Tricky Ways To Pull Down A Skyscraper

[JSanderO]

David,
9/11 was a complex event. It involved the issue of the planes, ie what were they? were they hijacked? were they drones, and it gets into some pretty intense speculation of possibilities. The mind boggles.

The main claim of the truth movement from AE911T the blue ribbon lead group in the truth movement was that the wtc was destroyed by controlled demolition.

That claim is unsupported by evidence. Many researchers have offered models which attempt to demonstrate how the collapses could have happened or aspects of parts of the progression of the collapse such as ROOSD, RICC and TTF without the need for placed CD devices and accounted for and matched all observed building movements and witness testimony. These models may have the details wrong, thje sequence of failures wrong, even the location where the initiation was, but the main inputs remain correct - heat and mechanical damage was what destroyed the towers.

Why don't you get AE911T and it's sycophants to stop blowing CD smoke and mirrors asking for a new investigation into the collapse of the towers. Why don't you call out the BSers in the truth movement about the collapse of the world trade center... and there are many... Praeger, Fetzer, Woods, Hoffman, Harrit, Jones...Szamboti for attempting to deceive the public?

There is legitimate research and study to be done to further our understanding of how those buildings collapsed... This may unfortunately be limited by the absence of data... but it doesn't prevent various models of the destructions from being proposed or considered.. or aspects of them. Unlike the CD black box explanation, most researchers understand that the collapses were very complex and involved multiple processes progressing rapidly eventually involving total structural failure.

Mistakes are fine. Everyone makes them. Clever people learn from their mistakes and admit them. Arrogant, stubborn (egotistical and stupid) ones don't. They refuse to admit when they are wrong and in this case retreat from the scene and give up their revenue streams from promoting myths and falsehoods. All of which is a distraction and a waste of energy from working toward improving society...because we all know there are plenty of areas which need real attention.

This BS has gone on way too long. Intellectual debate and discussion are fine. This nonsense is well beyond that. AE911t raises north of $500K to propagate its myths and falsehoods all the while claiming it is about the truth.

That's not only wrong. It's a disgrace by now.

 

[david.watts]

My next point was this claim:
Do you comprehend "hypothesis" AND do you agree that those facts lead to that hypothesis?

My next point was:you have not presented a single fact. You change track from CD and present these speculations.

The question you ask in the middle of all that is:
My answer remains - yes I will reconsider once you come up with some factual evidence which legitimately modifies the hypothesis I have put forward.

Yes I do comprehend "hypothesis" and yes those facts do lead to that hypothesis.
For the sake of argument, I will agree there is no factual evidence. However -- getting back to WTC7 -- is there not some "circumstantial" evidence?"

(Note: I cannot remember if you specifically gave any credence to the many reports of explosions with some being at the start of the collapse. I include those that can be heard in the videos.)

I asked you if it was proven the planes were in fact drones, would you reconsider? If you gave any credence to the reports of explosions, would you now give them more credence?
And, I might as well ask, if you had not given the reports any credence, would you reconsider giving those reports at least some credence?

And if perchance you did, would you then perhaps reconsider the collapses?

 

[ozeco41]

Yes I do comprehend "hypothesis" and yes those facts do lead to that hypothesis.
For the sake of argument, I will agree there is no factual evidence.

Good. So we are at the stage where you recognise both the validity of the scientific method and a valid hypothesis.

There are two paths of progress available from here viz:
1) You or "the Truth Movement" or "AE911" present a better hypothesis; OR

2) You recognise that you have no basis for claims OTHER than "there are some things that I, david-watts, do not understand".

My suggestion is write down that list of things hat you don't understand - add more to it as you recognise them AND tick off each one as you come to understand it.

BUT stop all attempts at making claims contrary to the default position until you are able to make a valid claim.

So - some bits you don't understand:

However -- getting back to WTC7 -- is there not some "circumstantial" evidence?"

Yes - lots of it. BUT evidence for what?

(Note: I cannot remember if you specifically gave any credence to the many reports of explosions with some being at the start of the collapse. I include those that can be heard in the videos.)

A big building fell down. There would be lots of banging noises. Explosions as heard by lay people are not necessarily from steel cutting explosives. (BTW have YOU ever heard steel cutting explosives. I have many times - Military Engineer - once heard never forgotten and most of those lay person witnesses never heard steel cutting.) Bottom line however remains - there was no CD - with or without explosives. With no CD there cannot be noises of the steel cutting explosives used for CD. The problem is arse about logic. Get your thinking round the right way - no CD therefore no use of explosives for CD. Therefore the"loud banging noises" were not steel cutting explosives.

I asked you if it was proven the planes were in fact drones, would you reconsider?

Reconsider what? You so easily lose focus david. IF (note big "if") IF the planes were drones does not change the arguments for CD.

If you gave any credence to the reports of explosions, would you now give them more credence?

