The use of Doublespeak to derail Occam's Razor.

Originally posted by thedman

and "two huge jetliners" are not a legitimate destructive force to explain why all 3 towers collapsed

So 2 airliners weighing in at 350,000 lbs and hitting building at 500 + mph
are not destructive?

10,000 gallons of burning jet fuel cascading through the buildings not
destructive?

Top of skyscaper falls on adjacent building is not destructive enough?

What haven't accounted for is synergistic effect - aircraft impacts
damaged many of the supports columns and at same time set numerous
fires over multiple floors. Aircraft impact and associated secondary
debris knocked off fireproofing on the steel support columns exposing
them to fire. Impacts also knocked huge holes in building which allowed
air to feed fires .

Given everythnig that you have stated above. Where is the fulcrum? The point of impact? The area of the hottest fires? According the the videos there is obvious angular momentum of the collapsing bulding. This would translate over that fulcrum but it does not, it stops and vaporizes on TOP of the building. Then magically, both fulcrums manage to coincide perfectly with the buildings center of gravity, even taking into account the way that had been altered by the impact itself. So under what phyicical principle does a fulcrum shift on its own and angular momentum completely stop itself?

Give the most simple explanation of what we saw that day, two planes slammed into those buildings and caused the kind of damage that would have sent both of them toppling into the city, not PERFECTLY STRAIGHT DOWN.

reply to post by thedman

There are many experts that see the WTC 7 collapse as a controlled demolition. It was a free fall in its own footprint. It is as clear as the light of day.

Even if damage was done to such an extent by the collapse of the towers, why did the other buildings being just as near, if not nearer not collapse? Why not 5 and 6 eventhough their damage was much, much greater? Why not the Verizon building standing next to 7?




Why did the sprinkler system not work in 7?

It just does not add up.

my 2 cents...the WT7 building, which is quite large and spread out unlike the the twin towers, LOST STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY FROM FIRE, OVER THE ENTIRE FRAMED STRUCTURE, AT THE SAME TIME, AND FELL PRECISELY IN IT'S FOOTPRINT IN 10 SECONDS!!!...please this is such utter nonsense, a first year engineering student would laugh out loud.

Collapse in own footprint? Then why then were adjacent buildings so
badly damaged from the collapse?

Sprinkler system was disabled by collapses of WTC 1 & 2 (North/South
Towers) which cut water mains. Survey of building showed that
the internal standpipe system which routes water to each floor for
use by firefighters was damaged and not operable. No way to get
water to burning floors - no way to put out fires which is why FDNY
commanders ordered it abandoned....

Verizon building next to WTC 7 was heavily damaged by debris





30 West Broadway (Fiterman Hall of Manhattan Community College)
was smashed by debris from WTC 7 which crossed Barclay St -
a 4 lane road north of WTC 7



[img][/img]

reply to post by thedman

Yes, many buildings were damaged. Only WTC 7 collapsed, free fall. Why? It was further away then two other towers that sustained damage.

There are other, less substantial structures still standing which were also much closer.







The damage sustained at WTC 7 is largely anecdotal and little photographic evidence has surfaced. The photographic evidence existing today does not support the accounts from eyewitnesses. Which is not surprising as people's recollection is always shakey.

From this website which does an extensive study:

www.studyof911.com...

The Banker's Trust building was half the distance from the collapsing south tower as WTC7 was from the north tower, yet sustained much less damage than NIST claims was sustained by the much more distant WTC7 - certainly nothing comparable to 1/3 of the WTC7 south face and 25% of the building gouged out, which would equate to 2/3 or more of the face of the Banker's Trust building. The photograph in Fig. 10a also shows a path of perimeter columns laid out leading to the face of the Bankers Trust, suggesting that a large, interconnected portion of the south face of WTC2 fell into it. Figures 13c and 13d below show that no such path of heavy interconnected perimeter debris leads to the critical portion of WTC7's south face, and indeed, a fragile pedestrian bridge in that region was still quite intact after the collapse of the north tower.

The evidence does not stack up. It is as simple as that.

Edited to add link of source.

[edit on 20/9/08 by Lebowski achiever]

Israeli agents. Doesn't matter if they are Mossad or not, bottom line is that people from ISRAEL were confirmed doing what I had told you from many, many sources. And time and time again they were let off the hook from people inside the US government. This should bring up major red flags in everybodies heads.

