9/11 media happenings

[TheArchitect]

Only a coward or a fool would fail to set out their stall; Jazz, view that as a challenge rather than an insult.

 

[detective-boy]

Anyone ... ?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

This is going to be fucking funny

 

[WouldBe]

No it won't.

The CTer's will ignore the thread for months only to start a new, almost identical thread in 6-9 months time.

 

[Roadkill]

I shall await your reply with interest.

You may be waiting some time...

 

[pk]

That's a sterling effort there by the architect.

I imagine jazzz is frenetically Googling conspiranoid sites with dodgy agendas and trying to rope in his 9/11 truthseeker mates to help him.

Unfortunately though, as has happened in the past - the salient, sane points will be overlooked and he'll change the subject.

 

[detective-boy]

* Gets refill *

 

[Techno303]

<pulls up a chair>

<hands out some beers>

 

[Jazzz]

Jazz,

Your response regarding the evidential basis for any theory seems a little confused, and it may be helpful if I briefly return to basics.

In investigating any phenomenon, scientific or otherwise, the principles are well established. We assemble the evidence and analyse it to an appropriate level. We then test our hypetheses, or theories, against the evidence and select that explains and supports the evidence most comprehensively. You will also be aware of tests such as Occam's Razor.

Oh lord! One rarely comes across posters who are quite so achingly pompous and patronising. I fear this is going to be damn tedious.

What we do not do is start with a hypothesis and then cherry pick evidence to suit our predetermined starting point.

Indeed! Now that you are spelling hypothesis correctly, let's point out that this is exactly what has happened with the official theory. In fact not only has the evidence which runs counter to it been ignored (more on that later), but evidence which would have settled the issue has been destroyed, and not analysed at all! You should say, "what we do not do is start with a hypothesis, destroy all evidence which may disprove it where possible, and then out of what remains cherry pick to suit"

Now when we look at WTC, NIST identified a significant - many of us would say overwhelming - body of evidence which supports their findings. We know the planes hit, and we know that there was immediate damage to the loadbearing envelope. We know that there were severe fires. We know that the external structure buckled and failed, leading to collapse.

Oh! Nice rhetorical trick - name a sequence of unremarkable propositions, and while everyone is going 'yes, yes etc' then you slip in the contentious one at the end hoping no-one will notice. Nice try!

If we look at alternative hyptheses, we see nothing like this level of evidence. For example the only physical evidence of explosives is the photographs of the so-called squibs, however these in turn can be attributed to other (simpler) failure mechanisms. There are no remains of chargers. There is no evidence of placement of material. There is no evidence of the means of detonation.

For a start, your approach to comparing rival hypotheses is not sound. You are listing evidence compatible with both as evidence for the first, and then claiming that this is somehow tipping a balance. Not the case at all. As you should well know, the question must be settled on evidence which is compatible with one hypothesis but not the other.

Then you present the most outrageous 'straw man', suggesting that the only claimed evidence for CD (and against the official theory) is the 'squibs' - which other posters will know is a load of tosh (CD exponents make many many more arguments) even if they do not agree it. I will list some more here off the top of my head:

The fire in the South Tower was unremarkable and soon to be fully extinguished - thousands of tons of steel provided a huge 'heat sink' for any fire, so the steel columns could only have risen a few degrees in tempature - other skyscrapers have endured infernos utterly dwarfing those of the WTC and not collapsed - observations and photographic evidence of huge steel beams being flung out horizontally - sightings of 'flashes' around collapsing floors - the pyroclastic flow of the dust cloud - observations of molten steel in the basements of the WTC, weeks after collapse - near 'free-fall' collapse time of the towers (not modelled by NIST IIRC) - video evidence of molten metal pouring from the structure consistent with thermite reaction - analysis of steel samples consistent with thermate being present - seismic spikes and timing not consistent with official theory - and not least, all the reports and evidence of explosions already mentioned in this thread.

The question to be asked is whether observations like these are easily explained by the official theory, or whether one need have recourse to CD in order to satisfactorily explain them (it is certainly the case that they are well explained by CD).

But - oh my god - the official investigation didn't find that big black box thing with the big plunger on it! Well I'm sorry but that's neither here nor there.

Therefore this theory is not supported by the actual evidence and no amount of hand-waving and vague reference to qui bono will suffice to make it the most plausible explanation.

Now this basic scientific premise is neither new or unique; it underpins scientific and rational thought throughout the World, including higher education.

I therefore challenge you: if you have substantive evidence which will outweigh the highly detailed NIST findings then bring it forward in a comprehensive, measured manner which we can then discuss.

If you do not have such evidence then I have to ask how you arrived with such certainty at your conclusions?

I would say you are having a laugh, but you aren't, dear god you are pompous! By the way, it's 'cui bono' - you should have known that as you are doubtless so well educated. And you berate me for hand-waving! I wouldn't be surprised if you could fly the channel.

Now, lets turn to Fire Engineering which you imply supports the accusations of nefarious Government wrong doing at WTC. For those unfamiliar with it, there are two relevant articles.

<edit>

I quoted the 'Fire Engineering' article to demonstrate the nature of the sloppy investigation, not as an analysis of the collapse itself.

