response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 attacks

[owtth]

Your third video is CGI

[Thinking Aloud]

You do realise that your last video, of a building falling over, is computer generated?

Here's a controlled demolition on a more modern building:

[Coito ergo sum]

Oh, and a quick look at the other two videos you posted reveals that they are nothing like the WTC building collapses. Not even remotely close. Do we even need to do the comparison?

Let's just leave it to the audience here - click on the clips I posted of the WTC towers fallling, and see if you can notice the differences - I'm sure finding the first 10 major differences is probably a task needing only about a minute. I'll come back to it though. I just have to catch my breath. I'm still recovering from the "It's coming down" surprise demolition of the "skyscraper" which tips over sideways.....lol. Got any more?

[Galaxian]

Here is the "convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry which most of you put down to chance:
[b
5) That 3 towers, of 110 floors & 47 floors, fell on to their own footprint, despite the fact that natural variability in inter-floor impact & failure would have given them a preferred lateral movement. :

O.k. on to number 5 -- I can go on until Galaxian wants to discuss any of these, rather than merely shutgun out cut and pastes from conspiracy websites and swallow them whole:
The answer here is that the towers fell exactly as one would expect if they fell from catastrophic injury to the buildings most of the way up their height. And, they did not fall at all like we would expect them to fall in a controlled demolition. I'll refer you to the video comparisons above of the WTC towers, and the Hudson's building in Detroit.
.........
...Why would the government conspirators engaged in that inside job care?...

Read my post above. It also answers this post of yours. You try to read the mind of Caligula...That way lies madness. Don't assume you know how your masters think, or should think, or might be thinking if they were applying YOUR standard of rationality.
WTC 1 & 2 had a massive core; easily able to stand on its own, it would barely be aware of the light floors resting on its periphery.
I have already given an example: It is as if a heavyweight wrestler is standing holding a toothpick (or ten or twenty). You come along & knock the toothpicks downwards. Amazingly, the giant falls in a crumpled smouldering heap. And it happens again, and somewhat again a third time.
Wouldn't that give you pause for thought... as to whether James Randi had been involved in that charade?
We have the core: 47 massive columns of ~1m x 0.5m x 100 to 125mm plate box girders. Cross braced by similarly massive beams. With a Crippling Load of 5 million kN. Average slenderness ratio less than 15. Fully self supporting, with plenty of reserve capacity.
It is assaulted by a flimsy 100mm thick light concrete floor in thin sheet pans. But the floor load is almost fully downwards. How is it assaulted? By the poxy piss weak flat bar cleat at the end of the light truss joists, held in place by a couple of crappy 16mm bolts that I would have been ashamed of using.
Combined bolt shear capacity ~40kN. Lateral 10mm deflection capacity of the core matrix at halfway between 11m vertical centres of giant cross-beams (its weakest point) some 235000 kN !!!
But wait. We have not 1 truss joist, but say 20 pulling in unison on one side of the tower -> so we have a grand total of 800 kN of truss joist tension, before the bolts/cleat gives way...especially with your fires weakening the bolts/cleat. A reserve capacity of 250 times.
But, naughty Galaxian. For pancaking to happen, the whole ruddy floor all around has to fall virtually simultaneously. Oh...we have a similarly 'hot' (actually luke warm) fire uniformally around the entire floor? Suppose we do, just to stretch this very long bow. Then the trusses are pulling in opposite directions. In other words they'd have to snap the hefty cross beams

before the matrix is compromised. A tension of well over a million kN.
In summary; even if the floors pancaked, they would merely use the core as a guide. The core itself would hardly be aware of the pandemonium. It would remain, serenely standing there in all its glory.
That, ladies & gentlemen, is our Muhammad Ali with a toothpick held between his fingers! It isn't the tower that drops. It is our jaw, at the sheer bizarreness of it all!
So why did NIST et al concoct this crap scenario? It's because they're pedants & civil servants. Even if they are not intimately in on the deal, they know which side of their toast is buttered. They are too timid to conceive of the "big lie". The towers fell, therefore the fires must have done it...now let's find some gobbledygook to convince ourselves, our masters, the media, & the general public. 'Cause, who gives a fuck...what's done is done! That's how conspiracies snowball & conspirators are protected.

