Self-Evidence and the Physical World
I got a little chuckle out of a comment on this blog that the collapse of the WTC was surely a controlled demolition, The reason? The poster proposed that the reason was “the physics of the event was self-evident”. NOT because he had any real proof of a deliberate implosion, but the weakest reason of all, the persons own personal obsevation. Now when someone calls an event “self evident” you know you are dealing with someone who is too stupid or far too lazy too dig up any real facts to back up their observation. And the self evident nature of the observation had to take into consideration the knowledge of the observer. If you don’t know what you are looking at, it is far too easy to be fooled.
To make a point, in 1492, Columbus sailed the oceans blue. The far to common legend even today is that old Chris did this to prove the Earth was round. But nothing could be further from the truth. Enlightened individuals of that time already knew the Earth was round and even had some idea of its size. The Greek philosopher Aristotle argued in his writings that the Earth was spherical. Fact is Christopher Columbus proposed to reach India by sailing west from Spain. He reasoned a longer westward sea route would work. It may have proven true but Columbus used an erroneous estimate of distance based on calculations by Ptolemy. King Ferdinand hired experts and scientist of the time to examine the proposal made by Columbus, and they in fact got the much longer distance correct. but as it is Queen Isabella overruled the experts and Chris sailed away. Hey, Lets face it, He got lucky!!!, if North American was not sitting where it is now he may well have died in the middle of a colossal sea journey.
But what has this got to do with the “self evident” nature of 9/11? You see the uneducated “common man” of 1492 may well have thought Columbus would sail off the edge of the world because to them it was so “self-evident”, the Earth was flat, Hey! it looks flat, right? “Dude!!! Just look the Earth is flat as a pancake” As with everything else the more enlightened members of society knew better and I can imaging them having a hell of a time trying to explain a round Earth to a bunch of dirt farmers who’s “self evident” world didn’t reach beyond their flat farm fields. This would rear it’s head again when good old science, with the help of Copernacus proved the Earth revolved around the Sun. But to the Church and other members of the unenlightened masses it was “self evident”, the Earth was not moving and the Sun and stars were spinning around over our heads.
And now we hear the same “common man wisdom” coming from a group of people who as a group know the nothing about structural dynamics of tall buildings, little of controlled demolitions and even less of the events surrounding 9/11. To them the towers were a controlled demolition not because they know how the a controlled demolition is done or the tremendous structural loads in a 1300 foot building, but because “Dude! It’s Self Evident”. “DUH… it LOOKS like one of them implosions I done sawd’ on my TV” It’s sold as an attractive proposition, you don’t need to know all that fancy physics stuff, that’s just those egg head science types trying to hold you down, you don’t need to research how events actually transpired, Why bother with all those pesky “facts”, you got YouTube and it’s self evident, the Earth is flat, the Sun revolves around the Earth and 9/11 was an inside job.
Fine. This debunks your previous statement,
“The thermal effect of the fire that was observed was not sufficient to cause collapse.”
Which was the goal of my statements.
I praise your willfullness to accept evidence and rational discussion over intuitive concepts. Now, if you wish to debate another subject of your choice which you consider to be a “clear proof” of conspiracy, I am available.
You lost me, Herbrand.
Look, it is not that complicated. If there is recorded evidence disproving a certain hypothetical scenario, then you need either to explain how that evidence and the scenario can be reconciled, dispute the validity of the evidence, or dispose of the scenario. Which one is your choice?
Either of the three, but I guess I’ll stick to the 2nd
Let’s hear the “evidence”, then.
Herbrand,
You already have “heard” it many times. I am sorry, I don’t have time to run around in infinite circles.
You will note Boris’s arguments are based on “Personal Ignorance”.
He can’t see why the towers would fall the way they did. Ergo, there is something fishy in the way they fell. The fault is in his lack of understanding, not in the event itself. His ideas are based on “I Dunno!”
Forget the fact that many more people see no inconsistency in the way the towers fell, including people who know the most on how these and other massive structures are built. When nearly every structural engineer looks at the event and says there is nothing that demonstrate a controlled demolition, you have to wonder. And these are not “Hack” architects like Richard Gage, we are talking about engineers who can PROVE their worth with real world achievements.
