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
 

Notices


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 21st August 2015, 08:20 AM   #161
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,592
Originally Posted by Bravin Neff View Post
Ouch. Apologies if I came across harsh.
Read more of his threads. Your comments will roll of his back, because he's the only one that really understands what happened. Did I mention he has the only accurate mappings of the event on the net?

For what it's worth, he also coined ROOSD.............

ETA: On the plus side, his site does contain countless images and useful data.
__________________
"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; 21st August 2015 at 08:23 AM.
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 21st August 2015, 08:52 AM   #162
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,839
Mr Neff... We all have experience with how things behave in the physical environment(s) we are familiar with. Some have studied chemistry and mechanics.. physical, biology and have a deeper understanding of how things behave.

Almost no one has any experience with huge buildings collapsing. Even the engineers who design them have little experience with this. Perhaps the only examples people can reference are intended demolitions and destruction in natural disasters and war (bombing). Even these are witnessed only by a few first hand.

The understanding of how the WTC buildings collapsed was driven by the settle science of civil engineering principles, materials science, the actual design of the buildings and what could be induced about the damage from planes and the subsequent fires from witness accounts and videos and still images taken that day and of the debris.

There has been much discussion online on this and other websites about what the recorded historical record reveals. Several people including NIST employees attempted to explain the destruction using the above and this HAD to involve all manner of assumptions... such as the temperature, location and duration of the fires, the condition of the fire protect and so on.

Reporting the movements of the parts of the building prior to and during collapse are not subject to interpretation. These can be measured and used to determine what caused those movements.

I personally find NIST's assumptions and explanation unconvincing. I give it a big maybe and think there are other explanations for the period post plane strike to collapse... and the "ROOSD" mechanisms seem to me to be the most accurate depiction of the collapse phase... something NIST simply rolled up into the non specific phrase "global collapse".

The interesting questions to me are related to why didn't NIST explore IN DETAIL any other possible initiation mechanisms???
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 21st August 2015, 09:45 AM   #163
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,592
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post

Reporting the movements of the parts of the building prior to and during collapse are not subject to interpretation. These can be measured and used to determine what caused those movements.
But this is subject to interpretation and speculation. Without knowing exact interior condition you can't know the exact cause of a specific movement.

You contradict yourself by saying this:

Quote:
Several people including NIST employees attempted to explain the destruction using the above and this HAD to involve all manner of assumptions... such as the temperature, location and duration of the fires, the condition of the fire protect and so on.
So, which is it?
__________________
"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 21st August 2015, 10:35 AM   #164
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,839
DGM... you can't precisely determine cause and effect... but you can some up with best fits and "likely scenarios".. But you can't ignore some of the public record to make your theory seem plausible... and you can't make up your own facts...
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 21st August 2015, 10:38 AM   #165
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
I personally find NIST's assumptions and explanation unconvincing.
No problems with them here. They're clearly approximately correct and no competing hypothesis to date rises to even the lowest levels of plausibility, let alone intersubjective and comprehensive consistency with the evidence.
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 21st August 2015, 10:44 AM   #166
Major_Tom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,960
Originally Posted by Bravin Neff View Post
Then the writer says:

"The following sequences of images from NIST NCSTAR 1-6 show the entirety of the visual evidence the NIST presents to support the claim that the building tilted 8 degrees as column failures propagated from south to north."

What is omitted is the entirety of the video evidence cataloged at the NIST site, and mentioned by NIST as used in their angle measurements in 6.2.1

Why is this omitted? Was the video evidence even reviewed (you don't need to answer that, LOL)? Why does it claim "the following... show the entirey of the visual evidence..." when this is clearly false?

Could you please post a link to the video evidence that you claim is cataloged at the NIST site?


If there is a single quote or any visual evidence within the NIST report that I forgot to include in this link, could you please reproduce it so I can add it to the list?


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


If you cannot provide any links or additional quotes or visual evidence as requested, then perhaps you should begin to reconsider your comments which border on adulation of the NIST and an excellent example of a near complete break-down of the capacity to think critically on this subject.
__________________
Website

Last edited by Major_Tom; 21st August 2015 at 10:50 AM.
Major_Tom 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 21st August 2015, 10:53 AM   #167
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
Could you please post a link to the video evidence that you claim is cataloged at the NIST site?
Okay, but its a ton.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi..._wtctowers.cfm
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 21st August 2015, 10:54 AM   #168
Major_Tom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,960
Originally Posted by Bravin Neff View Post
Ouch. Apologies if I came across harsh.
Not harsh, just extremely gullible.
__________________
Website
Major_Tom 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 21st August 2015, 10:54 AM   #169
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
If you cannot provide any links... perhaps you should begin to reconsider your comments which border on adulation of the NIST and an excellent example of a near complete break-down of the capacity to think critically on this subject.
LOL. Great point. Jump the gun lately?

