Early Retirement Extreme Forums

Well, I built one of those, but it was just made out of wood and metal fasteners on top of a foundation of cinderblocks. I don't know anything about burning skyscrapers. Pretty much everything burns if its hot enough and there is oxygen. Or it melts.

Since it's a conspiracy theory thread, I find it plausible that Seth Rich was the DNC leaker. A staffer with clear motive and opportunity (a Bernie Bro working in IT for the party) getting murdered about the same time the info dropped on Wikileaks does raise eyebrows.

Riggerjack wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:00 am

As useless as the article chad linked with the conspiracy equation.

I thought that article was pretty good. Not because I think the equation can be precise, but because the methodology of the assumptions seems sound.
The more people involved in a conspiracy, the more likely someone will talk. The more time they have to feel guilty/get caught/sell out, the more likely they'll talk. Evaluate a selection of revealed conspiracies and determine a distribution.

There have been a few articles on Less Wrong about the 9/11 conspiracy theories. One I found interesting was the discussion about prior assumptions about what is "too far fetched." Some people think suspicious inconsistencies in the facts imply a sinister conspiracy. Others figure a massive secret government effort to hurt americans requires pretty strong evidence to convince.

I thought that article was pretty good. Not because I think the equation can be precise, but because the methodology of the assumptions seems sound.

Oh, I'm sure the the math is fine. However, the more inputs into an equation, the more variable the output. Let's try this with something similar.

If I studied the price movements of the stock price of 3 companies, and then compared them with the stock prices of 4 other companies, and then told you the 4 companies had to be fictitious, because they didn't match the first 3; how certain would you be that i was right? The math could be right, and still I wouldn't be.

What if we set the bar lower, and I just told you a price range for those 4 companies? Again, my math can be right, and I am totally wrong.

What if we set it even lower, and I just tell you what the price of one stock would be? Again, my math can be right, and I'm wrong.

Is this because math doesn't work? Of course not. It is because math is a tool, used properly, it will help you get done what you need to get done.

I'm sure if the mathematician who worked up the formula had a chance to explain it, he would have pointed out the caveats. Instead we had a journalist, and journalists use doubt as part of the story, only when the story is about doubt. For people familiar with using math to calculate a hypotenuse, math seems a tool of great precision and accuracy.

But people who use math to model reality have an entirely different view of math. It set ranges and boundaries of uncertainty.

Using math to calculate that shearing this column, in this old building, which has been modified in these ways, in this place, with fires on these floors that gave been burning this long, and...

The uncertainty exceeds the solution set. Even an engineering student wouldn't make the mistake of thinking he could calculate where and how to get a collapse in those circumstances.

And all this aside from anyone coming up with a motive for anyone to want to do such a thing, or time it as they did.

This is just reality as it is understood by people educated by Hollywood. Disney would have told a more realistic tale, as an animated musical.

Riggerjack wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:00 am

So, getting thousands of pounds of explosives on site, and hidden, not technically very difficult. No mission impossible adventures, just construction. At any given time, there is likely to be a crew working on something in any tower.

Agreed but given the number of government and financial tenants during the 911 attack, its highly unlikely that none of them would have talked about or been concerned about mysterious devices planted against so many exposed beams - someone would have talked by now.

jennypenny wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 21, 2017 8:38 am

I find that odd, especially given how many qualified people find the explanation of spontaneous collapse implausible. But of course the minute you question anything about 9/11 people assume you're a member of the Jesse Ventura thermite paint brigade and dismiss you as a nut job.

Qualified people have been wrong before - <insert disaster caused by engineering failure by qualified people here>. Heat and Pressure will cause any metal to fatigue to the point of collapse. Steel will start to become pliable at 500C (932F) so an extended building fire, coupled with structural damage from falling debris, is more than 100% plausible for the cause of collapse; regular house fires average temp is 1100F. I don't think you're part of the JV thermite brigade.

greed but given the number of government and financial tenants during the 911 attack, its highly unlikely that none of them would have talked about or been concerned about mysterious devices planted against so many exposed beams - someone would have talked by now.

Well, I was thinking better hidden than that, but I am certain that anybody who did anything in any of those buildings going back years was questioned. And that was my point. Yeah, it could be done, but how would you getaway with it? What was it, 2 hours after Oklahoma that they worked from axle to truck to rental company to Timothy McVeigh?

