We previously saw a Fox News pie chart that had a couple extra slices (here). Now, fair and balanced math adds up to 120 percent of voters indicating that they view the science on global warming to be rigged.
This is an interesting Rasmussen poll when you add up the number and discover that you are in a parallel universe.
The question is: “In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming, how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data?” According to the poll, 35 percent thought it very likely, 24 percent somewhat likely, 21 percent not very likely, and 5 percent not likely at all (15 percent weren’t sure).
This rather dubious poll is offered to show that people are dubious about the science and math of global warming experts.
For the full story, click here
. Many companies all over the world need your opinions on their products. They will send you a simple online survey forms, where you need to fill it out and they pay you money.
The most remarkable thing about this paid survey program is that anyone can make money with it.
It doesn’t require any special skills, training, education or previous business experience. You only need access to the Internet and basic typing skills.
It is the perfect home business for stay at home moms, students, home makers, retirees or anyone that is in need of some extra cash.
http://www.onlineuniversalwork.com
Slartibartfast: “Okay, it’s taken me a while to get up to speed here, but I’m there now. I apologize for the inelegance of my arguments to date. I’m not a trained lawyer, I’m a scientist and I did a poor job of separating remarks about your allegations from premises that I was suggesting were required for the controlled demolition (CD) conspiracy theory.”
Since we’re not discussing the elements of the inchoate (incomplete) crime of ‘conspiracy’ I’ll ask you to refrain from using that term.
Slartibartfast: “Again, I apologize, and I will try to be clear in what my remarks are referring to. As a scientist, one thing I feel confident in doing is evaluating the scientific credibility of things like theories about the collapse of the WTC and this is what makes me believe that the controlled demolition theory is about as sound as citing Vattel’s definition of natural born citizen.”
Seeing that the constitution, since its inception, has always made it clear that states elect presidents and reiterated this fact in Amendment XII, and since the state of Hawaii, acting on Equal Footing as the 13 original colonies stated that Obama was one of its natural born citizens, I didn’t give a rat’s ass about the birther movement. I do however find a slight resemblance between Brent Blanchard and Orly Taitz. While Blanchard may not be an idiot on par with Taitz, he does rely heavily on intellectual dishonesty and fallacious reasoning to make his points as discussed in detail here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/blanchard/index.html
Slartibartfast: “To make my position clear: I accept that there were fires and molten metal at ground zero for at least 12 weeks after 9/11 as fact”
You’re half way home.
Slartibartfast: “I accept that dust was found at ground zero that was similar to the residue of thermite”
“Similar?” By what grounds do you make that distinction in light of this:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13049
Slartibartfast: “I believe that the official theory of impact plus loss of fire-resistant insulation plus fire being the causes of the collapse (NIST’s report) best fits the observed facts of the collapse”
I see; and how do you reconcile your statement, to wit: “I accept that there were fires and molten metal at ground zero for at least 12 weeks after 9/11 as fact” WITH spokesman and one of lead engineers at NIST denying any knowledge the fact that you accepted above? Don’t believe me, look up ‘John Gross denies existence of molten metal’ on youtube and see for yourself.
Slartibartfast: “and I believe that the theory of CD is so unlikely as to be impossible. Here is a link to a paper by Brent Blanchard … This should provide you with the reasons that I think that CD is not a credible theory of the collapse.”
And the link I provided you above saves me the typing to explain why you should pick your sources more carefully.1
Slartibartfast: “As to molten metal at ground zero, I will just note that something like 1 trillion joules of energy was released in the collapse each towers – equivalent to more than 500 tons of TNT. That’s about one tenth of the energy released in the Hiroshima explosion. That could certainly be the source of quite a bit of heat.”
One trillion joules you say? Was it heat energy or kinetic energy? Is it your contention that I can light a fire in the woods by simply stacking enough wood on high, i.e. adding more and more potential energy, and create a fire by knocking it down, i.e. converting potential into kinetic energy (measured in joules?) A whole bunch of steel & concrete packed with potential energy up to the sky suddenly falls and PRESTO we have heat energy in lieu of kinetic energy? Are you kidding me?
Slartibartfast: “I will just cite that as evidence that I have seen alternate theories of this residue without asserting anything about the credibility of this theory.”
Since science would be worthless if were not refutable, thank you Karl Popper, then by all means sir; bring that evidence forward.
Slartibartfast: You said: “First, you need to learn the basic laws of thermodynamics, heat exchanges & phase changes; to say the least.” I understand these things fairly well, thank you.
Then why would you confuse kinetic energy for heat energy? Simply because they’re both measured in joules; or did you find the ‘joules’ segue a convenient method of concealing a flaw in your argument?
Slartibartfast: “I have spent time refreshing my memory of the WTC collapse and once again looking at several sources on both sides of the issue and I certainly don’t reach these conclusions. While I don’t know what exactly caused metal to melt and remain molten (presumably near fires which were also burning) for weeks or months after 9/11, I see no reason to prefer the theory that this required thermite (or any other incendiary or explosive compound) over the theory that the release of 1/10 th the energy of the Hiroshima bomb could have supplied the heat.”
