The 9/11 Forum

T_Szamboti wrote:

Trippy wrote:

T_Szamboti wrote:Most interested people should now know that cancer is promoted by stress. Smoking is both a stress reliever as well as a possible stressor, so this is not a good analogy. Consumption of alcohol has benefits in that it relieves mental stress and physically opens the arteries and capillaries allowing full blood flow but if used excessively can lead to liver problems, so it too is a stress reliever as well as a possible stressor, and as such is a poor analogy here also.

Once again in trying to defend your stance you miss the point entirely.
The links between smoking and various forms of cancer related morbidity are well established, but, just for your benefit allow me to reword the statement.

"If you genuinely believe that correlation implies or assures causation then I have a case study for you that demonstrates that heavy smoking promotes longevity".

There is so much circumstantial evidence that fires did not cause the three high rise collapses on Sept. 11, 2001 it is ridiculous, and anyone who can sit there and honestly say they don't think there needs to be a new investigation lives in a dream world. Of course, there is also the possibility that some can't honestly say that but do so anyway.

I hope you don't mind if I don't respond to you anymore here Trippy. I have heard and do not agree with your convoluted arguments in support of the present government theory concerning the collapses on 911 before.

Funny you should say that, because the conspiracy theories seem to me to be as convulted as you're claiming the 'official explanation' is. Personally, I have yet to see a single piece of unambiguous evidence, circumstantial or otherwise that supports any individual 'alternative' collapse theory, and have seen a number of contradictions within them (as well as circumstantial evidence supporting the idea that fire bought at the very least WTC 1&2 down even if NIST didn't get the mechanism perfect).

You may have heard some of my arguments, but that doesn't mean you've understood them, or have you finally figured out why your data in your paper is smoothed?

You mean like nanothermite in the dust? Oh, I'm sorry, yesterday I have found acylpyrin tablets in the dust from my room, I guess that the forces of nature are not playing dice afterall.

Or WTC7's freefall? The correlation between the computer rooms, impacts, core column transitions, the bowing section with (oddly enough) out of service elevators behind them..etc?

These are good points Trippy and I understand what you're saying. None of this should be overlooked in assessing the situation. I have some more pertinent remarks about the possible causes for the event in question, but I would like to delve a bit into the application of probability.

Suppose there was a lottery in which the winning numbers in a given week were 4,5,6,7. As you note, the sequence 4,5,6,7 is as likely as any other 4 number sequence chosen from 40 balls. I'll add that the probability of this occurrence is independent of previous or subsequent trials in a fair game. The sequence, then, is just as likely to occur the following week. The fact that it just occurred has no bearing on the future probability. The probability of the sequence occurring successively, however, is very much less than occurring singly, being the square of the value for a single event.

P(A∩B) = P(A)P(B) when A,B independent.

Suppose the winning numbers one week are announced as 4-5-6-7. Of 100 people hearing this:

- 97 believe the lottery is rigged because they see a 'special pattern' as being unlikely
- 1 thinks it's rigged because there is prior evidence of corruption amongst commission members and the lottery winner was the commissioner's former business partner
- 1 thinks it's not rigged because the pattern is not at all special and has equal chance of occurring as any other sequence
- 1 knows it's rigged because they did it, but publically claims otherwise citing the same reasons of probability

The following week, the winning numbers are 17-12-23-34

- 97 have no opinion on the lottery outcome other than they're pissed they didn't win
- 1 thinks it's rigged because there is prior evidence of corruption amongst commission members and the lottery winner was again the commissioner's former business partner
- 1 thinks it's not rigged because the pattern is not at all special and has equal chance of occurring as any other sequence, as well the participants have equal chance of winning and one can observe the chances of winning twice in a row are very low but, a posteriori, the low probability signifies nothing since it actually happened
- 1 knows it's rigged because they did it, but says nothing because there's only one crackpot demanding answers

OK, my 'parable' is a little weak but I hope you get what I'm saying. Of course, correlation does not imply causation. Causation does not imply observable correlation, either. When it is impossible to meaningfully evaluate the probability of a given condition or event, little meaningful can be concluded using probabilistic inference. Given some context, the estimations can be reformulated dramatically. In the above example's first week , 99 people guessed the solution and one already knew. Of the 99:

- 97 guessed correctly for the wrong reason
- 1 guessed correctly because of mitigating context, yet was making a leap of faith without support of direct evidence
- 1 guessed incorrectly, though applying perfectly sound reasoning absent a context, in this case either unaware of mitigating context or refusing to admit it as relevant

Had the second week's numbers instead been 4-5-6-7, would there be any reason for the statistically-minded individual to come a different conclusion? Wouldn't the 97 be screaming bloody murder, again for the wrong reason? Sometimes methods grounded purely in probability theory are suboptimal in providing confidence in determining causation.