I'm willing to entertain the idea, but the official story makes sense, and fits what I have seen of the evidence.

@ JP
I know steel structures seem solid, and steel columns that wiegh a thousand pounds per foot seem indestructible. But really, no.

Old tech was the empire state building, they were pushing the limits of compressive strength. If they went higher, it would have literally crushed itself.

By comparison, steel buildings are light and flexible. Like tinker toys.

I worked on Intel's building 4 in Dupont, WA. The next building was done by a different contractor, I didn't work on it, and didn't know anyone who did. But I did work with a guy who worked on the second half of it. I say second half, because when they placed the heavy HVAC equipment on the roof, they were supposed to place it directly over the columns. The roof has no reference points to interior supports, so someone had to measure and Mark where it was supposed to go. You see where this is going. After they released it from the crane, it sagged, then crashed thru the roof. Then the 4th floor. Then the 3rd, 2nd, and 1st floor, and came to a rest in the basement. And then Intel hired the old contractor to fix and finish the building. Nobody was hurt, just an expensive oops.

But that was a steel framed post tensioned building resisting a weight, poorly.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fHXmVKZkAx0

This guy should give a good overall view of how a fire affects the ductility of steel. Small guy vs steel pipe, heated by charcoal.

You see how even the bend is where the steel was heated? Now compare that with steel from rubble in Iraq. When explosives bend structural steel, the part closest to the blast warps extensively, and the rest, not much. (Sheet metal will twist from pressure changes, so makes for a poor comparison.) The steel I saw (in pics) from WTC7 was more evenly twisted. The whole unit was subjected to too much pressure from a twisting angle.

On a separate note, one of the things that helped me get out of cabling was 9/11. When I saw the buildings come down, and then there was the issue with fireproofing removal. I removed fireproofing on steel all the time. There is a company called erico that makes hardware to support most systems in buildings. Everyone uses them. But you have to get the #@$!! fireproofing out of the way to use them. This starts before the ceiling grid get installed, when the building is new, and gets worse with every installation of anything. The beams get stripped faster than the columns, but I was still stripping fireproofing when I got out in 2006. This is common throughout the industry, this isn't a WTC or even a NY thing.

The practices didn't change, so I did.

Today's big internet rumor is that NASDAQ's weird flash crash wasn't a technical glitch but a hack. The price point $123.47 corresponds to the birthday of Sen. Tom Carper who is one of the authors of the internet kill switch bill. Far-fetched but a good one if it's true. If I understand what happened correctly, the supposed hackers didn't have to hack NASDAQ directly, only the data distributors.

A nice quick primer from Wired about the problem with conspiracy theories:

https://thescene.com/watch/wired/why-yo ... -theorists

Things got so weird on the other forum I'm on, we had to institute a 'no flat earth shit' policy (its official name ). I was curious about why the idea has taken off so I watched a couple of videos like Finding the Curve. I really don't get it since you can look at photos and see the truth. Even if you don't believe humans went into space (most people in that 'movement'), all you have to do is watch footage from the cockpit of a high altitude plane or Baumgartner's jump to see the curvature. Silly.

Just read an article about flat earthers -- it seems they are more interested in using it as evidence that overlords rule the world and are keeping them down. Human nature suggests that the more people feel they are falling behind in some way (original ancient reference -- famine and drought), the more attractive conspiracy theories and scapegoating seems to be.

After all, nobody wants to blame themselves or people they have allied themselves with. Or random factors.

Truth about every internet conspiracy theory

Convincing yourself that mighty lizard people are behind 9 11 is more comforting than acknowledging we live in a giant slushie machine of chaos.

jennypenny wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 11, 2017 6:15 pm

Things got so weird on the other forum I'm on, we had to institute a 'no flat earth shit' policy (its official name ). I was curious about why the idea has taken off so I watched a couple of videos like Finding the Curve. I really don't get it since you can look at photos and see the truth. Even if you don't believe humans went into space (most people in that 'movement'), all you have to do is watch footage from the cockpit of a high altitude plane or Baumgartner's jump to see the curvature. Silly.

LOL these people really exist?
Anybody care to share some of the most egregious links? I have all the weekend to read and I need a good laugh or two