Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[DGM]

What have the ones you spoke to written and who are they?

I think one or two have written papers (I not absolutely sure, nothing to do with 9/11). Who they are is not important and I suppose it wouldn't be for yours also. Refresh my memory, What papers have the EA SE written?

 

[Dave Rogers]

I have never quoted gage. I don't know what he thinks about building 7 apart from his statement that it has all the classic characteristics of CD.

Just out of interest, have you taken on board the fact that his statement is demonstrably a deliberate lie?

Dave

 

[beachnut]

The computer simulations don't matter? Why would NIST withhold them then. In fact, if they don't matter then why bother doing simulations in the first place?

So, all a structural engineer needs is to see the report? Why hasn't that worked for the structural engineers in ae911truth?

Name one structural engineer at AE911Truth who was the chief structural engine for a building over 45 stories. No one at AE is a qualified for more than spreading lies and supporting fraud.

For you to prove otherwise is impossible.

 

[T.A.M.]

Name one structural engineer at AE911Truth who was the chief structural engine for a building over 45 stories. No one at AE is a qualified for more than spreading lies and supporting fraud.

For you to prove otherwise is impossible.

Better yet, find me one engineer with that group who either (a) has written a paper that provides an alternative theory to the NIST theories of collapse, or (b) has done something to clarify the issue using the science of their profession?

Tony might get cfedit for (b), but that is about it.

Some engineers.

TAM

 

[femr2]

It's perhaps splitting hairs, but...

The only way an explosion at ground level could have caused the collapses is if it caused structural damage at ground level that then propagated up to the aircraft impact zone.

Scope creep...

therefore any explosion in the bottom of the tower can't have had any causal connection to its collapse

Connection to and caused are not the same thing.

This couldn't have been in the perimeter columns, because any upward propagation of failure would have been observed and would be obvious in collapse videos

Agreed, though there is what I would term *diagonal slice* post initiation...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkS58AwDX0E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr5GJwfLCl4

...which does appear to traverse bottom-up.

and it can't have been in the core because the survival of the core spires demonstrates that the core failure propagated downwards, not upwards.

Not agreed.

I'm quibbling use of the word *can't*. IF an explosion low down severed some of the inner core columns, leaving the outer columns intact, then all manner of load redistribution would ensure. It would not affect the visible core remnants as, for WTC2 the core remnant is only glimpsed through dense dust making stating inner core columns were present speculation, and for WTC 1 the core remnant that was visible did not include inner core columns.

I'm not saying *there was an explosion and it took out the inner core low down*. I'm saying that use of the word *can't* is not appropriate. It's *possible*. Probable or plausible are different words.

 

[beachnut]

It's perhaps splitting hairs, but...


Scope creep...

Connection to and caused are not the same thing.


Agreed, though there is what I would term *diagonal slice* post initiation...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkS58AwDX0E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr5GJwfLCl4

...which does appear to traverse bottom-up.


Not agreed.

I'm quibbling use of the word *can't*. IF an explosion low down severed some of the inner core columns, leaving the outer columns intact, then all manner of load redistribution would ensure. It would not affect the visible core remnants as, for WTC2 the core remnant is only glimpsed through dense dust making stating inner core columns were present speculation, and for WTC 1 the core remnant that was visible did not include inner core columns.

I'm not saying *there was an explosion and it took out the inner core low down*. I'm saying that use of the word *can't* is not appropriate. It's *possible*. Probable or plausible are different words.

Only possible in a paranoid conspiracy mind. No evidence, mean can't is the correct word, the correct word for 911.

The moronic CD lie of 911 truth can't be backed in, no matter how much fantasy is made up with IF.

...
So, all a structural engineer needs is to see the report? Why hasn't that worked for the structural engineers in ae911truth?

