ファブリス Wrote:Quote:Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.
Selling out the investigation
From Fire Engineering Magazine of all things ...
Tzadeck Wrote:(...) saying that building 7 was brought down by explosives is a big insult to the firefighters who were in there risking their lives
As far as the questioning and seeking for truth is concerned, it is irrelevant how many firefighters died in there that day. These men obviously were just doing their job.
The websites I linked above are organized by people who have lost relatives during 9/11 and are not satisfied with the official explanations, because there never was a proper independent investigation.
You're right, as far as truth is concerned, the safety of the firefighters is irrelevant.
As for the article in Fire Engineering Magazine, it's a fair article. But he's talking about improving understanding of building safety. He knows that all three towers went down due to the plane attacks, he doesn't question that at all, he is just wondering if the theory of exactly how the planes caused the building to go down was correct and complaining about how stupid government officials don't seem too concerned with finding out. The theory could very well be wrong, and yet that still wouldn't mean there were explosives or anything like that in the building. Maybe there was more extensive strutural damage from the debris to begin with, and the fire didn't play such a big role. We actually don't know all that much about this kind of thing, and the way he writes the article shows that--and yet all those half-assed 'experts' on a few dozen sites all over the internet are talking about how it was 'impossible' that building 7 would fall like that.
As for those experts, it becomes a case of 'measuring the emperor of China's nose'. Imagine that nobody is allowed to see the emperor of China, but you want to know how long his nose is. Well, you go around asking people and you figure you can average all the answers you get. If you average a lot of numbers it must be more accurate, right? In fact, you tell people that if they don't know they shouldn't answer. So, most people say that they don't know. But after a while you've collected a lot of answers, and a lot of people seem very sure. A lot of people seem to have good reason to say so (maybe they work for the emperor, or they heard it from a wise person). You get a lot of numbers, to insure that it's accurate, and you come up with a number. But that number will be completely wrong, because nobody has actually seen the emperor! Or, even if a couple people claim to have seen the emperor under a strange circumstance, you can't actually validate whether or not their claim is true.
That's why collecting the opinions of as many people who seem like they might know is silly. You might say, but these people have an education in a related field. That might be so, but if you look at similar cases you see that with many things that have been proven to be bullcrap, a lot of people in the field nevertheless supported it. For example, a bunch of doctors and researches supported the idea that MMR vaccines cause autism, although it was obvious that all the studies that pointed in that direction were deeply flawed. People who actually looked at the studies and had a good understanding of research methods never believed it for a second. But that didn't stop newspapers and websites (mostly in England) from publishing quotes from a bunch of mediocre doctors who didn't know squat. Mediocre people within the field are the same as people who 'seem' to have a good reason for guessing the emperors nose, or have a claim that you can't validate.
Anyway, in any situation like this you have the consider which is the less complex explanation that explains all the phenomena. How likely is it, really, that someone set up explosives in building 7 (keep in mind that usually in demolishing a building of this size thousands of pounds of explosives are used, and walls are typically removed), and then flew two planes into the north and south tower in such a way that debris flew perfectly onto building 7, then let the building burn for 7 hours, and then set off the explosives?
How likely is it that terrorists flew the planes into the buildings, and the debris flew randomly down and happened to hit a nearby building causing structural and fire damage that ultimately caused the building to collapse. People who deal with fires and building safety wanted a very thorough investigation done, but it was not done as thoroughly as it could have been because it was expensive/everyone was preoccupied with what this meant for America/government officials just don't know that much about fire safety. (Actually the National Institude of Standards and Technology did a three year study, but apparently it wasn't enough for people like Manning)
Seems like the second situation is a lot more likely. You try to fly a plane into a building so that the debris falls onto precisely the correct building.
Edited: 2010-12-13, 1:11 am
