Did the 9/11 truth movement really die?

Page 5 of 6 [ 83 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,811
Location: London

13 Oct 2014, 4:07 pm

That second video is also a steel-framed building.

I'm not an engineer, though some of the people in the report I posted above are. Are you?

ZenDen
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,730
Location: On top of the world

14 Oct 2014, 9:58 am

The_Walrus wrote:

That second video is also a steel-framed building.

I'm not an engineer, though some of the people in the report I posted above are. Are you?

I worked in the building trades for 13 years; we were riggers/ironworkers. Although far from any expertise, it does give you a good idea how things work and what can go wrong. A perfect location for my "kinesthetic" learning ability to thrive.

I stand by all my earlier statements, especially concerning the un-natural and obviously demolition type falling of Building 7.

Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

14 Oct 2014, 12:53 pm

Since I'm not a civil engineer, I have no choice but to appeal to authority.

Quote:

Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also dismissed the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory.[3] Eagar remarked, "These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."[80]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trad ... y_theories

Appealing to authority is the name of a famous fallacy but just because the Appeal to Authority Fallacy exists, that doesn't mean that therefore actual authorities are wrong and conspiracists are more reliable. I find the M.I.T. professor (among others) more plausible than the conspiracists. I also think his "reverse scientific method" concept is valid. The conspiracy theories all seem to take it as a given that there was a government conspiracy and then go looking for anything that might support that (or might seem to support it to people who aren't civil engineers).

ZenDen
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,730
Location: On top of the world

14 Oct 2014, 2:34 pm

Very nice and certainly very informative.

Could you also supply the authoritative explanation for the fall of
Building 7? The expert's stories are getting polished through
repeated tellings, but other than hit by scattering debris and
having some small fire unrelated to burning jet fuel, I've never heard any reasonable explanation.

Why should a thinking person not listen to the "conspiracy theory"
explanation, which is at least a definite possibility?

Why would all of the experts be unable to put forward a reasonable
"non-conspiracy" theory for the fall of Bldg. 7?
.

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,811
Location: London

14 Oct 2014, 2:55 pm

ZenDen wrote:

other than hit by scattering debris and
having some small fire unrelated to burning jet fuel, I've never heard any reasonable explanation.

So you've heard two reasonable explanations?

I already supplied the authoritative explanation. I am sorry that I did not make that clear at the time. http://web.archive.org/web/201107210558 ... R%201A.pdf

"Mechanisms Of Building Collapse" begins on page 92 of the .pdf (page 50 of the report).

The full thing is too long to post. If you are interested then you will need to read it directly. However, from section 4.3.4:

Quote:

The buckling failure of Column 79 between Floor 5 and Floor 14 was the initiating event that led to the global collapse of WTC 7. This resulted from thermal expansion and failures of connections, beams, and girders in the adjacent floor systems.
? The connection, beam, and girder failures in the floor systems, and the resulting structural responses, occurred primarily at temperatures below approximately 400°C (750 ºF), well below the temperatures at which structural steel loses significant strength and stiffness.
? Thermal expansion was particularly significant in causing the connection, beam, and girder failures, since the floor beams had long spans on the north and east sides (approximately 15 m, 50 ft).

o Heating of the long beams resulted in proportionately large thermal elongation relative to the other components of the floor system, in effect, compressing the beams along their length. This led to distortion of the beams and breaking of the connections of the beams to the floor slabs. Furthermore, the simple shear connections used in the typical floor framing were not able to resist these axial compressive forces that developed as the floor framing was heated.

o At Column 79, heating and expansion of the floor beams in the northeast corner caused the loss of connection between the column and the key girder. Additional factors that Chapter 4 NIST NCSTAR 1A, WTC Investigation 54 contributed to the failure of the critical north-south girder were (1) the absence of shear studs that would have provided lateral restraint and (2) the one-sided framing of the east floor beams that allowed the beams to push
laterally on the girders, due to thermal expansion of the beams.

o The fires thermally weakened Floors 8 to 14. As Floor 13 fell onto the floor below, a cascade of floor failures continued until the damage reached the massive Floor 5 slab, leaving Column 79 without lateral support for nine floors. The long unsupported length of Column 79 led to its buckling failure.
? Blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7. NIST concluded that blast events could not have occurred, and found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event. Blast from the smallest charge capable of failing a critical column (i.e., Column 79) would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile if unobstructed by surrounding buildings (such as along Greenwich Street and West Broadway). This sound level is comparable to a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.
The sound from such a blast in an urban setting would have been reflected and channeled down streets with minimum attenuation. However, the soundtracks from videos being recorded at the time of the collapse did not contain any sound as intense as would have accompanied such a blast.

autismthinker21
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 540
Location: illinois

14 Oct 2014, 2:59 pm

9/11 was not suppose to happen. where on earth did the american government came up with fighting the america 2. there is two americas now. unitedstates and america 2. this world democracy is a joke and never will be erased from history. ever. :!:

_________________
In order to be free, you must take your chances of letting your tortured self to be forgiven.

ZenDen
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,730
Location: On top of the world

17 Oct 2014, 10:20 am

Hi again, Walrus.

In a debate you can cherry-pick all of the articles supporting your
contention (as I or anyone can) and this will obviously not make
you a winner. And no discourse will happen.

If you can use your own brain and life experiences you might be
able to find something new to discuss in a friendly manner.

You specifically ask me about my experience in the matter and
afterward immediately try to interject your unsupported expert's
statement to try to refute my previous answer concerning my
experience (which YOU asked me for). This is not conducive to
intelligent discourse.

If this is your definition of discussion you are welcome to it. If you'd
like to discuss one-on-one let's go, but if you only wish to argue then
I'll just say: "You are the "grand winner of all time" and admit you're
so awesome no one can debate with your awesome intellect (and
that of the people you feel you must quote).

Good luck.

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,811
Location: London

17 Oct 2014, 5:09 pm

ZenDen wrote:

Hi again, Walrus.

In a debate you can cherry-pick all of the articles supporting your
contention (as I or anyone can) and this will obviously not make
you a winner. And no discourse will happen.

If you can use your own brain and life experiences you might be
able to find something new to discuss in a friendly manner.

I do not think it is fair to say that I was cherry-picking. I posted a well supported article, written by highly-qualified experts, with contributions from many more experts. It is not cherry-picking to go to the authoritative source. If you would like to post a similarly authoritative document then I would be happy to read any points you raise. If you would like to pick holes in the explanation offered by the report above, I will be happy to read them and will probably have little response. I do not know anything about construction engineering so I am reliant on the expertise of others.

I do not feel like I have appealled to authority over your head or anything. You have made some quite specific points, I have countered them. You said buildings did not fall down except in explosive demolitions. I would some examples to the contrary. You said steel-framed buildings did not fall down in instantly without explosives. I found another example to the contrary (note that was you were making firm claims, I only needed to provide single examples to show that you were wrong). You said there were no reasonable explanations, I posted a reasonable explanation.

At no point have you acknowledged that you were wrong about anything and this is at least the second time you have just tried to shut down the discussion, so I think it is a bit rich of you to accuse me of being unwilling to debate or do my research.

Quote:

You specifically ask me about my experience in the matter and
afterward immediately try to interject your unsupported expert's
statement to try to refute my previous answer concerning my
experience (which YOU asked me for). This is not conducive to
intelligent discourse.

You were the one who brought up experience...

I did not aim to refute your statement on your experience, I aimed to supply the authoritative explanation you asked for. That is why I quoted that.

The expert opinion provided is by no means unsupported...

Again, I would suggest that my answering of your points with facts is more conductive to intelligent discourse than your behaviour in this thread.

Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

17 Oct 2014, 11:42 pm

ZenDen wrote:

If you can use your own brain and life experiences you might be
able to find something new to discuss in a friendly manner.

This quote about "life experience" certainly support what I said about a lack of "sense of scale". No "life experience" can help you understand something of the scale of 9/11, only knowledge and understanding of engineering and physic. I may not have professional and educationnal (Aside from reading for personnal enjoyement.) knowledge of engineering and physic, but from what I know the official explanations make way more sense that what conspiracy theorists are saying.

ZenDen
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,730
Location: On top of the world

18 Oct 2014, 12:07 pm

The_Walrus wrote:

ZenDen wrote:

Hi again, Walrus.

Quote:

As I said earlier, if you expect others to take what others claim as truth, you continue to do so blindly as you offer no expertise in the field of discussion. Why don't you just say you're not educated and are depending on others because you are unable to formulate ideas of a complex physical nature because of lack of experience? It would sound more honest than trying to confuse the issue with your ideas of morality and others guesses.

"I did not aim to refute your statement on your experience".....But by ignoring my experience isn't this the same?

"The expert opinion provided is by no means unsupported..." Then where is the knowledgeable (and unbiased?) support you claim?

You say: "Again, I would suggest that my answering of your points with facts is more conductive to intelligent discourse than your behaviour in this thread" You would???? Of course you would, because you want to remove the discussion from real facts to some type of mealy mouthed whining "facts" about debate technique.

Do you even have any idea concerning the thermal expansion you offer as someone else's theory? Or do you continue to only parrot what other people say? If you can do nothing on your own I'll end my side of the conversation because I believe trying to debate with your remote "quoters" is absurd....whether you think it's polite or not. And you will be crowned the big winner/debater; is this what you want?

Thinking for yourself is not the same as trying to use others words without comprehension. Let's hear sound, factual ideas of your own.

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,811
Location: London

18 Oct 2014, 5:23 pm

I know:

- the building was on fire
- metals thermally expand
- the building fell down

Therefore, with my current knowledge it seems wholly plausible that the thermal expansion of the steel in the building, caused by the heat of the fires, itself caused the building to collapse.

Put simply, I have no choice but to follow the only plausible hypothesis anyone has been able to construct in the past 13 years. If you are capable of constructing a better one then I would be happy to hear it. However, given that you have so far failed to construct a single point capable of standing up better than a burning skyscraper, that seems unlikely.

zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

19 Oct 2014, 9:09 am

The_Walrus wrote:

- the building was on fire
- metals thermally expand
- the building fell down

Therefore, with my current knowledge it seems wholly plausible that the thermal expansion of the steel in the building, caused by the heat of the fires, itself caused the building to collapse.

Except that it is conclusively proven there were no fires burning hot enough to do just that. For fire to be hot enough to do that kind of damage, nobody on those floors would have been alive. The color of the smoke coming out of both towers establishes a SMOLDERING (cool) fire, not a hot one, and photographs show survivors looking out of the holes created in the towers. Nobody could have survived the heat needed to damage the metal in the building.

This is why engineers AROUND THE WORLD condemned the 9/11 investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center as a "half-baked farce." None of the standard tests one would do in a collapse investigation were followed. There is no way to prove the government's theory in how the buildings collapsed based on the evidence that was gathered and the testing that was performed.

ZenDen
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,730
Location: On top of the world

19 Oct 2014, 9:10 am

"The_Walrus wrote:
- the building was on fire
- metals thermally expand
- the building fell down

Therefore, with my current knowledge it seems wholly plausible that the thermal expansion of the steel in the building, caused by the heat of the fires, itself caused the building to collapse."

Well I guess your brilliant analysis makes you the big winner then.

And your childish refusal to learn about the things you try to explain
and discuss means you will always have this honor.

Congratulations.

I'll try to debate those using supported facts in future discussions.

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,811
Location: London

19 Oct 2014, 3:07 pm

zer0netgain wrote:

The_Walrus wrote:

There were no survivors in Tower 7, the tower being discussed, because it had already been evacuated...

Also, thermal expansion is not "melting", nor is melting necessary for steel to lose strength and the fires didn't cause the collapse of 1+2 straight away. The jet fuel just ignited a number of fires that burned for a while - those caused the collapse. Calls from trapped workers certainly indicate that it was verrrry hot in there, too hot for them to consider an escape.

The fact remains that, whilst we may not know exactly why the building fell down with 100% certainty, no plausible alternative hypothesis has been presented (that is, none that requires an outside agent or a controlled demolition). The bones of contention are whether fireproofing loss or the plane impact were strictly necessary for the building to come down - multiple independent reports (for example conclude that the fires alone would be enough.

886
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,663
Location: SLC, Utah

22 Oct 2014, 6:33 am

Arran wrote:

Did the 9/11 truth movement die or did it offload its excess baggage?

It's undeniable that the 9/11 truth movement is much quieter and less prominent than it was around 7 or 8 years ago, but the theory I have is that it attracted far too many people who were just curious inquirers or those who were of no use and credibility because they lacked any real knowledge or experience that could be used to reveal the truth and debunk the official story. I'm only interested in people being in the 9/11 truth movement if they have some useful knowledge to offer - like controlled demolition specialists; civil engineers; or airline pilots. Over the years the 'dead wood' in the movement has fallen away but critics of 9/11 truth have used this to create a misleading message that the 9/11 truth movement has died. I also think that intelligence services were behind certain sections of the 9/11 truth movement in order to create misinformation and decoys that would help to reduce credibility of genuine factions of the movement and destroy the trust by the public. My experience of 9/11 truth conventions and local meetups is that most are a complete waste of time and are probably detrimental to the cause. There was a local 9/11 truth group but I left after finding that none of its members had any useful knowledge or experience and just tended to believe sensationalist junk like Loose Change.

I think social media played a role in the movement's downfall. When I was in high school I was very interested in the 9/11 truth movement. As I grew older and got more involved with social media, I noticed a large portion of 9/11 truthers had the same approach. They felt EVERYTHING was a conspiracy - every government historical event was a cover-up. They believed in the illuminati (lol.) A lot use psychedelic drugs. The culture of 9/11 truthers was very poor.

_________________
If Jesus died for my sins, then I should sin as much as possible, so he didn't die for nothing.

zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

23 Oct 2014, 4:28 am

886 wrote:

The culture of 9/11 truthers was very poor.

And even if that is not so, it would be not be difficult for their detractors to portray them as such.

Hire a bunch of people to post online as various people to spew garbage that makes the desired group look like morons.

Hell, the Tea Party was consistently derided in the media while Occupy Wall Street was treated like the second coming of Christ...even though the Tea Party rarely had anything negative to say about how they conducted themselves and OWS were pretty much a bunch of anarchists leaving behind a trail of destruction wherever they went.

Media perception is everything.

Page 5 of 6 [ 83 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Jump to:

Did the 9/11 truth movement really die? Post Reply New Topic

Did the 9/11 truth movement really die?