Two problems I have with the 911 truthseekers.
15 Jul 2006 16:34 GMT
I do not present this as opinion and is not come to through any gathering of statistics, apart from that of the technical specifications of a 747 model aircraft.
[PUBLISHER N073 - THIS WRITING NOT PROOFED]
First of all, I have to write this. Irrelevant of the specific circumstance, your evidence will always be falsified if your motives are not purely scientific. Truthseekers and Americans alike are still motivated out of a sense of rage combined with motives I can only describe as being political.
It is likely that the Prez has much of the facts. So the few voices from within the truthseekers who claim "we do not know the facts" but the president does (i.e. because that is, after all, his job) are on the right path. But I am far from suggesting you give up. Scientific method is available to anyone. But you cannot have method and emotion and politics at the same time if you want to reach a balanced, factual analysis that might lead to any conclusion.
I think truthseekers are starting too often with conclusion, what those opposed to truthseeking would call, "conspiracy", and then working backwards. This is completely unscientifc and illogical. Of course, if hyperbole and fame amongst your peers is what you are after, please ignore my writing.
Two different points in two different areas. The best characterization of the attack on the WTC is not a fire attack (the ignition of maybe 150000litres of jet fuel) or some of the other characterizations, like terrorist (still a term relatively undefined) or enemy or, like, airplane attack. It is, as close as words might express, a missile attack. The dead passengers were passengers, ultimately, on a missile, an airborn projectile going from point A, Boston, to point B, the target.
The only other point, about the repeated, lengthy analysis from experts, is that with this missile attack, there are two substancially unique points. First of all, the impact and detonation, hallmarks of the successful missile attack, are the focus, to be sure. I think I have heard one or two analysis addressing, briefly, the point regarding impact. This would be the stress on the target caused by the blunt force placed upon it by the 'projectile'. Key to any analysis of the collapse of the target, in this case, a highrise, would, only obviously, be a matter of focusing on the metal frame. But, as I pointed out, simply stating, "metal melts at temperature A, jet fuel burns at temperature B, B is less than A, therefore the conclusion is that the jet did not bring down the tower" is lacking in rudimentary logic. There are obvious correlariers to take into account here. The only conclusion one can reach is that the fuel burning alone did not melt the frame. That is pretty far from stating factually that something else blew up the frame or melted or demolished it. (One could go in a different direction and ask, "did enough of the fuel actually make direct contact with the frame?")
As a sidebar to all of this is the problem with professionals doing the work of analysis. This is that spidery minefield of this being a 'completely unique incident'. I do not think that this has merit, except, of course, with professionals, where, by the definition of a professional, one would have to be an expert of the likes of a World Trade Centre Missile Demolision Expert, or some such. All I can write here, being neither one who has opinion nor any professionalism, is that if humans can build a highrise with success, that means they are already capable of destroying it from any numerous ways.
Back to my last point. I have not heard this mentioned (I know truthseekers can point me to websites to argue this), yet it seems pretty fundamental. That is this part of the unique qualities of the missile itself. Missiles are designed for a mass-efficiency type of rating - as little in the way of payload as possible, i.e. fuel and the containment of fuel, which constitutes much of the bulk of the average missile (a bullet, for example, being typically a 'fuel-less' projectile, if you will). The point here is that a 747 has a weight of 333,400kilograms upon take off.
I think the only way to conclude the aspect of the arguement that the truthseekers put forward regarding the expert analysis of the collapse of the WTC on 01/09/11 is by using what an architect might use, like a computer simulation. The major variables will be the ratio of displacement of matter on the side of the object tower as opposed to the force/mass of the hijacked 747 missle in combination with the effects of the liquid fuel 'warhead' (fuel actually contained in the wings and some of the underbelly?).
Computer analysis can also donate some alternative analysis for your boundaries. For example, what the incident may have been like without a fully fuel jet-missile, or without the velocity-impact. Also, what would happen if a planted bomb detonate at the time of the attack on, say, the tenth floor as opposed to the basement or the 20th? One could find something like the whole displacement of the foundation, designed for earthquakes, was, though set to handle such an incident or not, in fact led to further instability (such as simple uncontrolled shaking of the frame, foundation, or earth about the foundation) that contributed enough to aid in cause to the collapse.
Clearly, there is not direct impact-to-collapse perfection. If one were to use a much larger aircraft loaded with much greater efficient warhead, the towers would have been destroy or half vapourized. In between that and nothing is Nine-Eleven. But that does not mean that a 747 could not bring down a highrise anymore than it means the President did it. That is just obvious scapegoating with an individual many would at the same time criticize for his stupidity (which, also, I consider to be unfounded in this day when image is king). But that is another piece of writing...
Anyways, sorry that was so lengthy for just two minor points.