Need help with evidence of Official Claim

[Beleth]

Building 7. If you watch 9 or 10 videos of what a controlled demolition looks like, you can't with a straight face say that building 7 doesn't at least look like a controlled demolition.

So what you're saying is:
P1) Controlled demolitions look a certain way.
P2) WTC7 looked like controlled demolitions do.
C) Therefore WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

This is a logical fallacy known as "affirming the consequent". Its basic form is
P1) If A, then B.
P2) B.
C) Therefore A.

For a more obvious example of why this doesn't work:
P1) Snow falling means that there are clouds in the sky.
P2) There are clouds in the sky.
C) Therefore it is snowing.

Another way of looking at it is that it's not enough that it look like a controlled demolition. It has to also not look like a not-controlled demolition.

If all office buildings of that general size, shape, and construction fall down the same way, CD or not, then one cannot determine from watching a building fall whether it was a CD or not.

 

[Gravy]

Kooger, we value rational thought and direct expression here. Your question in the OP has been answered. If you seek further discussion, start a new thread, state your claims (if you have any), and support them with evidence.

Fair enough?

 

[Gravy]

If I'm doing an investigation, and I watch the building fall, would I see the quibs and say "oh thats nothing, maybe compressed air, don't worry"? No, wouldn't anyone say"hey, people heard explosions, and there are LARGE bursts coming out the sides of the building, maybe we should ACCOUNT for them.

But no, if I raise that question, I must be stupid.

Actually, I just don't see how it could be compressed air, a diagram would help. And I'm not saying you have to draw one, but if someone has, you could point me to a website that accurately details how it could be possible. Jeeez.

Do you accept my "squib" challenge above? Yes or no?

 

[The Kooger]

Here is my challenge to you. You know the big "squib" coming from the north side of the north tower, a few floors below the collapse zone? The one that's prominently featured in Loose Change?

Measure that "squib's" speed, as accurately as you can. An average speed is fine, but I'd like you to also note if you detect the plume accelerating or decelerating from the time you first see it. A rough measurement is fine. Report your results. I have made this calculation. I will compare notes with you.

Agreed? Proceed.

I'm done for tonight, you people are overwhelming.

As for Gravy, I'll agree to that. I will attempt to make an accurate diagram of the squibs. I will need some time to do it right. I do have a life.

Thanks again.

 

[beachnut]

Well, I don't think its fair to compare the WTC buildings with structures that weren't properly built or inspected.

I know this is not exactly fair but the energy of the impact, 175 for sure, had enough energy to cut all the steel columns in the WTC.

So after the impact I would call the WTC not properly built any more.

Just BS since it is much more complicated than I can handle in a few months.

But kind of fair after impact. BS Friday special.

 

[beachnut]

I'm done for tonight, you people are overwhelming.

As for Gravy, I'll agree to that. I will attempt to make an accurate diagram of the squibs. I will need some time to do it right. I do have a life.

Thanks again.

as do most

do not feel guilty posting on Friday, and we expect you do have a life.

but some type too fast to waste time.

 

[Gravy]

I'm done for tonight, you people are overwhelming.

As for Gravy, I'll agree to that. I will attempt to make an accurate diagram of the squibs. I will need some time to do it right. I do have a life.

Thanks again.

Thanks. To be clear, I didn't mean this in a win/lose sense. It's about learning. I have made this calculation, very roughly. It's very easy to do, because the plume is so large and is almost in profile in videos shot from the east. Even if your calculations are off by 100% either way, I think the results will be illuminating. I made the challenge because I don't know anyone else who has tried to put numbers to this phenomenon, and I'm interested to see what you come up with.

 

[kookbreaker]

And you laugh at me. Ha.

Wow, heres how you see it.
Planes hit.
Fire got hot.
Buildings fell.

Oversimplified, but yes I do see it that way. As do the vast, vast majority of the world's Structural Engineers, Civil Engineers, Mechanical Engineers, Fire Safety Engineers, Fire experts, Architects, Demolition experts, and many other relevant fields.

Sorry, I don't see it like that.

Well, then you better present something more than a 'squib' appearing *after* the building is falling, contrary to every 'squib' appearing in genuine CD.

If I'm doing an investigation, and I watch the building fall, would I see the quibs and say "oh thats nothing, maybe compressed air, don't worry"?

Considering that there is no viable alternative, and that compression is an expected effect.

No, wouldn't anyone say"hey, people heard explosions,

Which is entirely expected in any fire, and has been covered multiple times here and elsewhere.

and there are LARGE bursts coming out the sides of the building,

All of which happen after the building is collapsing, and follow no pattern that CD 'squibs' follow.

maybe we should ACCOUNT for them.