Once again, not to cause any ‘friction,’ but kinetic energy does not necessitate heat energy.
Furthermore, I haven’t the foggiest idea what you’re talking about re: placing explosives at the points of impact during the event. Also, you seem to be adopting Blanchard’s assumption assumption that all demolitions have to be engineered in the same way as those designed to implode buildings with minimal collateral damage.
Slartibartfast: “I don’t accept that active thermitic material was discovered in dust at ground zero and I believe that 2 trillion joules is a lot of heat…”
Blanchard wrote that cherry picked fallacious piece in 2006; the paper proving the existence of thermitic material found in the dust wasn’t published until April of 2009.
Also, you’re a bit fast and loose with your joules; what’s a trillion joules among friends; right?
Once again, kinetic energy is not heat energy and heat energy is not temperature.
Buddha,
Since your not contesting me on the facts and my opinions are just that no matter how confident I am in them, I’ll try to keep this response brief (at least for me). I think that even my disagreement with Bob is mostly limited to him believing that some compound like thermite was needed to generate the lingering heat and my assertion that the gravitational energy of collapse plus exothermic reactions in the debris were sufficient to account for the observed heat (Robert is a different story (and Bdaman is a troll ;-))). First, a few things about CD – while the WTC collapse ‘looked like’ CD I think this is just an artifact due to the extreme height of the buildings (they were four times the size of the largest building ever brought down by CD – 25 stories) and the fact that the buildings disappeared into their own pyroclastic clouds well above ground level. Theses buildings didn’t collapse into their own footprint, the debris field extended 300 to 400 feet from the building’s footprint (longest in the directions extending out from the face of the buildings). I thought that the report I posted by a demolition expert did a very good job of explaining the differences between what was observed and what would have been observed if the buildings were taken down by CD. In particular, I think that his argument that the only place charges could have been used was in the impact zone (in CD the supports at the bottom of the building are cut causing the collapse to start there – in the WTC the collapse began at the impact zone, in both cases – in fact in all building collapses – gravity does all of the work) very persuasive.
You said:
“For a CD to happen, things need to fail both quickly but relatively contemporaneous and in sequence.”
As I understand it, in CD you cut the lower supports (quickly with explosives – not slowly with thermite) and gravity does the rest – there may be some charges on higher floors to guide the fall, but the sequence is always remove the supports from the bottom of the building -> building falls down. There are other facts (not in dispute) that haven’t been brought up here that are consistent with the NIST report and not CD (such as the buckling of the facade below the impact immediately before the collapse), but I wanted to make a comment about something that has been discussed here (although not by you): there has been a lot of talk about the buildings being designed to withstand exactly this kind of impact (which it was), to which my only reply is: the Titanic was designed to be unsinkable and we all know how that turned out. The best design in the world can’t always account for the thing you didn’t think of (in this case the removal of the fire-resistant insulation by the impact. You raise the question of distribution of jet fuel and while I have no insight into question of dispersal of liquid, I will note that it dispersed well enough and evenly enough to cause the huge fireballs that were observed and it seems likely that said fireball ignited many fires (especially in light of the fact that NYFD explicitly decided not to fight the fires).
You said:
“None of what you say addresses the likelihood of specific sequence (a known feature of CD) other than to brush it off as unimportant related to failure.”
What we know here is that some sequence of events will happen (and that sequence will always be very improbable beforehand – it’s unlikely that you will win the lottery, but certain that someone will) and that the (known) sequence of events characteristic of CD (cut the support at the bottom and let gravity take the building into its own footprint) did not happen here. While I agree that two (or three) is a small sample size, I think that the argument “no buildings of this type ever collapsed from fire before this” to be disingenuous at best (I know that you’ve not said this). No buildings were every hit by fully loaded airliners (or gutted by falling debris) before. This was a unique event and as such the only reasonable statistical universe is these two (or three) buildings, meaning all we can say is that of the two buildings hit by 767s, both of them collapsed. While this is (as you said) a weak sample space, it’s all we’ve got.
As an addendum to what I said to Bob about heat possibly being generated by 1/10th the energy of the Hiroshima bomb being released in the collapse, I would like to add that at temperatures above 400 deg C iron and steam undergo a vigorous exothermic reaction. Between the gravitational energy released and the constant water being sprayed on the rubble pile, this seems a possible, even likely, source of the heat that Bob is referring to.
I have (until now I guess) limited my comments to the collapse and the premises required by the CD conspiracy theory, but since you brought it up, a few comments:
You said:
‘I’m present but skeptical with a healthy dose of “it’s not past an evil bastard like Cheney.”‘
I find it hard to argue with that – I see Cheney as the Machiavellian Sith lord and President Bush as the incompetent sidekick, but I think that Cheney’s evil runs more towards expanding executive power (and the torture, don’t forget the torture) than executing a false flag operation to get us into a war he wanted (I find it easy to believe that he would ignore the warnings and make full use of the crisis for his own – evil – ends). To me something like, say, allowing Osama bin Laden to escape at Tora Bora because his capture would reduce support for the Iraq war is more his style.