Last edited by Bravin Neff; 21st August 2015 at 11:04 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 21st August 2015, 11:02 AM   #170
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
Not harsh, just extremely gullible.
Which part was gullible? Was it this part:

"We are given images whose purported "synchronization" aren't demonstrated to be synchronized at all, but with a header that: "It can be easily verified that the northwest corner had already failed in the frames shown below..." and then doesn't verify this."

Or was it this part:

"Followed by no calculation of any angle. Where is the angle calculation? I appreciate the nice soliloquy at the end on the merits of the "scientific method" as much as the next guy, but the thesis of the paper was: the building leaned less than 1 degree... Where is this shown?"

Perhaps you thought this was gullible of me:

"I thought my mind was playing tricks on me, so I started googling the page, first with "angle" then with "calculation" then with "1 degree" and I never found a calculation of the 1 degree angle - the thing the paper was supposed to show."

Maybe this was the gullible part:

"What is omitted is the entirety of the video evidence cataloged at the NIST site, and mentioned by NIST as used in their angle measurements in 6.2.1"

Thinking more clearly, I'm guessing you think this was gullible:

"I reject this paper, and so should you."
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 21st August 2015, 11:03 AM   #171
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,592
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
DGM... you can't precisely determine cause and effect... but you can some up with best fits and "likely scenarios".. But you can't ignore some of the public record to make your theory seem plausible... and you can't make up your own facts...
I agree. You have to remind me where the NIST or others "made up their own facts". I know about misapplication of the Bazant models, so please don't include them with the NIST examples (as they didn't go there).
__________________
"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 21st August 2015, 11:18 AM   #172
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,956
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
Bravin Neff, is this your 'inner physicist' working?

You do not seem to realize you are simply repeating a meme yourself. Such is the nature of being trapped within a false choice.


Take the case of WTC1. All NIST descriptions of the 'painfully sequenced' collapse initiation event are reproduced at this link.

The actual WTC1 movement during collapse initiation is most accurately mapped at this link.



In your quote this is what your wrote of the NIST product:
  • damn near the most sophistication computer modelling ever done by human beings
  • one of the most impressive event reconstructions in history


You seem to sincerely believe this. This is a good opportunity to test your 'inner physicist' and compare it to that of the person you are arguing against.

Are you capable of reviewing the information in the links given and critically examining the accuracy of your own beliefs as expressed in your quote?
LOL, have you figured out the gravity collapse is not an illusion, but was reality?

do you have another acronym to fool the gullible

Can you summarize your books conclusion? no
And you are trying to school people who know 911 truth was BS from the beginning, as you were stuck on the gravity collapse as an illusion with some inside job BS you never could explain.

Have you figured out 19 murderers were solely responsible for the damage on 911?

Your claims are proof you were gullible on 911; global collapse ensued...

GCE - lol
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut 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 21st August 2015, 11:33 AM   #173
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 72,392
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
Not harsh, just extremely gullible.
Why?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... 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 21st August 2015, 02:34 PM   #174
Richard the G
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 241
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
All three buildings had exterior columns and central cores, with floors outside of the cores between them, so they were similar that way.
Yes Tony you may also same that an apple is essentially the same as a pear... maybe thats why you are a mechanical engineer. In that respect all steel buildings are the same.

One is a lightweight bar joist truss where failure of any bit of fire protection turns the bar joist into a mechanism, and these span about 60 ft onto a fram with columns at about 2ft centres while WTC is a conventional steel building frame.

And one is twice the height of the other. so pretty much the same
Richard the G 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 21st August 2015, 02:40 PM   #175
Richard the G
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 241
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
It doesn't sound like you or your like minded friends here really know the difference between the terms "civil engineer", "structural engineer", and "mechanical engineer" and what is involved.

The term structural engineering can be used to describe work done in civil or mechanical engineering, even though it seems to be used more often by the general public in reference to engineers involved with static civil structures, whereas mechanical engineers performing structural design are more often involved in machine design. The structures of things like cars, trains, and aircraft, are designed by mechanical engineers and this work is generally more complex structurally due to the dynamics involved and fatigue considerations.