 

[Jazzz]

With the deepest respect, this is in no way an informed or informative hypothesis; little more than a soundbite.

Are you claiming that the central steel columns would have withstood the impact and fires? Are you claiming that it was their failure which initiated the collapse, not the floor trusses? Are you claiming that they should have stood on their own following the collapse of the external envelope?

Once you produce a cogent statement of what you believe happened, then I will respond to it.

Likewise I would be very much obliged if you could provide evidence that there was no large rubble. I have seen many, many photographs of the debris field (which was substantial) and large pieces of debris within. This included steel, concrete, and other constructional fragments.

I can provide the links, but again am trying hard not to make you look like a right fanny.

I not sure why you are confused over this. My contention, which I have in the past gone over with WouldBe (IIRC) is that I can find no explanation in the official theory for the collapse of the central steel columns. Clearly, the official theory does need to explain their collapse, because if it does not, they should still be standing up. I'm not saying that their failure must have initiated the collapse, although as a point of interest the North Tower radio mast was first to go, and it was directly connected to the central columns, so that's some evidence for that.

The observation that there was little large rubble (no computers, desks, etc, and plenty of dust) would suggest to me that the the lower levels should have remained standing (because they would need lots of heavy rubble falling in order to collapse) but I don't consider this argument clear-cut.

 

[tarannau]

So that's a cowardly evasion then Jazzz?

For gawd's sake, why can;t you have the nuts to actually explain what you think may have actually happened, rather than foisting your hopes to every passing conspiracy theory that comes along. You clearly don't have the scientific or architectural expertise to comment convincingly on the forces involved. You even see fit to ignore the Architect's comments on the rubble photos in preference of re-iterating your same old viewpoint, shorn of any new evidence.

The Architect's given reasonable explanations why the official report would appear to be justified in its conclusions. You, on the other hand, seem to offer no insight other than reciting the dubious theories from a handful of selected sites.

Do you really still believe CD was an option given the huge operational and theoretical shortcomings of such an approach. Or are we back to holographic planes and radio controlled missiles again?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

observations and photographic evidence of huge steel beams being flung out horizontally

Inconsistent with cutting charges, consistent with anti tank blast mines but that's about it.

- sightings of 'flashes' around collapsing floors

Never mentioned before, nor documented by movies, conclusion being that you're talking shite or that the witneses saw light reflecting off broken glass as the angle changed.

- the pyroclastic flow of the dust cloud

Tit, you really think that's of any relevance? Don't answer that, it was a rhetorical question.

- observations of molten steel in the basements of the WTC, weeks after collapse -

Irrelevant, not explained by any controlled demolitions theory that makes even the slightest bit of sense

near 'free-fall' collapse time of the towers (not modelled by NIST IIRC) -

Flat out lie, look at the videos, look at the debris falling next to the structure, it's falling faster. How bloody stupid are you?

video evidence of molten metal pouring from the structure consistent with thermite reaction

NOT THE FUCKING THERMITE AGAIN!!!

- analysis of steel samples consistent with thermate being present -

See above

seismic spikes and timing not consistent with official theory

Wrong, they do not.

- and not least, all the reports and evidence of explosions already mentioned in this thread.

Sadly they aren't the least, not exactly useful either as time and time again it's been pointed out why it makes no sense. Explosions you say! On the basement level! How strange that these explosions did not lead to any noticable damage!

How many fucking times do you need to be told that you're talking shite?

The buildings did not fall at 9.8ms^-2, the seismic readings were not inconsistent, the claims of flashes contradict thermite as does the mention of beams being flung out of the collapse, hell that last one contradicts everything about a controlled demolition.

You're incapable of learning aren't you jazzz?

 

[editor]

*pulls up chair
*taps fingers

 

[liampreston]

Ooh, I've missed threads like this. It's as though we haven't had them every month for 5 years...


[orders burger and chips]


[slurps coke]

 

[Jazzz]

Well bobthelost you should have held on to your horses there. I know we have differing opinions about the significance of many of the items listed. The purpose of listing them was not to go around in circles debating them but to adress the achingly simplistic analysis of TheArchitect by showing the variety of the questions to be asked when considering rival hypotheses (whatever one thinks of them) - and that there is far more than 'squibs' at issue as claimed by proponents of CD.

But note your hand-waving, how can you dismiss the observed phenomena as 'irrelevant'? You can't; it all needs explaining - whichever theory you prefer. I think that reveals error in your mindset.

 

[editor]

The purpose of listing them was not to go around in circles debating them but to adress the achingly simplistic analysis of TheArchitect by showing the variety of the questions to be asked when considering rival hypotheses (whatever one thinks of them) - and that there is far more than 'squibs' at issue as claimed by proponents of CD.

Why can't you just answer TheArchitect's points directly, and back up your opinion with credible research and evidence for your alternative 'theory'?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Well bobthelost you should have held on to your horses there. I know we have differing opinions about the significance of many of the items listed. The purpose of listing them was not to go around in circles debating them but to adress the achingly simplistic analysis of TheArchitect by showing the variety of the questions to be asked when considering rival hypotheses (whatever one thinks of them) - and that there is far more than 'squibs' at issue as claimed by proponents of CD.

