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

Originally posted by Jeff Riff
TRUTHERS- Provide eveidence that there is a government conspiracy regarding 9-11. Lets show proof of CD. Lets show proof of government involvement. Whatever the case may be....lay it out and show evidence.

Official Story Supporters- Same applies. Provide evidence that the hijackers took the planes over and flew them into the buildings (Pentagon included).

"Evidence" for free? I'm not seeing a bankroll here. Team up with some rich person and offer rewards for evidence. You might be surprised at what surfaces. ------PC

*Trimmed large quote*

[edit on 27-1-2008 by dbates]

Originally posted by thesneakiod
reply to post by Jeff Riff

 

Ive no idea what you really want here, you want proof, proof of what? Scientific reports of why the towers fell, which has been done. Is that proof? Or just do you just accept what you want to believe?

The proof that planes hit the towers? Multiple witnesses, caught live on TV, is that proof for you?

The fact that there are Muslim extremists out there who despise the west and have made no bones about destroying us, is that proof?

To clarify - pseudo-science reports how the towers fell and nothing more.

Could you please define what you consider to be science proof? We need your conception, because those of us, with solid backgrounds in science and building construction, have been explaining what is necessary for valid science proof. All our opposition engages in is mimicry of the "official" reports of no valid science proof.

Are you certain you understand what it takes to validate anything in science? Because if you and others did, you would not be mimicking the "official" reports. One pertinent factor, which is always quite obvious in lack of science knowledge, is mimicry of the "official" reports.

People, engaging in it, refuse to explain the science used to write those reports, and instead begin engaging in red herring and ad hominem when requested to do so. The reports are all pseudo-science, and fully unrecognized as such by those mimicking them.

People simply cite the reports and nothing more. That proves only that people have no science knowledge of their own to share concerning the "official" reports.

reply to post by Jeff Riff


Jeff, you gave me an idea. How about faith believers? Because that is all they are running on is faith with no science to support them.

Originally posted by apex

Originally posted by OrionStars
Structures falling iwthout the use of controlled demolitions:

www.ngdc.noaa.gov...

web.ics.purdue.edu...

Interesting, so earthquake damage, e.g. liquefaction is now similar to a plane or similar flying into the side of a building? The only skyscrapers (well i say skyscrapers, tall buildings really) in those images are lying slightly to the side, and none are anywhere near as tall as the WTC was, and are destroyed by foundation damage. Not what I would call similar to an aircraft.

The energy it takes to create a pyroclastic flow and molecular disintegration:
vulcan.wr.usgs.gov...

Do you even know what a pyroclastic flow is? [edit on 27-1-2008 by apex]

I edited your post for necessary brevity.

I can see you missed the entire scientific comparison and intentionally so. You can continue running on obstinate faith belief alone, or start proving with science, not pseudo-science, the "official" reports. You should be able to personally do that, while not solely relying any longer on someone else's words to make your points of argument, shouldn't you?

Originally posted by thesneakiod
reply to post by ULTIMA1

 

There have been countless people on here ULTIMA1 who have done research in to why they collapsed, scientific research no less. Its not just blind belief. A simple search on here will prove that.

Could you please cite those you believe did that? It is not clear what you mean. Thank you.

reply to post by OrionStars

because those of us, with solid backgrounds in science and building construction,

May I respectfully ask what your background is in building construction and science? Thanks.

Originally posted by Valhall
If you're going to start official names for groups of people in this debate I would appreciate it if people like me finally get a name as well, because I'm sick of being classified in with the Truthers by those who oppose any talk against the official story, and I'm sick of being grouped with those who accept the official story as is by Truthers who think anyone who won't accept their religion must be a "sheeple".
[edit on 1-27-2008 by Valhall]

How about Fringe Believer as opposed to Faith Believer?

Originally posted by OrionStars



People simply cite the reports and nothing more. That proves only that people have no science knowledge of their own to share concerning the "official" reports.

Hi Orion,

I snipped your post down to this. Why? Because this sums all of your posts up in one. You have been presented all the evidence that shows the events on 911 happened just the way the offical version states it did.

Your posts repeat the same thing over and over offering nothing. Really! IF you say the NIST report is wrong... sorry, but it is up to YOU to provided the articles that are in error that directly refute what the report states. You need to explain why it is wrong and YOU need to provide documentation to back it up.

If you claim that the 911 report is wrong, again it is up to you to provide evidence to support your theory.

Thanks,

C.O.

CO,

What a disingenuous thing to say at this point. You know darned well there have been a number of us do exactly what you just said has to happen. And you still refuse to consider the points that people of science and engineering, who have taken the time to go through the detailed explanation of what they have identified as faulty science, methodology, modeling and reasoning of the report, have to say.

So your statement that some one needs to point out what they think is wrong with the report has been done. Is there some minimum number of times this has to happen before you stop demanding it happen?

Originally posted by OrionStars
I can see you missed the entire scientific comparison and intentionally so. You can continue running on obstinate faith belief alone, or start proving with science, not pseudo-science, the "official" reports. You should be able to personally do that, while not solely relying any longer on someone else's words to make your points of argument, shouldn't you?

You compared earthquake damage to a plane hitting a building. How is that scientific? The two are hardly comparable. And I am not saying anything about what caused the towers to come down, whether it was a plane or not. Yes I said a plane in that post, but I don't know what actually happened for sure. And I still say that foundation damage isn't similar to the proposed damage to the WTC.

