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.
View Poll Results: Is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative?
Yes 20 13.07%
No 128 83.66%
Undecided 5 3.27%
Voters: 153. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Old 8th January 2015, 11:38 AM   #121
Jango
Graduate Poster
 
Jango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,688
Originally Posted by sylvan8798 View Post
Not specific enough. What about them looked "odd" to you? Had you any previous experience whatsoever by which to judge how such an event SHOULD look versus how it actually DID look?

Complete the following sentence: A firefighter on the 78th floor said he needed two lines to put out some small fires there, from which I conclude __________.
1. I've never seen anything like the WTC collapses anywhere else so I do not have anything to compare it to.

2. ...that I have more questions than answers.
Jango 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 8th January 2015, 11:55 AM   #122
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,376
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
1. I've never seen anything like the WTC collapses anywhere else so I do not have anything to compare it to.
His question and mine mean to ask what special knowledge and prior experience you have in building collapses that would lead you to conclude that the collapse of WTC towers was not as it should have been, and that this judgment should somehow interest anyone but you. You're not answering that question. You're just repeating the conspiracy-theory mantra that these were somehow anomalous things. We want answers to the questions we asked.

Quote:
2. ...that I have more questions than answers.
But how are you going about looking for answers to those questions? Are you listening to engineers? Are you studying structural dynamics? Or instead are you running around throwing wild accusations hither and yon?

The elephant in the room is the notion of what qualifies as a "legitimate" reason to question the official narrative. Your squirming and evasion on this point makes very clear that uninformed and presumptuous judgments from laymen about structural dynamics are not legitimate reasons.

Try again.
JayUtah 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 8th January 2015, 12:29 PM   #123
Jango
Graduate Poster
 
Jango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,688
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
We want answers to the questions we asked.
Don't we all?

No, I am not an expert or even an advanced level student into all the matters relevant into 1,000+ tall buildings. Not to be ignored, I've asked questions about the WTC collapses for years now and no one, not even when I've contacted official channels, could answer my questions. All I hear is a giant vacuuming noise where what I see hasn't been translated into words yet I.e. what's happenin' in the building as I watch it collapse.

Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
But how are you going about looking for answers to those questions?
I'm trying as hard as I can given the resources and limited contacts I have to use, man. But I am tryin' here.
Jango 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 8th January 2015, 12:34 PM   #124
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,376
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
No, I am not an expert or even an advanced level student into all the matters relevant into 1,000+ tall buildings. Not to be ignored, I've asked questions about the WTC collapses for years now and no one, not even when I've contacted official channels, could answer my questions. All I hear is a giant vacuuming noise where what I see hasn't been translated into words yet I.e. what's happenin' in the building as I watch it collapse.
Given your admitted lack of relevant expertise, and the pointedly assertive nature of your questions here, prove your questions are valid, meaningful, and relevant -- that is, that they should interest more than just you.

You did well to wrap your admission of ignorance in a frantic attempt to once again make your dilemma someone else's fault. But the salient fact remains that you're simply tilting at windmills because you lack the relevant skill and experience to make your opinions into evidence. No one else has a burden to correct your ignorance.
JayUtah 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 8th January 2015, 12:36 PM   #125
Jango
Graduate Poster
 
Jango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,688
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
I do, but I don't accept layman's impressions as an argument on a subject that requires licensed expertise. I assume from your deflection that you have no appropriate qualifications and that your personal judgments, e.g., "as though nothing was supporting it," are not evidence.

And I agree with Oystein -- while this particular thread is fairly broad in the scope of discussion it could cover (i.e., the panoply of reasons to "question" the 9/11 narrative), please do not jump from one subject to another in the manner of evading discussion some topic you get stuck on.
1. Then let's have a conversation. Just two dudes on the Internet, eh?

2. I'm not trying to change yer mind. I'm trying to change my mind. Want to help?

3. Both the Twin Towers and Building 7 are shown on video falling in the manner I described -- with an appearance of no resistance. A licensed individual could explain to me exactly what's happening in there but he or she cannot discount what I see as the buildings fall to the ground.

4. I'm not worried about thread clutter. I don't get quote notifications anyway, so why spread myself even further out across more-and-more threads? Or, perhaps, a thread with a wide-open OP about 9/11 is in order?
Jango 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 8th January 2015, 12:41 PM   #126
Jango
Graduate Poster
 
Jango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,688
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Given your admitted lack of relevant expertise, and the pointedly assertive nature of your questions here, prove your questions are valid, meaningful, and relevant -- that is, that they should interest more than just you.

You did well to wrap your admission of ignorance in a frantic attempt to once again make your dilemma someone else's fault. But the salient fact remains that you're simply tilting at windmills because you lack the relevant skill and experience to make your opinions into evidence. No one else has a burden to correct your ignorance.
No, I am not trying to make my "opinions into evidence." That is incorrect. I've simply said a few things about the buildings on 9/11 mostly in response to questions asked by others. I've made no absolute declaration about what exactly happened on September 11th, 2001. So that's a straw man.

I would suppose that it is a given that one question I've repeatedly asked for years which hasn't been answered is valid for that reason alone -- no one can tell a Play-by-Play if you will of the collapses.
Jango 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 8th January 2015, 12:42 PM   #127
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Why is it that the 78th floor FF call keeps coming up year after year? It is so obvious!
Yes, Palmer calls from the 78th floor saying he has multiple injured and dead up there and that the fires on that floor are isolated, small and he needs two lines to put them out.

The 78th floor is the lowest fire involved floor in either building. Anyone reaching the 78th floor of WTC1 would have found no fires.
Flt175 impacted several floors, 75 being the one that the far end of the port wing sliced into. The 75th floor had little to no aviation fuel dumped onto it as a consequence of being hit by the outboard most part of the wing.
The vast majority of fuel was dumped onto the next few higher floors and that is where the greatest fires were. However, Palmer isn't going to send guys higher up until he at least has water supply so that he does not risk isolating his own people up there. It is hard enough getting manpower up there. In addition its going to make the most sense to fight this fire floor by floor, get 78's fire knocked down before proceeding to 79, etc.
Victims were trapped, as they themselves reported, on higher floors. Stairs were destroyed and fire was cutting people off. Does that sound like minimal damage, does that sound like minimal fire? Do the videos not show intense fires?(yes they do unless one specifically searches, dishonestly, for photos showing faces of the 200 foot by 200 foot structure, that show less fire at some periods)
jaydeehess 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 8th January 2015, 12:47 PM   #128
Jango
Graduate Poster
 
Jango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,688
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Why is it that the 78th floor FF call keeps coming up year after year? It is so obvious!
Yes, Palmer calls from the 78th floor saying he has multiple injured and dead up there and that the fires on that floor are isolated, small and he needs two lines to put them out.

The 78th floor is the lowest fire involved floor in either building. Anyone reaching the 78th floor of WTC1 would have found no fires.
Flt175 impacted several floors, 75 being the one that the far end of the port wing sliced into. The 75th floor had little to no aviation fuel dumped onto it as a consequence of being hit by the outboard most part of the wing.
The vast majority of fuel was dumped onto the next few higher floors and that is where the greatest fires were. However, Palmer isn't going to send guys higher up until he at least has water supply so that he does not risk isolating his own people up there. It is hard enough getting manpower up there. In addition its going to make the most sense to fight this fire floor by floor, get 78's fire knocked down before proceeding to 79, etc.
Victims were trapped, as they themselves reported, on higher floors. Stairs were destroyed and fire was cutting people off. Does that sound like minimal damage, does that sound like minimal fire? Do the videos not show intense fires?(yes they do unless one specifically searches, dishonestly, for photos showing faces of the 200 foot by 200 foot structure, that show less fire at some periods)
What? I thought that it had been said for years that when the planes penetrated the buildings, that it sent jet fuel dumping out which went through the building I.e. up and down from what I recall.
Jango 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 8th January 2015, 12:53 PM   #129
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,376
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
1. Then let's have a conversation. Just two dudes on the Internet, eh?
I see no point in discussing structural dynamics with someone who admits he's not qualified to discuss it at an appropriately informed level. Sorry, I won't indulge your layman's intuition on the subject.

Quote:
2. I'm not trying to change yer mind. I'm trying to change my mind. Want to help?
I see little if any evidence that you're trying to change your mind. You're trying to impose your uninformed preconceptions as if they were legitimate questions to be addressed. Your first step in getting help is to acknowledge your preconceptions and discard them. Your next step, if you wish to discuss highly specialized subjects, is to obtain an appropriate education -- the critics of your previous claims are not obliged to provide that education to you.

Quote:
3. Both the Twin Towers and Building 7 are shown on video falling in the manner I described -- with an appearance of no resistance. A licensed individual could explain to me exactly what's happening in there but he or she cannot discount what I see as the buildings fall to the ground.
A licensed individual would tell you that what you see is not unexpected. If your expectation was different, you should first question the basis for your expectation.

Quote:
4. I'm not worried about thread clutter. I don't get quote notifications anyway, so why spread myself even further out across more-and-more threads? Or, perhaps, a thread with a wide-open OP about 9/11 is in order?
The issue is not thread clutter. The issue is the claimant getting backed into a corner and changing the subject in order to evade accountability. If any one thread is too broad, that tactic is almost universally applied.

The topic of this thread, as I see it, is what constitutes an acceptable standard of proof to require a new investigation into 9/11. As I have said, layman's suppositions about highly complex subjects, which are not endorsed or held by the relevant qualified professionals, does not meet such a standard. Since you are not qualified to discuss structural dynamics, a discussion of that topic is not likely to advance the topic of this thread further. Hence my advice to try again -- meaning try a different subject.
JayUtah 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 8th January 2015, 01:00 PM   #130
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,376
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
No, I am not trying to make my "opinions into evidence." That is incorrect. I've simply said a few things about the buildings on 9/11 mostly in response to questions asked by others.
You suggest there is something suspicious about the way the buildings fell down. In the context of this thread, it would be to suggest that such suspicions warrant questioning the official narrative. But when pressed, you admit your questions are insufficiently informed. Yet for some reason you are unwilling to first see whether your preconceptions or layman's naive expectations are at fault. Hence you are trying to set up your lay preconceptions as questions that others must somehow be obliged to answer.

Quote:
I've made no absolute declaration about what exactly happened on September 11th, 2001. So that's a straw man.
So then you agree there is no legitimate reason to question the official narrative and we can close this thread. Am I correct?

Quote:
I would suppose that it is a given that one question I've repeatedly asked for years which hasn't been answered is valid for that reason alone...
By whose judgment hasn't it been answered?

This is the second time you have raised the persistence of questions as a reason why those questions should be considered valid or legitimate. But you have already conceded that not all conspiracy theorists are scrupulous investigators. Based on that concession, why haven't you considered other reasons why those questions still persist? Have you considered that the proponents of those questions have selfish reasons for continuing to try to make them relevant, even if they have been answered to nearly everyone else's satisfaction?

For someone who says he wants to change his mind, you seem stubbornly unwilling to consider any hypothesis that paints the Truther movement in bad light.
JayUtah 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 8th January 2015, 01:06 PM   #131
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
What? I thought that it had been said for years that when the planes penetrated the buildings, that it sent jet fuel dumping out which went through the building I.e. up and down from what I recall.
The vast majority of fuel was dumped on floors in line with where the tanks on the planes were. That much needs little reasoning to determine. Those floors also took the brunt of physical damage as they are also in line with the greater mass and dense parts of the aircraft. Again not a lot of reasoning to manage to understand that.

