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 16th August 2015, 03:29 PM   #41
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,527
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
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.
Key word here is believe. Do you actually have any evidence past people describing noises as explosions and seeing flashes? Do I need to post thousands of other occurrences that are also described the same way? Some people described the noise like a freight train, why do you dismiss freight trains?
__________________
"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, 04:18 PM   #42
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,527
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I think that those who had access to the interiors should be interrogated and investigated.
On what grounds? Let me guess, you just know there has to be something there?

I bet if you were in-charge in Salem MA in the late 1600's there would have been a few more dead "witches".
__________________
"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, 05:31 PM   #43
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,974
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
On what grounds? Let me guess, you just know there has to be something there?

I bet if you were in-charge in Salem MA in the late 1600's there would have been a few more dead "witches".
The grounds are that there is extensive testimony from many credible people in the Oral Histories about seeing, hearing, and feeling explosions as well as seeing flashes.

That should cause law enforcement to interrogate those who had access to the interiors. Being questioned is not akin to being burned at the stake and does not imply guilt. It would be part of any thorough investigation.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 16th August 2015 at 05:33 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, 05:33 PM   #44
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,527
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The grounds are that there is extensive testimony from many credible people in the Oral Histories about seeing, hearing, and feeling explosions as well as seeing flashes.

Being questioned is not akin to burning someone at the stake..
It is if the only evidence is hearsay...........
__________________
"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, 06:17 PM   #45
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,828
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The grounds are that there is extensive testimony from many credible people in the Oral Histories about seeing, hearing, and feeling explosions as well as seeing flashes.

That should cause law enforcement to interrogate those who had access to the interiors. Being questioned is not akin to being burned at the stake and does not imply guilt. It would be part of any thorough investigation.
Tony,

How many things do you think would or could explode in a office building such as the twin towers which were burning out of control... with no fire suppression?

I am sure things WERE exploding and probably in similar fires in similar buildings and conditions there were exploding "things" like power transformers and overheated water tanks which burst... even fire extinguishers would probably explode. Didn't they use gas in the WOW on the world? Wouldn't there be gas explosions? Were there gas risers or bottled gas? What about HVAC equipment? It has coolant which could exploded if overheated? No?

But were the explosions heard "bombs" and were the sounds tied to any movement of the building. That is did the tops drop after all the explosions sounded? Was there ejected material and pressurized gas of the magnitude to be associated with bombs that would destroy steel columns?

How many columns had to be blown up to cause the tops to drop as they did? And how would these devices have been protected from the fires and damage of the planes?

And did the witnesses identify where the explosive sounds came from? Were they able to pin the location to the top section where the motion downward began?
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, 06:24 PM   #46
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,527
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post

How many columns had to be blown up to cause the tops to drop as they did?
Funny question considering we know the answer to be zero............
__________________
"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, 09:42 PM   #47
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 341
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.
Correct.

At least 'this truther' speculates that when leveraging the terrorist plots to induce a sustained American response, and ultimate global victory, the best case scenario would be minimum but requisite death coupled with maximal strategic advantage. It would not be strategically advantageous to have such monumental towers crashing erratically into surrounding blocks, nor would it be advantageous to prolong the cleanup of such a vital economic and cultural gem as NYC. Bringing the towers down "into their own footprint" would minimize casualties and avoid additional horrors, such as the entirety of a tower falling on the Verizon building rather than just a stray corner of one, for example.

For these reasons, it would be best to topple those towers directly into their basements, and as most truthers speculate Allied involvement, we should probably continue theorizing that the "hypothetical" demolition team would have wished for complete, safe, and clandestine destruction of the WTC complex.
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, 09:47 PM   #48
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 341
Originally Posted by Bravin Neff View Post
WTC Explosives: Rigging the Towers and Avoiding Detection, a Probabilistic Exam

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

ď...CDIís 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.Ē

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

Do you know how many columns were in the department store? Do you know what form of explosives were used?

I think it's fair to assume that they used det cord in the late 90's, at least for a commercial op.
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, 10:07 PM   #49
WilliamSeger
Illuminator
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,014
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
IF you want to put probabilites on some imagined hypothetical situation - go for it.
One might imagine, for example, that the alleged conspirators must have made some estimate of the probability of getting away with it before deciding to proceed with such an unnecessarily complicated and risky hoax. The implausibility of the CD hypothesis really begins with the implausibility that the alleged conspirators would have decided to proceed.
WilliamSeger 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, 10:49 PM   #50
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 341
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Yet people noticed the flash of welding as it was going on?
The twin towers were essentially a column within a column. As the inner core was highly restricted, rigging the building in that locale would have been best concealed by work requiring legitimate access, such as the elevator maintenance project. A crew with such access needn't worry about an occupancy factor of 20,000, and metaphorically, people could have seen their welding flashes all day long. It's also worth noting that not all players involved with the elevator project would need to be involved with the CD. Unsuspecting workers might have been tasked with "applying a new paint" (thermitic solgel formulation) or "placing proximity sensors" (detonation devices) without knowing that they were actually facilitating detonation prep work. The elevator repair project was a highly restricted operation with heavily armed guards, thereby assuring an occupancy factor <<<20,000

The columns which would have required the greatest amount of deception were the outer columns, as those were in the public space of the buildings. Work on those columns necessarily would have to be done at minimal occupancy factors, such as during 'cover of night' and/or abandoned floors. It's important to note that placement of charges along the perimeter walls may have required some drilling and post placement concealment, a cessation of electronic surveillance, a recall of dedicated bomb sniffing canine units, and absolute investment into the completion of the operation. Such a commitment would therefore need to be completed only immediately prior to the event to minimize inadvertent exposure. Interestingly, there were unusual nighttime activities in the towers during the week(s) prior to the event which coincidentally involved light construction around the perimeter walls (revealed by concrete dust on the window sills) as well as all of the aforementioned activities.
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, 11:07 PM   #51
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,394
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
One might imagine, for example, that the alleged conspirators must have made some estimate of the probability of getting away with it before deciding to proceed with such an unnecessarily complicated and risky hoax.
Sure - no difficulty conceiving or postulating numerous risk assessment scenarios.
Quote:
The implausibility of the CD hypothesis really begins with the implausibility that the alleged conspirators would have decided to proceed.
Also no difficulty discussing plausible scenarios/hypotheses. That is why I made the rigorous point about probabilities NOT plausibilties.

there are many plausibles but only one scemario actually happened and its probabilty is one. So any argument founded on probabilities will go nowhere. The real need is to define the one scenario which actually happened. (OR rebut truther scenarios which did not happen...if they are defined good enough to rebut. )

Last edited by ozeco41; 16th August 2015 at 11:09 PM.
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, 11:11 PM   #52
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 341
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
One might imagine, for example, that the alleged conspirators must have made some estimate of the probability of getting away with it before deciding to proceed with such an unnecessarily complicated and risky hoax.
Agreed, this would have been a critical decision. It's unfortunate that such alleged conspirators might have noticed the American public's complete unwillingness to critically examine past instances of terrorism, such as the double explosion at OKC.

It's more unfortunate however, that douche bags like McVay (sp?) and AllaAkbar(s) (sp?) would pose such a legitimate threat to domestic tranquility. The extreme complication of trying to anticipate a dirty bomb, or crashing plane, or train derailment, etc upon the American people would seemingly outweigh the minor complication of successfully destroying a couple of buildings. The fact that terrorists had plans to fly planes into those buildings at all created the necessary complexity.
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, 11:27 PM   #53
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 22,398
Originally Posted by Bravin Neff View Post
Perhaps 1 in 10,000?
Rather less. In many/most cases the very hefty drywall used in WTC1+2 was a flush fit against the core columns. Fixing substantial charges to the columns would make it impossible to replace the drywall without moving an entire section of it outwards. This would, in itself, be extremely difficult as the drywall was installed as a series of interlocking panels. Even if it were physically possible it would have a dramatic and rather curious effect on the appearance of office areas, corridors, bathrooms, stairways etc etc
GlennB 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, 11:36 PM   #54
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,394
Originally Posted by Bravin Neff View Post
No, I don't believe in CD for a moment.
I understood your position...
Quote:
But others do, and so considering the probability for such conspiracy having success is important, I think.
My strong caution remains. Don't attempt to convince truthers by adopting their false premises of logic. Even if you "beat them at their own game" using their false logic it is not a valid "win". Show them the errors of their ways by valid reasoning. Even then the remnant truthers will not concede their errors.

Quote:
I agree, but as long as the question *is not settled* (ahem, cough, LOL), treating the event as a hypothetical is valid.
What is not settled? With whom? If they don't accept truth what is the problrm - it is certainly not "truth"? What are YOU trying to settle?