[owtth]

Incontrovertible proof that dinosaurs still live

[Ian]

All the physics/engineering theories is interesting, but it's still approaching the issue from the bottom-up.

Galaxian, can you approach the issue differently? I ask you again... are you capable of thinking like someone with any responsibility? If you were a conspirator, why would you approve an attack like this? (I'm not talking about political motivation or how you'll benefit, I'm talking about this plan of attack.) Why bother with secretly installing thermite demolition, flying cruise missiles over densely populated areas in broad daylight, having fighters available to shoot down airliners, etc.? Could you really guarantee that your complex plan will work perfectly, with no glitches, and 100% deniability?

And if the Bush administration could be so competent as to pull all that off without any problems or exposure, why were they so incompetent in so many other areas?

Ian, I suspect you were on the team that assured the White House & UK government that Iraq had lots of WMD, & ready to launch within 45 minutes. And that they got yellow cake from Africa, and they were in cahoots with Bin-Laden.

Yep, that was me. And I suspect you're the guy who designed the Tacoma-Narrows Bridge?
Or do engineers always have all the information they need, and know exactly what they're talking about?

So many cocky, instant experts here. They see trees but can't make out the forest.

You keep using the term "instant experts" to criticize your critics. Is that because you're approaching your whole analysis from an engineering standpoint, and happen to be an engineer? Well, I wasn't getting into the physics of the towers - I'm leaving that stuff to Coito. My education and expertise is in analysis and critical thinking. And believe me buster, you're a real novice. The cognitive biases you're writing are just singing out to me.

[Pappa]

Why bother with secretly installing thermite demolition, flying cruise missiles over densely populated areas in broad daylight, having fighters available to shoot down airliners, etc.?

As a double bluff, obviously.

[Razor]

Incontrovertible proof that dinosaurs still live

[Rum]

Here is the "convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry which most of you put down to chance:
[b
5) That 3 towers, of 110 floors & 47 floors, fell on to their own footprint, despite the fact that natural variability in inter-floor impact & failure would have given them a preferred lateral movement. :

O.k. on to number 5 -- I can go on until Galaxian wants to discuss any of these, rather than merely shutgun out cut and pastes from conspiracy websites and swallow them whole:
The answer here is that the towers fell exactly as one would expect if they fell from catastrophic injury to the buildings most of the way up their height. And, they did not fall at all like we would expect them to fall in a controlled demolition. I'll refer you to the video comparisons above of the WTC towers, and the Hudson's building in Detroit.
.........
...Why would the government conspirators engaged in that inside job care?...

Read my post above. It also answers this post of yours. You try to read the mind of Caligula...That way lies madness. Don't assume you know how your masters think, or should think, or might be thinking if they were applying YOUR standard of rationality.
WTC 1 & 2 had a massive core; easily able to stand on its own, it would barely be aware of the light floors resting on its periphery.
I have already given an example: It is as if a heavyweight wrestler is standing holding a toothpick (or ten or twenty). You come along & knock the toothpicks downwards. Amazingly, the giant falls in a crumpled smouldering heap. And it happens again, and somewhat again a third time.
Wouldn't that give you pause for thought... as to whether James Randi had been involved in that charade?
We have the core: 47 massive columns of ~1m x 0.5m x 100 to 125mm plate box girders. Cross braced by similarly massive beams. With a Crippling Load of 5 million kN. Average slenderness ratio less than 15. Fully self supporting, with plenty of reserve capacity.
It is assaulted by a flimsy 100mm thick light concrete floor in thin sheet pans. But the floor load is almost fully downwards. How is it assaulted? By the poxy piss weak flat bar cleat at the end of the light truss joists, held in place by a couple of crappy 16mm bolts that I would have been ashamed of using.
Combined bolt shear capacity ~40kN. Lateral 10mm deflection capacity of the core matrix at halfway between 11m vertical centres of giant cross-beams (its weakest point) some 235000 kN !!!
But wait. We have not 1 truss joist, but say 20 pulling in unison on one side of the tower -> so we have a grand total of 800 kN of truss joist tension, before the bolts/cleat gives way...especially with your fires weakening the bolts/cleat. A reserve capacity of 250 times.
But, naughty Galaxian. For pancaking to happen, the whole ruddy floor all around has to fall virtually simultaneously. Oh...we have a similarly 'hot' (actually luke warm) fire uniformally around the entire floor? Suppose we do, just to stretch this very long bow. Then the trusses are pulling in opposite directions. In other words they'd have to snap the hefty cross beams

