Would a new 9/11 investigation really accomplish anything?

Originally posted by jthomas
I can simply point out that an investigation was done, no evidence for explosives was found, and no refutation of that investigation has ever surfaced.

But that would be dishonest, since you know by now that no one ever even looked for evidence of explosives.

And I have asked repeatedly for you to show me what any investigation has proven, and how exactly they proved it, and every single time without fail, you have backed away from the challenge.


Like I said, I never did an investigation and it's not my responsibility. It wasn't yours, either. But you want to defend what was done, fine. Then defend it. Stop trying to shift the burden of proof onto people like me who had nothing to do with those "investigations." Either you can supply their evidence, or you are just continuing to demonstrate they had none.

They will just try to fill up the bad holes.

Originally posted by jthomas

I know that testing was done and provided the link. Some here claim the methodology of the testing was not valid but as yet have failed to demonstrate why and how. Until and unless they can do so, I have no reason to accept that claim.

I guess you need to check your links because they do not lead to any such thing. Where are the tests for explosives residue on the steel in your links?

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by jthomas
I can simply point out that an investigation was done, no evidence for explosives was found, and no refutation of that investigation has ever surfaced.

Now, just what do you intend to do about it?

I love watching things just spin around in circles over and over and over and over and over.

originally posted by bsbray
Why do you keep ignoring the fact that no investigation looked for explosives residues or other evidence to begin with?

Yes, thank you.

Others have noticed that jthomas is going in circles as he avoids answering two simple questions: where is the evidence for what was causing all of the explosions, and what exactly have any of these "investigations" proven and how?

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
I love watching things just spin around in circles over and over and over and over and over.

I think it's odd that after 8 1/2 years

You shouldn't think it's odd considering that you are intentionally ignoring the point. You can do this for as many years as you'd like!

No one looked for evidence of explosives.

You can repeat "no evidence was found" until the day you die, your point will always be moot.

No one even looked.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by jthomas
Your representation is incorrect. I am clear that no positive evidence of explosives has been found in any investigation.

Maybe becasue no tests were done for explosives by NIST, as stated in thier reports.

Other testing had long since been done by others. See my link above.

Originally posted by jthomas
Other testing had long since been done by others. See my link above.

Not for explosives residues.

See my posts on the last page.



Circle is your favorite shape, isn't it jthomas?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
I can simply point out that an investigation was done, no evidence for explosives was found, and no refutation of that investigation has ever surfaced.

But that would be dishonest, since you know by now that no one ever even looked for evidence of explosives.

And I've already shown you are wrong.

And I have asked repeatedly for you to show me what any investigation has proven, and how exactly they proved it, and every single time without fail, you have backed away from the challenge.

You keep forgetting there is no challenge for me to meet. Let's review:

1) Testing was done in October 2001 to determine the chemical composition of the components in the dust. No signatures of any type of explosives were found.

2) The collapse mechanism of the towers were explained in the NIST reports. The facts, evidence, and methodology are fully open to anyone to affirm or refute. The collapses were explained without the need to introduce other mechanisms like explosives and space beams.

3) You claim that that the steel wasn't tested therefore it was impossible to tell if explosives were present or not. You have provided NO evidence that that methodology is required nor produced any evidence that the methodology of testing done of the dust would fail to detect evidence of explosives.

Either you can supply their evidence, or you are just continuing to demonstrate they had none.

The fact is that if anyone has positive evidence for explosives, they can bring it to the table.


[edit on 27-3-2010 by jthomas]

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by bsbray11
But that would be dishonest, since you know by now that no one ever even looked for evidence of explosives.

And I've already shown you are wrong.

This is even MORE dishonest, because we already demonstrated repeatedly on this thread that no one tested for explosives.

Let's review:

1) Testing was done in October 2001 to determine the chemical composition of the components in the dust. No signatures of any type of explosives were found.

They were not looking for explosives residues, and this was NOT the point of their study of the air and dust.

2) The collapse mechanism of the towers were explained in the NIST reports.

NIST also admitted they never tested for explosives residues on any of the steel, and never offered any evidence to support their collapse hypothesis. If you think they DID offer some evidence then you are of course free to post it whenever you like. As it stands, there is nothing to refute.

3) You claim that that the steel wasn't tested therefore it was impossible to tell if explosives were present or not.

It is impossible for you to answer the simple question, "What was causing all of the explosions on 9/11?", with any evidence.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas

1) Testing was done in October 2001 to determine the chemical composition of the components in the dust. No signatures of any type of explosives were found.

They were not looking for explosives residues, and this was NOT the point of their study of the air and dust.

Please review again:

Characterization of the Dust/Smoke Aerosol that Settled East of the World Trade Center (WTC) in Lower Manhattan after the Collapse of the WTC, 11 September 2001

Paul J. Lioy,1,2 Clifford P. Weisel,1,2 James R. Millette,3 Steven Eienreich,1,4 Daniel Vallero,5 John Offenberg,4 Brian Buckley,1 Barbara Turpin,1,4 Mianhua Zhong,6 Mitchell D. Cohen,6 Colette Prophete,6 Ill Yang,1 Robert Stiles,1 Glen Chee,6 Willie Johnson,1 Robert Porcja,1,4 Shahnaz Alimokhtari,1 Robert C. Hale,7 Charles Weschler,1 and Lung Chi Chen6,1

Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute of New Jersey, UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA; 2Department of Environmental and Community Medicine, UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA; 3MVA, Norcross, Georgia; 4Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA; 5National Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA; 6Nelson Institute of Environmental Medicine, NYU School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA; 7Department of Environmental Sciences, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester, Virginia, USA

"To begin assessing the exposure to dust and smoke among the residential and commuter population during the first few days,samples of particles that initially settled in downtown NYC were taken from three undisturbed protected locations to the east of the WTC site. Two samples were taken on day 5 (16 September 2001) and the third sample was taken on day 6 (17 September 2001) after the terrorist attack. The purposes for collecting the samples were a) to determine the chemical and physical characteristics of the material that was present in the dust and smoke that settled from the initial plume, and b) to determine the absence or presence of contaminants that could affect acute or long-term human health by inhalation or ingestion."

2) The collapse mechanism of the towers were explained in the NIST reports.

NIST also admitted they never tested for explosives residues on any of the steel...

We're waiting for you to address the dust study (see above) and demonstrate that explosives would not have been detected through that methodology.

...and never offered any evidence to support their collapse hypothesis.

The causes of collapse initiation were fully explained in the NIST report, demonstrating conclusively how and why total collapse was inevitable. No one has demonstrated otherwise. Of course, you are welcome to.

3) You claim that that the steel wasn't tested therefore it was impossible to tell if explosives were present or not.

It is impossible for you to answer the simple question, "What was causing all of the explosions on 9/11?", with any evidence.

I have already stated that whatever the explosions were, there is no evidence of "explosives" and no one has provided any positive evidence for "explosives". You haven't provided any valid reason to be concerned with any other types of explosions or what sounded like explosions.

And the seismic devices around the area never recorded anything characteristic of explosives.

Now, your claim is that that the steel wasn't tested therefore it was impossible to tell if explosives were present or not. Can you provide us with evidence demonstrating that the methodology of the dust study above was incapable of detecting the signatures of explosives?

Originally posted by jthomas
Please review again:

...The purposes for collecting the samples were a) to determine the chemical and physical characteristics of the material that was present in the dust and smoke that settled from the initial plume, and b) to determine the absence or presence of contaminants that could affect acute or long-term human health by inhalation or ingestion."

Exactly. Where does it say it was their purpose to test for explosive residues? Nowhere. They were testing the air to see if it was contaminated with anything harmful to people.

We're waiting for you to address the dust study (see above) and demonstrate that explosives would not have been detected through that methodology.

It's not up to me to prove a negative and make your case for you. It's up to you to prove a positive and support your own self. They weren't testing for explosives. If you think they were then please explain how.

The causes of collapse initiation were fully explained in the NIST report, demonstrating conclusively how and why total collapse was inevitable. No one has demonstrated otherwise. Of course, you are welcome to.

I said before there is nothing to refute because they didn't prove anything to begin with, it was all just their "hypothesis" and they themselves called it that. Again, it's not my job to prove a negative, ie that there wasn't any evidence. You're the one saying NIST proved something so it's up to you to show what.

I have already stated that whatever the explosions were, there is no evidence of "explosives"

"whatever the explosions were"

That's my whole point. We still don't know what was causing all of them, even though they were very visible and recounted by scores of witnesses, and caused damage to the structure. That's not appropriate for an event of this significance.


You have already admitted you can't prove what was causing the explosions. We should have further investigation for this reason alone, even without considering anything else about 9/11.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
Please review again:

...The purposes for collecting the samples were a) to determine the chemical and physical characteristics of the material that was present in the dust and smoke that settled from the initial plume, and b) to determine the absence or presence of contaminants that could affect acute or long-term human health by inhalation or ingestion."

Exactly. Where does it say it was their purpose to test for explosive residues? Nowhere.

What does "... to determine the chemical and physical characteristics of the material..." mean to you?

We're waiting for you to address the dust study (see above) and demonstrate that explosives would not have been detected through that methodology.

It's not up to me to prove a negative and make your case for you.

It's doing neither. Simply stated, your whole premise is that the test done "... to determine the chemical and physical characteristics of the material..." is incapable of detecting the chemical signatures of explosives and that since no direct test of the metal was done, there is no proof that explosives were not present.

It's up to you to prove a positive and support your own self.

I'm not the one making claims -- you are.

They weren't testing for explosives.

Again, you haven't demonstrated that the tests done were incapable of finding the chemical signatures of explosives, and shown testing you claim had to be done in fact had to be done. I'm waiting for you to get that information for us.

The causes of collapse initiation were fully explained in the NIST report, demonstrating conclusively how and why total collapse was inevitable. No one has demonstrated otherwise. Of course, you are welcome to.

I said before there is nothing to refute because they didn't prove anything to begin with, it was all just their "hypothesis" and they themselves called it that.

Yes, the explanation for collapse initiation is in the NIST Report. Anyone is welcome to refute it.

I have already stated that whatever the explosions were, there is no evidence of "explosives."

That's my whole point. We still don't know what was causing all of them, even though they were very visible and recounted by scores of witnesses, and caused damage to the structure.

Yes, jet fuel explosions probably did happen. Other things sounded like explosions, including collapsing internal beams. Given what is known from the investigations, no explosives or anything else were required to be introduced to explain the collapses.

You have already admitted you can't prove what was causing the explosions.

And I keep explaining to you why no one has to.

We should have further investigation for this reason alone, even without considering anything else about 9/11.

As I've said before, you won't get one unless a compelling case can be made refuting all of the existing evidence and the NIST investigations.

Good luck.

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by jthomas
Feel free to present any positive evidence for explosives that you have

The best evidence for explosives is that no one has proved what was observed is physically possible without explosives or some other unknown variable.

That leaves you in a small minority.

Lots of people know the official story doesn’t make sense.

But regardless, science isn't a popularity contest...

The anomalies, contradictions, coincidences, first-time events, and other phenomena have not been explained.

No one has proved what was observed is possible without explosives.

Originally posted by Jezus
Originally posted by jthomas
Originally posted by Jezus
Originally posted by jthomas

Lots of people know the official story doesn’t make sense.

Well, not really. There is a sub cult (9/11 truth movement) of a sub cult (conspiracy followers) who claim that it doesn't make sense to them, but that is all.

But regardless, science isn't a popularity contest...

Hope the folks over at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and Scholars for Truth don't read this, it'll just break their hearts.

The anomalies, contradictions, coincidences, first-time events, and other phenomena have not been explained.

Yeah, they have, it's just that the most ardent adherents of the 9/11 sub cult just don't have any use for answers.

No one has proved what was observed is possible without explosives.

wtc.nist.gov...

fire.nist.gov...

The problem is this crap is being made unnecessarily complicated. We have to talk about how much damage the plane did on impact and what the fire did and how could explosives have been put in and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Suppose we make a real simplified thought experiment?

Think of the north tower as seven 15 story sections. That is 105 stories so we have 5 left over.

So the bottom six 15 story section would be 90 intact stories that the very top 15 would fall on. Pretend we could totally remove the 5 stories in between. That would leave 15 stories floating in the air over a 60 foot gap.

That would be a 2 second fall and the top 15 stories would impact the lower portion at 44 mph.

Now I think EVERYONE WOULD HAVE TO AGREE that the total elimination of 5 stories is more damage than the airliner and fires could possibly have done. So if the 44 mph impact of 15 stories could not destroy the 90 intact levels then it should be obvious that something else had to have been involved on 9/11.

But how could this analysis be done without knowing the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level? A lot of mass would have to be accelerated therefore the conservation of momentum would enter into it. So why haven't all of the EXPERTS been demanding that info for EIGHT YEARS?

Since the building had to get stronger and heavier all of the way down the falling 15 stories would be destroyed on impact at least as fast as the intact 90 were being crushed. So even assuming a 2 to 1 destruction ratio only 30 of the 90 stories would be crushed and the falling mass would be decelerating through the entire process.

So what is wrong with such a simple analysis? It eliminates worrying about the temperatures of fires and which columns the plane broke etc., etc. Could the top 15 stories crush the bottom 90 in less than 18 seconds or not?

www.youtube.com...

Is this too difficult a question for our engineering schools?

psik

Originally posted by jthomas
What does "... to determine the chemical and physical characteristics of the material..." mean to you?

Sorry, jthomas. Your endless rhetorical questions will never add up to anything. If you really had anything to say, you would say it explicitly.

No one tested the steel or anything else for explosives residues, except Steven Jones.

your whole premise is that the test done "... to determine the chemical and physical characteristics of the material..." is incapable of detecting the chemical signatures of explosives

Not that it is incapable, but that you have failed to demonstrate that this would be possible or practical for detecting for explosives residues in the rubble pile. You are talking about testing air to see if there were explosives residues, when the researchers weren't looking out for those residues in the first place. To say that this is a proper investigation for explosives residues is laughable.

you haven't demonstrated that the tests done were incapable of finding the chemical signatures of explosives

To repeat, you have failed to demonstrate that looking for contaminants in air is an accepted method of checking the crime scene of three completely destroyed buildings for explosives residues. These people were never looking for explosives residues, it wasn't part of their study, and air is not what you would examine. You know this jthomas.

I'm not the one making claims -- you are.

So you aren't claiming that no one tested for explosives residues? (Besides Steven Jones.) Then I guess we are in agreement after all!

Yes, the explanation for collapse initiation is in the NIST Report. Anyone is welcome to refute it.

There is nothing in it to refute. I have asked countless times to see what exactly they proved about the collapses and how. Well over 100 times I have asked you, specifically. I won't see it in your next post, either.

Nothing to refute.

Yes, jet fuel explosions probably did happen...Given what is known from the investigations

You are not talking about any investigation. The only jet fuel "explosions" were the deflagrations (not explosions! much slower than true explosions) that resulted from the impacts themselves. There is no evidence of anything else, only evidence AGAINST the mere possibility of such a thing traveling down 1000 feet of elevator shafts. You have nothing but a theory with no evidence or proof.

You have already admitted you can't prove what was causing the explosions. We should have further investigation for this reason alone, even without considering anything else about 9/11.

As I've said before, you won't get one unless a compelling case can be made refuting all of the existing evidence and the NIST investigations.

Good luck.

How can a "compelling case" be made without further investigation?

You see, the whole purpose of further investigation is gathering more evidence and information. Evidence that specifically has not been looked at by any other investigation so far.

It's obvious that what has been presented so far is incomplete. It's made obvious by the very fact that you can't answer very serious questions about things that happened that day, with anything other than a guess.

While most Mod Notes are negative, I want to do a positive one here.

Thank you Members for these last posts as they are enjoyable to read and informative.

Now THIS is the way to debate this issue...

Originally posted by hooper

Lots of people know the official story doesn’t make sense.

Well, not really. There is a sub cult (9/11 truth movement) of a sub cult (conspiracy followers) who claim that it doesn't make sense to them, but that is all.

Maybe you are exposed to a different population but most people in college or graduated between that ages of 20 and 30 know the “official story” is filled with anomalies, contradictions, coincidences, first-time events, and other phenomena that have not been explained.

Most of these people don’t even know what ATS is but they certainly know how manipulated the news is.

Most people don't write about stuff on forums even if they have the knowledge.

Originally posted by hooper

No one has proved what was observed is possible without explosives.

wtc.nist.gov...

fire.nist.gov...

Exactly.

Something filled with anomalies, contradictions, and other unexplained phenomena is incomplete at best and does not conclusively prove the buildings could collapse without explosives or some other unknown variable.

An alternative theory is unnecessary. The official story has not been proven physically possible,

An alternative theory is unnecessary. The official story has not been proven physically possible,

You cannot build a 1360 foot skyscraper without getting the distribution of steel correct.

So why haven't the EXPERTS been pointing out the need to know that distribution in order to analyze this supposed collapse? This has been turned into THE MOST STUPID EVENT IN HISTORY.

People claiming to understand physics are not demanding to know the data necessary to do the physics.

This says some very strange things about the social-psychology of our schools. People don't care about knowledge they only care about getting degrees. But the degrees are supposed to be evidence of the possession of knowledge and intelligence. Apparently our schools turn out certified liars.

How can we trust people that say they understand Einsteinian physics if they demonstrate that they cannot solve a Newtonian physics problem. It is rather hilarious when you think about it.

www.youtube.com...

Like economists that can pretend to not notice the depreciation of all of the automobiles in the world for the last 50 years.

psik

reply to post by WWu777


Your friend is right.
It would accomplish nothing as far as convicting our government and their involvement/complicity that day however...............it would be the ultimate "I told you so" that I can possibly ever imagine!!!


[edit on 29-3-2010 by TwoPhish]