Remember my central point is that you cannot approach whether or not something actually happend from a basis in probabilty. It either did or it didn't. Please give that statemnt some serious thought then join Oystein and me and any others I have missed in recognising that limit of probability based "argument".

Your essay is a good examination of hypothetical probabilities. BUT of little value in proving anything about a real event.

You may have less off topic drift if you shift the topic from "possibility" to "plausibility" - most posters want to head that way even though it doesn't help your OP.

Last edited by ozeco41; 16th August 2015 at 11:39 PM.
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 17th August 2015, 01:49 AM   #55
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,974
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
The twin towers were essentially a column within a column. As the inner core was highly restricted, rigging the building in that locale would have been best concealed by work requiring legitimate access, such as the elevator maintenance project. A crew with such access needn't worry about an occupancy factor of 20,000, and metaphorically, people could have seen their welding flashes all day long. It's also worth noting that not all players involved with the elevator project would need to be involved with the CD. Unsuspecting workers might have been tasked with "applying a new paint" (thermitic solgel formulation) or "placing proximity sensors" (detonation devices) without knowing that they were actually facilitating detonation prep work. The elevator repair project was a highly restricted operation with heavily armed guards, thereby assuring an occupancy factor <<<20,000

The columns which would have required the greatest amount of deception were the outer columns, as those were in the public space of the buildings. Work on those columns necessarily would have to be done at minimal occupancy factors, such as during 'cover of night' and/or abandoned floors. It's important to note that placement of charges along the perimeter walls may have required some drilling and post placement concealment, a cessation of electronic surveillance, a recall of dedicated bomb sniffing canine units, and absolute investment into the completion of the operation. Such a commitment would therefore need to be completed only immediately prior to the event to minimize inadvertent exposure. Interestingly, there were unusual nighttime activities in the towers during the week(s) prior to the event which coincidentally involved light construction around the perimeter walls (revealed by concrete dust on the window sills) as well as all of the aforementioned activities.
The only charges needed on the exterior of the Twin Towers would have been at the corner connections of the spandrels and these wouldn't have even been absolutely necessary.

Taking out the core would pull the exterior inward and cause it to buckle due to eccentricity. The exterior would be pushed outward and down by the floors moving downward. Cutting the corners of the exterior removes orthogonal rigidity and allows the exterior to petal outward easier.

Danny Jowenko explained when he was interviewed about the collapse of WTC 7 that it wouldn't have been necessary to put charges on the exterior of WTC 7.
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 17th August 2015, 02:08 AM   #56
fagin
Philosopher
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 5,709
Could have, would have, couldn't have, wouldn't have etc.

The correct word is didn't.
__________________
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 17th August 2015, 02:37 AM   #57
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,978
Mmm, interesting discussion, but isn't it a bit late? This has been discussed over, and over, and over ....... in the last very nearly 14 years, and no sensible hypothesis on how, why and when the towers could be rigged with explosives, how it could be synchonized with the plane collisions, why it made no sound and left no traces, has ever been forwarded.

This is flogging a cake of soap (made of a long-dead horse).

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans 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 17th August 2015, 06:38 AM   #58
WilliamSeger
Illuminator
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,014
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
there are many plausibles but only one scemario actually happened and its probabilty is one. So any argument founded on probabilities will go nowhere. The real need is to define the one scenario which actually happened. (OR rebut truther scenarios which did not happen...if they are defined good enough to rebut. )
Obviously, even extreme implausibility doesn't prove there was no CD -- implausible things do happen -- but implausibility has a very definite effect on the principle of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." This is the brick wall the "truth movement" hit when it went down the CD road.
WilliamSeger 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 17th August 2015, 06:58 AM   #59
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Bravin,

Do you know how many columns were in the department store? Do you know what form of explosives were used?

I think it's fair to assume that they used det cord in the late 90's, at least for a commercial op.
I don't know the answer to either question, but in my essay, I first assume the WTC was demolished similar to the JL Hudson building, then progressively move further and further away from this assumption in favor of the of conspiracy theory, and the resulting probability still never rises outside the level of absurd.

Regarding the explosives used in the JL Hudson buliding, the event occurred on October 24, 1998 - less than 3 years before September 11, 2001.