before the matrix is compromised. A tension of well over a million kN.
In summary; even if the floors pancaked, they would merely use the core as a guide. The core itself would hardly be aware of the pandemonium. It would remain, serenely standing there in all its glory.
That, ladies & gentlemen, is our Muhammad Ali with a toothpick held between his fingers! It isn't the tower that drops. It is our jaw, at the sheer bizarreness of it all!
So why did NIST et al concoct this crap scenario? It's because they're pedants & civil servants. Even if they are not intimately in on the deal, they know which side of their toast is buttered. They are too timid to conceive of the "big lie". The towers fell, therefore the fires must have done it...now let's find some gobbledygook to convince ourselves, our masters, the media, & the general public. 'Cause, who gives a fuck...what's done is done! That's how conspiracies snowball & conspirators are protected.

Your ideas are utter bullshit. This is not a personal insult but a statement of opinion.

[Galaxian]

I'd still like an explanation for why the Pentagon strike must've been a cruise missile, other than "I didn't see enough evidence of an airplane." I suppose I could talk about my former boss who was away from his office in the Pentagon when the plane hit; he literally saw chunks of burning airplane in his former office area. But why would Galaxian believe an eyewitness?
Galaxian, you're the one thinking like a sheep here, not us. I say that because you're approaching your analysis with the mind-set of a victim, reaching for explanations to show how the world could've been conned so well. (I could also go into your rabidly anti-American mind-set, but I'll just ignore that for now. Still, you might want to consider if your analysis could possibly have been tainted in any way by preconceived biases.)
Instead, try thinking like a leader - seeing the attack before it happened. You'll have to be a US leader for this, since your theories about cruise missiles and shoot-downs over Pennsylvania imply nothing else. Let's say you're involved in the 9/11 conspiracy, and you're about ready to initiate the attack. You've got a few suicide crews ready to hijack planes. As a bonus, you've even made sure that the damage in New York will be really bad because your men have been discreetly installing controlled demolition in the towers, since you figure horribly damaged towers alone won't cause enough public outrage; the buildings will have to come down. You've got phony information about Al Qaeda operatives living in the US for months, taking flying lessons and so on. You're 100% positive that there will be no leaks, no whistleblowers anywhere. Your deniability is set. The whole world will see these muslim lunatics fly those planes into these targets, and they'll never suspect you were behind it.
Now... at what point do you decide that you also need to launch a cruise missile into the Pentagon??
Please, also answer the following:
- If the whole world is going to see and know about hijacked aircraft flying into the towers, why would you risk exposure of a conspiracy by also adding a cruise missile?
- Would you really able to control every bit of information that comes out? If someone with a camera uploaded a photo of a cruise missile flying in the Washington area, could you really stop the image before it spread all over the net?
- What assurances do you have of full deniability?

Firstly, the paltry amount of information, photos, & surveillance tapes, the obfuscation, foot-dragging, & flimsy arguments used by officialdom are the main reasons why I, & many others, are rightly suspicious of the government & their agencies. One would have thought that with their 'sanity' compared to our 'madness'; with their access to all kinds of information, evidence, the finest minds that money can buy, compared to our voluntary, tiring work with no help, little access to restricted information; that they would have no trouble at all in demonstrating that we are all wrong.
Secondly: Ian, you are trying to 'project' your motives, your thoughts, your strategies & rationale into the minds of ruthless psychopaths who have no compunction about what they do or how, so long as their aim is achieved.
You are also trying to get me to analyze their minds, connections, funding, etc.
I have never claimed to know their minds or modus operandi, only that they don't give a rat's arse about you or me or the lives of children, innocent civilians & so forth (read some of their statements & publicly available programs, & learn some history).
Now, you may consider yourself an expert in this field. But greater 'experts' than you were either incompetent or deliberately mischievous in leading America & several European countries & Australia into wars based on lies.
If your intelligence gathering is misused (as theirs was) do you have the balls to go into the street & to rallies to announce that publicly & loudly? Your colleagues didn't have the balls. Will you simply be hoodwinked by "Oh, we have access to other info that is heavily in the other direction"?. And, as an underling with limited privileges, you simply assume that your bosses DO know better?
For example; at WTC 1 & 2, flight recorders are found. Some lowly laborer takes it to his boss, who takes it to the overall supervisor (a plant). "Don't worry 'bout that Chuck, it's just an elevator control box. Here, I'll take it away to see which shaft it's from." How would YOU, as the lowly operative know, or even suspect, that your boss was a double agent? (double agent as in serving a different agenda). Would you refuse to hand it over? You'd lose your job, maybe even be arrested by security to enforce the supervisor's order. You'd achieve nothing, other than a smear that you're 'a crazy conspiracy theorist'.
Ian, you assume too much...even more than me.
I asked you elsewhere how you, as a naval officer, come to terms with the Gulf of Tonkin hoax which killed tens of thousands of US servicemen & a million+ SE Asians. Or the USS Liberty attack, & other deceptions which used your comrades, & the public worldwide, as pawns of no particular worth. THAT is what you should worry about. Not Galaxian. I'll burn like the rest of the grass. I've been reconciled to that fate since I was 12 years old.

