Most detailed scientific papers for and against controlled demolition

[ozeco41]

I've been back and forth with a Truther who is a civil engineer, and today he sent me this....

Frank most truthers will try to get you discussing their illogical claims by their dishonest rules. My advice is don't fall for it. It only leads into continuously circling behaviour.

And that is usually their motive. They know they have no case so their fall back is to keep you wasting energy responding to nonsense OR (in this case) irrelevancies.

So ask yourself "Why am I trying to discuss these flight path details?"

... I've requested the flight path locations he is using to determine the aircraft trajectory.

Any comment, insight?

What is this alleged civil engineer trying to use this data to prove?

The facts are simple. The aircraft hit the tower. Is he denying that - if you feel you must "discuss" with him then at least get him to head towards making a claim which you can discuss.

Because, otherwise, all the technical detail about the flight - whether true or false - is completely irrelevant. And that is the standard bit of dishonesty that this truther is trying to pull on you.

So skip over this red herring of pseudo technical argument:

The 767 is a low-wing cantilever monoplane with a conventional tail unit featuring a single fin and rudder. The wings are swept at 31.5 degrees and optimized for a cruising speed of Mach 0.8 (533 mph or 858 km/h). "

Note the Monaghan Analysis below uses a flight velocity of 545 MPH, p. 11 top 1/2.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Monaghan_Analysis.pdf

Turn radius is assumed to be 55,000 ft++ or approx. 10 miles, in Monaghan.

I am going to calculate a g-force using a final turn radius of 5 miles, or 26,400 ft. at 545 MPH in air.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMQWzdc175A

http://www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/pilotsafetybrochures/media/Acceleration.pdf

I am assuming the weight of the plane, fuel and passengers, full load, was about 300,000 pounds MASS.
This would give a vertical gravity force of 9,660,000 pounds force in air, for the wings to support. 32.2 ft./(sec.-sec.)
Since the official Boeing specs for runway design use pounds and kilos, this is a mass designation, not force, hence the
conversion I just showed you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(force)

Now we add the acceleration of the turn at 545 MPH in air - or 799 ft./second

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/rotq.html

alpha (angular acceleration) = [V x V]/r or v-squared divided by r, radius......

alpha = [ 799 ft./sec. x 799 ft./sec. ] / (26,400 ft. radius)

alpha = 24.18 ft. /(sec.-sec.)

So if the turn was circular, we have the two accelerations acting on the wings. I am assuming the angular acceleration acts 90 degrees to the acceleration of gravity, and will combine in a vector as such, below:

V (down ) = 32.2 ft./sec.-sec. plus > (horizontal) = 24.18 ft./sec.-sec.

These two accelerations give a vector of 40.27 ft./sec.-sec. of combined acceleration.

Multiply this by the weight in pounds MASS and you get the force on the plane's wings during the turn -

12,080,402 or rounded, 12,080,000 pounds FORCE on the aircraft wings.

The g-force on the passengers would have been about 1.25 times gravity.
If the final turn was tighter, which is what I observed from the videos, the
whole situation becomes magnified. I don't have any access to the Boeing design parameters for breakup of the 767 mid-air.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For argument, assume a 2 mile final turn radius. Lower Manhattan is about 4.5 miles wide......
[this would be around a 4 mile diameter turn, which is what is shown on the video)

Horiz. angular accel. = 60.45 ft./sec.-sec.

combined acceleration is then 68.49 ft./sec.-sec.

This gives a wing loading of 20,547,000 Pounds Force on the AIRCRAFT wings.
This turn radius produces about 2.127 g's on passengers.

It is only in this final paragraph that he tries to say something. The rest could be but isn't reasoned supporting material. It is irrelevant to this bit of "claim"

...So you have an inexperienced pilot with a box cutter, who actually had NO in-air training on a large commercial Boeing 767 aircraft, making an extremely tight MID-AIR turn while manually piloting this huge aircraft, and hitting a building of some 200 ft. horizontal measurement dead center into the side of this subject building, all under a g-force of likely 2.1 times gravity.

Which implies but does not say "That pilot couldn't have flown that path." The reality is that the pilot did fly that path - assuming he has accurately represented it. So what is his point?

