9-11 lets lay it on the table....please provide evidence

reply to post by Pro-genetic


That's a defeatist attitude and a blatent attempt to derail the thread. Y'all don't have to read it. Move to what YOU believe in, eh?

Now, Val- How would the top fall to one side, re-right itself and then continue fallling evenly? Is that even possible? (I mean, without "help")

I'm glad this thread is leveling out again. Keep up all the good, on-topic discussion guys. It's a good thread!

Cuhail

reply to post by Jeff Riff

I can think of a few possible scenarios.
Please note I am not saying they are true. Just saying possible.

1) He's intentionally lying for attention or money. Has he been given any?
2) Mis-interepted events that were embelished upon after the fact.
3) He is one of those dis-info types.
4) He's legit and its exactly as he said. (not my fav but yours)

Or something I didn't say at all or a combination.
Because you really got to remember also as I said before ask a psychologist.
Witness testimony is crap for any number of very good reasons.



i]reply to post by dk3000


Right. Speaking as one who often gets constantly gets lumped into the OTHER side of the fence. I can honestly say this.
It's bad on both sides the trolling and the sniping and etc.
And I kinda understand it.
But of course everyone wants to bitch about and no one wants to do anything about it cause "We're RIGHT, and THEY just won't listen to reason so they attack," (talking about both sides of the debate).

It's really funny how much people will balantly ignore what others around them do when it suits them. Because I honestly see both sides pulling this junk.
Refer back to a recent conversation I just had in this thread.

[edit on 30-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]

To right it's an attempt to de-rail this thread, as far as i no(your the mod you tell me) your not left start threads that have been discussed before, and this is one subject which has been discussed to death, and the fact that i dont believe there was a conspiracy makes my presence here all the more important, other wise it's just a one sided argument and loses all vallidity!

reply to post by Pro-genetic


If you have an issue with the staff please file a comment / complaint that allows the whole staff to review the issue rather than discuss it in thread.

To do so follow this link:

Mod Note: ATS Complain / Suggestion– Please Use This Link.

Please take a moment to review the following:

Mod Note: Moderators Are People Too – Please Review This Link.

If you have any questions please u2u me or use the suggestion link above.

Now lets get back ont opic shall we?

Cheers
FredT, Moderator

[edit on 1/30/08 by FredT]

reply to post by Pro-genetic


So discuss it. Present what you have that supports the official story. Advance the thread. To derail the thread on purpose wouldn't support your stance. It would just make you look naive and scared. Kick in why you don't think there is a reason to continue. Or don't post.

Thanks,
Cuhail

reply to post by Pro-genetic


So discuss it. Present what you have that supports the official story. Advance the thread. To derail the thread on purpose wouldn't support your stance. It would just make you look naive and scared. Kick in why you don't think there is a reason to continue. Or don't post.

Thanks,
Cuhail

reply to post by Cuhail


Occam's Razor! this states All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best. In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities.
And im only ever hearing assumtions and postulations from the, lets call it the "anti government side" where as the pro side has facts and figures to back it up! Pretty simple!

Occam's Razor! There ya go! Now, start a thread arguing how Occam's Razor defeats anything else anybody can come up with and defend it...in your own thread. This one is being used to discuss other things which you shouldn't disrupt. It's rude.
Now, read this:

Courtesy Is Mandatory

Then...
Please Stay On Topic

This won't hurt--
**POLICY STATEMENT FOR THE 9/11 FORUM: ALL MEMBERS PLEASE READ**

And everyone needs this in their bookmarks:
ATS Freshman's Forum

I'm not trying to stifle you. I want you to just do some reading and use the search function up to the right there and look into what we've come across...including the application of Occam's Razor. Because we've talked about it.

Welcome to ATS.
Cuhail

reply to post by Cuhail


1)
You are the one that is being discourtious to me because you obviously dont like what i have to say and my opinion counts just as much as yours!DONT FORGET IT!
2)
This is the first time i have ventured off topic on this post and is due to you!
3)
the 3rd link states "implying or directly stating that those who disagree with their point of view are stupid, "conspiracy nut jobs", or "government agents". Included in this category are posts such as "conspiracy theories are ridiculous bunkum", "only an idiot would believe that..."
where have i done these things? have i called any one an idiot or even implyed anything of the sort? no i have not!

Originally posted by Jeff Riff
The thing that really makes me question what happened that day is the testimony of William Rodriguez.... I know that I have mentioned this before, and I dont think that I have heard anyone give me a reasonable explanation of how this man is lying....or heard something that did not really happen.

Hi,

I don't think the man was lying about what he heard. But I don't see the significance of this. What exactly do you see as questionable here?

L driver,

The significance is that there were large explosions in the basement levels at least down to B4. They were massive enough to cause significant damage, collapses, trap people and injure people at that level.

And this is backed up by official reports from PA who were there at the time and first responders reporting to the scene. And this magnitude of explosion in the B4 level hasn't been explained.

In addition, there were large secondary explosions at street level, causing collapses of structures after both planes had hit the buildings and before either building collapsed.

I can't understand why it is so difficult for some one to comprehend that complete avoidance in the official record to explain these particular problematic events bothers some people. These unexplained events do not have to equate to some kind of government complicity. But the fact that the most catastrophic attack on U.S. soil was not investigated fully and that apparently no attempt was made to explain these particular events does not set well with some of us U.S. citizens.

Originally posted by Pro-genetic
reply to post by Cuhail

 

Occam's Razor! this states All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best. In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities.
And im only ever hearing assumtions and postulations from the, lets call it the "anti government side" where as the pro side has facts and figures to back it up! Pretty simple!

I agree with your position and don't believe the massive conspiracy other then the attempt to cover up incompetence. Occam's Razor is a good starting point. Another thought is that the larger the perceived conspiracy, the less likely it is to be true. The conspiracy based on the multiple postulates as stated by the "truther" movement, would require massive amounts of supportive personnel to pull off and not one of them slipped up enough to leave solid evidence? Not one slipped up and said the wrong thing to the wrong person? Not one person had a guilty conscience?

Now although, based on the evidence I have seen, I agree with your position, I would still encourage a legitimate search for evidence by all sides for 2 reasons:
1. To either once and for all put this matter to bed
or
2. Bring some previously unknown piece of evidence to light which might actually indicate there really was a massive conspiracy.

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by cams

 

Funny thing about water.
It evaporates.
You know turns into a gas?
It wouldn't just automatically cool molten steel bury insulated pile.
And in that pile I would imagine the metal was well insulated.
Not also to forget that the heat from the molten steel would in turn heat up the pile.
And the pile could protect the molten steel from sustained contact with the water. By simple fact of being sooo hot and by the simple fact of shielding it.

And please dispense with the condescending remarks.
I am not any less intelligent than you are.



[edit on 29-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Apologies if you believe if I was being condescending but I am still have difficulty in understanding how molten steel was found under WTC7.

Hydrocarbon fires have a maximum temperature of approximately 825 degrees C
Steel melts at approximately 1510-1535 degrees C

Molten steel was observed at WTC7 and reported by many, including it appears by FEMA in the appendix of the FEMA report .

It would appear from the response you gave that the steel may have already melted before water was applied. How did temperatures get so hot when hydrocarbon fires can only reach a maximum of 825 degrees C in the atmosphere without pressurization?

Pressurized hot air is usually the method used in a furnace when steel is to be melted down. So temperatures went from say a maximum of 825 degrees C up to a minimum of 1510-1525 degrees C in order for the steel to melt. The substantial increase in temperatures must have been caused by something (such as the use of pressurized air or something else perhaps?)

It would also appear as if the official story says that no steel was melted, but it only weakened. NIST and others seem to deny there was molten steel found at ground zero as well.