[Ian]

Thanks - that whole thing was one rambling non-answer answer.

For the third time... I wasn't asking about the motivation for the attack or whether you think the people behind it were ruthless psychopaths (which pretty well describes Al Qaeda, although I'm betting it's fair to say that you already thought that about the Bush administration as well on 9/10), I'm asking you to view the soundness of such a plan from the perspective of someone who might've been involved in it. And you still say you can't do it.

To use some of my terminology: your conclusions are hindered by "anchoring" (you were already strongly biased against the US government before 9/11 happened) and are based on analysis that is known as "satisficing" (you've got some data which can appear to fit your initial conclusions, and quickly discredit as unreliable or doctored any other evidence which refutes your claim). Incidentally, these biases also describe the problems behind the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraqi WMDs - something my profession now refers to as a cautionary tale.

I've given 9/11 conspiracies their due listen, and decided that they're far too outlandish to be given reasonable credit. I really have, and you know I was no fan of the Bush administration. Have you done the same with other explanations for how all those things happened (in other words, have you ever heard of Occam's Razor)?

[Coito ergo sum]

:

:
I had to respond right away.....the first of your videos I clicked on was this one. I, literally, spit out my coffee laughing....

You cite an obviously fake video for some proposition about how buildings are actually taken down by controlled demolition? Are you fucking kidding? You think that the World Trade Center should have tipped over like this....
::
Oh, fucking christ on a bicycle....I am laughing so hard I can't breathe....

Everybody....everybody! You HAVE to watch this video! Oh, holy jeebus, I'm laughing again....

"Jesus Christ! It's coming down! It's coming down!" And, the little CGI crinkles on the roof and the flopping, rubbery antenna at the top are just priceless.

Oh, boy...I'm wiping tears from my eyes now....911 Truther Proof that the Towers should have tipped over.... a fucking cartoon.

I'm still trying to catch my breath from this thing offered as evidence.....

[Hermit]

More cliche-ridden nonsense. Using not just smoke & mirrors, but also blindfolds! Galaxian's response in RED

Here is the "convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry which most of you put down to chance:
2) That WTC 1 & 2 were hit by non-commercial planes; as evident from the bulky add-on under their fuselage.
:

On to number 2 -
No, there were no bulky add ons. Your saying it doesn't make it so. What's your evidence?You could try using your eyes. Here's the photo pasted by you:


Look especially at the bottom, close-up.
They found parts of the commercial airliners at the scene of the world trade center collapse, and DNA of passengers.Did they indeed? Lot's of passenger bits. Even an undamaged passport from their suspect! But the 4 black boxes were missing...oh dear! How inconvenient (NOT). The flights did take off from commercial airports and they are gone. Pieces of the planes and the passengers were found at the WTC. There has been an allegation from Truther groups that an image of the undersigned of one of the planes on 9/11 contains a "military pod" underneath the fuselage. It doesn't though. It's a fairing for the landing gear.

CES your sophistry knows no bounds. Was your mentor Plato...or more likely St Thomas Aquinas. Just look at the photo!

There is no add-on to the fuselage.



That theory has been analysed in great detail and debunked here.

[Thinking Aloud]

Ah... no sorted - ignore.

[owtth]

Yeah, like a big metal tube could ever fly, your a PAWN man, nothing but a pawn.