I think your Christ analogy has a lot of truth to it, although (just like the birther movement) a lot of time and money has been wasted on unrealistic claims – skepticism is good, but when it crosses into fanaticism, I’ve got a problem with it.
Okay, this was not a brief response. 🙁 Sorry, I just get carried away sometimes. I hope your family business goes well and your holidays are joyous.
Slarti,
I generally have no issue with many of the items you have brought up. This is why I’ve always kept to the “present by skeptical” stance on this issue. The “secret demolition” plan seems as tenuous to me as the possibility of a non-engineered collapse. Retrofitting every building over X high without it becoming public knowledge just wouldn’t happen – too many people, too much public paper required for a cover up, too many non-compliant owners that would raise a stink, etc. A few buildings? That, however, is quite possible. I also agree once energy is being transferred that past minimal thresholds some sort of damage/failure occurs. None of what you say addresses the likelihood of specific sequence (a known feature of CD) other than to brush it off as unimportant related to failure. While not all failures are equal, again, it’s not the failure that bothers me. It’s the order of it. And as to two planes leading to a collapse in two other buildings, you should know both that two is a weak sample space (just as a matter of statistical operation) and that it’s a facile comparison for this reason – no two buildings are alike. They are snowflakes. Even if designed the same, the realities of the construction world aren’t as neat and tidy as the paper world. Every site poses a challenge no one in the design process thought of. It just happens. Every job has something that is 1) ugly 2) not part of the design spec and 3) done out of necessity. The only way to accurately address the probabilities here is on a conditional/component basis. By this I mean from a synthesis of probability of individual component failure weighted by local conditions contrasted to the likelihood equal distribution of fuel/oxygen to create failure conditions within “CD critical” supports within the timeframes required for the collapse to be ordered. For example of a fail in this respect, there was a recent story about a demolition gone wrong where half the charges didn’t go off and the building fell over – not down. Like I said, I have energy deficiency issues. Just not so much net joules. My issues are in uneven distribution of accelerant. An asymmetrical event causing symmetrical behavior of a liquid/gas just rubs me the wrong way (and I admit I’m too lazy to go work out this compound probability myself, this is instinct at work here). If the distribution was equal? I’d have less problem with the timing as an orderly distribution would be more likely to produce orderly failures. For a CD to happen, things need to fail both quickly but relatively contemporaneous and in sequence. You are right about a lot things Slarti. You have a fine mind as does Bob and you both present compelling arguments. Neither are conclusory though in concerns to my questions about distribution (although Bob’s comes closer, this is by happenstance of initial starting points in your relative positions to mine).
I’ll retain my skepticism, but I leave you with a (rhetorical)question and a simpler problem within this net compound probability problem. What’s the probability that in a transfer of such force a liquid designed to not go aerisol from liquid easily (as jet fuel is) being distributed evenly? Keep in mind both the nature of liquids vs. gases (at that height, one would flow to gravity but the other would be fighting against the winds) and that there would be supervening structure interfering with that flow.
Again, I’m not yea or nay. I’m present but skeptical with a healthy dose of “it’s not past an evil bastard like Cheney.”
In the end though, I am going to draw an analogy to the physical person of Christ.
What difference does it make?
Real or not, there is social impact regardless of cause. Besides, it’s not like we don’t all actually know who was behind the 9/11 attack, orderly collapse or not – Saudi Arabia and the Bush/Cheney Big Oink, er, Oil machine did it (either explicit or complicit – makes no difference, treason is treason even if you use foreign actors to do the dirty deed proper). CD or anomaly, there will be no justice until those criminals are taken out. And I mean “taken out” as in “taken out and shot after a nice long through trial”. No gaming the system once found guilty (and they would be on the evidence), not 20 years of appeals while under house arrest or some nonsense bullshit like that – just taken out and shot like the rabid venal dogs they are once the blood of innocents is clearly shown on their hands. Treasonous traitors deserve EXACTLY that. But I digress.
So in he end, this is perhaps arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin – entertaining, but ultimately beside the point as other less disputed evidence points to the guilty parties in this instance. Winning the war against fascism is more important than winning any single battle. Whether Obama has the balls to do anything about 9/11 crimes or not – which he manifestly does not have at this point – is another question. If Obama wasn’t in on it? He is now by protecting Yoo. It’s all part of the Big Oil conspiracy. Got to cover up those crimes done in furtherance of their agenda, don’t you know. And arguing about this topic is a distraction from that much more timely (and still possibly correctable) error.
______
As a personal aside to all the regulars, I have been called away on family business. That, combined with this being a busy time of year for business and holiday reasons, my postings may be of a somewhat uneven distribution as well until after the holidays. Those of you in contact via e-mail, know I will be answering that even if I am not posting.
