Applying Critical Thinking to 9/11

[Jay Ref]

[Mark Gobell]

Hi Jay Ref

Apologies if I am not making sense.

Reading my post again makes sense to me.

Does this clarify things ?

[quote="Jay Ref"]The MIT paper I linked to was written by actual scientist who have no relation to the Truth Movement. They are the kind of unbiased experts you should be looking to...[quote]

But not the Jihadist ones eh ?

Maybe your psychiatric opinion of me is correct and I just cannot see it.

[Graham]

[scar]

[Mal Jones]

Jay Ref

Thanks for the link to the MIT document – an interesting read. However, it is in no way an exhaustive study of the collapses of the towers, and freely admits as much. The work itself is reasonably solid but it is based on incomplete data. It is riddled with assumptions and the authors constantly bemoan the fact that they are not privy to the most basic data. These are direct quotes:

“Each column was a box section, almost square, with an assumed wall thickness of 9.5mm”
“Again, the author’s inquiries to ascertain exact values for the core column dimensions failed.”
“The author did not have access to the technical drawings for each tower.”
“It is hoped that we will be able to eventually retrieve exact dimensions of core columns in the course of our continuing work.”
“We do not have complete information on the manner in which the core columns were joined”

Anyway, you get the drift. In your reply you note that the length of each beam (I assume you meant column) was 38 feet. Perhaps you could pass on your source to the guys at MIT – I’m sure they would be delighted to have some ‘real’ data to use. The report is not dated but it must be at least May 2002 and I am astounded that such an august institution as MIT could not source accurate data.

I am in no way rubbishing their work, as it is clearly the result of a lot of effort but it is an extrapolation from some pretty thin data and the authors acknowledge that. However, the bulk of the work deals solely with the impact damage from the aircraft and only briefly alludes to the manner of the collapse itself. Again, to quote:

“It would appear then that because there was no tilting of the building, the catastrophic collapse was initiated by each floor falling into the next”

And that’s it. The collapse mechanism was obviously not the focus of this study. Note that the above quote mentions catastrophic failure and yet elsewhere a footnote refers to progressive failure in the Alexander Kielland offshore installation disaster where 123 men perished (the report quotes the Alexander Killian with 77 dead but, what the heck, everyone makes mistakes). The two failure mechanisms are entirely different and should not be confused.

On redundancy the report concludes, “ Such an analysis should be performed by individuals or teams in possession of detailed structural models”.

In your reply you present a long list of the agencies and institutions that would have had to connive in any deception in order to carry it off. You appear to invite me to adopt the line of reasoning that ‘there are too many people involved to keep a secret – so – it can’t have been an inside job – so – the towers must have come down as per the official story’. You can of course choose to approach it from this direction but I’m not going to indulge in speculation about the actions and motives of unknown and un-knowable people so I prefer to focus on that which is observable and ultimately knowable i.e. the collapse mechanism. Once the ‘what’ is established, the ‘how’, ‘who’ and ‘why’ should fall into place.

Lastly, and I know it’s none of my business, I can’t help but take issue with your comment to Mark Gobell that “You CTers are all pretty much the same to me…”. Clearly nothing could be further from the truth. This forum has posts from the whole range of truth seekers from those who are uncomfortable with one or several aspects of the official line and would like further investigation (I guess that’s me) right through to those who have some very firm ideas indeed about exactly what happened and what should be done about it!

Now we could bat this back and forth till the cows come home but, to be honest, for me it’s just killing time when I should be working and it’ll be on the back burner as soon as I get home but for some people here this is a hugely important issue about which they are clearly passionate. There is nothing in it for them and they can only be motivated by altruism and a genuine desire to address the wrong in this world. I feel embarrassed that my own convictions don’t extend beyond detached interest and I have nothing but admiration for people who can get behind something heart and soul.

Thanks for your time
Mal

Ps Though it’s entirely irrelevant my real name is Mal Jones (I like to think I would have invented a jazzier pseudonym) and I’m an Inspection Engineer in the North Sea.

[Jay Ref]

[Mark Gobell]

Aplogy accepted Jay Ref thank you.

Perhaps if you had used your obvious critical thinking skills you may have decided not to denigrate us all in the way you did.

Just a thought.

So, how many institutions, organisations, groups, individuals would you estimate to have been involved in say the Iran Contra affair then ?

[Mal Jones]

Jay Ref

Thanks for your reply. I’m quite sure that the MIT paper isn’t a falsehood or that the authors are in the Government’s pocket – and I don’t know where you get the idea that anyone thinks otherwise. The report, however, doesn’t ”examine the collapse honestly”, as you state – in fact it doesn’t examine it at all. This report is solely concerned with the effects of the aircraft impact at the impact sites and alludes only obliquely to the eventual collapse of the whole buildings. In fact, the authors appear to have ground to a standstill at that point, possibly frustrated through a baffling lack of available data or maybe because they simply haven’t a clue.

