Loose Change - Part III

[pgwenthold]

I just found this little gem by Jerry Pournelle (author:"Lucifers Hammer"with Larry Niven, "The Mote in God's Eye", "Man-Kzin Wars II").

"...that someone wanted the buildings to fall straight down instead of toppling"

Maybe I am missing something, but doesn't the fact that the buildings fell "straight down" just reflect the fact that the collapse started near the top, well above the center of gravity? Thus, as the thing starts collapsing, the center of gravity of the stand structure just keeps moving lower and lower, but it follows the path of the building.

If someone blew the bottom out, it would be different. But if you just pulvarize the top, it will just fall on the thing below it.

I wonder if you could do this demo with an aluminum can. Put a cinderblock on top of it and then figure out a way to weaken it at the top, or weaken it at the bottom. See how it collapses. I bet if you can get it to collapse by weakening the top, it would collapse straight down. Weaken the bottom, it will tip.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...There are plenty of anomalies in the 911 building collapses, and having them fall in the way they did is a low probability event (apparently; I will accept the professor's word on that)...

First, I don't know that there are "plenty" of anomolies. But setting that aside, I fail to see how the buildings fell is a "low probability event."

Here's something I've posted before:

I tend to get the suspicion now and again that there are those who fail to understand how extraordinarily large each of the Twin Towers were. Plus, there's that ol' debbil gravity, a relentless force if ever there was one.

In relation to this -- and I'm guessing here -- I wonder if there's a prevailing sentiment that considers a building to be some benign object, calmly sitting at rest. If so, that would be wrong. Because of gravity there is a constant, relentless force that a building is, at any moment, dynamically working against in order to stay erect. (Indeed, our physical bodies are engaged in the same process.) Such an event as what initially transpired on 9/11 (extra-violent impact of each airplane) was enough to begin the process whereupon each building could not, due to its design, remain standing.

Low probability or no, there's only so much a structure can take before its design parameters are exceeded.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Pournelles comments are somewhat out of date considering what we now know about the towers collapse (and the evolution of the CD theory by the nutters desperate to make it true). He is kinder to Professor Jones than many of us here have been (especially myself), and it seems to reflect a rather cursory examination of either the CD theories, the "official version" or both.

But I still like how he sums up the huge odds against the successful conclusion of the operation it would have taken to fake the attacks.

 

[MarkyX]

I saw the elf shots. LOL!!! She still says 10 sec. for the fall time. She does not belong teaching in public schools.

I think the fact that these people are believing these theories is proof the ENTIRE EDUCATION SYSTEM is a failure.

 

[bob_kark]

I think the fact that these people are believing these theories is proof the ENTIRE EDUCATION SYSTEM is a failure.

I think you're right as I really don't know if intelligence has anything to do with belief in the CT. We obviously have college professors who are willing to back up the CT. I would assume that in order to obtain their position, they would have to be reasonably intelligent. I think ignorance and personality play a much larger factor.

I'm sure we've all known or have met someone who believes the US government is the source for all evil in the world. In addition, I believe there are many people that think they can prove there was a conspiracy but are ignorant of proper research and fact checking methods. So not only can they not properly explain why they believe their view to be correct, they're unable to see why it is infact incorrect. I don't know how many CT articles I've viewed whose source traces back to either a misunderstanding of the original material, an all out misrepresentation of the original material, or complete speculation. In addition, many tend to rely on the old, "well you know their evil so of course they would/could have done it," approach.

Though, you bring up a great point. Perhaps universities and high schools should place more attention on how to properly research and fact check materials so that students, and later adults, develop a more highly tuned BS meter.

 

[Gravy]

Our friend Gravy has got an invitation over at the Journal Forum:

http://www.atfreeforum.com/911studies/viewtopic.php?t=6&mforum=911studies

Somehow I don't think he would fit in too well....

I'll do it if they offer me a scholarship.

 

[Gravy]

No offense to Gravy, but I would prefer to hear about thermite/thermate cutting from someone who is an expert in explosives, like Huntsman.

Yes, I took exception to that guy calling me (even sarcastically) an "obvious expert." Nothing could be further from the truth. It doesn't take expertise to refute most of what they say. It takes honesty.

 

[JamesB]

I'll do it if they offer me a scholarship.

I'll chip in $5 and a 2 for 1 coupon at a local Mexican restaurant...

 

[Mongrel]

First, I don't know that there are "plenty" of anomolies. But setting that aside, I fail to see how the buildings fell is a "low probability event."

Here's something I've posted before:Low probability or no, there's only so much a structure can take before its design parameters are exceeded.

tend to get the suspicion now and again that there are those who fail to understand how extraordinarily large each of the Twin Towers were. Plus, there's that ol' debbil gravity, a relentless force if ever there was one.

