ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 15th August 2015, 08:09 PM   #1
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
WTC Explosives: Rigging the Towers and Avoiding Detection, a Probabilistic Exam

Hi. Long time lurker, first time poster. I've been reading some of your posts for years, and in a strange way already feel like a "member" here.

I wrote an essay, with the same title as this thread, on the likelihood conspirators successfully rigged the WTC Towers undetected. Using simple probability arithmetic, I found the theory problematic.

I was hoping to elicit some of your opinions on it, but given its length, I am asking your permission before posting it here. It is several hundred words long, and I do not assume anyone necessarily has the attention span for it. If several or more members approve, I will post it.

Great forum, folks.

Bravin Neff
Bravin Neff is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2015, 08:35 PM   #2
sylvan8798
Master Poster
 
sylvan8798's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,734
I suggest posting your essay along with a tl;dr synopsis at the end for those who don't want to read the whole thing. Paragraph breaks help make an essay readable, as do good punctuation and grammar, so if you want people to actually read, make sure it is actually readable.
__________________
DoYouEverWonder - Engineers and architects don't have to design steel buildings not to collapse from gravity. They already conquered gravity when they built it.

- Professional Wastrel
sylvan8798 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2015, 11:18 PM   #3
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,412
Originally Posted by Bravin Neff View Post
Hi. Long time lurker, first time poster. I've been reading some of your posts for years, and in a strange way already feel like a "member" here.
Welcome to "two way" involvement.

Quote:
I wrote an essay, with the same title as this thread, on the likelihood conspirators successfully rigged the WTC Towers undetected. Using simple probability arithmetic, I found the theory problematic.
I'll wait till I see what you mean by "probability" BUT one problem could be that the probability for a past event which happend is one - 1. And the probabilty for a past event that did not happen is zero.

Quote:
I was hoping to elicit some of your opinions on it, but given its length, I am asking your permission before posting it here. It is several hundred words long, and I do not assume anyone necessarily has the attention span for it. If several or more members approve, I will post it.
Length will not be a barrier for those members who may be able to offer the level of comment your effort should deserve. The "one sentence limit" members will give you zero comment OR "one sentence" no matter how sophisticated your hypothesis or how well written it is.

So take note of sylvan 8798's comments on style and readability and post it please.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 01:24 AM   #4
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,393
Originally Posted by Bravin Neff View Post
I was hoping to elicit some of your opinions on it, but given its length, I am asking your permission before posting it here. It is several hundred words long, and I do not assume anyone necessarily has the attention span for it. If several or more members approve, I will post it.
Do you have a website somewhere that you could put it on, then post the URL with a brief synopsis? There's a rule preventing users with fewer than a certain number of posts from posting URLs (I think it's only something like five or ten posts), but another member would probably be happy to repost it as a link for you if you (for example) post the address with spaces in place of the dots.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 01:57 AM   #5
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 341
Yes yes

Please post it. I'm certain we can help you refine your ideas.
Notconvinced is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 02:42 AM   #6
fagin
Philosopher
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 6,185
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Please post it. I'm certain we can help you refine your ideas.
I'm sure your help will be indispensable.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 02:58 AM   #7
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,843
Post you narrative... The towers were not rigged with any explosives and there has not been a shred of evidence that they were produced in 14 years. Go for it!
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 06:15 AM   #8
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
I appreciate the feedback, folks. I don't have a synopsis yet, but I'll think of one. My next post will be the essay.
Bravin Neff is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 06:29 AM   #9
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
WTC Explosives: Rigging the Towers and Avoiding Detection, a Probabilistic Exam

For years 9/11 conspiracy theorists have claimed the WTC Towers were rigged with explosives that brought the buildings down. Often overlooked is the likelihood such a conspiracy might have succeeded, and theorists tend to leave this question unexamined. The difficulties perpetrators would face installing explosives in an occupied building and avoiding detection surely has a numerical value, even if it is only crudely capable of being estimated. The more likely the success, the more plausible the theory. This essay puts rough but charitable numbers to the question using simple arithmetic. As will be shown, the conspiracy theorists hold an unreasonable theory.

The tallest building ever explosively demolished was the JL Hudson’s building in Detroit, Michigan, in 1997. The job of rigging the explosives is described thus:

“...CDI’s 12 person loading crew took 24 days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex.”

