9/11 media happenings

[8den]

Oh FFS sake

I've just found out that RTE are going to broadcast loose fucking change on national tv.

 

[TheArchitect]

Jazz,

As ever you seem to having some difficulty answering questions:

Oh, lest I forget:

Originally Posted by Jazzz
from clear that it would progress in the way it did - no steel building has ever collapsed in such a way before, not from fire, not from earthquakes, not anything. But, they have from CD.

That's a strawman argument worthy of a school kid:Find me another building that got hit by large jets at high speed, suffered a large explosion, then a widespread fire.

I note there has been silence over the question of NIST's failure to account for the heat conductivity of the steel - surely something that had to be a major consideration of their model.

I have to ask this Jazz: Do you believe that steel fails due to fire under normal fire conditions, given that you cling so strongly to this conductivity issue?

Still waiting for your substantive response.

 

[Jazzz]

That's a strawman argument worthy of a school kid:Find me another building that got hit by large jets at high speed, suffered a large explosion, then a widespread fire.

No it's not. The argument I was making there was it's pathetic saying that even if collapse initiated, it had to collapse in a way that was so unusual it had never happened before - except of course in controlled demolitions. A theory of collapse initiation, which is at the very best what the NIST report is, is in no way a model of the collapse itself.

I have to ask this Jazz: Do you believe that steel fails due to fire under normal fire conditions, given that you cling so strongly to this conductivity issue?

Oh, nice try. I believe it certainly won't fail under normal fire conditions if it is conducting the heat away. You have to say why the hell should we pay any attention to the NIST report when it completely ignores crucial factors.

 

[editor]

Oh, nice try. I believe it certainly won't fail under normal fire conditions if it is conducting the heat away. You have to say why the hell should we pay any attention to the NIST report when it completely ignores crucial factors.

Who's the "we" here?

On whose behalf are you talking?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

it had to collapse in a way that was so unusual it had never happened before - except of course in controlled demolitions.

Please note: Not a single example of this controlled demolition of a steel structure put forwards yet. No, none at all!

 

[Bob_the_lost]

You have to say why the hell should we pay any attention to the NIST report when it completely ignores crucial factors.

Does it? Does it really? Since you haven't read the report why should we take your word for it?

 

[TheArchitect]

Jazz: Fantasist Supreme

Jazz,

I was hoping that by now you might have begun to read my posts, think about what really happened on 9/11, and appraise the evidence before you in a more informed and level manner. It appears that I was optimistic.

The accepted scientific or engineering position is that when I am presented with an argument on a vital subject, this argument must reach certain standards of validity. This must be verifiable through calculation, our understanding of existing systems, and evidence.

Your explanations in support of your theories are no more than a description of what you believe happened, and anyone can do that. The evidence presented for a certain argument should be judged firstly by that evidence's ability to stand alone. For example can the argument, or hypothesis, be tested in any way. Such tests can include physical models, video evidence, historical precedent, and established scientific precedent.

In my opinion, your hypothesis has almost no independent verification. It is not supported by engineering models, basic structural issues, or our understanding of fire performance. It is not supported by credible evidence, and such evidence as you do present is clearly not based on a thorough review of available material.

Of greatest concern are the misquotes and unsubstantiated figures which you post. Whatever the provenance of such posts, how are those of us on this board to differentiate the information you give us from the information a person that might be willingly trying to deceive us, or at least willingly keep us in the dark might give?

Do you really think a good critical thinker should accept an explanation that is only a description of a belief of what happened to be fact? Do you not agree that it is incumbent upon us to investigate, understand, and analyse before reaching a conclusion? Do you believe that that a single source or a small group of unqualified activisits with little or no expertise in specialist should be believed before expert technical opinion?

In your posts you qualitative details whatsoever. There is no comment on the capacity of the structure to support load, and at what locations, in order to arrest or significantly support the collapse. You do not give any indication of how loads are to be magically transferred through the hat truss to the core. You do not post any calculations demonstrating the capacity of the core.

It is clear to me, and the others on this site, that you fail to grasp both the basic engineering principles and logical analysis required in order to understand the actual events which led to the collapse of WTC.

