No Explosives Here?

[carlitos]

Could you please symmetrically answer this piece of debris?

Many of us who were there on 9/11 believe it.
...
I was there ...

Where were you exactly on the morning of 11-September, 2001? What were you doing that morning that gave you more exposure to this event than the rest of us?

[Macgyver1968]

hightech, nanoengineered aluminothermic explosive.

What a cool name! Much coolier than just plain ole thermite, or TNT. Must be fun to say.

[ElMondoHummus]

I appreciate your reply..and wish it was correct..but I'll tell you why I believe you are not correct... (mistruths, misconceptions, and distortions of reality snipped)

Oh, my goodness, your post is so choked full of misconceptions and lack of understanding that it's amazing. I will have to deal with this in multiple posts. This first one will just deal with the most general concepts; I may a point by point later. That depends on how I feel. But: Atavism. You do not understand the construction of the towers, nor the failure modes that occurred, nor the collapse scenario or the evidence supporting such. You need to learn those. It is vital that you undertand the basic details of the collapse in order to understand what we're telling you. Start here:

Construction of the Towers:
Start with the FEMA "403" report (aka the "Building Performance Study"). Yes, ignore their information about the collapse itself, that has been superceded by the NIST report. Instead, concentrate on their description of the towers construction:

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf
Articles in journals, such as the one listed below, are also good starting points.

Construction and Collapse Factors (http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=8747694&db=aph), Fire Engineering,v.155, no. 10, (2002): p. 106-108
When you read those, look for and digest others. Eventually work your way up to the relevant subreport of the NIST Study. Specifically, for details of the towers construction, you want to read NCSTAR 1-1A (http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-1index.htm).

Critical point - If you take away nothing else from those links, understand the following. They are BASIC and CRITICAL concepts you NEED to internalize before you continue discussing the collapses with us:

The vertical load bearing structures - the columns - were totally dependent on the horizontal elements (the floor trusses? Someone clarify that for me, please) - to stay upright. Columns bore gravity loads alone.
Those horizontal elements braced the columns, and it was the construction as a whole that was able to resist stresses like wind loads, weight of the floors and contents, etc.
Because of this interdependence of structural elements, the takeaway lesson is that the strength of the towers depended on the structures' integrity.
Once you're exposed to the basics of the towers construction, learn the basics of the failure.

Dissecting The Collapses (http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=2&hid=4&sid=8ac17451-35d9-4bfe-97d5-985695631c44% 40sessionmgr4&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=7029412), Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): p. 36-46.
An Engineering Perspective of the Collapse of WTC-I (http://link.aip.org/link/?JPCFEV/22/62/1), Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, Volume 22, Issue 1 (2008), pp. 62-67
Evil Intent and Design Responsibility (http://www.springerlink.com/index/W24428JV6H6U6425.pdf), Science and Engineering Ethis, Volume 10, number 2 (2004), p 303-309
Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf) Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Volume 133, Issue 3 (March 2007), p 308-319
Construction and Collapse Factors (http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=8747694&db=aph), Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.
And then the penultimate analyses of the collapses: The relevant subreports of the NIST study:

NIST NCSTAR 1-2: Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis of the World Trade Center Towers (http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-2index.htm)
NIST NCSTAR 1-6: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers (http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-6index.htm)
NIST NCSTAR 1-5: Reconstruction of the Fires in the World Trade Center Towers (http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-5index.htm)
This is the difficult thing to comprehend from all that information, and will take some time to internalize (it's taken me 2 years so far, and I'm still going at it) but the bottom line is this:

Impact of Flights 11 and 175 severed structural elements, forcing a transfer of gravity loads onto other elements in the towers. At this point, the structures are already compromised, but neither has failed yet. The remaining elements of the structure are bearing the additional load, but at this point are stressed in directions they're not designed to handle stresses in.
The impact of the jets also dislodged the fire resistant material from parts of the remaining steel components.
The fires that were started by the impacts were widespread and encompassed multiple floors all at once. These fires affected the now exposed steel elements.
The now exposed elements lost their load bearing capabilities. At a mere 500 to 600 oC, the sort of steel used in the towers lost around half of their load bearing capacity.
Furthermore, heated steel expands. Do a forum search for "steel", "Viscoelastic creep" (or just creep), "expansion", and read the posts. The architects and engineers here in the forum can go into more detail on this.
A combination of the steel losing its load bearing capacity and expanding as well led to further distortion of the structure, resulting in both the inward bowing that was noticed and recorded in photos and videos (that was due to the floor trusses sagging and pulling the columns inward) as well as stressing of the connection points. This was a dynamic, evolving situation: As the fires continued, the steel continued to creep and lose load bearing capacity. As elements expanded and sagged, more load got transferred in more axes than what the individual components were designed to take, and those elements got stressed even further, deformed even further, and contributed to a continually deteriorating situation.
After a certain point, the capacity of the unsevered components in the fire and impact zones were reduced far enough for the weight of the floors above to fall. Once the upper floor masses were moving, the forces were amplified because they were now moving.
The first intact floor below the collaps initiation zone might or might not have been barely able to resist the nonmoving mass of the segments above (consensus is that it still would not have), but it was unquestioningly unable to resist or even significantly slow down the moving mass. The next floor below then faced an even bigger mass (the upper section plus the newly failed floor immediately above) that was continually accelerating, the combination of the two resulting in greater force being applied. This continued until the falling mass encountered an element finally able to stop it's fall: The ground.
The above amounts to a basic understanding of the towers collapse. If you are not working from that point, you are not describing or discussing the Twin Towers collapse. Anything you state that is outside of the parameters constitutes a failure to understand reality. Please grasp the above before proceeding with any other claims regarding the towers. I shall deal with the specific errors of your post when I can.

Note to engineers and architects in this forum: If you see any errors in the above, please feel free to correct them. Getting points right is far more important than personal ego involvement, and I'll need correction if anything has been screwed up.

[beachnut]

... On 9/11: Keep it simple & factual. ... Your moronic posts prove you can't do factual analysis of anything to do with 911. Is this simple enough to explain your idiotic delusions?

Simple and factual; if your delusions were rational facts you would have a Pulitzer Prize.

You are right, keeping it simple proves you have only delusions to offer on 911.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

"No evidence of explosives"? Unless you're completely ignoring reality!!

The photographic and video evidence clearly reveal the towers being systematically blown outward with high explosive forces. This refutes any possibility of it being gravity (impact damage, jet fuel, fires and gravity) alone acting on the structures. Fires cause gradual deformations and could not possibly account for the observed and resulting events.

On 9/11: Keep it simple & factual.
.

No one has refuted (how could they?!) the basic facts revealed in Harrit et.s paper; that the elemental composition confirms a hightech, nanoengineered aluminothermic explosive. [url]http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html


Dude, there's no physical evidence of primacord or copper residue on the inner & outter columns.

The buildings collapsed due to:

A Boeing 757/767 crashing into them
Damage from the planes and to the WTC structures
Fires from the fuel and other combustible items that are in an office building
Fires caused the steel to weaken (well under 2,600*F to actually melt it)
Gravity took care of the rest

How baseless & factless do you have to be to ignore logic & reason?

9/11 = No explosives!

Isn't that simple & factual enough for you?

[ElMondoHummus]

There is a lot of nonsense to be dealt with here, all forwarded by one poster: Atavisms. Let me just tackle the big ones for now. This is the first part of a multipost refutation:


re: "Impact damage" The impacts did not cause the collapse of these 'highly redundant buildings' -Thomas Eager, MIT) Thomas Eager wrote what is essentially an article pretending to be a paper explaining the OCT (or how the twin towers turned to dust from only fire and gravity in 56 & 102 minutes) **all you have to do is see his photo of "Resulting Fires" -he shows the fireballs, heh..whaddahdik! its incredible nonsense anyone can see through (sorry I will not link it, findit urself).


The only substantial elements of that paragraph are the following:


"'highly redundant buildings'":
You do not understand what he's talking about here. The "redundancy" as was clearly stated in that article (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/eagar-0112.html) was based on the interconnectiveness. It was clearly stated in the sentence where he mentions the shifting of the loads to unsevered columns. Once again, the structures capacities depended on load paths remaining intact. Once they were compromised - as they were by the jet impacts, and further compromised by the fires - the buildings ability to resist collapse was terribly weakened.

Using a statement highlighting one of the main design elements that lead to the collapse as an argument against collapse is illogical in the extreme. Refer back to my previous post and read the articles I linked. "Redundancy" became irrelevent because the redundancy depended on integrity, which was taken away by the impacts and reduced by the fires.


"turned to dust from only fire and gravity in 56 & 102 minutes":
Being "turned to dust" did not happen. That is a truther talking point only, and is contradicted by 1. Images from Ground Zero, 2. The fact that construction subcontractors were needed to disassemble the debris, and 3. The presence of much heavy machinery. Here is a small image repository I built:

http://forums.randi.org/album.php?albumid=280

Any single one of those pictures by themselves refute the "turned to dust" misrepresentation you forward. And they do so well before you consider either of the other two points I raised.

Furthermore, you leave out the impact damage. And when the structure fails, you cannot deny the incredibly large release of energy (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1662808#post1662808) that occurs. That's more than enough to destroy the structure, especially considering that you don't need to overcome the strength of all the materials as a whole, you need only overcome the strength of the connection points.

The rest of that paragraph is some odd, nonsensical diatribe against Eager that doesn't merit any response whatsoever.


Consider:
110 storey WTC 1/2 were leveled in 15-17 seconds
47 storey WTC 7 in 6-7 seconds.
Both in well documented, and extremely revealing ways.


There is nothing unusual about the main towers collapse times, nor of 7 World Trade's. Basic reading:

http://debunking911.com/freefall.htm
http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3919370#post3919370



"No evidence of explosives"? Unless you're completely ignoring reality!!

Correct, there are no remains. Zero. Furthermore, what evidence that does exist contradicts the use of explosives. I told you this back on September 25th (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5142815#post5142815) and on September 29th (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5151281#post5151281) in two different posts covering different topics of evidence; you seem to have allowed yourself to forget. One more time:


The recovered structural elements - columns as well as floor trusses, etc. - showed ZERO signs of having been severed due to explosive forces. As a matter of fact, the only sorts of stresses they show signs of having experienced are mechanical ones induced by overload. Again, refer to NCSTAR 1-3C and examine the data gathered about those pieces as well as the images of them yourself. They show absolutely no signs whatsoever of having separated from each other due to explosives. Repeat: No signs whatsoever. This evidence is incontrovertible.

Explain why Winter Garden had panes of glass still remaining (http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=157&pictureid=1609) if explosives had been used. Furthermore, explain the patterns of barotraumatic injuries. There were literally more cases with the Madrid and each individual Israeli bus bombing than there was on 9/11, and they were severe injuries.

The bottom line here is that two independent lines of fact - the lack of complete damage to a structure that was nearly completely glass, as well as the lack of pneumatically induced traumas, as well as specific types of such - are lines of fact that contradict any possibility of explosives use whatsoever. This, too, is incontrovertible.

The reality is more than that there were zero remains of explosives left over. The reality is that the totality of the evidence contradicts the proposal.

(to be continued)

[ElMondoHummus]

(continued)
U'r talking about "accelerating mass continuing to mostly hit floors" and ignoring the cores. Floors crashing down one atop the next would not only experience conservation of momentum and be much slower than the observed explosive collapses.. but this also completely ignores the disappearance (and utter destruction!) of the massive steel coreS.


No, I did not ignore the cores. What you're ignoring is that the way the structure failed negated any chance of the cores continuing to support their own weight, let alone the force of the falling upper floors. I refer you back to my "basics" post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5217455#post5217455) because you are badly deficient in your knowledge. You do not understand how the towers were constructed, and you do not understand the details of the collapse event. You need to learn all that before you can claim any knowledge of the event.

To review the concepts in that post:

Basic structural knowledge: The construction of the towers is that the cores have no lateral bracing other than what the floor trusses provide. The floor trusses connect the perimeter and the core columns in a structure that can stand. Remove any component of that system - the perimeter columns, the floor trusses, etc. - and the other two cannot remain in place. Period.

In simple language: Once the floors go, the cores cannot stand, let alone support their own weight as a structure, let alone stop or even significantly slow the falling mass of the upper segment. Understanding this point is critical.


As I said before, the impacts severed some columns and caused others to take more strain. Fires set off by the impacts weakened the steel in the affected areas. After a time, they gave way. They had to. The entire impact and fire zone, as well as all the floors above it impacted the first floor underneath. This resulted in:

That first floor having no lateral support at the tops of the columns in that area.

That first floor only having the connections between the floor trusses and columns as the means to stopping the falling upper segment.

The columns in the area immediately below the fire/impact/collapse initiation zone being further compromised by the loss of this first floor to the falling upper mass, as well as debris impacting those columns in all sorts of directions. Recall: The columns could only bear loads in one direction, and that was straight down, and that's while the tower is intact. It wasn't, and the collisions came from nearly every other direction.

This "unzipping" of columns released more floors to the descending mass. This continued until the ground was reached.



To wrap up: You cite "conservation of momentum" as if the upper section had to overcome the inertia of the floors. No. The only things that had to be overcome were the connections between the floor (horizontal) elements and the columns. The falling upper sections never, ever had to confront the inertia of the floors. All it had to do was sever the connections between the floor trusses and the columns, and gravity moved the floors. If you calculate the momentum of the falling mass and simply compare it to the inertia of the lower section, then you fail in your understanding of the collapse dynamics because you fail to understand where the energy of the collisions went. There was never, ever any need to overcome the inertia of a single floor, let alone the collective inertia of the lower segments.



Your main argument is refuted by the fact that the Towers were designed to do just that; support many times their real world weight, even in gale force winds.[URL]http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

This is a total nonsequitor. Not only are "gale force winds" not in the direction the collapses were, but again, the ability to bear loads was completely dependent on the structure remaining intact. Since it did not, nothing you say about multiples of its own weight matter.

[ElMondoHummus]

(continued)


Both buildings were hit high above.., in the case of the north tower, 15 floors from the roof.. How can we imagine that the lightest parts (the top) could (like a "pile driver" we are asked to believe) pulverize itself ( I mean, 'themselves') in midair, to ground level with such powerful lateral energies? (800 foot debris field, tens of thousands of body parts etc)

The towers' cores alone could hold up several times the weight of each building, and then there were all those perimeter columns. All of them got thicker and stronger as they went lower down, the larger WTC (1&2's 47 massive) box columns in the cores were 53" wide and "almost solid steel at the bottom." http://911research.com/wtc/arch/core.html


This was already explained. Once any columns - whether core or perimeter - lost lateral bracing, they could not stand on their own, let alone support static weight, let alone significantly slow the falling upper floors. Once again: The columns ability to bear loads depended on them standing and only receiving the vertical loads. Remove their ability to stand, and they can't bear loads. This happened when the structure in the fire zone fell onto the floors below. Subject them to forces other than in the completely vertical, and they require the rest of the structure to stay standing. When that "rest of the structure" is what's hitting them, they fail. They separate at their splice points and fail to support any weight.

You cannot keep citing arguments about what the cores and perimeter columns load bearing capacity is. That capacity depended on the tower remaining intact! That went away as soon as the jets hit. The capacity was reduced by the impact and then used up by the shifting of loads to the remaining columns. And then guess what? The fires then further compromised elements in the impact zones.


There were approx 5 storey holes punched into the 2 Towers, near the tops, and localized fires. With a commercial plane hitting skyscraper, (a study showed) the greatest impacts are seen being made by the liquids (fuel) and the engines.. so, the wing span. (bc the fuel tanks are in the wings) Now think how massive the towers were.


Think about the connection points between the floor trusses and the vertical columns. That's what matters. When you continue to pull a Heiwa and only compare relative sizes, you betray a complete and total misunderstanding of the collapse.

11 to 27 stories of mass can indeed overwhelm the connectivity points between a single floor and the columns. And that is what happened. The falling mass never, ever had to overcome whatever energy is required to move an entire floor. It only needed to provide enough force to sever connectoins.


[i]Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
]The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.


With all due respect to Mr. DeMartini, a screen door's mesh does not depend on its interconnectivity for the rest of the mesh to resist gravity. The towers did. Furthermore, he was operating under the same presumptions that the designers were: That a 707 would be lost in the fog, low on fuel, and flying at landing speeds. Not half fueled and ramming at nearly top speed. There is a tremendous difference in energy between the two scenarios (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4062687#post4062687).

On top of that, remember that the towers did indeed resist the impacts. After all, they didn't collapse when hit. But the damage from the impacts rendered the buildings vulnerable to damage from the fires. And Leslie Robertson - lead designer on the towers - himself noted that they did not take fires such as the ones seen on 9/11 into account. Indeed, given their operating assumptions and the state of computer modeling back in that time, they couldn't have.


The fires, when compared to the size of the towers were small and the time they burned was 56 & 102min; not very long at all http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/fires.html#north


No. You state the length of the fires, but misstate the severity. There was nothing small about those fires whatsoever.

Understand that the fires didn't need to be "big" or burn for a long period of time to have the effect that they did, even though they did indeed burn hot and long. Recall that the jets impacts exposed some steel to the fires by forcibly knocking off the fireproofing. Once exposed, the only thing that mattered is that they heated enough to lose load bearing capacity, expand, and sag. They did all three. Steel loses 40 to 60 percent of it's load bearing capacity at 500oC, and that temperature was well exceeded in the fires. Refer to NCSTAR 1-5 ("Reconstruction of the Fires in the World Trade Center Towers") and 1-6 ("Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers") for more informatoin, but hte point is this: The fires were not small. They covered 6 floors in the North Tower and 5 in the South. Those floors were nearly an acre in area. 50 to 60 feet tall, acre-wide fires are not small by any measure, and by the one that counted - their ability to weaken steel in the fire zones - they were more than adequate.

By the way: The link you provide is to pictures of the fires; that page makes no claims about the fires sizes. Again, for that, you need to refer to NCSTAR 1-5.

[TruthersLie]

EMH...

He won't understand what you posted.

Here, may I sum it up in twoof speak?

Jets move fast
jets hit towers
boom
towers burn
big fires, hot fires
fire weakens towers
towers collapse
many people die
very sad

There... it should help him understand better.

[WildCat]

There... it should help him understand better.
Doubtful, there's no pictures or even a soundtrack.

[ElMondoHummus]

EMH...

He won't understand what you posted.


That's most likely so, but despite being mere repetitions of what has been said before, there's some marginal value in restating it. For one, I end up making sure that I have the argument right; if I misstate an engineering concept, for example, someone here will correct me on it. And for two, lurkers that may come by can see that the ridiculousness has been addressed; people not used to the forum may not go looking for the previous posts from years past refuting those claims.

And as a selfish motive: This is one of the very few forums where I get to stretch my writing legs. Without these posts, the majority of what I end up writing elsewhere firmly pigeonholes me as an uncreative management drone, and dangit, I need to stretch my wings... er, writing legs... oh, heck, you know what I mean!

[ElMondoHummus]

In the case of the south tower; we see a massive (approx 30 storey) block that falls, largely intact, and clearly considerably outside of, it's perimeter line..It then disintegrates into a massive rubble cloud falling into the path of maximum resistance, in the most unnatural way. In the real (natural) world, that large piece would have fallen largely intact into the street .


You have some major conceptual problems here that lead to your overall misunderstanding of the situation:


"... clearly considerably outside of it's perimeter line"?? Yes, the upper segments had indeed tilted down, but that's far from meaning that the upper floors had as a single mass moved its collective center of gravity outside the perimeter columns. This never happened. The tilt was the first indication of the failures in the fire/impact/collapse initiation zone; once those failures had completely severed the upper floors from the lower, that upper section was doing nothing but falling straight down onto the floors below.


Maximum resistance: Once those upper sections impacted their respective lower floors, you have to ask yourself this: Does it take more energy to break the floor truss-to-column connections of the lower floors than it does to push the center of mass of those upper segments 100-some feet off to the side? The correct answer, obviously, is that it takes far less energy to sever truss-to-column connections. Think about what it takes to break floor truss to column connections. Compare that to moving either 11 or 27 (for the North and South towers respectively) stories laterally 104 feet (the distance from the center of either tower to the edge). Which is less?

Furthermore, if you claim that the "large piece would have fallen largely intact into the street", you also have to ask yourself how that "large piece" could have remained intact. Remember, the perimeter and core columns were held upright by the floors. The floors were supported by the columns. Sever the columns, and floors fall. When the floors fall, the columns can't stay upright or connected to each other. How would the upper sections stayed intact? Answer: They wouldn't have. They would have disintegrated in exactly the manner that was observed: At their connection points. Reference NCSTAR 1-6 for the collapse sequence of events, and NCSTAR 1-3C for the study of how the steel components failed to begin with.

In the end, you need to realize this: The path of least resistance for the upper floors was straight down. The amount of energy in the falling floors far exceeded what was necessary to apply enough force to sever the truss-to-column connections. And there was no energy available to push those floors off to the sides. The lower segments couldn't resist enough to do this. How could they, when the floor to column connections were insufficient to handle falling mass?
The bottom line is this: What was seen on that day is entirely, 100% consistent with impact and fire-exacerbated failures leading to a global collapse. You would not have seen the upper floors remain intact (how could they, with the lateral supports in their lower sections missing?) nor would you have seen it fall "largely intact into the street". Both of your claims are erroneous, and built on severe misunderstandings of the towers construction.

What happened was what was expected: The fires in the impact zone had finally reduced exposed steel's capacity to bear loads. This was first noticed in the inward bowing from interior elements sagging. Eventually, those elements failed. The upper floors were no longer supported at that point and started falling. That rubble - an incoherent mass now, since the interior structures had failed - hit the first floors below the impact/fire zones. That broke their connections to the columns; there was too much mass and energy from falling for the floors to stop the fall. The mass grew, and was now continuing to accelerate due to gravity. It hit the next floor with even more force. This continued until it all hit the ground.

That is what happened. At no point were explosives involved.


In this photo http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp4.html you can already see the systematic explosions that will make their way, blasting out multiple floors at a time, and moving down down and up from the points of impact. (see videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c
& the frame by frame at 911research) http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_349174abc6b3763c5d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17665)



No. There were no explosions. First of all, the issue of explosives use was already definitively answered for you twice (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5142815#post5142815) before (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5151281#post5151281), and you failed to pay attention both times.

Remedial reading:

http://debunking911.com/overp.htm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926
http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1551150&postcount=381

The photographic and video evidence clearly reveal the towers being systematically blown outward with high explosive forces.

They do not. See links immediately above.


This refutes any possibility of it being gravity (impact damage, jet fuel, fires and gravity) alone acting on the structures. Fires cause gradual deformations and could not possibly account for the observed and resulting events.


Incorrect. Your premise of explosives is not merely unproven it is actually contradicted by the evidence. NCSTAR 1-3C by itself refutes any notion of explosives use. So do the images of the Winter Garden's glass panes not having been all shattered. Furthermore, the links above provide futher refutation, as well as explanations for the pneumatic effects you mistakenly attribute to "explosives".

And fires do indeed cause gradual deformations. That was indeed seen: There was inward bowing was the first instance of this. What you don't comprehend is that once failure occurs, what you're dealing with is the falling mass severing floor connections.

[HeyLeroy]

I for one enjoy reading your posts. Félicitations, Monsiuer Skonk de Pew!

[twinstead]

I for one welcome our skunk overlords

[ElMondoHummus]

(continued)

CALLED "PROOF" IN THE REAL WORLD:
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

The Jones-Harrit paper is fatally flawed.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5228939#post5228939
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4585310#post4585310
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4638753#post4638753
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4637751#post4637751
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140644
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4629835#post4629835
Furthermore, Bentham's peer review process is suspect:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4619501#post4619501
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=141353
And here is Ryan Mackey's adventure in contacting the Bentham.org reviewers in order to explain why the paper should've failed review. His goal was to merely notify them of the problems with the paper; their response very firmly illuminated their bad practices and lack of rigor:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3634377#post3634377
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3635331#post3635331
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3635382#post3635382
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3635405#post3635405
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3637492#post3637492
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3640780#post3640780
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3649874#post3649874
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3662754#post3662754
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3665594#post3665594
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3670334#post3670334
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3720078#post3720078
That "proof" you link is anything but. Read the previous discussions. The paper is fatally flawed and presents evidence contradicting what it claims.

[ElMondoHummus]

I for one enjoy reading your posts. Félicitations, Monsiuer Skonk de Pew!

Merci beau-lots. :D

I for one welcome our skunk overlords

I'm an overlord now!!! Woo-hoo!

[ElMondoHummus]

(Continued)

On 9/11: Keep it simple & factual.


I've been trying to tell you that, but you keep on injecting explosives into the argument. Explosives which somehow did not leave any signs of it's use on the steel, on neighboring buildings, or on survivors trapped in the buildings.


Asymmetrical damage (impacts and fires) cannot cause symmetrical and well defined (each in it's own way) damage. There are many clearly established facts that make the OCT utterly impossible. For example: the symmetry and speed prove demolition beyond any reasonable doubt.


You're stating this as though it's an axiom. You cannot, as what you're stating is not only not proven, it's utterly contradicted in this case. First of all, the tilt prior to the upper segments descending was indeed entirely consistent with the damage observed; the towers tilted in precisely the direction you'd expect them to given the damage. Furthermore, conspiracy peddlers like you continually try to use those terms to imply that the towers should've collapsed in some other manner than what they did. As I've shown earlier, that's based on a lack of knowledge of how the towers were built. Remove some columns, loads and strains shift. Weaken those remaining columns with fire, eventually they fail. Once they fail, the upper floors are no longer connected to the building and come crashing down onto the lower floors. Those lower floors break free at their column connections once the upper segments hit; those columns can no longer hold anything up, even themselves, when the floors disconnect. The collapse is that simple.


No one has refuted (how could they?!) the basic facts revealed in Harrit et.s paper; that the elemental composition confirms a hightech, nanoengineered aluminothermic explosive. [url]http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html


Wrong. See previous post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5229675#post5229675). The proposal has been utterly refuted.


9/11 has nothing to do with childish 'truther' labels, or Alex Jones, loose change, or any of the tons of nonsense associated with it by too many badly informed people. 9/11 is about an outrageous crime that goes unpunished, and a people that continue to be manipulated.


The truther label is one applied to yourselves by yourselves. That it has become a pejorative is your own fault.

Furthermore, the outrageous crime has gone unpunished because the hijackers died on their airplanes. Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri have evaded capture, but this is a topic completely separate from your distorted understanding of the Towers collapses. What 9/11 is is an event that deserves far better than the deluded, underinformed and badly distorted treatment it's been getting from conspiracy peddlers and other opportunistic paranoids.

As far as "people that continue to be manipulated": That's true. People like you continually misuse terms and misapply concepts like "asymmetric damage", "conservation of momentum", and "path of least/most resistance" at the behest of the originating conspiracy peddlers. You should stop. Studying the links I provided and understanding the falsities behind the conspiratorial fantasies generated by individuals with severely distorted worldviews is a good start. Beginning to thing and analyze independently is another step beyond that. Learning how to discern truth from BS would be further growth. I encourage you to start down this path.


"If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground...Find out just what a people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." --Frederick Douglass

Fine quote, but given that your entire argument has been built on misunderstandings, misapplications of physical concepts, and outright distortions, how is that supposed to apply here? Frederick Douglass was speaking against slavery with that statement, but the only slavery I see here is yours to misunderstanding, misrepresentation, and pseudoscience. You may think you're choosing to exercise freedom from some tyrannical government supposedly orchestrating this "Official Story", but in reality it's critical thought and analysis you're choosing to be free from. And at the same time, you display a deep servitude to misrepresenting physics, engineering, and history. Instead of enlightening yourself and others, you proffer predigested material from dubious sources as arguments supporting this alternate fantasy construction. But in reality, you end up carrying the torch for paranoid delusionalists and you blind yourself to actual history and knowledge while doing so. Your recitation of standard truther canon displays a lack of serious critical thought, and instead reveals a prediliction towards credulous acceptance of the outrageous merely because it appears coherent within the fantasy "9/11 Was An Inside Job" world. But the congruences you see are due to the fact that you view the entire event through a distorted lens to begin with, one not based on honest study of evidence, but acceptance of slants and spins with innuendo attached. That's no way to approach reality.

You may quote the abolitionists speech in your call to justice, but you act in the cause of mental slavery to fantasy. Ironic, that.

You do not know as much as you think you know. And your reaction to the illumination we provide will determine whether you're ready and willing to start accepting reality based on evidence, or will instead continue to wholesale fantasy spun with half-truths and unsupported insinuations. A study of the evidence - of the REAL evidence, not the misrepresentations cynically foisted on the gullible by the fantasy peddlers - clearly demonstrates that no explosives whatsoever were used to fell the towers. As I've said multiple times in the past, the state of the steel components in NCSTAR 1-3C alone disproves any explosives proposals, and that's before considering all the other lines of evidence I cite. Misinterpreting pneumatic ejections for explosives, reeling off unsupported assertions about symmetry and ludicrous misapplications of physics concepts, and linking painfully flawed papers all fail in the light of the state that the very structural elements explosives were to have been used on were found in. When they do not display a single iota of explosives use, how can anyone even think to claim that they were used? When investigating a death, the police can take all sorts of reports of loud bangs, uncover gun licenses for suspects, find bullets and holsters in suspects homes, but if they cannot show a single bullet wound on the victim, there is no case for a shooting death. And the concept applies here. If explosives were used, go to NCSTAR 1-3C and point out which of the columns were explosively separated. While you're at it, explain how the Winter Gardens glass facade survived as well as it did. And talk to the survivors rescued from the collapsed towers. See if they can hear you. Then explain how it is they weren't rendered deaf by the explosions, let alone severely disabled by barotrauma to their lungs. If you can do that, or if you can propose an explosives hypothesis that actually explains the lack of all these other effects, then you'll finally have a hypothesis that is reasonable. Until then, you have nothing.

-----

In summary: Offer an explanation that actually fits the facts. Explosives are contradicted by the facts. Nothing you have said changes that. All it has done is demonstrate that you do not understand any aspect of the event.

[LashL]

Very nicely done, ElMondoHummus. Kudos to you. :)

[ElMondoHummus]

Very nicely done, ElMondoHummus. Kudos to you. :)

Thanks! :D

[The Lone Bolt]

Unfortunately atavisms will do what truthers always do:

a) ignore your argument.

b) bring up the same BS in another thread later on.

[dafydd]

Unfortunately atavisms will do what truthers always do:

a) ignore your argument.

b) bring up the same BS in another thread later on.

They do tend to repeat themselves.It would be funny if only the subject wasn't so deadly serious.

[atavisms]

Friend, it wouldn't matter if 99% of the Earth's population "believed" there exists a Starbuck's on the far side of the moon. Believing, hoping, fervently wishing a thing to be so doesn't make it so.

Same goes for any two or more people who, for lack of education or the presence of ulterior motives, want to pretend the events of 9/11 were somehow an "inside job."

You'll get a double tall latte on the edge of a lunar crater sooner than the "truth movement" deals in anything other than fiction.

If 99% of the people on the planet believed there was a starbucks on the moon that would probably be bc there was a SB on the moon, and that is the point of the statement. Different people looking at the same facts/evidence and coming to the same conclusion is highly indicative of the strength and validity of that evidence. Remember, it is only through the corroboration of 12 jurors (12 lay people) that we decide jury cases one way or the other.

9-11 must have been an inside job bc explosives were used - I have nothing to gain by saying that. On the contrary the thought makes me terribly sad and disgusted.

Ill quote Griffin and please keep Occam's Razor in mind.

"When we combine the fact that the collapse of WTC 7 immediately appears to be a controlled demolition with the twofold fact that all prior collapses of steel-frame high-rise buildings have been produced by explosives, and that the collapse of WTC 7 has many features in common with planned implosions, the view that it was a planned implosion should be the natural assumption. The burden of proof should be placed on any claim that WTC7 was brought down by something other than explosives, because this is the wild, empirically baseless hypothesis devoid of any historical precedent, which is just the kind of hypothesis that one expects to hear from irrational conspiracy theorists.

However the fact that the conspiracy theory being supported by this wild, scientifically and historically baseless speculation is the government's own is, for some reason, thought to justify turning things upside down. In this topsy-turvy framework, those whose theory is consistent with science, the empirical facts, and all historical precedent are ridiculed as nutty conspiracy theorists while those who articulate wildly speculative theory, which contradicts all prior experience, several laws of science, and numerous empirical facts, are considered the sober, sensible thinkers, whose pronouncements can be trusted without examination."
see http://wtc7.net/videos.html for wtc 7 videos

either these "highly redundant, over-designed buildings" behaved radically different on 9/11 from everything we have ever seen in the 125plus years of high-rise engineering and construction history, or insiders were somehow able to surreptitiously deploy and employ high-tech explosives.

What would Occam say? Which is the most direct and simple explanation? It's either explosives or the laws of physics were altered for the day.

99 day fires, exploding and imploding highrise towers, pulverized concrete, 1100 missing bodies, 20k body parts, etc etc and now The Harrit report (a two year study conducted by 9 scientists from numerous universities ARE ALL FACTS. you can ignore them, as you have obviously chosen o do. but you cannot explain them satisfactorily without explosives and you certainly cannot make a compelling point that carries any weight without explaining them.
for fsake, the harrit paper details the finding of large quantities of an 'advance engineered' hightech highly energetic aluminothermic pyrcotechnic!
Where the hell did all that come from?

You just ignore that too? okay.,. good luck with that..

(and pardon the delay in replying Ive been traveling :) -what a blast!

[Brainache]

If 99% of the people on the planet believed there was a starbucks on the moon that would probably be bc there was a SB on the moon, and that is the point of the statement. Different people looking at the same facts/evidence and coming to the same conclusion is highly indicative of the strength and validity of that evidence. Remember, it is only through the corroboration of 12 jurors (12 lay people) that we decide jury cases one way or the other.

9-11 must have been an inside job bc explosives were used - I have nothing to gain by saying that. On the contrary the thought makes me terribly sad and disgusted.

Ill quote Griffin and please keep Occam's Razor in mind.

"When we combine the fact that the collapse of WTC 7 immediately appears to be a controlled demolition with the twofold fact that all prior collapses of steel-frame high-rise buildings have been produced by explosives, and that the collapse of WTC 7 has many features in common with planned implosions, the view that it was a planned implosion should be the natural assumption. The burden of proof should be placed on any claim that WTC7 was brought down by something other than explosives, because this is the wild, empirically baseless hypothesis devoid of any historical precedent, which is just the kind of hypothesis that one expects to hear from irrational conspiracy theorists.

However the fact that the conspiracy theory being supported by this wild, scientifically and historically baseless speculation is the government's own is, for some reason, thought to justify turning things upside down. In this topsy-turvy framework, those whose theory is consistent with science, the empirical facts, and all historical precedent are ridiculed as nutty conspiracy theorists while those who articulate wildly speculative theory, which contradicts all prior experience, several laws of science, and numerous empirical facts, are considered the sober, sensible thinkers, whose pronouncements can be trusted without examination."
see http://wtc7.net/videos.html for wtc 7 videos

either these "highly redundant, over-designed buildings" behaved radically different on 9/11 from everything we have ever seen in the 125plus years of high-rise engineering and construction history, or insiders were somehow able to surreptitiously deploy and employ high-tech explosives.

What would Occam say? Which is the most direct and simple explanation? It's either explosives or the laws of physics were altered for the day.

99 day fires, exploding and imploding highrise towers, pulverized concrete, 1100 missing bodies, 20k body parts, etc etc and now The Harrit report (a two year study conducted by 9 scientists from numerous universities ARE ALL FACTS. you can ignore them, as you have obviously chosen o do. but you cannot explain them satisfactorily without explosives and you certainly cannot make a compelling point that carries any weight without explaining them.
for fsake, the harrit paper details the finding of large quantities of an 'advance engineered' hightech highly energetic aluminothermic pyrcotechnic!
Where the hell did all that come from?

You just ignore that too? okay.,. good luck with that..

(and pardon the delay in replying Ive been traveling :) -what a blast!

Why on earth would you believe anything Griffin says about engineering?

You ignore what real engineers publish in serious journals on the subject and believe any old nonsense sold to you by a theologian.

Hopeless.

[WildCat]

9-11 must have been an inside job bc explosives were used - I have nothing to gain by saying that. On the contrary the thought makes me terribly sad and disgusted.
Actually it makes you feel important, because you "know" something few other people "know". You think you'rew a trailblazer, a revolutionary, on the vanguard of knowledge.

It's utter nonsense of course, but it does make you feel special I guess.

[AJM8125]

The burden of proof should be placed on any claim that WTC7 was brought down by something other than explosives, because this is the wild, empirically baseless hypothesis devoid of any historical precedent, which is just the kind of hypothesis that one expects to hear from irrational conspiracy theorists.

That was an awful long way to go for trying to get anyone else to do your work for you.

[A W Smith]

If 99% of the people on the planet believed there was a starbucks on the moon that would probably be bc there was a SB on the moon, and that is the point of the statement. Different people looking at the same facts/evidence and coming to the same conclusion is highly indicative of the strength and validity of that evidence. therefore 9/11 was not an inside job based on the strength and validity of the evidence??? Correct??Remember, it is only through the corroboration of 12 jurors (12 lay people) that we decide jury cases one way or the other.
argmentum ad populem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum)
9-11 must have been an inside job bc explosives were used - I have nothing to gain by saying that. On the contrary the thought makes me terribly sad and disgusted. bare assertion logical fallacy and appeal to emotion logical fallacy

Ill quote Griffin and please keep Occam's Razor in mind.you are about to cut yourself with it

"When we combine the fact that the collapse of WTC 7 immediately appears to be a controlled demolition with the twofold fact that all prior collapses of steel-frame high-rise buildings have been produced by explosives, and that the collapse of WTC 7 has many features in common with planned implosions, the view that it was a planned implosion should be the natural assumption.affirming the consequent logical fallacy (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#consequent) also Least Plausible Hypothesis (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#plausible) fallacy The burden of proof should be placed on any claim that WTC7 was brought down by something other than explosives, because this is the wild, empirically baseless hypothesis devoid of any historical precedent, Burden of proof logical fallacy (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#burden)which is just the kind of hypothesis that one expects to hear from irrational conspiracy theorists.

However the fact that the conspiracy theory being supported by this wild, scientifically and historically baseless speculation Cite? is the government's own is, for some reason, thought to justify turning things upside down. Poisoning the well logical fallacy (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#well)In this topsy-turvy framework, those whose theory is consistent with science, the empirical facts, and all historical precedent are ridiculed as nutty conspiracy theorists Lies or errors of fact logical fallacy (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#lies) Restating them no matter how many times will not make them true, yes even on the internetwhile those who articulate wildly speculative theory, which contradicts all prior experience, several laws of science, and numerous empirical facts, are considered the sober, sensible thinkers, whose pronouncements can be trusted without examination." again. more lies (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#lies). again ,Restating them no matter how many times will not make them true, yes even on the internet
see http://wtc7.net/videos.html for wtc 7 videos

either these "highly redundant, over-designed buildings" behaved radically different on 9/11 from everything we have ever seen in the 125plus years of high-rise engineering and construction history, or insiders were somehow able to surreptitiously deploy and employ high-tech explosives. define "highly redundant, over-designed buildings". To construct buildings economically they cannot be "highly redundant, over-designed buildings". Bare assertion logical fallacy

What would Occam say? Which is the most direct and simple explanation? It's either explosives or the laws of physics were altered for the day.

99 day fires, exploding and imploding highrise towers, pulverized concrete, 1100 missing bodies, 20k body parts, etc etc argument by emotive language (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#emotive)and now The Harrit report (a two year study conducted by 9 scientists from numerous universities ARE ALL FACTS. you can ignore them, as you have obviously chosen o do. but you cannot explain them satisfactorily without explosives and you certainly cannot make a compelling point that carries any weight without explaining them.
for fsake, the harrit paper details the finding of large quantities of an 'advance engineered' hightech highly energetic aluminothermic pyrcotechnic! the harrit paper is not peer reviewed. and furthermore. its paint (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694)
Where the hell did all that come from?

You just ignore that too? okay.,. good luck with that..

(and pardon the delay in replying Ive been traveling :) -what a blast!You keep on traveling down that rabbit hole. For us anyway. your delusions are very entertaining. There was a time when I was young that I couldn't believe people were that stupid, then came the internet.

[ElMondoHummus]

If 99% of the people on the planet believed there was a starbucks on the moon that would probably be bc there was a SB on the moon...

:confused:

At one time in history, most of the people on the planet believed that the universe was geocentric.

At one time in history, most of the people in Europe who were aware of what we now call the British Isles had no idea those were islands.

Majority believe =/= proof. Your statement is the epitome of a certain logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum).

[atavisms]

On the off-chance even that reference isn't precise enough, it's in NCSTAR1-9, Appendix D. Go here (http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-9index.htm). But it's pretty darn easy to find. They say lots of stupid things.
One of the funniest bits of "flip-flopping" they've ever done is the Nanothermite Dance. Nobody has yet proposed how to use thermite to topple a building, but it is true that melting rather than exploding would be fairly quiet, so the theory was at least consistent with one piece of evidence, even if it failed all the others. However, for some reason I've never been able to figure out, on their own initiative they've backed away from this and proposed "nanothermite," trying to make thermite into an explosive...

Classic case of trying to have your cake and eat it too, that's what it is. Hence, demand a hypothesis, and one that doesn't morph between explosives/incendiaries only every time you take your eyes off of it. But you'll never get one.

'Thermite' or 'nanothermite' is having your cake and eating it too?
The point remains the same in both cases doesn't it? that explosives were used.

That an investigation should move in different directions with evolving hypothesis based first upon on observed events, and altered according to evidence as it becomes available (such as the Harrit paper) is standard procedure.

I am not sure what you mean to say because the facts are what they are. That the events happened is not in question. The results of the Harrit paper are conclusive. What we are lacking are satisfactory explanations from official sources. 9-11 truth is not like any 'conspiracy' that has come before.
Some conspiracies are real, and as hard as it is to believe because of how unlikely it seems (it is) we have to use evidence (FACTS) to decide not our own lack of knowledge on the subject.

That we cannot even get NIST to release the data inputs they used for the computer modeling in NIST NCSTAR 1A is revealing.. That is not how science is conducted in the real world. Why would they not release them unless they had something to hide?

Why would they not test for explosives? (NIST Sopokesman: "Looking for something that isn't there is a waste of time.")

Why would they refuse to admit freefall on wtc 7 again and again (contradicting what we're all seeing with our own eyes on the video tapes) only to finally change their minds and say it did occur. (Answer: the folks at architects and engineers for 911 truth) The reason they refused to admit it is because freeall is impossible barring the use of explosives. (because even a weakened structure has some support, and this was a mostly intact skyscraper.

Why did we get three different stories from the military (very different stories) on their actions that morning? Why was no one held accountable? (people in charge were promoted) Why do we have Norman Mineta, the ex Secretary of Transportation the United States testifying before the 911 commission stating that they (in the PEOC) knew a plane was coming into washington yet no warning was given. What was Cheney's order that "still stands."? There was no follow up by the commission on this vital point, and his testimony was stricken from the final report.. as if it never hao'd !
The report has Cheney arriving to the PEOC after impact (pentagon) when Mineta states clearly he was already there when he arrived at 9.20a

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050724164122860

but its all just nonsense, according to you, in people's wacky minds - no one in power would ever abuse their position and people never lie or conspire against one another.

[Redtail]

'Thermite' or 'nanothermite' is having your cake and eating it too?
The point remains the same in both cases doesn't it? that explosives were used.
Considering neither thermite and nanothermite are explosives, no.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

'Thermite' or 'nanothermite' is having your cake and eating it too?
The point remains the same in both cases doesn't it? that explosives were used.

Explosives would have created very strong, distinctive seismic signatures. But there were no such signatures. (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5)

There were no explosives. It is simply not physically possible.

Why won't you get this through your head?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

If 99% of the people on the planet believed there was a starbucks on the moon that would probably be bc there was a SB on the moon, and that is the point of the statement.


Wow. That's completely ass-backwards. You can't possibly use the popularity of a theory to determine the likelihood of its being true.

How many people in the U.S. believe Creationism over evolution? I guess that settles that, huh?

[Arus808]

Why won't you get this through your head?

cause he has sludge between his ears.

[Dave Rogers]

If 99% of the people on the planet believed there was a starbucks on the moon that would probably be bc there was a SB on the moon, and that is the point of the statement.

So, since 95% of the people of the USA believe the Twin Towers weren't blown up by explosives, we can conclude from your logic that they weren't blown up by explosives. That's nice; we can forget about all the conspiracy theories now.

Or did you mean that if 4.6% of the people on the planet believed there was a Starbucks on the moon, that would probably be because there was a Starbucks on the moon?

Dave

[TruthersLie]

If 99% of the people on the planet believed there was a starbucks on the moon that would probably be bc there was a SB on the moon, and that is the point of the statement. Different people looking at the same facts/evidence and coming to the same conclusion is highly indicative of the strength and validity of that evidence. Remember, it is only through the corroboration of 12 jurors (12 lay people) that we decide jury cases one way or the other.

9-11 must have been an inside job bc explosives were used - I have nothing to gain by saying that. On the contrary the thought makes me terribly sad and disgusted.


Then you can easily show me
1. a video where you can hear these explosives
2. a video where you can see the flashes of these explosives
3. images of steel which has been through an explosion
4. you can show me images of all of the shattered windows
5. you can show me a seismograph where you can find these explosives being detonated.

Please provide them. why is it you can't?


Ill quote Griffin and please keep Occam's Razor in mind.


Why? He is a proven liar and a fraud. Yet you want to quote a THEOLOGIAN speaking outside of his speciality? Unless GOD DID IT, he is out of his depth.

What are his qualifications again to discuss any engineering report?

Over 150 errors of his in 150 pages from his craptatcular debunking 9/11 debunking.

Yet you will still listen to him?
Why do TRUTHERS have to LIE so much?


either these "highly redundant, over-designed buildings" behaved radically different on 9/11 from everything we have ever seen in the 125plus years of high-rise engineering and construction history, or insiders were somehow able to surreptitiously deploy and employ high-tech explosives.


Or the buildings reacted just like they should have with massive airplane strikes and fires burning uncontrolled for an hour (for each tower) and 7 hours for wtc7.

If it is sooooo obvious that scooby and the gang can figure it out, you should have dozens of (if not hundreds) peer reviewed engineering journals saying NIST is full of crap. Where are they? Provide just one.


What would Occam say? Which is the most direct and simple explanation? It's either explosives or the laws of physics were altered for the day.

Occam would say 4 jets hit three buildings which burned and then collapsed.
You want to try to use Occam?
Ok lets see.
19 hijackers, take over 4 jets and fly them into 3 buildings. The buildings burn and then collapse. Maybe 50 people all together are involved.

OR we have the rube goldberg conspiracy machine with upper levels of the US government, the Mossad, and other people who are sneaking in explosives, and then you have everyone involved in the plot. That is in the THOUSAND.

hmmmm.... KISS rule. Try it.


99 day fires,

Expected with underground fires. YOu have the contents of 2 110 story buildings burning, especially when they didn't start fire fighting on the pile for 2 weeks after the collapses.

How do you explain it? Thermite? It burns off fast and in hours is cool to the touch.

exploding and imploding highrise towers,

None of the buildings exploded or imploded. You might just want to look up those words and see what they mean.


pulverized concrete,


You have 2 massive buildings collapse.. what should happen to the concrete? OR is this you bying into the LIE about all the concrete being pulverized? Most of the pulverized materials were drywall and gypsum board. Look it up

1100 missing bodies, 20k body parts,


Now why would you have missing bodies and lots of body parts when 2 110 story buildings collapse with the power of a nuclear bomb? When you have a hot enviromnet (you know those 99 day fires in the piles) with water and steam? Oh you have bodies decomposing and rotting. It is amazing your ignorance.

etc etc and now The Harrit report (a two year study conducted by 9 scientists from numerous universities ARE ALL FACTS. you can ignore them, as you have obviously chosen o do.


Scientists were involved in this paper? Which ones? From what Universities? Published in which peer reviewed journal? What was that? Oh a vanity journal with twoofs as the peer reviewers? REally?

over 20 methodological errors (some of them massive). try again.


but you cannot explain them satisfactorily without explosives and you certainly cannot make a compelling point that carries any weight without explaining them.

It is fully and utterly explained in the 10,000 page NIST report. Is it completely and utterly accurate? no. Are there some problems with wording, or things people may like to see in better depth? Yes. Does that affect the findings in the slightest? No. Again, please show me one peer reviewed engineering article which states NIST is wrong. I'll wait for it.


for fsake, the harrit paper details the finding of large quantities of an 'advance engineered' hightech highly energetic aluminothermic pyrcotechnic!


You might just want to try to read for comprehension. That is not what the paper shows. Your lack fo science is very funny.

It is paint.

Where the hell did all that come from?


a paint brush, rust, and that is all.


You just ignore that too? okay.,. good luck with that..


ignore? No, it has been fully debunked and destroyed. I'm sorry that you do not have the chemistry or physics understanding to grasp that.

I mean even steven jones now is backing away from the nanothermite crap and sayng it must have been used as a fuse for TRADITIONAL EXPLOSIVES... which for some reason you CANT HEAR.

You might want to get caught up on the latest twoofie newsletters.

[TruthersLie]

'Thermite' or 'nanothermite' is having your cake and eating it too?
The point remains the same in both cases doesn't it? that explosives were used.


Do I need to post the Oklahoma City bombings stuff again? Really?

If explosives were used please provide proof. It should be simple. I mean really simple. Still waiting. YOu can repeate it until you are blue in the face, but w/out proof you are nothing more than some loon.


That an investigation should move in different directions with evolving hypothesis based first upon on observed events, and altered according to evidence as it becomes available (such as the Harrit paper) is standard procedure.

YOu keep citing this "harrit paper." Which Harrit paper? From what peer reviewed journal did this come from? What is the science behind it?

Oh you mean the craptacular pile of fail for "nanothermite." Snicker. Snort. LOL.


I am not sure what you mean to say because the facts are what they are. That the events happened is not in question. The results of the Harrit paper are conclusive.


Umm no they are not. There are over 20 methodological errors in that "paper" (snicker, snort, LOL).

that isn't counting the sampling bias, the lack of real peer review, and the inability to do basic science.

You might just want to go back to school, and after you graduate high school, enroll in some basic scientific methods class, research methods, and some chemistry courses... it would help. a lot.

What we are lacking are satisfactory explanations from official sources. 9-11 truth is not like any 'conspiracy' that has come before.

Satisfactory explaination? ROFLMAO. It has been examined and explained. I'm sorry that you don't understand the explanations.

That we cannot even get NIST to release the data inputs they used for the computer modeling in NIST NCSTAR 1A is revealing.. That is not how science is conducted in the real world. Why would they not release them unless they had something to hide?

Argument from ignorance noted.


Why would they not test for explosives? (NIST Sopokesman: "Looking for something that isn't there is a waste of time.")


We just had a body found by the local police department. It had a massive impact trauma to the chest and body cavity. The police determined the person was hit by a car. Should they have tested for gunshot residue? Don't be stupid.


Why would they refuse to admit freefall on wtc 7 again and again (contradicting what we're all seeing with our own eyes on the video tapes) only to finally change their minds and say it did occur.


WTC7 didn't fall at freefall for the entire duration of the collapse. YOu use words and terms you dont' understand. Try again.

(Answer: the folks at architects and engineers for 911 truth) The reason they refused to admit it is because freeall is impossible barring the use of explosives.


Umm no. In the draft report they infer there was a short period of freefall. Anyone who read it, who understood it realized this. David Chandler went out and mapped it (because he is a twoof) and showd that their original inference was correct.

I'm sorry you do not understand the basic engineering or physics involved.

Why did we get three different stories from the military (very different stories) on their actions that morning?


ah the typical truther tactic... shotgun claims.
Geeze... why would the military who allowed 3,000 citizens be murdered in a sneak attack have different stories?

because it was a confusing cluster ****. And because people were trying to CYA. They didn't want to get blamed.

Why was no one held accountable?


see above. And lets see... 19 terrorists and their terror organization were held accountable.

(people in charge were promoted)


Some, and some were forced to resign.


Why do we have Norman Mineta, the ex Secretary of Transportation the United States testifying before the 911 commission stating that they (in the PEOC) knew a plane was coming into washington yet no warning was given.


Ah yes... this datamined quote taken out of context. YOu really should read for comprehension from the original transcripts, not from datamined posts on twoof websites.

What was Cheney's order that "still stands."? There was no follow up by the commission on this vital point, and his testimony was stricken from the final report.. as if it never hao'd !

ah... 2006 all over again.


The report has Cheney arriving to the PEOC after impact (pentagon) when Mineta states clearly he was already there when he arrived at 9.20a

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050724164122860

but its all just nonsense, according to you, in people's wacky minds - no one in power would ever abuse their position and people never lie or conspire against one another.

Argument from ignorance and incredulity noted. Try again.
Maybe this time you go and actually READ THE FULL TRANSCRIPTS. It helps a lot.

my wife offers an online reading comprehension class... Pm me and I'll see if she will sign you up for it.

[bardamu]

Then you can easily show me
1. a video where you can hear these explosives
2. a video where you can see the flashes of these explosives
3. images of steel which has been through an explosion
4. you can show me images of all of the shattered windows
5. you can show me a seismograph where you can find these explosives being detonated.

Please provide them. why is it you can't?

The Verinage technique proves that these are not necessary features of a controlled demolition.



Ok lets see.
19 hijackers, take over 4 jets and fly them into 3 buildings. The buildings burn and then collapse. Maybe 50 people all together are involved.

There's no evidence that the alleged hijackers even boarded the planes.


There is no evidence that Muslims hijacked planes on 9/11
By Elias Davidsson
10 January 2008

Abstract: The United States government has alleged that 19 individuals with Arab names, deemed fanatic Muslims, hijacked four passenger planes on 11 September 2001 and crashed them in a suicide-operation that killed approximately 3,000 people. In this Report, the author shows that there is no evidence that these individuals boarded any of these passenger planes. For this reason, it is impossible to support the official account on 9/11. As the US government has failed to prove its accusations against the 19 alleged hijackers, the official account on 9/11 must be regarded as a lie.

http://www.aldeilis.net/english/images/stories/911/noevidence.pdf

[BigAl]

The Verinage technique proves that these are not necessary features of a controlled demolition.

So what?

Anyone familiar with work required to prepare a building for Verinage and the size and constrution of the towers would know that it didn't happen at any WTC building.


There's no evidence that the alleged hijackers even boarded the planes.


Wrong. Here's just some of the evidence;

The 19 Arab Islamist Hijackers Edited 7/16/09
http://911links.webs.com/19Hijackers.htm

Table of Contents
[1] Reading list for all the evidence we have about the hijackers.
[2] The martyrdom videos made by 7 of the hijackers.
[3] Arabic spoken in cockpits of hijacked planes.
[4] Boarding manifest for Flt11 that shows hijacker's names
[5] The names of the hijackers
[6] BBC on the names and reporting of the hijackers
[7] Answers to Zeitgeist The Movie: - Flight Manifests
[8] Status of Hijacker DNA - (2009)
[9] Answer to "At Least 7 of the 9/11 Hijackers are Still Alive"
[10] bin Laden Connections to the 19 hijackers
[11] News Report on hijackers as of Nov 2, 2001
[12] Hanjour as a pilot
[13] Photo and DNA ID match of some of the hijackers.
[14] Identification of the Flt 77 hijackers
[15] Pictures of the Hanjour and another hijacker boarding the airplanes.
[16] Details of airline tickets for some of the hijackers.
[17] 166-page 9/11 Commission document contains lots of information on hijacker visa applications, with a particular focus on Mohamed Atta.
[18] This 9/11 Commission document includes an INS analysis of Abdulaziz al-Omari's passport, presumably recovered from the Flight 11 crash scene, and reports on another Abdulaziz al-Omari who had no connection at all with terrorism or the plot, but was caught up in one of the "hijacker still alive" stories.
If you want to knowwhy each person is on the list, read any or all of these books to get an idea of just how much evidence for who hijacked the planes and how they are connected directly to bin Laden and KSM and the American Embassy bombings in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole. Some of these names were known to the FBI even before 9/11/2001 for their crimes.

[1] ----- Essential reading list ---------------------------

The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 by Lawrence
Perfect Soldiers: The 9/11 Hijackers: Who They Were, Why They Did It by Terry Mcdermott
The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America, by James Bamford.
PBS Video on Bamford http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/spyfactory/program.html
Spying Blind by Amy Zegart
Perfect Soldiers by Terry McDermott

[2] -------Hijacker videos -------------------------------------------

This video has the martyrdom videos made by some of the hijackers.
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1619489
Hijackers video wills (Scroll down to the bottom)
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Responsibility

[3] -------Arab Audio on Voice recorders --------------

We have the audio of Arabs on the recovered cockpit voice recorders.
The CVR clearly captured the words of the hijackers, including words in Arabic from the microphone in the pilot headset up to the end of the flight. The hijackers' statements, the clarity of the recording, the position of the microphone in the pilot headset, and the corresponding manipulations of flight controls provide the evidence. The quotes are taken from our listening to the CVR, aided by an Arabic speaker.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report/Notes/Part_1

[4] -----------Boarding Manifests ---------------------------

I have the boarding manifest for Flt11 that shows the names.
http://www.911myths.com/images/8/84/Flight_11_Manifest.gif http://www.911myths.com/images/8/84/Flight_11_Manifest.gif
Discussion
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=124907
Flash app shows seating, calls , hijackers,
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200018.html

[5] -----Hijacker names ------------------------------

AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 77
1) Khalid Almihdhar - Possible Saudi national
-Possible resident of San Diego, California, and New York
-Alias: Sannan Al-Makki; Khalid Bin Muhammad; 'Addallah Al-Mihdhar;
Khalid Mohammad Al-Saqaf

2) Majed Moqed - Possible Saudi national
-Alias: Majed M.GH Moqed; Majed Moqed, Majed Mashaan Moqed

3) Nawaf Alhazmi - Possible Saudi national
-Possible resident of Fort Lee, New Jersey; Wayne, New Jersey; San Diego, California
-Alias: Nawaf Al-Hazmi; Nawaf Al Hazmi; Nawaf M.S. Al Hazmi
4) Salem Alhazmi - Possible Saudi national
-Possible resident of Fort Lee, New Jersey; Wayne, New Jersey
5) Hani Hanjour -
-Possible resident of Phoenix, Arizona, and San Diego, California
-Alias: Hani Saleh Hanjour; Hani Saleh; Hani Hanjour, Hani Saleh H. Hanjour

AMERICAN AIRLINES #11 BOEING 767
1) Satam M.A. Al Suqami- Possible Saudi national
-Dates of birth used: June 28, 1976; Last known address: United Arab Emirates
2) Waleed M. Alshehri - Possible Saudi national
-Dates of birth used: September 13, 1974; January 1, 1976; March 3,
1976; July 8, 1977; December 20, 1978; May 11, 1979; November 5, 1979
-Possible residence(s): Hollywood, Florida; Orlando, Florida;
Daytona Beach, Florida
-Believed to be a pilot

3) Wail M. Alshehri
-Date of birth used: September 1, 1968
-Possible residence(s): Hollywood, Florida; Newton, Massachusetts
-Believed to be a pilot
4) Mohamed Atta - Possible Egyptian national
-Date of birth used: September 1, 1968
-Possible residence(s): Hollywood, Florida; Coral Springs, Florida;
Hamburg, Germany
-Believed to be a pilot
-Alias: Mehan Atta; Mohammad El Amir; Muhammad Atta; Mohamed El
Sayed; Mohamed Elsayed; Muhammad Muhammad Al Amir Awag Al Sayyid
Atta; Muhammad Muhammad Al-Amir Awad Al Sayad

5) Abdulaziz Alomari - Possible Saudi national
-Dates of birth used: December 24, 1972 and May 28, 1979
-Possible residence(s): Hollywood, Florida
-Believed to be a pilot
UNITED AIRLINES #175 BOEING 767
1) Marwan Al-Shehhi
-Date of birth used: May 9, 1978
-Possible residence(s): Hollywood, Florida
-Believed to be a pilot
-Alias: Marwan Yusif Muhammad Rashid Al-Shehi; Marwan Yusif Muhammad
Rashid Lakrab Al-Shihhi; Abu Abdullah
2) Fayez Rashid Ahmed Hassan Al Qadi Banihammad
-Possible residence(s): Delray Beach, Florida
-Alias: Fayez Ahmad; Banihammad Fayez Abu Dhabi Banihammad; Fayez
Rashid Ahmed; Banihammad Fayez; Rasid Ahmed Hassen Alqadi; Abu
Dhabi Banihammad ; Ahmed Fayez; Faez Ahmed
3) Ahmed Alghamdi
-Alias: Ahmed Salah Alghamdi
4) Hamza Alghamdi
-Possible residence(s): Delray Beach, Florida
-Alias: Hamza Al-Ghamdi; Hamza Ghamdi; Hamzah Alghamdi; Hamza
Alghamdi Saleh
5) Mohand Alshehri
-Possible residence(s): Delray Beach, Florida
-Alias: Mohammed Alshehhi; Mohamd Alshehri; Mohald Alshehri
UNITED AIRLINES #93 BOEING 757
1) Saeed Alghamdi
-Possible residence: Delray Beach, Florida
-Alias: Abdul Rahman Saed Alghamdi; Ali S Alghamdi; Al- Gamdi; Saad
M.S. Al Ghamdi; Sadda Al Ghamdi; Saheed Al-Ghamdi; Seed Al Ghamdi
2) Ahmed Ibrahim A. Al Haznawi - Possible Saudi national
-Date of birth used: October 11, 1980
-Possible residence: Delray Beach, Florida
-Alias: Ahmed Alhaznawi
3) Ahmed Alnami
-Possible residence: Delray Beach, Florida
-Alias: Ali Ahmed Alnami; Ahmed A. Al-Nami; Ahmed Al- Nawi
4) Ziad Samir Jarrah
-Believed to be a pilot
-Alias: Zaid Jarrahi; Zaid Samr Jarrah; Ziad S. Jarrah; Ziad Jarrah
Jarrat, Ziad Samir Jarrahi

[6] -----------------------------------------

BBC on the names and reporting of the hijackers
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html

[7] ----------------------------------
Answers to Zeitgeist The Movie: - Flight Manifests
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCj8X2glIrA

[8] ------------------------------------------------

Newsweek - Remains of the Day
Nineteen hijackers died on 9/11. What should be done with what's left of them? Eve Conant
From the magazine issue dated Jan 12, 2009
...Through a combination of innovative DNA-mapping techniques, help from the FBI's crime lab and dumb luck, the scientists have now ID'd four of the 10 New York hijackers. The remains of the nine hijackers from the Pentagon and Pennsylvania crash sites have also been confirmed; six other hijackers have yet to be identified. ...
http://www.newsweek.com/id/177724/output/print

[9] -----------------------------------------------

At Least 7 of the 9/11 Hijackers are Still Alive
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hijackers.html
BBC Response
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html
[10] ----------------------------------------------------


bib Laden Connections to the 19 hijackers

[11] -------------------------------------------------------

News report as of Nov 2, 2001
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/11/02/attack/main316806.shtml

[12] --------------------------------------------

New York Newsday article from 9/23/01. "Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said." Most of the complaints that I've seen were that he couldn't land well. Considering what he was planning on doing, I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't exactly the top of his "skills to hone" list.
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/disinfo/deceptions/nynewsday_sep23.html
Woman taught 9/11 hijacker how to fly
http://www.capeargus.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=55&fArticleId=3171841

[13] -------------------------

Photo and DNA ID match of some of the pilots.
This 9/11 Commission document explains how the FBI attempted to verify the hijackers identities (includes an apparent DNA match with Jarrah).
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13950034/T5-B62-T-Eldridge-Files-Aliases-and-IDs-Fdr-Doc-Req-54-and-43-FBI-ID-of-Hijackers-by-Family-Members-PENTTBOM
http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:Team5_Box62_AliasesAndIDs-FBIIDsHijackers-1.pdf

[14] ---- Identification of the Flt 77 hijackers ---------

This 9/11 Commission document includes details of a forensic examination of hijacker ID cards recovered from the Pentagon, and a list of identification documents belonging to the hijackers (passports, visas, driving licences, more).
http://911myths.com/images/b/ba/Team5_Box46_Chronology_US_Identifications.pdf

[15] --------------------------------

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x34702

[16] ---------------------------------

Details in hijacker tickets.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4722224#post4722224
[17] ------------------------------



http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:Team5_Box51_Hijacker-Primary-Docs_AA11-ChronologySaudiVisaApps.pdf
[18] ------------------------------



http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:Team5_Box51_Hijacker-Primary-Docs_AA11-AbdulAzizAlomari-Passport.pdf

[twinstead]

I'm sure bardamu will study your evidence and come back with a rational, well-researched, and compelling rebuttal, BigAll...

LOL I know. I don't know what the hell I was saying. I'm sure he just thinks it's all faked.

[dtugg]

LOL. Verinage technique at the WTC without anybody noticing. Sure, as soon as pigs fly out my ass.

And no-planer, you mentioned before that you worship the lying fraud Anders Bjorkman, aka Heiwa. According to his cartoon world version of physics, the Verinage technique would not work on the twin towers. Oops!

[TruthersLie]

The Verinage technique proves that these are not necessary features of a controlled demolition.


So then you claim the towers were brought down with the verinage technique? make a claim twoof.

The verinage technique shows that you can do CD w/out explosives. Yet your movement claims it was explosives. Which one is it twoof?

If it was explosives, then it wasn't the verinage technique. If it was the verinage technique, then it isn't explosives. You might want to pick one and figure out what you are claiming. Or was it thermite/nanothermite? Pick one.


There's no evidence that the alleged hijackers even boarded the planes.

http://www.aldeilis.net/english/images/stories/911/noevidence.pdf

ROFLMAO. Other than the video images of people going through security, matching DNA, and their video wills which have been broadcast around the world... But you might want to look into that.

So we have fake planes, CD w/out explosions, and now hijackers are still alive.

what next twoof? 10 minute jet intercepts? missing 2.3 trillion? Pull it?

And twoof, my reply is to another twoofer swearing there were explosions... maybe you both should PM each other until you can come up with a comprehensive narrative, or at least agree on the basics of what happened.

[Dave Rogers]

There's no evidence that the alleged hijackers even boarded the planes.

That's a lie. There is ample evidence that the hijackers boarded the planes. You may personally believe that the evidence is unconvincing, but to pretend it doesn't exist is simple dishonesty on your part.

Dave

[twinstead]

99 bottles of beer on the wall, 99 bottles of beer.
Take one down. Pass it around. 98 bottles of beer on the wall.

Rinse. Repeat.

[Dave Rogers]

99 bottles of beer on the wall, 99 bottles of beer.
Take one down. Pass it around. 98 bottles of beer on the wall.


There's no evidence that the alleged 99 bottles of beer ever boarded the wall.

Dave

[twinstead]

There's no evidence that the alleged 99 bottles of beer ever boarded the wall.


I usually consider my falling off the barstool when I try to get up as evidence

[JAStewart]

I usually consider my falling off the barstool when I try to get up as evidence
Argument ad(d) alcoholum


I'll get me coat.

[Grizzly Bear]

The Verinage technique proves that these are not necessary features of a controlled demolition.
Think of it another way; it demonstrates that none are required once the collapse has already initiated. Which means once the collapse got going it was indeed inevitable.

[Mancman]

The Verinage technique proves that these are not necessary features of a controlled demolition.


Try reading the thread Ace. atavism says there were explosives, Trutherslie lists features of an explosive demolition which were not present at the WTC, the absence of which utterly rule out explosives. Therefore, atavism is wrong and your verinage comment is irrelevant to the line of discussion, see how that works? Real neat, isn't it?

[T.A.M.]

Remember the days when REAL truthers came here with REAL arguments...

wait...that never happened.

Carry on.

TAM;)

[JAStewart]

Yeah but at least we had to put some efforts into debunking them then.

Now they are simply a joke.

[Grizzly Bear]

That an investigation should move in different directions with evolving hypothesis based first upon on observed events, and altered according to evidence as it becomes available (such as the Harrit paper) is standard procedure.

There was no evidence from the onset for a controlled demolition. By definition the truther movement violated the very procedure you're insisting the investigations skipped over. You saw a building collapse, and you guys assumed it had to be a controlled demolition based on spurious similarity.

You guys assume that buildings are absolutely invincible creations of man, while glossing over the details which set every building apart.

You guys haven't the slightest clue about materials, failures mechanisms, or construction for that matter.

Your own architects and engineers don't even know what column failure is to begin with.

You have bat **** crazy minorities who think magical lasers from the International Space station death star vaporized the buildings

You have bat **** crazy minorities who think the planes were faked.

You guys are incapable of quoting witness statements full context

You guys are incapable of quoting the very reports you criticize in full context.

You're critiquing us about following the scientific method? I've spent a year and a half on this forum, and it always fascinates me how conspiracy theorists of virtually any breed have the audacity to tell people what the scientific method entails when they themselves fail spectacularly to do so before even sitting through their theories. You're asking people to consider a position which vaporized (pun intended) before it even hit the atmosphere.


but its all just nonsense, according to you, in people's wacky minds - no one in power would ever abuse their position and people never lie or conspire against one another.
Yes it's all nonsense to begin with because the contentions of the truth movement from day one have been based on an illiteracy in multiple academic and professional fields. I for one find some of this illiteracy coming from professionals no less deplorable.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

99 bottles of beer on the wall, 99 bottles of beer.
Take one down. Pass it around. 98 bottles of beer on the wall.


I believe the truther version is...

99 bottles of beer on the wall. 99 bottles of beer.
Take one down, pass it around. 100 bottles of beer on the wall.

[JAStewart]

I have it on good authority this is the troother version:

99 bottles of beer in us all, 99 bottles of beer.
We get real drunk and make up junk, 99 bottles of beer!

[newton3376]

Remember the days when REAL truthers came here with REAL arguments...

wait...that never happened.

Carry on.

TAM;)

:newlol:newlol:newlol:newlol

[atavisms]

..you have also said your theory is based on your un-informed opinion.


it is not "my theory" but the well documented features of these events that do not nearly jive with the explanations offered to account for them.

And it is not my 'un-informed opinion' but the laws of physics !
And all of engineering history as precedence.

freefall in wtc7 means there were no supports.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw
where do you reckon they went??


-pardon my late reply ^^

[Scott Sommers]

it is not "my theory" but the well documented features of these events that do not nearly jive with the explanations offered to account for them.

And it is not my 'un-informed opinion' but the laws of physics !
And all of engineering history as precedence.

freefall in wtc7 means there were no supports.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw
where do you reckon they went??


-pardon my late reply ^^

My God! This is the most terrifying thing I have ever heard. News like this must be sweeping the country. It must have been on the lips of everyone in New York City this last week. I guess that's why it's such an important topic at the Republic primary. It's what they're been talking about at the primary debates in every election since 2001.

If I were you, I'd be standing on the street corner telling everyone I could. And if they don't listen, yell at them. Give them CDs with your important message. Post videos on Youtube. Just anything to get them to listen.

[cantonear1968]

it is not "my theory" but the well documented features of these events that do not nearly jive with the explanations offered to account for them.

And it is not my 'un-informed opinion' but the laws of physics !
And all of engineering history as precedence.

freefall in wtc7 means there were no supports.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw
where do you reckon they went??


-pardon my late reply ^^

Free fall has been explained by NIST. What do you find scientifically erroneous with their conclusions?

No explosives. No recorded audio sounds of explosives going off. No seismic record to indicate explosives were used. No expulsions from the buildings until after the building starts to move.

Absolutely no signs that explosives were used in any of the buildings. You resurrected a 2 year old thread to have that explained to you once again.

[newton3376]

If I were you, I'd be standing on the street corner telling everyone I could. And if they don't listen, yell at them. Give them CDs with your important message. Post videos on Youtube. Just anything to get them to listen.

There is no need to....

* Stand on the street telling people
* Yell at people
* Give people CDs
* Post youtube videos


There is no need to do that when 9/11 Truth is such an important and visible topic in society.....the suggestions you are making would only apply to some fringe, nutcase cult that had almost no representation outside of internet discussion forums, video sharing sites, or conspiracy oriented communities.

And we all know how pervasive the 9/11 Truth movement is.....

[dafydd]

My God! This is the most terrifying thing I have ever heard. News like this must be sweeping the country. It must have been on the lips of everyone in New York City this last week. I guess that's why it's such an important topic at the Republic primary. It's what they're been talking about at the primary debates in every election since 2001.

If I were you, I'd be standing on the street corner telling everyone I could. And if they don't listen, yell at them. Give them CDs with your important message. Post videos on Youtube. Just anything to get them to listenlaugh.

ftfy

[Mr. Skinny]

it is not "my theory" but the well documented features of these events that do not nearly jive with the explanations offered to account for them.


And it is not my 'un-informed opinion' but the laws of physics !
And all of engineering history as precedence.

freefall in wtc7 means there were no supports.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw
where do you reckon they went??


-pardon my late reply ^^
Holy cow! They didn't teach me this stuff when I got my engineering degree!

Should I ask for my money back?

[BStrong]

it is not "my theory" but the well documented features of these events that do not nearly jive with the explanations offered to account for them.

And it is not my 'un-informed opinion' but the laws of physics !
And all of engineering history as precedence.

freefall in wtc7 means there were no supports.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw
where do you reckon they went??


-pardon my late reply ^^

My secondary MOS in the Army was 89D - Explosive Ordnance Disposal - and after having handled, used and rendered safe every type of explosive and explosive device you can imagine (and several you probably can't) my expert opinion is that there were no explosives involved with 9/11.

[atavisms]

My secondary MOS in the Army was 89D - Explosive Ordnance Disposal - and after having handled, used and rendered safe every type of explosive and explosive device you can imagine (and several you probably can't) my expert opinion is that there were no explosives involved with 9/11.

I thank you for your service to our country.
I appreciate your comment and sincerely wish you were correct but the facts indicate otherwise. Remember, an 'expert' can be found to say anything. This is why 'appeal to authority' is a logical fallacy. Unless you can explain the features of these events that so overwhelmingly point to explosives, then you are not going to convince many people.

Here are a whole slew of experts who disagree with you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw-jzCfa4eQ

Personally, I dont need any of their testimony to be 100% certain that wtc 1 2 and 7 were destroyed with preplanted explosives, -the data (facts on the ground, not to mention the reaction of the bush administration) provide far more than evidence than is necessary to be sure this was the case.

I wish you were correct. I fought tooth and nail to come to the conclusion that the 9-11 Truth advocates are incorrect..but I am not going to pretend the facts are other than what they actually are. ANd the long list of facts stemming from different sources, all point the same way: explosives

[WildCat]

I thank you for your service to our country.
I appreciate you comment and I wish you were correct but the facts indicate otherwise. Remember, an 'expert' can be found to say anything. This is why 'appeal to authority' is a logical fallacy.
No, that's not what an appeal top authority fallacy is.

Unless you can explain the features of these events that so overwhelmingly point to explosives, then you are not going to convince many people.
95% of people don;t think explosives were used on 9/11, and none of the FDNY personnell on duty that day think explosives were involved. Including those inside the WTC who survived the collapse.

Here are a whole slew of experts who disagree with you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw-jzCfa4eQ
Can you link to thie papers these "experts" have published? Of course you can't, because after 10 years the truth movement has yet to publish a single paper. How pathetic is that?

And btw, this is a classic "appeal to authority" fallacy.

[atavisms]

No, that's not what an appeal top authority fallacy is. 95% of people don;t think explosives were used on 9/11, and none of the FDNY personnell on duty that day think explosives were involved. Including those inside the WTC who survived the collapse. Can you link to thie papers these "experts" have published? Of course you can't, because after 10 years the truth movement has yet to publish a single paper. How pathetic is that? And btw, this is a classic "appeal to authority" fallacy.

A number of 9-11 related papers have been peer-reviewed. See the Journal of 9-11 Studies. (I cant do all your research for you)
But who cares, I just said the evidence is so overwhelming that we dont even need any experts to be sure these buildings were blown up. The irony is that NIST has not peer-reviewed a single paper.. and will not even share what they used as inputs for their computer models!

Appeal to authority is doing just that; appealing to authority.
We are not all equally endowed when it come to critical abilities, so dont feel bad if you dont get it. Im sure you're good at others things.

I live in NYC my whole life. the FDNY hold their annual remembrance ceremony up the block from my office on RSD - Ive spoken to dozens of them. Many know the truth. When you argue that way, in such meaningless blanket terms, you reveal your own foolishness and the simple level at which you are engaging this material.

[Sabrina]

http://thethirdestate.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/picard_facepalm.jpg

[sheeplesnshills]

A number of 9-11 related papers have been peer-reviewed. See the Journal of 9-11 Studies. (I cant do all your research for you)



LOL creating your own "journal" and "peer reviewing" it yourself doesn't count in the real world.

There are plenty of bona fides Journals in the relevant disciplines so creating your own is a instant give away that its a fraud.

[sheeplesnshills]

=atavisms;

I live in NYC my whole life. the FDNY hold their annual remembrance ceremony up the block from my office on RSD - Ive spoken to dozens of them. Many know the truth.

You are guilty of a terminological inexactitude.


When you argue that way, in such meaningless blanket terms, you reveal your own foolishness and the simple level at which you are engaging this material.

http://i643.photobucket.com/albums/uu158/thesmith1_photos/Irony-796569.jpg

[Scott Sommers]

A number of 9-11 related papers have been peer-reviewed. See the Journal of 9-11 Studies. (I cant do all your research for you)

Do you really believe this? This is a real question. Do you know what a journal is? Do you understand what peer-review is supposed to be? There is a reason why a discovery that's supposed to be so important is published in such controversial venues as this and Bentham. Jones and his gang could silence me - and everyone else here - in a second, if he just published things in a problem place. The 'Journal of 9-11 Studies' is a blog run by a politically motivated gang. They might as well call it 'The Blog of 9-11 Studies'.

I'm going on too long. Do you really believe this? Honest question - have you ever attended university?

[Dave Rogers]

A number of 9-11 related papers have been peer-reviewed. See the Journal of 9-11 Studies. (I cant do all your research for you)

The Journal of 9/11 Studies is a well-known fake journal. Papers that support the preffered flavour of truthiness are passed by the peer reviewers. Papers that don't support them are rejected without even being looked at. The journal even pretended to close down at one point, apparently in order to avoid even reviewing one of Gregory Urich's papers, yet for some reason continued to publish papers by other contributors. Nobody but a small number of truthers takes the journal seriously, nor ever will.

But who cares, I just said the evidence is so overwhelming that we dont even need any experts to be sure these buildings were blown up.

Yes, we know you keep saying that. It's still not true, how ever many times you say it. There is no evidence of explosives initiating the collapses; no aural evidence, no physical evidence, no testimonial evidence and no documentary evidence, other than a few obvious fake video sound tracks, that suggests for a moment that any demolition explosives were installed or that any sufficiently loud explosions occurred at the right moment to cause the collapses. No explosive residues were found in the debris, no remnants of explosive devices were found, and the dynamics of the collapses are totally unlike any explosive demolition ever performed.

When you argue that way, in such meaningless blanket terms, you reveal your own foolishness and the simple level at which you are engaging this material.

Yes, let's stick to precise and directed arguments, like repeatedly insisting that there is overwhelming evidence for your position, but never explaining the fact that none of that evidence actually means what you want it to mean.

Dave

[atavisms]

LOL creating your own "journal" and "peer reviewing" it yourself doesn't count in the real world.

There are plenty of bona fides Journals in the relevant disciplines so creating your own is a instant give away that its a fraud.

Bentham Chemical Physics Journal has the Harrit paper.
The Environmentalist 2008 10.1007/s10669-008-9182-4 has the Anomalies in the Air at GZ paper. I think there are one or two more.
Tbh, I have not spent a lot of time looking at this stuff because they are completely unnecessary in the face of the mountain of facts that reveal the use of explosives in those buildings.

That people get hung up on this while not being able to address a single one of them is what is revealing. "No peer-reviewed paper telling me what to think, then it couldnt have been an inside job.-Ill just ignore that literal mountain of evidence that shows these could not possibly ave been natural events." -that is basically your position.

[Scott Sommers]

Bentham Chemical Physics Journal has the Harrit paper.
The Environmentalist 2008 10.1007/s10669-008-9182-4 has the Anomalies in the Air at GZ paper. I think there are one or two more.
Tbh, I have not spent a lot of time looking at this stuff because they are completely unnecessary in the face of the mountain of facts that reveal the use of explosives in those buildings.

That people get hung up on this while not being able to address a single one of them is what is revealing. "No peer-reviewed paper telling me what to think, then it couldnt have been an inside job.-Ill just ignore that literal mountain of evidence that shows these could not possibly ave been natural events." -that is basically your position.

So I repeat my question.

Do you really believe this? This is a real question. Do you know what a journal is? Do you understand what peer-review is supposed to be? There is a reason why a discovery that's supposed to be so important is published in such controversial venues as this and Bentham. Jones and his gang could silence me - and everyone else here - in a second, if he just published things in a problem place.

Bentham is a blog. It might as well be called the Bentham Chemical Physics Blog.

Do you know what a journal is? Really? What do you think it is?

[Disbelief]

That people get hung up on this while not being able to address a single one of them is what is revealing. "No peer-reviewed paper telling me what to think, then it couldnt have been an inside job.-Ill just ignore that literal mountain of evidence that shows these could not possibly ave been natural events." -that is basically your position.

There is no mountain of evidence supporting the truther positions. If you contend that there is a mountain of evidence, maybe you can be the first truther to spell out exactly what happened that day and how it was accomplished.

[Animal]

"When we combine the fact that the collapse of WTC 7 immediately appears to be a controlled demolition with the twofold fact that all prior collapses of steel-frame high-rise buildings have been produced by explosives, and that the collapse of WTC 7 has many features in common with planned implosions, the view that it was a planned implosion should be the natural assumption. The burden of proof should be placed on any claim that WTC7 was brought down by something other than explosives, because this is the wild, empirically baseless hypothesis devoid of any historical precedent, which is just the kind of hypothesis that one expects to hear from irrational conspiracy theorists.




Following up on this "logic" No previous building over 28 stories has ever been demolished using explosives. All previous building demolished using explosives required weeks of preparation time, weakening of existing building structure, removal of interior components. All previous building demolished using explosives witnessed loud sharp explosive noises and left seismic data at monitoring stations. The burden of proof is placed on those claiming demolition by explosives because of the lack of characteristics that have occurred at all previous demolitions of buildings by explosives.

[newton3376]

The Journal of 9/11 Studies is a well-known fake journal. Papers that support the preffered flavour of truthiness are passed by the peer reviewers. Papers that don't support them are rejected without even being looked at. The journal even pretended to close down at one point, apparently in order to avoid even reviewing one of Gregory Urich's papers, yet for some reason continued to publish papers by other contributors. Nobody but a small number of truthers takes the journal seriously, nor ever will.

Does anyone have a link to that paper by Urich?

[Dave Rogers]

Does anyone have a link to that paper by Urich?

http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/FalaciousCdArguments2_14.pdf

Pretty damning stuff for the truth movement, given that Gregory was a truther when he wrote it (I use past tense because I have no idea what he believes these days). There aren't many truthers that I have any respect for, but Gregory is definitely one of them.

Dave

[newton3376]

http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/FalaciousCdArguments2_14.pdf

Pretty damning stuff for the truth movement, given that Gregory was a truther when he wrote it (I use past tense because I have no idea what he believes these days). There aren't many truthers that I have any respect for, but Gregory is definitely one of them.

Dave

Thanks Dave....

From the limited amount that I have read from Gregory Urich.....I would highly doubt that he is a truther anymore.

And correct me if I am wrong...but Greening was never a truther.

[WildCat]

A number of 9-11 related papers have been peer-reviewed. See the Journal of 9-11 Studies.
:dl:

No atavisms, the Journal of 8/11 studies was created specifically to avoid having an actual peer-review process, and instead is reviewed by other truthers.

But who cares, I just said the evidence is so overwhelming that we dont even need any experts to be sure these buildings were blown up. The irony is that NIST has not peer-reviewed a single paper.. and will not even share what they used as inputs for their computer models!
The NIST study is available for anyone to critique. So far it still stands strongly.

Appeal to authority is doing just that; appealing to authority.
Which is what truther groups like ae911truth and scholars for 9/11 truth are. None has produced anything of relevance.

We are not all equally endowed when it come to critical abilities, so dont feel bad if you dont get it. Im sure you're good at others things.
:rolleyes:

I live in NYC my whole life. the FDNY hold their annual remembrance ceremony up the block from my office on RSD - Ive spoken to dozens of them. Many know the truth. When you argue that way, in such meaningless blanket terms, you reveal your own foolishness and the simple level at which you are engaging this material.
Name one who "knows the truth". Explain why not a single one has come forward despite this knowledge.

[sheeplesnshills]

Bentham Chemical Physics Journal has the Harrit paper.



LOL I said bona Fides.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-crap-paper-accepted-by-journal.html


The Environmentalist 2008 10.1007/s10669-008-9182-4 has the Anomalies in the Air at GZ paper.

Anomalies that indicate inside job? I don't know the paper in question but I doubt it says what you think it does.

I think there are one or two more.

Ok find them then. You are still at zero.

Tbh, I have not spent a lot of time looking at this stuff because they are completely unnecessary in the face of the mountain of facts that reveal the use of explosives in those buildings.

Like the lack of any cut columns or beams, no timers, no shock cords, no explosive residue, no characteristic sharp detonation, no flashes, studies by real experts showing no explosives required etc etc? Are you sure you are not mistaking a non existent molehill for a mountain??

That people get hung up on this while not being able to address a single one of them is what is revealing. "No peer-reviewed paper telling me what to think, then it couldn't have been an inside job.-Ill just ignore that literal mountain of evidence that shows these could not possibly ave been natural events." -that is basically your position.

Nonsense, many here are educated in relevant field so can spot any obvious problems with the so called OCT. However we admit we are not the definitive experts in many if not all these fields and that a measure of success in these field is to publish papers in reputable journals. We are ignoring nothing, just pointing out that even if you convinced us (so far no flying pigs) it gets you nowhere as we are not the measure of the quality or otherwise of your "evidence".

[twinstead]

We are ignoring nothing, just pointing out that even if you convinced us (so far no flying pigs) it gets you nowhere as we are not the measure of the quality or otherwise of your "evidence".

That's why it's odd that a decade after the event truthers are still happily believing vanity journals and participating in "debates" on relatively obscure internet forums and blogs.

truthers: You don't need to convince us. You need to get a respected engineering or scientific organization from anywhere in the world to support you and help you find qualified and respected scientists and engineers to represent you to their organizations, the law enforcement community, and respected media outlets.

You should be quite curious as to why, if your evidence of inside-job is as compelling as you declare it is, nobody who is anybody wants to carry your torch. Either your evidence isn't as compelling as you think it is, or you as a "movement" are so inept you can't get anybody's attention.

Either way you folks have some serious problems to overcome if you want to convince anybody of "The Truth".

[Edx]

Bentham Chemical Physics Journal has the Harrit paper.
The Environmentalist 2008 10.1007/s10669-008-9182-4 has the Anomalies in the Air at GZ paper. I think there are one or two more.
Tbh, I have not spent a lot of time looking at this stuff because they are completely unnecessary in the face of the mountain of facts that reveal the use of explosives in those buildings.

That people get hung up on this while not being able to address a single one of them is what is revealing. "No peer-reviewed paper telling me what to think, then it couldnt have been an inside job.-Ill just ignore that literal mountain of evidence that shows these could not possibly ave been natural events." -that is basically your position.

Prove the paper was peer reviewed when they are well known to SPAM scientists to become editors of journals that - wait for it - they arent even qualified in.

[Edx]

Here are a whole slew of experts who disagree with you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw-jzCfa4eQ


Creationists can make those kinds of films as well, AE911 still represent a tiny fringe irrelevant minority of nobodies in the scientific and engineering world.

[leftysergeant]

I thank you for your service to our country.
I appreciate your comment and sincerely wish you were correct but the facts indicate otherwise. Remember, an 'expert' can be found to say anything. This is why 'appeal to authority' is a logical fallacy. Unless you can explain the features of these events that so overwhelmingly point to explosives, then you are not going to convince many people.

Here are a whole slew of experts who disagree with you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw-jzCfa4eQ

They are not experts in the relevant areas, nor do they show us any actual evidence. They mistook a lot of irrelevant stuff for evidence, but that may be because some of them are mentally ill.

Personally, I dont need any of their testimony to be 100% certain that wtc 1 2 and 7 were destroyed with preplanted explosives, -the data (facts on the ground, not to mention the reaction of the bush administration) provide far more than evidence than is necessary to be sure this was the case.

This indicates faulty reasoning skills on your part. That Bush the Lesser and his merry morons were unfit for their jobs does not mean that they could have arranged such a vast operation as this so flawlessly.

Quite the contrary, actually.