Is it a mistake for the statistician to conclude the game is not rigged, as opposed to merely saying it's inconclusive based on evidence they deem significant out of that which is available to them?

Trippy wrote:I can think of any number of reasons why this might be the case, for example battery failure, camera malfunction, corrupted footage etc, or maybe the third party who's entrance was muted managed to get into the shot briefly.

I assign a low probability of occurrence to the 'glitch' category based on a number of contextual factors and a great deal of admittedly subjective impressions, but of course glitches can't be ruled out. Even a panel of regarded experts studying (after the fact) the entire processing chain from capture to posting might not be able to rule out the first three causes you mentioned. Then again, maybe they could.

Considering B&B were repeatedly asked point-blank why this particular segment was missing, and the only explanation they provided was the one I mentioned above, it's almost silly to assume it's anything but editing. Nevertheless, I personally have higher confidence in the following scenario than I do the answer from the horse's mouth:

Fade in/out was set on the camera. The operator had their finger parked on the record button, flipped out when the collapse started, tried to pan up and hit the button once, realized they lost picture, hit it again.

However, this is a leap of faith for me, having never had anything similar happen accidentally with either raw footage or post-processing for any reason and based on my limited experience with camcorders and non-linear editing (freeware up to Vegas). For the same reason, based on what I know, this is the most plausible explanation for the particular sequence other than deliberate edit. It relieves the burden of random timing coincidence; the collapse event would be directly correlated, AND indirectly causative. Though I'm not aware of any mechanism by which a glitch would produce an out-of-sequence frame, I can imagine this scenario as plausible, cannot rule it out and, based on personal experience, rate it as more likely than even their stated reason. It definitely takes purely random glitch by a country mile.

The brevity of the episode makes the chance of pointing the camera in any direction other than the tower vanishingly small. Prior to the event, the camera was panning slowly below, then started upward when the apparent editing and definite cut took place. After the cut, the shot is steady on the tower; it's only a few seconds at most. They have plenty of personal stuff on the audio, including conversation with a visiting friend/relative. Regardless, muting is sufficient with audio only, definitely preferred for the 'money shot'. When asked, they do not provide this explanation. Why choose this possibility, given this evidence, even though it can't be ruled out?

What about inadvertent error while editing? It can be seen directly, without B&B comment, that the video WAS edited (intentionally and successfully) in several places. Despite years to get it right, despite having no similar problem elsewhere in the video, B clobbers the money shot, neither B notices it, and when asked about it honestly cite "editing for bandwidth", still oblivious to their error. Sorry, can't really evaluate the probability. Somewhere between winged monkeys flying out my butt and my preferred choice, I'd guess.

I take deliberate editing without explanation or obvious acceptable reason; that's not a conclusion, it's an impression (as I stated). It is their private video, they could have kept it so forever or released it with frames in random order and I couldn't fault them - but nothing says I have to like it. It is an incredible video... AND they screwed up an important part, AND they failed to provide a credible explanation when asked. Had they done so, it could still be incorrect or a deliberate falsehood, but there would be a lot more to work with.

Unless someone provides additional context to better resolve the issue, I'm sticking by it. For example, demonstrating that out of sequence frames is known consequence of a particular camera condition bolsters the chances of glitch, but my money would still be on the glitch I described above if relative probabilities could not be established between types of glitches. One could demonstrate that the editor they used could produce one out of sequence frame because of a bug when attempting to do a fade, but then must explain why this portion was edited at all, and would be less a confidence booster than an interesting coincidence. B&B could (and may have since) provide clarification or follow through with their stated intention of releasing the entire footage.

