How Skeptics Confronted 9/11 Denialism

page: 14
5
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grambler
reply to post by jthomas
 


Hi! I'm one person who explained how Griff didn't contradict himself, and how his position is not logical. You can read my post again if you like. You didn't bother to address it, but as I stated in that post, I knew you wouldn't.

You say we need to prove our case, but you are 100% wrong. This is flawed for several reasons. First, we can hardly prove anything 100% when the government has destroyed or is witholding all of the evidence.


That is only your claim. There is, as we all know, sufficient evidence and that evidence has not been refuted.


Also, our social contract with the government entails that they should have to keep us safe.


The government, by the Constitution, is charged with providing for the national defense. There is nothing anywhere, in writing or logically that says the government or anyone can successfully do so.


Because they failed in this, they are obligated to tell we the people what went wrong, and then fix the mistakes.


Actually, they are not obligated. It is, however, in the national interest and logical to want to find out what went wrong and why. They did.


That means the Burden of proof is on the government, and if we can point out flaws in their story, then they should have to continue to investigate to find answers to those problems.


Again, they have no such obligation. Second, the government chose to initiate the NIST investigation and chose to initiate the 9/11 Commission. In addition we also have the FEMA reposts and the ASCE report on the Pentagon. In some total ALL of the investigations depended on massive, accumulated, evidence from hundreds upon hundreds of independent and government sources.

Now, those massive investigations - despite some flaws - are out there and demonstrate to the satisfaction of the vast majority of not only the American people, but to those qualified in structural engineering, forensic scientists, physicists, chemists, architects and other qualified investigators that bin Laden successfully plotted and caused Arab hijackers to hijack four jet airlines, three of which successfully completed their mission. In addition, the massive evidence also converges on the conclusion that WTC 1 and WTC 2 each collapsed as a result of the jet crashes AND subsequent uncontrolled fires; and that AA77 did in fact crash into the Pentagon.

Now, you don't like that fact. You say you have "unanswered" questions that call into question not only the events, but the causes, the perpetrators, the physics, the structural engineering, and so on.

Fine. Despite the fact that every "unanswered" question that has ever been asked has, in fact, been answered, addressed, debunked, or shown not even to be legitimate, and that no new questions have surfaced for years, you all persist in the same claims that the same "questions" are unanswered.

Fine. That is your ABSOLUTE right. But, given the massive evidence that is accepted as explaining what happened in the most massive investigations ever undertaken, and that nothing has been presented to refute that evidence, you cannot just claim, as you do, that anyone has the burden of proof to do anything different. YOU must back up your claims. YOU must demonstrate that you have any legitimate arguments or evidence to overturn the evidence and conclusions you reject.

No one is going to do your work for you. The burden of proof is entirely on your shoulders.


Therefore, all one must do is prove the governments story is flawed to warrant a new investigation.


Sorry, you all already claim it is flawed.


We try to prove theories using what little evidence we have, but we will never have 100% proof until the government lets us see the evidence.


And we challenge you to present any evidence, period. And we challenge you to demonstrate what you present is legitimate. As you well know, that has never happened.


You'll say the government is innocent until proven guilty, but the government making up a conspiracy and going to war over it.


Since none of you have presented any evidence to even make a claim that the government is even a suspect and that you must continually resort to post-hoc fallacies to "justify" your beliefs, it only points out WHY the burden of proof is on YOUR shoulders.


I say, the people we attacked should have been innocent until proven guilty.


Your statement rests on a post-hoc fallacy that B follows A, therefore B is because of A. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Just because Bush took us to war does not mean Bush created 9/11 to take us to war. YOU have to demonstrate. You haven't.


Now, lets go for a laugh here.


Your post is too sad for laughs. Ignorance is not bliss.


I'm going to pose two questions that you won't answer. This will be around the 25th time I've asked them without an answer, but here goes:

f the government has nothing to hide, why not release the evidence, ...
.

Evidence can legally be withheld for many purposes. You know that. Your question is a classic red herring to divert everyone's attention AND to absolve you from having to deal with the existing known evidence that never originated with, nor was in control of, the government from minute one of the 9/11 attacks that form the foundation of ALL of the investigations.

Sorry to burst you last bubble, but your question has been addressed so many times it's hilarious that you think it's something new.


...and if you truly are a skeptic for the good of the people, why don't you look into the governments claims about Iran. You know they lied to us about Iraq, so they may try it again. You say your tired of the same old claims from truthers, but debunking us saves no lives, investigating Iran could save millions.


As a true skeptic, I have seen no demonstration from you what is happening in Iran or Iraq, justified or not, has one iota of evidence behind it to suggest Bush or our government had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks.

Again, it is just another demonstration of the need of 9/11 Truthers to latch onto any fallacious argument lacking any reason to try to connect out government to the 9/11 attacks.


Look forward to your next post where you'll pick out one nebulous line in one of our posts and yell about it, then call us all delusional, say we don't have evidence (which you think is important for us to release but not the government), then you'll say people are making attacks at you.


One again, I demonstrated the illogical thinking of you and your fellow truthers.


One last note. I would like to thank most of the debunkers here (not all) for your argumentative style, contradictory statements, and refusal to answer questions. You have manage to convince two of my friends that I have been trying to for years that something is fishy with 9-11, and there needs to be another investigation. I can't wait to show the rest of my friends how debunkers argue!


Sure. That will make you feel better to hide from reality, but I have a better solution. Instead of going around arguing illogically and claiming "there is something fishy", what you and your comrades really need to do is start asking questions - of yourselves. You need to follow the scientific method and try as hard as you can to disprove your own hypotheses and beliefs. And to do that, you need critical thinking skills.

Good luck. Remember, the burden of proof is, always has been, and always will be on YOU to demonstrate and prove your OWN claims. As long as you all continue to try and shift the burden of proof, as you and Griff have done, you're going nowher




posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Wow. Such a long winded post that I can sum up in a few words. "Nah, Nah, Nah, I can't hear you".



Originally posted by jthomas
Despite the fact that every "unanswered" question that has ever been asked has, in fact, been answered, addressed, debunked, or shown not even to be legitimate,


Care to explain the unusual corrosion/errosion of the steel found by FEMA?

That is an unanswered question (questioned BY FEMA I might add...not us). Care to demonstrate how the so-called speculative answer of "gypsum has sulfur in it, so obviously it was gypsum" is even remotely verifiable?

I know you can't so I'm sure you'll just pull some sort of semantic game out your ass again.

Here, I'll give you an idea. We'll go sentence by sentence for those who have a problem keeping up.


The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event.


An unusual event indeed.


No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.


No clear explanation. An unanswered question. Unless you want me to believe that gypsum somehow corrodes/errodes steel when gypsum is a fire retardant.


The rate of corrosion is also unknown.



It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings.



It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure.


Hmm...it is possible that this phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel? Yet, no one has had the forewithall to investigate it further? Even though most steel buildings have gypsum used as a fire retardant?


A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.


A detailed study is needed. Yet none has ever been attempted.

What's that again about all the questions have been answered?

And if YOU claim that gypsum was the culprit, it is up to YOU to prove that claim. Right?

So, where's your proof?

I also find it quite interesting that when I search with the words "FEMA WTC limited metallurgical study", I can't find the FEMA report listed on Google. Yet, when I use the exact same words in a Yahoo search, the first link to come up is this:

www.fema.gov...

Which is the report. I wonder why Google is so lax as a search engine? I thought they claimed to be the best?



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 



That is only your claim. There is, as we all know, sufficient evidence and that evidence has not been refuted.


Sure it has. You just don't except the experts who have refuted the claims. Like many experts claim it would be impossible for the towers to fall like they did, and they would be able to prove something else was used if they could see the samples from the site. Seismograph experts say the same thing, as do people that claim WTC 7 couldn't have been down by just fire. But no one can prove anything 100% until they have all of the evidence.


The government, by the Constitution, is charged with providing for the national defense. There is nothing anywhere, in writing or logically that says the government or anyone can successfully do so.


Wasn't my point.


Actually, they are not obligated. It is, however, in the national interest and logical to want to find out what went wrong and why. They did.


No they didn't. If in any trial one side or the other drew conclusions based on evidence and the refused to give that evidence up for no reason, no one would believe them. Also, any wholes in the story proves they didn't find out what went wrong.


