R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 8   Go Down

Author Topic: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged  (Read 9126 times)

mgod

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4020
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #45 on: September 14, 2007, 06:44:30 pm »

jimmyjazz wrote on Fri, 14 September 2007 15:01

You don't remember George tiring of dealing with the "yeah, what do you know" crowd?

Sure, but no one in this discussion is George. If this was a structural engineering forum, maybe you would be.

And I certainly wasn't arguing with what you know, only with what I can know that you know - and for a little more civility to Max, who clearly has a perspective that no one is going to change. I try to follow this thread to see if I can learn anything. With the little that I know, I agree with the aspect of his PoV that I understand:  All sources of info have become suspect. Which doesn't mean that next time I'm in Austin I wouldn't be interested in a discussion of structural engineering over a meal at that great West Lynn place.

I disagree that Max is trolling.

DS
Logged
"There IS no Coolometer." - Larry Janus

rollmottle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1246
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #46 on: September 14, 2007, 07:01:13 pm »

mgod wrote on Fri, 14 September 2007 15:44

With the little that I know, I agree with the aspect of his PoV that I understand:  All sources of info have become suspect.


especially sources of info that still, in the face of massive factual evidence to the contrary, believe the 3 buildings that collapsed on September 11, 2001 were destroyed by controlled demolitions...


Logged
SENTRALL Sound East
My SoundCloud | Twitter | www.sentrall.com

mgod

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4020
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #47 on: September 14, 2007, 07:07:09 pm »

rollmottle wrote on Fri, 14 September 2007 16:01


especially sources of info that still, in the face of massive factual evidence to the contrary, believe the 3 buildings that collapsed on September 11, 2001 were destroyed by controlled demolitions...

Except for the problem of what constitutes the presentation of "factual evidence". Which is the entire point.

DS
Logged
"There IS no Coolometer." - Larry Janus

Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 306
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #48 on: September 14, 2007, 07:50:44 pm »

This is getting very tiresome... Dan, I know you're playing devil's advocate here and you've made your point very clear, so let's just sort one thing out if we can and move on:

I will admit that it is possible that every source of information out there is corrupt, it is possible that Jim is misrepresenting his qualifications and it is possible that the world trade center collapses were an inside job


IF


you'll at least admit that that at the end of the day, as a rational human being, you've found these scenarios to be overwhelmingly unlikely.

If something can't be "proven," then it all comes down to a matter of probabilities, doesn't it? How likely is it that solely for the purpose of this argument Jim made up all of his qualifications or is pointing you to the thesis of another Jim Andrews, how likely is it that the vast majority of people, experts or otherwise have looked at what happened and come to the wrong conclusion, how likely is it that a cabal of high-ranking American officials, demolition workers, local security forces, etc. conspired to commit mass murder of their own people for a paltry profit? None of these scenarios can be proven either way, but come on, they aren't bloody likely, are they?

Let's get real, and stop this now. I happen to think that you are  actually a very intelligent and rational man, and that you've made your point quite well. I also, however don't think that you necessarily believe in or live your life by what you're saying and are just trying to bring another perspective to light.

There's nothing wrong with that, but I also think it would be a disservice to everyone reading this thread to pretend that you are really this paranoid and skeptical of every scrap of information that comes your way. This is the real world, not the Truman Show, and you know it. You don't seem to be the type of guy that has absolutely no faith in the good aspects of human nature to me. I've known more dudes like this than I care to mention, and they aren't fun to be around.

I really hope that I've interpreted your arguments correctly, Dan, and I hope that you'll correct me if I've made an error in judgement.



All the best,

Fox
Logged

rollmottle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1246
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #49 on: September 14, 2007, 07:52:00 pm »

mgod wrote on Fri, 14 September 2007 16:07

rollmottle wrote on Fri, 14 September 2007 16:01


especially sources of info that still, in the face of massive factual evidence to the contrary, believe the 3 buildings that collapsed on September 11, 2001 were destroyed by controlled demolitions...

Except for the problem of what constitutes the presentation of "factual evidence". Which is the entire point.

DS



this is bullshit. that anybody can sit at their computer, watch a youtube video (TV is not trying to sell you something in this case I guess so it's OK to rely on this evidence?), and think "hey, looks like a controlled demolition...IT WAS! IT WAS!", be COMPLETELY disproven time and time again by persons with scientific backgrounds who do science for a living and using scientific analysis and actual data (not to mention corroborating this evidence with the thousands of eyewitness accounts), and then dismiss this analysis because the "data is suspect to begin with" is such a bullshit argument. CT's set themselves up with a nice logic loophole so they never have to prove or demonstrate a goddamned thing. i call bullshit.