Edit: I should add, it took me only a few minutes' examination and consideration to arrive at every detail of this impression; it took a hell of a lot longer to explain it.

Any one watched the second video?

Some of it, just now. Pretty easy to be critical of the technique, but when I got here:



it became an entirely different story. Will finish it, gotta go.

peterene1 wrote:You mean like nanothermite in the dust? Oh, I'm sorry, yesterday I have found acylpyrin tablets in the dust from my room, I guess that the forces of nature are not playing dice afterall.

Harrit's 'Proof' that it is Nanothermite is based on the assumption that nanothermite is present, it's called circular logic (among other things).

His technique, as described in his paper is at best hamfisted and ameturish, and some of his conclusions are outright wrong (for example, elemental aluminium reacts violently with MEK and yet he cites the lack of a reaction as proof of it's presence).

He made a number of basic errors that should never have made it through the peer review process (if the material is genuinely thermitic, and he genuinely believed it to be thermitic, why conduct the differential calorimetry in air?) and published the paper without the journal editors knowledge (something she later resigned over).

peterene1 wrote:Or WTC7's freefall? The correlation between the computer rooms, impacts, core column transitions, the bowing section with (oddly enough) out of service elevators behind them..etc?

Correlation does not imply causation. It's the FIRST thing you get taught in statistics.
Humans see patterns and coincidences, and assume there's some underlying driver, intelligent design should be enough to demonstrate that to you (if you don't like that, look into some of the ways the anthropic principle has been misrepresented).
What about Chocolate causing car accidents?
What about storks delivering babies?
What about heavy smoking, morbid obesity, or high blood pressure extending life expectancy?

OneWhiteEye wrote:Had the second week's numbers instead been 4-5-6-7, would there be any reason for the statistically-minded individual to come a different conclusion? Wouldn't the 97 be screaming bloody murder, again for the wrong reason? Sometimes methods grounded purely in probability theory are suboptimal in providing confidence in determining causation.

Is it a mistake for the statistician to conclude the game is not rigged, as opposed to merely saying it's inconclusive based on evidence they deem significant out of that which is available to them?

Apparently my point wasn't as clear as I thought it was - in part, don't assume that because two things happen at the same time that there's neccessarily a causal relationship between them. Consider carefuly the wording that I have used, reread my posts, and then realize that i've already considered the points that you're making (or seem to be making).

My sole point in bringing up the example of the lottery draw was to illustrate that sometimes, genuine coincidences happen.

I don't even know where to start trying to explain anything just at the moment.

Consider the facts for a moment.
If we accept the analysis that has been done, then there was a rumble 12 seconds before the building started collapsing, and again as the collapse progressed.

So what? How does that prove that explosives were involved?

Simply by slamming my lounge door closed, I can produce a wave form with an attack of <5ms, that shows an infrasound signature - the very same characteristics that are claimed for the rumble to indicate the presence of explosives. I can also back this up with independent peer reviewed literature - i've given citations which have been apparently ignore.

We know that the 1975 fire caused damage and sagging to the steel trusses.

My explanation:
The rumbles were caused by partial or full floor collapses that occurred as part of the insults to the structure that led to the final global collapse of the building, the shake in the camera may simply be wind related (yes, even though it potentially occurs in two seperate locations - remember, two points are joined by a straight line, and gusts have 3d structure).

The alternative:
Somebody snuck tens of tons of explosives into the twin towers, and rigged them for demolitions with no one noticing (never mind the fact that there is no self consistent picture of the physicochemical properties of the explosives being used).

And newton - four students is not the same thing, especially when you consider some of the testimony that has been forwarded in association with the guy that claims part of the tower was powered down (the testimony, if I can ever find it, indicates that people may have been aware of what was going on WRT the students, so they didn't manage to sneak in as perfectly as has been claimed).

Trippy wrote:The alternative:
Somebody snuck tens of tons of explosives into the twin towers, and rigged them for demolitions with no one noticing (never mind the fact that there is no self consistent picture of the physicochemical properties of the explosives being used).

I'm not ready to add my own audio analysis yet (have been on a rollercoaster crawl for a few days ), and without cross-referencing to other video audio streams there is little point in attempting to draw any conclusions IMO.

