It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What evidence would accept to prove 9/11 was an inside job?

page: 11
7
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Zomar

The site you posted just backs up our story that steel doesn't melt at the temperatures in which the buildings burned. What your report states is that the buildings were designed incorrectly.


No, it actually backs up *my* story that you're getting all your information from those damned fool conspiracy web sites feeding you rubbish. Neither the NIST report, the FEMA report, nor even Eagar's report ever claim the fires melted the steel. All the reports agree that the fires heated the steel just enough so that most of its structural strength was lost, which is around 1/2 the temperature of its actual melting point.

It's entirely those conspiracy web sites that you're getting the "fires melted the steel" bit from.


Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.


Thus, the irony in all this.




posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Nutter
That's two totally different collapse initiations.


...but they were both caused by the exact same chain of events- the aircraft impacts spilling burning fuel that set the office contents on fire, heating the support infrastructure to structural failure.


So what?

The whole reason you say you think your beliefs are right is because you think these reports are right. The reports were supposed to figure out -- even in a technical -- why the towers collapsed. You are staring at two technical theories that totally contradict each other in the physics. One is deflection outwards from one mechanism, the other is buckling inwards by a more extreme mechanism.

I already posted earlier that FEMA played with these same two theories in their 2002 Building Performance report, and couldn't find data to pick one over the other. That tells me that, even to professionals, that are supposed to be fair-minded, even though the two theories totally contradict each other and neither of them could be right as far as anyone knows, the evidence wasn't obvious enough for them to verify either theory.

So even though we haven't been privy to all the data and photos and physical evidence available to (some of) these federal guys, they still couldn't find any obvious evidence as far as one over the other. So what evidence can you, or me, possibly come up with to prove either of them, either? FEMA also kept "pancake collapse" on the table IIRC, but NIST did not. FEMA's report in general was only preliminary but a lot of the same engineers went to NIST, and NIST actually outsourced to the same team that did the OKC bombing report, and the 1993 bombing report too if I'm not mistaken, for their WTC reports. I'm thinking that I remember seeing it documented that John Gross was even one of those engineers, but I'd have to look it up again.



So, the point is, the ASCE originally said right after 9/11/01, "it was the planes and the fires, they must have melted the steel supports" and yes SE's did assert the columns had MELTED.

Here is a documented list of sources for the original theory of "the core (columns) must have melted": 911research.wtc7.net...

The British were even saying it "must have melted":


"It was the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning," said structural engineer Chris Wise.

"The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other." ...

"The buildings would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it," he said.

"But steel melts, and 24,000 gallons (91,000 litres) of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire."

Once the steel frame on one floor had melted, it collapsed downwards, inflicting massive forces on the already-weakened floor below.


news.bbc.co.uk...



...which brings me to my next question- just what are you using as a definition of a "pancake collapse"? TO me, it's when floor A falls, hitting floor B below it with enough force to cause its supports to fail, making the wreckage of both A and B fall together and hit floor C, causing ITS support to fail, and so on, in a chain reaction. This is literally what every person in the world saw happen when the towers collapsed, so by definition the towers did fall in a pancake collapse.


No, we did not all see this, because there is no reason to believe that could have or did happen.

The buildings exploded outwards. In all 4 directions. Leaving most of the mass outside of the footprints, not inside like a pancake collapse would. Not to mention the floors weren't all single discrete units, "floor 1 falls on floor 2, floor 1 and 2 then fall on floor 3..." That is a totally inaccurate way of how the physics and the REAL math behind this thing would work. It is not simple addition repeated over and over. As I said earlier on this thread, each truss in a floor had its own independent connections to columns on either side of it. There is NO reason to believe they should all fail simultaneously and land like a big pancake on the floor below! Not to mention this would leave the exterior columns still standing around them at first, as well as the core, which did not happen, and is why NIST was forced to exclude pancake theory as a possibility.

When you basically said "that's what we all saw, so that's what it was"... Well I have to just say you sold me on that one. Nothing else made sense up until that, but when you landed that one... It touched me deeply.