In what way? What diagram is going to help you?

But no, if I raise that question, I must be stupid.

Because raising the question means that you are claiming to be more knowledgeable than most of the experts in the world, and that you have failed to think the question through properly. It is one thing to think up the question, it is another to manage to avoid the real answer in favor of a fantastic but false one.

Actually, I just don't see how it could be compressed air, a diagram would help. And I'm not saying you have to draw one, but if someone has, you could point me to a website that accurately details how it could be possible. Jeeez.

What do you not understand?

1) That buildings are mostly air?
2) That a building like the WTC has very few points where the air can escape?
3) That a large mass falling on that air is going to compress it?
4) That gases can compress
5) That compressing gasses can exert strong forces
6) That those forces need to go somewhere?
7) That a weak point, such a single window not as strongly attached as its neighbors, is where the forces are going to win out?

Seriously, what basic physics knowledge is it that you are missing?

 

[Gravy]

I know this is not exactly fair but the energy of the impact, 175 for sure, had enough energy to cut all the steel columns in the WTC.

So after the impact I would call the WTC not properly built any more.

Just BS since it is much more complicated than I can handle in a few months.

But kind of fair after impact. BS Friday special.

You're right: the towers were collapsing from the moment they were hit and the fires began. But the claim was that the Cairo building fell from fire alone, as if it was a perfectly sound building to begin with, and I don't think that's accurate. It probably fell because the fire was acting on a building that was drastically not up to code. The WTC buildings were also not up to code after they were hit, but there's no way to make an accurate comparison between the two incidents.

 

[beachnut]

You're right: the towers were collapsing from the moment they were hit and the fires began. But the claim was that the Cairo building fell from fire alone, as if it was a perfectly sound building to begin with, and I don't think that's accurate. It probably fell because the fire was acting on a building that was drastically not up to code. The WTC buildings were also not up to code after they were hit, but there's no way to make an accurate comparison between the two incidents.

True.

Squib. I always wanted to time the air vs explosion. It takes sometime to get the video and frame rate you need to do estimates.

I will try it one day and check to see what you have.

I was too busy looking at JDX junk. I think he has decoded some of the other data on the FDR. I am afraid if it does not support his ideas it will die. But it is another thread.

I must lay off the new guy; but they always come in so innocent and then go too smart for everyone. (time for wine - Merlot - PST is nice.)

 

[Gravy]

Oversimplified, but yes I do see it that way. As do the vast, vast majority of the world's Structural Engineers, Civil Engineers, Mechanical Engineers, Fire Safety Engineers, Fire experts, Architects, Demolition experts, and many other relevant fields.

Well, then you better present something more than a 'squib' appearing *after* the building is falling, contrary to every 'squib' appearing in genuine CD.

Considering that there is no viable alternative, and that compression is an expected effect.

Which is entirely expected in any fire, and has been covered multiple times here and elsewhere.

All of which happen after the building is collapsing, and follow no pattern that CD 'squibs' follow.

In what way? What diagram is going to help you?

Because raising the question means that you are claiming to be more knowledgeable than most of the experts in the world, and that you have failed to think the question through properly. It is one thing to think up the question, it is another to manage to avoid the real answer in favor of a fantastic but false one.

What do you not understand?

1) That buildings are mostly air?
2) That a building like the WTC has very few points where the air can escape?
3) That a large mass falling on that air is going to compress it?
4) That gases can compress
5) That compressing gasses can exert strong forces
6) That those forces need to go somewhere?
7) That a weak point, such a single window not as strongly attached as its neighbors, is where the forces are going to win out?

Seriously, what basic physics knowledge is it that you are missing?

It's important to note also that the air pressure was not acting on an intact structure below. Many windows below the impact zones were broken or entirely missing after the aircraft impacts. Here's a brief comment from a woman on the 83rd floor of the north tower, more than 10 floors below the impact zone:

"The window has blown…broken, it’s um, it’s in pieces now."

(Phone call to PAPD WTC Ch. 10 Police Desk 3541-Right)

 

[uk_dave]

What does a controlled demolition look like?

1. Well, internally the building would have been prepped by the removal of cladding from around the structural members to expose them to the demolition charges.

No witnesses reported seeing any prep work within wtc7

2. There are large lengths of detonation cord running through the building, linking the cutting charges together and to the control point.

