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

reply to post by Nutter


I'm not taking the truther's side. I am referring to the "Rules of Evidence". Personally I believe that the planes brought down the towers. I believe there's a conspiracy here, but the majority of people are on the wrong track.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

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.

Again, I don't think you really understand what tension means or you would not make such a statement.

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

You could start with the core structure and every other member or bolt that was bending, unless you are saying there was no tilt now.

Tilting is circular motion. All circular motion happens around a fulcrum by definition. Just because you feign ignorance of where it was doesn't change that fact.

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

You don't have room to say who's educated and who's not.

reply to post by jthomas


Thanks for proving me right by not answering my question.

Just as predicted, for all to see.

Originally posted by NIcon

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.

On the contrary.

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.

But that is hardly what I wrote. Try again, Read carefully this time.

Here's something to consider and I've said it before- Tom Clancy's Debt of Honor. A JAL pilot crashes his plane into the capitol building, a cyber attack on the WTC- see any parallels?
Not sure if it's an inside job but they definitely knew about an imminent attack on WTC and planes being used as weapons.
I was reading this right before the attacks- imagine my horror when fiction became reality.
You gus are smart- read the book, do the research- Nobody has heard me on this or they refuse to listen. Tom Clancy apparently served as a consultant to the Pentagon in matters of national security. (I could be wrong about this but I believe it's stated in his biospot on some of his novels.)
Well, there's my two cents. I also solved the riddle of 666 if anyone is interested.

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas

 

Thanks for proving me right by not answering my question.

Just as predicted, for all to see.

Your EPIC dodge duly noted and recorded. Is it any wonder why you still cannot support your claims after 7,000+ posts?

Originally posted by bsbray11
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.

All right, let's cut out all the nonsnese, here. Both Eagar's and NIST's reports say that the jet fuel ignited the office contents into large scale fires, did they not? Both reports say the fires were of a sufficient temperature to cause thermal expansion and degradation of the structural integrity of the steel, did they not? Both reports said that when critical supports were removed, the remaining supports were no longer able to sustain the stress load and they failed, did they not? Both reports said that when the floors fell, they hit each subsequent floor with a force greater than they were able to withstand and they collapsed in turn, did they not?

I am perfectly willing to concede that Eagar may be incorrect in the exact process of the initial structural failure, and I am even perfectly willing to concede that we may never know what structural component had failed in the biulding and caused the chain reaction of structural failure, but from where I'm sitting, everyone is in agreement that it was in fact the fires that instigated the collapse...and this by itself is enough to dispell any of the controlled demolitions, lasers from outer space, and other conspiracy-related nonsense the truthers are attempting to introduce in order to stir up unwarranted paranoia.

For you to neglect that blatant fact, now THAT would be lying.

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.

Ah yes, yet another self styled expert in physics attempting to lecture me, to which I will respond, it is now "put up or shut up time". Please, since your understanding of physics is clearly superior to mine, explain to me...

...the estimated load bearing capacity of each floor.

...The estimated static weight of each floor plus the estimated static weight of the office contents

..the estimated force of impact that the upper section of floors (for sake of argument, assume the collapse began on the 97th floor, giving a mass of 13 floors above that point) would have had as it fell and struck the (in this example) 96th floor. Assume it fell twelve feet, the estimated distance between each floor.

...the estimated exponential increase in force of impact as each subsequent floor collapsed and added its mass to the section that was collapsing.

...and most importantly, how fast the towers *should* have actually fallen, if in fact, you believe they fell too fast, becuase there's no way you can say what a "too fast" collapse time is with any intellectual honesty unless you first know what a "normal" collapse time should be.

No matter how it's been sliced and diced, every attempt I've seen still comes out to be the same conclusion- the fires caused some critical structural component to fail, causing the upper section to fall and hit the initial floor below it with a greater force of impact than it could withstand, and the whole tower fell in a chain reaction of structural failure. I will be more than happy to concede your have a superior knowledge of physics, if such things are important to you, but unless you can dispute any of what I just posted, you are merely wasting my time as well as yours in this pursuit of your untenable conspiracy stories.

reply to post by jthomas


It's obvious you are only trying to appeal to the most casual people browsing this thread and not actually reading posts.

All I can do is hope that moderators will catch on to what you do on these threads and ban you.



If there was something of more substance in your posts to respond to, I would do it, but all you do is make vague accusations and call me names. So what am I supposed to do? And of course there is no chance of reasoning with you.

[edit on 20-11-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by bsbray11
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.

All right, let's cut out all the nonsnese, here.

The technical details of the reports are not "nonsense," they are the meat of the technical reports.

Both Eagar's and NIST's reports say that the jet fuel ignited the office contents into large scale fires, did they not?

Yes, and people have been saying things like that since the day of 9/11. That's not a major breakthrough. You obviously are not looking very deeply into the science here, because if you were, you would not be so allergic to these contradictions.

Do you think it doesn't matter that the technical details contradict each other? That it doesn't mean a damned thing? All I can say is that you obviously do not work in a technical field.

I am perfectly willing to concede that Eagar may be incorrect in the exact process of the initial structural failure, and I am even perfectly willing to concede that we may never know what structural component had failed in the biulding and caused the chain reaction of structural failure, but from where I'm sitting, everyone is in agreement that it was in fact the fires that instigated the collapse...

Yes, the agreement was so strong, in fact, that NIST and all the others never even bothered to so much as consider other possibilities. Yet they totally disagree with each other as to how the fires were supposed to have done this. That says something, whether you like it or not.

I'm not trying to use this contradiction as positive evidence of anything but that the reports themselves are bull. I'm not trying to say, here is a contradiction, therefore "demolition theory" is proven. You're completely stuffing my proverbial mouth with words that just aren't there on that one.

Please, since your understanding of physics is clearly superior to mine, explain to me...

...the estimated load bearing capacity of each floor.

50 pounds per square foot over the trusses was the design load, off the top of my head, if I recall NIST correctly. And 100-150 lbs/sq. ft. in the core.

Not that this has any relevance at all to anything you are saying. I think you are just trolling to make yourself look intelligent.

...The estimated static weight of each floor plus the estimated static weight of the office contents

I see where you're going with this, and if you read so much as NIST's FAQs to the public, they tell you themselves that each floor was capable of withstanding the impact of multiple floors dynamically (ie falling) upon it. I can provide the link if this information is also allergic to you.

..the estimated force of impact that the upper section of floors (for sake of argument, assume the collapse began on the 97th floor, giving a mass of 13 floors above that point)

Stop right there. Collapse began on the 97th floor, yet ALL of the floors above it are also going to fail simultaneously? Guess what? You're already NOT talking about pancake collapse. If you can't see that then there is no helping you at this point. You are obviously implying column failures, and a redistribution of the TOTAL mass onto a single floor, which is nonsense.

...the estimated exponential increase in force of impact as each subsequent floor collapsed and added its mass to the section that was collapsing.

Now you magically go back to pancake theory again, not explaining how all the floors came loose together all at once above this, and while NIST says themselves a single floor could take the load from more than one. NIST also disagrees with pancake theory, once again, but whatever. Your call.

...and most importantly, how fast the towers *should* have actually fallen, if in fact, you believe they fell too fast, becuase there's no way you can say what a "too fast" collapse time is with any intellectual honesty unless you first know what a "normal" collapse time should be.

I never said they fell "too fast," so you're obviously confusing me with someone else first of all. But if you want MY opinion, they shouldn't have collapsed after the plane impacts at all. What you saw after the planes hit, was what you got. That's all there was to it. Until the core structure was instantly compromised, redistributing all loads to the perimeter so that the perimeter failed where it was the weakest, and then after that started happening, the building exploded outwards in all directions to the ground. We all saw it with our own eyes.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I believe there's a conspiracy here, but the majority of people are on the wrong track.

So, you believe that there is a conspiracy, it is just the "what" that you don't agree with?

Since you believe that there ARE things that the government is covering up, doesn't that make you a CTer, truther, etc.?

reply to post by jthomas

I understood what you wrote mr. thomas. And I completely understand how you can be totally enthralled by the mystical terms "evidence", "methodology", "computer simulations", and "conclusions". I used to hang out with a few religious fanatics and sometimes when I brought up a particularly perplexing problem it was their kneejerk reaction to trust in God and not question the "evidence, methodology, computer simulations (chapter and verse) and conclusions" of the bible.

But like I said in the last thread we met in, I think you're confusing "questions" with "conclusions" and/or even with "speculations." When some one poses a question such as "What floor did the planes hit at?" it should be a simple response to be able to point to the section in the NIST report which contains that information. Not all questions are that simple in nature, but with such a comprehensive report, one would hope to find what one was looking for. But, alas, one can not find what is not present.

So when the question comes up about NIST's hypothesis of what caused the inward bowing of the exterior columns (or the free fall of WTC7 for that matter) your standard response is no different than my religious fanatic acquaintances. However, I, for one, would like to know how Noah could build an ark big enough to hold all the animals.

Glory to NIST in the highest, and peace to its theories on earth. Amen.

Edited: I never can get my it's and its straight. Such unruly children they are.


[edit on 20-11-2009 by NIcon]

Originally posted by NIcon
Glory to NIST in the highest, and peace to it's theories on earth. Amen.

Right. Somehow he is convinced NIST doesn't need proof. They're just automatically right anyway. I guess that pretty much is the definition of blind faith.

Originally posted by bsbray11

You could start with the core structure and every other member or bolt that was bending,

The "off" side wall was bending. The core structure was collapsing down and couldn't serve as a fulcrum. This is proven in videos and is not debatable. Therefore, the "off" side was NOT in tension. Period. Only a troll would argue otherwise.

Just because you feign ignorance of where it was doesn't change that fact.

Wrong, sporto.

I know exactly where the fulcrum was. It was on the far side ext wall.

Which renders her tension argument invalid from the start.

I now understand why she chooses to remain anonymous with a load like that. Publishing that pant full would be the end of her career.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
The "off" side wall was bending. The core structure was collapsing down and couldn't serve as a fulcrum. This is proven in videos and is not debatable. Therefore, the "off" side was NOT in tension. Period. Only a troll would argue otherwise.

Tell me Joey. How can something be bending and NOT be in tension on one side?

Think about it. How do you get something like this ) without having the far side be in tension?

Remember that the exterior columns were box columns that looked like this [] (Just imagine the two sides connected). The left side of that box would be in compression while the right side is in tension. There is NO other way around this. Period.

Something CANNOT bend without there being compression on one side while being in tension on the other. Period.

Please try and show us otherwise.

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas

 

All I can do is hope that moderators will catch on to what you do on these threads and ban you.

I'm not sure that showing that you are completely unable to support your claims and WHY rises to that level.

In the meantime, your claim that the three towers fell at "free fall" and that it could only happen by "explosive demolition" stands refuted despite the fact that you have to pretend otherwise.

Originally posted by jthomas
In the meantime, your claim that the three towers fell at "free fall" and that it could only happen by "explosive demolition" stands refuted despite the fact that you have to pretend otherwise.

Please point out where he states that all three towers fell at freefall. Please because when you do, you will come to the realization that you are misconstruing what he has said, yet again. Either that or you are blatantly lying.

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by jthomas

 

I understood what you wrote mr. thomas.

Quite obviously you don't.

And I completely understand how you can be totally enthralled by the mystical terms "evidence", "methodology", "computer simulations", and "conclusions".

That's a curious evasion of yours. After all, that's what you're trying to claim is lacking in the NIST reports. I'm just pointing out how and why bsbray11 has failed to do so.

I used to hang out with a few religious fanatics and sometimes when I brought up a particularly perplexing problem it was their kneejerk reaction to trust in God and not question the "evidence, methodology, computer simulations (chapter and verse) and conclusions" of the bible.

I can see why you fell for that.

But like I said in the last thread we met in, I think you're confusing "questions" with "conclusions" and/or even with "speculations." When some one poses a question such as "What floor did the planes hit at?" it should be a simple response to be able to point to the section in the NIST report which contains that information.

Questions are not automatically based on sound premises, are they? We've already had ample demonstration of "Truthers" asking questions based on faulty premises, claims, and outright lies. You even participated in the thread showing how and why bsbray11 did this.

Actually, if you recall, bsbray11 is claiming with "certainty that all 3 towers fell at free fall and therefore it could happen no other way than by 'explosive demolition'." Despite being shown the evidence that none of the towers fell at "free fall." You cannot deny what bsbray11 has claimed; neither can he. None of you can support the claims you make unless you demonstrate it.

Not all questions are that simple in nature, but with such a comprehensive report, one would hope to find what one was looking for. But, alas, one can not find what is not present.

Perhaps you're new at this. I'm not. If I were so motivated to "prove" my claims, as bsbray11 is, I could "find" all kind of "questions" to ask not covered in whatever report at hand and, by so claiming that those "questions" are "unanswered", claim that another investigation is needed. But I am intellectually honest; 9/11 Deniers are not and so will engage in that fallacious reasoning.

So when the question comes up about NIST's hypothesis of what caused the inward bowing of the exterior columns (or the free fall of WTC7 for that matter) your standard response is no different than my religious fanatic acquaintances.

Actually, your approach is exactly that of of fanatical religious people. It's no different than Creationists' claim that evolution is false because there should be evidence of Crocoducks.