Now, those massive investigations - despite some flaws - are out there and demonstrate to the satisfaction of the vast majority of not only the American people, but to those qualified in structural engineering, forensic scientists, physicists, chemists, architects and other qualified investigators...


Vast majority of American people? Care to back that up? I have some stats.

"Zogby Poll: 51% of Americans Want Congress to Probe Bush/Cheney Regarding 9/11 Attacks; Over 30% Seek Immediate Impeachment

67% also fault 9/11 Commission for not investigating anomalous collapse of World Trade Center 7"
www.911truth.org...

Also from another 2007 Zogby poll:

"Zogby Poll: Over 70 Million American Adults Support New 9/11
Investigation"
www.vtcommons.org...

From NYT:

"Many adults in the United States believe the current federal government has not been completely forthcoming on the issue of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, according to a poll by the New York Times and CBS News. 53 per cent of respondents think the Bush administration is hiding something, and 28 per cent believe it is lying."
www.angus-reid.com...

Heres what New Yorkers think:

"On the eve of a Republican National Convention invoking 9/11 symbols, sound bytes and imagery, half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act,"
www.911truth.org...

You'll probably say these don't all say they thought it was an inside job. So what? I'm not sure it was either. But as these polls show the majority of Americans want a new investigation, despite the MSM only ever making fun of truthers.


YOU must back up your claims. YOU must demonstrate that you have any legitimate arguments or evidence to overturn the evidence and conclusions you reject.

No one is going to do your work for you. The burden of proof is entirely on your shoulders.


This just goes to show how ridiculous you are. News flash, I don't know what happened on 9-11. The government has looked at all of the evidence, and told me a story. Thats were we start. The burden of proof is on the government to prove that story true. They withhold evidence, so I can't PROVE anything. If I can prove their story doesn't add up, the it warrants another investigation.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 



And we challenge you to present any evidence, period. And we challenge you to demonstrate what you present is legitimate. As you well know, that has never happened.


Ok.



It’s a miracle Rodriguez, 44, who worked at the WTC for 20 years, is even alive. Usually arriving to work at 8:30am, the morning of 9/11 he reported 30 minutes late. If he’d arrived on time, it would have put him at the top floors just about the same time the jetliner hit the north tower.

“It was a miracle. If I arrived on time, like always, I’d probably be dead. I would have been up at the top floors like every morning,” said Rodriguez about the quirk of fate that saved his life.

But since he was late, Rodriguez found himself checking into work in an office on sub-level 1 when the north tower was hit, seemingly out of harms way. However, the sound and concussion of a massive explosion in the sub-levels right below his feet changed that.

“When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and it everything started shaking,” said Rodriguez, who was huddled together with at least 14 other people in the office.

Rodriguez said Anthony Saltamachia, supervisor for the American Maintenance Co., was one of the people in the room who stands ready to verify his story.

“Seconds after the first massive explosion below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear another explosion from way above,” said Rodriguez. “Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower, it occurred moments after the first explosion.”

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

www.williambowles.info...

Heres proof. A man says here heard a bomb go off in the basement below him before the plane hit. The article also claims there were 14 people to back this up. This claim would be able to be proven in the public had access to the evidence. If true, this utterly disprove the official story. Now I'll listen to you assert these people aren't credible, but when I say the government not credible you say it doesn't matter.


Since none of you have presented any evidence to even make a claim that the government is even a suspect and that you must continually resort to post-hoc fallacies to "justify" your beliefs, it only points out WHY the burden of proof is on YOUR shoulders.


The above post claims the government is suspect. So does that prove the burden of proof is not on my soldiers?


Your statement rests on a post-hoc fallacy that B follows A, therefore B is because of A. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Just because Bush took us to war does not mean Bush created 9/11 to take us to war. YOU have to demonstrate. You haven't.


Wasn't meant to prove government guilt. What it is is a motive. Taken in conjunction with witness observation and all of the other experts that have testimony based on the slight evidence they have, and based on the fact evidence is being refused to be shown (no court would accept testimony based on evidence that wasn't released), any court would find the government guilty.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 



Evidence can legally be withheld for many purposes. You know that. Your question is a classic red herring to divert everyone's attention AND to absolve you from having to deal with the existing known evidence that never originated with, nor was in control of, the government from minute one of the 9/11 attacks that form the foundation of ALL of the investigations.


This is a joke. If this was anyone but the government, you would be screaming guilt. Imagine a police office being accused of a crime, and then prove there own innocence by studying the evidence and reaching conclusions. Then they release some of the evidence to the public, but refuse to release forensic evidence, etc. The public would say wheres the rest of the evidence, and the police would say "just draw your conclusions form that" There would be an outrage.

Also, care to explain to me, other than videos and testimony, what evidence the government never had control of? And you say the rest of the evidence wasn't used for the investigation? Yeah right. The whole NIST investigation was used structural evidence to answer most of the questions being asked, and not one piece of that evidence has been released to the public. And if they didn't use it, then obviously there should be a new investigation for incompetence. If the evidence is worthless, why not just release it and remove all doubt? And BTW, as you know Bush fought tooth and nail to stop the first investigation, and was very uncooperative.



As a true skeptic, I have seen no demonstration from you what is happening in Iran or Iraq, justified or not, has one iota of evidence behind it to suggest Bush or our government had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks.

Again, it is just another demonstration of the need of 9/11 Truthers to latch onto any fallacious argument lacking any reason to try to connect out government to the 9/11 attacks.


This had nothing to do with 9-11. I'm just merely asking why if you are so concerned with being a skeptic, why not look into the Iran situation to help potentially save millions of lives. Instaed you spend all of your time here, where you claim every possible question has been answered. Even if you would debunk all of this, you wouldn't save one life.



Sure. That will make you feel better to hide from reality, but I have a better solution. Instead of going around arguing illogically and claiming "there is something fishy", what you and your comrades really need to do is start asking questions - of yourselves. You need to follow the scientific method and try as hard as you can to disprove your own hypotheses and beliefs. And to do that, you need critical thinking skills.

Good luck. Remember, the burden of proof is, always has been, and always will be on YOU to demonstrate and prove your OWN claims. As long as you all continue to try and shift the burden of proof, as you and Griff have done, you're going nowher


Ha, again with this burden of proof business. If your a scientist, and you say, "hey, I got this awesome theory called gravity", the burden of proof falls on you to prove it. Thats how things work. When you come up with a story, you have to prove it. What if the government said monkeys tore down the WTC. Is the burden of proof still on us to disprove it? No, all we have to do is point out inconsistencies in the story, to prove its not true. Your saying we have tor prove its not monkeys, which oh by the way would be an impossible task because they're witholding evidence.

One last thing. Bush claims conspiracy theories help enemies. Then he refuses to simply release the evidence that would put an end to all of these theories. Isn't Bush by default helping the terrorists? You can't give one reason as to why the won't release the evidence other than they don't feel like it



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Jthomas's ignorance of how so many Americans feel about 9/11 is only one more example of the illusion he keeps up, that everything is settled, there are no unresolved questions, etc. To keep up this illusion he has to think that the "vast majority" of Americans are as sure of themselves about what happened as he is.

He only pays attention to people that agree with him. Everyone else doesn't count, including scientists and engineers. And if he doesn't know what you think (ie most real engineers), he automatically assumes you agree with him, because most engineers have not even expressed their opinions and yet he thinks he knows what they think.

Griff summed up not only his last response, but his entire series of posts here:


"Nah, Nah, Nah, I can't hear you".


I forget how many times I've asked for justification of whatever opinion he is currently asserting as fact.

Do I ever get an actual reasoned/scientific justification for his opinions? No. It doesn't even phase him when you remind him that the structural documents are still classified. It means nothing to him. On the other hand, to Griff, an actual engineer, these things mean everything. But nothing to jthomas.

Personally I would say at this point, it's pretty obvious that any energy exerted to argue with him, is energy wasted. Not because he's right, but because he will always have faith that he is. He's obviously not looking to the details, the specifics, the things that make all the difference, so it's pointless to try to get him to go there. Wasted energy. Let him think what he wants at this point.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Wow. Such a long winded post that I can sum up in a few words. "Nah, Nah, Nah, I can't hear you".


I suggest that you open your ears and eyes.

Now, tell us exactly why you are discussing these issues on a conspiracy forum rather than on an engineering forum?



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grambler
reply to post by jthomas

 





Heres proof. A man says here heard a bomb go off in the basement below him before the plane hit.


Did he see a "bomb?" What bomb?


The article also claims there were 14 people to back this up. This claim would be able to be proven in the public had access to the evidence.


There is no evidence of a bomb or any explosive material whatsoever. And there are dozens of independent studies of the dust and debris that never showed one iota of evidence of explosives. BTW, do you know how many different stories Rodriquez told about the same event? No? Why NOT?


If true, this utterly disprove the official story. Now I'll listen to you assert these people aren't credible, but when I say the government not credible you say it doesn't matter.


People believed they heard explosions. That doesn't mean they were demolitions, now does it? No evidence ever surfaced of explosives in independent studies. Sorry.


Wasn't meant to prove government guilt. What it is is a motive. Taken in conjunction with witness observation and all of the other experts that have testimony based on the slight evidence they have, and based on the fact evidence is being refused to be shown (no court would accept testimony based on evidence that wasn't released), any court would find the government guilty.


As always, you want to ignore the preponderance of evidence.

Perhaps these posts will help you and Griff back into the real world of evidence:

forums.randi.org...
forums.randi.org...



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Jthomas's ignorance of how so many Americans feel about 9/11 is only one more example of the illusion he keeps up, that everything is settled, there are no unresolved questions, etc.


I guess you never bothered to read my posts and what I said about that. Par for the course for truthers.


To keep up this illusion he has to think that the "vast majority" of Americans are as sure of themselves about what happened as he is.


We're sure of your inability to refute the massive evidence against your claims.


He only pays attention to people that agree with him. Everyone else doesn't count, including scientists and engineers.


It's scientists and engineers, the preponderance of evidence, and investigations that we pay attention to and you deny exist.


And if he doesn't know what you think (ie most real engineers), he automatically assumes you agree with him, because most engineers have not even expressed their opinions and yet he thinks he knows what they think.


Your reading comprehension is really poor. All those scientists and structural engineers depend on the NIST investigation report to help them better understand what happened, why it happenened, and how to improve future designs.

I guess they are not interested, eh?


Griff summed up not only his last response, but his entire series of posts here:

"Nah, Nah, Nah, I can't hear you".


Yup, thanks for the confirmation of what I wrote. When you bury your heads in the sand, you don't have to hear reality speaking to you.

So, what's your next step? What are you going to DO? Why do we have to continue to wait for you to take action on your "beliefs?"



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
All those scientists and structural engineers depend on the NIST investigation report to help them better understand what happened, why it happenened, and how to improve future designs.


You said it right there. We "depend" on the NIST report. Why can't we depend on the actual evidence, structural documentation etc.?

BTW, nothing's really changed except for a few different codes dealing with ingress and egress, and wider stairways for evacuation. If you know of more, please let me know because I DO spec buildings and would like to know.


I guess they are not interested, eh?


I guess not because the next time there's a fire in a steel building, watch out because the gypsum could corrode the steel and aid in a global collapse. At least that's what the working hypothesis of FEMA's findings are right? And before I confuse you, those are not FEMA's conclusions. FEMA actually called for more investigation, which 6 1/2 years later we're still waiting. The gypsum is a claim of the "skeptics" without any precidence or proof or lab experiments to back that claim up.

I wonder why you are not harping on them (NIST) as much as you are on us?



Griff summed up not only his last response, but his entire series of posts here:

"Nah, Nah, Nah, I can't hear you".


Yup, thanks for the confirmation of what I wrote. When you bury your heads in the sand, you don't have to hear reality speaking to you.


I kept the whole quote to show you how well your comprehension skills really are. Did you read my post? I was summing up your post.


Why do we have to continue to wait for you to take action on your "beliefs?"


Why are you "waiting" at all? The biggest unanswered question of them all.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
It's scientists and engineers, the preponderance of evidence, and investigations that we pay attention to and you deny exist.


Here you are talking vaguely about "the preponderance of evidence" again.

If you're never going to show or tell us what in the hell you are talking about, why do you keep bringing "evidence" up?

Example: NIST says trusses sagged and pulled all the perimeter columns significantly inward. They actually built a model of the perimeter/truss setup at one point during some of their lab tests, and put an energetic fire to it for at least 2 hours. So where do they show actual lab validation of their hypothesis? As in, a quotation, report page number(s), anything to point me to the "evidence."

You can't post it, because it doesn't exist. I've looked. I've also said this 10,000 times. You will be wrong all day, all week, all year, because you can't show where NIST validated their hypotheses with legitimate experimentation or even computer simulations, yet you think it exists anyway. Again, you have faith. Frankly you don't even know what the NIST report says.

The evidence is not the Randi forums. The Randi forums -- are internet forums, like these, but particularly where confused, angry people such as yourself amass and stroke each other to give each other comfort. If evidence is over there, and it's objective, then why can't it be brought over here? (Rhetorical: It could.) The real reason you want us to go there is because posts can't be as vitriolic here without moderator intervention. The JREF forums are a cesspool in that regard. Basically cussing at someone post after post just appeals to your way of "thinking," I assume. I'm really not surprised.

Still waiting for anything reasonable to support your view. And with each post, I'm becoming more and more sadly aware of how out of touch you really are. You're apparently not even trying to post any hard evidence, and I know it's not just because you're so full of yourself, even if you are. It's because you couldn't anyway.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 



Did he see a "bomb?" What bomb?


He felt an explosion BEFORE the plane hit. This is irrefutable evidence that the governments story doesn't hold up. Just because he didn't see the bomb doesn't mean it didn't exist. He FELT it, and 14 people can back it up. And keep in mind, because this was BEFORE the plane hit, it had to be an incendiary device, or I guess some sort of accidental explosion that wasn't related to the plane crash (which the chances of a coincidental explosion right before the crash would be astronomical). Even if it was just an accident, this would still disprove the official story. Your threshold for proof is absurd considering the people who wrote the story you believe refuse to give evidence.


There is no evidence of a bomb or any explosive material whatsoever. And there are dozens of independent studies of the dust and debris that never showed one iota of evidence of explosives. BTW, do you know how many different stories Rodriquez told about the same event? No? Why NOT?


NIST themselves admit they didn't test for some types of explosives (Griff knows more about that). And where are these independent studies that got to look at debris from the WTC? Wouldn't they need to test the steel structure, which to my knowledge only the government investigators got to do. You expect them to find evidence of this out of dust in the air? Again, I would gladly show you evidence if it was released to me.

About Rodriguez telling different versions, care to show proof of this and that they were contradictory?

As far as your articles at the bottom go, they don't apply. Who said many bombs couldn't have been planted? For all I know in buildings one and two (not 7 because there was not jet fuel), the plane and fire could have been enough. Doesn't prove bombs weren't there also. Again, 15 witnesses felt explosions before the plane crash. Without just saying the sources aren't credible, can you provide me with any logical reason of how thats possible?

Just wanted to point out that you didn't answer why the government won't release the evidence, why you won't use your abilities as a skeptic to help save lives by looking into the governments claims about Iran, all of my points about the burden of proof falls on the government, and my proof that most people think the government is covering something up and want a new investigation (all of these explained in more detail in my above posts). Care to take a crack at these, or can all of the readers and I assume you agree with all of them.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

You said it right there. We "depend" on the NIST report. Why can't we depend on the actual evidence, structural documentation etc.?



You know why the structural docs haven't been released, and it's not because of NIST. They belong to the PA and Silverstein. Private property rights. So the guv isn't in any way involved in these not being available.

But a lot of structural details HAVE been revealed in the NIST. Floor details are spelled out - materials used, bolts, weld specs, loading specs. The core column details are completely available here - wtcmodel.wikidot.com... Now, if someone was serious about it, they could go a long way towards putting it all together using the architectural plans that are available.

The obvious details not available are for the ext columns and the weights of the various infrastructure mavhines, like elevator motors and HVAC. But these may be covered in the dead load calcs - I don't remember any more.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Example: NIST says trusses sagged and pulled all the perimeter columns significantly inward. They actually built a model of the perimeter/truss setup at one point during some of their lab tests, and put an energetic fire to it for at least 2 hours. So where do they show actual lab validation of their hypothesis? As in, a quotation, report page number(s), anything to point me to the "evidence."



So the video/photographic evidence that the ext columns were in fact pulled in means nothing?

Sorry, but that's direct, hard evidence, not a hypothesis. It can be seen.

It was necessary to make some models to try and estimate how much fire insulation was taken off by the plane impact debris. This was necessary in this case because it couldn't be seen.

There's a difference there in the quality of evidence that you're missing. The photographic evidence is hard evidence. The fire insulation evidence isn't.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grambler

He felt an explosion BEFORE the plane hit.



How could he know this if he was inside the building?

There's no way in the world that he could have seen it.

Therefore, he is just guessing what noise was the plane hit. There could have been several loud bangs that I can think of right off the bat.

Fuel explosions in the elevator shafts. Elevator cars falling the length of their shafts. The plane hit themselves.

How in the world could he know which was which without a visual reference?



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
You know why the structural docs haven't been released, and it's not because of NIST. They belong to the PA and Silverstein. Private property rights. So the guv isn't in any way involved in these not being available.


I've explained this before. Private property rights disolve when your building collapses killing 4,000 people. Sorry to say, but yeah, it does.


But a lot of structural details HAVE been revealed in the NIST. Floor details are spelled out - materials used, bolts, weld specs, loading specs. The core column details are completely available here - wtcmodel.wikidot.com... Now, if someone was serious about it, they could go a long way towards putting it all together using the architectural plans that are available.


Not going into specifics but ask your brother if he would accept someones word for it when it comes to a building collapsing. I mean come-on, you want me (and especially the fence sitters reading this) to believe that any kind of analysis is possible with what NIST tells us? I'm almost blue in the face repeating this over and over again.

And ask your brother to do a structural analysis with just architectural drawings. Again, see if he laughs in your face.


The obvious details not available are for the ext columns and the weights of the various infrastructure mavhines, like elevator motors and HVAC. But these may be covered in the dead load calcs - I don't remember any more.


No. You forgot when, where and just how the columns transitioned. That's a big start. Also what is the O.C. dimension of the bolts? It makes a big difference you know? None of which are available from the NIST report as far as I know. Care to detail these extremely important details?



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
How in the world could he know which was which without a visual reference?


How about people coming out from floors below him burnt to all hell and saying there was an explosion?

BTW, the only elevator shaft that went the length of the plane impacts to where Mr. Rodriguez was stopped mid way of the tower ( due to it's emergency brakes being deployed) and the elevator operator, Mr. Griffith, survived with no burns and/or reported no fire ball running down the shaft. He had a broken leg from the sudden stop of the elevator.

So where did these explosions come from if they could not and did not run the length of the building?



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
So the video/photographic evidence that the ext columns were in fact pulled in means nothing?


Even assuming all of those columns were actually as deflected as the outer aluminum claddings appeared, etc., showing the buckling does not establish (a) that the proper amount of outer buckling requiring for collapse initiation was ultimately achieved (structural documentation is required to estimate how many would actually have to deflect and by what degrees), especially considering the safety factor they gave of 4 or 5, or (b) that the trusses simply sagging was what was actually responsible for the deflection. You can't just "know" that they were by looking at the outside of the building only.

We didn't even get as much as a free body diagram showing what kinds of "pulling" forces could have theoretically been exerted through the connections or how such severe forces could originate from heating and sagging the trusses alone in the first place.

Not to mention it's the scientific norm (ie "scientific method") to actually validate your hypothesis through experimentation. I know you like to argue, and never agree with me, but guess what? You're still supposed to do that.




You see that near the end? "Test with an Experiment"?

Well, where is it?



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
So where did these explosions come from if they could not and did not run the length of the building?


If Mr. Griffith surviving isn't enough, it's common sense that such a massive overpressure would blow out the gypsum walls lining the elevator shafts before descending and decompressing through 1000+ feet of shaft to cause an explosion in the basement.

I know no one pays these "debunkers" to think, but come on.



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 



Hey I just want to take a moment to publically thank bsbray and griff for answering the debunkers claims in a way that I think is completely rational, balanced and well founded.

I appreciate that you guys use your proffesional experience to simply ask for the truth about what happened to our country that day. Thank you!!





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join