No Alternative Theories are Required for 9/11 to have been a Conspiracy

Pootie Quote > it'd be nice to have some validated proof too?

The scientific proof that easily exceeds the standard of the scientific method is all there. If I could restate it any better than Popular Mechanics I would. Go to Amazon.com, buy the book Debunking 911 and read it.

Besides it's an easier stretch to believe that Bin Laden commanded arab terrorists with box cutters to hijack 3 planes and crash them into buildings......rather than believing the government:

• Tricked a team of air traffic controllers, as well as, all the passengers on 3 different commercial airliners into believing that a hijacking was being carried out by arab terrorists, while in reality it was the government doing the hijacking as all 3 planes and passengers secretly disappeared with no trace or clue...…..while at the same time……
• Two different planes with special pods were being flown by remote control into the twin towers, shortly before the buildings were brought down by explosives that were secretly planted by a government demolition team…..while at the same time……..
• A cruise type missle launched by the military crashes into the military’s own headquarters, “the Pentagon”…….while at the same time……
• The genius behind this elaborate plot, one George W, is hanging out with kindergartners in a classroom…...while at the same time…..
• The media and world are clueless as they are duped into thinking Bin Laden is behind it all.

Please stop attempting to derail my questions with assertions that do not have relevance to the current discussion.

Popular mechanics had access to some of the evidence I'm referring to.

I have not had access to that evidence and information.

Call me crazy, but I was trained as a scientist (physics to be precise). The entirety of physics is not "accept what we tell you is true" but is "Prove for yourself and come to the same conclusions.

In college mechanics exams, for example, I was asked to prove and derive over 200 formulae.

The exams were not memorizing those formulae, it was USING them to prove other things, deriving them from basic assertions.

That's all I'm asking. I'm not asking someone to tell me what their conclusions are, I'm asking for evidence so that I, like all scientists, can follow the evidence and come to the same conclusions. A closed system where only one or two groups have access to all the relevant information is NOT peer reviewed science.

I have said repeatedly that I do not know what happened, I don't support any particular theory, official or non-official. What I do support is my right to question, my right to look at evidence myself.

Why do I think something with the official story is somehow off? Because the physics of the collapses just doesn't make sense to me.

Originally posted by Griff
... I did some calculations on another thread and basically gave the other side some ammo. Funny thing is, not one of the people on the official side gave me a WATS award or anything.

Give me the link, Griff. I must have missed it.

(I'm stuck now...I don't want to do a one line post, but I don't want to say anything that might derail the progress of this thread. Help me Pootie-Wan-Kenobi, you're my only hope...)

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Stiney
From my basic understanding of the physics involved in this, I figure force is directly proportional to the speed and a great force will break the steel;

I don't think so...

Switch it around and imagine the plane was stationary, and someone took one of the towers and whacked the plane with it at 400 MPH. Would the building crush the plane, or would it glide through the plane?

Or take your aluminum can and whack it with a steel bar...

No matter how you do it the steel will win every time, regardless of speed and what hits what first.

The plane didn't even flinch when it entered the tower.

Blah blah blah. Try backing yourself up next time. Are you saying the engineer I contacted was lying? Are you an expert on this as well? Do you understand basic relationships in Math? Is Velocity not a variable in the equation for Force? Please stop being ignorant.

Please mate, there's no excuse for name calling.

Originally posted by Inannamute
Please mate, there's no excuse for name calling.

If you're talking to me please show where I have done so.

Originally posted by Stiney
Blah blah blah. Try backing yourself up next time.

I am backed up, with common sense thanx.

I'm not interested in someone you talked to, it could have been Zippy the Clown for all I know.

Hey, I just talked to a rocket scientist and he says you're full of it, so there! My scientist is bigger than your scientist!

I reached this person through madsci.org. They say the person who answered me is an engineer. Please go there and investigate their site. Tell me if you find anything there that would indicate that they are lying. You are discussing science here, and you tell me that you must be right because you have common sense even though it directly contradicts what specialists on the subject have to say on it. You are not backed up by anything. You're denying one of the most basic principles of physics. You're going to need substantial evidence to back yourself up on this. Not just "common sense". Common sense says blimps can't float. They're too heavy. But they do float, dammit. And any expert who builds the things can explain how. You can't just sit there and deny them. That's what you're doing right now though. "Ignore the experts. I have it all figured out, on my own."

Originally posted by Stiney
I reached this person through madsci.org. They say the person who answered me is an engineer.

Hmmmm correct me if I'm wrong, but you're asking us to compare the physics of a small projectile hitting an object at 5,000 mph (mach 7), and a passenger airliner doing 400 mph?

That's as good as the 'F-4 hitting the concrete wall' used to try to prove the 757 would have dissintegrated on impact...

Well... my topic on NO ALTERNATIVE THEORIES sure has take the ATS DEBUNKER side road.

Take your alternative theories OUT OF HERE MR DEBUNKERS... you are trying to destroy the point of the thread.

go start a thread PROVING once and for all your precious gov't crafted swiss cheese CONSPIRACY theory.

TIA

The entirety of physics is not "accept what we tell you is true" but is "Prove for yourself and come to the same conclusions.

That's exactly what countless physicists have done. They sometimes come up with slightly different numbers, but all are under the general consensus that the scenario you are questioning is exactly what did in fact take place. There is nothing wrong with questioning, but ignoring answers is quite a problem. On the other hand conspiracy theorists often accept without questioning what they are told by so-called experts who don't even have the guts to publish anything for review outside their own little circle and even turn down debates with outsiders. It's almost as if they know they're wrong.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Stiney
I reached this person through madsci.org. They say the person who answered me is an engineer.

Hmmmm correct me if I'm wrong, but you're asking us to compare the physics of a small projectile hitting an object at 5,000 mph (mach 7), and a passenger airliner doing 400 mph?

That's as good as the 'F-4 hitting the concrete wall' used to try to prove the 757 would have dissintegrated on impact...

Anok, madsci.org is free for anyone to use including you. If you think the answer is irrelevant, why not ask a more specific question yourself? It takes a couple weeks for them to find an expert, research, and get back to you. You aren't interested though, are you? You think you already know from common sense. You are ignorant and too lazy to learn and grow beyond your preconceptions.

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." -Albert Einstien

I'm not trying to prove anything through comparison alone. Maybe if you actually looked at the message yourself you would understand that he was explaining a scientific principle. It is simply a fact that greater mass or greater speed means greater force. But you are sitting here flaunting your supposedly infallible common sense, informing the world that no matter how fast the plane is going, the steel always wins.




Pootie, the point of your thread is contradictory and an attempt to shift the burden of proof where it does not belong. Read my first post on page 1. You act as though there is no proof on the other side; actually you simply don't accept any of it because you have already made up your mind that there is a conspiracy. You can make a conspiracy theory out of anything because there will always, always be the possibility that everyone is lying... that physical evidence is planted... etc. You need to make the disctinction between plausibility and possibility. But according to you, you don't need a plausible alternate theory because the possibility remains. I could easily make a thread titled "No official story is required for 9/11 to have Not been a Conspiracy", and it would be just as useless as this one.

[edit on 1-5-2007 by Stiney]

Originally posted by Inannamute
I have said repeatedly that I do not know what happened, I don't support any particular theory, official or non-official. What I do support is my right to question, my right to look at evidence myself.

We follow the same path my friend. Why am I not allowed (as a structural engineer) access to structural drawings so that I (and the rest of the world) can validate the conclusions made? Only people who have something to hide, hide things.

Originally posted by Stiney
Pootie, the point of your thread is contradictory and an attempt to shift the burden of proof where it does not belong. Read my first post on page 1. You act as though there is no proof on the other side; actually you simply don't accept any of it because you have already made up your mind that there is a conspiracy. You can make a conspiracy theory out of anything because there will always, always be the possibility that everyone is lying... that physical evidence is planted... etc. You need to make the disctinction between plausibility and possibility. But according to you, you don't need a plausible alternate theory because the possibility remains. I could easily make a thread titled "No official story is required for 9/11 to have Not been a Conspiracy", and it would be just as useless as this one.
[edit on 1-5-2007 by Stiney]

The burden of PROOF lies on those:

- PAID to PROVE what happened that day
- ENTRUSTED by the public to find the FACTS to prevent future failures
- DO NOT SUPPORT their PUBLICATIONS that are usually PRESENTED AS FACT without EVIDENCE.
- DO NOT SUBJECT their findings to PEER and OUTSIDE REVIEW then CLARIFY as necessary.

The burden of PROOF lies on the originators of the "Official Story".

They have presented NO PROOF for public inspection. The have presented THEORIES that rely on carefully selected "evidence", omission of other evidence, guesses, coincidence and black box models.

It is NOT up to me to PROVE anything EXCEPT THAT the official sotry (NCSTAR REPORTS) are:

- Full of errors.
- Full of guesses, undisclosed assumptions and hidden "black box" computer models.
- Failed to reproduce the failures on 9/11 even when the data was manipulated WAY out of range.
- Have omitted tax payer paid reports.
- Have not published findings on WTC 7 6 YEARS later.
- Have failed to address concerns i their reports except to carefully select easy questions then "publish" them and claim victory.

WAIT... I have proven it as it is ALL FACT.

"No official story is required for 9/11 to have Not been a Conspiracy"

The above quote is a double negative and makes no sense. If a plane crashed with your mom on it, you would DEMAND FACTS from the FAA, etc. as to EXACTLY what happened. You would be SHOWN THE EVIDENCE to bakc up the facts... this is NOT the case with 9/11 and you know it.

[edit on 1-5-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by ANOK
That's as good as the 'F-4 hitting the concrete wall' used to try to prove the 757 would have dissintegrated on impact...

Not to derail, but I don't get it when they do this. In that video, you can clearly see the wing slicing through the wall. But, that's off topic.

About the velocity.

Steel breastplates

World War I german Infantrie-Panzer, 1918During World War I, the United States developed several types of body armor, including the chrome nickel steel Brewster Body Shield, which consisted of a breastplate and a headpiece and could withstand Lewis Gun bullets at 2,700 ft/s (820 m/s), but was clumsy and heavy at 40 pounds (18 kg). Another type of body armor was designed in February 1918 by the Metropolitan Museum of Art. This breastplate was based on armor of the 1400s, weighed 27 pounds (12 kg), and was considered too noisy and restricting. A scaled waistcoat of overlapping steel scales fixed to a leather lining was also designed; this armor weighed 11 pounds (5 kg), fit close to the body, and was considered more comfortable.

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

2,700 ft/s is 1,840.9 mph. A sheet of steel can stop a bullet traveling at 1800 MPH. Just something to think about. I'm not sure because I'm not a dynamacist.

Originally posted by Stiney
On the other hand conspiracy theorists often accept without questioning what they are told by so-called experts who don't even have the guts to publish anything for review outside their own little circle and even turn down debates with outsiders. It's almost as if they know they're wrong.

Are you talking about the official side? Because you described them to a tee. Just replace a few key words and there you are.

Now you may understand how we feel, since the official story believers also accept without questioning what they are told. How, where and by whom peer reviewed the NIST report? If you say thousands of engineers all over the world, you are being ignorant my friend. Why? How can these engineers peer review something that they have no access to the evidence or drawings? How can an engineer do a structural analysis without knowing the structure?

Who's turning down debates? Popular Mechanics is the only one I've heard of.

[edit on 5/1/2007 by Griff]

ya know, despite the fact that pootie and i tend to disagree on a lot of the aspects surrounding 911, i totally understand his point here. and on many of the points he raises in this thread, his most recent post in particular, i actually strongly agree with him.

regardless of whether you think 911 was committed by muslims in a cave or rich white dudes in $5000 suits, there WAS a conspiracy.

so, lets reopen the case fully, lets analyze it in the open. lets get people to address the concerns without bias. in short, lets get what we're paying for out of this investigation.

i mean seriously, lets answer all the questions and base those answers in FACT. or, if the govt cant answer in fact lets at least get them to admit it and not just give us an answer they pulled outta somewhere dark and smelly.

nist wont address alternative theories...ok, well seems that theres enough tax payers that have turned to alternative theories because the official ones dont make sense to them that its worth the time. conspiracy theorists pay taxes too.

its no secret i dont buy into many of the alternative theories, but we all tend to form our opinions on what makes sense to us based on what we've read or experienced. if they would do a realistic investigation with realistic testing and peer review and it turns out ive been wrong, well, then i was wrong. so be it.

so overall im forced to admit im kind of with pootie and the rest of you guys on this one.

good thread pootie

Stiney, all these physicists you refer to, where are they? Which organizations do they work for? Academic institutions?

Again, like I and others have said, we want access to the information in order to find our own conclusions. I assure you some of us are more than capable of doing so.

Originally posted by Damocles
so overall im forced to admit im kind of with pootie and the rest of you guys on this one.

good thread pootie

thanks Damocles...

I really don't even care if the NIST addresses alternative theories if they would just prove their own. What does bother me is that they seemingly have not properly INVESTIGATED for explosive residues, the extreme temperatures, ANYTHING that happened "after collapse initiation" and other very common, important "things" you would investigate in this situation. Instead, they are leaving it up to people to go scrape metal off of memorials to to testing and guess what they claim to find??? Ask Steve Jones...

It is time to release the evidence, explain the data and reports or admit that they are JUST GUESSING which would lead to a public outcry for a new investigation that covers ALL of the bases and releases the suppressed evidence into the public domain.

[edit on 1-5-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by Pootie
Well... my topic on NO ALTERNATIVE THEORIES sure has take the ATS DEBUNKER side road.

How is that?

Almost all the alternative theories in this thread are being brought by people who apparently don't believe the official story.

CB_Brooklyn even went so far as to call you disinformation, while espousing that the planes were actually CGI.

The 9/11 Coverup Perps have been brainwashing the Truth Movement into pushing the "many unanswered questions" nonsense, instead of going with actually happened.

Maybe instead of complaining about "debunkers" who don't agree with your theories, maybe you should complain about the "truthers" who pop up and claim proof of holograms/cgi/nukes/bombs/magic/thermite instead.

After all, if no one brought up the absurd theories, no one would attack them.

The problem with most of these threads is that people hop in claiming the absolute truth, or that everyone else is brainwashed for not believing in the powerdowns and controlled demolition.

These 9-11 forums would be much more enjoyable if all people did was question what happened, and not sling insults back and forth.

I think your idea has merit though, we could get rid of a lot of the intellectual dishonesty rampant in the 9-11 threads.

If we could start threads that required some of the "debunkers" to view the official story with the same skepticism that they apply to alternative theories. At the same time we could have some of the more hardcore "truthers" to be as skeptical about the bomb/magic/thermate/cgi/laser beam/nuke theories as they are about the official story.

Maybe then we could stop arguing about bombs and instead argue about the real mysteries of 9-11, such as who, if anyone, allowed it to happen.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
After all, if no one brought up the absurd theories, no one would attack them.

The NIST theory is absurd. Their responsibility is TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. They must PROVE their story and present their evidence. Should they fail to do so (as they have) a new investigation MUST be opened up.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
If we could start threads that required some of the "debunkers" to view the official story with the same skepticism that they apply to alternative theories.

I have tried... It was locked... The CTers threads are FAR more scrutinized on this site than the official story by the debunkers. YOU WILL NOTICE that there are virtually NO THREADS started by debunkers and if they are, it is usually a trolling excursion. They just wait for a thread and dog pack it until continuing to post in it is an act in futility. At least this is the typical MO. Not EVERYONE.