|
Post by PeterB on Oct 26, 2005 3:42:40 GMT -4
Turbonium said:
So you no longer think that "...two passports of the hijackers, [were] found lying beside each other within a block or two of the ground zero debris!!"?
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Oct 26, 2005 9:05:37 GMT -4
Come on - think about it. First of all, the FBI said that the hijackers used aliases to board the planes. Why would any one of them even carry their real identification? It's not like they would need them later on. So are we to believe that maybe the only two that decided to bring them were luckily the ones they found? the FBI said that the hijackers used aliasesWRONG The coordination between federal agencies was widely criticized because despite being on CIA [or was that FBI] list of suspected terrorists, they were able to get visas and enter the US without any problems It's not like they would need them later on.WRONG Even before 9/11 you needed gov't issued photo ID to board planes in the US are we to believe that maybe the only two that decided to bring them were luckily the ones they found?Who says they were the only? Presumably all the hijackers had their passports with them Already explained by Jay. IIRC relatively undamaged personal effects of passengers on the Lockerbie flight and flight 587 were also found on the ground. The passports probably weren't in the hijackers suitcases, but that would have increased not decreased their chance of survival. How do you know the passports were unscathed? The Guardian article does say that Atta's was "unsinged". How did she know it was unsinged? The article was written from a CTist POV and the author probably wasn't in NYC at the time. pieces scattered for miles aroundHave any evidence to back this claim? From what I've read some the wreckage was found a few hundred feet down hill of the crash site. Also it wouldn't be unusual for some parts to bounce a few hundred feet. plane virtually incinerated with nary a piece of 200 tons of aircraft found bigger than a foot longpost impact fires are very common. a plane breaking up into small pieces after violently crashing into the ground is not odd. any evidence to support your "nary a piece ... found bigger than a foot long" claim? they find another (totally unnecessary to carry) visa of a hijackerexplained above - US visas are glued into passports. Since the plane didn't explode until impact the chance of personal effects surving were very high
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Oct 26, 2005 9:18:07 GMT -4
Just found this from a CT site LOL, ROTFLMHO As previously mentioned (see September 11, 2001 (S)), two of Mohamed Atta's bags are found on 9/11 containing a handheld electronic flight computer, a simulator procedures manual for Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft, two videotapes relating to “air tours” of the Boeing 757 and 747 aircraft, a slide-rule flight calculator, a copy of the Koran, Atta's passport, his will, his international driver's license, a religious cassette tape, airline uniforms, a letter of recommendation, “education related documentation” and a note to other hijackers on how to mentally prepare for the hijacking. 72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:5ltRKNZFudAJ:cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp%3Fitem%3Da091101twobagsand this from the left leaning Village Voice • Mohammed Atta's flying passport. Bracken wonders: How did Atta, emcee of terror, usher a jumbo jet into one of the tallest buildings in the world, reduce it to a pile of dust, then have his passport land unscathed in the ruins of the towers, to be conveniently found later by investigators? It's a puzzler, but Bracken's claim may not be entirely true. A passport was found near the towers on September 15 (according to various news reports), but Atta's passport, at least his Saudi one, was found in a rental car—in Boston. www.villagevoice.com/books/0236,gray2,38029,10.html
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 26, 2005 9:54:36 GMT -4
I will repeat: small personal items routinely survive catastrophic and energetic failures. It would be the rule -- not the exception -- to find things like wallets and passports. Attention has likely been drawn only to Atta's because he is one of the alleged hijackers.
Regarding the main theme of this thread: I don't accuse you of racism, Turbonium, but I wonder at your prudence in consistently relying upon sources who clearly have big axes to grind. They don't make the best researchers.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 27, 2005 6:09:47 GMT -4
Actually one of the enduring images I have of the towers precollapse was all the paper that was fluttering down around them after the collisions and explosions. If office paper could survive the explosions, why couldn't a passport?
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Oct 27, 2005 9:06:33 GMT -4
Actually one of the enduring images I have of the towers precollapse was all the paper that was fluttering down around them after the collisions and explosions. If office paper could survive the explosions, why couldn't a passport? Especially since only ONE not two passports were found. That's the problem with CTist claims. The rumours often spread by "the telephone principle". Remember that game you played as a kid? The teacher would whisper something in a kid's ear who would then whisper it into the ear of the kid sitting next to them etc etc They read that a passport was found and at first the FBI doesn't want to disclose the name on it. Someone imagines that it belonged to Atta - maybe they read elsewhere that his passport was found under "suspicious" circumstances. It turns out that the passport belonged to Satam al-Sugami. The one passport has now magiclly become two. Then Turbonium puts it in his mind that the two were found next to each other or he read it on a CT site.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Oct 27, 2005 9:33:09 GMT -4
"Send three and fourpence, we're going to a dance."