Again, the MIT report doesn’t purport to be an exhaustive study of the collapse mechanism and is merely a work in progress on the aircraft impact. I’m not sure why you have held this up as the QED definitive work on the subject or quoted it so heavily in your response to my original post. Incidentally the linked report starts at page 31. Do you know where the rest of the document is?

With regard to the lengths of the column sections you will note from my original post to this thread that I was unconcerned about the dimensions of the exoskeleton panels – these are weakly joined and would have broken into individual panels whatever the manner of the collapse. I was more interested in the central members and I said as much so I assumed it was to these that you were referring when you quoted a length of 38 feet.

As to the one question you have asked of me I don’t think I am ignoring logic to “pick holes in the OS”. I can’t possibly surmise, any more than you can, how many people would be involved in a cover up so I would prefer to concentrate on that which is observable and on which I have some knowledge. I can see from other posts that everyone has their own hobbyhorse, probably determined by their own field of knowledge. Some have gone further and posited theories about precisely what did happen that day but what we all have is some degree or other of doubt in the official story. The few ‘unaware’ people with whom I have spoken on this, not harangued, have been left with some degree of doubt, not because I had freight-trained them with a load of cherry picked ‘facts’ but because they had never even thought to question it. There shouldn’t really be any doubt about the events of 9/11 and the consequences thereof so, to draw your attention to the banner of this site, all we really want is independent further investigation so that doubt can become conviction, one way or the other. So, as regards the “benefit of the doubt” that you claim always goes the way of the CTer, the US Government have been reaping the benefits of this doubt for some time now.

Thanks for your time
Mal

[kbo234]

[scar]

[Jay Ref]

[Jay Ref]

[Mark Gobell]

Hi Jay Ref

You state :

"Because no one but you whackos think there's anything strange about a massively damaged building collapsing."

Can you provide us whackos with some proof of the massive damage please ?

So, may we apply logic here then and deduce that the 9/11 Commission thought that the collapse of WTC7 which had not been hit by any aircraft, was so utterly normal that they stated the following:

erm nothing ....

and FEMA stated in their report:

"the specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time."

So, extending my logic to you Jay Ref, please share with the world how come you know that there is nothing unusual with the collapse of WTC7 and yet the very authorities tasked with discovering the "truth" have yet failed to explain it.

Do you know something the rest of the planet doesn't ?

[Jay Ref]

[Mark Gobell]

Jay Ref

Thanks for that.

However, I confess to being a little dissappointed with your reply.

I was hoping that you might be able to support your assertions with some evidence given that the evidential basis for our claims is something that you continually deride us for lacking.

Further, I would advise caution here as your reputation in the international world of debunking may suffer somewhat.

Also, your behaviour may just lend some weight to the arguments that us whackos try and put forward and the undecided public at large may even be moved to jump from out of their neutrality by your hollow responses and, at a push may even begin to see through your hollow arguments, and start to recognise ours.

Just a thought.

Cheers

[Jay Ref]

[blackcat]

He thinks we are wackos for asking questions about the most puzzling collapse of wtc7 and he believes it was a spaghetti monster!!!! Why do the moderators tolerate this person being here?!!

[Mark Gobell]

Hi Jay Ref

Thanks for your most imaginative reply.

It is clear for all to see that the only person around here who is discussing silly ideas about 38ft reptiles and other such nonsense is you.

That is your prerogative and I would not ever try and stop you doing it.

Besides, it does seem a preoccupation with you so enjoy !

Anyway, back to business.

Not for the first time you have completely disregarded some valid points I rasied in reply to one of your rather contentious posts about the utterly surprising collapse of a 47 storey steel framed building known as WTC7.

I would remind you and our readers that WTC7 was not hit by any aircraft on 9/11 and was reported to have only small fires.

Additionally, the owner of the building confessed on a PBS documentary that "WE DECIDED TO PULL IT".

You Jay Ref on the other hand assert that the members on this forum are the only whackos that find anything surprising about it's collapse.

I repied with these questions to you which you have not yet responded, apart from some rather childish rhetoric.

So here they are again:

"Because no one but you whackos think there's anything strange about a massively damaged building collapsing."

Can you provide us whackos with some proof of the massive damage please ?

So, may we apply logic here then and deduce that the 9/11 Commission thought that the collapse of WTC7 which had not been hit by any aircraft, was so utterly normal that they stated the following:

erm nothing ....

and FEMA stated in their report:

"the specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time."

So, extending my logic to you Jay Ref, please share with the world how come you know that there is nothing unusual with the collapse of WTC7 and yet the very authorities tasked with discovering the "truth" have yet failed to explain it.