More damage includes damage to perimeter floor portions, and core areas, which includes the most obvious paths, vertically, through the building, the damaged floors where maximum damage was done, again higher than 78, and the elevator shafts.
Any fuel going through shattered floor sections goes down one level. Fuel in elevator shafts goes where gravity sends it, down until it encounters either an elevator car or the bottom of the shaft. One shaft went all the way to the basement, others terminated at various floors. While 78 was one of those floors two things are possible; fuel did spill out from one shaft onto the 78th and is the source of at least one of the fires Palmer reports on; the elevator(s) from above that terminate at the 78th did not have fuel flow in it(them).

Last edited by jaydeehess; 8th January 2015 at 01:12 PM.
jaydeehess 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 8th January 2015, 01:10 PM   #132
Jango
Graduate Poster
 
Jango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,688
Originally Posted by cornsail View Post
ETA: Sorry, I thought you were talking about WTC7 for a sec there, but clearly you were not as it did not have a 78th floor.
No worries, man.
Jango 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 8th January 2015, 01:14 PM   #133
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,376
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Fuel in elevator shafts goes where gravity sends it, down until it encounters either an elevator car or the bottom of the shaft.
And depending on the amount of fuel and the duration of the fall, a substantial amount of it will aerosolize in the process, making it a substantial ignition risk.
JayUtah 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 8th January 2015, 01:27 PM   #134
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Re:WTC7
It has been covered in several threads one of which I replied thusly:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=200
jaydeehess 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 8th January 2015, 01:49 PM   #135
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
Lol. Do you want to have a conversation or not?

I thought you had overcome your nervous tic habit of starting replies with 'Lol.'

Silly me.
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave
John Jones 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 8th January 2015, 01:59 PM   #136
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: 28,133
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
78th floor was the impact zone on the South Tower, so I don't know what yer trying to peddle.
Relevant information that might lead you to a reasoned conclusion. Sorry if that doesn't suit your requirements.

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 8th January 2015, 02:00 PM   #137
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
1
4. I'm not worried about thread clutter. I don't get quote notifications anyway, so why spread myself even further out across more-and-more threads? Or, perhaps, a thread with a wide-open OP about 9/11 is in order?
I have wondered why you spread yourself out over so many new and resurrected threads.
jaydeehess 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 8th January 2015, 02:02 PM   #138
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: 28,133
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
1. I've never seen anything like the WTC collapses anywhere else so I do not have anything to compare it to.
And that's the problem in a nutshell. You have no idea what the collapse of a 110 storey building should look like, but you've decided for some unknown reason that what you saw wasn't what it should look like. It's something I coined the term "unevaluated inequality fallacy" to describe, a few years back. You're comparing two things - in this case, what the collapse looked like and what it should have looked like - and saying they're not the same, despite the fact that you admit you have no idea what one of them is. Can you see why that doesn't really bolster your credibility or advance your argument?

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 8th January 2015, 03:15 PM   #139
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
And that's the problem in a nutshell. You have no idea what the collapse of a 110 storey building should look like, but you've decided for some unknown reason that what you saw wasn't what it should look like. It's something I coined the term "unevaluated inequality fallacy" to describe, a few years back. You're comparing two things - in this case, what the collapse looked like and what it should have looked like - and saying they're not the same, despite the fact that you admit you have no idea what one of them is. Can you see why that doesn't really bolster your credibility or advance your argument?

Dave
One issue I see a lot wrt 9/11WTC collapses, is the lack of comprehension concerning the physical scale of the towers. There is the meme of small fires but when one observes say even a quarter of the width of the building with flames coming out the windows that equates to a 50 foot span of office fires. Such a fire would be completely engulfing most residential homes but to many truthers it is 'small' because they compare it to the width of the building as seen in videos and pictures taken from far off with little or no foreground objects by which to recognize the scale.
Still on the fire issue many truthers will point to partial collapses of other structures having occurred only after many hours of raging fire engulfing structures that are significantly narrower than the WTC towers. This ignores both physical scale and the very salient fact that by having thousands of gallons of liquid fuel dumped onto several floors and ignited, that these buildings immediately had several vertically adjacent office floors involved in large area fires. Each tower saw at least three floors have large quantities of fuel dumped on them. Each of those floors individually then had an office fire that by themselves would have been considered major conflagration of the type that in most situations would take an hour or more to develop. Having multiple floors involved in large area fires is a situation that commonly takes several hours to develop. Yet the towers had this fire situation develop within seconds.