That claim is false and untruthful for two reasons - or two explanations of the same reason actually. First the "generic" reason of the logical fallacy being tried on you:

1) The generic version is that it is what is known as the "Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy". Google that but put simply it means that you let the gunman shoot at something - which he does - THEN you draw the bullseye around the bullet hole and say "Wow, what a marksman shooter he is."

Then the specific details of that generic logical fallacy:

2) Translating that into this specific application. An experienced pilot did a lot of things that a trained experienced pilot would not do with a commercial flight then managed to hit the building. The implied difficulty - the lie that this "engineer" is trying to fool you with - is that no pilot would be able to replicate that path. The "lie by implication" is that is was a flight plan which the inexperience pilot could not have followed.

He didn't follow it. It wasn't written beforehand with a requirement to reproduce it. It is simply the record of what actually happened.

Now your alleged engineer friend will want to keep you discussing those details for as long as he can fool you into doing it.

The flight in reality did do a lot of manoeuvres and then hit the target. What else matters?

In fact, if you focus on what he says which is sort of a claim it is that last paragraph:

...So you have an inexperienced pilot with a box cutter, who actually had NO in-air training on a large commercial Boeing 767 aircraft, making an extremely tight MID-AIR turn while manually piloting this huge aircraft, and hitting a building of some 200 ft. horizontal measurement dead center into the side of this subject building, all under a g-force of likely 2.1 times gravity.

...to which you can legitimately respond:
"Yes!"

OR if you want him to go further say:
"Yes! So what?"

So, in brief, don't play his game. Break the game and call him on his misleading innuendoes.

Experience tells me however that he will not engage in legitimate logically reasoned discussion.. So ask yourself "Why should I waste time with this person?"

 

[MarkLindeman]

ozeco's response is excellent. One really does have to ignore the fancy footwork and focus on the "torso" -- where the argument's center of mass is going.

A few other things....

" The 767 is a low-wing cantilever monoplane with a conventional tail unit featuring a single fin and rudder. The wings are swept at 31.5 degrees and optimized for a cruising speed of Mach 0.8 (533 mph or 858 km/h). "

This reminded me of the scene in Miracle on 34th Street where the lawyer starts reading irrelevant facts about the Postal Service from a reference book. In the movie, somehow this seems to "work."

Note the Monaghan Analysis below uses a flight velocity of 545 MPH, p. 11 top 1/2.... I am going to calculate a g-force using a final turn radius of 5 miles, or 26,400 ft. at 545 MPH in air.

I think I recognize 545 MPH as an estimate of the impact speed. Unless your interlocutor can provide a good reason to treat it as the constant speed of the plane during the turn, the calculations are irrelevant. The Texas sharpshooter hit a strawman.

Note: I'm not making any assertion about the speed of the plane during the turn. I'm simply pointing out that in his eagerness to descry improbabilities or impossibilities in the "official story" from which, apparently, we are to infer... something, your interlocutor appears to be smuggling in assumptions without offering warrants. He really ought to ask himself why he is doing all that.

So you have an inexperienced pilot with a box cutter, who actually had NO in-air training on a large commercial Boeing 767 aircraft, making an extremely tight MID-AIR turn while manually piloting this huge aircraft, and hitting a building of some 200 ft. horizontal measurement dead center into the side of this subject building, all under a g-force of likely 2.1 times gravity.

As ozeco says, if the evidence supports that narrative, then it is reasonable to respond: "Yes, so what?" But even the "Yes" would be generous. The 2.1-g figure isn't well supported, and your interlocutor doesn't actually argue for its relevance. The interlocutor appears to be discussing United 175, which hardly struck "dead center." And this is a rhetorical riff packed with irrelevancies, of which my favorite three(!) are: Does a box cutter make it harder to fly a plane? Was it "a large commercial Boeing 767" as opposed to one of the small private ones? And my number one favorite rhetorical irrelevancy: "MID-AIR" as opposed to what?!

