What evidence would accept to prove 9/11 was an inside job?

reply to post by impressme


There´s something wrong with the way you read and write.
I have noticed you don´t use question marks (?) sometimes.
So maybe you think I´m asking questions. NO.
I´m just giving an answer to the question in the OP.
Those are some of the things that would make me believe that 9/11 was an inside job. If they ever happened.

Originally posted by impressme
You want bush and Cheney to confess.

I never mentioned Bush and Cheney, did I? You impress me, impressme.
I think you are showing your true colors here. Your whole problem lies with Mr. Bush doesn´t it? So you want to pin this on him no matter what.

That will be the day. You are asking for evidences that any criminal in the right mind would have destroyed. You are asking for records that will prosecute the criminals. That’s not going to happened. I guess you don’t think criminals will go though great lengths to cover- up their tracks, they had eight years to do it.
You are asking questions for evidences that you and I and everyone in the world knows, that will never be answered because, you and I know these criminals are not going to leave any lose ends undone.

Now you´re the one contradicting yourself, because all you do and all the other "truthers" do, is claim that there are ALL SORTS OF LOOSE ENDS LYING AROUND EVERYWHERE. And you´re all connecting all those loose ends right?


[edit on 14-11-2009 by rush969]

[edit on 14-11-2009 by rush969]

reply to post by rush969


So why do hundreds of engineers mean the same to you as none of them, yet "thousands" will suddenly make a difference to you? Especially when relying on a popular consensus is a fallacious way of going about informing yourself on scientific debates in the first place.


If you were here on these forums a few years back, you would've been right there with the guys saying "where is even ONE relevant professional that will put their name behind this?" I know you would have been, because you are making essentially the same argument now. You do it simply to make an argument, not because it makes any sense.

reply to post by bsbray11


How CT´s were being discussed some time ago I guess has little to do with what we are discussing here. My stance however hasn´t changed since day one.
And the more I learn about 9/11 and the more I research, I am more convinced every day that terrorist hijackers commandeered those jet liners and crashed them at their targets, and that UA93 passengers avoided the terrorists carrying out their mission.
The only part where I might have some doubt is on the Let it happen theory. But more from negligence and arrogance than letting it happen on purpose.

Now, about the thousands issue, I think it´s obvious that thousands of proffessionals saying we don´t believe your story or we don´t trust you, would have much greater weight than a few hundred.

Originally posted by bsbray11
So why do hundreds of engineers mean the same to you as none of them, yet "thousands" will suddenly make a difference to you? Especially when relying on a popular consensus is a fallacious way of going about informing yourself on scientific debates in the first place.

Personally, regarding the WTC's only, I'd question the "os" if just ONE of those engineers on AE truth, etc had the guts to write a paper and attempt to have it published in a respectable journal, like ASCE's, and had previously silent/neutral SE's suddenly speaking up in support of their technical views, that would presumably attempt to prove that the collapse scenario that NIST gives to be improbable.

No one will though, cuz it would be the end of their career. Structural engineers in particular, and perhaps all engineers, take an oath to adhere to a code of ethics - it states that they should not give false information. There's a reason for this too. A large part of an engineer's job is to make sure that "things" in general are designed safely. From airplanes, to buildings, to cars, to barbeques.

Once an engineer starts making false statements, which would presumably include making false statements against NIST's report, then the very professionalism and reputation of the rest of the body of engineers will be in question from then on. And a storm of useless litigation just might ensue, meaning higher insurance against mistakes from those very engineers, etc. They are trying to avoid this.

That's why when you read AE's list,most of the SE's, IIRC, are either retired, or own their own company, since ANY employer would fire an engineer that gives false witness to satisfy their political views.

Not ONE SE has had the guts to submit a paper. That's very telling.

Originally posted by rush969
How CT´s were being discussed some time ago I guess has little to do with what we are discussing here.

Given that the same knee-jerk, illogical arguments are being made, I don't see any difference at all.

You still haven't told me why 1000's are suddenly more credible than 100's. There is no logic there.

reply to post by Joey Canoli


SE's don't take an "oath." That code of ethics is not an "oath" and all engineers have their own version of it. It is not even legally binding except where the law happens to overlap it, which it often does in the case of building codes and professional engineers signing their name off on final designs, but little more than that. When you sign your name on something, a final design of a product or building, you can be held legally responsible for certain flaws if you missed them. Other than that, all engineers are free to say and do whatever they feel like no different than any other civilian. They are not a special class of people.

Getting a paper published in a journal is not what determines whether or not something is scientifically valid. All of the things that would offer scientific validity have been completely neglected by all investigations so far.

reply to post by rush969

There´s something wrong with the way you read and write.

This thread is not about how impressme reads and writes.

I have noticed you don´t use question marks (?) sometimes.

Who appointed you the grammar police?

So maybe you think I´m asking questions. NO.

Spinning yourself out of your own lie, won’t work with me, you were asking questions.

I´m just giving an answer to the question in the OP.

That is untrue:

Originally posted by rush969
NIST determining that the WTC towers and WTC7 were brought down with the help of explosives somehow.
Boeing coming forward to make public that it didn´t accept the OS.
American Airlines saying same thing.
United Airlines also.
A few thousand engineers, not a few hundred.
A few thousand pilots, not a couple hundred.
A few thousand 9/11 relatives, not a few hundred.
A few thousand military and service personnel.
A few hundred (or maybe just a few individuals) FBI, CIA, agents coming forward to confess, or secretly opening up to big papers like NYT, Wash. post.
Letters, e-mails by the demolition experts delivered to MSM.
Confessions by the perpetrators.
Money transfers or deposits to accounts of those behind it, discovered by private investigators and made public.
Recorded conversations by the perps. before and after, living no doubt that they were not doctored (this would be very hard though).

[edit on 13-11-2009 by rush969]

I will ask you again did you write these questions?

Those are some of the things that would make me believe that 9/11 was an inside job. If they ever happened.

What, that you need thousands of people to tell you that 911 is an inside job?
I only need a few “very creditable experts” in their own field of expertise to convince me.

Picture this! You live on the beach in Florida a Hurricane is coming it is all over the News a hundred different recue workers are coming to your door banging on your door to tell you a real Hurricane is coming. Yet, you won't leave because you are still not convinced there is a storm you won't leave, until a thousand recue workers tell you. Then the storm hits you then it’s too late. This is what you are demonstrating to me, in your questions to me.

I never mentioned Bush and Cheney, did I?

Who were you talking about when you said?

Confessions by the perpetrators.

You impress me, impressme.
I think you are showing your true colors here. Your whole problem lies with Mr. Bush doesn´t it?

I am? No my whole problem does not lie with just Mr Bush.

So you want to pin this on him no matter what.

Unlike you, I am not looking to pin anything on anyone if the evidences points to people in the Bush administration which it does then I am sorry that your ex war president hero, is guilty and most likely of treason, amongst other things.

Now you´re the one contradicting yourself, because all you do and all the other "truthers" do, is claim that there are ALL SORTS OF LOOSE ENDS

Your so clever, those “loose ends” that you are crying about don’t exist however, their lies do, and they contradict each other. There are mountains of Press release and videos of these lies. Many of us have spent years examining these statements, or lies and compared them with the NIST and 911 commission reports and FEMA reports and have found hundreds of in-consistency and just outright lies made by people in the Bush administration, FBI, and government scientist. Wouldn’t you agree?







[edit on 14-11-2009 by impressme]

Originally posted by bsbray11
That code of ethics is not an "oath" and all engineers have their own version of it.

Thx for the correction.

But it shows that my points were correct. They have a professional reputation to protect. And they generally won't tolerate bs from their ranks.

Getting a paper published in a journal is not what determines whether or not something is scientifically valid.

true.

But even with that, none of the AE guys will even try.

What does that tell you?

Your prime example you once gave me of the type of professionals at AE was Charles Pegelow. He proposed that nukes were used at the WTC.

Enough said.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Thx for the correction.

But it shows that my points were correct. They have a professional reputation to protect. And they generally won't tolerate bs from their ranks.

Yes, this is coming from someone who obviously speaks from experience about this "oath."

Engineers have as much professional reputation to protect as journalists, police officers, and politicians.

But even with that, none of the AE guys will even try.

What does that tell you?

Not a whole lot, because I'm not trying to get a paper published, either, but I am still well aware of the issues and where the problems with the technical aspects of the official story are. I am still not concerned with proving an alternative theory beyond a shadow of a doubt. I only concerned with the people who refuse to see what a crap job government agencies have already handed us. If you want to debunk something, they handed it to you on a silver platter. You just refuse to look in that direction. Was NIST's report peer reviewed? No.