Do you know something the rest of the planet doesn't ?

[Jay Ref]

[Mark Gobell]

Jay Ref

I personally have not see any Austin Powers movies at all, ever.

You have though quite obviously.

Are you going to answer my points about WTC7 or not ?

Cheers

[Jay Ref]

[Mark Gobell]

Jay Ref

Thanks for the information.

I have to confess that I did not know about this fireman's report.

I will check it out.

Can you help with any links to it ?

Are there any pictures of this massive 20 storey hole in WTC7 ?

You haven't provided any evidence as to your reasoning about the 9/11 Commission's reasons for not mentioning the collapse of WTC7.

Are they just your opinions ?

Also, given that you are citing this fireman's report as evidence that the collapse of the WTC7 building was really a no brainer then why do you think FEMA's report stated:

"The specifics of the fires and how they caused WTC7 to collapse remain unknown at this time"

And as far as the official story is concerned this remains the case.

One more thing, since you have quoted a single report from a single fireman, would it be OK for us whackos to do the same in support of some of our arguments ?

I mean when we quote something from a web source, or some web pictures, or something that is not in the official version, you accuse us of being whackos. Yet you see no problem quoting similar non-official sources yourself to support your arguments.

[DeFecToR]

Okay Jay Ref. I'd like you to present an answer for this question so that everyone can view an example of your 'critical thinking'.




This is my favourite example of the bending of logic that apologists like yourself like to do.

So come on then JR. Lets all hear about the pressure wave.

[Jay Ref]

[Eckyboy]

Even if Building7 had raging fires on 20 floors and a massive hole in it how could that possibly result in a neat and tidy collapse of the structure in on itself? WTC7 was brought down in a controlled demolition, plain and simple. If this is the case the building had to have been rigged before 911 therefore it was planned . Do you honestly believe fires brought down this building Jay Ref?

[DeFecToR]

He does.

Yeh, i know

He also thinks this;


is a 'pressure wave'.

Man, i'm never going to stop smiling at that.

[Jay Ref]

[Eckyboy]

maybe its swamp gas DeFecToR. it gets everywhere you know.

[Mal Jones]

Jay Ref

I acknowledge your reply. I had hoped we had dealt with the scope of the MIT report but since you have accused me of knowingly dealing in falsehoods we had better re-visit it. I hope that you have merely misread or misinterpreted the report and that you don’t really think that this is so desperately important to me that I would lie about it.

In the Abstract section (bottom of page no. 33) the authors state, and I quote:

“At the end of this article several important factors pertinent to the global collapse of the buildings are discussed. However, a more precise sequence of events which triggered the ultimate implosion of the buildings is left to a future continuation of this research”

There follows 25 pages of detailed discussion and calculation on the impact force and how that force was dissipated by the exoskeleton, the floor structure and eventually the central columns at the impact site but no calculations or discussion of the collapse after initiation. I have already acknowledged the quality of this work, albeit based on incomplete data.

Section 6 ‘Comments on structural collapse’, which you pasted to your first post on this subject deals solely with the initial collapse at the impact site, and states as much:

“The following section is not intended to perform a full analysis of the global collapse but rather brings up a few important issues relevant to the accident reconstruction.”

Finally, I contacted the main author of the report, Professor Tomasz Wierzbicki, who has kindly directed me to some more authoritative studies of the collapse mechanism. Now if you want to argue the toss with the authors then that’s your business but for my part I would like to draw a line under this.

To the couple of questions you have asked:

You ask me to which theory I subscribe but I don’t feel obliged to get into one camp or another. I have already stated that I am neither in the business nor the habit of speculating. This is how some people get themselves in knots – frustrated at not getting answers to their legitimate questions they overstretch themselves with (often fanciful) theories. You keep referring to the conspiracy theory as if all those with doubts are all dancing around the same totem pole. Again, you misinterpret the situation. I’m sure there is no one who subscribes to all the various theories that abound. That is why there are no structural engineers who agree with the CT. As to those who agree with the MIT report, I don’t blame them – it is a sound piece of work on the effects of the aircraft impact – but it doesn’t examine the global collapse mechanism.

(At this point could you stop using bold caps as it’s using up all my printer ink!)

My own doubt about the OS (I guess that means official story?) is the nature of the collapse of the buildings. I can’t speak for anyone else.

After reading some of your posts this evening I was in two minds about bothering to post this as you have clearly taken leave of your meagre senses. However, as I have spent yonks typing it out, here you go.

At the start of our exchange I asked you in all sincerity if you could help me out with some information to allay my doubts over the collapse – but on reflection, don’t bother.

I will leave you with an old British proverb that you may take as advice:
When you are in a hole - stop digging.

[Jay Ref]