9/11 Truth for Dummies: Wrap Your Head Around One Thing

[Btodd]

To be completely honest, for me, I do not ask wither or not my government was behind the events of 911. I just ask myself if I would put it beyond their capabilities.

Would my government kill American citizen's in order to justify it's own means?

Would Bush lie?

Could there be some agenda?

I will never be able to say definitely: yes the government did it. However I can not say they are incapable of such an act either. Can you?

One of my favorite 'conspiracy' clips.

(NEW 2012 WTC DEMOLITION PROOF) DEBUNK THIS (REMAKE) RARE FOOTAGE AND INTERVIEWS SHOWING NEW PROOF - YouTube

That's known as relativism. Not 'is it true', but instead...'could it be true?'. And only the former matters.

Alien beings could be visiting Earth and creating crop circles for some obscure reason...but ARE THEY?


Btodd

 

[ManFromUncle]

Alright then, ManFromUncle.

Pull out the math and physics for your own first order estimate of the effect of each floor.

I'll wait.

You don't even need math and physics, you only need to know that free-fall acceleration is only attained through thin air. In a demolition that is what happens, all the pieces are cut and kicked out at pretty much the same time, so they are falling through air. 96,000 tons of structural steel is not air.

here is a similar controlled demolition, called top-down, used for tall narrow buildings where tipping is a danger. As opposed to more frequent bottom - up implosion.
[youtube]jO15CXhsTM4[/youtube]

win Tower core backbone under construction



Illustration of main support columns

 

[LostMarbels]

That's known as relativism. Not 'is it true', but instead...'could it be true?'. And only the former matters.

Alien beings could be visiting Earth and creating crop circles for some obscure reason...but ARE THEY?


Btodd

Then there are always those who prefer to mock and dismiss what they themselves have no interest in understanding.

Being analytically minded, I would rather see it as an unfalsifiable hypothesis:

So, scientifically speaking, both options are possible. Without empirical proof depicting the validity of either claims both must be possible. It would even be prudent to deduce that one or both claims may be true, and/or false at the same time. Without observance of said means, empirical proof, or foreknowledge of the events of 911, all options are possible and valid until proven other wise.

It's called the scientific method...... First you come up with a hypothesis, a means of observation, measurement, experimentation, formulation, testing, and modification of said hypotheses, in order to find it true or false by empirical means.

The only thing I find foolish is those that will judge a matter with no experimentation, or understanding whatsoever, and dismiss it on sheer ignorance, and unwillingness to look into the matter at hand.

 

[Lethe]

So, scientifically speaking, both options are possible. Without empirical proof depicting the validity of either claims both must be possible. It would even be prudent to deduce that one or both claims may be true, and/or false at the same time. Without observance of said means, empirical proof, or foreknowledge of the events of 911, all options are possible and valid until proven other wise.

1) Hijackers took over four flights and crashed them in to various targets.
2) Eyewitnesses on flight 93 confirmed this.
3) Leaders for the hijackers immediately took credit. Leaders who, might I remind you, bombed the same target a decade earlier.


OR

Not just the above three but a grand government conspiracy. You know, the same government that is supposed to be incredibly incompetent.

SO tell me, "scientifically," which one is more likely? Or is it now standard procedure to ignore Occam's Razor and go straight to grand psychotic conspiracy that fits with all the people who want to believe the government is out to get them?

 

[Lethe]

Now watch how the context of this debate devolves into the same framework as the YECs v science: complicated excuses made for every piece of evidence OR one simple explanation that covers it all.

 

[Btodd]

It's called the scientific method...... First you come up with a hypothesis, a means of observation, measurement, experimentation, formulation, testing, and modification of said hypotheses, in order to find it true or false by empirical means.

Take the events of that day, and form a hypothesis for the 'controlled demolition' / conspiracy angle, and we'll put it to the analytical test. Lethe was right to bring up Occam's Razor, because in order to make the whole conspiracy angle work, the explanation will get so massively convoluted and needlessly complex as to render it utter nonsense before we even get through 25% of the events of that day. And all the while, there is a simpler explanation that WORKS.

The only thing I find foolish is those that will judge a matter with no experimentation, or understanding whatsoever, and dismiss it on sheer ignorance, and unwillingness to look into the matter at hand.

