Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[uk_dave]

the execution of the plan is what i find unbelievable. how it could of ever materialised. it should never have happened. what were the military doing?

So you're upset that the US military was unable to protect you from terrorism but you'd rather excuse this failing by ascribing something more sinister to it because that way, once the sinister plot is uncovered and the perps are brought to justice, the threat will have gone away and you will be safe again.

[chillzero]

To try and veer this conversation back toward the topic,

sound recordings could also be measured and replayed to witnesses such as morelli, david, etc and they could say if the sound was different or louder etc.
a dummy could be positioned in the same position as morelli and we could observe if it is thrown to the ground by the explosion caused by jet fuel.


Are you serious?
I honestly doubt very much, that many of the witnesses that day will want to be dragged in somewhere to relive those moments over and over. Just how much pain and emotional trauma do you think these people - victims, btw - should be subjected to?

Additionally, how are they supposed to respond? Memory is a weird thing, and it is doubtful that anyone could accurately listen to a sound, 6 + years later, and accurately define if it is the same as something they heard before. And that's without the additional trauma suffered.

Finally, do you honestly think anyone has the resources available to repeatedly build identical towers, to try out these theories that have no merit from the evidence available? How would anyone justify the cost?

[Dave Rogers]

maybe you should read gordon ross's paper. he also provides calculations. but hey nice post.

i found a good article by Gordon ross in the journal of 911 studies. its called the Momentum transfer analysis of the upper stories of wtc 1.

This is the classis problem of comprehension many in the truth movement seem to have. If you think that Ross's calculations, which contain glaring errors, are in any way equal in weight to Greening's, then you simply don't have the expertise to understand the arguments. Putting it simply, Ross takes the energy that would be expected to collapse the towers, then takes it away and pretends it never existed. Having done so, it's hardly surprising that he finds there isn't enough energy to make the towers collapse. In a physical analogy, it's like taking the engine out of a car, demonstrating that the car won't start, and concluding that cars are impossible.

It's impossible to stress this too much: Ross is wrong, and obviously wrong. Anybody who knows a small amount of mathematics and physics will be able to see this. It's not a matter of opinion.

so how do we prove something? through experimentation. if the blueprint of the twin towers was ever released perhaps a minature 1% of actual size built to scale of the twin tower could be reconstructed. and tested. then we could find out through experimentation whether or not your hypothesis is true or not. then we could demonstrate whether what i said was untrue.

The problem with this is that you need to understand the scaling laws, which requires mathematics. Your 1% scale model won't collapse, for reasons posted elsewhere in this thread, unless the support columns are underscale by about 100 times, in which case you'll claim it wasn't a fair representation of the towers. Again, you need to understand the mathematics yourself to understand the results.

Oh, and the plans of the twin towers are available.

this is the kind of proof i need to know whether 911 was an inside job or not.

The problem is not your lack of proof, it's your lack of education. Learn some basic mathematics and physics, and then you'll have a place in this debate. At the moment you're failing the entrance exam.

Dave

[Belz...]

i will respond to your earlier posts when i get a chance amigo.

regarding the comment above i feel offended when i am accused of being a racist so shut your claptrap i wasnt whinning i was trying to defend myself from false accusations - got it

If you don't want me to think you're whining then don't write stuff like that.

[Lurker]

i do agree with you but i think your overstating you case.

potential energy is about weight height of fall and gravity. weight has very much got to do with the calculations in order to determine whether the building below the impact zone was able to resist the initial collapse.

i agree structure has a lot got to do with it also but to claim weight has nothing got to do with the collapse is absurd.

Well, it is a good thing I never said weight had nothing to do with the collapse. I said the weight has nothing to do with the structural strength. I've looked through all the formulas for bending, compression, shear and tension and not one formula includes the density or weight of the struture as a variable or parameter defining the structural strength.



lets say i place an elepahant on your head - can you balance that?



going back to my basic analogy - the spin is designed to support the weight of the head. if the head on a skeleton was lifted off and dropped from a certain height it will perhaps crack the first vertibrea but it will not crush the entire vertibrae and then itself.
Because the factor of safety on the spine vs the weight of the head is quite high.


i agree that the structural strenght is resisting the weight not the the weight itself. but the weight of what is falling or being placed upon the structure should be a factor. likewise the upper portion that collapsed on the intact structure below was around 10 or 12% the weight of entire structure.
Not a factor in determining the strength. It is a factor in determining the weight. It is completely immaterial what % the falling weight is of the weight of the rest of the structure. The only thing that matters is the falling weight vs the structural strength of the lower part. When you calculate the structural strength of the lower part it is completely independent of its weight.

the intact core column below possessed structural integrity. now we could both cite professors and experts who provide calculations debating whether the intact structure could reisist the dynamic load of the falling posrtion. but what cannot be argued is that it was able to support the static load. the only way i could rationally accept the offical story is if the PROVED IT. through expermentation.

Yes, we know it supported the static weight. Luckily we have equations to relate static loads to dynamic loads and can see that the building is in trouble in that case. You may need experimentation but scientists and engineers have already performed those tests to verify the equations. I suggest going to college for engineering where you can then have labs where they verify equations through experiments. Quite enlightening. Specifically a ME or CE program would be useful to you. Alternately, you could hire a lab to do the experiments for you.

[thewholesoul]

Your experiment is preposterous, but whatever, I'll let Mackey respond as he can make a much better critique of it than I can.

Anyway, what white smoke ring are you talking about?

i get it...the scientific method is proposterous so we will never prove your hypothesis through experimentation.

i am talking about the white smoke reported in the witness TESTIMONY, and the white smoke you can see rising from the basement in youtude videos.

[thewholesoul]

It's a simple joke to you, isn't it? no answer required

You should get a clue and perhaps you might get some credibility.

ETA: This thread is 19 pages long and I've yet to see any credible, even partially substantiated posts by you. You're just another JAQ er offer.

Any further discussion of the NATO response should be taken up in a separate thread.

not JAQing off making an observation. after the first plane hit it did not take the fire department 45 mins before they reacted. after the first plane hit 45 minutes later the branch of the military responsible for reacting to such events (which they trained for) did not even react??

no-one got fired??

you can bury your head in 19 pages of sand if you like. but i agree this is off topic so lets just drop it.

[SDC]

i get it...the scientific method is proposterous so we will never prove your hypothesis through experimentation.

i am talking about the white smoke reported in the witness TESTIMONY, and the white smoke you can see rising from the basement in youtude videos.

Didn't this one lead to a wave of Pope jokes when it appeared? Seems familiar.

"Youtude"?? No, Itude, pal. And hetude, shetude, and ittude.

[SDC]

And all the little 'tudes... (I'm trying to cover all possibilities, here.)

[thewholesoul]

Are you serious?

yes i am serious about experimentation as a means to determine, demonstrate, verify, or assertain the truth of a particular hypothesis. may be you find experimentation a joke?

I honestly doubt very much, that many of the witnesses that day will want to be dragged in somewhere to relive those moments over and over. Just how much pain and emotional trauma do you think these people - victims, btw - should be subjected to?

firstly, some results can be obtain without calling on witnesses to recall the event. we have there testimony. secondly they dont have to experience it again as in being in the actual building where the experiment was carried out. obviously, if such an experiment was undertaken, they would be asked not forced if they would wish to partake in analysising the results (e.g photos of damage done to lobby, car park, the white smoke produced etc etc). i am not saying all would wish to analysis the results but some, perhaps even many would. i wonder if would rodriguez who believes he heard a bomb agree to analysising the results of such an experiment? what about giambanco who swears it was a bomb?

if an experiment ever went under way - i doubt asking them whether or not to look at some photos or sound recordings would be too troubling pychologically or otherwise.

besides why werent you objecting when a member of this forum says he was going to ring morelli (!!!) and ask him questions about that day?? you are obviously displaying double standards for the members in this forum. how come grravy can say why dont you ring them up all the time and when i suggest that some witnesses can be used to analysis results of an experiment you all of a sudden jump down my throat assuming the moral high ground? you should think about that.

Additionally, how are they supposed to respond? Memory is a weird thing, and it is doubtful that anyone could accurately listen to a sound, 6 + years later, and accurately define if it is the same as something they heard before. And that's without the additional trauma suffered.

not all results require asking the witnesses's for example whether the walls were turned to rubble or the lobby windows were blown out does not require the memory of the witnesses.

memory is not that weird police use it all the time when identifying mugshots of criminals. i admit the memory of the sound may not be entirely recaptured in a recording but the photos would. of course it is not going to be accurate because the experiment would not produce exactly the same result as that day. however there are general events that we would expect to see if the jet fuel hypothesis is true. walls turned to rubble, car park obliterated, windows blown out of lobby, thick white smoke and if the replica of morelli fell over or not etc etc.

as for the additional trauma - again where was your concern for the welfare of morelli when people in this forum - that you moderate - openly declared he was going to ring him up!!

Finally, do you honestly think anyone has the resources available to repeatedly build identical towers, to try out these theories that have no merit from the evidence available? How would anyone justify the cost?

ah the cost...may be it is too expensive but this is the only way i and many others can be convinced if the fireball hypothesis is true. maybe the family members who lost loved ones that day would not quibble too much about the cost to uncover the truth - that the official hypothesis prove itself. however in relation the demolition of the twin towers i would expect that experiments be undertaken to prove that fire can progressively collapse a steel frame building.

[AZCat]

ah the cost...may be it is too expensive but this is the only way i and many others can be convinced if the fireball hypothesis is true. maybe the family members who lost loved ones that day would not quibble too much about the cost to uncover the truth - that the official hypothesis prove itself. however in relation the demolition of the twin towers i would expect that experiments be undertaken to prove that fire can progressively collapse a steel frame building.

Experiments have already been conducted with this in mind. Please read the NIST report - they are covered in depth.

[thewholesoul]

thewholesoul should investigate who nick rockerfeller (sic) is and isn't related to and report back to us. That would be funny.

Btw, I have one of those aeron chairs. Very comfortable.

who nick rockefeller is related to is beside the point. the point was that he had foreknowledge that an "event" was going to happen which would justify the current and post 911 american foreign policy.

"He just said there's gonna be an event and out of that event we're gonna invade Afghanistan so we can run pipelines through the Caspian sea, we can go into Iraq to take the oil and establish bases in the middle east and to make the middle east part of the new world order....Eleven months to a year later that's what happened....he certainly knew that something was going to happen." from prisonplanet.com

rockefeller was not the only one who had foreknowldge of 911.

besides i am telling you that its Aaron - not Aeron Russo. please out of respect at least try get the spelling correct grravy. you wont be told again.

[thewholesoul]

So you're upset that the US military was unable to protect you from terrorism but you'd rather excuse this failing by ascribing something more sinister to it because that way, once the sinister plot is uncovered and the perps are brought to justice, the threat will have gone away and you will be safe again.

i am not from america...i sleep perfectly sound thanks very much

[beachnut]

not JAQing off making an observation. after the first plane hit it did not take the fire department 45 mins before they reacted. after the first plane hit 45 minutes later the branch of the military responsible for reacting to such events (which they trained for) did not even react??

no-one got fired??

you can bury your head in 19 pages of sand if you like. but i agree this is off topic so lets just drop it.
The air force does not shoot down planes after they hit buildings. The air force never trained to shoot down planes taken over by hijackers over the US. The air force was used to follow planes when requested or available to track hijacked planes, watch hijacked planes. But on 9/11 no one knew the hijacked planes were being used as weapons until the second impact, except the military, and they were coming!

But you have a problem of which planes are hijacked and which hijacked planes are weapons. Too bad you are not able to ask real questions, these are old, a better approach by you would be to read the many resources on the topic already and try to answer your own questions first and then check them. Instead out of ignorance you as stupid questions about things you do not even understand. I doubt if you have a clue about hijacking and what the US military would do when notified of Hijacking.

You even fail to bring up witnesses to corroborate Rodriquez's claim, so it is expect your research on other 9/11 topics is poor.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

hey man, i apologise for blowing up like that, i had a bad day and when i read the posts of people still going on about this racist charge i just saw red when you questioned if i was a racist.


Completely understandable.

[thewholesoul]

If you think that Ross's calculations, which contain glaring errors, are in any way equal in weight to Greening's, then you simply don't have the expertise to understand the arguments.

ross could be wrong but so could the experts advocating the official hypothesis. remember Eduardo Kausel, an engineering professor at MITand
and Matthys Levy? both "experts" claimed that fire melted steel. did you agree with their version of the official story when it was propogated?

Putting it simply, Ross takes the energy that would be expected to collapse the towers, then takes it away and pretends it never existed. In a physical analogy, it's like taking the engine out of a car, demonstrating that the car won't start, and concluding that cars are impossible.

i dont like your analogy. imagine you have a 5 storey apartment block with atube and tube design. you separate the 5th storey and drop it 30ft. i would predict that it will never crush the 4 floors below and then itself, in other words i predict that if the official hypothesis was actually tested through experimentation that we would never witness a progressive global collapse out of a 100 trials. if i observed a global collapse in any of the 100 trials i would accept the official hypothesis.

It's impossible to stress this too much: Ross is wrong, and obviously wrong. Anybody who knows a small amount of mathematics and physics will be able to see this. It's not a matter of opinion.

only an experiment will prove your hypothesis right and ross's hypothesis wrong. all i hear from you is support for one experts calculations and objection to anothers.

[beachnut]

who nick rockefeller is related to is beside the point. the point was that he had foreknowledge that an "event" was going to happen which would justify the current and post 911 american foreign policy.

"He just said there's gonna be an event and out of that event we're gonna invade Afghanistan so we can run pipelines through the Caspian sea, we can go into Iraq to take the oil and establish bases in the middle east and to make the middle east part of the new world order....Eleven months to a year later that's what happened....he certainly knew that something was going to happen." from prisonplanet.com

rockefeller was not the only one who had foreknowldge of 911.

besides i am telling you that its Aaron - not Aeron Russo. please out of respect at least try get the spelling correct grravy. you wont be told again.
What pipe lines? NWO? Holy sock-puppet! PRISONPLANET@ woo world puke.

So, please list the people who had foreknowledge of 19 hijackers cutting throats with aircraft impacts?

At first I thought you had bogus stuff but when you get your stuff from PrisonPlanet that is a horse of a different color...

[Gravy]

and aeron russo in a conversation with one of nick rockerfeller
i am telling you that its Aaron - not Aeron Russo. please out of respect at least try get the spelling correct grravy. you wont be told again.Stundielicious!

[Slayhamlet]

who nick rockefeller is related to is beside the point. the point was that he had foreknowledge that an "event" was going to happen which would justify the current and post 911 american foreign policy.

"He just said there's gonna be an event and out of that event we're gonna invade Afghanistan so we can run pipelines through the Caspian sea, we can go into Iraq to take the oil and establish bases in the middle east and to make the middle east part of the new world order....Eleven months to a year later that's what happened....he certainly knew that something was going to happen." from prisonplanet.com

rockefeller was not the only one who had foreknowldge of 911.

besides i am telling you that its Aaron - not Aeron Russo. please out of respect at least try get the spelling correct grravy. you wont be told again.

He was referring to the Aeron chair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeron_chair). "Aaron chairs" don't exist.

[LashL]

Stundielicious!

Oh my. That is a winner, that one.

[beachnut]

i am not from america...i sleep perfectly sound thanks very much
He and Zlaya are from the former Yugoslavia (suspected, and probably wrong on my part). If you consider the internet, and their second language, these guys have the potential of being better debunkers than any 9/11 truth people can be a truther. But how do you get them to understand 99 percent of all google hits on 9/11 are BS 9/11 truth lies (9/11 truth is really a pack of liars).

How do you get someone who does not think in English (like me born in PA, raised in GA), understand "9/11 truth" is really "9/11 liars spreading false information"?

Irony, lies, and false information must be hard to understand presented in English when you think in your own native language.

Ironically I have an Aeron chair from my daughter, CFO (I wonder if she was going to be the fall woman), at a dot com dropout company (she had to sell off the entire company)!. How do you discover the nuts (Russo), on certain topics with ease and you are not even an American. Why do you grab on to people on the fringe. Does it make you feel better to think America is messed up and you believe the PrisonPlanet junk? If you judge the US by information from PrisonPlanet, you will have a most perverted outlook on the US. Showing great respect for nuts on income tax evasion, is ironic and you would fit in very well with the people of the "income tax evasion" click.

[A W Smith]

maybe you should talk with the pilots for 911 truth about that.

as for osama being a smart guy, i still find it unbelievable that 4 planes can be hijacked and three of them hit three of there targets without the most financed and modern military the world has ever seen doing absolutely nothing...one big whopsy - i dont buy it.

if you admit someone made a mistake or incompetance then how can you explain no-one getting punished. only promotions handed out??

and condolisa rice lying that they had no knowledge that someone would attack with planes - failure of imagination - yea right.

bush not even going under oath to the 911 commission and had to be accompanied by cheney- the whole thing stinks. and whether or not there were explosives in the towers at the very least someone had foreknowledge - how could a cook like alex jones predict 911??

and aeron russo in a conversation with one of nick rockerfeller was told that a major event (reffering to 911) was under way and from which the war on terror would be born.

who nick rockefeller is related to is beside the point. the point was that he had foreknowledge that an "event" was going to happen which would justify the current and post 911 american foreign policy.

"He just said there's gonna be an event and out of that event we're gonna invade Afghanistan so we can run pipelines through the Caspian sea, we can go into Iraq to take the oil and establish bases in the middle east and to make the middle east part of the new world order....Eleven months to a year later that's what happened....he certainly knew that something was going to happen." from prisonplanet.com

rockefeller was not the only one who had foreknowldge of 911.

besides i am telling you that its Aaron - not Aeron Russo. please out of respect at least try get the spelling correct grravy. you wont be told again.

:dl:

Stundielicious!

you can say that again

[thewholesoul]

Experiments have already been conducted with this in mind. Please read the NIST report - they are covered in depth.

as far as i am aware NIST has not conducted any experiments with scale models of the entire tower. i'm sure they did conduct various experimnets with the floor trusses, fire-proofing etc. but these are not quite the same thing.

i would love to see an episode of mythbusters tackle this issue. if they built a scale model and tested the official storey. fat chance they would take this on however. but if they did and the jet fuel caused progressive global collapse i would happily support the official storey.

[thewholesoul]

:you can say that again

that was a good one, i had to laugh at that myself :)

to be honest i dont care about poor spelling, but i criticised grravy for doing so because he made a big deal out of it earlier with me.

but i really shot myself in the foot when i too spelt his name wrong in the post...hahahahah,,,caught red handed and guilty as charged

[Totovader]

as far as i am aware NIST has not conducted any experiments with scale models of the entire tower. i'm sure they did conduct various experimnets with the floor trusses, fire-proofing etc. but these are not quite the same thing.

i would love to see an episode of mythbusters tackle this issue. if they built a scale model and tested the official storey. fat chance they would take this on however. but if they did and the jet fuel caused progressive global collapse i would happily support the official storey.

What experiment would you like to have done with "a scale model"?

Think carefully...

[LashL]

that was a good one, i had to laugh at that myself :)

to be honest i dont care about poor spelling, but i criticised grravy for doing so because he made a big deal out of it earlier with me.

but i really shot myself in the foot when i too spelt his name wrong in the post...hahahahah,,,caught red handed and guilty as charged


You did indeed shoot yourself in the foot, but it's good that you admit it and can laugh about it.

Still, you seem to missing the fact that Gravy did not make the spelling mistake that you attributed to him. He was pointing out your spelling mistake by referring, correctly, to the Aeron chair.

So, that makes your last post, quoted above, almost doubly Stundelicious. :p

[Gravy]

Geez, talk about denial. Kid doesn't even know it was his error to begin with.

I'd ask if he knows that he's misspelling Gravy, but I don't think I want to know.

[thewholesoul]

The problem with this is that you need to understand the scaling laws, which requires mathematics. Your 1% scale model won't collapse, for reasons posted elsewhere in this thread, unless the support columns are underscale by about 100 times, in which case you'll claim it wasn't a fair representation of the towers. Again, you need to understand the mathematics yourself to understand the results.

you make a good point here.

if we cannot make a scale model there must be some other way aside from compuer models to test a progressive collapse?

but with the fireball theory in the basement 8 stories could be constructed exactly to scale.

[Totovader]

you make a good point here.

if we cannot make a scale model there must be some other way aside from compuer models to test a progressive collapse?

but with the fireball theory in the basement 8 stories could be constructed exactly to scale.

Why would computer models be insufficient?

:dig:

[tomwaits]

Pfffff computers. Inaccurate pieces of junk. Chicken wire, however....

[Belz...]

yes i am serious about experimentation as a means to determine, demonstrate, verify, or assertain the truth of a particular hypothesis. may be you find experimentation a joke?

If this experiment was conducted, and yielded the same results ,wouldn't the truth movement just claim it was staged ?

[thewholesoul]

If this experiment was conducted, and yielded the same results ,wouldn't the truth movement just claim it was staged ?

perhaps, so such an experiment should be open and transparent. if however it was carried out by an "independent" organisation, not a branch of the government then i guess that would satisfy many.

personally if the same results were achieved i would have no problem accepting them and arguing against the bombs in the basement hypothesis.

[thewholesoul]

Geez, talk about denial. Kid doesn't even know it was his error to begin with.

I'd ask if he knows that he's misspelling Gravy, but I don't think I want to know.

hey grravy,

typical when i point out that some people had foreknowledge you resort to spell check tactics.

how about sibel edmonds the FBI translator who learned about an Al-Queda suicide pilots plan to hit skyscrapers in the U.S. ?? i tried to get the spelling all right which means you will have nothing left to say about this.:)

[Arus808]

geez whole, you completely ignore everything that GRAVY has refuted, and others in this thread have refuted against your claims and only pick on one thing that Gravy has pointed out IN YOUR ERRORS.

seriously, stay on topic, or concede that you can't do what the topic asks

[thewholesoul]

Why would computer models be insufficient?

:dig:

Why would computer models be insufficient?

:dig:

hey totovader,

the way i see it is this. over 20 or so witness testimony in the vasement reported hearing an explosion. elsewhere that day in the building numerous people reported explosions in the building aswell as fireballs.

so the question in relation to the basement testimony is were these explosions caused by explosives or a fireball. admitedly those who claim they were explosives have little evidence. we can point to structural damage and the testimony. unfortunately the vast majority steel samples that could of been tested (INDEPENDENTLY) were removed from the crime scene.

on the other hand there is an abundance of evidence supporting the fireball hypothesis. we have testimony, and the damage to the building is also explained by the fireballs.

but i beleive in the scientific method. that is observation, hypothesis, prediction and experiment. i beleive experiments should be carried out in order for the official hypothesis to prove itself. to date no experimnets past the collapse initiation have been carried out by NIST. no experiment has been carried out to demonstrate that 28kg of jet fuel will produce the result some in this forum have predicted it would do.

no experiment has been carried out on a steel frame building 8 stories high with the same design parameters of the basement. until such an experiment has been conducted i will not be convinced by any hypothesis unless it proves itself to be true.

now as expected even the suggestion that an experiment should be carried out in order to prove the official hypothesis has met resistance.
1) it cant be done: although i doubt it ever will be done, it is not by no means beyond the realm of possibility to build an 8 story structure with the same scale as the the north tower.
2) its too expensive: well the military spends millions on developing bombs then they test them to see if they works. moreover the amount of money spent by past governments investigating JFK or shuttle disasters dwarfs the money they invested when investigating 911. besides i am sure there are cheaper ways to conduct experiments.
3) it would be immoral: experimention of the the jet fuel hypothesis does not mean that the victims must necessarily be involved. it they did choose to participate in analysis of results then fine.
4) experiment using a computer simulation: i wouldnt object to a computer simulation in addition to real life experimnets. But the problem with computer simulations is that the values are programmed into the computer, for example imagine the differences in results if Ross’s calculations and not Greening’s were applied in a computer simulation of the progressive collapse.

Frankly you guys should be jumping at the chance at proving your hypothesis, you should be supporting all forms of experimentation. The fact that 6 years has past without some kind of experimnet to prove the official theory of the progressive collapse says a lot to me.

The problem i have with the fireball explanation concerning David’s testimony is how could the jet fuel get past the elevator? Mackey provides a good hypothesis. But i would like to see an elevator shaft being built 90+ floors high to the exact scale of the north tower with elevators etc. Then drop x amount of jet fuel and purposely have an ignition point at the b2 or b3 area and then simply watch to OBSERVE if the jet fuel will explode into a fireball before the falling elevator. If it does not work, then try it again. Only through proving a hypothesis through experimentation will i be convinced of the truth of the official hypothesis. This is a rational criteria to believe in something.

[DGM]

perhaps, so such an experiment should be open and transparent. if however it was carried out by an "independent" organisation, not a branch of the government then i guess that would satisfy many.

personally if the same results were achieved i would have no problem accepting them and arguing against the bombs in the basement hypothesis.
Go for it! The "truth" movement has been doing nothing for 6 years. Put up the dough and start the transparent investigation with simulations, models and 5 part harmony. What's stopping you?

[thewholesoul]

Go for it! The "truth" movement has been doing nothing for 6 years. Put up the dough and start the transparent investigation with simulations, models and 5 part harmony. What's stopping you?

you make a good point. i would love if the truthers put up the money to conduct an independent experiment.

i would love if organisations responsible for experimentation and proving their hypothesis would conduct more experiments.

i am glad you are not objecting to the idea that the official hypothesis should be proven through experimentation. i believe progress has been made.

what would you believe if an experiment failed to prove the offical hypothesis?

[T.A.M.]

Elmondohummus:

related to our discussion of barotrauma, and its presence or absence in 9/11 WTC attacks, you may find this article interesting...

http://pdm.medicine.wisc.edu/18-3pdfs/220Arnold.pdf

TAM:)

[beachnut]

you make a good point. i would love if the truthers put up the money to conduct an independent experiment.

i would love if organisations responsible for experimentation and proving their hypothesis would conduct more experiments.

i am glad you are not objecting to the idea that the official hypothesis should be proven through experimentation. i believe progress has been made.

what would you believe if an experiment failed to prove the offical hypothesis?
Then your experiment was screwed up!

There is not doubt except from 9/11 truth, that the towers fell due to impacts and fires.

Once again you have missed the studies confirming the WTC fell due to impacts and fires.

Most engineers could say that day one based on visual data. confirmed

The truth movement is like a person, who house burned down, and wants proof of fire.

Hearing loud noises does not make explosives. You need some more evidence; and it will be few more years until more liars make it up for you to spread some more hearsay stuff.

[thewholesoul]

Oh my lord, thewholesoul.

Have you even bothered to do any research? Every single one of your claims here is old, already debunked, and not even maintained by the conspiracism movement as a whole anymore...

hey you researched for years and arrived at the impossible conclusion that the impact of the plane caused morelli to be thrown to the ground and explains the explosion that david and rodriguez's experienced.

the official hypothesis is the fireball caused this event and you didnt pick that up in all the years you researched?