And still, do you know what a pyroclastic flow is?

Originally posted by apex

Well, technically, I just mean that it's the type of flow.
[edit on 27-1-2008 by apex]

Please stop right there. That is correct. It is a type of flow. When the words pyroclastic flow were placed in a dictionary, all they could describe were volcanoes. After the H- and A-bombs were developed, the term also aptly applied to them. They cannot be caused without the same powerful thermal energy a volcano builds up, in order to result in pyroclastic blast and flow. No different than human designed H- and A-bombs for exact same effect. It is all the same principle laws of quantum mechanics, be it nature reaction or human designed reaction to effect the exact same result.

Please note the date of entry of the word pyroclastic into any dictionary:

Merriam and Webster:

"pyroclastic
Main Entry: py·ro·clas·tic
Pronunciation: \-ˈklas-tik\
Function: adjective
Date: 1887
: formed by or involving fragmentation as a result of volcanic or igneous action"

Originally posted by thesneakiod
Err....no, that's not how it works. The proof whether you believe it or not, is there in the official report. And since there is no official reports concerning outlandish conspiracy theories, its then up to YOU to prove it is a conspiracy.

If you truly believe that, then please start explaining, in your own words, the science you believe was used "to prove" the "official" reports. Please stop doing nothing more than giving your opinion or citations from the "official" reports. That is not the scientific way. People have repeatedly stated that to you. And you keep obnoxiously ignoring it in favor of red herring and ad hominem.

reply to post by Valhall


Val,

The post was directed to Orion who dismisses the entire government investigation, physical evidence, DNA evidence, eyewitness statements, photographic & video evidence. Orion is a no planer and voice morpher supporter.

In regard to the NIST report, I have looked into many of the claims made by engineers here and at other sites. I have taken these claims and asked others [professionals] if they hold water. So far not one person has proven the NIST report wrong. There have been MANY independant papers written that support the findings with NIST.

Again, NIST and their findings are supported by 99.999% of the professional community.

Thanks Val,

C.O.

Originally posted by OrionStars
Please stop right there. That is correct. It is a type of flow. When the words pyroclastic flow were placed in a dictionary, all they could describe were volcanoes. After the H- and A-bombs were developed, the term also aptly applied to them. They cannot be caused without the same powerful thermal energy a volcano builds up, in order to result in pyroclastic blast and flow.

Just because it looks the same doesn't mean it's correctly called that.

No different than human designed H- and A-bombs for exact same effect. It is all the same principle laws of quantum mechanics, be it nature reaction or human designed reaction to effect the exact same result.

quantum mechanics? Maybe but i thought it was relativity that gave us the nukes.

"pyroclastic
Main Entry: py·ro·clas·tic
Pronunciation: \-ˈklas-tik\
Function: adjective
Date: 1887
: formed by or involving fragmentation as a result of volcanic or igneous action"

Yes, so it was a long while ago. So that allows us to use it wrongly. Riiight.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious


Again, NIST and their findings are supported by 99.999% of the professional community.

Thanks Val,

C.O.

OMG! What a lie! You just showed the quality of your character right there.

reply to post by OrionStars



because those of us, with solid backgrounds in science and building construction,


In case you missed my last post...

May I respectfully ask what your background is in building construction and science? Thanks.

I'm not a real old time "been through all the wars" ATSer, but I've posted enough to consider myself at least a veteran of the "police action" that is the 911 conspiracy forum.

People on all sides of the debate would acknowledge that much of the world of men is run on mathematics. Calculations dictate policy and action. Calculations provide the concrete benchmarks of common sense. A lot of money is made in Las Vegas every day because of calculated probabilities. Much of the world can be understood very well by means of statistics.

Statistically speaking, the building collapses at the WTC on 9/11/01 would leave a Vegas oddsmaker with no other option but a certain bet on controlled demolition. There is just no way around that.

People argue against a conspiracy and coverup on 9/11. People bet against the house in Vegas. That's just the way it is.

[edit on 27-1-2008 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by Valhall
Let me try one more time, Ultima.

I'm an OOB - that's what my first post was all about. I'm an OOB. Go back and read what that means.

I'm an OOB.

Don't call me anything else, don't accuse me of anything else. I'm an OOB.

Dammit.

These are your own words from another of your posts:

"I respectfully request to be called an OOB from now on...an Objective OBserver".

That is not the way people correctly use acronyms. However OOB aptly fits this - Objective Observer Believer. Which would be self-contradictory. Objective you certainly are not. You have continuously projected that from your own thoughts expressed in these discussions.

reply to post by Valhall


Val,

Please explain how I am lying.

Thank you

Perhaps CO should have said "Overwhelming majority" -- whatever, argue semantics-- the point remains.

I always go back to "where did these theories begin"

Had the 'alternative explainations' come from a large and vocal group of structural or civil engineers, I would likely be more receptive to the theories-- BUT since the seeds of conspiracy were planted by- Profesional conspiracy promotors such as Alex Jones, anti-semetic computer technicians like Eric Huffschmidt, anti-semetic beat writers like American Free Press' Chris Boylnn, and French radical author Therry Meyssan..

The stories just don't hold the same weight as they would comming from less agenda driven individuals.

[edit on 27-1-2008 by Taxi-Driver]