Self selection in conspiracy theorists

[_mikwut]

Lemmie,

I have read that paper. Are you familiar with the history of it and Tony Szamboti and Richard Johns?

Here is the short history and correcting paper.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/reso ... iJohns.pdf

mikwut

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Mikwut,

You’re not going to address the debris pattern comment?

- Doc

[Guest]

Lemmie,

I have read that paper. Are you familiar with the history of it and Tony Szamboti and Richard Johns?

Here is the short history and correcting paper.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/reso ... iJohns.pdf

mikwut

Your link is about a different paper, not the one I quoted.

But your link is laughable. 9/11 truthers wrote a rebuttal to a published paper. Their rebuttal was rejected in peer review process. This rejection is taken as proof the 9/11 truther paper is true.

[_Dr Exiled]

Oh yeah, well explain THIS. (just channeling my inner conspiracy theorist)

How does one avoid the "wrong conspiracy thinking" you seem to be describing without analyzing whatever evidence there is? Blindly trust our leaders, the media? The collapse of building 7 looked like other controlled demolitions but that doesn't mean it was one. Hence, it seems to show how a conspiracy theory can gain traction if the thinking stops there. However, there is more to it and that is why the devil is in the details of these things.

[_honorentheos]

Well, I'm not convinced that a satisfying answer has been given. Let me concede Markk's hypothesis of the fuel weakened the steel initiating a collapse. How does that make a symmetrical free fall collapse? How does that larger building below provide no resistance to smaller mass above?

mikwut

It wasn't symmetrical. From the quotes I provided:

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

[_Dr Exiled]

Mikwut:

Markk pointed out that a lot of people would have had to have had access for some time to wire the building for the 9/11 controlled demolition to have worked. Are you aware of any investigation into who had access to the building prior to 9/11? Also, wouldn't the operation require a lot of people who would have been noticed by others who worked in those buildings? How do you respond to the fact that people generally can't keep secrets like the 9/11 inside job seemingly required?

[_mikwut]

Doc and Honor,

Are you claiming that the debris and ejection of pulverized material that found its way outside the exact footprint of the buildings refutes the basic straight down falling of the buildings?

mikwut

[_Lemmie]

Well, I'm not convinced that a satisfying answer has been given. Let me concede Markk's hypothesis of the fuel weakened the steel initiating a collapse. How does that make a symmetrical free fall collapse? How does that larger building below provide no resistance to smaller mass above?

mikwut

It wasn't symmetrical. From the quotes I provided:

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

I didn’t know that detail, honor, thanks. It just emphasizes that just using certain video angles or worse, eye-witness accounts, won’t tell the whole story.

That’s what surprised me about an earlier reference given. A crucial part of the conspiracy theory was supported ONLY by selected video and witness statements. It’s surprising how much of the controlled detonation theory rests on stuff like this.

[_subgenius]

Just highlighting this comment by Doc, regarding the design of the WTC towers and why their stability may have been compromised a bit after airliners smashed into them ...

According to MIT each floor system weighed about 3,200,000 pounds. The jets destroyed support columns, weakened support columns, and fire burning at around 800 degrees for, what, 45 to 60 minutes? In one of the towers you had multiple jacked up floors trying to shift weight of +/- 96,000,000 lbs of weight bearing downward.

"The buildings used high-strength, load-bearing perimeter steel columns which acted as Vierendeel trusses. Although the columns themselves were lightweight, they were spaced closely together, forming a strong, rigid wall structure. There were 59 perimeter columns, narrowly spaced, on each side of the buildings. In all, the perimeter walls of the towers were 210 feet (64 m) on each side, and the corners were beveled. The perimeter columns were designed to provide support for virtually all lateral loads (such as wind loads) and to share the gravity loads with the core columns."

That's a mighty big hole cut through such a vital component of the structure.

This is an interesting point that seems rather cut/dry at first. But I think it is worth noting that NYC suffers from a unique construction environment. Steel is the primary source of structural systems for many of its high-rise buildings. Whereas most other locations will utilize a structural system where steel is the "exoskeleton" while concrete forms a solid core. Often these concrete cores house stairs, elevators, etc - but are typically within a building because of shear forces.

But NYC, as is widely known, had(s) a strong steel union presence...not so much for concrete....thus the framed-tube structure of the towers with minimal uses of concrete as a "core".

But all of that really speaks only to the horizontal loads, as noted above. The exterior "tube" provides the structures rigidity against wind etc, but it also shares support of the floor plates with the interior core columns. Which would lead one to conclude that the "hole" would cause an asymmetrical failure of the floor supports...not so much a symmetrical "pancake" fall of those floors.

Personally, I am skeptical of the initial failure of this building's structural system, given both the systems involved as well as the enhancements for fire protection etc...remember before the 90s bombing there was a significant fire which saw good old reliable 1500 degree-capable asbestos was added to the structure for enhanced fire protection (and even that fire did not fail the structure.

nevertheless, all those equations for heat, mass, and energy are convincing with some pretty significant assumptions - but - for me, the main point of skepticism is the failure being too symmetrical in the wake of a significant asymmetrical damage.

[_Lemmie]

Doc and Honor,

Are you claiming that the debris and ejection of pulverized material that found its way outside the exact footprint of the buildings refutes the basic straight down falling of the buildings?

mikwut

Not to answer for them, but the source I am quoting explains consistently the tilt, the building collapse essentially on their footprints, and the debris pattern.

The tilt and footprint:

Another previously refuted hypothesis of the lay critics is that, without explosives, the towers would have had to topple like a tree, pivoting about the base (Baˇzant and Zhou 2002) (Fig. 6b or c). This hypothesis was allegedly supported by the observed tilt of the upper part of tower at the beginning of collapse (Fig. 6a).

However, rotation about a point at the base of the upper part (Fig. 6c) would cause a horizontal reaction approximately 10.3× greater than the horizontal shear capacity of the story, and the shear capacity must have been exceeded already at the tilt of only 2.8◦ (Baˇzant and Zhou 2002).

Thereafter, the top part must have been rotating essentially about its centroid, which must have been falling almost vertically. The rotation rate must have decreased during the collapse as further stationary mass accreted to the moving block. So, it is no surprise at all that the towers collapsed essentially on their footprint. Gravity alone must have caused just that (Baˇzant and Zhou 2002).

And the debris pattern:

On the average, however, what matters is the simple fact that the air must, in one way or another, get expelled from each story of the tower within a very short time interval, which is only 0.07 s near the end of crush-down of North Tower.

This fact inevitably leads to the average exit velocity estimate in Eq. (7). The high velocity of air jetting out also explains why a large amount of pulverized concrete, drywalls and glass was ejected to a distance of several hundred meters from the tower (Fig. 3a).