Compounding this lack of scale comprehension is the seemingly tough time many truthers have with what I have seen referred to as 'binary thinking'. For instance, above I mention the aviation fuel and what do we often see from truthers? "The fuel burned off in ten minutes so it couldn't have heated (some take this to ridiculousness and say 'melted) the steel significantly" seemingly unable to grasp that it was most effective at igniting the contents of the offices. (or the behaviour of steel that has it lose strength, become less solid and more plastic, as it is heated and that melting is not required for a steel member to fail)

Another example is the meme that the towers were brought down by the impact or brought down by fire. Neither is correct. They succumbed to the combination of structural damage wrought by both impact AND fire.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 8th January 2015 at 03:20 PM.
jaydeehess 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 8th January 2015, 03:48 PM   #140
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
1. Then let's have a conversation. Just two dudes on the Internet, eh?

2. I'm not trying to change yer mind. I'm trying to change my mind. Want to help?

3. Both the Twin Towers and Building 7 are shown on video falling in the manner I described -- with an appearance of no resistance. A licensed individual could explain to me exactly what's happening in there but he or she cannot discount what I see as the buildings fall to the ground.

4. I'm not worried about thread clutter. I don't get quote notifications anyway, so why spread myself even further out across more-and-more threads? Or, perhaps, a thread with a wide-open OP about 9/11 is in order?
Jango, On #2 I am happy to help. Like you I have very little technical expertise. So I kept asking technical experts until I understood as well as a layperson could. Then I put out 22 YouTube videos summarizing what I learned from scientists. Much of what I got was not from Skeptic Forums like this (though some certainly did). To a very large degree, I asked scientists not engaged in the 9/11 debate. I kept getting answers consistent with the common narrative (plane crashes + unfought fires). On everything I researched. Everything. From literally hundreds of physicists, structural engineers (one NY structural engineer was even a LIHOP guy who still explained the natural collapse scenario), chemists, heavy equipment operators, metallurgists, fire chemists, demolition workers, metalworkers, architects, firefighters, the EPA guy who issued Appendix C about the sulfidized steel, Rich Lee of the RJ Lee Report, Leslie Robertson the WTC Architect)... every expert I talked to directly or read their comments supported some aspect of the common narrative with real expertise talking about their area of knowledge. Those YouTube videos are the result of years of asking and asking and asking. Here you can see what one non-expert was able to put together. Watch all of that and I promise you, if your #2 claim is correct, your mind will be at least partly changed.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2015, 03:54 PM   #141
sylvan8798
Master Poster
 
sylvan8798's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,827
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
Don't we all?

No, I am not an expert or even an advanced level student into all the matters relevant into 1,000+ tall buildings. Not to be ignored, I've asked questions about the WTC collapses for years now and no one, not even when I've contacted official channels, could answer my questions. All I hear is a giant vacuuming noise where what I see hasn't been translated into words yet I.e. what's happenin' in the building as I watch it collapse.



I'm trying as hard as I can given the resources and limited contacts I have to use, man. But I am tryin' here.
Perhaps the kind of indepth understanding you think you are looking for requires a lot of background knowledge which you do not currently possess? There is a cure for that. All you have is time. This thing isn't going anywhere. You can study physics, statics, strength of materials, structural analysis, steel design, more structural analysis, concrete design, and yet more structural analysis, until you have gained a background that some of US possess. Plenty of resources available for the study of these subjects.

At that point you can then revisit the explanations given by the many experts who have studied the collapses and see if they make more sense to you. No need to take our word for it, but at the same time you should not expect US to be able to fill in your background gaps.

Or you could take chrismohr's advice.
__________________
DoYouEverWonder - Engineers and architects don't have to design steel buildings not to collapse from gravity. They already conquered gravity when they built it.

