LinuxQuestions.org
Latest LQ Deal: Latest LQ Deals
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


View Poll Results: On 9/11, who and what brought down the World Trade Center?
Al Qaeda terrorists flying hijacked planes, following only Al Qaeda's plan 21 60.00%
Something else. 14 40.00%
Voters: 35. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 10-19-2017, 07:00 AM   #136
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 9,078
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187

enorbet, the only evidence that you need – and, the only evidence you will ever get – is your own eyes.

And, given the extraordinary circumstances, it should be obvious why this is absolutely necessary.

Three buildings, one of which had never been touched by a drop of jet fuel (but which should have been occupied by officials when it collapsed, purposely "many hours later"), fell neatly into their own footprint. And, the only way that a structure can do that is when everything top-to-bottom within that structure gives way at precisely the same time. Building-7 is a textbook example of this: if you wanted to "blow that building down," that's exactly how it would fall, penthouse and all.

The Official Story is that a kerosene fire, sixty-odd floors up, suddenly caused the entire building to free fall, straight down, all of it hitting the street "Galileo style." But we have plenty of "demolition fail" videos to watch where something – anything – went wrong. In one case, the building became a box rolling across the landscape. In others, pieces of the building were ejected a long distance, in one case thrown at the audience "at a safe distance" and killing several spectators. When, instead, the building collapses into its own footprint, the demolition team congratulates one another, for yet another job well done.

I've got a kerosene lantern, made of steel, and I assure you that it has never yet melted.

Nevertheless, Official Stories are always buttressed by "expert testimony," as much testimony from as many experts as may be needed to sell the story. It has to be that way. The public wants to "know the truth," of course. But they can't be allowed to know the actual truth, in this case, and yet they must be convinced that what you're telling them is truth. You must convince them without revealing actual information to the enemy, including "what you actually know," and "what steps you are actually taking to protect the public in the future, based on lessons learned." The enemy must not learn those lessons, too.

"It was airplanes and a moronic structural engineer who built a gigantic house of cards." That's the story and they're sticking to it.

Actual details are top secret, and that's the way they should remain. This was an act of war against the very infrastructure of a major American city, and it was done through total penetration of a great many supposed defenses, many of which are supposed to be secret. You are never going to hear anything other than the Official Story. It is essential that this be so.

"What are we now doing to protect the public?" Why, we've scattered boxes of cookies all over the city, each one filled with Keebler Elves who've got cell phones and binoculars . . . that's our Official Story and we're sticking to it.

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 10-19-2017 at 07:28 AM.
 
Old 10-19-2017, 01:23 PM   #137
Myk267
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2012
Location: California
Posts: 422
Blog Entries: 16

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
The final official report doesn't say "kerosene" anywhere.

The following page has both links to a video describing the final report as well as a PDF of the final report itself among other interesting information: https://www.nist.gov/news-events/new...igation-report The video is a quick watch if you don't have the time to read the rather long PDF.

Also, a note for the geeks: the simulation software was apparently run on a "Linux cluster".
 
Old 10-19-2017, 01:27 PM   #138
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys
Posts: 3,514

Rep: Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs View Post
enorbet, the only evidence that you need – and, the only evidence you will ever get – is your own eyes.
That's simply untrue. The very first job in verifying what our eyes see and our brains interpret, is determining whether our interpretation is reasonable is asking ourselves "Is that even possible? The next step is "Is it likely to occur? combined with "How likely is it?" and "Is another interpretation more, or less likely?" All of those are subject to and reliant upon "Is there any objective evidence to support my initial interpretation, especially over any other possible interpretation of this specific event?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs View Post
The Official Story is that a kerosene fire, sixty-odd floors up, suddenly caused the entire building to free fall, straight down, all of it hitting the street "Galileo style." But we have plenty of "demolition fail" videos to watch where something – anything – went wrong. In one case, the building became a box rolling across the landscape. In others, pieces of the building were ejected a long distance, in one case thrown at the audience "at a safe distance" and killing several spectators. When, instead, the building collapses into its own footprint, the demolition team congratulates one another, for yet another job well done.
Jet fuel is to standard kerosene how drug store hydrogen peroxide is to the rocket fuel version that cannot be used to bleach ones hair since it will eat through flesh and some steel formulations. Common "kerosene" is not a good characterization of jet fuel. Nobody said "suddenly"... it took almost 2 hours.

