The use of Doublespeak to derail Occam's Razor.

reply to post by Kevin R Brown


All the evidence was quickly and conveniently removed and destroyed, so that no one could ever prove that the official story was wrong. There is plenty of evidence from video tapes of the event that points to there being numerous other explosions that took these buildings down.

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
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.

It has been dismissed as "rubbish" by people who do not agree with it. The only substantive criticism of it has been submitted to NIST and we await their final version.

Denial of evidence is the weakest form of debate.

Originally posted by poet1b
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.

Actually in both cases the fuel played the role only of igniting fires. Once these fires ignited, normal office materials provided the fuel. It is obvious from this first section you have not read the NIST report and as such your claim to have done "considerable research" is wrong.

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.

How do you know this? Because you feel it personally? I have done the calculations to suggest only a few percent of the surface area available for conduction from fire was available to conduct heat to other steel in the building. You are wrong.

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.

This is not the proposed failure mechanism, but indeed both buildings did collapse at the level 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 happened. Please view Aman Zafar's pictures, or the endless talk of the "Core Spire". www.sharpprintinginc.com...:178

[edit on 21-9-2008 by exponent]

All the evidence was quickly and conveniently removed and destroyed, so that no one could ever prove that the official story was wrong

...Even if you were correct (that there was no evidence because it was all destroyed), this at best has you arguing from ignorance.

Of course, you aren't correct, so are either extremely ignorant (nevermind arguing from it) or simply lying. Debris took a very long time to remove, and was not just outright destroyed - much of it was analyzed by experts so that any failings the buildings may have had could be identified (there weren't any. The buildings were exceptionally well-designed, thus standing as long as they did).

Aircraft debris was found, passenger bodies were found, aircraft interior (life jackets, seat cushions) was found and personal effects were found. Guess what wasn't found? Bomb fragments, unexploded bombs (unless you think every explosive planeted in such a quick-and-dirty fashion in the towers would've detonated perfectly well?), blast-marked steel, etc.

reply to post by exponent


Better do your calculations again, get a new calculator, or explain to us what calculations you did because you might have figured out the kind of math will solve the world's energy crisis. You say that you did the calculations yourself, so you realize that statement is completely empty unless you submit those calculations as well to prove there are no errors, or that you even had a clue what you were calculating.

Originally posted by Kevin R Brown

All the evidence was quickly and conveniently removed and destroyed, so that no one could ever prove that the official story was wrong

...Even if you were correct (that there was no evidence because it was all destroyed), this at best has you arguing from ignorance.

Of course, you aren't correct, so are either extremely ignorant (nevermind arguing from it) or simply lying. Debris took a very long time to remove, and was not just outright destroyed - much of it was analyzed by experts so that any failings the buildings may have had could be identified (there weren't any. The buildings were exceptionally well-designed, thus standing as long as they did).

Aircraft debris was found, passenger bodies were found, aircraft interior (life jackets, seat cushions) was found and personal effects were found. Guess what wasn't found? Bomb fragments, unexploded bombs (unless you think every explosive planeted in such a quick-and-dirty fashion in the towers would've detonated perfectly well?), blast-marked steel, etc.

Even the NIST report admits they had no steel to test. Why is that? What happend to the steel?

As far as all this stuff that was found, where is it all? Why is it not being identified by serial number as is standard procedure? Where is any evidence that any of these things were actually recovered?

reply to post by The All Seeing I


How can demolition explain this the most simple method is definitely not demolition. It takes weeks to set up a demolition. It involves cutting structural supports drilling wirering and im pretty sure the people working there would have been curious of det cord laying around there offices. Not to mention probably would have gotten a little scared watching them cut thru support beams, And this is the most logical conclusion huh?

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
Better do your calculations again, get a new calculator, or explain to us what calculations you did because you might have figured out the kind of math will solve the world's energy crisis. You say that you did the calculations yourself, so you realize that statement is completely empty unless you submit those calculations as well to prove there are no errors, or that you even had a clue what you were calculating.

The calculations I did were simple, and are available elsewhere on the forum. I simply found the details of truss construction and measured the amount of surface area in contact with other steel compared to the surface area open to air (and therefore flames).