Last edited by Bravin Neff; 17th August 2015 at 07:06 AM.
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 17th August 2015, 07:36 AM   #60
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 9,608
Originally Posted by sylvan8798 View Post
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.
That synopsis used to be called an abstract.
phiwum 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 17th August 2015, 07:45 AM   #61
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Let's Reverse Engineer a Successful Conspiracy. Using the argument from my essay:

P = N ^ (n * d)

P - The overall probability of pulling off a successful conspiracy
N - The probability of defeating the median WTC occupant
n - The number of WTC occupants
d - The number of days to perform the conspiracy job

I assume:

N = We will solve this.
n = 20,000 This is probably too charitable, as it ignores all tourists, who vastly outnumber employees.
d = 20 I assume this is charitable.

First I assume a successful conspiracy means 50% probability. Therefore:

0.50 = N ^ (20,000 * 20)

-0.301 = 400,000 * Log N

-7.53 x 10 ^ -7 = Log N

N = 0.999998

In other words, the conspirator needs to defeat the median occupant 999,998 times out of 1,000,000 attempts, just to arrive at a probability of success of 50%. Starting with charitable assumptions.

To arrive at a probability of success of 90%, the conspirator needs to defeat the median occupant:

0.90 = N ^ (20,000 * 20)

-0.458 = 400,000 * Log N

-1.145 x 10 ^ -7 = Log N

N = 0.9999997

In other words, the conspirator needs to defeat the median occupant 9,999,997 times out of 10,000,000 attempts, starting with charitable assumptions.

Conclusion: There was No Successful Conspiracy

Last edited by Bravin Neff; 17th August 2015 at 07:48 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 17th August 2015, 07:47 AM   #62
WilliamSeger
Illuminator
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,014
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
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.
Your challenge is to explain why either: (A) there are only 100 reports rather than 100,000 or so, which I would expect if high explosives were used, and why the number of videos capturing it is exactly zero; or (B) what kind of CD looks like what we see in the videos but is only heard by those in or very near the building.
WilliamSeger 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 17th August 2015, 09:35 AM   #63
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: 26,394
Originally Posted by Bravin Neff View Post
Let's Reverse Engineer a Successful Conspiracy. Using the argument from my essay:

P = N ^ (n * d)

[snippage]
As a rule, I dislike this sort of analysis, for two reasons; one could call them the local and the global, or the intrinsic and extrinsic problem.

The intrinsic problem is that, whatever mathematical operations are carried out to give the impression of rigour, the raw data is still a set of unjustified numbers. What, actually, is the probability of a specific nefarious activity being discovered? We simply don't know. Without a comprehensive data set, it's impossible to assess the probabilities involved. The whole analysis becomes a GIGO operation, whether it's a debunker multiplying up the guesstimated probabilities of someone spotting the explosives being planted, or Kevin Ryan multiplying up the equally guesstimated probabilities of airliners being intercepted. Without a derivation for the starting values, it's impossible to assess the validity of the result.

The extrinsic problem, though, is simply the good old reversal of the burden of proof. There is no credible physical, documentary or testimonial evidence - however passionately Tony Szamboti will deny it - that leads to the conclusion that pre-installed explosives had any part to play in the collapses of the Twin Towers or of WTC7, nor is there a coherent and properly contextualised narrative of the collapses that involves such devices. Unless and until such a narrative or such evidence emerges, there is quite literally nothing to debunk; the case for explosives remains unstated, never mind unproven, and there's no point in responding to a claim that can't even be articulated fully.

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 17th August 2015, 09:54 AM   #64
Sherman Bay
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 2,138
Occam's Razor Rules Supreme. Dude.
Sherman Bay 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 17th August 2015, 09:57 AM   #65
WilliamSeger
Illuminator
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,014
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Agreed, this would have been a critical decision. It's unfortunate that such alleged conspirators might have noticed the American public's complete unwillingness to critically examine past instances of terrorism, such as the double explosion at OKC.
Have you critically examined this? http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...00269/abstract

(ETA: More detail: http://web.mst.edu/~rogersda/umrcour...gy-revised.pdf )

Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
It's more unfortunate however, that douche bags like McVay (sp?) and AllaAkbar(s) (sp?) would pose such a legitimate threat to domestic tranquility. The extreme complication of trying to anticipate a dirty bomb, or crashing plane, or train derailment, etc upon the American people would seemingly outweigh the minor complication of successfully destroying a couple of buildings. The fact that terrorists had plans to fly planes into those buildings at all created the necessary complexity.
But there was simply no need for such a complicated, difficult and risky hoax as fake hijackings and controlled demolitions that look exactly like progressive structural failure. For a "false flag" attack, the only part that needs to be a hoax is who gets blamed. The obvious choice for a faked jihadist attack would be truck bombs against softer targets than the WTC towers, which a small black ops team could have pulled off with many orders of magnitude less risk of getting caught or failure.
WilliamSeger 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 17th August 2015, 10:06 AM   #66
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
The intrinsic problem is that, whatever mathematical operations are carried out to give the impression of rigour, the raw data is still a set of unjustified numbers. What, actually, is the probability of a specific nefarious activity being discovered?
I don't fully disagree. But there are ways to box in these types of questions. For example, I work in manufacturing engineering, and if someone making normal products said: "we achieved a failure rate of 3 in 10,000,000" you can conclude you are talking with a person manufacturing unicorns, or someone that has taken decades of refinement to achieve a level of process that is at the bleeding edge of world class - with decades of scrap and mistakes getting there. The WTC conspirators apparently did this on the first try, using charitable assumptions. That is not a reasonable theory.

Quote:
We simply don't know.
We do know what is reasonable and unreasonable. A failure rate of 3 in 10,000,000 on the first try is unreasonable.

Quote:
Without a derivation for the starting values, it's impossible to assess the validity of the result.
I agree. But the starting values can be boxed in. I intentionally used values in favor of supporting the conspiracy theorist. I used 20,000 occupants despite the fact this is known to be low. The more accurate value will only make the conspiracy theory come out worse. I used 20 days despite the fact the highest building ever demolished - at 1/4 the height of WTC - took 24 days, and that was done unoccupied. Even if you assume the job only took 1 day, you end up with an unreasonable probability (don't trust me, check it).

What I have left open is my "N" - the probability of defeating the median occupant, and have reverse-solved for it. I conclude the conspiracy theorist needs this to be 0.9999997 in order to have a credible theory using even charitable values. The problem is 0.9999997 (failure of 3 in 10,000,000) is not believable in any normal process that human beings perform.

Quote:
There is no credible physical, documentary or testimonial evidence - however passionately Tony Szamboti will deny it - that leads to the conclusion that pre-installed explosives had any part to play in the collapses...
100% agree.
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 17th August 2015, 10:17 AM   #67
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: 26,394
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
The obvious choice for a faked jihadist attack would be truck bombs against softer targets than the WTC towers, which a small black ops team could have pulled off with many orders of magnitude less risk of getting caught or failure.
Or, perhaps, crashing one airliner into one skyscraper, and then allowing things to take their course. The CD hypothesis is such a staple of conspiracy theorists because, in some rudimentary way, they see it as a provable theory, and yet never bother to assess sensibly whether it's a plausible one. I think it's a result of telling the story backwards, rather than considering what a real set of conspirators might want to achieve and how they might reasonably go about achieving it - which is much more consistent with a small group of under-trained pilots and well-trained fighters hijacking and crashing airliners. One requires a vast and omnipotent conspiracy with unlimited resources, the other just nineteen people and a few tens of thousands of dollars.

Or, more simply, what Sherman's Bay just said.

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 17th August 2015, 03:54 PM   #68
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,527
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post

Danny Jowenko explained when he was interviewed about the collapse of WTC 7 that it wouldn't have been necessary to put charges on the exterior of WTC 7.
Just to make sure no one gets confused by your post, and how it relates to the OP.

What exactly did Mr Jowenko say about the controlled demolition of the towers? We know, he was only wrong 2/3 of the time................
__________________
"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; 17th August 2015 at 03:57 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 17th August 2015, 06:54 PM   #69
Dog Town
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
(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?)
Funny you ask, I asked that same question probably 8+ years ago. I think it was on Screw Loose Change blog. Some twoofie was accusing EVERYONE who had access to the towers.Willie had the ultimate set of keys! Alas, he was their hero!
Dog Town 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 17th August 2015, 08:37 PM   #70
NoahFence
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 21,645
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Building?

Singular?
Hey Tony, that question was yours.

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 18th August 2015, 12:50 AM   #71
BadBoy
Graduate Poster
 
BadBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,168
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The grounds are that there is extensive testimony from many credible people in the Oral Histories about seeing, hearing, and feeling explosions as well as seeing flashes.