[edit on 19-11-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Thank you for responding.

I believe you're not seeing my larger point, correct me if I'm mistaken. Yes, the plan in itself is not highly sophisticated: using planes as missiles. But we’re being led to believe Al Qaeda (a group of no more than 10,000 members - a guesstimate) planned, funded AND successfully executed an attack against the largest, most powerful military in known history and OBTAINED THEIR OBJECTIVE in 3 out of 4 targets. I find this hard to believe.

My point in sophistication is not in the operation, but execution and success-rate. Solely by the logic of the government, then we must be extremely under-defended with little intelligence of what is going on in Ghost Land. We know this is not true. Our military and intelligence services are the best in the world, hands down. The Administration did have prior warning from within the government, from other foreign governments and intelligence services. This is known information.


Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Ainu Basque

The evidence of an “inside job” is evident in the attacks themselves. The operation was too sophisticated to be carried-out without either state-sponsorship or state-complicity; either our own government or governments abroad. Never forget, spy-craft and treachery is still a well-performed art in our government and governments abroad. It is a two-way street of watchers, reporters and operatives.


I see nothign particularly sophisticated in the idea that an aircraft could be intentionally flown into a target as a suicide attack, nor do I see anything particularly sophisticated in the idea that someone with a lot of money can purchase training to learn the basic operation procedures of a large passenger jet. The idea that fanatical religious zealots might get it in their heads that goign out and killing people will please god, is not only unsophisticated, it's been around for 5,000 years. The only thing that's sophisticated here is that someone was able to put all these ideas together, but seeing the ones who came up with the idea and pulled it off were for the most part college educated, intelligent people with a lot of money, it's not really THAT sophisticated.

Am I the only one here who remembers how the entire Muslim world went bananas simply becuase a newspaper in Denmark printed cartoons about Mohammed? Thinking out their actions rationally all the way through isn't exactly their forte.


[edit on 19-11-2009 by Ainu Basque]

[edit on 19-11-2009 by Ainu Basque]



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Ainu Basque
 


One of the many problems with your argument from incredulity is that it is not completely factual. The hijackers did not attack military targets. And before you say it, the Pentagon is not a traditional "military" target. It has no combat assests or defense assets. It is an administrative building. The WTC and whatever the fourth target was were probably not military targets.

The funding? House two dozen guys for a year, some flight training, boxcutters and plane tickets. They weren't building an aircraft carrier. At its core it was a civilian airplane hijacking. Our military is not designed nor tasked with preventing crimes in the civilian sphere. Plenty of planes have been hijacked, you would have to believe that all American planes were impervious to hijacking to think 9/11 was impossible.

As to the number of Al Quadea - what difference could it possibly make?



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
If it isn't painfully obvious to you that the operation was sophisticated and the operators highly trained, then I am powerless to convince you otherwise. Perhaps, you should re-review the 9/11 Commission report, which even admits this in no uncertain terms.

So you're making the statement that US military and intelligence services are only charged with protecting designated military installations and not the entire country? Especially well known landmarks that have been targets before? THAT is incredulous on its face and plain absurd.

A pillar of any elite fighting force is the combat-mindset...alertness...being aware of attacks before they happen and preventing, diffusing or evading them. Which is exactly what happened with the 9/11 operation. There were many warnings. From domestic and foreign sources. Why was nothing done? Why were attempts made to obstruct something being done then after the attack, obstructing justice for a complete thorough investigation? Why?!

Besides 9/11, name other domestic hijackings please. If these have occurred, they escape my memory.

Target #4 was The White House. If you did not know that then you have much research and reading to do on this topic.

The number of Al Qaeda speaks to the strength of their organization and operation in achieving their goals.



Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Ainu Basque
 


One of the many problems with your argument from incredulity is that it is not completely factual. The hijackers did not attack military targets. And before you say it, the Pentagon is not a traditional "military" target. It has no combat assests or defense assets. It is an administrative building. The WTC and whatever the fourth target was were probably not military targets.

