Does anyone here believe the 9/11 story?

[bryan]

Then, if the explanation in the report is shown wrong, the people who understand the engineering need to sit down, look at *in what way* the explanation was shown to be wrong, and as a result look at all the possible explanations that fit what is then known at that time.

It's not so much that the explanation is wrong. No explanation has been offered, either by NIST or by their unofficial UK fan club.

You seemed to think that they wouldn't have difficulty recruiting.
Are you now suggesting they have to hire people as dumb as your Youtube video 'expert' to make schoolboy errors, yet also manage to insert live feed into all the media organisations without anyone noticing?

The potential inconsistency is only a problem for you, not for me - I'm just pointing out difficulties with your claims of Grand Conspiracies

I don't have to have a consistent theory of how a conspiracy would work.

You do.

If you're right that it would be difficult to persuade people to take part in the mass murder of their own citizens, the conspirators would be restricted in their choice of operatives. It's possible that recruitment would limited to people who were compromised in some way and were criminals already. That means they wouldn't necessarily be able to choose from among the best brains in any particular field.

[bryan]

Yes, quite, i.e. weren't gagged. You claimed historians were gagged. Those historians weren't. You still claim you're right. OK, whatever.

You're trying to argue that "Some historians were published" entails "No historians were gagged".

I'm sure you're glad I'm not your lecturer, assuming you've ever got to the stage of higher education, but if you had and were my student, you'd be on course for a fail.

If you'd been my lecturer, I'd have wasted four years of my life. So yes, you can bet your life I'm glad.

Bye bye.

Time for Bob to pick up the pieces.

[tolman]

To prove that historians have been gagged, all I need to do is find examples of historians who have been gagged.

Strictly speaking, you need to find historians who've been gagged for pursuing historical research.
If you had a historian who was prosecuted for getting lagered up and running round Vienna shouting "Hitler was right and there was no Final Solution!", it wouldn't be history they were being prosecuted for.

Obviously, in an adult shades-of-grey world (one which it seems you don't find it easy to inhabit), in a given case, there could be a debate about whether a particular statement qualified as history, or simple personal opinion.

Use of the term "denialism" to define a crime is circular. The crime depends on the assumption that the event is a historical fact, and that assumption can't be challenged without breaking the law.

If there was actual evidence to suggest nothing happened, or that things happened radically differently to the generally accepted explanation, which would convince more than a handful of people, presumably things would be somewhat different.

However there doesn't seem to be such evidence, and it seems highly unlikely that there ever will be.

[tolman]

It's not so much that the explanation is wrong. No explanation has been offered, either by NIST or by their unofficial UK fan club.

I see you're still trying to ignore the obvious fact that were there shown to be flaws in the NIST explanation, then sensible sane people would look at what the flaws were, along with all the other information that was then known, and look at what then seemed to be possible other explanations.

As a simple example, were there shown to be flaws in the starting point of the NIST's model, or in the program used to run the model, the obvious first thing to do then would be to run an un-flawed program on correct data and see what happened, not assume that any problem meant that one predecided and poorly explained alternative explanation must be the only possibility.

If you're right that it would be difficult to persuade people to take part in the mass murder of their own citizens...

But you seemed to be working under the assumption that recruitment wouldn't be a great issue.

...the conspirators would be restricted in their choice of operatives. It's possible that recruitment would limited to people who were compromised in some way and were criminals already. That means they wouldn't necessarily be able to choose from among the best brains in any particular field.

So they'd have to find all the criminals working for the FBI, CIA, NIST, military, air traffic control, building security, media, etc
Then trust they'll go along with any plan.
And then trust them all to keep quiet afterwards?

Or maybe they'd just go for compromised people:
"Hey Fred, we know all about your fondness for rent boys/jailbait/sheep/women's clothing.
Now, how about helping us kill a few thousand people?"

[bryan]

How many of those people are deliberately murdered as part of a conspiracy involving ordinary citizens, in free countries not at war, somehow secretly coerced en masse into killing or covering up the killing of their fellow citizens, and everyone involved managing to keep silent for years?

Gangsters do it for a living.

And you don't think it would have been smart for The Great Conspiracy to fake a little evidence of WMDs?
Even just a little bit that would be extremely hard for old Iraq government figures to convincingly deny (the odd misplaced gas shell or two, or things that could be interpreted as recent attempts to destroy stocks), but which could still give a little substance to the claims and make many more people think twice?

In what way would the world be different today if they'd faked WMD in Iraq?

In which case I'd wonder on what basis you reckon that there's something wrong with my general idea of numbers, given all the tasks that would need to be done, all the agencies that would have to be involved, and all the contingencies that would have to be catered for.

Your numbers are irrelevant. If physics can't explain how the failure of a single column could lead to the uniform and symmetrical collapse of a large steel-framed building, we're left with a choice between the impossible and the improbable.

[skbuncks]

Your numbers are irrelevant. If physics can't explain how the failure of a single column could lead to the uniform and symmetrical collapse of a large steel-framed building, we're left with a choice between the impossible and the improbable.

'Physics' can and has (of course it was not uniform nor symmetrical). Still waiting for you to show how the NIST model is wrong, with technical details of course. Anything else is just you blowing air out of your arse.

skb

[tolman]

Gangsters do it for a living.