However, I think it is important to highlight that no-one on this forum, even those on the CD side of the fence, subscribe to the notion that "tons of explosive" were used, or required. That over-simplistic fallback position is more at home in other forums and I would recommend that the numerous other threads on initiation and continuation of descent are read in full.

A *boom* suggested as being due to an explosion does not imply said ridiculous volumes of explosives, nor does it require a horde of sneaky bodies installing charges in plain view. Chemical analysis of a higher volume of the debris may well have provided many conclusive answers, but we shall never know, shall we. All of those kind of arguments can be discussed ad-infinatum, and again serve little purpose in technical analysis of the details in question. Suggest such black/white options are more appropriate on other forums.

peterene1 wrote:You mean like nanothermite in the dust? Oh, I'm sorry, yesterday I have found acylpyrin tablets in the dust from my room, I guess that the forces of nature are not playing dice afterall.

Harrit's 'Proof' that it is Nanothermite is based on the assumption that nanothermite is present, it's called circular logic (among other things).

His technique, as described in his paper is at best hamfisted and ameturish, and some of his conclusions are outright wrong (for example, elemental aluminium reacts violently with MEK and yet he cites the lack of a reaction as proof of it's presence).

He made a number of basic errors that should never have made it through the peer review process (if the material is genuinely thermitic, and he genuinely believed it to be thermitic, why conduct the differential calorimetry in air?) and published the paper without the journal editors knowledge (something she later resigned over).

First of all, any highly polarized opinion do not belong to this forum, it is it's nature. The problem is that once is this ethic rule broken, then it is broken and we have no choice, but to respond you in the same way, because you are obviously used to it.

First of all it is not Harrit's paper, but mentioning one name makes the ad-hominem arguments easier, right?

"(for example, elemental aluminium reacts violently with MEK and yet he cites the lack of a reaction as proof of it's presence)."

Do you live in this universe? Last time I checked passivated aluminium did not react with MEK. 2. he does not use this as a proof of the elementar aluminium, read the papper.

He made a number of basic errors that should never have made it through the peer review process

List those ugly errors!

if the material is genuinely thermitic, and he genuinely believed it to be thermitic, why conduct the differential calorimetry in air?) and published the paper without the journal editors knowledge (something she later resigned over).

You fail at basic chemistry, the iron oxide has been reduced, this means that something had to reduce it. Or how do you imagine that process? That pesky organic stood absolutely calm until 430°C, than it burned with air and than the carbon magically resurected to reduce the iron oxide?

If it would simply burn, it would not give sharp spike and it would not reduce the iron oxide, hence thermitic reaction occured, period! And I don't give a dam if it was due to aluminium, carbone or both. This stuff reacts without oxygene, while producing molten iron!
The latter nonsense doesn't have to be adressed, like dismissing the WTC7's freefall, or dismising CD on the basis of your limited imagination...................

You accuse me of linking correlation to causation, yet you suffer from pretty much the same lame logical fallacy.

With members like you, this forum will start to grow into the nonsense sphere. Look at the number of pages in this topic and compare it with the rest! People like you and me destroy the debate (that's why I comment not so often)....

femr2 wrote:

Trippy wrote:The alternative:
Somebody snuck tens of tons of explosives into the twin towers, and rigged them for demolitions with no one noticing (never mind the fact that there is no self consistent picture of the physicochemical properties of the explosives being used).

I'm not ready to add my own audio analysis yet (have been on a rollercoaster crawl for a few days ), and without cross-referencing to other video audio streams there is little point in attempting to draw any conclusions IMO.

However, I think it is important to highlight that no-one on this forum, even those on the CD side of the fence, subscribe to the notion that "tons of explosive" were used, or required. That over-simplistic fallback position is more at home in other forums and I would recommend that the numerous other threads on initiation and continuation of descent are read in full.

A *boom* suggested as being due to an explosion does not imply said ridiculous volumes of explosives, nor does it require a horde of sneaky bodies installing charges in plain view. Chemical analysis of a higher volume of the debris may well have provided many conclusive answers, but we shall never know, shall we. All of those kind of arguments can be discussed ad-infinatum, and again serve little purpose in technical analysis of the details in question. Suggest such black/white options are more appropriate on other forums.

