If Belief in 9/11 Conspiracy were a US political party, it would rank #1

Originally posted by coughymachine

Originally posted by jthomas
You continue to have to use that strawman since you know that the evidence of what happened on 9/11 does not come from the government.

This is rubbish and you know it. And you keep waving this about as though you've made a point.

For most of us, the overwhelming majority of the disputed evidence does come from the government, whether, for example, in the form of the lies and misleading statements given to the 9/11 Commission by the administration and the Pentagon, or else in the form of the NIST report.


[edit on 10-3-2008 by coughymachine]

It doesn't actually come from the government and no manner of denying that fact will ever change it.

Your claim is the foundation of the house of cards that is "9/11 Truth."

reply to post by jthomas

Utter rubbish.

The 9/11 Commission bases its findings on information and testimony provided largely by the administration and other government agencies.

NIST is a government body. The fact that there may have been non-government contributors does not make this a non-government report. The entire process, from establishing the NIST mandate to producing the report was very carefully controlled by the government.

And you need to re-read my first post, which makes a very clear point. The overwhelming majoirty of the disputed evidence does come from the government.

Originally posted by coughymachine
reply to post by jthomas

 

Utter rubbish.

The 9/11 Commission bases its findings on information and testimony provided largely by the administration and other government agencies.

The evidence STILL did not come from the government. You cannot continue to deny that fact.

NIST is a government body. The fact that there may have been non-government contributors does not make this a non-government report.

The NIST report is not a "story." It is a report of the investigation of the evidence - and I have to keep spelling it out - the evidence did NOT come from the government. Period.

The entire process, from establishing the NIST mandate to producing the report was very carefully controlled by the government.

No, it hired non-government experts to form the majority of the investigating team and had it deliberately independently reviewed. The methodology, evidence, and conclusions are fully available to YOU and every expert in the world to affirm, challenge, or reject on the basis of the facts and conclusions presented.

It is astounding that 9/11 truthers still deny these facts. Truthers eyes are wide shut.

And you need to re-read my first post, which makes a very clear point. The overwhelming majoirty of the disputed evidence does come from the government.

Demonstrably false. No evidence of what happened on 9/11 originated with the government. It provided the means and finances to organize the largest investigation in history of ALL the evidence, never originating nor controlled by the government.

No matter how you avoid it, the burden of proof is on you. And you keep failing to produce any evidence for your claims that the government is either a suspect or responsible for 9/11.

reply to post by jthomas


You serve more whoppers than Burger King.

The NIST report is not a "story." It is a report of the investigation of the evidence - and I have to keep spelling it out - the evidence did NOT come from the government. Period.

In a sense true. It came from Boeing and Larry Silverstein, mostly. But it was entirely--and selectively--controlled by the gov't.

No one not authorized by the gov't could get anywhere near it before it vanished or was melted down in the Far East.

Nothing but semantic contortions. Please don't insult our intelligence.

No, it hired non-government experts to form the majority of the investigating team and had it deliberately independently reviewed. The methodology, evidence, and conclusions are fully available to YOU and every expert in the world to affirm, challenge, or reject on the basis of the facts and conclusions presented.

Translation: you can read the reports, such as they are, but you aren't getting anywhere near the actual evidence, and never will.

Demonstrably false. No evidence of what happened on 9/11 originated with the government. It provided the means and finances to organize the largest investigation in history of ALL the evidence, never originating nor controlled by the government.

Demonstrably false.

The gov't spent about four times the amount that was spent for 9/11--funded kicking and screaming, initially only a paltry $3-4 million--investigating the Clinton/Lewinsky affair.

No matter how you avoid it, the burden of proof is on you. And you keep failing to produce any evidence for your claims that the government is either a suspect or responsible for 9/11.

Well there's the rub, isn't it? the evidence destroyed or locked away God knows where, cooked reports, take it or leave it.

Three massive steel-frame skyscrapers falling at virtual free-fall onto themselves with smoldering ruins and foundry-like conditions under the rubble for nearly two months. Structural concrete and building components turned to powder. The evidence is everywhere, massive and basic.

Stunningly obvious, but turn away little people. Shut up and believe what you're told.

Originally posted by jthomas
No evidence of what happened on 9/11 originated with the government.

More rubbish - so much so I almost didn't respond at all. But this had me chuckling. Surely not even you can believe what you wrote here.

I can only assume the stunt you're trying to pull here is to distinguish between the terms 'government' and 'government agencies'. So let me re-state my assertion for your benefit, since I don't make that distinction.

The overwhelming majority of the disputed evidence comes from either the government or its agencies.