[thewholesoul]

Finally, do you honestly think anyone has the resources available to repeatedly build identical towers, to try out these theories that have no merit from the evidence available? How would anyone justify the cost?

i think you missed my point. the theory or hypothesis that needs to be tested is THE OFFICIAL HYPOTHESIS which remains UNPROVEN because there has been no experiments that i know of which have demonstrated how jet fuel can travel down 90+floors of an air tight elevator shaft, pass the elevator, and then ignite causing a substantial degree of damage.

but dont worry there will be no experimentations because the offical story would (perhaps) be proven untrue. and the government would want that now would it?

about the funds. check out how much it costs the american people for one week in iraq. money wasted for illegally occupying a foreign country is perhaps money well spent from your perspective.

[DGM]

you make a good point. i would love if the truthers put up the money to conduct an independent experiment.

i would love if organisations responsible for experimentation and proving their hypothesis would conduct more experiments.

i am glad you are not objecting to the idea that the official hypothesis should be proven through experimentation. i believe progress has been made.

Why would I object? I only go with the evidence that has been presented.
Progress? I've always looked at all the evidence and my opinion has been refined along the way. The "truth" movement to date has produced nothing so far that has swayed me or made me rethink my position.. I do however look at their "evidence".

what would you believe if an experiment failed to prove the official hypothesis?

As I said I look at all valid evidence. If it was credible I would certainly consider it. Why wouldn't I?

[Slayhamlet]

i get it...the scientific method is proposterous so we will never prove your hypothesis through experimentation.

i am talking about the white smoke reported in the witness TESTIMONY, and the white smoke you can see rising from the basement in youtude videos.

No, your experiment is preposterous and has nothing to do with the scientific method.

Are you talking about this white smoke (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMGhgnrAINQ)?

[thewholesoul]

There is nothing about the WTC events that suggests explosives. As before, had explosives, liquid or otherwise, been employed, we would expect to see structural, sonic, or seisomgraphic events consistent with explosives. We do not.


i do not see how turning walls into rubble, obliterating the car park, creating thick white smoke, producing a sound what dozens of witnesses claim was the result of a bomb, blowing out windows in the lobby, causing the floors and walls to shake etc etc rules out the possibility that such phenomena was caused by some kind of explosive.

i am deeply sceptical that jet fuel could slip past an elevator and then ignite in the basement levels causing this damage. and as morelli testifies what happened in the basement of the north tower occured again in the basement of the south tower. maybe it is feasible that the jet fuel did slip past the elevator and then explode at b2 and/or b3 level but i am sceptical that it could happen twice in the same level .

why, for example, did the jet fuel not explode in the b6 level, at the very base of the building, where gravity would naturally cause the jet fuel to accumulate?

and if the damage was produced by jet fuel then for me to be rationally convinced i need to observe the results of experimentation. dont get me wrong i find your explanation very convincing but to push me over the edge i need to see your hypothesis and predictions proven.

for example one cheap experimnet could construct the air tight elevator shaft with the exact design parameters as in the north tower and simply flood "above" the elevator with jet fuel and observe how the fuel can actually slip down past the elevator as opposed to speculating and proposing predictions. if indeed it can slip past the elevator we could observe the time it takes to do so, we can measure how much jet fuel passes the elevator in a certain amount of time.

once we have obtained such results we can turn to the testimony and see if it adds up. if for instance the jet fuel cannot pass the elevator in an airtight elevator shaft then you have serious problems explaining the testimony of felipe david and morelli. if it can slip past the elevator acording to your calculations we are going to need 28kg of fuel. because three elevators could reach the basement we would require roughly 9kg to pass the elevator. and if 9 kg of fuel can pass the elevator longer than the ETA you provided then you will have another problem with the timeline of the events experienced by the witnesses. and of course i would like to see an experiment where 28kg of jet fuel can produce all the damage observed in the basement of the north tower.

this experiment is feasible and inexpensive and if NIST does not wish to do it i think it would be a good idea for truthers to put their money behind it.

[LashL]

...i am deeply sceptical that jet fuel could slip past an elevator and then ignite in the basement levels causing this damage. ... maybe it is feasible that the jet fuel did slip past the elevator and then explode at b2 and/or b3 level but i am sceptical that it could happen twice in the same level .

...

for example one cheap experimnet could construct the air tight elevator shaft with the exact design parameters as in the north tower and simply flood "above" the elevator with jet fuel and observe how the fuel can actually slip down past the elevator as opposed to speculating and proposing predictions. if indeed it can slip past the elevator we could observe the time it takes to do so, we can measure how much jet fuel passes the elevator in a certain amount of time.

once we have obtained such results we can turn to the testimony and see if it adds up. if for instance the jet fuel cannot pass the elevator in an airtight elevator shaft then you have serious problems explaining the testimony of felipe david and morelli. if it can slip past the elevator...



My bolding above indicates to me one of the sources of your confusion.

[ElMondoHummus]

Elmondohummus:

related to our discussion of barotrauma, and its presence or absence in 9/11 WTC attacks, you may find this article interesting...

http://pdm.medicine.wisc.edu/18-3pdfs/220Arnold.pdf

TAM:)


Thank you sir!

BTW, please pardon the relative dearth of posts. I'll respond in greater depth to this when I can. Right now, I'm away on vacation, and I just discovered that this forum is difficult to participate on through a Blackberry. Heck, it's blasted unpleasant just to browse the forums. Anyway, when I'm back with a real connection, I'll check that article out and post commentary if the article warrants it.

Thanks again!

[T.A.M.]

no sweat, have fun, get some sun, then be done.

TAM:)

[chillzero]

yes i am serious about experimentation as a means to determine, demonstrate, verify, or assertain the truth of a particular hypothesis. may be you find experimentation a joke?


No. I find your 'experiment' a joke, and your response as well, considering you ignored the fact that I responded very specifically to one point - bolding mine:


sound recordings could also be measured and replayed to witnesses such as morelli, david, etc and they could say if the sound was different or louder etc.
a dummy could be positioned in the same position as morelli and we could observe if it is thrown to the ground by the explosion caused by jet fuel.


Also, an 8 story building will never accurately represent what happened in the towers.

[thewholesoul]

My bolding above indicates to me one of the sources of your confusion.

Slip past and airtight elevator.

Ok so according to you the jet fuel cannot pass the elevator. Good i am glad we cleared that up and i happen to agree with you. Mackey also agrees with you he states post #119
There is no requirement (for jet fuel) to get past the elevators.

But as i shall explain below there are logical implications in holding this position.

But first why are the elevator shafts important? According to grravy's post #360 Fuel poured down the shafts. ls this clear?

And as mackey submits post #214 NIST provided
Architectural diagrams identifying three large pathways from the impact zone to the basement

So the elevator shafts are vital to the fireball hypothesis because they provide the pathways by which the jet fuel travels down from the impact zone to the basement. The three large pathways i am assuming from diagrams in grravy’s paper are the #50 Main freight elevator shaft, #6 and #7 elevator shaft?

Q1 If jet fuel cannot pass the elevators then how do you explain mike pecorara’s testimony and the smell of kerosene in B6 given the fact that only car 50 and 6/7 reached the basment level 2-3? Could the smell have been created from the explosion of cars in the car park? Mike suggests this himself “I was thinking maybe a car fire was upstairs” and given that we know the car park was obliterated this seems to be a possible explanation.

Q2 if jet fuel cannot pass the elevators how do you intend to explain Ed McCabe’s testimony? He describes people injured, he could smell their “burnt flesh” and the wall in that room were turned to “rubble”. Now if the jet fuel cannot pass the elevator then what burnt their skin and turned the walls to rubble? If the elevators only reached B2-3 level then how could their skin get burnt on B4? According to Grravy’s paper they were injured because “several elevator pits ended there” but if the jet fuel cannot pass the elevators then how do you explain their injuries?

(a)if it was by a fireball then you have to explain how jet fuel can pass an elevator in an airtight shaft.
(b)If it was by heat then you have to explain how come the occupants of car #50 reported nothing about intense heat. They were not burnt either.

According to mackey post #119 eventhough he acknowledges that
We do not have a precise spot where ignition began
he states in post #127
I also speculate that the elevator impacts down below could very, very easily create electrical shorts -- this might explain why no fireballs were seen between the 45th floor and the basement

So mackey sepculates that when car #50 impacted below it could have created an electrical short which ignited a fireball. but if that is true then why were the occupants not burnt to cinders? Why did the emergency breaks of car #5o not ignite a fireball sooner?

Q3 If the jet fuel cannot pass the elevators then how do you explain Jose Sanchez’s testimony? He saw a fireball travel through the freight elevator at B4. but if the freight elevator stopped at B2or3 and jet fuel cannot pass the elevator then what produced the fireball he saw? Was it the “bomb” he reported hearing prior to the fireball? You have already pointed out that jet fuel cannot pass an elevator in an airtight shaft so please explain to me what created the fireball seen in B4?

Q4 if jet fuel cannot pass the elevators then how do you explain Hurseley Lever’s testimony? He was also in the B4 level and he saw a fireball. But if car 50, 6 and 7 went no further than B2-3 and jet fuel cannot pass the elevator then what produced the fireball he saw? Was it the “bomb” that he reported hearing prior to the fireball?

Q5 If jet fuel cannot pass the elevators then how do you explain morelli’s testimony? He was thrown to the floor by an explosion and then he heard the elevator car #50 falling “you hear that (freight elevator) coming towards you”. This was “followed by blasts of intense heat”. So we know it wasnt the elevator impact that caused the explosion he heard or the intense heat because it had not impacted yet. Mackeys speculation behind the causation behind the first explosion experienced by morelli must logically be disgarded because morelli heard an explosion before the elevator impacted creating an electrical short to ignite the fireball. So what caused the explosion that threw morelli to the ground? If it wasnt a fireball produced from the elevator impact could it have been the result of an explosive?

So the main idea here is that if jet fuel cannot pass an elevator in an airtight shaft and if the elevators 50, 6 and 7 only reached level B2 -3. then how can we explain what people in the lower levels B4 in particular experienced? From their testimony they claim that walls were turned to rubble, people’s skin or hair was burnt, some were thrown to the floor, the ground and walls were shaking and ALL (except McCabe) reported hearing an explosion or bomb prior to a fireball, thick white smoke, or elevator falling.

Either jet fuel could pass the elevator and cause this phenomena or it cannot. If it can i would appreciate any explantions people would have as to how it can slip past the elevators in an airtight shaft. And if it cannot then the fireball witnessed by some in B4 was cuased by something else – perhaps explosives.

[thewholesoul]

I find your 'experiment' a joke.

Also, an 8 story building will never accurately represent what happened in the towers.

look i am just imaging different kinds of experiments that could be used to prove the offical hypothesis. i dont hear you coming up with any ideas as how to the official hypothesis could be proven through experimentation. have you got an imagination at all?

why will an 8 storey building built exactly to scale not accurately represent what happened in the towers that day. you cant just disagree with something and then provide no reasons for you disagreement.

i do take your point about the sound recordings. hearing something from a recording and actually experiencing the sound can be quite different however you have not offered any reasons why photos and damage to the structure could not be analysised from a planned explosion of 28kg of jet fuel.

[T.A.M.]

so by your line of thinking, every time we have a plane crash, or an arson, then another plane should be crashed, another building burned, in order to make sure the first ones occured as we suspect?

Modeling disasters in real world, with full or even partial models is just insane. It does not happen. When a fire occurs, and arson investigator assesses the scene, collects evidence, and reaches a conclusion.

When a plane crashes, investigators are on scene, they investigate, collect data, analyze, and reach conclusions.

NIST went beyond this and did perform some testing on building assemblies. They created gigantic and complex computer models. They performed numerous tests, and all of these things led them to their conclusions...

Once again, the idea of modeling the collapses in anything but a computer are absolutely ridiculous.

TAM:)

[thewholesoul]

heres anotehr idea chillzero - after exploding the 28kg of jet fuel we could compare the seismic results with the seismic results we already have for the morning of september 11th. if 28kg produces a bigger spike then we could conclude that 28kg is too much.

if scientists can imagine ways to prove the big bang theory and the creation of our universe through observing predictions i am sure mankind could come up with someway to experiment and prove the fireball hypothesis.

what bugs me is the resistance to proving your own hypothesis!! you should be supporting ways to prove your hypothesis not claiming it cannot or should not be done. if a hypothesis is neither verifiable or falsifiable through observation you do know it is nolonger in the realm of science but of fairytales and ghost whisperers?

[funk de fino]

the wholesoul

If an elevator shaft was airtight the elevator would not be able to move up and down

please rethink your posting

[T.A.M.]

the wholesoul

If an elevator shaft was airtight the elevator would not be able to move up and down

please rethink your posting

exactly...
PS:
and getting stuck in the elevator for longer than a few minutes might be fatal...

TAM:)

[DGM]

Thewholesoul:
English is not your native language is it? I suggest you have someone with a little better comprehension of the language reread the posts your quoting. Your not understanding very well.

Just a little helpful advice.

[chillzero]

what bugs me is the resistance to proving your own hypothesis!! you should be supporting ways to prove your hypothesis not claiming it cannot or should not be done.

My hypothesis? What exactly is my hypothesis? What assumptions are you making here?

Also, are you psychic, or do you just think that I am? Why make commetns such as:


besides why werent you objecting when a member of this forum says he was going to ring morelli (!!!) and ask him questions about that day?? you are obviously displaying double standards for the members in this forum.

and also:

how come grravy can say why dont you ring them up all the time and when i suggest that some witnesses can be used to analysis results of an experiment you all of a sudden jump down my throat assuming the moral high ground? you should think about that.
<snip>

as for the additional trauma - again where was your concern for the welfare of morelli when people in this forum - that you moderate - openly declared he was going to ring him up!!


1 - I didn't jump down anyone's throat. I suggested it might be inconsiderate to replay sounds of a traumatic event to the victims of that event, just to dismiss some mad theory that has no basis in reality.

2 - Have you reported any comments Gravy made that you feel should be addressed? Have you any evidence that I have acted - as a moderator - in an inconsistent manner? If you have, please start a thread in the Forum Management section to identify it.

3 - Where was my concern for the welfare of morelli? I ask again - do you think I'm psychic? I have no idea what you are talking about. Or perhaps you believe that you are psychic, to have such an insight into my thoughts and motives?

[thewholesoul]

so by your line of thinking, every time we have a plane crash, or an arson, then another plane should be crashed, another building burned, in order to make sure the first ones occured as we suspect?

ideally yes, but in reality the sensationalist methods you describe above are not feasible. if it cannot be achieved through such sensationalist methods then some kind of experimentation can and should be devised. but not all arsons or plane crashes are nearly as controversial or mysterious as 911 and so do not merit the whole nine yards. because 911 was such a historical precedent i believe that every effort should be taken to test and prove the offical hypothesis.

Modeling disasters in real world, with full or even partial models is just insane. It does not happen. When a fire occurs, and arson investigator assesses the scene, collects evidence, and reaches a conclusion. When a plane crashes, investigators are on scene, they investigate, collect data, analyze, and reach conclusions

so modelling disasters with full or even partial models IS INSANE...that means the crowd at NIST and underwriters labratory are a bunch of nuts - can you imagine they even reconstructed scale models of a floor, its trusses with fireproofing etc and exposed them to a kerosene fire?? the outrage, these scientists experimenting with partial models trying to prove their hypothesis and understand the disaster of 911 should all be in staright-jackets!!

as you wisely point out while an investigator will "assess the scene, collect evidence and data, analyse it and reach a conclusion" it is the scientist who takes that conclusion or working hypothesis and proves it through experimentation.

NIST went beyond this and did perform some testing on building assemblies. They created gigantic and complex computer models. They performed numerous tests, and all of these things led them to their conclusions....

were those building assemblies full or EVEN PARTIAL MODELS?? congratualtions you just contradicted yourself.

look i have no problem with computer models but as i explained in a previous post the results will be influenced by the values we punch into the computer. consequently dr.greenings computer model will have an entirely different outcome to dr ross's computer model.

if you are so confident with computer models how would you feel if the scholars for 911 truth were responsible for it. this is exactly how i feel when government sponsored NIST are incharge of the computer modelling.

yes they perfomred numerous tests i welcome that but as you well know they did not test or prove progressive collapse. their investigation stopped at the point of initial collapse. so i want to see more tests to prove their own hypothesis of how progressive collapse was inevitable. if it is inevitable it should be reproducable and demonstratable through observation of something other than a computer model.

furthermore i have not heard of any experiments proving the fireball hypothesis. that jet fuel can travel down 90+floors and explode in the basement B2 -B3 level and do it again in the south tower despite the plane impacting lower and the jet fuel had subsequently a shorter distance to travel down and aerate.

it is not beyond the realms of possibility to construct just an identical elevator shaft to the height of the south tower below impact zone (50-60 floors high). and drop the jet fuel with an ignition intentionally placed at the b2-3 level. if the official hypothesis is true it will explode and deflagalate at least once in a 100 trials.

we can determine also through a simple experiment how the jet fuel can pass an elevator in an airtight shaft fairly easily. and given that fireballs were witnessed in b4 level below the freight elevator and 6 and 7. then we must conclude that jet fuel can pass the elevator - so lets find out how through experimentation.

the seismic recordings of exploding 28kg can be compared with the ones we already have. we can build an eight storey building with identical features as the twin towers - if you consider the amount of money spent of making a nuclear bomb or missile i feel that allocating the money from one weapon of mass destruction and redistributing it in pursuit of the truth behind 911 is well worth it. dont you?

Once again, the idea of modeling the collapses in anything but a computer are absolutely ridiculous

once again you are contradicting yourself my firend. if testing partial or full models is insane then NIST and underwriters are insane for doing precisely that. if it is ridiculous to model the collapse other than through computers then NIST are behaving ridiculous becuase that is precisely what they have been doing - in addition to - computer simulation.

it is important to note that computer modelling is not the only way to experiment or prove a theory...i am not even sure if it qualifies as an experiment because it does not occur and is not observed in the REAL world. scientists do not experiment on yeast cells, fruit flies and lab rats through computer modelling and simulations that would be absurd. bombs are tested by exploding them in the REAL world not through computer simulation.

again like chillzero we have another person with a cronic shortage of imagination. can you seriously not imagine a way as to prove, test, verify, or falsify your own hypothesis? if thats what your telling me then your belief that the offical hypothesis is true is within the realm of flying pigs and lepracons.

i agree and welcome that NIST and underwriters have many disparate tests upon the structural steel and fireproofing...i merely want to see more tests...i do not understand the resistence to more testing in this forum, the defeatist attitude that says it cannot be done, or if it can be done then it should not be done.

if you want to know the truth, if you want to prove your hypothesis then you should support experimentation to prove your hypothesis. if you do not beleive we can or should prove your hypothesis then how can you expect me or anyone esle to believe it is true? more to the point why do you beleive it is true if the scientfic method has not be applied to every aspect of the offical hypothesis, namely - the progressive collapse and the fireball theory etc

[chillzero]

again like chillzero we have another person with a cronic shortage of imagination.


Don't single me out again, especially with such a ridiculous argument.

[Totovader]

hey totovader,

the way i see it is this. over 20 or so witness testimony in the vasement reported hearing an explosion. elsewhere that day in the building numerous people reported explosions in the building aswell as fireballs.

so the question in relation to the basement testimony is were these explosions caused by explosives or a fireball. admitedly those who claim they were explosives have little evidence. we can point to structural damage and the testimony. unfortunately the vast majority steel samples that could of been tested (INDEPENDENTLY) were removed from the crime scene.

on the other hand there is an abundance of evidence supporting the fireball hypothesis. we have testimony, and the damage to the building is also explained by the fireballs.

but i beleive in the scientific method. that is observation, hypothesis, prediction and experiment. i beleive experiments should be carried out in order for the official hypothesis to prove itself. to date no experimnets past the collapse initiation have been carried out by NIST. no experiment has been carried out to demonstrate that 28kg of jet fuel will produce the result some in this forum have predicted it would do.

no experiment has been carried out on a steel frame building 8 stories high with the same design parameters of the basement. until such an experiment has been conducted i will not be convinced by any hypothesis unless it proves itself to be true.

now as expected even the suggestion that an experiment should be carried out in order to prove the official hypothesis has met resistance.
1) it cant be done: although i doubt it ever will be done, it is not by no means beyond the realm of possibility to build an 8 story structure with the same scale as the the north tower.
2) its too expensive: well the military spends millions on developing bombs then they test them to see if they works. moreover the amount of money spent by past governments investigating JFK or shuttle disasters dwarfs the money they invested when investigating 911. besides i am sure there are cheaper ways to conduct experiments.
3) it would be immoral: experimention of the the jet fuel hypothesis does not mean that the victims must necessarily be involved. it they did choose to participate in analysis of results then fine.
4) experiment using a computer simulation: i wouldnt object to a computer simulation in addition to real life experimnets. But the problem with computer simulations is that the values are programmed into the computer, for example imagine the differences in results if Ross’s calculations and not Greening’s were applied in a computer simulation of the progressive collapse.

Frankly you guys should be jumping at the chance at proving your hypothesis, you should be supporting all forms of experimentation. The fact that 6 years has past without some kind of experimnet to prove the official theory of the progressive collapse says a lot to me.

The problem i have with the fireball explanation concerning David’s testimony is how could the jet fuel get past the elevator? Mackey provides a good hypothesis. But i would like to see an elevator shaft being built 90+ floors high to the exact scale of the north tower with elevators etc. Then drop x amount of jet fuel and purposely have an ignition point at the b2 or b3 area and then simply watch to OBSERVE if the jet fuel will explode into a fireball before the falling elevator. If it does not work, then try it again. Only through proving a hypothesis through experimentation will i be convinced of the truth of the official hypothesis. This is a rational criteria to believe in something.

AMAZING job of dodging the question.

[thewholesoul]

the wholesoul If an elevator shaft was airtight the elevator would not be able to move up and down, please rethink your posting

i was responding to i LASHL who suggested to ME that jet fuel cannot pass an elevator in an airtight shaft. mackey aslo suggested the same when he said in post #119 that "There is no requirement (for the jet fuel) to "get past the elevators."

so if your asking me to reconsider i have no problem. but if i reconsider then so shoudl lashl and mackey.

as for you point i say lets experiment - read my post #794 - its a simple experimnet that could be conducted to observe exaclty how the jet fuel passes, in what quantity it passes, and in what time it passes.

if you have any objections to this experiment as to why it not possible or should not be done please let me know.

[thewholesoul]

AMAZING job of dodging the question.

glad you enjoyed toto i aim to please.

are you also saying that your hypothesis cannot or should not be proven??

hip hip for the scientific method eh??

if your question is was the explosion experineced by witnesses in the basment caused by exploives then my answer is it could have been.

next you are going to say well where is the evidence. i will say the testimony is evidence as for other forms of evidence i will post a reply to the reasons why it is in short supply.

now you answer my question: do you beleive that your hypothesis should be proven through experimentation? thats a yes or no.

[Totovader]

glad you enjoyed toto i aim to please.

are you also saying that your hypothesis cannot or should not be proven??

hip hip for the scientific method eh??

if your question is was the explosion experineced by witnesses in the basment caused by exploives then my answer is it could have been.

next you are going to say well where is the evidence. i will say the testimony is evidence as for other forms of evidence i will post a reply to the reasons why it is in short supply.

now you answer my question: do you beleive that your hypothesis should be proven through experimentation? thats a yes or no.

Like I said- your red herring is noted.

If you're not going to answer the question, you're not going to help your case.

Can you explain why computer modeling of collapses or building structures is insufficient?

I want to see you try and claim that the entire science of structural engineering is invalid.

This should be good.

[thewholesoul]

My hypothesis? What exactly is my hypothesis? What assumptions are you making here?

if you do not have a hypothesis pertaining to the events that occured in the wtc basement well whats the point in posting in this forum? I am assuming you do not agree with the hypothesis that the explosions in the basement were the result of explosives? If that is true then your hypothesis is (a) plane impact (debunked) or (b) fireball (unproven). If it is something else please outline what that is so we engage in a fruitful dialogue.

Also, are you psychic, or do you just think that I am?

Yes i am psychic, and i am sensing right now that this response irritates you.

I didn't jump down anyone's throat. I suggested it might be inconsiderate to replay sounds of a traumatic event to the victims of that event, just to dismiss some mad theory that has no basis in reality.

I know thats what you suggested my point was why didnt you make the same suggestion to others in this forum

You really give a damn, brasil, don't you? Your country's trying to kill you and you won't even make a phone call.


thewholesoul, why don't you contact Mr. Morelli to get a more detailed account? Will you? While you're at it, you can ask him if he thinks there were bombs placed in the basement that detonated before flight 11 hit.

If I undertake to call him and ask him about this to "save [you] the price of an international phone call", will you accept my report of the ensuing conversation as accurate?

Heh. (reffering to me) The "truth" isn't worth the price of an international phone call to you. Nice. :rolleyes:

My point was if you object to my proposal that we could replay sound recordings or present photos of the experiment to victims who consented to help in the analysis of results because it is inconsiderate and traumatic – where was your moral conscience when the above members proposed ringing up the victims and questioning them about that day.

This in my view was and is a double standard. Unless that is you disagree with the above members for the same reason you disagreed with my proposal. But because you never mentioned that reason to them – i have no idea if that is what you feel. And until you do respond to them and argue that ringing up the victims is inconsiderate and maybe traumatic then i am fully entitled to describe your behaviour as demonstarting a double standard.

“besides why werent you objecting when a member of this forum says he was going to ring morelli (!!!) and ask him questions about that day?? you are obviously displaying double standards for the members in this forum”


Have you reported any comments Gravy made that you feel should be addressed? Have you any evidence that I have acted - as a moderator - in an inconsistent manner? If you have, please start a thread in the Forum Management section to identify it.

I couldnt be bothered to tell you the truth. If i did report grravy for encouraging other people to ring victims i would then be a hipocrite because i propose that victims should be asked whether they wish to help analyse the results of an experimnet recreating that day. I try not to apply double standards.


Where was my concern for the welfare of morelli? I ask again - do you think I'm psychic? I have no idea what you are talking about. Or perhaps you believe that you are psychic, to have such an insight into my thoughts and motives?

Read the posts above calling for members of this forum to contact victims. I dont expect you to be psychic but i do expect that you read the postings in this forum that YOU moderate.

[thewholesoul]

Don't single me out again, especially with such a ridiculous argument.

hey you should try my position i am the only one in here arguing against the official hypothesis. so syop whinning. (oh it sure feels good to use that phrase)

ok lets assume you have an imagination please devise one experiment that could verify or falsify the offical hypothesis.

[Slayhamlet]

No, your experiment is preposterous and has nothing to do with the scientific method.

Are you talking about this white smoke (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMGhgnrAINQ)?

thewholesoul?

