in a straight line in a photograph.

The ones who would be on the majority, fact-supported side?

With emphasis that it's the majority of the properly educated, properly certified people at whom the Truthers' technical arguments are ostensibly aimed. It's not just a majority of the rabble who aren't expected to judge the relative merits of rationales that employ specialized knowledge and judgment.

This is not our numbers game; it's Gage's. He's the one who says some thousands of relevant qualified professionals endorse his findings, up to and including controlled demolition. Laying aside whether that's a misrepresentation of their actual qualifications and beliefs, it's a simple quantitative and qualitative tap dance. He's the one who rightly chooses to appeal (or at least to say he wishes to appeal) to the appropriately educated and certified people -- most notably, structural engineers. And he's the one who claims some numerically impressive degree of support from that specific group and others similarly enough situated.

We simply provide a different perspective. AE911T's impressive-sounding numbers are actually a very miniscule fraction of all those whom Truthers seek to recruit with their engineering arguments. Qualitatively, we find it disingenuous that when the statistical insignificance of the Truth support among the targeted expert audience is laid bare, the rebuttals invoke the appeal-to-the-masses fallacy. That holds when the majority in question is the unwashed peasantry asked to opine on some issue they haven't studied. It doesn't hold when the majority is a group selected specifically for their knowledge of the relevant fields, and to whom the propositions in question are being specifically directed.

If one's spiel is predicated upon recruiting the practitioners in a field to one's cause by means of expert arguments particular to the field, and one fails spectacularly to achieve any substantial degree of success in that chosen endeavor, then it's highly disingenuous to excuse that failure by saying the approach is faulty.

 

[Peter May]

* = Official narrative being the 9/11 Commission Report, the 2002 Joint Congressional Investigation Report, the F.B.I.'s investigation, NIST's reports, etc etc other government sponsored reports and/or investigations as well the statements of government workers and the leadership.

So, in your opinion, is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative?


1. Yes
2. No
3. Undecided

There is no reason whatsoever to believe the official narrative is flawed.
Is this perfectly clear?

 

[Peter May]

Which obviously means you can tell whether a column is in a straight line in a photograph.



With emphasis that it's the majority of the properly educated, properly certified people at whom the Truthers' technical arguments are ostensibly aimed. It's not just a majority of the rabble who aren't expected to judge the relative merits of rationales that employ specialized knowledge and judgment.

This is not our numbers game; it's Gage's. He's the one who says some thousands of relevant qualified professionals endorse his findings, up to and including controlled demolition. Laying aside whether that's a misrepresentation of their actual qualifications and beliefs, it's a simple quantitative and qualitative tap dance. He's the one who rightly chooses to appeal (or at least to say he wishes to appeal) to the appropriately educated and certified people -- most notably, structural engineers. And he's the one who claims some numerically impressive degree of support from that specific group and others similarly enough situated.

We simply provide a different perspective. AE911T's impressive-sounding numbers are actually a very miniscule fraction of all those whom Truthers seek to recruit with their engineering arguments. Qualitatively, we find it disingenuous that when the statistical insignificance of the Truth support among the targeted expert audience is laid bare, the rebuttals invoke the appeal-to-the-masses fallacy. That holds when the majority in question is the unwashed peasantry asked to opine on some issue they haven't studied. It doesn't hold when the majority is a group selected specifically for their knowledge of the relevant fields, and to whom the propositions in question are being specifically directed.

If one's spiel is predicated upon recruiting the practitioners in a field to one's cause by means of expert arguments particular to the field, and one fails spectacularly to achieve any substantial degree of success in that chosen endeavor, then it's highly disingenuous to excuse that failure by saying the approach is faulty.[/QU0TE


I have addressed many of the supposed truths of Aulis, and corresponded with some of their proponents, none of which where able to argue realistically for their cause.

Especially Jack White's studies which claimed creatures lurking under the LM landing gear.
Letters to Aulis where not well received.

 

[beachnut]

To answer the question of this thread simply, there are obviously several reasons to question the present official narrative for the collapses of the three high-rise buildings in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001 as they are either devoid of mechanisms to produce the observations or wildly exaggerated.

Both the NIST WTC report and Bazant's analyses (which had been accepted by the NIST WTC report) are clearly non-explanatory and should be dismissed as frauds as stated by Dr. Lynn Margulis several years ago.

Tony, the official narrative is what happened on 911 - not what people say happened, but what happened based on evidence. The real-cd-deal has no evidence, never will. Evidence does not grow out of fantasy. The wild exaggeration is CD, inside job, and other nonsense.

Wow, a liberal arts major, Lynn Margulis says the work of engineers is a fraud. Wow, an engineer uses a fake expert as evidence for their fantasy.

Lynn Margulis failed to realize 911 truth is fraud.

Why can't 911 truth find qualified engineers? How does spreading lies about Bazant, and NIST support the fantasy of silent explosives and CD. And using a biology major to declare fraud, is classic 911 truth super faster than free fall logic. Too bad DNA is not part of the 911 truth evidence.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Of course there's no need to follow the arse about logic... if Tony thinks there's a "CD" mechanism he needs to show it caused the collapse, and the prima fascia element to that argument is showing that "CD" took place and that the mechanisms he's arguing in favor of were present.

The collapses started at the point of impact in the towers, at the locations where fires were most heavily concentrated. There was no failure of the exterior perimeter or lower structure until the collapse front reached it. If he believes "they" set off devices high up in the fire regions to start the collapse, then he needs to demonstrate evidence that it happened. And if he thinks that "they" used devices to continuously fail the columns down the building he can present both evidence of whatever devices he thinks were used, and/or documentation showing that the columns exhibited "cut" or "melt" failure patterns which is by far easier to look at with photos of the debris.

To date the participants arguing for "CD" have done little more than argue that they can't see a mechanism for how fire/impact could initiate collapse, if that's the case they need to converge their "dots" and "links" to their prima fascia case.... a link that current doesn't exist and cannot overcome in current form the defacto mechanism that impact/Fire + overload/eccentric load/cascade failure initiated and progressed the fall of the buildings...

keeping in mind that the collapse mechanics involved several distinct mechanisms

Time to put up or shut up if this thread is staying deviated from the OP.

Actually Grizzly the collapse initiations occurred just above the aircraft impact damage on the first floors where there was none, and you don't even need to take my word for it, the NIST report shows where the impact damage was and where the collapses initiated. Isn't that interesting?

 

[NoahFence]

Actually Grizzly the collapse initiations occurred just above the aircraft impact damage on the first floors where there was none. Isn't that interesting?

 

[DGM]

Actually Grizzly the collapse initiations occurred just above the aircraft impact damage on the first floors where there was none, and you don't even need to take my word for it, the NIST report shows where the impact damage was and where the collapses initiated. Isn't that interesting?

Wouldn't that screw up your count of intact columns impacting square on? One would think the planes might have moved things around a bit. Did you account for this?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Wouldn't that screw up your count of intact columns impacting square on? One would think the planes might have moved things around a bit. Did you account for this?

You apparently never read the paper Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis.

Sure we accounted for damage below the initiation sites. We were conservative at 25% when even NIST had it at about 15%. Our findings showed the collapse should have still arrested by a significant margin if the initiation was natural.

 

[DGM]

You apparently never read the paper Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis.

Sure we accounted for damage below the initiation sites. We were conservative at 25% when even NIST had it at about 15%. Our findings showed the collapse should have still arrested by a significant margin if the initiation was natural.

I did read it. I was talking about your first two. Would you still look for the jolt through a couple floors of damage?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Actually Grizzly the collapse initiations occurred just above the aircraft impact damage on the first floors where there was none....

My guess is that you're just looking at the north face of the building and saying that it applies to the whole tower's impact area. On the other hand, when I look at another angle, say the south face... it looks to me like there was a 7 to 9 story section from Floor 96 to 103 that had a wall of fire inclusive. I mentioned before the "no fires" meme as - put in moderate terms - inccurate:

Not surprising that the fires were most intense and concentrated there since it's opposite the side of entry and in the direct path of all the debris and trajectory of the aircraft. The floors involve were tagged here

....and you don't even need to take my word for it, the NIST report shows where the impact damage was and where the collapses initiated. Isn't that interesting?

I'l just quote what the NIST actually said:

This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers.

Either way... If you ever solidify your prima fascia without needing to pull this stuff, I'll look into the alternative theory

 

[GlennB]

You apparently never read the paper Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis.

Sure we accounted for damage below the initiation sites. We were conservative at 25% when even NIST had it at about 15%. Our findings showed the collapse should have still arrested by a significant margin if the initiation was natural.

No comment on the bowing well in advance of global collapse? Y'know, that stuff that debunks your "bowing caused by core collapse" stuff? Hmm?

 

[NoahFence]

You apparently never read the paper Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis.

Sure we accounted for damage below the initiation sites. We were conservative at 25% when even NIST had it at about 15%. Our findings showed the collapse should have still arrested by a significant margin if the initiation was natural.

It wasn't natural. A : plane crashed into the side of the tower. Didja miss that?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

It wasn't natural. A : plane crashed into the side of the tower. Didja miss that?

Not really the main problem IMO. The towers would have continued standing if it were just the impacts. It's a compounded problem which screws over an analysis that assumes ideally axial column to column impact.

The real issue is the towers had an open space plan as their designs, which was incredibly efficient but also incredibly detrimental to their circumstances. The plane impacts did a load of collateral damage that ultimately made the situation as bad as it was...

• severing fire protection sprinklers
• Destroying partitions and ceiling assemblies that would have otherwise isolated critical structural elements and prevented the fires from spreading even faster than they were started.
• Shoving tons of debris asymmetrically allowing the fires plenty of fuel to burn more intensely across one area...
• Then the lack of a rigid interior column grid capable of providing more load paths to arrest collapse once it got started.

And it was also thanks to some of the same factors that perfectly Bazantian limiting case column to column end impact didn't happen....

 

[DGM]

• severing fire protection sprinklers
• Destroying partitions and ceiling assemblies that would have otherwise isolated critical structural elements and prevented the fires from spreading even faster than they were started.
• Shoving tons of debris asymmetrically allowing the fires plenty of fuel to burn more intensely across one area...
  [*]Then the lack of a rigid interior column grid capable of providing more load paths to arrest collapse once it got started.

This also applies to building 7. The collapse of the towers took out two of the crucial fire protection systems, sprinkler suppression and compartmentalization. Add to that the common long span truss design and you get a recipe for disaster.