If you mean more credence based on use of drones? No - of course not. I think clearly. Re-frame your question "If the planes were painted green and orange stripes would it change my attitude towards explosive demolition?" That is a strict analog to your question. Of course it wouldn't. The colour OR the type of aircraft has no relationship to use of explosives.

And, I might as well ask, if you had not given the reports any credence, would you reconsider giving those reports at least some credence?

That is the same question re-stated. I will give more credence to any factor when the need for credence is backed by factual evidence and reasoned explanation. The same issue you have been facing...produce the factual evidence and reasoning.

And if perchance you did, would you then perhaps reconsider the collapses?

I have not changed one iota. Produce the evidence and reasoning and I will review.

However you totally underestimate the scale of barrier before you.

Remember that I am a professional engineer and I have an extensive understanding of most aspects of the structural collapses. You focus on one or two specific issues. I can respond from a knowledge and understanding of at least dozens of aspects of reasoning dealing with hundreds even thousands of component parts of structure. And my reasons all interlock with no significant holes. All the bits fit together. They are mutually supporting.

So, if you or any other truth proponent wants to skittle my dozens of pieces of interlocking understanding - go for it.

It is a couple of orders more complicated that all the single anomaly material your have been raising.

 

[Mark F]

Yes I do comprehend "hypothesis" and yes those facts do lead to that hypothesis.
For the sake of argument, I will agree there is no factual evidence. However -- getting back to WTC7 -- is there not some "circumstantial" evidence?"

(Note: I cannot remember if you specifically gave any credence to the many reports of explosions with some being at the start of the collapse. I include those that can be heard in the videos.)

I asked you if it was proven the planes were in fact drones, would you reconsider? If you gave any credence to the reports of explosions, would you now give them more credence?
And, I might as well ask, if you had not given the reports any credence, would you reconsider giving those reports at least some credence?

And if perchance you did, would you then perhaps reconsider the collapses?

David, if I may,...

You need to stop looking at 9/11 as a series of isolated events. If 7 WTC was an inside job then it stands to reason the attacks on the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and Flight 93 were also part of the inside job and they all have to be tied together. If you want to address one, you have to address them all. In other words, you have to formulate a hypothesis that includes everything that happened that day, with enough supporting evidence to overturn the null hypothesis of 19 terrorist d-bags doing what they do - which is attacking symbols of American economic, military and political power to achieve their political goals.

If all you have are few scattered bits of circumstantial evidence about 7 (eg: ambiguous anecdotal reports of explosions which are at best open to interpretation),... that dog just ain't gonna hunt.

A comprehensive case for inside jobby-job that doth not make.

 

[thedopefishlives]

David, if I may,...

You need to stop looking at 9/11 as a series of isolated events. If 7 WTC was an inside job then it stands to reason the attacks on the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and Flight 93 were also part of the inside job and they all have to be tied together. If you want to address one, you have to address them all. In other words, you have to formulate a hypothesis that includes everything that happened that day, with enough supporting evidence to overturn the null hypothesis of 19 terrorist d-bags doing what they do - which is attacking symbols of American economic, military and political power to achieve their political goals.

If all you have are few scattered bits of circumstantial evidence about 7 (eg: ambiguous anecdotal reports of explosions which are at best open to interpretation),... that dog just ain't gonna hunt.

A comprehensive case for inside jobby-job that doth not make.

Randall Munroe would disagree:

(Note to mods: Randall allows hotlinking to his images.)

 

[ozeco41]

Randall Munroe would disagree:

[qimg]http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/semicontrolled_demolition.png[/qimg]

(Note to mods: Randall allows hotlinking to his images.)

We need the phone taps....

"Hey, That you Osama, it's Dubya here.

Howabout I deal with the North Tower and leave you with the South Tower?"

 

[Mark F]

Randall Munroe would disagree:

[qimg]http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/semicontrolled_demolition.png[/qimg]

(Note to mods: Randall allows hotlinking to his images.)

It's hard to argue with that. I give, it was all an inside jobby-job - well, part of it anyway

 

[thedopefishlives]

It's hard to argue with that. I give, it was all an inside jobby-job - well, part of it anyway

It's a doorway job; half inside jobbity-job, half outside job.

 

[david.watts]

Welp. In response to ozeco w/o quoting your post (#506): You read way more in to my post (#505) than I had intended. I stated a hypothetical (#501) -- drones and not arab hijackers crashing the planes and would you reconsider CD -- that I was hoping would help me to more fully understand your position. I did have a reason. (And I am sure if I think about it a minute I will remember what it was.) With #505 I was simply trying to narrow in / clarify what I was getting at and to get your thoughts. That is all. I now know very clearly that the circumstantial evidence plays no part in your thinking. That is not saying that I agree that it should not. If you know what I mean.