One of the reasons that the collapses looked like controlled demolition is because they have an important fundamental in common - reduction of load bearing structure allowing gravity to do what it inexorably does. As I and others have pointed out in many respects it is easier to collapse a building that is taller since there isn't sufficient mass nor fall distance to reach velocities that carry such awesome kinetic energy in smaller buildings.

Consider that avalanches are now caused by explosive charges before a mass is reached at an altitude which, if allowed to build to the tipping point, could be dangerous, even life and property threatening. The resulting avalanche, though smaller, looks exactly like ones that occur from that tipping point being reached without explosives. All it takes is a collection of mass that the "foundation" can no longer support, however that occurs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs View Post
I've got a kerosene lantern, made of steel, and I assure you that it has never yet melted.
That's a ridiculous example. Not only is the fuel common kerosene and not jet fuel (that would be an interesting experiment) but the volume/mass of burning fuel is controlled to be absolutely minuscule which is why a few ounces will burn for many hours AND the burn is always kept at considerable distance from anything other than the gauze that acts like a candle wick. It has been estimated that the bulk of many tons of jet fuel was consumed in the first 10 minutes. More importantly regarding WTC is that nobody claims that beams melted, only that tempering temperatures weakened them to a degree of having only 40% of their initial load bearing capacity.

Incidentally there are numerous private tests, some with video on YouTube, testing steel beams against jet fuel burn temperatures. Check some out. I do hope you realize your choice of examples and even your wording reveal your pre-judge-iced agenda and the "quality" of evidence you accept versus that which you ignore , right?

Please remember, I care little which is the cause, only that the conclusion enjoys very high odds of both credibility in general and is specifically pertinent. Both sides, or any side, will get the same strict standards for proof.

Last edited by enorbet; 10-19-2017 at 01:32 PM.
 
Old 10-26-2017, 08:42 AM   #139
Arcane
Member
 
Registered: May 2006
Location: Latvia, Europe
Distribution: random
Posts: 310

Rep: Reputation: 312Reputation: 312Reputation: 312Reputation: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs View Post
enorbet, the only evidence that you need and, the only evidence you will ever get is your own eyes.

And, given the extraordinary circumstances, it should be obvious why this is absolutely necessary.<...>
Precisely! How come when we discuss religion science is not ignored but when we discuss conspiracy theories science is ignored?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSVHWiZu8NM
Even real architects and engineers find this event smelling fishy. But yea..we probably will not know why WTC was destroyed in similar fashion why Titanic was sunk and why princess Diana was killed. Because those were not accidents.
 
Old 10-26-2017, 08:56 AM   #140
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Germany
Distribution: Whatever fits the task best
Posts: 17,148
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 4870Reputation: 4870Reputation: 4870Reputation: 4870Reputation: 4870Reputation: 4870Reputation: 4870Reputation: 4870Reputation: 4870Reputation: 4870Reputation: 4870
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcane View Post
Precisely! How come when we discuss religion science is not ignored but when we discuss conspiracy theories science is ignored?
How exactly is not dismissing anything but eye witness testimony ignoring science? Eye witness testimony is the least trusted form of testimony even in court, just because the way your eyes and your brain work together make them unreliable.
 
Old 10-26-2017, 05:58 PM   #141
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys
Posts: 3,514

Rep: Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcane View Post
Precisely! How come when we discuss religion science is not ignored but when we discuss conspiracy theories science is ignored?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSVHWiZu8NM
Even real architects and engineers find this event smelling fishy. But yea..we probably will not know why WTC was destroyed in similar fashion why Titanic was sunk and why princess Diana was killed. Because those were not accidents.
I am too late but to add that Science does not equal "what your eyes can see". If you don't yet get it, just consider "Sunrise" as one obvious misjudgment.