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 27, 2005 13:31:56 GMT -4
You can see why I have a low opinion of most conspiracy sites. Time after time we find that they are not sources of information but rather conduits for gossip. The original story, whatever it was, and its source are long forgotten, and we find people simply swapping fish stories. That's not scholarship, nor does it lead one to a greater understanding of the truth.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 27, 2005 23:52:21 GMT -4
He has publicly disavowed his earlier remarks and repudiated the conspiracy theorists' use of his remarks. The only argument you have been able to offer to substantiate your belief only in his first statement is the vague, handwaving conjecture that he "must" have changed his story in order to keep his Pentagon contracts.
This was your reply regarding Van Romero. But let's look at the two articles for comparison with the points you made for deciding whether an expert's opinion is valid...
1. The expert must actually be an expert, both certified in the specialized field in question, and familiar with the particulars of any specific problem in which he is asked to apply his expertise.
2. The expert must be speaking in his capacity as an expert; and
3. The expert's opinion must be reasonably consistent with other experts' consensus on the matter, realizing that some questions enjoy a consensus among experts while others elicit a variety of legitimate and supportable opinions
So with these criteria in mind, let's compare the two articles. I have bolded all the text of Romero's actual quotes.Here is the first article, from 9/11/01....
Televised images of the attacks on the World Trade Center suggest that explosives devices caused the collapse of both towers, a New Mexico Tech explosion expert said Tuesday. The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures, said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said. Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures. Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts. Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures. "It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that," Romero said in a phone interview from Washington, D.C. Romero said he and another Tech administrator were on a Washington-area subway when an airplane struck the Pentagon. He said he and Denny Peterson, vice president for administration and finance, were en route to an office building near the Pentagon to discuss defense-funded research programs at Tech. If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive, he said. "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero said. The explosives likely would have been put in more than two points in each of the towers, he said. The detonation of bombs within the towers is consistent with a common terrorist strategy, Romero said. "One of the things terrorist events are noted for is a diversionary attack and secondary device," Romero said. Attackers detonate an initial, diversionary explosion that attracts emergency personnel to the scene, then detonate a second explosion, he said. Romero said that if his scenario is correct, the diversionary attack would have been the collision of the planes into the towers. Tech President Dan Lopez said Tuesday that Tech had not been asked to take part in the investigation into the attacks. Tech often assists in forensic investigations into terrorist attacks, often by setting off similar explosions and studying the effects.
Now compare it to the second article, from 9/21/01....
A New Mexico explosives expert says he now believes there were no explosives in the World Trade Center towers, contrary to comments he made the day of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack. "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. The day of the attack, Romero told the Journal the towers' collapse, as seen in news videotapes, looked as though it had been triggered by carefully placed explosives. Subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tape have led Romero to a different conclusion. Romero supports other experts, who have said the intense heat of the jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers' steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight of the floors above. That set off a chain reaction, as upper floors pancaked onto lower ones. Romero said he believes still it is possible that the final collapse of each building was triggered by a sudden pressure pulse caused when the fire reached an electrical transformer or other source of combustion within the building. But he said he now believes explosives would not have been needed to create the collapse seen in video images. Conspiracy theorists have seized on Romero's comments as evidence for their argument that someone else, possibly the U.S. government, was behind the attack on the Trade Center. Romero said he has been bombarded with electronic mail from the conspiracy theorists. "I'm very upset about that," he said. "I'm not trying to say anything did or didn't happen."
Point 1: Romero is an expert on controlled demolitions.
Point 2: In the first article, Romero is speaking from his expertise in controlled demolitions. He makes specific points about the collapse being "too methodical". He even mentions that "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points" But in the second article, he is not explaining his reversal of opinion with even one specific reason mentioned. He does not explain, for example, why he now believes the collapses were not "too methodical" to have collapsed through means other than strategically placed explosives. He only says "Certainly it was the fire that caused the building to fail". Not the plural buildings, btw, but the singular "building". But more important, he never explains in any way why he is now so certain that fire was the cause. And another point - this was only 10 days after the collapses, so no investigation had even begun - why would a respected professional make the statement that he is "certain" of the cause, before a proper investigation had even begun? He is eminently qualified in identifying the signs of a controlled demolition, which is what he pointed out exactly in the first article. He is not speaking from his position as an authority when he says "certainly" the fires were the cause. He does not expand on his statement, and he is not a forensic engineer, who studies building fires for a living. He studies and conducts controlled demolitions for a living.