The funding? House two dozen guys for a year, some flight training, boxcutters and plane tickets. They weren't building an aircraft carrier. At its core it was a civilian airplane hijacking. Our military is not designed nor tasked with preventing crimes in the civilian sphere. Plenty of planes have been hijacked, you would have to believe that all American planes were impervious to hijacking to think 9/11 was impossible.

As to the number of Al Quadea - what difference could it possibly make?



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
So what?

The whole reason you say you think your beliefs are right is because you think these reports are right. The reports were supposed to figure out -- even in a technical -- why the towers collapsed. You are staring at two technical theories that totally contradict each other in the physics. One is deflection outwards from one mechanism, the other is buckling inwards by a more extreme mechanism.


To which I asked, just how do they contradict each other. When THREE of the leading technical authorities in the country (four, actually, if you include the Perdue report) all independently confirm that it was the fires heating the steel to structural failure combined with the unique design of the building that brought the towers down, I have to believe the claim has strong credibility. The fact that they differ in exactly which part of the building had collapsed first is not enough to warrant doubt over the parts they do concur on, and specifically it is not enough to warrant any need to introduce extraneous conspiracies involving controlled demolitions, lasers from outer space, or whatever, which are even *more* contradictory than the scenario they're supposed to replace.


So even though we haven't been privy to all the data and photos and physical evidence available to (some of) these federal guys, they still couldn't find any obvious evidence as far as one over the other. So what evidence can you, or me, possibly come up with to prove either of them, either?


As I said, NY police department helicopters flying eye level to the impact zones of the towers radioed eyewitness accounts of seeing support columns glowing red from the fires and looked as if they were about to crash. I see this as a direct support for Eagar's account, since it would have had to be the perimeter support columns they saw, the area in which Eagar says the initial structural failure was.

I'm not saying that the NIST report concernign buckling floors isn't correct. I'm explaining why I originally subscribed to Eagar's report.



Here is a documented list of sources for the original theory of "the core (columns) must have melted": 911research.wtc7.net...

The British were even saying it "must have melted":


If you're going where I think you're going with this, then I would ask, "which is the more likely original source the rank and file conspiracy theorists are getting the idea of "melted steel" from- interviews with esoteric British structrual engineers, or all these conspiracy web sites?



No, we did not all see this, because there is no reason to believe that could have or did happen.

The buildings exploded outwards. In all 4 directions. Leaving most of the mass outside of the footprints, not inside like a pancake collapse would.


You are splitting your hairs might thin, here. The reason the buildings "exploded" is becuase floor A hit floor B below, making it collapse and causing the wreckage of both A & B to fall on floor C below, and so on, with the crushed concrete, drywall, etc being pushed out by the force of the collision. The strata of dust being expelled was not due to explosives, if this is what you're implying, becuase the detonation of the large amount of explosives necessary to demolish such a massive structure would have been blatantly obvious.

...unless you go for the "super thermite that explodes quietly that the gov't secretly invented" stories the conspiracy theorisyts cooked up, but that has it's own insurmountable pile of problems, which I won't go into.




Not to mention the floors weren't all single discrete units, "floor 1 falls on floor 2, floor 1 and 2 then fall on floor 3..." That is a totally inaccurate way of how the physics and the REAL math behind this thing would work. It is not simple addition repeated over and over. As I said earlier on this thread, each truss in a floor had its own independent connections to columns on either side of it. There is NO reason to believe they should all fail simultaneously and land like a big pancake on the floor below!


No floor contributed to the support of any other floor, as most other buildings are designed. Each floor was supported entirely by horizontal braces, with your "columns on either side" of the brace actually being the columns of the inner core and of the outer perimeter. There were no other columns supporting the floors anywhere between the inner core and the outer perimeter, so yes, the floors *were* all single discrete units from each other.


When you basically said "that's what we all saw, so that's what it was"... Well I have to just say you sold me on that one. Nothing else made sense up until that, but when you landed that one... It touched me deeply.


