9/11 and Nukes

50 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mon, Oct 3, 2011 - 11:42am Mudsharkbytes
cpnscarlet
Offline
-
Albuquerque, NM
Joined: Aug 7, 2011
2044
0

Thanks - I just need to

Thanks - I just need to repeat something I have said in the past about conspiracy theories and theorists.

I have been involved in the past with the Moon-Landing Hoax Theory and did some "proofing" research FOR THE GOV'T on classified materials (getting our side of the response to the "moon-truthers" together). So I'm not unfamiliar with this sort of thing. From that experience, I believe that conspiracies dealing solely with immoral behavior are usually true - manipulation of G&S is a prime example. But when it comes to conspiracies involving technical matters - holes in buildings to blown-up airliners to collapsed bridges, the conspiracy theories always (yes, always) fall flat on their faces because the "truthers" don't understand the processes involved and think video is the do-all-and-end-all of truth - it isn't when a complex system is involved. On 1/29/86, the vast majority of aerospace engineers (me too) were already postulating that the Challenger blew up because the external fuel tank failed structurally - it was the "weakest" part of the stack. The solid rocket boosters could not have failed, because when solids fail, it is a bomb going off. Only after the next few weeks did we put everything together and found the the solid boosters did fail, but in a way never seen before - creating a blowtorch at a seam that cut a very big gash in the external tank at the bottom that caused the H2 to vent and explode.

So I would love to come to this unbiased, but simply can't. Confronted again with theories about how things blow up, collapse, etc. is opening up old angry scars. And that's why I need to see something in a respected, well-established journal from "ancient" groups like the ASME, ASChE, ASCE, AIA, ASTM ...etc. I will do my best to keep an open mind.

Mon, Oct 3, 2011 - 3:25pm
Offline
Joined: Sep 26, 2011
1299
11780

@cpnscarlet

Thank you for taking the time to both respond, and to investigate contrary points. While I strongly disagree with your position, I appreciate the effort.

I would point to a potential logical problem with the chain of thought. If nukes (or extremely high-tonnage traditional ordnance) had been dropped on Afghanistan, decapitating 'AlQ' leadership and instilling the fear of God into all who might wish to harm the US, WHY WASN'T IT DONE? Out of humanitarian concerns? Out of fear of sparking off a global TN conflagration with Russia? So 'gov leaders' deemed it would be better to get into a decade-long land war instead as the only logical alternative? One possible cynical explanation is along the lines of Green Lantern's thoughts above -- that would NOT have allowed for the siphoning of trillions of defense spend, hundreds of billions of HS spend, the societal control clampdown, Int infrastructure building (see Wash. Post 'Top Secret America'), etc. that has taken place since then.

Also there is the simple matter of Cui Bono. No need to spin insane conspiracy theories, just follow the money, and power.

This seems to be one of many occasions where decisions may have to be made with imperfect information. The issue for many, I believe (certainly for me, anyway) is that it most certainly WAS in power of gov't (still is, I suppose) to create a much more complete, detailed, internally consistent and transparent accounting -- to come clean, as it were. The absence of such clarity and transparency does not, in itself, indict or convict anyone of anything. But it certainly does raise the question of how accountable, honest and trustworthy that gov is. Rather than starting with this particular issue, you may be better served by looking at older, better documented cases. Pearl Harbor, and the reasons Japan went to war with US, and exactly how. Gulf of Tonkin, and its ultimate effects. Suez Crisis and 1956 in general.

Peer reviewed scientific journals? Have you ever worked in such a community? Do you know who decides what to publish, and based on what criteria? I grew up in this environment. While there are exceptional young minds who are able to break the mold, for the overwhelming majority of the key players, the name of the game is a) continued tenure, b) continued government grants c) making sure their position on the scientific donkey ladders is safe from any iconoclastic upstarts. You CANNOT get published, unless you are a member of the club, or have the strong support of a member. They might one day publish such research in the hallowed annals of the organizations you cite. In about 30 or 40 years. They have no reason, incentive or interest in doing so, and EVERY possible reason to keep absolutely mum and focus on more pressing current developments in the field of architecture and engineering. My recommendation here is to go to an engineer you know and trust, whose expertise YOU believe in, and ask an opinion on specific points in the data.

Mon, Oct 3, 2011 - 8:42pm J Y
cpnscarlet
Offline
-
Albuquerque, NM
Joined: Aug 7, 2011
2044
0

Thanks for that post. The

Thanks for that post. The only thing I feel compelled to say at this time is that I know that getting published is not a slam dunk even if your paper is very good. However, I was published once just for my graduate school work, so it isn't impossible - my thesis advisor didn't even try hard to help "push" the paper. I have experience knocking on the referees' doors, so I know what you're saying.

I am starting to find that there are no papers on the WTC7 collapse in any of the usual professional journals, but I'm still looking. I'm also reading papers from open journals and trying to keep an open mind.

As far as the decisions made to do what we did after 9/11, I think you're right (it's rarely wrong) to follow them money and follow your nose. You know I sometimes think that maybe after the way gov't has mismanaged so much, maybe the TN stockpile is all deteriorated by now and studies to let us know they are still "fresh" are bogus.

BTW - Your avatar - is that Alan Arkin in Catch 22? can't think what else it could be.

Mon, Oct 3, 2011 - 8:54pm
Offline
Joined: Sep 26, 2011
1299
11780

re: Catch 22

You guessed it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Like I said, thanks for keeping an open mind. More than can be said for most these days. To be honest, did not realize it was Alan, having never seen the movie (only read the book). Mind you, Yossarian's first name IS revealed. Dunno about any stockpile, though my strong belief is that there is plenty still left to dislocate the mantle, at least enough to make life for mankind supremely unpleasant for centuries, if not millenia.

