Loose Change - Part IV

[Obviousman]

Roger, will do.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Again, it need not be a simulation. And if you want to know why the collapse occurred, you also need to know why it did not stop. Limited money: sure, but of course I'd be arguing that more resources should have been made free for this study.


Interestingly your answer seems to conflict with that given to me by JayUtah over on BAUT. Basically, if I remember well, he said that one starts with a hypothesis which then must be checked for its validity, and that one cannot check several hypotheses at the same time.
My problem here is that if one truncates the timeline as NIST did, it may be that your evidence is compatible with more than one hypothesis. Or in other words, that the alternative hypothesis has not been excluded by the evidence considered. Whereas this is the impression that the relevant sentence in their report gives. Anyway, I should probably point you towards this discussion, on BAUT. Lots of reading, but I doubt there's a point in repeating the discussion here.

BTW thank you all for being civil with me.

The collapse did not stop because the PKE of the building was immense:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1666768&highlight=joules#post1666768

 

[gumboot]

One thing I have observed...

Often things that are not addressed in the official reports are raised. For example, it is often asked "why didn't NIST address the issue of Controlled Demolition?"

Asking this is the equivelant of asking why they only put ONE suspect on trial in the local murder case. The purpose of the investigation is to determine what happened, based on evidence. The official reports are not a minute moment by moment account of the entire investigation. They are a summary of findings.

It is enough to say "we investigated this, and our findings were X". They are tasked with the job. There is no requirement for them to justify WHY their findings are X. They are experts in their field, and it is their job to determine what happened.

There is no physical evidence of controlled demoltion. I don't use the world "no" lightly. There is none. At all. nothing. not a scrap. Not a single thing suggests anything like controlled demolition. The only evidence on the planet of controlled demolition exists in the heads of CTers.

This is why they think the NIST report is lacking, because they believe it has missed key evidence. But it does not. That evidence is a fabrication. It is something the CTers have created in their own minds.

It is not the duty of NIST to investigate every fantastical explanation that anyone can think of. It is their job to deal with the physical reality of the event.

And this is why I do not understand 9/11 conspiracy. The moon landing happened 30 years ago. Our only "evidence" is a few photos and some bad quality photo. The events themselves happened over 200,000 miles away, far from the earth and any witnesses. The only testimonies we have that it happened are from government employees.

Even the JFK assassination leaves unanswered questions, because the accused was never put to trial. Official investigations have disputed their findings. Again, the only evidence is a single poor quality piece of video and a reasonable crowd of witnesses (everyone nearby was a government employee).

Not so for 9/11. There are no unanswered questions. Everything makes perfect logical sense. Literally thousands upon thousands of people witnessed the events first hand in one of the largest cities in the world. The events themselves involved thousands of people, government employees and civilians. The photographic, video, audio, siesmic, and other data of the events numbers in the thousands. Millions of people across the globe witnessed said events on live television.

I just can't understand what twist of logic is needed to accept this Conspiracy Theory.

-Andrew

 

[WildCat]

Come on. You know that the complexity of the latter is not comparable to the former. This is just plain silly.

brumsen, have you ever consulted w/ actual structural enhineers on this subject? If you're working at or studying at a university, or even have one nearby, why not talk to one and get his thoughts on the matter?

Would anything change your mind on this? Or would you, given a satisfactory explanation for the above, move on to some other perceived fatal flaw in the NIST reports?

 

[T.A.M.]

Why didn't the NIST report address the possibility that a superior alien race invisibly cloaked, shot invisible laser beams at the trade centers, bringing them down. It is plausible isn't it. I mean 40% of the population, according to the same poll they are all quoting at LC now, believe the US govt is hiding info on races from other planets. Maybe Molach of the Bohemian grove is George Dubyah's allie in the federation of planets...

Sorry, but sometimes it gets so rediculous, you just have to giggle.

 

[Hutch]

Well I'll be a Guinness-Hating Irishman...

...but I'm going to have to say something nice about Dylan Avery here.

You know about my thread with him a couple of pages back (less than 24 hours ago) where I challenged him on his "proof" and he published my IP.

We, he did pull that and I told him by PM (with concurrence from the JREF poster) that his IP posting had been reported-I felt that since he had pulled it (pun intended) that I owed him at least that much notification.

So I get a PM back from him Firday (read it this morning), whch says in part:

Sir,
Thank you for the heads up. Again, I apologize for how things happened, but a lot of people come in here with fists swinging and it's hard to differentiate sometimes.

I'm glad that, although you disagree with our premise, we can have a rational conversation. On that note, all I say to you, sir, is that you are obviously an intelligent and honorable person. By implying that the United States Government might have had a hand in the attacks, I am not implicating the entire government......and the fact of the matter is that government employees are, for the most part, good people who just want to come home from work to their families after a long day.

And then a bit of a shocker:

P.S. Quest banned your home IP? I'll take care of those ASAP. again, thanks for engaging in intelligent debate.