Robert,
For a more complete statement of my position and what it’s based on, see my post to Bob, but I thought that I would add some comments about your latest post.
You said:
“Look into nanothermite. Not only is it possible, remnants of nanothermite were found in the WTC dust.”
As I said to Bob, I don’t accept that the residue that was found was indisputably nanothermite, and I totally reject the idea that thermite or explosives were used to trigger the collapse in any way.
You said:
“Why hasn’t anyone come forward about installing nanothermite? It was a top-secret installation, paid for by secret funds. Do you expect to find a list of national security projects and the allocation of funding to each? People with top-secret clearances don’t spill the beans. Why would they? There’s a good chance that the same type of devices are installed in other skyscrapers. Coming forward would endanger the other buildings.”
Given that there is no evidence that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition and plenty of evidence that they weren’t, speculating about how and why the charges were placed is pretty much moot, so I wont try to answer you systematically, but here are a few comments: the idea that some government black-ops agency decided that there needed to be charges to take down the WTC in the event of an attack to prevent it from toppling over is ludicrous on so many levels it’s hard to know where to start, but a couple of the most obvious problems are why would anyone expect the buildings to topple over if the footings were compromised? That’s not the way that a gravitational collapse of a building works – see the report I linked on my post to Bob if you like more info from a demolition expert. And why, if the whole building was rigged with charges, were only the charges on the impact floors, not the whole building? (Cutting charges anywhere besides the immediate area of the impact are not consistent with the observed facts of the collapse.)
You said:
“Automatic initiation would require input from a number of sensors. This would prevent accidental initiation on failure or tamper(ing).”
Sure, whatever you say.
You said:
“As for your “one-button” premise. I agree. What about two buttons? (This one is important for you to respond to.)”
No, I would never rig the largest office buildings in the world to demolish itself at the push of any number of buttons and I challenge you to find a single structural engineer who wouldn’t laugh you out of the room at this suggestion.
You said:
“Who would have performed the installation? A government contractor. The U.S. Government would have paid for it.
“The kerosene fireball was quite sufficient to set other things on fire.”
So we don’t have a combination of kerosene and other items. We have kerosene that lit those other items. How much heat was transferred by the kerosene-fueled flame ball? These fires were not extremely hot fires (relatively speaking) The color of the smoke indicates that they were starved.”
The building was unequivocally on fire – the NYFD explicitly made the decision not to fight the fires, this implies to me that they were pretty significant blazes if they didn’t try to put them out in order to save the people above the impact area. What do you think that a plot of the load bearing capacity of a steel girder vs. its temperature looks like? (I think that it weakens continuously until it gets hot enough to fail entirely.) The added load from columns knocked out by the impact and a degradation of the structural integrity of the I-beams due to the heat of an office fire (plus any leftover kerosene and inflammables from the planes – plain old plane crashes can have significant fire even if the fuel doesn’t ignite) are perfectly reasonable explanations for the girders failing.
Bdaman,
You said:
“Slartibartfast: I don’t know what Bob said at 6:31 but it looks like you were sitting on a high horse and he took his lance and knocked you right the F@#@ off.
Good job Bob an education is a terrible thing to waste.”
My previous post is an example of what you can do with an education and a rational position supported by evidence. You should try it some time.
Bob,
Okay, it’s taken me a while to get up to speed here, but I’m there now. I apologize for the inelegance of my arguments to date. I’m not a trained lawyer, I’m a scientist and I did a poor job of separating remarks about your allegations from premises that I was suggesting were required for the controlled demolition (CD) conspiracy theory. Again, I apologize, and I will try to be clear in what my remarks are referring to. As a scientist, one thing I feel confident in doing is evaluating the scientific credibility of things like theories about the collapse of the WTC and this is what makes me believe that the controlled demolition theory is about as sound as citing Vattel’s definition of natural born citizen. To make my position clear: I accept that there were fires and molten metal at ground zero for at least 12 weeks after 9/11 as fact; I accept that dust was found at ground zero that was similar to the residue of thermite; I believe that the official theory of impact plus loss of fire-resistant insulation plus fire being the causes of the collapse (NIST’s report) best fits the observed facts of the collapse; and I believe that the theory of CD is so unlikely as to be impossible. Here is a link to a paper by Brent Blanchard, Senior Editor for Implosionworld.com and Director of Field Operations at Protec Documentation Services, Inc. and an authority on explosive demolition:
http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf
Quoting from his conclusion:
“With all due respect to distinguished scholars and others alike, it matters little whether Alex Jones is drawing parallels to building implosions, Steven Jones is drawing conclusions from hot metal or Chuck Jones is drawing dynamite in the hands of Wile E. Coyote; for assertions to be credible the must eventually comply with the scientific principles of explosive initiation and of structural failure, realistic judgements of probability, and indisputable visual evidence.