Because there are no quailified structural engineers in AE911Truth. They all were fooled by Gage's lies or are fake names. Proof is the fact no a single person in Gage's group of guillible failures has published a single work in a real journal to support their failed claims. Claims which Gage says they don't make but are only educationg people so everyone demands a new investigation so Gage can milk his fraud to support himself.

Gage's AE911Truth is a fraud, he spreads lies to support himself.

Proof! Provide one claim made by Gage that is true, and back it up with evidence. Show a paper published in a real journal by Gage's clowns. Name one person in AE911truth who was the chief structural engineer for a building as big or bigger than WTC 7.

The best 911 truth can do is quote mine and hope people don't research to find what was really said, or find out the explosive sound was a body hitting the ground. 9 years of failure, and 911 truth is a zombie repeating the same lies from years ago, debunking themselves faster than free-fall.

 

[triforcharity]

The bolded statement is ridiculous. 1500 people completely disappeared. They were reduced to nothing in the collapses and no trace of them has been found. The other victims were mostly in pieces. How do you know what injuries they sustained before or during collapse?

The search dogs were looking for people, not explosives. No search was ever made for explosives. If you believe it was then prove it.

You are right that first responders will look for explosives. Albert Turi, chief of safety for the FDNY, was convinced there were secondary devices,

Wrong about the dogs. See here.

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id...TAtMjFlYi00YWQwLTk0NDgtYTFhMjhkMTU2ZGNh&hl=en

Does Chief Turi still believe there were bombs?

Here is his account from the TF interview.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110142.PDF

Never mentions bombs, or anything of the sort. Mentions explosion twice. Once when he was describing the initial (incorrect) report, and again describing the collapse.

Care to cite your source? Thanks.

 

[T.A.M.]

CTers don't care what the firefighters "believe". They only care about interpreting what they said in the heat of the moment, or while still in shock, in such a way as to fit their view of what they think "really" happened.

TAM

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

He clearly states at 10:25am that he doesn't know what on earth caused the big explosion much lower down.

That's right; he didn't know. The obvious question, then, is: How can you claim this is evidence of explosive demolition? There are any number of events that sound like an explosion. Also, if his recollection of the timing is correct, his explosion is temporally consistent with the collapse of the tower. Debris from the collapsing tower impacting the ground is also logically consistent with his claim that the sound occurred toward the bottom of the towers.

His statements, if accurate, are consistent with what was observed from other points of view.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Which goes directly back to the question I have asked him. How has he completely eliminated other logical explanations for the sounds of "explosions"?

 

[triforcharity]

Will the SE's that I ask be able to get hold of NISTs computer simulations? I wouldn't want to give them incomplete information.

They have everything they would need.

Wanna Dodge some more and make more excuses?

 

[Dave Rogers]

I'm quibbling use of the word *can't*. IF an explosion low down severed some of the inner core columns, leaving the outer columns intact, then all manner of load redistribution would ensure. It would not affect the visible core remnants as, for WTC2 the core remnant is only glimpsed through dense dust making stating inner core columns were present speculation, and for WTC 1 the core remnant that was visible did not include inner core columns.

I'm not saying *there was an explosion and it took out the inner core low down*. I'm saying that use of the word *can't* is not appropriate. It's *possible*. Probable or plausible are different words.

How about "It's so vanishingly implausible that, for all practical purposes, it's not worth even bothering to consider"? I'd say "can't" is, in this context, a reasonable shorthand for that. The possibility of a ground-level explosion being in any way a cause of the collapse is in Russell's Teapot territory.

Dave

 

[ozeco41]

How about "It's so vanishingly implausible that, for all practical purposes, it's not worth even bothering to consider"? I'd say "can't" is, in this context, a reasonable shorthand for that. The possibility of a ground-level explosion being in any way a cause of the collapse is in Russell's Teapot territory.

Dave

We are stuck with this carry over of scientific pedantry about words such as "impossible" and "certain".

