How Skeptics Confronted 9/11 Denialism

page: 15
5
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 01:04 AM
link   
I read this through and I have only one thing to say.

I am skeptical.




posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

I've explained this before. Private property rights disolve when your building collapses killing 4,000 people. Sorry to say, but yeah, it does.

Not going into specifics but ask your brother if he would accept someones word for it when it comes to a building collapsing. I mean come-on, you want me (and especially the fence sitters reading this) to believe that any kind of analysis is possible with what NIST tells us? I'm almost blue in the face repeating this over and over again.


No. You forgot when, where and just how the columns transitioned. That's a big start. Also what is the O.C. dimension of the bolts? It makes a big difference you know? None of which are available from the NIST report as far as I know. Care to detail these extremely important details?


1-No, private property rights do not dissolve. That's a truly ludicrous statement. The docs were turned over to investigating bodies, per law. But that law also states that the investigating body is legally prohibited from turning that info over to the public. So my point is correct - the gov is in no way responsible for those docs not being available to the public. The PA and Silverstein are.

2- I HAVE asked him, and he said "yeah, as long as they have all the docs" - which of course NIST did. He also agrees that NIST is prohibited by law from releasing those same docs. He also agrees that a rough analysis would be possible with what is available with a little backwards engineering. So there -


3-I said the ext column docs aren't available, so I don't see your point. The core column transitions ARE available when you take the data from that link and match them with the architectural drawings, since the columns are numbered in both docs, I believe. On center dimensions for the bolts that held the floors to the columns? If I find them, will you concede your point that it's impossible and modify it to possible to make a rough analysis?



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

BTW, the only elevator shaft that went the length of the plane impacts to where Mr. Rodriguez was stopped mid way of the tower ( due to it's emergency brakes being deployed) and the elevator operator, Mr. Griffith, survived with no burns and/or reported no fire ball running down the shaft. He had a broken leg from the sudden stop of the elevator.

So where did these explosions come from if they could not and did not run the length of the building?


1- there were 3 elevators that ran the full distance.

2- some elevators shared shafts, so even if an elevator stopped at a mechanical floor, this doesn't mean that the fuel couldn't have traveled down PAST the mechanical floor.

3- how does this adress the question of how in the world he would know which event was which without a visual reference?



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

massive overpressure



What "massive overpressure"?

I thought it was common knowledge that jet fuel explosions, while impressive, don't cause a huge overpressure.

This has been a common theme from doubters when someone says that the fuel explosions at the time of impact would have caused widespread destruction inside the towers.

Or now maybe you're saying that this "massive overpressure" would have knocked all the drywall of the core columns, regardless of what effect the 400 mph debris had, so it was inevitable?



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leo Strauss

Hey I just want to take a moment to publically thank bsbray and griff for answering the debunkers claims in a way that I think is completely rational, balanced and well founded.



Man,I feel cheated.

Don't I get any love for trying to discuss things rationally too?



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Even assuming all of those columns were actually as deflected as the outer aluminum claddings appeared, etc., showing the buckling does not establish (a) that the proper amount of outer buckling requiring for collapse initiation was ultimately achieved (structural documentation is required to estimate how many would actually have to deflect and by what degrees),

You see that near the end? "Test with an Experiment"?



1- If the Al cladding is on the outside, and they are pulled in, how in the world could the steel columns be pulled in LESS? If anything, I could make a case that they were pulled in MORE. But NIST did in fact have the structural docs. So they knew the answers to your very valid points. Unfortunately, NIST is prohibited by law from releasing those docs to the public. For the record, I would like to see them released also so that we could put an end to all this nonsense. But as Griff and I have discussed, I personally don't see that happening since no matter what all the doubter "leaders" say once they examine them, there will still be those loonies that won't listen to them and find some flaw in the design, though legal, and bring lawsuits against the PA and/or Silverstein because they believe like some believe in God that they are an evil arm of the NWO, etc... I still think that the only way to get these docs in the open is to grant them immunity from civil lawsuits. ( this is the immunity that I was talking about when Ultima drove by and left that big steaming pile that you HAD to pick up and sling around at me. See, it pays to know the full back story )

2- Yes, I see it fine. It says to test your hypothesis. The visual evidence isn't a hypothesis. It's hard evidence.