- Professional Wastrel

Last edited by sylvan8798; 8th January 2015 at 03:56 PM.
sylvan8798 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2015, 04:29 PM   #142
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,376
That pretty much summarizes it. On matters of highly specialized, highly expert fields you have two rational choices: trust an expert or become an expert. What you cannot rationally do is insist that the relevant problems and questions be simplified down to whatever layman's knowledge you presently have. It especially does not accommodate whatever lay preconceptions one brings in.
JayUtah 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 8th January 2015, 06:20 PM   #143
Jango
Graduate Poster
 
Jango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,688
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
And that's the problem in a nutshell. You have no idea what the collapse of a 110 storey building should look like, but you've decided for some unknown reason that what you saw wasn't what it should look like. It's something I coined the term "unevaluated inequality fallacy" to describe, a few years back. You're comparing two things - in this case, what the collapse looked like and what it should have looked like - and saying they're not the same, despite the fact that you admit you have no idea what one of them is. Can you see why that doesn't really bolster your credibility or advance your argument?

Dave
I said it looked odd, and for the aforementioned reasons.
Jango 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 8th January 2015, 06:46 PM   #144
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,376
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
I said it looked odd, and for the aforementioned reasons.
But you didn't show that those reasons were based on anything but your uninformed expectations.
JayUtah 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 8th January 2015, 07:04 PM   #145
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,751
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
I said it looked odd, and for the aforementioned reasons.
Shouldn't a skyscraper collapsing from fire and airplane impact look odd?
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB 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 8th January 2015, 07:12 PM   #146
Jango
Graduate Poster
 
Jango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,688
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Jango, On #2 I am happy to help. Like you I have very little technical expertise. So I kept asking technical experts until I understood as well as a layperson could. Then I put out 22 YouTube videos summarizing what I learned from scientists. Much of what I got was not from Skeptic Forums like this (though some certainly did). To a very large degree, I asked scientists not engaged in the 9/11 debate. I kept getting answers consistent with the common narrative (plane crashes + unfought fires). On everything I researched. Everything. From literally hundreds of physicists, structural engineers (one NY structural engineer was even a LIHOP guy who still explained the natural collapse scenario), chemists, heavy equipment operators, metallurgists, fire chemists, demolition workers, metalworkers, architects, firefighters, the EPA guy who issued Appendix C about the sulfidized steel, Rich Lee of the RJ Lee Report, Leslie Robertson the WTC Architect)... every expert I talked to directly or read their comments supported some aspect of the common narrative with real expertise talking about their area of knowledge. Those YouTube videos are the result of years of asking and asking and asking. Here you can see what one non-expert was able to put together. Watch all of that and I promise you, if your #2 claim is correct, your mind will be at least partly changed.
Thank you for the civil and generous approach. I will take a look at yer videos.
Jango 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 8th January 2015, 08:36 PM   #147
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Jango, do posts 127, 131, & 133 answer your questions wrt Palmer and the fires on the 78th floor?

I note, too late for editing, that in post 127 I used the number 75 twice when it should have been 78.
jaydeehess 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 8th January 2015, 10:50 PM   #148
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 15,897
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
3. Both the Twin Towers and Building 7 are shown on video falling in the manner I described -- with an appearance of no resistance.
On this issue you can easily put your mind at rest without any professional knowledge. Watch any of the numerous videos of the collapse of the two towers and time them. You will see that they do not come down at anywhere near freefall acceleration. Indeed, you don't even have to time them, because you can see quite obviously there is a significant amount of material ejected outside the building footprint that is falling more rapidly than the collapse itself. Since the collapse is occurring at less than freefall acceleration, the towers are clearly providing resistance against the collapse.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster 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 8th January 2015, 11:14 PM   #149
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,699
I can't imagine a collapsing steel and concrete skyscraper to look any different to be honest..

Sorry, but it's been 13 years, if those buildings had explosives in them it would have come out (with actual evidence) years ago. Logistically, technically, and practically speaking, it is impossible.
__________________
Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed.
Over 140 pieces of evidence showing American 77 hit the Pentagon http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88
cjnewson88 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 9th January 2015, 12:39 AM   #150
Jango
Graduate Poster
 
Jango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,688
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post
I can't imagine a collapsing steel and concrete skyscraper to look any different to be honest..

Sorry, but it's been 13 years, if those buildings had explosives in them it would have come out (with actual evidence) years ago. Logistically, technically, and practically speaking, it is impossible.
13 years, in the scheme of information coming out, isn't too long a period of time.
Jango 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 9th January 2015, 01:12 AM   #151
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,087
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
13 years, in the scheme of information coming out, isn't too long a period of time.
If the 911 truth nuts took 13 years to earn a PhD in engineering >99.9 percent of them would stop being idiots in 911 truth. The collapse of the WTC happened in real time, cause by fire - on the spot. 13 years, you are late, 13 years late.

How long did take to break Watergate?
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 9th January 2015, 01:40 AM   #152
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
13 years, in the scheme of information coming out, isn't too long a period of time.
Jango explosives would have left visual evidence on the steel itself, shrapnel or evidence of Monrue's effect. I studied the photos of the steel in 2005 after talking to Jones, there was absolutely no evidence of any explosive or cutter charge non.
Then I looked at the videos and By the way the buildings started moving I could see a hinge was forming under the impact zones.
I could tell by the way the hinge was guiding the fall the center of mass would bring the towers down inside the funneling outer structure of the buildings.
The primary failure mode was weld fracture do to off center strikes the heated sections actual absorbed significant amounts of energy though bending the cold steel was stiffer could not bend deform so it was subject to weld failure do to off center strikes.
When I watch the buildings fall knowing the structure of the buildings, and how steel fails,
I can see how and why the structure fails like it does.

Last edited by Crazy Chainsaw; 9th January 2015 at 01:42 AM. Reason: typo.
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 9th January 2015, 01:56 AM   #153
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
Jango, its probably going to be easier if you say what you think should have happened.

Maybe the tops should have fallen off ? It will give people an understanding of where you're coming from.

If you say what you think rather than reciting what you have read on the net. It will save you from from looking like a fool.
Spanx 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 9th January 2015, 08:49 AM   #154
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Falls through the path of greatest resistance straight down.https://video.search.yahoo.com/video...t=mozilla&tt=b

Last edited by jaydeehess; 9th January 2015 at 08:50 AM.
jaydeehess 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 9th January 2015, 09:07 AM   #155
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,376
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
If the 911 truth nuts took 13 years to earn a PhD in engineering...
You wouldn't need a PhD. It would be more helpful to get an undergraduate degree and then take the licensing exam for structural engineers (or the P.E. exam if your state doesn't require a separate S.E. exam). But yes, 13 years is plenty of time for conspiracy theorists to get legitimate credentials in the professions they so ignorantly ramble on about. None has, though.

Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
Jango, its probably going to be easier if you say what you think should have happened.
Yes, but the why is more important. What does he think should have happened, and why should it have happened that way? Only then can he figure out what his broken preconceptions are. One of the big misconceptions, for example, is that high-efficiency structures should offer at least some resistance to a huge falling mass. That's the layman's intuition. The engineer's knowledge is that a severely compromised high-efficiency structural system has negligible strength.
JayUtah 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 9th January 2015, 09:24 AM   #156
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
1. I've never seen anything like the WTC collapses anywhere else so I do not have anything to compare it to.

2. ...that I have more questions than answers.
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
1. Then let's have a conversation. Just two dudes on the Internet, eh?

2. I'm not trying to change yer mind. I'm trying to change my mind. Want to help?

3. Both the Twin Towers and Building 7 are shown on video falling in the manner I described -- with an appearance of no resistance. A licensed individual could explain to me exactly what's happening in there but he or she cannot discount what I see as the buildings fall to the ground.

4. I'm not worried about thread clutter. I don't get quote notifications anyway, so why spread myself even further out across more-and-more threads? Or, perhaps, a thread with a wide-open OP about 9/11 is in order?
Humm...
tsig 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 9th January 2015, 09:25 AM   #157
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 12,839
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
That's the layman's intuition. The engineer's knowledge is that a severely compromised high-efficiency structural system has negligible strength.
This is very, very true.