I see it most often in 9/11 discussions when dealing with the "extremely highly improbable that anyone could have rigged a demolition and not been caught out either whilst fixing it, whilst waiting for the day, on the day, during the site clean up OR years afterwards in Internet discussions" type of situation.

I usually compromise and write "impossible" with the quotes. The scientific language usage and logic of the situation may decree that "impossible" is the wrong word. But when dealing with mendacious truthers who will twist any word you use why bother about the 0.000000000001% inaccuracy. Demolition was impossible by any normal use of language. I have been waiting years for someone to prove that claim wrong - as distinct from serving up pedantic quibbles about language usage.

 

[femr2]

How about "It's so vanishingly implausible that, for all practical purposes, it's not worth even bothering to consider"? I'd say "can't" is, in this context, a reasonable shorthand for that. The possibility of a ground-level explosion being in any way a cause of the collapse is in Russell's Teapot territory.

Dave

I'd suggest that the rapid increase in smoke (reaching over 500ft from the base) shortly before initiation could indicate with a far greater chance than 0.000000000001% that something happened at the base, natural or not. I also provided you with video links showing bottom-up expulsion behaviour for WTC 1 (diagonal slice) which, again, natural or not, indicates a possibility of base-upwards behaviour.

Your stance is based upon your belief at the end of the day, but there is no doubt that IF some inner core columns were *taken out* that the resulting load redistribution would have an effect on subsequent outcome.

I see little point discussing it further, but I'll still be rejecting use of the word *can't*.

I don't think it's wise at all to go down the road of applying probability, given the probability of so many other factors about the whole *911* thing, none of which I'm particularly interested in as they are not focussed on, basically, initiation.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I'll just say I don't go by the possibilities, I go by the evidence that's most compelling. You can argue for any reason that something happened at the base of the tower, but I think what's being said is since the collapse initiated where the planes impacts took place and the fires were most concentrated your focus should be there. The damage in the lobby of the north tower indeed suggests that something made its way there, but I haven't seen any compelling argument yet to suggest it could not have had any relation to what was happening far above, and personally whether you want to get into that sort of discussion is up to you, but not really something I intend to push any further at the moment... since I already went into that discussion with cooperman, albeit for a different subset of topics

 

[femr2]

They have everything they would need.

Could you tell me the simplest of metrics...the vertical distance between the top of the windows on floor 22 to the roofline ? (Or more preferably the height of each individual storey. ft and inches is fine)

 

[triforcharity]

Could you tell me the simplest of metrics...the vertical distance between the top of the windows on floor 22 to the roofline ? (Or more preferably the height of each individual storey. ft and inches is fine)

I personally an't, but I bet some SE somewhere has the blueprints and architectural drawings....

 

[femr2]

I personally an't, but I bet some SE somewhere has the blueprints and architectural drawings....

They would be handy. Without them (or indeed the NIST model data) the various SE's you were discussing don't have everything they need, of course.

Personally I find it ludicrous that such simple information is not available.

 

[triforcharity]

They would be handy. Without them (or indeed the NIST model data) the various SE's you were discussing don't have everything they need, of course.

Personally I find it ludicrous that such simple information is not available.

The blueprints are available. I had access to a copy of them when I was writing a paper on fuel loading and their requirements, and why it is important to adhere to them. I used 7WTC as an example. I asked around, found someone who had one, and borrowed it. Simple really.

Have you asked SE and other professionals if they have a copy?

 

[femr2]

The blueprints are available. I had access to a copy of them when I was writing a paper on fuel loading and their requirements, and why it is important to adhere to them. I used 7WTC as an example. I asked around, found someone who had one, and borrowed it. Simple really.

Have you asked SE and other professionals if they have a copy?

Copies of the blueprints for WTC 7 have been requested by numerous individuals (including myself) for several years, to no avail.

Your previous comment on the subject is interesting...

And I think the buildings that held federal offices might be exempt, as well as backs and such, for obvious reasons.

But, it really is just a dodge.

You had access, great. Where can I get a copy ?