The official conspiracy theory of 9/11

[waauw]

But you miss the point, and really why I needn't explain as you request: why do only ~ 2000 of all the world's scientists, engineers, architects etc support the consiparcy theory?

Now I'm not entirely certain where that 2000 number came from(too many posts too read). However assuming it is 2000, it's 2000 out of a total population of what? What is the the total number of scientists, engineers, architects etc. that looked into this? How many of these people have credible credentials? How many people actually dug deep enough? Did all of them have the same amount of access to information? etc.

So please don't come with the 'popularity' argument as it is a false argument. It's about the quality not the quantity.

[_sabotage_]

Would you agree that if there were shear studs holding the columns in place, and NIST knew there were shear studs holding the columns in place, that it would be unscientific of NIST not to include the shear studies in their model?

[Metsfanmax]

Would you agree that if there were shear studs holding the columns in place, and NIST knew there were shear studs holding the columns in place, that it would be unscientific of NIST not to include the shear studies in their model?

No. When modelling a physical system, one doesn't always include every minute physical detail; only the parts that one expects will have significant influence on the system. For example, when I model a fluid flow, I don't model every single atom in the fluid (nor could I), when a simple fluid average suffices for getting me the information I need to know. Including unnecessary detail just makes the calculation more expensive without really affecting the final result. If the shear studs were there and wouldn't significantly affect the collapse (due to reasons I wouldn't know about, but they might), then leaving them out of a model would be justified.

[_sabotage_]

NIST has classified its data and therefore no scientist can validate it.

NIST 0
Architects and engineers 2300

[_sabotage_]

I use software for engineering modeling. Many kinds won't let you remove studs at all. It won't run.

To take away the connections is to eliminate all support. I don't care how strong a steel column is, if it is not connected to something, it has zero load bearing capacity except vertically downward.

[Metsfanmax]

NIST has classified its data and therefore no scientist can validate it.

Do there exist any open-sourced architectural models of WTC 7's collapse that lead you to believe the NIST model is in error?

[_sabotage_]

NIST wouldn't even release the drawings for FOIAs. They have finally been forced to. Even NIST's model isn't symmetrical and to be honest, we have to go with the physical evidence if we were to ever fully establish what happened.

NIST themselves took 7 years to produce their model. That's with all hands on deck. They did use models with studs and they couldn't make them work.

[Metsfanmax]

NIST wouldn't even release the drawings for FOIAs. They have finally been forced to. Even NIST's model isn't symmetrical and to be honest, we have to go with the physical evidence if we were to ever fully establish what happened.

NIST themselves took 7 years to produce their model. That's with all hands on deck. They did use models with studs and they couldn't make them work.

Is this related to the discussion from before, where they claimed that based on the building schematics there couldn't have been shear studs on the floors where the fire broke out?

[_sabotage_]

This is a model. I model I couldn't do because my software won't let me.

What NIST did was take the witnessed and videotaped and reported fires, expanded them to places where there were no reports or evidence for, added 10% to the maximum heat they could reach, extended that heat for the longest possible time, delivered that heat directly to the steel(none was blocked or transferred to the concrete), tweaked the thermal expansion properties of the steel, changed the size of the steel, removed lateral and rigid supports, removed the shear studs(see below), which then caused a girder to drop several stories below (not being impeded by the floors below), which then knocked a column loose which caused that column to buckle, the column fell unimpeded by the rest of the building, this dragged the girders with it, and caused an interior cascade of supports bringing the building down.

This is two of their models. Models based on no physical evidence from the collapse.



After repeatedly refusing to release construction drawings, they finally complied in 2012. The construction drawings show shear studs, but for the exact column in question, the girder to it says see notes. The notes have been erased. On other WTC seven schematics, the girder shows 30 shear studs. According to NIST's initial report there were shear studs.

They had a job to do, to make the model collapse. After seven years of tweaking, one kind of did.

[DaGip]

[Vinyl-Taliban]

Sabotage, I await your rebuttal paper for the Journal of Structural Engineering with bated breath.

[_sabotage_]

And I await yours on the documented facts of the flagrant abuses NIST had to actively engage in to make their model collapse.

I was setting up scaffolding with a guy. I mentioned in Hong Kong they use bamboo for scaffolding. He was immediately incredulous and said he wouldn't go near it.

HK has massive skyscrapers and 7 times the population of my province. The tallest building in my province is 32 floors, and was built over 30 years ago.

HK has a much better understanding of why they use bamboo than this local guy, but he refuses to look at the info, he refuses to even consider the experience of its use, and flat out declares it false.

This took about three seconds.

HK uses bamboo for scaffolding.
I wouldn't go near it.

End of conversation.

My point is who cares what whatever scientific journal says about whichever model if they are not taken into account all the change in parameters required, the connectors, the safety measures, altering well known properties.

If the model inputs were wrong, and can't be fully verified since they have been classified and we only have access to the bits that NIST will allow access to, and those show manipulation of parameters, there is no way any proper scientist could support their model.

In engineering, I designed a bridge. Our professor recommended we start with a standard design and tweak it. If you fail to add the connections, it won't run. If you do add them but tweak the properties, it will fail.

NIST started with the actual blueprints, construction drawings, reports. And then they just kept throwing stuff out or tweaking it until it failed. Even their final model commences in a somewhat symmetrical fall and then starts to pitch and the model ends there.

This will not go away. After enough time detaches it from the event, it will be quietly recognized as what it was without any incrimination nor connection to the overall events.

It can't stand up to scientific scrutiny. It's that simple.

I quoted this already but I don't think you get it. Ten million books can be written in support of NIST's conclusion, but one paper is needed to prove it false. And those papers have been written and not refuted.

[Metsfanmax]

I love that your argument is essentially that the government is engaged in a massive conspiracy to cover up one of the greatest crimes of the last few decades, and yet they can't get their shit together enough to make sure that their own employees write a report about it that withstands scrutiny from some random guy working on his master's degree.

[Dukasaur]

I love that your argument is essentially that the government is engaged in a massive conspiracy to cover up one of the greatest crimes of the last few decades, and yet they can't get their shit together enough to make sure that their own employees write a report about it that withstands scrutiny from some random guy working on his master's degree.

In fairness, constructing a false story that survives scrutiny is an extremely difficult task.

I'm not convinced either way, but there are a lot of problems with the official story.

[_sabotage_]

Science is science, Mets. Einstein changed the world at 25 after being a vaudeville clown, who had a kleptomaniac fascination with his fellow performers goods.

Doesn't make e != mc^2.

A 12" girder is a 12" girder. It will never be an 11" girder, no matter how much your theory needs it to be.

[Metsfanmax]

I love that your argument is essentially that the government is engaged in a massive conspiracy to cover up one of the greatest crimes of the last few decades, and yet they can't get their shit together enough to make sure that their own employees write a report about it that withstands scrutiny from some random guy working on his master's degree.

In fairness, constructing a false story that survives scrutiny is an extremely difficult task.

I'm not convinced either way, but there are a lot of problems with the official story.

Perhaps, but those problems are much more likely to be of the "oops, we weren't paying attention to our monitors and missed the hijacked 767s on our radar, but if we admit that, we'll get crucified" variety than of the "heh heh heh, we managed to convince the entire world that some Islamists did this. Good, good, our plan is working" variety.

[AndyDufresne]

Science is science, Mets. Einstein changed the world at 25 after being a vaudeville clown, who had a kleptomaniac fascination with his fellow performers goods.

Doesn't make e != mc^2.

A 12" girder is a 12" girder. It will never be an 11" girder, no matter how much your theory needs it to be.

TELL US MOAR ABUT SCIEEEEENCEEEEEEEEE


--Andy

[_sabotage_]

Why sure Andy.

FEMA's report showed primary indicators for thermite, as did the EPA's.

NIST opened its final report with:
It was not brought down with explosives.

How do they know?
Because they looked into it.

Did they actually test for explosives?
No.


That's like saying that a car accident wasn't caused by a cut brake line, even though there are no skid marks. Did you check the brake line? No.

Instead it was the first of its kind car accident to ever happen based on ten unverifiable actions that would require the car to have modifications there are no records of or reasons for.

How dare NIST make it appear that they checked for explosives? What was the point? Why did the first sentence out of the spokespersons mouth when presenting the final study to the world state there was none?

Why don't they just check the samples? It's not like there aren't good samples available.

Their report should therefore be titled:

There were no explosives.

If they wanted to end this, they could have taken a number of samples and...tested them for explosives.

7 fucking years. And now 7 more.

With a single paper they could demolish the demolition theory. It has to account for the primary indicators found by both FEMA and the EPA. It has to account for the findings in independent studies. But if they had just tested, it would have been unlikely that independent studies would have been done.