However what nobody has yet said here about the "evidence" of "real architects and engineers" is that those that deny WTC could have resulted from Jets and jet fuel, let alone that the only other possible conclusion is "inside job" can be counted on one hand. The vast majority realize the physics of building collapse when load bearing supports are weakened to 40-50% of original strength and far more importantly recognize that any conspiracy hoping to succeed undetected must occur quickly and with extremely few conspirators. The greater number of either, let alone both, nearly insures either failure or capture or both, much like the 1st attempt on WTC.
 
Old 10-26-2017, 08:56 PM   #142
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 9,078
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
However what nobody has yet said here about the "evidence" of "real architects and engineers" is that those that deny WTC could have resulted from Jets and jet fuel, let alone that the only other possible conclusion is "inside job" can be counted on one hand. The vast majority realize the physics of building collapse when load bearing supports are weakened to 40-50% of original strength and far more importantly recognize that any conspiracy hoping to succeed undetected must occur quickly and with extremely few conspirators. The greater number of either, let alone both, nearly insures either failure or capture or both, much like the 1st attempt on WTC.
"Huh?"

Kindly remember that no one has to "deny WTC," as in, "to offer any sort of refutation to The Official Story.™" No one is, in fact, obliged to do such a thing at all.

"To deny something is, implicitly, to first accept(!) 'what you deny' as possibly being truth. In so doing, you likewise-implicitly subject yourself to certain Rules of Engagement. You have been put on the defensive, and furthermore you find yourself defending against a proposition of your adversary's own choosing.

This is a well-known logical fallacy called "Begging the Question." The textbook example being: "have you stopped beating your wife?"

Everyone is, in fact, perfectly entitled to form, and to maintain, their own opinions ... whether or not they choose to offer any alternative explanation for the events that they observed. They are, in fact, under no obligation whatsoever to offer any such alternative! And so, their failure (or, decision not ...) to do so means nothing.

"The Official Explanation™" does not, in fact, "dictate the acceptable Rules of Engagement."

My opinions, and my explanations for what I saw with my own eyes, are my own. I'm not an explosives expert. I'm well aware that I might have witnessed the use of exotic materials which are not public knowledge. I might not be capable of "offering an alternative explanation," and why exactly should I be expected to do so?

I don't have to answer that question about beating my wife, either "yea" or "nay." I can, in fact, look you square in the eye and say, "while I cannot explain what I saw, I know what I saw."

And that is that.

. . .
However, there is an entire dimension to this, which I have of course referred-to earlier: that, "if my hypothesis is true, as I choose to believe that it is, then ... 'oh, !!'" What has been sold as "an airline hijacking," and/or "an act of terrorism," is an entirely-unprecedented act of war. There has never before been an attack such as this. The national-security implications explode by many orders of magnitude. The sincere human desire "to know the real truth" is suddenly slammed against "Loose Lips Sink Ships.™" The Official Story™ suddenly becomes a necessity.

"Suddenly, I feel that I completely understand why you are lying to me, and I also feel that it is vitally necessary to all of us that you should keep on doing it." Knowledge Is Power.™

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 10-26-2017 at 09:05 PM.
 
Old 10-26-2017, 09:50 PM   #143
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys
Posts: 3,514

Rep: Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405
LOL. sundialsvcs I think you misread or misinterpreted my words

Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet
However what nobody has yet said here about the "evidence" of "real architects and engineers" is that those that deny WTC could have resulted from Jets and jet fuel, let alone that the only other possible conclusion is "inside job" can be counted on one hand.
I suppose I could have repeated myself and inserted "architects and engineers" once again after "those" but being only two words apart I thought it would be obvious that my point was that it is totally inaccurate and irresponsible to act as if there are large numbers of architects and engineers that have any problem with "The Official Version". There are very few. They, those few architects and engineers, just raise a lot of fuss.

That said if one keeps ones opinion to himself one only owes evidence for proof to logic but no other person but oneself. However once we make our opinion publicly known if we wish to be taken seriously we need to back it up with evidence and especially not state things as fact that are demonstrably not so, like "large numbers of architects and engineers" and, once again, counting only on ones eyes to jump to a conclusion is fraught with error and qualifies for nothing but speculation at best.

