User:Woozle/Facebook/2011-05-04 9-11

This dialogue took place here, although this is probably inaccessible unless you are friends with one of the handful of participants.

response to Brian Connors
Brian said: ...the "controlled demolition" meme about 9/11. It's unproven because there's absolutely no conceivable way it could happen, no evidence that it did, and it wouldn't have brought the towers down the way they came down anyway. In that case, the twin towers came down just about how you'd expect buildings damaged where they were to come down (with the tower carrying more weight over the impact point going first), and WTC7 simply gave way after several hours of fire weakened its structure past the point of it being able to hold up. Controlled demolition is a complex process and would have been nearly impossible to hide, and considering fire-related damage is the most obvious explanation without that evidence, hypothesis disproven.

(Also, in the case of WTC7, the twenty-story gash in the corner of the building that was caused by the tower collapses was a major contributing factor that many of the truthers seem to go out of their way to not be aware of.) Let me paraphrase this and break it down, just so we're definitely talking about the same thing. You assert:
 * 1) The controlled demolition hypothesis is unproven.
 * 2) There is absolutely no conceivable way it (controlled demolition) could happen.
 * 3) Controlled demolition would not have "brought the towers down the way they came down".
 * 4) The twin towers came down just about the way you would expect based on the damage from the planes.
 * 5) The tower carrying more weight over the impact came down first, which is one example of what you would expect to happen.
 * 6) WTC7's collapse was due to several hours of fire weakening its structure.
 * 7) Controlled demolition (CD) is a complex process which would have been nearly impossible to hide.
 * 8) Fire-related damage is the most obvious explanation, in the absence of any evidence of CD.
 * 9) WTC7's collapse was aided by a twenty-story gash in one corner of the building, caused by material that fell from the twin towers.

Let's take these one at a time.

1. The controlled demolition hypothesis is unproven.

Quite. But the official story is even less proven.

2. There is absolutely no conceivable way it (controlled demolition) could happen.

People could have gone inside the buildings, planted thermate charges, and detonated them remotely on 9/11. It may be difficult to imagine why they would have done this, but it is not at all difficult to conceive of it being done.

3. Controlled demolition would not have "brought the towers down the way they came down".

Standard CD certainly would not; I agree about that. However, there are no other examples of building failures of this sort to compare with. When you look at all the various ways in which buildings have been damaged or destroyed, CD has the most in common with the evidence we see.

It seems likely that a non-standard form of CD was used, probably with the idea of mimicking collapse due to mechanical damage from the collisions.

There is no way that purely mechanical failure of any kind -- from any combination of damage plus fire -- could have resulted in the physical evidence left afterwards.

4. The twin towers came down just about the way you would expect based on the damage from the planes.

Based on what prior examples of airplanes colliding with steel-frame buildings and causing them to collapse? Or even examples of steel-frame buildings collapsing from other causes?

5. The tower carrying more weight over the impact came down first, which is one example of what you would expect to happen.

This is an unsupported assertion, but possibly true.

How do you explain the behavior of WTC2, however? The block above the impact point starts to tilt. Once that happens, it is no longer exerting its maximum force downward into the undamaged lower portion of the building, so it should have continued tilting and "fallen off" the lower part of the building.

Instead, the lower part of the building suddenly begins disintegrating underneath it. It stops tumbling, and proceeds to collapse more or less straight downwards.

This seems very odd. How does it fit with your model?

6. WTC7's collapse was due to several hours of fire weakening its structure.

No steel-frame building has ever collapsed solely due to fire, including several which burned for over 18 hours. You have to postulate massive damage, which you do in point #9.

7. Controlled demolition (CD) is a complex process which would have been nearly impossible to hide.

Indeed. There are multiple lines of evidence indicating CD:
 * molten steel (not aluminum) pouring from one corner of WTC2 shortly before collapse, vast amounts of molten steel found in the rubble -- not possible that these could have been caused by jet fuel and burning office materials
 * strong indicators of thermate in dust taken from multiple locations around the twin towers after the collapse
 * diagonal cuts in girders seen during cleanup (cleanup crews would make shortest possible cuts, i.e. perpendicular; diagonal cuts are commonly used in CD)
 * other physical symptoms of thermate use: metal girders turned to "swiss cheese" in places (open-air jet fuel fires nowhere near hot enough to do this)

That's just off the top of my head.

8. Fire-related damage is the most obvious explanation, in the absence of any evidence of CD.

Correct. If there were no evidence of CD.

9. WTC7's collapse was aided by a twenty-story gash in one corner of the building, caused by material that fell from the twin towers.

If you have found any photos or eyewitness accounts of this gash, I would like to see them. My understanding is that the 9/11 Commission alleged such a gash, but somehow neglected to produce any evidence of it in their many volumes of evidence and discussion.

Also, collapse due to asymmetrical damage as you describe would not have resulted in the straight-down, highly symmetrical collapse shown in all videos of WTC7's destruction.

Kiki
*sigh* Ok, that just made me sad, too. If there is any actual evidence, then I haven't seen it. However, if there were evidence (which I am open to seeing), then that only opens more questions for which I have also seen no evidence. Just because you CAN conceive of something happening doesn't mean that it did.

Brian Connors
Woozle: I have heard *every one* of those arguments. All have been discounted. ALL of them. Over and over and over again. For the record, thermite and thermate burn so hot that they can almost only burn straight down because they'd burn through almost anything else. (The thermite reaction is *extremely* exothermic, but not explosive. Good for incendiary grenades and massive WWII-style firestorms, not so useful for the big kabooms.) As for steel-framed buildings collapsing from fire... there's a first time for everything, especially if the structure is already compromised by the collapse of two much bigger nearby buildings.

