Is the Official 9/11 story Woo? because the 'investigation' wasn't based on science

[Chrom]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Skinner (a host of the General Discussion forum).

In fact, they didn't even want an investigation.

Bush administration fought against any kind of investigation until the Jersey girls pushed hard enough to get one.

Then it was a stacked commission with Bush testifying while sitting on Cheney's lap, but not under oath.


They never examined the fact that many other steel buildings in other countries have been engulfed in flames for hours and not collapsed....

Science was needed to explain why our steel is so much weaker, our buildings so badly built...that they fell like that.

But why it is Woo to even ask these questions?

I don't think people are really worried about woo,

they are worried about people questioning the official narrative of US Corporations/government

[Berlum]

1. Technically, the 9/11 lies are Poo* (R)

as the record proves beyond dispute.

* Crappy, perverted materialistic application of "science" with the intent of distorting or obscuring reality.

[snooper2]

2. Here we go LOL

Has anyone ever done a study on how the brain works based on temperature?


It's been getting colder across the country, does the brain function slower in the cold like my Dodge truck?

[Fumesucker]

4. The general perception is that high temps and humidity make you less smart

Think about which region of the country has the reputation of being backwards.

[geek tragedy]

5. Seattle? nt

[Ranchemp.]

18. Nevada? eom.

[treestar]

3. Nah, that was just failure to investigate nt

[edhopper]

6. Did it give a paranormal or supernatural explanation?

Or is it just a technical difference, without enough information to make a clear result?

Not having enough data for an answer IS science, wild speculation eliciting causes for which there is no evidence is woo.

[Chrom]

7. I would say the official explanation is supernatural

This group who hates our freedom, is able to overcome the most financially bloated and well respected military in the world, effectively shutting down our fighter jets for over an hour....

then they are able to use jet fuel to take down three steel structures, steel structures have never collapsed due to fire before.

There are huge steel towers in Venezuela and Madrid which burned for hours, all night long, nothing was left but the shell but they didn't collapse, because steel doesn't usually melt like that.

I would like a scientific explanation for that, but science has no place in the examination of 9/11, it is 'woo' if you question Bushco.

[edhopper]

9. I believe there is a separate forum for this discussion.

while I have not immersed myself in the debate, the little I have read seem to be a difference of opinion on technical and engineering matters.
So no it is not woo. It may be incorrect, or the present scenario might be true. But neither is woo.

Did Oswald act alone or was it a conspiracy. Either side does not involve woo, and neither does this.

I hope that satisfies your question.

[Major Nikon]

10. "steel doesn't usually melt like that"

Parts of the buildings in Caracas and Madrid did collapse, and why? Because the steel "melted". Both buildings were in extreme danger of collapsing. Fires burn at different temperatures depending on what is fueling them and how much oxygen they get. Neither building you mentioned had a transport category jet crash into their structure dumping tens of thousands of gallons of Jet-A into them. Jet fuel burns as high as 1800F. Structural steel loses strength as temperature rises and will lose almost all of its integrity well before it "melts".

[BelgianMadCow]

12. True, steel loses strength before melting, but can you explain symmetrical collapse due to

assymetrical damage? Buildings falling through the greatest path of resistance at near freefall speed (WTC7)? I can't.

And NIST's unvalidated, non-peer reviewed, secret models are a very definite case of woo.

[Major Nikon]

13. I has been explained many times

It's certainly your choice whether or not to accept it. Calling the explanation woo is a good example of intellectual bankruptcy.

Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE , Vol. 134 (2008)
...
Conclusions
Several of the parameters of the present mathematical model have a large range of uncertainty. However, the solution exhibits small sensitivity to some of them, and the values of others can be fixed on the basis of observations or physical analysis. One and the same mathematical model, with one and the same set of parameters, is shown capable of matching all of the observations, including: (1) the video records of the first few seconds of motion of both towers, (2) the seismic records for both towers, (3) the mass and size distributions of the comminuted particles of concrete, (4) the energy requirement for the comminution that occurred, (5) the wide spread of the fine dust around the tower, (6) the loud booms heard during collapse, (7) the fast expansion of dust clouds during collapse, and (8) the dust content of cloud implied by its size. At the same time, the alternative allegations of some kind of controlled demolition are shown to be totally out of range of the present mathematical model, even if the full range of parameter uncertainties is considered. [div style="display:inline; background-color:#FFFF66;"]These conclusions show the allegations of controlled demolition to be absurd and leave no doubt that the towers failed due to gravity-driven progressive collapse triggered by the effects of fire.

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20Did%20%26%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It.pdf

[BelgianMadCow]

19. I called NIST's non-disclosure of model parameters woo

as in, no way to conduct science. Thanks for the link, less so for the ad-hominem.

