Friday, 14 August 2009

911 (again) - Freefall? Topple? Collapse Initiation

For a long time I felt the building collapses were suspicious - because to me, they looked suspicious. And of course, right after 911 there was a dearth of evidence for any explanation. As time has progressed, evidence has accumulated, and I now longer consider the buildings' collapses remotely suspicious.

There are several issues which frequently arouse suspicion, including whether the buildings fell at speed of gravity (freefall), whether the buildings should have toppled, rather than suffering total collapse. These were avenues I explored as much as I could following 911 and the years after - I no longer believe they need be cause for suspicion.

First, the amount of energy imparted by a large jet plane, loaded with fuel, was greater than that released by the recent N Korean nuclear bomb-test. That's before the release of energy from the fires initiated by the fuel explosions.

---The argument for demolition is that there was insufficient destructive power from the plane impacts, the explosions and subsequent fires. That raises the question of how much explosives would be required to exceed the destructive capacity of jetplanes, explosions and fires. Think about it? If the planes, explosions and fires were insufficient to destroy the WTC, then how much explosives would have been needed? The more explosive required, the greater the problem of explaining how they got there - the greater the size, scope and complexity of any conspiracy. Likewise - if it is argued it would only require "a small amount" of explosives, then how can jet-planes, explosions and fires be discounted?

To exceed the energy from plane crashes, explosions and fires would require an enormous amount of explosives. Jetfuel has about 18 times the energy content of TNT. So how much energy from explosives would be required if the energy from planes, explosions and fuel initiated fires was insufficient? The implication is an enormous amount of explosives. The evidence for any explosives is zero. Who What When How? There is absolutely zero evidence for this scenario - it is only based on peoples' a priori sense that the planes, explosions and fires could not have done it. Beyond that, there is nothing to sustain the claims as there is no evidence whatsoever.

Secondly, the collapses initiate at exactly the spot one would have expected them to if the collapses were caused by the plane impacts, explosions and subsequent fires.



--If the buildings were demolished by explosives, how did those responsible know exactly where the planes would hit the towers? Also, how did the (huge amount) of explosives not get triggered in the plane impacts and explosions and fires? How did the detonation system survive impacts and fires - and still allow collapses to be initiated right at the point of impact - twice.



Thirdly, the collapses of the WTC1+2 most certainly do not occur at freefall speed. Watch the above videos - and watch how the debris falls faster than the collapse point. As the building collapses, material is ejected sideways and forms an umbrella or mushroom around the collapse point as it proceeds down the towers. If the collapse point was moving at freefall, it could not have been obscured by the material which had been earlier ejected - the collapse point would not have been obscured as it would have fallen at the same rate as the ejected material which certainly was in free-fall and which obscures the collapse point (because it fell faster than the collapse point). Regardless - the collapse is progressive - once started it continues because resistance is only offered by the floor/s immediately below the collapse. How is one floor, or several support members supposed to withstand the weight of the building which is falling? The physics of moving mass is quite different to static loads. Once moving there is far greater force being applied. Of course it is going to proceed quickly - and that speed adds to the energy, increasing the likelihood the remaining floors are going to collapse.

--On the other hand there is zero evidence for any method of collapse through demolition and explosives. Absolutely zero.

Should the buildings have toppled? This struck me as peculiar - surely they would topple, and not collapse straight down? Having read an explanation of large building dynamics by a NASA dude, I am happy to accept my intuition was totally wrong - it is effectively impossible for the top of a large building to topple over.

I'm no physicist - nor an architect or building engineer. However, the principle seems relatively straightforward: when the building above the impact zone starts to rotate because of failed support members, there is a fulcrum around the centre. As one side of the block sinks as support fails, the other side obviously lifts. So, as the building sinks towards the failed supports, it rotates around the fulcrum, and severs the supports at the opposite side to the failed members - as the opposite side of the rotating mass lifts. As the sinking part of the rotating block begins to meet resistance, the opposite side will begin to sink. Once initiated, this process continued all the way down, with the top essentially rocking back and fore, and crushing wach floor as it falls. Once collapse begins, the forces involved are massive compared to the static load. The NASA dude obviously explains it better than I can, and it seems perfectly feasible. I've seen other physics professors explain it, and they aren't surprised by the collapse (so far as the physics of it goes)

Ryan Mackey is a research scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
The NIST hypothesis of collapse initiation does not require all of the columns to fail at the same instant. This is clearly explained in NCSTAR1-6, and even quoted by Dr. Griffin on page 187. Since Dr. Griffin has apparently misinterpreted NIST’s comments, the author explains, in his own words, why a slightly more gradual failure is predicted:

The total load on the structure is approximately constant up to the moment of collapse. The structure supporting this load is slowly weakening, through a combination of loss of material strength (caused by heating and annealing), a loss of strength in individual members (caused by creep and inward pulling leading to an increase in strain), and a loss of system capacity (caused by inward pulling leading to eccentric loading, reducing the columns’ maximum strength before buckling). Not all structural supports are affected to the same degree or at the same time.

The critical moment of collapse is called the loss of stability. Up until this time, an individual structural support can fail without causing a collapse. The load formerly borne by a failing support is redistributed to other supports, usually those nearby, in milliseconds. Any support that “fails” at this time will sag slightly, but will still be attached, and from a distance appears to still be carrying its load, when in reality its strength will be only a small fraction of what it was previously.

When the stability point is reached, there is no longer enough reserve capacity locally to prevent a larger scale motion of the building. At this point, when a structural element fails, the nearby elements do not have enough capacity to take the added load. Some of these elements will also fail. Supports close to the local failure will either buckle or tear free. Supports far away from the local failure will also see some increase in their load, and some of these may fail as well, but in others including the WTC case, these elements remain – for a little while.

Local instability leads to local motion, and the upper structure begins to sag in the area of the failure. The surviving structural elements, away from the local failure, begin to see rotation in addition to their increased static load – this rotation creates the “plastic hinges” described in Bazant and Zhou [21]. Supports closer to the rotation will experience a greater share of the remaining load, and a greater twisting motion as the upper structure rotates, and these will fail next. As these supports fail, the load is redistributed further and further away, and soon every support will fail. Twisting will either cause the columns to break free at their connections, or to buckle leaving the connection relatively intact, depending on the relative strength of the connection and the column itself. In either case, the amount of twisting that these columns can survive is not large – structural steel typically flexes only about 3% before strain hardening begins, and rotation can lead to a significant leverage effect in the connections. All such connections will fail before the far corner of the structure descends by a single floor. This means that the local collapse leads to a global collapse in a period of less than one second.

In order for the structure to actually topple over sideways, the upper structure would have to rotate by, say, 45 degrees, which would put the centroid of the WTC 1 upper block approximately at the edge of the lower block. Recall that the structure was 208 feet across. Rotation by 45 degrees means that, if the hinge point is along one exterior wall, the opposite side of the upper block must fall “through” about 163 linear feet of the structure below. If the hinge point is at the center, the descending side must crush through 82 feet, while the ascending side must somehow rise, breaking all of its supports through tension. Despite this damage, the supports at the hinge must continue to support the full load of the upper block as it rotates. Even assuming the upper block and the hinge would survive this behavior, it is therefore impossible for the upper block to topple over without first “falling vertically” through an enormous part of the lower structure. For this reason, claims that the Tower should have toppled instead of collapsing vertically are nonsensical – you cannot have toppling without some vertical collapse, although you can have vertical collapse without toppling. The toppling collapse also requires this crushing to be asymmetric, only occurring on one side, which is simply not plausible – as the leading edge of the rotating block crushes structure below, the crushed structure resists, and this reactive force will tend to keep the upper block centered, meaning the likely outcome is either a downward collapse or no collapse at all. For these reasons, in a structure of these dimensions, the vertical collapse is strongly favored energetically, even discounting the fact that the upper structure also tends to break up under its own weight when rotated.

If all the supports had failed simultaneously, as Mr. Hoffman insists, neither of the WTC Towers would have displayed the rotation seen above. In reality, both Towers did rotate a few degrees, which is precisely what we expect in a gradual collapse mechanism. There is, therefore, no reason to believe the supports failed simultaneously, or that they must in the NIST model. NIST never makes this claim.

Dr. Griffin still insists that his belief is “obvious,” again shirking the burden of proof
LINK



--Just to restate - there is no positive evidence whatsoever for any other method of collapse. To suggest explosive demolition is to imply the conspiracy was massive: including all the engineers, physics professors, architects, investigators, firemen, recuse workers, clean-up workers etc etc - they were lying, or 'in' on the conspiracy? Then you have to explain how the buildings were fitted with such an amount of explosives as to dwarf the energy imparted to the buildings by 500mph jets, full of fuel and weighing 100 tons. (18 times the energy in fuel as TNT). Also it needs explaining how the collapse was initiated at the exact right place; how the explosives didn't trigger at impact, nor in the subsequent explosions, nor during the fires. None of this has any plausible explanation, and there is just no evidence for any of it.

To an objective observer, there is only one remotely plausible explanation - and it isn't demolition.

Conpiracists like to disparage the obvious explanation by saying "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". But in fact it is conspiracism that makes the extraordinary claim - and yet there is absolutely no evidence for conspiracy - let alone any of extraordinary quality. Whereas the obvious explanation has mountains of positive evidence.

Ultimately, we have to ask "Why believe something for which there is absolutely no evidence, whilst discarding the obvious explanation for which there is massive amounts of evidence?" Why? What is the reason to do so? It isn't because of the evidence - because there is none for demolition, and there's huge amounts for the obvious explanation. So why believe it?

You can continue forever saying "I simply don't believe it!" Fine - but until there is some reason to believe the super-extraordinary claims of conspiracy - there is simply no reason TO believe it. 911 Conspiracy might be right - but until such time as there is very good evidence for it, and very good evidence to give reason to disbelieve the obvious explanation, then there is simply no reason to do so.

Some further excerpts from Ryan Mackey's paper:
The Seattle Kingdome was imploded by Controlled Demolition, Inc., using roughly 4,700 pounds (2,200 kg) of explosives and 21.6 miles (35 km) of detonating cord [147]. For sake of comparison, the DELTA group [148] estimated the gravitational energy of the Towers at 5 x 1011 J, or 2.5 x 1011 J released in each of the two collapses, which is equivalent to the energy output of roughly 60,000 kg of TNT per tower. (Our own rough estimate, presented in Appendix B, is slightly higher at 100,000 kg TNT per tower.)

When Dr. Griffin claims that the WTC Towers contained more explosives than were used at the Kingdome, this means his theory requires over 2,200 kg per tower. However, since he has also stated that the gravitational energy was insufficient to create the dust, and that explosives must have been responsible, this raises the bar much higher – his theory now requires that more than 60,000 kg of explosives were detonated in each tower. This is greater than the payload capacity of two B-52 heavy bombers per tower.

60,000 kg of high explosives – 60 metric tons – is an enormous amount by any measure. Historically, there have only been a handful of non-nuclear detonations of this size or larger, all creating enormous fireballs and shock waves strong enough to visibly compress water vapor from the atmosphere. Despite the extremely unusual nature of such a large event, Dr. Griffin has no conclusive evidence of explosives – no sounds, no flashes, no shockwaves, no shrapnel, no chemical residue, no seismic activity, and no physical remains of any explosives. Hundreds of thousands of people would have personally witnessed this. Glass windows sheltered from debris were not shattered, helicopters flying nearby were not destroyed, and a few lucky survivors were even pulled alive from the lower levels after the collapse had ended. Dr. Griffin provides no explanation of how this is possible. He also has produced no explanation of how such a staggering amount of explosives could have been smuggled into the Towers without detection, how it could have been placed without being seen, how many individuals would have been required to plant it all, or how long this process would have taken. Just one of the hurdles would have been wiring the explosives – using the Kingdome as a reference, this explosion would have required almost 1,000 km of detonating cord to be strung in each tower.