The simple fact is that most truthers repeat arguments that they at best only half-understand. The thermite/thermate one is just one of the most obvious examples. It's not worth trying to rebut your points because you've already got your mind made up on what sources you'll believe. There's a whole pile of stuff over on rationalwiki.com (with references), but if you're determined to believe in a grand conspiracy of considerably greater complexity than you realize, that probably won't mean anything to you.

Me
You say you've heard those arguments and that they have been discounted. I presume you mean "refuted". So refute them.

I don't know what you mean about thermate burning "straight down", but if you can find me some sources on this, I would be interested in reading them.

I don't see anything about this in Wikipedia, however, and my understanding is that thermate can be applied very precisely.

If there's a first time for something, then it needs to be explained, since it dramatically revises our understanding of how something works.

The rest of your argument consists of evasions of the sort I have become used to. "It's not worth trying to rebut your points", "I have heard every one of those arguments and they've all been refuted" "You're determined to believe in a grand conspiracy..."

I was aware of RationalWiki, but not of their pages on 9/11. At a glance, their arguments are largely straw-men... but it deserves a rebuttal, since they are otherwise a pretty good resource. I'll get to that when I can, though I anticipate organized resistance along pretty much the same lines you have presented here -- a time-and-energy sink into which I can put my very best arguments only to have them "dismissed".

I maintain that I am being rational and evidence-based about this. If I'm not, you need *evidence* to show otherwise; vague dismissals are not a counterargument.

Brian Connors
*eyeroll*

me
Kiki: where shall I start? There are multiple lines of evidence for each of the pieces I was talking about. Let me know which one seems the most important, and I'll start there.

Yes, it's very depressing -- and this is only exacerbated by how difficult it is to open a dialogue about it and stay rational around the inevitable flood of irrational responses.

If it's not getting out-shouted by the random-neural-firing conspiracy theorists ("it's all part of the plan to hypnotize us through fluoride so the Illuminati can make us all wear digital tattoos as part of the New World Order! You have to fight it with crystal energy!"), it's being denounced by rationalists (my people!) as being one of the RNF conspiracy theorists.

As much as I'm sick of 9/11, I'm even more sick of the trolling. It's time to get the facts straight.

Brian Connors
I bet you like to remind people you have black friends too.

me
Brian, you lose. Go away.

Brian Connors
You know, the fact that every time you talk to someone who claims to be rationalist who discounts your "evidence" should be telling you that maybe you're the one who's doing it wrong. Part of being open-minded is being willing to admit the possibility that you're incorrect. Anyway, I don't consider mockery to be an admission of losing an argument; it's my way of saying "I'm not even pretending you're trying to argue in good faith".

Go to the Randi forums and see how long your arguments stand up there. I particularly like the ongoing "Comic strip a conspiracy" thread.

me
?"Everyone else disagrees, so you must be wrong" -- and you claim to be a rationalist?

Brian Connors
Forensics is a science. Science works on informed consensus. To say that the evidence says (and even is) what you believe it to be is to claim that numerous people, including demolitions experts, structural engineers, etc are either nearly universally incompetent or fraudulent, or both. That's the hallmark of a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory -- in order to sustain the story, the number of people who are lying or being duped can run into the hundreds or thousands (or, as someone once estimated for 9/11, the hundreds of thousands). Tinfoil hat theories are essentially logical Ponzi schemes for which a generous application of Occam's Chainsaw are is the only reasonable response.

And, back to what I said before: there isn't enough fish tape in the world to pull that shit off.

me
You're still not answering the evidence, nor are you countering with your own. That's the basis of rationalism.

Everything you say here can be summarized thusly:
 * argument from authority
 * argument from incredulity
 * argument from ridicule
 * guilt by association

Come back when you have some arguments based on actual examples of actual evidence, instead of your idea of what the evidence is.

Brian Connors
Again, as you seem to be set in what *your* idea of evidence is, I'm treating you as if you're arguing in bad faith. Don't tell me I'm not refuting your points; I know I'm not. That's not the point. I'm ridiculing you.

Why should I put any effort into research when I can already tell that you, like a gazillion other Truthers, Creationists, and denialists of every stripe under the sun, aren't really interested in learning, but rather trying to screw with what everyone else thinks? No matter what the subject, it almost always goes according to script. I hate that script because it's tedious, trollish, and utterly predictable. Projection, abuse of logical fallacies, the evangelical attitude, the absolute assurance of having the truth... you name it, you've got it.

I can't stop you from considering yourself rational any more than I can, say, Eric Raymond, even though he's a racist, misogynist, HIV and global warming denying, monomaniacal wackjob. And it's pointless trying to debate you on an equal level, because you don't care, because you have Da Twoof (tm). Flamage and mockery? Works for me.

me
Shorter Connors: "Why should I waste time researching the evidence when I know you'll ignore it?"

BECAUSE THAT'S HOW THE PROCESS WORKS. If you present evidence, and I ignore it or can't refute it, then your case wins.

Just like my case has so far prevailed because you have failed to refute the evidence I presented.

Mirror much?

Brian Connors
*checks off box for "stereotype conformance"* Show me some crank magnetism and you'll run the table.

Your mistake, you see, is assuming I'm obligated to give a rat's ass about winning the debate, whatever that may consist of. When you played the Truther 101 card, I considered myself relieved of any such responsibility from then on. Jaded? Hell yeah. Cranks are some of my favorite people... To poop on.