Originally posted by jthomas

Neither is it necessary to model the collapse once the causes are understood and found to be sufficient to initiate global collapse.

And just what God On High made the remarkable presumption that both towers would globally collapse from widely different impacts? And where is that analysis?

That's a staggering statement, even for you. A new record in outrageous presumption trying to bull its way through basic logic on the back of hubris and bluster.

You get a twinkly star for that one.

Thank God we rely don't rely on 9/11 Truthers whose only capability on Earth is to believe debunked myths. No go and actually read the NIST report.

Well, getting back to the topic of this thread, seeing that over 1 in 3 Americans believe they've been lied to about 9/11, actually you do have to rely on them all the time, for 1 in 3 interactions every day.

Think about that as you go about your day and interact with others. And have a nice one.

Originally posted by logictruth
wow. to question a war, policy, law, justice, thats understandable. but when you question the 9/11 events and truely believe it was an inside job, with out any evidence, thats disgraceful.

You have to throw in that "without any evidence" part, don't you? What you want to say is that it's disgraceful to even think such a thing regardless, right? Because it's so unthinkable. That might be why you don't see any evidence. I wouldn't see any either, if I covered my eyes and plugged my ears to every frightening thought that passed through my head.

and what so unbelievable about the towers falling because of the impact. you have jet fuel burning a really bad impact and alot of weight on top of that. why wouldnt the towers fall? think man.

How can you think you can just add all those things in your head and compute an answer to it all? What kind of "thinking" are you doing, exactly? The kind you feel with your gut?

The "really bad" impacts severed less than 15% of the columns just on the impacted floors. Meaning 85% were still standing at about 100% capacity. I assume you don't actually know what fire does to steel. It causes expansion which supposedly led to a lot of buckling on the given floors by the geometry of the layout, depending on what source you reference (I'm talking NIST).


Why should I even bring any of that up, though? All you have to do is just imagine a plane hitting a building, and "think, man." Don't you know how simple it is? It's not like anything else could have possibly happened. Everybody was expecting the buildings to just up and explode to the ground.

[edit on 14-3-2008 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by jthomas
Neither is it necessary to model the collapse once the causes are understood and found to be sufficient to initiate global collapse.

This is also garbage. The reason NIST didn't go beyond collapse initiation is because they couldn't. If you believe global collapse was inevitable then you obviously do not understand the physics involved. That claim was pulled out of someones rear. There is nothing they could base that claim on. Where is the precedence, and where is the physics that explain complete global collapse?

And you really think a few seconds difference in the collapse time from free-fall proves there was resistance? ROTF!

No computer could model the collapses? So what? There are some basic physics laws that apply to EVERYTHING, and can be predicted from what we know from past precedence etc. Where is the precedence for complete global collapse from fire and gravity? There is none so your claim has NOTHING to support it but assumptions. And you talk like it's all facts, sry but it's nothing but a weak hypothesis. The fact that you believe global collapse was inevitable proves you know nothing of the scientific method.

You don't need a computer, you just need steel, some tools, some mechanical skill and you can easily test your hypothesis.

Originally posted by ANOK
You don't need a computer, you just need steel, some tools, some mechanical skill and you can easily test your hypothesis.

And you'll need a properly functioning and stocked brain, too. As they say, garbage in, garbage out.

Even allowing for the onset of collapse, the assumption that global collapse is inevitable--twice, from widely divergent impacts--is beyond the pale.

Originally posted by gottago

Originally posted by jthomas

Neither is it necessary to model the collapse once the causes are understood and found to be sufficient to initiate global collapse.

And just what God On High made the remarkable presumption that both towers would globally collapse from widely different impacts? And where is that analysis?

Presumption? What presumption? We're talking about the investigations and conclusions that he combination of crash damage and unfought fires were sufficient to cause the collapses of both WTC 1 and 2.

There was no need, much less computer capability, to model the actual collapses of the tower after collapse started.

I find it remarkable you don't understand it. It's no different than you claiming that the NTSB must model the way crashing planes fell through the air to understand the cause of why it was crashing.

Originally posted by jthomas
There was no need, much less computer capability, to model the actual collapses of the tower after collapse started.

This statement just proves you have no idea what you're talking about.

This is the crux of the whole problem with the official story. To say global collapse was inevitable and doesn't need explaining is complete #e.

This is the huge stumbling block for your official story and for you to ignore the fact that NIST failed to explain the collapse once initiated shows either you don't understand physics at all, or you don't care.

How can any intelligent person not understand that global collapse is never an inevitable consequence of fires? Seeing as how it's never happened before who's *** was that claim pulled from?