Dr. Griffin’s claim also drives a wedge between his own theory and that of Dr. Steven Jones. Earlier in Dr. Griffin’s book [8], he left open the possibility of “incendiaries” rather than explosives, but incendiaries do not create dust. Because Dr. Griffin claims the dust was created by “controlled demolition,” he has no alternative to explosives except to propose that explosives were used in addition to incendiaries, or unless he embraces a theory involving science-fiction weaponry such as that proposed by Dr. Wood.

On the basis of the analysis above, it is now clear why Dr. Griffin refuses to present any details of his controlled demolition theory. The details that may be inferred from his conclusions prove its absurdity, even if there was no ready alternate hypothesis available, such as the NIST Report provides.
........

....if large pieces of steel were propelled by explosives, then smaller pieces should have traveled further still – as a material shrinks in size, its surface area to volume ratio rises. A piece of steel scaled down by 50% would experience four times less impulse, but would weigh eight times less, and thus receive twice as much initial velocity. This means that, if explosives had propelled steel fragments, we would see small pieces propelled much further than large pieces – and this is not the case. If explosives had driven a large fragment 600 feet, then very small pieces would have been ejected like shrapnel, damaging buildings and killing onlookers at distances of hundreds or even thousands of meters; this too did not happen.

In contrast, in the gravity-driven ricochet model, all pieces fall at the same rate regardless of their size, and therefore can ricochet similar distances; in this case larger pieces will travel slightly farther as they are less susceptible to drag. This is consistent with observations, and with the NIST theory.
..........
NIST estimates that the inventory recovered in this fashion, almost entirely from WTC 1 and 2, is between 0.25 percent and 0.5 percent of the 200,000 tons of structural steel used in the Towers. This agrees with Dr. Griffin’s estimate. However, what he fails to appreciate is that the total above is the amount that was collected, not the amount that was examined. The overwhelming majority of structural steel was examined in the search, and discarded simply because it did not meet the criteria above – the remaining steel, in the professional opinion of the engineers, displayed no unusual or important characteristics needed for the investigation.

Furthermore, of the NIST inventory, a considerable fraction is in the form of “coupons,” or small pieces removed from larger steel elements to facilitate easier storage and protection from the elements. Because of this, the NIST inventory represents a larger fraction of the original steel than its raw weight would indicate. But in any event, Dr. Griffin’s assertion that the steel was all shipped off to Asia “before it could be properly examined” is simply wrong.

Dr. Griffin also repeats the commonly echoed misconception that “removing any evidence from the scene of a crime is a federal offense.” This is similarly misleading. It would be illegal for an anonymous individual to remove material from the collapse site, of course, but the search and rescue operation, followed by the recovery and firefighting efforts, followed by reclamation, were always under the control of the Federal Bureau of Investigations and FEMA. Such removal of potential evidence lay within their jurisdictions.
..........

Summary

We find that Dr. Griffin has failed to provide any positive evidence of explosives. In examining his claims closely, we have been able to assign some numerical limits to his explosives hypothesis, adding some detail that he refuses to provide.

Dr. Griffin, however, states that it is the absence of evidence that matters:

NIST claimed that it “found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001.” How exactly that statement should be interpreted is not clear: NIST might have simply meant that it found no such evidence because it did not look for it. Or NIST might have meant that it was already aware of such evidence, so there was no need to find it. But this statement should not, in any case, be taken to mean that no such evidence exists.

The author can clarify that statement for Dr. Griffin: NIST is not and never has been aware of any such evidence. Evidence for explosives does not exist. The NIST study proves that the collapses were expected, in the manner and timing they were observed, without explosives being involved in any way. Furthermore, if there had been explosives, the collapses would not have taken place in the way that they did. In discussing Dr. Griffin’s claims, we have consistently compared the evidence that he feels is significant, holding up to both the NIST and his own explosives theory. Without exception, the evidence is either irrelevant or actually confirms the NIST account.

Having examined all of Dr. Griffin’s claims, we can now confidently state that no such evidence exists. And since Dr. Griffin has also not found any problems with the NIST hypothesis, as we saw in the previous section of this report, Dr. Griffin has no valid reason – either because he believes he has evidence, or because he believes there is an absence of evidence – to suspect explosives.

26 comments:

socrates said...

TLNL, less is more to be honest. I'm not sure why there is so much put into your post. Another thing, are you on holiday? You're posting a ton of stuff lately every day.

If you're gonna make grandiose claims, you should supply some links. Also, the links should be independent from the debunkers making the claims, such as with your linking to a NIST report in another thread. {To say the plane's impact and jet fuel and whatever had more power than a nucler test- where's the proof of that?}

The irony is that everything you have posted leaves wiggle room for the believers. Creating wiggle room is usually the tactic used by debunkers but can now be utilised by the believer side. The debunkers' problem is that they have to keep coming up with more wiggle room, such as steel only needs to melt a bit, etc.. I also see you like to concentrate on the WTC buildings. The pentagon crash is one you don't seem to have an answer for, how a novice pilot could fly so close to the ground without hitting it. You also don't seem to understand that Bin Laden has probably been dead for years. You also brushed off the put option anomaly as if it was some coincidence. You also like to go with saying it is racist or ethnocentric to discount non-Westerners' abilities to accomplish such feats, albeit evil ones. Have you any explanation for radical fundamentalists allegedly striving to die as martyrs to go to heaven with how they were at strip clubs? I doubt it.