But note your hand-waving, how can you dismiss the observed phenomena as 'irrelevant'? You can't; it all needs explaining - whichever theory you prefer. I think that reveals error in your mindset.

Sorry, significance is one thing. That you're still peddling the same shite that's been disproved time and time again is the bit that irritates me most.

Do you deny that you're utterly wrong about the speed at which the buildings fell for example? It's be interesting to see if you can manage even that much intellecutal honesty.

If you think it's relevant please, please tell me how a "pyroclastic flow" of dust is relevant. How the fuck motlen metal proves that there was a controled demolition. You can't because neither has any relevance to any CD theory that stands even a moment's inspection. The ability to realise what is and what isn't relevant in a problem is a vital tool for anyone who wants to do analysis. Do you lack that ability as well as common sense?

 

[Jazzz]

Why can't you just answer TheArchitect's points directly, and back up your opinion with credible research and evidence for your alternative 'theory'?

Why don't you stay out of it? I'm presuming that TheArchitect asked you to re-open the thread, which one assumes you were happy to stop posting on when you closed it. Trust me, the thread will be a lot more fun that way. If you think he's all that, I'm sure he's capable of taking lil' ol' me on by himself without you showing up as his bruiser - he certainly seems to think so - so why insult his ability?

To be honest it's touch and go whether I can bothered with all of this

 

[Jazzz]

BTL it's going to be a total pain if I spend ages contstructing careful replies to TheArchitect and then you misrepresent them with huge long posts.

 

[Techno303]

To be honest it's touch and go whether I can bothered with all of this

How about answering BTL's question on the speed of the buildings fall? It just a simple Y/N.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

BTL it's going to be a total pain if I spend ages contstructing careful replies to TheArchitect and then you misrepresent them with huge long posts.

Huge long posts? I prefer to think of it as information rich. In terms of wordcount it's rather unimpressive. But by all means avoid the questions and the truth in the same manner that you've patented over your time here.

 

[Crispy]

How about answering BTL's question on the speed of the buildings fall? It just a simple Y/N.

This is a very simple one, indeed. Shouldn't require more than a sentence or two.

 

[WouldBe]

The observation that there was little large rubble (no computers, desks, etc, and plenty of dust) would suggest to me that the the lower levels should have remained standing (because they would need lots of heavy rubble falling in order to collapse) but I don't consider this argument clear-cut.

Jazz, if a floor is designed to withstand 1 ton and you place 2 tons of weight on it it will collapse regardless of wether that 2 ton weight is one large lump of lead of 2 tons of talcum powder. Weight is weight.

 

[Jazzz]

How about answering BTL's question on the speed of the buildings fall? It just a simple Y/N.

What, the 'do I deny I was utterly wrong about the speed of the building's fall'? - the answer is yes I deny it - I said 'near free-fall speed' not 'free-fall speed' and that was indeed an accurate description of the collapses. I'm really reluctant to engage with this kind of misrepresentation not to mention childish taunts.

 

[Techno303]

What, the 'do I deny I was utterly wrong about the speed of the building's fall'? - the answer is yes I deny it - I said 'near free-fall speed' not 'free-fall speed' and that was indeed an accurate description of the collapses. I'm really reluctant to engage with this kind of misrepresentation not to mention childish taunts.

What’s the difference between ‘near free fall’ and ‘free fall speed’? How did you measure this? Are you saying it is ‘near free fall’ to account for friction?

Thanks for answering the question.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

*drops head into hands*

So the buildings were slowed by the floors beneath, but not enough for you? This is one of the more conclusive bits of evidence for a CD?

 

[Jazzz]

Jazz, if a floor is designed to withstand 1 ton and you place 2 tons of weight on it it will collapse regardless of wether that 2 ton weight is one large lump of lead of 2 tons of talcum powder. Weight is weight.

True but each is held to have collapsed pretty much instantaneously which gives no time for the rubble to 'load up' - and indeed the structure of each floor was designed to hold up the weight of all the floors above, so it must be that the force of the collisions is an issue here rather than a simple mass of rubble.

 

[WouldBe]

True but each is held to have collapsed pretty much instantaneously which gives no time for the rubble to 'load up' - and indeed the structure of each floor was designed to hold up the weight of all the floors above, so it must be that the force of the collisions is an issue here rather than a simple mass of rubble.

The rubble in question would be the large chunks of steel girder.

The floor doesnot hold up the floors above the columns do.

 

[kyser_soze]

Hello! Hello T303 - good to see you here again!

TheArchitect...I'm digging the posting style, very much like the real Architect in Reloaded in fact...

Still rumbling on eh? Good show, pip pip etc

 

[Jazzz]

What’s the difference between ‘near free fall’ and ‘free fall speed’? How did you measure this? Are you saying it is ‘near free fall’ to account for friction?

Thanks for answering the question.

The difference is a few seconds. Imagine Jackie Chan falling through a series of canopies, which I believe he did in one of his films - although he is going through each one pretty much straightaway, there is resistance and the total time is not going to be 'near free-fall', it will be possibly be several times more.