As I said, the curriculums for civil and mechanical engineers relative to structural design and analysis are the same. The differences between civil and mechanical are small and for the most part involve things like thermodynamics, heat transfer, soil mechanics, and surveying.
Poor Tony thinks that mechanical engineers are just like structural engineers with more skills... which gives us a glimpse of his lack of comprehension about buildings and the buillding industry.
Richard the G 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 21st August 2015, 03:22 PM   #176
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,974
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.

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
This thread should just stop, as it is getting away from your original post and point above.

Your claim, that rigging the Twin Towers without being discovered is problematic, has also been shown to be without merit by the 1978 Citibank building secret retrofit, and the fact that there was an elevator renovation project going on in Twin Towers in the eight months preceding Sept. 11, 2001 which would provide a cover for placing charges.
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 21st August 2015, 03:28 PM   #177
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,592
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
This thread should just stop, as it is getting away from your original post and point above.

Your claim, that rigging the Twin Towers without being discovered is problematic, has also been shown to be without merit by the 1978 Citibank building secret retrofit, and the fact that there was an elevator renovation project going on in Twin Towers in the eight months preceding Sept. 11, 2001 which would provide a cover for placing charges.
Except for the fact no audio recording was able to pick up the WTC detonations. Minor problem with you.....simple hand wave....right?

Are you ready to show how high explosives can be silent?

Let me guess, paper thin "nano-thermite" melting inches thick columns?
__________________
"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; 21st August 2015 at 03:32 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 21st August 2015, 04:07 PM   #178
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Your claim, that rigging the Twin Towers without being discovered is problematic, has also been shown to be without merit by the 1978 Citibank building secret retrofit,
In other words, you have a probability in mind for the median WTC occupant. What is it, and why? I gave you the variables for the WTC, using charitable estimates in favor of the conspiracy theory, and you HAND WAIVE THE ENTIRE MATHEMATICAL ARGUMENT AWAY with an analogy you do not map onto the WTC in any fashion whatever, and whose variables you appear perfectly comfortable leaving unmentioned.

The numbers matter. They *always* matter. Again, you must have a probability in mind for the median WTC occupant. What is it, and why?

Last edited by Bravin Neff; 21st August 2015 at 04:14 PM.
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 21st August 2015, 07:58 PM   #179
Major_Tom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,960
Bravin Neff, you wrote:

Originally Posted by Bravin Neff View Post

Then the writer says:

"The following sequences of images from NIST NCSTAR 1-6 show the entirety of the visual evidence the NIST presents to support the claim that the building tilted 8 degrees as column failures propagated from south to north."

What is omitted is the entirety of the video evidence cataloged at the NIST site, and mentioned by NIST as used in their angle measurements in 6.2.1

I asked:

Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
Could you please post a link to the video evidence that you claim is cataloged at the NIST site?


If there is a single quote or any visual evidence within the NIST report that I forgot to include in this link, could you please reproduce it so I can add it to the list?


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


If you cannot provide any links or additional quotes or visual evidence as requested, then perhaps you should begin to reconsider your comments which border on adulation of the NIST and an excellent example of a near complete break-down of the capacity to think critically on this subject.

and you provided this:

Originally Posted by Bravin Neff View Post
which a list of frequently asked questions.



So, you cannot provide a single quote from the NIST report that I overlooked, nor a single bit of visual evidence from the NIST report that I overlooked, and you cannot provide any video evidence whatsoever that you previously claimed is cataloged at the NIST site.




I'll give you another chance. Do you have any actual links to the 'entirety of video evidence that is cataloged at the NIST site' as you claimed? I already know you don't since it doesn't exist. I just want to see if you have the capacity to think critically on this issue.
__________________
Website
Major_Tom 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 21st August 2015, 08:04 PM   #180
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,956
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
Bravin Neff, you wrote:




I asked:




and you provided this:



which a list of frequently asked questions.



So, you cannot provide a single quote from the NIST report that I overlooked, nor a single bit of visual evidence from the NIST report that I overlooked, and you cannot provide any video evidence whatsoever that you previously claimed is cataloged at the NIST site.




I'll give you another chance. Do you have any actual links to the 'entirety of video evidence that is cataloged at the NIST site' as you claimed? I already know you don't since it doesn't exist. I just want to see if you have the capacity to think critically on this issue.
Are you not able to figure out what videos NIST has? Are you badgering someone who knows 911 was done solely by 19 murderers? ]]

Can you summarize your conclusion on 911? no

Are you still on the CD fantasy wagon?