[Major Nikon]

37. Which wouldn't be an example of woo

The modeling data was but one aspect of perhaps one of the most thorough and detailed civil engineering investigations in history. Trying to impeach the entire investigation based on but one aspect of a larger body of evidence that all points to the same direction, is woo. Anyone who doubts the NIST model is perfectly free to use the exact same commercially available software, plug in their own data, and produce their own model for review. In fact, other outside entities have also produced their own models which produced the same conclusions. The University of Edinburgh produced a model which concluded that even without the damage from the planes and Jet-A fuel, a sustained uncontrolled fire would have brought down the buildings.

[geek tragedy]

11. This is classic nutjob woo--several other steel frame buildings have collapsed

due to fire.

But, the 911 Truth Squad ignores that inconvenient fact because it undercuts the foundation for their sad little sub-religion. So they go around lying and claiming that no other steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire, because they need to believe it, even though they know it's true.

[BelgianMadCow]

15. Are there any cases of skyscrapers similar to the three towers falling like they did

caused by fire? I'd like to see the examples, should you have any links handy.

I am very skeptical of the official explanations and investigations, but prefer to remain outside the nutjob category, so I'd revise my opinion with convincing info.

The Caracas and Madrid (Windsor building) examples mentioned upthread don't do that job for me.

[geek tragedy]

17. People tend to overlook the fact that a giant airplane collided with the steel superstructure

which in no small part contributed to the failure of the steel.

As far as skyscrapers that combine the intense heat from jet fuel with the physical force of 200 tons going hundreds of KPH colliding with the structure, sorry can't help you with that.

[Chrom]

22. People tend to overlook the fact that Building 7 was not hit by an airplane

People tend to overlook building 7 entirely.

Why is that?

Why would the government and media pretend that one didn't even fall?

Because there is no freaking explanation for a tiny fire causing a huge steel building to collapse completely.

But we can trust the government and the corporate media....

[geek tragedy]

23. "tiny fire"

another example of the conspiracy woo crowd just making shit up in order to support their false religion.

After the North tower fell, its debris ignited several large, out of control fires in several different locations in WTC.

And, people who actually know stuff did a report on this:

In November 2008, NIST released its final report on the causes of the collapse of 7 World Trade Center.[13] This followed NIST's August 21, 2008, draft report which included a period for public comments.[40] In its investigation, NIST utilized ANSYS to model events leading up to collapse initiation and LS-DYNA models to simulate the global response to the initiating events.[49] NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the Twin Towers, nor did the transfer elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs). But the lack of water to fight the fire was an important factor. The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near column 79 to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, column 79 buckled – pulling the east penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With the buckling of these critical columns, the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the remaining portion of the building above to fall downward as a single unit. The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse.[13]

But, some guy on the Internet with a youtube page says differently, so the scientists must be lying.

[Chrom]

30. tiny compared to other buildings that did not collapse

[geek tragedy]

35. Let's see, internet photo vs NIST. Hmm, close call, but

internet photo is not quite convincing.

Maybe if you had a youtube instead.

[zappaman]

24. No they don't.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278874

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=7075

If you need another 1000 or so links, let me know!

[Ranchemp.]

29. I'll trust the govt on this more that you and those wacky CT'ers.

The govt brought in a whole bevy of experts who spent months/years analyzing what happened, so, am I to believe an anonymous voice on an internet chat board over the experts?
I think not, besides, this crap belongs here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1135

not in GD.

[whatchamacallit]

8. Yes

[Capt. Obvious]

14. Does the official story cause Autism?

[cthulu2016]

16. 1) No. 2) Who cares?

[Ranchemp.]

20. Best answer yet. eom.

[Autumn]

21. Good question. I find it strange that the one event that has had such a

bad impact on our Democracy and country is alerted on for CT in an attempt to make sure there is no discussion of the events you mention in your OP. Historical facts are CT. Fucking crazy.

Your last sentence is the answer.

[geek tragedy]

25. If you refuse to enforce the SOP for GD due to your belief in 911 Trutherism, you ought to resign

as a host.

Maybe you are qualified to host Creative Speculation.

[zappaman]

28. +100! n/t

[Ranchemp.]

32. +1000. eom.

[Douglas Carpenter]

41. +1000 any host who refuses to respect the established rules that are very clear should resign

especially if they are promoting conspiracy theories like 911 trutherism that embarrass and discredit the progressive cause

[LeftishBrit]

26. The theory that Iraq was involved certainly is!

In fact, the way in which the Bushies were able to convince too many people of this obvious lie is what originally made me concerned about wild 9-11 CT theories in the first place. Saddam dunnit! The only reason why the UN was against going into Iraq is because some of their members were profiting from 'Oil for Food' - yes, I saw this theory several times.

