I'm going to move a few things in Jonathan's post around a bit to try to organize a response on what I think is a key to the discussion. That is, how one evaluates opinions.
The first thing I want to address is the idea that folks who have the knowledge needed to demonstrate something is clearly wrong with an official report fail to do so out of fear of losing work because they are lumped with the "tinfoil hat" people. This is a standard argument that I've heard from folks who argue against the validity of quantum mechanics, special relativity, evolution, etc. That folks would not dare to point out that the emperor has no clothes. There is one part of the sociology of science and engineering that is missed here: that there are well established ways to communicate observed difficulties with any given explanation that do not result in the "tinfoil hat" reaction. I'll give a fairly recent example from planetary science. When scientists tracked one of the interplanetary probes, the found an anomaly in its orbit. After doing exhaustive work ruling out the conventional explanations that they could think of, and after discussing it with colleagues, they published the anomaly. For a year, papers were written testing and ruling out various explanations. Finally, someone came up with the actual cause, and the anomaly was forgotten. They made their claim in a rather understated way. If the anomaly had been true, then they probably would have received Nobel Prizes. As it was, their reps didn't suffer, because they followed the convention of simply reporting an anomaly. Now, if there was a trivial explanation that they overlooked before publishing, that would have been bad technique and worth losing rep. over. Seeing an anomaly isn't. So, if the official explanation for the WTC falling doesn't hold water, most of the many many groups that did analysis of the structural mechanics of the collapse should have noticed anomalies. Simply publishing an anomaly, and then stating that we do not fully understand the mechanics yet, and then offering some places to look would not make anyone look like a tinfoil hat person. For example, if someone were to do a stress strain analysis of the collapse of successive floors, and make the point that, if the bolts and the welds met spec., our present understanding of the data cannot explain how the lower floors collapsed as quickly as they did, they would not immediately be scorned (unless of course they used bad technique and then published the results...that deserves scorn). Other groups would look at their analysis, do parallel analysis, and publish results. The second part of this response is looking at "scholars for 9-11 truth." The first thing one notices is that the scholars are rather heavy in the humanities. They have only two mechanical engineers on their list of members, and no structural engineers. But, one of these is a professor, and did publish a web article titled: A Refutation of the Official Collapse Theory by Judy Wood, Ph.D. I was curious to see how she would make her point concerning the stress/strain relationships when falling floors hit the floor below. Instead, she just waved her arms a lot. Here's what she said: "In other words, when one floor impacts another, the small amount of kinetic energy from the falling floor is consumed (a) by pulverizing the the floor and (b) by breaking free the next floor. In reality, there isn't enough kinetic energy to do either.[Trumpman][Hoffman] But, for the sake of evaluating the "collapse" time, we'll assume there was. After all, millions of people believe they saw the buildings "collapse." This is not anywhere near a convincing explanation. And, her two footnoted papers do not get into the meat of that problem either. In fact, Thompson's big point is that the energy required for what happened is 100x greater than the total input energy available from the jet fuel and the collapse. I haven't done the math yet, but it seems that he is arguing that atomic bomb types of energy release would be needed. But, back to Dr. Wood....given that she should have the training to do decent stress strain analysis, why did she just arm wave through the critical point? When I make a point that I know would be countered strongly, I'd do a very careful job to address the heart of the problem. It is theoretically possible that she is hiding her own proof, but I have no idea why she would. In summary, with my first argument, a number of different ways that people who noticed anomalies could point them out without risking reputation have been given. The fact that we have an overabundance of possible causes, indicates that the professionals involved did not struggle to find causes consistent with the cause of the WTC collapses being planes hitting the towers. The second argument is that the analysis by the "scholars and experts" at "9-11 truth" falls below the most modest of professional standards. Why make statements that significantly misrepresent the physics and the mechanics of fall if you really can show a fundamental inconsistency? Why not publish the real analysis that you must have done...if you actually know that the explanation is inconsistent with not just the facts, but the laws of physics? Dan M. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Gibson Jonathan > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 11:27 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: What should we believe when there is no reliable information? > > > On Sep 13, 2006, at 7:29 PM, Dan Minette wrote: > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > >> Behalf Of Gibson Jonathan > >> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 3:24 PM > >> To: Killer Bs Discussion > >> Subject: Re: What should we believe when there is no reliable > >> information? > >> > >> Thanks Dan, > >> > >> I guess I missed that message in the bustle of my life. > >> > >> As another after word, every single one of my Archt schoolmates > >> contacted in no way buys the official story. Every one of them cited > >> the pile-up of those vertical support beams should have tipped the > >> building, any building, off to one side or another. > > > > OK, then why did all the graduate school studies in structural > > engineering > > that I referenced get this wrong? Or, are they all part of the > > conspiracy? > > > > It would be helpful if one of your buddies did comparablel engineering > > analysis... > > > >> None could think > >> of examples of a zero footprint implosion w/o demolition. > > > > But, of course, there wasn't such a minute footprint. Recently, I > > posted on > > Brin-L a link to pictures that showed a footprint that shows a tower > > having > > a lateral component to it's footprint covering about 2 blocks. > > > > http://www.spaceimaging.com/gallery/9-11/default.htm# > > > > Hey, there was a lot of mass and volume to be those structures and it > is little wonder some of it spread out. The point we are all > scratching our heads over is how they didn't topple off to one side. > None of these buildings {though WTC7 was a shorter one} acted as any > other building has. Ever. > > I have not looked into the reports themselves, but I have heard and > read that NIST inflated heat ranges and durations playing loose with > the raw inputs even before tweaking the behavior models interactively. > I certainly recall hearing about the paint chips tested showed the heat > was barely hot enough to reach the sagging point of some of the steel > members and that even this was an extremely short duration and nothing > like what would have been needed nor what is declared by the official > stories. > > >> Confusion over the complete sell-off of all material that could be > >> studied was a mystery that baffles many > > > > I quote from the head of the > > > > <quote> > > There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the > > team > > has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has > > subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The > > team > > has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been > > able to > > obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that > > having > > access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a > > significant difference to understanding the performance of the > > structures. > > <end quote> > > > > I repeatedly hear that investigators NOT sanctioned by the Powers That > Be are refused any such access. You, know, those scientists who are > raising concerns, but have the wherewithal to do serious work on the > debris. Some of them show their request letters and the denials that > return. > > Why not clear the air, make a PR showing of handing over verifiable > samples, following up with NOVA, Discovery Channel, CNN, to dispel the > growing clamor? > > Or, release anything more than a single blurry digi-chunky frame of the > Pentagon strike either, for that matter. Even that took FOI requests > and was like pulling teeth. There were multiple cameras on that > building. Why not clear this up? > ! > > >> - as well as no regulatory body > >> issuing upgraded reqs in light of an unprecedented tripple-whammy > >> systemic failure occurring the same day. > > > > > > Let me quote from the testimony of Dr. W. Gene Corley on behalf of the > > American Society of Civil Engineers, before the Subcommittee on > > Environment, > > Technology and Standards & Subcommittee on Research Committee on > > Science > > U.S. House of Representatives. > > > > It's available at > > > > http://www.asce.org/pdf/3-6-02wtc_testimony.pdf > > > > BTW, the team assembled to study this looks fairly impressive. > > > > Oh, Corley, the "Cleaner" guy who gets called in when the government > wants to cover up? > Underwriters Labs {former} branch head Dr Ryan mentions meeting him as > part of the NIST process and paints Corley as laying out the scope and > limits of the investigation before it even began - because this is a > the scientific method, right? That man presided over the Oklahoma City > bombing review as well. I'd trust him as far as I could throw him at > this point. > > >> All believe WTC 7 is the lynchpin that can reveal what/who benefits > >> from this canard. > > > > All conspiracy theorists? I doubt there is such unanimity. > > > > All of the colleagues I spoke