So on one hand we have the appendix of FEMA, firefighters, rescue workers etc, all claiming that molten steel was observed, yet on the other hand we have NIST, Popular Mechanics, Nova etc denying any molten steel was observed. Therefore we have a contradiction and therefore a more consistent official explanation is warranted.


Nearly six and half years later there is still no explanation from NIST as to how WTC7 collapsed so people are getting a little concerned.

Can you perhaps explain how the steel melted in the first place?

reply to post by jfj123


I read few paragraphs - and I must add, above Valhall's very good post - that I found this one bit confusing:

Puffs Of Dust

Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Popularmechanics.com

With a quick glance, this seems credible explanation, but this seems to forget that puffs of smoke were spotted sometimes very many floors below the pancaking levels. If this would be escaping ear and dust, how come it escapes just from "some window" many floors below the the pancaking floors?

I'm not a fan of CD theory, but I am not either fan of this popular mechanics article

reply to post by Valhall



That's about the most logical way of putting it Valhall. If people still think we are anti-american, conspiracy nuts, twoothers, what-have-you because we question these things, then I feel there is no amount of logic that will get through to them.

On the subject of the account from William Rodriguez his testimony seems to have 'mutated' over the years.

Anyone got any thoughts on that?

I am not too sure how Williams story has mutated. I heard his story on a google video, and I heard him tell the story on ATS radio...or whatever it is.

I think its important to note that he stated there was an explosion in the basement seconds before the first plane hit the tower. Now there were other people in the basement that reported the same thing, so his testimony is backed up by other testimony.

Also we saw the Naudet brothers film in which huge marble slabs were blown off the walls in the lobby. This also points to something other than impact damage from the planes.

Originally posted by dbates

 

Something tells me that the NIST practices quite a bit of science at either one of their two laboratories. (Gaithersburg, Md., and Boulder, Colo) What exactly is the problem with NIST? Is it simply because they are on the government payroll?

Late to the response, and apologies for that.

The answer: they spend so much time attempting to discredit NIST because their findings are devastating to conspiracy theories. They don't have a counter, so the only option is to discredit.

It's a straw man argument and an argumentative technique. Something that might help you cipher through all of the nonsense: notice how truthers arguments tend to be rather nebulous? That's because they can't directly answer the many, varied and huge problems that must be ignored for their conspiracy(s) to hold any water at all.

The issue isn't NIST. The issue is where is their peer reviewed rebuttal? It doesn't exist, nor will it. So, they must focus their efforts on discrediting NIST, and others. That's why this thread has been turned into a semantic gymnastics event by one particular poster. If that poster had anything to actually say of any substance, they would.

The truth movement spends most of it's time making character assassinations on government agencies because that's the biggest gun they've got.. If the truth movement had anything of substance it would have taken off, in the mainstream, long ago.

Instead, it's evolved into a merchandising campaign by it's high disciples with it's believers relegated to high-fiving each other in Internet forums.

It's really that simple.


EDIT: this is my opinion, and nothing more.

I think observations about the argument itself are valid contributions to the discussion. As an observer, I see the same behavior repeated over and over and over again. I think that a lot of the hostility between both sides would be dispelled if some light (from a biased perspective, no doubt) is shed, from time to time.

Hopefully, my observations ring true with some of you and will cause you not hit the submit button before your anger gets the better of you.

I think, as someone who does not believe in 9-11 conspiracies, when you step back and observe what's really going on, your responses will be much less inflamed. Meaning this: don't let the personal attacks get to you. If the weight and merit of their arguments were as strong as they like to think, the discussion would center on the evidence.. Not semantic games, endless movement of the goal posts, nebulous arguments that really have no bearing on what's being discussed and all the other argumentative techniques that are being practiced. You (the royal you) don't need to employ such tactics if your position is strong enough, on the evidence.

Bottom line: I don't think such angry responses are warranted: the truth fraud is not resonating. It's does here at ATS, but the public at large does not buy into the notions of holograms, planted charges, etc.


[edit on 31-1-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

Originally posted by Pilgrum
On the subject of the account from William Rodriguez his testimony seems to have 'mutated' over the years.

