9-11 lets lay it on the table....please provide evidence

Originally posted by undermind


In each case, they have quickly got to the point: "You better believe it buildings like those towers can fail, and collapse the way they did, at the speed they did, under the impact of just one plane."

None of them said they were at all surprised when they saw those towers going down.

[edit on 29-1-2008 by undermind]

This is NOT an engineering or scientific review of the NIST report. This is an educated observation of probability.

I'm an aerospace engineer and I COMPLETELY agree that the probability exists of a plane strike on one of these towers and the resultant fires that COULD ensue, OVER TIME, could cause structural damage that could lead to localized and possibly global collapse.

Now - with that said, my statement above does not qualify, nor should it be taken as, as acceptance, approval or endorsement of the NIST report or that the findings, modelings or conclusions of that report prove out that the above scenario is what happened.

Go back to your contacts and ask them to read the full report and give an engineering/scientific review of the approach, assumptions, methodology and conclusions of that report and see if their answers change. I'm not demanding this from you, I'm stating as implying statement that once they do that, my learned dollar is on them having a different response.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Midav
Popular Mechanics has a great article on debunking the 9-11 myth.

Well sorry but Popular Mecahincs itself has been debunked many times.

Also Popular Mecahanics is not a legit or legal investigating agency for 9/11.

The Popular Mechanics article did not jibe with the information provided to me by people living near the area where flight 93 was shot down. So I dismiss the rest of their debunking as propaganda. Proof would be nice but it is unavaliable.

reply to post by Retikx



I'll try one more time. Retikx posted a link to a video analysing the 'Live' footage (page 7). I watched this and well unless some of the non-believers have already debunked this work, then all other analysis is of zero point. Because we are discussing non-real images and trying to make sense of Aeroplanes that don't look like aeroplanes etc ect!

So, again can some please point me at the Debunking of this video, if it exists?

Thanks

Originally posted by Valhall
reply to post by OrionStars

 

Okay, I'm looking at the pics on this website you provided the link for:

www.geocities.com...

I really can't tell what your talking about. What issue do you have with how the steel looks?

I thought I made that clear on the one you said was an animation. The steel is going in the wrong directions for something alleged to be impacting of one solid object into another. At least 95% is still vertical. Now if that steel is so weak, as contended by the "official" reports, how can that possibily be? It should be bent inwards not straight cut and vertical. as it appears in the same photo (without the woman) across the Internet. As I recall, some people have used the analogy "Pencil through mosquito netting." Bad analogy for the condition of that steel.

Do you have any ideas why that would be? You question others. You should not mind being questioned yourself. Objectivity does not involve attempting to play a very obvious mediocre da, plus, presenting something placing the words "It's a fact.", in bold, on so many statements not proved to be facts. Some of those "facts" could be refuted quite easily. Provided someone is objectively seeking the truth.

For instance, you bolded "It's a fact.", that W said he was watching TV when the first plane hit. Yet, it is well known that W was in Florida, in a 3rd grade classroom, reading My Pet Goat. It may be a fact the WH published W's statement of watching it on TV. Or it may be a fact W said it. It is not a fact he was doing it. Yet, unless someone cloned W, it was not a fact he watched it on TV simply because allegedly W said it.

Until you can determine exactly which part of something is fact, you cannot legitimately call yourself objective. That means validating not simply claiming it. There is not a district attorney dead or alive who was ever objective. They all just want to win their cases as does their oppostion. Objectivity plays no part in winning cases. Jumping fences does not necessarily make anyone objective either. Did you mean you are trying to appear balanced instead?

Reciprocating questions for you. Did George W. Bush himself actually state he watched an alleged first plane hit? Or did the White House merely publish that as a PR move instead? Or both? Which is fact? Which is fiction?

Science is objective. Science never lies. People calling themselves scientists may lie but reputable, ethical scientists avoid it like the plague. As long as one relies on science, not necessarily humans relating their findings, one cannot be anything but objective, in those cases requiring scientific evaluation. An objective person accepts the truth of science, whether that person desires the answers or not.

Well, if we stop talking about the animation (which that shot shows bowing out after the animation has progressed into the collapse of the outer walls), and I look at the pictures from the website link you provided, I don't see any outer columns pointing in the wrong direction.

So that is why I was asking for clarification on what your issue was. You must be looking at pictures I can't find, because I don't see any issue.

Originally posted by OrionStars


For instance, you bolded "It's a fact.", that W said he was watching TV when the first plane hit. Yet, it is well known that W was in Florida, in a 3rd grade classroom, reading My Pet Goat. It may be a fact the WH published W's statement of watching it on TV. Or it may be a fact W said it. It is not a fact he was doing it. Yet, unless someone cloned W, it was not a fact he watched it on TV simply because allegedly W said it.

Who said anything about what you are talking about other than you? THE FACT I listed is that more than one time George Bush has stated he watched the first plane fly into the first building while he was in Florida. Why do you have to extend it to a new claim that I didn't even mention?

You give me the willies.

To Jeff Riff:

We should just organize this properly in a table-like format then add information to it. It's too messy otherwise.

If this is set-up properly, the evidence will present itself very clearly from what I've seen.

The very first thing is to have a proper premise.
I read this garbage about "there's so many of them conspiracie theories..which ones do I counter?"
it's irrelavent. It's essentially stating that in order for something to happen, it must be explained in full detail.

or the best one: "All of the believer's use initial reports to back their claims, when everything is disorganized and hectic."
lol...that's too much. In consideration of a government coverup, which obviously includes the media, this is the most useless argument.

We need to get rid of this excess garbage filler that clouds truth.

PREMISE

Believers: 9/11 was an inside job.

Non-Believers: 9/11 was a muslim extremist operation

That's it. We will never get every single detail, and the details we have might mislead us since connected ones might be missing.
All we can do is use logic and the massive amounts of information available. That's right, not self sustainment, not fear, not naiveneess (I mean all these for both sides) but logic. Logic supercedes science, testimony, expert analysis, visual observations, etc.

Ex.

--------------------
Pentagon Crash
--------------------

Witness testimony: *some links or references

Media information: *some links or refernces

Expert analysis: *some links or refernces

Official Story: *some links or refernces

Picture reference: *some links or refernces

Video reference: *some links or refernces

Originally posted by jfj123
That's really interesting info.
Can you back this statement up?
Obviously at this point I need to state that I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I'd really like to know if this is true or not. I've never heard this so I'd be really interested to see the facts. Thanks a lot !

What have some people been promoting here? Would that be Thomas Eagar's article on which NIST and FEMA based their reports? The same article on which the 9/11 Commission based part of their hearings? The answer is a resounding yes.

If not based that article, exactly from where are some people getting what they erroneously argue? From what came off that article and nothing more?

Originally posted by cams
reply to post by OrionStars

 

There was more damage than just a 16-18 foot hole. If you've really looked into it, you should know this...
There are also many aircraft parts, light-poles, witnesses etc to take into account also.

The roof collapsing vertically down, into an 18' x 20' hole, cannot be considered full damage, when a plane is hortizontally flying in. Exactly where is a hole big enough to accomodate a full wing span and engines on the Pentagon wall? Can you show exactly to what you refer on that for damage?

As low as the alleged plane is said to be flying, why is there no deep trench evidence in the Pentagon campus lawn?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
And you gang up on those that disagree with you.
Vicious little cycle that gets us NO WHERE.

How do i gang up on others ?

I realize the above is off topic. However, I would be interested in learning how one person gangs up on two or more other people. Gang means more than one person not one person.

Originally posted by v01i0

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by Valhall

 

Val,

Please explain how I am lying.

Thank you

Does he have to? Saying 99.999... something percent with a serious tone sounds like a very cheap lie - or strong belief. It is either, but I'm not sure which - only you can answer that.

Yes, people are required to explain when they call someone a liar or something a lie. Otherwise, it remains merely that person's opinion. It is also a lie to call another a liar or something a lie without proving it.

