911 OS Debate Facts, Bring sources, not Opinions

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Sorry, but that's how people without an agenda evaluate stuff.

Sorry, but it is the other way around when it comes to 9/11 and the US government.

The people with the agenda (US government) did the evaluation of the "stuff" or ignored it all together (John Gross--ignored molten metal, Nist--ignored explosions heard by people, NIST--didn't even pick up a single piece of WTC 7 to evaluate , etc.).

reply to post by Nutter


If 130 dB is a jackhammer then this explosion alone is DEFINITELY louder than 130 dB:



Which is already at least hundreds of feet away from the source of the sound. I doubt you would even be able to hear a jackhammer from the WTC site from the location of this video, and I question if a jetliner from that distance would even be THAT loud.

Reporters were reporting explosions like that through the evening in about 20 minute intervals until WTC7 finally free-fell into itself. They even registered on seismographs FEMA included in their report, and FEMA labeled as "subsequent collapses" even after both towers had already came down.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Save your weak excuses for someone who's more gullible. I have plenty of reason to believe from all I have seen that the sounds of explosions themselves are not the only evidence.

And yet, when asked, they are the only evidence you have produced.

They are only the most freaking obvious evidence that people such as yourself have even denied the existence of for years.

People like me? I thought you were the one who didn't like it when people got lumped together? You've even - laughably - described it as similar to racism. So don't do it, please. Or, you know, people might think you're a bit of a hypocrite.

But that aside, let's have the other evidence.

None of which have supporting evidence for the explosions I am talking about. Bodies falling made noises but not the noises I am talking about.

What is the character of the sounds you are talking about? You are unable to provide any meaningful scientific analysis of them, beyond "people heard them". You have no evidence apart from some muffled recordings and the reports of panicked witnesses. You say that these are too loud to be what I've described, but you have no concrete evidence of that whatsoever.

I said a good reason to DOUBT that they were explosives/bombs, not all the other various possibilities you can muster up that have even less evidence going for them than explosives/bombs do.

That there were other sources of explosions IS good evidence to doubt they were bombs.

A terrified layman witness hears a loud bang as a transformer explodes. Explain to me (and here I repeat my question of earlier) how they would discern the difference - and how you would then do it at second hand - between that and the sound a bomb makes?

The only reason you say these are likely but bombs aren't, is because you're extremely biased to the point of coming on here and arguing with me on a daily basis.

And the only reason you say they are bombs is because you are biased in the opposite direction.

I come here and try to spread awareness on a daily basis using people such as yourself to provide the would-be counter-arguments because I am convinced 9/11 was an inside job and so I feel I have a personal responsibility as a citizen, just like any citizen, to bring attention to this. The only reason I can think of for YOU coming to continually argue with "conspiracy theorists" is because you really do have a vested emotional stake in this that is totally unrelated to vigilance. There are studies about your kind of addiction and it relates to endorphins being released in your head when you reinforce your political beliefs against opposing views. So if you want to talk about an agenda, look no further than yourself and this addiction you have to arguing with people like me here.

You've revealed your agenda. You have no idea what mine is, so you're just guessing.

Though I am not going to complain because I would rather this information be re-hashed a million times than have a thousand extra people completely unaware of any of it.

What a soldier.

If you recall, I originally asked YOU what proof you had that these could not be explosives/bombs, and you have STILL not posted it.

If you remember, I replied that they could be. It's just that the balance of probabilities makes it very, very unlikely.

You won't find definitive proof that they are NOT bombs. But as I've said before, you set your evidential standards deliberately and absurdly high for a reason.

I have been waiting for 8 years now for the people that believe the official story to post any real, physical evidence or official FBI reports.

I am waiting for the following evidence.

1. Actual photo w/proper sources of AA77 hitting the Pentagon.

2. Actual video w/proper sources of AA77 hitting the Pentagon.

3. An officil FBI report matching any parts found to any of the planes, including FDRs and CVRs.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
A terrified layman witness hears a loud bang as a transformer explodes. Explain to me (and here I repeat my question of earlier) how they would discern the difference - and how you would then do it at second hand - between that and the sound a bomb makes?

So, you agree with us that NIST is full of it then when they state that it had to be 130db?