You see, even if the collapses took place at the points of plane contact, if the thing was planned with some sort of inside or Western black operation, then the planes were probably remote controlled and the points of contact predetermined. Also, if things are going sideways, then of course they are not going to fall as fast as materials dropping at a downward trajectory. Thus the obscuring or whatever you were trying to say.


You link to NASA debunking a believer or cynic. Again, whoop-de-doo. That's evoking of authority 101. I can show you concrete evidence of Patrick Minnis dismissing deliberate manufacturing of clouds, yet through his own evidence he himself is the one debunked.

You're out of control with this. You are surely correct about Rivero and many other believers being douche products. But that in itself doesn't support the official explanation. How come the lower levels of steel didn't survive? It all melted? Come on, at some point the buildings should have toppled over if your side is correct. But I know what you will do. You'll find some other NIST tool or authority evoker to say the sheer weight of each floor forced the good steel to go straight down. Those buildings did fall at controlled demolition speed. Nothing personal, but yet again you seem to have put too much into a post for fence-sitters and newbies to be able to dive into this topic. I admit I've done that before. I overloaded others deliberately to perhaps get them off my back or show that they were not debating fairly. But I've done that rarely. It is posts like this which make me feel you could have a dog in the hunt. But I'm not sure I am ready to go that route for now. Like I've said before, I have been burned so often with internet people that there are only a few I actually trust. You talk a lot about the jet fuel, but I'm under the impression that most of it went up in smoke on contact. Plus, the jet fuel being used nowadays, isn't it safer in regards to contributing to fires? I am at a huge disadvantage in debating you on this topic, but I still feel I have the gonads to tell you thanks for playing. Oh yeah, where are the planes' recording devices which are built to survive in which we could hear what was going on in the cockpits?

the_last_name_left said...

what grandiose claims? the link to Mackey's long report is there.

The NIST report is the aggregated EXPERT investigation. NASA people are good at science. You want to discount such sources as compromised and inadmissible then you're suggesting a conspiracy of a incredible scale - one for which there is no evidence. Why believe anything if one can believe such a vast conspiracy? Is the boiling point of water 100? Why believe it?

The point is - physics is objective. Peoples' belief "it was impossible" doesn't hold much water against NIST, NASA, physics professors, whatever.

I see no reason to discount their views.

If the WTC are explainable, what would the point be of an inside job attacking the pentagon whilst AQ attacked WTC? Doesn't make any sense.

How does anyone know what the skill of the pilot's were? Where does this evidence come from? What does it consist of?

What does it matter if OBL is dead?

What is the evidence on the puts? Where is something that says anything about it?

Were they in strip clubs? What's the evidence for it? Even if they were, I see no reason to credit radical islamists are incapable of hypocrisy. Maybe they wanted to gee themselves up by seeing some decadence and corruption. None of this sort of evidence amounts to anything imo. If people think differently they're entitled to - but where is the evidence for all these things, and what does it consist of? I've looked into it all, and I don't see any of it holds water. My opinion.

If it was remote control.....the evidence for that is what? There's none. So why believe it absent any evidence?

The debris fell faster than the point of collapse - and that's after the debris has moved sideways a little. The debris still falls faster than the collapse point, despite having spent some time moving sideways. Collapse was definitely not at freefall.

NASA is an appeal to authority? Well, what else do you propose? NASA does have excellent physicists, presumably?

the_last_name_left said...

Always the argument goes that authorities - like NASA and NIST - are compromised and inadmissible? Oh come on! What are we left with if we discard all authorities? Nothing. Yet it's crazy to just accept NIST and NASA and every other authority is compromised and inadmissible. That isn't a conspiracy it's an entire society enagaged in conspiracy. They're just inventing physics for the sake of political expediency necessary for conspiracy?

And why should we discard all appeals to authority? In favour of what? Lay people saying they don't believe it? Hmm. I'll take NASA, NIST and physics professors on the physics, thanks.

And no, they "shouldn't have toppled over". Why would they? Read mackey's explanation? Lots of material was ejected. If you want to think of that as toppling, why not? But the material's debris field was as expected from kinetic collapse - totally different to how it would have been from explosives. You want to tell me the debris field wasn't like that? That it isn't indicative of collapse as opposed to explosion, fine. But why should I believe it? Based on what?

There's not a thing to suggest explosives.

You're entitled to believe I have "a dog in the hunt." Whatever. People prepared to believe a massive conspiracy of such a scale are hardly likely to believe anything I say.

As for black boxes - they aren't indestructible. How could anything be made which is guaranteed to survive WTC - and be viable to fit in all planes?

Likewise, how could those buildings be rigged with explosives? It's a crazy idea and there's the not-insubstantial matter that there's absolutely no evidence for it.

IMO people are committed to believing a conspiracy - and there's nothing will persuade them otherwise. Fine. People believe all sorts of crazy things. I changed my mind - based on the evidence and the total absence of a viable, coherent alternative.

If we add up all the people involved necessary to execute such a conspiracy as includes NIST, rescue workers, clean-up workers, aviation authorities, and everything else that's required - it's a conspiracy so wide-ranging it borders on paranoid mental illness imo. But maybe it's true?

socrates said...

I didn't say you had a dog in the hunt, but rather it is starting to seem that there is one. I also didn't say there was some huge conspiracy and especially with NASA. But I did give an example of a member of NASA who has not only ignored 100% proof of covert weather modification but who has gone out of his way to ridicule his opposition, just like you do. Calling everyone who has questions about Sept. 11th a twoofer and tied to anti-semitism has been a bit too much. That's why many months ago I started a thread asking if you sounded like a person with almost an identical approach called CarmenJonze.

