Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, November 22nd, 2009 - 182 comments
Categories: open mike -
Tags:
Topics of interest, announcements, general discussion. The usual rules apply (see the link to Policy in the banner).
Step right up to the mike…
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Gosman is a paid [deleted]
[lprent: Highly unlikely bearing in mind that he has been hanging around here for a wee while talking on a range of topics. However unless you actually can make a case for that rather than simple assertion it will get zapped and you will get banned. ]
Is this a magnificent piss take or are you serious.
Zap it and ban me
No fair that was one of the funniest things I’d read in a long time – you should’ve kept it for posterity.
I am glad you can retain your sense of humor but you still haven’t zapped me yet.
The best Kim Hill Richard Gage interview had me rethink my attitudes on 911.
I have always had the greatest respect for miss hills interviewing and assumed this interview might lead us to her asking gage about what kind of country the USA has become in his mind, and that would probably the best that could come from an interview such as this.
Gage clearly states he doesn’t know the answers to why and how and that’s why a new investigation is needed, miss hill just doesn’t get it, and that fact is incredible.
My new found interest has led me to the must see arty film about 911 conspiracies ‘Who Killed John ONeill’. http://wkjo.com
Having gone through something similar myself I was totally blown away by the movie.
There are some real gems in this lot of comments but having to trudge through grossmans shilling really is tiresome, a nice example of the amateur shill tho. (and of course like kim shill he doesn’t know it).
Nice to see some people are paranoid enough to actually claim I am part of this conspiracy
LOL!
There is no need to reinvestigate this problem because there is simply no credible new evidence that the 9/11 Truthers are putting forward.
The studies performed by Steven E. Jones and his merry band of Conspiracy Theorists are incredibly bad science. Iprent has been going on about CCD and how the studies they put up as evidence in their favour are low quality science based on a number of criteria such as lack of rigorous peer review mechanism. These same criticism’s are just as valid, if not more so, when applied to the evidence for Controlled Demolitions.
On top of that it seems quite plain that the 9/11 Truthers won’t accept the result of any investigation except one which comes to the same conclusion as theirs. All you need to see this is look at the responses to the NIST report.
Firstly they misrepresent the NIST report regarding whether WTC7 fell in free fall. The final NISTreport stated that the building fell 40 % slower than free fall speed yet somehow the 9/11 Truther’s cheery pick quotes from this to suggest NIST no supports the free fall hypothesis.
Secondly they argue that NIST is deliberately ignoring the overwhelming evidence supporting the Controlled Demolition hypothesis thereby implicating them in the massive conspiracy covering up the ‘real’ reasons for the attack.
They also claim that NIST refuses to even talk to them, which is a bit unusual considering I have come across numerous submissions from people like Steven Jones and Richard Gage on the official NIST website (see http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AE911Truth-NIST-Written-Submission12-18-07.pdf). What their problem is is not being ignored, it is not being taken seriously.
So pandering to the 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists calls to reopen the investigation won’t resolve anything. If, as seems likely, the new investigation confirmed the official version of what happened all that will happen is this new investigation will be painted as being part of the cover up as well, just like NIST has been.
Tell that to the 80.000 New Yorkers who petitioned for a new and independent investigation and got shafted.
Or the Jersey Girls
Or the 70.000 first responders and New Yorkers who are sick or dying because the breathed and swallowed the dust on that day and who are denied any help they may need.
This isn’t just some academic exercise you fuckwit. This is about real people who really lost loved ones and who all want to know what really happened.
And while Mr. adolescent here, who thinks he can out think some of the smartest minds involved in this movement while wanking over his keyboard, gets his rocks of responding with more drivel why don’t the rest of you read what these fire fighters and pilots have to say about the OCT.
Howdy Gosman ,I’m new to this site and don’t have time to more than skim read the post.And you seem to be a “debunker” as seriously as I am a “truther”.I work in engineering and have worked metals of all description .I work with exotic materials in my current job.Materials like Mylar,Kevlar,titanium,carbon fiber, sapphire,silver,gold,etc .Now constructing devices the above material (and others) means you get an understanding of how materials behave.What compression does as opposed to tension, what extreme heat does a opposed to extreme cold ,what pressure does as opposed to vacuum,etc.
My statement is this…”I can not except that three steel framed buildings for the first time in history before or since 9/11/2001 collapsed symmetrically into there own footprint.As a result of asymmetrical damage.And that that damage was relatively localised with regard to the size of the three buildings.”
Can you explain how this was possible ?
Like I say I’m a “tool user” so be as technical as you like but your words not links.
mick
“OBL and 19 hijackers did it.” is a conspiracy theory.
You are a conspiracy theorist.
No, I am Spartacus.
….and looking for the same fate of crucification?
Ummm sorry – couldn’t resist that
Who are we to believe?
A PhD professor of physics for 20 years at a prestigious American university and a PhD professor of chemistry for 20 years at a prestigious Danish university,
or
Some anonymous poster running his mouth on the web?
