The 9/11 Forum

A sort of semi analogous war story:
We are dealing here, in part, with hindsight wisdom. At the time the towers were built the builders and the various authorities did not have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight from the year 2012.

The analogy is large dams - flood mitigation dams, water storage dams and mixed function dams.

Many big ones built prior to WW2. World wide mostly built to similar standards of dam strength design and assumptions about the worst flood they had to withstand.

Starting before WW2 and impacting afterwards came the realisation that "we" had been wrong on three key aspects affecting dam safety:
1) What size of flood should we allow for;
2) Consequences if the dam hadn't been designed for that size flood; AND
3) Realisation that some of the designs were flawed even for the original planned for flood.

In the case of the big dam which is the main storage for Sydney water supply the flood it needed to be designed for was 2.3 times the flood it was actually built to withstand. I got the job of informing the politician bosses the good news.

So we saw major augmentation programs for existing dams world wide through 50's>>>90's. Meanwhile new dams got designed to new rules.

No calls to punish those who got things right by the rules of the time they designed them even though it was later found that the rules were wrong. And no call to punish those who designed the wrong rules.

Ozzie,

Perhaps you are not aware of the history of the construction of the WTC. For one a bomber HAD struck the ESB and the engineers of the towers DID consider such a catastrophe. They made some effort to engineer the towers to withstand the impact. This of course they did successfully. There was a lot of clamor about the height, the egress issues and so forth at the time. These structures were receiving a lot of scrutiny and the public and some professionals were not enamored of what they were doing at the time.

All the developer's PR was about how cool the towers were, how tall, how huge and fast the elevators were, how quickly they were built and how cleverly with an assembly line erector set approach. The architectural community was mostly offended by the design. I am not aware of what the engineering community was thinking. The big concern was wind shear.

Recall that the CitiCorp tower was another ticking time bomb which WAS retrofit when the engineer who had a conscience admitted that he had not considered the forces from a 100 year storm and that the wind shear trusses would fail and the tower come down. The retro fit was a face against the hurricane season. Another crazy design over an existing structure which huge dramatic cantilevers...

We're not exactly talking hindsight here. Engineering and architecture are about PLANNING and that does involve a lot of *what if* examination.

SanderO wrote:You are not aware of the history of the construction of the WTC. For one a bomber HAD struck the ESB and the engineers of the towers DID consider such a catastrophe. They made some effort to engineer the towers to withstand the impact.

No.
They calculated in retrospect, after the design was finished, that (coincidentally, though they probably expected this) the towers would withstand the slicing of perimeter columns along the wingspan of a 707.
It was NOT a design objective that they made any effort towards.

SanderO wrote:This of course they did successfully. There was a lot of clamor about the height, the egress issues and so forth at the time. These structures were receiving a lot of scrutiny and the public and some professionals were not enamored of what they were doing at the time.

Probably right: SOME professionals. What was the consensus?

SanderO wrote:All the developer's PR was about how cool the towers were, how tall, how huge and fast the elevators were, how quickly they were built and how cleverly with an assembly line erector set approach.

Probably right. That was the message for the general public.

SanderO wrote:The architectural community was mostly offended by the design.

What were their reasons for feeling offended?

SanderO wrote:I am not aware of what the engineering community was thinking.

That would be kinda the important group here...

SanderO wrote:The big concern was wind shear.

I am not aware that wind shear turned out to be a real problem. None that was a factor in the eventual collapses at least.

SanderO wrote:Recall that the CitiCorp tower was another ticking time bomb which WAS retrofit when the engineer who had a conscience admitted that he had not considered the forces from a 100 year storm and that the wind shear trusses would fail and the tower come down. The retro fit was a face against the hurricane season. Another crazy design over an existing structure which huge dramatic cantilevers...

Yes, kinda reminiscent of ozeco's big dam war story. So they fixed the problem, they (owner, designers) settled on the financial responsibility, and that was that. Accountability? Yes. Rolling of heads? No. Perhaps as it ought to be.

SanderO wrote:We're not exactly talking hindsight here. Engineering and architecture are about PLANNING and that does involve a lot of *what if* examination.

