What are the absolute facts of 911 ? What are the points that can be proven beyond any doubt? Are there any ?
If not, is this in itself proof of anything ? This is certainly a topic that still rages on the internet endlessly and very much so amoung our members here on ATS.

I don't know if a thread like this has been done before, if it has here's another one.
I think it would be interesting to have Truthers and Osers, both sides bring their absolute undeniable proofs, facts,
evidence. To this thread. I'd be full of crap to say I'm unbiased in all of this. So I'll enter into this thread the first undeniable fact that I myself as an experienced IRON WORKER know can not be refuted.

After I state my fact, I want only what you believe to be fact or evidence undeniable as you see it. Both sides will be tallyed hopefully in the end. Or maybe we just end up with another mele at the very least. But the fact I want to first bring to the table is undeniable and it may be the only one that is.

The center colums in all three buildings should have prevented anything even close to the free fall collapse we see. This from day one has told me these buildings were taken down not only because planes hit them. But because they were previously set up for demolition. This fact is undeniable and defendable against all scrutiny.
It has made me a truther from day one. I don't even see why people want to believe an obvious lie. Perhaps the OSers can explain this as well, as they present their undeniable proofs ?

The only problem I see with your fact is that none of the buildings fell at free fall acceleration.

This has been known for years.

Originally posted by HannibalEG
The only problem I see with your fact is that none of the buildings fell at free fall acceleration.

This has been known for years.

Correct he should have said "near" free fall speed but if this is your only argument then he can fix that with a minor edit.

Randyvs, I agree, what are the facts anymore? The only facts about the OS that I see are that 3 buildings collapsed in an unprecedented event killing initially over 3000 people. Everything else is seems to be a mass media fairytale. I think this was the intention by pitting the people against one another.

Two things can bring people to yelling at one another. Politics and 9/11.

So what is your proof or evidence for your "fact"? Can you back it up with physics? Or it is a "fact" based on a gut feeling?

I think you should first create a framework of what constitutes to fact, proof or evidence before you can continue with this exercise. My guess is that your definitions differ from mine and others.

Originally posted by randyvs
The center colums in all three buildings should have prevented anything even close to the free fall collapse we see. This from day one has told me these buildings were taken down not only because planes hit them. But because they were previously set up for demolition.

You are 100% correct. I worked with aluminum and steel all day, every day for years. We did anything imaginable. Cut, melt, form, you name it. Anyone that has worked with aluminum and steel already knows that those aluminum planes would have done no damage to the core columns in those towers. The only parts of a plane that could damage any core columns would be the landing gear and the engines as those are the strongest and heaviest parts of a plane.

The core columns were assembled horizontally, vertically, and diagonally into a fortress of steel columns. Even the NIST report theorized that only 6-10 core columns were severed or damaged, while 30 exterior columns were severed or damaged. That only amounts to about 15% of the building structure on the impact floors being damaged while 85% of the structure on the impact floors was undamaged, on top of the 100% undamaged structure above and below.

Of course the buildings were rigged for demolition. Every piece of evidence suggests it:

The many witnesses to timed/synchronous booms, which have only ever been heard in controlled demolitions.

The flashes reported being seen going up, down and around both towers with popping or exploding sounds associated with the flashes, which have only ever been seen and heard in controlled demolitions.

The "puffs" or ejections of dust/debris which has only ever been seen in controlled demolitions.

The pre-collapse and during-collapse explosions, which are almost always heard in controlled demolitions.

The audio/video evidence of explosions.

The little amount of time it took for each of the three buildings to collapse.


There is no doubt in my mind, whatsoever, that those buildings came down by explosives.

edit on 15-8-2011 by _BoneZ_ because: typo

Originally posted by HannibalEG
The only problem I see with your fact is that none of the buildings fell at free fall acceleration.

Actually, WTC 7 did fall at free-fall acceleration for one third of it's collapse, and the towers' collapse time was near free-fall.

Is that clear enough?

Two 1360 foot building held themselves up for 28 years. That means they withstood high winds on multiple occasions. One site said they withstood 100 mph winds on 6 occasions. I do find it curious that I haven't seen a lot more detail than that.

So handling gravity and the wind for almost three decades says quite a bit about how strong the buildings had to be and raises the question of why we don't have a lot more details about them to accomplish that feat. Like how much horizontal steel on each level in the core in feet and tons? Why no diagram?

So why didn't the physics profession shut this crap down in 2002? They will never live this down if it is settled.

psik

To the OP......randyvs, you are braver than most here!
This should be good .....so good I am fastening my seat belt as I type this.
I have no absolute proof to offer but I do side with the inside job theory.
Regards, Iwinder
S&F because I believe what my eyes tell me and not the TV.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So why didn't the physics profession shut this crap down in 2002?

They did, just because you dont read/comprehend structural engineering journals doesnt mean the dozens of studies didnt happen.

Originally posted by SirMike

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So why didn't the physics profession shut this crap down in 2002?

They did, just because you dont read/comprehend structural engineering journals doesnt mean the dozens of studies didnt happen.

Are you talking about Bazant who demonstrates that he does not understand Newton's Third Law?

psik