PS - BTW I can state "I deny the existence of the Easter Bunny" without ever accepting the opposite, except as a fairy tale.

Last edited by enorbet; 10-26-2017 at 09:54 PM.
 
Old 10-27-2017, 11:40 AM   #144
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 9,078
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
PS - BTW I can state "I deny the existence of the Easter Bunny" without ever accepting the opposite, except as a fairy tale.
"Choosing to regard the Official Story™ as utter nonsense" is not the same as the Easter Bunny. The US Federal Government offered an Official Explanation™ to satisfy both the curiosity and the very-genuine fears of the American public. They, of course, backed up their arguments by the testimony of engineers. But, that doesn't make it true.

I could see with my own eyes that it was demolition – and that it was demolition of far greater technical sophistication than I had ever seen before, particularly with regard to the explosives (and perhaps, other types of exotic materials) used to do the three jobs. We can be sure it wasn't dynamite or TNT, because we never saw puffs of smoke in rings around the outside and because the sheer speed and fluid smoothness with which such tall structures "just melted away." It might or might not have involved thermite. It might well have involved something that is a classified secret.

I don't know how they did it, even as I am persuaded that I know what they did. I don't expect to ever know. I don't want the information that would allow me "to know" to ever be made public. ("If you're privy to this knowledge, shut up!")

So, if you expect me to detail an alternative explanation of "how they did it," you're just askin' the wrong guy. I majored in computer science, not chemistry.

And if that persuades you that, "ergo, the Official Story™ must be correct," feel free to do so.

Then, as I contemplate my opinion of "what they did," and about "what would have been necessary in order to do such a thing in the manner that I think they did it," specifically considering Building #7, I stop thinking of it as either "an airline hijacking" or "an act of terrorism." To me, this was "Bombing of Pearl Harbor stuff." This was war. And so, factual details about it must never be disclosed. Likewise, factual details about what measures have been taken in response to it (based on knowledge of what actually happened) must also never be disclosed.

The only thing that protects the public ... again, "IMHO" ... is: impenetrable secrecy.

Someone, with complete success, utterly penetrated the heart of New York City and blew it neatly to the ground ... along with(!) its counter-terrorism response plan. They also effectively penetrated civilian airline security. They'd necessarily been planning it, and doing(!) it, for a very long time, right under everyone's noses. They did many suspicious things – some that we know about, some that we never will (must not!) – without triggering a preventive response. And, no doubt, they're still out there ... listening. Listening for clues. Wanting to be handed a de-briefing. We have already seen what they were willing, and were able, to do. They must learn nothing that is True.

And if that means that the American Public doesn't get to know either, c'est la guerre.

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 10-27-2017 at 11:53 AM.
 
Old 10-27-2017, 05:42 PM   #145
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys
Posts: 3,514

Rep: Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405
OK so you weren't a Chem major. How did Computer Science prepare you for instantly divining the cause of the collapse just from TV coverage? Furthermore if these conspirators were so advanced, so disciplined and so thorough how do you suppose they missed doctoring the News coverage that was your sole evidence? IOW what makes your eye witness testimony any more reliable or likely than any other unqualified person with as little to go on? In a murder case I cast a harsh view on "eye witnesses" and wait for Forensics. You?
 