We all saw the initial point of collapse was in the area where the planes impacted, and we all saw that the towers cascaded down floor by floor from that point. This is irrefutable and cannot be debated. If the concept "touches you deeply", well, fine, but any scenario attempting to explain the collapse necessarily has to take that fact into account.

The FEMA, NIST and Eagar reports all do take this into account. The alternative conspiracy claims of intentional sabotage rarely do, if ever.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ainu Basque
My point in sophistication is not in the operation, but execution and success-rate. Solely by the logic of the government, then we must be extremely under-defended with little intelligence of what is going on in Ghost Land. We know this is not true. Our military and intelligence services are the best in the world, hands down. The Administration did have prior warning from within the government, from other foreign governments and intelligence services. This is known information.


In that case, I strongly urge you to read the 9/11 commission report, as it documents in great detail how the "greatest military and intelligence services in the world" were largely crippled and/or slipping on banana peels in the period up to, and during, the attack. Intelligence unit A was forbidden to share information with intelligence unit B, orders and instructions weren't handed down through the chain of command properly, people in key positions had crapped out on their responsibilities, political correctness had gotten in the way of common sense, how the war on drugs distracted us away from paying attention to other threats, and so on. There is a cover up, all right, namely, the cover up on how deeply flawed our intelligence and defense systems really are.

You may not agree with the details that the report states, but you will at least have an answer to the question to how we were blindsided so badly on 9/11. Never attribute to malice that which can be easily explained by stupidity, as the saying goes.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   
I have read the 9/11 Commission report many times.

As was mentioned earlier, "a commander can be forgiven for losing a battle but never for being surprised."

I'm asking questions not looking for an answers but to create thought. Instead of thought, you are parroting the government line. The reason you mentioned is a blatant cop-out. Let's say what you're saying is true, then why was the investigation underfunded, deceived and lacked any real authority?

Simply, they wanted to hide something...which is an obstruction of justice. Beyond treasonous, illegal and plain immoral! Not just incompetence but complicity which boils down to the same thing!

This country will never be right again until a complete reckoning is made in regards to 9/11. Until you understand this, and see the larger picture, I fail to see where else this discussion can go.


Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Ainu Basque
My point in sophistication is not in the operation, but execution and success-rate. Solely by the logic of the government, then we must be extremely under-defended with little intelligence of what is going on in Ghost Land. We know this is not true. Our military and intelligence services are the best in the world, hands down. The Administration did have prior warning from within the government, from other foreign governments and intelligence services. This is known information.


In that case, I strongly urge you to read the 9/11 commission report, as it documents in great detail how the "greatest military and intelligence services in the world" were largely crippled and/or slipping on banana peels in the period up to, and during, the attack. Intelligence unit A was forbidden to share information with intelligence unit B, orders and instructions weren't handed down through the chain of command properly, people in key positions had crapped out on their responsibilities, political correctness had gotten in the way of common sense, how the war on drugs distracted us away from paying attention to other threats, and so on. There is a cover up, all right, namely, the cover up on how deeply flawed our intelligence and defense systems really are.

You may not agree with the details that the report states, but you will at least have an answer to the question to how we were blindsided so badly on 9/11. Never attribute to malice that which can be easily explained by stupidity, as the saying goes.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Nutter
That's two totally different collapse initiations.


...but they were both caused by the exact same chain of events- the aircraft impacts spilling burning fuel that set the office contents on fire, heating the support infrastructure to structural failure.


So what?

The whole reason you say you think your beliefs are right is because you think these reports are right.


And you cannot demonstrate they are wrong. We've been through that already. We've had the evidence of your thread of so-called "questions" where your claims have been roundly demonstrated to be completely unsupported with evidence - again - and you continue to deny it and pretend it never happened.

That, of course, is the nature and foundation of your 9/11 denial.

You and your 9/11 Denial Movement have been hand-waving for 8 years and you have yet to support any of your claims with evidence, plausibility, or correct facts. Do you think you actually convince anyone of your claims when you deny the evidence and proceed to evade supporting any of your claims with actual evidence? How naive and silly, bsbray11.