And so it is; I am back on from home on LC, which will decrease my need for workplace posting.

It appears young Mr. Avery can put hubris aside now and then and act relatively reasonable; his ideas are still high-grade bovine fecal matter, IMHO, but it does appear that maybe he isn't the mindless idealogue that some of his more rabid followers over there are.

Of course, we'll see the next time I cross him on an argument...

 

[Belz...]

As if that's going to impress me. The usual suggestion that I'm ignorant if I question this.

First, I did not demand a simulation of the collapse. I asked for a proof that the assumption that once the onset of collapse started (NISTs words) it was inevitable that it continue, is true. That need not be done by means of a simulation.

Did you READ the reports ? I do believe they answer those questions quite nicely.

Second: if that was so obvious, then why all the discussion on Ross' and Greening's papers? It is not obvious, which is a good reason why NIST should have investigated beyond the onset and not truncated the timeline.

I never said it was obvious. This is why we have experts. Otherwise any layman could solve any problem and do any investigation, which is exactly what the LC and CT crowd think they can do.

 

[Belz...]

Thats easy: I call it the "Broken Toy" syndrom. It works basically like this:

[...]

Person A, whom probably still have pimples

HEY! Some people carry those pimples their entire lives. It's not their fault!!!

 

[Joytown]

Do you mean to say that they studied it, but for some reason didn't include that in the report; or are you making a finer distinction here which I am failing to grasp?

It's a valid question, Brumsen but I think I can shed a little light light on this aspect of it. A good friend of mine is a Fire Captiain in Nevada. He and I talked quite a bit after 9/11 (when he was up to his necks in study materials trying to pass the tests) - and also recently now that he's a captain.

The point he makes is that progessive collapse is a known phenomenon to fire fighters and fire safety engineers. They plan for it, study about it, and work with structiral engineers on ways to prevent it. This is very hard-earned knowledge that has come at the cost of many lives. Certainly the WTC collapses were unique in many ways, but once the collapse had initiated, they will still a progressive collapse - which pretty much followed every aspect about what they already know about progressive collapses. And that the main focus of fire safety people is to stop the collapse from starting in the first place - because they know from experience that once they start, there's no stopping it.

The day after 9-11 I talked to my friend and asked him about the tower. His comment was that this was a textbook case of a progressive collapse - this coming from someone who had had his head buried in fire-related textbooks the entire summer of 01.

Add to that the fact that the focus of the NIST is on building safety, so-as to make reccomendations into the future contruction of buildings.

If we are to beleive that the towers were brought down by controlled demo, then the NIST report reccommendations would be pretty brief: don't let controlled demolition teams in your building.

Regards,

-Joytown

 

[WildCat]

...but I'm going to have to say something nice about Dylan Avery here.

The cynic in me says that Avery may simply realize he has an image problem, no small thanks to MarkyX.

 

[T.A.M.]

Well JohnDoeX is at least being honest now...

The latest is his admission that the LC forum is "not a democracy"...no, it is a fascist state.

It is funny, I don't recall killtown or nesync, or bogglehead ever being banned or close to it, over in the SLC forum, regardless of the content or voraciousness of their remarks.

Certainly, noone has EVER been banned over there (SLC) for stating a view in opposition to the SLC POV, regardless of whether it bores those who are regulars over there. I mean we have listened to Killtown argue the same points with the same evidence at least 100 times, yet has he gotten banned for "repetitiveness"...No. Or for making mean or crude remarks...No.

JohnDoeX, go ahead, enjoy your power, because all you are with your little mocking smilies, and your intellectually biggoted remarks, your condecending attitude, is a big street bully. Live it up you pathetic moron.

It would be nice to see you come over here, or the SLC forum and debate in a place where you are out numbered, and where you can't censor or make decisions on who can and cannot be a member. I think you'd find yourself running back to Dylans "house" pretty quickly.

 

[Joytown]

He'll be back as soon as anyone posts anything about any 9/11 topic that doesn't support his obnoxious view.

He has a view? I can never seem to get JohnDoe to actually posit ANYTHING. It seems to me his mode of operation is to just lob ****-bombs over the fence and to obfuscate. If you ask him, he'll say he HAS no theory on any of it.

I've asked this about 15 times in about 10 different ways over there when someone tries to bring up an "official theory lie". FOr example, ok .. so you say that there's no evidence of a 757 at the Pentagon - I believe you! - Now, help me .. please describe your theory of what did happen there without a 757? Please include known facts like that AA Flight 77, a 757, did exist and is no longer around, and something did crash at the Pentagon.

Same thing with Hani Hanjour, the proported Flt 77 hijacker/pilot. In the infamous 26 page thread on LC, JohnDoeX's harruphing and blathering amounted to this: He thinks it's unlikely that Hani could have performed the manouver. (of course this was a great opportunity for him to toss out all his official airplane knowledge and sound like an authority on everything aerocautical). So I asked him .. if Hani flying the plane is "unlikely" please tell what is the LIKELY scenario. What I got was the standard issue "I'm just asking questions" and the "we the people deserve to know the truth" BS.

