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

reply to post by coughymachine


Yes it is ad hominem. You are attacking me not what I am saying.

But anyway.
I explain why I say what I say when I say it.

Here is the full quote you chopped and spun for your part of your attack:
I have underlined the parts you decided to forget existed.
Which is really what started this, you decided or accidently didn't read all I said or just skimmed. Though I am leaning towards the first one.

You know what, ignorance is bliss.
I wish I could not be the inqusitive fellow I am and accept whatever I am told, which I would be doing if I was to just follow the NIST or the "truther" side.
I wish I could stay in a nice safe little cocoon. But that is against my nature. I have to make up my own mind. I can't just accept what anyone tells me is true.
But it would save me alot of frusteration if it was in my nature.

Now can we kindly move the subject away from me or any other person not relevant to the events on 9/11?
Since we are technically derailing the thread with this.


[edit on 4-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by WraothAscendant

You know what, ignorance is bliss.
I wish I could not be the inqusitive fellow I am and accept whatever I am told, which I would be doing if I was to just follow the NIST or the "truther" side.
I wish I could stay in a nice safe little cocoon. But that is against my nature. I have to make up my own mind. I can't just accept what anyone tells me is true.
But it would save me alot of frusteration if it was in my nature.

Okay, I'm going to take a shot at this. This is NOT an attack on you but my attempt to help you see your apparent position from the opposite side's viewpoint.

You state "I can't just accept what anyone tells me is true." but you also have admitted that you have accepted the NIST report without even knowing what they did in that report, or how they came to their conclusions. Which places you in a position that you have accepted something as true that you don't even know what it says. So basically you are seen as vehemently defending that which you could only have second hand knowledge of as stated by some one other than the NIST. This means you have accepted what some one else has told you the NIST report says. And this places you in a position of looking as though you are defending the NIST work simply and solely on the basis it is "official" - not because of what it says, how they did it, or the correctness.

At the same time, you are arguing with people who HAVE read the NIST report and do take issue with the methodology and assumptions made in that report (some of whom do have adequate backgrounds to legitimately critique the work contained in that report) and you are rejecting those peoples' concerns based solely on the fact they go against what you have accepted - simply because it is deemed "official".

Hope that helps you to see things from the other side.

[edit on 2-4-2008 by Valhall]

reply to post by Valhall


Erm Val.
This is also from the same post they are chopping for their uses.
Towards the top.
The key words are underlined.

That leads me to agree with (apparently according to them at least) parts of whatever that silly little report has to say but I could care less. The NIST report so far has only been a source of annoyance to me in that I keep getting told, I am like I said, following it like some sort of bible. When I know that not to be the case.

Meaning.
That in their view apparently I have read and agree with NIST. And am in fact following it like some sort of holy book. Neither of which is true.

Does that clear that up Val?



[edit on 4-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Wraoth,

I'm going to ask you to consider the following methodology and logic flow and then I ask you to answer the following question: Do you believe based on the following logic-flow that the U.S. taxpayers got what they paid for considering the NIST work/report cost over $16 million?

****************************

Assumption: The buildings started collapsing due to the combined damage of the plane impact and the fires.
Objective: Create a model that proves assumption to be correct.

Step 1: Model building.
Step 2: Model plane.
Step 3: Model three scenarios of plane damage - least damage, moderate damage, severe damage.
Step 4: Does each of the damage models create external building damage that matches photographic and video evidence of the day?
Answer: NONE OF THEM DO.
Then: Keep all of them.
Step 5: Least damage model added with fire temperatures based on tests of recovered steel.
Result: No collapse initiation.
Step 6: Least damage model with cranked up temperatures with no data to support.
Result: No collapse initiation.
Step 7: Reject least damage model and state in report "due to the fact it didn't match external damage on building and it didn't result in failure initiation."
Step 8: Moderate damage model added with fire temperatures based on tests of recovered steel.
Result: No collapse initiation.
Step 9: Moderate damage model with cranked up temperatures with no data to support.
Result: No collapse intiation.
Step 10: Reject moderate damage model and state in report "due to the fact it didn't match external damage on building and it didn't result in failure initiation."
Step 11: Severe damage model added with fire temperatures based on tests of recovered steel.
Result: No collapse initiation.
Step 12: Severe damage model with cranked up temperatures with no data to support.
Result: Collapse initiation -WE HAVE A WINNER!
Step 13: Receive letter from families of 911 asking please publish lesser damage models because rejecting them based solely on the fact they didn't back your initial objective (see above) isn't ethical.
Step 14: CHANGE WORDING IN REPORT - remove statement concerning why least damage model and moderate damage model was rejected: "due to the fact they didn't match external damage on building and it didn't result in failure initiation." and replace with "due to the fact they didn't match external damage on building" - even though your own report states the severe damage model didn't match external damage on building either.
Step 15: Also throw in the nonsensical excuse that the least damage model and moderate damage model didn't "match the damage to the contents and interior of the building"...because we all know you know exactly what damage happened to the contents of the building - because you're official and you say so.

Just let me know if you're okay with paying $16 million for that.