Thus far, every assertion we have investigated scores a resounding 0 for 3.”
This should provide you with the reasons that I think that CD is not a credible theory of the collapse. As to molten metal at ground zero, I will just note that something like 1 trillion joules of energy was released in the collapse each towers – equivalent to more than 500 tons of TNT. That’s about one tenth of the energy released in the Hiroshima explosion. That could certainly be the source of quite a bit of heat. While I read an article years ago suggesting that the residue identified as nano-thermite was the result of the plastic of tens of thousands of computers burning, I can’t find the reference now, so I will just cite that as evidence that I have seen alternate theories of this residue without asserting anything about the credibility of this theory. My confidence in the NIST report is based on many sources both scholarly and on the web which support the NIST account as well as being very credible to me.
You quoted me as saying:
“I believe that the theory that the WTC was brought down by thermite charges implausible due the extremely (in my opinion) unlikely premises that must be fulfilled for this theory to stand up.”
And replied”
“There you go again inserting premises into the argument that bear no relevance whatsoever to the evidence and claims at bar.”
I trust that I have now made my position clear. If not, I’ll gladly clarify it.
You said:
“First, you need to learn the basic laws of thermodynamics, heat exchanges & phase changes; to say the least.”
I understand these things fairly well, thank you.
You said:
“Why? Well since you’re defending an ‘official explanation’ that I’m claiming is false, let’s begin with the definition of truth; shall we?
[…]
“The nominal definition of truth, that it is the agreement of knowledge with its object, is assumed as granted…” [from Kant]
So, when there is agreement between knowledge and its object, we call it truth. Example: The law of gravity. The ‘knowledge’ as expressed within the equation conforms with and explains the object of our analysis; e.g., although apocryphal, the apple falling on Newton’s head. Thus the law of gravity is ‘true.’
But what do we call the result when there is a gap between knowledge and its object? Well, since it doesn’t fit the definition of truth, unless we’re discussing fraud or deception, it doesn’t matter what we call it so long as we deem it as NOT TRUE.”
Accepted.
You said:
“Now recall that I said you needed to learn and understand, or refresh your recollection of, the basic laws of thermodynamics, heat exchanges & phase changes. Why? Because once you understand the GRAND CANYON GAP between the ‘knowledge’ as expressed in the ‘official story’ and the ‘object’ of analysis, i.e. the existence of metal at or near the heat of fusion under towers 1, 2 and building 7, your ONLY conclusion would be that the official story is … untrue.”
I have spent time refreshing my memory of the WTC collapse and once again looking at several sources on both sides of the issue and I certainly don’t reach these conclusions. While I don’t know what exactly caused metal to melt and remain molten (presumably near fires which were also burning) for weeks or months after 9/11, I see no reason to prefer the theory that this required thermite (or any other incendiary or explosive compound) over the theory that the release of 1/10 th the energy of the Hiroshima bomb could have supplied the heat. Furthermore, the ‘Grand Canyon gap’ between the ‘knowledge’ as expressed in the CD theory and the ‘object’ of analysis, i.e. the observed facts of the collapse. This is were all of the premises I’ve raised come in – according to undisputed facts, the collapse (in both towers) began at the area of impact (rather than the bottom of the building as in CD), meaning that for demolition to be involved, charges would have had to be placed on these floors AFTER impact (and doing this during a rescue operation on a burning section of the building with the fire department had decided not to fight strains credulity past the breaking point) or the charges (and their detonators) had to survive the impact of the planes and the subsequent fires (far more improbable than anything I’ve suggested). And since I have seen no facts which contradict the NIST report’s theory of the collapse, my only conclusion is that the CD theory is untrue and the NIST report is reasonable.
You said:
“All the king’s horses and all the king’s men, much less all your speculations about who what or why, do not even approach the analysis required to, how shall we say, account for ‘the gap between knowledge and its object here.'”
I see it differently, based on what I have seen and read. I feel I’ve explained my position and established the evidence by which I came to those conclusions, if you would like to continue this discussion in that context, that’s fine with me. I cannot state unequivocally that there was no thermite present in the rubble, but I don’t believe that it is the only available theory to explain the facts and as for the CD theory, as you said, “All the king’s horses and all the king’s men…”.
You said:
“Since neither jet fuel nor textiles found within office buildings, etc., could ever account for that much heat, perhaps you can understand why I wasn’t surprised when active thermitic material was discovered in dust at ground zero.”
I don’t accept that active thermitic material was discovered in dust at ground zero and I believe that 2 trillion joules is a lot of heat…
Slarti:
“Don’t worry, I still have hope that you can understand that the unregulated market is an unmitigated horror and that proper regulations can produce stability and predictable, desirable results. Then we’ll figure out how to pay off the national debt…”
I guess I must have missed something, the Fed is a regulatory agency – it regulates interest rates.
And what do you think taxes are? They regulate behaviour. Why do you think a government can regulate behaviour so that the proper outcome is achieved? You are hung up on this positive feedback thing.