I really don't care about WTC7 or any of that stuff any more. You'll never find the truth regarding any of that stuff. We need to focus on who REALLY was behind 9/11, and the Israeli spy network is something that "skeptics" cannot overlook if you keep telling them about it.

I came to my own conclusion long ago. The Towers could not have collapsed the way they did from the 747 strikes. All the evidence supports this. Tower 7 simply should not have collapsed. This is not how buildings burn down. Many people still buy the official line of how Kennedy was assasinated, whe all the film footage, and thre reports of the witnesses say differently, as well as the evidence.

Originally posted by poet1b
I came to my own conclusion long ago. The Towers could not have collapsed the way they did from the 747 strikes. All the evidence supports this. Tower 7 simply should not have collapsed. This is not how buildings burn down. Many people still buy the official line of how Kennedy was assasinated, whe all the film footage, and thre reports of the witnesses say differently, as well as the evidence.

If you came to your conclusion while believing the towers were hit by 747s you must have done no research at all.

Originally posted by Lebowski achiever
The damage sustained at WTC 7 is largely anecdotal and little photographic evidence has surfaced. The photographic evidence existing today does not support the accounts from eyewitnesses. Which is not surprising as people's recollection is always shakey.

Please read NISTs latest report, it includes firsthand accounts from firefighters of severe structural damage to WTC7. It also includes a detailed photo analysis and a map of suspected damage. None of this is 'largely anecdotal' and supersedes the link you posted.

I think firefighter's reports may be credible but is still annecdotal. There are a few photographs around but not many. Many are of the WTC 7 obscured by smoke and it does not show the exact damage as related by the witnesses. Witness acounts are still not proof. If they were, then what of the people who have heard explosions before the collapse of WTC 1 and 2? They are also discredited by nay sayers. Even some of those were firefighters, too.

Originally posted by Lebowski achiever
I think firefighter's reports may be credible but is still annecdotal.

A firefighter conducting a survey can hardly be called anecdotal.

If they were, then what of the people who have heard explosions before the collapse of WTC 1 and 2? They are also discredited by nay sayers. Even some of those were firefighters, too.

I think you misunderstand, what is 'discredited' is that the reports of explosions are any sort of proof of explosives. Many things are likely to explode in fires and this is not unexpected.

reply to post by exponent



Still, there is no consistent photographic evidence of the damage as purported by the NIST report. It is still eyewitness accounts.

wtc.nist.gov... %20Final.pdf


Please do click on the link provided in my earlier post. I think the guy who made this study did a great job picking apart the NIST report and it deserves reading.

NIST throws up explanations when there really is no evidence to support it. Just because NIST says it does not make it true. You have to think of motive. Who benefits and why?

There is no explanation why buildings and structures nearer to WTC 7 did not freefall (and that is what I am referring to as the thing which still remains unexplained) into its own footprint. Some buildings nearer WTC 1 and 2 were not even as damaged as purported of WTC 7. Why is that? Why was the bridge from WTC 5 to WTC7 still totally standing? Why was WTC 7 not even a consideration in the 9-11 Commission Report.

These questions still remain unanswered.

You said many of the buildings closer did not collapse - it depended on
what hit the building and type of construction. Older buildings fared
better than newer constuction. Older mod buildings were better using
heavier materials, fireproofing was concrete or terra cotta masonary
not light coating of mineral "mud".

90 West St suffered severe damage - fires burned in building for two
days, yet building survived - it was built in 1907.

This type of construction, with terra cotta tiles providing fire protection, was common in early 20th century construction. The style of construction resulted in a highly compartmentalized building, which may have helped slow the spread of fire. The Fire Department of New York was able to control the fires in this building. The fire damage observed in the building, with minimal structural damage from a normal fire load, is considered typical for this type of construction and fire protection; however, it has been suggested that the scaffolding that was in place for renovations contributed to the spread of fire between floors that may not have occurred otherwise. However, the only structural damage observed was buckling damage near the tops of two columns.

Verizon - 140 West St, built in 1927

The east (Washington Street) side of the building was damaged from about the 9th floor down, primarily due to the impact of debris sliding out from the base of WTC 7 (Figures 7-6, 7-7, and 7-8). Some damage may have also been caused by WTC 1 debris. In addition to fairly extensive facade damage (bricks and windows), there was damage to two bays of slab and framing at the 1st, 4th, and 7th floors and to one bay of slab and framing (including spandrel beam) at the 1st floor mezzanine and at the 5th floor. Two exterior columns suffered major damage between the 1st and 2nd floors (Figure 7-9), one exterior column suffered minor damage between the 3rd and 5th floors, and two exterior columns suffered major damage between the 6th and 8th floors. In addition, one interior column suffered minor damage below the 7th floor.