Cheney-Bush-Blairism with regard to 9-11, and Trutherism (at least in most of its forms) are in my opinion both dishonest deliberate scares.

It's no good to reject one type of dishonest CT, only to latch on to others.

The difference is that the people who promoted the first type of view were in power at the wrong time; whereas the Truthers were not. However, I have no doubt that if the latter had been, they would also have caused destructive policies. Perhaps not overseas war, but certainly domestic witch-hunts that could have rivalled McCarthyism.

[Chrom]

34. yes exactly

When you see what they did with the events of 9/11....uh hello, who benefits? Could they be more obvious?

[LeftishBrit]

40. What they DID with it, yes. Not the events themselves.

The Bushies lying and propagandizing about 9-11 in order to persuade people to support a war is quite bad enough, without assuming that the Bushies orchestrated it.

[Vashta Nerada]

27. It's not woo.

The best definition of woo I've seen online:

“Woo” is shorthand for “woo woo” and is not just limited to alternative medicine but rather represents an entire philosophy of credulity of the sort favored by New Age types. It’s clear that “woo” or “woo woo” can refer to either a person or a belief system. When it refers to the person, it is referring to a person who believes in woo. To me, when referring to “alternative medicine,” I view the “altie” and “woo” as largely synonymous, but woo has a broader meaning, embracing a wider variety of credulity. One thing is for sure, it is not generally meant as a flattering term–for very good reason.

So what is woo?

If I had to boil it down, I’d define woo as beliefs that clearly demonstrate magical thinking, uncritical acceptance of things for which no good evidence exists. This includes, but is not limited to, psychic phenomenon, ghosts, the paranormal, “energy healing,” the use of “colon cleansing” and “liver cleansing” to rid oneself of “toxins,” homeopathy (especially quantum homeopathy), and a wide variety of other mystical and pseudoscientific beliefs. Woo is resistant to reason. Indeed, woo has a double standard when it comes to what it considers to be good evidence. It is very accepting of a wide variety of fuzzy, mystical ideas, but is often incredibly distrustful and skeptical of anything having to do with “conventional” science or “conventional” medicine. Woos tend to be very quick to react to defend their particular brand of woo and very unforgiving of its being questioned.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/08/01/reader-mailbag-what-is-woo-1/

[zappaman]

31. "the 'investigation' wasn't based on science"

Easily one of the most, if not THE most, foolish statements I've seen on DU.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

36. so true. incredibly foolish, even for a day when a lot of posts have been incredibly stupid. nt

[geek tragedy]

38. But, the Truthers have a ringer as a GD host, so it's all good.

Maybe we can start a thread about how it was assault weapons involved in the Israel/Palestine dispute that caused it, now that GD has become Creative Speculation.

[Douglas Carpenter]

42. actually two 9/11 truthers have appeared on their thread discussing it in the Forum and Group Hosts

forum - if you have access to that forum:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/124374603#post2

[geek tragedy]

44. Don't have access, but I can only imagine.

Pretty simple really, if you want to nullify a rule, just get yourself put in charge of enforcing it.

[zappaman]

47. AND REC-ed it!

[geek tragedy]

49. What matters is not what the rules are, but who gets to enforce the rules. nt

[ChisolmTrailDem]

33. Who the hell cares. It doesn't matter one bit if it was MIHOP, LIHOP, and any other kind of HOP. nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

39. your lack of understanding of scientific method is why you believe

the things you do.

this post is so incredibly stupid, that i find it hard to even understand where to start discussing it.

[Chrom]

45. Why did Bushco not even do an investigation? Then they attempted to block the investigation...

When forced to participate anyway, they would not testify under oath.

Why would anyone support these very sketchy circumstances and the official narrative under Bush?

I find blind faith in morons and sociopaths to be incredibly stupid.

[Ranchemp.]

46. The Congress initiated the investigation,

why do you not acknowledge that?
Probably because it wouldn't fit your meme?
ATF, FBI, FAA, NTSB were all involved and did a very thorough investigation.
Take this crap elsewhere where it belongs.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1135

[hrmjustin]

43. I think truthers are wooo

[Progressive dog]

48. Maybe there was no world trade center,

"they" just made up the whole thing and you are the only one who hasn't been told.

Seriously, I want this kind of garbage banished to its own forum. This is woo on steroids.
You do understand that "they" are not going to set thousands of gallons of jet fuel on fire in a skyscraper to see if it collapses.
Anyway, if it did or didn't, it would prove nothing to a C.T.'er.

If it collapsed,the CT'ers would tell how the demolition charges were hidden and probably which government agency placed them.

[geek tragedy]

50. It's supposed to be banished to another forum, but some GD hosts are abusing their authority

and keeping it around because they're woo-peddlers themselves and figure they have license to piss on the rules now that they're hosts.