Jango
Graduate Poster
1. I've never seen anything like the WTC collapses anywhere else so I do not have anything to compare it to.
2. ...that I have more questions than answers.
Is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative*?
- Thread starter Jango
- Start date
1. I've never seen anything like the WTC collapses anywhere else so I do not have anything to compare it to.
2. ...that I have more questions than answers.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
His question and mine mean to ask what special knowledge and prior experience you have in building collapses that would lead you to conclude that the collapse of WTC towers was not as it should have been, and that this judgment should somehow interest anyone but you. You're not answering that question. You're just repeating the conspiracy-theory mantra that these were somehow anomalous things. We want answers to the questions we asked.
But how are you going about looking for answers to those questions? Are you listening to engineers? Are you studying structural dynamics? Or instead are you running around throwing wild accusations hither and yon?
The elephant in the room is the notion of what qualifies as a "legitimate" reason to question the official narrative. Your squirming and evasion on this point makes very clear that uninformed and presumptuous judgments from laymen about structural dynamics are not legitimate reasons.
Try again.
Jango
Graduate Poster
Don't we all?
No, I am not an expert or even an advanced level student into all the matters relevant into 1,000+ tall buildings. Not to be ignored, I've asked questions about the WTC collapses for years now and no one, not even when I've contacted official channels, could answer my questions. All I hear is a giant vacuuming noise where what I see hasn't been translated into words yet I.e. what's happenin' in the building as I watch it collapse.
I'm trying as hard as I can given the resources and limited contacts I have to use, man. But I am tryin' here.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Given your admitted lack of relevant expertise, and the pointedly assertive nature of your questions here, prove your questions are valid, meaningful, and relevant -- that is, that they should interest more than just you.
You did well to wrap your admission of ignorance in a frantic attempt to once again make your dilemma someone else's fault. But the salient fact remains that you're simply tilting at windmills because you lack the relevant skill and experience to make your opinions into evidence. No one else has a burden to correct your ignorance.
Jango
Graduate Poster
1. Then let's have a conversation. Just two dudes on the Internet, eh?
2. I'm not trying to change yer mind. I'm trying to change my mind. Want to help?
3. Both the Twin Towers and Building 7 are shown on video falling in the manner I described -- with an appearance of no resistance. A licensed individual could explain to me exactly what's happening in there but he or she cannot discount what I see as the buildings fall to the ground.
4. I'm not worried about thread clutter. I don't get quote notifications anyway, so why spread myself even further out across more-and-more threads? Or, perhaps, a thread with a wide-open OP about 9/11 is in order?
Jango
Graduate Poster
No, I am not trying to make my "opinions into evidence." That is incorrect. I've simply said a few things about the buildings on 9/11 mostly in response to questions asked by others. I've made no absolute declaration about what exactly happened on September 11th, 2001. So that's a straw man.
I would suppose that it is a given that one question I've repeatedly asked for years which hasn't been answered is valid for that reason alone -- no one can tell a Play-by-Play if you will of the collapses.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Why is it that the 78th floor FF call keeps coming up year after year? It is so obvious!
Yes, Palmer calls from the 78th floor saying he has multiple injured and dead up there and that the fires on that floor are isolated, small and he needs two lines to put them out.
The 78th floor is the lowest fire involved floor in either building. Anyone reaching the 78th floor of WTC1 would have found no fires.
Flt175 impacted several floors, 75 being the one that the far end of the port wing sliced into. The 75th floor had little to no aviation fuel dumped onto it as a consequence of being hit by the outboard most part of the wing.
The vast majority of fuel was dumped onto the next few higher floors and that is where the greatest fires were. However, Palmer isn't going to send guys higher up until he at least has water supply so that he does not risk isolating his own people up there. It is hard enough getting manpower up there. In addition its going to make the most sense to fight this fire floor by floor, get 78's fire knocked down before proceeding to 79, etc.
Victims were trapped, as they themselves reported, on higher floors. Stairs were destroyed and fire was cutting people off. Does that sound like minimal damage, does that sound like minimal fire? Do the videos not show intense fires?(yes they do unless one specifically searches, dishonestly, for photos showing faces of the 200 foot by 200 foot structure, that show less fire at some periods)
Yes, Palmer calls from the 78th floor saying he has multiple injured and dead up there and that the fires on that floor are isolated, small and he needs two lines to put them out.