That should cause law enforcement to interrogate those who had access to the interiors. Being questioned is not akin to being burned at the stake and does not imply guilt. It would be part of any thorough investigation.
Mate, it was on video, multiple times. We can analyze it and have analyzed it and there's no CD going on. Talking about people hearing or seeing stuff etc is pointless. We can SEE what happened. JHC almighty
__________________
Go sell crazy someplace else we're all stocked up here
BadBoy 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 18th August 2015, 12:52 AM   #72
BadBoy
Graduate Poster
 
BadBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,168
Anyway, I thought it was laser beams or some other top secret invisible tech like that, not TNT.
__________________
Go sell crazy someplace else we're all stocked up here
BadBoy 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 18th August 2015, 01:05 AM   #73
BadBoy
Graduate Poster
 
BadBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,168
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.
"I am just asking...."

Typical truther. No one cares about "Just Asking". Only care about what you can prove.

You need to do a lot more than that to get any where near anything like a scenario that makes any sense at all.

When will truthers get a life, just asking...
__________________
Go sell crazy someplace else we're all stocked up here
BadBoy 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 18th August 2015, 01:36 AM   #74
BadBoy
Graduate Poster
 
BadBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,168
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Tony,

How many things do you think would or could explode in a office building such as the twin towers which were burning out of control... with no fire suppression?

I am sure things WERE exploding and probably in similar fires in similar buildings and conditions there were exploding "things" like power transformers and overheated water tanks which burst... even fire extinguishers would probably explode. Didn't they use gas in the WOW on the world? Wouldn't there be gas explosions? Were there gas risers or bottled gas? What about HVAC equipment? It has coolant which could exploded if overheated? No?

But were the explosions heard "bombs" and were the sounds tied to any movement of the building. That is did the tops drop after all the explosions sounded? Was there ejected material and pressurized gas of the magnitude to be associated with bombs that would destroy steel columns?

How many columns had to be blown up to cause the tops to drop as they did? And how would these devices have been protected from the fires and damage of the planes?

And did the witnesses identify where the explosive sounds came from? Were they able to pin the location to the top section where the motion downward began?
Listen, he's "just asking the question" ya know. Don't need to get all specific and stuff. OBVIOUSLY all these factors have an explanation if there were bombs involved. That's just all detail we can ignore for the time being, maybe we will never know.
__________________
Go sell crazy someplace else we're all stocked up here
BadBoy 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 18th August 2015, 01:36 PM   #75
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 341
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Danny Jowenko explained when he was interviewed about the collapse of WTC 7 that it wouldn't have been necessary to put charges on the exterior of WTC 7.
Thx Tony,
Did WTC 7 rely on the same sort of exterior support as WTC1&2?
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 18th August 2015, 01:45 PM   #76
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,527
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Thx Tony,
Did WTC 7 rely on the same sort of exterior support as WTC1&2?
Not even close.............

Did you fall for Tony's attempted thread shift?
__________________
"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 18th August 2015, 02:00 PM   #77
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 341
Originally Posted by BadBoy View Post
Mate, it was on video, multiple times. We can analyze it and have analyzed it and there's no CD going on. Talking about people hearing or seeing stuff etc is pointless. We can SEE what happened. JHC almighty
So what some people see "is pointless" but what you see "is what happened"?

Without even considering the witness testimony or the evidence for thermitics, I watch the video and SEE controlled demolition. I look to official sources for a verified explanation and I SEE fraud and obfuscation.

NIST cannot explain the collapse, only the initiation, and their explanation of the initiation itself is wraught with problems.

The ASCE may endorse Bazan't theory of progressive collapse, but the paper fully discloses that it is ONLY valid IF the buildings behaved in a manner which would be impossible in the natural world. The idea that Zone B would accrete into additional energy only moving downward without Zone A losing energy through deformation, comminution, etc isn't even remotely valid, yet is the argument that your entire mission relies on.
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 18th August 2015, 02:06 PM   #78
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 341
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Not even close.............

Did you fall for Tony's attempted thread shift?
No. If the reduncy of WTC7 was equivalent, then the Jowenko comment is relevant. I don't think it was either, but am asking the onboard licensed professional.
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 18th August 2015, 02:09 PM   #79
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: 26,394
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
I don't think it was either, but am asking the onboard licensed professional.
Licensed professional what, pray?

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 18th August 2015, 02:14 PM   #80
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,527
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
No. If the reduncy of WTC7 was equivalent, then the Jowenko comment is relevant. I don't think it was either, but am asking the onboard licensed professional.
You do know Mr Jowenko didn't support the idea the towers were a controlled demolition?

You do know Tony is not a "building professional" (he's a mechanical engineer)? I have more structure experience.
__________________
"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; 18th August 2015 at 02:18 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
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 04:54 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.