IIRC you have a background in law. So you know how powerful circumstantial evidence can be. You dismiss the circumstantial evidence -- reports of explosions -- because you think it is not credible. Fine. No problem there. For me, I take it very seriously and I stated it so in stating my opinion that WTC7 was a CD. We see it differently. I understand.

 

[Mark F]

You dismiss the circumstantial evidence -- reports of explosions -- because you think it is not credible. Fine. No problem there. For me, I take it very seriously and I stated it so in stating my opinion that WTC7 was a CD. We see it differently. I understand.

Ah, but do you take the (highly) circumstantial evidence seriously because it overrides the existing body of solid evidence or because it supports what you want to believe?

 

[JSanderO]

Welp. In response to ozeco w/o quoting your post (#506): You read way more in to my post (#505) than I had intended. I stated a hypothetical (#501) -- drones and not arab hijackers crashing the planes and would you reconsider CD -- that I was hoping would help me to more fully understand your position. I did have a reason. (And I am sure if I think about it a minute I will remember what it was.) With #505 I was simply trying to narrow in / clarify what I was getting at and to get your thoughts. That is all. I now know very clearly that the circumstantial evidence plays no part in your thinking. That is not saying that I agree that it should not. If you know what I mean.

IIRC you have a background in law. So you know how powerful circumstantial evidence can be. You dismiss the circumstantial evidence -- reports of explosions -- because you think it is not credible. Fine. No problem there. For me, I take it very seriously and I stated it so in stating my opinion that WTC7 was a CD. We see it differently. I understand.

David,

I don't dismiss the reports of explosions. I dismiss the interpretation of the explosions as being BOMBS. I think most were transfomers and other things in the building which became pressurized from heat and exploded. Happens in burning buildings frequently. Ask the fire dept. The towers contained many large transforms all liquid oil cooled. When the transfomer overheats the coolant will explode. Look it up. It's pretty common.

Also any loud sound heard in the midst of what is believed to be a terrorist attack will be experienced as a bomb... a natural interpretation. Were I there I would have said the same thing. But now years later it's clear that what was exploding was NOT bombs... and certainly not what would destroy the structure... and by the way there is no evidence of blown up steel. (don't say it was all sent away to China before any one could identify it).

In fact people are more familiar with the sound of exploding bombs than transformers and electrical gear or even tire blow outs... because of TV and the movies.

Go to you tube and look up exploding transformers...

 

[ozeco41]

It's a doorway job; half inside jobbity-job, half outside job.

My 4yo grandson did one of those a week back - the little fellow was very embarrassed.

Half the job outside the bathroom...half inside but still not targeting the appropriate receptacle.

 

[ozeco41]

Welp. In response to ozeco w/o quoting your post (#506): You read way more in to my post (#505) than I had intended. I stated a hypothetical (#501) -- drones and not arab hijackers crashing the planes and would you reconsider CD -- that I was hoping would help me to more fully understand your position.

david we seem to get confusion when I address more than one issue at a time. So let me stay with this single issue till you are clear as to my position.

Call this "IssueJ14#1 - Review CD based on drones or not Arab hijackers".

The question "would I reconsider CD if it was drones OR not Arab hijackers?" (you said "and" - I think your meant "or" - inclusive "or" to be pedantic.)

My answer is "No". My reasoning is that neither drones NOR Arab hijackers make the slightest difference to the evidence against CD OR the lack of evidence for CD.

In my previous post I gave the example of a differently coloured aircraft - does not change evidence for/against CD

What if the pilot was female? - does not change evidence for/against CD

What if the aircraft was remotely controlled? - does not change evidence for/against CD

Need I continue? - I think not.

What would cause me to reconsider CD - again my answer was explicit in my previous post - "Produce the evidence and reasoning and I will review."

I cannot make my position any more explicit. So, restating it:

1) I will not change my position on CD no matter what other irrelevant factors are raised; AND
2) I will review my opposition to CD whenever someone, any one, you, produce(s) "evidence backed by reasoning" - better make that "relevant evidence" to be explicitly clear.

 

[david.watts]

Yes - but at that point you deviated off the track.

My next point was this claim:
Do you comprehend "hypothesis" AND do you agree that those facts lead to that hypothesis?

My next point was:you have not presented a single fact. You change track from CD and present these speculations.

The question you ask in the middle of all that is:
My answer remains - yes I will reconsider once you come up with some factual evidence which legitimately modifies the hypothesis I have put forward.

I don't give a damn about your speculations UNTIL you come up with reasoned and evidence supported argument.

As a starter try stating one fact that you claim supports CD in preference to "natural".

(Note: this is a question only about hypotheses and has nothing to do with what happened on 9-11/2001.)