The only thing you 9/11 Deniers have succeeded in doing is demonstrating why you are known as "deniers." Does that make you happy?



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
To which I asked, just how do they contradict each other.


That's what we've been showing you for at least the past whole page of posts.

Bowing outwards and bowing inwards represent two completely different mechanisms even in the official reports. FEMA couldn't find evidence for either one of them. Eager claimed they bowed outward. NIST claimed they bowed inward. Now if you say you don't understand where the contradiction is in the future, you will be lying.



The fact that they differ in exactly which part of the building had collapsed first


That's a mis-characterization of what's being discussed, leading me to suspect you aren't actually reading or properly comprehending what people are posting for you.


As I said, NY police department helicopters flying eye level to the impact zones of the towers radioed eyewitness accounts of seeing support columns glowing red from the fires and looked as if they were about to crash.


Columns looking like they're going to "crash." I'm sure that's a technical term.


I see this as a direct support for Eagar's account, since it would have had to be the perimeter support columns they saw, the area in which Eagar says the initial structural failure was.


Where the building started failing on the exterior is not a matter of debate. The technical theories Eager espoused are what we are discussing. Except you aren't talking about technical theories, you are only making vague observations that we've all been able to see for over 8 years and saying the reports confirm your vague observations with technical data when they don't, because the technical data is contradictory.



I'm not saying that the NIST report concernign buckling floors isn't correct. I'm explaining why I originally subscribed to Eagar's report.


And you've made it clear that you don't want to talk about the technical aspects of either report/article, you just want to vaguely claim that they both confirm your opinions anyway, when they aren't even in consensus.


If you're going where I think you're going with this, then I would ask, "which is the more likely original source the rank and file conspiracy theorists are getting the idea of "melted steel" from- interviews with esoteric British structrual engineers, or all these conspiracy web sites?


"Rank and file conspiracy theorists" is a bunch of total discriminatory BS. It was experts saying the same thing. I guess they are all conspiracy theorists now, too. I'm not saying fires could have melted the steel. All I'm saying is that these "experts" haven't known what in the hell they were talking about since day 1. They've somewhat refined their ideas, which even you have apparently had trouble keeping up with, but they were already starting off with fallacies from day 1 and it wasn't just the "rank and file" listening to these people; they were published in national papers.



You are splitting your hairs might thin, here. The reason the buildings "exploded" is becuase floor A hit floor B below, making it collapse and causing the wreckage of both A & B to fall on floor C below, and so on


I'm guessing you never had physics or even mathematics beyond simple addition? Do you know what a vector is? I'm not just picking on you, your thinking on this issue is extremely naive.



As I said earlier on this thread, each truss in a floor had its own independent connections to columns on either side of it. There is NO reason to believe they should all fail simultaneously and land like a big pancake on the floor below!


No floor contributed to the support of any other floor, as most other buildings are designed.


You have completely misinterpreted me here. You are still thinking of floors as discrete units when they were in reality made of hundreds of discrete and independent parts EVEN ON THE SAME FLOOR, that were all independent of each other. Thus no reason to fall together like a "pancake."


There were no other columns supporting the floors anywhere between the inner core and the outer perimeter, so yes, the floors *were* all single discrete units from each other.


Your thinking here is so convoluted that I don't even know how to respond to this. Adding columns between the core and perimeter is not what would make the trusses independent from each other.
They already were. It was because of their CONNECTIONS to the columns -- ALL INDEPENDENT.

The only thing common to the trusses on any given floor was the concrete slab sitting on them, and we know how easily concrete is broken in tension, that is has no tensile strength.



We all saw the initial point of collapse was in the area where the planes impacted, and we all saw that the towers cascaded down floor by floor from that point. This is irrefutable and cannot be debated. If the concept "touches you deeply", well, fine, but any scenario attempting to explain the collapse necessarily has to take that fact into account.


I agree the towers were demolition sequentially from the impact points down (generally speaking), but the theory you are describing does NOT match with visuals for a number of reasons, not least of which is you are only talking about "floors" when the core and perimeters went at the same time.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


jthomas, with all your trolling here, your constant assertions that nothing has been demonstrated don't even mean anything anymore.

We have all seen you put people on ignore for requesting the same evidence from you that you demand from others. Whenever anyone asks you to prove ANYTHING using official reports, you can never do it, and try to shift the burden of proof instead and talk a bunch of trash. Your tactics are old as hell and nobody even cares what you think anymore.


We can go at it again right here, just to demonstrate that you can't put your money where your mouth is.

Where in the NIST report do they prove their hypothesis, ie that sagging trusses exerted significant force on exterior columns? Where is a lab test that reproduces it, or any other verifying data?

Everyone watch -- if jthomas even responds, you won't have an answer anyway. Just more trash talk and trying to shift the burden to me proving a negative. Just watch and see if I'm wrong!
I have been asking this single question for years and he has yet to formulate a response that doesn't consist of calling me various names from his pet collection.

Seriously, his posts should be moderated when all he is doing is ranting about "deniers" and this-and-that collection of slurs.

[edit on 19-11-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Because of the tilt we were just talking about this.


ok then.


Valhall has even posted several diagrams -- maybe even to you, now that I mention it -- illustrating the asymmetrical loading conditions that tilt created.


yes, i remember her delusional posts. they involved the upper part rotating and creating tension on one side and compression on the other? so iow, she proposed an rigid block.


I shouldn't have to explain how that tilt created asymmetrical loading


it woud be hilarious to see you try to show that, cuz you'd then have to treat the upper portion as a rigid block too, that was incapable of being destroyed from the bottom up.


Ok, here's a hint: compression vs. tension. Different sides of the building.


oh yes, i was correct. gravity didn't exert any force one side of the building, according to valhall. and you agree to it.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Valhall has even posted several diagrams -- maybe even to you, now that I mention it -- illustrating the asymmetrical loading conditions that tilt created.


yes, i remember her delusional posts. they involved the upper part rotating and creating tension on one side and compression on the other? so iow, she proposed an rigid block.


Delusional posts. You don't think a tilt created an asymmetrical loading condition, yet you call a professional engineer who tries to explain this to you delusional.


So in other words, you think a tilt is a symmetrical loading condition? Do you know what symmetry is?




I shouldn't have to explain how that tilt created asymmetrical loading


it woud be hilarious to see you try to show that, cuz you'd then have to treat the upper portion as a rigid block too, that was incapable of being destroyed from the bottom up.


I have a feeling you have never worked a free body diagram in your life. Even if it is not perfectly rigid, it acts close enough to a rigid body to all rotate as one piece, obviously. If you deny that, then I'm not even going to respond to you anymore, as you're trolling enough already with your armchair degree. JREF'ers would be ripping you apart at such a comment.



oh yes, i was correct. gravity didn't exert any force one side of the building, according to valhall. and you agree to it.


The members in tension (opposite the tilt) were NOT experiencing a net load from gravity. That is why they were in tension, meaning they were being stretched (read: ripped from their bolts and pulled upward with the leaning-over structure), as opposed to compressed, which means just what it sounds like. But not knowing physics, and not being able to work a free body diagram, you do not understand this and make that fact perfectly clear.

Everything below the members in tension, would have still been experiencing a gravitational load. Everything ABOVE the members in tension, same, still experiencing gravitational load. But the actual members that were being stretched upward, as the opposite side of the tower leaned forward and downward, were NOT experiencing a compression load, but a tensile load. Unless gravity is a force that is applied "upwards.."


You probably never even knew of the terms "tensile" and "compression" in this sense until you started trolling on internet forums. You still don't seem to understand what they mean.



Btw, where is Val? I would love to see her respond to what "Joey" is saying. Or any engineer for that matter.

[edit on 20-11-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Evidence this evidence that, when are you all going to realize that nobody on ATS has any evidence? We have theories, conjecture, agendas but no EVIDENCE! Media reports are not evidence. Video clips are not evidence. Eyewitness statements is not evidence. I don't care if you have a piece of I-beam from one of the towers, it stopped being evidence the moment you or another person removed it from it's location.

[edit on 20-11-2009 by JIMC5499]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

The members in tension (opposite the tilt) were NOT experiencing a net load from gravity.


yes, it's delusional to state that the side opposite the compressed side was in tension.

SHe sidestepped providing what exactly would be providing the fulcrum that would take an increased load to act as that fulcrum.

SHe's full of it, and anybody that believes her nonsense is either a troll or totally uneducated.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 08:39 AM
link   
Amen, JIMC5499
enough of the demands for evidence.
If a person chooses to look into these topics, they would be similar to a person on a jury, just an every day peer that can view the information that has accumulated over the years and judge for themselves what they believe to be relevant and true.
We are all jurors in this regard and everyone has the right to form their own verdict no matter what the others on the jury think. It is such a vast and complex period in time lin the years leading up to and after 9/11.

My verdict: The official story of 9/11 is a cartoon fantasy constructed by an elaborately woven web of delusions and unsubstantiated hearsay promoted by the media to the extent that otherwise rational people have fallen under its spell.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas
 


jthomas, with all your trolling here, your constant assertions that nothing has been demonstrated don't even mean anything anymore.


Evasion noted. Showing why you haven't backed up your claims is not trolling.


We have all seen you put people on ignore for requesting the same evidence from you that you demand from others.


The only one I ever put on ignore was you and Griff. And I took you off ignore several weeks ago to show others why you cannot and will not support your claims with evidence.


Whenever anyone asks you to prove ANYTHING using official reports, you can never do it, and try to shift the burden of proof instead and talk a bunch of trash.


Actually, I have demonstrated repeatedly why the burden of proof for your claims is entirely on your shoulders, always has been, always will be.


Your tactics are old as hell and nobody even cares what you think anymore.


So that's why you claim I have the "power" to give myself extra "stars" on my posts. That is entirely in character for 9/11 Deniers' "thinking."

What I think is clear: unless you can support your claims with actual evidence; unless you can refute the evidence, methodology, computer simulations, and conclusions of the NIST reports, no one has any reason to accept your claims. And no one does. In this case you stated, "The whole reason you say you think your beliefs are right is because you think these reports are right." To which I responded with: "And you cannot demonstrate they are wrong."

And you haven't. And you won't.


We can go at it again right here, just to demonstrate that you can't put your money where your mouth is.

Where in the NIST report do they prove their hypothesis, ie that sagging trusses exerted significant force on exterior columns? Where is a lab test that reproduces it, or any other verifying data?

Everyone watch -- if jthomas even responds, you won't have an answer anyway. Just more trash talk and trying to shift the burden to me proving a negative. Just watch and see if I'm wrong!
I have been asking this single question for years and he has yet to formulate a response that doesn't consist of calling me various names from his pet collection.


The burden of proof is not only on your shoulders to refute the NIST report, it also remains on your shoulders to demonstrate the legitimacy of your "questions" to begin with. This is what I and others clearly demonstrated you were unable to establish in the this thread you started:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

In the end, your attempts to shift the burden of proof to others fails miserably. You have not, will not, and cannot demonstrate your claim that only "explosive demolition" can explain the collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7.

You also fail by your necessity of misrepresenting the facts which always characterizes denial movements' political agendas. You have been repeatedly shown that the towers did not fall at "free fall" yet you happily ignore the facts presented to you and claim they did and that can only be explained by "explosive demolition."

Your agenda is crystal clear and you really can't fool anyone, bsbray11.


Seriously, his posts should be moderated when all he is doing is ranting about "deniers" and this-and-that collection of slurs.


I and others have demonstrated for eight years why your 9/11 "Truth" Movement is nothing more than a classic denial movement, no different in methodology, tactics, and strategy than other classic denial movements. The subjects matters are different, but the characteristics are the same.

