#1 Reason To Believe...

Originally posted by Essedarius
The truth movement does not have the undeniable information and, even more important, the BASIC SOCIAL SKILLS to deliver a message of the magnitude you aspire to.

Forum decorum is horrible in general on the internet. Just be glad you're "blessed" enough to get the easy part: being the skeptic.

The "burden of proof" is one thing but what are we even trying to prove! is more important.

Only concern yourself with this: the NIST team delivered atrocious collapse explanations, and this fact can be reached very logically with only a few points of verifiable information. For example, some of their test results did not reflect their final hypothesis, and they failed to even analyze the actual collapses themselves past the very instant they began.

Further, looking at the collapse from a physics or engineering point of view, trying to independently find reasons for such massive failures in the manners observed, it becomes quickly apparent that the ways columns failed and certain forces acted are extremely suspicious.

For example, WTC1 and WTC7 begin falling symmetrically as if all columns were somehow failed instantly (WTC2, too, but only after an initial tilt), perfectly vertically. This behavior is not typical of steel bending or twisting or contorting from heat. As another example, the Twin Towers' floor-by-floor collapse had a vertical velocity that did not change. Thus, whatever mechanism was acting seems to have been perfectly balanced by the "normal" force to the same proportion the entire way down. This is also astronomically unlikely, and is much more easily explained by timed charges. WTC7 accelerated, however. It happened to accelerate, at the acceleration of gravity. From a physical standpoint, really, that's all that even needs to be said.

Nothing specific is suggested in terms of what exactly happened to the buildings, only that there was more conscious thought put behind how the towers came down that most realize. It was not at all a series of random, chaotic events from plane impacts and randomly distributed fires. The collapses (all 3) each displayed at least two events that are completely unreproducible scientifically except when explosive devices of some sort are taken into the picture. I challenge anyone to physically damage and set afire any up-to-code structure in any chaotic way and have it fail less than 2 hours with perfect lateral symmetrically, and completely collapsing either without acceleration or at the acceleration of gravity the whole way down. I promise you it will not happen.

Originally posted by Essedarius
Here's the thing...I hate to break it to you but the burden of proof really is on the CTers.

Thats funny, the only time i hear the phrase about the burden of proof is on the CTers usually is when the poeple who believe the offical story can not come up with any proof.

If we were in court and you were asked to provide evidence and you could not saying it was up to the CTers to come up with the proof you would loose the case.

I have been waiting for over a year for the believers to come up with any hard proof and even offered a monetary reward if anyone could come up with the FBI and NTSB reports for anyof the crime scenes and not 1 person who believes the official story came forward.

[edit on 18-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by GwionX

Same can be said when the comparisions are made with the B-25 and the Empire State building to a 767 and the Twin Towers. There is a huge discrepency between the size, speed of the craft, the intention of the pilot, and the structure itself.

[edit on 17-3-2007 by GwionX]

Well if you look at the size of B-25 compared to the size of the Empire State building and look at the photos and discription of the damage done, you can do some comparison.

Yeah, you can compare a car crash where the driver is driving slower and trying to avoid death, to say a crash test where a car is deliberately rammed into a wall at 100mph as well.. the results are very different.

Ther are also more steel buildings that have had major fires and structural damage then just the Madrid towers.

WHAT 110 story building was it that showered the Madrid Windsor (or ANY of your other comparisions) in debris again? Name one buring 40+ story building that had a huge gash 20 stories tall caused by falling debris that DIDN'T fall.

Also the firemen on the scene of the twin towers only reported isolated fires.

That *might* have worked on me if I hadn't studied the situation. However, the fires were ABOVE Captain Oreo Palmer's report of isolated fires on the 78 th floor of the South Tower. The fires were raging on the 80th-84th floors at that presice time. Heat rises. The Fires were above.

The firechiefs on the scene did not expect the towers to fully collapse, only the upper floors about the crash if the fires would have burned for several more hours. Which it did not.

They didn't know..Why? Because there was nothing to compare it to.



[edit on 18-3-2007 by GwionX]

Originally posted by GwionX
WHAT 110 story building was it that showered the Madrid Windsor (or ANY of your other comparisions) in debris again? Name one buring 40+ story building that had a huge gash 20 stories tall caused by falling debris that DIDN'T fall.

That *might* have worked on me if I hadn't studied the situation. However, the fires were ABOVE Captain Oreo Palmer's report of isolated fires on the 78 th floor of the South Tower. The fires were raging on the 80th-84th floors at that presice time. Heat rises. The Fires were above.
They didn't know..Why? Because there was nothing to compare it to.



[edit on 18-3-2007 by GwionX]

Well lets see what we can prove on these.

1. According to the FEMA report firemen reported some damage to 10 floors of Builidng 7.

www.wtc7.net...

According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WTC 1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the southwest corner. According to firefighters' eyewitness accounts from outside of the building, approximately floors 8-18 were damaged to some degree. Other eyewitness accounts relate that there was additional damage to the south elevation.

2. These building had fires lasting longer then the 3 WTC buildings that collapsed combined and suffered major structural damage to many floors and they did not collapse. If you can not understand the amount of damage done from the discriptions please feel free to look at the photos to see the extent of damage to these buildings but they did not collapse.

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse

Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.

1. The One Meridian Plaza Fire
One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire starting on the 22nd floor, and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century".

The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed.

2. The First Interstate Bank Fire
The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss.

A report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire:

In spite of a total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans.


3. The 1 New York Plaza Fire
1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours.

3. So your saying that all the fire chiefs on the scene did not know what they were talking about, they do not know anything about fires in builidngs. Do you have any proof that these firechiefs are not capable or do not know thier job when it comes to fires and steel builidngs.




[edit on 18-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

You know.. I get kind of angry when I hear "giant hole in WTC 7 20 storys high". I mean come on, how do you know it wasn't just external damage? You don't. So unless you have proof of structural damage, you can NOT use that in your argument.

Mostly all buildings in the world take cosmetic damage before they take any structural damage. This is because buildings are built like a human body. They have an external skin, and an internal skelliton. If you get a gash in your skin, that doesn't mean you have any broken bones.

For example...




The building above, as much as I can see, has a "giant hole 14 storys high", but probably more. Heck, its a giant hole all the way around, thats way worse than WTC 7. Do you get my sarcasm and my point? You can have a "giant hole 110 storys high" and still have a perfectly solid structure.


[edit on 18-3-2007 by Connected]

Originally posted by GwionX
Name one buring 40+ story building that had a huge gash 20 stories tall caused by falling debris that DIDN'T fall.

This building had small fires I think. If you add up the damage, i think it has a huge gash 17 stories tall, caused by falling debris.

Originally posted by GwionX
Name one buring 40+ story building that had a huge gash 20 stories tall caused by falling debris that DIDN'T fall.

From the FEMA report, firemen reported some damage to 10 floors, 8-18.

Oh you might want to check out building 5. It was closer to the towers, substained more damage and had major fires but it did not collapse.





[edit on 19-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by bsbray11
Just be glad you're "blessed" enough to get the easy part: being the skeptic.

That’s fair. Defending an accepted “truth” is much easier than trying to replace it, no question.

…the NIST team delivered atrocious collapse explanations…

I’m willing to concede that, but put yourself in my shoes…

I have no background in structural engineering, and much of the hardcore physics that are discussed in relation to the collapses go over my head. So I can either believe the NIST and the ASCE, or believe the theories of “some guy” on the internet which not only include contradicting physics, but theories of widespread corruption among the members of ASCE (engineers are a lot of things but “shifty and manipulative” are not among them) and and also theories that I am a “moronic government shill” (which I’m pretty sure I’m not…well, at least the “shill” part).

…looking at the collapse from a physics or engineering point of view, trying to independently find reasons for such massive failures in the manners observed, it becomes quickly apparent that the ways columns failed and certain forces acted are extremely suspicious.

I could not agree more. I think it is very odd the way ALL THREE buildings (WTC 1, 2, 7) came down. (Really, I do. Look at SOs 250,000 point 9/11 theory contest thread…I’m a finalist.)

But think of this argument as a scale, and here are the weights that are on either side:

SIDE 1
The opinion of the American Society of Civil Engineers.
The opinion of the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
No evidence of a CD (wiring, undetonated explosives) were found in the rubble.
The logistical improbability of covertly setting up and executing the largest CD ever.

Versus…

SIDE 2
The opinion of people on the internet.
The fact that the way the buildings fell is odd.


Do you see what I mean? If you stack your opinion up against the ASCE and NIST, regardless of the fact that you have obviously done your homework and are very intelligent (I am speaking SPECIFICALLY to bsbray11 there), you are going to lose in the court of public opinion.

UNLESS you show specific evidence of corruption inside the ASCE and NIST and a realistic motive as to why these two organizations would benefit from blatant deception.

We’re not talking about the Mafia after all…they’re a bunch of ENGINEERS!

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
If we were in court and you were asked to provide evidence and you could not saying it was up to the CTers to come up with the proof you would loose the case.

Now I'm no lawyer, but what you're referring to is called the 5th Amendment, isn't it?

People exercise their right to silence under the 5th amendment all the time. When they do, they're basically saying that the prosecution doesn't have enough evidence to convict me, so I'm just going to sit tight and let them lose.

And again, let me repeat this:

If there was enough evidence to bring someone to trial for the conspiracy surrounding 9/11, it would have been done. A trial like that is the WET DREAM of every attorney, news reporter, newspaper editor, and late night comedian in the world.

There just isn't enough evidence.

Originally posted by Essedarius
SIDE 1
The opinion of the American Society of Civil Engineers.
The opinion of the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
No evidence of a CD (wiring, undetonated explosives) were found in the rubble.
The logistical improbability of covertly setting up and executing the largest CD ever.

Versus…

SIDE 2
The opinion of people on the internet.
The fact that the way the buildings fell is odd.

This is argument is ridiculous.

At last count "People on the Internet" included about 169 million Americans alone. Physicists, Engineers, Moms, Doctors, Politicians, etc. MANY of these "People on the Internet" are just as qualified as the ASCE and NIST.

The ASCE HAS NOT reached a consensus on the WTC disaster... please show me where they have. All I can find is a document authored bu a small subset of the ASCE and NOT PEER REVIEWED. Besides, I thought the official story people thought only STRUCTURAL engineers, not CIVIL engineers could speak on this issue.

The NIST??? Geez, have you read the NCSTAR reports in their entirety? They ar riddled with flaws, twisted facts, are inconclusive and vague.

No evidence of CD? FEMA secured the site, there is no way for any of use to know WHAT EVIDENCE was found as it was quickly scooped up and removed under guard. How do you know there was no evidence of CD? The pieces of people they were finding were miniscule, how would you find an unburned length of detcord or block of C4?

So, yoor arguments consist of:

Opinion
Opinion
Unprovable guess that no evidence of CD exists
and
Your opinion of a probablility.

Sweet argument.

- The poster formerly known as "Slap Nuts"

One of the civil engineers on the member list of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice is a member of the ASCE: Jason Griffin, BS in Civil Engineering, occupation listed as "Project Coordinator". But as far as I know, the ASCE never did a formal study to figure out what happened either way, did they? Just a kind of implied by their silence that they'll stand with federal agencies, right? In all seriousness I doubt that many have actually read and thought over the NIST report.

Also, if you go to the Journal of 9/11 Studies site in general, you'll find papers by independent scientists and engineers.

journalof911studies.com...

They say all the same things, but in different words, and they have their diplomas and things of that nature to go with them. They even do analyses in more depth than the NIST team ever dared to look at the global collapses.

[edit on 19-3-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by Essedarius
There just isn't enough evidence.

Conversely, too much evidence was destroyed or suppressed hence, there is not ENOUGH evidence outside of the government's hands.

Originally posted by Pootie
This is argument is ridiculous.

This phrase should be on the front of a t-shirt.
On the back: JOIN THE TRUTH MOVEMENT!

Physicists, Engineers, Moms, Doctors, Politicians, etc. MANY of these "People on the Internet" are just as qualified as the ASCE and NIST.

Totally, and "on the internet" an Engineer is totally qualified to do brain surgery too.

The ASCE HAS NOT reached a consensus on the WTC disaster... please show me where they have.

ASCE WEBSITE: Towers weakened by flame; brought down by fire.

All I can find is a document authored bu a small subset of the ASCE...

The membership of the ASCE is about 125,000. You want a document with ALL of them on the by-line?

Besides, I thought the official story people thought only STRUCTURAL engineers, not CIVIL engineers could speak on this issue.

ASCE membership includes structural engineers. Unlike folks on the internet, engineers rarely speak with authority on areas outside their expertise.

The NIST??? Geez, have you read the NCSTAR reports in their entirety? They ar riddled with flaws, twisted facts, are inconclusive and vague.

I have read enough of them to know that I don't really understand it fully. Luckily, I've read enough of CTers who disagree with them to easily determine which side I would put my faith in.

Take a moment to read those last two sentences again...it's the VERY CORE of the Truth Movement's problems.

How do you know there was no evidence of CD? The pieces of people they were finding were miniscule, how would you find an unburned length of detcord or block of C4?

The same way you'd find a miniscule piece of a person, I'd guess.

But I will concede that if FEMA, FDNY, NYPD, Larry Silverstein, the FBI, and the CIA were all in on it...then yes, they could all stuff their pockets with evidence before any camera could snap a photo...especially because all the cameramen around were in on it too.

Just so you know, that was all sarcasm. I don't believe all those people were in on it which is why I don't put any weight in the "whisk away the tons of evidence" camp.

So, yoor arguments consist of:

Opinion
Opinion
Unprovable guess that no evidence of CD exists
and
Your opinion of a probablility.

Sweet argument.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

It's not really the facts that keep the Truth Movement in check...it's the delivery of the facts.

The way you just addressed me, I wouldn't care if your message was "The sky is blue", I would disagree with you on principle.


[edit on 19-3-2007 by Essedarius]

Originally posted by bsbray11
Also, if you go to the Journal of 9/11 Studies site in general, you'll find papers by independent scientists and engineers.

journalof911studies.com...

Thanks bsbray.

I will have a read.

Originally posted by Essedarius
Totally, and "on the internet" an Engineer is totally qualified to do brain surgery too.

You are on the Internet... are you qualified to speak? By your own standards you should leave the discussion and log off into oblivion because you are just someone on the Internet.

Originally posted by Essedarius

ASCE WEBSITE: Towers weakened by flame; brought down by fire.

WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 1, 2002 Analysis by a team of 25 of the nation's leading...

Not quite consensus... not even 1%, also they were working hand in hand with FEMA according to that article. Do you really think they are going to disagree with FEMA? Especially considering most civil engineers work projects that are government funded? It would be virtual grant suicide.

...That finding is significant, said W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., team lead for the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Study Team...

Originally posted by Essedarius
The membership of the ASCE is about 125,000. You want a document with ALL of them on the by-line?

You are the on implying that the ASCE in it's entirety is in agreement and I am stating FACT that they have not been polled or taken a vote or anything of the like.

Originally posted by Essedarius
ASCE membership includes structural engineers. Unlike folks on the internet, engineers rarely speak with authority on areas outside their expertise.

LOL. I like how you imply here that being an engineer = higher moral ground... hilarious.

Originally posted by Essedarius
I have read enough of them to know that I don't really understand it fully.

So you stop reading when you do not understand something? They are not scientific papers by any stretch of the imagination... filler, filler, filler... look at the table of contents. What do you not understand?

Originally posted by Essedarius
The same way you'd find a miniscule piece of a person, I'd guess.

Rescuers know what a finger looks like because they see them all of the time, they have them. Find me a picture of a lump of C4 that was mashed in the collapse...

Originally posted by Essedarius...especially because all the cameramen around were in on it too.

[B]Actually, on this point you are CORRECT.[/B] NO CAMERAS were allowed inside the secured zone EXCEPT for TWO FEMA authorized photographers. Do some googling, hell, search this site for fist hand photos from a camera snuck in under a hard hat.

Originally posted by Essedarius I don't put any weight in the "whisk away the tons of evidence" camp.

It is fact that the rubble was removed VERY quickly. FACT.

N.Y. Daily News, 4/16/02

Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage.

Originally posted by Essedarius
I've said it before and I'll say it again.

It's not really the facts that keep the Truth Movement in check...it's the delivery of the facts.

Say it till your blue in the face. The reason "we" lack "facts" is because the EVIDENCE is GONE or being SUPRESSED. [B] AND YOU LIKE IT THAT WAY.[/B]

Odd.

[edit on 19-3-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by Connected
You know.. I get kind of angry when I hear "giant hole in WTC 7 20 storys high".

Wecomeinpeace and "Slap Nuts" debunked the hole here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Essedarius

Now I'm no lawyer, but what you're referring to is called the 5th Amendment, isn't it?

People exercise their right to silence under the 5th amendment all the time. When they do, they're basically saying that the prosecution doesn't have enough evidence to convict me, so I'm just going to sit tight and let them lose.

No i am not refering to that. I am refering to the fact that people who believe the official story keep asking for proof but can not provide any proof to support what they believe happened.

Thier are lawsuits filed through Freedom Of Information Acts for more documents and details of what the government did or did not do on 911.

[edit on 19-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

yeah, at this point i got nothing to contribute.

this post is for one reason.

WELCOME BACK SLAPPY :d

Originally posted by Essedarius
ASCE WEBSITE: Towers weakened by flame; brought down by fire.

[edit on 19-3-2007 by Essedarius]

Thats funny, since their has never been a steel builidng collapse due to fires before or after 911.

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse

Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Thats funny

You know whats even more funny? The FEMA report says fire was the only cause of WTC 7 collapse, and NOT damage. I even made a thread about there here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Whats even MORE funny is that the believers aren't even touching that thread.

[edit on 19-3-2007 by Connected]