 

[TheArchitect]

No it's not. The argument I was making there was it's pathetic saying that even if collapse initiated, it had to collapse in a way that was so unusual it had never happened before - except of course in controlled demolitions. A theory of collapse initiation, which is at the very best what the NIST report is, is in no way a model of the collapse itself.

Your logical fallacies are begining to show.

WTC emplyed an rare and innovative structural system. The two towers were the only such buildings ever to be struck by two high speed, large jets laden with large quantities of jet fuel. They were the only such buildings to suffer a large explosion followed by widespread fire.

If you can find us comparable examples then you have a point. But all you're doing is trying to compare apples and oranges.

If I apply your theory, the Citicorp Building was never at risk of collapse because no tall building has ever collapsed due to wind loadings. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island should never have happened because no previous reactors went belly up. And so on.

See how ridiculous your argument is yet?

Oh, nice try. I believe it certainly won't fail under normal fire conditions if it is conducting the heat away. You have to say why the hell should we pay any attention to the NIST report when it completely ignores crucial factors.

And in what way did the thermal characteristics of the steel in the WTC vary from normal steel framed structures then?

 

[Jazzz]

Does it? Does it really? Since you haven't read the report why should we take your word for it?

What, and you have? In which case please find where it accounts for the conductivity of the steel

 

[Bob_the_lost]

What, and you have? In which case please find where it accounts for the conductivity of the steel

Not what i asked oh master of deception. How do you know that it's not featured in the report?

Or in other words, how do we know you're not just making stuff up again?

 

[Jazzz]

You're logical fallacies are begining to show.

WTC emplyed an rare and innovative structural system. The two towers were the only such buildings ever to be struck by two high speed, large jets laden with large quantities of jet fuel. They were the only such buildings to suffer a large explosion followed by widespread fire.

If you can find us comparable examples then you have a point. But all you're doing is trying to compare apples and oranges.

If I apply your theory, the Citicorp Building was never at risk of collapse because no tall building has ever collapsed due to wind loadings. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island should never have happened because no previous reactors went belly up. And so on.

See how ridiculous your argument is yet?



And in what way did the thermal characteristics of the steel in the WTC vary from normal steel framed structures then?

You're either deliberately strawmanning or failing to understand the point I was making. I wasn't saying that because a building had never fallen like that before, there is no way it could have happened on 9/11.

What I was saying, (I am getting tired of having to repeat myself), is that simply modelling to a point of collapse initiation in no way models the unique collapse that subsequently occurred. And it's a collapse that requires explaining.

Never mind all the seriously troubling observations like the hot spots of molten steel etc. (completely unexplained by NIST)

 

[editor]

What, and you have? In which case please find where it accounts for the conductivity of the steel

Thing is, he's not arguing that there's anything wrong or inaccurate with the report.

But you are - yet you've admitted to never even reading the thing!

Bwahaha!

 

[Jazzz]

Jazz,
...You do not give any indication of how loads are to be magically transferred through the hat truss to the core. You do not post any calculations demonstrating the capacity of the core.

It is clear to me, and the others on this site, that you fail to grasp both the basic engineering principles and logical analysis required in order to understand the actual events which led to the collapse of WTC.

What are you saying, that loads can't be transferred to the core via the hat truss?

If you are the expert, why don't you do the calculations and say what the capacity of the core is?

 

[Jazzz]

Thing is, he's not arguing that there's anything wrong or inaccurate with the report.

But you are - yet you've admitted to never even reading the thing!

Bwahaha!

I don't think anyone on this thread has actually 'read' it

 

[Bob_the_lost]

You have to say why the hell should we pay any attention to the NIST report when it completely ignores crucial factors.

What, and you have? In which case please find where it accounts for the conductivity of the steel

E.5 HEAT TRANSFER MODELING
Simulating the effect of a fire on structural integrity requires a means for transferring the heat generated by the FDS-simulated fire to the surface of the structural members and then conducting the heat through the (insulated) columns, trusses and other elements that made up the tower structure.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-5ExecutiveSummary.pdf

 

[editor]

I don't think anyone on this thread has actually 'read' it

But you're the only one claiming it contains scientific inaccuracies and oversights, based on what you think it might say.