Quote:
The WTC towers were a system. Shell, Floors, and Core. When the floors are over loaded, they fail, they were holding the core to the shell, the shell falls off, the floors fall, the core has no lateral support (aka shell), everything is unstable, and the next floor has more mass to make it fail, all the way down.
'
There goes your BS acronym down the tubes...

This is a fantasy thread, about how dolts would rig the WTC, something that is a fantasy; 19 terrorists did 911, simpletons who were mislead by UBL, who is fish-food, a spoiled Saudi, who we support, and who in general are people.

Major Tom, why is you book BS? ? "and global collapse ensued" ... NIST beat you to the conclusion.

Here is your history, your BS....

Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
... the supposed "gravity-driven collapse" is a mere illusion to mask an intentional act so barbaric... Satan...
Sad, NIST never went full blown BS paranoid fantasy anti-science nonsense. You Beat them to the failed junk.

That is your legacy, total nonsense you never retracted.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 21st August 2015 at 08:15 PM.
beachnut 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 21st August 2015, 08:11 PM   #181
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
I'll give you another chance.
Are you this lazy? SERIOUSLY, ARE YOU THIS LAZY?

Its unlikely you deserve another chance, but I'll give it to you anyway:

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi..._wtctowers.cfm

Left column.

Near the bottom.

Photos, Videos and Simulations.

Click on that link. THERE'S A TON of material there, including:

Organized Photos and Video Clips
Original Videos from Tapes
Other Photos and Videos

Each of those has tons more embedded beneath.

This is the data NIST used:

"Collected Materials: Other Photos and Video
NIST acquired a large amount of visual materials as part of its World Trade Center Investigation. A subset of these materials was organized into a searchable database in which the images and video clips were characterized using a set of attributes like: source/owner, time of shot/video, content (including building, face(s), key events (plane strike, fireballs, collapse), and other details. To view those analyzed video clips, see the collection ”Organized Photos and Video Clips."

Your apology is accepted. However, I'm not at all convinced you have the capacity to think critically on this issue.

Last edited by Bravin Neff; 21st August 2015 at 08:23 PM.
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 21st August 2015, 08:16 PM   #182
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
So, you cannot provide a single quote from the NIST report that I overlooked, nor a single bit of visual evidence from the NIST report that I overlooked, and you cannot provide any video evidence whatsoever that you previously claimed is cataloged at the NIST site.
So you cannot perform even the slightest due diligence from the link I provided to prove to yourself I provided exactly what you asked for, and judging by the fact it appears you were never aware of these materials, you in fact overlooked substantial evidence provided by NIST, and yes, its cataloged at the NIST site.

Anything else I can help you with?
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 21st August 2015, 08:22 PM   #183
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,956
Originally Posted by Bravin Neff View Post
So you cannot perform even the slightest due diligence from the link I provided to prove to yourself I provided exactly what you asked for, and judging by the fact it appears you were never aware of these materials, you in fact overlooked substantial evidence provided by NIST, and yes, its cataloged at the NIST site.

Anything else I can help you with?
You are schooling 911 truth followers, who think they are major investigators, and fooled a few who are prone to love BS.

I doubt 911 truth followers realize the data NIST and the FBI have, they fail to realize the massive size of the FBI and NIST investigation, as they make up BS and envy those who got the degrees - which are not needed to understand 911.

The best 911 investigators, are most likely English majors, since RIF...'


lol


Yes, NIST has videos which require 30 minutes or more to download; do you really think fake "engineer" wannabees take the time to do real research...

take care

Don't worry, 911 truth nuts never read NIST, they make up lies about NIST
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 21st August 2015 at 08:24 PM.
beachnut 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 21st August 2015, 08:25 PM   #184
Sherman Bay
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 2,161
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Your claim, that rigging the Twin Towers without being discovered is problematic, has also been shown to be without merit by the 1978 Citibank building secret retrofit, and the fact that there was an elevator renovation project going on in Twin Towers in the eight months preceding Sept. 11, 2001 which would provide a cover for placing charges.
"Secret" retrofit? I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Quote:
[The architect] decided to remedy the connections by applying heavy steel-welded band-aids on each side of the joint to build up the strength of the joint. The new welded plates, typically 1 1/2 in. thick and weighing 200 to 300 pounds, were shaped like thick elongated Hs...Plywood houses were set up to shield the building occupants from the welding and debris. The work was done at night when staff would not be occupying the building.