For example, if you built a scale model of the twin towers using toothpicks, at say 1/100th scale, the toothpicks would be MUCH stronger, comparatively, than the steel girders in the actual structure. People don't understand that things like structural strength don't scale linearly with size. They don't understand the basic load placed on a building just from the floors and furniture. They don't understand the force the wind applies (after all, steel beams don't move in the wind when they see one) to the side of a building, which can be measured in TONS.

I've often wondered if some examples, built accurately to scale, might help the inutition. One that simply scales size, for example, and another that scales properly with strength.
Hellbound 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 9th January 2015, 09:52 AM   #158
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,376
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
This is very, very true.
And very, very counterintuitive. That's why we have experts. Expertise is the opposite of intuition.

Quote:
For example, if you built a scale model of the twin towers using toothpicks, at say 1/100th scale, the toothpicks would be MUCH stronger, comparatively, than the steel girders in the actual structure.
That's a good analogy. I think a lot of people's intuition for structural strength in buildings comes from the standard balloon framing in residential houses, employing sawn lumber. In terms of structural efficiency (load-bearing capacity divided by dead load), the WTC towers were orders of magnitude more efficient. Balloon framing with lumber is cheap, easy to do, and has lots and lots of reserve strength. That's why we build houses that way. Building a high-rise steel structure is a totally different animal.

Quote:
People don't understand that things like structural strength don't scale linearly with size.
This is why the Wrights succeeded where Langley failed. Langley was a physicist, not an engineer. He made a mistake while scaling up his gliders into a full-sized airframe. It broke.

Quote:
They don't understand the basic load placed on a building just from the floors and furniture.
Or just from the floors. There was a well-publicized building collapse in (I want to say) Korea, where the investigation determined that -- astonishingly enough -- the engineers had neglected to account for dead load in the structural analysis of the design. Hence the building fell down.

Quote:
They don't understand the force the wind applies (after all, steel beams don't move in the wind when they see one) to the side of a building, which can be measured in TONS.
The bending moment on the Saturn V rocket (another remarkable example of a highly efficient structural design) during a typical flight was 80,000 lb-ft. That was from steering to accommodate wind. It was actually possible for the rocket to steer so violently it would tear apart. Imagine driving a car that would literally fall apart if you swerved to avoid a pedestrian. That's the difference in structural efficiencies we're talking about.

Wind loads across a high-rise structure are heinous, especially since most of the wind activity occurs high upon the structure and has the entire height of the building as a moment arm to work with.

Quote:
I've often wondered if some examples, built accurately to scale, might help the inutition. One that simply scales size, for example, and another that scales properly with strength.
The example I refer to, both for the qualitative and quantitative aspects, is standing on an empty aluminum soda can. It will bear the load of a full-sized adult until you tick the side of it in and cause it to buckle. The structure then fails completely and the full-sized adult drops at near free-fall speed.
JayUtah 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 9th January 2015, 09:53 PM   #159
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,699
Like I said Jango, any controlled demolition theory is logistically, technically, and practically impossible.
__________________
Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed.
Over 140 pieces of evidence showing American 77 hit the Pentagon http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88
cjnewson88 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 9th January 2015, 10:57 PM   #160
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,751
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post
Like I said Jango, any controlled demolition theory is logistically, technically, and practically impossible.
Logistically impossible is so very true. As a professional project manager and statistician, I can see no possible way such an effort could be pulled off within a year of Bush taking office, and on top of that with no sign whatsoever that the supply chain for the effort ever existed. Something would have gone wrong, and something would have been revealed. I'm not talking about supposed discrepancies, I'm talking about stray paperwork, fabrication equipment, broken or misfired detonators, blabbermouth participants, any of the things that revealed much simpler conspiracies in the past. A vastly complicated conspiracy would have so many opportunities for error, that the probability for noticible error is approximately 100%.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB 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 01:35 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.