Oder buildings had solid masonary walls instead of glass curtain wall
which resisted impact and fire better than new buildings.

Steel-frame construction from the 1900s through the 1980s, though different in many details, performed well under significant impact loads by limiting impact damage and progressive collapse to local areas.

Heavy unreinforced masonry facades were observed to absorb significant amounts of impact energy in the Verizon and 90 West Street buildings. Heavy masonry facades like those in the Verizon, 90 West Street, or even 130 Cedar Street buildings may also provide an alternative load path for a damaged structure.

Older, early-century fireproofing methods of concrete-, brick-, and terra cotta tile-encased steel frames performed well, even after 90+ years, and protected the 90 West Street building from extensive structural damage.

Here is page with map and martix of damage to buildings surrounding WTC
complex.

911research.wtc7.net...

reply to post by thedman


Ok Granted. They are not similar in construction. What about the Bankers trust building?



It was much closer to WTC 2 and a Glass and Steel building.




Much nearer, some constructional damage, No collapse.

You said many of the buildings closer did not collapse - it depended on
what hit the building and type of construction. Older buildings fared
better than newer constuction. Older mod buildings were better using
heavier materials, fireproofing was concrete or terra cotta masonary
not light coating of mineral "mud".

This supports what the OP is saying 100%. If old architecture was better we would have never changed it. The logical 'duck' would be that:

There was nothing in the buildings that didn't collapse that needed to 'go away'.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by poet1b
I came to my own conclusion long ago. The Towers could not have collapsed the way they did from the 747 strikes. All the evidence supports this. Tower 7 simply should not have collapsed. This is not how buildings burn down. Many people still buy the official line of how Kennedy was assasinated, whe all the film footage, and thre reports of the witnesses say differently, as well as the evidence.

If you came to your conclusion while believing the towers were hit by 747s you must have done no research at all.

Originally posted by Lebowski achiever
The damage sustained at WTC 7 is largely anecdotal and little photographic evidence has surfaced. The photographic evidence existing today does not support the accounts from eyewitnesses. Which is not surprising as people's recollection is always shakey.

Please read NISTs latest report, it includes firsthand accounts from firefighters of severe structural damage to WTC7. It also includes a detailed photo analysis and a map of suspected damage. None of this is 'largely anecdotal' and supersedes the link you posted.

Not only do those firefighter reports still not support the reason given for the collapse of the building but why would anyone use anything in the NIST report to back up their claims. Has that not already been dismissed as rubbish conisdering it is 'theories' and 'new phenomena' and little science, invetstigation, or anything real.

reply to post by exponent


I did considerable research.

Here is the reality, the fuel in the Aircraft could only burn hot enough to weaken the steel in the core, and that was clearly established. This would have been under the best of circumstances, which were not the situation. One of the aircrafts fuel burnt up in a giant fireball outside of the building. In addtion, the massive amount of steel in the core would have quickly pulled the heat away from the center of the fire, which means that the steel beams in the center of the fire still wouldn't have heated up enough to be weakened nearly enough to collapse. If the fire had succeeded in heating up the steel inner core structure so that they could no longer support the stucture above, then the buildings would have folded over at the point of impact.

The steel beams below the fire would not have been weakened at all. Being that the building is built around the core, if the outer structure had pancaked, the collapsing floors taking out the floors beneath them, it still would have left the inner core standing at the end of the collapse, which means we would have had about eighty stories of inner core structure still standing.

This thread is an excellent example of two big logical fallacies: Non-sequitors and arguments from ignorance.

The following, for example...

P1: WTC 7 fell near freefall speed.

P2: Buildings being demolished fall at near freefall speed.

C: WTC 7 was demolished

...is a Non-Sequitor. The conclusion does not necessarily follow from it's premise.


Then, there's the, 'Well, we don't really know what happened to WTC 7, so it must've been brought down by explosives,' which is an argument from ignorance (or, depending on the semantics, could easily shift to an argument from incredulity).