My point is that while I have actually done these calculations, many people who claim that steel would magically wick away heat at an incredible speed have done no calculations whatsoever. They simply assume that it would, because it supports their theory.

I am more than happy to show my calculations to support my claim, as soon as someone who makes the alternate claim shows theirs. This has yet to be done (and I posted them anyway in a couple of threads )

Even the NIST report admits they had no steel to test. Why is that? What happend to the steel?

Uh, I hope you're referring to the WTC7 report there because NCSTAR 1-3 goes into quite a lot of detail about steel recovered from the towers.

The reason they had no steel from WTC7 is it was moved off-site without any care and was unmarked, so once it had been removed they had no way to differentiate it from other steel. It is a shame, but as it doesn't seem that specific building elements were stamped with identifying details, NIST would not be able to determine the as-built location even if they did have steel from the building

As far as all this stuff that was found, where is it all? Why is it not being identified by serial number as is standard procedure? Where is any evidence that any of these things were actually recovered?

NCSTAR 1-3 goes into detail about the steel recovered, how it was identified and the damage noted.

reply to post by exponent


The material of the building, and the office furniture does not burn hot enough to melt the steel support beams. Then was shown by the study done by Popular Science. Their explanation was that the fire got hot enough to weaken the steel, and that combined with thermal expansion, this caused the building to collapse. This is of course, more nonsense. No building has ever collapsed from a fire such as this. Also, this thermal expansion, twisting of the inner core, should have been clearly visible before the building collapsed. There are plenty of tables out there that show what temperature the fire would have been expected to burn at, and the temperature needed to weaken the core. I looked at all of these numbers long ago before coming to my conclusion.

If anyone has the calculations that prove the WTC towers would have collapsed the way that they did, I would like to see them. They should include how much steel made up the inner core of the towers combined with how much heat it would have taken to weaken all that steel to collapse the way that it did, and the evidence that the resulting fire would have weakened the entire core to the point of collapsing at free fall speed. None of the experts have come up with these calculations, so please produce them.

Most certainly, after the towers collapsed, we did not have 80 stories of inner core still standing. The link you provided does not match with all the other photos I have seen of the end results of the WTC collapse. Here is a link to photos of what was left after the collapse. There is no 80, or 50 stories of inner core still standing, only a story or two of the outer shell.

www.september11news.com...

Originally posted by poet1b
The material of the building, and the office furniture does not burn hot enough to melt the steel support beams.

This is correct. Steel melts at around 1500C, the upper range of fire temperatures would be expected to be 1200C.

Then was shown by the study done by Popular Science. Their explanation was that the fire got hot enough to weaken the steel, and that combined with thermal expansion, this caused the building to collapse. This is of course, more nonsense.

This certainly isn't the "official story" for WTC1 or 2. Perhaps you could be more specific as to what you are talking about here.

No building has ever collapsed from a fire such as this.

Plenty of buildings have collapsed through fire, the difference is that no steel framed skyscraper has collapsed entirely through fire effects before. This doesn't prevent it happening, just indicates that engineers are prudent in their protection of steel from fire.

There are plenty of tables out there that show what temperature the fire would have been expected to burn at, and the temperature needed to weaken the core. I looked at all of these numbers long ago before coming to my conclusion.

Perhaps you could present them.

If anyone has the calculations that prove the WTC towers would have collapsed the way that they did, I would like to see them. They should include how much steel made up the inner core of the towers combined with how much heat it would have taken to weaken all that steel to collapse the way that it did, and the evidence that the resulting fire would have weakened the entire core to the point of collapsing at free fall speed. None of the experts have come up with these calculations, so please produce them.

Please see the NIST report, specifically NCSTAR 1-6.

Most certainly, after the towers collapsed, we did not have 80 stories of inner core still standing. The link you provided does not match with all the other photos I have seen of the end results of the WTC collapse. Here is a link to photos of what was left after the collapse. There is no 80, or 50 stories of inner core still standing, only a story or two of the outer shell.

The core only survived for a short period, it was of course significantly damaged from the collapse of the building, and even undamaged there are questions as to whether it could stand on its own.

Let me be quite clear here:
The "official story" does not predict a core failure initiating collapse, as you seem to be primarily talking about the core of the buildings, this suggests you do not know what the "official story" is. Can you please tell us what NISTs theory is, and why it is not possible?

reply to post by exponent


If the NIST explanation offers anything new, why don't you just state what that is, instead of referring to the NIST study. If the NIST study has something new, state it. Sounds to me that the NIST study is just more double speak that we are expected to sift through for a plausible cause. If you can't make the case for the material you are supporting, then how am I supposed to find it in the newest report.

dragonridr...

what you have described is the process/procedure for one to orchestrate a traditional controlled demolition, i believe we all agree these steps are to be true. All 3 buildings collapsed as if someone snapped all the interior beams at the same time... this can only be explained by a controlled demolition... but not just any old controlled demolition... certain creative liberties were taken (such as snapping all the joints below the crash points) and obviously would have required some slightly advanced techniques. Cutting edge so to speak... no pun intended

advancements in all areas of science are being made year by year
most of which are not shared with joe-blow off the street
in large part because the advancements were made within the walls of military research labs. We can thank our military industrial complex for spearheading the technological ventures that we now call the internet, satellite tv, cell phones and the microwave oven.

If we all went back in time to tell our grandparents when they were our age now what is possible in our current day, they'd think we were describing a dream or that we were crazy. And if we could demonstrate for them some of these techno wonders they'd think of us as magicians or supernatural beings.

So yes a hybrid controlled demolition technique is the most logical explanation based on all that we know about science in our day, and the simple fact that our government knows 1st hand every imaginable advancement in science before the public ever does is well proven.

Finding a new and improved way of bringing down a steel structured building like a tower of cards is by no means a stretch of the imagination.
Again... if it walks and talks like a duck... it's most likely a duck.
it's the simplest most sufficient explanation.

Now for those who insist on calling a duck by another name and going out of your way to explain why a duck that walks and talks like a duck is not a duck... and then claim that this is the most simplistic sufficient explanation for seeing what you thought you saw, a duck, but not a duck... and thus closing the case by claiming complete knowledge and logic when complete knowledge and logic were not in use... this i find to be extremely peculiar to say the least. One may question such senseless mental gymnastics as delusional or insane.

How ironic it is that those who continue to investigate are the ones given the tin foil hat.



[edit on 21-9-2008 by The All Seeing I]

Originally posted by poet1b
If the NIST explanation offers anything new, why don't you just state what that is, instead of referring to the NIST study. If the NIST study has something new, state it. Sounds to me that the NIST study is just more double speak that we are expected to sift through for a plausible cause. If you can't make the case for the material you are supporting, then how am I supposed to find it in the newest report.

I don't see why I should be required to explain NISTs theory to you. I have spent the time and effort to read through well over 11,000 pages of reports. If I were to explain this to you I doubt you would trust me, so why don't you read it for yourself? You may gain substantial insight into the 'correct' scientific procedure for analysing complex multi-variable situations where there are lots of unknowns.

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
All 3 buildings collapsed as if someone snapped all the interior beams at the same time... this can only be explained by a controlled demolition...

This is incorrect, there are photographs and video of WTC1 and 2 showing large visible deflections for quite a while before collapse, WTC7s collapse initiated over a 7 second period, hardly "the same time".

certain creative liberties were taken (such as snapping all the joints below the crash points)

This is also incorrect, please see the work of Dr Bazant, Dr Greening, Gregory Urich, David B Benson etc. There are at least three papers showing that no pre-collapse damage was needed to the lower structure.

Now for those who insist on calling a duck by another name and going out of your way to explain why a duck that walks and talks like a duck is not a duck... and then claim that this is the most simplistic sufficient explanation for seeing what you thought you saw... and thus closing the case by claiming complete knowledge and logic when complete knowledge and logic were not in use.

This is quite silly, the "official story" requires the following elements

• Plane impact
  
• Fire

Any conspiracy theory requires the following elements

• Explosives

We have direct evidence of

• Plane impact
  
• Fire

You cannot simply posit explosives and assume they exist, this violates Occam's Razor.

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
dragonridr...
Finding a new and improved way of bringing down a steel structured building like a tower of cards is by no means a stretch of the imagination.
Again... if it walks and talks like a duck... it's most likely a duck.
it's the simplest most sufficient explanation.

[edit on 21-9-2008 by The All Seeing I]

Physics doesn't change no matter what explosives are used The only advances done in explosives is directed force. But even this has been known since the 50 s. there isn't any wonder explosions that can violate the laws of physics. Now having worked with explosives in order to bring that building down you would have had to have explosives set on alternate sides to go off in tandem. And it would have been very evident heck it would have put the fire out in the building. The glass in lower floors would have needed to be removes the windows would have been found 6 blocks away. Now again lets discuss 1200 degree fires. Take the time to found out what happens what temperature the properties of steel change If you get steel to cold it gets brittle too hot becomes malleable. Don't expect the steel to melt but if it gets hot it can bend physics again pesky thing.

Originally posted by exponent

You cannot simply posit explosives and assume they exist, this violates Occam's Razor.

All things being equal, you use Occam's Razor. NOTHING was equal or natural on 9/11, so Occam's Razor does not apply here.

You have to hold the government responsible and complicit in the attacks due to their actions since said attacks. All this talk is MEANINGLESS. There are criminals are traitors in the white house at this very moment. Do your duty as a "patriot", and quit debating this nonsense and take action to put these criminals in jail.

Originally posted by JimBeam
All things being equal, you use Occam's Razor. NOTHING was equal or natural on 9/11, so Occam's Razor does not apply here.

Fair comment, Occam's Razor is simply a method of suggesting the most likely explanation, it is certainly not proof in any manner.

You have to hold the government responsible and complicit in the attacks due to their actions since said attacks. All this talk is MEANINGLESS. There are criminals are traitors in the white house at this very moment. Do your duty as a "patriot", and quit debating this nonsense and take action to put these criminals in jail.

I'm not American, and I fail to see how any of your leaders have committed acts which make them traitors. Even so I don't agree with the Bush administration and look forward to Obama's election.

This is irrelevant to the discussion at hand however, no matter how much I hate Bush, I can't blame him for something he didn't do, and there's no evidence he orchestrated the 911 attacks.

reply to post by exponent


Sorry, assumed you were American.

But here in the states we are in dip, dip, dip, dip, dip (you know what).

I just get dam tired of discussions about temperatures, thermite, molten steel or no molten steel, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,etc..............................................

I can no longer take the lounge chair quarterback view on the issue. I'm on the verge of taking real action.

Exponent,

I URGE you to research the relationship between Israel and America. Especially the USS Liberty massacre.

Originally posted by JimBeam
Exponent,

I URGE you to research the relationship between Israel and America. Especially the USS Liberty massacre.

I am aware of this, but unfortunately the facts are quite muddled on both sides. You'll find I am quite anti-Israel in some aspects, but I certainly don't believe in any of the 'Jewish Conspiracies'.

You are right to be frustrated, but your best course of action is political (in my opinion). It takes a lot to change a nation, and ensuring that Obama's presidency is one filled with triumphs would go a long way to redeeming America in the eyes of the world and convincing some of the die-hard Republicans.

I hope so anyway.

reply to post by exponent


I actually already did ask for these calculations didn't I?

Yes I did. So the point of another post telling me that you will offer them up if asked?????

I ASKED ALREADY.

The second reply was not to you so if you want to hope what I am talking about, be the guy I am talking to or stay out of it.

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
I actually already did ask for these calculations didn't I?

Yes I did. So the point of another post telling me that you will offer them up if asked?????

I ASKED ALREADY.

My point was that people who commonly make claims such as "the steel would wick the heat away so it couldn't heat up much" don't provide any calculations to support this. I said I would provide the calculations when someone making the opposing claim provides theirs. They are actually already available (and incredibly simple) elsewhere on the forum. If you search my posts for a link to the old Loose Change forum you will find them.

The second reply was not to you so if you want to hope what I am talking about, be the guy I am talking to or stay out of it.

I don't know what this is supposed to mean but I am more than happy to address your criticisms, I have a good knowledge of the NIST report, the events of 911 and an appropriate level of engineering and physics knowledge for this discussion.

reply to post by exponent


So.. you really have no calculations. You never did any calculations. You have no idea what to calculate in the first place.

Correct?

3 posts and no calculations to show.