Most detailed scientific papers for and against controlled demolition

[davefoc]

Point taken.

However I think im still on the fence, and I think im going to remain on it. At the end of the day it's not as if some new piece of data or compelling evidence is going to come out, now nearly ten years after the event, to prove either side of the argument right. I seems that both sides of the argument cant even agree on what their arguments are anyway.

A new independent inquiry is needed until I re-engage in this rabit hole of 9/11 conspiracy theory mania.

And thanks for the non emotive replies that were actually factual people.

*exits rabbit hole*

How can someone be on a fence, between reality and fantasy? 911 truth is entirely fiction.

...

Zeuzzz, I share beachnut's curiosity about how somebody could be on the fence with regards to this, excluding people who just don't have an interest in this, I don't think there are many people that are on the fence with you.

Of all the various conspiracy theories and incredible ideas discussed in this forum there may never have been one that is as unlikely to be true as CD of the WTC based just on common sense arguments.

But that isn't all there is. There just is no reliable evidence for CD that has been put forth in any research. A massive amount of research has been done to understand what happened in detail. This research is based on real engineering, computer modeling (and real physical modeling in one case) and science. Even a tiny bit of that research which supported anything like a CD would be huge news and would become instantly public. In addition, there is no significant scientific support for a CD of any kind in any of the relevant professions. There are no CD experts stepping forth and claiming that it was a CD, the opposite is the case. Every CD expert I've ever heard commenting on this ridicules the idea that the WTC was brought down by CD. There are essentially zero physicists, fire fighters, structural engineers or scientists and engineers in general that support this notion. In addition, although it isn't really necessary to prove the case, the truther theories have been thoroughly debunked by serious publications, documentaries and in blogs like this one.

I would respectively suggest that you read a piece of truther writing and based on that have created a situation where your confirmation biases are preventing you from using the mass of data that you have become aware after you read that report to falsify your initial perception of the situation.

That truthers exist is not a completely surprising development. Conspiracy theories develop around most major events and the people that promote them do so for a variety of reasons some of them just cynical and self serving and some of them based on internal drivers that lead people to find self importance in finding what they see as truths and being a teller of that truth to others even when in fact what they think of as facts is just crap.

Assuming you are truly on the fence you fit neither into the groups that promote CT's for their own purposes nor into the bulk of the population for which the bat **** crazy nature of the theory combined with analysis by credible experts is enough to make them reject the theory if they've even heard of it.

Do you have some thoughts as to why you are on the fence on this issue? You and your fellow fence sitters on this issue would seem to make up a very small group, what is it in the nature of that group that leads to being on the fence on an issue like this?

 

[ergo]

Actually, I am not making an elite statement. Nor is this intended as an insult. This is an empirical fact. I have surveyed thousands of people who claim to believe in this 911-conspiracy-type-stuff. This is almost completely true.

"This is almost completely true!"

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal remarks

Please describe the methodology you used to survey "thousands" of self-described 9/11 truthers.

 

[ergo]

This did not happen.

Cherepanov knows that this did not happen. I read some of his writings on his website, and thought that he's a little loose in the loafers and politically driven.

JMO on Cherepanov's motives. But his theory is irrelevant to 9/11.

Would you have any idea, then, why 9/11 bedunkers include it in their list of authoritative papers supposedly showing some kind of "scientific consensus" that the Twin Towers collapsed in under 15 seconds from one-hour upper floor fires?

 

[TruthersLie]

"This is almost completely true!"

This is what you get when an ESL teacher poses as a social scientist.

Please describe the methodology you used to survey "thousands" of self-described 9/11 truthers.

HI ergo.

I'm sure that as a "esl teacher" (you seemed to miss the post about his being a phd candidate for educational psychology. As a phd candidate for educational psychology one of the main courses he needs to complete is research methods and the related course of graduate statistics. As he is probably working on those now, I'd love to see this slap down... but that is an aside) I'm sure he will know the differences between into and onto. I'm sure he can look up what a "footprint" is and how that term is used in demolitions, architecture and engineering. I'm very confident that he understands the difference between essentially and actually.

You might want to ask him for his help so you too can understand those concepts.

 

[WildCat]

Contrarily, I would hope for Zeuzz x 12 on my jury!

Then there's a good chance he'd vote to convict you even if there was no evidence against you. In fact, he'd vote to convict you even if all the evidence clearly points to somerone else.

 

[ergo]

Of course, this begs the larger question: why do 9/11 bedunkers have to fake their information?

I mean, if their beliefs are, as they insist, based on sound scientific principle, why are they falsifying their sources?

It seems to me all 9/11 JREF bedunkers should be concerned when this occurs. The fact that they show no concern whatsoever suggests to us that this practice of faking information is much more common and prevalent in 9/11 bedunkerism than they acknowledge.

 

[ergo]

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal remarks

There was nothing insulting about my referencing Sommers' occupation as an ESL teacher. I'm merely pointing out that he's not a social scientist, nor is he intellectually above anyone who works at Walmart, as his mean-spirited (and also off-topic) comment seemed to want to suggest.

I notice JREF mods don't feel the need to swoop in when 9/11 bedunkers demand of posters their credentials or professional backgrounds, which is also addressing the arguer and not the argument.

 

[TruthersLie]

There was nothing insulting about my referencing Sommers' occupation as an ESL teacher. I'm merely pointing out that he's not a social scientist, nor is he intellectually above anyone who works at Walmart, as his mean-spirited (and also off-topic) comment seemed to want to suggest.

I notice JREF mods don't feel the need to swoop in when 9/11 bedunkers demand of posters their credentials or professional backgrounds, which is also addressing the arguer and not the argument.

You seemed to miss the part where he stated rather explicitly that he is in an Phd program for Educational Psychology.

Did you miss that part ergo? Or did you NOT know what that entails? Things like research methods, research design, design methodology, testing.

That would make him a Phd candidate to be come a Dr of "social scientist."

But then again with your inability to understand
into vs onto
essentially vs actually
center of mass vs "debris field the size of the moon."
architectural/engineering/demolitions footprint vs ergos definition of footprint

it isn't hard to see that you are having reading for comprehension problems (again.)

And now arguing with mods.... In the wrong place. I think there is a forum/thread for that and it isn't here.

 

[TruthersLie]

Of course, this begs the larger question:

HI ergo.

That is all you do. Beg the question. Or argue from ignorance. or argue from incredulity.

Have you figured out why the caracas tower kept on standing even though there was a 2 floor collapse of the steel framed parts yet? Give it a try.

 

[ergo]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for civility.

 

[carlitos]

Zeuzzz, I share beachnut's curiosity about how somebody could be on the fence with regards to this, excluding people who just don't have an interest in this, I don't think there are many people that are on the fence with you.

Easy. Zeuzzzz is lying. Like he lied about reading the NIST reports.

 

[grandmastershek]

Scale modeling of the 96th floor of world trade center tower 1
Wang, M., Chang, P., Quintiere, J., Marshall, A. 2007 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 21 (6), pp. 414-421
- This was research used in the NIST report itself. It is not a corroboration.

Weird. This was published 2 years after the completion of the NIST report on the towers and no such reference is found anywhere.


Failure of welded floor truss connections from the exterior wall during collapse of the world trade center towers
Banovic, S.W., Siewert, T.A. 2007 Welding Journal (Miami, Fla) 86 (9), pp. 263-s-272-s
- This was research used in the NIST report itself. It is not a corroboration.
Same as above

The collapse of the world trade center towers: A metallurgist's view
Gayle, F.W. 2007 MRS Bulletin 32 (9), pp. 710-716
- Written by one of the original NIST investigators. This is not an outside corroboration.

Goal post move noted. It is research published outside of the NIST report in a peer reviewed journal.

Engineering perspective of the collapse of WTC-I Irfanoglu, A., Hoffmann, C.M. 2008 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 22 (1)

- I believe these researchers were actually commissioned by NIST for the report itself. So not an outside corroboration.
Another goal post moved. maybe start providing more than your beliefs?

Any day Ergo.

 

[Disbelief]

Any day Ergo.

You have to give him three days at least.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=201349

 

[grandmastershek]

You have to give him three days at least.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=201349

 

[TruthersLie]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for response to modded post.

 

[tfk]

Would you have any idea, then, why 9/11 bedunkers include it in their list of authoritative papers supposedly showing some kind of "scientific consensus" that the Twin Towers collapsed in under 15 seconds from one-hour upper floor fires?

What idiot has ever said that the Twin Towers "collapsed in under 15 seconds from one-hour upper floor fires"?

Clearly, only some fool who never read the NIST report would say something this dumb.

 

[TruthersLie]

What idiot has ever said that the Twin Towers "collapsed in under 15 seconds from one-hour upper floor fires"?

Clearly, only some fool who never read the NIST report would say something this dumb.

Well Tom can you blame a person who doesn't know the difference between into and onto?

or who can't tell the difference between essentially and actually?

or who can't understand center of mass vs a debris field the "size of the moon?"

or who claims the fires in the tower were "minor."

But maybe he can use this suspension to check with scott summers and find out what types of exercises he can do to work on those reading skills.

 

[davefoc]

Easy. Zeuzzzz is lying. Like he lied about reading the NIST reports.

I wince a bit every time I see somebody accused of lying around here. It is very difficult to prove and it is unnecessarily hostile in most cases I think. But in this instance perhaps it was appropriate. I may have been taken in by what seemed to be sincerely written posts to me by Zeuzzzz.

As an aside I just noticed Scott Sommers mention of his article in Skeptic magazine. Unfortunately, the evil capitalists at Skeptic magazine have chosen not to publish the article on-line undoubtedly in some attempt by them to make money. I've been thinking about dropping by the local Borders, which is closing (sad to say) and buying some stuff. I think I'll see if I can't find a copy of the magazine with Steve's article.

 

[davefoc]

I did go to the local Borders and bought a variety of stuff that was cheap enough that I didn't mind buying it and taking a chance that I might not read it. But alas they were sold out of the Skeptic magazine with Scott Sommers article. Obviously, the Scott Sommers article had created a run on Skeptic magazine. So I went to my local Barnes & Noble which was very quiet compared to the Borders and picked up a full price copy.

The article was interesting and it went to what is a common area for musing by me, why do people believe weird things and who are these people that believe these weird things?.

A few things that stood out to me:
Overwhelming number of people participating in truther groups were male
This was certainly no surprise to me. Based just on empirical observations of who seems to be touting this stuff and my general notion that males are more driven to seek out unique niches for themselves than females and latching on to and promoting conspiracy theories is one way that males satisfy this drive.
Leftwing involvement may have declined with election of Obama
That the leftwing had any involvement with truther nonsense surprised me when I first noticed it several years ago. There is a leftwing radio station funded by the Pacifica foundation in the LA area that at least in the past has broadcast truther stuff. I think Sommers' speculation that the leftwing involvement with this sort of thing was driven by partisan biases was reasonable and the election of Obama dimmed some of their enthusiasm for anything that could be seen as anti-Bush no matter how unlikely it was.
Most truthers outside normal political affiliations
That doesn't seem surprising. I envision people that form group biases around the notion of anti-establishment ideas and it seems reasonable to expect that support for either party would be outside what is the group norm for people that tend to believe CT's.
15% of Americans believe in CD theories
That the number is anything near that high surprises me, but perhaps it shouldn't. There seems to be some irreducibly low number that an opinion poll can achieve and perhaps 15% is approaching that number. I wonder about the reliability of opinion polls as one outcome approaches a low number of respondents. How many of these people understood the question? How many of these people cared enough to just not pick a random answer? How many of these people were just choosing to screw with the results by selecting the opposite of what they believe?
Division of the truthers into HC (high commitment) and LC (low commitment groups)
Sommers divided the truthers into two groups based on their level of commitment. He found the HC group tended to be better educated and to have better computer skills than the LC group. He found that the HC group were almost entirely Christian and that the LC group had some Islamic fraction.

 

[carlitos]

Thanks for posting that. I was at a bookstore over the weekend and forgot to pick it up. I probably still will.