Point 3: On 9/11, when he made his comments in the first article, there was no "consensus" among demolition experts about the cause of collapse. In the second article, no experts he is said to have referred to are mentioned by name, and there are no details from them about their claimed rationale for explosives being unnecessary for the buildings to have collapsed as they did. Further, the people he is said to have talked to were structural engineers, not experts in controlled demolitions, such as himself.
So he is speaking in his capacity as an expert on controlled demolitions in the first article, but not in the second article. In fact, his last quote in article two is "I'm not trying to say what did or didn't happen". This was after saying it was "certainly" caused by the fires. These are his only two actual direct quotes in article two.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 28, 2005 0:47:12 GMT -4
WRONG The coordination between federal agencies was widely criticized because despite being on CIA [or was that FBI] list of suspected terrorists, they were able to get visas and enter the US without any problems
No - they are said by the FBI tro have used fake passports to board the planes. And we have yet to see the actual flight manifests, but the FBI has made no claim that they show "Mohammed Atta" or "Satam Al Suqami " listed as names on the manifests.
WRONG Even before 9/11 you needed gov't issued photo ID to board planes in the US
Answered above - no need to use their real passports, and the FBI has even mentioned that some of the hijackers may have used fake passports to enter the country as well.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Oct 28, 2005 3:32:16 GMT -4
Experts, unlike conspiracy theorists, are known to change their opinions in the light of the evidence.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 28, 2005 14:08:50 GMT -4
But let's look at the two articles for comparison with the points you made for deciding whether an expert's opinion is valid...
It's unbelievable how much tap-dancing you're going through in order to try to support an opinion that has been clearly and unambiguously retracted. Why are you going to such great lengths to show that Romero "really" intended something other than what he himself says?
Point 1: Romero is an expert on controlled demolitions.
Agreed. But he is not an expert in all that makes buildings fall down. Saying that the collapse is consistent with the use of controlled demolition is not the same as having been able to determine that as the cause.
Point 2: In the first article, Romero is speaking from his expertise in controlled demolitions. [...] But in the second article, he is not explaining his reversal of opinion with even one specific reason mentioned.
Irrelevant. The judgment about whether one is speaking as an expert or not is not based solely on whether he elects to give specific reasons for his belief. In any case, he said he had spoken to other experts and, on that basis, withdrew his claims. If Romero realized that his expertise was not sufficient or applicable to give authority to his first claims, then he need not make any further correction.
He is eminently qualified in identifying the signs of a controlled demolition, which is what he pointed out exactly in the first article.
He is not necessarily able to describe all phenomena that might produce those signs. He is not an expert in all that makes buildings fall down.
If one's expertise in A allows one to say that A implies X, then observing X still does not mean that A implies it. Other people, who are experts in B, might be able to point out that B also implies X. If one's argument is that X must have been caused by A because A is the only potential cause he knows about, then that would be insufficient as expert testimony.
He does not expand on his statement, and he is not a forensic engineer, who studies building fires for a living. He studies and conducts controlled demolitions for a living.
And so he is not qualified to determine whether the effects of a catastrophic fire could be mistaken for controlled demolition. When he spoke to other engineers, presumably to acquire a broader view of the topic, he realized his initial comments were unfounded and premature. He did the responsible thing by withdrawing them.
Point 3: On 9/11, when he made his comments in the first article, there was no "consensus" among demolition experts about the cause of collapse.
Irrelevant; there was general consensus among myself and fellow engineers who watched on 9/11. We were fairly certain that fire had cooked the steel in some way, and we were no strangers to progressive collapse and dynamic loading.
You are attempting to limit the applicable field of expertise in this matter to controlled demolition. Consensus must be achieved not just in that narrow field, but in the field of all that makes buildings fall down. Your reasoning here is quite circular.
In the second article, no experts he is said to have referred to are mentioned by name, and there are no details from them about their claimed rationale for explosives being unnecessary for the buildings to have collapsed as they did.
Asked and answered. He considered them authoritative enough to warrant retracting his opinion. The alleged authority of whomever Romero may have consulted is irrelevant because it is not their objective expertise in question. We are questioning Romero's expertise. He acquired additional information from sources he deemed authoritative. That is sufficient. It is Romero's call whether his first sources of information were sufficient to support his claim, and thus it is Romero's call whether his subsequent sources of information are sufficient to withdraw his claim.
Further, the people he is said to have talked to were structural engineers, not experts in controlled demolitions, such as himself.