...Three Meteorological experts were retained to provide updates three times throughout a day. An emergency evacuation plan was developed in conjunction with local law enforcement, search and rescue, firefighters, major city authority figures, and shelters. 2000 emergency red cross workers were kept on stand-by in the event of a failure.
I doubt if the work was all that secret to the 2000-plus people involved and the office workers would have had to overlook the plywood houses. Must have been very tiny houses.
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 22nd August 2015, 12:11 AM   #185
Richard the G
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 241
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
This thread should just stop, as it is getting away from your original post and point above.

Your claim, that rigging the Twin Towers without being discovered is problematic, has also been shown to be without merit by the 1978 Citibank building secret retrofit, and the fact that there was an elevator renovation project going on in Twin Towers in the eight months preceding Sept. 11, 2001 which would provide a cover for placing charges.
Poor Tony, the thread was about the statistical probability of discovery. Bravin hypothesise that even if only 1 in 1000 or 1 in 10,000 people noticed some evidence of people rigging the building with explosive then discvovery was almost certain.

And you are saying that people did not notice the scaffolding around the column of Citibank and if it had fallen down no-one would have said ..." hey I saw scaffolding around the column that collapsed " I dont think so !
Richard the G 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 22nd August 2015, 12:39 AM   #186
Richard the G
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 241
And Tony, I know you have looked at the plans. So can you explain how the elevator company rigged the core columns that were not in the lift shafts. I think there are typically about 47 core columns and only a few are accessible from the lift shafts.

In WTC 1 at the impact level there are only 11 accessible columns in 15 lift shafts

In WTC 2 at the impact level there are only 14 accessible columns in 26 lift shafts.

The remaining columns are in tenant space... How did they do it. Maybe you too believe that someone can just walk into a financial firms offices at night and drill a quick hole through the columns. And nobody notices.!

And do I also understand that you think Richard Gage is wrong when he talks about the concurrent demolition of the 260 perimeter columns being by controlled demolition and that no explosives were used on the perimeter. Thats a big move in the truth.

Your mechanical expert opinion is eagerly awaited.!
Richard the G 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 22nd August 2015, 01:06 AM   #187
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 341
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Basic flaw... any single twin tower floor was incapable of statically supporing more than several twin tower floors... And what you had in 1wtc is something 20 floors to support on a single slab Not gonna happen.

The basic flaw is yours.

"Any single floor was incapable of supporting more than several floors"

This means that when the impact of the falling body hit that first slab, it would crush those columns and the deformation would likely extend to the subsequent floor, thereby losing significant KE in the form of inelastic collision and potentially comminution. Do you agree??

Good... Because I mean the first slab and subsequent slabs of the falling block. Yet the same effect concurrently happens to the "standing" structure, and before you know it, you have roughly 10 floors being crunched into another 10 floors, where they come to rest. NY then gets to figure out what to do with the remaining 80 floors. That's what would have happened if NIST's fantasy collapse initiation had occurred without the systematic explosive and thermitic degradation of the lower tower.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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 22nd August 2015, 01:30 AM   #188
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,839
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
The basic flaw is yours.

"Any single floor was incapable of supporting more than several floors"

This means that when the impact of the falling body hit that first slab, it would crush those columns and the deformation would likely extend to the subsequent floor, thereby losing significant KE in the form of inelastic collision and potentially comminution. Do you agree??

Good... Because I mean the first slab and subsequent slabs of the falling block. Yet the same effect concurrently happens to the "standing" structure, and before you know it, you have roughly 10 floors being crunched into another 10 floors, where they come to rest. NY then gets to figure out what to do with the remaining 80 floors. That's what would have happened if NIST's fantasy collapse initiation had occurred without the systematic explosive and thermitic degradation of the lower tower.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is nonsense. 20 crushed floor slabs "come to rest" on top of the 82nd intact room temperature floor slab? Are you crazy?
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 22nd August 2015, 01:35 AM   #189
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 341
Correct!
When the 90th floor gives out, disappears, melts, blows up, gets eaten by thermite termites... WHATEVER, then the lower portion crushes the upper portion in an equivalent manner.

The "collapse" is arrested.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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 22nd August 2015, 02:03 AM   #190
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,532
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Correct!
When the 90th floor gives out, disappears, melts, blows up, gets eaten by thermite termites... WHATEVER, then the lower portion crushes the upper portion in an equivalent manner.

The "collapse" is arrested.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
O noes! You'd better go tell physics that it's been doing it all wrong.