I'm sorry, where did I state or imply the two were neccessarily linked?
Oh, that's right, I didn't
I think it might have been Steven Jones that suggested that sort of volume of material, and as that's the only suggestion i've ever seen as to numbers...

Trippy, they calculated the amount from the percentage of nanothermite from the dust. Unlike you, they actually performed some science.

Now, in huge skyscrapers there are tons of material transported each day, in and out. So bringing ten tons of material inside the twin towers wouldn't be that hard, especially during the neverending elevator modernistation (for example look at the elevator shafts 6A and 7A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPtAOtO1nTY.

It means that you would use two trucks with a few pallets and than you would make a few elevator trips. 15-30 charges on the core columns, 10 tons for each tower. No logisticaly complicated operation at all. The CC of importance were WF columns with rectangular plaster cover. You would replace the sheetrock, while leaving a charge in the cavity. No hard and complicated work plus no one would notice that the charges are there, even from the shafts.

edit:

We know that the 1975 fire caused damage and sagging to the steel trusses.

False, the sagging was minor and, correct me if I'm wrong, no truss had to be replaced.

Even then, the NIST story would require 3m deep sagging of fully fireproofed trusses in 20 minutes of fire exposure, and this is not the only problem with the current NIST hypothesis,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwXLIdMzmG8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTqY_dld08g

You also did not reply me in regard to the nanothermite, no arguments, perhaps?

I suggest that we should start a new thread as a continuation of this discussion.

OneWhiteEye wrote:Some of it, just now. Pretty easy to be critical of the technique, but when I got here:



it became an entirely different story. Will finish it, gotta go.

The technique is apparently common in the music world, for restoring dynamics to flat mixes handy for tightening up live mixes, where there might be a bleed into the bass drum mic from other low end stage sources it restores punch!

You can use it on complete mixes, subtly to get every thing to pulse to the bass drum. Or so I'm informed.

These sub bass peaks are short in duration 200 ms average. They appear to be associated with a double early reflection during that time, so the duration could be as small as ~ 25 ms

Here's the sonogram of the initiation bang, raw audio, linear Hz scale



The bang is marked with the white lines, you can see the three peaks.

Here's the Utube video the audio guy mentioned
Pre Collapse rumble
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHTvrIT7wiM

There appears to be further movement after the simultaneous movement with Sauret, these movements don't appear in Sauret, but do coincide with sub bass peaks (just a quick check running the audio with the video on Utube). There is a smaller movement at the end of the Sauret sequence.

Other UT vids you're all likely to be familiar with.

9/11 Bombed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E-tieJFVGY

Shake and smoke
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDa94ADiiLA

It is a remarkable coincidence that the rumble coincides with two other videos.

Any one bright enough to work out how much energy would be required to move the mass of the camera by those displacements in the Sauret shake? (bit of a long shot)

peterene1 wrote:

peterene1 wrote:You mean like nanothermite in the dust? Oh, I'm sorry, yesterday I have found acylpyrin tablets in the dust from my room, I guess that the forces of nature are not playing dice afterall.

Harrit's 'Proof' that it is Nanothermite is based on the assumption that nanothermite is present, it's called circular logic (among other things).

His technique, as described in his paper is at best hamfisted and ameturish, and some of his conclusions are outright wrong (for example, elemental aluminium reacts violently with MEK and yet he cites the lack of a reaction as proof of it's presence).

He made a number of basic errors that should never have made it through the peer review process (if the material is genuinely thermitic, and he genuinely believed it to be thermitic, why conduct the differential calorimetry in air?) and published the paper without the journal editors knowledge (something she later resigned over).

First of all, any highly polarized opinion do not belong to this forum, it is it's nature. The problem is that once is this ethic rule broken, then it is broken and we have no choice, but to respond you in the same way, because you are obviously used to it.

Whatever makes you feel better - I suggest you re-read the thread, initially (and primarily) the only thing that I have suggested in this thread is that a collision has (or can have) the same acoustic properties as what's being described by no_body (short attack + Infrasound). And you know what? I can't help but notice that not one single person has addressed that point, all that's been offered in response is insults and accusations.

peterene1 wrote:First of all it is not Harrit's paper, but mentioning one name makes the ad-hominem arguments easier, right?