They would be authorities on whether buildings can collapse as seen without the aid of explosives, something Romero himself would not necessarily be able to determine himself.
So he is speaking in his capacity as an expert on controlled demolitions in the first article, but not in the second article.
But you wrongly presume that controlled demolition is the only applicable field of expertise.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Oct 28, 2005 14:24:51 GMT -4
What makes an expert is the ability to correctly interpret data. Romero'a first interpretation was based on clips via CNN. His later interpretation was based on the detailed inspection of the site by various agencies. Too often, I seem to see CTs cleaving to a model of the scientist as working by inspiration; sitting in a corner and using the power of their mind to dream up the solution. They don't seem to apreciate the sheer plodding volume and nit-picking accuracy of all the data collection and sorting and statistical methods and mathematical modelling. Sometimes I feel they mistake, say, the simplified formula given in popular science magazines and programs for the actual depth and width of data and calculation that go into carbon dating or the distance of galaxies.
In any case. Is it not possible Romero was given not just new data towards the mainstream explanation, but also new data falsifiying his previous theory? As in, he noticed within days that no explosive residue was found, no explanation of how the explosives could have been planted was found, and the pattern of collapse does not support standard demolitions practice?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 28, 2005 17:13:06 GMT -4
Is it not possible Romero was given not just new data towards the mainstream explanation, but also new data falsifiying his previous theory?
Many things are possible, but Turbonium points out that Romero doesn't specify what additional information he received to support his recantation. More specifically, the retraction news article is shorter on detail than the initial news article. As most retractions are.
I don't see anything sinister in this. Romero -- an expert in demolitions -- makes a snap judgment based on true information in his field, but without sufficient expertise in other applicable fields. After consulting with structural engineers -- who are, by the way, in consensus about why WTC failed -- Romero realizes that his demolitions expertise alone is not sufficient to support the statements he made earlier, and not sufficient to discuss the incident fully. As a responsible expert, he withdraws his original claims.
Turbonium wants to pit Romero's "expertise" in the first statement against his "expertise" in the second statement, and say that the first one is more "expert" than the second and so it should prevail. That's a contrived contest; Romero's second statement is essentially an admission that the first statement was hasty. He essentially retracts his claim to have expertise sufficient to discuss the tower collapses including all potential causes. One doesn't need expertise or authority to recuse oneself.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Oct 28, 2005 19:09:56 GMT -4
In the first article Romero said: [direct quotes in " " indirect quotes in ' ']:
'The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures'
'Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts. Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures. "It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that,"'
'If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive, he said. "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero said. The explosives likely would have been put in more than two points in each of the towers,'
1] He never said that he was sure. In every phrase he used modifiers to show this, he was speculating based on limited evidence.
a] 'The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical"' b] 'resembled those of controlled implosions' c] "It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that,"' d] 'If explosions did cause the towers to collapse the detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive' e] "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points,"
2] Since he was only evaluating what he saw on TV a few hours after the buildings collapsed - he didn't have much to go on or much time to think about it. As Turbonium pointed out his expertise is in how explosives affect structures and not in other aspects of engineering that could explain why the buildings to collapsed. Only in phrases b], d] and e] relate to his area of expertise, the most pertinent ones a] and c] don't. We must also consider that he made those comments only a few hours after the buildings collapsed, not very much time to reflect.
After he had time to reflect, look more closely at the evidence and consult experts with the relevant expertise he lacked, Romero only changed his mind on two points, a] and c]. Not coincidentally these were the two that were outside his expertise and the most important. "Subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tape have led Romero to a different conclusion...he said he now believes explosives would not have been needed to create the collapse seen in video images.". He could still say it looked like or 'resembled demolition'.
- A few years ago I was with some friends and we saw a guy who from a distance looked an awful lot like Harvey Kietel, we approached him and spoke to him but he had a heavy English accent and up close one could tell he wasn't the actor. Afterward I still thought he looked like Kietel.
- It's not uncommon for a doctor to make preliminary diagnosis but after consulting with other specialists to reach a different conclusion.
Turbonium, leave the guy alone, he made some statements before he had time to fully evaluate all the evidence and once he did, he came to a different conclusion. There is no evidence that he was some how pressured to retract his statements. Shi's comments were similar in content to Romero's initial statements and made under similar circumstances, since he hasn't said anything else about it in 4 years it's quite probable that in the end he reached a similar conclusion.
BTW - Heller admitted to me that he isn't an architect. He couldn't name any civil or structural engineers or architects who will support his theories publicly either.
|
|