Challenge to debunkers

Originally posted by gavron
For a researcher, you seem to do very little.

Its up to you prove what you claim.

But i should know by now that you cannot.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Its up to you prove what you claim.

But i should know by now that you cannot.

You asked for evidence of an ongoing trial, well here ya go!


www1.nysd.uscourts.gov...

Cases involving claims arising out of, resulting from, or relating to the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of September 11, 2001 and naming an airline, an airport security company, and/or The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey have been consolidated for discovery and other pre-trial proceedings. Honorable Alvin K. Hellerstein, District Judge, is presiding. Counsel in such cases should familiarize themselves with Judge Hellerstein’s Rules of Practice and Rules for Sept. 11 Consolidated Cases, as well as his rulings relating to the September 11 Litigation.

Unless you think the new york courts site is part of your conspiracy too.

reply to post by ThroatYogurt


F.B.I. Counsel: No Attempt Made By F.B.I. To Formally Identify 9/11 Plane Wreckage

Aidan Monaghan
03/18/08

Contained within a March 14, 2008 "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT" with the Nevada District U.S. Court, concerning a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Mr. Aidan Monaghan (Case #: 2:07-cv-01614-RCJ-GWF) to order the production of Federal Bureau of Investigation records concerning the 4 aircraft involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick A. Rose has indicated on behalf of the FBI, that records indicating the collection and positive identification of recovered wreckage created by these federally registered aircraft, do not exist.

Defendants motion reads in part:


"Since being served with the Summons and Amended Complaint, Federal Defendant, with assistance of its attorneys, has analyzed Plaintiff's request and conducted a search for responsive records. Federal Defendant has determined that there are no responsive records. The identities of the airplanes hijacked in the September 11 attacks was never in question, and, therefore, there were no records generated "revealing the process by which wreckage recovered by defendant, from aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was positively identified by defendant . . . as belonging to said aircraft . . . (Amend Compl. Inj. Relief #15 at 1.)"

However, this claim is directly contradicted by public comments offered by Carol Carmody, Vice-Chairman National Transportation Safety Board and Marion C. Blakey, Chairman National Transportation Safety Board, who both indicated in 2002 that FBI director Robert Mueller requested NTSB assistance with 9/11 aircraft wreckage identification and that the NTSB did perform 9/11 aircraft wreckage identification analysis.

Copy and past call it what you want!

Debunk this!

Originally posted by gavron You asked for evidence of an ongoing trial.

So where is the evidence of an ongoing trial. Whats the defendants name, when is the trial starting?

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by jprophet420


Please stop with the Yellow Font!
OK

In regards to your Aversion Thread. I guess you didn't read what I posted on page 1 of this thread:

Aversion of the Scientific Method and its effect on the 911 OS

One again your thread although very passionate, is an opinion.
No, its fact. the scientific method is definable, and pseudoscience is definable. when the scientific method is averted it becomes pseudoscience. again i point out that NIST admits using pseudoscience.

I don't want to derail getting into a debate about NIST. Even Griff who is searching for the truth realizes that the WTC Towers could have come down in the manner as NIST has shown.
Even the NIST admits that the theory is inconclusive. They describe how the collapse could have initiated. They dont look at all of the evidence and they dont explain a lot. the FEMA report is the one that goes deeper and tries to explain it while simultaniously admitting that their theory is highly improbable.

Not only NIST has done scientific papers on the WTC collapse. On another thread i listed over 90 experts that have done peer reviewed papers on the collapses, fires, etc.


This is for the WTC alone. I'm not sure what else in the way of science do you think is missing from 911 investigations.
I lay it out point blank

Here are only some of the papers / conferences etc..

reply to post by jprophet420


Thank you for using red. Much eaiser on the eyes.

NIST admits to using pseudoscience? Please show me where.

Which tower was FEMA referring to? ( i asked you this before)

I would like your opinion on the MANY papers / conferences that I attached. 90+ Engineers were involved in writing them. Hundreds involved in peer reviewing them. Thousands I can assume read and or were in the audience during presentations.

Mind you none of these papers / conferences state that NIST was wrong.

None of these papers think that a CD took place.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
NIST admits to using pseudoscience? Please show me where.
.

Well you do know that the original NIST computer model stated that neither the plane or the fires caused the collapse.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by jprophet420


Thank you for using red. Much eaiser on the eyes.

NIST admits to using pseudoscience? Please show me where.
I already have. They admit to simultaniously not examing the steel and not finding evidenceof CD. That means they didnt look. They ran the computer simulation 9 times, it failed the first 8. They built a mock up and lit it on fire and it didnt fail. They selectively ask questions. Instead of did the impacts from the plane casue global failure and collapse? they ask could the impact from the planes and the fires initiate collapse?

Which tower was FEMA referring to? ( i asked you this before)
The pancake collapse theory. It is a necessary component of all 3 collapses according to both reports.

I would like your opinion on the MANY papers / conferences that I attached. 90+ Engineers were involved in writing them. Hundreds involved in peer reviewing them. Thousands I can assume read and or were in the audience during presentations.
I think they are well written reports by intelligent human beings that describe many aspects of 911. I think while many debunk individual theories, certainly none back story as a whole

Mind you none of these papers / conferences state that NIST was wrong.
That's because they arent telling the whole story, that makes it a lot easier to not be wrong. I went to the store and got bread and milk. and I went to the store and got bread and milk with money I stole from moms purse both tell of the same story.

None of these papers think that a CD took place.