In relation to this -- and I'm guessing here -- I wonder if there's a prevailing sentiment that considers a building to be some benign object, calmly sitting at rest. If so, that would be wrong. Because of gravity there is a constant, relentless force that a building is, at any moment, dynamically working against in order to stay erect. (Indeed, our physical bodies are engaged in the same process.) Such an event as what initially transpired on 9/11 (extra-violent impact of each airplane) was enough to begin the process whereupon each building could not, due to its design, remain standing.

As an addition to your excellent points Reg (and a quick keep up the good work to everyone, I just struggle reading most of it) I'd hazard a guess that the only experience that 99% of the population has of 'knocking down towers' is either building blocks or Lego. They have neither the experience to know how large, well built structures fall down, the education to work out 'fairly basic' physics or the humility\sceptically to say "Can you show me once more, this time in laymens terms"

 

[Gravy]

I think the fact that these people are believing these theories is proof the ENTIRE EDUCATION SYSTEM is a failure.

How does that explain us?
I doubt if the CTs represent the typical American/Canadian's belief about 9/11. If you presented the following list of claims to the average person on the street, how many of them would say, "I didn't know all of that, but it makes perfect sense?"

• U.S. air defenses were ordered to “stand down” on 9/11 in order to allow the attacks to succeed.
• An unusual number of war games were deliberately held on 9/11 to occupy and confuse potential defenders.
• Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon. No Boeing 757 wreckage or human remains were recovered and identified there. It disappeared and no one knows the whereabouts of the plane or its passengers. The Pentagon was probably struck by a smaller military plane or a missile.
• Flight 93 did not crash in a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania after its passengers tried to storm the cockpit. No aircraft wreckage and human remains were recovered and identified there. Instead, flight 93 landed safely in Cleveland where its passengers were removed and presumably killed. That plane may have contained not only flight 93’s passengers, but all the passengers from the other three planes as well. The actual plane, tail number N591UA, was still in use as of 2003.
• None of the many calls made by passengers on the hijacked aircraft were real. All the calls were perfectly faked by the conspirators using “voice-morphing” technology. The fakes occurred in real time as events unfolded, and were good enough to fool all the relatives of the “alleged” callers.
• At least 9 of the alleged hijackers were still alive after 9/11.
• al Qaeda had no role in the attacks. Videos of bin Laden admitting his involvement are faked.
• World Trade Center buildings 1, 2 and 7 were destroyed by pre-planted explosive devices. Additional explosive devices blew up in the Twin Towers prior to the demolition charges going off. The towers did not collapse due to structural damage and fire caused by the aircraft striking them. Fires were not severe in the towers. WTC 7 sustained slight structural damage and fires.
• One of the cleanup contractors at the WTC, Controlled Demolitions Inc., may have been involved in the WTC’s destruction, as well as in the bombing of the Murrah building in Oklahoma City in 1995. CDI executed an “unexplained” demolition of two 400-foot gas tanks in NYC in June, 2001.
• No inspection was allowed of WTC debris. New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani ordered all potential evidence to be removed from the site.
• Investors with advance knowledge of 9/11 made millions in the stock market.
• A document produced by prominent Neo-Cons in 2000 called for a “New Pearl Harbor,” an attack on Americans by Americans.
• Larry Silverstein, leaseholder of the World Trade Center, profited by overinsuring his buildings and ordered the FDNY to blow up WTC 7.
• George W. Bush’s brother Marvin ran WTC security operations.
• $166.8 billion in gold was stolen from the vaults beneath the World Trade Center.
• No real investigation of the causes of the attacks was done.

I think most people have more sense than that. But if you phrase these things as questions, such as, "Did you know that Marvin Bush ran WTC security?" the answer is likely to be, "No, I didn't know that!" Of course, the same answer might be given to the question, "Did you know that Godzilla destroyed Tokyo?"

In my experience teaching college students, I have been shocked at how readily many of them will believe almost anything that's said with authority. I've used that as a teaching tool, by making up "factual" stories that start out implausibly and keep going and going, until someone pipes up and says, "Hey, wait a minute!" It can take a very long time to get to that point. So, that seems like a real failure of education at home and at the lower levels.

BUT, I've also found that those same students, once clued in about how uncritically they've been thinking, "get it" very quickly. And once they "get it," they don't easily revert to credowooophilia.

 

[Kent1]

Yes, I took exception to that guy calling me (even sarcastically) an "obvious expert." Nothing could be further from the truth. It doesn't take expertise to refute most of what they say. It takes honesty.

If you want to join the group this is the person to ask I believe.
[email protected]

I'd give it a shot.

 

[hellaeon]

Hey I notice Jenabells english comprehension has improved since browsing the JREF HIVE/CULT forums.

 

[Belz...]

Hmmm... It does make me wonder what the terminal velocity of a World Trade Center 1 would be.

The speed of GRAVITY, you fool!! GRAVITY!!11!

 

[Belz...]

I think you're right as I really don't know if intelligence has anything to do with belief in the CT. We obviously have college professors who are willing to back up the CT. I would assume that in order to obtain their position, they would have to be reasonably intelligent. I think ignorance and personality play a much larger factor.

I'll second that. I've said before that ignorance it humanity's greatest enemy. The mere fact that you don't know about something makes you believe all sorts of weird stuff, every day.

Though, you bring up a great point. Perhaps universities and high schools should place more attention on how to properly research and fact check materials so that students, and later adults, develop a more highly tuned BS meter.

I've also said that elementary schools should have courses in logic and critical thinking.

 

[Belz...]

"Did you know that Godzilla destroyed Tokyo?"

Several times.

Hey I notice Jenabells english comprehension has improved since browsing the JREF HIVE/CULT forums.

Serve the hive!!

 

[Brainster]

Yes, I took exception to that guy calling me (even sarcastically) an "obvious expert." Nothing could be further from the truth. It doesn't take expertise to refute most of what they say. It takes honesty.

Our chief weapon is honesty. Honest and a devotion to the facts--our two chief weapons are honesty and a devotion to the facts. And the ability to put two and two together--our three chief weapons are....

You know, I had been a little leery of taking them on, until I heard Fetzer on Colmes and realized he's Jason Bermas with a little better memory.

Loved your response:

Thanks for the suggestion, but I've seen little put out by that organization that's scholarly or truthful.

Ah, but they are "for" something, so the title is only mostly fraudulent.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You all have heard the woo stories of the "remote viewers" (psychic spies for the CIA)? Well, I think we've accidentally invented "remote trolling".

It seems JENNYBELLE is incapable of controlling him/herself whne his/her name is mentioned here. She/it (sh_t?) inevitably responds with pavlovian predictability... but on the LC board.

 

[JamesB]

Our chief weapon is honesty. Honest and a devotion to the facts--our two chief weapons are honesty and a devotion to the facts. And the ability to put two and two together--our three chief weapons are....

You know, I had been a little leery of taking them on, until I heard Fetzer on Colmes and realized he's Jason Bermas with a little better memory.

Loved your response:



Ah, but they are "for" something, so the title is only mostly fraudulent.

Yeah, that was a great response. I knew I should have copyrighted the neither truthfull nor scholarly line.

Group relies on rumors distorted over the years

I have been following the 9/11 conspiracy theorists lately, but I was still surprised to see one of the theories being published in the Seattle P-I. What's next, editorials denying the Holocaust or the moon landings? The organization Scholars for 9/11 Truth, like most of the conspiracy theorists, is interested in neither scholarship nor truth. Like all conspiracy theorists, they rely not on the scientific method but by focusing on third-generation rumors distorted from the original, and then the complete avoidance of any information that might contradict their theory.

 

[realitybites]

From our pal ChuckSheen across the way:

Kevin Cosgrove and Doug Cherry never lost footing on floor 105 until the demolition. This indicates that there was no sagging hence no pancaking.

I believe he's referring to the live phone call recording that lead up to the collapse of WTC2.

Truly remarkable.

 

[gumboot]

I think the events of 9/11 have the worst (or best) ingredients for developing conspiracy theories - hence why there are so many.

1) It involved events that few people have any knowledge of
2) It was widely reported by the media, much of it live

The problem with this is, you have the combination of a bunch of people who are seeing first-hand evidence of the events, but do not understand any of what they are seeing.

Yet people have a tendency to believe that they can determine events based on video footage - they see footage of events as being more solid evidence than any investigation.

Think of it this way... imagine a bunch of people who don't really know much about football, but they watch a game on the TV. They all saw it, so they all think they have the authority to make judgements on every aspect of the game.

In contrast, had they heard the game on the radio, they wouldn't have the same dillusion that they had all the necessary judgement to make their assessments.

The problem is, just like physics or engineering or anything else, video interpretation is a highly specialised skill.

People like us recognise this, and seek collaborating information. CTers think they can perfectly interpret video footage, and that BECAUSE they can interpret it so clearly, any other "evidence" becomes secondary.

I'm in no way a video interpretation expert, but I have trained and studied it somewhat. The vast majority (if not all) of their claims are based on one of two things:
1) Early speculative media reports
2) Incorrect video interpretation

Based purely on my megre knowledge of video interpretation I quickly recognised many of their errors (that's not including the times where they claimed "clearly seen" and in my opinion nothing at all was "clearly seen"). That alone refutes their claims. Yet in ADDITION, we have sought collaborating sources. THEY are our primary evidence - it is the video footage that is supplemental. And regardless of what video interpretation skills you do or don't have, the overwhelming majority of other evidence supports the official explanation, and directly contradicts the CTs.

-Andrew