And that makes you a bit of a joke.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Still waiting for an answer to my question Jazzz.

Have you got me on ignore?

Why won't you respond?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Just in case anyone missed my slaying of the mythological fact: Jazz was talking shite again.

*feels smug*

 

[Jazzz]

Hey BTL

thanks for digging that out. Interesting and well found. I have some comments to make on that but thought I'd try to go over it properly first.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Hey BTL

thanks for digging that out. Interesting and well found. I have some comments to make on that but thought I'd try to go over it properly first.

Well found? It took me 3 minutes max, the only way you could fail to find it was not to look at all.

 

[editor]

thanks for digging that out. Interesting and well found. I have some comments to make on that but thought I'd try to go over it properly first.

Surely you'd prefer to continue your usual modus operandi and just blast off another wild theory based on your ill-informed, research-untroubled 'hunches' and lunatic material found on nutjob fruitloop siter?

 

[Jazzz]

So, missiles form planes, do you still consider this part of the reason the towers collapsed, or is CD your sole theory now? I've asked nicely

Oh sorry bees, you did put a civil question. Forgive me.

I've always - since I first posted a 9/11 thread here, many years back - believed that the whole thing was planned so it would be like an unprecedented 'disaster movie' for the world to watch live as it happened. The idea was to shock us to the core so badly that we would accept huge restrictions to our freedoms that we would never do otherwise. And crucial to this movie was the bringing down of the towers - symbolic symbols of the 'free' world. There was only one way to be sure of doing that, and that was to blow them up. The idea was to have us all see them coming down before our eyes.

I invite others to join me in this belief for the length of the post.

It wouldn't work to simply blow them up - for a start you wouldn't have the first on film live at all, and you would have pretty poor, chaotic shots of the second at best from ground-based crews filming the debris of the first. And not to mention that it would be very hard to then pin it on muslim terrorists, as everyone would know what questions to ask of the security at the WTC - especially if it required several bombs.

No - far better to combine it with the aircraft strikes. This also provides more scares for us (we don't feel safe in the sky anymore) and the impact of the South Tower is in fact the most iconic shot of the whole scenario. We will then have the collapses viewed live by the whole world from aerial helicopter shots. These also function as your explanation for the collapses. You are going to blame those on the damage done by the impacts and especially ensuing fires. You have to have the fires otherwise it can't possibly sell. Nothing can be left to chance. So, that means you have to be sure of creating plenty of fire. Can you be sure of creating plenty of fire with a simple plane crash? No. Huge explosions happen in Hollywood when a plane crashes but not necessarily reality. And the WTC towers have sprinkler systems too. You can't take chances - and you want that huge fireball too when the plane hits the South Tower. So, either they fire missiles before they hit - or an alternative (I recently came across) was that explosives are already stationed in the towers where they are going to hit. Either will do.

That is the WTC part of the plan - with one crucial loose end - your 'command post' is somewhere high security with a good view of the towers to syncronise and oversee all events. This is also where all your plans are. This is where all the evidence is, all the paperwork and you have to destroy it all. The last act is to blow up this one, down to the ground. You hope that people won't pay much attention to why it came down, after all, the others towers were far more interesting.

 

[editor]

So, either they fire missiles before they hit - or an alternative (I recently came across) was that explosives are already stationed in the towers where they are going to hit. Either will do.

And both completely unsupported by a single shred of anything even remotely approaching credible evidence.

Stick to sci-fi, Jazzz.

 

[brixtonvilla]

Never mind all the seriously troubling observations like the hot spots of molten steel etc. (completely unexplained by NIST)

That'll be the classic CT trick of "move onto another piece of spurious "evidence" 'cause I've been pwnd on what I've presented so far trick", then.

So tired, so obvious...

 

[MikeMcc]

You're either deliberately strawmanning or failing to understand the point I was making. I wasn't saying that because a building had never fallen like that before, there is no way it could have happened on 9/11.

What I was saying, (I am getting tired of having to repeat myself), is that simply modelling to a point of collapse initiation in no way models the unique collapse that subsequently occurred. And it's a collapse that requires explaining.