Guys like Boris will avoid committing to a detailed hypothesis of what he thinks happened because his lack of education on the subject would soon reveal itself. Best to play dumb and try and create a controversy where there is none…… Well not with people who know the facts of the event and the science behind it anyway.
“Thanks, I agree with the therapeutical value on casual onlookers of reading this kind of rants. I had my share of conspiracy theorist websites and forums in my country, but I’ve never seen before such level of intensity – is this the average in the U.S.?”
Well here in the US the truthers are a small but vocal minority. Only 4.6% of the US think 9/11 was an inside job, and it is getting smaller each day. With the educated class it is smaller still. Most of it is driven by a hate of Bush, when he is gone the truther loons will fade even more.
Conspiracy Theorist Rule No.1: when confronted with competent and informed counterparts, RUN!!
seriously though, I understand that a one-on-one debate of this sort is boring and time consuming. Still, I have yet to read a proper exposition of your view on the collapse backed by proper sources.
I can wait all the time you want, I’m in no rush.
Herbrand,
Jet A-1 burns at 260C-315C in an open air burn. I myself have fought jet fuel fires in both training and real life onboard an aircraft carrier. In training they light a huge tank on fire, let it get nice and hot, check the temperature, and then the students attack it. They fight that fire and put it out. The instructor relights it or it reflashes and they fight it again. They fight that fire all damn day. Amazing thing… an entire tank of STEEL and yet… it doesn’t melt or lose structural integrity. In an accident the jet fuel usually vaporizes and burns off in a huge fireball. We all saw the fireballs. The fireball will leave behind small office fires. Office fires usually top out around 750 degrees C in a normal office fire. You’ll know that it’s 750 C because glass windows shatter at 700C and the flame will be bright red and yellow and the smoke will be white indicating plenty of fuel. This did not occur that day on 911.
Herbrand, every single person in the U.S. military that has ever taken a fire course knows that you are full of crap. They’ve gotten to the front of the fire themselves WITH hoses and they know as I know that you can only stay close to an open air burn of jet fuel for MAYBE a minute or two at the most and that’s WITH water and proper hose control. You fight a fire by getting close, you stay there at the front of the hose until you can stand it no longer, and then you rotate to the back of the hose. That’s at 315C!!!
So when I hear a fireman say in his own words that “we’ve got small isolated pockets of fire that we should be able to knock them down with two lines” then I know about what kind of fire he’s talking about. He’s not talking about “flashfire” and he’s not talking about a “raging inferno.” Then when I SEE with my own eyes, as EVERYONE can, survivors walking around in the crash zone then I KNOW for a fact based upon my own experience in fighting fires that the temperature is well under the maximum for an open air FUEL FIRE. That puts the fire UNDER 315C! If it was hotter than that then people and firemen wouldn’t be up there alive, they’d be crispy critters. To weaken, not melt, I say WEAKEN hardened steel would require hours and hours of heat at least at 750C. At that point, which is the 50% mark, hardened steel loses 50% of it’s structural integrity. So fire played NO REALISTIC, REAL WORLD, REAL PHYSICS part in the 911 crime.
In the 2nd tower hit, the plane came in at an angle and came out the side. It missed the massive core columns almost completely. To say that even ONE core column was damaged is stretching it. To go further, and play devil’s advocate for you, and say that it was damage that caused the building to fall over would have meant that the building would have fallen over on it’s side and not straight down into itself.
Those are two FACTS based upon EXPERIENCE and not your book learning and “debunker” speculation (-blatant lying-).
Now as Boris pointed out, when you see a gun, a smoking corpse with a hole, and eyewitnesses able to say they witnessed a murder then only a blind person or a CRIMINAL would ignore that evidence to argue the validity of a heart attack.
I ask you again: “What fires have YOU fought and what courses have YOU taken and What aviation/military background do you have?” I am a Marine, Honorably discharged, who worked many years on FA-18 Hornets with classified avionic systems in VMFA-115 and VMFA-451 and has served aboard a U.S. aircraft carrier with pride. I’m sure most people would agree that puts me a notch higher than the speculating “debunkers” and their worthless book knowledge. Or do you care to say that the ENTIRE US MILITARY is twisting physics and lying to people about fighting fires? Speak up. I’m sure the DOD is just sitting around waiting for little ole’ you to enlighten them.