No witnesses reported seeing lots of detonation cord within wtc7

3. During the actual demolition the explosives are detonated in very quick sequence, allowing for weakenng of some parts of the structure before other parts, and then weakening those parts as the building falls. This results in hearing explosive sounds like rapid gunfire, rather than isolated, singular explosive noises.

No witnesses reported hearing any rapid gunfire like sounds during the collapse of wtc7

4. Visually, bright flashes are normally observed from within the building, and along the exterior fabric of the building, as the demolition charges are detonated.

No witnesses reported seeing a large number of sequencial bright flashes to accompany the sounds of explosives, along the external fabric of wtc7

5. By causing structural damage to many structural elements of a building, the controlled demolition causese gravity to overcome the building's ability to stay standing, and the weight of the individual structural elements and assemblies, results in those elements taking the fastest route down to the ground, i.e. straight down.

wtc7 did collapse straight down.

So, just one out of the above five descriptions of controlled demolition could be said to apply to wtc7, and even that one description can be explained by considering structural damage caused to wtc7 from the collapse of the wtc tower.

Can someone please remind me what it was about the wtc7 collapse which makes the woowoos so certain that it could only have been a controlled demolition?

 

[kookbreaker]

Can someone please remind me what it was about the wtc7 collapse which makes the woowoos so certain that it could only have been a controlled demolition?

Knight: How do you know she is a Witch?

Peasant: She looks like one!

Mob: Yeah!

 

[ConspiRaider]

Wow, heres how you see it.
Planes hit.
Fire got hot.
Buildings fell.

Sorry, I don't see it like that.

If I'm doing an investigation, and I watch the building fall, would I see the quibs and say "oh thats nothing, maybe compressed air, don't worry"? No, wouldn't anyone say"hey, people heard explosions, and there are LARGE bursts coming out the sides of the building, maybe we should ACCOUNT for them.

But no, if I raise that question, I must be stupid.

Actually, I just don't see how it could be compressed air, a diagram would help. And I'm not saying you have to draw one, but if someone has, you could point me to a website that accurately details how it could be possible. Jeeez.

You miss what every twoofer misses, every time: It is no one's duty here to prove anything. Since you reject the official explanations for the 9/11 events, it is your duty, and yours alone, to provide alternative answers that can weather point-blank scientific scrutiny. Logical scrutiny. Probability and feasibility evaluation.

Raising questions is something you only do to yourself, while you are conducting your research and investigation. The data is out there, by the canyon-full. Some of it is even here at JREF, or referenced by JREFers, which you can review by employing the Search capability.

The "squibs". You need to stop referring to them as such. That will color your attempt to remain objective during your research. By calling them "squibs", you are implying the detonation of preplaced charges. That has, to date, been proven by no one.

For you to go up against the accrued evidence of the so-called "official theory" and be taken seriously, provide answers. Not questions. Anyone can ask a question. Here's mine:

Why has the U.S. Government still not proven, to my satisfaction, that an invisibility-cloaked, fire-breathing Godzilla-sized creature was NOT responsible for the destruction of the 4 airliners, the WTC complex, and a portion of the Pentagon?

 

[PerryLogan]

Real engineers on 9/11

Yo, Kooger. How about some real engineers?

A quick Google search can put you in touch with hundreds of engineers analyzing the government's cover story. If I did it, so can you.

It turns out engineers all over the world have been discussing the fall of the towers, ever since the get-go. Who woulda thought they'd take notice?

Each one of these experts backs up the cover story. You need to contact all of these people and explain to them they're dumb. Knock yourself out:

[SIZE=-1]Where can I find engineering studies concerning the World Trade Center that refute the claims that it was demolished by bombs or "controlled demolition?"
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_execsum.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Structural_Fire_Response_and_Collapse_Analysis.pdf
http://www.firehouse.com/news/2002/4/30_APwtc.html

Where can I find engineering studies that offer evidence that structural steel from the World Trade Center was collected for analysis?
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery.htm#recover
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery2.htm
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Structural_Fire_Response_and_Collapse_Analysis.pdf
http://members.fortunecity.com/911/wtc/WTC_apndxD.htm

Where can I find evidence that refutes the claim that World Trade Center Building 7 was "pulled" down intentionally by some official order?
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

Where can I find engineering studies concerning the Pentagon that refute the claims that it was hit by a guided missile?
http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/pentagon.php
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase1/
http://www.asce.org/responds/

