9/11 - The Technical Side

[greyl]

Gathered here is a collection of articles about the architectural, engineering and related technical aspects of the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001 and the ensuing recovery.
www.caddigest.com/subjects/wtc/index.htm

For those interested in authentic research, lots of valuable info.

[LARED]

1. Try these out for a stroll

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=108861&mesg_id=109013

[BootinUp]

2. I've read these two from your previous post

Very interesting indeed.

The possible explanation for floors failing even with relatively low fire temperatures in one.

And the estimates of damage to the core columns in the other.

[DoYouEverWonder]

7. Why do we need estimates of the damage to the core columns?

If they had done a proper evaluation, they would have recovered and accounted for all of the real columns. These columns were big and they all had their own ID numbers. I've yet to see a picture of even one of these core column that failed due to the impact from the plane from the impact area.

[greyl]

3. Very interesting, yes. That's what science looks like.

I hope it isn't lost on certain people that there is clearly some disagreement among professionals about the exact mechanisms and sequence of collapse - it's not like they are all trying to toe the safe and accepted line. They are real scientists with integrity. Who among them wouldn't 'like' to be the special one to discover evidence that planted explosives were involved in the collapses, thus further exonerating their own(structural engineers) from fault and launching their career into the stratosphere?

[DoYouEverWonder]

8. The real scientists with integrity

won't draw any conclusions because none of them have been allowed access to the actual evidence.

Oh that's right, they destroyed the evidence. Oh well, makes it hard to draw conclusions at this point.

[greyl]

12. Your post is false.

You can find evidence that it's false if you thoroughly check out the link in the OP.

[John Q. Citizen]

19. it's all pure speculation, since they have no evidence

(as in steel from the towers or #7) that supports any hypothesis they have made

See the NIST report.
or this link to relevant parts of the NIST report:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

As to your "Who wouldn't want to be the one" that was the same argument used by Peter Jennings to brush off the strange results from the 04 elections. He called anyone who questioned the official results "tin foil hatters.'

So what?

Where was Peter or his colleges on the "Neil Bush to dine with Scott Hinkley the day after John Hinkley attempted to assassinate Reagan Story? That's a huge story, if only because it's so strange that the son of the VP of the US was scheduled to have dinner with the brother of the assassin the day after the attempt, which if attempt had been successful, would have put GHW Bush into the oval office. It doesn't prove anything one way or the other but it is a big story.

It was reported once on the nightly news, and in a couple of newspapers and then it totally disappeared from view. Oh yeah, and News Week mentioned it as an aside in a story about "conspiracy theories." Of course, it was fact, it was never disputed by anyone, and it wasn't covered by any big media reporter in any meaningful way. No follow up, no digging, no explanation. It was a a big story that was grossly under covered.

And Peter and his colleagues didn't discover how hackable black box voting is. Peter and his colleagues haven't publicized the fact that the 9/11 commission and NIST have zero physical evidence to support the pancake theory. (yeah, I know. Peter is dead now, but the point I'm making is that apparently the desire to "be the one" to break relevant news isn't overwhelming in as many as you seem to think.)

So don't hold your breath waiting for someone from cad digest to stick their neck out. They will continue to debate minor variations of the OCT collapse hypothesis, even though they have no physical evidence to support them.

[AZCat]

21. As opposed to the "hugh" quantity of evidence...

supporting the numerous alternative hypotheses? Give me a break. :eyes:

And your contempt for legitimate professionals is disgusting. "Cad digest" - please.

[John Q. Citizen]

28. The fact that the people in charge of gathering the evidence

are also the people pushing the pancake hypothesis, which their own gathered evidence doesn't support, is relevant.

Cad digest was the link provided by greyl, the OP of this topic. So if you have a problem with that or if you feel that it's derisive to professionals, please let him know.

[AZCat]

29. Oh f**k me - I'm sorry.

I thought you were deriding the professional journals. :blush:

Well, it's not the first (or the last) time I've made an ass of myself.

[Grateful for Hope]

30. AZCat

Just wanted to thank you for being so willing to admit mistakes in this forum. It takes a big person to do that.

We certainly all make them, but, I seldom see anyone admitting to them.

:thumbsup:

[AZCat]

31. I may have...

more practice than most. :)

I really do mean that - when I was growing up my parents were always careful to admit when they were wrong and I think it helped me learn to do the same.

[Grateful for Hope]

32. Some excellent parenting there

with some pretty terrific results!

[AZCat]

33. Yer gonna make me blush again.

Lucky for me I'm not at work...

[Grateful for Hope]

34. LOL! n/t

[petgoat]

40. My parents were always very quick to admit

when I was wrong.





As a result I came to believe it's not so great a sin, if you recognize it.

[AZCat]

45. I agree.

It's the coverup that's the damnable part. Too bad Dubya never learned this lesson...

[John Q. Citizen]

35. Been there myself more than I'd like to admit, AZCat.

Absolutely no hard feelings.

This medium leads to misunderstandings/miscommunication where if people were having a verbal discussion, many non-issues would never materialize in the first place.

[AZCat]

44. Hope2006 and I have discussed the same thing.

I feel that if we were all in a room together (with donuts - they always help) most of the petty comments would vanish and we would have a earnest, meaningful discussion (and hopefully iron out some of the many questions about 9/11). There will always be people with sensitive egos but in my experience they are less frequent in real life than on the internet.

[dailykoff]

4. Nothing but a pile of MSM crapola. (n/t)

[greyl]

5. My, my, what a pathetic reply. nt

[MervinFerd]

6. You are not getting a lot of traffic....... nt

[greyl]

48. Not the kind I was hoping for, anyhow. ;) nt

[truthmover]

9. Just wondering...

I'm new here, but you seem to be putting a lot of energy into debunking 9/11 skeptics. I'm curioius as to your motive? Don't get me wrong. Even though I believe that we have probable cause to suspect that members of the government were complicit in the attacks, I still think a majority of 9/11 activists are pretty weak on the facts. And I appreciate anyone trying to bring logic to this environment.

But you have to admit something that I also have to admit, because its true. People in positions of academic authority, and the institution they serve are not unbiased. I saw that first hand in college. For instance, there are numerous conservative thinks thanks, employing the brightest minds, a majority of whow know that they are being payed for their bias. Doesn't it always seem that Bush has scientists to back him up, no matter what the international scientific community says? Is it logical that people dependent upon the system as it runs would support research that undermines some of the basic premises of our present culture? Everyone defends their position.

You may think that you are being skeptical, but I'm not so sure. True logical skepticism knows no bias. Only arguing against 9/11 truth does not demonstrate intellectual independence. By the way, I've only seen a number of your posts. Maybe I missed all the ones where you argue for 9/11 truth and not against it. Actually I assume this is the case from past experience asking others similar questions. Maybe you and I are more alike than different. I hope you'll pardon me in that case. I also do my part to keep people in the movement from getting lost in unfounded supposition. So if you feel that you are simply serving logic, then all is for the best.

But I have to also say that I'm disappointed at the fact that some people on this forum seem to spend all their time here telling 9/11 skeptics that they are crazy. That's not really what I and others are hoping for find here. If I wanted to be called crazy, I could post 9/11 issues anywhere else, and really catch hell. I'm hoping that this can be a place where people are both skeptical AND open. In other words, I'll tell people when I think they are wrong, but also make room for unestablished lines of inquiry, and people who are not yet as educated. I thing having an educational attitude is the best approach.

What about you?

[Grateful for Hope]

10. Welcome, truthmover

:hi:

[DoYouEverWonder]

11. Welcome to DU

You appear to be very perceptive. I hope you post more often.

BTW: In a past life, I worked in pediatric research. I've seen even the best of them bend and manipulate data. I guess when you have millions of dollars tied up in a project, that can have a direct influence on your results.

[truthmover]

15. Exactly...and thanks.

That's what I found out in college. Academic sociology is an oxymoron. The institutional customers served by the university, have an undeniable impact upon its capacity for academic freedom. In Classical Theory they don't bother telling you who were the fascists. Too many. In Research Methods they don't tell you that social science is not used for social progress as much as it is for commercial gain. In Contemporary Theory they still don't tell you about the fascism, and completely ignore anything outside the mainstream.

And I was going to UC Santa Cruz! I thought I was in for some crunchy left wing independent vigor. One professor at least? But they had the best Sociology department in the country at the time, so my hopes were far too lofty. I should have anticipated the commercial dependence. At least I got to ask some tough questions.

Didn't find out about Reinhardt Gehlen, Brown & Root, the Thyssen trust, and the National Security Act, until I got out of college. They really went to pains to avoid addressing the cooperation of Nazi's in the establishment our our national security apparatus. The Nazi's brought with them the most sophisticated and unethical social research of the time. Research that has influenced everything that followed. Many of their insights and strategies continue to be employed by our intelligence agencies. The German expertise in social control appears to have been a critical asset as many war criminals were pardoned and sent to South America where they undermined and assassinated popular leaders, and imposed a repressive and bloody authoritarian rule.

If a group of professors as educated and relatively progressive as those in the sociology department at Santa Cruz are completely unwilling to address all of the information I now care most about, why in the world would I ever trust a mainsteam commercial institution to operate without bias?

[Grateful for Hope]

17. Hope you don't mind if I chime in here

We see evidence of bias in research in pretty much any field that one cares to examine. Case in point is the fact that JAMA continues to publish research funded by those who have the most vested interest in having certain research published...the pharmaceutical industry, because it is not requiring that researchers divulge this information in order to get their research published. Are medical researchers whose research is funded by big pharm unbiased in their investigations? Of course not.

Quite a while back, I was studying developmental psychology in a doctoral program at NYU. I lasted about a year in that program because I began to question the theories that they chose to teach, and eventually made the decision to leave the program based on what I saw as an agenda. The theories that were taught tended to underestimate the child, and they highlighted the desirability of socializing the child so that the innate creativity each child is born with is, in effect, stifled. I saw this as tacit approval of society's need to control it's populace.

Anyway, I, too, think that it is foolhardy to trust that any mainstream commercial institution will operate without bias.

Very well said, truthmover.

[DoYouEverWonder]

18. Especially when it's the perps

who get to pick the gatekeepers for their officially sanctioned investigations.

A lot of times with research like the NIST report for example, it's not the things they choose to look at that are the problem, it all the other factors that they purposely ignore.

[MervinFerd]

13. But, what about Holographic Airplanes?

TM,

Honest inquiry -requires- judgment and humility.

Assertions ("Theories") that are---just obviously impossible, contradict the testimony of thousands of witness and investigators, violate basic laws of physics, absurdly complicated substitutes for the accepted story, or have been considered and rejected by experts and informed public--

just don't deserve serious consideration and contradiction.

JFK -may- well have been shot by someone other than Lee Harvey Oswald; but, if you claim he was actually strangled and his body never found---THEN you are nuts.

Many of the local conspiracy theories do just that--contradict plainly available facts. And are internally incoherent.

If you persist in advocating a nutcase theory after it has been considered and rejected by virtually everyone.....

Well, then, it's pretty fair to call you nuts.

Sorry.

[truthmover]

16. Sorry for what?

Why are you agreeing with me in an argumentative tone? It makes me feel like you didn't read my whole post. You might have included a quote to which you were referring. I assume that you are referring to my suggestion that we be open to people's hypotheses. As my post indicates, I am someone who questions people about the veracity of their claims.

But sometimes I recognize that the reason someone is arguing a position is not because they don't have the facts, but that they lack contextual scope. And, yes, sometimes people and their hypotheses are simply incorrect. But we have to keep in mind that people in this forum, and the movement in general, are at different points in their intellectual and emotional transition away from mainstream thinking. Not everyone is ready to face all of the truth all at once.

And finally, although I know you are just being familiar, I don't think its fair or accurate to suggest that people are insane. Some are conservative, and incapable of change, while others are arguing a point from a hidden political agenda. Some are simply naive, while other's actually enjoy poking at the "conspiracy theorists". And I sure a couple are truly insane. Its really hard to tell.

If someone does not appear to be rational, please don't waste your time arguing with them. Speak the truth and move on.

[MervinFerd]

39. I don't -think- I was agreeing with you. But OK....

<<If someone does not appear to be rational, please don't waste your time arguing with them. Speak the truth and move on.>>

Here are my problems:

1. The irrational stuff has made impossible a lot of -rational- investigation and discussion that needed to happen. What are the -real- connections between Bush and the Saudis? How close to the Saudi Government are the 9/11 hijackers? How much information and warning did the Bush admin ignore, really? Bring these questions up and you'll get flooded with people who think there were no planes.

2. Conspiracy theories are inherently connected to much hard-right hate mongering. Some local folks don't understand this, but it is real.

3. The Conspiracists profess to be Progressives or Democrats, and thereby damage progressive causes. (But never do anything to advance progressive causes).

[DoYouEverWonder]

42. There are certainly agent provocateurs

all over the place. Not just on 9-11 forums and they are certainly a nuisance. But they are not just CTers. Some of them are OCTers. Has for the rest of us, we are probably all over the map has to what our own theories about what really happened that day.

From my POV, I don't care is someone is a LIHOPer or a MIHOPer or a Planer or a No-Planer, what's important is whether or not they are trying to find the truth or are they here just to distract and waste time. The ones who spend most of their time trying to discredit others are the ones with the questionable agendas in my book.

[DoYouEverWonder]

27. You're the only one

bringing up holographic planes on this thread.

OCTers love to do that. Set up strawmen, so they can knock them down, to prove their own arguments.

[petgoat]

41. There is no conflict between holographic airplane illusions

and your claimed eyewitness testimony of thousands.

I certainly would not try to assert hologram theory, but I just wanted to
point that out. Personally I try to avoid unjustified assumptions (unless
clearly labelled as such) and unjustified conclusions.

"Always think you might be wrong," Jacob Bronowski said, in terms I can
never forget.

[Grateful for Hope]

14. It appears that you have already been reading the past threads

in this forum. So, I am sure that when "holographic planes" is mentioned as a means to characterize the topics of discussion here, you already know that proponents of that particular theory are very few and far between here.

[John Q. Citizen]

20. Hi trurthmover. Good to have you here! n/t

[AZCat]

22. Nice framing.

Claiming that the various "theories" that exist outside of the official explanation of events qualify as "9/11 truth" is hogwash. It is the height of irony to claim that a true believer in one of these dubious theories is a "9/11 skeptic".

[truthmover]

23. I suppose you have the case ready to drop on a D.A.'s desk?

I think you meant hypotheses. The 9/11 truth movement has some well established theories, or probable cause, and we also have speculative hypotheses, or (hopefully) reasonable speculation. In my opinion it is best to promote that which has been best established or verified. That does not however diminish the value of an active, and flexible research community. Researchers who do not respond to logic are not good scientists. But investigating an unlikely hypothesis has from time to time resulted in a surprising outcome. I agree that some of the least credible hypotheses in the movement do not deserve much sustained attention, and some are used to discredit the movement. But they can't discredit the facts. They will shine though the B.S. We're going to make sure of that.

There is a difference between someone who is trying to focus attention on the B.S. and someone who just got lead down the wrong path. Having disdain for the naive is not a very mature attitude. I try to have respect for everyone who seeks the truth, which inherently involves being wrong some of the time. Fundamentalism in government, religion, or the 9/11 truth movement scares the crap out me.

And yet I will still assert that there is a best case yet to be made against those who perpetrated the attack. Someone out there will be able to do it better than anyone has yet. Better that you or I. Let's not act like we are on top of the intellectual hill.

[AZCat]

24. The distinction between hypothesis and theory has always been...

jumbled in the 9/11 truth movement. I do mean hypotheses, but then the terminology doesn't match up with what the movement calls them.

Hypotheses, whether credible or not, deserve as much attention as the proponents want to spend on them. I don't have disdain for the naive, I have disdain for the willfully ignorant. It has been my experience that members of the 9/11 truth movement cling to their pet beliefs even when exposed to significant contradictions or fallacies. Are there rational individuals who will accept criticism? Sure, but the preponderance of irrationality (and a loud irrationality it is) has built a strong dichotomy within the community of those interested in pursuing discussion of September 11th-related events. Points where the rational-minded can agree are dwarfed by the volume of contention from the others, so it might seem like certain members of this little community do indeed side with the official explanation, but it is only because there is little room for discussion of where those members disagree with said explanation.

[truthmover]

25. I agree

Sounds like you've got your head on your shoulders. This issue is really coming to a head right now as different camps in the movement are competing for attention rather than crafting a concensus. It seems that even those claiming the most credibility are willing to advance the less relevant or substantiated evidence. I am often disappointed. I'm quite a fan of Berrie Zwicker as he has maintained a relatively credible, if not totally comprehensive approach to the issue. And recently he has gone to great lengths to talk about infiltration and gatekeeping, a subject many fear to address.

Don't worry too much. The weight of the truth will continue to build, and the distractions will become predictable, and marginalized. I don't hear people talking about 'plane pods' or 'C4 coated rebar' anymore. I'm sure some still hold these suppositions as relevant, but they don't have a big voice in the movement. I honestly assume that the most rational voices will rise. This may take some time, and a lot of frustrated debate, but the thing that brings all of us to this cause is gaining momentum, unmatched by the relevance of any one particular theory. The best facts speak for themselves.

[AZCat]

26. I don't know if I'd go that far... (re my head relative to my shoulders)

You might want to reserve that opinion until further evidence has been examined. :)

You are correct that the movement seems to have self-identified some of the less logical hypotheses and minimized the discussion of those. Unfortunately in a forum such as this one the loudest voices tend to be the most apparent, and as such it is not IMO an accurate bellwether of the movement as a whole.

I am not sure how I feel about the slow reorganization of the movement. Jones&Co have begun to add some structure to a previously amorphous group but will it just create a split between those who see this as necessary in order to elevate the more rational voices and those who see it as another form of gatekeeping? I have a great deal of skepticism about some of the claims made by Jones but if there is a formal arena for discussion of his claims I think it is a good thing.

[John Q. Citizen]

38. Great post AZCat n/t

[wildbilln864]

36. Welcome truthmover...

to this forum! The more the merrier. :)

[Grateful for Hope]

37. Your website

I went and looked over your website, and I really liked what I saw. You are saying many of the same things I have thought about for quite some time (for instance, how we are discouraged from thinking for ourselves), and, I found it interesting that you even have a section on social control which I spoke about in my last post to you.

I am going to take some time and really read what you have to say on your site.

Good stuff!!

[truthmover]

43. Thanks.

We really appreciate the feedback. Criticism would be really helpful. The truth is social after all.

[Grateful for Hope]

46. I will definitely provide more feedback

it will be a pleasure.

[greyl]

47. Your reply is conspicuously out of place.

I doubt that you, or any reasonable person, could consider my OP to be of the debunking variety. It's an educational OP, as it were, though it only consists of a link to more edifying links.