The 78th floor is the lowest fire involved floor in either building. Anyone reaching the 78th floor of WTC1 would have found no fires.
Flt175 impacted several floors, 75 being the one that the far end of the port wing sliced into. The 75th floor had little to no aviation fuel dumped onto it as a consequence of being hit by the outboard most part of the wing.
The vast majority of fuel was dumped onto the next few higher floors and that is where the greatest fires were. However, Palmer isn't going to send guys higher up until he at least has water supply so that he does not risk isolating his own people up there. It is hard enough getting manpower up there. In addition its going to make the most sense to fight this fire floor by floor, get 78's fire knocked down before proceeding to 79, etc.
Victims were trapped, as they themselves reported, on higher floors. Stairs were destroyed and fire was cutting people off. Does that sound like minimal damage, does that sound like minimal fire? Do the videos not show intense fires?(yes they do unless one specifically searches, dishonestly, for photos showing faces of the 200 foot by 200 foot structure, that show less fire at some periods)
Jango
Graduate Poster
What? I thought that it had been said for years that when the planes penetrated the buildings, that it sent jet fuel dumping out which went through the building I.e. up and down from what I recall.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
I see no point in discussing structural dynamics with someone who admits he's not qualified to discuss it at an appropriately informed level. Sorry, I won't indulge your layman's intuition on the subject.
I see little if any evidence that you're trying to change your mind. You're trying to impose your uninformed preconceptions as if they were legitimate questions to be addressed. Your first step in getting help is to acknowledge your preconceptions and discard them. Your next step, if you wish to discuss highly specialized subjects, is to obtain an appropriate education -- the critics of your previous claims are not obliged to provide that education to you.
A licensed individual would tell you that what you see is not unexpected. If your expectation was different, you should first question the basis for your expectation.
The issue is not thread clutter. The issue is the claimant getting backed into a corner and changing the subject in order to evade accountability. If any one thread is too broad, that tactic is almost universally applied.
The topic of this thread, as I see it, is what constitutes an acceptable standard of proof to require a new investigation into 9/11. As I have said, layman's suppositions about highly complex subjects, which are not endorsed or held by the relevant qualified professionals, does not meet such a standard. Since you are not qualified to discuss structural dynamics, a discussion of that topic is not likely to advance the topic of this thread further. Hence my advice to try again -- meaning try a different subject.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
You suggest there is something suspicious about the way the buildings fell down. In the context of this thread, it would be to suggest that such suspicions warrant questioning the official narrative. But when pressed, you admit your questions are insufficiently informed. Yet for some reason you are unwilling to first see whether your preconceptions or layman's naive expectations are at fault. Hence you are trying to set up your lay preconceptions as questions that others must somehow be obliged to answer.
So then you agree there is no legitimate reason to question the official narrative and we can close this thread. Am I correct?
By whose judgment hasn't it been answered?
This is the second time you have raised the persistence of questions as a reason why those questions should be considered valid or legitimate. But you have already conceded that not all conspiracy theorists are scrupulous investigators. Based on that concession, why haven't you considered other reasons why those questions still persist? Have you considered that the proponents of those questions have selfish reasons for continuing to try to make them relevant, even if they have been answered to nearly everyone else's satisfaction?
For someone who says he wants to change his mind, you seem stubbornly unwilling to consider any hypothesis that paints the Truther movement in bad light.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
The vast majority of fuel was dumped on floors in line with where the tanks on the planes were. That much needs little reasoning to determine. Those floors also took the brunt of physical damage as they are also in line with the greater mass and dense parts of the aircraft. Again not a lot of reasoning to manage to understand that.
More damage includes damage to perimeter floor portions, and core areas, which includes the most obvious paths, vertically, through the building, the damaged floors where maximum damage was done, again higher than 78, and the elevator shafts.
Any fuel going through shattered floor sections goes down one level. Fuel in elevator shafts goes where gravity sends it, down until it encounters either an elevator car or the bottom of the shaft. One shaft went all the way to the basement, others terminated at various floors. While 78 was one of those floors two things are possible; fuel did spill out from one shaft onto the 78th and is the source of at least one of the fires Palmer reports on; the elevator(s) from above that terminate at the 78th did not have fuel flow in it(them).