Originally posted by REMISNE
I have been waiting for 8 years now for the people that believe the official story to post any real, physical evidence or official FBI reports.

I am waiting for the following evidence.

1. Actual photo w/proper sources of AA77 hitting the Pentagon.

2. Actual video w/proper sources of AA77 hitting the Pentagon.

3. An officil FBI report matching any parts found to any of the planes, including FDRs and CVRs.

So let me get this straight. If an FBI agents stands before a news conference and says "Flight 77 struck the Pentagon at 9:50AM on September 11, 2001" (and before you start I know that probably isn't the right time but I don't feel like looking it up right now) you don't believe him even though he just made the statement in front of millions of eye witnesses, but for some reason if writes the same thing down on a piece of paper and calls it an "FBI Report" now you believe it?

Do you also dismiss as fabrication any event for which there is no video or photographic evidence?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
And yet, when asked, they are the only evidence you have produced.

Ok then, item #2 is there is no other logical explanation to how so much structure was compromised so quickly. I would love to talk about NIST's reports. Maybe you can start with showing me how they proved their "sagging trusses effectively got heavier somehow and pulled most of the perimeter columns in too far" hypothesis. It damn sure wasn't by recreating the hypothetical event in a lab, even though they built a truss/perimeter replica and set it on fire anyway, with megawatt burners equivalent to scores of wood stoves' heat output within a living room-sized area, to calibrate computer modeling that they then relied on exclusively (and openly admitted to adjusting variables until they got their desired result, to meet their pre-conceived hypothesis). Maybe the fact that that same replica completely failed to do what they said it should was the reason they never bothered to physically and specifically test their hypothesis?

People like me? I thought you were the one who didn't like it when people got lumped together? You've even - laughably - described it as similar to racism. So don't do it, please. Or, you know, people might think you're a bit of a hypocrite.

So are you going to tell me that you've known all this time that explosions were rampant in Manhattan that morning, and never disputed it?

Yes, people like you, that continually and zealously defend the government reports as if you personally wrote them and if they're wrong someone's going to kill your mother. What I have a problem with is the word "truther" which is obviously used derogatively towards people who don't use it themselves and didn't come up with, just like "birther" is being used now. Pretty soon we're going to have a bunch of cute little insults that will excuse people from thinking about anything unpleasant. I don't deny that I still have more similarities with the people you are arguing with, generally, than I do with you, and so you have more similarities with the people I argue with, generally. And for years the people I would argue with would ask, "where are the explosions we should be hearing if there were bombs?!"

What is the character of the sounds you are talking about? You are unable to provide any meaningful scientific analysis of them, beyond "people heard them".

I posted a video above for one thing, so you can hear it yourself, and I heard it myself. I have also heard other explosions in other videos.

Secondly, the witnesses themselves describe these blasts and many of them qualify their testimony by saying they sounded exactly like bombs or "secondary devices" or etc. going off.

Thirdly. And most interesting to me, personally. You are always trying to put me on the defensive. This thread, the OP, is "911 OS Debate Facts, Bring sources, not Opinions." You guys are REALLY GOOD at avoiding posting ANY evidence to support your own beliefs. You just automatically assume they are already proven and correct. That is the whole fallacy. That is why there is this thread asking you to please post this evidence. Constantly putting me on the defensive, though I can take it, is avoiding the challenge presented by the OP. 11 pages and counting and still nothing from you guys. You haven't brought up NIST, the 9/11 Commission, FEMA, none of that. Why? Because you KNOW it's garbage? Or because you just aren't familiar enough with them to know exactly what evidence they have off hand? Either way it's not looking good for you already, is it?

You have no evidence apart from some muffled recordings and the reports of panicked witnesses. You say that these are too loud to be what I've described, but you have no concrete evidence of that whatsoever.

Every damned time I ask you for evidence of something (ie that the explosions weren't caused by explosives/bombs, etc.), you claim I don't have evidence to the contrary, and pretend that is positive evidence. And then you try to spin it around and make ME have to prove all of my statements positively while you still have not proven your own. PLEASE stop deflecting like that or I am going to start saying my proof that they were bombs is in the fact that you can't refute that, either, and you have already admitted as much so don't back-track on that now like some slippery weasel that can't make its mind up or I'll just start posting your contradictions right next to each other, too.