In actual fact, like Creationists, you must demonstrate your claims and be able to demonstrate that the 3 towers could not have collapsed in the manner and for the reasons concluded by NIST. Like Creationists, you can't - but you would be an everlasting, almighty hero if you actually could.

However, I, for one, would like to know how Noah could build an ark big enough to hold all the animals.

There was no Noah so you can give up your naive religious beliefs. And you should learn what it means to be intellectually honest. In the meantime, we'll continue to watch and see if your ever support your claims - or concede that you cannot.

Originally posted by Nutter
[
The left side of that box would be in compression while the right side is in tension. There is NO other way around this. Period.

Only if you assume that the pivot is between this [ and this ]..

What happens if this side - ] is the pivot center?

You're describing it as a teeter totter.

The reality is, it acted like a door hinge.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Only if you assume that the pivot is between this [ and this ]..

It HAS to be somewhere between this [ and this ] . Unless you are saying the pivot center was beyond the outside of the column?

What happens if this side - ] is the pivot center?

You will still have the outside edge of that ] in tension. There is no other way in physics to "bend".

Try to bend your arm without the skin on the outside of your elbow NOT going into tension. It's impossible.

You're describing it as a teeter totter.

And it's quite obvious that you don't know what exactly bending is. It is by definition compression on one side while being in tension on the other.

Bending produces reactive forces inside a beam as the beam attempts to accommodate the flexural load; the material at the top of the beam is being compressed while the material at the bottom is being stretched. There are three notable internal forces caused by lateral loads: shear parallel to the lateral loading, compression along the top of the beam, and tension along the bottom of the beam.

en.wikipedia.org...

Columns by definition are beams. So, the same applies to columns. Just substitute "top of the beam" with "side of the column" and "bottom of the beam" with "other side of the column".

Please prove me wrong.

The reality is, it acted like a door hinge.

The reality is that a door hinge works by eleviating the compression and tension. Also, the reality is that a column bending does not act like a door hinge.

Like I said. Prove me wrong. Not with just speculation either.

Edit: And if you claim a plastic hinge occured:

In structural engineering beam theory the term, plastic hinge, is used to describe the deformation of a section of a beam where plastic bending occurs.

en.wikipedia.org...

Notice it is a term used to describe bending? Not that it acts like a door hinge.

[edit on 20-11-2009 by Nutter]

reply to post by jthomas

I will have to respectfully disagree mr. thomas. I'm not evading anything as there has been nothing to evade in your arguments whatsoever. I have yet to see you explain why you believe the question "How did WTC7 fall at free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds?" is not based on a sound premise when nearly everyone including NIST agrees it happened. If NIST had answered the question it would be a simple question to answer. But rather you seem to be trying to undermine the whole reasoning of the asking. To me that is in the line of "Don't ask questions about God's will." Also you have not shown how the act of disputing someone's speculative answer to the question actually answers the question.

To be intellectually honest one would desire to know the reason how and why a certain agreed upon phenomenon occurred.

To be intellectually honest one should actually seek out and ask all kinds of questions "not covered in whatever report at hand" whether it be about 911, Evolution, Newtonian Physics, Basket Weaving, Refuse disposal, Carpet Cleaning, or Epidermal Irritation. To be intellectually honest one would do this with theories one agrees with and with theories one does not. If the questions are without merit then it should be easily disposed of with sound reasoning. But all in all, questions are good. They are the only way we advance.

And no I'm not new at this, I've been discussing all types of matters with all types of people for many years.

And no your analogy doesn't quite fit as there actually is a free fall drop and I'm arguing there should be an explanation. If Crocoducks did exist like the 2.25 of free fall and evolution could not explain it that would be one strike against evolution. So I don't see how I'm like Creationists at all seeing as my only claims are the report is incomplete, uses questionable methods, and leaves plenty of room for speculation for other theories.

Also could you show me where bsbray said "certainty that all 3 towers fell at free fall and therefore it could happen no other way than by 'explosive demolition'" I think the quote you are trying to reference is actually "I just realize that the only way to accomplish this is with a controlled demolition." Are you being intellectually honest here, or are you manufacturing quotes? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

And I would like to point out your atrocious reading skills. I would like to point out that I said I had religious fanatics as friends, I never said I fell for it. And I can only guess that you missed the sarcasm in my remark about Noah since you had already thrown me into the Bible Thumping camp by then. But I suppose it's easier just to throw things into neat little categories so one can feel all comfy wumpfy inside. I understand mr.thomas.


[edit on 20-11-2009 by NIcon]