You are trying to control human behaviour and you cannot do it within the bounds of a free society. To control an economy you must control a population and that is exactly what has been going on for many years. A free market is necessary for a free society and vice versa.
Political freedom and economic freedom are corollaries of each other. If you do not have one you do not have the other.
We have a highly regulated economy. One of the reasons that you had problems (financial) is that people were trying to get around government regulations in the financial markets. Regulations were and are causing artificial financial vehicles to be created.
You cant control a market and expect a good result.
One last thought on positive feedback, I have children and I give them lots of positive feedback and guess what they are both great kids and thriving. They haven’t “spun” out of control.
You are dealing with human behaviour, you are not dealing with a closed system scientific experiment.
A mans very nature is to be free, it is the human condition. We are not hard wired to be controlled. We don’t like it, we react against it.
Although I suppose some of us like being controlled more than others because they are afraid of the consequences of freedom and liberty – which is failure and the realization that life isn’t fair.
Slartibartfast: “Sorry. I do not know why there was metal at or near the heat of fusion at ground zero after the collapse (just out of curiosity, could you provide me with a reference as to evidence of molten metal at ground zero?).”
No problem.
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091201moltenmetal#a091201moltenmetal
Slartibartfast: “I believe that the theory that the WTC was brought down by thermite charges implausible due the extremely (in my opinion) unlikely premises that must be fulfilled for this theory to stand up.”
There you go again inserting premises into the argument that bear no relevance whatsoever to the evidence and claims at bar.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13049
Slartibartfast: “Why thermite? It’s not an explosive, nor is it used for purposes of demolition (it takes time to act – not what you want for a precisely controlled and timed demolition). Why would the WTC have been rigged with thermite charges? When was it done? How was it done without anyone’s notice? If it was done as a safety measure (as someone here suggested – itself one of the least likely theories I’ve ever heard), the who approved it and who paid for it? Without (plausible) answers to these questions, the assertion that molten metal at ground zero implies that the building was taken down by thermite charges (which would make it, as far as I can tell, the first building ever brought down this way) seems less likely (to me, anyway) than the theory that the combination of structural damage and loss of fire protection from the impact, heat from the fires led to the collapse.”
First, you need to learn the basic laws of thermodynamics, heat exchanges & phase changes; to say the least. Why? Well since you’re defending an ‘official explanation’ that I’m claiming is false, let’s begin with the definition of truth; shall we?
Kant: “The question, famed of old, by which logicians were
supposed to be driven into a corner, obliged either to have
recourse to a pitiful sophism, or to confess their ignorance
and consequently the emptiness of their whole art, is the
question: What is truth? The nominal definition of truth,
that it is the agreement of knowledge with its object, is
assumed as granted; the question asked is as to what is
the general and sure criterion of the truth of any and every
knowledge.”
Since we’re not so much concerned with epistemology, excepting by analogy as to the validity of “sources,” let’s reiterate the definition of truth:
“The nominal definition of truth, that it is the agreement of knowledge with its object, is assumed as granted…”
So, when there is agreement between knowledge and its object, we call it truth. Example: The law of gravity. The ‘knowledge’ as expressed within the equation conforms with and explains the object of our analysis; e.g., although apocryphal, the apple falling on Newton’s head. Thus the law of gravity is ‘true.’
But what do we call the result when there is a gap between knowledge and its object? Well, since it doesn’t fit the definition of truth, unless we’re discussing fraud or deception, it doesn’t matter what we call it so long as we deem it as NOT TRUE.
Now recall that I said you needed to learn and understand, or refresh your recollection of, the basic laws of thermodynamics, heat exchanges & phase changes. Why? Because once you understand the GRAND CANYON GAP between the ‘knowledge’ as expressed in the ‘official story’ and the ‘object’ of analysis, i.e. the existence of metal at or near the heat of fusion under towers 1, 2 and building 7, your ONLY conclusion would be that the official story is … untrue.
All the king’s horses and all the king’s men, much less all your speculations about who what or why, do not even approach the analysis required to, how shall we say, account for ‘the gap between knowledge and its object here.’
Since neither jet fuel nor textiles found within office buildings, etc., could ever account for that much heat, perhaps you can understand why I wasn’t surprised when active thermitic material was discovered in dust at ground zero.
bdaman–
I misread your comment. I missed the word hydrocarbons.
By posting the humorous video, I wasn’t trying to imply that carbon dioxide is the only emission from cars. I believe the main emissions from cars are nitrogen, CO2, and H2O.
CO2 IS carbon dioxide.
Kinda Funny Elaine but CO2 is not the only thing that comes from exhaust.
There’s Carbon dioxide and monoxide hydrocarbons, nitrogen and sulfur.
Glenn Beck Proves CO2 Is Safe
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1m__8-vb964&hl=en_US&fs=1&]
Where’s the inferno?