Question: ozeco, If i may introduce a mythical hypothetical to see what your hypothesis would be; I wish to do so:

In Myth City there were five 47-story buildings surrounding Hypothetical Circle which were known as the Hypothetical Quintuplets. Each of the Quintuplets were built exactly the same as WTC7 all being steel framed buildings. All five buildings were just recently cheaply purchased by Mr. Mytherstein and immediately insured for grand amounts covering controlled demolition; mythical or otherwise. On the 32nd day of Mythuary, bombs exploded in all five Hypothetical Quintuplets knocking out a portion of the lower structures exactly equal to what happened to WTC7. Fires started in all five of the 47-story tall Hypotheticals and burned exactly, I mean exactly the same as they did in WTC7 and on the same exact floors. In all five of the Quintuplets there were recording systems in place throughout the buildings which continuously transmitted to separate recorders in Mr. Mytherstein's offices in Billion Dollar Square, that while also located in Myth City, were located a safe distance from the Hypotheticals.

After about seven hours, all five of the Hypothetical Quintuplets collapsed very quickly and in a quite symmetrical fashion and mostly into their own footprints at almost free fall accelerational boggled speed. The collapse times for all five were recorded by video and appeared to be exactly the same. All collapses included 2.25 seconds of actual free fall.

Recordings of multiple explosions were made in only four of the five buildings and all sounded identical to each other and sounded exactly like "steel cutting explosives." Unfortunately, the recording system in the 5th Quintuplet had been stolen the day before soon after the bomb sniffing dogs had been asked to leave.

There was absolutely no doubt in the entire mythical world that the four buildings from which the recordings were heard, were controlled demolitions. But nobody was sure about the fifth Hypothetical Quintuplet because there were no recordings; the 'fifth' had had its recorders stolen! So in unanimous agreement, Inspector ozeco was summoned. They relayed to the inspector, there is no doubt that four were controlled demolitions. But the fifth of the five Hypotheticals surrounding Hypothetical Circle had no recordings. All we know for a fact is there was damage from the initial explosion seven hours before it collapsed and that there were fires that burned inside for those 7 hours. However, we do have some circumstantial stuff from quite a few earwitnesses, including firemen and policemen and other lay people, that said without a doubt they heard explosions coming from number 7, sorry, we mean, number 5. In a quick search of the internet we see that you said, "My answer remains - yes I will reconsider once you come up with some factual evidence which legitimately modifies the hypothesis I have put forward." They asked Inspector ozeco, "Inspector ozeco, would you please tell us what is your hypothesis for the collapse of the fifth Hypothetical Quintuplet?"

 

[david.watts]

Sherlock and Watson were in their sleeping bags getting ready to spend the night. Sherlock asks Watson, “What do you think about when you look up and see the moon and so many bright stars?” Watson says, “Well, I think its a beautiful night.” Sherlock says, “Watson, do you know what I think? I think somebody stole our tent.”

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Making Stuff Up

 

[david.watts]

ApolloGnomon: "Making Stuff Up"



You might be right. But maybe that is why I called it a "mythical hypothetical."

 

[DGM]

ApolloGnomon: "Making Stuff Up"



You might be right. But maybe that is why I called it a "mythical hypothetical."

Why would you do this when there is real evidence?

Do you accept that your views are more of a belief than reality?

 

[Robrob]

Yes I do comprehend "hypothesis" and yes those facts do lead to that hypothesis.
For the sake of argument, I will agree there is no factual evidence. However -- getting back to WTC7 -- is there not some "circumstantial" evidence?"

Yes. Lots of circumstantial as well as direct evidence, all pointing to 19 Islamic fanatics hijacking four planes and crashing three into buildings. The fourth into the ground.

(Note: I cannot remember if you specifically gave any credence to the many reports of explosions with some being at the start of the collapse. I include those that can be heard in the videos.)

You do realize a loud sound, described as an "explosion" is what one would normally expect to hear when a 110 story building collapses following a plane crash and fires.

Explosion = adjective.

Explosive = noun.

The two are not the same.

I asked you if it was proven the planes were in fact drones, would you reconsider?

Hypotheticals aside, are you planning on providing some evidence to "prove" your claim?

If you gave any credence to the reports of explosions, would you now give them more credence?
And, I might as well ask, if you had not given the reports any credence, would you reconsider giving those reports at least some credence?

And if perchance you did, would you then perhaps reconsider the collapses?

Hypotheticals aside, are you planning on providing some evidence to "prove" your claim?

 

[david.watts]

You do realize a loud sound, described as an "explosion" is what one would normally expect to hear when a 110 story building collapses following a plane crash and fires.

Explosion = adjective.

Explosive = noun.

The two are not the same.

Explosion is a noun. Explosive is an adjective ... but can also be a noun.

Also, I do realize a loud sound, described as an "explosion" is what one would normally expect to hear when a 110 story building collapses following a plane crash and fires when "explosions" occur.

Besides, I only presented a "mythical hypothetical."