Actually, I have quite a bit of understanding of the matter at hand. I've been hearing the conspiracy theories for a decade now, and as a result, have learned a great deal about the events of that day. By looking at all of it carefully, not out of blind ignorance, I have concluded that the conspiracy theories are nonsense and don't form a coherent explanation.


Btodd

 

[cow451]

You don't even need math and physics,

Well, YOU certainly have no need for math and physics........

 

[AirPo]

By looking at all of it carefully, not out of blind ignorance, I have concluded that the conspiracy theories are nonsense and don't form a coherent explanation.


Btodd

That's just what the government wants you to think. Why else would they make up so many crazy conspiracy theories? So you won't be able to tell the difference between the crazy ones and the real ones, that's why.

 

[Btodd]

That's just what the government wants you to think. Why else would they make up so many crazy conspiracy theories? So you won't be able to tell the difference between the crazy ones and the real ones, that's why.

You just wait until I copy-and-paste my rebuttal from one of my favorite blogs!


Btodd

 

[keith99]

Additional mass does not equal additional acceleration. That is exactly what Galileo proved and what makes the official collapse dynamic absurd. It is so absurd that NIST would not describe it in its report, it was left to shills in the media to fill out the "domino effect" fantasy physics. The NIST report stops at the initiation of the collapse. Even they were too embarrassed to put their names on such an absurd theory. I guess they didn't want their grandchildren to think they were idiots.

The idea that a few floors of falling 3-inch thick, specially lightweight concrete, and the truss assemblies, can make 90 stronger, lower floors give way is something only dumbed-down Americans would believe, who don't even have to take algebra anymore.

That is the same as believing that Wile E. Coyote, when he falls off a cliff, makes a deep hole in the ground, instead of being squashed flat because the ground is much harder than he is.

Says the man who never had algebra while those who were Physics majors in College and who taught algebra take the other side.

Nice try for an ad hom attack.

 

[Lethe]

The idea that a few floors of falling 3-inch thick, specially lightweight concrete, and the truss assemblies, can make 90 stronger, lower floors give way is something only dumbed-down Americans would believe, who don't even have to take algebra anymore.

Let me give you a brief lesson in impact forces, and, hopefully, hurt you severely.

Go find a rigid surface such as concrete. Jump 3-6 inches using your calves and then LOCK YOUR KNEES WHILE in the air and land on your heels. I bet your brain wont even LET you do this.

Then, after you've done this, you get to tell me that impact forces can't be obscenely larger than normal loads.


1) Locking your knees while standing. Normal. Bearing probably 150 lbs

2) Locking your knees under a 3-6" impact. You are going to hurt yourself. Bearing probably 500-2000 lbs depending on the flexibility of the surface and the meat on your heel.


RIGID MEMBERS CANNOT HANDLE IMPACT FORCES. Got that?

 

[keith99]

Let me give you a brief lesson in impact forces, and, hopefully, hurt you severely.

Go find a rigid surface such as concrete. Jump 3-6 inches using your calves and then LOCK YOUR KNEES WHILE in the air and land on your heels. I bet your brain wont even LET you do this.

Then, after you've done this, you get to tell me that impact forces can't be obscenely larger than normal loads.


1) Locking your knees while standing. Normal. Bearing probably 150 lbs

2) Locking your knees under a 3-6" impact. You are going to hurt yourself. Bearing probably 500-2000 lbs depending on the flexibility of the surface and the meat on your heel.


RIGID MEMBERS CANNOT HANDLE IMPACT FORCES. Got that?

Now you are just being silly. Expecting someone who can't get the really easy stuff to understand what happens on impact.

 

[LostMarbels]

1) Hijackers took over four flights and crashed them in to various targets.
2) Eyewitnesses on flight 93 confirmed this.
3) Leaders for the hijackers immediately took credit. Leaders who, might I remind you, bombed the same target a decade earlier.


OR

Not just the above three but a grand government conspiracy. You know, the same government that is supposed to be incredibly incompetent.

SO tell me, "scientifically," which one is more likely? Or is it now standard procedure to ignore Occam's Razor and go straight to grand psychotic conspiracy that fits with all the people who want to believe the government is out to get them?

I already told you that without actually knowing what happened both may be possible. A more probable scenario does not make it more possible. Just more likely to happen. Both are still possible.

That being said what part of the films do you disagree with? I do not chase rabbits, if you want to discuss this, post where you disagree in the films I have presented.

Example: 0:23:13 - 0:27:56 is completely bogus, and here's why..... (site source)

I'm really looking forward to a good debate. However, sadly I find that more people just want to naysay everything without any effort on their own to disprove statements, provide their own sources to confirm their point, or defend their own stance.

 

[LostMarbels]

1) Hijackers took over four flights and crashed them in to various targets.
2) Eyewitnesses on flight 93 confirmed this.
3) Leaders for the hijackers immediately took credit. Leaders who, might I remind you, bombed the same target a decade earlier.


OR

Not just the above three but a grand government conspiracy. You know, the same government that is supposed to be incredibly incompetent.

SO tell me, "scientifically," which one is more likely? Or is it now standard procedure to ignore Occam's Razor and go straight to grand psychotic conspiracy that fits with all the people who want to believe the government is out to get them?

If this is a subject that truly interest you, I am more than willing to research for countless hours in order to give an educated response. I am not a conceded man, and will grant you your due diligence. But, I want to know the what, why, how, and who of 911.

So tell me why exactly should I trust the Government?

I'll tell you why I think their a bunch of B.S. (Bureaucratic Spin)

I do not have a hardest stance on this issue as of yet. So I'm willing to listen to presented arguments, and learn what you have to teach.

 

[EnemyOfReason]

What on earth would make a person think that a vacuum could be created in a collapsing building? I find this notion rather peculiar considering that no matter how much lack of oxygen or atmospheric changing occur in the building the likelihood of a vacuum affecting anything is beyond unlikely.

Kinetic force is all that is needed to destabilize any structure followed by thermal energy and inside a coffin space and you got yourself a guaranteed death trap. Happens all the time.

To be honest, there is nothing overtly special about the events that took place and the place alone was sufficient enough to make the weight of the building collapse upon itself.

 

[Lethe]

What on earth would make a person think that a vacuum could be created in a collapsing building?

Loathe as I am to defend idiots, atmospheric pressure exerts a few pounds per square inch.

If you depressurized a sub, it could implode. But miles of water is not the same thing as a few pounds of air. But the principle is the same.



...and I misread what you said. Great.

 

[Paul01]

An an engineer, I can tell you that stuff like this makes me want to weep.

Fellow engineer, I concur.

 

[EnemyOfReason]

Loathe as I am to defend idiots, atmospheric pressure exerts a few pounds per square inch.

If you depressurized a sub, it could implode. But miles of water is not the same thing as a few pounds of air. But the principle is the same.



...and I misread what you said. Great.

I guess this goes back to square one. I am unsure of the fire safety procedures in the structure but taking into fact that a gaping hole is left in the upper center portion I doubt any proper vacuum could have been created unless in the smaller surrounding offices which I doubt were not effected right away.

Vacuums during fires is common but unless I am reading the OP wrong, to suggest a vacuum in a larger quantity is ludicrous.

Perhaps this may stem from the thought of it being built like a bank. I assume you are familiar with banks and their excessive usage of concrete in interior areas right?
Such an environment would easily create a vacuum considering concretes inability to burn like other materials.

 

[keith99]

I guess this goes back to square one. I am unsure of the fire safety procedures in the structure but taking into fact that a gaping hole is left in the upper center portion I doubt any proper vacuum could have been created unless in the smaller surrounding offices which I doubt were not effected right away.

Vacuums during fires is common but unless I am reading the OP wrong, to suggest a vacuum in a larger quantity is ludicrous.

Perhaps this may stem from the thought of it being built like a bank. I assume you are familiar with banks and their excessive usage of concrete in interior areas right?
Such an environment would easily create a vacuum considering concretes inability to burn like other materials.

Where did vacuum come into this? Is it from the idiotic presentation in the OP?

Or is it some other idiot trying to explain why the building as a whole fell as fast as some smaller pieces with nothing under them?

I really wish this was the cycling site I frequent, there a sizable percentage of people know that here on Earth larger objects do descend significantly faster. AS in 240 lb me vrs 160 lb riders. Enough that they are working for speed when I'm chickening out and squeezing the brakes.

 

[Supreme]

Another day, another ridiculous article with poor science behind it in order to try and convince me of a conspiracy. Yawn- this is soooo the Noughties.