Then you ask for evidence that these were actually caused by bombs/explosives, I start laying out evidence (witness testimonies, recordings of sounds that must be over 130 dB since they are obviously louder than a jackhammer would be from that distance, etc.), and you start discrediting all the witnesses by saying they were panicked, dismissing the video above out of hand, etc. Great work man.

I would say you have absolutely no positive evidence that these witnesses were confused about a traumatic, explosive event that just happened right in front of their faces, either, but then you would probably just say I don't have evidence to the contrary ( ) and go about your business continuing to believe the same nonsense. "You can't prove me wrong" is NOT a logical answer to me asking YOU for evidence, neither is trying every single time to somehow put the burden back on me for a simple request for YOU to prove something. That's what this whole thread is about! The burden is on YOU for once to actually establish what you have blindly assumed to be true from day 1! And all you are showing me is that you are completely incapable of even handling a debate that goes in THAT direction.

I said a good reason to DOUBT that they were explosives/bombs, not all the other various possibilities you can muster up that have even less evidence going for them than explosives/bombs do.

That there were other sources of explosions IS good evidence to doubt they were bombs.

No, for two reasons anyone should be able to instantly grasp.

1) Just because you have multiple possibilities, doesn't mean any of them automatically negate any of the others. That you think this is the case, again, bias. Bias = bad. No bias!

2) There IS evidence (witness testimonies, recordings, FBI statements that morning) that positively suggests the explosions WERE caused by explosives/bombs. There is NO such evidence for electrical generators, etc. causing the same events.

Just because you imagined up other possibilities, especially when you have NOTHING to show they actually happened, doesn't mean squat except you have a good imagination. And I don't know if I would even say that because I've heard the same assertions for years (not at all original and I'm sure you automatically picked it up from someone else) and still no one has shown me evidence of a single electrical fire, and when a generator blows, believe me, someone is definitely going to notice that. It produces a massively hot fire, but realistically any situation in the towers would have CUT power by creating an open circuit, instead of a short which is what causes electrical generators to explode. But it doesn't matter because you have no evidence of such a thing to begin with.

A terrified layman witness hears a loud bang as a transformer explodes.

From a short-circuit introducing a massive amount of current and overloading the transformer. That's how they explode. Can you tell me how exactly a plane hitting a building or fire can cause that? Severing cables causes an OPEN CIRCUIT, not a short. No one ever told you that? Know what a "breaker" is?

Not even going to ask you for the evidence of such a thing happening since we both already know there is none.

Explain to me (and here I repeat my question of earlier) how they would discern the difference - and how you would then do it at second hand - between that and the sound a bomb makes?

1) There were numerous explosions throughout the course of the day, reported by many people.

2) They occurred all over the buildings, in places where there was no fire or impact damage.

3) The first reported explosions coincided with the plane impacts but happened in the basement.

4) Codes require circuit breakers which prevent these things from happening in the first place. Unless you are going to assume that the breakers also coincidentally failed in the basement at the same time, and somehow an open circuit created way up in the building caused a current overload in the basement. Would love to see how you've worked that one out.

5) First responders specifically reported finding explosives in a nearby vehicle (an NYPD radio recording features this), firemen say there is a "secondary device," the FBI reports it live on TV to MSM, etc.

You've revealed your agenda. You have no idea what mine is, so you're just guessing.

Enlighten me.

If you remember, I replied that they could be. It's just that the balance of probabilities makes it very, very unlikely.

"The balance of probabilities" stemming simply from your ability to imagine other possibilities, though they have absolutely no supporting evidence and don't even make sense? That's what sways you?

You won't find definitive proof that they are NOT bombs. But as I've said before, you set your evidential standards deliberately and absurdly high for a reason.

It's your own burden that's absurdly high. Explosives/bombs are the ONLY excuse given by people there that day to explain these explosions, besides the people that were jumping (which is obviously separate). You completely ignore this to go with some vague collection of possibilities that have NO evidence at all.

reply to post by bsbray11


As there is no evidence of explosives other than noise of unknown source, I must conclude that no explosives were used. What would you conclude, based on the evidence at hand?

Originally posted by pteridine
As there is no evidence of explosives other than noise of unknown source, I must conclude that no explosives were used.

Noise of an "unknown source," that is an obvious explosion, forces you to conclude that no explosives were used.

That is sheer genius man. You know, I'm not even going to argue with that one. Your reasoning here is flawless. Great job.

reply to post by bsbray11


How would you discern the difference between, for example, a falling object loudly striking the ground and some explosive event?

reply to post by pteridine


How would you?

What are you trying to convince me of, pteridine? That I don't know for sure what was causing these explosions?

NEITHER DO YOU.

reply to post by pteridine

other than noise of unknown source,

Perhaps, you might like to share what these unknown sources could be?

Originally posted by impressme
Perhaps, you might like to share what these unknown sources could be?

Anything but an explosive/bomb, of course. Even though it sounds exactly like something exploded, um, it's clearly not a bomb.


Man, I hope this website is saved for future generations. So they can look back, face-palm at the blatant stupidity of arguments like "we don't know what it was so I must conclude it wasn't explosives," and marvel at this enigma we call "denial."

reply to post by bsbray11


That is correct. So now, if we suspect explosives, we must look for physical evidence of explosives. Speculation and gut feelings don't count.

Was there any evidence of wiring, unburned fuse, spent caps, blasting machines, radio receivers, explosive residue, detcord, or anything else related to demolition found at the WTC or Pentagon? Yes or no?

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by bsbray11

 

That is correct. So now, if we suspect explosives, we must look for physical evidence of explosives. Speculation and gut feelings don't count.

Was there any evidence of wiring, unburned fuse, spent caps, blasting machines, radio receivers, explosive residue, detcord, or anything else related to demolition found at the WTC or Pentagon? Yes or no?

There was evidence of thermite , so that would be a yes

reply to post by Sean48


That is all you have? Jones' thermitic paint paper is not evidence of anything. This has been discussed in many threads. The science is faulty and Jones' own calculations of the energetics in the paper disprove his hypothesis. The estimated ten tons of unburned "highly engineered" thermite hints that a lot of it must have misfired. Maybe it wasn't very engineered after all.
By the way, the paint did not explode and we are discussing explosives.

reply to post by pteridine

That is correct. So now, if we suspect explosives, we must look for physical evidence of explosives. Speculation and gut feelings don't count.

Was there any evidence of wiring, unburned fuse, spent caps, blasting machines, radio receivers, explosive residue, detcord, or anything else related to demolition found at the WTC or Pentagon? Yes or no?

You know there wasn’t anything found because the debris fields were guarded from outsiders and all debris hulled away.

Just because no one was allowed to investigated or allowed to examine any of the debris at all four ground zero events, doesn’t no mean, or prove demolition was not used, don’t you agree?

Originally posted by pteridine
That is correct. So now, if we suspect explosives, we must look for physical evidence of explosives. Speculation and gut feelings don't count.

The same goes for your other explanations. Ie electrical generators exploding and all the other crap.

Was there any evidence of wiring, unburned fuse, spent caps, blasting machines, radio receivers, explosive residue, detcord, or anything else related to demolition found at the WTC or Pentagon? Yes or no?

Neither of us can say because no one looked for it.

Do you have any evidence electrical generators were exploding?

reply to post by pteridine

That is all you have? Jones' thermitic paint paper is not evidence of anything. This has been discussed in many threads. The science is faulty and Jones' own calculations of the energetics in the paper disprove his hypothesis. The estimated ten tons of unburned "highly engineered" thermite hints that a lot of it must have misfired. Maybe it wasn't very engineered after all.
By the way, the paint did not explode and we are discussing explosives.

That is not true, there has never been a sciences paper ever done that has been accepted by the scientific community that Jones work is faulty.

Only you have made these ridiculous claims and your opinions do not count as facts.

Bring on the sources, let’s see what you got?

reply to post by impressme


The scientific community does not consider this a burning question that is worth the time and effort of studying. Bentham Press publications are not considered scientific journals as Bentham is a vanity publisher and their journals are not usually read by scientists. Even the paint samples are of questionable legitimacy.
Essentially, most scientists ignore Jones. I do not. It is not right that he takes advantage of those folks who do not understand what he has done and accept his word at face value.

[edit on 2/4/2010 by pteridine]