Gosman: “they misrepresent the NIST report regarding whether WTC7 fell in free fall. The final NIST report stated that the building fell 40 % slower than free fall speed yet somehow the 9/11 Truther’s cheery pick…”
You seem to be having trouble with some basic concepts. NIST’s Final report on WTC7 doesn’t say that WTC7 fell at free-fall acceleration for the entire duration of its collapse. They state that it did descend at free-fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds or 8 stories(105 feet). Shyam Sunder and NIST in their Final Draft report denied that WTC7 entered free-fall at all. They had to revise their assumptions through the work of David Chandler. The NIST model does not allow for free-fall. It is therefore invalid and the their investigation flawed.
Gosman: “There is no need to reinvestigate this problem because there is simply no credible new evidence that the 9/11 Truthers are putting forward.”
The NIST reports on WTC1,2 and 7 cannot explain the complete destruction of these towers. NIST admits this. NIST: “We are Unable to Provide a Full Explanation of the Total Collapse.” An investigation that can explain these structural failures is required.
However, the controlled demolition hypothesis put forward by the 9/11 Truth Movement can better explain the destruction of these towers than any other current explanation.
I see that a massive archive of text or pager messages sent at the time of the September 11th attacks has just been published on Wikileaks. One would expect that, if there really was any sort of conspiracy involved, that at least one of the archived messages would make some reference to the alleged plans. So I look forward to seeing any analysis of these messages from the Truther camp.
(Yes, I realise that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but when a theory is as lacking in any reputable scientific basis as the “9/11 was an inside job” or “controlled demolition” theories are, then it really behoves the proponents of the theory to prove their claim rather than demanding others disprove them).
Have you watched the footage of WTC 7 ?
“Multi-storey steel framed buildings aren’t designed to have a bunch of wankers fly fully-laden jet aircraft into them. WTC7 wasn’t designed to have massive amounts of debris dropped onto it. How hard is all this to understand?”
This is just intellectually lazy .Are you a builder or maybe an engineer or is it an architect ?
“Multi-storey steel framed buildings aren’t designed to have a bunch of wankers fly fully-laden jet aircraft into them.” in fact these building s where designed for just this happening…If you read the writings of the actual designers.
“WTC7 wasn’t designed to have massive amounts of debris dropped onto it. How hard is all this to understand?” ” WTC7 WAS NOT DAMAGED BY “massive amounts of debris” WTC 5 and 6 were and they did not collapse into their own footprint.
Science is hard for a lot of people ,they lack experience when it comes to cause an effect .And “critical thinking” seem beyond them.
> in fact these building s where designed for just this happening If you read the writings of the actual designers
In reality, Leslie Robertson reported things a bit differently to the New York TImes of September 8, 2002:
—–
Robertson took the time to calculate how well his towers would handle the impact from a Boeing 707, the largest jetliner in service at the time. He says that his calculations assumed a plane lost in a fog while searching for an airport at relatively low speed, like the B-25 bomber… Exactly how Robertson performed these calculations is apparently lost — he says he cannot find a copy of the report. Several engineers who worked with him at the time, including the director of his computer department, say they have no recollection of ever seeing the study.
—–
Even assuming that some calculations were made, the state of the arts back then for modeling the effects of a fire was too primitive to be of much use in retrospect.
This a video interview with Demartino he managed the construction of the WTC. He died in the attacks.
This is what Skilling had to say about planes flying in the buildings.
Informal statements of this type are of only tertiary value. 6 years ago it might have been interesting to see a little film clip of someone casually asserting that the Towers could absorb hits by planes. At this point today, if this is going to be made into a serious part of any type of case, then one needs to find or determine as accurately as possible the precise mathematical calculations which formed the basis for such casual statements alleging that the Towers could absorb a hit. We do have it coming clearly from Leslie Robertson that none of the calculations performed in the modeling process assumed more than a low-speed hit resulting from a plane being lost in fog. But we’re also told that no one can find these original calculations and some of the people who should have been involved in the process claim to not remember ever having done such calculations. Now if the band of truthers wish to claim that this is all some kind of cover-up then it is first of all their responsibility to study all of the remaining records of the original models of the Towers and produce real substantial evidence to the effect that these models really were prepared to handle such crashes. Just tossing out a few flashy media quotes from some professionals involed in the construction without any hard technical details doesn’t mean much anymore.
Frankly, I don’t that even the most thorough study of the records of the WTC construction process will provide any real evidence to substantiate your claims. The fact is that all forms of modeling were relatively primitive at the time of the WTC construction. Computers were in a relatively early stage of development and that meant that many of the modeling processes which we take for granted today were in their stage of infancy at that time. Fire-prevention systems were just being developed and it’s not likely that these effects would have been seriously considered in any model. If you wish to rebutt that then you have to do the work in producing the real records of how the building was designed and why this design should be expected to cope with certain types of disaster. Don’t bother endlessly posting links to clips of informal interviews. The difference between someone making such an informal statement to the media where they assert that the building should be able to withstand a plane impact versus publishing a design analysis in a refereed engineering journal where they analyze the likely effects of a plane crash is like the difference between testifying out of court versus under oath.