Wed, Oct 5, 2011 - 1:25pm
Mudsharkbytes
Offline
-
Kansas City, MO
Joined: Jun 14, 2011
920
8519

Alan Arkin

Is one of my favorite actors. After seeing him in "Wait Until Dark" I became convinced.

@cpnscarlet: Your seeming open-mindedness is refreshing. Maybe this portion of the 9/11 & Nukes thread should be moved out of "Turd's Fight Club".

Fri, Oct 7, 2011 - 4:07pm
cpnscarlet
Offline
-
Albuquerque, NM
Joined: Aug 7, 2011
2044
0

I wouldn't move it. I want to

I wouldn't move it.

I want to tell you what I have come to a conclusion on regarding the paper I read on the dynamics of the north tower collapse. Sorry, but it hasn't convinced me yet. The author presents the two prevailing models of the "pancake" scenario and the "pile-driver" scenarios and compares them in terms of the momentum of the upper structure (floors 98-102). His main argument is that since the collapse occurs in 10 seconds, the motion of the top floor was near free-fall and, therefore, there was not enough resisting force. His conclusion is that the internal structure of the building had already been largely compromised by a controlled demolition of the lower floors and center column structure. (if I'm wrong here, please correct me). I also believe that he assumes that the NIST report supports the pancake theory and he aims at that conclusion.

My main argument against this is a common one. He takes an either/or approach to the dynamics. it's either all pile-driver or all pancake. This is similar to "dead ends" in research I've seen in my own life. One can easily assume that the top 4-5 floors did survive intact in the north tower. However, as they were supported by the center column and 3 remaining shell walls, floors 96 through ~90 were not exactly in stasis. These floors were pancaking down 2,3 or maybe up to 5 floors. Therefore, as the top pile-driver started moving, there really was no resistance since floors 90-96 were probably long gone. And by the time the pile driver went through the first 60 - 80 feet or translation, the momentum would have been so massive, that floors 85-90 (approximately) were cut through rapidly and the mass of all floors above 85 could not have been stopped by any force on earth from quickly destroying the rest of the structure. This is a combination of both theories of collapse and would seem to fit the evidence.

Okay, here's the problem with MY rebuttal - why isn't the center column seen clearly in any of the video? Even if it had been destroyed, it should have been visible in the collapse as it should be the last part of the structure to "fold up" in the process. I'm not sure how to explain it. But...

This is where my skepticism is still very strong. All the papers seem to deal with the north tower collapse. Why aren't there any papers about the south tower? The answer (to me at least) is obvious. The collapse of the south tower was completely consistent with the scenarios of a jet liner collision and subsequent loss of steel strength due to heat. Floors 66-102 translate AND rotate as the collapse begins. Also, the center column structure is clearly seen in the video as the last part of the building to fail. If theories of a controlled demolition of the north tower are to be believed as presented, then the dynamics of the south tower collapse must have happened as explained in the gov't reports. You can't have your cake and eat it too, it seems.

Well, that's where I am at this point. I am now going to take a long look at the paper concerning micro-thermate samples. This one is very compelling and it looks like the researchers had some good research tools. Will talk to you later.

Fri, Oct 7, 2011 - 11:40pm
yangster
Offline
Joined: Aug 9, 2011
72
425

Cpn scarlet

Fri, Oct 7, 2011 - 11:54pm yangster
cpnscarlet
Offline
-
Albuquerque, NM
Joined: Aug 7, 2011
2044
0

@yangster - 90 minutes is a

@yangster - 90 minutes is a bit long, any possibility you can give me the reader's digest version, or at least a summary of what it's about so I can decide if I can spare the time?

Sat, Oct 8, 2011 - 1:52am cpnscarlet
yangster
Offline
Joined: Aug 9, 2011
72
425

It talks of issues of

It talks of issues of divining truth from scripture.

Sat, Oct 8, 2011 - 2:01am cpnscarlet
Mudsharkbytes
Offline
-
Kansas City, MO
Joined: Jun 14, 2011
920
8519

Observations

It's late & I'm tired so don't have the time to respond with the same erudition you display, but a couple of observations.

I appreciate that you are actually looking at this material with somewhat of an open mind. Previously you showed nothing but disdain towards people who have been calling for a new investigation into the events surrounding 9/11. Perhaps when all is said & done you will at the very least come out of this with a better understanding as to why people find this subject so compelling.

I agree there are a wealth of really dubious things people believe in, from comet Elenin being a brown dwarf to the "we-never-went-to-the-moon" crowd. But I'm reminded of an old expression "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean somebody really isn't out to get you", i.e., just because there are a lot of really wacky 'conspiracy' theories out there doesn't mean that all of them are nutty.

As to the paper you read on the collapse of the North tower, I can say that common sense, to me anyway, would say that regardless of the momentum which, yes, would cut through anything, including all the intervening floors, those floors would STILL slow the collapse down from the virtual free-fall speed observed, and don't forget, not one tower, but three of them collapsed at virtually free-fall speed, including one that did not get hit by an airplane. On the surface, this stretches credibility - especially bldg 7.

FYI, there is a video out there that shows some center column standing surrounded by one of the collapsed towers (I don't remember which one) - damaged and twisted, but standing there for a few moments before they fall over. I've seen it. You can barely see the columns through all the dust & debris.

The reason I suggested moving this particular discussion to another forum was simply because the dynamics have gone from that of a 'fight' to that of reasonable discourse.

Interested to hear your take on the nanothermite.