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by jmdewey60
This statement is ridiculous.
Most people think that the government was negligent or worse, about 9-11.
They really think, in high numbers, that the government is covering up something.
If you bring up some individual theories, they will probably not go along with them.
The same thing can be said about the JFK assassination.
People will say that they do not believe the Warren report, but when confronted with individual theories they will not necessarily subscribe to them.
So to look at debunking theories that were probably brought up by government payed stooges does not amount to a victory by the skeptics.

[edit on 4-6-2008 by jmdewey60]


There are no debunking "theories". There are only conspiracy theories.

The fact remains, as has been true since 9/11, that Truthers have nothing to go on. Zero.

Truthers have made no progress in convincing anyone that there is anything valid about their claims and speculations. They have only convinced each other.

Debunkers can go away and Truthers will be left just where they are now: with nothing to show. Nothing will happen.





frankly sir, you are simply lying... hundreds of degreed, experienced architects, building engineers, mechanical engineers, among many others have put forward a vast amount of evidence questioning the validity of the governments findings pertaining to 9-11, that you simply ignore....

but your arguement is not with them, because they would be able to back up their findings with contridictory evidence. it is with us that actually read what they have introduced and reasonably assume what they have said is correct, combined with the governments lack of a free and proper forum to present said findings.

your goal is to keep the majority of american people off-balance and confused until they tire and give up. and to your credit...well done!



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
1-No, private property rights do not dissolve. That's a truly ludicrous statement. The docs were turned over to investigating bodies, per law. But that law also states that the investigating body is legally prohibited from turning that info over to the public. So my point is correct - the gov is in no way responsible for those docs not being available to the public. The PA and Silverstein are.


So, if I design a building and it crumbles to the ground, I am not bound by law to give up any and all structural documentation to all investigating bodies?


2- I HAVE asked him, and he said "yeah, as long as they have all the docs" - which of course NIST did. He also agrees that NIST is prohibited by law from releasing those same docs. He also agrees that a rough analysis would be possible with what is available with a little backwards engineering. So there -


So, he says a rough analysis would be A-OK? Some engineer. I wouldn't want him to be designing MY building.


If I find them, will you concede your point that it's impossible and modify it to possible to make a rough analysis?


If you can find them, I'll concede.

It all goes back to NIST, by your own words of being bound by law to not disclose those documents, can not and will not be peer reviewed. Therefore, we have no idea that what NIST tells us of the structure is actually the truth. No I am not calling them liars, but I am saying we can not verify if they are or not.



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
1- there were 3 elevators that ran the full distance.


Only 1 elevator runs from the upper floors to the sub basement.



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
What "massive overpressure"?

I thought it was common knowledge that jet fuel explosions, while impressive, don't cause a huge overpressure.


Yes there have been plenty of reports that have stated no overpressure and no structurla damge casued by the jet fuel buring off.



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
1- there were 3 elevators that ran the full distance.


Wrong.

From the very company that maintained the WTC elevators:


In addition to normal freight service one freight elevator in each of the towers will serve a total of 112 stops from the fifth basement to the 108th floor. It will rise 1,387 feet (422.8 meters) – 400 feet (122 meters) more than the former record rise in the Empire State Building.


Car 6 also ran from the impacted floors in WTC1 to the basement, and it was an express elevator, and the only other elevator to do so.

NIST says this, NIST NCSTAR 1-7, page 122, trying to explain basement events themselves:


Cars 6 and 50 could have fallen all the way to the pit in the sub-basement level, and car 50 in WTC 1 was reported to have done so.


And what was "reported" to them was demonstrably false by the operator of that very elevator:


[The Griffiths] were both operating elevators in the north tower on Sept. 11. Arturo was running 50A, the big freight car going from the six-level basement to the 108th floor. When American Airlines Flight 11 struck at 8:46 a.m., Arturo and a co-worker were heading from the second-level basement to the 49th floor.


www.usatoday.com...

He lived, only broke his leg. No fireball.


That leaves car 6 open theoretically, but like you guys always say, where is the proof? Because I have absolutely no reason to believe that this happened, because there is no evidence of it, only your assertion. (Proof that it fell all the way to the bottom without its brakes catching, by the way, not that it's shaft was destroyed by an FAE going all the way down, because that's physically impossible anyway.) NIST was already shown completely wrong on car 50.



What "massive overpressure"?

I thought it was common knowledge that jet fuel explosions, while impressive, don't cause a huge overpressure.


Jet fuel explosions by definition cause very destructive overpressures; they're even used as bombs. That's what a "fuel-air explosive" is.

The problem is that jet fuel does not explode in liquid form. It has to be mixed in the range of 1.3% to 6.0% vapor to air (not just here and there, but consistently!), which isn't going to happen simply by dropping liquid through the air, let alone through shafts where physical obstructions are also in the way. I don't care whatever you say, unless you give me specific sources, because I know you aren't a walking textbook on this stuff (I had to look all of this up myself) and you obviously haven't been trained to think critically about these kinds of physical situations like an engineer would have to be.

Put simply if you think a fireball is going to be flying down an elevator shafts to the basements, you don't know what you're talking about.

If it does explode, at all, the drywall shafts are gone. It doesn't get to the basement. End of story. It would have to be a freaking miracle for the fuel to land down there and then explode.

The fireballs that the planes caused weren't even fuel-air explosions. They were deflagrations, which are slower expansions than true explosions. You'll notice not even all windows were blown out on the impacted floors. The aluminum claddings on the outer columns were still attached. Nothing to suggest that the same event is going to travel 1000+ feet down and blow out massive reinforced concrete doors, etc., as reported by eyewitnesses. Do you understand what decompression is, and the fact that as an overpressure travels, it dissipates and loses force?


But NIST did in fact have the structural docs.


So what, when they don't provide any of it to support their theory? And they just keep them locked up? How in the hell does that support their case, from my perspective? It only reinforces what I already believe. Do you not see that? I thought you were trying to convince me that I am wrong?



Yes, I see it fine. It says to test your hypothesis. The visual evidence isn't a hypothesis. It's hard evidence.


Hard evidence of what? NIST's hypothesis?
Maybe you see where this is going.

And your whole response to my post about the buckling avoided the main two points: you cannot see the trusses pulling the exterior columns inward, and you do not know how much buckling it would require to initiate global collapse from that mechanism alone, or what other mechanisms would have to coincide. NIST never elaborates or "shows their work."

Have you ever taken any engineering classes in your life, Seymour? It kind of helps, to get an idea of where these guys are coming from and what they were supposed to do in their report.

Valhalla doesn't post here much anymore, but she delt professionally with reports like the NIST WTC team's, as par of her job (she is also an engineer), and I'm sure Griff remembers her thoughts on it. She bought it until she actually read it, then agreed that it was a sham. She even argued with me and Griff up until the day she actually read it. Then she sent me a u2u.

I'm telling you, you have blind faith in something that you do not really understand. If it can happen to Val then it can certainly happen to you, because from reading your posts it doesn't even sound like you're technically familiar with the phenomena we're discussing.

[edit on 15-6-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


One more thing about the NIST report. None of their diagrams/sketches/details have any scale to them. And I've even shown that their "typical model of a floor plan" is totally pulled out of their ass as they use one scale for the trusses and exterior columns but use a different scale for showing the core columns in the same skematic. If I did this in my career, I wouldn't be an engineer for long. If there was no scale, it should have been stated "not to scale". That is the engineering way of things.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Any engineer who reads that report and doesn't come out of it scratching their head saying "how did they get away with this?" is not a very smart engineer IMO. Tell your brother that one for me seymour.



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Griff,
Since you are a structural engineer and probably have more influence then the average truther why dont you rally the other structural engineers and call for a new investigation?



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff


So, if I design a building and it crumbles to the ground, I am not bound by law to give up any and all structural documentation to all investigating bodies?

So, he says a rough analysis would be A-OK? Some engineer. I wouldn't want him to be designing MY building.

If you can find them, I'll concede.
It all goes back to NIST, by your own words of being bound by law to not disclose those documents, can not and will not be peer reviewed. Therefore, we have no idea that what NIST tells us of the structure is actually the truth. No I am not calling them liars, but I am saying we can not verify if they are or not.


1- Not all. Just those with the power to subpeona those docs. ae9/11 truth doesn't qualify.

2- personal attacks are stupid, Griff. But are you saying a rough estimate has no value? What if you did a rough estimate, heavily biasing it towards not being able to initiate, or arresting the collapse, and yet, it still initiated and continued the collapse? This would be useless? I think it would be.

3- That's right, there never will be a peer review unless the PA and Silverstein release those docs. And there's no way to force them to.



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Jet fuel explosions by definition cause very destructive overpressures; they're even used as bombs. That's what a "fuel-air explosive" is. The fireballs that the planes caused weren't even fuel-air explosions. They were deflagrations, which are slower expansions than true explosions.

It only reinforces what I already believe. Do you not see that? I thought you were trying to convince me that I am wrong?

And your whole response to my post about the buckling avoided the main two points: you cannot see the trusses pulling the exterior columns inward, and you do not know how much buckling it would require to initiate global collapse from that mechanism alone, or what other mechanisms would have to coincide. NIST never elaborates or "shows their work."



1- ok, so you're saying that the jet fuel event in the shafts were explosions, but the impact event was a deflagration. When it's convenient to your beliefs to call it an explosion, then you do. But when it's convenient to call it a deflagration, then you do that. Curve fitting much?

2- Like I said, anything can be twisted to fit your beliefs. Why would I try to convince you of anything? There's a life lesson to be learned there,especially when it comes to getting along with others, like a wife.

3- I never said that "I" know how much buckling it would take. NIST would though because they had access to the docs.



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Any engineer who reads that report and doesn't come out of it scratching their head saying "how did they get away with this?" is not a very smart engineer IMO. Tell your brother that one for me seymour.



WHy the personal attacks Griff? Aren't they beneath you?

To nitpick against scale is a sign of desperation, IMHO.

[edit on 15-6-2008 by Seymour Butz]



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Yes there have been plenty of reports that have stated no overpressure and no structurla damge casued by the jet fuel buring off.



Thank you.

If bsbray has any more questions or assertions that jet fuel causes a "massive overpressure" I'll direct him to your post, and y'all can hash it out amongst yourselves.



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
What if you did a rough estimate, heavily biasing it towards not being able to initiate, or arresting the collapse, and yet, it still initiated and continued the collapse? This would be useless? I think it would be.


So, you agree that a rough estimate isn't a full estimate? And therefore is basically useless?



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
To nitpick against scale is a sign of desperation, IMHO.


An engineer calling out the non-engineering style of an engineering report is not desperation. It's called peer review. Ask your brother if he can report on something and have 2 different scales in one skematic and doesn't mention this anywhere if he would be laughed at or worse, fired.



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by Griff

Any engineer who reads that report and doesn't come out of it scratching their head saying "how did they get away with this?" is not a very smart engineer IMO. Tell your brother that one for me seymour.



WHy the personal attacks Griff? Aren't they beneath you?


Please show the personal attack. It is my opinion. Not an attack. Grow some skin would you?

[edit on 6/15/2008 by Griff]





top topics
 
5
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join