A Youtube video is not even close enough to what EXPERIENCE teaches but listen carefully to what these guys say. Notice how far away these low level temperature fires keep them, and they have HOSES! When I went through the course in the 80′s they fought out of open tanks, like a big pit of burning diesel, and it was a lot hotter than it is allowed to get today. Today they like to keep the temperature well under 300C in training. Listen and he will tell you that in a real ship fire you can get temperatures around 2,000 degrees in a main space fire! That is because everywhere you turn on a ship you run into fuel, fuel lines, flammable material, bombs, munitions, phosphorus, and dangerous chemicals. These things are absent in a normal office fire. You “debunkers” love to try and confuse the two very different types of fires shouting “flashfire” and such B.S. I know firsthand what 315C FEELS like from a few feet away. I see those people up there in the damage area of 911 walking around after the fire’s cooled off in the videos. They’re not jumping out of that gaping hole and there is little evidence of an out of control fire. Don’t tell me how hot it is up there from your book knowledge. I KNOW how hot it is up there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCyyc4pCkao
So Boris, I assume you don’t want to continue? I am still waiting for your next argument on the WTC collapse.
Ken, I already stated that I won’t engage in debate someone that is unable to bring arguments without calling me names. Besides in your dissertation you keep a) comparing apples with oranges, and b) making statements without backing them with evidence.
If you want to be taken seriously, do some research as most of us did and bring something more than “I am a marine, trust me” as your only evidence.
Herbrand,
You got that right – I don’t want to continue. The reason for that is that you are unwilling to really read the opponent’s arguments. You give me a whole manuscript to read – and I at least browse through it. You give me a link to a paper in Italian (on an English website) – and I even attempt to make some sense of that even though my knowledge of Italian in non-existent outside of some very rudimentary French. You, on the other hand, seem to be unable or unwilling to just scroll up the page and read my previous comments. That’s your choice, of course, and you are entitled to it, but don’t expect me to go out of my way in order to accommodate you.
Boris,
I just went through the thread one more time; I might have missed something, but from what I could read your only statements on the subject have been:
———–
Please pay attention. As I stated above, any thermally induced sequential collapse would have proceeded differently from what was observed. On top of that, the source of heat (fire) failed to exhibit signs of being sufficiently hot – no widespread window breakage, flame color and composition indicating oxygen-deprived burning, etc. In fact, FEMA has failed to find any significant amount of intact column segments that have experienced temperatures in excess of 250C. That tells you that thermally-induced collapse is just a not a theory matching the facts.
———–
which has already been dealt with, and:
———-
Applying an analogous model to the events of 9/11 we have to conclude that no explanation that fails to account for the peculiarities I have mentioned multiple times – the simultaneous failure of multiple elements throughout the structure, the symmetry and rapidity and totality of the collapse, etc.
———-
but you didn’t further elaborated on this.
Lastly, you said:
———-
There’s plenty of links on my sites and elsewhere illustrating all that I have cited. There is not one model I have seen anywhere explaining the collapse observed – it’s dynamic progression – in light of the official theory.
———-
But obviously I’m not going to browse all your website right now – just point me to the material relevant to the issue at hand and make your statement – we can start from there.
Herbrand,
Here’s a brief overview of why the official story of 9/11 is a farce:
http://pyramid.blog-city.com/911_the_impossible_the_improbable_the_implausible.htm
There’s plenty more but this should suffice.
Read this: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons
Dipshit.
Forgeddaboudit Boris
Debunkers are only confused by the truth. They will dismantle it, thread the bolts, and kick at your nuts to the point that any truth that was there becomes so unpalatible that even Arthur Scheuerman would move on to the next subject. However we seekers of the truth do have one thing going for us, the truth does not change no matter how it is perceived. So who thinks what and which theory or hypothesis pertains to what aspect of such and such of an event or picture or testimony or concrete evidence just doesn’t matter at all. The is evidence everywhere and it needs to be on the table for perusal by all who are interested then brought to an open and independent investigation. Look for the best photographs, best videos, unimpeachable testimony, and real evidence like the melted guns in the NYPD police department museum that came from building 6. These guns were fused to melted concrete, which required temperatures of 2500 to 3000 degrees farenhiet. Debunkers are a little dense, but most of them know , just like George Duhhbya Bu$h, how to use the google and can see them for thmnselves with a little plaque by them telling where they are from…G: