Why the burden of proof is on the Truthers

[aggle-rithm]

One of the most important tactics of members of the "truth" movement is to create the impression that their viewpoint is on equal footing with what they call the "government's official story". Never mind that most of us did not get our information about the events of 9/11 from the government. Never mind that the truthers don't HAVE a viewpoint, simply a strong antipathy towards the "official version".

Truthers often say either that we (meaning rational adults) share the burden of proof equally with them, or that we actually bear the burden of proof because their non-existent viewpoint is "obviously" superior.

Truthers, here is the reason that you, not we, have the burden of proof.

The so-called "official story" is superior to anything offered up by the truth movement because it relies on zero, count them, ZERO unknown entities.

For everything that we claim happened on 9/11, we can point to a KNOWN person, thing, or event that explains it.

We claim the planes were hijacked by Middle Eastern terrorists.

We KNOW there were people linked to al Qaeda in the US. We KNOW they trained for this mission. We KNOW they were on the planes that crashed. We KNOW they inadvertently contacted air traffic control indicating they had hijacked the planes. We KNOW that stewardesses and passengers corroborated this before the planes crashed.

We say the WTC towers fell from a combination of impact damage from airplanes and fires.

We KNOW there were airplanes. We KNOW there were fires.

We claim that flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

We KNOW flight 77 disappeared at the same time the Pentagon was hit. We KNOW that the wreckage of flight 77 was found in the Pentagon. We KNOW that the remains of the passengers were also found there.

Does that mean that our claims are guaranteed to be 100% true? No, but it does mean that for an alternate theory to be considered equal, it must also have zero unknown entities.

Do the truther claims meet this criteria? Let's examine of few of them:

Claim: The towers were brought down by thermite/thermate.

Unknown entities: Thermite/thermate, the technology to use same in destruction of a large building.

Claim: People whose testimony contradicts the truther claims are in on the conspiracy.

Unknown entities: The conspiracy, the people who are in on it.

Claim: A missile hit the Pentagon, not flight 77.

Unknown entities: The missile, the operation to fake evidence found at the Pentagon.

Claim: The term "pull it" is often used by demolition experts to describe controlled demolition by explosives.

Unknown entities: The actual use of the term "pull it" by demolition experts to describe controlled demolition by explosives.

See how that works?

Note that just because one theory has zero unknown entities and the other has many doesn't mean that one is true and the other is not. However, it DOES mean that the burden of proof is on the party that supports the theory with more unknown entities.

Is it POSSIBLE that some of the known entities of the "official story" are not real? Sure it is, but again, this hypothesis can only be supported by adding more unknown entities (accomplices who faked evidence and are unwilling to come forward), which again shifts the burden of proof back to the truthers.

Before we discuss this, truthers, please ask yourself one question: If your claims are really as convincing as you think they are, then wouldn't it be possible to make your case without resorting to verbal tricks and attempts to derail the topic?

And, before you invoke the "tu toque" defense, remember: The burden of proof is on you.

[DC]

One of the most important tactics of members of the "truth" movement is to create the impression that their viewpoint is on equal footing with what they call the "government's official story". Never mind that most of us did not get our information about the events of 9/11 from the government. Never mind that the truthers don't HAVE a viewpoint, simply a strong antipathy towards the "official version".

Truthers often say either that we (meaning rational adults) share the burden of proof equally with them, or that we actually bear the burden of proof because their non-existent viewpoint is "obviously" superior.

Truthers, here is the reason that you, not we, have the burden of proof.

The so-called "official story" is superior to anything offered up by the truth movement because it relies on zero, count them, ZERO unknown entities.

For everything that we claim happened on 9/11, we can point to a KNOWN person, thing, or event that explains it.

We claim the planes were hijacked by Middle Eastern terrorists.

We KNOW there were people linked to al Qaeda in the US. We KNOW they trained for this mission. We KNOW they were on the planes that crashed. We KNOW they inadvertently contacted air traffic control indicating they had hijacked the planes. We KNOW that stewardesses and passengers corroborated this before the planes crashed.

We say the WTC towers fell from a combination of impact damage from airplanes and fires.

We KNOW there were airplanes. We KNOW there were fires.

We claim that flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

We KNOW flight 77 disappeared at the same time the Pentagon was hit. We KNOW that the wreckage of flight 77 was found in the Pentagon. We KNOW that the remains of the passengers were also found there.

Does that mean that our claims are guaranteed to be 100% true? No, but it does mean that for an alternate theory to be considered equal, it must also have zero unknown entities.

Do the truther claims meet this criteria? Let's examine of few of them:

Claim: The towers were brought down by thermite/thermate.

Unknown entities: Thermite/thermate, the technology to use same in destruction of a large building.

Claim: People whose testimony contradicts the truther claims are in on the conspiracy.

Unknown entities: The conspiracy, the people who are in on it.

Claim: A missile hit the Pentagon, not flight 77.

Unknown entities: The missile, the operation to fake evidence found at the Pentagon.

Claim: The term "pull it" is often used by demolition experts to describe controlled demolition by explosives.

Unknown entities: The actual use of the term "pull it" by demolition experts to describe controlled demolition by explosives.

See how that works?

Note that just because one theory has zero unknown entities and the other has many doesn't mean that one is true and the other is not. However, it DOES mean that the burden of proof is on the party that supports the theory with more unknown entities.

Is it POSSIBLE that some of the known entities of the "official story" are not real? Sure it is, but again, this hypothesis can only be supported by adding more unknown entities (accomplices who faked evidence and are unwilling to come forward), which again shifts the burden of proof back to the truthers.

Before we discuss this, truthers, please ask yourself one question: If your claims are really as convincing as you think they are, then wouldn't it be possible to make your case without resorting to verbal tricks and attempts to derail the topic?

And, before you invoke the "tu toque" defense, remember: The burden of proof is on you.

burdon of proof??
does that still exist in the age of Guantanamo? i thaught to suspect someone is enough to lock them up, so i assumed its ok when i suspect someone, but never touch his freedom in any way, i just speak open about that i suspect them, like Cheney,i suspect him to be one of the 9/11 conspirators.

and to use the same lang the politicans do. it is pretty well confirmed that Cheney was one of the 9/11 conspirators, and we cannot wait for the smoking gun, that could come in the form of a mushroomcloud.

let me waterboard Cheney and i will delive you some evidence.

[Architect]

It's not so much that the burden of proof is on "truthers", but rather on "accusers".

Now in the case of the NIST report we have a highly detailed, compelling technical analysis of the collapse sequence and so on. It is quite literally voluminous. The Truth Movement have nothing like this level of detail and analysis. Ergo the burden is on them to show, to the same level, why their alternative hypotheses should carry weight.

[Architect]

burdon of proof??
does that still exist in the age of Guantanamo? i thaught to suspect someone is enough to lock them up, so i assumed its ok when i suspect someone, but never touch his freedom in any way, i just speak open about that i suspect them, like Cheney,i suspect him to be one of the 9/11 conspirators.

and to use the same lang the politicans do. it is pretty well confirmed that Cheney was one of the 9/11 conspirators, and we cannot wait for the smoking gun, that could come in the form of a mushroomcloud.

let me waterboard Cheney and i will delive you some evidence.

No, much as I despise the man it is not "pretty well confirmed" that Cheney was a 9/11 conspirator. If you can show it do be so, then prove it.

[uk_dave]

and to use the same lang the politicans do. it is pretty well confirmed that Cheney was one of the 9/11 conspirators, and we cannot wait for the smoking gun, that could come in the form of a mushroomcloud.

let me waterboard Cheney and i will delive you some evidence.

Ahhh so you're saying that what the US government has done with Guantanamo and with 'waterboarding' is ok because you'd actually do that yourself if you were in a similar position?

Is this another case of "We hate this fascist dictatorship because it's not our fascist dictatorship"?

[peteweaver]

DC, for all intents and purposes regarding the events on the day of 11th Sept 2001, Guantanamo bay, distasteful an issue though it is, is irrellavent. Please do not change the subject.

[aggle-rithm]

Before we discuss this, truthers, please ask yourself one question: If your claims are really as convincing as you think they are, then wouldn't it be possible to make your case without resorting to verbal tricks and attempts to derail the topic?



burdon of proof??
does that still exist in the age of Guantanamo? i thaught to suspect someone is enough to lock them up, so i assumed its ok when i suspect someone, but never touch his freedom in any way, i just speak open about that i suspect them, like Cheney,i suspect him to be one of the 9/11 conspirators.

and to use the same lang the politicans do. it is pretty well confirmed that Cheney was one of the 9/11 conspirators, and we cannot wait for the smoking gun, that could come in the form of a mushroomcloud.

let me waterboard Cheney and i will delive you some evidence.


I'll say this for you, DC: You're consistent. :)

[DC]

It's not so much that the burden of proof is on "truthers", but rather on "accusers".

Now in the case of the NIST report we have a highly detailed, compelling technical analysis of the collapse sequence and so on. It is quite literally voluminous. The Truth Movement have nothing like this level of detail and analysis. Ergo the burden is on them to show, to the same level, why their alternative hypotheses should carry weight.

Nist was an investigation untill initial collapse, then we was left behind with Dr. Bazants "Progressive Collapse theory". it did not conatin detailed technical analysis of the collapse sequence. or am i wrong? didnt read the whole 10000 pages to be hones :)

[DC]

I'll say this for you, DC: You're consistent. :)

do to my lack of proper english i dont get it :)

sorry

[DC]

do to my lack of proper english i dont get it :)

sorry

darn i think i got it, i did derail again :(

sorry, burdon of proof. back to topic. i dont feel i have to proof anything :)

[DC]

Ahhh so you're saying that what the US government has done with Guantanamo and with 'waterboarding' is ok because you'd actually do that yourself if you were in a similar position?

Is this another case of "We hate this fascist dictatorship because it's not our fascist dictatorship"?

no, i say, aslong this is ok for the "US government" , i will use it against the "US government"

[Architect]

Nist was an investigation untill initial collapse, then we was left behind with Dr. Bazants "Progressive Collapse theory". it did not conatin detailed technical analysis of the collapse sequence. or am i wrong? didnt read the whole 10000 pages to be hones :)

1. If you're seeking to criticise the report, don't you think you should have read it?

2. Professionally speaking, after initiation it's obvious that global failure is inevitable and I wouldn't consider it a failing to have omitted subsequent analysis.

[DC]

1. If you're seeking to criticise the report, don't you think you should have read it?

2. Professionally speaking, after initiation it's obvious that global failure is inevitable and I wouldn't consider it a failing to have omitted subsequent analysis.

initial collapse = global collapse ? obvious? only in the case of the tube in tube towers or always? or only steelframe buildings? or what?

initial collapse is not always global collapse.

[Architect]

In the case of 33,000t more or less monolithically coming down on a structure patently not designed for that kind of kinetic load then global collapse is inevitable.

[DC]

In the case of 33,000t more or less monolithically coming down on a structure patently not designed for that kind of kinetic load then global collapse is inevitable.

it was designed to keep that 33 000T up there, it sure was not designed to take the energy when that upper part would accelerate among 3.7m. but i still dont belive that would trigger a globel collapse like we saw it, 16 seconds or so. or even 8 and 11 seconds like that Nist Dr. claimed.

i still belive it was a top down demolition.

[aggle-rithm]

initial collapse = global collapse ? obvious? only in the case of the tube in tube towers or always? or only steelframe buildings? or what?

initial collapse is not always global collapse.

And yet, let's apply the principles of the thread topic to this:

Experts say the building collapsed from a combination of structural damage and fires. Structural damage and fires have indeed been documented.

Truthers say the building collapsed from explosives. There is no evidence of explosives.

Therefore, it falls to the truthers to prove there were explosives (or thermite, or whatever).

[DC]

And yet, let's apply the principles of the thread topic to this:

Experts say the building collapsed from a combination of structural damage and fires. Structural damage and fires have indeed been documented.

Truthers say the building collapsed from explosives. There is no evidence of explosives.

Therefore, it falls to the truthers to prove there were explosives (or thermite, or whatever).


ok can you give me acces to the remaining WTC steel?
including sample 1 and 2 from FEMA. so i can test it for traces of explosives?

who tested it for explosives?

[Architect]

it was designed to keep that 33 000T up there, it sure was not designed to take the energy when that upper part would accelerate among 3.7m. but i still dont belive that would trigger a globel collapse like we saw it, 16 seconds or so. or even 8 and 11 seconds like that Nist Dr. claimed.

i still belive it was a top down demolition.

But with the deepest respect, your lay beliefs are irrelevant unless they are supported by hard data, analysis, and calculation.

I can tell you that no structure would have been designed to take that kind of kinetic load. Absolutely none. Furthermore it would massively exceed safety margins in the original design. That position is supported not just by NIST but the wider engineering community.

So where is your proof, of a level comparable with NIST?

[DC]

But with the deepest respect, your lay beliefs are irrelevant unless they are supported by hard data, analysis, and calculation.

I can tell you that no structure would have been designed to take that kind of kinetic load. Absolutely none. Furthermore it would massively exceed safety margins in the original design. That position is supported not just by NIST but the wider engineering community.

So where is your proof, of a level comparable with NIST?

i never claimed to have proof :)

i would not spend my time on JREF when i had evidence. i would run to every single court worldwide if i had any :)

to you my lay oppinion is sure irrelevant, but not for me :)

[peteweaver]

it was designed to keep that 33 000T up there, it sure was not designed to take the energy when that upper part would accelerate among 3.7m. but i still dont belive that would trigger a globel collapse like we saw it, 16 seconds or so. or even 8 and 11 seconds like that Nist Dr. claimed.

i still belive it was a top down demolition.

Laying down you could easily hold up a brick with your chest, but were that brick to fall two floors first then land on your chest, what do you think would happen to your ribcage DC ?

Because it is falling, it applies more energy to that which it comes into contact with, than if it were static.

[CurtC]

it was designed to keep that 33 000T up there, it sure was not designed to take the energy when that upper part would accelerate among 3.7m. but i still dont belive that would trigger a globel collapse like we saw it, 16 seconds or so.

Back to the burden of proof, since Bazant's analysis pretty clearly shows why global collapse was inevitable after initiation, wouldn't you agree that the Trooth Movement has some burden of explaining why it wouldn't be, other than saying "I don't think so"?

We have the data showing that it was inevitable, you have your own personal incredulity. The ball is in your court to refute the analysis or to give up on that point.

[aggle-rithm]

ok can you give me acces to the remaining WTC steel?
including sample 1 and 2 from FEMA. so i can test it for traces of explosives?


No. The burden of proof is on YOU. That means YOU get samples of the steel and do your own analysis. If you lack the expertise, then you hire someone to do it.

In a criminal trial, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. Would it make sense for a prosecutor to expect the defense lawyer to compile evidence of his client's guilt for him?

[CurtC]

i would not spend my time on JREF when i had evidence. i would run to every single court worldwide if i had any :)

Listen to what you're saying here, man! You have no evidence, but you're still accusing people of mass murder. Why would you think that's OK to do?

[DC]

Laying down you could easily hold up a brick with your chest, but were that brick to fall two floors first then land on your chest, what do you think would happen to your ribcage DC ?

Because it is falling, it applies more energy to that which it comes into contact with, than if it were static.

i know the law of physics :)
and i even understood them.

but i have a hard time to belive the Bazantsche rpogressive collapse theory.
i know you say now i did simply not understand his theory. but im sorry, in my eyes it is totaly bogus and does not reflect what we saw from those collapses.
but we are so far OT again, and i fear its once again my fault. and i dont gonna blame bush or the US for my derailing :P

[DC]

Listen to what you're saying here, man! You have no evidence, but you're still accusing people of mass murder. Why would you think that's OK to do?

because its that what i learned from the US government.

[Architect]

i never claimed to have proof :)

i would not spend my time on JREF when i had evidence. i would run to every single court worldwide if i had any :)



But how can you have arrived at a theory without analysis and proof ?!?

[aggle-rithm]

i know the law of physics :)
and i even understood them.

but i have a hard time to belive the Bazantsche rpogressive collapse theory.
i know you say now i did simply not understand his theory. but im sorry, in my eyes it is totaly bogus and does not reflect what we saw from those collapses.
but we are so far OT again, and i fear its once again my fault. and i dont gonna blame bush or the US for my derailing :P

Here, I'll get you back on topic.

Demonstrate why it is totally bogus and does not reflect what we saw from the collapses. The burden of proof is on you.

[CurtC]

but i have a hard time to belive the Bazantsche rpogressive collapse theory.
i know you say now i did simply not understand his theory. but im sorry, in my eyes it is totaly bogus

OK, then let's see your specific disagreements with it. Show us the math. Either that, or admit that you have nothing.

[Disbelief]

because its that what i learned from the US government.

If you don't trust the US gov't, why would you want to use methods that you ascribe to it? How does that make you any better?

[aggle-rithm]

because its that what i learned from the US government.

The US government CAN accuse people of mass murder, but can only convict them if it has proof. It also must demonstrate at least some of this proof in a timely manner or else it must let the matter drop.

(For US citizens, that is, or foreign nationals on US soil.)

[thebestodb]

I can't post images until 15 posts. I'm probably not going to make 15 posts. I'm Andoo over at the LC boards. Despite the lovely relationship between all of you and Killtown, no one really ever seems to address the only information I find important on that day. That would be the latitudinal distance between the base of the plume and then crash site. Despite proximity (z-axis) there is still this 200 yard displacement. I used yellowpages to draw a line from McClatchey's house through the base of the middle white barn area you find the plume sitting directly above. Having looked at it so many times I might be going loony, but I don't know what else I would need besides my image I can't post, which looks like what jimbob's will be or what Killtown's (google earth) pretty much already is. What other proof do I need besides the visual evidence of 200 yards. I know this seems very sophomoric to just come up and here and blab with no picture. I've noticed how much detail you guys require before you even listen to someone, but truth be told I haven't had any solid logical explanations as to why the vectors show this oddity.

[Disbelief]

I can't post images until 15 posts. I'm probably not going to make 15 posts. I'm Andoo over at the LC boards. Despite the lovely relationship between all of you and Killtown, no one really ever seems to address the only information I find important on that day. That would be the latitudinal distance between the base of the plume and then crash site. Despite proximity (z-axis) there is still this 200 yard displacement. I used yellowpages to draw a line from McClatchey's house through the base of the middle white barn area you find the plume sitting directly above. Having looked at it so many times I might be going loony, but I don't know what else I would need besides my image I can't post, which looks like what jimbob's will be or what Killtown's (google earth) pretty much already is. What other proof do I need besides the visual evidence of 200 yards. I know this seems very sophomoric to just come up and here and blab with no picture. I've noticed how much detail you guys require before you even listen to someone, but truth be told I haven't had any solid logical explanations as to why the vectors show this oddity.


Welcome to the forum. If you post the link info, someone here will fix it for you. That way, your pics can be here for all to see and discuss.

[Drudgewire]

i never claimed to have proof :)
You don't say. :rolleyes:

i would not spend my time on JREF when i had evidence. i would run to every single court worldwide if i had any :)
In other words, you come to a skepticism/educational forum where evidence is the only thing that matters without any. So you're just here to troll?

[CurtC]

I can't post images until 15 posts. I'm probably not going to make 15 posts.You can post links to images, just leave off the "http://" part. It doesn't matter in this case, though, we're very familiar with that. Yes, the plume is displaced to the south from the crash site. Were you aware that the wind that day was out of the northwest?

I know this seems very sophomoric to just come up and here and blab with no picture.Quite the contrary. Presentation using words is what gets you respected here. Images can be nice to go along with that, but it's your words that count. My other favorite forum doesn't even allow pictures to be posted (nor avatars, nor auto-sigs). That board is very high on the signal to noise ratio.

[DC]

You don't say. :rolleyes:


In other words, you come to a skepticism/educational forum where evidence is the only thing that matters without any. So you're just here to troll?

im sure not here to wake up you "conspiracy-deniers"
but i like controversal debates.

[thebestodb]

s305.photobucket.com/albums/nn224/thebestodb/?action=view&current=shanks.jpg

Yeah, most people don't really talk about the 9.8 knots of wind. I don't remember the exact number. Most counter-arguments are that it since it had a northwesterly blow, we dont' know where on the z axis it is. That has no bearing on the limited information we have, which puts that plume 200 yards southerly of the crash site. That distance is just so huge for only a said "5 seconds". The only thing I can't conclude for certain is what the plume did upon impact. I am no expert on that and could only assume the plume had a rather linear effect going upwards.

[CurtC]

Here's your link in clickable form:
http://s305.photobucket.com/albums/nn224/thebestodb/?action=view&current=shanks.jpg

Yes, 200 yards would be a long way for it to travel in five seconds. What if the time between the crash and the photo was significantly longer than that?

[Drudgewire]

im sure not here to wake up you "conspiracy-deniers"
but i like controversal debates.
Wrong guy to pull that on. I was a HUGE CT'er back in the day.

Until it finally hit me the same people were making the same claims based on the same absence of proof, using the same arguments from one conspiracy to the next, and continuing to build on their theories based on stuff that had already been disproven ages before. All that was coupled with the fact there was never ANYTHING solid to ANY of the claims, it just sounded good as long as there was plenty of paranoia to keep the fire burning.

In other words, I stopped believing in Santa Claus. It's part of growing up.

[ElMondoHummus]

Conspiracy fantasists need to get past the notion that collapse initiation does not equal global collapse. First of all, making a blanket statement like that does not take into consideration the design of the WTC, which BTW happens to be one of the issues Dr. Astaneh-Asl keeps bringing up (the non-traditional design being vulnerable to such a tragedy). Second of all, it's been demonstrated by multiple people - Bazant, Greening, Newton's Bit (and I think R. Mackey may have done calculations too; correct me if I'm wrong) - that there is enough potential energy stored in the towers to account for a global collapse to result from collapse initiation.

But all that's offered in rebuttal to those calculations are arguments from disbelief? Stop and thing about this for a minute: Explosive demolition is also merely collapse initiation; gravity takes care of the rest. Does anyone criticize the hypothesis of explosive demolitions because that, too, would only account for collapse initiation? Of course not; that would be a ridiculous argument.