(h t t p://w w w.controlled-demolition.com/jl-hudson-department-store)

A crude scaling estimate to establish what was required of the Twin Towers might go like this: the Towers consisted of 110 floors, the JL Hudson building 29. The ratio of floors between the two equals 110/29, or a 3.8:1 ratio. With this ratio, it would take 24 * 3.8 = 91 days to rig (1) of the WTC buildings. Since there were (2) WTC towers, it would take 91 * 2 = 182 days to rig both. Serious objections to this oversimplification abound, but let us overlook them for a moment as we will accommodate them later.

Explosive Rigging Detection Avoidance – A Charitable Estimate

I venture to propose that if (1) office worker occupied a WTC Tower on a day that explosive charges were being rigged, the rigging crew could successfully avoid this person’s detection with a 99% probability. Thus if (2) people occupied the WTC, then successful avoidance would equal 0.99 * 0.99 = 0.980. If (3) people occupied the building, avoidance would equal 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 = 0.970 probability, and so on.

How many people occupied the WTC towers? According to NIST, there were approximately 17,600 present by 8:46 am on September 11, 2001 (NCSTAR 1-6, pg. 67). A full day, therefore, I estimate to be 20,000 occupants, though this is probably low. Some sources claim as many as 200,000 tourists visited the WTC per day, but for the sake of charity I will ignore tourists in our calculation.

Thus, per day, the probability of avoiding detection would be:

(0.99) ^ 20,000 = 5.06 x 10 ^ -86 probability

But there are 182 days to perform the job, yielding:

(0.99) ^ (20,000 * 182) = I have not found a calculator that goes this low.

Anyone familiar with exponents will recognize these values are so vanishingly small they are effectively zero in any interpretation, and detection would have occurred in any similar universe. With these assumptions, this theory is falsified.

Alternative Scenario – 100 Times Higher Initial Probability of Detection Avoidance

Suppose the probability of avoiding detection for (1) person, on a given day, was 99.99%. Thus, for both towers and 182 days of rigging, the probability of avoiding detection would be:

(0.9999) ^ (20,000 * 182) = 8.1 x 10 ^ -159 probability

This, again, is equivalent to zero in any reasonable interpretation. Again the theory is falsified.

Alternative Scenario – 100 Times Higher Initial Probability and Much Quicker Rigging

Suppose the previous example’s higher probability holds while simultaneously assuming much quicker rigging. After all, one could have objected the area of the JL Hudson building was greater than the WTC towers, so scaling working days by floor count was misleading. I would counter the Hudson building was rigged empty while the towers were fully occupied, but I am willing to concede this point for charity. Let us assume both buildings could be rigged in 20 days. I believe this is unreasonable, but we overlook this. Thus the probability of avoiding detection would be:

(0.9999) ^ (20,000 * 20) = 4.2 x 10 ^ -18 probability

Again, this is simply zero: detection would have occurred.

Alternative Scenario – Maximum Charity

Suppose the higher probability holds while assuming the Towers would require only 1 day to rig with explosives. I believe this is absurd on its face, but for the sake of completeness we assume it anyway. Thus, the probability of avoiding detection would be:

(0.9999) ^ (20,000 * 1) = 0.135, or 13.5% probability of successfully avoiding detection

I think it is fair to add that with such a vigorous amount of activity in 1 day, the idea it could be achieved with a 99.99% probability of avoiding detection per person is absurd as well. I conclude WTC 1 & 2 were not successfully rigged with explosive charges, using estimates charitable to success. The theory is rejected.

Discussion

It is worth pointing out that if someone insisted on the explosives theory despite its vanishingly low probability of being true, one must weigh it against probabilities of alternate theories. For example, what is the probability that after 450+ mph jetliner collisions and corresponding damage, with tens of thousands of pounds of spilled fuel, having caused enormous fires that remained completely unfought, having caused fire proofing on columns to be destroyed – that this was the approximate cause of collapse? Even if one assigned a probability of only 1% to this scenario, the only higher probability from the explosives theory is the absurd one.

Suppose a conspiracy theorist objected that while some office workers may have detected the conspirators and threatened the plot, the conspirators perhaps had a policy of murdering them to maintain the secret. The problem is murdering is not a guaranteed proposition: it also carries with it a probability of success less than 1, and also creates a liability that threatens the per-person probability of avoiding detection. If the conspirators indeed had such a policy, then the 99.99% initial detection avoidance probability is almost certainly too high. There is no free lunch, and the conspiracy theory is likely not benefitted by this objection.

