Aswad
Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Fellow
Thanks for thoughtful discussion. I did not make any claims, I was just pointing out the possibility. It may upset some with idealistic view of the government.
I can come up with a hundred more interesting possibilities for that event, and just about every other event out there.
You brought one specific possibility to this thread, implying some endorsement or legitimate concern.
I'm waiting for you to substantiate that, or at least explain why you found it appropriate.
quote:
FBI is involved in such affairs. Even mainstream media have discussed it.
Seriously, if you want to have a look at some of the interesting things your gov't is involved with, have a look at this:
William Binney of NSA (retired), keynote speech with introduction from the 9th HOPE conference (link).
He appears at 4:30 in this 55 minute speech, which should give you enough to ponder for a long time to come. Good speech, too, addressed to some of the most intelligent, experienced and educated people on the planet. They like to play around with ideas, to examine possibilities, but unlike the conspiracy nuts they know the difference between amusing oneself with a good movie plot and worrying about something that is in evidence. When they speak, the pros listen and take what they say seriously. You should, too.
As for your comments on the architects... I wasn't going to do this, but here:
I'm not sure if you're aware, but the reinforcing structure is intensely flammable under a set of rare conditions. Like those they're exposed to when someone rams a plane into the building. We figured that out up here, specifically at NTNU, in response to unanswered questions about the collapse of the towers. See, we have this odd way of going about things. When our capital was bombed up here, we made a reconstruction of the bomb from the same set of instructions as the attacker used, made a mockup of ground zero, put cars and stuff in there according to the surveillance footage, put the reconstructed bomb into another car of the same type as the assumed delivery vehicle, surrounded it and the area with high speed cameras and sensors, then blew up that bomb. The results were consistent with what was observed at ground zero after the attack, with the distribution of casualties and types of injuries, with the explanations offered during police interrogation, with the independent projections of the demolitions experts, and with the police investigation teams' independently produced findings. As a result, we can say with a high degree of confidence that we have a corroborated sequence of events that demonstrably would give the observed outcome, one that this is also what the attacker stated. Crucially, one that shows that there is not only no need for a second attacker, but that one would likely have given a different outcome. That answers questions that have been raised, and allows us to close the book on the case with confidence.
Along the same lines, we investigated how buildings like the towers might respond to an airplane crash of the sort videotaped from the events that transpired that day. The findings of what happened and why were a bit surprising, but the outcome was correct and the findings only revealed a limitation in our knowledge of such things. A finding that has expanded our knowledge of the field. It's quite simple in essence: classic risk analyses only considered the fuel. Unfortunately, the conditions allow the fuel to also light up all the titanium in the airframe. If you've ever seen metal burn, that alone should have you saying "uh, oh" right about now. Titanium is extra problematic because it does not require oxygen to burn, voiding most of the classic assumptions about the impact of a fire in such a building. It also frees a huge amount of energy in a short amount of time. The steel in the support frame heats up and loses its tensile strength while the thermal expansion causes it do unbond from the concrete in a manner similar to how rebar corrosion causes spalling, both leading to cracking of the concrete. Concrete is strong in compression and weak in tension, so a structure of this size requires the strength of tightly bonded steel supports for the concrete to hold. Thus, the fire causes the concrete to lose its precompression and then steel and concrete alike are left to deal with forces they are not scaled to support. The steel snaps and a bunch of already badly cracked concrete is without anything to differentiate it from a million tons of carefully stacked debris that is held up by nothing more than happy thoughts. In the battle between happy thoughts and gravity, the latter usually wins.
Case closed, period, unless you want to posit that there were no planes.
Granted, I'm not knowledgeable about fire, concrete, buildings, metallurgy or chemistry, so this just represents a first glance guess at what happened. A back of envelope sort of thing. But it serves to illustrate a point: I can account for the observables without a need to involve any other assumptions than that way back when it was built the engineers overlooked a tiny detail when they were making their risk assessments, a tiny detail that wasn't known at the time. If my first guess as to the mere natural science elements involved is adequate to account for the observables, it makes no sense for me to look for a more complicated explanation. Cause the simple explanation is usually the right one.
And here I'll really take a detour: it isn't just that a simple explanation is usually believed to be right. It is entropy and the emergent complexity of systems that dictates this. Pure mathematical beauty of the sort that turns our universe into a living work of art. Take a household. With a couple, there is one relationship. With a poly triad, there are three relationships. With a poly of four, there will suddenly be six relationships. Five gives ten, six gives fifteen, and so forth. The dynamic is the emergent complexity from all these relationships between a comparatively small number of people. Due to entropy, a system always tends toward the most compact configuration. What Occam is implying, is that if the number of factors is higher than what is absolutely necessary to account for the observables, we should be seeing a higher resultant complexity than what prompted us to look for additional factors in the explanation in the first place. Sure, there are unusual configurations at times, but they are rarely stable and even more rarely work to base a model or explanation on. A conspiracy implies precisely the least viable conditions for an unusual configuration to persist for the amount of time necessary to account for the observables.
I've tried to keep this simple and brief, but I often fail at that, so feel free to ask.
In any case, I hope it clarifies some things for you.
IWYW,
— Aswad.
_____________________________
"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.
|
RE: Why Is The Equivalent Of A 9/11 Every Six Weeks Som... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread