WTC2 photo series shows upward explosive forces

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by jthomas

 

OK.

You have shown me that all you want to do is argue. Have fun here while it lasts. I predict not long.

Ignored.

I predict the truth will win out and 9/11 "Truth" won't. Sorry you weren't able to step up to the plate and defend your position with evidence.

Originally posted by jthomas
Don't tell me you're like Griff and also claim that YOU do not have any responsibility to support your own claims?

I am like Griff in that I try to post only when it is relevant and brings something to the discussion. But I must admit I enjoy toying with the trolls more than he does and watching them get smacked with warns and bans. Keeps the riff-raff out; we all have to do our share. I try to do mine.

No wonder you are offended by JREFers who insist on evidence for claims made by anyone. Just like at www.physorg.org and at Bautforum.

I'm not offended by JREF; I'm appalled. There's a big difference. I think for myself, and I found the level of the debate, in my hazy recollection, to be on the level of a cat-and-mouse cartoon. But that's just me. I'm sure the participants find it entertaining.

No wonder you are all scared of Mark Roberts who chose critical thinking and the presentation of evidence over 9/11 Truther claims "that never have to be supported by the truthers making the claims." 9/11 Truthers must have special dispensation from God, eh?

I saw his video. It was sophomoric. I'm not afraid of him; who is he anyway?? I just don't care. I don't really understand the point of your rant at the end, but never mind, I get the general drift. It's a rant. Yawn.

Or is this all a desperate attempt to save Post-Modernism?

Post-modernism is an architectural style, consisting of applying classically derived ornament to modern construction. I spent nearly a decade in the Manhattan architectural offices of one of its leading practitioners. I doubt it can be saved, as it will go the way of all styles, and be superseded.

What on earth, however, does this have to do with a discussion of the photos in the OP?

Originally posted by jthomas
I looked at all of the photos in an attempt in the sequence to detect relative motion in the time span of the frames. I see nothing unusual in any frame or in the sequence.

I am happy to entertain whatever it is you claim but you are going to have to edit the photos with arrows pointing to just what you claim.

Here you go. From the second OP photo, this is the massive facade section I have been discussing:

And BTW, want to share your reasons why the core should be spewing out ejecta in the last photo of the OP, before the circus tent comes down?

I never claimed the core did. Only the outer walls. But it is known that core sections also remained standing for a short period after the collapse front passed.

And this is what I am referring to above:

BTW, you are aware of what was called the "spire", aren't you?

Quite aware, for some years. But the photographic evidence of destruction of the sub-basements and the lowest core shown in site photos of ground zero shortly after cleanup began do nothing to support the official non-theory; in fact they do just the opposite.

Originally posted by gottago

Originally posted by jthomas
Don't tell me you're like Griff and also claim that YOU do not have any responsibility to support your own claims?

I am like Griff in that I try to post only when it is relevant and brings something to the discussion. But I must admit I enjoy toying with the trolls more than he does and watching them get smacked with warns and bans. Keeps the riff-raff out; we all have to do our share. I try to do mine.

When do you expect you and Griff will get banned?

No wonder you are offended by JREFers who insist on evidence for claims made by anyone. Just like at www.physorg.org and at Bautforum.

I'm not offended by JREF; I'm appalled. There's a big difference. I think for myself, and I found the level of the debate, in my hazy recollection, to be on the level of a cat-and-mouse cartoon. But that's just me. I'm sure the participants find it entertaining.

Well, JFERS, as you must well know by now, but may be unwilling to admit, are willing to deal with the evidence and quite readily deal logically with 9/11 Truth woo, the kind I expose here. And yes, they do have fun with the 9/11 Truther trolls, many of whom are valued members of ATS. Graig Ranke, for instance, is a favorite. You know, your member who keeps getting banned here but must have such compelling force of evidence that he is let back in without consequence. Why you all would support such an irrational person as Ranke, anyway, gottago, is beyond me.

No wonder you are all scared of Mark Roberts who chose critical thinking and the presentation of evidence over 9/11 Truther claims "that never have to be supported by the truthers making the claims." 9/11 Truthers must have special dispensation from God, eh?

I saw his video. It was sophomoric. I'm not afraid of him; who is he anyway?? I just don't care. I don't really understand the point of your rant at the end, but never mind, I get the general drift. It's a rant. Yawn.

Despite the fact that his collection of evidence and links addresses all of the silly claims of your 9/11 "Truth" Movement. Perhaps you would benefit from a proper education in facts, science, critical thinking, and the nature of evidence by spending a week or so perusing the site, here:

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

Of course, if you are offended by evidence, I completely understand if you pass.

Or is this all a desperate attempt to save Post-Modernism?

Post-modernism is an architectural style, consisting of applying classically derived ornament to modern construction. I spent nearly a decade in the Manhattan architectural offices of one of its leading practitioners. I doubt it can be saved, as it will go the way of all styles, and be superseded.

What on earth, however, does this have to do with a discussion of the photos in the OP?

Because you and your 9/11 "Truth" Movement evidence a distinct Post-Modernism view of science, the one eloquently exposed here:

"Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science"
www.amazon.com...

"I did not write this work merely with the aim of setting the exegetical record straight. My larger target is those contemporaries who -- in repeated acts of wish-fulfillment -- have appropriated conclusions from the philosophy of science and put them to work in aid of a variety of social cum political causes for which those conclusions are ill adapted. Feminists, religious apologists (including ``creation scientists''), counterculturalists, neoconservatives, and a host of other curious fellow-travelers have claimed to find crucial grist for their mills in, for instance, the avowed incommensurability and underdetermination of scientific theories. The displacement of the idea that facts and evidence matter by the idea that everything boils down to subjective interests and perspectives is -- second only to American political campaigns -- the most prominent and pernicious manifestation of anti-intellectualism in our time."

Transgressing the Boundaries: An Afterword

(Papers by Alan Sokal on the "Social Text Affair"

"Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" )

www.physics.nyu.edu...

Originally posted by gottago

And this is what I am referring to above:



From those photos, I would never hazard a guess or an opinion of what I was actually seeing happening. I will do my own research in the next few days and come back to you on this.




[edit on 25-2-2008 by jthomas]

[edit on 25-2-2008 by jthomas]

reply to post by jthomas


Looks like pattern recognition to me.
But I could be wrong.
*ducks the flames coming*

I can't help feeling that if the actual issues were attacked with the same vigour that's expended in attacking each other, we might actually get somewhere.

Some heavy material was ejected over some impressive distances and that's an issue in need of an explanation. My idea of how that happened requires that the steel be cold and resilient, not tempered by fire.

I welcome any thoughts on how those ejections took place.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I can't help feeling that if the actual issues were attacked with the same vigour that's expended in attacking each other, we might actually get somewhere.

My thoughts exactly. What happened to "this forum is under close staff scrutiny"? And "no ad-hominim attacks"? Could just be that the mods are busy.

Originally posted by jthomas
From those photos, I would never hazard a guess or an opinion of what I was actually seeing happening. I will do my own research in the next few days and come back to you on this.

But yet you've spent nearly two pages pretending you did.

BTW, that's the stripped core.

Edit to add:

I don't understand the point of dragging in a post-modernist critique here; the point is to explain what is going on in those photos. I have presented them because they are not well-known, a series from a single vantage point, and exhibit several compelling anomalies. I just posted details to make clear two points.

Why don't you address the topic of the thread instead of this weird tear-down-the truthers rampage? I'm not in league with Craig Ranke or anyone. Where do you get this stuff?

[edit on 25-2-2008 by gottago]

Originally posted by gottago

From those photos, I would never hazard a guess or an opinion of what I was actually seeing happening. I will do my own research in the next few days and come back to you on this.

Why don't you address the topic of the thread instead of this weird tear-down-the truthers rampage? I'm not in league with Craig Ranke or anyone. Where do you get this stuff?

You brought up JREF and I made the same analogy with Craig Ranke. You asked about my comment on post-modernism and I answered. If you complain about the answers, don't ask the questions to begin with.

Central to the discussion of any claims made by anyone is the logic, rationale, and validity of those claims. I illustrate consistently that the burden of proof is on 9/11 Truthers to support their own claims made here - and that 9/11 truthers avoid that responsibility.

My persistence illustrates by the responses to me just what the problem is with any discussion with 9/11 Truthers: their avoidance of taking responsibility for their claims and their inability to back them up. Griff is a perfect example and his evasions should serve you both as an illustration and education of the 9/11 Truth Movement's inability to make any headway.

Originally posted by jthomas
Griff is a perfect example and his evasions should serve you both as an illustration and education of the 9/11 Truth Movement's inability to make any headway.

I am not evading ANYTHING. I have said it once and I guess I'll say it again for the retards out there.

I would need the structural documentation to "prove my theories". But, since you nor I have those, neither you nor I can make certain that what we are being told is correct. But, in any case I will eat crow if I'm proven wrong.

So far, all I hear from you is ad hominim. Which should have gotten you warned at least by now. I wonder why you haven't? Biased mods on here again?

Anyway, get me the needed documentation and I'll have your peer reviewed report for you. Until then, it is all speculation. ON BOTH SIDES!!!!!!!

So, don't sit there with your jrefer attitude and keep saying over and over "the burden of proof is on you". No it damn well is NOT. I did not make the claim that planes and fire brought down 3 buildings that day. You want proof? Ask your precious government for it. Because so far, they aren't giving any out.

reply to post by jthomas


100% rhetoric.
you prove nothing, yet demand proof.

JREF is a a joke. it's dominated by intellectual bullies that confuse arrogance with knowledge.

even dr. greening("apollo20" )is put off by the atmosphere, there, and he is not even a 'troofer'. he is someone looking for scientific explanation of observed phenomena, and doesn't believe the towers were demoed.
at JREF, as soon as you question ANYTHING the guv is pedalling, you are hammered down like the nail that sticks out.

craig ranke is a true "gumshoe" researcher, and a HERO for truth, justice and the american way.

Originally posted by Griff

So, don't sit there with your jrefer attitude and keep saying over and over "the burden of proof is on you". No it damn well is NOT. I did not make the claim that planes and fire brought down 3 buildings that day. You want proof? Ask your precious government for it. Because so far, they aren't giving any out.

The conclusions of what happened on 9/11 came from thousands of lines of independent evidence and independent eyewitnesses that all converged to demonstrate what happened on that day. To date, six years later, the NIST report stands on it own, having demonstrated to the satisfaction of an overwhelming majority of structural engineers, forensic scientists, architects, physicists and chemists that the combination of the damage from the crashes of AA11 and UA175, and the unfought fires burning in WTC 1 and 2 were sufficient to initiate global collapse.

In addition, the NIST report's evidence, methodology, and conclusions are fully open to the world. Anyone, including you, are welcome to challenge it or refute it. During the investigation, NIST had many public hearings and welcomed people to write in their concerns. The world has hundreds of thousands of qualified people who have the ability to affirm, question, or refute the NIST findings or any part of them. In fact, some flaws have been found.

What we note is, in the years since the NIST report came out on WTC 1 and 2, is that the findings and conclusions about what happened have been challenged by you and others. What we do not see is any massive refutation, thousands of peer-reviewed papers demonstrating that the several hundred NIST investigators got it wrong.

Now, in all these "debates" we have many of you here stating, as you do above that "I did not make the claim that planes and fire brought down 3 buildings that day." Furthermore, you state that I "...keep saying over and over "the burden of proof is on you". No it damn well is NOT."

All you are doing is claiming is that the NIST report does not demonstrate that it's conclusion is correct.

So, Griff, if you claim that the burden of proof is not on you to demonstrate NIST's conclusions are wrong, just WHO do you expect is going to?

Originally posted by billybob
reply to post by jthomas

 

100% rhetoric.
you prove nothing, yet demand proof.

You missed the part that you all are making the claims yet not providing the supporting evidence.

I am just here pointing out your obligation to support your claims and assertions. There is nothing I have to prove.

Originally posted by jthomas

The conclusions of what happened on 9/11 came from thousands of lines of independent evidence and independent eyewitnesses that all converged to demonstrate what happened on that day. To date, six years later, the NIST report stands on it own, having demonstrated to the satisfaction of an overwhelming majority of structural engineers, forensic scientists, architects, physicists and chemists that the combination of the damage from the crashes of AA11 and UA175, and the unfought fires burning in WTC 1 and 2 were sufficient to initiate global collapse.

so, you can indicate where you have gleaned that an "overwhelming majority" of qualified people even READ the report?
did you know the leading cause of death in the states is medicine? point being, too many "experts" just sign off on other 'experts' work, without reproducing, or even closely analyzing it.

you're soaking in it.

In addition, the NIST report's evidence, methodology, and conclusions are fully open to the world. Anyone, including you, are welcome to challenge it or refute it. During the investigation, NIST had many public hearings and welcomed people to write in their concerns. The world has hundreds of thousands of qualified people who have the ability to affirm, question, or refute the NIST findings or any part of them. In fact, some flaws have been found.

"fully open"? an interesting choice of words.
in fact, even though the NIST study is buried in it's own largesse, and can bog down even the most streamlined of an inquiry in it's trivia and tangents.
the bottom line is, the ACTUAL measured temperatures of affected steel, and even the GIGO computer sims showed that the necessary heat simply was not there BEFORE the collapses. (although, the debris pile was EXTREMELY hotter than the fires above, and for MONTHS afterwards).
the bottom line is, there is no reason for them to have ANY "conclusion" about what happened, based on their own data.
many have found fault with this 10,000 page WHITEWASH

All you are doing is claiming is that the NIST report does not demonstrate that it's conclusion is correct.

So, Griff, if you claim that the burden of proof is not on you to demonstrate NIST's conclusions are wrong, just WHO do you expect is going to?

role reversal? the burden of proof for what NIST claims is on NIST. so far, they have shown nothing but the willingness to IGNORE evidence that doesn't fit their scenario.
evidence like "rivers of molten steel running", and "ultra-fine dust", and "raised tritium levels", and, "WTC7".

[edit on 26-2-2008 by billybob]

Originally posted by jthomas
So, Griff, if you claim that the burden of proof is not on you to demonstrate NIST's conclusions are wrong, just WHO do you expect is going to?

How about NIST themselves? Since NONE of their experimental, physical and computer analysis fits with their pre-concieved conclusions? But, I guess since they are NIST you will say "nope, it's all in there", when it's not.

THEY HAVE NOT PROVEN THEIR CASE FIRST. Period.

I am NOT going to waste my time and energy debunking something that has no empirical, experimental, physical and computer simulation analysis to back it up. Let alone a centuries worth of precedence.

So, back to the question of who has the burden of proof. THEY DO. Since they have failed to produce their proof of their conclusions. I wonder why this is so hard for some to comprehend?

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
So, Griff, if you claim that the burden of proof is not on you to demonstrate NIST's conclusions are wrong, just WHO do you expect is going to?

How about NIST themselves? Since NONE of their experimental, physical and computer analysis fits with their pre-concieved conclusions? But, I guess since they are NIST you will say "nope, it's all in there", when it's not.

I see. Since you claim NIST has screwed up, you want NIST to redo their investigation?

THEY HAVE NOT PROVEN THEIR CASE FIRST. Period.

Hmmmm....let's see. NIST didn't make that claim. I didn't make that claim. Oh, YOU made that claim.

So, this is how it goes:

OK, Griff, says NIST hasn't proven their case. Everyone out of the pool! NIST, get to work!

What? Oh, I don't know what you haven't proven. I went by Griff who said you didn't prove your case.

Sorry? Well, no, Griff wouldn't say. He was VERY adamant that the burden of proof wasn't on him to demonstrate that you hadn't proven your case and he wasn't going to waste HIS time showing you what the "laws of physics" obviously are.

Waste of time? Well, I would agree. And who's going to pay for you guys at NIST to waste your time, anyway?

I am NOT going to waste my time and energy debunking something that has no empirical, experimental, physical and computer simulation analysis to back it up. Let alone a centuries worth of precedence.

So, back to the question of who has the burden of proof. THEY DO. Since they have failed to produce their proof of their conclusions. I wonder why this is so hard for some to comprehend?

And there you have it folks. 9/11 Truth in all it's glory.

jthomas,

I have given you an example (proof) of why I feel the investigation was not complete. I don't have to prove that FEMA said corroded steel, analysed said corroded steel, and reported that further testing needs to be done. That was FEMA. NOT me. Plus, as you say....it's out there for the world to see and dispute.

The burden of proof is only on me to show that NIST didn't do it's duty as a testing agency hired to research this. Which I have shown. No more burden is mine. The ball is in NIST's court now to answer that question.

And no, I'm not going to write them. As I already know their response. Of which I believe is utter crap. And if you want another proof, I believe it's utter crap because it can't be duplicated in a lab the way they "think". At least not that I have found. Again, the ball would be in NIST's court to show that what they "believe" happened to that steel is possible and reproducible.

THAT is the scientific way. NOT the way you are saying. That's like saying the burden of proof is on me to say that Darwin is wrong. You would be right, but first, Darwin would have to come with HIS evidence first. Following yet?

Now, I have done my part and shown two proofs of where I am comming from. Are you able to do the same? Or will I be told to read a report or Mark "Gravy"'s website?

Can you come to the table and debate without the attacks and attitude? We'll see.

Originally posted by jthomas
And there you have it folks. 9/11 Truth in all it's glory.

I didn't know this was a show.

Is this what this is to you? A debate to win people to "your side"? Sorry, I'm not playing that game. I have no side. Just the truth. Someday I may have it. But, not until the government fully discloses everything.

The NIST report isn't even a theory, let alone proof of anything. The NIST report is just a hypothesis, which to become a theory has to be testable in the lab and repeatable. The NIST report fails both.

If you de-bunkers really think the towers collapsed the way we're told by the government then why don't you'll get together, put your money where your ample mouths are, and do some tests. It isn't hard to set up an experiment that tests whether a building can fall with no resistance from asymetrical damage and fire. It would be simple to do and not cost that much. Plus you might learn a little bit about physics.

There are enough pics of the construction to approximate it's design. You could even build it from a lighter cheaper metal than steel to test it. Make at big as you like, but somewhat to scale with the towers.
If it collapses globally move on and use steel, if it doesn't globally collapse (it won't) then your tests fails.

So how about it, put up or shut up?

[edit on 26/2/2008 by ANOK]