__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager 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 22nd August 2015, 04:39 AM   #191
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by Richard the G View Post
Bravin hypothesise that even if only 1 in 1000 or 1 in 10,000 people noticed some evidence of people rigging the building with explosive then discvovery was almost certain.
In a subsequent post, I calculated the conspirator would need to defeat the median WTC occupant 9,999,997 out of 10,000,000 times in order to get to a 90% probability of success. Using assumptions in favor of the conspiracy theory.
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 22nd August 2015, 05:49 AM   #192
Major_Tom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,960
Originally Posted by Bravin Neff View Post
Are you this lazy? SERIOUSLY, ARE YOU THIS LAZY?

Its unlikely you deserve another chance, but I'll give it to you anyway:

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi..._wtctowers.cfm

Left column.

Near the bottom.

Photos, Videos and Simulations.

Click on that link. THERE'S A TON of material there, including:

Organized Photos and Video Clips
Original Videos from Tapes
Other Photos and Videos

Each of those has tons more embedded beneath.

This is the data NIST used:

"Collected Materials: Other Photos and Video
NIST acquired a large amount of visual materials as part of its World Trade Center Investigation. A subset of these materials was organized into a searchable database in which the images and video clips were characterized using a set of attributes like: source/owner, time of shot/video, content (including building, face(s), key events (plane strike, fireballs, collapse), and other details. To view those analyzed video clips, see the collection ”Organized Photos and Video Clips."

Your apology is accepted. However, I'm not at all convinced you have the capacity to think critically on this issue.


I'm glad you are new here. New, fresh, and stunningly though predictably naive.


Long time JREF/ISF posters, I'd like you to carefully observe the exchange between Bravin and myself. He will serve as the perfect example of the creature you have helped to create.

Some of us have already had these discussions. A quick review of our past exchanges:



May 11, 2010: OOS Collapse Model thread that branched into this thread

and

October 26, 2010: WTC 1 Feature List, WTC 2 Feature List merged

These last 2 threads were merged together and moved out of the 9-11 sub-forum.


And a follow-up thread here:

Major_Tom Disproves NIST Claims in a Number of Key Areas

I have 3 years of examples which show how many JREF/ISF posters handle technical discussions. Many have no history of having an informed, fact-based technical discussion in those threads over a 3 year period.




Another thread in which I was active and which serves as an excellent example of communication at JREF/ISF is Discussion of Femr's Data Analysis.

One other thread of interest started by Achimspok:

WTC7 and NIST Freefall Failure



A series of 3 "witch hunt" threads were started after the two feature list threads were removed from the subforum. An attack thread about the feature lists was allowed while the original threads were not.

Major_Tom's Feature Lists

MIHOP -femr2 and Major Tom's WTC1,2,7 Demolition Hypotheses

What does "MIHOP" mean?


.................


Bravin is just like many of yourselves, but starting from 'square 1', since he is new here. He believes as you have believed: That the NIST couldn't possibly have screwed up so badly in their representations of WTC movement and behavior.

Using WTC1 as an example, he believes that the NIST representations of WTC1 collapse initiation movement linked here are accurate and that WTC1 failed through the south perimeter as the NIST claimed.

He believes that WTC1 tilted to the south during the initiation process as much as WTC2 tilted to the east, but a little bit more, because the NIST said so. He will believe whatever the NIST tells him to believe.

In other words, he is exactly like some of you. He is a product of the NIST and of forums like this one. In short, he is a 'NISTian', to use the term Frank Greening introduced a few years back in this forum.

I'm also quite sure that none of you will have the courage to openly correct him, except for one or 2 posters.


And, of course, in his view anyone who isn't a fellow NISTian must be crazy, and dumb, and lazy, just as I am being accused of yet again.



If I suggest he look at mappings superior to what the NIST has produced in order to actually fact-check NIST claims, such comments will appear to him to be the rantings of a deranged lunatic, for how can any mere mortals map more accurately than the highest authority on the WTC towers in the world?

How dare a mere group of individuals fact-check outside of official channels!



Yes, such is the product that some of you helped to create. The same memes, the same songs, the same false certainty, the same prejudices, the same church.

>>>>>>>>>>>


Bravin, later when I have more time I'll show you better collections of video and photographic evidence and I'll examine and fact-check some of those strongly-held opinions that you have expressed. I'll record you responses and probably post the exchange on my website, since it serves as a perfect example of what I study and document.
__________________
Website
Major_Tom 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 22nd August 2015, 06:24 AM   #193
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
I'm glad you are new here.
I appreciate the welcome.