By the way, you are way off base in regard to the put options, Bin Laden's serious kidney problems, his previous affiliation with the CIA, and on the significance of fundamentalist terrorists going to strip clubs. But I know, there's always some explanation. Like certain al Qeda are allowed into strip clubs. Or there's no way to confirm radical fundamentalists went to strip clubs the day or whatever before doing the acts. You guys always have some explanation like the Warren Commission, like Republicans talking about weapons of mass destruction, like Brett Kimberlin lying about his past. You do appear to have a dog in the hunt, though I said before I can't go there right now.

Then there's this which Reuters and others reported on, the thing about drivers licences and a woman murdered named Katherine Smith.

Hey, funny how a socialist spends so much time on right wing websites. I've never done that. Oh, and the put options, what a coincidence according to you. As for Bin Laden's illness, it's more than strange that you have no info on that considering how much you say you've looked into this. You're all about ridiculing the twoofers. You're actually all about giving that right wing element more credibility than they deserve by focusing on them and their anti-semitism. I think it's quite bizarre that you've never had a bad word for what Israel has done to the Palestinians. The Democratic Underground had a huge September 11th section. They would have next to nothing on the Joos did it. Fancy how you spent so much time at Rivero's, Trausti's, and Prison Planet but none debating truthers who don't get into disinfo revolving around Mossad. You haven't proven anything about the official explanation. That will be impossible to do so unless you point by point debate it with someone who is rational and into this topic. That person isn't me. It clearly isn't Larry or any of the other wingnuts you enjoy dealing with. I'm not into antagonising you. You've actually done some very important work outing those right wingers. But I do believe you're using strawmen opponents to come to conclusions that just aren't there.

the_last_name_left said...

I didn't say you had a dog in the hunt, but rather it is starting to seem that there is one.

Yep - I'm mossad. And CIA. And MI6. Take your pick?

I also didn't say there was some huge conspiracy and especially with NASA

well, why not take what he says onboard? Sure - they're connected to government - but......the facts of physics exist outside of government wishes. or anyone else's.

Calling everyone who has questions about Sept. 11th a twoofer and tied to anti-semitism has been a bit too much.

I don't - but they're closely connected - because of the way they operate - their methodology.

Rejection of evidence in favour of one's preconceived notion - like racism - is prejudice.

I'm tired of conspiracists taking the evidence in the way they do. People can believe what they want - but when there is no evidence for a belief, I can't give it a lot of respect.

you are way off base in regard to the put options

I don't think so. Feel free to put me right. If there's evidence, there's evidence. If there isn't - there isn't.

A lack of evidence doesn't mean something is impossible - but a lack of evidence does nothing to support any particular claim. That's the important point.

Bin Laden's serious kidney problems

Maybe he's dead. Nobody can prove to me he is dead. Can I prove he isn't ? No. I have no need to - what does it matter?

his previous affiliation with the CIA

That OBL was involved in afghan war against russians - indeed, was instrumental in provoking afghan government in calling for russian involvement - is no secret.

the significance of fundamentalist terrorists going to strip clubs.

You know AQ and elements of radical islam give dispensation to activists to ignore tenets of Islam - specifically so they can infiltrate their enemies all the better? Urqif, or something - they are given dispensation to break the tenets of Islam, specifically to further the wider cause of militant, radical Islam - by ignoring it.

It's like saying Nazi spies wouldn't have visited Communist or Liberal institutions during 1930s because they were antithetical to Nazism. Do racists pretend not to be?

Of course people behave out of character to better infiltrate their enemies. And I don't for a moment imagine people prepared to fly planes into WTC would feel beholden to anything at all......like a book....like Islam....even if they were at the same time driven to fly the planes by those same things. Why expect people prepared to fly planes into WTC to behave perfectly consistently and rationally? One can't doubt the facts of the matter based only on what one thinks of the people claimed to be involved. The facts come first - what to make of the people involved comes after. Not the other way around. I have no problem accepting people can be hypocrites.

the_last_name_left said...

The irony is that everything you have posted leaves wiggle room for the believers. Creating wiggle room is usually the tactic used by debunkers but can now be utilised by the believer side.

Nothing much is absolutely provable. It's about weighing the evidence. Ultimately you can deny what your senses tell you - is the universe real? What's the proof? So, beyond knowing you think, there's nothing else you can prove. Conspiracists won't take that attitude to their own perspective though - only of their opponents' hypothesis. Applying similar scepticism to conspiracism breaks it apart far more easily. At some point we have to decide what is "real". It's 2009.

I happily accept that there's no absolute proof ever going to be possible who was on those planes or how those buildings collapsed. But I won't let people tell me they know the planes were flown by remote control - or that the buildings were demolished on purpose - when there is absolutely no evidence for it. And that's the deceit - we're supposed to doubt who was on the planes and why the buildings fell, in favour of ideas which have absolutely no evidence in their favour. Why should anyone do that? For me it's about more than 911 - it's about how we are to approach reality. That's my dog in the game, or whatever. Do we take what evidence suggests, or do we just believe whatever we like?

The evidence might lead to a wrong conclusion? Ok - fine. But how are you ever going to find out you were wrong unless you can treat evidence properly - and you follow evidence properly? That's what is going to give you the basis of being right or wrong. And atm the evidence points one way. If we disregard that evidence now - we'll never have a means to prove we were wrong, because we will have rejected the method.

I'm totally prepared to accept I am wrong - if the evidence shows I am. I know I can change my mind - if the evidence shows I am. I have done so already. I don't believe conspiracism shows the same commitment to the nature and quality of the evidence. Indeed - all the evidence is totally disregarded - because of an assumption that it is tainted.

There's a real danger inherent in such an approach - especially as the danger isn't even recognised.

I'd rather be duped having pursued the right method, than reject the method, and have been right.