Finally, the conspirators presumably understood their big day would occur simultaneous with 450+ mph jetliner collisions and huge fires. Therefore, as responsible project managers, they would have to adjust their strategy against a reasonable probability their explosives might fail to function, something unrequired of the JL Hudson crew. Indeed, the conspirators would have likely adjusted for the potential the buildings would experience a natural collapse and “steal their thunder.” The natural counter strategy would be to install a “gross overkill” amount of explosives to insure against this failure mode. But this creates more problems: the increase in payload necessitates either an increase in crew size or an increase in installation time, or both. Again, there is no free lunch: the overall probability of avoiding detection would go down further, already having started ridiculously low.

Bravin Neff

Last edited by Bravin Neff; 16th August 2015 at 06:42 AM. Reason: grammar
Bravin Neff is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 06:33 AM   #10
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 23,740
I have no interest in this topic whatsoever, but I would like to congratulate a new poster for coming in to such a hot topic on the forum in such a respectful manner. This is a promising start.
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 06:51 AM   #11
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,621
Welcome:

The first problem I see is your comparison to rigging like a controlled demolition.

Quote:
The tallest building ever explosively demolished was the JL Hudson’s building in Detroit, Michigan, in 1997. The job of rigging the explosives is described thus:
Most of the time spent is to avoid collateral damage. This would not have been a requirement.

I haven't read the whole thing yet but I will later.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 07:02 AM   #12
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
I think it's impossible to assign numbers to such probabilities. But Ozeco41, I wouldn't say it's either 0 or 1. The question is, if we look at a past event and theorize another possible way it could have happened, what are the odds that it could have happened that way? In this case, what are the odds that people could have planted secret exposives of ANY kind prior to 9/11 undetected to bring down the buildings? My answer would be, vanishingly small and unquantifiable.
To use an analogy: a woman is murdered. The chances of that having happened are 1. Chances are very very good, based on evidence, that her husband killed her. But there is also a small chance that the butler did it. So the odds are not either 0 or 1 that the butler did it just because the murder happened.
But going back to the WTC buildings, here is a YouTube video I put out that is somewhat related to this question: how big did the conspiracy have to be, if it were such a conspiracy? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iya9P5TRd-0
Without trying to quantify, we can see that the odds are so insanely small that it doesn't merit serious consideration.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 07:08 AM   #13
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
...we can see that the odds are so insanely small that it doesn't merit serious consideration.
This is the overall argument of my essay. The argument is just a probability of avoiding 1 person's detection, then considering this must by multiply-realized across tens of thousands of people, which only lowers the overall probability.

Then, by backing into more-and-more charitable assumptions (i.e, helping the conspiracy theory more and more)- the values remain insanely small, which is tantamount to saying the theory is not believable.
Bravin Neff is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 08:20 AM   #14
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,711
Originally Posted by Bravin Neff View Post
This is the overall argument of my essay. The argument is just a probability of avoiding 1 person's detection, then considering this must by multiply-realized across tens of thousands of people, which only lowers the overall probability.

Welcome, Bravin. The first problem I see with your approach is that you've assumed being seen by one person equals detection. If the crews were using some sort of cover story, even if someone saw them working, the person might not be able to tell whether they were rigging explosives or fixing the building's wiring. I would be somewhat amazed if anyone who worked in the towers had any experience with building demolition at all.

You've also assumed that the conspirators would do the job properly. Most of the work demolition crews do is to ensure the building falls with the minimum amount of risk to the surrounding area. If the conspirators didn't care about damage, they might have been able to work much faster.

Last, you've assumed they were trying to bring the building down. The points of collapse were where the planes hit. Perhaps the conspirators wanted to damage the building but did not know that this level of damage would cause a collapse.

Obviously, I don't believe any of this nonsense. However, I wouldn't put this forward as the first argument against demolition.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 09:34 AM   #15
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,412
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
I think it's impossible to assign numbers to such probabilities. But Ozeco41, I wouldn't say it's either 0 or 1.
So did I or did I not correctly predict the most likely area of confusion?
Quote:
The question is, if we look at a past event and theorize another possible way it could have happened, what are the odds that it could have happened that way?
ZERO - it didn't happen that way.

However that is not "the question" OR "THE question". You have switched scenarios from the event that did happen to one that did not happen.

That remains the central issue of confusion - a question of "defining the objective" actually. Are we discussing the event which happend OR the probabilities of alternates in a different abstract and hypothetical scenario.

Either (both?) are valid topics but just watch people get them confused. They cannot be legitimately "mixed and matched".
Quote:
In this case,..
In this DIFFERENT case - not the case which actually happened.
Quote:
what are the odds that people could have planted secret exposives of ANY kind prior to 9/11 undetected to bring down the buildings? My answer would be, vanishingly small and unquantifiable.
Moot point until you decide what event you are talking about.
Quote:
To use an analogy:...
risky practice in forum discussion.
Quote:
a woman is murdered. The chances of that having happened are 1.
Correct -- so far. You are discussing what actually happend in your moot scenario.
Quote:
Chances are very very good, based on evidence, that her husband killed her. But there is also a small chance that the butler did it. So the odds are not either 0 or 1 that the butler did it just because the murder happened.
Mmmm... I'll see if anyone else cares to critique that lot. (You have abandoned your moot scenario and moved into alterate possibilites. Your first scenario was defined as certainty. This next one is discussing possibles. Why the change the basis of reasoning?)
Quote:
But going back to the WTC buildings, here is a YouTube video I put out that is somewhat related to this question: how big did the conspiracy have to be, if it were such a conspiracy? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iya9P5TRd-0
Agreed on "somewhat". THE question is "how?"
Quote:
Without trying to quantify, we can see that the odds are so insanely small that it doesn't merit serious consideration.
True but whether the odds are small or large does not establish a valid logical argument.

Last edited by ozeco41; 16th August 2015 at 09:36 AM. Reason: spellin errers
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 09:41 AM   #16
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Welcome:

The first problem I see is your comparison to rigging like a controlled demolition. Most of the time spent is to avoid collateral damage.
I agree with this. However, I do not believe truthers agree with this. I take it this is the implication of their statements WTC "fell on its own footprint" and related absurdities - they believe the Towers came down resembling normal demolitions.
Bravin Neff is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 09:57 AM   #17
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Welcome, Bravin. The first problem I see with your approach is that you've assumed being seen by one person equals detection."
I have worded it this way, and perhaps I shouldn't have. The greater point is not so much "detection" by a building occupant, but rather simply defeating the occupant, however that is achieved. An occupant that never sees a conspirator, has been defeated. An occupant that sees a conspirator but doesn't question what the conspirator is doing, has been defeated. An occupant that sees a conspirator, questions him, and then walks away convinced nothing is going on, has been defeated. And so on.

The occupants clearly will have different levels of being defeated, so we're really just talking about the median occupant. My argument says the median occupant has a probability of being defeated. I have suggested two: 99% and 99.99%.

Frankly, I think 99.99% is charitable. That says if you run the scenario 10,000 times, the median occupant will only defeat the conspirator once. The conspirator "wins" the other 9,999 times.

Quote:
You've also assumed that the conspirators would do the job properly.
I start with this assumption, but then abandon it when I entertain different numbers of days to do the job. In my "maximum charity" scenario, I assume 1 day. I don't believe this is compatible with a proper demolition job.

Quote:
Last, you've assumed they were trying to bring the building down.
True. And to be honest, there are obviously several truther lines of belief. I am addressing the ones I think most "mainstream" if you can take my meaning, LOL.
Bravin Neff is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 11:49 AM   #18
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,621
Originally Posted by Bravin Neff View Post
I agree with this. However, I do not believe truthers agree with this. I take it this is the implication of their statements WTC "fell on its own footprint" and related absurdities - they believe the Towers came down resembling normal demolitions.
This in itself makes your arguments a false dilemma (with a hint of strawman). Their claim of "own footprint" or resembling a "controlled demolition" can not be supported and your argument more or less give the impression that their claims somehow have merit.

Instead of trying to prove them wrong, why not get them to show their right (something they have never done)? The "truth movement" is dead in the water because they have no evidence to support their belief or coherent theory as to how it could be implemented.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 01:18 PM   #19
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,412
@Bravin
Take care to decide what you are discussing.