Never mind all the seriously troubling observations like the hot spots of molten steel etc. (completely unexplained by NIST)

The collapse has been explained! Bazant and co showed that the dynamic load from the collapse of the top section exceeded the survivable loadings by a factor of 64 times!

Are you seriously suggesting that there couldn't be any localised heating of the metalwork in the debris following the collapse that couldn't have melted something, especially any aluminium!

 

[detective-boy]

But all you're doing is trying to compare apples and oranges.

Yeah ... but he's bananas ...

Gets coat ...

 

[detective-boy]

The idea was to shock us to the core so badly that we would accept huge restrictions to our freedoms that we would never do otherwise.

But, as you repeatedly point out, the core could stand on it's own, despite any damage caused by the impact ...

 

[detective-boy]

And crucial to this movie was the bringing down of the towers - symbolic symbols of the 'free' world.

One day Al-Jazeera are going to release a video of Osama's face as the two towers crumbled ... and I'll stake an awful lot on money on the fact he's going "Oh fuck! HOW the hell has that happened ..." and looking genuinely shocked and surprised like everyone else ...

 

[TheArchitect]

You're either deliberately strawmanning or failing to understand the point I was making. I wasn't saying that because a building had never fallen like that before, there is no way it could have happened on 9/11.

But Jazz, you've produced no credible evidence to support your hypothesis. Let's remind you - for example the lie about the fires being minor and/or going out. I've produced multiple sources, including photgraphic evidence, showing this to be wrong and yet all you can do is hand wave and say they don't look very hot to you!

WHY couldn't the building's collapse the way they did?

Never mind all the seriously troubling observations like the hot spots of molten steel etc. (completely unexplained by NIST)

Time and time again I ask you to provide a detailed case. And suddenly, days later, when forced into a corner, you suddenlytry and divert attention by throwing in something completely new (to you). Like, do you not understand "detailed" or the concept of actually providing a full argument?

 

[TheArchitect]

I've always - since I first posted a 9/11 thread here, many years back - believed that the whole thing was planned so it would be like an unprecedented 'disaster movie' for the world to watch live as it happened. The idea was to shock us to the core so badly that we would accept huge restrictions to our freedoms that we would never do otherwise. And crucial to this movie was the bringing down of the towers - symbolic symbols of the 'free' world. There was only one way to be sure of doing that, and that was to blow them up. The idea was to have us all see them coming down before our eyes.

I invite others to join me in this belief for the length of the post.

It wouldn't work to simply blow them up - for a start you wouldn't have the first on film live at all, and you would have pretty poor, chaotic shots of the second at best from ground-based crews filming the debris of the first. And not to mention that it would be very hard to then pin it on muslim terrorists, as everyone would know what questions to ask of the security at the WTC - especially if it required several bombs.

No - far better to combine it with the aircraft strikes. This also provides more scares for us (we don't feel safe in the sky anymore) and the impact of the South Tower is in fact the most iconic shot of the whole scenario. We will then have the collapses viewed live by the whole world from aerial helicopter shots. These also function as your explanation for the collapses. You are going to blame those on the damage done by the impacts and especially ensuing fires. You have to have the fires otherwise it can't possibly sell. Nothing can be left to chance. So, that means you have to be sure of creating plenty of fire. Can you be sure of creating plenty of fire with a simple plane crash? No. Huge explosions happen in Hollywood when a plane crashes but not necessarily reality. And the WTC towers have sprinkler systems too. You can't take chances - and you want that huge fireball too when the plane hits the South Tower. So, either they fire missiles before they hit - or an alternative (I recently came across) was that explosives are already stationed in the towers where they are going to hit. Either will do.

That is the WTC part of the plan - with one crucial loose end - your 'command post' is somewhere high security with a good view of the towers to syncronise and oversee all events. This is also where all your plans are. This is where all the evidence is, all the paperwork and you have to destroy it all. The last act is to blow up this one, down to the ground. You hope that people won't pay much attention to why it came down, after all, the others towers were far more interesting.

Unsubstantiated speculation.

No evidence.

Confirmation that you have always "believed" in the conspiracy theory.

NEXT!