[edit on 12-8-2008 by jprophet420]

[edit on 12-8-2008 by jprophet420]

[edit on 12-8-2008 by jprophet420]

You know, totally off topic, when I make the color posts its not to be rude, its to make point by point responses as 911 is such a complicated subject. I am sorry that it doesn't come up looking right half the time, but every time I hit preview it is perfect, and then bam! it doesn't work. If anyone can tell me what I am doing wrong I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks and sorry.

Originally posted by jprophet420
You know, totally off topic, when I make the color posts its not to be rude, its to make point by point responses as 911 is such a complicated subject.

I have a hard time reading the red font.

I am sorry that it doesn't come up looking right half the time, but every time I hit preview it is perfect, and then bam! it doesn't work. If anyone can tell me what I am doing wrong I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks and sorry.

There seems to be a programming glitch with some of the colors. Try adding the "quote" and "/quote" before and after any text you want to respond to (using brackets [ ] instead of " ", as I've done above.)

Originally posted by jprophet420
None of these papers think that a CD took place.

But if the NIST computer model stated that neither the plane impacts or fires caused the collapse then what did ?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jprophet420
None of these papers think that a CD took place.

But if the NIST computer model stated that neither the plane impacts or fires caused the collapse then what did ?

Didnt the NIST model state it was a combination of the impact, plus resulting fires, that started a chain of events that led to the evntual collapse? I think that is the wording they used.

Label me what you wish but so far most people need actual proof.I mean im not taking the word of some truther whom ive never met that what is online is true.The story is so diluted now with profiteers still trying to make a buck off this conspiracy and its really sad and disgusting.All conspiracies seem to have this common link as well.With sentences like"we have all the answers right in this book!And for 29.95 you could too!"

Ah ...yeah...right!

reply to post by gavron


Right, and thats where the investigation stops. It stops at where the collapse starts. However for the OS to be true, it needs to be a pancake collapse, and it wasn't.

Originally posted by gavron
Didnt the NIST model state it was a combination of the impact, plus resulting fires, that started a chain of events that led to the evntual collapse? I think that is the wording they used.

No, please do research before posting so you do not look so immature.

The Original NIST computer model stated neither the plane impacts or fires caused the collapse.

The NIST final report states it was a conbination. But that contridicts the original computer model and most other other reports including other NIST reports.

NIST is the only agency to state was a combination of impact and fire. Most other reports state it was the fires alone that casued the collapse.

NIST model:
wtc.nist.gov...

The tower maintained its stability with the removal of columns in the
exterior walls and core columns representative of aircraft impact and
also after losing columns in the south wall due to fire effects with some
reserve capacity left, indicating that additional weakening or loss of
other structural members is needed to collapse the tower.

[edit on 13-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

The NIST final report states it was a conbination. But that contridicts the original computer model and most other other reports including other NIST reports.

So, the NIST is not allowed to update is findings as the investigation reveals more information?

I'm suprised you left out this statement, from the June 2004 reports that you got your data from:

wtc.nist.gov...

NIST is not making any recommendations at this time. All recommendations will be made in the final report. These interim findings and the working hypothesis for the collapse of the WTC towers and WTC7 are subject to refinement or change as further information becomes available prior to release of the final investigation report.

Why did you hide that FACT, ULTIMA1? Only posting information that supports your conspiracy again?

[edit on 13-8-2008 by gavron]

Originally posted by gavron
So, the NIST is not allowed to update is findings as the investigation reveals more information?

NIST is allowed to update but not to contridict there other reports.

Why did you hide that FACT, ULTIMA1? Only posting information that supports your conspiracy again?

I am posting facts. I am posting the fact that NIST contridicts the original computer model and thier other reports.

Also the fact that NIST is the only agency that states it was a combination. Other agencies like FEMA, 9/11 commision and even Homeland Securty states it was the fires alone.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I am posting facts. I am posting the fact that NIST contridicts the original computer model and thier other reports.

You might want to re-read my last post, then try to understand this paragraph from it:

NIST is not making any recommendations at this time. All recommendations will be made in the final report. These interim findings and the working hypothesis for the collapse of the WTC towers and WTC7 are subject to refinement or change as further information becomes available prior to release of the final investigation report.

You do understand what that paragraph says, correct? Subject to change as further information becomes available?

[edit on 13-8-2008 by gavron]

reply to post by gavron

Its pretty much a pre-requisite that you read the report before you speak of it. We could be cordial and just post the missing information without slandering one another. Just a thought.

Gavron, I have to ask however: Since you obviously realize the report is incomplete, are you OK with that? It bothers me that they cant get their act together after so long, since they used my money to do it. 7 years is blatant mismanagement IMHO, and since were not busy debunking I would like your honest opinion.

Thanks, JP.

Originally posted by gavron
You might want to re-read my last post, then try to understand this paragraph from it:

You might want reread and try to understand the following.

Also the fact that NIST is the only agency that states it was a combination. Other agencies like FEMA, 9/11 commision and even Homeland Securty states it was the fires alone.

www.firehouse.com...

FEMA Report: Engineers Study WTC Collapse
The report confirmed the emerging consensus that the twin towers could have withstood the impact of the hijacked airliners but eventually succumbed to the inferno that weakened the buildings' steel framework.

www.tms.org...

While the aircraft impact undoubtedly destroyed several columns in the WTC perimeter wall, the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure. Of equal or even greater significance during this initial impact was the explosion when 90,000 L gallons of jet fuel, comprising nearly 1/3 of the aircraft’s weight, ignited. The ensuing fire was clearly the principal cause of the collapse.

[edit on 14-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]