Anyone got any thoughts on that?

(I am relying on outside sources, and the work of others, to express my opinions. I will provide links to the origonal material whenever possible)


I think the issue of explosions has a couple of facets to it. The first, the term “explosion” is used by many people to describe all manner of sounds having nothing to do with actual explosives used.
"Then I heard the power transformer blow and it sounded like a bomb went off," Jill said

...laying on the floor when a, about two and a half foot diamter and about forty-five feet long tree crashed into the house, and it sounded like a bomb went off

It was like an explosion underneath us. The house was shunted up in the air and then it shook violently. A lot of houses were knocked clean off their piles"

Ms Sirirat... heard a loud bang. ‘I saw many women running out of their shops,’ she said. ‘They said: ‘Gas explosion! Run for your life’. So I followed them. I thought it was a bomb.’

The second facet, IMO, involves very selective editing by those who have a vested interest in outcomes and peddling a certain idea. That is, those who flat out misquote or leave the oh-so-important context needed to fully understand what the person being quoted actually intended. The lack of context facet is the most prolific when it comes to quotes and truth arguments.

Here is Alex Jones's take:

Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem. We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building.

Source for that

Wow, sounds pretty scandelous, no? Devistating proof you say! Would Mr. Jones fib? Yep, he sure would.
And reality:

Originally, on September 12, 2001, People Magazine ran a few short paragraphs about the 20-year veteran New York fireman hearing what sounded like bombs exploding in the north tower. Short and sweet, that was it. A few short words about bombs exploding, but words that were repeated over and over again in story after story by writers and broadcasters who never even bothered to talk to him in the first place.Furthermore, Cacchioli was upset that People Magazine misquoted him, saying "there were bombs" in the building when all he said was he heard "what sounded like bombs" without having definitive proof bombs were actually detonated.

....and the source for that

He's been bought off, right? Okay, some supportive information:

...I asked the senior man working to take the elevator.He entered the elevator with the last company that went up. They went up to the 24th floor or the 22nd floor and the company was getting off. I think it was the truck company at that time, because he grabbed the last guy getting out, who was the irons man and he said "You gotta stay with me, because I need tools in the elevator." At that time, the doors closed and that's when the power went out. Which, what we found out later was when the south tower fell down. They were able to force their way out of the elevator and for some reason the guy from the truck, from 13 truck, went to the right and he went to the left and found a stairwell and he was able to make it out. Q. Who is "he"? A. Louie Cacchioli.

Source for that gem:

Another example of very selective quoting (could there be an agenda here?):

I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion. I thought it was a secondary device, but I knew that we had to go.

Source

Wow. Another very convincing quote that proves bombs were used. Or maybe not.

The rest of the story:

an ambulance pulled up which was very clean, S0 I assumed that the vehicle had not been in the - what I thought was an explosion at the time, but was the first collapse.

The source for the full quote

A popular conspiracy theory site says this of Dominick Derubbio:

It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion ...

Starting to see a pattern here?

Gosh, everyone seems to have seen massive evidence of controlled demolitions! Or did they?

It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion, but I guess it was just the floors starting to pancake one on top of the other.

Again, the source

FDNY Batallion Chief Brian Dixon had this to say:

... the lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because the whole bottom I could see -- I could see two sides of it and the other side -- it just looked like that floor blew out. I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out.

Guess where that "quote" came from?

And what he actually said:

I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out. Then I guess in some sense of time we looked at it and realized, no, actually it just collapsed. That ís what blew out the windows, not that there was an explosion there but that windows blew out.

((((CONTINUED))))

[edit on 31-1-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

[edit on 31-1-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

reply to post by jfj123


I'd be more than happy to accept some new evidence, that is evidence of course not conjecture or someone thinking really hard for an hour or two and comeing up with the truth!If all these "truthers" believe there was a conspiracy why dont they group together and fund an independent report, fund that is, not participate, and see what it comes up with! put yer money where your mouth is kinda thing ya no!