Could you be persuaded to change your mind?

Originally posted by seanm
3. NIST's computer simulations do not negate their findings. The evidence and physical tests affirm the conclusion.

Can you show us this claim? Because you're wrong. Sorry to be blunt, but I'm starting to get sick of talking to brick walls.

Originally posted by coughymachine
unless you've got some real nailed-on evidence about Zionist involvement in 9/11, any discussions about the topic are likely to descend into farce.

How about the 5 dancing Isrealis? One is even quoted as saying "we were there to document the event". How did they know what was to take place? If that's not evidence enough to even look into it further, then I give up because no amount of evidence will be taken seriously by some.

The deported Israeli's claim that "we were sent to document the event" may have added a little fuel to the fire too.

Maybe I should read the entire post before replying? But anyway, exactly.

[edit on 10/19/2007 by Griff]

It's like Bush talking about 9/11 and Saddam in the same breath, and somehow convincing millions of Americans that there was a connection between the two.

connection other than we needed an excuse to invade them?

like this?

reply to post by jprophet420


I did change my mind. Shortly after arriving at this forum actually. I saw one of the original Missel At the Pentagon movies and therfore looked at all the CT websites. After 3 + years of reading, and getting to know many REAL people with REAL knowledge, I am 100% certain that the goverment was NOT behind the events of 911. (although I was quite certain long ago)

This is not based on "blind " faith, but from real hard evidence.

Why am I here? To learn more. When a CTer brings up a question, I lke to look for the truth. The REAL truth. 99.9% of the time I have found it.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
This is not based on "blind " faith, but from real hard evidence.

The problem is you're talking to people who know enough to realize there is no hard evidence. You keep asserting baldly that this is wrong and that is wrong, but it doesn't take anything to sit down at a keyboard and type out all that bull.

Have you learned what a safety factor is yet, or a yield strength, or do you know how dynamic loads are analyzed, or have any idea what the difference is between a compressive load and a shear load? If not, then I don't want to hear about "hard evidence" from you. "Hard evidence" to you is whoever does the better job of convincing you with words and emotions, because you don't seem to understand even how the structure was held together, as much as you pretend to discuss it here.

reply to post by bsbray11



Bsbray... please offer ONCE where I "pretend" to know engineering, physics, dynamic loads, etc etc. Her's a hint... YOU CANT! All my posts are from e-mails that I have recieved from another source and POSTED AS SUCH

I don't know enough about engineering, etc..to say YOU or any other so called engineer say in here is factual, nor have I ever tried to. Nor Am I able to say it is incorrect.
Griff is a REAL man and posted question to Mr. Mackey that he got answered. Griff never states things as "a matter of fact" (unless he indeed believes he is ) Anyone that disagrees with YOU is as you have stated is: "wrong" or does "not know what their talking about" or "talking out their ass" You stand up there on your soap box and have your little minions bow before you. I for one do not.

Bsbray, what papers have you written on the collapses? Can you please provide me a link. I can assure you I will do my best to have it looked into by more than people from 911 CT sites.

Yes part of my learning has been from a scientist at NASA. Let me ask you...WHO ARE YOU LEARNING FROM? What are their credentials? I would think you would appreciate the fact that people in here ARE searching for the truth.


Hmmmm lets see... do I

a. listen to a google jockey, youtube addict, Alex Jones wanna bee?

b. listen to people that post facts along with their credentials and back their statements via white papers that are not refuted?

c. An internet CT poster that calims to be an engineer?

Sorry once again for the derail, my post prior to this WAS in fact an answer to the OP. I didn't know I was going to get accused for "pretending" to know anything.

EDIT TO ADD:

Please Bsbray, point out the "BULL" I have posted and provide me with reasons as to WHY it is such.

Thanks

[edit on 19-10-2007 by CaptainObvious]

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by coughymachine
unless you've got some real nailed-on evidence about Zionist involvement in 9/11, any discussions about the topic are likely to descend into farce.

How about the 5 dancing Isrealis? One is even quoted as saying "we were there to document the event". How did they know what was to take place? If that's not evidence enough to even look into it further, then I give up because no amount of evidence will be taken seriously by some.

Maybe they saw it was happening and then grabbed their cameras? 'The event' was hours long. There is circumstantial evidence of Isreali/Zionist involvement (if faint or tentative), and this is one possible clue, but hard-to-peg timeline issues would need to be clarified before it is really teling. There is motive - certain elementts within Israel benefitted from the attacks, and perhaps these guys just did the math quick and that's why they were dancing. All this bears mentioning, but if taken too seriously, it screams to some anti-Semitic bias and serves to shut-dowwn debate. Unfair perhaps, but it's life. It's just good to step extra careful on this issue, but neither shy away from stepping at all.

I mean, look at Zim America, the Isreali shipping company that moved its NY HQ out of the WTC like a week before 9/11. That's a compelling clue of foreknowledge.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by jprophet420

 

I did change my mind. Shortly after arriving at this forum actually. I saw one of the original Missel At the Pentagon movies and therfore looked at all the CT websites. After 3 + years of reading, and getting to know many REAL people with REAL knowledge, I am 100% certain that the goverment was NOT behind the events of 911. (although I was quite certain long ago)

Okay, so... you were quite certain at first all was well re: inside job, then what? Troubled by a missle video (Pentagon Strike flash video perhaps?), then read Cat Herder's thread, and then talked to some JREF people, and now you're certain everything's alright again? Come on! Where's the probing analysis?

This is not based on "blind " faith, but from real hard evidence.

Think hard about that. Who benefitted? Who failed? Who opened a can of whoop-ass on themselves thinking they were gonna scare us into submission (we're told)? Do you have the proof or solid circumstantial evidence to dispell all questions and justify your certainty?

Why am I here? To learn more. When a CTer brings up a question, I lke to look for the truth. The REAL truth. 99.9% of the time I have found it.

About 90% of 'truthers' make it easy. Funny how that works out. And I'd guess your 99.9 number is a tad exaggerrated.

[edit on 19-10-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Caustic...

Good points.

I do have a few questions regarding 911. Some that I have not recieved answers to. That does not mean that I think the goverment was involved. 99.9% ..... perhaps a little bit of an exaggeration. I will say 95%

on a side note... i enjoy your debates with Craig. HAve you seen the onl ine TV show he did?

reply to post by CaptainObvious


Also I meant to say I like you and respect your approach all in all.
But we do all have our biases, me included. Best we can do to be objective is realize it and try to correct. Peace.

To all of you, whichever side of the debate:

Is the 'truth' movement in danger of becoming 'stuck' if it fails to find evidence to support of one of the following principal theories?

• The CD of WTC1
  
• The CD of WTC2
  
• The CD of WTC7
  
• Missle/No-plane/Not-Flight 77 at the Pentagon
  
• No-plane/Not-Flight 93/Flight 93 shoot down at Shanksville

Can no one see that, even if the official explanations of all of these key events is true, 9/11 could still be an inside job?

A lot of people have speculated for a long time that we are constantly being fed disinformation in an effort to drive a wedge between different 'factions' of the so-called 'truth' movement.

Take the Pentagon crash as an example. We've been fed enough information to ask ourselves: was it a plane or not? We could have been given a whole lot more, such as all of the videos from the area, some of which must surely show us exactly what hit the Pentagon. But we're only given enough to prompt us to enquire and, ultimately, argue.

The upshot is that if we determine it wasn't a plane, then we must conclude an inside job. But, if we finally determine it was a plane, then we must concede that there was no inside job.

But what if it doesn't matter whether it was a plane or not?

Originally posted by coughymachine
Take the Pentagon crash as an example. We've been fed enough information to ask ourselves: was it a plane or not? We could have been given a whole lot more, such as all of the videos from the area, some of which must surely show us exactly what hit the Pentagon. But we're only given enough to prompt us to enquire and, ultimately, argue.

Wait'll you see my full analysis of the Citgo video. No one will be convinced of course - I'm guessing reason has already separated the wheat from the chaffe by now on that issue anyway. Only question now is how big is the pile of chaffe that'll have to be left behind as we head to the mill with what's left?

That came out sunding real weird, a danger of over-extended metaphor.

But in answer your main question above, yes.

reply to post by Caustic Logic


Glad to learn you persevered with that analysis. I was re-reading our U2Us about that just yesterday.

I'd be real interested to see what you've concluded, not least because I couldn't see how the reflection could have struck that car if the plane had flown south of the Citgo station.

In other words, my crude, totally under-analysed conclusion was that it supported CITs findings.

Originally posted by coughymachine
reply to post by seanm

 

1. You, I, and everyone else have access to exactly the same evidence, even though we do not have access to all 2.5 million documents.

What evidence have you, I and everyone else had access to? How do you know it's genuine? How do you know there is no conflicting evidence developed but not made available to the bodies investigating the attacks?

2. I repeat something you continue to deny: the 9/11 Commission is not NIST, FEMA, and ASCE. Those investigations stand on their own, independent of the 9/11 Commission. If the 9/11 Commission never existed, you still would have to address those reports. You won't.

We're getting near the end of our exchange, since we both evidently feel we're repeating ourselves to no avail.

The 9/11 Commission Report is based in part on lies. Let me re-word that for clarity: some of the evidence developed and provided to the 9/11 Commission was false. Further, the agencies upon which its report relies are government agencies and, therefore, have a vested interest.

That said, I don't need to 'address those reports' if I don't disagree with them, do I? And you'll recall that, where I've set out my theory, I've allowed for all of the 'official' findings.

3. NIST's computer simulations do not negate their findings. The evidence and physical tests affirm the conclusion.

NIST's computer simulations were produced by a process that no independent observer has scrutinised. Notwithstanding that, NIST has admitted it dismissed certain propositions because they would not have led to a global collapse. It further admitted that in order to bring the models it retained to the point of initiating a global collapse, some of the data was adjusted.

And, since no one knows what damage occured within the buildings as a result of the plane impacts, the whole damn thing is no more than a best guess anyway.

And this is the quality of the evidence you're shoving down my throat? It may be the best you have but it's a million miles away from being conclusive.

But, I repeat yet again, if my theory is right, I don't even need to prove NIST wrong.

Yet you won't bring any evidence to the table that the government was behind 9/11.

That's true; I accept my theory is based on circumstantial evidence at best.

But again, you posture as though you have all the evidence. You don't. I challenge you to prove me wrong.

Since you keep batting on about NIST (as though this has any impact on my theory), I challenge you to produce hard evidence showing specifically which columns were severed when Flight 11 slammed into WTC2. I don't want best guesses - I want hard, incontravertible evidence.

I'll treat any evasion or fluffling around as an admission that you cannot answer the question (and that it cannot be answered, period); and that you therefore accept that one of the fundamental elements of NIST's collapse hypothesis is pure guesswork. In other words, as evidence goes, it stinks.

You want me to "embrace" your theory at the expense of rejecting the preponderance of evidence and by accepting certain premises which are either invalid or irrelevant. You've done so by resorting to strawman arguments and question begging.

Actually, I'm not interested in having you embrace any theory. You should simply be honest enough to accept that what you hang your hat on is flawed.

I don't have to reject any of the evidence you're wedded to, let alone your mythical 'preponderance of evidence', in order to continue to explore my ideas.

Explore all you want but try to get over your conflicting claims, unsupported assertions, demands for unprovable but unnecessary evidence, and learn something about the nature of evidence and the scientific method. It will help you resolve the internal conflicts and confusion you are experiencing.

It's obvious that I can't help you with what you need to resolve on your own.

In the meantime, try to understand that the conflicts you are going through aren't shared by scientists, structural engineers, and most of us.

Good luck.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by seanm
Those of us (a majority) who respect the truth no matter where it leads need evidence. That's why we are true skeptics and that's why we press 9/11 Truthers to show us the beef.

This is total BS on your part. Sorry to have to say it. If this were true, you'd be in here with us questioning the official story just as much as you badger "truthers". I call BS because you have proven that it is so.

Since there is no "official story", that leaves you out in the cold. True skeptics question everything, including your wild claims.

Sorry, but you really DO need to catch up.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by seanm
3. NIST's computer simulations do not negate their findings. The evidence and physical tests affirm the conclusion.

Can you show us this claim? Because you're wrong. Sorry to be blunt, but I'm starting to get sick of talking to brick walls.

You ought to stop talking nonsense to brick walls and attempt to talk rationally to all of us.

You might find it helpful.

reply to post by seanm

In the meantime, try to understand that the conflicts you are going through aren't shared by scientists, structural engineers, and most of us.

What on earth are you talking about? What conflicts? I have told you on too many occasions now that I don't need to prove NIST, FEMA, ASCE et al wrong. The claim that I have 'conflicts' doesn't acquire some sort of legitimacy just because you keep repeating it. It's rubbish the first time you fired that accusation my way and it remains rubbish now.

And if you can put your hand on your heart and say that you have no problem with the 9/11 Commission Report being based at least in part on lies, then frankly, you should be ashamed.

And finally, I find it very interesting, amusing even, that you completely ignored my challenge to provide any hard evidence to back up NIST's claims about the number of core columns severed by the impacts. You've studiously addresed all of my points in the past and now, faced with having to either produce evidence or admit you cannot, you're silent.

reply to post by coughymachine


I know it. Study controlled demolitions for about 10 years, and you will also know it.

reply to post by downtown436


I'm open either way. But all I know is that I don't know.

If the towers fell as the result of CDs, how can this be proven? If we no longer have the opportunity to analyse steel samples for traces of explosive material, then short of someone stepping forward to confess, how can we ever prove a CD?

Originally posted by coughymachine
reply to post by seanm

 

In the meantime, try to understand that the conflicts you are going through aren't shared by scientists, structural engineers, and most of us.

What on earth are you talking about? What conflicts? I have told you on too many occasions now that I don't need to prove NIST, FEMA, ASCE et al wrong. The claim that I have 'conflicts' doesn't acquire some sort of legitimacy just because you keep repeating it. It's rubbish the first time you fired that accusation my way and it remains rubbish now.

That's my opinion from the sum total of your posts.

And if you can put your hand on your heart and say that you have no problem with the 9/11 Commission Report being based at least in part on lies, then frankly, you should be ashamed.

I'm going to remind you again that the 9/11 Commission is irrelevant to the discussion of the NIST, ASCE, and FEMA reports.

And finally, I find it very interesting, amusing even, that you completely ignored my challenge to provide any hard evidence to back up NIST's claims about the number of core columns severed by the impacts. You've studiously addresed all of my points in the past and now, faced with having to either produce evidence or admit you cannot, you're silent.

That's the funniest evasion yet. You've ignored most of my posts addressing all manner of things and fall back on what you consider "anomalies" with the end goal of attempting - unsuccessfully - to discredit the conclusions and evidence of all the reports.

You really aren't serious at all about this discussion.