[A W Smith]

jeeze where do I begin. First off. Your air tight elevators

Where do the counterweights and cable loops go when an elevator rises? out the side of the building? Or alongside the elevator in the same shaft? Did you know that the weight of the cable alone if not compensated for in bypassed loop slings of counterweights that the elevator cab when rising toward the top would rocket out the top of the shaft from the weight of the cable slack if not compensated for?

secondly.. your "scale model" fallacy

Troofers fail to grasp the problem of scale. Lets dumb this down to child level physics, (http://www.ftexploring.com/think/superbugs_p2.html) take the insect analogy. An ant if scaled up to human size would not be able to lift its limbs let alone five times its body weight.

The scaling problem of fire
Combustion in a small box does not behave in the same manner as combustion in a large room. This problem can be demonstrated as simply as lighting a match to a half O model train scale balsa wood house. compare the flame pattern and size to that of full scale house fires which I am certain everyone has witnessed.

I find it laughable when troofers claim the collapse violates physics when there they go building hardware cloth and construction paper models in attempts to demonstrate something they cannot understand. The only thing they demonstrate is that they know nothing of everyday common laymen level physics. There is a segment of the general population who simply cannot visualize things. In my field I bring blueprints to some people who cannot grasp or see elevations that are before them on paper. Its like if you showed them a photo of their uncle Ed and they didn't recognize him until he walked in the door.

[thewholesoul]

Like I said- your red herring is noted.

If you're not going to answer the question, you're not going to help your case.

Can you explain why computer modeling of collapses or building structures is insufficient?

I want to see you try and claim that the entire science of structural engineering is invalid.

This should be good.

you answer my question first. i am not playing your little game. if you think that computer simulation is sufficient for PROVING progressive collapse and the fireball in the basement hypothesis then YOU PRESENT YOUR CASE.

if you read my previous posts i have presented several reasons why i would be sceptical of a computer simulation. try addressing them first - are they invalid reasons - then explain why you think they are invalid.

i also stated that i would not object to simulations but i would like simulations in addition to real life experimnets on partal modelling. i ahve also presented some ideas for experiments regardingt the fireball hypothesis. read them and get back to me amigo.

[chillzero]

Read the posts above calling for members of this forum to contact victims. I dont expect you to be psychic but i do expect that you read the postings in this forum that YOU moderate.

I don't have time to read each and every post in every thread. That's why we have the report function. As I said - take it to forum mgt if you have any evidence of double standards.

The world isn't as black and white as you seem to believe it to be, and I don't propose any hypothesis of my own. That's what I pointed out to you. You should stop making assumptions about what other people think, believe, read and do.

I would suggest you would be better placed to stop sidestepping totovader, and Slayhamlet, and give them decent responses to the posts they have taken time to put to you.

[Alt+F4]

if you read my previous posts i have presented several reasons why i would be sceptical of a computer simulation.

Well the millions of truthers out there should all contribute $5 each to pay for a new investigation free of government interference. With all this money the truthers won't have to rely on computer simulations, they'll have enough money to buy a 757 and crash it into a large building they'll also buy.

I'm looking forward to it.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

If you were involved in a rather serious car accident and, years later, your insurance company came to you with a recording of a recreation they put together and asked you if it sounded like the accident you were involved in, what would you answer? Could you answer?

[thewholesoul]

I don't have time to read each and every post in every thread. That's why we have the report function. As I said - take it to forum mgt if you have any evidence of double standards. .

like i said i wouldnt be bothered. look your a great moderator the best i have ever seen - does that make you feel better?

The world isn't as black and white as you seem to believe it to be, .

well i suggest you stop making assumptions about what otehr people think, beleive and do.


and I don't propose any hypothesis of my own. That's what I pointed out to you. .

nobody is proposing a hypothesis of their own in this room, havent you noticed?
You should stop making assumptions about what other people think, believe, read and do..

i do try.


I would suggest you would be better placed to stop sidestepping totovader, and Slayhamlet, and give them decent responses to the posts they have taken time to put to you.

i respect your biased opinion i wished totovader would answer some of my questions for a change. i give him a yes or no question and he replys with a question for me. thats sidestepping. if you beleive my responses are poor then read totovader offically debunked - you know he actually believed that teh explosion experienced by the witnesses's in the absement was cuased by the plane impacting 90+floors above.

i too spent time in writing responses but i suppose totovaders time is more valuable than mine.

anyways have a merry christmas each and all...i will be back in a few days or so with a dreadful hangover. :)

[thewholesoul]

If you were involved in a rather serious car accident and, years later, your insurance company came to you with a recording of a recreation they put together and asked you if it sounded like the accident you were involved in, what would you answer? Could you answer?

ridiculous comment.

NIST and underwritings labraotories ARE conducting experiments to prove their hypothesis. i want to see more experiments. dont you?

if the man was injured because the car crashed then that experiment has been carried out tested perhaps a million times with crash test dummys.

i already distanced myself from the sound recordings being replayed to a witnesses. go read my past posts.

why dont you mention the other experiments i proposed? can you present an experiment yourself that could verify or falsify your own hypothesis - or are you yet another victim of lack of imagination in this room?

[thewholesoul]

Well the millions of truthers out there should all contribute $5 each to pay for a new investigation free of government interference. With all this money the truthers won't have to rely on computer simulations, they'll have enough money to buy a 757 and crash it into a large building they'll also buy.

I'm looking forward to it.

funny.

that would be a sight.

[tsig]

ideally yes, but in reality the sensationalist methods you describe above are not feasible. if it cannot be achieved through such sensationalist methods then some kind of experimentation can and should be devised. but not all arsons or plane crashes are nearly as controversial or mysterious as 911 and so do not merit the whole nine yards. because 911 was such a historical precedent i believe that every effort should be taken to test and prove the offical hypothesis.



so modelling disasters with full or even partial models IS INSANE...that means the crowd at NIST and underwriters labratory are a bunch of nuts - can you imagine they even reconstructed scale models of a floor, its trusses with fireproofing etc and exposed them to a kerosene fire?? the outrage, these scientists experimenting with partial models trying to prove their hypothesis and understand the disaster of 911 should all be in staright-jackets!!

as you wisely point out while an investigator will "assess the scene, collect evidence and data, analyse it and reach a conclusion" it is the scientist who takes that conclusion or working hypothesis and proves it through experimentation.



were those building assemblies full or EVEN PARTIAL MODELS?? congratualtions you just contradicted yourself.

look i have no problem with computer models but as i explained in a previous post the results will be influenced by the values we punch into the computer. consequently dr.greenings computer model will have an entirely different outcome to dr ross's computer model.

if you are so confident with computer models how would you feel if the scholars for 911 truth were responsible for it. this is exactly how i feel when government sponsored NIST are incharge of the computer modelling.

yes they perfomred numerous tests i welcome that but as you well know they did not test or prove progressive collapse. their investigation stopped at the point of initial collapse. so i want to see more tests to prove their own hypothesis of how progressive collapse was inevitable. if it is inevitable it should be reproducable and demonstratable through observation of something other than a computer model.

furthermore i have not heard of any experiments proving the fireball hypothesis. that jet fuel can travel down 90+floors and explode in the basement B2 -B3 level and do it again in the south tower despite the plane impacting lower and the jet fuel had subsequently a shorter distance to travel down and aerate.

it is not beyond the realms of possibility to construct just an identical elevator shaft to the height of the south tower below impact zone (50-60 floors high). and drop the jet fuel with an ignition intentionally placed at the b2-3 level. if the official hypothesis is true it will explode and deflagalate at least once in a 100 trials.

we can determine also through a simple experiment how the jet fuel can pass an elevator in an airtight shaft fairly easily. and given that fireballs were witnessed in b4 level below the freight elevator and 6 and 7. then we must conclude that jet fuel can pass the elevator - so lets find out how through experimentation.

the seismic recordings of exploding 28kg can be compared with the ones we already have. we can build an eight storey building with identical features as the twin towers - if you consider the amount of money spent of making a nuclear bomb or missile i feel that allocating the money from one weapon of mass destruction and redistributing it in pursuit of the truth behind 911 is well worth it. dont you?



once again you are contradicting yourself my firend. if testing partial or full models is insane then NIST and underwriters are insane for doing precisely that. if it is ridiculous to model the collapse other than through computers then NIST are behaving ridiculous becuase that is precisely what they have been doing - in addition to - computer simulation.

it is important to note that computer modelling is not the only way to experiment or prove a theory...i am not even sure if it qualifies as an experiment because it does not occur and is not observed in the REAL world. scientists do not experiment on yeast cells, fruit flies and lab rats through computer modelling and simulations that would be absurd. bombs are tested by exploding them in the REAL world not through computer simulation.

again like chillzero we have another person with a cronic shortage of imagination. can you seriously not imagine a way as to prove, test, verify, or falsify your own hypothesis? if thats what your telling me then your belief that the offical hypothesis is true is within the realm of flying pigs and lepracons.

i agree and welcome that NIST and underwriters have many disparate tests upon the structural steel and fireproofing...i merely want to see more tests...i do not understand the resistence to more testing in this forum, the defeatist attitude that says it cannot be done, or if it can be done then it should not be done.

if you want to know the truth, if you want to prove your hypothesis then you should support experimentation to prove your hypothesis. if you do not beleive we can or should prove your hypothesis then how can you expect me or anyone esle to believe it is true? more to the point why do you beleive it is true if the scientfic method has not be applied to every aspect of the offical hypothesis, namely - the progressive collapse and the fireball theory etc

You are swinging wildly and becoming more and more incoherent.

Why should anybody try to prove anything to you. You Know What Happened.

[Slayhamlet]

Can you answer my question, please, thewholesoul? Is this the white smoke (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMGhgnrAINQ) you were talking about in post #756 "rising from the basement in youtube videos"?

[thewholesoul]

You are swinging wildly and becoming more and more incoherent.

Why should anybody try to prove anything to you. You Know What Happened.

hey chilezero notice how this gentlemen presented a really insightful response.

do you believe in the scientific method? yes or no?

NIST has been and will continue to condut experiments to prove theis hypothesis.

NIST to date has not proven through experiment the progressive collapse or the fireball hypothesis.

i think they should prove these particular aspects included in their overall their hypothesis.

dont you? dont you think the official hypothesis should be proven.

and what bias, the post you are responding to clearly points out that a contradiction was made. yet you brush past that and come in swinging and claiming i am incoherent.

why dont you present a case instead of this all too familiar counter punching approach? present a case as to why experiments can not or should not be conducted in order to prove the offical hypothesis. can you do that? if not your just wasting my time.

[thewholesoul]

Can you answer my question, please, thewholesoul? Is this the white smoke (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMGhgnrAINQ) you were talking about in post #756 "rising from the basement in youtube videos"?

sorry amigo, yes that is the white smoking i was reffering to.

now its your turn to explain to me why it could not possibly be the result of an explosive because white smoke is never produced from explosives. and you will make a rational and convincing effort in explaining your case - because the only possibility is the fireball scenario.

then i will say well why dont your prove your fireball hypothesis through experimentation.

then you will say no dont be ridiculous for no good reason. then i will say well how do you expect me to believe your very convincing hypothesis if you are not willing to even accept that it should be tested through experimentation according to the scientific method.

then you will say....??

[Alt+F4]

now its your turn to explain to me why it could not possibly be the result of an explosive because white smoke is never produced from explosives. and you will make a rational and convincing effort in explaining your case - because the only possibility is the fireball scenario.

I can explain it to you rationally and with convincing effort. My brother-in-law, employed for 20 years with the FDNY was a Fire Marshall (title for arson inspector in NYC) and he said there was no explosives. He worked the pile for 6 months begining on 9/11/01 and has a BS in Fire Science from CUNY/John Jay College.

[thewholesoul]

I can explain it to you rationally and with convincing effort. My brother-in-law, employed for 20 years with the FDNY was a Fire Marshall (title for arson inspector in NYC) and he said there was no explosives. He worked the pile for 6 months begining on 9/11/01 and has a BS in Fire Science from CUNY/John Jay College.

1 - i am not doubting your sincerity and the credentials of your borther-in-law but the vast majority of firefighters testimony contend that explosives or secondary devices were used in the building. so we have conflicting testimony that does not mean that explosives could not have possibly been planted in the building.

2 - the latter part of my post suggested that the fireball hypothesis be tested through experimentation. whats your views on that?

[T.A.M.]

ideally yes, but in reality the sensationalist methods you describe above are not feasible. if it cannot be achieved through such sensationalist methods then some kind of experimentation can and should be devised. but not all arsons or plane crashes are nearly as controversial or mysterious as 911 and so do not merit the whole nine yards. because 911 was such a historical precedent i believe that every effort should be taken to test and prove the offical hypothesis.

They are not sensationalist methods, they are simply not feasible, you and I know it. You called them "sensationalist" as a means of making me look like I was building a strawman, which I am not.


so modelling disasters with full or even partial models IS INSANE...that means the crowd at NIST and underwriters labratory are a bunch of nuts - can you imagine they even reconstructed scale models of a floor, its trusses with fireproofing etc and exposed them to a kerosene fire?? the outrage, these scientists experimenting with partial models trying to prove their hypothesis and understand the disaster of 911 should all be in staright-jackets!!

as you wisely point out while an investigator will "assess the scene, collect evidence and data, analyse it and reach a conclusion" it is the scientist who takes that conclusion or working hypothesis and proves it through experimentation.



were those building assemblies full or EVEN PARTIAL MODELS?? congratualtions you just contradicted yourself.

When I said "full or partial" models I was referring to the buildings as a whole (meaning to fully or partially reconstruct the skyscrapers)...


look i have no problem with computer models but as i explained in a previous post the results will be influenced by the values we punch into the computer. consequently dr.greenings computer model will have an entirely different outcome to dr ross's computer model.

This is incorrect. NIST's Models were based on data sets taken from evidence collected. Whether Greening puts in the values, or Ross, the facts are the facts, the values do not change...


if you are so confident with computer models how would you feel if the scholars for 911 truth were responsible for it. this is exactly how i feel when government sponsored NIST are incharge of the computer modelling.

Fine, have the "scholars" produce such a model, then allow others to verify their models (which I believe others did with the NIST models, but I am not certain). Jones should do the same with his Thermite Hypothesis (release his data and allow others to verify).


yes they perfomred numerous tests i welcome that but as you well know they did not test or prove progressive collapse. their investigation stopped at the point of initial collapse. so i want to see more tests to prove their own hypothesis of how progressive collapse was inevitable. if it is inevitable it should be reproducable and demonstratable through observation of something other than a computer model.

You well know they have explained on a number of occasions why they did not do this...if you have issue with this, complain to them.


furthermore i have not heard of any experiments proving the fireball hypothesis. that jet fuel can travel down 90+floors and explode in the basement B2 -B3 level and do it again in the south tower despite the plane impacting lower and the jet fuel had subsequently a shorter distance to travel down and aerate.

Why is that the responsibility of NIST. They were not a criminal/forensic investigating body. They were in charge of building performance.


it is not beyond the realms of possibility to construct just an identical elevator shaft to the height of the south tower below impact zone (50-60 floors high). and drop the jet fuel with an ignition intentionally placed at the b2-3 level. if the official hypothesis is true it will explode and deflagalate at least once in a 100 trials.

we can determine also through a simple experiment how the jet fuel can pass an elevator in an airtight shaft fairly easily. and given that fireballs were witnessed in b4 level below the freight elevator and 6 and 7. then we must conclude that jet fuel can pass the elevator - so lets find out how through experimentation.

the seismic recordings of exploding 28kg can be compared with the ones we already have. we can build an eight storey building with identical features as the twin towers - if you consider the amount of money spent of making a nuclear bomb or missile i feel that allocating the money from one weapon of mass destruction and redistributing it in pursuit of the truth behind 911 is well worth it. dont you?



once again you are contradicting yourself my firend. if testing partial or full models is insane then NIST and underwriters are insane for doing precisely that. if it is ridiculous to model the collapse other than through computers then NIST are behaving ridiculous becuase that is precisely what they have been doing - in addition to - computer simulation.

it is important to note that computer modelling is not the only way to experiment or prove a theory...i am not even sure if it qualifies as an experiment because it does not occur and is not observed in the REAL world. scientists do not experiment on yeast cells, fruit flies and lab rats through computer modelling and simulations that would be absurd. bombs are tested by exploding them in the REAL world not through computer simulation.

again like chillzero we have another person with a cronic shortage of imagination. can you seriously not imagine a way as to prove, test, verify, or falsify your own hypothesis? if thats what your telling me then your belief that the offical hypothesis is true is within the realm of flying pigs and lepracons.

i agree and welcome that NIST and underwriters have many disparate tests upon the structural steel and fireproofing...i merely want to see more tests...i do not understand the resistence to more testing in this forum, the defeatist attitude that says it cannot be done, or if it can be done then it should not be done.

if you want to know the truth, if you want to prove your hypothesis then you should support experimentation to prove your hypothesis. if you do not beleive we can or should prove your hypothesis then how can you expect me or anyone esle to believe it is true? more to the point why do you beleive it is true if the scientfic method has not be applied to every aspect of the offical hypothesis, namely - the progressive collapse and the fireball theory etc

Constructing an elevator shaft to stand freely at 50-60 storeys? That I would like to see...lol

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

1 - i am not doubting your sincerity and the credentials of your borther-in-law but the vast majority of firefighters testimony contend that explosives or secondary devices were used in the building. so we have conflicting testimony that does not mean that explosives could not have possibly been planted in the building.

2 - the latter part of my post suggested that the fireball hypothesis be tested through experimentation. whats your views on that?

The Bolded is an utter lie, and you should retract it, or prove that the MAJORITY of testimony from them indicate this.

I have read many, many testimony (over 100) from the fire fighters, and have found only one or two that even imply such a thing.

You are a liar for this, and you are pissing on their graves.

TAM:mad:

[T.A.M.]

you want a hypothesis proposed wholesoul...here...

I propose that someone on the 60th floor dropped a grenade down the elevator shaft, and it then exploded in the basement...

Now prove me wrong...prove me right...use full or partial models to do so...there you go.

TAM:)

[Alt+F4]

the vast majority of firefighters testimony contend that explosives or secondary devices were used in the building.

Sorry, but you're wrong. I'm from a firefighter family and have never, ever meet an FDNY member that thought it was anything other than the plane crashes. Besides my brother-in-law there were many other experienced Fire Marshalls there that day and afterwards. 347 of their members died, don't you think that if these professionals even suspected something other then the plane crashes they would have spoken up in a formal manner and demanded an investigation?

Keep in mind that FDNY members also said there was a bomb at Stuyvesant High School that morning, there wasn't.

[Slayhamlet]

sorry amigo, yes that is the white smoking i was reffering to.

now its your turn to explain to me why it could not possibly be the result of an explosive because white smoke is never produced from explosives. and you will make a rational and convincing effort in explaining your case - because the only possibility is the fireball scenario.

No, that white smoke is neither from a basement bomb nor burning jet fuel, but from a burning car (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qraALi7Flnc) well outside the WTC.

then i will say well why dont your prove your fireball hypothesis through experimentation.

then you will say no dont be ridiculous for no good reason. then i will say well how do you expect me to believe your very convincing hypothesis if you are not willing to even accept that it should be tested through experimentation according to the scientific method.

then you will say....??

Bizarre. I have no problem with experimentation done in accordance with the scientific method. The fact is your proposed experiment is seriously flawed due to your limited understanding of the event. That's all.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

now its your turn to explain to me why it could not possibly be the result of an explosive. . .


Because it's a burning car: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klgf3aMuczA

Edit: Bah. Slayhamlet beat me.

[thewholesoul]

They are not sensationalist methods, they are simply not feasible, you and I know it. You called them "sensationalist" as a means of making me look like I was building a strawman, which I am not.

well if you knew we both thought they were not feasible why then did you bother to post them? i never claimed that we should buld a full scale tower and crash a 747 into them. if thats not a strawman that what is?

When I said "full or partial" models I was referring to the buildings as a whole (meaning to fully or partially reconstruct the skyscrapers)...

you should have been clearer then when making your comments. and underwriters did build "partial" floor models of the trusses of wtc and tested it so i fail to see your point.

This is incorrect. NIST's Models were based on data sets taken from evidence collected. Whether Greening puts in the values, or Ross, the facts are the facts, the values do not change...

tell me how could a computer simulation prove the fireball hypothesis in the basement?

Fine, have the "scholars" produce such a model, then allow others to verify their models (which I believe others did with the NIST models, but I am not certain). Jones should do the same with his Thermite Hypothesis (release his data and allow others to verify).

i suppose funding is an issue, something that the scholars would lack. however i would love to see them produce a model and put it up for scrutiny.

i agree jones should release his data backing his thermite hypothesis.

You well know they have explained on a number of occasions why they did not do this...if you have issue with this, complain to them.

i do have issue and so should you. because NIST has only investigated and tested up until the initial collpase they have not tested the progressive global collapse or the fireball scenario hence the latter remains to be proven.

besides the families who had victims arent too pleased with their explanation 6 years after the event.

Why is that the responsibility of NIST. They were not a criminal/forensic investigating body. They were in charge of building performance.

well who then is responsible? if there is a government body responsible they should get to it.

Constructing an elevator shaft to stand freely at 50-60 storeys? That I would like to see...lol

i expected you would say something like this. of course in order to stand vertically it would require some form of support structure. becasue i did not mention the support struture does not mean that i suggested the evevator shaft should be free-standing. saying that i said it should stand freely is another strawman because i never siad it should stand freely.

look i am just looking for ideas of how your official hypothesis could be tested, verified or falsified. are you trying to saying that there is no possible way we can test the fireball theory? if that is what you are saying then your belief in the fireball hypothesis is metaphysical i.e. cannot be observed, measured, tested or proven.

given that the elevator shaft being 50-60 floors high is too incredulous for you perhaps we could make a scale model? when i suggested that a scale model be made for the twin towers someone pointed out that this would violate the scale laws. this was a fair and valid objection. but i am not sure the scale laws would apply to dropping jet fuel a certain height and observing if it will ignite below. so maybe a smaller model could be constructed. may be not?

so before you start laughing at my suggestions maybe you should use a little imagination and device an experiment that could verify the fireball hypothesis.
you are interested in proving your hypothesis right?

[Gravy]

1 - i am not doubting your sincerity and the credentials of your borther-in-law but the vast majority of firefighters testimony contend that explosives or secondary devices were used in the building.Some lies are just lies. This lie stinks.

thewholesoul, I've taken you off ignore so I'll see your retraction and apology.

[Belz...]

perhaps, so such an experiment should be open and transparent. if however it was carried out by an "independent" organisation, not a branch of the government then i guess that would satisfy many.

personally if the same results were achieved i would have no problem accepting them and arguing against the bombs in the basement hypothesis.

Alright, then.

Who would pay for this "experiment", then ?

[Belz...]

i think you missed my point. the theory or hypothesis that needs to be tested is THE OFFICIAL HYPOTHESIS which remains UNPROVEN because there has been no experiments that i know of which have demonstrated how jet fuel can travel down 90+floors of an air tight elevator shaft, pass the elevator, and then ignite causing a substantial degree of damage.

So, what you're saying is that, although everything ELSE is fine, the fact that the impact could have caused an incident in the lower levels sounds fishy to you, so like a good Hollywood movie investigator it now means that everything about the "theory" is wrong ?

[Belz...]

have you got an imagination at all?

No need. We've got reality to keep up company.

[thewholesoul]

Some lies are just lies. This lie stinks.

thewholesoul, I've taken you off ignore so I'll see your retraction and apology.

do hold your breath grravy - merry christmas!!

oh you have taken me off ignore - what a privilege!! do me a favour and put me back on ignore in that way you can satisfy your personality.

check out professor macqueens compilation of the oral histories of 118 firefighetrs it constitute about 12000 pages of testimony.

where's your oral testimony of the firefighters? i didnt find it in your paper. perhaps you need to do more research amigo :)

[CHF]

check out professor macqueens compilation of the oral histories of 118 firefighetrs it constitute about 12000 pages of testimony.

where's your oral testimony of the firefighters? i didnt find it in your paper. perhaps you need to do more research amigo :)

And how many of those 118 firefighters think there were controlled demolitions on 9/11?

I'd hate to think twoofers are making absurd assumptions on the FDNY's behalf.

[DGM]

do hold your breath grravy - merry christmas!!

oh you have taken me off ignore - what a privilege!! do me a favour and put me back on ignore in that way you can satisfy your personality.

check out professor macqueens compilation of the oral histories of 118 firefighetrs it constitute about 12000 pages of testimony.

where's your oral testimony of the firefighters? i didnt find it in your paper. perhaps you need to do more research amigo :)
link?

[Belz...]

1 - i am not doubting your sincerity and the credentials of your borther-in-law but the vast majority of firefighters testimony contend that explosives or secondary devices were used in the building. so we have conflicting testimony that does not mean that explosives could not have possibly been planted in the building.

Source ?

[thewholesoul]

jeeze where do I begin. First off. Your air tight elevators

Where do the counterweights and cable loops go when an elevator rises? out the side of the building? Or alongside the elevator in the same shaft? Did you know that the weight of the cable alone if not compensated for in bypassed loop slings of counterweights that the elevator cab when rising toward the top would rocket out the top of the shaft from the weight of the cable slack if not compensated for?

secondly.. your "scale model" fallacy

Troofers fail to grasp the problem of scale. Lets dumb this down to child level physics, (http://www.ftexploring.com/think/superbugs_p2.html) take the insect analogy. An ant if scaled up to human size would not be able to lift its limbs let alone five times its body weight.

The scaling problem of fire
Combustion in a small box does not behave in the same manner as combustion in a large room. This problem can be demonstrated as simply as lighting a match to a half O model train scale balsa wood house. compare the flame pattern and size to that of full scale house fires which I am certain everyone has witnessed.

I find it laughable when troofers claim the collapse violates physics when there they go building hardware cloth and construction paper models in attempts to demonstrate something they cannot understand. The only thing they demonstrate is that they know nothing of everyday common laymen level physics. There is a segment of the general population who simply cannot visualize things. In my field I bring blueprints to some people who cannot grasp or see elevations that are before them on paper. Its like if you showed them a photo of their uncle Ed and they didn't recognize him until he walked in the door.

are you saying it is impossible to build a scale model of the elevator? i am aware that there would be many logistical problems - as you explain - for example with the cables. but are they insurmountable problems? i beg to differ.

and if you can up with an idea for an experiment to verify your fireball hypothesis then do so. i would be happy to hear one. or are you saying it is impossible to verify your hypothesis through experimentation?

[thewholesoul]

link?

type in graeme macqueen oral testimony of firefighters in google. or go to youtube.

[AZCat]

are you saying it is impossible to build a scale model of the elevator? i am aware that there would be many logistical problems - as you explain - for example with the cables. but are they insurmountable problems? i beg to differ.

and if you can up with an idea for an experiment to verify your fireball hypothesis then do so. i would be happy to hear one. or are you saying it is impossible to verify your hypothesis through experimentation?

They are indeed insurmountable if your intention is to replicate the behavior of the original elevator and shaft with a scale model. It might not be a bad idea to read the Wiki article on similitude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Similitude_%28model%29) - it's not very long and it should demonstrate the difficulties of modeling.

Computer models are useful because we can test the physical relationships separate of the model and then program the equations into the simulation. Unfortunately there are still limitations, some because our computing power and storage capacity are finite and some because the systems are usually nonlinear (and highly so).

[thewholesoul]

The Bolded is an utter lie, and you should retract it, or prove that the MAJORITY of testimony from them indicate this.

I have read many, many testimony (over 100) from the fire fighters, and have found only one or two that even imply such a thing.

You are a liar for this, and you are pissing on their graves.

TAM:mad:

no need for vulgarity.

i pointed to 118 firefighters testimony compiled by professor macqueen. it his HIS conclusion that the vast majority of their testimony supports the hypothesis that explosives were used in the building not mine. so send him an email and call him a liar.

or maybe you want to call the firefighter's that claim explosives were used in the towers liars? in loose change final cut there is a firefighter at the end who swears that the damage in the lobby was not a result of a fireball. why dont you ring him uo and call him a liar, tough guy.:)

[thewholesoul]

you want a hypothesis proposed wholesoul...here...

I propose that someone on the 60th floor dropped a grenade down the elevator shaft, and it then exploded in the basement...

Now prove me wrong...prove me right...use full or partial models to do so...there you go.

TAM:)

well if your hypothesis was trying to prove that a grenade would explode down in the basement after you dropped it from the height of 60+ floors and it did explode well then you have successfully proved your hypothesis.

how about dropping some jet fuel down there and let us observe what will happen.

[DGM]

type in graeme macqueen oral testimony of firefighters in google. or go to youtube.
Your kidding right?

9/11 stundies article:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf

[CHF]

i pointed to 118 firefighters testimony compiled by professor macqueen. it his HIS conclusion that the vast majority of their testimony supports the hypothesis that explosives were used in the building not mine.

What about those 118 firefighters? Do they have any opinions on the matter?

I'm not aware of "FDNY for 911 truth."

[CHF]

in loose change final cut there is a firefighter at the end who swears that the damage in the lobby was not a result of a fireball. why dont you ring him uo and call him a liar, tough guy.:)

Would that be John Schroeder by any chance?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Edit: Dangit! DGM beat me. I'm slow today...

lol! I actually did look up this supposed list. It's a paper published in... *drumroll*... The Journal of 9/11 Studies. :rolleyes:

That says all anyone should need to know about it's legitimacy. But since thewholesoul seems to be a newbie to the Internet, here's the link to the PDF: http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf

I actually skimmed over the "testimonies" and in every one I saw, the firefighter mentions one, sometimes multiple explosions. I haven't yet come across any statements that mention explosives.

His conclusion does not appear to be supported by his own paper.

[A W Smith]

are you saying it is impossible to build a scale model of the elevator? i am aware that there would be many logistical problems - as you explain - for example with the cables. but are they insurmountable problems? i beg to differ.

and if you can up with an idea for an experiment to verify your fireball hypothesis then do so. i would be happy to hear one. or are you saying it is impossible to verify your hypothesis through experimentation?


For why? because a handful of people are incredulous? You know what verified the fireball hypothesis? when it happened again with flight 175 impact of the south tower. Hypothesis verified. We are done with ignorance lies and stupidity.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I also need to explicitly point MacQueens conclusions, because...

Conclusions

The two questions with which I began my research have now been answered:

(1) Griffin’s 31 witnesses to explosions in the FDNY oral histories are a subset of a much larger body of witnesses, which I have estimated as having 118 members.

(2) Support for non-explosive collapse is present in this material but is scarce. I have found ten witnesses.

I do not know whether the FDNY witnesses constitute a representative sample of 9/11 witnesses, but it is possible that they do. Certainly, there is no lack of testimony to explosions from those outside the FDNY,[38] and I see no obvious reason why firefighters and medics would be more prone than others to feel that they were witnessing explosions. If they constitute a representative sample, then a minimum of 23% of all witnesses to the Towers’ collapses appear to have perceived, or thought they perceived, explosions that brought down the Towers.

The implications of this for our understanding of September 11, 2001 are very, very serious.


...the "118 witnesses" is merely an estimate on MacQueen's part. He also fallaciously equates "explosion" with "explosives" in (2), which would significantly boost his numbers.

[thewholesoul]

Sorry, but you're wrong. I'm from a firefighter family and have never, ever meet an FDNY member that thought it was anything other than the plane crashes. Besides my brother-in-law there were many other experienced Fire Marshalls there that day and afterwards. 347 of their members died, don't you think that if these professionals even suspected something other then the plane crashes they would have spoken up in a formal manner and demanded an investigation?

Keep in mind that FDNY members also said there was a bomb at Stuyvesant High School that morning, there wasn't.

hey, i am sorry to hear that (seriously) 911 was a tradegy on an epic scale.

According to jim dywerof the new york times, the FDNY oral histories were “originally gathered on the order of Thomas Von Essen, the city fire commissioner on Sept 11th who said he wanted to preserve those accounts before they became reshaped by a collective memory”. The oral histroies constitute about 12000 pages of testimony by 503 FDNY firefighters, emergency medical technicians and paramedics collected from october 2001, to late january 2002

professor graeme macqueen came up with 10 accounts from the 503 testimonies from firefighters that did support the offical hypothesis. thats 2% out of the total. and he found 118 accounts that supported the explosion hypothesis.

it was for this reason that i claimed the vast majority of firefighter's testimony support the explosions hypothesis.

go to youtube EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY! / MacQueen NYFD 9/11 witnesses

you do know families who lost members are calling for a reinvestigation. what harm would a reinvestigation do, what do you personally have to loose if the request of these families for 911 truth is satisfied?

[CHF]

professor graeme macqueen came up with 10 accounts from the 503 testimonies from firefighters that did support the offical hypothesis. thats 2% out of the total. and he found 118 accounts that supported the explosion hypothesis.

I'm sorry son, but its 100% irrelevant what macqueen thinks.

What do the firefighters think?

Do you know? Do you care?

[thewholesoul]

No, that white smoke is neither from a basement bomb nor burning jet fuel, but from a burning car (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qraALi7Flnc) well outside the WTC. .

fine, you got me, it was a car. i knew i was being set up but in any case it doesnt prove the fireball hypothesis or remove the possibility that explosives were in the basement.

Bizarre. I have no problem with experimentation done in accordance with the scientific method. The fact is your proposed experiment is seriously flawed due to your limited understanding of the event. That's all.

great - progress made. ok i admit i am no structural engineer but if you could outline any ideas of how such an experiment could be undertaken then super, i have been trying to get one person to come up with an experiment.

[Gravy]

do hold your breath grravy - merry christmas!!

oh you have taken me off ignore - what a privilege!! do me a favour and put me back on ignore in that way you can satisfy your personality.

check out professor macqueens compilation of the oral histories of 118 firefighetrs it constitute about 12000 pages of testimony.

where's your oral testimony of the firefighters? i didnt find it in your paper. perhaps you need to do more research amigo :)You didn't even read the first page of my site. I''ll call the waaambulance for you, O fixéd star of ignorance.

What They Heard: WTC First Responder Accounts In and Around the Towers (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1997183&postcount=1)

You said

the vast majority of firefighters testimony contend that explosives or secondary devices were used in the building.

That is a nasty, ignorant lie. You can remain a nasty, ignorant liar, or you can become a rational adult and retract your statement.

Which path will you choose, thewholesoul?

[thewholesoul]

Alright, then.

Who would pay for this "experiment", then ?

of course i wouldnt pay, i am not american. i assume the american tax payer would pay. or a fund could be organised in a truth movement for such purposes.

how do you feel about paying taxes for the development of nuclear bombs?
after you pay for that it might even get used. of the two options i know where i would prefer my tax money to go.

[thewholesoul]

So, what you're saying is that, although everything ELSE is fine, the fact that the impact could have caused an incident in the lower levels sounds fishy to you, so like a good Hollywood movie investigator it now means that everything about the "theory" is wrong ?

everything else is not fine - the topic of this thread is to discuss witness testimony in the basement that corroborates with william rodriguez.

the impact of the plane hypothesis as a causal explanation behind the "explosion" over 20 witnesses experieneced in the basement on the morning of september 11th is not just fishy it is impossible . i have covered this already see my post #467 or #476 (cant remember which). if you have anyobjections to the 12 true statments please provide your reasons.

a far more plausibale hypothesis as compared to the plane imapcting 90+floors above is that the "explosion" in the basement was caused by a fireball.

i dont know if everything in the official theory is wrong. if it is right then prove it. only then will i be rationally satisfied of its truth.

[CHF]

the impact of the plane hypothesis as a causal explanation behind the "explosion" over 20 witnesses experieneced in the basement on the morning of september 11th is not just fishy it is impossible .

So why did they suffer BURNS as opposed to blast injuries?

[thewholesoul]

No need. We've got reality to keep us company.

personifying reality - how sane. maybe you should ask mr.reality if he misses mrs.imagination.

[Gravy]

or maybe you want to call the firefighter's that claim explosives were used in the towers liars? in loose change final cut there is a firefighter at the end who swears that the damage in the lobby was not a result of a fireball. why dont you ring him uo and call him a liar, tough guy.:)You may be the most incompetent person ever to post here.

An open letter to John Schroeder, formerly of FDNY Engine 10 (http://911stories.googlepages.com/anopenletter)– His conspiracist interviewers repeatedly fail to clear up his confusion, then use his confused story to try to support their claims.

[A W Smith]

of course i wouldnt pay, i am not american. i assume the american tax payer would pay. or a fund could be organised in a truth movement for such purposes.

how do you feel about paying taxes for the development of nuclear bombs?
after you pay for that it might even get used. of the two options i know where i would prefer my tax money to go.


Ok so you. who is not a citizen of the USA, is suggesting to me. a lifelong citizen born in the USA. where and how my tax dollars are to be spent? priceless. literally priceless. All in a quest for quelling the shouts of stupidity, ignorance and lies world wide.

http://www3.telus.net/paulbodine/stfu.jpg

[LashL]

Slip past and airtight elevator.

Ok so according to you the jet fuel cannot pass the elevator. Good i am glad we cleared that up and i happen to agree with you.

Whoosh! Way to completely misunderstand my point.

The point is that the hoistways were not airtight, and there was ample opportunity for fuel to spill down them, around the elevator cars.

As I said, and as you completely failed to grasp, your use of the terms "slip past" and "airtight elevator shafts" is one of the sources of your confusion.

[LashL]

i was responding to i LASHL who suggested to ME that jet fuel cannot pass an elevator in an airtight shaft. mackey aslo suggested the same when he said in post #119 that "There is no requirement (for the jet fuel) to "get past the elevators."

so if your asking me to reconsider i have no problem. but if i reconsider then so shoudl lashl and mackey.

No, no, no.

I was telling you that your repeated suggestions that the elevator shafts (hoistways) were airtight, and that fuel had to somehow "slip past" the elevator cars, was wrong.

Try reading for comprehension.

[DGM]

of course i wouldnt pay, i am not american. i assume the american tax payer would pay. or a fund could be organised in a truth movement for such purposes.

how do you feel about paying taxes for the development of nuclear bombs?
after you pay for that it might even get used. of the two options i know where i would prefer my tax money to go.
I'm an American tax payer and so far see no serious problems with the hundreds of investigations I've already paid for. Do you have some kind of compelling evidence that has not been looked into before. Now you want me to pay because you don't understand what you read?

Do you know how many investigations are still going on?

[thewholesoul]

And how many of those 118 firefighters think there were controlled demolitions on 9/11?

i dont know, perhaps you should ring them up and find out?

but not to give a smart answer, the reason Thomas Von Essen, the city fire commissioner, wanted to preserve those accounts was to avoid their accounts becaming reshaped by a collective memory.

it is quite possibly that the same firefighter's who thought that explosions were responsible for bringing the twin towers down now agree with the official explanation. but changing their minds does not remove the fact that in their oral testimonies they specifically reffered to having experienced explosions.

[DGM]

No, no, no.

I was telling you that your repeated suggestions that the elevator shafts (hoistways) were airtight, and that fuel had to somehow "slip past" the elevator cars, was wrong.

Try reading for comprehension.
English is not his primary language (I'm not sure what is) and it's becoming obvious that he doesn't understand the subtle nuances in the language.
*He really needs to ask and admit when he doesn't understand before he posts*.

* another friendly suggestion*

[A W Smith]

personifying reality - how sane. maybe you should ask mr.reality if he misses mrs.imagination.


here ya go this is reality. You are imagining the elevator shafts to be air tight

[CHF]

i dont know, perhaps you should ring them up and find out?

but not to give a smart answer, the reason Thomas Von Essen, the city fire commissioner, wanted to preserve those accounts was to avoid their accounts becaming reshaped by a collective memory.

it is quite possibly that the same firefighter's who thought that explosions were responsible for bringing the twin towers down now agree with the official explanation. but changing their minds does not remove the fact that in their oral testimonies they specifically reffered to having experienced explosions.

In other words, you're using FDNY testimony to prove a demolition even though you have no idea whether the FDNY in question even support that conclusion.

Rather dishonest of you, don't ya think?

[Slayhamlet]

here ya go this is reality. You are imagining the elevator shafts to be air tight

If you want to see something funny, do a Google search for "air-tight elevator". Half the results are from mindless twoofer drones repeating this idiotic meme. It's clear as day where thewholesoul gets his faulty information.

[T.A.M.]

thewholesoul:

1. You posted the comment about the firefighters as your own words. Only after the fact did you cop out and say it was McQueen. In future, if you are going to produce a comment that you (A) do not believe in, and/or (B) is not your own opinion, please post a link to the source, and indicate who the source is when you say it.

2. I have read the transcripts of many, many (easily over 100) of the firefighters and EMTs. I have read there "original testimonies" of the events. Of those I have read, only one or two have indicated the suspicion of "explosives" and/or "secondary devices". Now if you are dumb enough to make the leap from "explosion" to "explosive" then that is your problem, but for me, when a 110 storey skyscraper has just been hit by a jet airliner, I'd expect to hear many "explosions" without an "explosive" to be found.

TAM:)

[Belz...]

professor graeme macqueen came up with 10 accounts from the 503 testimonies from firefighters that did support the offical hypothesis. thats 2% out of the total. and he found 118 accounts that supported the explosion hypothesis.

it was for this reason that i claimed the vast majority of firefighter's testimony support the explosions hypothesis.

Soul, do you know the difference between explosions and explosives ?

[Belz...]

of course i wouldnt pay, i am not american. i assume the american tax payer would pay. or a fund could be organised in a truth movement for such purposes.

Nobody in the truth movement is willing to pay a cent to fund this "investigation", it seems. Says a lot about your dedication to the truth, doesn't it ?

how do you feel about paying taxes for the development of nuclear bombs?

I don't know how you could know that my taxes pay for the development of nuclear bombs. Would you care to elaborate ?

[Gravy]

TAM, check my post 859. None of the firefighters who described sounds like bombs or secondary devices think there were bombs or secondary devices. Most didn't know that what they were hearing was the collapse of south tower, because they couldn't see it.

"The vast majority?" To date, exactly one of the hundreds of firefighters on the scene have claimed they think explosive devices were involved: John Schroeder. And he didn't make that claim until 2007, after his positive test for cocaine use put his pension in jeopardy, and because the scumbag truthers who interviewed him didn't have the human decency to tell him that the south tower had fallen and caused the damage he saw.

thewholesoul is telling a despicable lie.

Despicable.

[T.A.M.]

Gravy:

Thanks...if memory serves it was someone, Cannot remember his name off the top, but he said something about "did you see that flash" to one of his comrades, who indicated that he had, and one of these two had said they thought secondary devices were used. It was a while ago, and may not have even been in the actual testimonies, but another article.

TAM:)

[Belz...]

the impact of the plane hypothesis as a causal explanation behind the "explosion" over 20 witnesses experieneced in the basement on the morning of september 11th is not just fishy it is impossible .

Based on what ? You admit that you are not a structural engineer, nor, I suspect, an engineer at all. So on what do you base your assertion that this would be impossible ?

if you have anyobjections to the 12 true statments please provide your reasons.

I don't know exactly the name of this fallacy -- somebody can fill me in -- but I like the fact that you called them "true" statements in the same sentence as asking me to name my objections to them.

a far more plausibale hypothesis as compared to the plane imapcting 90+floors above is that the "explosion" in the basement was caused by a fireball.

Fireballs don't cause explosions, chump. They're caused by them. Incendiaries, anyway.

i dont know if everything in the official theory is wrong. if it is right then prove it. only then will i be rationally satisfied of its truth.

Why don't you search "burden of proof" in google. Or, hey, try Youtube. You seem to like that place.

personifying reality - how sane. maybe you should ask mr.reality if he misses mrs.imagination.

The "missing the point" award medal has been shipped to your address. It should arrive within 4-6 weeks.

but not to give a smart answer, the reason Thomas Von Essen, the city fire commissioner, wanted to preserve those accounts was to avoid their accounts becaming reshaped by a collective memory.

What the hell is a "collective memory" ?

it is quite possibly that the same firefighter's who thought that explosions were responsible for bringing the twin towers down now agree with the official explanation. but changing their minds does not remove the fact that in their oral testimonies they specifically reffered to having experienced explosions.

Explosions WERE responsible for bringing the twin towers down. Did you miss those giant airplanes hitting the towers ?

[Gravy]

Gravy:

Thanks...if memory serves it was someone, Cannot remember his name off the top, but he said something about "did you see that flash" to one of his comrades, who indicated that he had, and one of these two had said they thought secondary devices were used. It was a while ago, and may not have even been in the actual testimonies, but another article.

TAM:)It occurred to many people that explosives could be involved: they were all trained to be wary of secondary devices. But no firefighter besides Schroeder has claimed, after the event, that he thinks bombs were involved. None. I've taken notes on over 14,000 pages of first responder accounts, in order to put them in context. You should read MacQueen's paper. He says he's deliberately taking the accounts out of context! Hell, in one I cite in my post above, the firefighter says nothing about explosions.

These people are such hideous creeps. And those who follow them blindly aren't much better.

Let's see if thewholesoul is adult enough to retract his despicable claim.

[Totovader]

you answer my question first. i am not playing your little game. if you think that computer simulation is sufficient for PROVING progressive collapse and the fireball in the basement hypothesis then YOU PRESENT YOUR CASE.

if you read my previous posts i have presented several reasons why i would be sceptical of a computer simulation. try addressing them first - are they invalid reasons - then explain why you think they are invalid.

i also stated that i would not object to simulations but i would like simulations in addition to real life experimnets on partal modelling. i ahve also presented some ideas for experiments regardingt the fireball hypothesis. read them and get back to me amigo.

What makes you think that you get to ignore my question and demand that I answer the question you asked after that instead?

How do you think this helps your case? It's obvious you're dodging the question.

[Belz...]

Totovader, of course WE have to prove our "theory" right. He's just asking questions, after all! :rolleyes:

[beachnut]

of course i wouldnt pay, i am not american. i assume the american tax payer would pay. or a fund could be organised in a truth movement for such purposes.

how do you feel about paying taxes for the development of nuclear bombs?
after you pay for that it might even get used. of the two options i know where i would prefer my tax money to go.
You can pay for it; but you better save your money for an education, you lack knowledge on all topic related to 9/11 and critical thinking.

Nukes, let me see. What does your country spend money on, it appears education is not a big deal.

Let me see, you want you money to go to another investigation until you get the outcome you want. Let me guess you are from the former Soviet Union and you want 10 more seconds on the clock until you win! Yes?

The buzzer sounded 6 years ago. Now after missing what happen on 9/11, you are trying to change the conclusion to match some fairytale made up by idiots. You are missing a bag of clues on 9/11, and now serve as a reminder we must continue to fund projects to educate people and make them rational humans and not dirt dumb like 9/11 truth believers tend to be on 9/11 issues.

Which witness was your post in reference to and how did you forget to support the claim with facts?

[Totovader]

Totovader, of course WE have to prove our "theory" right. He's just asking questions, after all! :rolleyes:

I'm still trying to figure out why:

1) The testing that NIST conducted and explained within the Report was insufficicent.

and

2) Why testing every single possiblility has to have some kind validity.



We didn't test for gnomes...

[LashL]

of course i wouldnt pay


That, in a nutshell, demonstrates quite succinctly the abject failure of the inaptly self-named "truth" movement to put its money where its mouth is.

[thewholesoul]

Ok so you. who is not a citizen of the USA, is suggesting to me. a lifelong citizen born in the USA. where and how my tax dollars are to be spent? priceless. literally priceless. All in a quest for quelling the shouts of stupidity, ignorance and lies world wide.

http://www3.telus.net/paulbodine/stfu.jpg



who do you think funded the investigation by NIST, FEMA and the 911 commission? your tax is has already been used - as for further investigation and experimentation the funding will again obviously come from american tax payers. that is you - not me, since i am non-american.

in order to PROVE your own hypothesis you will need to spend some more of your taxes. i suppose i could donate to a 911 truth movement if they intended to use such donations in an attempt to conduct independent experimentations.

[thewholesoul]

Nobody in the truth movement is willing to pay a cent to fund this "investigation", it seems. Says a lot about your dedication to the truth, doesn't it ?

assuming that the 911 commission, and the work by FEMA and NIST was funded by tax payer dollars then the truth movement have already contributed to investigating 911. all i am suggesting is that more investigation is required. whats wrong with that?

I don't know how you could know that my taxes pay for the development of nuclear bombs. Would you care to elaborate ?

how does the government generate money to pay for military equipment etc? do the politicians pay for the development of bombs out of their own pocket? how do you know that your taxes do not contribute to the development of a nuclear bomb?

[DGM]

who do you think funded the investigation by NIST, FEMA and the 911 commission? your tax is has already been used - as for further investigation and experimentation the funding will again obviously come from american tax payers. that is you - not me, since i am non-american.

in order to PROVE your own hypothesis you will need to spend some more of your taxes. i suppose i could donate to a 911 truth movement if they intended to use such donations in an attempt to conduct independent experimentations.
Why do we need to "PROVE your own hypothesis". Prove it to who? You, or a few conspiracy theorists on the internet. It's already been done unfortunately you missed it.

[JimBenArm]

NVM

[thewholesoul]

i will retract my statment concerning the firefighters as soon as totovader retracts his claim that the impact of a plane was responsible for the first explosion that Morelli described in his testimony.

the following are totovaders own words.

"Morelli's testimony coincides with the official account. His description of a first explosion is the plane impact, the second is the collapsing elevators and jet fuel explosions down the elevator shafts that other witnesses describe"

if others in this room are unable or unwilling to admit when they are wrong i see no reason why i should.

[JimBenArm]

i will retract my statment concerning the firefighters as soon as totovader retracts his claim that the impact of a plane was responsible for the first explosion that Morelli described in his testimony.

the following are totovaders own words.

"Morelli's testimony coincides with the official account. His description of a first explosion is the plane impact, the second is the collapsing elevators and jet fuel explosions down the elevator shafts that other witnesses describe"

if others in this room are unable or unwilling to admit when they are wrong i see no reason why i should.
How... mature! Yes, I won't admit I'm wrong unless he goes first! No, sir, I won't ever admit to error. Not up to me to set an example or behave properly unless someone else does it first!

No wonder I always picture these, uhm, children as just that.

[Totovader]

i will retract my statment concerning the firefighters as soon as totovader retracts his claim that the impact of a plane was responsible for the first explosion that Morelli described in his testimony.

the following are totovaders own words.

"Morelli's testimony coincides with the official account. His description of a first explosion is the plane impact, the second is the collapsing elevators and jet fuel explosions down the elevator shafts that other witnesses describe"

if others in this room are unable or unwilling to admit when they are wrong i see no reason why i should.

I have no idea what you're quoting- but as I already said several times- I concede to Morelli's testimony. I wasn't there. If there's support for his statements, especially.

Not sure what that has to do with your theory since you were NEVER able to answer that question- and your attempts to push me into a corner were simply a way of avoiding that fact...

Your attitude here is quite telling, however. You've avoided the issue throughout this entire thread- and now you're so close to admitting it that you have to hold your theory hostage.

It's incredible. Hopefully you take a minute and just realize how absolutely ridiculous you're being, here.


ETA: whole refuses to accept what has already been discussed (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3242633#post3242633)

[Belz...]

assuming that the 911 commission, and the work by FEMA and NIST was funded by tax payer dollars then the truth movement have already contributed to investigating 911. all i am suggesting is that more investigation is required. whats wrong with that?

What's wrong ? What's wrong is that you assume that this "new" investigation should be paid by... not you. Who, exactly, would pay for this ? I assume you're aware that it would come from taxpayers money, right ? But then, why should everyone pay for YOUR investigation ?

how does the government generate money to pay for military equipment etc? do the politicians pay for the development of bombs out of their own pocket? how do you know that your taxes do not contribute to the development of a nuclear bomb?

Mainly, because we don't develop nuclear weapons.

i will retract my statment concerning the firefighters as soon as totovader retracts his claim that the impact of a plane was responsible for the first explosion that Morelli described in his testimony.

So... you know your statement is wrong, but you'll keep it as a hostage ? How very mature.

[Belz...]

Your attitude here is quite telling, however. You've avoided the issue throughout this entire thread- and now you're so close to admitting it that you have to hold your theory hostage.

DAMMIT, toto! And here I thought I was being clever for using the word "hostage". Couldn't you have posted that an hour later ?

[twinstead]

That's okay, both of you came up with it before I could even make out how to spell "hostage"...

[Totovader]

DAMMIT, toto! And here I thought I was being clever for using the word "hostage". Couldn't you have posted that an hour later ?

Hah! Well, great minds think alike.

Hopefully that's a wake-up call to whole- I can't understand why anyone would act that way, except that he's pouting and trying to pit "the debunkers" against each other.

Pretty sad.

[thewholesoul]

What's wrong ? What's wrong is that you assume that this "new" investigation should be paid by... not you. Who, exactly, would pay for this ? I assume you're aware that it would come from taxpayers money, right ? But then, why should everyone pay for YOUR investigation ?

ask the families who lost loved ones that day and who call for a new investigation.



Mainly, because we don't develop nuclear weapons. so america does not develop nuclear weapons??



So... you know your statement is wrong, but you'll keep it as a hostage ? How very mature. i am waiting until totovader retracts his statment. i dont care what you or anyone else thinks.

[Totovader]

i am waiting until totovader retracts his statment. i dont care what you or anyone else thinks.

I linked to the relevant comments. If there was a statement for me to retract, it's been retracted by default. You only fall back on this when you're put in a corner and cannot resolve the contradictions in your statements on your own.

Obviously you do care what others think- because you're trying to pit us all against each other. I'm pretty sure there is not a rational person here who would have a problem pointing out that I'm wrong- and just in case there is, I would appreciate any corrections to any statements I have made.

It's important to note that you entirely avoided my question as to why it would be relevant as to the sequence of events. The link to that post shows the repeated attempts from me to get you to answer this question, and your incessant refusal to do so.

So, whole- let's have it.

[thewholesoul]

I have no idea what you're quoting- but as I already said several times- I concede to Morelli's testimony. I wasn't there. If there's support for his statements, especially.

Not sure what that has to do with your theory since you were NEVER able to answer that question- and your attempts to push me into a corner were simply a way of avoiding that fact...

Your attitude here is quite telling, however. You've avoided the issue throughout this entire thread- and now you're so close to admitting it that you have to hold your theory hostage.

It's incredible. Hopefully you take a minute and just realize how absolutely ridiculous you're being, here.

hahahahahah, the quote is your and i took it from our youtube conversation.

perhaps you have an idea of having a youtube dialogue? but i was not surprised that you cannot even admit your own words. so i guess it will a while before i retract my statment. first you have to recognise that the quote i posted was your own statment and then you will have to retract it.

heres the conversation again, maybe it will jog your fickle memory

i said "another corroborating testimony is from construction worker Phillip Morelli. he was below the "alleged" explosion in the basement. notice he describes two explosions separated by time in tower one".

then you said "No, Morelli's testimony coincides with the official account. His description of a first explosion is the plane impact, the second is the collapsing elevators and jet fuel explosions down the elevator shafts that other witnesses describe".

in this forum i have been arguing against this claim for ages and my final post against the claim the explosion was caused from the plane impact was post #476.

like i said i will retract my statment concerning the firefighters once totovader retracts his. and not a moment before. i just want to see can anyone in this room beside myself can admit when they were wrong.

as for your question about whether computer simulation is insufficient or not as an experiment, i will answer that in time since you prefer to counter punch and havent the fibre to present your own case for scutiny.

[SDC]

WS, you are as wrong and misguided as a person can be. And has been said many times, if you want a new investigation to prove your claims, go right ahead. Take up a collection. The existing investigations are satisfactory to practically everyone else.

As for Morelli, who knows? At this point, who can say? Why fret about it? Nothing in his recollections is important to any case.

And please learn to use your shift key. Whatever may be your first language, it probably makes use of it, or the equivalent, as well. To continue to post such illiterate messages is insulting.

[Totovader]

hahahahahah, the quote is your and i took it from our youtube conversation.

perhaps you have an idea of having a youtube dialogue? but i was not surprised that you cannot even admit your own words. so i guess it will a while before i retract my statment. first you have to recognise that the quote i posted was your own statment and then you will have to retract it.

heres the conversation again, maybe it will jog your fickle memory

i said "another corroborating testimony is from construction worker Phillip Morelli. he was below the "alleged" explosion in the basement. notice he describes two explosions separated by time in tower one".

then you said "No, Morelli's testimony coincides with the official account. His description of a first explosion is the plane impact, the second is the collapsing elevators and jet fuel explosions down the elevator shafts that other witnesses describe".

in this forum i have been arguing against this claim for ages and my final post against the claim the explosion was caused from the plane impact was post #476.

like i said i will retract my statment concerning the firefighters once totovader retracts his. and not a moment before. i just want to see can anyone in this room beside myself can admit when they were wrong.

as for your question about whether computer simulation is insufficient or not as an experiment, i will answer that in time since you prefer to counter punch and havent the fibre to present your own case for scutiny.

See previous post. Obviously, you're not prepared to admit you were wrong.


ETA: By the way, I just noticed that when you quoted me you removed the link where I already made this concession. Keep trying to blame me, ace- but it's all you. If you had a court, the ball would be in it.

[JimBenArm]

ask the families who lost loved ones that day and who call for a new investigation.



so america does not develop nuclear weapons??



i am waiting until totovader retracts his statment. i dont care what you or anyone else thinks.
Hey, dude. Get a clue. Belz is not an American.
As is true of about half the membership here.
And of course you won't retract your statement. That would be the grown-up thing to do!

[thewholesoul]

See previous post. Obviously, you're not prepared to admit you were wrong.


ETA: By the way, I just noticed that when you quoted me you removed the link where I already made this concession. Keep trying to blame me, ace- but it's all you. If you had a court, the ball would be in it.

i didnt read your above post before i posted my latest. i hereby retract the statement by default and for the intergrity of the forum that the vast majority of firefighters claimed that explosives were in the towers.

[Arus808]

no they didn/t they heard explosions. no allusion to explosives were made. YOU only quote ONE firefighter.

Please give quotes of the other 600 firefighters who said they heard or saw explosives.

[Totovader]

i didnt read your above post before i posted my latest. i hereby retract the statement by default and for the intergrity of the forum that the vast majority of firefighters claimed that explosives were in the towers.


Now perhaps you can explain to everyone why you would make such an assertion- what evidence led you to that conclusion? And, did the evidence suddenly disappear because I uttered some magic words several hundred posts ago?

[Belz...]

ask the families who lost loved ones that day and who call for a new investigation.

I'm asking YOU. WHO would pay for such an investigation ? If no one is prepared to pay, then let's drop this pretense and move on.

so america does not develop nuclear weapons??

I did not say that America is not developping nuclear weapons. I said we are not developping nuclear weapons.

i am waiting until totovader retracts his statment. i dont care what you or anyone else thinks.

Soul, perhaps it's time to let you in on a little fact: what you have just said shows that you KNOW that your statement was false, but that you will cling to that statement nonetheless, because you can't be bothered to admit to being wrong before anybody else does it. Now, you may not care what I think about this behavior, but what do YOU think about it ?

[thewholesoul]

I'm still trying to figure out why:

1) The testing that NIST conducted and explained within the Report was insufficicent....

NIST did conduct several tests and attempted to explain up to and no further than the initial collapse . in a response to the a petition sent by familiy members, kevin ryan and richard gage etc NIST said

"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse"

obviously no experimnets have been conducted beyond the initial collapse which is why the official hypothesis remains largely unproven. it is not even a question of their testing being insufficient - there has been no testing or experimentations concerning global collapse. can you figure that out?

another aspect of the official hypothesis i would like to see tested is the fireball in the basement scenario. i am sceptical that the jet fuel can ignite after falling 80+floors past an elevator and explode around the same area in both towers. i am sceptical and in order to believe that the fireball hypothesis is true i will need it to be proven through experimentation. again it is not a question of the testing being insufficient - because no testing has been conducted in relation to the fuel deflagration in the basement. at least none that i am aware of.

Why testing every single possiblility has to have some kind validity.

We didn't test for gnomes...

who said we should test for every possibility. shadow boxing again i see. what needs to be proven are the global collapse and the fuel deflagration in the basement. and if i had to choose between these two i would prefer the former to be proven. gnomes...what are you talking about? the official hypothesis is not a hypothesis about gnomes and it should be proven through experimentation. of course if they are unable to prove the official hypothesis through testing and experimentation then their hypothesis will be about as valid as the gnomes hypothesis.

why do you try to popo the scientific method - you do know it applies to the official hypothesis? i would love if they proved their hypothesis because frankly it would be more comforting to believe that 911 was not an inside job.

[Pardalis]

Why don't you make an experiment and try to see if explosives in the basement could have caused a collapse the way it happened?

[Totovader]

NIST did conduct several tests and attempted to explain up to and no further than the initial collapse . in a response to the a petition sent by familiy members, kevin ryan and richard gage etc NIST said

"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse"

But now you're not only quote-mining, but moving the goalpost. We aren't talking about experiments regarding the collapse itself (see: gravity), we're talking about what caused the collapse. This is a line conspiracists often try to confuse- which NIST saw through:

That statement, in context was:

Your letter suggests that NIST should have used computer models to analyze the collapse of the towers. NIST carried its analysis to the point where the buildings reached global instability. At this point, because of the magnitude of the deflections and the number of failures occuring, the computer models are not able to converge on a solution.

Your letter contends that NIST's report violates the Information Quality Standard of "utility." NIST believes that the report has utility. In fact, the codes and standards bodies are already taking actions to improve building and fire codes and standards based on the findings of the WTC Investigation. As we mentioned previously, we are unable to provide a full explanation- of the total collapse.

obviously no experimnets have been conducted beyond the initial collapse which is why the official hypothesis remains largely unproven. it is not even a question of their testing being insufficient - there has been no testing or experimentations concerning global collapse. can you figure that out?

Do you know what NIST stands for?

another aspect of the official hypothesis i would like to see tested is the fireball in the basement scenario. i am sceptical that the jet fuel can ignite after falling 80+floors past an elevator and explode around the same area in both towers. i am sceptical and in order to believe that the fireball hypothesis is true i will need it to be proven through experimentation. again it is not a question of the testing being insufficient - because no testing has been conducted in relation to the fuel deflagration in the basement. at least none that i am aware of.

Then the burden of proof is on you.

What does this have to do with the tests that were conducted?

who said we should test for every possibility. shadow boxing again i see. what needs to be proven are the global collapse and the fuel deflagration in the basement. and if i had to choose between these two i would prefer the former to be proven. gnomes...what are you talking about? the official hypothesis is not a hypothesis about gnomes and it should be proven through experimentation. of course if they are unable to prove the official hypothesis through testing and experimentation then their hypothesis will be about as valid as the gnomes hypothesis.

Wait- what's your evidence for bombs in the basement?

why do you try to popo the scientific method - you do know it applies to the official hypothesis? i would love if they proved their hypothesis because frankly it would be more comforting to believe that 911 was not an inside job.

Where did I say that the scientific method is invalid? I stand completely by the time-tested method. You, however, do not- and cannot.

[thewholesoul]

I'm asking YOU. WHO would pay for such an investigation ? If no one is prepared to pay, then let's drop this pretense and move on.

if i was american i would glady pay. WHO do you think already paid for the investigation to date? the same people who pay for the police service, the firefighters, etc etc in order words YOU already contibuted to the investigation to date and YOU and other tax payers would contribute to another investigation if it indeed went ahead.

it is really lame that you cite a surmountable finacial obstacle as a reason against a reinvestigation. very lame. but i agree lets just drop it.

I did not say that America is not developping nuclear weapons. I said we are not developping nuclear weapons.

i asked where would you prefer - if you had the choice - your taxes to go? (a) reinvestigation into 911 or (b) towards the development of nuclear weapons? i would prefer the former, what would you prefer? its a straightforward question.

ok so now your sayng (i presume) that america is developing nuclear weapons but "we" the average american tax payer is not developing them. so what...i never said that the tax payer was developing nuclear weapons...i merely suggested that a small portion of their taxes may be contributing to their development.

Soul, perhaps it's time to let you in on a little fact: what you have just said shows that you KNOW that your statement was false, but that you will cling to that statement nonetheless, because you can't be bothered to admit to being wrong before anybody else does it. Now, you may not care what I think about this behavior, but what do YOU think about it ?

i admitted i was wrong and retracted the statment.

[thewholesoul]

That, in a nutshell, demonstrates quite succinctly the abject failure of the inaptly self-named "truth" movement to put its money where its mouth is.

so when are you going to finance the experimentations to prove the official hypothesis?? if you are not willing to put your money where your mouth is then to accuse truthers of something you yourself do is hipocritical.

[achtung circus]

You need to read for comprehension.


ok so now your sayng (i presume) that america is developing nuclear weapons but "we" the average american tax payer is not developing them. so what...i never said that the tax payer was developing nuclear weapons...i merely suggested that a small portion of their taxes may be contributing to their development.


I do not purport to speak for Mr. Belz, but I come from a similar spatial perspective. Can you figure out what it is? ;)

[thewholesoul]

Why do we need to "PROVE your own hypothesis". Prove it to who? You, or a few conspiracy theorists on the internet. It's already been done unfortunately you missed it.

no - i think you misunderstood my post. the official hypothesis concerning global collapse and fuel deflagration in the basment have not been proven yet through experimentation. because YOU support these hypothesis it is YOU (not you personally) that needs to prove your own hypothesis.

for me to beleive something to be true i need it to be proven to be true according to the scientific method. apparently you dont need a hypothesis to be proven true in order to believe that its true.

so the official hypothesis needs to proven not just for all those wacky truthers, but also for all those rational, intellectual folk who believe in the official hypothesis and beleive it to be true eventhough it has still, to date, not been proven to be true.

[Pardalis]

Why don't you go and try to prove your bomb in the basement theory?

[DGM]

no - i think you misunderstood my post. the official hypothesis concerning global collapse and fuel deflagration in the basement have not been proven yet through experimentation. because YOU support these hypothesis it is YOU (not you personally) that needs to prove your own hypothesis.


Maybe some day they will. Right now there's no urgency because there is no credible alternative theory that's a better fit to the evidence.

for me to believe something to be true i need it to be proven to be true according to the scientific method. apparently you dont need a hypothesis to be proven true in order to believe that its true.

Not when there is no credible reason to doubt it and experimentation would be impractical.


so the official hypothesis needs to proven not just for all those wacky truthers, but also for all those rational, intellectual folk who believe in the official hypothesis and believe it to be true even though it has still, to date, not been proven to be true.

No the intellectuals can grasp why experiments are not needed or impractical. Unless someone comes up with a hypothesis that better fits the evidence the "official" story will go unchallenged. More or less like it has been all a long.

The burden on the "truth" movement is to come up with a more plausible explanation. So far they're batting zero.

[thewholesoul]

Against my scepticism over the use of a computer model as a means of proving the official hypothesis toto says

Post #779 Why would computer models be insufficient?

Post #812 Can you explain why computer modeling of collapses or building structures is insufficient?

I want to see you try and claim that the entire science of structural engineering is invalid.

This should be good.

Later when i try to explain that even NIST admits that they have not proven the official hypothesis, toto quotes NIST’s comments in context

Post #909 (NIST’’s response) Your letter suggests that NIST should have used computer models to analyze the collapse of the towers. NIST carried its analysis to the point where the buildings reached global instability. At this point, because of the magnitude of the deflections and the number of failures occuring, the computer models are not able to converge on a solution

So let me get this straight. Family members and 911 truthers want NIST to provide a computer simulation in order to prove the official hypothesis. they clearly believe that a computer simulation would be sufficient. however NIST are claiming that they are unable to prove their hypothesis through a computer simulation.

So why are you asking me whether a computer simulation is insufficient when NIST are UNABLE to use a computer simulation to prove the official hypothesis!!

besides although i expressed scepticism over a computer model i never claimed it was insufficient - that was a straw man argument. i did however suggest that other methods of experimentation be employed to prove the official hypothesis regarding gravity driven progressive collapse and the fuel deflagration in the basement. now given that NIST are unable to use a computer model it seems the only other way we can prove the official hypothesis is through more traditional methods of experimentation.

but let us be clear if the official hypothesis is never proven i will never believe that it is true. and nor should anyone else. if a belief is neither verifiable or falsifiable it enters the realm of metaphysics, faith and the easter bunny.

[thewholesoul]

But now you're not only quote-mining, but moving the goalpost. We aren't talking about experiments regarding the collapse itself (see: gravity), we're talking about what caused the collapse. This is a line conspiracists often try to confuse

No i have not moved any goal post. I am merely stating that the official hypothesis should be proven through experimentation. If it cannot be proven true then it must be false. If it cannot be proven then why do you believe it is true and why do you expect others to believe that it to be true?

I welcome any testing conducted by NIST or FEMA or any universitiy that tries to prove the official hypothesis through experimentation. I would prefer to believe that the official narrative is true as opposed to the conspiracy theory.

- i would like the fuel deflagration in the basement proven
- i would like the progressive collapse by gravity, proven

as for the talking about the causes of the collapse and the explosions heard in the basement - well that is precisely what i am talking about. the official story claims that the explosion in the basement was caused by fuel deflagration and the progressive collapse was caused by fire and gravity. now i am saying they must prove this causal relationship through experimentation according to the scientific method.

if they are unable to prove their causal hypothesis then we need a new hypothesis that can be proven to explain progressive collapse and the explosions in the basement and through the building.

Where did I say that the scientific method is invalid? I stand completely by the time-tested method. You, however, do not- and cannot.

How can you claim to stand by the scientific method when any time i suggest an experiment to prove the official hypothesis you and others all criticize my efforts and suggest no experimentations of your own?

How can you stand by the scientific method and not support the demands of 911 truthers and family members that NIST should and must prove the official hypothesis through computer simulation and/or other methods?

How can you suggest that i do not stand by the scientifc method when i have made it clear on several occassions that i welcome any tests or experimentations in an attempt to prove the official hypothesis?

by insisting that the official hypothesis cannot be proven by any form of experimentation you are implicitly rejecting the scientific method.

[beachnut]

but let us be clear if the official hypothesis is never proven i will never believe that it is true. and nor should anyone else. if a belief is neither verifiable or falsifiable it enters the realm of metaphysics, faith and the easter bunny.
You have not read NIST, nor will you be able to understand it. You do not understand 9/11 and you want what? You are wrong in this falsifiable junk, it is. But then you are not an engineer or you would not need NIST or some stupid what? You have said nothing!

You do not understand the terms you are using. Why? Try again, I left out the rest is does not make sense, you seem to be using the rant of some 9/11 truth people to make a point so messed up it defies logic and description. It is easy to read NIST than your posts. But you have failed to make a point or show what NIST got wrong.

Doubt you even have a story on 9/11. No clue.

[thewholesoul]

as for placing the quote i took from NIST which states "we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse" into context - it does not make a blind bit of difference to the meaning and significance of that statement.

[DGM]

as for placing the quote i took from NIST which states "we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse" into context - it does not make a blind bit of difference to the meaning and significance of that statement.
Which is the same thing as them saying they can't explain why my town did not repave my street last year.

[thewholesoul]

The burden on the "truth" movement is to come up with a more plausible explanation. So far they're batting zero.

a posteriori - the explosives hypothesis is a far more plausible explanation than a fire and gravity driven collapse.

how do i know that? well when you ask yourself how many steel frame buildings came down through fire and gravity as opposed to how many steel frame buildings have been brought down by explosives.

once you answer this question honestly you will realize that on a posteriori grounds the explosive hypothesis is far more plausible as a means to demolish a steel frame building or cause a progressive global collapse.

[DGM]

a posteriori - the explosives hypothesis is a far more plausible explanation than a fire and gravity driven collapse.

how do i know that? well when you ask yourself how many steel frame buildings came down through fire and gravity as opposed to how many steel frame buildings have been brought down by explosives.

once you answer this question honestly you will realize that on a posteriori grounds the explosive hypothesis is far more plausible as a means to demolish a steel frame building or cause a progressive global collapse.
But what does it this have to do with what happened on 9/11/01? We saw the planes full of fuel hit the buildings, we witnessed the fires and saw with our own eyes the resulting collapse. Not one video out of many recorded any sounds of explosives. Why do you think that was?

I didn't see the Titanic hit the iceberg and it never happened to a ship that size before but it still happened.

[Totovader]

Against my scepticism over the use of a computer model as a means of proving the official hypothesis toto says

Since when does your "scepticism" [sic] equate to evidence? I asked you to explain why computer models are insufficient- because you wanted to use a scale model- which I already explained is not possible. You cannot scale gravity.

Your response was to ignore the question- and now you're trying to change the meaning entirely. Your "scepticism" was not substantiated by any means.

Later when i try to explain that even NIST admits that they have not proven the official hypothesis, toto quotes NIST’s comments in context

NIST never said any such thing. They said that computer models are not sophisticated enough to go through all the details of the collapse- not that computer models are insufficient in discovering the cause of the collapse. Again, conspiracists try to confuse the two issues in order to do exactly what you're doing and claim that the "official story" is "unproven". It takes an amazing amount of ignorance on these topics to reach that conclusion based on the available evidence.

NIST has computer models (as well as other independent studies) for the cause and details of the collapse. These models have been publicly available for some time.

Which brings us back to the original question: WHY WOULD COMPUTER MODELS BE INSUFFICIENT?

Your inability to answer the question (and instead turn around and try and claim that no computer models exist) is quite telling, much like your previous behavior regarding admitting you were wrong.

Please explain why anyone should take your arguments seriously at this point. You not only contradict yourself, but try and change the meaning of your own statements.

So let me get this straight. Family members and 911 truthers want NIST to provide a computer simulation in order to prove the official hypothesis.

Name one family member that has publicly demanded the computer models. I will personally contact them and send them a link to that information.

they clearly believe that a computer simulation would be sufficient. however NIST are claiming that they are unable to prove their hypothesis through a computer simulation.

Way to dodge the question. Since we already have computer models on this event- the question is not whether the "hypothesis" is proven or not, it's why you will not accept computer models in the discovery of building collapses and structural engineering- a practice that has been used for a very long time. I'm dying to know why you think computer models are insufficient- please, for the sake of your own credibility- explain this to everyone.

So why are you asking me whether a computer simulation is insufficient when NIST are UNABLE to use a computer simulation to prove the official hypothesis!!

Strawman humping another strawman.

besides although i expressed scepticism over a computer model i never claimed it was insufficient - that was a straw man argument.

You said that there should be a more effective method to discover the cause of the collapse. I would like for you to explain- in detail- why computer models would be insufficient.

Obviously, you're going to retract the statement at this point- which is just fine by me. You're too busy chasing your tail to keep your lies straight at this point.

i did however suggest that other methods of experimentation be employed to prove the official hypothesis regarding gravity driven progressive collapse and the fuel deflagration in the basement.

And I asked why computer models would be insufficient. You dodged the question and have no changed the topic.

Big surprise.

now given that NIST are unable to use a computer model it seems the only other way we can prove the official hypothesis is through more traditional methods of experimentation.

Again- a lie. NIST was not "unable to use a computer model". That's why the quote needed to be made in context, and why removing the context shows the tremendous amount of deception on your part in ignoring the truth.

but let us be clear if the official hypothesis is never proven i will never believe that it is true. and nor should anyone else. if a belief is neither verifiable or falsifiable it enters the realm of metaphysics, faith and the easter bunny.

The "official hypothesis" has been proven for quite a long time. It is the widely accepted, scientific version of the events. Whether you believe the truth or not is clearly up to you- but that has no bearing on whether it is the truth or not. You just seem to be about 6 years behind in your understanding of the events- that does not mean that the facts are not the facts- it just means you cannot be bothered by them.

Don't believe me? Then provide the evidence that you have found contradicting the finding of the NIST report. Remember: you cannot ignore the cause of the collapse and then claim that NIST should have been tasked with the efforts of proving gravity- only to turn around and claim that the "official story" is unproven. It's self-defeating: you have to skip around the part of the known science in order to jump into that Easter Bunnies lap.

[Totovader]

Now perhaps you can explain to everyone why you would make such an assertion- what evidence led you to that conclusion? And, did the evidence suddenly disappear because I uttered some magic words several hundred posts ago?

*bump*

[Totovader]

No i have not moved any goal post. I am merely stating that the official hypothesis should be proven through experimentation. If it cannot be proven true then it must be false. If it cannot be proven then why do you believe it is true and why do you expect others to believe that it to be true?

I welcome any testing conducted by NIST or FEMA or any universitiy that tries to prove the official hypothesis through experimentation. I would prefer to believe that the official narrative is true as opposed to the conspiracy theory.

- i would like the fuel deflagration in the basement proven
- i would like the progressive collapse by gravity, proven

as for the talking about the causes of the collapse and the explosions heard in the basement - well that is precisely what i am talking about. the official story claims that the explosion in the basement was caused by fuel deflagration and the progressive collapse was caused by fire and gravity. now i am saying they must prove this causal relationship through experimentation according to the scientific method.

if they are unable to prove their causal hypothesis then we need a new hypothesis that can be proven to explain progressive collapse and the explosions in the basement and through the building.

The hypothesis has been proven. If you disagree- then it's up to you to perform the research and provide the evidence contradicting the widely accepted scientific version of the events.

Good luck- so far you've done a horrible job of even making sense- beyond that lies the vast realm of making a coherent theory and then proving it.

I'll wait right here for your proof.

How can you claim to stand by the scientific method when any time i suggest an experiment to prove the official hypothesis you and others all criticize my efforts and suggest no experimentations of your own?

Because what you are suggesting has nothing to do with the scientific method and everything to do with wacky stupid conspiracy theories. If we were required to test for every single possibility, then that's when the gnomes would come in to play.

So, I will ask again- what evidence do you have supporting your case?

None? Oh, then I guess we'll move on after the scientists are done laughing at your claims.

How can you stand by the scientific method and not support the demands of 911 truthers and family members that NIST should and must prove the official hypothesis through computer simulation and/or other methods?

Because the "911 truthers" and "family members" are not making any demands that make sense.

In order to show that your theory is completely bunk- no testing need be performed, it's simply a thinking problem. In some cases, we can look at the tests that were already performed and the available evidence and see that you're just plain lying in regards to your demands.

It's really just that simple. If you think otherwise- then the burden of proof is on you. Saying there's no evidence to support the widely accepted scientific version of the events is ludicrous and insane.

How can you suggest that i do not stand by the scientifc method when i have made it clear on several occassions that i welcome any tests or experimentations in an attempt to prove the official hypothesis?

Because you will turn around and deny the findings of those tests no matter what. You can start making a mockery of yourself by explaining the problems you have seen with the NIST study.

I'll wait for that one...

by insisting that the official hypothesis cannot be proven by any form of experimentation you are implicitly rejecting the scientific method.

I made no such insistence. Entirely a strawman- and a pretty pathetic one- on your part. Your fly is down and your desperation is showing.

[Totovader]

a posteriori - the explosives hypothesis is a far more plausible explanation than a fire and gravity driven collapse.

Do you even know what a posteriori means? The use of it here... makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

And there is no way the explosives hypothesis is "far more plausible"- Occam's Razor is not in your favor.

Hey, that rhymed.

how do i know that? well when you ask yourself how many steel frame buildings came down through fire and gravity as opposed to how many steel frame buildings have been brought down by explosives.

Holy mother of all fallacious reasoning. In order to arrive at this "most buildings were taken down with explosives, therefore buildings which fall are more likely to be taken down with explosives"- you would have to drop the entire context of the buildings design, function, use, and method of structural damage.

You see... there were these planes...

once you answer this question honestly you will realize that on a posteriori grounds the explosive hypothesis is far more plausible as a means to demolish a steel frame building or cause a progressive global collapse.

Again, you clearly do not know what a posteriori means. How do you think that inductive reasoning allows you to conclude that buildings of this design had to have been taken down with explosives? It makes no sense at all- you have to ignore the facts in order to arrive at your conclusion. You're trying to sound smart- and it's not working.

You're also neglecting the means and motive- but that's an entirely different discussion. The flaw in your reasoning here should be so painfully obvious that there's no need to derail it even further.

I'd like to see you actually provide your evidence instead of trying to pretend that logic, the scientific method, and reason are on your side. Your delusion ceases rather quickly when the pesky evidence enters the playing field.

So let's see it.

[thewholesoul]

Are you talking about this white smoke (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMGhgnrAINQ)?

what about the white smoke in the basement. what produced that exactly?

[Totovader]

what about the white smoke in the basement. what produced that exactly?

You mean... you don't know?

Is it an oddity? Is it an abnormality? Does it contradict the "official story"? Is it evidence- exclusively- of your silly bombs-in-the-basement claim?

Or are you just JAQing off again?

[thewholesoul]

Why don't you go and try to prove your bomb in the basement theory?

ridiculous statement.

alternative hypothesis have not even been accepted much less investigated or tested. and if the government does not have the resources, as many in here claim, to conduct experiments of the official hypothesis then you could hardly expect me to have the resources to experiment on an alternative hypothesis in any substantial way.

[Totovader]

ridiculous statement.

alternative hypothesis have not even been accepted much less investigated or tested. and if the government does not have the resources, as many in here claim, to conduct experiments of the official hypothesis then you could hardly expect me to have the resources to experiment on an alternative hypothesis in any substantial way.

ASKING FOR PROOF IS RIDICULOUS?

:wow2::wow2::wow2:

You just hit a dead end, whole.

:dig:

[pomeroo]

ridiculous statement.

alternative hypothesis have not even been accepted much less investigated or tested. and if the government does not have the resources, as many in here claim, to conduct experiments of the official hypothesis then you could hardly expect me to have the resources to experiment on an alternative hypothesis in any substantial way.


Nineteen jihadists hijacked four planes and flew three of them into buildings. In six years of deranged screaming, your evil movement has produced absolutely nothing to call that assertion into question.

[thewholesoul]

Nineteen jihadists hijacked four planes and flew three of them into buildings. In six years of deranged screaming, your evil movement has produced absolutely nothing to call that assertion into question.

i respect your opinion.

[thewholesoul]

Since when does your "scepticism" [sic] equate to evidence? I asked you to explain why computer models are insufficient- because you wanted to use a scale model- which I already explained is not possible. You cannot scale gravity.

I never said scepticism was evidence. You never explained why a scale model is impossible someone else did. Your talking out your hat.

Your response was to ignore the question- and now you're trying to change the meaning entirely. Your "scepticism" was not substantiated by any means.

why some would consider computer simulations insufficient as a means of proving a hypothesis is because there is no scientific consensus regarding the nature of computer simulations. There are three views (a) some scientists may regard computer simulation as a geuine experiment (b) others see it simply as another intellectual tool or (c) others may consider computer simulations as a real and new means of learning things just between theory and experiment. So you see whether one beleives that computer simulations are sufficient as a means of proving a hypothesis depends on what view one has concerning the nature of computer simulations.

Computer models have got limitations. I agree with Azcat in post #847 when he writes Computer models are useful because we can test the physical relationships separate of the model and then program the equations into the simulation. Unfortunately there are still limitations, some because our computing power and storage capacity are finite and some because the systems are usually nonlinear (and highly so).

There is also the question of what type of mathematics one chooses to express the theory or model. Jim hoffman produced a model
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/models/index.html
as other independent studies you claim have done so aswell. So i would wonder if there models are the same and if not then i would expect different results from a simulation.

so for these reasons i would be sceptical. There is nothing wrong with that. However i never stated that computer simulations would be insufficient – if i did perhaps you could quote me instead of making baseless accusations. given the problems with the scaling laws computer models may turn out to be the only means available to test or prove the official hypothesis.

NIST never said any such thing. They said that computer models are not sophisticated enough to go through all the details of the collapse- not that computer models are insufficient in discovering the cause of the collapse. Again, conspiracists try to confuse the two issues in order to do exactly what you're doing and claim that the "official story" is "unproven".

Because NIST only investigated the sequence of events up to the initial collapse they have not produced a model for the total collapse this is why they admit that they cannot provide a full explanation. They have models for the causes behind the initial collapse but that is not the same thing as providing models for the total collapse. They could not or did not provide models for the total collapse because as you say their models are not sophisticated enough to go through all the details (i.e. because “the computer models are not able to converge on a solution”). But why do you think the causes of the initial collapse prove that total collapse was inevitable void of any investigation, explanation or experimentation ? That is my point and there is nothing confusing about it.

NIST has computer models (as well as other independent studies) for the cause and details of the collapse. These models have been publicly available for some time.

Again they have models for the causes behind the initial collapse. If they had models for the total collapse why would a petition be sent to NIST to produce such a model?

Which brings us back to the original question: WHY WOULD COMPUTER MODELS BE INSUFFICIENT?

I NEVER SAID THEY WOULD BE INSUFFICIENT. Where is NIST’s model of the total collapse???

[QUOTE=Totovader;3285370] Please explain why anyone should take your arguments seriously at this point. You not only contradict yourself, but try and change the meaning of your own statements.

Provide examples instead of the usual lip service. Your baseless accusations are getting real old amigo. If you dont take my argumnets seriously then why bother responding??

Name one family member that has publicly demanded the computer models. I will personally contact them and send them a link to that information.

Here’s two: Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine are TWO family members along with Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, architect Richard Gage who filed a petition which suggested that NIST should have used a computer model to analyse the progressive collapse of the wtc.

Since we already have computer models on this event- the question is not whether the "hypothesis" is proven or not, it's why you will not accept computer models in the discovery of building collapses and structural engineering

Where is NIST model of the total collapse??? If NIST already had computer models of this event then why would a petition be sent asking for them to produce a computer model for the total collapse?????
Besides discovery is not proof according to the scientific method.

Here are all the simulations provided by NIST
1.Comparison of two computer simulations of the fire behavior in the upper stories of the WTC North Tower (1 WTC) based on different internal conditions and fuel distribution. The left simulation shows very large flames extending from the exterior damage holes with the right showing few flames extending out. The simulation on the right seems to agree more with pictorial records:
http://realex.nist.gov/WTCanimation1.ram
2.Simulation of the WTC South Tower (2 WTC) fireball seconds after impact of the plane: http://realex.nist.gov/WTCanimation2.ram
3.A computer simulation showing the smoke plume generated by the fire in the WTC North Tower (1 WTC). http://realex.nist.gov/WTCanimation3.ram
4.A computer simulation showing the combining of the smoke plumes generated from the fires in the upper stories of WTC North and South Towers (1 WTC and 2 WTC):
http://realex.nist.gov/WTCanimation4.ram
5.Computer simulation showing the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft engine into an exterior wall panel and two core columns of a WTC tower.
http://realex.nist.gov:8080/ramgen/WTC_engine1.rm
6.Computer simulation showing the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft engine into an exterior wall panel, floor system and core columns of a WTC tower.
http://realex.nist.gov:8080/ramgen/WTC_engine2.rm
7.Computer simulation (containing 90,000 elements) showing the response of the WTC North Tower to wind loads. http://realex.nist.gov:8080/ramgen/WTC_windloads.rm
8.Computer simulation showing some of the progression of the fires on the 97th floor of the WTC North Tower. http://realex.nist.gov:8080/ramgen/WTC_fireon97th.rm
9.Computer simulation (containing 40,000 elements) showing the response of the 96th floor of the WTC North Tower to gravity loads. http://realex.nist.gov:8080/ramgen/WTC_gavityloads.rm
10.Computer simulation showing the response to gravity and elevated temperatures of a strip of floor (including floor trusses and concrete slab) connected to an exterior column of a WTC tower. http://realex.nist.gov:8080/ramgen/WTC_stripresponse.rm

NIST's simulations model phenomena such as the impact fireballs and smoke plumes that rose from the Towers, and the pattern of damage caused by the impact of jetliners. Conspicuously missing from their study are simulations, models, or even caluclations that attempt to describe how and why the Towers came down.

So why are you asking me whether a computer simulation is insufficient when NIST themselves did not produce a computer simulation/model for the total collapse explaining that the computer models are unable to analysis all the details involved??

You said that there should be a more effective method to discover the cause of the collapse.

No YOU said that, not me. i never said a more effective method should be employed to discover the cause of the collapse what i have been saying is that whatever is proposed as the causes should be proven by the scientific method so please stop putting words in my mouth.

I did say post #778 if we cannot make a scale model there must be some other way aside from compuer models to test a progressive collapse?

#785 i wouldnt object to a computer simulation in addition to real life experimnets.

#817 i would not object to simulations but i would like simulations in addition to real life experimnets or partal modelling.

Obviously, you're going to retract the statement at this point- which is just fine by me. You're too busy chasing your tail to keep your lies straight at this point.

How can i retract a statement i never made. Please provide a quotation where i said computer models are insufficient, if not, please refrain from brown talk.

maybe you could answer one of my questions given that i answered yours so do you believe that the official hypothesis should be proven through experimentation? thats a yes or no.

Again- a lie. NIST was not "unable to use a computer model". That's why the quote needed to be made in context, and why removing the context shows the tremendous amount of deception on your part in ignoring the truth.

If NIST was able to use a computer model of the total collapse – then where is it? Why were they petitioned to produce one?

[QUOTE=Totovader;3285370] The "official hypothesis" has been proven for quite a long time. It is the widely accepted, scientific version of the events.

That is a nasty, ignorant lie. You can remain a nasty, ignorant liar, or you can become a rational adult and retract that statement. The official hypothesis or theory has NOT BEEN PROVEN BY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD and thats a FACT. You are disrespecting the family members - Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine – who request that the official hypothesis be proven. And you are ignoring the fact that the official hypothesis has changed overtime e.g. the pancake theory was initially the official explanation behind the global collapse. Moreover,

NIST states that they only investigated the sequence of events up to the initial collapse
NIST states they are unable to provide a full explanation concerning the total collapse
NIST states that the computer models are unable to analyse all the details involved hence they never provided a computer model of the total collapse

But your saying that NIST did prove progressive global collapse eventhough they provided no computer model of the progressive collapse because the computers are not sophisticated enough to do so since the models are UNABLE to converge on a solution. But the computer models, which they never produced or provided, are sufficient in discovering the cause of the collapse – causes i might add pertaining to the initial collapse not the total collapse thus to assert that the causes behind the initial collapse somehow prove the total collapse is a nasty lie because such a claim has not be proven according to the scientific method which requires some form of experimnetation or computer modelling assuming of course that the computers are sophisticated enough – which they are not. And given that modelling of the towers is not feasible due to scaling laws we are left with the question is there any way to prove the official hypothesis??? and why on earth you think that “discovering” the causes of the initial collapse means that the total collapse has been proven is beyond me.

So the official hypothesis has not long been proven sir, it has never been and remains to be proven.

Remember: you cannot ignore the cause of the collapse and then claim that NIST should have been tasked with the efforts of proving gravity- only to turn around and claim that the "official story" is unproven.

These proposed “causes” have not been proven as the causes behind the global collapse. To move from collapse initiation to global collapse was inevitable is not a sufficient explanation and it shall remain as a hypothetical explanation depsite what you wish when you blow out your birthday candles until it has been proven accoridng to the scientific method.

as for proving gravity dont make me laugh.

[thewholesoul]

in the above post i stated that "the computer models, which they never produced or provided" - i was refering to the models for the total collapse not the initail collapse.

sorry for that

[thewholesoul]

hey just a thought - anyone in this room fancy a game of chess some day?

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

hey just a thought - anyone in this room fancy a game of chess some day?
Don't derail yourself.
Makes you look even more juvenile.

[Totovader]

I never said scepticism was evidence. You never explained why a scale model is impossible someone else did. Your talking out your hat.

I've explained it before- pretty sure I even explained it to you. But if you're admitting that someone explained it to you- yet you're still demanding it, then you're still shooting yourself in the foot. You need to be more consistent, here.

I asked you:

What experiment would you like to have done with "a scale model"?

Think carefully...

...and you never answered.

Then, you eventually derailed this and instead started claiming that

you make a good point here.

if we cannot make a scale model there must be some other way aside from compuer models to test a progressive collapse?

but with the fireball theory in the basement 8 stories could be constructed exactly to scale.

I again asked that you explain yourself. Here you are implying that computer models are insufficient- you are demanding something beyond computer models. You aren't saying in addition to computer models- you're saying aside from computer models- as if they're unconvincing.

I asked you why and you ignored my question- and are now trying to change your own statements. Doesn't matter to me much, but it makes you look rather silly...

why some would consider computer simulations insufficient as a means of proving a hypothesis is because there is no scientific consensus regarding the nature of computer simulations.

...because here you try and defend the statement, anyway. Although, I'm not sure who you think "some" is, because it's just you claiming this absurd statement, bucko.

To claim there is no scientific consensus regarding computer simulations is probably one of the most ignorant things you have said to date- and that's no small feat. As I said before- you're ignoring the entire study of structural engineering with this patently absurd claim.

Let's see you try and prove this statement. Prove that computer models are rejected by portions of the scientific community.

Go on- just prove one of your claims for once.

There are three views (a) some scientists may regard computer simulation as a geuine experiment (b) others see it simply as another intellectual tool or (c) others may consider computer simulations as a real and new means of learning things just between theory and experiment.

Where in the crap are you pulling this from?

Provide evidence for these "views"- including statements from well-renowned individuals in their respective fields- or admit your ignorance. I'm not letting this one go, kiddo.

So you see whether one beleives that computer simulations are sufficient as a means of proving a hypothesis depends on what view one has concerning the nature of computer simulations.

I see that you're completely making crap up and then trying to shove it under the rug by pretending that you have an ounce of understanding of the scientific community- clearly, you do not.

Computer models have got limitations. I agree with Azcat in post #847 when he writes

There is also the question of what type of mathematics one chooses to express the theory or model. Jim hoffman produced a model
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/models/index.html
as other independent studies you claim have done so aswell. So i would wonder if there models are the same and if not then i would expect different results from a simulation.

A few idiots trying to use computer simulations- which can easily be shown as insufficient and flawed- does not mean that they represent the scientific community, nor does it mean that the process of computer modeling is inconclusive. You clearly do not understand what computer simulations are- it's not like you can just tell the computer to "do collapse and erase all data regarding the method". You enter in the measurements and it processes the simulation based on known variables. Entering the wrong information in will certainly give the wrong results- but it doesn't invalidate the process of computer simulations themselves. Furthermore- if it's a significant error, it would easily be noticed since it would not conform to observed phenomena.

so for these reasons i would be sceptical. There is nothing wrong with that.

Except that you're not only pulling the reasons from thin air, but you're trying to pretend as if your "scepticism" [sic] is a valid means to demand alternative methods. It's not. If you're skeptical of the use of computer models, then you need to examine the models themselves and determine if the data is invalid- and then if that invalid data (when corrected) would have a significant effect on the experiment.

Otherwise, your "scepticism" is just a guise for rejecting evidence without justification. You're not skeptical at all- just bigoted.

However i never stated that computer simulations would be insufficient – if i did perhaps you could quote me instead of making baseless accusations. given the problems with the scaling laws computer models may turn out to be the only means available to test or prove the official hypothesis.

I quoted it above- your statement that information besides computer simulations would be necessary asserts that computer simulations are insufficient- although you were never able to say why.

In order to avoid making the statement outright, and at the same time not change your position, you tried to defend that position right here in this very thread when you claimed: "why some would consider computer simulations insufficient as a means of proving a hypothesis is because there is no scientific consensus regarding the nature of computer simulations."

So you're saying that you completely disagree with "some"?

Yeah, sure...

Because NIST only investigated the sequence of events up to the initial collapse they have not produced a model for the total collapse this is why they admit that they cannot provide a full explanation.

Moving that goalpost again. I asked you before if you knew what NIST stood for, and you ignored the question. I'll answer for you if you haven't found that out, yet: National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Do you know why that's relevant?

No, I won't wait for you to ignore the question again- it's important because NIST was not tasked with PROVING THAT GRAVITY WORKS, it was tasked with discovering what specific factors led to the collapse of the buildings, and if there are any building standards that could be implemented to delay, prevent, or otherwise improve on the process to prevent loss of life in the future. NIST was attempting to learn from the collapse and see what data could be obtained from a catastrophic event such as this.

Conspiracists do not seem to understand that. NIST was not tasked with "proving the official story"- because it had already been proven. The data that NIST acquired certainly debunked a lot of the claims of the wackjob conspiracists, but it was not tasked with appeasing a very small minority of the population and proving what we already know is true.

Once the collapse initiation was discovered and understood, there is no reason to explain that gravity works in the realm of standards and building codes. This is like demanding that the NTSB provide an explanation as to why the brakes on a train did not immediately stop the train regardless of what we already know about inertia. It shows a tremendous ignorance of the process and the goal- as well as a desire to ignore the information we do have.

By claiming that the NIST should have modeled the collapse itself (something that is not technologically possible, is not feasible, and is not necessary) then you are attempting to invalidate the information we do have on the causes of the collapse and the most important facts that have been discovered.

Even if NIST had been tasked with proving that gravity still works- and they were unable to do it- that does not grant you the authority to deny the findings altogether.

Not sure if you're going to understand that- but it's important that you stop denying the facts by claiming that you are unsatisfied in your unreasonable, irrelevant, and unimportant demands.

They have models for the causes behind the initial collapse but that is not the same thing as providing models for the total collapse.

Perhaps you can explain- since you dodged the question previously- why a computer model of the entire collapse would be necessary?

Do you need to know that gravity still works? I'll admit- I put a lot of confidence in it, but I see no reason to question its abilities.

They could not or did not provide models for the total collapse because as you say their models are not sophisticated enough to go through all the details (i.e. because “the computer models are not able to converge on a solution”).

Strawman- this is not why NIST did not provide models of total collapse. NIST was not tasked with this- and there is no reason for this.

Can you even imagine all the variables required to even model the collapse itself? Think of all the data that would be required... and for what? You'll just ignore it because it doesn't conform to your twisted view of reality.

But why do you think the causes of the initial collapse prove that total collapse was inevitable void of any investigation, explanation or experimentation ? That is my point and there is nothing confusing about it.

Since that's a strawman it's not "confusing", it's just absurd. If you believe that total collapse was not possible- then provide your evidence. You can start by debunking the scientific studies that have been done on this- I suggest you tackle Bazant and Zhou first.

A lack of a computer model of the complete collapse is not evidence that it was not possible. Do you understand this?

Allow me to repeat it: A lack of a computer model of the complete collapse is not evidence that it was not possible.

Again they have models for the causes behind the initial collapse. If they had models for the total collapse why would a petition be sent to NIST to produce such a model?

Who sent the petition?

Your wackjob peers- instead of examining the evidence- like to pretend that reductio ad absurdum arguments are a viable position. The petition was rejected, by the way- but you think that filing a petition means that they're right? You think that filing a petition (with no basis in fact- I might add) is evidence?

Think about what you're saying: If NIST was not tasked with modeling the entire collapse, then why was a petition filed . It's non-sequitur. The filing of a petition, and the subsequent rejection of it, is not proof that the petitioners are correct- it's not even proof that they understand the task at hand.

I NEVER SAID THEY WOULD BE INSUFFICIENT. Where is NIST’s model of the total collapse???

Why would they need one, sporto?

Provide examples instead of the usual lip service. Your baseless accusations are getting real old amigo. If you dont take my argumnets seriously then why bother responding??

If you can't provide evidence for your claims, then why should anyone pay attention to you, amigo?

Are you making arguments? It certainly doesn't look like it. All you're doing is making stupid assertions, and then retreating back to JAQing off when your claims are so easily debunked. Now all you're doing is pretending that a lack of evidence is evidence and demanding that NIST prove that gravity works.

It's getting rather silly. Instead of trying to move the goalpost every day- why don't you just provide your evidence and we can be done with this.

Here’s two: Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine are TWO family members along with Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, architect Richard Gage who filed a petition which suggested that NIST should have used a computer model to analyse the progressive collapse of the wtc.

So you have two family members- and you think this accurately represents the views of the close to 3,000 people who died and their family? These two people have been heavily influenced by the conspiracism movement and their own political bias. It's sad, but it's not a representation of the victims or their families.

Let's run some numbers. Average family size in the US is 3.14 (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts), there were 2,996 immediate victims of the September 11th attacks (http://www.september11victims.com/september11victims/victims_list.htm), which means that roughly 9,407 individuals could be considered immediate family of the immediate victims. Your population represents less than 1% of the total population of immediate family members of immediate victims.

Do you think that's an accurate representation of the families?

I do not.

So when you say that "the families of the victims of September 11th" want the collapse models, or agree with you, or like vanilla ice cream- can you make sure you're accurately representing that population? It's teetering on the edge of personally offensive, and will not put you in good standing with a vast majority of the people you are pretending to represent.

Just a warning.

Where is NIST model of the total collapse??? If NIST already had computer models of this event then why would a petition be sent asking for them to produce a computer model for the total collapse?????

You already tried to get away with this fallacious argument- see above.

Besides discovery is not proof according to the scientific method.

I'm not sure why you think this ambiguous statement is relevant or even follows from your previous assertions.

Besides, the majority of apples sold in the United States come from the State of Washington.

Here are [B]all the simulations provided by NIST
<snip>

NIST's simulations model phenomena such as the impact fireballs and smoke plumes that rose from the Towers, and the pattern of damage caused by the impact of jetliners. Conspicuously missing from their study are simulations, models, or even caluclations that attempt to describe how and why the Towers came down.

What does NIST stand for again?

The task of the NIST investigation was not to prove that the towers collapsed, nor was it to prove that the conspiracists are wrong- it was to find out the reason behind the structural failures and see if there's any areas of improvement in building construction.

These experiments directly address that need, and thus prove the very specifics of what happened in the cause of the collapse of the Towers.

However, you're missing the models of the collapse themselves (http://www.gcn.com/print/21_27/19900-1.html), which have been publicly available for quite some time (http://razor.occams.info/nist-wtc/).

These models- you would have to necessarily claim- are insufficient and irrelevant to your claims.

I would like to see you try and support that claim with an ounce of substantiation.

So why are you asking me whether a computer simulation is insufficient when NIST themselves did not produce a computer simulation/model for the total collapse explaining that the computer models are unable to analysis all the details involved??

What a stupid question- you're trying to claim that computer models are insufficient because NIST didn't use them where they didn't need to?

No YOU said that, not me. i never said a more effective method should be employed to discover the cause of the collapse what i have been saying is that whatever is proposed as the causes should be proven by the scientific method so please stop putting words in my mouth.

So now you're saying that computer models are not part of the scientific method?

You keep putting your foot in your mouth. And yes, you did say it was not effective- you demanded something beyond computer models.

How can i retract a statement i never made. Please provide a quotation where i said computer models are insufficient, if not, please refrain from brown talk.

I don't know what "brown talk" is, but I've shown above where you made this statement. You clearly need to retract it- and have attempted to do so by claiming that "some" would think this way...

maybe you could answer one of my questions given that i answered yours so do you believe that the official hypothesis should be proven through experimentation? thats a yes or no.

Mu.

That's a complex question fallacy- of course there's a need for experimentation, analysis, computer modeling, and discovery- but your claim is that every aspect of the collapse needs to be investigated by some government agency just so you can either claim that something is being hidden and avoid the facts or so that you can claim that "the government" investigated it and is hiding something.

What you have neglected to do throughout this entire discussion- and indeed throughout your entire position- is submit to the facts. You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence substantiating your claims, and instead dance around and JAQ off.

If NIST was able to use a computer model of the total collapse – then where is it? Why were they petitioned to produce one?

Again- moving the goalpost via a strawman. NIST was not tasked with proving gravity works- there's no scientific need to model the collapse itself (and it's not technologically possible).

Why you would demand such a thing- except to take the focus off your own failures- is beyond me.

Perhaps you could finally explain why an impossible computer model of a catastrophic collapse is necessary.

That is a nasty, ignorant lie. You can remain a nasty, ignorant liar, or you can become a rational adult and retract that statement.

Before you call me a nasty liar- you might want to PROVE IT.

Give me an example of how the "official story" does not conform to the scientific method.

And, I got one better for you. Let's use the scientific method to discover whether you're a nasty ignorant liar yourself!

Answer my Challenge: What fact or piece of evidence would it take for you to admit you're wrong?

Notice how I asked your MIA pal brasil this question 3 times and he dodged it. Notice how you can see the year of dodging from your peers on the comments section of my YouTube videos.

Why do you think it is that you and your peers cannot answer this question?

The official hypothesis or theory has NOT BEEN PROVEN BY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD and thats a FACT.

Prove it. For once, prove one of your stupid claims and let's get this over with.

If you can't prove it- then you need to retract the statement and personally apologize to me.

You are disrespecting the family members - Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine – who request that the official hypothesis be proven.

Appeal to emotion. If I have to "disrespect" less than 1% of the total population of immediate family members to stand up to the kind of idiocy, deceit, and lies that you perpetrate on THE OVER 99% OF THE REST OF THEM, then that's what I will do.

These two gentlemen have been influenced by the conspiracist liars- but it is ultimately their choice to believe in it. It's sad that they do, but it's their decision, and they do not even come close to accurately represent the families or the victims.

And you are ignoring the fact that the official hypothesis has changed overtime e.g. the pancake theory was initially the official explanation behind the global collapse.

Ignoring that you're wrong- this sort of sounds like the scientific method to me... the theory changes to fit the evidence.

Are you saying here that you demand a rigid, immovable, and unchanging theory 5 minutes after the buildings have come down- and that this theory cannot be affected by further study and scientific research?

You have no more feet left to shoot.

Moreover, NIST states that they only investigated the sequence of events up to the initial collapse NIST states they are unable to provide a full explanation concerning the total collapse NIST states that the computer models are unable to analyse all the details involved hence they never provided a computer model of the total collapse

You are again misquoting the NIST- the models were not not provided because of a failure of the NIST- they were not provided because it's unnecessary to prove that gravity works- it's not what the NIST was tasked with.

But your saying that NIST did prove progressive global collapse eventhough they provided no computer model of the progressive collapse because the computers are not sophisticated enough to do so since the models are UNABLE to converge on a solution.

Quote where I said this. You're making about 8 different strawmans throughout this one section of the discussion... it's getting ridiculous and rather transparent.

But the computer models, which they never produced or provided, are sufficient in discovering the cause of the collapse

I can't tell if you're making an admission, here- or just playing a game.

Answer this one- how do you ignore the cause of the collapse only to claim that the collapse itself is suspect?

What I keep referring to is that you are trying to invalidate a wealth of understanding by making unreasonable and silly demands on an organization that fall outside the scope of rational skepticism and are not even part of the investigation into the cause of the collapse to begin with.

NIST addressed this in the letter. You have only quoted one single line on purpose.

causes i might add pertaining to the initial collapse not the total collapse thus to assert that the causes behind the initial collapse somehow prove the total collapse is a nasty lie because such a claim has not be proven according to the scientific method which requires some form of experimnetation or computer modelling assuming of course that the computers are sophisticated enough – which they are not.

This incoherent babbling is not proof- nor does it make any sense. You're claiming that the scientific, widely accepted, thoroughly researched cause of the collapse is completely invalidated by the fact that NIST was not tasked (and therefore did not perform) a study of gravity.

Don't you see? You're not proposing science, you're rejecting it.

And given that modelling of the towers is not feasible due to scaling laws we are left with the question is there any way to prove the official hypothesis??? and why on earth you think that “discovering” the causes of the initial collapse means that the total collapse has been proven is beyond me.

Serious errors, here- one that even you should be able to see...

1) Modeling of the towers is feasible- computer modeling. And that has been done.
2) There are plenty of ways to confirm the observations of the "official hypothesis". These methods have been performed, and a rigorous scientific examination has been completed. You can find the majority of this information in the NIST report. Ignoring it because you personally feel that it's "incomplete" is irrelevant. Your bias does not allow you to address the facts.
3) If you cannot come up with what you are claiming are alternative experiments, your claims should be ignored.
4) And more importantly, if you cannot come up with experiments to prove your own claims, then you should be ignored.
5) You continue to blur the line between cause of collapse and collapse in order to avoid the facts. If the cause of the collapse has been discovered, proven, and is irrefutable- then your case is done. There is no need to continue to listen to you. Do you have any evidence contradicting the findings of the NIST investigation?

So the official hypothesis has not long been proven sir, it has never been and remains to be proven.

What fact or piece of evidence would it take for you to admit you're wrong?

These proposed “causes” have not been proven as the causes behind the global collapse.

Then you have evidence contradicting the findings of the NIST study.

Please stop dancing around the issue and provide that evidence.

To move from collapse initiation to global collapse was inevitable is not a sufficient explanation and it shall remain as a hypothetical explanation depsite what you wish when you blow out your birthday candles until it has been proven accoridng to the scientific method.

Gravity.

Do you need gravity to be proven?

as for proving gravity dont make me laugh.

... apparently, you do.

[Totovader]

Before you respond to that, thewholesoul- let's do a quick debunking exercise:

Please quote- from official sources- what the purpose of the NIST investigation is.

I'll be timing you.

[thewholesoul]

Before you respond to that, thewholesoul- let's do a quick debunking exercise:

Please quote- from official sources- what the purpose of the NIST investigation is.

I'll be timing you.

NIST's Report states that its first objective is to "determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed." The Report does not fulfill that objective.

[thewholesoul]

Don't derail yourself.
Makes you look even more juvenile.

it was a simple and honest request that did not dignify an insult.

[Totovader]

NIST's Report states that its first objective is to "determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed." The Report does not fulfill that objective.

According to you- according to the scientific community, however, you're clearly wrong.

Perhaps you can settle a bet- precisely how is the report insufficient in its objective?

Remember, be specific.

[Totovader]

Oh- and just to make sure there's no ambiguity in your partial quote, here's the statement from the NIST WTC page:

In response to the WTC tragedy, the National Institute of Standards and Technology conducted a 3-year building and fire safety investigation to study the factors contributing to the probable cause (or causes) of post-impact collapse of the WTC Towers (WTC 1 and 2) and WTC 7; expanded its research in areas of high-priority need such as prevention of progressive collapse, fire resistance design and retrofit of structures, and fire resistive coatings for structural steel; and is reaching out to the building and fire safety communities to pave the way for timely, expedited considerations of recommendations stemming from the investigation.
*emphasis original

Link (http://wtc.nist.gov/)

Is there anything in that statement that relates to the structural integrity of a building after it has already started collapsing?

If you can't figure it out, maybe we need to conduct a poll?

[thewholesoul]

NIST's Report states that its first objective was to "determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed." The Report does not fulfill that objective.

Using your own words The task of the NIST investigation was not to prove that the towers collapsed, - it was to find out the reason behind the structural failures and see if there's any areas of improvement in building construction.

So if you can acknowledge that their task was not to prove how and why the towers fell then why are you saying that the official hypothesis was proven??? That is a nasty lie and it needs to be retracted.

Determining why and how the WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed and discovering the reasons behind the structural failure up to and not beyond the initial collapse are not the same thing. NIST stopped short in relation to its first stated objective.

NIST was not tasked with PROVING THAT GRAVITY WORKS

Its not proving that gravity works – what a ridiculous statement - rather its proving that the TOTAL COLLAPSE ensued due to gravity. gravity and the collapsing upper section of WTC 1+2 are the proposed official reasons as to why and how we observed a total collapse. But this official hypothesis was never proven through the scientific method. although you admit yourself that

of course there's a need for experimentation, analysis, computer modeling yet

#1 jim hoffman’s progressive collapse challenge still remains. I am not here to defend his challlenge but the greatest objection to his challenge is that it does not respect the scaling laws and to build a tower to scale and experiment on that is not feasible.

#2 no computer model pertaining to the total collapse has been provided by NIST. You admit yourself that a computer model of the collapse itself is
not technologically possible, is not feasible, and is not necessary . yet you say
Modeling of the towers is feasible- computer modeling. And that has been done.. yes it ahs been done but not in relation to the total collapse.


So the question is toto – when was the offiical hypothesis pertaining to the TOTAL PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE proven through the scientific method of experimentation via scale models or computer models?????

To argue that (a) its not their task to prove the total collapse is self defeating because you are essentially admitting that NIST has not yet proven the total collapse. Besides it was the stated goal of NIST to determine how and why WTC 1+2 collapsed.

To argue that (b) its not necessary is self contradicting because you admit that there is a need for experimentation and computer models and claim to support the scientific method.

In closing experimentation of a hypothesis is necessary in order to prove that the hypothesis is true or not. NIST or anyone else for that matter has not PROVEN how the total collapsed ensued through experimentation.

So when are you going to retract your nasty and ignorant lie? The "official hypothesis" has been proven for quite a long time.

To repeat
NIST's simulations model phenomena such as the impact fireballs and smoke plumes that rose from the Towers, and the pattern of damage caused by the impact of jetliners. Conspicuously missing from their study are simulations, models, or even caluclations that attempt to describe how and why the Towers came down.
NIST states that they only investigated the sequence of events up to the initial collapse
NIST states they are unable to provide a full explanation concerning the total collapse
NIST did not produce a computer model of the total collapse.

So as for the retraction of you nasty lie i will be timing.

[thewholesoul]

Totovader holds the view that computer models are sufficient as a means to prove a hypothesis yet he also asserts that a computer model of the total collapse is technologically impossible. It requires patience to debate a person who holds such logically counter-intuitive positions.

Now i tried to answer totovaders question as to why some may consider a computer simulation as insufficient as a means of provng a hypothesis. I provided the reasons why i suggested some would consider it insufficient but totovader was unable or unwilling to argue against those reasons. I even added that because scale models are not a feasible means to test the official hypothesis that computer models may turn out to be the only means to prove the official hypothesis.

AZCat, for instance, stated that computer models are limited, and i agreed with that statement. Plus in the philosphy of science there is an ongoing debate as to the nature of computer simulations in terms of what they can prove. Some for instance hold that computer simulations are to be considered as genuine experiments, others disagree and maintain that simulations are just another intellectual or theoretical tool to treat real experimnets, whereas increasingly the position held is that computer simulations are an intermediate between theory and experiment. Because there is an ongoing debate as to the epistemological status of computer simulations it cannot be said that there is a scientifc consensus on the matter.

According to totovader

To claim there is no scientific consensus regarding computer simulations is probably one of the most ignorant things you have said to date- and that's no small feat

Clearly totovader is ignorant of the ongoing debate as he elequantly states Where in the crap are you pulling this from?

Yet he prefers to dish out his usual insults with a condescending tone and demands that i prove there is no scientific consensus concerning the epistmeological status of computer simulations. He states
Provide evidence for these "views"- including statements from well-renowned individuals in their respective fields- or admit your ignorance. I'm not letting this one go, kiddo.

So perhaps you should check out some of these references, kiddo. You will find plenty of quotes that will satisfy your request.

Langton C. 1987 the methodology of scientific research programs cambridge university press

Lagay J.M 1997 L’experience et le modele. Un discours sur la methode INRA editions, Paris

Marshall A.W. 1954 “Preface”. Proc. Of the Symopsium on Monte Carlo Methods, ed. By Meyer and, Wiley and Sons, New York

Hartmann S. 1995 “Simulation” vol 3 Verlag Metzlar, Stuttgart

Dennett D 1995 “Artificial Life as Philosphy”. In Artificial Life: an Overview

Wagensberg J. 1985 Ideas Sobre la Complejidad del mundo, Barcelona, Tusquets Editores

Humphreys P 1990 “Computer Simulations”, in PSA (Philosophy of Science Association) 1990 vol. 2, 497- 506

Galison, P 1997 Image and Logic The University of Chicago Press 689-752.

[thewholesoul]

Oh- and just to make sure there's no ambiguity in your partial quote, here's the statement from the NIST WTC page:

In response to the WTC tragedy, the National Institute of Standards and Technology conducted a 3-year building and fire safety investigation to study the factors contributing to the probable cause (or causes) of post-impact collapse of the WTC Towers (WTC 1 and 2) and WTC 7; expanded its research in areas of high-priority need such as prevention of progressive collapse, fire resistance design and retrofit of structures, and fire resistive coatings for structural steel; and is reaching out to the building and fire safety communities to pave the way for timely, expedited considerations of recommendations stemming from the investigation

*emphasis original

Link (http://wtc.nist.gov/)

Is there anything in that statement that relates to the structural integrity of a building after it has already started collapsing?

If you can't figure it out, maybe we need to conduct a poll?

way to go totovader you have successfully self defeated yourself.

The "official hypothesis" has been proven for quite a long time

so if NIST has not investigated the structural integrity of the building AFTER IT HAS ALREADY STARTED COLLAPSING - then how do you propose they proved their hypothesis concerning TOTAL COLLAPSE???

The clock is still ticking on your restraction of that nasty lie. lets see if you will take the path of a rational adult.

[thewholesoul]

NIST was not tasked with "proving the official story"- because it had already been proven.

By who and was it proven by the scientifc method which requires experimenattion of the working hypothesis.

A lack of a computer model of the complete collapse is not evidence that it was not possible. Do you understand this?


Yes i do understand but do you understand that lack of a compuer model is not proof or validation that the official hypothesis is true?

[Totovader]

NIST's Report states that its first objective was to "determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed." The Report does not fulfill that objective.

Using your own words

So if you can acknowledge that their task was not to prove how and why the towers fell then why are you saying that the official hypothesis was proven??? That is a nasty lie and it needs to be retracted.

This "nasty lie" nonsense needs to stop right now. You are inventing a strawman argument. I Never said that the task of the NIST was not to prove how and why the towers fell, I said that the task of the NIST was not to prove that the towers fell.

The "official hypothesis" has been proven- for a very long time. Your rejection of the facts will not change that.

Determining why and how the WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed and discovering the reasons behind the structural failure up to and not beyond the initial collapse are not the same thing. NIST stopped short in relation to its first stated objective.

No, it did not- for the reasons that have already been explained to you- the reasons you continue to avoid and have no rebuttal to.

Its not proving that gravity works – what a ridiculous statement - rather its proving that the TOTAL COLLAPSE ensued due to gravity.

Why would you need a computer model to confirm that?

You have yet to answer this question.

gravity and the collapsing upper section of WTC 1+2 are the proposed official reasons as to why and how we observed a total collapse. But this official hypothesis was never proven through the scientific method. although you admit yourself that

#1 jim hoffman’s progressive collapse challenge still remains. I am not here to defend his challlenge but the greatest objection to his challenge is that it does not respect the scaling laws and to build a tower to scale and experiment on that is not feasible.

Yeah- pesky reality, always getting in the way of a good conspiracy theory...

#2 no computer model pertaining to the total collapse has been provided by NIST. You admit yourself that a computer model of the collapse itself is
. yet you say
. yes it ahs been done but not in relation to the total collapse.

Equivocation fallacy. I said that modeling of the building is possible- I did not say that modeling of the total collapse is possible (in fact, I said quite the opposite, but you don't like to quote me in full). There is not a computer in the world that would be able to accurately perform this task, and even if there was there are way too many data points to enter- for no reason at all.

You are trying to say that since the towers can be modeled- the simulation should be able to perform a catastrophic collapse. The ignorance required to reach that conclusion is incomprehensible. They're two completely different operations.

So the question is toto – when was the offiical hypothesis pertaining to the TOTAL PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE proven through the scientific method of experimentation via scale models or computer models?????

There is no need to prove that gravity works. If you are questioning as to whether gravity can destroy a building or not, then I suggest you start providing some pretty serious evidence- and debunk the papers I have already mentioned in regards to this specific claim.

To argue that (a) its not their task to prove the total collapse is self defeating because you are essentially admitting that NIST has not yet proven the total collapse. Besides it was the stated goal of NIST to determine how and why WTC 1+2 collapsed.

No... not "essentially admitting" that at all- because THEY WERE NOT TASKED WITH SUCH A RIDICULOUS JOB. Are you not understanding this?

The purpose of the NIST investigation was not to prove that the buildings collapsed, it was to find the mechanism of the collapse so that we could learn from the collapse and build better buildings and codes.

Read that again if you don't understand it. Continuing to move the goalpost is not helping your position, and neither is misstating the NIST position or objective.

To argue that (b) its not necessary is self contradicting because you admit that there is a need for experimentation and computer models and claim to support the scientific method.

You again are misquoting me. I said that there is obvious a need for computer modeling- I never said that modeling a total collapse is necessary. In fact, once again- I said the complete opposite.

You're so desperate to avoid the issue that all you're going to do is try and keep misquoting me to dodge the questions.

In closing experimentation of a hypothesis is necessary in order to prove that the hypothesis is true or not. NIST or anyone else for that matter has not PROVEN how the total collapsed ensued through experimentation.

Wrong. The collapse initiation has been well documented. This is what you continue to ignore- and obviously have no rebuttal for.

So when are you going to retract your nasty and ignorant lie?

As soon as you provide evidence that it's a "nasty ignorant lie". Obviously, you're in no position to do that since all you're doing is tossing out nonsense to avoid the issues.

So as for the retraction of you nasty lie i will be timing.

So you read my post- you just have no response? I see.

[thewholesoul]

Appeal to emotion. If I have to "disrespect" less than 1% of the total population of immediate family members to stand up to the kind of idiocy, deceit, and lies that you perpetrate on THE OVER 99% OF THE REST OF THEM, then that's what I will do.

your a real charming individual totovader. a prime example of moral standards and integrity.

[thewholesoul]

Answer my Challenge: What fact or piece of evidence would it take for you to admit you're wrong?

Ah the infamous totovader challenge – still unanswered!! Wow.

I need proof and validitation of the official hypothesis – not evidence. Evidence supports a hypothesis but it does not prove the hypothesis. these are separate issues amigo. This is why i demand you retract your nasty lie that the official story is proven. if the official story was proven i would have no hesitation – none – in believing it.

After reading you whinning This "nasty lie" nonsense needs to stop right now.

And out right refusal to retract your nasty lie i must say it has come as no surprise. Again if the official hypothesis pertaining to the progressive collapse of the wtc 1+2+7 was proven then who proved it and was it proven through the scientific method??? come on answer the question or retract your nasty lie.

Heres a challenge of my own: if, hypothetically speaking, we had more sophisticated computers and the official hypothesis was not proven to be to true. Would you still believe it? Or would you seek an alternative hypothesis?

In addition: if, hypothetically speaking, years from now high level whistle blowers come out in increasing numbers – would their testimony convince you that 911 could have been an inside job?

[Totovader]

Totovader holds the view that computer models are sufficient as a means to prove a hypothesis yet he also asserts that a computer model of the total collapse is technologically impossible. It requires patience to debate a person who holds such logically counter-intuitive positions.

"Logically counter-intuitive" makes no sense. There are no contradictions in my statements, only in your misrepresentations of them.

Now i tried to answer totovaders question as to why some may consider a computer simulation as insufficient as a means of provng a hypothesis.

"Some" being you, of course.

I provided the reasons why i suggested some would consider it insufficient but totovader was unable or unwilling to argue against those reasons.

Did you miss my entire post?

You have yet to show where computer models are rejected by the scientific community- this was your primary claim, so I expect you to provide evidence for it. If you need me to REPOST this request, I will. Apparently, you missed it.

I even added that because scale models are not a feasible means to test the official hypothesis that computer models may turn out to be the only means to prove the official hypothesis.

I'm not sure where you think you conceded this- since between all that nonsense you were trying to claim that computer models were insufficient and that the scientific community supports what "some" (read: you) think about that.

AZCat, for instance, stated that computer models are limited, and i agreed with that statement.

Actually, you misrepresented his post as well. He was not saying that computer models themselves- the process- are invalid, he was saying that data can be manipulated by the individuals themselves, but that's easy enough to test and identify.

How you think that helps your position that computer models are verbotten is beyond me.

Plus in the philosphy of science there is an ongoing debate as to the nature of computer simulations in terms of what they can prove. Some for instance hold that computer simulations are to be considered as genuine experiments, others disagree and maintain that simulations are just another intellectual or theoretical tool to treat real experimnets, whereas increasingly the position held is that computer simulations are an intermediate between theory and experiment. Because there is an ongoing debate as to the epistemological status of computer simulations it cannot be said that there is a scientifc consensus on the matter.

In order to be taken seriously- you need to provide evidence for this claim.

Clearly totovader is ignorant of the ongoing debate as he elequantly states

Clearly, you make a fool of yourself every time you try to sound smart in your personal attacks on me- you try, "elequantly" [sic] to get away with flat-out lies, and then pretend as if no one will notice.

Yet he prefers to dish out his usual insults with a condescending tone and demands that i prove there is no scientific consensus concerning the epistmeological status of computer simulations.

Do you know what epistmeological means? Because it's not even a word. I demand that you provide proof of your claims! Sue me.

So perhaps you should check out some of these references, kiddo. You will find plenty of quotes that will satisfy your request.

Plenty of quotes?

I didn't see a single quote in the nonsense you provided... Instead of providing evidence for your claim, you try an Argumentum ad Google.

Sorry, sparky- no one buys that you're smart enough to have an opinion on this. You will need to provide quotes, page numbers, or specific references. Just listing a bunch of books will not support your argument.

Langton C. 1987 the methodology of scientific research programs cambridge university press

Lagay J.M 1997 L’experience et le modele. Un discours sur la methode INRA editions, Paris

Marshall A.W. 1954 “Preface”. Proc. Of the Symopsium on Monte Carlo Methods, ed. By Meyer and, Wiley and Sons, New York

Hartmann S. 1995 “Simulation” vol 3 Verlag Metzlar, Stuttgart

Dennett D 1995 “Artificial Life as Philosphy”. In Artificial Life: an Overview

Wagensberg J. 1985 Ideas Sobre la Complejidad del mundo, Barcelona, Tusquets Editores

Humphreys P 1990 “Computer Simulations”, in PSA (Philosophy of Science Association) 1990 vol. 2, 497- 506

Galison, P 1997 Image and Logic The University of Chicago Press 689-752.

Here's the sad thing...

YOU STOLE THIS LIST from someone's resume no less. So not only are you talking out your rear, but you can't even be bothered to do your own research and support your own claims.

This is absurd. Every title here you stole from this link (http://wwwlisc.clermont.cemagref.fr/Animation/magestyc/Fonds_documentaire/Fondsdoc/resumes/Varenne2001.pdf). That's beyond plagiarism, it's just pure absurdity. You're pretending to have knowledge on something you clearly know nothing about, and your escape from the obvious is to lie your way through it even more.

This is sad. Sad and pathetic. You should be embarrassed.

[Totovader]

your a real charming individual totovader. a prime example of moral standards and integrity.

In light of your most recent spat of fraudulent plagiarism, this statement is pure irony.

[thewholesoul]

In light of your most recent spat of fraudulent plagiarism, this statement is pure irony.

hahahahha - loosing your temper i see.

well the link you provided and i took the references from after reading the link should point out why "some" do not consider computer simulations as a form of experimentation.

quoting me saying "beyond" or "and" computer simulation is hardly a sound reason to suggest i consider computer simulation insufficient. beyond does not necessarily mean "better than" or "superior" no matter how much you pray that it does.

so now i am the plagorist for reading a phd paper and using its references.

but what are you? a person who will not retract a lie and a person who openly admits he would disrespect family members who make a petition because they are the minority. i think you have a lot more to apologise for buddy.

[Totovader]

hahahahha - loosing your temper i see.

If your goal is to make me "loose" [sic] my temper, then making yourself look like a fool is not going to work.

well the link you provided and i took the references from after reading the link should point out why "some" do not consider computer simulations as a form of experimentation.

So not only did you not adequately read the information you stole, but you didn't even read the references you were giving.

And you expect people to take you seriously?

quoting me saying "beyond" or "and" computer simulation is hardly a sound reason to suggest i consider computer simulation insufficient. beyond does not necessarily mean "better than" or "superior" no matter how much you pray that it does.

Yet you try to defend the position. That's odd...

so now i am the plagorist for reading a phd paper and using its references.

Since that's what plagiarism is... YES.

but what are you? a person who will not retract a lie and a person who openly admits he would disrespect family members who make a petition because they are the minority. i think you have a lot more to apologise for buddy.

There's no lie to retract. I stated my reasons for disagreeing with 2 family members, why you think that gives you an excuse to commit lies and plagiarism is a mystery, however.

[thewholesoul]

(i said) In closing experimentation of a hypothesis is necessary in order to prove that the hypothesis is true or not. NIST or anyone else for that matter has not PROVEN how the total collapsed ensued through experimentation

Then you said

Wrong. The collapse initiation has been well documented. This is what you continue to ignore- and obviously have no rebuttal for.

you sent me these experiments already in a previous post.

These experiments directly address that need, and thus prove the very specifics of what happened in the cause of the collapse of the Towers.

However, you're missing the models of the collapse themselves, which have been publicly available for quite some time.

the reason i didnt respond is becasue i already outlined all the simlutions conducted by NIST in a post prior to yours!! lets see them again shall we.

1.Comparison of two computer simulations of the fire behavior in the upper stories of the WTC North Tower (1 WTC) based on different internal conditions and fuel distribution. The left simulation shows very large flames extending from the exterior damage holes with the right showing few flames extending out. The simulation on the right seems to agree more with pictorial records:
http://realex.nist.gov/WTCanimation1.ram
2.Simulation of the WTC South Tower (2 WTC) fireball seconds after impact of the plane: http://realex.nist.gov/WTCanimation2.ram
3.A computer simulation showing the smoke plume generated by the fire in the WTC North Tower (1 WTC). http://realex.nist.gov/WTCanimation3.ram
4.A computer simulation showing the combining of the smoke plumes generated from the fires in the upper stories of WTC North and South Towers (1 WTC and 2 WTC):
http://realex.nist.gov/WTCanimation4.ram
5.Computer simulation showing the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft engine into an exterior wall panel and two core columns of a WTC tower.
http://realex.nist.gov:8080/ramgen/WTC_engine1.rm
6.Computer simulation showing the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft engine into an exterior wall panel, floor system and core columns of a WTC tower.
http://realex.nist.gov:8080/ramgen/WTC_engine2.rm
7.Computer simulation (containing 90,000 elements) showing the response of the WTC North Tower to wind loads. http://realex.nist.gov:8080/ramgen/WTC_windloads.rm
8.Computer simulation showing some of the progression of the fires on the 97th floor of the WTC North Tower. http://realex.nist.gov:8080/ramgen/WTC_fireon97th.rm
9.Computer simulation (containing 40,000 elements) showing the response of the 96th floor of the WTC North Tower to gravity loads. http://realex.nist.gov:8080/ramgen/WTC_gavityloads.rm
10.Computer simulation showing the response to gravity and elevated temperatures of a strip of floor (including floor trusses and concrete slab) connected to an exterior column of a WTC tower. http://realex.nist.gov:8080/ramgen/WTC_stripresponse.rm
(borrowed from 911reseach.com)

Why i never bothered with a rebuttal is because these simulations are up to and not beyond the initial collapse. They do not prove the total collapse. Nobody has proven the total collapse and until the total collapse of the wtc has been proven either by scale model or computer model it the official hypothesis REMAINS LARGELY UNPORVEN.

But you claimed, and continue to claim, that the official hypothesis has been proven. This is a nasty lie that needs to be retracted. If the total collapse has been proven then please tell me who proved it, and was it proven through the scientific method. [/QUOTE]

[Totovader]

Then you said



you sent me these experiments already in a previous post.



the reason i didnt respond is becasue i already outlined all the simlutions conducted by NIST in a post prior to yours!! lets see them again shall we.

1.Comparison of two computer simulations of the fire behavior in the upper stories of the WTC North Tower (1 WTC) based on different internal conditions and fuel distribution. The left simulation shows very large flames extending from the exterior damage holes with the right showing few flames extending out. The simulation on the right seems to agree more with pictorial records:
http://realex.nist.gov/WTCanimation1.ram
2.Simulation of the WTC South Tower (2 WTC) fireball seconds after impact of the plane: http://realex.nist.gov/WTCanimation2.ram
3.A computer simulation showing the smoke plume generated by the fire in the WTC North Tower (1 WTC). http://realex.nist.gov/WTCanimation3.ram
4.A computer simulation showing the combining of the smoke plumes generated from the fires in the upper stories of WTC North and South Towers (1 WTC and 2 WTC):
http://realex.nist.gov/WTCanimation4.ram
5.Computer simulation showing the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft engine into an exterior wall panel and two core columns of a WTC tower.
http://realex.nist.gov:8080/ramgen/WTC_engine1.rm
6.Computer simulation showing the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft engine into an exterior wall panel, floor system and core columns of a WTC tower.
http://realex.nist.gov:8080/ramgen/WTC_engine2.rm
7.Computer simulation (containing 90,000 elements) showing the response of the WTC North Tower to wind loads. http://realex.nist.gov:8080/ramgen/WTC_windloads.rm
8.Computer simulation showing some of the progression of the fires on the 97th floor of the WTC North Tower. http://realex.nist.gov:8080/ramgen/WTC_fireon97th.rm
9.Computer simulation (containing 40,000 elements) showing the response of the 96th floor of the WTC North Tower to gravity loads. http://realex.nist.gov:8080/ramgen/WTC_gavityloads.rm
10.Computer simulation showing the response to gravity and elevated temperatures of a strip of floor (including floor trusses and concrete slab) connected to an exterior column of a WTC tower. http://realex.nist.gov:8080/ramgen/WTC_stripresponse.rm
(borrowed from 911reseach.com)

Why i never bothered with a rebuttal is because these simulations are up to and not beyond the initial collapse. They do not prove the total collapse. Nobody has proven the total collapse and until the total collapse of the wtc has been proven either by scale model or computer model it the official hypothesis REMAINS LARGELY UNPORVEN.

