Does anyone remember how the FBI found a koran and a how to fly a plane manual the day after the attack? And then found a passport in NY that had survived the plane crash and the fire in the towers?

guardian article

The koran and the flight manual are hardly lucky finds. They were in the abandoned hire car rented by Atta beforehand. Big deal.
The passport is much more interesting. If he was piloting the plane then at the front of the impact its possible his loose possessions may have been carried/thrown forward.
I guess you are saying it was planted? I can see that as possible.
Even if it was, does this prove the towers were demolished by controlled demolition? Or undermine the concept that they fell due to the damage and fire from the pane impacts?
I don’t think so, do you?
IF you are suggesting that somebody was “in on it” then I’d like to see your evidence other than 1 coincidental lucky find of a passport.

So do you think the passport survived the plane crash?

EDIT: I dont I think it was planted.

Not at all. In my post above I say it doesnt matter if it was planes or not the question is was anybody in on it?

Does it matter? Even if the Towers *did* fall in an unlikely way that isn’t solid evidence of a vast conspiracy.

As it happens I think the towers did fall in a perfectly reasonable way. The only reason towers would fall left or right is if they had significant structural integrity and a pivot point low down. Given the mode of failure was a totally weak structure collapsing onto itself then straight down was the only way to go. Indeed, if it had enough structural integrity to fall sideways it would have had enough structural integrity for, at least the bottom half, to stay standing.

….and again, why plant utterly improbable evidence that totally gives the game away?

Except that you were trying to generate proababilities based on a limited set of predetermined and non-sequitur assumptions.

ie: making an assumption that neat/ordered collapse may imply demolition and then trying to work backwards to a probability.

Since a tower of that structure could only ever fall in that manner, you can’t make that link. And any probabilites would be plucked out of the air, this is not a sensible approach as there’s no control or verifiable basis for the probabilities.

There is no/little evidence of demolition, the only evidence so far put forward is that the manner of collapse looked strange to the lay person, but since this can be explained it’s not really evidence at all.

There is no evidence of explosives, or of a detonation method, or of the massive amounts of covert work that would have been needed, or in fact anything other than “it fell funny” (which it didn’t as previously explained, it fell like you would expect it to fall), the only reason to continue to pursue the demolition theory is because a continued rejection of the explanation of how it fell.

Turnerguy – the one piece of “evidence” that is most compelling.

How was Soufan going to prevent a massive Government conspiracy involving thousands, and how did he hear about it?

No amount of nit-picking a report will provide evidence of a massive conspiracy. I’ve written rubbish documents myself without any instructions from Lizards.

ie: making an assumption that neat/ordered collapse may imply demolition and then trying to work backwards to a probability.

Not really. The whole point of using this approach is to calculate or use conditional probabilities, exactly not non-sequitur.

Yes, it’s not ‘scientific method’ but I’m not sure how those who intend to use that in here will be testing their hypotheses anyway.

Forensics is Physics and maths and stuff (chem and bio)..
Plus there is no Forensic evidence of demolition.

Don’t forget the firemen. The ones working on WTC7 were all in on it – they knew the tower was being blown and were openly shouting about about it in public on the day. (…but strangely afterwards they all became tight lipped!)

The firemen in the other buildings weren’t in on it though.

Where is the evidence for the massive amount of building works undertaken to rig the explosives?

Bayes/Conditional is not the right tool for the job here

For starters you can’t assume the starting position that you did, which is a starting probabiltiy that it was demolished.

You’d have to start with a question like:

“given a tower fell, what is the chance it was demolished”

Which not only ignores the actual starting conditions (which include a plane hitting the building and a big fire), but requires having a rough idea of the probability of collapse in general. Just make a number up if you like…

Your next part was:

“given that it fell neatly what is the chance it was demolished”

Bzzzzzzt, error! it can ONLY fall neatly therefore the probability of neat collapse is 100%, so no change in probability of demolition.

You can only adjust your probabilities and use Bayes theorem if you have evidence with which to adjust it as you progress. Nobody has yet put forward any evidence of demolition.

So until someone does we’re stuck on the made up number, which was a terrible place to start anyway. it would make more sense to start with the question:

“Given there is little/no evidence of demoilition, and the observed colllapse can be explained by Newtonian Physics and knowledge of the building structure, what is the probability it was demolished?”

Very very very ver very very very very low.

If you have some evidence which we can use to revise our probability with then present it.

Only in basic GCSE physics.

You appear to have used some Bayes at least. I’m not sure how you arrive at this

Not really a Bayesian formulation

Perfectly right 5plus8. The speed it falls at proves nothing. It however is a very good example of people making stuff up to suit their hypothesis and is very easily disproved.

the tin foil hatters claim it feel at freefall speeds. this is clearly false. therefore anything that is extrapolated from this false premise is also false

Well its close enough to make you think though right?
Which is why I prefer to look at what a fast descent proves.
It proves the mass of the falling object had many orders of magnitude more energy than that required to breach the connections at each floor.
I think had it been demolished in the way they think it would have collapsed at the same rate anyway.

Not that I could be bothered with the vid but what were their qualifications?
Were they in the correct field (demolitions etc.)

and finally this

How many conspirators are we up to now? I reckon it took at least 5000 people to plan, execute, order and execute the whole thing.
Unless of course it was 1 guy doing this over the course of about 10 years to rig it secretly, then managed to set up the fall guys and deal with all the logistics by remote control.
And yeah why would you go to all the trouble of making a bunch of people disappear when you could just leave them in the plane and crash them.

If you want to pick holes in tiny details of the way something looked on TV a few years back then start with the big picture.

Exactly, Bayes is not the right tool for the job because we have a better starting point. Observed collapse in an explicable manner.

We’ve been through this several times over the last few pages….it can only ever collapse ‘downwards into it’s own footprint’ due to a combination of it’s construction, its mass and its height.

It can’t fall/topple over, what other modes (of collapse) are there?

Or are you suggesting it shouldn’t have collapsed at all?

If there’s another manner of collapse that you think is possible, please put it forward and explain it.