There is one problem...if it's officially recognized that the presence of nano thermite explains the collapse, there are very few sources and with the long complicity in not finding it, that source becomes exceedingly and unavoidably clear.

[mrswdk]

those problems are much more likely to be of the "oops, we weren't paying attention to our monitors and missed the hijacked 767s on our radar, but if we admit that, we'll get crucified" variety than of the "heh heh heh, we managed to convince the entire world that some Islamists did this. Good, good, our plan is working" variety.

Why?

[DaGip]

[_sabotage_]

Mrs,

Because when Mao kills millions it's intentional, but when the US causes harm it's just a bunch of good guys who don't have the answers.

[Metsfanmax]

those problems are much more likely to be of the "oops, we weren't paying attention to our monitors and missed the hijacked 767s on our radar, but if we admit that, we'll get crucified" variety than of the "heh heh heh, we managed to convince the entire world that some Islamists did this. Good, good, our plan is working" variety.

Why?

Because the US government employs something like 4 million Americans. When comparing the options of A) a conspiracy successfully held among even a small fraction of them and B) an accident, my prior will always be B. Not saying A is impossible, but it's just a lot less likely due to the relative decentralization of governance -- the information and responsibilities are spread around among many more people in a democracy. This makes straight-out conspiracies much harder, but it is also the source of many of the systemic harms that TGD refers to in this thread -- the vast number of moving parts means lots of opportunities for bloat and inefficiency.

Mrs,

Because when Mao kills millions it's intentional, but when the US causes harm it's just a bunch of good guys who don't have the answers.

So this is why this is not really responsive -- first, I'm saying that the Maos of the world are rare in liberal democracies with comparatively decentralized forms of governance, and second, we know what Mao did. He wasn't able to keep it a secret.

[_sabotage_]

Well we haven't been able to keep what we do in other countries a secret.

Using US logic, the UN should have ganged up and overthrew the US for using agent orange as the US got other countries to gang up on Saddam for WMDs.

Using the US's logic, foreign nations should support domestic terrorists and our leader should be sodomized with bayonets in the street as was done to Qaddafi.

These are not secrets. This was not an accident by a bunch of gentle statesmen.

I don't support this at all. I don't support it happening to the US, and I don't support the US doing it to others.

I don't see a way to stop it except by empowering individuals.

[Vinyl-Taliban]

And I await yours on the documented facts of the flagrant abuses NIST had to actively engage in to make their model collapse.

<snip>

My point is who cares what whatever scientific journal says about whichever model if they are not taken into account all the change in parameters required, the connectors, the safety measures, altering well known properties.

<snip>

It can't stand up to scientific scrutiny. It's that simple.

I quoted this already but I don't think you get it. Ten million books can be written in support of NIST's conclusion, but one paper is needed to prove it false. And those papers have been written and not refuted.

Now it's time for you to link-up this peer-reviewed, scientific analysis from "truthers" that has not been refuted. The point being NIST's work was properly peer reviewed, and published in the most respected, relevant journal.

I should have called you out on this before. Earlier when you claimed "truther" research to be peer reviewed, this was dishonest, just like most of the "truther" movement. None of their research has been published - I've not seen a single model or equation from any "truther", just a load of hand waving, a refusal to acknowledge the south side of 7 WTC, and the refusal to acknowledge first hand accounts of fire-fighters on the scene. Being reviewed by a handful of friends is not peer review!

You make an appeal to perfection in raising the standard of proof for your opponents. When they fail your elevated standard, you declare that the building must have been demolished with explosives.

Further, I see highly questionable statements from supposed "truther" scientists along the lines of "the chance of 7 WTC collapse was 1 in a trillion." And the problem is, even supposedly educated people such as yourself just take this as fact - where's the detail on the calculation, the error, the assumptions? Any presentation from the likes of Jones or Chandler is unscientific and full of holes, yet you side with them. Why?

Further, you don't see any of the contradictions you present in this thread. For example, you claim no-one will support "truthers" because they will get fired, yet all the interviews of the > 2000 supporters you link in this thread are carried out in their offices, labs and places of work. You even suggest the number of scientists supporting "truthers" has gone up. Contradiction.

If you believe you have the smoking gun, why not become the world's most formidable structural analyst and stop wasting your time here?

Or simpler yet, write the paper and get it published in a respected, peer-reviewed journal. That's the standard for real science.