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_fire.htm
“It was noticeable that with the South Tower, the one that fell first, the ensuing ash was white and grey, whereas with the second tower that fell, the North Tower, it was black. Now, if that was because it burned longer or what I don’t know, but it was a noticeable difference.” [Nova Online]
This observation along with the above indicates two things:
There was little fire in WTC 2 prior to its collapse.
The black ash from WTC 1 indicates the presence of large amounts of soot. Soot is a byproduct of inefficient combustion, therefore the fires in WTC 1 did not burn at extreme temperatures.
Go back over this post
Just Sayin
1, December 11, 2009 at 10:56 am
The first time the WTC was bombed in didn’t work. There’s an old saying about returning to the scene of the crime. There’s also such a thing as targeting something that you value so much or symbolize for mass effect. Hence, I would really hate for something to happen to your family. Psychology plays a great deal into a mind of a criminal.
Slartibartfast,
Look into nanothermite. Not only is it possible, remnants of nanothermite were found in the WTC dust.
http://www.clipser.com/watch_video/1328541
Why hasn’t anyone come forward about installing nanothermite? It was a top-secret installation, paid for by secret funds. Do you expect to find a list of national security projects and the allocation of funding to each? People with top-secret clearances don’t spill the beans. Why would they? There’s a good chance that the same type of devices are installed in other skyscrapers. Coming forward would endanger the other buildings.
Automatic initiation would require input from a number of sensors. This would prevent accidental initiation on failure or tamper.
As for your “one-button” premise. I agree. What about two buttons? (This one is important for you to respond to.)
Who would have performed the installation? A government contractor. The U.S. Government would have paid for it.
“The kerosene fireball was quite sufficient to set other things on fire.”
So we don’t have a combination of kerosene and other items. We have kerosene that lit those other items. How much heat was transferred by the kerosene-fueled flame ball? These fires were not extremely hot fires (relatively speaking) The color of the smoke indicates that they were starved.
Byron:
You said:
“Perpetual cycles of booms and busts like we have now are caused by the Federal Reserve manipulating interest rates. If you let interest rates float and let markets establish the cost of money, I think you would not have these exaggerated swings of bubble and bust.”
I’m no fan of the fed, although I think we’re stuck with it, and while it may be (probably is) one of the exacerbating factors, I think that the root cause is removal of the regulations on the market (which tend to damp the system) and the breaking of the balance of risk and reward (which causes positive feedback).
You said:
“Yes I did mean infinite and I corrected it in the post below the original.”
My bad. I missed your correction. Sometimes I don’t notice the posts that aren’t several paragraphs. 😉
You said:
“Steering your car and a market are not the same things.”
I wasn’t comparing steering a car to the market, I was just pointing out that in designing controls you try to prevent chaos in favor of more predictable outcomes.
You said:
“This is where I think people such as you go wrong. Very smart people have a tendency to think they can control things by virtue of their intelligence and computer models.”
This has nothing to do with computer models. (As an aside, I think a computer model of the effects of public policy on the economy would be cool – just give me a grant that can support a couple dozen people for a decade and I’ll gladly give it a try!) I’ve made a hypothesis – I’d test it if I could, but unfortunately the best I can do is to explain how I think it will work and why. That’s something that would be better if scientists ran the country (and I’m not advocating that) – we generally agree on the facts and we don’t tend to do the same thing twice and expect different results. And I would really rather that people who aren’t intelligent not be allowed to make public policy.
You said:
“It may work with a small system like a car or even a human body or a rocket ship. The market is millions of people taking billions of decisions every day about how to spend their money. The complexity is staggering and any computer model would be incapable of determining the correct permutation. Statistically it would be impossible, but by virtue of superior intelligence they believe they can. I think this is called rationalism but I am not sure.”
I don’t think that you understand how mathematical modeling works. I don’t want to try and explain it here, but in modeling complex systems the goal is to simplify the system to the point where you can understand the model’s behavior, but it still retains enough complexity for that understanding to apply to the system you’re modeling. The human genome has something like 50,000 proteins and we only know a fraction of the interactions between them, let alone all the behavior of micro-DNA, organelles, transporters (little ATP-driven motors that walk along micro-tubules), etc. Yet I still find it possible to model cellular systems and use the results to make experimentally testable predictions. I’m not sure what rationalism is, but I make testable hypotheses and if they’re put to the test, I’m content to be judged on their accuracy. (If only I had a way to test these hypotheses of mine – where’s a psycho-historian when you need one?)
You said:
“If you damp out the booms and busts? What do you think the Fed has been doing or trying to do for 90 years?”
If they haven’t done it in 90 years, they’re doing it wrong and should try something else (like negative feedback).
You said:
“Consumer regulations are market forces. The problem is exactly as you say; business is predictable and when they are given government regulations, in the form of low interest rates you get a real-estate boom that had no basis in reality other than the Federal Reserve artificially holding rates low.”
Please tell me how market forces will clean up pollution? And artificially lowering interest rates is exactly the kind of positive feedback that I’m arguing against.