But they're typically groomed into it over quite a long time, often from youth.
They also don't generally seem to do much covering-up, and their killings don't involve great conspiracies, usually just a handful of people experienced at rationalising what they do, frequently killing people they can rationalise as being a fairly direct threat to them, whether violent competitors, or possibly potential witnesses, while knowing that they exist in a subculture which would treat those things as acceptable behaviour.

Which seems entirely different to getting normal people to do things entirely against their better instincts, which people around them would also be horrified by, to people who are no threat to them, for no obvious good reason.

In what way would the world be different today if they'd faked WMD in Iraq?

Well, there'd be decidedly more people around thinking that such interventions might be a good idea, or at least not necessarily a bad idea, which has the potential to be rather useful for any Conspiracy planning a similar thing in future.

Your numbers are irrelevant. If physics can't explain how the failure of a single column could lead to the uniform and symmetrical collapse of a large steel-framed building, we're left with a choice between the impossible and the improbable.

You seem to be incorrectly conflating 'NIST explanation isn't correct' with 'physics can't explain...'.
Proving the first would by no means prove the latter, as everyone else but you understands.

I'll carry on pointing out that if the NIST explanation is shown to be wrong, then sane and unprejudiced people would at that point try to think of and look at all the explanations which seemed possible given all the facts known at that time.

Meanwhile, in a world where the NIST doesn't yet appear to have been generally ridiculed, it seems germane to look at what even you now apparently admit is the improbability of a Grand Conspiracy working, and consider that as lending support to a current layman's judgement that the NIST explanation may well be correct.

[bryan]

(of course it was not uniform nor symmetrical)

Sorry, I'll use NIST's own words: "The entire building then moved downward in a single unit".

[skbuncks]

Sorry, I'll use NIST's own words: "The entire building then moved downward in a single unit".

Side stepping the question at hand again are you bwyan. Here let me repeat it in case you missed.

'Physics' can and has (of course it was not uniform nor symmetrical). Still waiting for you to show how the NIST model is wrong, with technical details of course. Anything else is just you blowing air out of your arse.

skb

A still waiting skb

[tolman]

Sorry, I'll use NIST's own words: "The entire building then moved downward in a single unit".

Isn't that what one might expect of the collapse of a steel building, where the various parts are tied together horizontally?

I guess someone who visualised the structure as a series of effectively independent columns might not see that, but it is traditional to tie components together into larger scale structures like tubes or three-dimensional lattices.

In any case, you didn't accurately quote them 'in their own words'.
What the NIST actually said was

"...the entire building above the buckled region moved downward in a single unit."

which seems entirely understandable in the conext of a laced-together set of structural components - if the region below had already buckled, the collective downwards movement of the structure above doesn't seem to be at all hard to imagine happening

[bryan]

I guess someone who visualised the structure as a series of effectively independent columns might not see that, but it is traditional to tie components together into larger scale structures like tubes or three-dimensional lattices.

You've just put your finger right on the problem. Why didn't the collapsing east penthouse pull down the entire east side of the building first?

In any case, you didn't accurately quote them 'in their own words'.

I quoted the part that's observable in the videos of the collapse. For all I know, the buckling columns might be nothing more than a figment of NIST's vivid imagination. 'Skeptics' are more trusting, like Christians who just 'know' Jesus died for our sins.

What the NIST actually said waswhich seems entirely understandable in the conext of a laced-together set of structural components - if the region below had already buckled, the collective downwards movement of the structure above doesn't seem to be at all hard to imagine happening

Why does the entire perimeter buckle at the same time?

[bryan]

'Still waiting for you to show how the NIST model is wrong, with technical details of course.

NIST's model doesn't and can't explain why the perimeter columns are not dragged down progressively as the core columns are collapsing from east to west over a period of more than six seconds.

[bryan]

The Washington Times has been promoting Richard Gage now.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...t=home_columns

It's only a matter of time.

[tolman]

You've just put your finger right on the problem. Why didn't the collapsing east penthouse pull down the entire east side of the building first?

Do you have a technical understanding of the particular structure, the various loads and relative strengths of various connections which suggests that the internal collapse *should* instantly cause a local collapse of the outer framework?

I quoted the part that's observable in the videos of the collapse. For all I know, the buckling columns might be nothing more than a figment of NIST's vivid imagination. 'Skeptics' are more trusting, like Christians who just 'know' Jesus died for our sins.

But it's fairly clear that from reading the report that if you were to attack anything, it shouldn't be a description of what happened after the buckling, since that seems to be pretty much exactly what would be expected to happen once buckling had occurred.
Instead, you should direct your thoughts and efforts pretty much entirely to events leading up to the [claimed] buckling.

Why does the entire perimeter buckle at the same time?

That seems like the kind of question that requires a fairly detailed understanding of the structure and the likely patterns of stress propagation both to answer, and to enable understanding of the answer.
You asking me doesn't seem like the world's best idea.

However, thinking about buildings/structures in general, one thing that probably is worth bearing in mind for anyone seriously wondering what happened is that even though the plan of WTC7 has long and short sides, we're not talking about a long/low building here, but one roughly twice as tall as it was wide, and twice as wide as it was deep.
While a long/low building might be expected to collapse more progressively from one end to another, the relatively taller a building is above an area of damage, the more likely it seems to be that the structure will fail and fall as a single unit - the taller the building, the more sideways connections there are between columns, the more tied together the structure, and further loads can be spread sideways.

[Croydon Bob]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_ag...locaust_denial

That doesn't support your lies.

I was right and you were wrong (yet again).

Perhaps the reptiloids control wiki?