This is the biggest flaw of all in the 9-11 deniers case for inside job. They can find inconsistencies, but since they have no reasonable alternative narrative to the events, there's no place for those inconsistencies fit into an overall picture.

So yeah .. good luck on getting JohnDoeX to say *anything* substantial.

-Joytown

 

[chran]

Well JohnDoeX is at least being honest now...

The latest is his admission that the LC forum is "not a democracy"...no, it is a fascist state.

Well, to be fair - this forum isn't a democracy either. It's moderated by Darat et. al. and what they say goes.

So yeah.

 

[T.A.M.]

Like I said, he is like the street bully. We have all run into the type. He has his gang of henchmen around him, and then when someone he doesnt like shows up, he stands in front of them, with his goons by his side, and he belittles, taunts, and degrades the person, knowing he has his boys behind him to back him up. Why would he ever leave the comfort of Loose Change Street, with his gang there to stnad behind him.

Like most bullies, if you get him alone, and stand up to him, they usually fall away pretty quick.

 

[T.A.M.]

Yes Chran, that is true. The USA has a president, and Canada a priminister. But they do not rule with an iron hand. They are responsible to the people they represent.

I am sure if DARAT were to act anywhere close to the way JDX does, the group here, on mass, would contact the board officials for his removal.

Over there, they support his tactics, encourage them, and have not said so much as boo too him, so far as I can tell...that is fascism.

 

[The_Fire]

HEY! Some people carry those pimples their entire lives. It's not their fault!!!

*Raises an eyebrow*
Well, I doubt that the dermatological challenged "Some People" you are talking about are still living in their mothers basement. Or is there a catch 22 thing in this entire "Lord of Darkness" gig I haven't heard about?

 

[60hzxtl]

henchmen

Please

Henchpersons, or Persons-of-hench!

 

[T.A.M.]

how about "Henchills" or "Hencheoples"...

 

[DavidJames]

He has a view? I can never seem to get JohnDoe to actually posit ANYTHING.

A month or so back JDX was more coy about his "beliefs". He made comments like, he has his ideas but hasn't posted them on the forum, but has made them known privately. He also claimed at one point to be 95% sure the towers were a CD. When pushed he falls back on demanding "proof" of the NIST findings, pointing out the NIST report never claims 100% certainty. Of course, his 95% belief in a CD has 0% facts supporting it. He fails to see the irony.

I pushed him mercilessly about his lack of backbone failing to commit to any ideas, leading ultimately to my banishment. Much of his arguments fall into the argument from ignorance fallacy.

Now he's got the "power of mod" and he wields it like he's never had responsibility before. To me, that points me away from the idea that he's held any meaningful job. His maturity level hardly suggests he was ever a pilot., But I don't know. But it's pretty clear he's not working now. If I had to guess I'd say he's on some form of government assistance, either unemployment or disability. He's a sad joke for sure.

 

[brumsen]

One thing I have observed...

Often things that are not addressed in the official reports are raised. For example, it is often asked "why didn't NIST address the issue of Controlled Demolition?"

Well, no. My question is: they address it - they say that they have found no evidence for it - so where can I read about how exactly they did exclude the CD hypothesis? Given that they did address it with a conclusion - where is their reasoning justifying that conclusion?

Asking this is the equivelant of asking why they only put ONE suspect on trial in the local murder case. The purpose of the investigation is to determine what happened, based on evidence. The official reports are not a minute moment by moment account of the entire investigation. They are a summary of findings.

It is enough to say "we investigated this, and our findings were X". They are tasked with the job. There is no requirement for them to justify WHY their findings are X. They are experts in their field, and it is their job to determine what happened.

No, I don't buy this view of what expertise is. What they did, and how they reached their conclusions, should be reconstructible (?) from the report. Not by any layman perhaps, but by other knowledgeable people, yes.

What NIST did in its conclusions is the equivalent of saying: this suspect has been found guilty by us, and by the way that other suspect cannot be guilty since there is no evidence against him. But of course they could both be guilty, or have co-operated in some way.

This is why they think the NIST report is lacking, because they believe it has missed key evidence. But it does not. That evidence is a fabrication. It is something the CTers have created in their own minds.

It simply has not, to my knowledge, considered key evidence, evidence to do with the events after onset of collapse. Hence all the debate about what those events are evidence for.

It is not the duty of NIST to investigate every fantastical explanation that anyone can think of. It is their job to deal with the physical reality of the event.

Another typical response. No, I am not asking that NIST investigate whether aliens may have demolished the Twin Towers with their death rays. I am only asking that they do justify a conclusion that they did draw, namely that there was no controlled demolition.

I referred earlier to the BAUT thread where this was discussed as length, and I'll do it once more since I am just repeating what I said there.