[edit on 2-4-2008 by Valhall]

But WAIT! THERE'S MORE! Don't call yet, in addition to that for just $16 million you also got:

Step "try avoid the flaming turd called WTC 7" - Forget to get a SINGLE PIECE OF STEEL FROM WTC 7 TO PERFORM TESTING ON.

Operators are standing by to take YOUR CALL!

Limited time offer, only one offer per U.S. citizen, taxes apply if you live in New York, New Jersey, D.C. or Pennsylvania. Offer is not transferrable. Citizenship must be proven.

[edit on 2-4-2008 by Valhall]

reply to post by WraothAscendant

No, it was not an ad hom, nor have I 'decided' anything other than the fact that your comments require clarification.

Again, based upon your own words:

• You know what you know
  
• You have not read the NIST Report
  
• You variously believe it is stupid and silly
  
• You nonetheless reject the arguments of those who challenge its findings

I want to know on what basis you know what you know, given that you haven't read the 'stupid' report and, presumably, haven't had to opportunity to conduct your own investigation.

Why is this so hard to answer?

reply to post by Valhall
Seems that, based on lack of data/no data, they found a way to say 'we have no idea' in 10000 words or more.

The truth is out there - somewhere

reply to post by Valhall


And how many times must I state I don't care about the NIST?
But like Pilgrum said.
I think alot more people would not agree with NIST if it was 10000 words or more of as Pilgrum says and you allege of saying nothing.

Nevermind the fact that such theories that incoporate such things as DEW, Anti-Matter bombs, Holograms and so on and so forth.
Are put forward by a large amount of the very people that say the NIST is crap.

But like I said, I don't care about it.
It doesn't guide my arguments.



[edit on 4-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Nope, as I have said a few times now, I don't care what any report says.
I know what I know.
And I see what I see.

Ready to answer yet so is Perdue University Liars or fools?

Oh yea. The steel HAD to be molten before it got underground.
Couldn't have been melted by the fact it was then covered in a rather good insolator known as concrete with fires that were still burning heating the area up. And was probly some what hot from the friction of the collapse anyway.
Remember it still burned underground for days after the collapse.
Nah impossible.

1. So if you do not care about what the reports state then you are lying when you say know what happened. Becasue wothout the reports you have no evidnece to support you theory.

2. The Purdue animations shows pretty much what the reports state. Now will you answer the question if the reports are wrong or lies?

3. I am not talking about molten steel underground, gee you really do do not know much about what happened that day do you?

Are you saying the video and photos of molten steel are faked ? ANd the witnesses lied about the molten steel?




[edit on 4-2-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by WraothAscendant

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
And how many times must I state I don't care about the NIST?

I find it truly hard to believe you haven't caught on to the thrust of the point we're making here.

Whilst I don't want to appear to be speaking for everyone else, I feel sure they, like I, understand you haven't read and do not care about the contents of the NIST report.

The question, therefore, is a breathtakingly simple one: what is the basis of your belief about the collpases of WTC1 & 2?

Originally posted by WraothAscendant

And how many times must I state I don't care about the NIST?
But like Pilgrum said.

Well, you don't need to repeat it again, because that's not what I asked you. I asked you - are you okay with the U.S. taxpayers paying over $16 million for the steps I described in my post above? And you didn't answer that.

reply to post by ULTIMA1

1. So if you do not care about what the reports state then you are lying when you say know what happened. Becasue wothout the reports you have no evidnece to support you theory.

Rrrrriiiiggggghhhhhtttttt because reports are the only way to knowledge.
Gee wiz. I guess I need to believe every report and everything everyone tells me.
Too bad they conflict alot.
Especially the ones that tell me things I find ludacris and then tell me I am sheeple because I don't agree with them usually with a bunch of other insults on my intelligence and ability for independent thought, who bend my statements to mean what they want them to mean, who out and out ignore plausable alternate intereptations to so called "evidence" and some of which what they consider evidence is aerial photos obviously taken well into clean up like it was right after prestine crime scene shots. I could go on but I see little point. Either way. Even if I saw what you people claim is there in black and white. I'd probly just walk away because I wouldn't want to become like you.
And no I am not saying I wouldn't change my mind.
Just saying I would cease coming here.
Sad that I HAD to add that line.

And first you people say I need to forget the report now you say I need to follow it please make up your minds.
Funny thing is, I have, multiple times and without some report/script to follow as to the provide evidence thing.

2. The Purdue animations shows pretty much what the reports state. Now will you answer the question if the reports are wrong or lies?

I'll answer yours if you answer mine. Seeing as to how I asked first you get to go first.

3. I am not talking about molten steel underground, gee you really do do not know much about what happened that day do you?

Thats funny all the references I can find deal with it being buried in the basement and even that is contested at times.

Are you saying the video and photos of molten steel are faked ? ANd the witnesses lied about the molten steel?

Have yet to see any pictures or videos, post them?
Pictures are preferable because I have seen far to many tea leaf reading in the videos offered.


And Val. Conversation over.
Find someone else to rant at.

Now can we come off me? Pretty please?

[edit on 5-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by WraothAscendant

And Val. Conversation over.
Find someone else to rant at.