You said:
“I suggest a healthy dose of Von Mises and Hyack to inoculate you from your Keynesian conundrum.”
Never studied Keynes (or any other economist really), I tended to be annoyed at the lack of mathematical content in my econ courses (a scuba diver isn’t going to be satisfied with water wings in the kiddie pool…).
You said:
“Sorry Slarti, I am still a capitalist pig.”
Don’t worry, I still have hope that you can understand that the unregulated market is an unmitigated horror and that proper regulations can produce stability and predictable, desirable results. Then we’ll figure out how to pay off the national debt…
A few things here, first allow me to remind you of a few of my favorite quotes from Gandhi,
Do not think something is not possible without first looking at the possibilities.
and
Even if you are in a minority of one the truth is still the truth.
Enough doubts have been raised about the events of 9-11. Although not a well educated man I know when I smell a rat. There are many examples in history where something taken as gospel by many educated people turned out to be false by a theory of another. My favorite example of this is the Piltdown man. I am clueless at applying science to any discussion. Whether or not molten metal and plastic or structural stresses collapsed the buildings in an orderly fashion I couldn’t tell you. I know two things, they came down fast and hard and Bush had a smile on his face standing on the rubble. That part I will never forget. Anytime this discussion gomes up, a picture flashes into my mind like it was yesterday. Bush with the bullhorn, his arm around the fire chief and a smile on his face. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, As far as 9-11 is concerned, I have mine and their is NOTHING you can do or say to make me change it. I know what happened.
Now, I would like to see if any of you can help with a little research. I do not have the education in which to do it. If you have any doubts that data has been massaged in reference to temperatures, here’s a little exercise that may help convince you one way or the other.
Would You Like Your Temperature Data Homogenized, or Pasteurized?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/11/would-you-like-your-temperature-data-homogenized-or-pasteurized/
The UK’s Met Office released a subset of the HadCRUT3 data set used to monitor global temperatures. Basil Copeland took a copy of the subset and then began looking for a location near where he lived to verify the data. His results are the post, Would You Like Your Temperature Data Homogenized, or Pasteurized?
If everyone in their respected vicinities or location would duplicate what he did the answers should become clear.
Finally, I am a big fan of Joe Bastardi from Accuweather. He’s a no nonsense kinda guy with a New Yorker type attitude. I was gonna say Jersey but nobody’s from Jersey. He did an interview with Don Imus. For the record, I’m not a big fan of him but thats a personal reason, so I try to block him out while listening to Joe. Newsbusters IMO has the best article on the interview and whether or not you like Newsbusters try to HEAR the message without pre judgment. Video included.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2009/12/11/accuweather-forecaster-climate-change-it-s-ice-not-fire-you-re-going-be-w
Robert,
You said:
“Why did you decide to limit the time for installation of thermite and charges to one weekend? Why couldn’t a “maintenance contractor” have installed the necessary items over a period of months or years? Of course it would be done in secret.”
If it was done over months or years (presumably after 1993) in secret, who ordered it done? Who paid for it? How many people were required to do the job? (This would have had to have been a massive conspiracy in which NOBODY talked – not even AFTER 9/11 – that strains my credulity past the breaking point.) And one more question – why thermite? It’s not an explosive and it’s not used in demolitions. If you wanted to cut a building’s main supports at the same time (critical for controlled demolition), why would you use something that can’t be timed precisely?
I said:
“Is it not possible that burning jet fuel and plastics (and whatever other inflammables in the WTC could result in a fire hotter than any of these elements would burn at individually?”
You replied:
“What are these other inflammables? How did they get put in the right combination and the right proximity? MOST of the fuel went up in a ball of flame upon impact. There was no constant supply of jet fuel (which we should really be calling kerosene).”
Office furniture, carpets, computers, monitors, interior walls, etc. It is well established that there was serious fire on several floors of both towers after the impacts. The kerosene fireball was quite sufficient to set other things on fire.
You said:
“I could respond to many of the things that you presented, but one thing is more important than all of them. If you were in charge of safety for Manhattan, and after somebody had attempted to take out the footings of the building in 1993 you recognized the potential damage caused by a 1400 ft. tall building would cause if it fell over in downtown Manhattan, what would you do?”
I would never, under any circumstances, rig the largest office building in the world to demolish itself when some sort of trigger was tripped or a big red button was pushed. I might, for example, increase security around the footings of the building to prevent someone from taking the out. But there’s a question that I would ask myself first – how does a 110 story building fall when it’s footings are cut? There’s only one force that collapses buildings and it only acts in one direction (that’s gravity and down). It seems to me that any collapse would be closer to a controlled demolition than ‘falling over’ like a tree (toppling a building generally requires carefully placed charges and cables to help pull it over). And let’s not forget, ‘collapsed into its own footprint’ is a pretty loose description here – the debris covered an area much larger than the footprint of the building, it just reached 3 or 400 feet away rather than 1400 feet away.