IF you want to discuss whether or not there was CD in the real event THEN probabilties for an imaginary event have no relevance.

It is actually that simple though not always easy to realise when you "Shift scenarios" or shift the topic of discusion. Several examples already in the thread.

IF you want to put probabilites on some imagined hypothetical situation - go for it. BUT it is NOT the real event. What happend for the real event is what happened. What didn't happen for the real event did not happen.

And you can guarantee that people will continue to confuse the two situations.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 01:44 PM   #20
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,974
There is a fly in the ointment of what is being discussed here and that is the secret work done on the Citibank building in 1978 to retrofit it due to an oversight in the wind load resistance calculations and a construction error in the joints.

See this 3 minute clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_ekNosnieQ
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 01:54 PM   #21
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
There is a fly in the ointment of what is being discussed here and that is the secret work done on the Citibank building in 1978 to retrofit it due to an oversight in the wind load resistance calculations and a construction error in the joints.

See this 3 minute clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_ekNosnieQ
LOL!!

@2:47 -
"Night after night the lights from welding torches could be seen...."

Some secret there, kiddo. Well done!

A totally different construction, with totally different circumstances, secretly in plain sight being retrofitted.

Best and brightest.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 01:54 PM   #22
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,621
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
There is a fly in the ointment of what is being discussed here and that is the secret work done on the Citibank building in 1978 to retrofit it due to an oversight in the wind load resistance calculations and a construction error in the joints.

See this 3 minute clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_ekNosnieQ
Yeah, no one knew about that.............

Funny thing Tony, how do you know about the Citibank retrofit?

Still no one has come forward with reports of the buildings being rigged.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 02:00 PM   #23
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,974
One also shouldn't forget that there was an elevator modernization project being done in the WTC Twin Towers in the eight months prior to Sept. 11, 2001.

What are the odds that an office worker would know that something different than the elevator project was being done?
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 02:02 PM   #24
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,621
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
One also shouldn't forget that there was an elevator modernization project being done in the WTC Twin Towers in the eight months prior to Sept. 11, 2001.

What are the odds that an office worker would know that something different than the elevator project was being done?
So, are you accusing the elevator company? I'm wondering when you will actually start to show evidence instead of trying to cast doubt?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 16th August 2015 at 02:03 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 02:02 PM   #25
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,974
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Yeah, no one knew about that.............

Funny thing Tony, how do you know about the Citibank retrofit?

Still no one has come forward with reports of the buildings being rigged.
The secret 1978 Citibank building work was made public knowledge in the late 1990s. I am surprised you didn't know this.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 02:04 PM   #26
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,974
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
So, are you accusing the elevator company?
Not necessarily. I am just asking how an office worker who knew elevator work all over the building was being done for months would somehow know something else was being done by anyone else.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 02:04 PM   #27
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,843
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
One also shouldn't forget that there was an elevator modernization project being done in the WTC Twin Towers in the eight months prior to Sept. 11, 2001.

What are the odds that an office worker would know that something different than the elevator project was being done?
If after 8 months of seeing workers fiddling with the elevators and there was no change in the elevators they might suspect something fishy. On the other hand... if there were elevator improvements... wouldn't they see elevator parts coming and going and not just men in work uniforms?

Tenants are very touchy about elevator service. When I worked on flr 74 at the Empire State Building... it was a big deal when the elevators were out of service... and work was turned around pretty quickly...
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 02:05 PM   #28
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,621
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The secret 1978 Citibank building work was made public knowledge in the late 1990s. I am surprised you didn't know this.
Yet people noticed the flash of welding as it was going on?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 02:07 PM   #29
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,621
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Not necessarily. I am just asking how an office worker who knew elevator work all over the building was being done for months would somehow know something else was being done by anyone else.
Still avoiding the actual evidence question I see.................
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 02:14 PM   #30
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,974
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Still avoiding the actual evidence question I see.................
No, I am just pointing out that there is very little chance that office workers would notice anything or think something was wrong with work for a big elevator modernization project being done in the building for nearly a year prior to Sept. 11, 2001.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 02:18 PM   #31
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,621
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
No, I am just pointing out that there is very little chance that office workers would notice anything or think something was wrong with work for a big elevator modernization project being done in the building for nearly a year prior to Sept. 11, 2001.
and............this helps your cause how? Let me guess, it allows you to continue a fantasy without a specific theory?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 16th August 2015 at 02:20 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 02:34 PM   #32
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,974
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
and............this helps your cause how? Let me guess, it allows you to continue a fantasy without a specific theory?
I believe there were charges in the buildings and that it would not be hard to keep people from being suspicious, especially with legitimate work being done at that time such as the elevator modernization.