Yes, and at some point, the buck must stop and the building gets erected.
Like I told uglypig: You can't plan for and successfully design against every possible catastrophe. With 20/20 hindsight you might have done some things different wrt to plane attacks. Still, the plane attacks would have killed many people and totalled the towers, no matter how you build them. The key to significantly improve stuff would not have been to make them safer from collapse, but to provide for more and better egress options.

There is an earthquake with a probability >0 of happening that will flatten every building in NYC. There is an asteroid with a >0 probability of hitting Manhattan. And there is a terrorist plot with a >0 probability of getting carried out to every high rise that will bring it down. To some of these risks, there is no realistic solution, and to some others, the solution lies not in making the structure stronger.

And no contradiction can be seen. So, to that person, no contradiction exists. No need to look.
...........


Oystein, your posts will probably be moved to a new thread soon. (Edit: will be split as described below) Anything that begins to smell too JREF will be put in the appropriate thread opened for that purpose called "Just Plain idiots".

You have little interest in understanding the contents of the forum before posting. Your posts show you are quite proud of that.

This is not a public forum and posters have the requirement to get some understanding of the contents of the forum before posting. Usually this is taken as common sense.

Oystein wrote:

Major_Tom wrote:Ozeco:

So the burden of proof is on Major_Tom to show that these issues I have labelled "details" are significant.

Each "feature" could be thought of as individual threads within this forum.
...

What the...?

You quote a tiny bit of ozeco's post. That's ok. This quote addresses the issue of significance, and who has to show it.

And then you go on, and ignore all of that, and again praise yourself for 2-3 years worth of heaping up detail upon detail.



Question still remains: How is any of this significant, and to whom?

This line of reasoning is very important to both Ozeco, and Oystein.

It shows me that Oystein has little or no idea or interest what has been happening on this forum from 2008 to 2011.

There are some people who, for some reason, think that the lists of features i have presented are "mine" and that I somehow picked which ejections and movements to put on the list and which to disguard.

This is a total illusion for those who wish to disregard the items listed while not bothering to understand what they are.


This is very similar to finding that the NIST reports are "good enough" without needing to read or understand the reports.

This is similar to not bothering to understand the NIST collapse initiation mechanisms while being able to change it form perimeter-led to core-led as one wishes.

This is similar to not bothering to read anything I write in the form of a "book" while incorrectly ascribing what I "think" and how I "reason'.

..................

Posters to this forum do not have the option to regress a state in which years of posts within this same forum can be ignored by people who feel it falls out of their "range of interest".

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


How about if we move the whole burning "range of interest" question to its own thread? In 2012, in this forum, I consider the question to be beyond stupid, but I'd like to give other posters the chance to clarify their arguments against poor ol' Major_Tom. What should we call the thread?


It can be a parallel thread to this to give Oystein the maximum elbow room to extend his arguments which build on his question in the quote above.

I would say it's imperative to understand what drives the individuals you're debating, to prevent you from wasting precious time. We have some people who are obsessive, pedantic contrarians without integrity who hop from forum to forum to execute their 'spiel'. They will lie without abandon. I don't see the point in humoring such people with the attention they crave but don't deserve.

Your book is excellent. If I have any productive criticisms I'll put them in time and I'm sure others will, too. The usual pernicious pro-American, "patriotism" driven, refutation biased "truth" arbitration from JREF is a huge waste of time, imo.

See the agenda, weigh personal integrity, predict the value of "debate".

It is interesting that when the labels of truther and debunker are put aside, it all comes down to how each individual poster perceives contradiction.

If one doesn't see contradiction around the events, one will naturally take the position of debunker.

That person will see others who see major contradictions surrounding the events as "...too detail oriented? .......concerned about insignificant details?....... complaining over nothing??


As I mentioned many times, I see huge contradictions and omissions throughout the collapse histories and the "debates" in general.

The thesis of my book basically says we are within a massive information void on these issues and the resulting confusion can be seen all around us.

What I call a massive information void would be called "good enough" by some other posters.

.....................

Once again, it is ones perception or lack of perception of contradiction that differentiates posters. It is difficult for a person who does not see contradiction to understand where a person who perceives major contradiction is coming from,

Major_Tom wrote:...How about if we move the whole burning "range of interest" question to its own thread? In 2012, in this forum, I consider the question to be beyond stupid, but I'd like to give other posters the chance to clarify their arguments against poor ol' Major_Tom. What should we call the thread?....

Please think l carefully what you are threatening here Major_Tom and recognise that you have a clear conflict of interest. Avoid the appearance that you are trying to use moderating powers to win an argument. To do so would lower the standard of this forum down to or even lower than the JREF which you hold in such contempt. Moderation on JREF is fickle at best - don't set up a worse standard for this island of "Intelligent and evidence-based discussion of 9/11 issues".

That said the core issue of recent contentions is the discussion process question of "significance" or "relevance" of details. With IMO "significance" being the closest to the problem and "relevance" risking being somewhat more emotive.

So a title for a new thread expressed in "posh" academic style could be:
"Taxonomy of the logic of multiple issue debates. What determines that a single issue is significant?" -- but that would be laughable in the setting of this forum.

So try a 'simple English' version such as:
"When do details become significant? When do details lose significance?"

BTW a separate thread will not solve much - it only addresses the first of what I think are four related problems. Plus the issue only arises in the context of a discussion of a topic. Removed from the context it would be a brief and sterile "generic" discussion. I have already identified what is probably the key issue in my post at post19730.html#p19730:

ozeco41 wrote:...Stated generically (and at some risk of being misunderstood) a detail is only of significance at levels up to the system hierarchal level where it changes a conclusion. If it does not change a conclusion at the level of system under discussion it is not significant...

...which IMO encapsulates the problem BUT will be obscure for those who do not use the "system hierarchy" concept. We can say the same thing in the language of sets and subsets without losing much.

Major_Tom wrote:It is interesting that when the labels of truther and debunker are put aside, it all comes down to how each individual poster perceives contradiction.

If one doesn't see contradiction around the events, one will naturally take the position of debunker.

That person will see others who see major contradictions surrounding the events as "...too detail oriented? .......concerned about insignificant details?....... complaining over nothing??...

The terms "truther" and "debunker" have utility value as brief descriptions of the extreme ends of the current polarised spectrum.. But there are lots in between And the emotions attached to those two often outweigh the advantage of brevity.

I see the difference as one of thinking style or reasoning style. It is not something that has been recognised in 9/11 discussion as far as I am aware. The two categories are "convergent thinking" and "divergent thinking". I should have known better but I suggested as much recently in a couple of posts on JREF. Got totally ignored which is a good indication that people are not getting the point. So I have put it on the back burner.

Labels such as truther and debunker are rather limiting and caricatures at best. Those titles represent the end of the spectrum from those who accept the official account right down to all it's details... as fact and those who find it a deception largely a MIHOP with the media carrying water for the perps who are anything from the Mosad, to the DOD, CIA, Cheney and so forth. The media which carries all the official messages seems to have dropped the ball and acted as stenographers... and with very few exceptions we witnessing lots of parroting and little thinking.

ozeco41 wrote:

Major_Tom wrote:...How about if we move the whole burning "range of interest" question to its own thread? In 2012, in this forum, I consider the question to be beyond stupid, but I'd like to give other posters the chance to clarify their arguments against poor ol' Major_Tom. What should we call the thread?....

Please think l carefully what you are threatening here Major_Tom and recognise that you have a clear conflict of interest. Avoid the appearance that you are trying to use moderating powers to win an argument.

Let's not overlook a possible legitimate need to move a subdiscussion to its own topic.

To do so would lower the standard of this forum down to or even lower than the JREF which you hold in such contempt. Moderation on JREF is fickle at best - don't set up a worse standard for this island of "Intelligent and evidence-based discussion of 9/11 issues".

Even if Major_Tom were to unceremoniously blow Oystein away, as unfair as that may seem or be, there would still be no danger of descending to those depths. We're talking about splitting a thread, for goodness' sakes; how many times was Major_Tom alone jacked by the moderators at JREF? Times how many people getting jacked that way?

Just trying to put it in perspective. Of course, when one wants to uphold a reputation of unbiased moderation, one has to continually act in accordance with that ideal. There's a huge difference between a thread split and the sort of shenanigans which have gone on at JREF unabated for years.

That said the core issue of recent contentions is the discussion process question of "significance" or "relevance" of details. With IMO "significance" being the closest to the problem and "relevance" risking being somewhat more emotive.

See, that's worth a thread on its own.