The towers and WTC 7 fell in an asymmetical fashion, with different parts of the structures failing at different intervals. How does this match the characteristics of a controlled demolition? Where are the remnants from the explosives being used? Where are the flashes in the video footage trailing across the building to indicate detonations? Where is the wiring? Where is the steel with characteristic blast marks? There are several examples of structural failures of steel buildings & high-rises due to fire - if fire can't cause such failures, what happened in these instances?

thank you mr. brown for providing a steller example
in your use of Non sequitur as Doublespeak in derailing occam's razor

1st lets establish a grounded and agreed upon definition...
Non sequitur is Latin for "it does not follow", which you paraphrased with accuracy

As for the illustration you provided in steps
it sounds very logical and straight forward
and yet you attempt to flip it on it's head
by stating fabrications/speculations/assumptions as fact
while all along discrediting facts as fabrications/speculations/assumptions
is where you successfully champion the call... "Ignorance is Strength"

but what you assume as fact
and facts which are left out of the equation... is what's so crucial ...
no such claims in deductive reasoning can be made without all the facts

much like the post-911 u.s. gov & media proposing that the "Patriot Act is for Patriots"...
the logic/language is twisted to short circuit the public's ability
to critically question any further
so what we are left with is a data pool that consists only of what has been
branded as "fact" by the chosen "authorities" by the "god/government" ...
yet many are just bias assumptions dressed up as facts ...
much like the masses will read a review of a book/movie
and judge it based on the "authorities/critics" critique/perspective.

All the independent 911 researchers are encouraging ...
is to read the whole book... watch the entire movie ...
without any preconceived notions
and have your own thoughts/independent-critique
based on what you see... not on what you have been told to see
or lead to believe

Only when we have included all the data and all perspectives from
all authorities and experts can we apply occam's razor with any accuracy in precision for a evolving review..
but with the derailing of doublespeak such applications of occam's razor are often premature... such complicated far-fetched explanations as the "official theory" are falsely propped up as the gospel.

So in sum mr. brown ... the answers to your questions, are all around you... but you won't see them until you discard the "official story" filter from your lens.

[edit on 20-9-2008 by The All Seeing I]

reply to post by Lebowski achiever


Bankers Trust aka Deutsche Bank aka 130 Liberty St suffered heavy
damage from debris impact of WTC 2 (South Tower). It served a
laboratory for structural resistance to collapse. One of the reason given
is that 130 Liberty did not have post impact fires like that which destroyed
WTC 7.

The Bankers Trust building at 130 Liberty Street, also referred to as the Deutsche Bank building, withstood the impact of one or more pieces of column-tree debris raining down from the collapsing south tower (WTC 2). Although the debris sliced through the exterior facade, fracturing spandrel beam connections and exterior columns for a height of approximately 15 stories, the building sustained only localized damage in the immediate path of the debris from WTC 2 (hereafter referred to as the impact debris) (Figures 6-1 and 6-2). There were no fires in this building. The ability of this building to sustain significant structural damage yet arrest the progression of collapse is worthy of thorough study. Unlike WTC 1, 2, and 7, which collapsed completely, the Bankers Trust building provided an opportunity to analyze a structure that suffered a moderate level of damage, to explain the structural behavior, and to verify the analytical methods used. The following sections describe the building structure, the extent of damage, and the computational methods that were used to analyze the structure.

The structural steel sections were fireproofed with a spray-applied non-asbestos fireproofing material. The thickness on the beam flanges was observed to be on the order of 1/2 inch thick. Many of the rolled steel shapes appeared to be almost completely bare of fireproofing where directly impacted by debris; the remainder of the fireproofing appeared intact even in the damaged areas. Because fires were not ignited in combination with this structural damage, the damaged fireproofing did not affect the performance of the building.

The fires had a synergistic effect, multiplying the impact damage
many fold, particularly in buildings where fireprotection was compromised

Older structures protected the steel with concrete or masonary several
inches thick which not only protected from fire, but had substanial
impact resistance. The newer fire protection of a cement - mineral
fiber slurry sprayed on proved to have little impact resistance - it often
flaked or peeled away with little effort exposing the steel underneath.

Again different building - different damage - different outcomes

With the banker's trust building brought into consideration ...
we have a more thorough coverage of tower7.

And i couldn't help but note how complex the explanation is for why banker's trust building didn't collapse. Using occam's razor we should focus our attention on the simplest most sufficient explanation... not the most complex lame explanation.

Now being that the "official story/theory" is a finished proposal.
How does it hurt to keep searching for the data/evidence that best explains what happened?

Are we disrespecting the victims and their families?
Are we aiding the terrorists?
... examples of propaganda at work...
similar to Doublespeak's purpose to convince people to stop questioning and to start playing a supporting role in the official story.