Last edited:
Jango
Graduate Poster
No worries, man.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
And depending on the amount of fuel and the duration of the fall, a substantial amount of it will aerosolize in the process, making it a substantial ignition risk.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Re:WTC7
It has been covered in several threads one of which I replied thusly:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9349030&postcount=200
It has been covered in several threads one of which I replied thusly:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9349030&postcount=200
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
I thought you had overcome your nervous tic habit of starting replies with 'Lol.'
Silly me.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Relevant information that might lead you to a reasoned conclusion. Sorry if that doesn't suit your requirements.
Dave
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
I have wondered why you spread yourself out over so many new and resurrected threads.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
And that's the problem in a nutshell. You have no idea what the collapse of a 110 storey building should look like, but you've decided for some unknown reason that what you saw wasn't what it should look like. It's something I coined the term "unevaluated inequality fallacy" to describe, a few years back. You're comparing two things - in this case, what the collapse looked like and what it should have looked like - and saying they're not the same, despite the fact that you admit you have no idea what one of them is. Can you see why that doesn't really bolster your credibility or advance your argument?
Dave
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
One issue I see a lot wrt 9/11WTC collapses, is the lack of comprehension concerning the physical scale of the towers. There is the meme of small fires but when one observes say even a quarter of the width of the building with flames coming out the windows that equates to a 50 foot span of office fires. Such a fire would be completely engulfing most residential homes but to many truthers it is 'small' because they compare it to the width of the building as seen in videos and pictures taken from far off with little or no foreground objects by which to recognize the scale.
Still on the fire issue many truthers will point to partial collapses of other structures having occurred only after many hours of raging fire engulfing structures that are significantly narrower than the WTC towers. This ignores both physical scale and the very salient fact that by having thousands of gallons of liquid fuel dumped onto several floors and ignited, that these buildings immediately had several vertically adjacent office floors involved in large area fires. Each tower saw at least three floors have large quantities of fuel dumped on them. Each of those floors individually then had an office fire that by themselves would have been considered major conflagration of the type that in most situations would take an hour or more to develop. Having multiple floors involved in large area fires is a situation that commonly takes several hours to develop. Yet the towers had this fire situation develop within seconds.
Compounding this lack of scale comprehension is the seemingly tough time many truthers have with what I have seen referred to as 'binary thinking'. For instance, above I mention the aviation fuel and what do we often see from truthers? "The fuel burned off in ten minutes so it couldn't have heated (some take this to ridiculousness and say 'melted) the steel significantly" seemingly unable to grasp that it was most effective at igniting the contents of the offices. (or the behaviour of steel that has it lose strength, become less solid and more plastic, as it is heated and that melting is not required for a steel member to fail)
Another example is the meme that the towers were brought down by the impact or brought down by fire. Neither is correct. They succumbed to the combination of structural damage wrought by both impact AND fire.
Last edited:
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
Jango, On #2 I am happy to help. Like you I have very little technical expertise. So I kept asking technical experts until I understood as well as a layperson could. Then I put out 22 YouTube videos summarizing what I learned from scientists. Much of what I got was not from Skeptic Forums like this (though some certainly did). To a very large degree, I asked scientists not engaged in the 9/11 debate. I kept getting answers consistent with the common narrative (plane crashes + unfought fires). On everything I researched. Everything. From literally hundreds of physicists, structural engineers (one NY structural engineer was even a LIHOP guy who still explained the natural collapse scenario), chemists, heavy equipment operators, metallurgists, fire chemists, demolition workers, metalworkers, architects, firefighters, the EPA guy who issued Appendix C about the sulfidized steel, Rich Lee of the RJ Lee Report, Leslie Robertson the WTC Architect)... every expert I talked to directly or read their comments supported some aspect of the common narrative with real expertise talking about their area of knowledge. Those YouTube videos are the result of years of asking and asking and asking. Here you can see what one non-expert was able to put together. Watch all of that and I promise you, if your #2 claim is correct, your mind will be at least partly changed.