Your prime example you once gave me of the type of professionals at AE was Charles Pegelow. He proposed that nukes were used at the WTC.

Enough said.

Yes, because now you're a modern nuclear bomb expert too. When was the last time you were at Los Alamos, or at any of the off-limits underground military testing sites out west? Charles Pegelow still knows structural engineering and physics in general better than you do anyway considering it's his profession that he's been doing for decades for very expensive projects, so he's not a complete nut job, and I still have more respect for his opinions than I do for yours.

[edit on 14-11-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
Engineers have as much professional reputation to protect as journalists, police officers, and politicians.

Meaning what?

Not a whole lot, because I'm not trying to get a paper published, either,

So in your opinion, do you think that challenging NIST on the technical aspects to be irrelevant? Where else should the TM begin, if not there? Personal incredulity ain't gonna cut it.

I am still not concerned with proving an alternative theory beyond a shadow of a doubt.

No one really needs to. The TM needs to put doubt about the NIST report into SE's heads. That would be a beginning. No one has really tried by taking the tack I suggested. Do you think that posting on an internet board will get 'er done?

Was NIST's report peer reviewed? No.

Of course it wasn't, for it wasn't a journal article, but a report.

Has the NIST been critiqued and criticized since it was published? Yes.

Has that changed the "os" from planes>structural damage> fires>collapse? No. Critiques and criticisms from anyone that matters have agreed with the above general events as being the cause of collapse.

When was the last time you were at Los Alamos, or at any of the off-limits underground military testing sites out west?

When was he?

Charles Pegelow still knows structural engineering and physics in general better than you do anyway considering it's his profession that he's been doing for decades for very expensive projects

IIRC, he's now managing a miniature golf course.

so he's not a complete nut job,

Yes, he is.

Again...THESE ARE NOT QUESTIONS...OK?

Originally posted by rush969
NIST determining that the WTC towers and WTC7 were brought down with the help of explosives somehow.
Boeing coming forward to make public that it didn´t accept the OS.
American Airlines saying same thing.
United Airlines also.
A few thousand engineers, not a few hundred.
A few thousand pilots, not a couple hundred.
A few thousand 9/11 relatives, not a few hundred.
A few thousand military and service personnel.
A few hundred (or maybe just a few individuals) FBI, CIA, agents coming forward to confess, or secretly opening up to big papers like NYT, Wash. post.
Letters, e-mails by the demolition experts delivered to MSM.
Confessions by the perpetrators.
Money transfers or deposits to accounts of those behind it, discovered by private investigators and made public.
Recorded conversations by the perps. before and after, living no doubt that they were not doctored (this would be very hard though).

[edit on 13-11-2009 by rush969]

These are things that, if they were to happen would make me believe in the possibility of 9/11 being and inside job. OK?

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by rush969

 

Who were you talking about when you said?

Confessions by the perpetrators.

I meant, confessions by the perpetrators, whom ever they might be.

[edit on 14-11-2009 by rush969]

Originally posted by Swing Dangler

Please respond to the OP and keep the litter in the trash. Thank you.

I did, actually, but in typical truther fashion Impressive et al., completely ignores it just Like he ignores everything that contradicts what he wants to hear. He simply does not want to believe his conspiracy stories can't be true. Here it is again:

MIT materials engineering professor's report on the wtc collapse

I consider this to be irrefutable because despite all the times I posted it, not one person has been able to refute it. So please, tell me why his report is wrong.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11
Engineers have as much professional reputation to protect as journalists, police officers, and politicians.

Meaning what?

Meaning the world is perfect and everyone always does exactly what they are idealistically supposed to in this perfect world, without exception, of course.

So in your opinion, do you think that challenging NIST on the technical aspects to be irrelevant? Where else should the TM begin, if not there? Personal incredulity ain't gonna cut it.

Getting a paper into a journal isn't "gonna cut it," either. There have already been papers in journals and you guys just pull the goal posts back further like you always do. First you want one thing, then you get it, then you want more. You don't want to know the truth, you want to be right. There will never be any changing that and you know it.

No one really needs to. The TM needs to put doubt about the NIST report into SE's heads.

The relevance of structural engineers here is being extremely over-emphasized. I notice you are apparently not familiar with the technical fields yourself, but CE's and SE's only work with static systems. Metallurgists would be more relevant to the study of heating steel to deformation or those types of things. Dynamicists are needed to analyze moving, chaotic systems. The only motions a CE or SE will commonly study are things like simple machines, basically mechanical engineering.

Do you think that posting on an internet board will get 'er done?

The internet has been wonderful for allowing free exchange of information, yes.

Critiques and criticisms from anyone that matters have agreed with the above general events as being the cause of collapse.

It's a real shame that you don't get to decide who matters and who doesn't for anyone other than yourself. Or is that a blessing?

When was the last time you were at Los Alamos, or at any of the off-limits underground military testing sites out west?

When was he?

Right, so you are both equally ignorant on that particular subject.

IIRC, he's now managing a miniature golf course.

More power to him. That doesn't take away from the profession he practiced for so many years.

so he's not a complete nut job,

Yes, he is.

If you are seriously going to tell me that a man who obviously knows more about how structures behave than you do is a complete nut job, then you might as well stop trying to tell me any damned thing about any building.

Originally posted by bsbray11

If you were here on these forums a few years back, you would've been right there with the guys saying "where is even ONE relevant professional that will put their name behind this?" I know you would have been, because you are making essentially the same argument now. You do it simply to make an argument, not because it makes any sense.

In that light, why did even ONE doctorate of physics put her name on the idea that the towers were destroyed by Lasers from outer space (namely, Dr. Judy Wood)? I'm presuming you're in agreement that is a pretty goofball idea.

The answer for both should be the same: such people are putting their own personal bias over and above their professional training. Knowledge is not the same thing as wisdom.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
In that light, why did even ONE doctorate of physics put her name on the idea that the towers were destroyed by Lasers from outer space (namely, Dr. Judy Wood)? I'm presuming you're in agreement that is a pretty goofball idea.

Yes but not just because it sounds "goofball." I actually legitimately investigated what she was saying, which is more than you could say, I'm sure.

Another thing to remember is that I'm not the one claiming that proof of statement x relies on y number of people supporting it, no matter what side of any imaginary fence they are sitting on.

The answer for both should be the same: such people are putting their own personal bias over and above their professional training. Knowledge is not the same thing as wisdom.

Right, and I agree completely. People have opinions and use their knowledge to justify their opinions. Which is ass-backwards.

"MIT materials engineering professor's report on the wtc collapse

I consider this to be irrefutable because despite all the times I posted it, not one person has been able to refute it. So please, tell me why his report is wrong."

This is what is wrong with his report. The report states:

"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."

What exactly are 90,000 L gallons? Is it litres or gallons? It cannot be both. This report was obviously written by an individual who either does not know the difference between litres and gallons or by someone who does not know how to proofread. But, of course, we are to assume he knows how the buildings collapsed?

The report goes on to state:

"Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC..."

90,000 Litres of jet fuel equals approximately 23,775 gallons. Why would there be 23,775 gallons of fuel on an airplane traveling cross country, a trip which only requires approximately 9,000 gallons, according to the following story? Are airlines in the business of overloading their planes with fuel and wasting more fuel due to the increased weight this causes?

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Secondly, the absurd 90,000 litre estimate does not take into account the approximate one hour flying time the plane was in the air prior to impact with the building.

90,000 litres is the maximum fuel capacity for a 767

www.boeing.com...

It would only have this amount of fuel prior to taking off, not after one hour of flight. Even an idiot could figure this one out.

Finally, how about the fuel which exploded outside of the building? I think we have all seen videos of this massive fireball. If all that fuel exploded outside of the building, how can there still be 90,000 litres of fuel on a few floors of the WTC?

In conclusion, this report was written by a moron. If he cannot even get the correct quantity of fuel involved, how can he even begin to theorize about how the building collapsed? If you're going to try and pull the wool over people's eyes, at least get your damn facts straight!








[edit on 15-11-2009 by SphinxMontreal]

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


The fuel amounts Eager assumed were present on the floors after impact were also contradicted by NIST, as was Eager's general collapse mechanism.

Anyone who says they have yet to see his work refuted, has yet to even understand it themselves.

reply to post by rush969

Who were you talking about when you said?

Confessions by the perpetrators.

I meant, confessions by the perpetrators, whom ever they might be.

[edit on 14-11-2009 by rush969]

And would that include Bush & Cheney?