Does anyone here believe the 9/11 story?

[bryan]

He really is a great source of fun.

Changed your mind again?

[tolman]

A little probability question for you, bryan

If, given the estimated contents, a building fire is calculated to have equal probability of being in one of three ranges of intensity, and only a fire of the higher intensity range would cause collapse after a certain time T, given a single building that did collapse after time T, what can we say about the probability of fire being the explanation for that collapse?

a) It means that there's a 2/3 chance the cause was something else.
b) We can't say anything. The information given above just doesn't allow that kind of calculation.

a), b), or something else?

[bryan]

A little probability question for you, bryan

If, given the estimated contents, a building fire is calculated to have equal probability of being in one of three ranges of intensity, and only a fire of the higher intensity range would cause collapse after a certain time T, given a single building that did collapse after time T, what can we say about the probability of fire being the explanation for that collapse?

a) It means that there's a 2/3 chance the cause was something else.
b) We can't say anything. The information given above just doesn't allow that kind of calculation.

a), b), or something else?

If the given building is WTC 7, the probability of fire being the explanation is zero.

[tolman]

If the given building is WTC 7, the probability of fire being the explanation is zero.

Too scared to answer a simple question, I see.
Still, I guess you had a choice of two answers, both of which (for obvious reasons) you were too scared to give, and you couldn't think of any alternative, so you decided to run away.

Do you use the same critical open-mindedness when looking at all the other evidence your 'experts' provide?

[PaulW99]

If the given building is WTC 7, the probability of fire being the explanation is zero.

Yep, that about sums up the facts that support his position.

[WWu777]

Hi all,
Richard Gage of AE911Truth.org and a team of scientists are scheduled to debate a team of JREF debunkers on the Coast to Coast program. Gage has put me on the mailing list after reading my suggestions to him in how to debate the JREF crowd, as a consultant to his team.

Gage and his team of scientists, which include Kevin Ryan and Neils Harritt, will debate a team from the JREF. All we know is that Dave Thomas will be on the other side. We don't know who else they will have on their team.

The debate is scheduled on Coast to Coast for July 31 at this point. So mark that on your calendar. I think you can listen in either on your AM radio station or the coast to coast website. http://www.coasttocoastam.com/

I talked to Gage for an hour on the phone and gave him some insights and key strategies for exposing the JREFers and their kind, which are outlined on my SCEPCOP site: http://www.debunkingskeptics.com

I've also announced this debate in my SCEPCOP forum, which I will post further updates to:

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/for...hp?f=12&t=1220

Anyhow, if any of you have any tips or suggestions for Mr. Gage and his team, feel free to post them here, and I will forward them to him.

Should he cover a few strong undebunkable arguments, or try to cover all ten of the features of controlled demolition of the WTC? Which arguments should be emphasized most?

The debate will be primarily about the WTC and Building 7 collapse, not about the other issues surrounding 9/11.

Thanks,
Winston

[WWu777]

Skeptics, if you're right that the official version of 9/11 is true, then I have a great business idea. See below:

One new stunning argument I read from a researcher on my SCEPCOP forum where he debunked Dave Thomas' 6 points, which I hadn't thought of before, is this:

- If a few office fires burning for a few hours can bring down a whole steel skyscraper and pulverize it, why would control demolition companies need to spend MONTHS setting up rigged explosives around the core columns, when they could accomplish their task by burning jet fuel (ala WTC1+2) or gas (ala WTC7) for just a few hours? In other words, why spend months doing what you can accomplish in a few hours, which even a teenager could do? It doesn't make sense! The demolition companies would be out of business if that was true!

Likewise:

- If the failure of a single column can cause a 47 story building to implode and land mostly in it's own footprint, as NIST claims, then why do demolition companies rig and blow all the columns to accomplish the same thing?

See poster image below. I think I have a new business idea :)

[tolman]

Should he cover a few strong undebunkable arguments, or try to cover all ten of the features of controlled demolition of the WTC? Which arguments should be emphasized most?

Maybe he could point to all the things that are classic signs of explosive demolition, such as extremely loud and visible explosions, and show us where they happened.

Or explain why some people think the opinions of demolition experts are actually meaningful when the question is not whether a given historical collapse looks somewhat like a demolition (which pretty much anyone who's seen a few videos of demolitions could give about as meaningful an answer to as an expert), but whether a given historical collapse could be explained as a structural failure due to fire damage (which requires an understanding of the various ways a particular structure could fail in the case of damage from fire).

Also, some insight into his ideas of probability could be useful.
If it could be shown from running a range of models that there was a 10% chance of a particular building failing within X hours of a fire of a certain intensity starting, would he take a failure within X hours of a fire starting as being Deeply Suspicious, or consider that there's a 90% chance that the cause of collapse wasn't down to the fire?

Or explain why someone would bother planning to demolish a building that had no need to be demolished. If fire was planned to be used as a cover story for demolition, why not simply burn the building to the point where all incriminating contents (if any) would be destroyed (or could be reasonably claimed to have been destroyed) and the structure could be declared unsafe, or uneconomic to repair, if it was in the way of some grand future plan.
If he could come up with a sensible argument for why demolition was at all necessary, that might help some people see the suggestion as less puzzling.
Fairly clearly, even for someone plotting demolition, fire was a necessity, since the buildings couldn't simply have been demolished without some kind of plausible explanation. Given that significant fire was going to have to happen for a decent period of time, what use was the demolition, especially when even more extensive fire would seem likely to have been pretty easy to arrange, if even more damage would have been needed to be caused to be an adequate explanation.