Regarding the videos I pointed you to - the ones you originally couldn't be bothered to spend the 5 seconds to click on - yes, the same ones omitted in your paper when you said "...the entirety of the visual evidence..." - did you find them useful? Have you updated your paper yet?

You're welcome.

Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
Bravin, later when I have more time I'll show you better collections of video and photographic evidence...
Let's be clear about something: if you don't correct your record and acknowledge your error, then are not a trustworthy source. But don't let that stop you from PMing me this "better collection" you have. I think I've seen some of it already on your site (I mean book).

Quote:
I'll record you responses and probably post the exchange on my website, since it serves as a perfect example of what I study and document.
As your errors have already been posted and recorded here, I guess that makes us even. LOL.

But you sound like quite the scholar. By the way, in that webpage you originally pointed to, when you said: "In reality, the building leaned less than 1 degree... as demonstrated in this section."

Did the calculation appear somewhere else? I never did find that in the section. And why is section 2.4 called 2.4 in the listing, but in the header of the document itself its called 2.3? Are you working with an editor?

You may post this post of mine to your website/book.
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 22nd August 2015, 06:30 AM   #194
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,974
Originally Posted by Bravin Neff View Post
In a subsequent post, I calculated the conspirator would need to defeat the median WTC occupant 9,999,997 out of 10,000,000 times in order to get to a 90% probability of success. Using assumptions in favor of the conspiracy theory.
No normal office worker is going to be suspicious with the elevator renovation project going on and their chances of seeing anything is nill if the charges are set in the elevator shafts, which aren't observable to the office workers. This is why an elevator renovation would be a perfect ploy to use for both a cover and means to set the charges.

The way the buildings were taken down was by cutting the core columns and causing the exterior to be pulled inward and buckle. The only thing needed on the exterior was to cut the corner spandrel connections to let the exterior walls petal outward when pushed downward by the falling floors.

Watch this short video and explain what you think is going on at the corners https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUDoGuLpirc

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 22nd August 2015 at 06:35 AM.
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 22nd August 2015, 06:39 AM   #195
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,840
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
No normal office worker is going to be suspicious with the elevator renovation project going on and their chances of seeing anything is nill if the charges are set in the elevator shafts, which aren't observable to the office workers. This is why an elevator renovation would be a perfect ploy to use for both a cover and means to set the charges.

The way the buildings were taken down was by cutting the core columns and causing the exterior to be pulled inward and buckle. The only thing needed on the exterior was to cut the corner spandrel connections to let the exterior walls petal outward when pushed downward by the falling floors.
Since you haven't shown an explosive that can survive near 3000c temperatures I do not count on any logical person planning such an absurd CD.
The fact that the planes impacted the building, and aluminum and other reactive metals were involved,negates any potential CD.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 22nd August 2015, 07:00 AM   #196
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 22,949
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
No normal office worker is going to be suspicious with the elevator renovation project going on and their chances of seeing anything is nill if the charges are set in the elevator shafts, which aren't observable to the office workers. This is why an elevator renovation would be a perfect ploy to use for both a cover and means to set the charges.
As has been mentioned a number of times now, only a limited number of columns were accessible from elevator shafts, and not all surfaces of even those. It's a ridiculous and desperate claim.
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 22nd August 2015, 07:30 AM   #197
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
No normal office worker is going to be suspicious with the elevator renovation project going on and their chances of seeing anything is nill...
I sense that you really want to call the probability zero - but I also sense your intelligence and education prevent you from doing so, because you know it doesn't work that way. Yes, the probability can go vanishingly small, but not to zero. I have conceded this point from the outset - the probability that the median WTC occupant defeats the conspirator is really, really low. I have played with numerous values, all in favor of the conspiracy theory. At no point does the conspiracy theory come out reasonable.

Quote:
if the charges are set in the elevator shafts, which aren't observable to the office workers. This is why an elevator renovation would be a perfect ploy to use for both a cover and means to set the charges.
I appreciate and respect your point here, but I don't think you are appreciating mine: the quantity of occupants and the number of days to achieve the job DICTATES that the probability of defeating the median WTC occupant must be extraordinarily high. This is mathematically unavoidable. No talk of "no normal office worker is going to be suspicious..." can take this fact away.

In a previous post, I estimated the conspirator defeats the median WTC occupant 9,999,997 out of 10,000,000 times in order to achieve a 90% probability of success, using values (almost certainly unfairly) in favor of the conspiracy theory. This number may be meaningless to many people, and I can anticipate and understand that. But anyone who works in the real world with real statistics driven by real human behavior will recognize this is asking for unicorns.

Quote:
Watch this short video and explain what you think is going on at the corners
I watched the video. It looks like the ejection of material to me. Thinking it might be "bombs," I turned my speakers up and listened for explosives, but I didn't hear any. Do you suppose the audio of the video has been altered?
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 22nd August 2015, 07:36 AM   #198
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 22,949
Originally Posted by Bravin Neff View Post
In a previous post, I estimated the conspirator defeats the median WTC occupant 9,999,997 out of 10,000,000 times in order to achieve a 90% probability of success, using values (almost certainly unfairly) in favor of the conspiracy theory. This number may be meaningless to many people, and I can anticipate and understand that. But anyone who works in the real world with real statistics driven by real human behavior will recognize this is asking for unicorns.
And while any conspirators might not have resorted to calculations, their gut feel for the improbability of getting away with it would have killed the plan at birth.
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 22nd August 2015, 11:23 AM   #199
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 13,750
Bravin Neff, you've done well on this thread. Especially, you've independently discovered the hollowness of the former truth movement's "engineering" claims. They can point at a video and say "the angle is wrong" but they can't show quantitatively what the angle is or what it should be. They can say "there wasn't enough energy in the fire to weaken the structure to the point of failure" but they can't show quantitatively how much there was OR how much would be required. (Dave Rogers calls that the Unevaluated Inequality Fallacy.) And they'll do anything it takes to distract from that: argue credentials, argue psychology ("you can't face the uncomfortable truth"), argue motives, argue analogies, argue personal history ("you said something five years ago I still disagree with so you can't be trusted"), argue forum rules ("I'd tell you but it would be off-topic"), anything but actual numbers.

One thing I'd caution you about, however, is the reliability of the "inner physicist" you speak of. For almost everyone, it works very well at the familiar scales of the objects we manipulate. But change the scale, and most people have (and eventually everyone has) a lot more difficulty.

I once was working at a new temporary job in a warehouse, and a stack of boxes a few steps away from me got tipped over slightly and was moments from falling. I pushed back on it and it didn't fall. The foreman saw this and gave me a well-deserved chewing out. Back home in my garage, pushing back on a stack of boxes to keep it from falling is a reasonable choice, but in a warehouse the boxes are bigger (not by a huge amount, but enough) and heavier (not by a huge amount, but enough) and stacked higher (not by a huge amount, but enough) so that the correct thing to do if a stack of boxes starts falling over is to run away. Otherwise you're likely to get killed. I had to adjust my expectations of cause and effect to the then-unfamiliar new scale.

When it comes to tall buildings, most people's intuition fails. If you ask which is stronger, a high-rise steel building or a wine goblet, most people will (correctly) choose the building. If you ask which is stronger in comparison to its own weight, most people will still pick the building, but they're now wrong. You might be able to challenge their wrong-scale intuition by phrasing the question differently (e.g. "Which would be more likely to hold up without breaking if stacked five high: wine goblets or high-rise buildings?) but even that might fail. "Buildings are made of strong steel and wine goblets are made of fragile glass," their "inner physicists" are reminding them, and they can't see past that. And they're more likely to challenge the validity of your analogy than examine why their intuition might be wrong.

There are plenty of people out there who could watch a cartoon of Mighty Mouse picking up a twenty-story brick building by one corner, and think, "accepting the premise that the mouse is really strong, that's completely plausible." Among those are the former truthers who made world trade center collapse models out of cardboard pizza boxes, office trays, chicken wire and similar materials, and observed that they don't have any tendency to crush under their own weight. And they further argued that that should be even more true for the wtc towers because they were made of much stronger materials. That the behavior would change with scale is something their "inner physicists" were completely oblivious to.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad 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 22nd August 2015, 12:23 PM   #200
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Bravin Neff, you've done well on this thread.
Thank you, I appreciate your kind words.

Quote:
One thing I'd caution you about, however, is the reliability of the "inner physicist" you speak of.
Your point is well taken. And as someone who works in industry, I certainly agree with your foreman.

I want to clarify the import of my "inner physicist" comment: it had everything to do with watching the buildings collapse live, and the mental acceptance one does *or does not* go through when witnessing such an event.

What I mean is this: either the event "looks right" for a gravity driven collapse, and one finds that no deep mystery exists, or it "looks wrong" and one immediately suspects foul play of some kind or another.

By my lights, it "looked right" then, and it continues to look right now. I suspect it "looks right" to truthers more than they are willing to admit.
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
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 03:55 PM.
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.