Your practice of 9/11 Denial is transparent and the answer to the OP is crystal clear. You must refute the massive evidence that informs us all about what happened on 9/11. NO ONE has to refute your claims or "prove" you are wrong. YOU have to demonstrate with evidence how NIST is wrong, refute ALL of the evidence on how and why the towers collapsed and demonstrate your claim that they could only have collapsed from "explosive demolition."

After 7,000+ posts, it is clear why you cannot do so.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I don't care if you have a piece of I-beam from one of the towers, it stopped being evidence the moment you or another person removed it from it's location.


Nice to see you leaning towards the "truther" side. We've been saying this since they did it.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
The burden of proof is not only on your shoulders to refute the NIST report, it also remains on your shoulders to demonstrate the legitimacy of your "questions" to begin with.

Whoa. Methinks someone has perhaps taken the sacred text of the NIST report a bit too sacred. To have to prove your legitimacy before questions of such a compendium of high esoteric knowledge are even accepted is approaching the reasoning of the Bible literalists. I sure hope NIST thumpers don't start knocking on my door telling me to repent and to "accept the divine revelation of NIST's evidence, methodology, computer simulations, and conclusions into your life."

But back on point, I believe bsbray is right and they ideally should have tested their hypothesis, except I don't think they actually have a strong enough hypothesis about the pull in forces to even be able to come up with a satisfying test. When they say in NCSTAR1-6D "the magnitude and location of pull-in forces were selected by trial and error" or "trial values of pull-in forces were applied" or "the magnitudes of the pull-in forces were determined by trial and error," I don't think they came anywhere close to accurately portraying this phenomenon enough to even formulate a test. They leave many possibilities about why they couldn't capture this pull in, but accounting for those possibilities in actual lab tests would probably result in an endless amount of combinations of initial conditions to be tested. So who wants to do all that work and get dirt under their fingernails? Pish. Posh. Those good folks at the dining club would think we were uncouth.

So perhaps jthomas is correct. Perhaps this "trial and error" they applied was in fact the divine hand of God (or Dr. Sunder) and we, being such uninitiated ruffians, are not "legitimate" enough to actually question NIST's divine revelations. I do believe tomorrow I'll start going door to door and start a thumpin' for thee ole NIST.

Edited because God wanted me to.

[edit on 20-11-2009 by NIcon]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ainu Basque
I'm asking questions not looking for an answers but to create thought. Instead of thought, you are parroting the government line. The reason you mentioned is a blatant cop-out. Let's say what you're saying is true, then why was the investigation underfunded, deceived and lacked any real authority?


I am going by the opinion of Lee Hamilton (one of the 9/11 commissioners) that he got the definite feeling that everyone thought his group was goign to be a lynch mob and look for someone to pin the blame on. Many people were afraid they were going to go down in history as the one who's incompetency allowed 3,000 people to die, especially Bush, since the guy being as stupid as a bag of hammers isn't exactly a state secret.


Simply, they wanted to hide something...which is an obstruction of justice. Beyond treasonous, illegal and plain immoral! Not just incompetence but complicity which boils down to the same thing!


It does not. If it was determined that, say, someone had a warning of an imminent attack that was lying forgotten beneath an old pizza box in the corner of his office, that guy would have been tarred and feathered for his incompetency, certainly, but it wouldn't have been open cooperation with foreign terrorists.



This country will never be right again until a complete reckoning is made in regards to 9/11. Until you understand this, and see the larger picture, I fail to see where else this discussion can go.


As I said many times, I don't object to further investigations. Have all the investigations you want. My beef is with the single minded zealots among the conspiracy movement who want the investigation to declare INSIDE JOB before the investigation even convenes, and who will accept no findings from anyone that do not rubber stamp what they want to believe.

If, for example, some future investigation really did show there were controlled demolitions, do you honestly think the "lasers from outer space" people will ever believe it, or do you think they're simply yell GOVERNMENT COVER UP like they've been doing with everything else, up until now?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join