I think that those who had access to the interiors should be interrogated and investigated. That has never been done in spite of the fact that the Oral Histories show over 100 firefighters and police officers saying they saw flashes and saw, heard, and felt explosions.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 16th August 2015 at 02:35 PM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 03:02 PM   #33
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,209
Tony has a point - even if, of course, the elevator guys need not be hanged, shot or electrocuted (I am saying this quite in earnest - many truthers want blood, they want to kill).

It isn't impossible to camouflage a rigging operation. Just do it out of sight of the 20,000 office occupants and under the cover of something usual and accepted, such as maintenance.

Only a few folks in the towers might have a chance of detecting that the guys in the work clothes are doing something nefarious.

(Makes me wonder: William Rodriguez had keys to the hidden bowels of the towers - why hasn't any truther yet implicated Willy and called for his blood?)


And those are right who point out that the rigging needs not be as labor intense as actually controlled demos.


And lastly, ozeco is right to remind us that even if what actually happened on 9/11 had an aaaalmost 0% chance of happening ex ante, since it did actually happened, its probability of happening changed from almost 0 to precisely 100% ex post, once it had actually happened.

If the chance of rigging the tower was 1-0.99^20,000, but it was rigged, then it was rigged.
If the chance of fires bringing down the towers the way they did was 1-0.99999^2,000,000, if fires brought down the towers, they brought down the towers.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 03:04 PM   #34
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
One also shouldn't forget that there was an elevator modernization project being done in the WTC Twin Towers in the eight months prior to Sept. 11, 2001.

What are the odds that an office worker would know that something different than the elevator project was being done?
Nearly 100 percent.

Evil overlords:

"Lets rig explosives around floor 90-100"
"But what about the planes"?

"That's the beauty! They'll never suspect a thing"

Dude. Not only was it impossible to rig them undetected, but it was EVEN MORE impossible to have the explosives survive the crashes.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 03:05 PM   #35
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
No, I am just pointing out that there is very little chance that office workers would notice anything or think something was wrong with work for a big elevator modernization project being done in the building for nearly a year prior to Sept. 11, 2001.
Perhaps 1 in 10,000?
Bravin Neff is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 03:05 PM   #36
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Not necessarily. I am just asking how an office worker who knew elevator work all over the building was being done for months would somehow know something else was being done by anyone else.
Building?

Singular?

pathetic.

best and brightest!
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 03:06 PM   #37
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
No, I am just pointing out that there is very little chance that office workers would notice anything or think something was wrong with work for a big elevator modernization project being done in the building for nearly a year prior to Sept. 11, 2001.

Building?

Singular?
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 03:10 PM   #38
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Dude. Not only was it impossible to rig them undetected, but it was EVEN MORE impossible to have the explosives survive the crashes.
That's a subtle point I hoped came through in my essay.

1. Suppose the overall project's probability of rigging them undetected was 0.25.

2. Suppose the probability of explosives surviving the crashes was 0.25.

The overall success probability goes down to 0.25 x 0.25 = 6.25%.

To counter this, the conspirator project managers beef up the explosives to survive the crashes and bring that probability back up. But then the 0.25 probability of avoiding detection goes down because the payload is greater, the crew is greater, and/or the labor to rig the buildings is now greater.

No free lunch.
Bravin Neff is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 03:17 PM   #39
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
@Bravin
Take care to decide what you are discussing.

IF you want to discuss whether or not there was CD in the real event THEN probabilties for an imaginary event have no relevance.
No, I don't believe in CD for a moment. But others do, and so considering the probability for such conspiracy having success is important, I think.

Quote:
IF you want to put probabilites on some imagined hypothetical situation - go for it
I agree, but as long as the question *is not settled* (ahem, cough, LOL), treating the event as a hypothetical is valid.
Bravin Neff is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 03:21 PM   #40
fagin
Philosopher
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 6,185
If they're not convinced by now, I believe the proverb is 'you're farting against thunder.'
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:40 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.