Originally posted by undermind
I have brought up the subject of 911 building failure and simply allowed them to make their own observations with 1. A structural engineer (x2) 2. An aircraft engineer 3. A university lecturer in Physics 4. A demolitions expert 5. An architect (x2)

In each case, they have quickly got to the point: "You better believe it buildings like those towers can fail, and collapse the way they did, at the speed they did, under the impact of just one plane."

None of them said they were at all surprised when they saw those towers going down.

Did you ask any field physicists the same question? There are academics, physicists, structural engineers, architects, and controlled demolition experts, to name only a few qualified professionals, in strong disagreement with the answers you received from those 5 you stated you asked. Interviewing only 5 people is not a valid sampling, particularly when all 5 people do not engage in the same type of employment.

Plus, if people have not bothered doing their own in-depth studies of what is being told to them, they will never know if someone is telling them the truth or deceiving them, will they?

Dr. Judy Wood - associate professor of structural engineering and architecture, plus, studied in physics and quantum mechanics and observer in a laboratory engaging in quantum mechanics experiments.

Dr. John Hutchinson - nuclear laboratory researcher in quantum mechanics

Dr. Stephen Jones - professor of nuclear physics also worked in US government nuclear facilities, plus, did peer review of other physicists.

Pilots for 9/11 truth

Vets for 9/11 truth

Do you need more people actually working in their fields to validate, that academics in classrooms may not actually know what is going on, in the real world outside the ivory tower? Academics, some of whom do nothing but teach, depend on those actually working in their respective fields of employment for their teaching material.

That is where Thomas Eagar of MIT failed in his article. He was an academic and did not work in the field of the construction industry. He did not have his article peer reviewed as required in the world of academia. He knew better than to do what he did, but he deliberately did it anyway. The Bush administration adopted and force fed that article as the original "official" report of no merit or peer review.

Oh, that's easy.

To make the statement "99.99% of the scientific community" approves of the NIST report as a statement of fact, is to lie. It is like just like this statement would be...

99.99% of those who do not accept the NIST report are not scientists.

That would be a lie too...unless there had actually been a study that supported the statement to be true (although that type of study tends to be an endeavor in statistics rather than absolute numbers).

I requested he post the study that backed his statement - else it would remain a lie. I noticed he didn't provide it, nor did he come back and state exactly where the figure came from - leaving those reading to assume it came out of his posterior number generator. Hence leaving it to the category of "a lie".

Unfounded "factoids" like that bring absolutely no value, in fact devalue, discussions.

Oh - OH-RI-ON...I asked you a question earlier about why you felt the need to assign a claim to me that I did not make and you didn't answer me. So I'm asking again only with more specificity - Why did you assign a claim to me that I did not make, and then use that false charge against me to further falsely accuse me and attack my character?

You probably need to answer at this point because at this time - you're crossing T&C lines. See you can't do what you're doing here and get away with it. You may have played these games else where, but you're not going to get to play them here.

Originally posted by Valhall
Well, if we stop talking about the animation (which that shot shows bowing out after the animation has progressed into the collapse of the outer walls), and I look at the pictures from the website link you provided, I don't see any outer columns pointing in the wrong direction.

So that is why I was asking for clarification on what your issue was. You must be looking at pictures I can't find, because I don't see any issue.

You saw no issue at the geocities website either? There are certainly many photographs of the hole on many other websites. Did you actually examine them for correctness in how metal would look when impacted and penetrated?

Here is an easy experiment if you shoot weapons and have access to a range. Take a piece of metal and shoot a bullet into it. Then examine the metal and see which way the metal is bending. In? Or out?

I have seen it done with approximately 4" of solid steel using a .357 magnum and a hollow point. The hole going in pushed the entry metal into the metal and exploded it out on exit. That is why I know that twin tower steel is going in all the wrong directions, for an outside entry impact and penetration to the inside of any building made of metal, particularly steel metal.

We were shocked when it made exit. It went in approximately bullet size, and exploded out, plus bent the rear metal in the direction of the bullet trajectory, almost the entire superficial back of the steel. Of course, if the bullet had been aluminum, it would not have worked that way hollow point or not. The bullet was steel penetrating steel.

Disclaimer: My post is not about bullets. It is directly related to the direction metal should go when penetrated by another solid object. The exterior walls of steel tube directions are all wrong when penetrated from the outside in. Something else made those holes, and it was not commercial jetliners.

Orion,

I will go back and look at the websites again. I have a feeling I did not look at the one you are referring to because the pictures in the one I looked at didn't have any material bent out at the entrance side where the plane impacted. But I'll look. It's always very difficult to discern the third axis orientation of objects in a 2D pic, so the vantage points of the one I looked at might not have what you see in another shot from a different perspective.

But we have to keep in mind that there was a tremendous FAE at the time of impact as well, and that FAE had the energy to bend any severed steel columns on the external walls of the building outward. So that's just one potential source of outward bending columsn, if you've seen them.

I'll go look at the site you just referenced.

Originally posted by Valhall
Who said anything about what you are talking about other than you? THE FACT I listed is that more than one time George Bush has stated he watched the first plane fly into the first building while he was in Florida. Why do you have to extend it to a new claim that I didn't even mention?

You give me the willies.

Just because he stated it does not make it a fact he did it, does it? It has also been stated and called fact he was in a Florida third grade classroom reading My Pet Goat to a class of third graders.

Just exactly what gives you the "willies"? Being requested to validate when you bold "It's a fact"? Exactly what are the facts you bold and claim are they complete facts? You question others like some relentless da in a courtroom. Are you not allowed to be questioned as well, when you claim "It's a fact." in bold letters on more than a few statements?

George Bush's two statements:

Statement made on 12/4/01:

Well, Jordan, you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."

But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack."

Statement made on 01/05/02:

Q What was the first thing that went through your head when you heard that a plane crashed into the first building?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, I was sitting in a schoolhouse in Florida. I had gone down to tell my little brother what to do, and -- just kidding, Jeb. (Laughter.) And -- it's the mother in me. (Laughter.) Anyway, I was in the midst of learning about a reading program that works. I'm a big believer in basic education, and it starts with making sure every child learns to read. And therefore, we need to focus on the science of reading, not what may feel good or sound good when it comes to teaching children to read. (Applause.) I'm just getting a plug in for my reading initiative.

Anyway, I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff -- well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake. And something was wrong with the plane, or -- anyway, I'm sitting there, listening to the briefing, and Andy Card came and said, "America is under attack."

And what I stated as one of the 12 facts of gaps, inconsistencies, etc., I listed is that he made this statement more than once and no one has explained this to us - to be clear: NO ONE HAS EXPLAINED WHY HE HAS MADE THIS STATEMENT TWICE. I did not make any claim other than that. This is a point that I believe deserves explanation from the president. Why did you say this - twice!? Follow-up: If your answer is because that's what happened, then I'd like to know how you saw the first plane hit the first building when the footage was not shown on any TV channels for hours and hours afterward?

Originally posted by Valhall
Orion,

I will go back and look at the websites again. I have a feeling I did not look at the one you are referring to because the pictures in the one I looked at didn't have any material bent out at the entrance side where the plane impacted. But I'll look. It's always very difficult to discern the third axis orientation of objects in a 2D pic, so the vantage points of the one I looked at might not have what you see in another shot from a different perspective.

Thank you. On that we can certainly agree. Photographs and videos are not always what they are purported to be.

However, those photographs leave no room for doubt, if they are actually what people are contending - actual holes made by actual 767s. The steel is going in the wrong directions, which even in 2-D cannot be mistaken for direction of metal, particularly when the angle, of the camera, is not straight in.

reply to post by Valhall


Could you please reference the source of your external comments? It is important to know where they first appeared and who reported it. Thank you.

As I said twice before, it may be a fact W said it, but is it a fact what he said is true? Yes, all information reported must be validated or truth cannot be determined. That is a fact not fiction.

Actually, Orion, if I were at home I could link you the youtubes (which are already linked in other threads on the board). Because linking you the transcript is not going to be sufficient - you'll need to view him saying it himself I would assume.

But I'm on my lunchbreak and there is a block to youtube here.

I will try to find the thread that has the youtube links and post it.