Old 10-28-2017, 08:04 AM   #146
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Germany
Distribution: Whatever fits the task best
Posts: 17,148
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 4870Reputation: 4870Reputation: 4870Reputation: 4870Reputation: 4870Reputation: 4870Reputation: 4870Reputation: 4870Reputation: 4870Reputation: 4870Reputation: 4870
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs View Post
I could see with my own eyes that it was demolition – and that it was demolition of far greater technical sophistication than I had ever seen before, particularly with regard to the explosives (and perhaps, other types of exotic materials) used to do the three jobs. We can be sure it wasn't dynamite or TNT, because we never saw puffs of smoke in rings around the outside and because the sheer speed and fluid smoothness with which such tall structures "just melted away." It might or might not have involved thermite. It might well have involved something that is a classified secret.
Didn't you tell us that you are no expert in the field of demolition? If you aren't an expert, how in the world can you justify to come to such specific conclusions just by looking on it on TV?
Quote:
I don't know how they did it, even as I am persuaded that I know what they did. I don't expect to ever know. I don't want the information that would allow me "to know" to ever be made public. ("If you're privy to this knowledge, shut up!")
Didn't you just tell us that you know that it involved exotic explosives. How can that be if you now suddenly don't know how they did it?
Quote:
So, if you expect me to detail an alternative explanation of "how they did it," you're just askin' the wrong guy. I majored in computer science, not chemistry.
So again, you are telling us that you aren't an expert, regardless of you claiming that you could see from television recordings that it must have been demolition. And not only that, you were even able to give a quality valuation, again despite your claims not to be an expert.

At this point you remind me of Senator Imhoffe with his snowball, claiming that he is no expert, but that everybody can see the snowball in his hands clearly disproves climate change.

You have to make up your mind. Either you are an expert and therefore can at least give a first impression on what might have happened (real experts wouldn't do definitive statements just from looking at something on TV), or you aren't an expert and therefore can't. It can't be both.

Last edited by TobiSGD; 10-28-2017 at 08:07 AM. Reason: fixed typos
 
Old 10-28-2017, 08:44 AM   #147
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware & Slackware64 14.2 & current
Posts: 7,914
Blog Entries: 59

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
I don't think I've ever said that it must have been controlled demolition - only that it looked very much like it. Of course I can only go off what I've seen on TV, as I wasn't in New York on the day. When three buildings collapse through something that looks very much like controlled demolition, it arouses my suspicions. Not claiming to know The Truth, not claiming to be an expert, just a bit sceptical regarding the official explanation.
 
Old 10-28-2017, 09:40 AM   #148
Michael Uplawski
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2015
Location: Apples
Distribution: Apple-selling shops, markets and direct marketing
Posts: 1,109
Blog Entries: 29

Rep: Reputation: 635Reputation: 635Reputation: 635Reputation: 635Reputation: 635Reputation: 635
Quote:
what/who brought down the World Trade Center?
the low spark of high-heeled boys.
 
Old 10-28-2017, 10:28 AM   #149
dave@burn-it.co.uk
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2011
Distribution: Puppy
Posts: 601

Rep: Reputation: 172Reputation: 172
Not entirely impossible if there had been a gas leak in the underground garages.
 
Old 10-28-2017, 12:05 PM   #150
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys
Posts: 3,514

Rep: Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405Reputation: 3405
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianL View Post
I don't think I've ever said that it must have been controlled demolition - only that it looked very much like it. Of course I can only go off what I've seen on TV, as I wasn't in New York on the day. When three buildings collapse through something that looks very much like controlled demolition, it arouses my suspicions. Not claiming to know The Truth, not claiming to be an expert, just a bit sceptical regarding the official explanation.
Perhaps you've never thought it through or you missed my post regarding the fact that in controlled demolition the explosives are merely a catalyst where a small thing employs or unleashes a bigger thing. It doesn't really matter how structure is weakened the overwhelming, inexorable force at work is Gravity. We tend to take it for granted and in the scheme of all things it is very weak but maybe you saw a steel container crushed by similarly unnoticed air pressure when a partial vacuum is created within simply by heating, sealing, then cooling said can in Science class? Gravity may be weak by Universal standards but it keeps the Moon in orbit... ,AND collapses ALL buildings ultimately and if support is compromised, rather suddenly and guess what?

...They all look the same in collapse since the key ingredient is exactly the same - Gravity.

Last edited by enorbet; 10-28-2017 at 12:07 PM.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LXer: London Stock Exchange smashes world record trade speed with Linux LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 10-20-2010 09:50 AM
LXer: Linux interoperability takes center stage at TechX World LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 11-04-2006 04:21 AM
Moment of silence - World Trade Center and Pentagon jeremy General 25 10-01-2001 04:20 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:20 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration