25 Intolerable Contradictions: The Final Undoing of the Official 9/11 Story

Originally posted by gottago
I know; that's how they can use the word "hypothetical."

Well since they cannot do any actual testing of the steel then they cannot do a proper investigation and have a proper report.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
How do you know no parts matched the 9-11 planes?

There have been no FBI or NTSB reports released that match the parts found to any of the 9/11 planes.

Also i do know what parts are numbered becasue i was s crew chief in the Air Force, so i know what parts also can survive a crash.

I was a crew chief for Blackhawk helicopters for six years in the Army. Alpha and then later lima models. Flew hundreds of hours.

I am interested to know which model 757 or 767 the Airforce used in your time while serving? Can I answer for you? None.

And that is more truther logic. One has nothing to do with the other.

Tell me, which parts, generally, are more survivable in a crash and why? I know the answer, do you?

reply to post by Griff


Griff, again, I appreciate your attempts to engage in semantics but it's not going to help your position.

The reproducibility you quoted several times - in your own links - are referring to results for goodness sake!

Your so hard over trying to engage me in a semantics argument you're proving my point for me because you don't fully understand what we are discussing in the first place.

An experiment's outcomeu] (to be valid) must be reproduceable. You’re actually claiming that since the events of 9-11 haven't, and won't be, reproduced that means 9-11 was an inside job and all the amassed evidence should be dismissed. Are you serious?

The procedure can be reproduced, with similar results without actually crashing real people and real planes into real buildings.

It's called computer modeling, physics and structural analysis based off of the accumulated post-event evidence and pre-event knowledge. Interesting to note, that's all been done which puts you in a bad position.

That is, having to address the massive amount of evidence that does not support your 9-11 conspiracy notions. So, again, you are left with the typical truther strategy: dismiss the evidence in a systemic way and avoid the counter-evidence all together.

In other words, stick your head in the sand and shout "lalalalalallalallalal".

As far as being done or continuing arguing, if you continue to dodge easy, obvious questions and engage in semantics in an effort to avoid answering questions then probably not.

[edit on 29-3-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Tell me, which parts, generally, are more survivable in a crash and why? I know the answer, do you?

Oh you do not know there are military versions of airliners? Guess you never heard of the 757 used for F-22 training.

Well there are quite a few parts that will survive crashes.

Enigines

Wings usually shear off so you have wings or wing debris

The tail section usually survive (thats why the black boxes and emergeny beacons are in the tail)

There is usually enough parts that survive to do a reconstuction, they even found enough of flight 800 to do a reconstruction.







[edit on 29-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

In total, the WTC investigation got less money allotted to it than Bill Clinton getting a BJ.

Couple of points here:
I have seen that tired claim before: the 9-11 Commission spent less money investigating 9-11 than the ML affair. Before I tell you the truth, do you even care? Do the facts of the matter actually mean anything to you and have any influence on how you draw conclusions?

Here's the answer: The 9-11 Commission was not an investigative body like, say, the Warren Commission was. The 9-11 Commission was responsible for drawing conclusions from the HUNDREDS of studies contained within it. The 9-11 report contains the official conclusion(s) drawn from thousands of professionals, experts in their respective fields, hundreds of studies, etc all contained within one report.

More money was spent investigating 9-11 than any other federal investigation in history. It's true that the 9-11 Commission itself didn't spend as much money as the ML affair.

What the so-called "truth" movement chooses (interesting considering they claim to be about truth) to ignore are the millions spent on the various studies contained within the report.

So to actually know what your talking about you have to add the commission’s expenses and all of the other studies that when combined together give you the actual number.

Do you even care what that number is?

Secondly; I'm not sure if I should be concerned if you think I am doing a poor job of making my point. The fact of the matter is what I stated. That is, it is not common practice to reconstruct an experiment as part of the peer review process.

Let me explain: studies can cost many millions of dollars. A full-scale 9-11 study would cost in the billions and require over 3,000 people willing to die for science. That's why it's never going to be reproduced the way Griff insists it must be. It's also a ridiculous (IMO) position to take. Completely unreasonable and also, a carefully crafted dodge. In those cases, analogs are used. They can be small-scale mock-ups, computer simulations based off of physics, structural analysis, subject matter experts giving their opinions, etc. Out of that, a consensus forms as to the most likely outcome.

What Griff is attempting to do, IMO, is claim al of this collected work is moot because a full-scale reproduction hasn't happened. This is a reasonable position to you?

Is this a position born from intellectual honesty, or a desire to promote propaganda that reflects a world view, evidence be dammed? Does someone looking for the truth set up a pseudo-science argument that really has no basis in reality and then demand that this hurdle be met, or does someone looking for the truth look at all (not just what validates their world view) of the evidence and form a reasonable conclusion?

What's your opinion?

[edit on 29-3-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Of course I do, 707's (at one time), DC-10's, etc.

My point (and you know it) is what does your experience as a Crew Chief have to do with 757's and 767's?

Because you were a Crew Dog, like me, doesn't confer unfamiliar airframe knowledge upon you.

Thank you for answering my question. May I ask another? Which engine section (combustion, etc) was recovered at the FLT 93 crash?

dbl post


[edit on 29-3-2008 by IvanZana]

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar

My point (and you know it) is what does your experience as a Crew Chief have to do with 757's and 767's?

Because you were a Crew Dog, like me, doesn't confer unfamiliar airframe knowledge upon you.

Thank you for answering my question. May I ask another? Which engine section (combustion, etc) was recovered at the FLT 93 crash?

You missed the 757 (catfish) used for F-22 training.

My experience as as a crew chief gives me experience in what planes are made of and what can survive a crash.

As far as flight 93, there was a engine core found about 2000 feet away. Which raises the question how could an engine core be found that far away of the plane went straight into the ground as the official story states ?



[edit on 29-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar

The procedure can be reproduced, with similar results without actually crashing real people and real planes into real buildings.

It's called computer modeling, physics and structural analysis based off of the accumulated post-event evidence and pre-event knowledge. Interesting to note, that's all been done.

And what happened to those experiments? They didn't yield the desired results and got trashed.

NIST actually built a reproduction of the WTC floor trusses and pans and concrete slab and the outer columns to prove the critical element of their theory that the floors/trusses bowed under the heat of the fire and pulled in the outer facade to initiate collapse.

They subjected the trusses to 2000 degree heat for two hours with double the standard load and got a deflection of 2 inches for their trouble. Tossed it out and wrote in 54 inches, based on computer modeling.

Hey, if reality doesn't do it for you, go virtual!

Semantics my foot. Try lies.

No need to argue.

We all know that controlled demolitions were used on wtc 1, 2, 7. We all know that no plane crashed in shanksville (flight 93). We know that the military, and airforce were all planning for 9/11. We all know that the perps used the exercises as a cover to achieve their plans of a flase- flag terror attack to give them the justification to goto war with any country they chose.


Did we forget that the Bush family funded hitler before and during WW2?

Did we forget that the Bush's own Oil and weapons companies?

Did we forget that ww2 was used to as a proxy war funded by the Rothschild and rockefellers for the use of establishing the newly founded "league of nations" or United nations which has the same control as hitler wanted.

Did we forget that the U.S administration nuked two civilian cities as hitler was "killing" jews? heroshima, nagasaki.

Did we forget that the Rothschild banking family used what U.s Backed hitler did to the world as an excuse to kill palestinians and take their land and establish Israel ( a tax haven)?

So 911 was really nothing compared to the shams pulled over the eyes of humanity.

911 inside job? what do you think.

[edit on 29-3-2008 by IvanZana]

[edit on 29-3-2008 by IvanZana]

reply to post by gottago


Excuse me, I'm not lying. Not even a little bit. We may disagree but I am not intentionally or knowingly lying to anyone.

I wouldn't do that. I am not perfect and my opinions are like everyone else’s: subject to being wrong.

But I wouldn't lie to you. Honestly, it sucks you think that of me. I disagree with you (obviously) but I don't think your a liar.

seem like ignorance and lying are divided by a fine line.

Debunkers aren't debunkers, that is a misnomer, most of them are ignorant.

Also, some debunkers are actually employed by FEMA and other factions so expect nothing but lies and baited questions.

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


SAP, I'm not accusing you of lying, but rather NIST.

But please do know whereof you speak. Blindly supporting NIST's findings without knowing the recipe from which they baked that souffle does no one here any service.

What they did by deep-sixing that experiment and replacing the results with tricked crap from some computer program is beyond dishonest.

Most people haven't got the slightest clue about these lies and hold up NIST as proof. It is not. It is a sham.

Edit to add: And that was only one "suitable" result of nine tries with their computer bs. Sorry but it enrages me to no end re: NIST's deceit.

[edit on 29-3-2008 by gottago]

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar

You did not repsond to my last post.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

NIST cannot release a proper report since they did not recover any steel from Building 7 to test.

Not releasing a "proper" report is one thing. Not releasing a report is entirely different.

I was posting the fact that the NIST is about to release their report on WTC7....a report you said they were never going to release.

Just making sure true and accurate information is being posted, and not just speculation.

Originally posted by Disclosed
Just making sure true and accurate information is being posted, and not just speculation.

But the NIST report will be just speculation since they did not recover any steel to test.

So it is true and accurate information that NIST did not recover any steel from building 7 for testing.

[edit on 29-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Hi Ultima,
I'll skip to the chase as your a smart guy and there is no need for you and I to back-and-forth (as we will never agree).

What I was getting to is I, personally, don't believe there is any report that will satisfy you. I think your last post, in response to the upcoming WTC7 report, IMO, highlights this. There is an exhaustive report forthcoming that specifically looks at the charge of controlled demolition(s). This report will be a massive report, encompassing thousands of man-hours of work by experts. However, you have placed a hurdle that you consider a must cross, otherwise you're going to dismiss the entire report.

In fact, you already have.

Serial numbered parts that did, in fact, match the correct airframes were recovered. I think you know this and once pressed, you'll admit your real argument is not enough parts were recovered based on your third person (like all of us) impression of what should have been recovered.

I don't think your evil, I don't think your ignorant, or a loon, or a kook or anything like that.

However, I do think you are evasive on your true beliefs. I think your true belief is that you know 9-11 was an inside job in your heart-of-hearts and some of the surface argument is cover for that deeper belief. That's all.

Again, I don't think there is anything wrong with saying what you believe. The problem for me is in what I consider the facts of the matter. IMO, I see many on the other side state things as hard, cold facts when they just aren't. The serial number claim is one. Another I saw in this thread is the allegation that the 9-11 investigations spent less money than the Monika Lewinski (SP?) Investigation. That isn't true either.

That's all.

reply to post by gottago



Okay, my misunderstanding - all is well


My reply:
I do know what I am talking about; we disagree on (some) the facts of-the-matter. Because we disagree doesn't mean I don't know of what I speak of.

For instance, in this very thread the claim was made that the 9-11 investigation spent less money than was spent on the Monika Lewinski/Clinton nonsense. That's just not true. Not even a little. For a full explanation, refer to my previous post.

As far as the failure to recreate the desired deflection; I agree. Why this happened and the overall affect on the complete volume of evidence is where we differ.

I agree the recreation did not yield the results that were expected. However, this is but one, out of hundreds, of analysis and experiments conducted. I am looking at the entire body of evidence and where it points. You are looking at this one test and claiming this is a definitive experiment that refutes all the other amassed evidence.

The explanation I tend to agree with, and you tend not to agree with is the "Chaos Theory". As a laymen, what this means is it is impossible to recreate every detail of an event at a later time. Therefore, some experiments may not yield the expected results.

The difference, IMO, between me and you is I am looking at the preponderance of evidence and you are looking for evidence that supports your already for drawn conclusion; that 9-11 was an inside job.

I look at the thousands of eyewitnesses; you look at Rick Renzi and dismiss them all. I look at the cell phone calls from loved ones actually on the various planes (right up until impact) and truthers claim the calls were faked. I look at the obvious plane wreckage in Pennsylvania, correlated by hundreds of fire fighters, police, state police and volunteers and see a plane wreck. Truthers see a “faked” crash site, with the eyewitness as being mistaken, not knowing what they are looking at, or “in” on it. I see a building violently collapsing under its own weight, backed up by thousands of man-hours of analysis by experts in their various fields drawing conclusions based on all of the available evidence, known physics and real science. I see truthers circling puffs of smoke in MS paint, claiming the planes were “holograms”, “Doppler sound effects”, CGI, teams of undercover G-Men wiring the building in an effort that must have taken years, claims of MOSAD (sp?) involvement, claims that GWB funded Hitler, off-loading of passengers at a NASA terminal (presumably forced to make “fake” phone calls before being marched off to their executions), laser beam shoot-down theories, and on and on and on.

Simply put, IMO, the truth movement is extremely selective in what they choose to validate. Is there some contradictory evidence? Of course there is. There is no way there wouldn’t be. In fact, if there wasn’t that would be the best evidence of a cover-up or conspiracy. The fact that there is conflicting evidence lends credence to 9-11 being a ‘natural’ event and not staged.

However, the fallacy, IMO, of the truth movement is in this selective validation. If you look at all of the evidence, not just what supports your opinions, you will find the overwhelming preponderance of evidence supports the “official” story.

IMO, what is left are semantic games (like the majority of this very thread) and extremely selective validation of only certain pieces of evidence, placing subjective hurdles that are irrelevant considering the nature and amount of other correlating evidence.

If the only evidence that existed were what you guys like to talk about, I would have to agree with you. The problem is, it’s not.

I choose to look at all of the evidence.

[edit on 30-3-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

I have also looked at all of the evidence, already far in advance of 9/11, since many catastrophic events are intertwined by the same players.

I have laid out the by far most simple construed evidence of men-made interaction BEFORE there was ANY sign of building failure at WTC 7.

I have also found the exact same men-made interaction for WTC 2 and 1 collapses, before any sign of building failure.

If the WTC 7 evidence of men-made interaction is true, than it is also true for both other tower collapses.

I invite you to prove me wrong for my WTC 7 evidence, perhaps you can accomplish what all NIST researchers can't, and aren't allowed to try.
They even removed all latests seismic evidence collected by LDEO researchers from their NIST site.

Start to read here :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

and if interested, read the whole thread and follow all my links, especially to my thesis at StudyOf911.com.

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
As far as the failure to recreate the desired deflection; I agree. Why this happened and the overall affect on the complete volume of evidence is where we differ.

If you can't reproduce an effect in the lab and repeat that test and get the same result then no other evidence matters.

That is the scientific method. Until an hypothesis is testable and repeatable in the lab it's not even a theory.

The 'official story' has NO science to back it up, none!

You can in fact do a test for yourself quite easily. Get a piece of steel and see how much temperature it takes to cause it to become malleable enough to fail. Do that and then come back and explain how 3 buildings globally collapsed with NO resistance from gravity.

Also if you have read and understood the NIST report how do you reconcile the fact that they didn't actually explain how the towers globally collapsed, only how they think the collapse initiated? This is a very important point that people who are ignorant to physics ignore. This also proves those that who ignore the point only parrot what they read supporting the official story, but do not understand it.

Do you really understand what you're supporting, or are you blinded by your nationalism?