Likewise, for people arguing that the building fell down too quickly to have been caused by fire, even for someone planning to demolish it, once there were significant fires going, what was there to be gained by demolishing early, rather than just waiting for more fire damage to have happened - if fire was planned all along to be used as an excuse, and the longer the fires burned the more plausible the excuse would become, why hurry?

[WWu777]

tolman,
That's a good question.

Perhaps 9/11 was an occult ritual sacrifice where exactly THREE towers had to come down? That would explain a lot. (esp since the official story doesn't explain SH**!)

I know it sounds wacky, but it explains a lot. And plus we gotta remember that the elite do worship the Occult. That's why we have the Pyramid and all seeing Eye of Horus on the back of the dollar bill, and why they belong to so many Occult Secret Societies (Masons, Illuminati, Bohemian Grove, etc.)

Check out this interesting video series that connects 9/11, the three towers that fell that day, and their ritualistic connection with the Occult Trinity of the Illuminati! It's intense, and reflects what David Icke said about 9/11 being a ritual occult sacrifice too. There is a reason after all why three towers had to come down rather than just two.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfVBt83al2A

In part 2 and 3, it gets into the 9/11 symbolism and numerology.

Interesting food for thought. Connects a lot of dots.

Incidentally, the Illuminati's occult religion originated in ancient Iraq, which may be another secret reason why we are there (besides for the oil that is).

Wow. Really spooky.

As Alex Jones said, the elite and their secret societies DO worship the occult. There's no question about it. That is no secret. Whether it's true or not, THEY believe it. And I'm sure they have their reasons, although they may be diabolical reasons.

[WWu777]

Tolman,
Check out this interview with Richard Gage and Kevin Ryan on the Alex Jones Show. It's compelling and awesome.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5RXnwbPJOA

There definitely is an airtight case for WTC7 being a controlled demolition. There is no way around it. It's a certainty by now, and even NIST can't refute that. Any objective person, including most architects and engineers who have looked into this, agree.

[tolman]

Skeptics, if you're right that the official version of 9/11 is true, then I have a great business idea. See below:

So, you think that all building designs are basically the same?
Why don't *you* go into demolition work, and give us all a laugh?

I think you'll find that what takes time in demolition is often annoying little things, like removing material that you don't want to end up pulverised in the rubble pile for safety reasons (asbestos, etc), or economic reasons (material which has value and is easier to strip while the building is upright).

Also, you seem to be not only suggesting that the WTC7 collapse was what a professional demolition company would want to achieve, but you're also suggesting that people who reckon that the WTC7 collapse is explicable as being a result of fire damage are claiming that such a result would be the inevitable consequence of any fire.

That seems to be a pretty blatant logical error.
If someone torched my car on my driveway, and it didn't set fire to my house, even if that result wasn't a miraculous one (that is, the result was explicable), it wouldn't be sensible to depend on the same result happening again.

Similarly even if WTC7 collapsed in a 'nice' way as a result of a fire, it would be illogical to conclude that such a result would be in any way guaranteed without much other evidence (from repeated modelling, etc).

As far as I understand, people employ demolition experts because they are pretty confident of what the outcome will be.
"A differently designed building collapsed vaguely nicely as a result of a fire" probably wouldn't be enough to satisfy most people, or most insurance companies.

[tolman]

tolman,
That's a good question.

Perhaps 9/11 was an occult ritual sacrifice where exactly THREE towers had to come down? That would explain a lot. (esp since the official story doesn't explain SH**!)

I know it sounds wacky, but it explains a lot. And plus we gotta remember that the elite do worship the Occult. That's why we have the Pyramid and all seeing Eye of Horus on the back of the dollar bill, and why they belong to so many Occult Secret Societies (Masons, Illuminati, Bohemian Grove, etc.)

Check out this interesting video series that connects 9/11, the three towers that fell that day, and their ritualistic connection with the Occult Trinity of the Illuminati! It's intense, and reflects what David Icke said about 9/11 being a ritual occult sacrifice too. There is a reason after all why three towers had to come down rather than just two.

Oh, thank <deity> for that.

For a minute, I thought you were actually being serious, but now I see it was all just a wind-up.
Sorry I was so slow, but it's been a long day, alternating between getting covered in epoxy one minute, and hand-soldering SMD 0805s the next.

[Croydon Bob]

Skeptics, if you're right that the official version of 9/11 is true,

Who said the official version was true?

Just because we're not stupid enough to believe the insane nonsense that nutters like Icke come out with, you think that we all believe the official version? You clearly don't understand what being skeptical is about.

Bush invaded two countries on the back of the WTC attack. Loonies like you helped him by suggesting that opposition to Bush meant believing in magic missiles and that you had to be dumb enough to accept all sorts of impossible things, etc, blah, wibble.

I don't have to vote for Bush or the dribbling conspiracy cretins. There are other alternatives.

[bryan]

I don't have to vote for Bush or the dribbling conspiracy cretins. There are other alternatives.

If you enjoy war, you can vote socialist.

[Croydon Bob]

If you enjoy war, you can vote socialist.

I mention "dribbling conspiracy cretins" and back you come with another stupid post.