[edit on 4-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]

I don't believe I've begun to rant yet. It's usually extremely clear to all involved when I go into rant mode, and I have not.

I'm assuming you are refusing to answer the question. I'm fine with that, but let the record reflect such.

reply to post by Valhall


LoL! Yes ask me to make a call on a report I don't care to read.
And I refuse. How dare I.
Bad me. I should be shot.
Especially considering I have noted and stated how such a report would be a lovely tool to keep this whole fracus going and no cohesive movement from forming. For alot of the same reasons I quoted to Ultima.


[edit on 4-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by L driver
But no one seems to be able to verify the study was actually done.

No one has access to the structural plans, either, but are you going to doubt their existence, too? That the towers could withstand 600 mph was both stated by the same engineers that designed the towers, and proven on 9/11 when two planes did slam the towers at around those speeds, and the towers did not immediately collapse as a result. It took more than that, whether you think it was fire or something else.

I'm simply saying we don't have any verification the study existed, as no one has been able to find it. There is at least some reason to suspect an exaggeration. There had been a scare campaign in the NY Times, showing a plane about to hit the towers, that they were unsafe. The Port Authority, afraid of losing prospective tenants, may well have gone overboard in defending the sturdiness of the towers. Leslie Robertson vehemently denies the 600mph study ever existed. So I'm no more skeptical than he is. So yes, I think it's reasonable to say, the study might well have been an exaggeration. As far "structural plans," of course I don't deny the existence of them, as the buildings wouldn't have been built without them.

Cheers

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Rrrrriiiiggggghhhhhtttttt because reports are the only way to knowledge.
Gee wiz. I guess I need to believe every report and everything everyone tells me.
Too bad they conflict alot.

Have yet to see any pictures or videos, post them?
Pictures are preferable because I have seen far to many tea leaf reading in the videos offered.

1. No, reports are not the only way. But thats why you need to do research to verify the reports so we know what happened that day.

Seems like you are just going by what the media tells you and not doing any actual research.

2. Photos of molten steel.

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

reply to post by ULTIMA1

Ok, fair enough.Your response.

1. No, reports are not the only way. But thats why you need to do research to verify the reports so we know what happened that day.

Or I could collect what evidence I can myself and make my own decisions without someone else acting as the middle man.
You know rely on myself rather than someone else?

Because that person could in fact be lying or twisting facts for the reason of let see, like selling books (otherwords making money). Or to back up their extreme paranoia. Or they could have an agenda. Or it is in their interests that I think they are right. Or that they are dinfo agents.
Or any number of possibilities and combinations there in.

Seems like you are just going by what the media tells you and not doing any actual research.

Haven't we been over this little over used gem already?
After all I could retort with
"You seem to be just going with what Conspiracy Theory authors tell you. While claiming independent research with very little actual independent research. Or selective research without stopping to consider other possible intereptations that are plausable."
Would rather tick you off wouldn't it?
That is what I spent that long conversation couple nights ago trying to point out.
And no I am not actually saying it, it was just an example.
I admit to having thought it. But I am of a cooler head now and realised that thought was of a definantly biased (not to mention angry) mind.
I try to avoid perminant judgement on people when I am not losing my head to annoyance. And the evidence for that statement is the constant ignorings and unignorings I do when I get annoyed with being attacked and then get curious as to what someone says.
So please take no offense.


And as for the pictures, any unbiased background information on them?
Particularly dates taken, but I need all the background data.
Otherwords please no prisonplanet etc information.
Links please as I have seen you play loosie goosie with info before.
Sorry, I don't trust lightly. Particularly people that have verbally assaulted me before for disagreeing.

I see three possible scenarios here. Not saying which I think it is. Just stating scenarios.
1) Photoshopped
2) Another intereptation. Time taken plays a hand. As does many other factors.
3) Your right.
Though it would take a shift from what I have seen thus far for 3 to be right.

[edit on 5-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Can I assume, WraothAscendant, from your refusal to even acknowledge me now, that you cannot or will not answer my very simple question?

In case you'd forgotten, it was this: on what basis do you know what you know about the collapses of WTCs 1 & 2?

Also, I'd still like to know to whom you were referring when you said 'ignorance is bliss'.

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
And as for the pictures, any unbiased background information on them?
Particularly dates taken, but I need all the background data.

Sorry, I don't trust lightly. Particularly people that have verbally assaulted me before for disagreeing.

Yes i would like to see the information on the 9/11 photos too but none of them have any. Thats 1 reason i am trying to figure out how people can believe the official story since they do not have all the information.

But we do have more photos that show water being sprayed on the equipment to keep it cool from the molten steel.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Ultima look at what your saying.

Yes i would like to see the information on the 9/11 photos too but none of them have any. Thats 1 reason i am trying to figure out how people can believe the official story since they do not have all the information.

You accept those pictures as evidence despite the fact you honestly state no one has any information on them.
Yet you blast the people that believe the report for doing the same thing.

Little biased dontcha think?
Not to forget with a dash of "my feces don't stink".

Especially when the more I think about it I could probly photoshop pictures easily to get the same effect or get someone else to. Will have to test that.




[edit on 5-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]