with anyway - which is what I said > before. As we know theories ebb and flow in many directions and people > accept various ones or not. These are not residential designers but > commercial building architects. These professionals voiced a similar > feeling about this mystery. Others may not. I'm relaying what I can > as I find it. > > Frankly, another aspect relayed to me is the ridicule some of these > architects have gotten when they bring up this issue and fear for their > livelihoods. It's akin to being tagged with the UFO & tinfoil hats as > a way to dismiss critical thought or review. Are you doing your part? > So much for the free exchange of ideas and all, heh? > > >> I'd like to know more about this grad-school gal who thinks she knows > >> more than practicing architects about what should and shouldn't be > >> able > >> to stand. > > > > What she probably thinks is that she had a chance to review multiple > > studies > > of the structural engineering, and had a fairly good idea of the type > > of > > analysis they did. For example, one would think that the professional > > body > > of civil engineers, who are responsible for massive building projects, > > has > > the responsibility to make a thorough investigation of this. Which > > they > > did. Their work is part of the understanding of the 9-11 commission. > > > > There were, of course, many other groups that studied the collapse. > > Some of > > the websites are: > > > > http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/ > > > > http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1024/news_2-2.html > > > > http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?iid=3742&isa=Category > > > > http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/ > > > > http://www.mscsoftware.com/success/details.cfm?Q=132&Z=181&sid=269 > > > > In addition, there is a list of abstracts that includes a number on > > the WTC collapse at: > > > > http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWsrchkwx.cgi?Collapse > > > > Personally, trusting groups like this sounds quite reasonable to me. > > > > But, I take it that you are singularly unimpressed with 20-somethings > > that > > have important staff responsibility for investigations like the 9-11 > > commission. I guess we might wait 20 years and then maybe you can > > downplay > > her work as a member of the White House staff. :-) > > > > Dan M. > > > > I understand your acceptance. > Interesting that your friend is well-placed and perhaps well-heeled - > this actually fits a premise I'll go into later about people who know > where their bread gets buttered. I'd really like to know just how > these studies were funded, administered, who supplied their raw data > and coordinated the results before accepting this - given so much else > around the event is in question. It may well take serious scholarly > work a decade or two to sift this out. If I have to eat old crow that > is desiccated and moldy, so be it - are you equally prepared? > > I left the field and don't have the schooling to follow this in the > depth I would like. Looking over the 9-11 Scholars for Truth web site > I see a great deal of intimate knowledge in material science areas by > scientists raising detailed questions about the raw data inputs and > models used. For instance, I noticed the Sci-Am article you list > {twice} cites the high temps of the fuel, when I've read the heat was > not that intense {granted, the article was relatively quickly out the > gate} nor burned as long as originally thought - and that a good deal > of it went out the window on impact. If you want to look over this > yourself and give us something to grasp there I would be grateful. > http://www.st911.org/ > > However, I can't simply take this as a science project and limit the > discussion horizon. > I look at the entire picture and see a great deal of collusion between > money and power as it is wielded in this ever-crueler empire we call > America - especially on this topic. I see stupendous gains by certain > interests around this event - especially around the institutions and > figures who were supposed to prevent such things. I see many nefarious > figures have participated around these events as we've discussed > before; Many of the supposed hijackers were under FBI/CIA observation > or working with them {even living with them}, Atta receiving flight > training at former military/CIA airports purchased by former biz > partners of GwB {James Bath + Salim bin Laden, later of Arbusto Oil > too}, Atta received $100K from the head of Pakistani ISI {who met with > CIA head Goss the morning of 9-11}, the BCCI connections to these > people, the BCCI funding of Pakistani scientist AQKahn's nuclear > bazzar, etc. Why isn't Osama named as responsible for the WTC > terrorist by the FBI on his Wanted page, because they cannot prove it. > I'll end this point by stating the 9-11 Commission looked into the > stock shorting that day which made many-many millions of dollars for > someone{s} on those airlines and concluded merely that it wasn't > foreign terrorist groups that made this heaping pile of cash, begging > the question