NIST failed to explain the actual collapses because they couldn't, period. How is that so hard to understand? If you really care about the truth , and your country, you wouldn't be so desperate to help cover up obvious lies and deception. So instead of jumping down every ones throat why not actually do some research other than jref or 911myths. Learn a little about physics, that way you will not be fooled into believing lies.

You need to quit claiming global collapse was inevitable cause that's the only thing holding your 'official story' together, and it's an out right lie.

[edit on 16-3-2008 by NGC2736]

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by gottago

Originally posted by jthomas

Neither is it necessary to model the collapse once the causes are understood and found to be sufficient to initiate global collapse.

And just what God On High made the remarkable presumption that both towers would globally collapse from widely different impacts? And where is that analysis?

Presumption? What presumption? We're talking about the investigations and conclusions that he combination of crash damage and unfought fires were sufficient to cause the collapses of both WTC 1 and 2.

There was no need, much less computer capability, to model the actual collapses of the tower after collapse started.

I find it remarkable you don't understand it...

Oh, I understand it, and you, all right. That is pure fiction, on a breath-taking scale. You know full well what we are talking about here, and playing the brick wall doesn't cut it.

There is no foregone conclusion that once collapse started, the rest of the towers would fall, both of them, onto themselves in +/- 8 seconds. That is inevitable? In whose universe, by what physical laws?

You show it's nonsense by saying it can't be modeled, and you know full well it's not lack of computing power that's the problem, but the sheer impossibility of it happening--twice--unaided. So we get another one of your "don't you see? It's the way it is" arguments, as if all our brains fell out yesterday.

Your word on this means zero. Show proof.

[typos]


[edit on 15-3-2008 by gottago]

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by jthomas
There was no need, much less computer capability, to model the actual collapses of the tower after collapse started.

This statement just proves you have no idea what you're talking about.

Actually I know you don't know what you are talking about.

This is the crux of the whole problem with the official story. To say global collapse was inevitable and doesn't need explaining is complete #e.

They didn't "say" it - they demonstrated it.

You can't seem to understand that if the causes are found to be sufficient to initiate global collapse, then you do not need to model the post-initiation phase.

But you just insist that you need to model the collapse itself to know the causes of the collapse.

Talk about backward thinking.

Originally posted by gottago

Oh, I understand it, and you, all right. That is pure fiction, on a breath-taking scale. You know full well what we are talking about here, and playing the brick wall doesn't cut it.

There is no foregone conclusion that once collapse started, the rest of the towers would fall, both of them, onto themselves in +/- 8 seconds. That is inevitable? In whose universe, by what physical laws?

Only YOU are claiming it is a "foregone conclusion." What a nonsensical statement.

It was demonstrated that from the evidence and modeling that once the collapses started, there was sufficient energy to cause global collapse.

How silly for you to claim that you have to model the post-initiation phase, the actual collapse phase, in order to figure out the causes of the collapse.

Think more carefully.

Originally posted by jthomas
Only YOU are claiming it is a "foregone conclusion." What a nonsensical statement.

Black is white, yet again. You are the most obvious sophist I've ever seen.

It was demonstrated that from the evidence and modeling that once the collapses started, there was sufficient energy to cause global collapse.

Says you, who I wouldn't trust to take out my garbage. Post proof.

How silly for you to claim that you have to model the post-initiation phase, the actual collapse phase, in order to figure out the causes of the collapse.

Slither like an eel. You are attempting to conflate collapse initiation with the inevitability of collapse. No Way, Jose Thomas. That's a crock and you know it.

Post proof, or stop trolling.

Think more carefully.

Start to think.

Originally posted by gottago
You are attempting to conflate collapse initiation with the inevitability of collapse. No Way, Jose Thomas.

Obviously not. Only YOU make the claim that I believe collapse was "inevitable." I stick to the evidence.

I wish you would try to read more carefully.

Originally posted by jthomas
Presumption? What presumption? We're talking about the investigations and conclusions that he combination of crash damage and unfought fires were sufficient to cause the collapses of both WTC 1 and 2.

There was no need, much less computer capability, to model the actual collapses of the tower after collapse started.

Really? Then why did we even need an investigation, anyway? All you had to do was ask any New Yorker what happened to the buildings, and they'd tell you, "planes hit them!" We should've just stopped while we were ahead and never called up NIST or FEMA.

Here's another question for you: which potential phenomena is more cause for concern: a building "collapsing" completely to the ground while throwing debris everywhere and killing thousands of people, or a plane being flown into a building intentionally and setting it on fire, which NIST engineers have already admitted it is impossible to better prepare for? Which would you study to try to better understand and prevent, if you could receive a federal grant?


You would just hand-wave off the research, because you don't really care. You already know what happened to the towers. You don't want to know anything else. You just want a report that says what you believe and you want everyone else to believe it with you, for naive and ill-founded reasoning. You wouldn't cut it as a scientist, not exactly Galileo. Valhall is an engineer familiar with an engineering report and she could even tell you NIST was a complete failure.

Originally posted by jthomas
They didn't "say" it - they demonstrated it.

This is false. NIST never demonstrated that either of the global failures was inevitable, they simply asserted it repeatedly.

It would be easy to correct me, by posting the relevant NIST tests that demonstrate this. But they don't exist so it won't happen.



If people are just going to start making things up, I'm going to issue my own federal report.

[edit on 16-3-2008 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
Presumption? What presumption? We're talking about the investigations and conclusions that he combination of crash damage and unfought fires were sufficient to cause the collapses of both WTC 1 and 2.

There was no need, much less computer capability, to model the actual collapses of the tower after collapse started.

Really? Then why did we even need an investigation, anyway? All you had to do was ask any New Yorker what happened to the buildings, and they'd tell you, "planes hit them!" We should've just stopped while we were ahead and never called up NIST or FEMA.

You're not reading carefully. The investigation of course dealt with how and why the towers collapsed. And the conclusions demonstrated that the combination of plane crashes and unfought fires were sufficient to have weakened the damaged area enough to cause the upper sections of each tower to start falling. AND, once that started, the energy was enough to cause global collapse of the rest of the building

So, of course, once you know that, trying to model the collapse to the ground from the point the upper sections started to fall is irrelevant to ascertaining the initial cause. This is clear.

9/11 Truthers have to cling to a myth that one has to model the collapse all the way to the ground to ascertain the causes of the collapse when, clearly, such modeling is unneeded.

Originally posted by jthomas

You're not reading carefully. The investigation of course dealt with how and why the towers collapsed. And the conclusions demonstrated that the combination of plane crashes and unfought fires were sufficient to have weakened the damaged area enough to cause the upper sections of each tower to start falling. AND, once that started, the energy was enough to cause global collapse of the rest of the building

So, of course, once you know that, trying to model the collapse to the ground from the point the upper sections started to fall is irrelevant to ascertaining the initial cause. This is clear.

9/11 Truthers have to cling to a myth that one has to model the collapse all the way to the ground to ascertain the causes of the collapse when, clearly, such modeling is unneeded.

Oh, now I see the light! Let me try:

The buildings fell down but we don't need to know why, because they fell down. A report was printed with lots of words in it and figures and tables, all of it quite impressive and validated by the fact that it was written, and all these things, though they do not answer the question of how global collapse occurred, and in fact they avoided that question, are nonetheless sufficient to prove without a shadow of a doubt that these baseless assumptions are valid, and furthermore that the collapse would occur exactly the way it did, though it was never studied.

Thanks jthomas! From now on I'll just "think" like you. It's so darned easy!

Oops, almost forgot to do the truthers-are-deluded summation:

But truthers ask for answers about things they shouldn't and should just look only at the answers that are given, which are sufficient to answer the questions that should be asked, not the questions that uncover the assumptions. You see these assumptions are there for a good reason, they were assumed because they are derived from the obvious pointlessness of investigating something that doesn't need to be investigated.

Think/read/eat/brush your teeth more carefully. Get out from behind your wall/bunker/delusions/political agenda.

There, how'd I do?

Originally posted by jthomas
You're not reading carefully. The investigation of course dealt with how and why the towers collapsed.

How can you say that if they didn't even try to analyze the global collapses? Who are you joking?

And the conclusions demonstrated that the combination of plane crashes and unfought fires were sufficient to have weakened the damaged area enough to cause the upper sections of each tower to start falling.

Those are easy enough words but the geometry of what you're implying doesn't work, or else the theories need to be revised by more competent engineers.

A single floor falls first according to NIST, not the entire freaking upper mass of core structure (which could only continue to transfer its loads right down the core), any of the floors above the first floor to fail, or many but maybe a relative handful of perimeter columns. The energy of one floor falling is not enough. And even NIST themselves admitted that an entire floor failing simultaneously and falling uniformly, is extremely unlikely.

AND, once that started, the energy was enough to cause global collapse of the rest of the building

Can you show me where NIST calculated this? They didn't even analyze the global collapse. You must be pulling all of this out of nowhere.

So, of course, once you know that, trying to model the collapse to the ground from the point the upper sections started to fall is irrelevant to ascertaining the initial cause. This is clear.

No it isn't, because the statement you based this on was false (or at least has not actually been proven).