How Skeptics Confronted 9/11 Denialism

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
reply to post by Griff

 

6"?

Do you mean 1 1/2" x 4 sides?

The core columns had either spray-on OR drywall.

You could be right but:

3-inches Contact
+
2 1/2-inch Cementitous
+
1 7/8-inch Gypsum Plaster
+
2-inch solid w/2-inch plaster
=
Not including the 3-inches of Contact would be 6.375-inches of Cementitous, Plaster and Solid

Unless I'm reading this wrong?



Could you point out where they go into more detail about the fireproofing? Thanks.

Originally posted by AmethystSD

Originally posted by jthomas

There are no debunking "theories". There are only conspiracy theories.

That's right. Every theory is a conspiracy theory including the official story and the 9/11 Report. They all involved a conspiracy of someone with the intention of bringing those towers down. The only difference between any of them is the support from the media and government.

There is no "official story". There is only the evidence.

Originally posted by jthomas
The fact remains, as has been true since 9/11, that Truthers have nothing to go on. Zero.

Truthers have made no progress in convincing anyone that there is anything valid about their claims and speculations. They have only convinced each other.

That's right because once someone figures out that something is fishy they want the truth, they become a truther. I happen to know many people who have become truthers in the last two or so years.

Just because truthers "think" something is fishy is not evidence that anything IS fishy. As truthers have demonstrated for the last 6 1/2 years, they just make claims and announce they are legitimate claims without being able to demonstrate it.

Truthers are getting more attention than ever before lately which is why the movement keeps growing.

You forgot just what kind of attention they are getting. For example:

"The Bird poops on a crowd of 9/11 deniers and reports on the latest symbolic protest of Joe Arpaio"

From the beak of The Bird to the ear of Stephen Lemons
Published on June 05, 2008

Like Larry King or the species of common cockroach, the 9/11 "troof" crowd will never completely croak.

Just when you think these cretinous mental cousins of Holocaust deniers have been obliterated by intellectual neutron bombs debunking their moon-howling inanities — like last year's two-hour documentary 9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction from the History Channel, or the 2006 Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths — the troofers re-emerge, clinging to such tinfoil-hat notions as: There was no plane at the Pentagon (they claim it was a missile), there were no bodies from Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania (despite coroner's statements to the contrary), and the Twin Towers and World Trade Center Seven fell in controlled demolitions."

phoenixnewtimes.com...

You would claim that it doesn't? Where would you get data on that? All I know is that I meet people all the time who have just recently started to wonder about it and I see more and more videos, books, online, on television, etc.

You might consider getting out into the real world.

Originally posted by jthomas

"The Bird poops on a crowd of 9/11 deniers and reports on the latest symbolic protest of Joe Arpaio"

From the beak of The Bird to the ear of Stephen Lemons
Published on June 05, 2008

Like Larry King or the species of common cockroach, the 9/11 "troof" crowd will never completely croak.

Just when you think these cretinous mental cousins of Holocaust deniers have been obliterated by intellectual neutron bombs debunking their moon-howling inanities — like last year's two-hour documentary 9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction from the History Channel, or the 2006 Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths — the troofers re-emerge, clinging to such tinfoil-hat notions as: There was no plane at the Pentagon (they claim it was a missile), there were no bodies from Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania (despite coroner's statements to the contrary), and the Twin Towers and World Trade Center Seven fell in controlled demolitions."

phoenixnewtimes.com...

Yeah, no biasness in that article.

reply to post by jmdewey60


You may as well give it up. It's turned into a he said she said argument and the believers of the 'official' story and the 'truthers' will never meet in the middle. There HAS been plenty of evidence presented to the contrary yet there is the simple ploy that has been deployed by the government for decades. Keep feeding them lies and half truths and eventually they will believe it.

Sorry, I have seen too much evidence to where there should AT LEAST be a new investigation done. Yet that will not happen as long as these people are in power. They block any attempts by calling these people asking the questions names like conspiracy nuts and freaks. That's their best defense right now. They get mad when confronted by the questions that MORE AND MORE people are asking. The idea that the movement is dying is bogus. It is gaining strength. It's just not receiving the same coverage. That's the best way to try and stem the flow. Ignore the movement completely in all main stream media and continue to put out there 'theories' of why the truthers have zero.

Sorry guys, I'm not buying it and I don't think anyone else who has questions will either.

As a matter of fact, I believe that the numbers are heavily in the favor of the truth movement when it comes to people who begin to question the official story. They are more likely to still question it than to change their minds back to believing the official story than the other way around. Once a believer of the conspiracy theory most likely always a believer.

reply to post by jthomas


amazing how a website called "skeptic" promotes the belief in god, yeah..thats skeptical alright. i just went and looked on their website and signed up just to check. also amazing that this site "JUST HAPPENS" to be skeptical about the beliefs of the left, and NOT the beliefs of the right wing.

[edit on 6-6-2008 by jimmyx]

reply to post by jthomas


This is a perfect example of what I mean. Instead of having an intelligent article or anything placed down in a respectful manner the 'official' believers resort to name calling and ridicule. This alone tells me that they are full of BS themselves.

You should consider entering into the real world my friend. We simply want an independant investigation. One where there are NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST like the pathetic commission that was put together had. We don't want pertinent testimony left out and we DON'T want evidence left out.

Go ahead, come back with the 'who'll pay for it' argument of the tax payer dollars. Just look at how much money was actually spent on this investigation and what was spent on other major crisis of our past. It is insulting. If the truth is actually revealed I think the people would be very happy to hear it. It would mean a serious overhaul of this corrupted government which is long past due. No one can argue that.

Just to clarify, I'm NOT a liberal or conservative. I am an American that usually votes with the Republican party that has become sickened by the criminal actions perpetuated by this administration.

You guys keep acting like Bush and company are saints and great American Patriots when they are continuosly called out on seriously felony style lies. Here is my argument. If they were willing to lie about Iraq just to get into the country then what is to say they weren't lying about the events leading up to 911?

It's a moot argument because the 'believers' will continue to believe and the 'truther's' will continue to question. You also have to question a government when they make it an offense to actually question their actions. That is NOT America and it's people like you that are supporting this action.

We just want answers to the valid questions.

Originally posted by Griff


Could you point out where they go into more detail about the fireproofing? Thanks.

wtc.nist.gov...

"The structural steel in the World Trade Center (WTC) towers was protected against the effects of fire with
sprayed fire-resistive materials (SFRMs) or rigid fire-rated gypsum panels."

Page 17, Fig 3-4 has a drawing for the ext columns. They use the SFRM and plaster. Plaster sin't used anywhere else.

Pg 18 3.4.3 Core Columns

Core columns were protected with fire-rated gypsum wallboard, sprayed fire-resistive material, or a
combination of these. Core columns located in rentable and public spaces, in closets, and mechanical
shafts were enclosed typically with two layers of ½ in. gypsum wallboard.....In all cases, however, sprayed fire-resistive material was
applied on those faces that were not in direct contact with the gypsum enclosure.

Pg 20, Table 3-2 has more specs.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
wtc.nist.gov...

"Core columns were protected with fire-rated gypsum wallboard, sprayed fire-resistive material, or a combination of these. "

Thanks for that. It's pretty confusing to go through all this he said/she said stuff. Too bad we can't go to the source.

But, I'd have to say that the above statement contradicts what you said previously.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
The core columns had either spray-on OR drywall.

But, anyway, maybe they just added all materials when considering the dead load just to have extra dead load....i.e. built-in redundancy (wouldn't add that much more redundancy....3 psf isn't that much).

Anyway, thanks.

reply to post by Griff


Well, consider that 2 3/16" of spray on gives a 4 hr fire rating.

If it had ALL of those "layered" on the columns - 6" thickness - , the fire rating would be something like 15 hrs+.

I dare say that I'm fairly confidant that this wasn't the case.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
I dare say that I'm fairly confidant that this wasn't the case.

I'd say you're probably correct. Like I said, they probably added all the materials when calculating dead load to include some redundancy in the dead loads. Would make it easier on them. That way you only have to calculate the dead load once instead of umpteen different combinations.

It still doesn't give us a crystal clear image of what exactly the fireproofing was at those impact floors. Although, I agree that you've narrowed it down a little.

Originally posted by jthomas
There is no "official story". There is only the evidence.

You forget that I am not trying to prove anything to you. You know very well what I mean when I say "the official story." You're just trying to play a game with words. You want to drag me into and endless argument over this, but there's no point because you're not interested. It would be a waste of my time. I stand by my assertion that all theories regarding what happened that day are conspiracy theories because they all involve conspiracies to take down the towers.

Originally posted by jthomas
Just because truthers "think" something is fishy is not evidence that anything IS fishy. As truthers have demonstrated for the last 6 1/2 years, they just make claims and announce they are legitimate claims without being able to demonstrate it.

Being someone who was not involved in the events that transpired that day I do not hold the burden of proof. I have no access to the evidence that was with held from the general public. If someone wants to tell me a fairytale they are the ones that have to prove it is true. I don't have to prove it's not true.

Originally posted by jthomasYou forgot just what kind of attention they are getting.

It doesn't matter as much as you think it does, because awareness leads curious people to seek out information for themselves. Personally, I don't like other people dictating to me what to think. The fact that so much time has passed and the attention level is going up means something.

Originally posted by jthomas
You might consider getting out into the real world.

That is a low dig, and is dependent on a big assumption about me personally. FYI, I do get out and live in the real world. I don't let idiots on tv tell me what to think. I think for myself. Your "real world" is basically the mainstream media.

Don't bother continuing with personal attacks because I won't be coming back to check on this thread. It has run its course and I am done talking to you.

Originally posted by AmethystSD
Being someone who was not involved in the events that transpired that day I do not hold the burden of proof. I have no access to the evidence that was with held from the general public. If someone wants to tell me a fairytale they are the ones that have to prove it is true. I don't have to prove it's not true.

This is the stumbling block that Mr. Thomas has. All we have to do is prove that there are unanswered questions. That's it. The burden of proof is on the "official" side to prove what they are telling us is true. Those who make the claim are the ones with the onus of proof. So far, I haven't been sold completely.

Originally posted by AmethystSD

If someone wants to tell me a fairytale they are the ones that have to prove it is true. I don't have to prove it's not true.

You have access to the NIST report. It is an official report. They had access to information that WE, as private citizens, have no right to access. THEY are prevented by law from releasing private info. Therefore, WE will never be able to prove anything, since many of these docs are private property. There's no way around that.

However, if someone else has an alternate theory - an example would be Jones/thermate - he needs to provide proof of concept. Like what kind of devices were used, etc. Another would be the whole "CIT" group and their flyover theory. They need to provide proof that a jet would be able to make the turns that they have implied and still survive the G load that would be imposed. They can't.

THIS is where proof is lacking.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas

"The Bird poops on a crowd of 9/11 deniers and reports on the latest symbolic protest of Joe Arpaio"

From the beak of The Bird to the ear of Stephen Lemons
Published on June 05, 2008

Like Larry King or the species of common cockroach, the 9/11 "troof" crowd will never completely croak.

Just when you think these cretinous mental cousins of Holocaust deniers have been obliterated by intellectual neutron bombs debunking their moon-howling inanities — like last year's two-hour documentary 9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction from the History Channel, or the 2006 Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths — the troofers re-emerge, clinging to such tinfoil-hat notions as: There was no plane at the Pentagon (they claim it was a missile), there were no bodies from Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania (despite coroner's statements to the contrary), and the Twin Towers and World Trade Center Seven fell in controlled demolitions."

phoenixnewtimes.com...

Yeah, no biasness in that article.

Just the honest truth.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by AmethystSD
Being someone who was not involved in the events that transpired that day I do not hold the burden of proof. I have no access to the evidence that was with held from the general public. If someone wants to tell me a fairytale they are the ones that have to prove it is true. I don't have to prove it's not true.

This is the stumbling block that Mr. Thomas has.

Wrong. We have nothing to prove. YOU do.

All we have to do is prove that there are unanswered questions. That's it.

Quite false. You have not demonstrated that your so-called "unanswered questions" are even legitimate. And, as you well know, the vast majority of any legitimate "questions" truthers asked were answered long ago.

And the 9/11 Truth Movement did not like the answers and ignored them.

The burden of proof is on the "official" side to prove what they are telling us is true.

Not on your life. It is YOUR responsibility to demonstrate that a) there is anything at all the government has to prove, and b) you have to provide evidence for YOUR claims.

Just imagine if I hauled you into court for YOU to prove your innocence? Is that the standard you really want to adhere to?

It is important for 9/11 truthers to drop the false claim that the onus of proof is on anyone other than themselves. Will you now do that, please, Griff, or do you want to keep evading your responsibility?

Originally posted by jthomas
Wrong. We have nothing to prove. YOU do.

Nothing to prove eh? What's the official stance and where is the proof of it all?

Quite false. You have not demonstrated that your so-called "unanswered questions" are even legitimate. And, as you well know, the vast majority of any legitimate "questions" truthers asked were answered long ago.

Please tell me the answers and proof there of to the following questions.

Was Bin-Laden involved in the 9/11 attacks.

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

www.globalresearch.ca...

What stopped WTC 2's tilting momentum?

NIST: Chirp, Chirp.

What was the cause of the global collapses?

NIST: They were inevitable.

Unanswered questions. There's my proof.

Not on your life. It is YOUR responsibility to demonstrate that a) there is anything at all the government has to prove,

Well, if the government agencies don't have an onus of proof on them, I want my taxpaying money back for their investigation that they were taxed with.

The government doesn't have to prove anything? Give me my freeking money back then if they weren't taxed with proving anything.

and b) you have to provide evidence for YOUR claims.

And what part of "there are unanswered questions" don't you understand? How do I prove that there are unanswered questions? All I have to do is show that there are unanswered questions. Duh.

Just imagine if I hauled you into court for YOU to prove your innocence? Is that the standard you really want to adhere to?

What guilt, what innocence? If you paid me to do engineering work for you and you are not satisfied with my work and I left out unanswered questions, would the burden of proof be on you or me to answer those questions? Think about it.

It is important for 9/11 truthers to drop the false claim that the onus of proof is on anyone other than themselves. Will you now do that, please, Griff, or do you want to keep evading your responsibility?

So, we have to prove what happened? Even though 90% of the evidence is not for our eyes? Please.

The government was taxed and paid to find out all the answers. They have failed. Period. There is no more need to prove anything until the original theory is proven correct.

[edit on 6/6/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff

Was Bin-Laden involved in the 9/11 attacks.

“The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

FYI - the FBI has no "hard" evidence. He won't go onto the MWL without hard evidence. Maybe that'll change with statements from KSM. Who knows.

However, this doesn't mean that they have "no" evidence. They have the confession tape, among others. This, for example, can't be considered "hard" evidence because the evidence chain can't be confirmed. There's other circumstantial evidence to show that he was involved in 9/11.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
However, this doesn't mean that they have "no" evidence. They have the confession tape, among others. This, for example, can't be considered "hard" evidence because the evidence chain can't be confirmed. There's other circumstantial evidence to show that he was involved in 9/11.

It's funny how circumstantial evidence is good when it comes to the government, but when it comes to CTs we have to have solid undeniable hard evidence?

Why aren't you guys asking for undeniable hard evidence for the government's theory? It would seem they would have it since they have most of the evidence in hand, correct?

So, it's:

Government theory: Circumstancial evidence is A-OK.

Conspiracy theory: No...you need actual physical undeniable hard evidence.

Anyone else see the hypocrisy here other than me?

Originally posted by Griff

It's funny how circumstantial evidence is good when it comes to the government, but when it comes to CTs we have to have solid undeniable hard evidence?

Why aren't you guys asking for undeniable hard evidence for the government's theory? It would seem they would have it since they have most of the evidence in hand, correct?

As it related to OSL, circumstantial evidence prevents him from being put on the MWL. So there is a concrete refutation of your basic question.

What "hard" evidence could NIST use? The steel, right? They didn't keep the steel from the impact zone. The problem with that is that the steel was id'd with PAINT. And the paint burns off at 250C. Therefore, any steel that was from the impact zone, where there were also the most intense fires, would have had their paint markings burned off. Hence, no way to id the steel positively. This also forms the basis for the claim that NIST never id'd any steel that saw temps over 250C. Not because they didn't look for it, but rather there was no way to id it positively. However, if memory serves, they found some from just above and/or below the impact zones, and their sim studies matched relatively well with what the MEASURED temps were.

So what else could they do? They DID have the plans/specs, and as such had to run sims to try and determine what happened. Were there some assumptions made? Absolutely. But how would YOU work around that issue if there is no way to positively id the exact pieces of steel that were in the impact zone, but were still expected to produce a report?

Also, keep in mind that this isn't used as a basis for a criminal prosecution, as in the case of OBL, but seeks, as you say, to figure out to the best of their ability, what happened.

[edit on 6-6-2008 by Seymour Butz]

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
The problem with that is that the steel was id'd with PAINT. And the paint burns off at 250C. Therefore, any steel that was from the impact zone, where there were also the most intense fires, would have had their paint markings burned off. Hence, no way to id the steel positively.

However, if memory serves, they found some from just above and/or below the impact zones, and their sim studies matched relatively well with what the MEASURED temps were.

Is it me, or are these two statements a contradiction?

If they couldn't tell the steel by the paint after it was 250C, then how did they match their sims with the measured temps from just above the impact zone? How did they know the steel was just above the impact zone if the identifying paint was burned off after 250C?

But how would YOU work around that issue if there is no way to positively id the exact pieces of steel that were in the impact zone, but were still expected to produce a report?

But, I thought you said that they positively IDed the steel from just above the impact zones to match the measured temps? How is this possible when the identifying paint would have been burned off? How did they know these pieces were above the impact zone?