More information:
http://architecture.about.com/library/weekly/aawtc-collapse.htm
http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/wtc.php
http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/structure.php
http://enr.construction.com/news/buildings/archives/021104.asp
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/
http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/Fire.html
http://www.asce.org/pdf/3-6-02wtc_testimony.pdf
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php#why
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/resources.html
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/
[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]More links to real engineers refuting conspiracy theorists:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php
http://space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/wtc_science_010919.html
http://www.teachersdomain.org/6-8/sci/engin/systems/collapse/
http://mcleon.tripod.com/WTC1.htm
http://www.hera.org.nz/PDF Files/World Trade Centre.pdf
[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]YET MORE:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1540044.stm
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/news/wtc/wtc.html
http://www.newhaven.edu/show.asp?durki=1185
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/aibs_2002_wtc.pdf
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-12/su-sed120301.php
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2001/december5/wtc-125.html

An article from the Journal of Engineering Mechanics:
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JENMDT000128000001000002000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes

Here's a colloquium of engineers discussing the fall of the WTC towers. They're all too dumb to see the bombs:
http://mae.ce.uiuc.edu/Outreach/Conferences/wtc.htm

A collection of essays by researchers at MIT:
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/

A bibliography of analyses of the collapse:
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/wtc/wtctragedy.html#Analysis%20of%20Collapse

Architecture Week on the engineering forensics of the collapse:
http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1017/news_1-2.html
[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Oh, what the heck. Here's some more...

On WTC7:
http://www.americanlaboratory.com/articles/al/a0212mar.pdf
http://www.rit.edu/~smo5024/papers/wtc/
http://212.204.44.125/WTC/wtc----the-construction/great_buildings_wtc/WTC_GBO.htm
http://www.architectureweek.com/2002/0515/news_1-1.html
http://southerncrossreview.org/41/9-11.htm
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/ncst/Final NCSTAC 2004 Report to Congress.pdf
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/wtc/wtctragedy.html
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/report/news/december5/wtc-125.html
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/011119fa_FACT
http://www.ncsea.com/articles/seerp/wtcseerp.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline02/0502feat.html
http://mceer.buffalo.edu/publications/wtc/02-SP08/default.asp

In this article, the author, Anne Elizabeth Powell, describes in detail how civil engineers quickly mobilized and led the efforts to evaluate not only the performance of the structures involved in the two assaults but also the vulnerability of the nation's infrastructure to future attacks in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon:
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline01/0111feat.html

This Web site provides a summary of seismic observations, including seismogram traces of the two impacts and three collapses at the WTC (including those of the twin towers as well as that of the adjacent building, WTC-7):
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html

This report presents results of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) remote sensing data and interpretations that mapped the distribution and intensity of thermal hot spots in the WTC area on September 16 and 23:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0405/ofr-01-0405.html[/SIZE]

 

[The Doc]

Awesome post Perry

*Bookmark*

 

[WildCat]

So Kooger, what do you think happened to this modern steel-reinforced concrete building? Built in 1990, reduced to rubble in 1995 killing 501 people.

http://encyclopedia.quickseek.com/images/Sampoong.jpg

Hint: It was not hit by a plane, nor was it even on fire!

 

[WildCat]

Wrong thread...

 

[tmskeptic]

9/11 Denial post of the day

Maybe The Kooger would like this post:

Things we should agree on (Updated 08:32 gmt 10/7 after comments)

Submitted by Coffinman on Sat, 2007-02-10 04:56.

I have made a list of some points that I feel are beyond doubt, and that most of us should agree on.

All of the main points should be regarded separately.

1. No airliner struck either tower.
1a. We were shown fake video as live news, and as gathered news, including interviews with fake eyewitnesses.
1b. News anchors presented the lie with scripted commentary.
1c. The news can not be trusted at any time.
1d. All "amateur videos" of the 2nd hit are fakes.
1e. All eyewitnesses to planes hitting towers are either fictitious, mistaken, or deluded through the influence of the tv saturation of the false video. There is an added possibility of visual trickery being used, with a large plane flying for people to see.

continued at: 911researcherscomnode196

 

[dan from PA]

...the argument that a controled demo would require miles of detonate cord and obvious exposed beams is weak...a handfull (10-20) of people could have rigged those buildings to come down with the correct types of remotely ignited charges in strategic places in less than a work day, the base being the most critical, where a coupla' loaded vehicles could have been parked and set off to create the damage we seen at the bottom, alot of energy there for sure...
...if someone does not believe what he is told to believe, I don't think it makes him a kook or a nut to want to talk about, research and explore an issue 'till he or she is satisfied...
...as far as 'quote mining' and picking apart/including/excluding evidence to suit your goal/end result, I'd say the 911 Commision Report is a very good example of that...