of who really did. We ought to know this salient fact. > All this may make your head spin and eyes roll, but these are damn > curious items not easily dismissed. > > If you don't think a big secret can be kept for long consider how much > of the 1960's high altitude plane and orbital spy sat programs were > only released a few short years ago where thousands of people had a > hand in projects such as that. Compartmentalization is especially > effective at obscuring government action, as it is designed to, for > otherwise good and obvious reasons. In the same light, 9-11 had the > largest number of simulated terrorism drills in the history of this > country... perfect cover for black and white hat teams to do their jobs > with only minor string pulling to corrupt the outcome. Why hasn't > anybody been fired/reprimanded/chastised for the lack of air cover for > the Eastern Seaboard, whereas I understand the officials in charge were > even promoted. Pentagon officials committed perjury to the 9-11 > Commission regarding this topic as reported by Senator Keane last > month, the head of that committee. Numerous foreign intelligence > agencies warned of this plot, the Egyptians even had the number and > division of labor right, but this administration... well, it went > fishing didn't it? > > Webster Tarply has the most cogent argument about these arrangements > I've seen, > http://www.formandfunction.com/word/wordbits/MalloyShow-(03-08-2006).mov > Please debunk and I'll revise my premises. > > Personally, I believe in the One Big Property Class theory of how our > country is run. The rich and the powerful work together to rule this > country and as much of the world as they can muster - they care little > about Left -v- Right. It explains why so many Republican and > Democratic figures are on the same page {millionaires Kerry + Bush on > Iraq War during 2004 campaign} and the two parties have looked so > similar these last few decades. Add in a defense industry gasping for > breath after the Cold War ended, Peak Oil dwindling, and an economy > with dubious deficits and inflated dollars and there is plenty of > motivation for black hearted people to try getting away with any and > all manner of schema. Even our highly paid white collar class, the > backbone of enablers to this upper-crust segment, are mere chattel to > such folk and expendable. You don't need the WTC falling on Wall > Street types to see this: look at the outsourcing affect from brokers > to doctors to high tech developers who were thought immune to the blue > collar ails engineered by our flag-pin wearing Chamber of Commerce > types. Here's a good study of how the puppet strings get pulled, > http://www.projectcensored.org/downloads/Global_Dominance_Group.pdf > > I've known a number of right-wing so-called Conservatives and so-called > Republicans who took absolute delight digging into Clinton shadows to > unearth CIA networks running drugs and arms in-out of Mena, Arkansas - > but who have been utterly uninterested in exploring where those links > lead to and who set them up long before those Little Rock politicians > pushed Poppy Bush out of the White House. The Milspec counterpunch to > the end of the Cold War is perfectly illustrated by the PNAC NeoCon > screed calling for a New Pearl Harbour to both rally their faithful and > cow critiques by short-circuiting logical thinking with blunt emotional > trauma. But, the lies are unravelling with every scandal laying bare > the craven crass cruelty of a House, Senate, Justice and White House > all run by Republican-flavored rulers who were sore losers in the 90's > and poor winners in the XXIst - ideal henchman for playing American > good-cop/bad-cop on the world stage. Following along the Vince Foster > murder trail was titilating when Rush and Liddy bellowed hot air at > their backs, but as the river of time flows Vince's body {especially > via Chertof} keeps floating to the surface leaving a toxic oily trail > to the docks of shadowy elite operations ... that are the black heart > of BushCo before heading out to sea and spanning the globe. > > This last bit I derived from The Big Wedding by Sander Hicks. He > doesn't publish much in the way of excerpts, but here's a long 2-part > interview outlining his own damning research, > http://www.kpfa.org/cgi-bin/gen-mpegurl.m3u? > server=157.22.130.4&port=80&file=dummy.m3u&mount=/data/20051012- > Wed1300.mp3 > http://www.kpfa.org/cgi-bin/gen-mpegurl.m3u? > server=157.22.130.4&port=80&file=dummy.m3u&mount=/data/20051005- > Wed1300.mp3 > > I think we are finally seeing the mechanisms & operators that > repeatedly propel Grade-B talent into the most prominant roles of the > worlds' most lethal country. The current people in power are clowns on > the stage for us to watch while the Producers hang in the stage-wings > and box seats as their Roadies of Death attune lighting, paint new > faces, mix their flash-pots and sharpen stagecraft for the next > production. > > > Your turn, > > Jonathan Gibson > www.formandfunction.com/word > _______________________________________________ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