But you claimed, and continue to claim, that the official hypothesis has been proven. This is a nasty lie that needs to be retracted. If the total collapse has been proven then please tell me who proved it, and was it proven through the scientific method.

There's nothing for me to respond to, here- I've already addressed these claims. Reposting them will not suddenly make them adequate and it will not counteract your lies.

You need to address the questions I have presented. I've given you enough rope.

[thewholesoul]

There's no lie to retract. I stated my reasons for disagreeing with 2 family members, why you think that gives you an excuse to commit lies and plagiarism is a mystery, however.

so total collapse was proven?

ah, so you only "disagree" with the family members. i thought you said

If I have to "disrespect" less than 1% of the total population of immediate family members to stand up to the kind of idiocy, deceit, and lies that you perpetrate on THE OVER 99% OF THE REST OF THEM, then that's what I will do

you also called them "wackos" earlier in that post for filing a petition.

look if you dont have the moral fibre to retract your lie that the official hypothesis pertaining to the total collapse was proven

you could at least apologise about your willingness to "disrespect" family members because you may "disagree" with them. do you not have an ounce of civilty?

your welcome to ignore taht last question.

[thewholesoul]

There's no lie to retract. I stated my reasons for disagreeing with 2 family members, why you think that gives you an excuse to commit lies and plagiarism is a mystery, however.

so total collapse was proven?

ah, so you only "disagree" with the family members. i thought you said

If I have to "disrespect" less than 1% of the total population of immediate family members to stand up to the kind of idiocy, deceit, and lies that you perpetrate on THE OVER 99% OF THE REST OF THEM, then that's what I will do.

you also called them "wackos" earlier in that post for filing a petition.

look if you dont have the moral fibre to retract your lie that the official hypothesis pertaining to the total collapse was proven

you could at least apologise about your willingness to "disrespect" family members because you may "disagree" with them. do you not have an ounce of civilty?

your welcome to ignore that last question

[Totovader]

so total collapse was proven?

ah, so you only "disagree" with the family members. i thought you said

I'm only going to say this one more time: you need to address the questions I have presented.

Your case- and your credibility- are both dead. In the event that you decide to visit reality again, I may hear your argument. Until then- these red herrings will be ignored.

You had to plagiarize someone else's work in order to even try and keep up with your own lies (reading the summary of some of those references- you clearly had no idea as to what they're talking about). If that is not a wakeup call to the futility of your absurd claims, I don't know what will be- but I'm certainly not going to continue to allow you to ignore the facts.

Answer the questions, or move on.

[thewholesoul]

You need to address the questions I have presented. I've given you enough rope.

ah, i always have to answer lord vadars questions yet he doesnot need to answer mine.

was the total collapse, not the initial collapse, proven by the scientific method? yes or no.

if no, then how can you claim that the official hypothesis has been proven??

you need to man-up and admit when you spread nasty lies.

[Totovader]

ah, i always have to answer lord vadars questions yet he doesnot need to answer mine.

was the total collapse, not the initial collapse, proven by the scientific method? yes or no.

if no, then how can you claim that the official hypothesis has been proven??

you need to man-up and admit when you spread nasty lies.

I have answered all of your questions, you just feel that you can repost them in order to ignore my responses.

Either address my questions or move on.

[thewholesoul]

I have answered all of your questions, you just feel that you can repost them in order to ignore my responses.

Either address my questions or move on.

you did not answer all my questions. was the total collapse, not the initial collapse, proven by the scientific method? yes or no.

if no, then how can you claim that the official hypothesis has been proven??

you did not answer the hypothetical questions in response to the totovader challenge either.

answer that simple yes or no and i will gladly answer all your questions amigo.

do you still stand by your claim that the official hypothesis has been proven?

[Totovader]

you did not answer all my questions. was the total collapse, not the initial collapse, proven by the scientific method? yes or no.

if no, then how can you claim that the official hypothesis has been proven??

you did not answer the hypothetical questions in response to the totovader challenge either.

answer that simple yes or no and i will gladly answer all your questions amigo.

do you still stand by your claim that the official hypothesis has been proven?

See previous post. There is no reason for me to continue to repeat myself. I do not stand by your characterizations of my statements- but that has already been addressed.

You need to either address my questions or move on.

If you do not address my questions, I will put you on ignore and request that the thread be moderated.

[chillzero]

Please report any Rule 4 violations for review. Thanks.

[Totovader]

Please report any Rule 4 violations for review. Thanks.

Did- quite a while ago, actually.

[thewholesoul]

If you do not address my questions, I will put you on ignore and request that the thread be moderated.

do it - put me on ignore. i wont loose any sleep over it.

you made a nasty lie that the offical hypothesis was proven - which is not true because the progressive collapse has not been proven yet by scale model or computer model.

you refuse to apologise for openly declaring that you are willing to "disrespect" family members because you "disagree" with them - you should be ashamed of yourself, sir.

and you justify disrespecting them because they are a minority and are not representative of all the family members - that makes you a moral coward, sir.

[Totovader]

do it - put me on ignore. i wont loose any sleep over it.

you made a nasty lie that the offical hypothesis was proven - which is not true because the progressive collapse has not been proven yet by scale model or computer model.

you refuse to apologise for openly declaring that you are willing to "disrespect" family members because you "disagree" with them - you should be ashamed of yourself, sir.

and you justify disrespecting them because they are a minority and are not representative of all the family members - that makes you a moral coward, sir.

Your characterizations of my statements are easily corrected by reviewing my statements. If anyone- for a minute- buys the nonsense you're selling, I challenge them to go read my statements in context and judge for themselves.

You are certainly in no position to claim I am a "moral coward", and are only doing so in order to avoid your own failures: you're going down kicking and screaming.

Good luck getting people to pay attention to you.

Welcome to ignore.

[Arus808]

toto, finally. you should have done that on page 1.

[Belz...]

obviously no experimnets have been conducted beyond the initial collapse which is why the official hypothesis remains largely unproven.

That's only if you can show that, once the collapse was initiated, it could be stopped.

if i was american i would glady pay. WHO do you think already paid for the investigation to date? the same people who pay for the police service, the firefighters, etc etc

Yes, but the investigation was ALREADY done. Asking for a NEW investigation, don't you think that it's the people who are ASKING for it who should pay ?

in order words YOU already contibuted to the investigation

Nope.

to date and YOU and other tax payers would contribute to another investigation if it indeed went ahead.

I would disagree, since one was already done and I am satisfied with its conclusions.

it is really lame that you cite a surmountable finacial obstacle as a reason against a reinvestigation. very lame. but i agree lets just drop it.

You have completely misunderstood, but that isn't surprising. I simply asked you WHO would pay for it. I never said it was a financial difficulty. I was asking who would be responsible for funding it.

i asked where would you prefer - if you had the choice - your taxes to go? (a) reinvestigation into 911 or (b) towards the development of nuclear weapons? i would prefer the former, what would you prefer? its a straightforward question.

Nuclear weapons sure would be more useful than a new investigation into 9/11.

ok so now your sayng (i presume) that america is developing nuclear weapons but "we" the average american tax payer is not developing them.

No, that is definitely not what I'm saying. Perhaps you should check some of your assumptions before you procede with your reply.

i admitted i was wrong and retracted the statment.

Not when you asked him to retract it first. You admitted it was wrong but did NOT retract it. THAT was what I said was immature.

[Belz...]

If it cannot be proven true then it must be false.

[...]

by insisting that the official hypothesis cannot be proven by any form of experimentation you are implicitly rejecting the scientific method.

I think you should go to science class before you make inane statements like this.

[Belz...]

a posteriori - the explosives hypothesis is a far more plausible explanation than a fire and gravity driven collapse.

Huh ? Why ? Doesn't the fact that no explosion can be seen or heard on any of the videos, or the fact that no trace of explosives were found, mean something to you ?

how do i know that? well when you ask yourself how many steel frame buildings came down through fire and gravity as opposed to how many steel frame buildings have been brought down by explosives.

How is that relevant, in any way, shape or form ?

once you answer this question honestly you will realize that on a posteriori grounds the explosive hypothesis is far more plausible as a means to demolish a steel frame building or cause a progressive global collapse.

Of course, that's ASSUMING that someone WANTED to demolish the building that way. Aren't you tired of arguing in circles ?

NIST's Report states that its first objective is to "determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed." The Report does not fulfill that objective.

How so, since it explains how the collapse initiated ?

Or do you really contend that something could've stopped it ?

so total collapse was proven?

Go to Manhattan. Look for the towers.

you could at least apologise about your willingness to "disrespect" family members because you may "disagree" with them. do you not have an ounce of civilty?

Appeal to emotion.

[Belz...]

do it - put me on ignore. i wont loose any sleep over it.

How the hell can someone unscrew sleep ?

[DGM]

How the hell can someone unscrew sleep ?
Haven't you ever heard anyone say "sleep tight"?;)

[thewholesoul]

(i said) obviously no experimnets have been conducted beyond the initial collapse which is why the official hypothesis remains largely unproven.


That's only if you can show that, once the collapse was initiated, it could be stopped.

the fact that the official hypothesis remains unproven is because it has not been tested either through scale models or computer models.

it is those who endorse the official hypothesis that need to prove that once the initial collapse has started it could not have been stopped.

it is the person who asserts or otherwise relies upon the truth of a proposition - i.e. that global callapse ensued from the initial collapse - bear the burden of proof.

if or when the official hypothesis is proven i will accept it. if however it is not proven then the official hypothesis must be abandoned and a new working hypothesis should take its place.

[thewholesoul]

I think you should go to science class before you make inane statements like this.

please eloborate

[beachnut]

the fact that the official hypothesis remains unproven is because it has not been tested either through scale models or computer models.

it is those who endorse the official hypothesis that need to prove that once the initial collapse has started it could not have been stopped.

it is the person who asserts or otherwise relies upon the truth of a proposition - i.e. that global callapse ensued from the initial collapse - bear the burden of proof.

if or when the official hypothesis is proven i will accept it. if however it is not proven then the official hypothesis must be abandoned and a new working hypothesis should take its place.
NO, you are wrong again. There is visual proof! Darn. Too bad, but there is visual proof of impact, fire, and collapse.

Therefore your crazy ideas of some other story, have to be proven with evidence and facts, not hand waving, hearsay and lies. Nice try but facts are needed, and you have to prove your ideas. No facts, then take your ideas to some fantasy forum.

[A W Smith]

the fact that the official hypothesis remains unproven is because it has not been tested either through scale models or computer models.

it is those who endorse the official hypothesis that need to prove that once the initial collapse has started it could not have been stopped.

it is the person who asserts or otherwise relies upon the truth of a proposition - i.e. that global callapse ensued from the initial collapse - bear the burden of proof.

if or when the official hypothesis is proven i will accept it. if however it is not proven then the official hypothesis must be abandoned and a new working hypothesis should take its place.

the official hypothesis was proven by the terrorists themselves on the second tower, same concept. same day, identical result. get over it

[thewholesoul]

Huh ? Why ? Doesn't the fact that no explosion can be seen or heard on any of the videos, or the fact that no trace of explosives were found, mean something to you?

how many people have i presented in this thread that claimed that they heard an "explosion"??????????????

whats your view on Assistant comissioner Stephan Gregory's experinece “i thought that i saw lower level flashes...(at) the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building”

so it would appear my friend that people both heard and saw what they percieved to be an explosion.

moreover there are plenty of you tube videos where you can hear explosions. there are plenty of tv reporters reporting that they heard explosions.

your statement above is baffling.

How so, since it explains how the collapse initiated?
Or do you really contend that something could've stopped it ?

yes i contend that the intact section below the impact zone should have arrested the initial collapse. you contend that it could not have arrested the initial collapse - so prove your hypothesis because your hypothesis is the only hypothesis under investigation. if the official hypothesis cannot be proven then it must be abandoned and a new working hypothesis should take its place.

Go to Manhattan. Look for the towers.

what a lame response. your saying that because there is no tower standing, that both towers displayed a global collapse that somehow that proves their global collapse was caused by gravity. what a joke.

i could just as easily argue that because there is no towers in Manhattan that that proves global collapse was caused by explosives. i would not make this argument however because it is absurd pointing to a consequence as proof of the hypothetical cause!!

[thewholesoul]

Huh ? Why ? Doesn't the fact that no explosion can be seen or heard on any of the videos, or the fact that no trace of explosives were found, mean something to you?

how many people have i presented in this thread that claimed that they heard an "explosion"??????????????

whats your view on Assistant comissioner Stephan Gregory's experinece “i thought that i saw lower level flashes...(at) the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building”

so it would appear my friend that people both heard and saw what they percieved to be an explosion.

moreover there are plenty of you tube videos where you can hear explosions. there are plenty of tv reporters reporting that they heard explosions.

as for the no trace of explosives i will address that point on a latter stage.

your statement above is baffling.

How so, since it explains how the collapse initiated?
Or do you really contend that something could've stopped it ?

yes i contend that the intact section below the impact zone should have arrested the initial collapse. you contend that it could not have arrested the initial collapse - so prove your hypothesis because your hypothesis is the only hypothesis under investigation. if the official hypothesis cannot be proven then it must be abandoned and a new working hypothesis should take its place.

Go to Manhattan. Look for the towers.

what a lame response. your saying that because there is no tower standing, that both towers displayed a global collapse that somehow that proves their global collapse was caused by gravity. what a joke.

i could just as easily argue that because there is no towers in Manhattan that that proves global collapse was caused by explosives. i would not make this argument however because it is absurd pointing to a consequence as proof of the hypothetical cause!!

[thewholesoul]

the official hypothesis was proven by the terrorists themselves on the south tower, same concept. same day, identical result. get over it

hahahahhaha - the terrorists proved the official hypothesis of global collapse

what is the major malfunction of people in this room??

news flash

- the official hypothesis has not been proven
- the official hypothesis has not been proven

get over it.

pointing out the "same result" does not prove that gravity caused the total collapse. THERE HAS BEEN NO TEST THAT PROVED THE OFFICIAL HYPOTHESIS.

if your saying terrorists proved total collapse of te twin towers then explain to me please did they employ the scientific method??? hahahhahah

[thewholesoul]

NO, you are wrong again. There is visual proof! Darn. Too bad, but there is visual proof of impact, fire, and collapse.

Therefore your crazy ideas of some other story, have to be proven with evidence and facts, not hand waving, hearsay and lies. Nice try but facts are needed, and you have to prove your ideas. No facts, then take your ideas to some fantasy forum.

this is a fantasy forum if your suggesting that observing the total collapse of the twin towers proves that it was caused by gravity!!!

according to my "visual proof" the pulverisation and total collapse was caused by demoltion.

hypothesis are proven throught the scientific method.

[A W Smith]

hahahahhaha - the terrorists proved the official hypothesis of global collapse

what is the major malfunction of people in this room??

news flash

- the official hypothesis has not been proven
- the official hypothesis has not been proven

get over it.

pointing out the "same result" does not prove that gravity caused the total collapse. THERE HAS BEEN NO TEST THAT PROVED THE OFFICIAL HYPOTHESIS.

if your saying terrorists proved total collapse of te twin towers then explain to me please did they employ the scientific method??? hahahhahah
yes they did use a scientific method. Hit the south tower lower in the theory that a larger mass over the impact area will cause the building to collapse sooner. Observe., Compare results.

[thewholesoul]

ok going back to the topic.

rodriguez heard an explosion. so did the following people. their testimony was not used by NIST

Paramedic Daniel Rivera “did – you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear pop pop pop pop pop?...i thought it was that.

Witness timothy burke “the building popped, lower than the fire...i was going oh, my god, there is a secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was an explosion”

Firefighter edward cachia – “it actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. We originally thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives...”

Assistant comissioner stephan gregory “i thought that i saw lower level flashes...(at) the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building”

so what explains their experiences? and why did NIST not use their testimony?

[thewholesoul]

yes they did use a scientific method. Hit the south tower lower in the theory that a larger mass over the impact area will cause the building to collapse sooner. Observe., Compare results.

observation of an event is not the scientific method.

are you really saying that everytime i watch the south tower being demolished first and compare that to the north tower which was demolished second that i am actually conducting an experiment???

the official hypothesis has not been proven - thats a fact. your assuming that the above weight was the cause of the global collapse. your assumptions must be proven in order to establish their truth.

[pomeroo]

the fact that the official hypothesis remains unproven is because it has not been tested either through scale models or computer models.

it is those who endorse the official hypothesis that need to prove that once the initial collapse has started it could not have been stopped.

it is the person who asserts or otherwise relies upon the truth of a proposition - i.e. that global callapse ensued from the initial collapse - bear the burden of proof.

if or when the official hypothesis is proven i will accept it. if however it is not proven then the official hypothesis must be abandoned and a new working hypothesis should take its place.


Why do conspiracy liars pretend that a trivial question is important?

Yes, we all understand that no real scientists or engineers are actually wondering if anything could have magically impeded the collapse once the avalanche got rolling.

The real question, to repeat, is why do conspiracy liars think they might be buying time for their dying fantasy by pretending that there is a genuine issue here?

Tell us what conceivably could have held up the collapse once it began.

[thewholesoul]

hey everybody

what caused the ignition of the jet fuel in the elevator shaft? does anybody know?

[thewholesoul]

Why do conspiracy liars pretend that a trivial question is important?

Yes, we all understand that no real scientists or engineers are actually wondering if anything could have magically impeded the collapse once the avalanche got rolling.

The real question, to repeat, is why do conspiracy liars think they might be buying time for thier dying fantasy by pretending that there is a genuine issue here?

Tell us what conceivably could have held up the collapse once it began.

hmmm - perhaps the intact outer and core columns i would imagine

[pomeroo]

this is a fantasy forum if your suggesting that observing the total collapse of the twin towers proves that it was caused by gravity!!!

according to my "visual proof" the pulverisation and total collapse was caused by demoltion.

hypothesis are proven throught the scientific method.


You and your fellow liars always duck the total rejection of your fantasy by people who actually work in the demolition industry. You know nothing about demolition. Why should your uninformed, agenda-driven guesses be taken seriously?

[pomeroo]

hmmm - perhaps the intact outer and core columns i would imagine


So, we have established that you are a total ignoramus.

End of thread.

[Arus808]

hey everybody

what caused the ignition of the jet fuel in the elevator shaft? does anybody know?

Are you #$@#$@ serious?

[Gravy]

Are you #$@#$@ serious?Oh, innocent Arus! Everyone knows that not a single piece of flaming debris could have fallen down those shafts, which magically sealed themselves after being hit by airliners, and not a single spark could have been caused by anything in the shafts. It's umpossible!

[Arus808]

these idiots have to go back to freaking elementary school. the first thing they TEACH you about FIRE safety is that you need three ingredients to start a fire: FUEL, OXYGEN and HEAT! there was a hell a lot of fuel! A TON of oxygen and damn, those planes are the SOURCE of the heat!

[beachnut]

this is a fantasy forum if your suggesting that observing the total collapse of the twin towers proves that it was caused by gravity!!!

according to my "visual proof" the pulverisation and total collapse was caused by demoltion.

hypothesis are proven throught the scientific method.
Still no facts to support anything you are saying. What are you saying. Do you know how hot the inside of jet engine is?
Are you an engineer?
As an engineer, my first guess on 9/11, as I watched the WTC tower fall. Impact, fire, and collapse caused by gravity. You see gravity is the big force on 9/11 right behind the fuel of the jets and the fires in the buildings. Gravity was like 136 tons of TNT being released as KE as the building fell, the energy in the fuel was equal in energy to 315 tons of TNT, and the fires, the office fires were BIG. And as an engineer it was easy to calculate some energy models to prove gravity collapse as confirmed by the failure on 9/11 is real!

As you failed to understand how steel fails in fires, you just repeat the old junk hearsay talk from 9/11 truth. No ability to calculate anything and show anyone why any of the studies done about the WTC are false. You are the one who says the Chief Engineer on the WTC is wrong! You have to come up with some real stuff, not talk to prove your pathetic ideas are true. So far you have just talked, you said something about gravity not able to do it. You are wrong. You say there was a demolition by explosives but failed to show the facts and evidence to support your delusion. It is a delusion because you have no facts! Do you understand how this works, you must present facts, not talk.

You failed, try again after you study 9/11 for a few years!

[Totovader]

Oh, innocent Arus! Everyone knows that not a single piece of flaming debris could have fallen down those shafts, which magically sealed themselves after being hit by airliners, and not a single spark could have been caused by anything in the shafts. It's umpossible!

And if you can't identify the exact source of the ignition- put it into thewholesouls hand and then carbon date it... "the official story is unproven because it doesn't follow the scientific method".

Of course- we don't know if thewholesoul even exists. He has yet to prove he was born.

[pomeroo]

Oh, innocent Arus! Everyone knows that not a single piece of flaming debris could have fallen down those shafts, which magically sealed themselves after being hit by airliners, and not a single spark could have been caused by anything in the shafts. It's umpossible!


I'm always curious when I hear such "questions" being asked: if you doused the jackass with gasoline and asked him to strike a match, would he ask, "What's the big deal? So, what's supposed to happen?" Really? You think he doesn't know?

[Belz...]

the fact that the official hypothesis remains unproven is because it has not been tested either through scale models or computer models.

Whole, the accepted theory IS the official one. That means it's YOUR burden to prove it wrong.

please eloborate

No, YOU get an education.

how many people have i presented in this thread that claimed that they heard an "explosion"??????????????

I said: not a single explosion can be seen or heard on the videos. People hear all kinds of stuff when big things fall down, and so far it's consistent with what we see on the video. I also repeat: NO TRACE of explosives were found. How do you explain that ?

moreover there are plenty of you tube videos where you can hear explosions.

Link to one, please.

yes i contend that the intact section below the impact zone should have arrested the initial collapse. you contend that it could not have arrested the initial collapse - so prove your hypothesis because your hypothesis is the only hypothesis under investigation.

No. It is IMPOSSIBLE to stop such a large falling mass. YOU prove the opposite. I don't have to show that every engineer on the planet is right.

what a lame response. your saying that because there is no tower standing, that both towers displayed a global collapse that somehow that proves their global collapse was caused by gravity. what a joke.

No, that's not what I said. Again you show you have no reading ability.

[Belz...]

ok so now your sayng (i presume) that america is developing nuclear weapons but "we" the average american tax payer is not developing them.
No, that is definitely not what I'm saying. Perhaps you should check some of your assumptions before you procede with your reply.


Did you get the answer, Thewholesoul ?

[thewholesoul]

Oh, innocent Arus! Everyone knows that not a single piece of flaming debris could have fallen down those shafts, which magically sealed themselves after being hit by airliners, and not a single spark could have been caused by anything in the shafts. It's umpossible!

dear grravy thanks for your reply. at least you provided an answer unlike others in the thread who still prefer insults.

- you suggested two possible causes pertaining to the ignition of the jet fuel (a) flaming debris and (b) sparks

- because no experiments were conducted which proved that the jet fuel was in fact caused by flaming debris or a spark 60-90 floors beneath the impact zone we will just have to take your word or unproven assumption for granted.

so lets apply some critical thinking to the flaming debris hypothesis
of course there was flaming debris from the impact and explosion of the plane. this occurred on the 93rd foor in the north tower.

now i know you are all very intelligent folk in this room so may be one could explain to me how flaming debris could possibly fall 90+ floors down the elveator shaft but only ignite the jet fuel once it had past an evelator and reached the b2-3 level?

now according to Morelli's testimony he was thrown to the floor on a second occassion when he ran across to the south tower. so despite the fact that the planes hit on different levels the flaming debris ignited at the same basement level b2-3.

one would expect that if the debris was flaming it would have ignited the jet fuel in the elevator before reaching the basement. i would love to an experiment which could demonstrate how this could possibly have happened.

the spark hypothesis

first question is what caused the spark or sparks?
second, assuming the emergency brakes of the freight elevator produced sparks how come that did not ignite the jet fuel?
third, how come jet fuel ignited twice in both towers at the same b2-3 location?

so what caused the spark in the elevator? and once we agree on what could have caused the spark an experiment is needed in order to prove that a spark could ignite the falling jet fuel.

[DavidJames]

...and once we agree on what could have caused the spark an experiment is needed in order to prove that a spark could ignite the falling jet fuel.I would like to see an experiment which proves that the above quote was not a joke designed to make 9/11 CTists look bad.

[thewholesoul]

Whole, the accepted theory IS the official one. That means it's YOUR burden to prove it wrong.

i will explain to you again. the official theory is not proven. the official hypothesis is accepted by supporters of the official hypothesis. it is not accepted by supporters of the demolition hypothesis.

Proof means the conclusive establishing of the truth of a proposition.
the official hypothesis asserts that the buildings were demolished due to gravity. it is a FACT that this assertion has not been proven by the scientific method.

if the official hypothesis is proven then the demolition hypothesis is debunked. if the official hypothesis is tested and cannot be proven then we must abandon the official hypothesis and test an alternative hypothesis.

No, YOU get an education..

i am educated enough not to resort to insults when engaging in a dialogue

I said: not a single explosion can be seen or heard on the videos. People hear all kinds of stuff when big things fall down, and so far it's consistent with what we see on the video. I also repeat: NO TRACE of explosives were found. How do you explain that ?..

if there is no shortage of testimony claiming they heard explosions it is a utterly ridiculous statemnet to say that "not a single explosion was heard on video" even if there was no video footage of explosions heard it does not NEGATE the testimony.

but here is a list of videos i found on youtube where you can hear with your own ears explosions. enjoy.

Re: 9/11 Debate: Loose Change vs. Popular Mechanics pt. 1

9/11 Twin Towers: Bomb in the lobby!

Account of North Tower Explosions from the New Jersey Shore

EXPLOSIVES going off in WTC CLEAR AUDIO! 911 Demolition

9/11: Total Proof That Bombs Were Planted In The Buildings

as i said i will get to the traces of explosives found on a later date.

and maybe you can provide me with a list of "all the knids if stuff" that are responsible for the explosions that were heard

No. It is IMPOSSIBLE to stop such a large falling mass. YOU prove the opposite. I don't have to show that every engineer on the planet is right.

the burden of proof rests on your assumption - "It is IMPOSSIBLE to stop such a large falling mass". it is a fact that only the official hypothesis is being investigated. now here the beauty, if or when the official hypothesis is proven then that will automatically debunk alternative hypothesis but if the official hypothesis cannot be proven then it must be abandoned. so logically we both have an invested interest in any efforts aimed at proving the official hypothesis.

yes we do have to prove that every engineer on the planet is right.

[thewholesoul]

I would like to see an experiment which proves that the above quote was not a joke designed to make 9/11 CTists look bad.

may be instead of smart comments you could provide an answer to teh question. what produced the sparks that are purported to have ignited the jet fuel?

by failing to answer this relatively simple question it is you that looks bad, not me.