Logged
SENTRALL Sound East
My SoundCloud | Twitter | www.sentrall.com

rollmottle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1246
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #50 on: September 14, 2007, 08:00:05 pm »

Fox wrote on Fri, 14 September 2007 16:50

This is getting very tiresome... Dan, I know you're playing devil's advocate here and you've made your point very clear, so let's just sort one thing out if we can and move on:

I will admit that it is possible that every source of information out there is corrupt, it is possible that Jim is misrepresenting his qualifications and it is possible that the world trade center collapses were an inside job


IF


you'll at least admit that that at the end of the day, as a rational human being, you've found these scenarios to be overwhelmingly unlikely.

If something can't be "proven," then it all comes down to a matter of probabilities, doesn't it? How likely is it that solely for the purpose of this argument Jim made up all of his qualifications or is pointing you to the thesis of another Jim Andrews, how likely is it that the vast majority of people, experts or otherwise have looked at what happened and come to the wrong conclusion, how likely is it that a cabal of high-ranking American officials, demolition workers, local security forces, etc. conspired to commit mass murder of their own people for a paltry profit? None of these scenarios can be proven either way, but come on, they aren't bloody likely, are they?

Let's get real, and stop this now. I happen to think that you are  actually a very intelligent and rational man, and that you've made your point quite well. I also, however don't think that you necessarily believe in or live your life by what you're saying and are just trying to bring another perspective to light.

There's nothing wrong with that, but I also think it would be a disservice to everyone reading this thread to pretend that you are really this paranoid and skeptical of every scrap of information that comes your way. This is the real world, not the Truman Show, and you know it. You don't seem to be the type of guy that has absolutely no faith in the good aspects of human nature to me. I've known more dudes like this than I care to mention, and they aren't fun to be around.

I really hope that I've interpreted your arguments correctly, Dan, and I hope that you'll correct me if I've made an error in judgement.



All the best,

Fox


Very well said.
Logged
SENTRALL Sound East
My SoundCloud | Twitter | www.sentrall.com

mgod

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4020
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #51 on: September 14, 2007, 09:29:29 pm »

Fox wrote on Fri, 14 September 2007 16:50

I really hope that I've interpreted your arguments correctly, Dan, and I hope that you'll correct me if I've made an error in judgement.

All the best,

Fox

Well, you've got it right for the most part Fox, and I appreciate you putting in the time. The comment from the other guy means as much to me as random bullshit. I'm not really doubting Jim in any way. I was just saying that he went off on a pointless tangent in the argument by impugning Max, which inevitably gets countered, and then when backed into the corner that created had to qualify himself, but had to do so in such a way that those qualifiers themselves don't really give us the meaning of the man. Most of us don't really know each other here. I never suggested that Jim misrepresented his qualifications; only that many people whom we might not really want to rely on have similar qualifications. Max has some pretty good qualifications himself I believe.

Do I think all mediated information is suspect? Yes, I do. But I don't live my life that way, because I focus my life on my immediate world. I get so much "information" of contrasting nature from so many directions that it all becomes a wash; we all do.

The Buddha denied being enlightened, he said he was simply awake. To me, being awake in the modern mediated world means observing all this and not passing judgement. I watched the towers fall, I felt my throat tighten and my heart break at the site of people leaping from them - that much I know. Is it possible that there was a conspiracy to bring them down? A "Pearl Harbor-like" attack on America to get the public into line behind an attack on Iraq? I think so - yes, its an absolute possibility. Was it possible J. Edgar Hoover, the great defender of internal security, was compromised by the Mafia for 50 years? No it wasn't, until it was. Now its fact.

I don't care how many documentaries and how many youtube videos are watched by how many people. None of that proves to me anything, one way or the other. But I am very interested in what people who identify themselves as structural engineers have to say, and equally interested in what someone who is aware that all the avenues of information sourcing are commercial avenues has to say. They are equally valid to me.

Youtube is no more free and democratic than Wikipedia is authoritative. John McCain fathered an illegitimate black baby and it probably cost him the Republican nomination in 2000. Except he didn't - anywhere but in Karl Rove's mind. I'm sorry, but all information is suspect. The United States government and many others have been actively engaged in disinformation for many, many years. The waters of public discourse are radically polluted, on purpose. This is not conspiracy theory, this is public record. So the problem isn't that all information out there is corrupt, the problem is that its possible that it is. And the consensus is often proved wrong.

I would happily have lunch with either Max or Jim and hear their way of seeing the world. Yours too. (Rollmottle maybe not so much...) What matters to me is personal experience, yours, mine, all of ours.

It would be someone else's judgement as to whether or not I'm paranoid, but it doesn't mean anything to me. When my daughter was 5 we saw a TV ad for some baby formula touting its "comfort proteins" and claiming to be the only product that had them. She asked me "That's a lie isn't it?" I knew I was doing the right job. Its heartbreaking that its this way, but it is.

What I see when I really look at the world, well if you want to do that, we should do it privately by email or something. But in this thread I see people struggling, and in some ways with great beauty. Which is, btw, the same thing I see when I look at the White House (even if I might wish they were clearing brush somewhere...).

DS

Logged
"There IS no Coolometer." - Larry Janus

forgetmeknots

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 82
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #52 on: September 14, 2007, 10:24:20 pm »

http://www.rense.com/general57/aale.htm

Here's an interesting interview with Stanley Hilton - Bob Dole's former chief of staff, political scientist, lawyer, represents 400 plus plaintiffs - most of them victims of 9/11.
Logged
Feed Your Head - Listen

jimmyjazz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1885
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #53 on: September 14, 2007, 10:32:42 pm »

Let me be clear about something:  I don't consider myself "qualified" to state that the twin towers fell because of structural damage imparted by a commercial jetliner.  The reason I'm not qualified to make such a statement has nothing to do with my technical capabilities (or lack thereof), but because

I HAVE NOT DONE THE WORK.

The gentleman discussed in the original post has done the work, or at least some of it, and his qualifications are unassailable.  Furthermore, his peers have judged his work as being sufficient for publication in a highly-regarded technical journal.

I'm sorry, but his work deserves far more consideration than the seat-of-the-pants dismissal being offered by various laypersons.

Logged

J.J. Blair

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12809
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #54 on: September 15, 2007, 12:34:06 am »

Tonight, even one of the biggest skeptics, Bill Maher, told all the WTC conspiracy theorists to get a life, and stop asking him to talk about it on his show.  He also said that they have to be totally fucking stupid to believe what they do.  Too bad they won't listen.
Logged
studio info

They say the heart of Rock & Roll is still beating, which is amazing if you consider all the blow it's done over the years.

"The Internet enables pompous blowhards to interact with other pompous blowhards in a big circle jerk of pomposity." - Bill Maher

"The negative aspects of this business, not only will continue to prevail, but will continue to accelerate in madness. Conditions aren't going to get better, because the economics of rock and roll are getting closer and closer to the economics of Big Business America." - Bill Graham

John Ivan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3028
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #55 on: September 15, 2007, 04:06:44 am »

jimmyjazz wrote on Fri, 14 September 2007 18:05

Why do you care?  Have you designed anything?  A skyscraper, even?

Most of my design work has been on high- and ultra-high power linear electric motors and rotary machines.  I've had to do a great deal of structural analysis on frames, particularly with regard to fault torque and seismic loads.  I've also designed industrial mufflers, turbine alternators, and several control rooms.  No skyscrapers, though.



Honestly, I find this sort of thing to be quite impressive. The only thing's I've ever really Designed are songs.

Congrats' on what appears to be a fine body of work. Seems you like your job and that, all by it's self is something to be proud of..
Logged
"Transformation is no easy trick: It's what art promises and usually doesn't deliver." Garrison Keillor

 

maxdimario

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3811
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #56 on: September 15, 2007, 07:24:24 am »

what it really boils down to for most people is what they want to believe, and most people do not wish to go beyond that.

steel does not lose strength until it begins to glow brightly, and for that to happen there has to be massive amounts of direct heat, not the kind of fire that was in WTC towers.

the black smoke is a symptom of low-oxygen fire

firemen were nearby and were confident they could put out the fire.

so there's no way the steel could have reached those temperatures especially when you are in such a well-cooled position (up high) and you have the heat-sink effect of the steel structure.

for those of you who do not know what a heat sink is, all you have to do is look at the fin-like metal parts which power transistors and voltage regulators are bolted to in the power supplies of your gear, or look at air-cooled engines such as some motorcycle.

it is nearly impossible to solder a wire to a metal chassis with a normal soldering iron because the chassis disperses the heat instantly through thermal conduction in the metal, whereas a small wire which has a small surface area can be soldered quite easily.

same thing applies to welding

in order to heat metal to the point that it begins to soften you need intense heat.

ordinary fire does not provide enough intense heat, otherwise those old wood-burning stoves would have all crumbled to the floor in a glowing heap.

what you need is intense localized heat such as a cutting torch, or HUGE amounts of controlled (insulated from the outside temperature) heat such as you would find in a refinery.

the wtc towers burned for a couple of hours at low heat.. it is NOT scientific to assume that the metal was weakened.

WTC7? hello?

as Lord Chesterfield wrote to his son, FORM is more important than content when you are trying to convince the public.

the tone of the words used, the calmness in the delivery and the emotional security you give off count a lot more than the technical truth, because the vast majority will never truly go beyond appearance.. the vast majority do not have the technical capacity, nor do they care to.

There have been PLENTY of cases where political influence and money were used to get a 'scientific' or 'truthful' explanation out of academic people..

when people can gain money, fear losing their jobs, or are convinced that the lies they tell are doing more good than bad, they will indeed lie.

it hasn't been the first time, but for many people it IS the first time because they dont bother looking at the past..

nobody, that is, except the political classes... which are not that superficial when it comes to power.
Logged

Jon Hodgson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1854
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #57 on: September 15, 2007, 08:30:47 am »

mgod wrote on Sat, 15 September 2007 02:29

“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honours the servant and has forgotten the gift.”
-- Albert Einstein



If you're going to quote Albert Einstein in your sig, then perhaps it would be a good idea to consider what kind of man he was, and how the rational mind and the intuitive mind figured in his life.

The thing is that it wasn't an either/or relationship. Einstein was a scientist, rational thought was the foundation and the structure of everything he did (professionally at least I know little of his personal life), intuitive thought was the thing that lifted him from being another scientist to being a genius. His intuition allowed him to jump to new and sometimes surprising (especially at the time) ideas, but these ideas were never irational, the scientific process still applied. His theories matched the evidence he had, and they were used to devise additional tests, all a rational process.

Einstein is viewed as a genius because his formidable intuition enhanced his formidable rationality and moved science forwards... if the two had been in conflict he'd have been viewed as a nutter... but not by us because we'd never have heard of him.

Now with reference to Max. I'm sorry but I would say that your interpretation doesn't match what he actually says. Max isn't saying that all information is suspect, he isn't saying that we should keep an open mind, he is saying that he knows the truth. Not only that but he presents "evidence". Most of my responses have simply pointed out the flaws in this supposed evidence. As someone already pointed out, he tells us all to turn off our TVs and think, but then he presents us with a bit of video footage, makes a statement (which is mostly just parroting what some conspiracy website said) and shows that he hasn't actually thought about it in any depth at all.

I am in even less of a position than Jimmy Jazz to be able to state precisely what happened to the towers, but I do have enough understanding of physics (and you could too if you chose to study it, this isn't esoteric stuff, it's textbook A-level physics) to for example be able to say that despite what Max repeatedly claims (with no attempt to support it) details like the rate of collapse are quite within the bounds of what would be expected.

Basically it's all very well you saying that all evidence is suspect, and somehow concluding that Max's viewpoint is therefore equally valid... but Max's viewpoint is often nullified by his own evidence! He repeatedly states "this is not possible"... he is repeatedly provably wrong... he repeatedly states "this proves this"... he is repeatedly provably wrong... and that's without any reference to Fox news or Popular mechanics


Logged

Jon Hodgson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1854
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #58 on: September 15, 2007, 09:06:08 am »

maxdimario wrote on Sat, 15 September 2007 12:24

what it really boils down to for most people is what they want to believe, and most people do not wish to go beyond that.


Pot, meet kettle
maxdimario wrote on Sat, 15 September 2007 12:24


steel does not lose strength until it begins to glow brightly, and for that to happen there has to be massive amounts of direct heat, not the kind of fire that was in WTC towers.


This is quite simply UNTRUE. It is well established that the critical temperature of structural steel (the point at which it loses a great deal of its structural strength) is considerably lower than that. For example livingsteel.org gives a range of 450-650 celcius. The colour temperature of steel in that range goes from Blue-Green to Blood Red, a long way from glowing brightly.
maxdimario wrote on Sat, 15 September 2007 12:24


the black smoke is a symptom of low-oxygen fire


Black smoke is also a symptom of various combustible materials. An office is a veritable chemical soup of plastics, fibres, foams, metals, paints and god knows what else, it would be a miracle if you didn't get black smoke off that.
Logged

mgod

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4020
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #59 on: September 15, 2007, 10:28:28 am »

J.J. Blair wrote on Fri, 14 September 2007 21:34

Tonight, even one of the biggest skeptics, Bill Maher, told all the WTC conspiracy theorists to get a life, and stop asking him to talk about it on his show.  He also said that they have to be totally fucking stupid to believe what they do.  Too bad they won't listen.

He's a very funny guy. He was also very much in favor of invading Iraq. Sometimes he's wrong. But he's always funny.

DS
Logged
"There IS no Coolometer." - Larry Janus
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 8   Go Up