People need to get past the silly equation that initiation does not equal progression. There's nothing to stop progression; this has been demonstrated time and time again. Saying that initiation does not equal progression in the case of the Twin Towers is as illogical as separating the act of the lumberjack from the fact that the tree falls. The only way to make the equation work is to demonstrate that the segment of the towers below the impact zones could absorb the energy from the upper section's collapse. Heiwa realizes this, and tries to argue exactly that in the other thread he's in. Even he doesn't merely state "initiation does not equal progression", and he's full of :rule10 on just about everything else he says. So why are other truthers doing so?

You want to get our attention with the argument "initiation does not equal progression"? Demonstrate the flaws in the current collapse scenario. Counter the works of Newton's Bit, Dr. Greening, etc. Convince Mackey and Architect. But don't just state "initiation does not equal progression". That's a mere assertion, and needs to be backed up.

[Myriad]

Highfalutin philosophy aside, I find that in the real world the burden of proof is on the party who wants something.

For instance, sometimes when I buy alcohol, I must prove that I am over 21 years of age. One look at me makes the proposition that I am younger than 21 years an extraordinary claim. If you go by the number of unknown elements inherent in the claim, or any rational epistemological principles, the burden of proof for such a claim surely must be on the person making it.

But I'm the one who wants the booze. Hence, I must provide the proof.

Having given up their calls for hangings and revolution, most of the truthers who post here say they want a new investigation. Clearly, they will not get a new investigation unless they can convince judges, prosecutors, elected officials, and the technical experts those people would consult on such matters. That's why the burden of proof is on them.

And yet, instead of coming here and attempting to convince us (at least, as practice for attempting to convince public officials who could set a new investigation in motion), so many of them waste time challenging us to convince them, demanding absolute proof that a specific column cut was made by a cleanup worker (name, date, and specific cutting tool used, please) or that some specific bit of crash damage was done by some specific part of the airplane (serial number of the part, please). That effort -- though guaranteed to succeed because it's already absolutely clear that they cannot be convinced -- does not advance their claimed goals in any conceivable way. That's why I believe that those who engage in it have given up on those goals and are engaging in recreational trolling.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[thebestodb]

from basic calculations and taking that 15 ft/s into just the downforce which would be abouyt 10.6 ft/s it's about a minute long without any knowledge of how those plumes resist air.

[CurtC]

thebestodb, can you explain what you're saying? That's not even a complete sentence!

[CurtC]

Duplicate post. Why does this happen sometimes? I hit Submit just once, it seems to hang forever, then later I see multiple posts in the thread?

[Walter Ego]

thebestodb, can you explain what you're saying? That's not even a complete sentence!


Is it just me or are the “new” truthers popping up on this forum becoming less and less coherent?

[Drudgewire]

Duplicate post. Why does this happen sometimes? I hit Submit just once, it seems to hang forever, then later I see multiple posts in the thread?
Just let it hang. I just open the forum in a new window to see if the post has gone through. Oftentimes it has but it even then it won't show up as a new post (thread won't go to the top of the page or say you were the last person to post in it) for several more minutes, but eventually you get credit for it. :)


ETA: Case in point, it's happened to this very post.

[R.Mackey]

s305.photobucket.com/albums/nn224/thebestodb/?action=view&current=shanks.jpg

Yeah, most people don't really talk about the 9.8 knots of wind. I don't remember the exact number. Most counter-arguments are that it since it had a northwesterly blow, we dont' know where on the z axis it is. That has no bearing on the limited information we have, which puts that plume 200 yards southerly of the crash site. That distance is just so huge for only a said "5 seconds". The only thing I can't conclude for certain is what the plume did upon impact. I am no expert on that and could only assume the plume had a rather linear effect going upwards.

We've beaten this to death many, many, many times. No amount of necromancy can reanimate this particular argument.

The best estimate of time between impact and photograph is about 17 seconds. You have to take into account the delay between impact and the sound of the boom reaching Ms. McClatchey, which is about eight seconds. Then you have her reaction time, getting and turning on her camera, walking across her house and through the door, and finally taking the picture. The picture is well centered and in focus.

17 seconds is totally reasonable.

This time is also based on not 9.8 knots, but 25 knots of wind. That was the final wind report from the FDR of United 93. The 9.8 knots was an average weather report and could not have represented gusts at that specific location or that particular time. It could have been higher.

It's also possible the ignition point was slightly along the line of travel from impact -- fuel travelling with some inertia before it deflagrated. The time delay between impact and ignition is hard to estimate, but this could easily absorb 100 yards of "discrepancy" alone, simply because the pre-impact speed was well over 100 yards per second (more like double that).

The plume shape is exactly what you expect -- a large vortex ring. I am an expert on fluid dynamics and I can go into grim detail on this point.

Finally, there is no credible reason to fake the photo in the first place. This is not a critical piece of evidence. While unique and interesting, it did not play a major role in determining what happened. It's a remarkable footnote to a great tragedy.

[tsig]

I'll say this for you, DC: You're consistent. :)

So is granite.

[thebestodb]

it would take a minute for it to be at the latitudinal placement. It's southerly speed would be 10.6 ft/s if you take the fact that it's northwesterly wind which has an overall 45 degree angle off of the y axis assuming the angle is 90 at the point of inflection (the final shot of the plume).

[thebestodb]

deleted..........................

[thebestodb]

If the crash site is the source of the plume, wouldn't it be coming straight from the source (the ground? at over 100 mph?)

[R.Mackey]

You need to be more explicit with your thoughts. I assume you're complaining that the plume looks "straight up." This is expected.

All smoke blows at the same speed. All the fuel that was going to burn cooked off at impact. There is no lingering smoke plume emanating from the impact point. If you had a normal fire at the impact point, you would indeed expect a smoke trail pointing back to the place of origin, but that's not what we have here. We have a single vortex ring of smoke, and hardly any more coming after that.

[thebestodb]

Indian Lake is where witnesses heard the airliner fly over, and saw debris falling from the sky moments after the crash. If the debris floated from the crash site, it would have taken 10-15 minutes at 10 mph to get there.

that's about 15 ft/s. can't that assume more than one wind calculation

[R.Mackey]

Um, no. You cannot use "Indian Lake" as a precise estimate of aircraft trajectory. It's a TOWN.

The FAA radar puts a much tighter bound on the trajectory, and there is no conflict between it and the debris fields.

Poster Arkan_wolfshade here put together a graphical representation of the impact point, the burn area, spread of massive debris, and spread of blowing debris, down at the bottom of this page (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=61633&page=68) (post #2718). It all checks with the direction of travel and the wind velocity.

You're simply poorly informed.

[CurtC]

If the crash site is the source of the plume, wouldn't it be coming straight from the source (the ground? at over 100 mph?)

You may want to work on more clearly stating what you mean.

I think you may be thinking what Killtown was always saying, that the plume's top may be shifted over due to wind, but its base should be anchored where the fire is. Killtown seemed incapable of understanding the obvious explanation; I hope you don't suffer from his same problems.

The smoke plume in that photo was from a large flash of a fuel-air explosion, not a continuously burning fire. That explosion would rise up in a typical mushroom cloud shape, with a stalk of rising smoke topped by a broader vortex. In Val's picture you can still see the remnants of the vertical stalk, which does not angle down towards the source, but we shouldn't expect it to. The mass of air that the explosion was in was smoothly moving past the ground at 25 mph. The bottom of the stalk portion would move horizontally the same distance the top did, translating the whole thing horizontally while retaining its vertical orientation.

Is that what you were asking?

[CurtC]

Indian Lake is where witnesses heard the airliner fly over, and saw debris falling from the sky moments after the crash. If the debris floated from the crash site, it would have taken 10-15 minutes at 10 mph to get there.
No one heard the plane over the lake.

Since the lake is less than two miles from the crash site, with a 25 mph wind that's only five minutes. However, I don't see why it matters whether the debris reached the lake in five minutes or fifteen.

[dudalb]

i never claimed to have proof :)

i would not spend my time on JREF when i had evidence. i would run to every single court worldwide if i had any :)

to you my lay oppinion is sure irrelevant, but not for me :)

And there we have the Truther Movement in a nutshell,folks.

[DC]

No. The burden of proof is on YOU. That means YOU get samples of the steel and do your own analysis. If you lack the expertise, then you hire someone to do it.

In a criminal trial, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. Would it make sense for a prosecutor to expect the defense lawyer to compile evidence of his client's guilt for him?

thats what i would do, let samples test. and i would like to get acces to the remaining Steel from the buildings. i also would like to test sample 1 and 2 from FEMA. where do i get those samples? can i just send some teams to JFK international Airport and they let me get some of the steel to do tests?

[Pardalis]

Then you got your work cut out for you.

Go.

[DC]

And there we have the Truther Movement in a nutshell,folks.

just to make it clear :)
im not a representant for the "truth movement" i dont belong to any group in that mather.

[Arus808]

but you dont mind repeating the same debunked claims from them.

[DC]

but you dont mind repeating the same debunked claims from them.

debunked claims? i use claims i know some countertheorys to, but debunked? wich one?

[Arus808]

If you don't know, then you haven't bothered to do the most basic of research. YOU can start by Reading the 911 commission report and NIST. Get to it. You should have done so, since those reports have been available for the last 3 years.

[Pardalis]

What?

You're still here?

[dudalb]

just to make it clear :)
im not a representant for the "truth movement" i dont belong to any group in that mather.

Then you are doing the best damn imitation of a Truther I have ever seen.

[Drudgewire]

If you don't know, then you haven't bothered to do the most basic of research. YOU can start by Reading the 911 commission report and NIST. Get to it. You should have done so, since those reports have been available for the last 3 years.
Has ANYOHE we've ever recommended this path to ever followed it? I always get the feeling when they come to the first thing which debunks their nonsense it gets mentally filed under "part of the conspiracy" and they stop reading, figuring a "debunking of the debunking" covers them and is more fun to read since it vibes with their fantasy rather than destroying it.

[aggle-rithm]

If the crash site is the source of the plume, wouldn't it be coming straight from the source (the ground? at over 100 mph?)

The "Just Asking Questions" mantra is the perfect tactic for avoiding burden of proof. You haven't made a claim, so you don't have to prove anything.

Unfortunately, it's intellectually dishonest.

Do you have a claim to make, or are you just throwing stuff at the wall to see if something sticks?

[aggle-rithm]

thats what i would do, let samples test. and i would like to get acces to the remaining Steel from the buildings. i also would like to test sample 1 and 2 from FEMA. where do i get those samples? can i just send some teams to JFK international Airport and they let me get some of the steel to do tests?

I don't know, why don't you find out?

[thebestodb]

aggle I was having trouble getting information on the final wind report. I wasn't aware, so that's my fault. I would need a source to read the FDR report because I can't find any online.

[johnny karate]

The best thing about the whole "burden of proof" argument is it's one CTers can never win, because the success of their movement depends on them proving their assertions to the general public.

You can shout "9/11 was an inside job!" all you want, and you'll probably get some people's attention. But most of those people are going to expect you to offer something substantial as evidence, and when you don't, they'll lose interest and walk away.

It's a big reason why their movement is losing traction: They have nothing to offer other than slogans and Youtube videos.

So when a CTer tries to argue that the burden of proof is on me (or any other debunker) to prove the official version of events to be true, I'm quite content to respectfully decline, because what to I care what a handful of malcontents believes? Their incredulity has absolutely no effect on the world at large.

[thebestodb]

According to the Flight Data Recorder from UA93, it impacted the ground at about 500kts (575 MPH) in a 40 degree nose down attitude, with a 150 degree roll angle to starboard.

In addition:

1. Cabin pressure - NORMAL
2. Hydraulics - NORMAL
3. Cargo fire - NORMAL
4. Smoke - NORMAL
5. Engines - RUNNING
6. Engine RPM (N1) 70%
7. Fuel pressure - NORMAL
8. Engine vibration - LO

9. Wind direction - WEST
10. Wind speed - 25 kts


if the direction is WEST, then wouldn't that have absolutely no bearing on the latitudinal scale?

[A-Train]

We KNOW there were people linked to al Qaeda in the US. We KNOW they trained for this mission. We KNOW they were on the planes that crashed. We KNOW they inadvertently contacted air traffic control indicating they had hijacked the planes. We KNOW that stewardesses and passengers corroborated this before the planes crashed.

I would like to know how you KNOW al-Qaeda people were on the planes that crashed.

Sorry, just showing their names on passenger lists does not prove or even suggest they were on the planes. Identity theft is pretty easy to do.

Please don't suggest surveillance video at their airports. We've been through that here before. There are no videos released that show the Arabs boarding the four flights.

Oh, and by the way, even if they were on the flights, how do you KNOW they were the ones who hijacked the planes? Betty Ong reported from AAL11 that the hijackers came from seat numbers 9A and 9B, occupied by an Israeli named Daniel Lewin and an American(?) named Edmond Glazer.

Someone contacted ATC from the cockpits of the planes. How do you KNOW the voices were from al-Qaeda, or even from Arabs at all? Why couldn't the voiced be from someone else, pretending to be an Arab? I heard the "we have some planes..." tape from AAL11, and it sounds like an Israeli accent to me.

How do you KNOW the calls from the stewardesses and passengers corroborates anything you believe? I've studied all the evidence from all the phone calls, and nowhere does any of the callers corroborate a hijacking by al-Qaeda Arabs-- only that the planes were indeed hijacked and that some of the hijackers were "Middle Eastern looking." Since when does that phrase translate into al-Qaeda Arab?

Bottom Line: You don't KNOW who boarded and hijacked any of the four planes. Someone suggested to you they were al-Qaeda, and you chose to believe them. But you have no proof of that whatsoever, and the evidence points to a far more likely scenario of a frame-up job, with the real hijackers posing as Arabs for the purpose of framing Arabs.

The burden of proof is totally on you.

[stateofgrace]

I would like to know how you KNOW al-Qaeda people were on the planes that crashed.

Sorry, just showing their names on passenger lists does not prove or even suggest they were on the planes. Identity theft is pretty easy to do.

Please don't suggest surveillance video at their airports. We've been through that here before. There are no videos released that show the Arabs boarding the four flights.

Oh, and by the way, even if they were on the flights, how do you KNOW they were the ones who hijacked the planes? Betty Ong reported from AAL11 that the hijackers came from seat numbers 9A and 9B, occupied by an Israeli named Daniel Lewin and an American(?) named Edmond Glazer.

Someone contacted ATC from the cockpits of the planes. How do you KNOW the voices were from al-Qaeda, or even from Arabs at all? Why couldn't the voiced be from someone else, pretending to be an Arab? I heard the "we have some planes..." tape from AAL11, and it sounds like an Israeli accent to me.

How do you KNOW the calls from the stewardesses and passengers corroborates anything you believe? I've studied all the evidence from all the phone calls, and nowhere does any of the callers corroborate a hijacking by al-Qaeda Arabs-- only that the planes were indeed hijacked and that some of the hijackers were "Middle Eastern looking." Since when does that phrase translate into al-Qaeda Arab?

Bottom Line: You don't KNOW who boarded and hijacked any of the four planes. Someone suggested to you they were al-Qaeda, and you chose to believe them. But you have no proof of that whatsoever, and the evidence points to a far more likely scenario of a frame-up job, with the real hijackers posing as Arabs for the purpose of framing Arabs.

The burden of proof is totally on you.

Go on then, prove it.

[Mr. Skinny]

According to the Flight Data Recorder from UA93, it impacted the ground at about 500kts (575 MPH) in a 40 degree nose down attitude, with a 150 degree roll angle to starboard.

In addition:

1. Cabin pressure - NORMAL
2. Hydraulics - NORMAL
3. Cargo fire - NORMAL
4. Smoke - NORMAL
5. Engines - RUNNING
6. Engine RPM (N1) 70%
7. Fuel pressure - NORMAL
8. Engine vibration - LO

9. Wind direction - WEST
10. Wind speed - 25 kts


if the direction is WEST, then wouldn't that have absolutely no bearing on the latitudinal scale?

thebestodb,

Is the above FDR data taken just before impact? If so, how would the aircraft be able to determine wind direction and speed when in a nose down dive?

Honestly, I don't even know how aircraft record wind speed and direction, so if a pilot or AC maintainer could jump in here, it would be appreciated.

I'm just wondering how the above data can tell us anything about plume drift.

[Loss Leader]

Is it POSSIBLE that some of the known entities of the "official story" are not real? Sure it is, but again, this hypothesis can only be supported by adding more unknown entities (accomplices who faked evidence and are unwilling to come forward), which again shifts the burden of proof back to the truthers.
The burden of proof is totally on you.


Ah, finally someone pitched one in my wheelhouse.

When we talk about the burden of proof, we should first acknowledge that we are dealing with a legal concept. Absent the existence of humans, there is no such thing as proof. Things either are or they are not. "Burden of proof" only has to do with what we should believe. It is only about whether the evidence is sufficient to fix a belief in one's mind as true.

Who is the burden of proof on? That's easy. The burden of proof is on whichever person wants us to change what we're doing. Absent court intervention, you are walking around a free person. If someone wants to change you from a free person to a prisoner, he has the burden of proof. Right now, my client is not receiving damages from our oponent in the sum of two million dollars. If I want the world to change so that my client does get two million dollars, I have the burden of proof.

Who has the burden of proof regarding 9/11?

But even if we answered this, there's a second question buried in the first: What is the burden of proof. What amount and type of evidence is sufficient in this case? Is it mathematical proof wherein it is logically impossible for any other answer to be correct? Is it scientific proof wherein all known evidence is consistent with the explanation? Or is it criminal proof beyond a reasonable doubt, civil proof of a preponderance of the evidence or something else altogether?

I think the answer lays in the fact that 9/11 was a human event (not a math problem or scientific experiment). Human events are chaotic. They have nearly infinite variables. The chances of being absolutely 100% certain of exactly what took place are very, very slim. The law recognizes this. You can put a person in jail even if you have doubts about the evidence - just not reasonable doubts. You can give my client two million dollars (and you should) even if you think there's a 49% likelihood that he doesn't deserve it (he doesn't).

If this were not the way proof of historic events worked, nothing would ever be proven. OJ's glove didn't fit but Nicole's blood was inside his car. Scott Peterson still maintains that he is innocent. Do we have doubts? Yep. Should both these guys be in jail? Yep.

So the first thing to do is ask which of the two camps ("official story" or "tr00ther") is making a positive claim? Which one wants or wanted us to change our behavior? And which one may raise doubts but still offers overwhelming evidence?

It's not a simple question.


Although, it's a simple answer.

[R.Mackey]

thebestodb,

Is the above FDR data taken just before impact? If so, how would the aircraft be able to determine wind direction and speed when in a nose down dive?

Answering for thebestodb (I gave him the reference to the FDR report (www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc04.pdf) this morning), yes it is. However, the wind parameter is sensed throughout the flight, not just at impact, and behaves consistently.

I don't know precisely how a 757 calculates wind direction and speed, but it can be determined by comparing air data (pitot-probe measurements of speed, etc.) and fixed ground references and/or inertial data. The difference gives you the windspeed, which is the difference between groundspeed and airspeed. We have airline techs here who can give you better details.


Honestly, I don't even know how aircraft record wind speed and direction, so if a pilot or AC maintainer could jump in here, it would be appreciated.

I'm just wondering how the above data can tell us anything about plume drift.

It tells us that the 9 knot figure is probably an underestimate. We do not know just how accurate the FDR data is, particularly in the last few seconds before impact, but the simple fact is that local wind was quite a bit higher.

[aggle-rithm]

I would like to know how you KNOW al-Qaeda people were on the planes that crashed.

Sorry, just showing their names on passenger lists does not prove or even suggest they were on the planes. Identity theft is pretty easy to do.


Their names on the passenger lists don't even SUGGEST they were on board?

REALLY?!?


Please don't suggest surveillance video at their airports. We've been through that here before. There are no videos released that show the Arabs boarding the four flights.


There are no videos of me being born, but I was.


Oh, and by the way, even if they were on the flights, how do you KNOW they were the ones who hijacked the planes? Betty Ong reported from AAL11 that the hijackers came from seat numbers 9A and 9B, occupied by an Israeli named Daniel Lewin and an American(?) named Edmond Glazer.

Someone contacted ATC from the cockpits of the planes. How do you KNOW the voices were from al-Qaeda, or even from Arabs at all? Why couldn't the voiced be from someone else, pretending to be an Arab? I heard the "we have some planes..." tape from AAL11, and it sounds like an Israeli accent to me.

How do you KNOW the calls from the stewardesses and passengers corroborates anything you believe? I've studied all the evidence from all the phone calls, and nowhere does any of the callers corroborate a hijacking by al-Qaeda Arabs-- only that the planes were indeed hijacked and that some of the hijackers were "Middle Eastern looking." Since when does that phrase translate into al-Qaeda Arab?

Bottom Line: You don't KNOW who boarded and hijacked any of the four planes. Someone suggested to you they were al-Qaeda, and you chose to believe them. But you have no proof of that whatsoever, and the evidence points to a far more likely scenario of a frame-up job, with the real hijackers posing as Arabs for the purpose of framing Arabs.

The burden of proof is totally on you.

There's no way to know anything for certain. There's no way, for instance, to know for sure that I'm a human being, and not a NWO-programmed artificial intelligence.

However, the evidence points to these Arab men, with ties to al Qaeda and having undergone training which, by amazing coincidence, prepared them for just such a hijacking, being on the planes and actually carrying out the hijacking.

Do you have evidence to the contrary? Let's see it.

[aggle-rithm]

Who is the burden of proof on? That's easy. The burden of proof is on whichever person wants us to change what we're doing. Absent court intervention, you are walking around a free person. If someone wants to change you from a free person to a prisoner, he has the burden of proof. Right now, my client is not receiving damages from our oponent in the sum of two million dollars. If I want the world to change so that my client does get two million dollars, I have the burden of proof.


True...even if it turns out that the US govt. is evil and was behind the whole thing from the very start, it has the advantage of having established a plausible theory as to what happened that is accepted by all reasonable people. Right or wrong, this places burden of proof on whoever wants to challenge it.

If the truthers are right, this shouldn't be that much of an issue. In fact, even if it is totally unfair to expect them to present proof of their claims, you would think they would WANT to do so, and not sidestep the issue at every turn.