What part of my statement is ad-hominem?
I think you need to look up what it means, I have precisely addressed the argument by addressing the paper. You might have a point if I had called Harrit a ham fisted hack, but I didn't, the closest I came was describing the experimental technique laid out in that specific paper as ham fisted and amatureish.

peterene1 wrote:

"(for example, elemental aluminium reacts violently with MEK and yet he cites the lack of a reaction as proof of it's presence)."

Do you live in this universe? Last time I checked passivated aluminium did not react with MEK. 2. he does not use this as a proof of the elementar aluminium, read the papper[sic].

I have read the paper, several times, and this is precisely one of the things he claims in it (when I have the opportunity, I'll direct you to where he makes this claim.

peterene1 wrote:

He made a number of basic errors that should never have made it through the peer review process

List those ugly errors!

I've listed some of them already.

peterene1 wrote:

if the material is genuinely thermitic, and he genuinely believed it to be thermitic, why conduct the differential calorimetry in air?) and published the paper without the journal editors knowledge (something she later resigned over).

You fail at basic chemistry, the iron oxide has been reduced, this means that something had to reduce it. Or how do you imagine that process? That pesky organic stood absolutely calm until 430°C, than it burned with air and than the carbon magically resurected to reduce the iron oxide?

You fail at basic chemistry. Have you read the paper? You obviously haven't understood what i've said, or why it's important.
The role of ferric oxide in alluminoferric thermite is as an oxidizer.
None of what you're saying here is even remotely implied by anything that i've said.
And yes, I expect that it was quite stable until it reached some temperature where it ignited, most things behave that way, what changes is the temperature.
I 'imagine' that the Iron was reduced before it was added to the mix, and this is true irrespective of whether we're talking about the Iron in Thermite, or the Iron in Tnemec 99 Red.

peterene1 wrote:If it would simply burn, it would not give sharp spike and it would not reduce the iron oxide, hence thermitic reaction occured, period! And I don't give a dam if it was due to aluminium, carbone or both. This stuff reacts without oxygene, while producing molten iron!

Where's your proof that this stuff reacts without air (If by this stuff you mean the dust samples)?
Harrit didn't provide it, which would be why I raised the point.
You apparently don't understand how a differential calorimeter works - any small sample igniting will produce a pronounced and narrow peak.

peterene1 wrote:The latter nonsense doesn't have to be adressed, like dismissing the WTC7's freefall, or dismising CD on the basis of your limited imagination...................

I don't even know where to start with this - which is one of the reasons why I didn't address it in my previous post (not because I was 'ignoring' or 'dismissing' it (although I imagine that with most of the core structure taken out, that the rest of it would pretty much fall straight down unsupported, and Szambotti once suggested there was a jolt present in the WTC 7 which pretty much puts paid to any suggestions of free fall).

peterene1 wrote:You accuse me of linking correlation to causation, yet you suffer from pretty much the same lame logical fallacy.

You have failed to prove this.

peterene1 wrote:With members like you, this forum will start to grow into the nonsense sphere. Look at the number of pages in this topic and compare it with the rest! People like you and me destroy the debate (that's why I comment not so often)....

This is ad hominem.

peterene1 wrote:Trippy, they calculated the amount from the percentage of nanothermite from the dust. Unlike you, they actually performed some science.

Ad hominem. I have no interest in discussing this further unless you can keep a civil tongue, so far you've failed at that, and produced nothing that would entice me to pursue this matter much further with you.

peterene1 wrote:

We know that the 1975 fire caused damage and sagging to the steel trusses.

False, the sagging was minor and, correct me if I'm wrong, no truss had to be replaced.

False?

I didn't address the degree of the sagging, merely pointed out that it occured, a point which you have agreed with, so how is my statement false again?

peterene1 wrote:You also did not reply me in regard to the nanothermite, no arguments, perhaps?

Give me a break. Seriously. You genuinely believe this? You expect me to address multiple posts simultaneously?

peterene1 wrote:I suggest that we should start a new thread as a continuation of this discussion.

Feel free to start a new thread elsewhere if you want to, I probably won't be joining you.