It's apparent that if there is an argument here at all, it isn't a technical argument. It's mildly interesting that your interlocutor may not realize that himself. Often I am tempted to try to fill in what someone's argument should or could have been -- which can be a useful exercise when dealing with a basically reasonable person, or if there is something else you can learn from it. I doubt that either one is true here.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

I am waiting on clarifying his argument, but in brief,

I assume that if this civil engineer (Tom McLaughlin) plans to argue that the United plane could not be flown by a completely inexperienced pilot, and therefore it was flown by remote control or taken over by remote control, and both those arguments take us outside the realm of aeronautical engineering. He will probably argue that perhaps one inexperienced pilot might get lucky and hit a building at high speed after a difficult turn, but three? (WTC1 and 2 and Pentagon).

The box cutter argument is that three guys with box cutters could not possibly take over a plane filled with adult males, and I dismiss that out of hand. I think you can argue that the only way we can know that box cutters were used is from phone calls from the planes, and if you allow that as a source of information, that same source says that the hijackers were al Qaeda.

I appreciate you taking the time to provide feedback. I was curious if his engineering argument has any merit or if he is blowing smoke there also. Clearly, we need to plane's flight path to establish anything.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

FYI, folks, the FAA's fligth path studies summaries are available here:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/index.htm

The one specific to FL77 is here:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc02.pdf

 

[Gamolon]

The box cutter argument is that three guys with box cutters could not possibly take over a plane filled with adult males, and I dismiss that out of hand.

How about box cutters accompanied with the statement "We have a bomb"?

 

[TheRedWorm]

How about box cutters accompanied with the statement "We have a bomb"?

Anyone who immediately discounts how cooperative people can be under the direct threat of physical harm knows very little about humans.

 

[ozeco41]

...I assume that if this civil engineer (Tom McLaughlin) plans to argue that the United plane could not be flown by a completely inexperienced pilot, and therefore it was flown by remote control or taken over by remote control, and both those arguments take us outside the realm of aeronautical engineering...

Why "assume" - If he is not prepared to put his case why are you trying to guess his claim and respond to it before he makes it? Wait till he makes it otherwise you are playing his game and it is trickery.

...He will probably argue that perhaps one inexperienced pilot might get lucky and hit a building at high speed after a difficult turn, but three? (WTC1 and 2 and Pentagon)...

Then read what I said about the "Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy". Read it again, look up some other explanations vis Google, and think about it till you get the point. It is the central dishonesty of his claim which he seems to be heading towards.

... I was curious if his engineering argument has any merit or if he is blowing smoke there also...

What argument Frank? He has not made an argument. IF he makes one you can consider responding but he isn't making one. That is the core of the truther trickery - post a lot of technical looking crap which leads nowhere... Then get you responding to inferences/innuendoes.

Look at any of the trolls who dominate this forum from the alleged "truther" side. They are not truthers with an interest in either finding out truth OR persuading us that what they say is true. They are no more that irritation posting trolls. That classification is true whether or not they do it from lack of reasoning skills OR lying OR - more likely - a mixture of the two. Debate with such people will not go anywhere. And that is their main aim. So why play their game?

We fall for their game every time we respond to unstated, unclear or ambiguous goals backed by faulty logic. An that is what your "engineer" is trying with you.

...Clearly, we need to plane's flight path to establish anything.

That is simply wrong - you are coming at it the wrong way around. Ask "What is it that I am trying to to establish?" You cannot say "Clearly, we need to plane's flight path to establish anything..." when you don't know what you are trying to establish. When you know what you are (or he is) trying to "establish" THEN and only then ask "What evidence do I need to establish it?" and move on from there. And defining actual flight path data more precisely will not help you establish "therefore it was flown by remote control or taken over by remote control" BECAUSE it relies on the "Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy."

Don't fall for his trickery.

 

[Spanx]

I'm not sure if this is off topic ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKa9ILqgtS4&feature=youtube

This is a flight I have taken on a number of occasions, it's fun. Quite often the valley is full of fog and you get detoured.

 

[George 152]

I'
So you have an inexperienced pilot with a box cutter, who actually had NO in-air training on a large commercial Boeing 767 aircraft, making an extremely tight MID-AIR turn while manually piloting this huge aircraft,
and hitting a building of some 200 ft. horizontal measurement dead center into the side of this subject building, all under a g-force of likely 2.1 times gravity.

A lot of assuming done, fancy figures and formulae to look impressive and all nonsense based.
The 'tight' turn wasn't.
And manually flying a large Boeing is easier than flying a lot of light training aircraft.
The 'inexperienced' pilot had a US issued Commercial Pilots License so he had something like 2-300 hours as Pilot in Command (solo) flight time.
And what's so magical about pulling 2G ?
In a steep turn 4G is usual and for aeros its open ended.
As for 'hitting' a building it wasn't dead center, watch the video.

 

[ozeco41]

ozeco's response is excellent. One really does have to ignore the fancy footwork and focus on the "torso" -- where the argument's center of mass is going...

Plus the prevailing habit on this forum of enjoying the technical details - which makes many of us willing accomplices in the truther/trolls tactics.

...As ozeco says, if the evidence supports that narrative, then it is reasonable to respond: "Yes, so what?" But even the "Yes" would be generous. The 2.1-g figure isn't well supported, and your interlocutor doesn't actually argue for its relevance. The interlocutor appears to be discussing United 175, which hardly struck "dead center." And this is a rhetorical riff packed with irrelevancies, of which my favorite three(!) are: Does a box cutter make it harder to fly a plane? Was it "a large commercial Boeing 767" as opposed to one of the small private ones? And my number one favorite rhetorical irrelevancy: "MID-AIR" as opposed to what?!...

Agreed - the list of "boiler plate irrelevancies" would be very long.

...It's apparent that if there is an argument here at all, it isn't a technical argument. It's mildly interesting that your interlocutor may not realize that himself. Often I am tempted to try to fill in what someone's argument should or could have been -- which can be a useful exercise when dealing with a basically reasonable person, or if there is something else you can learn from it. I doubt that either one is true here.

Several issues there Mark - each worthy of discussion BUT there would be little interest because they are not technical details.

Biggest one to my mind is "...your interlocutor may not realize that himself..." - by definition we cannot see our own blind spots -- the blind spot in this case being the limits of each persons reasoning skills where each person cannot see his own. So if the other persons limit is below your own you can see it. If he is better than you you may sense it but cannot see how much or how far he is better. And that leads us further off topic to a theme I have raised several times and, to date, no one has taken me up on it. Simply put - most truthers posts show that they cannot reason to the level of complexity required by 9/11 events. That much easy to see (if not beyond your blind spot level ) However the key step in my hypothesis is that people who cannot reason adequately are pre-disposed to become truthers. i.e. reverse the causality. It is not that they are truthers and therefore cannot think. Rather they cannot think therefore they became truthers. (and all of that is "mostly" - not a global claim for anyone who wants to raise the exceptions to prove me wrong. )

So this sequence of posts reminds me of two sayings:
The first one about alligators and swamps;
The second one about horses and water.


And I will leave the discussion there because everyone wants to discuss the details.

...even though they are irrelevant in light of the TS Fallacy...

 

[davefoc]

...

Biggest one to my mind is "...your interlocutor may not realize that himself..." - by definition we cannot see our own blind spots -- the blind spot in this case being the limits of each persons reasoning skills where each person cannot see his own. So if the other persons limit is below your own you can see it. If he is better than you you may sense it but cannot see how much or how far he is better. And that leads us further off topic to a theme I have raised several times and, to date, no one has taken me up on it. Simply put - most truthers posts show that they cannot reason to the level of complexity required by 9/11 events. That much easy to see (if not beyond your blind spot level ) However the key step in my hypothesis is that people who cannot reason adequately are pre-disposed to become truthers. i.e. reverse the causality. It is not that they are truthers and therefore cannot think. Rather they cannot think therefore they became truthers. (and all of that is "mostly" - not a global claim for anyone who wants to raise the exceptions to prove me wrong. )
...

Your post resonated with me. How we come to believe what we believe and how open we are to change beliefs in the light of new information is something that I have thought quite a bit about, but I don't have anything useful to say about it beyond your observation that we have a hard time viewing our own belief forming process objectively. I will say that the skeptics in this forum appear to me to be more willing to challenge their own views and less willing to form beliefs strongly influenced by biases than the population at large, but it also appears to me that skeptics aren't quite as different as we think we are with regard to that. A lot of the discussions around here suggest to me that the same kind of belief drivers that influence the general population are also in play with the skeptics that participate in this forum.

As to the truther thing specifically, I wonder exactly what to make of the reasoning capability of a truther advocate. Do they just have a limited ability to reason on a specific issue or is it something that affects their whole interface with the world in general?

rank3373 mentioned a civil engineer his interaction with a civil engineer that was a truther. Speaking as an ex engineer it surprises me that any engineer that could function reasonably well in his profession would hold such a nonsensical view. How is it possible to have such a glaring inability to reason in one area workout in a profession where reasoning ability is a requirement for doing your job?

 

[ozeco41]

Your post resonated with me. How we come to believe what we believe and how open we are to change beliefs in the light of new information is something that I have thought quite a bit about, but I don't have anything useful to say about it beyond your observation that we have a hard time viewing our own belief forming process objectively. I will say that the skeptics in this forum appear to me to be more willing to challenge their own views and less willing to form beliefs strongly influenced by biases than the population at large, but it also appears to me that skeptics aren't quite as different as we think we are with regard to that. A lot of the discussions around here suggest to me that the same kind of belief drivers that influence the general population are also in play with the skeptics that participate in this forum...

That's broadly my view also.

...As to the truther thing specifically, I wonder exactly what to make of the reasoning capability of a truther advocate. Do they just have a limited ability to reason on a specific issue or is it something that affects their whole interface with the world in general?....

I suggest it is broader than 9/11 truth. Won't derail this thread too much but one way off separating reasoning processes is into "convergent" and "divergent". Analysing a multi-facet event to come to reasoned conclusions requires a "converging" process where each element can be assessed for both relevance and significance and either discarded or put into a logical relationship - the process continuing until a fully reasoned coherent framework of logic is formed - an "hypothesis" if you like that term - and all the details converging to support the outcome.

Diverging thinkers cannot do that. Every element stands alone - and the more they look at the detail as a divergent thinker the more complex it becomes.

The clearest example I saw was when I was an engineering manager managing subordinate engineers. I was frustrated by one man's inability to decide "Yes" or "No" to a range of about 100 issues. I sent him away to take the list and mark them with a green pencil for "Yes" and a Red pencil for "No" - bring the list back to me the next day. Two days later no list so I asked him when it was coming. His response was "It is more complicated than that Eric, there are many more colours of pencils - not just red and green". I kid not and I've not simplified the example much for brevity here. Now relate that to what you see the truther trolls doing routinely on this forum. the (nearly always) pick a single aspect anomaly which they cannot put into a framework THEN demand that we prove that it wasn't CD - leaving us to accept reversed burden of proof for proving a negative which requires US to put it into a coherent context THEN prove it wrong..... It is not surprising that most of us take the easy way out and prove the detail wrong -- even tho that plays the truthers game and leaves it open for the truther to either shift the goalposts or move on to another anomaly.

Can you recall many, or any, examples of a truther on this forum putting his single element anomaly into a coherent hypothesis? There may be isolated examples but the preponderance is that they do not. I suggest cannot - because of limited reasoning skill. Divergent thinking being the example I see most often. (Together with a swathe of logical fallacies...but I digress... )

...[F]rank3373 mentioned a civil engineer his interaction with a civil engineer that was a truther. Speaking as an ex engineer it surprises me that any engineer that could function reasonably well in his profession would hold such a nonsensical view. How is it possible to have such a glaring inability to reason in one area workout in a profession where reasoning ability is a requirement for doing your job?

Most engineers work in repeated application of pre-determined methods. Fill in the numbers and join the dots. Even my example engineer could make a productive effort if given a well defined routine job.

In my experience - mostly Public Utilities infrastructure design/construct/operate - at best 10% are truly innovative when confronted by a totally out of their experience event. And WTC Collapse was 'out of experience' for most of us.

There is a quantum leap up from routine by the book application to solving the dynamics of WTC collapse. I'll leave it there - remember that on the debunker side most of us are following the work of others who are more expert. Very few little bits of original thinking.

 

[ergo]

As you can see, Frank3373, you're not going to get any satisfying logical answers here, but no one faults you for thinking that you could.

Ozeco41 spends his entire time avoiding technical arguments because he cannot engage them with any level of credibility. Look at how many words he's typed today not answering your question! His sole tactic is to invent his own "Emperor's" logic, which states that something is because it is, or something isn't because it isn't. For example, "There was no CD because there was no CD". He has stated this on several occasions. It's, of course, an Alice in Wonderland style of logic. In fact, it isn't logic at all, because the premise and the conclusion are the same statement. So coming here to try and get logical arguments from people (people who actually call themselves skeptics and "debunkers" ) is futile. But I'm glad you have discovered this now. Anyone reading these threads also discovers this rather quickly.

It's Alice in Wonderland here. There is no possibility of engaging logic here, at least not long enough to actually reach a rational conclusion. We've tried many times.

 

[MarkLindeman]

I'm too sleepy to riff effectively on all this -- and maybe it's a derail anyway -- but a few thoughts in response to davefoc and, less directly, ozeco.

...I will say that the skeptics in this forum appear to me to be more willing to challenge their own views and less willing to form beliefs strongly influenced by biases than the population at large, but it also appears to me that skeptics aren't quite as different as we think we are with regard to that. A lot of the discussions around here suggest to me that the same kind of belief drivers that influence the general population are also in play with the skeptics that participate in this forum.

I'm not sure specifically what you have in mind, but it seems to me that skepticism is an additional element in someone's cognitive repertoire -- not an exemption from the other elements. So, absolutely the same belief drivers that influence the general population are in play with skeptics.

So, I somewhat disagree (I think) with ozeco: although certainly some conspiracists don't seem able to reason their way out of a bag, I don't think that trutherism or conspiracism generally stems from an absolute inability to reason in a particular way. I think that the human mind tends to "fill in" holes in our reasoning much as it fills in holes in our visual field. Seeing those holes takes practice, and is never automatic no matter how much practice we have. Whatever beliefs we are predisposed to, for whatever reasons, by default we tend not to challenge those beliefs.

That said, it's striking when people's response to "what is your alternative hypothesis?" doesn't go beyond "I am just asking questions" or "we should investigate, not speculate" or some other avowal that attempting to explain the events under discussion is not a proper use of reason. I imagine that sometimes, but not always, that is spurred by some cognitive inability.

 

[ozeco41]

...So, I somewhat disagree (I think) with ozeco: although certainly some conspiracists don't seem able to reason their way out of a bag,...

We are probably not in disagreement - merely lacking a comprehensive explanation because I'm trying to comment without substantially derailing this thread. And I suggest that those truthers or trolls we see here and who can reason to some degree don't get the "bag" big enough. At best they address one small part of the necessary context. Examples galore in some of the technical discussions I have joined or observed.

... I don't think that trutherism or conspiracism generally stems from an absolute inability to reason in a particular way.

Sure. I was not referring to "trutherism" as a set of shared and genuine concerns about the events of 9/11 - especially the political decision making aspects. I think there are few genuine truthers around these forums these days. And a lot of them following AE911Truth as a prime example. They base their claims about what could well be genuine political concerns on the nonsense foundation of false technical claims such as CD at WTC. That was a loser strategy from day one. The technical claims so easy to rebut for anyone who is honest. And has appropriate reasoning skills. My focus was primarily on those who try to explain those claims in the technical arena. So a distinct subset of the whole of "trutherism" but the dominant proportion of what we see here.

Then we have the tactical error which ergo just made. viz in trying to address a higher level argument (mine) he shows he can lift his reasoning level with a rare example of "meta-level trolling". But he fails because his effort has two outcomes:

1) He shows that his intellectual level is higher than he usually displays thereby further undermining his credibility (if he has any) with those of us who can see through him; AND
2) He failed to get high enough to rebut my claims because he avoided addressing them.

Tactical error. Don't play the card unless it is going to win.

(And he would have known that it was a forlorn hope trying to get me to "bite" )

......That said, it's striking when people's response to "what is your alternative hypothesis?" doesn't go beyond "I am just asking questions" or "we should investigate, not speculate" or some other avowal that attempting to explain the events under discussion is not a proper use of reason. I imagine that sometimes, but not always, that is spurred by some cognitive inability.

I think that we are qualitatively on similar tracks.. It would be the topic for a separate thread is we wanted to pursue any quantification estimates.

MEANWHILE:

Directly on the topic. Has there ever been a "...detailed scientific paper...for...controlled demolition" which passed the standard of "prima facie" or a claim worthy of a response?

And linking my comments. How many truther side pro CD papers lack the coherent hypothesis which I have been referring to? All of them that I am aware of.

So I will make it easier - point me to one example of a Pro CD Claim which has a coherent hypothesis.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

Ergo,

I got curious about this "1700" number the Truther's pass around. Every other group (Citizens Against Capital Punishment/Sierra Club/NRA) measures their membership by either (1) an independent audit or (2) a paid membership requirement, but not Truthers. I was curious if the list was even half way valid.

So I had somebody obtain a list of "1700" email addresses, and I began writing people on the list seeking to determine if they really supported those ideas and if so, why. Most of the people on the list I contacted did not respond, but one civil engineer did.

My main point to him was that there is a complete absence of anyone in the Truther Movement writing down the technical details of what they think and then having those details verified by an independent team, company or organization of experts of one's choice. This is the basis of adult discussion. What I get instead are papers written by unqualified people that are not independently reviewed. The Truthers send you the unreviewed paper and then want to engage in a technical engineering debate---a useless way to reason if there ever was one.

This civil engineer, Tom McLaughlin, and another individual, Rick Shaddock, pointed me to youtube videos and websites. Of course, anyone can turn on a camera and say anything---what is the point of that? What I want is evidence that can be evaluated.

McLaughlin pointed me toward a group of pilots, a few claiming to be formerly commercial, who state that inexperienced pilots could not hit the WTC buildings. I challenged him to provide some data to back up the claim instead of ad hoc comments. It does appear that every Truther argument is an ad hoc comment. There is, for example, the claim that steel can't travel 600 feet off a collapsing 110 story building without explosives. You would think somebody would get that verified or at least write down the calculations. Nope. They just make the claim.

So this guy, Tom McLaughlin, worked out the figures I have posted here to make his engineering claim amateurs could not have flown the planes. His presumption--I would think--is that the planes were taken over by remote control by the US government. I'm still waiting on him to explain his theory.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

A lot of assuming done, fancy figures and formulae to look impressive and all nonsense based.
The 'inexperienced' pilot had a US issued Commercial Pilots License so he had something like 2-300 hours as Pilot in Command (solo) flight time.

I thought these guys attended flight school for a few weeks in the US, but had never actually flown.

2g is normal for a turn in a plane?

 

[ozeco41]

...There is, for example, the claim that steel can't travel 600 feet off a collapsing 110 story building without explosives. You would think somebody would get that verified or at least write down the calculations. Nope. They just make the claim...

Frank the best work I am aware of on this issue has been done by Major_Tom and posted on the 911Forum. Try this link:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/wtc2-perimeter-action-recorded-t167-150.html

Be aware that Major_Tom has been branded as a "truther" on this forum and my recommending of his work will not find favour with many members here.

The outer columns peeled off in sheets - some of them 1/3 the tower height so over 300 feet - and an outflier from those sheets could easily go to 4-5-600 feet. It is no mystery. And that is probably the main reason that no-one on the official or debunker sides has bothered with the issue. It is no mystery.

So they are claiming use of explosives. Hogwash. The reality is that it is is well nigh impossible to throw big bits of steel that far using explosives. It would require a specially constructed blast containment device for each piece which was thrown that sort of distance. Either as a form of "gun" or as a form of "rocket motor". The idea of explosives throwing steel in the setting of WTC 9/11 collapses is nonsense. Particularly when you ask "how could it be hidden?", "Why do it?" etc - remembering that it could not be the accidental by product of use of explosives for cutting steel. Different types of explosives. And those engineers should know better than that.

Meanwhile the actual peel off mechanism has been researched in detail by Major_Tom et al. See at the above quoted link.

 

[Oystein]

deleted - wrong place

 

[Reactor drone]

I thought these guys attended flight school for a few weeks in the US, but had never actually flown.

2g is normal for a turn in a plane?

2 g is well within the structural limits of the airframe but it's a little higher than you'd normally go to maintain passenger comfort. Passenger comfort was not high on the terrorist's list of priorities.