I really don't want to pass judgement on the significance of any of these details. Big deal, not a big deal, I think the relative importance is determined by comparison with the official works on the subject. The NIST reports were comprehensive, sure, but does that extend to including large amounts of unimportant detail? Probably not. When you consider the final contingencies came to to ballistic stripping of fireproofing and an unsupported length of a single column, seems like detail is paramount.

I recall a discussion which took place between Urich and Mackey several years ago on JREF, regarding the mechanics of stripping the fireproofing. This discussion, informal though it was and conducted amidst all the usual noise, rose to a higher level than any on the topic I'd seen. Urich's position was that the debris field trajectory was purely classical particle, where Mackey felt it was well into the fluid regime. Just another detail? Well, the difference very likely dictates the degree of fireproofing removal, with removal of significant amounts going from likely/plausible to unlikely in moving between the scenarios.

On the surface, and at the outset, it's hard to say what details matter to what extent and in what way. It is fairly safe to say, though, that any detail integral to the narrative ought to be correct or mostly so. The more details which pile up - even if they are only up for question 10+ years later - the more it matters. If these rather peculiar and specific failure modes outlined by NIST are not the actual failure modes, what is the point of the effort? Beyond a certain threshold, it would be back to the drawing board (I'm not saying that's the case).

OneWhiteEye wrote:Let's not overlook a possible legitimate need to move a subdiscussion to its own topic.

Perhaps. But it ain't my topic originally. M_T basically talks of excising me, not ozeco. He hates my guts. That's where the conflict of interest arises: Every post by M_T directed at me is vitriolic and personal and insulting.

If anything out to be cut ought, it's M_T's posts. If I were moderator...

OneWhiteEye wrote:Even if Major_Tom were to unceremoniously blow Oystein away, as unfair as that may seem or be, there would still be no danger of descending to those depths. We're talking about splitting a thread, for goodness' sakes; how many times was Major_Tom alone jacked by the moderators at JREF? Times how many people getting jacked that way?

Oh the irony. Remember it was none other than I who officially protested the removal of M_T's thread from the 9/11 subforum. Ironic that you excuse administrative measures against me with things that other people do at another forum that I do not agree with.

OneWhiteEye wrote:Just trying to put it in perspective. Of course, when one wants to uphold a reputation of unbiased moderation, one has to continually act in accordance with that ideal. There's a huge difference between a thread split and the sort of shenanigans which have gone on at JREF unabated for years.

This level of "argumentation" should be very much beneath you. I am really quite surprised.

Oystein wrote:

OneWhiteEye wrote:Even if Major_Tom were to unceremoniously blow Oystein away, as unfair as that may seem or be, there would still be no danger of descending to those depths. We're talking about splitting a thread, for goodness' sakes; how many times was Major_Tom alone jacked by the moderators at JREF? Times how many people getting jacked that way?

Oh the irony. Remember it was none other than I who officially protested the removal of M_T's thread from the 9/11 subforum. Ironic that you excuse administrative measures against me with things that other people do at another forum that I do not agree with.

Indeed, credit where credit is due. No offense, but I'm guessing the number of times you've stood by mute while flagrant abuse goes on around you versus having that sort of reaction is of the order of hundreds to one. I've seen it. Not that you have a responsibility for stewardship at any forum at which you are simply a member, but it does make me cut my eye when all of a sudden good stewardship is so important - at this forum. Still, credit where credit is due.

This level of "argumentation" should be very much beneath you. I am really quite surprised.

Oh no, those Jedi mind tricks do not work on me. I didn't say it would be just or fair, not at all. What I said is a fact - sorry I had to use you as an example - whatever minor tragedy is represented by unfairly kicking you out pales in comparison to what's gone on over there since the devil was a boy. I'm not going to be pigeonholed into some moral equivocation prodded by the notion that, in order to avoid sinking lower than JREF, this forum has to behave a hundred times better. That's bullshit, plain and simple. I've heard that sort of nonsense before in other arenas.

And, so, we're talking panties-in-a-bunch over a thread split? Really?

Oystein wrote:Remember it was none other than I who officially protested the removal of M_T's thread from the 9/11 subforum.

FYI, despite being a member, I cannot view your link. Those features are not available to me. A moderation issue.