Why?

Because how will you ever know you were wrong if you don't follow the right method?

And if you simply believe you must be right, and disregard the evidence on the basis of your commitment, then you can never be shown to be wrong. No thanks - I'd rather be proven wrong. And it shouldn't be about whether one is right or wrong - it should be about what the evidence says.

funny how a socialist spends so much time on right wing websites. I've never done that.

As I said before, I don't find much interest in being a nodding dog. I enjoy ideological combat. I think it's more important - I have nothing to offer so far as extending leftwing ideology goes. I'm happy to leave it to people far smarter than I.

the_last_name_left said...

You're actually all about giving that right wing element more credibility than they deserve by focusing on them and their anti-semitism.

My position is that they're underestimated at our peril. Opposition gives them credibility? Hmmm. What credibility do I provide anyone by my opposition? I don't believe I can - I'd rather oppose it as best and forthrightly as i can.

think it's quite bizarre that you've never had a bad word for what Israel has done to the Palestinians.

You don't know what I have "bad words" for, other than what you've read me say.

I don't get into criticising Israel because plenty of that is going on already - far more than the situation deserves with regard to other issues - and as if my opinion is going to make the difference?

And I define my own agenda, thanks, and I stick to stuff I know at least a little about.

I've never been hassled for insufficient contribution to arguments over the Dem Repub of Congo. Or Turkey. Or Sri Lanka. Or Chechenya.

The Democratic Underground had a huge September 11th section.

I never found DU of any interest. What passes as the american left is exceedingly dull. Mild reformism. Nothing challenges me there other than tedium. I leave them to it.

Fancy how you spent so much time at Rivero's, Trausti's, and Prison Planet but none debating truthers who don't get into disinfo revolving around Mossad.

So what? And how do you know I haven't anyway?

You haven't proven anything about the official explanation.

there is no proof - there's only evidence.

I do believe you're using strawmen opponents to come to conclusions that just aren't there.

well, ok.

Larry said...

the only 2 people to post on this site, you and socrates. Wouldnt it be easier if you just hopped in bed together?

socrates said...

Call you Mossad, M16, or whatever? I didn't. But that's exactly the same crap line the people at BradBlog were coming up with in regards to decoder rings. Same shit different day.

The NIST report is tainted, Same with Popular Mechanics, the History Channel, you name the source, USA Today, they're all compromised. So in that respect, a person like Larry is correct that there is no difference between left and right, because they both accept the status quo. I have tons of proof implicating Patrick Minnis of NASA in a conspiracy. Rivero has worked for NASA. Maybe they are not all bad. In fact, I bet most of them are ok. But many of them are involved in space weapons and weather modification and are part and parcel of the military-industrial complex. Their talk of being a civilian institution is rubbish. Now I'm not saying space weapons were involved with Sept. 11th. This isn't my focking topic. But for a newbie or fence-sitter type, I have held my own with yourself.

People questioning Sept. 11th who do not discuss Israel have nothing to do with your wingnut twoofers. Nothing. You're way off base.

You say you can't give something respect when there is no evidence. The put option anomalies are fact. The lack of aircraft black bxes is fact. Those things are built to survive. But you and your debunker ilk have an answer for everything.

You call the idea of weather modification kooky. Yet how does cirrus aviaticus form in 10% relative humidity? You are doing with "chemtrails" what you claim I am doing with your so-called evidence. You put up grainy videos and tons of words and citations from people with dogs in hunts. But where is your explanation for how all the steel disintegrated? Why didn't it stand at some point? Many floors elow the fire, it all dropped and melted or whatever. This isn't my topic, and I'm sure you'll come up with something or ignore this like you did with the strange murder of Katherine Harris I mentioned above.

What's it matter if Bin Laden has been dead or never took credit for the tragic crime? Wow. Now why did the US go into Iraq. Maybe going into Afghanistan made some sense since Al Qeda was up in those mountains. But Iraq has always been secular. They had nothing to do with Sept. 11th. How did the US know so soon it was Bin Laden and Al Qeda? Terrorists always take responsibility or I mean they claim when they pull their shit. I think Bin Laden denied involvement. Why would he deny it? Isn't the warped motive of terrorism some form of carrot and stick approach?

If those guys were at strip clubs the night before, give me a break. At that point they would be praying and what ever they do with their cult. You always have an answer for everything. You never say, oh yeah, that's quite strange. Your ignoring of Israeli atrocities towards Palestinians is the last straw. You don't even concede that they are butchering both Palestinians and their land through asymmetrical warfare. That's not right. It wouldn't probably matter if you weren't going up against the Joos did it numbnuts. But you are. So your lack of criticising Israel is wrong.

socrates said...

You don't go on so-called left wing websites because you don't want to be a nodding dog? Well, for one thing, those places are not true left websites. Secondly, I don't buy what you're saying. It's ludicrous. Such places as Democratic Undergound and Daily Kos have been proven to be rigged. They are not representative of the left. Sorry, I don't see why you like sparring with wingnuts on their own turf. Why not go to these pretentious left wing places that are really about the status quo of triangulation? I tried that. Many have tried that. And there's perhaps the biggest powder keg in the world, the Middle East and especially Israel, and you have virtually no comment on it. Peace in the Middle East is of crucial importance. I'm not trying to downplay troubles in Africa. But you are up against folks all over Israel. Why not show that they do not represent the left's view on Israel and Palestine? It's the friggen gorilla in the room.

You give the wingnuts credibility by acting as if you are two sides of a debate. But no. They are the fringe. And you have no comment on Israeli policy. Unlike you, I have dealt a bit with that, and it's another topic that I admit is not up my alley. But I try nonetheless, so no one can say I am Mossad or have a decoder ring.

Well, DU is definitely rigged, but at least there you would have to debunk people who aren't on about the Joos did it. You'd be up against at least a few, probably not many I agree, but a few who are sincere and have looked into this topic you're so sure is explained by the official explanation. Or find the best, most rational Sept. 11th website and debate them. Continuing to go after the wingnuts proves nothing. That nail has been hammered in.


You've admitted that Trausti has a good share of wingnuts at his place. Though he's hidden the whole forum, you continue to support him. That doesn't add up. If I had 10,000 posts hidden, I'd be very mad. Did he ban those anti-semites from his place? I doubt it. Doesn't he say that every thing posted at his place becomes his property? Doesn't he have a rule against cross-posting stuff? Trausti is bad news.

You make it seem like there is no need to critque Israeli policy. Have you? Ever? Because lefties do lean for support for the Palestinians. You say there is a difference between left and right. I agree. It can be shown for example with Israel and the Middle East peace process. But you couldn't be bothered because there is already enough on that. Yeah, coming from wingnuts. That's how you support Israeli's backwards policies, through your silence.

socrates said...

Larry, your comments and from other wingnuts show a latent homosexuality. You and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga are gay, not that there's anything wrong with that. But when it's latent homosexuality like you have, that is a mental illness. Seek help.

socrates said...

I show support for Larry's concerns about Sept. 11th anomalies, yet he attacks me. That's how wingnuts operate. I'm sorry he's never known true love. He may think he is Mr. attacker of the evil new world order, but he is really an authoritarian type. Larry is a proponent of the fascism he rails against. In the old days he would have been a LaRouchie or John Bircher. Now he rants and raves a la Alex Jones and links to Jeff Rense and other ridiculous people with zero credibility.

Anonymous said...

Proof vast (media) conspiracies do happen:-

"[Jesse] Owens, who felt the newspapers of the day reported 'unfairly' on Hitler's attitude towards him, tried to get Mischner and his journalist colleagues to change the accepted version of history in the 1960s."
"[Owens] insisted that he had not been snubbed by Hitler"
"Owens later said he was treated better in Germany than in America where blacks faced segregation."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1205572/Hitler-shook-hands-black-1936-Olympic-hero-Jesse-Owens.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/6008196/Adolf-Hitler-did-shake-hands-with-Jesse-Owens.html


Socrates, maybe Larry attacks you because you call him a wingnut.
And maybe you should ponder the significance of your failure to make this connection.

Anonymous said...

You guys need to understand that the victors write the history books.

the_last_name_left said...

@ anon - proof of a vast media conspiracy - from the Mail and Telegraph?

errr - ok. How do you know they're telling the truth this time? Maybe they just made it up - as part of a vast media conspiracy.

You know the Berlin Olympics never happened? You know Hitler never existed? It's all a vast conspiracy, see.

the_last_name_left said...

The NIST report is tainted, Same with Popular Mechanics, the History Channel, you name the source, USA Today, they're all compromised.

You can't really call engineering studies tainted in the same way. There are laws of physics - not of journalism.

But regardless - the suggestion is that NIST and the rest are tainted, even inadmissible, but vague and conflicting reports of Atta at a strip bar, for example are believable?

How is that?

The put option anomalies are fact.

What are the facts then? What do those facts mean?

The lack of aircraft black bxes is fact.

77 and 93 were found. Is it a fact that the blackboxes should have survived? What does it actually mean they didn't - or that they weren't found? What exactly does it mean? What are the definite conclusions which can be reached? It makes you suspicious? And that's it, isn't it? What else can be said about it? Do you know they were found and destroyed? So what of it? You're entitled to be suspicious - but what more than that? Weigh your suspicion against the pictures from 911 rubble pile and the explosions......ask yourself if it is so suspicious they didn't survive or weren't found? Beyond that - what is there to say about it that is DEFINITE? Nothing.

But where is your explanation for how all the steel disintegrated?

What steel disintegrated?

I'm sure you'll come up with something or ignore this like you did with the strange murder of Katherine Harris I mentioned above.

I saw the story at the time it happened. What is there that can be said about it? You find it suspicious? And.....so what? What can you say for definite about it apart from you find it "suspicious"?

What's it matter if Bin Laden has been dead or never took credit for the tragic crime? Wow. Now why did the US go into Iraq.

Bin Laden had nothing to do with Iraq. He was used as part of the argument to invade, but so what?

Maybe going into Afghanistan made some sense since Al Qeda was up in those mountains.

I think Afghan was a war-crime too. Afghanistan did not attack USA.

Terrorists always take responsibility or I mean they claim when they pull their shit.

No they don't. Plenty of examples where they haven't.

the_last_name_left said...

I think Bin Laden denied involvement.

So it must be true?

Why would he deny it?

How come whoever claimed he denied it isn't tainted like USA Today, NIST, whatever?


Al-Qaida formally claimed responsibility last night for the September 11 attacks on the United States, with a video showing some of the hijackers making preparations in Afghanistan.


So did he deny it, or claim responsibility? Can we tell by the truth of the matter simply by deciding which media is "tainted"? Can we believe some things and not others? Can we believe whatever fits the case we want to make?

AQ have certainly implied their responsibility. Does that mean they must have done it? No.

If those guys were at strip clubs the night before, give me a break.

Who says they were? Why are such sources not "tainted"? Why are those vague and conflicting media reports so believable all of a sudden?

At that point they would be praying and what ever they do with their cult.

Islam prohibits murder too. So does the bible. Doesn't seem to stop anyone believing they're good muslims and christians though, does it?

You never say, oh yeah, that's quite strange.,

I have.

your lack of criticising Israel is wrong.

And congo, sri lanka, chechenya, turkey, caicos, iraq, afghan, colombia, darfur, xinjang, algeria, burma, kashmir, liberia, nepal, phillippines, rwanda, sudan, uganda, indonesia, niger, somalia?

Peace in the Middle East is of crucial importance. I'm not trying to downplay troubles in Africa. But you are up against folks all over Israel. Why not show that they do not represent the left's view on Israel and Palestine? It's the friggen gorilla in the room.

I don't buy that line. Why is it so uniquely important? I refuse to accept it as uniquely important.

Did he ban those anti-semites from his place? I doubt it. The only person I can remember getting banned was someone who said AQ were terrorists, the USA should pursue them, and give support for Israel, IIRC.

You make it seem like there is no need to critque Israeli policy. Have you? Ever? Because lefties do lean for support for the Palestinians. You say there is a difference between left and right. I agree. It can be shown for example with Israel and the Middle East peace process. But you couldn't be bothered because there is already enough on that. Yeah, coming from wingnuts. That's how you support Israeli's backwards policies, through your silence.

Just as I support congo, sri lanka, chechenya, turkey, caicos, iraq, afghan, colombia, darfur, xinjang, algeria, burma, kashmir, liberia, nepal, phillippines, rwanda, sudan, uganda, indonesia, niger, somalia regimes?

the_last_name_left said...

Alleged claims of responsibility:

Published: October 29, 2004
"we decided to destroy towers in America" because "we want to regain the freedom of our nation."
LINK


July 23, 2008
Senior al-Qaeda commander Mustafa Abu al-Yazid has claimed......it carried out the 9/11 attacks on the US and that 19 of its supporters launched the devastating attacks. He added that many of his comrades were involved in training the hijackers.

LINK


Al-Qa’ida took the enemy by surprise with the raids on New York and Washington.
Abu Ayman al-Hilali, (2002), a senior al-Qaeda leader and ideologist.

LINK


Our ultimate objective of these painful strikes against the head of the serpent was to prompt it to come out of its hole.
Sayf al-Adl, an al-Qaeda military commander

LINK


There are denials too - but in the aftermath of the attacks. That can be understood as a tactical denial - to sow confusion amongst US public, rather than claim responsibility, which would only goad the public into revenge.

There's plenty on the claims and counter claims
here.


The point being, you can't completely rely on such things as evidence either way.

But it does illustrate how evidence can be cherry-picked to suit whatever position someone wishes to support. And that's what usually (always?) happens with conspiracists.

Anonymous said...

The pentagon crash is one you don't seem to have an answer for, how a novice pilot could fly so close to the ground without hitting it.

The 911 wingnuts conveniently forget that AQ had MS Flight Simulator to practice on.

"After the fall of Kabul, several of the Western journalists who toured the former Al Qaeda safe houses there noticed that in one of them there was a form from a Microsoft Flight Simulator package, indicating that some of the people simulating crashing into the World Trade Center may have been up to something more purposeful than thrill-seeking."

LINK

Anonymous said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Olympics

the_last_name_left said...

But Wiki is part of the conspiracy. The Berlin Olympics never happened. Jesse Owens never existed - nor did Hitler.

Anonymous said...

Nor did [the meat eating] Hitler [exist].
Yup, something else the media covers up.

the_last_name_left said...

get on topic?

the_last_name_left said...

fucking nazi twat

socrates said...

You seem to delete your posts and then put up new ones with edits. You shouldn't do that. Or maybe I'm mistaken. I could've sworn you called me a "conspiracist" and also had no response on my questions about Trausti. I think you also made a comment somewhat condoning Israel's activities as if their illegal actions are a non-issue. It seems like you've added things about the black boxes. I don't operate like this on message boards. I read your posts and let them sink in, waiting to respond. Maybe I'm seeing things that didn't happen. Anyway, this topic is not my forte, and it makes no sense for me to continue. Israel is in the wrong and they need to stop. This website is starting to make me feel nauseous. Nothing personal. I'm not into reading nazis. The guy didn't even use html, so I had to search out his link. Only places like Stormfront and other type places were big into this non-story. As it is, the London papers cited, at least the one I checked out said this story of a handshake is unconfirmed. It would also be no surprise for African-Americans to show some disdain or plenty of it for their home country. I'm not exactly sure what the point is to interact with any of them. I also am not interested in your debating Larry on Sept 11th anomalies. Maybe if a nice person was on the other side, it'd be interesting to see the two sides go at it in fair style. So a passport was found but not the cockpit boxes. The put options do mean something. Of course it is tough to know where that goes. Same with the lady murdered in Tennessee. But oh well, like I said above, this topic is making me feel sea sick. Take it easy.

the_last_name_left said...

SFAIK I can't change comments. And what few changes to blog-posts I have made I have specified them with a note - saying "ETA".

You ask questions about 911, say I avoid them, and when I address them you say it's tedious I go on about 911.

I don't have a desperate desire to explore 911 - I don't consider it very important as an isolated topic. Like I said - I don't think the world changed that day -mostly it's Americans that think that - because a dose of reality arrived at their door - for the first time ever.

So a passport was found but not the cockpit boxes. The put options do mean something. Of course it is tough to know where that goes. Same with the lady murdered in Tennessee.

Sure, maybe they do go somewhere - but surely the point is that with nothing more to go on, how can anyone say what they mean?

If they go somewhere then they do - until such time as they do, then they don't. There's no other way to approach things. If we're to believe things without evidence, then we're susceptible to believing any rubbish - and we can be taken to the cleaners. Sure, a commitment to evidence means one is susceptible to believing false evidence provided by a vast conspiracy - but likewise it's only a commitment to finding hard evidence which is going to break any conspiracy. Jettison a reliance on evidence to avoid susceptibility to conspiracy and you jettison the only way to prove any such conspiracy.

I'd rather follow the evidence and be conned and wrong than discard the evidence and be "right". Because you'll never be able to prove you were conned OR that you were right if you jettison a proper reliance on evidence.