The OS is Nonsense, but the Truth is Irrelevant

Simple fact:

There is not enough evidence in existence on this planet to confirm or deny any version of the events of September 11, 2001. Tons upon tons of evidence was destroyed within days of the crime, any physical evidence that remains has such a murky chain of possession that no one need take scientific analysis of said evidence seriously.

Certainly we have videos and physics which suggest that something extraordinary happened in taking down the buildings. My *belief* is that the destruction was expedited by explosives inside the towers. This can not, however, be proven beyond all doubt. Therefore arguing about it is counterproductive in the extreme.

Here's the thing: considering the impossibility of true irrefutable clarity as to the events of 9/11, we should collectively turn to the one thing we can legitimately examine. That is, of course, the US Government's reaction to these events. Every year that people waste resources chasing ghosts and worshipping circumstantial evidence is another year when the actions taken in the wake of this event get more and more codified as History rather than policy.

Consider the Patriot Act. The invasion of Iraq. Warrantless wiretapping. These are real and provable acts, some of them blatantly illegal. The perpetrators of 9/11 will never be brought to justice. The entire event was designed to pave the road to actions which can be examined. The entire event was also designed to distract a large and inquisitive sector of the polulace for an extended period of time.

The operation was a complete clusterfornication with so many inconsistencies, coincidences and general pieces of bat-guano weirdness on purpose. It helped insure that many accomplices had no idea what they were doing, enabled knowledgable key players (whoever planted any theoretical explosives) to be quietly disappeared, and lead to decades of confusion.

Sound familiar?

JFK anyone?

If TPTB want something to go off without a hitch it does. If it's screwed up beyond all recognition it's a smoke screen.

We will NEVER EVER know the truth about that day, it's a physical impossibility.

We CAN, however, demand that the people who perpetrated crimes against the American people and all of humanity in the wake of this travesty are subpoenaed and tried in a public forum.

[edit on 16-2-2010 by RobertAntonWeishaupt]

[edit on 16-2-2010 by RobertAntonWeishaupt]

let me quote another ATS Member when i say

Here, let me take that stick away from you, the horse has been dead for some time.

im pretty sure we CAN know the truth, when someone comes out and mans up

[edit on 2/16/2010 by l neXus l]

reply to post by l neXus l


Agreed. Kind of the point of my post. Ultimately, it would be nice if both sides simply admitted that science is not definitively on their side and focused the insane amount of time they spend on the subject focusing on improving life in this country.

Alas, it is not to be.

I agree with you that the focus should shift to tangible actions that are already in the public record. I think this is occurring but is running up against the same wall 9/11 investigators ran up against. One day the power will go off and people will not be connected to their boob tube. When that day occurs then maybe people will think for themselves and demand a change from the lie of a society that has been created in their own name.

reply to post by RobertAntonWeishaupt

There is not enough evidence in existence on this planet to confirm or deny any version of the events of September 11, 2001

The official story seems to be doing pretty well in that regard. Or are you just ignoring their evidence?

Tons upon tons of evidence was destroyed within days of the crime, any physical evidence that remains has such a murky chain of possession that no one need take scientific analysis of said evidence seriously.

What was destroyed? Paint chips are not taken seriously, no.

Certainly we have videos and physics which suggest that something extraordinary happened in taking down the buildings

Indeed we do, a rather large plane traveling pretty fast, hitting a building, dislodging fireproofing, burning for an hour causing the top portion above the crash site to fall and crush the remaining structure.

My *belief* is that the destruction was expedited by explosives inside the towers. This can not, however, be proven beyond all doubt

I believe,but cannot prove, that Mike Tyson's superclone punched out all of the columns, but you can't disprove it. See the similarity?

some of them blatantly illegal

Orly?

The perpetrators of 9/11 will never be brought to justice

Accused 9/11 Plotter Khalid Shake Mohammed faces New York trial

If TPTB want something to go off without a hitch it does. If it's screwed up beyond all recognition it's a smoke screen.

The NWO did 9/11 and allowed themselves to be caught so they could distract you from something else...? I'll take your word for it.

Every year that people waste resources chasing ghosts and worshipping circumstantial evidence is another year when the actions taken in the wake of this event get more and more codified as History rather than policy.

reply to post by RobertAntonWeishaupt


Disagree.

Determing what really happens goes a long way toward proving intent with regards to the government.

If the intent was to protect Americans, i.e. in the wake of a terrorist attack, then perhaps the government's actions can be understood as justifiable.

If the intent was to gain a reason for warmongering, then the subsequent government actions are seen in a totally different light.

reply to post by Whyhi


Whyhi,

The version of the story that one chooses to believe is determined by the number of "Yeah, buts . . . " they are willing to tolerate. Much of the OS is based on assumptions of how the collapses could have happened if they were caused only by the planes' impacts.

List for me three pieces of irrefutable scientific evidence for the collapse as depicted in the OS. And yes, I have read the Popular Mechanics book. It is thorough but based on quite a bit of supposition. Too many yeah buts for my personal tastes, so give me three ironclad pieces of scientific evidence.

Better yet, go back to the recent 9/11 questions post and debunk ALL of the questions there, not just the two or three ill-advised strawmen.

I am please to see that Khalid is going to trial, but there is too much else going on in this story (that you mark up to coincidence, I understand) for me to know that this wasn't (at least partially) an inside job.

Your suggestion that two signficantly different pieces of asymetrical damage to two identical building would cause them to fall in identical manners is highly suspect and inconsistent with the laws of physics. Your earlier assertion that the Twin Towers "fell on" WTC 7 is so laughably absurd that your every remark is highly suspect.

Speaking of suspect semantic tactics, your implication that I believe that 9-11 was staged to distract me specifically is absurd. What I said was that it was designed, in part, to distract people prone to conspiracy theory thinking and general dot-connecting. By suggesting otherwise, you attempt to suggest either delusions of grandeur or paranoia on my part. I suffer from neither.

[edit on 16-2-2010 by RobertAntonWeishaupt]

Originally posted by Whyhi
reply to post by RobertAntonWeishaupt

 

some of them blatantly illegal

Orly?

Wars of aggression are illegal according to international law. Without a direct connection to the attack on our home soil or the a viable threat in the form of WMDs, our invasion of Iraq was an unprovoked war of aggression.

Warrantless wiretapping is illegal. John Yoo can write all the tortured legally reasoning he wants. It does not change the fundamental rights of citizens in our society.

reply to post by RobertAntonWeishaupt

The version of the story that one chooses to believe is determined by the number of "Yeah, buts . . . " they are willing to tolerate

Such as? What are we taking based on faith?

Much of the OS is based on assumptions of how the collapses could have happened if they were caused only by the planes' impacts.

The NIST reports are based on assumptions?

List for me three pieces of irrefutable scientific evidence for the collapse as depicted in the OS

For the structural system such as WTC, the energy required to arrest the collapse after a drop of only one or several stories would have to be an order of magnitude higher than the energy dissipation capacity of the structural system used in WTC - Link

In this way it is hoped to decide if the observed collapse events could have occurred without the help of explosives or, indeed, without any input from other external sources of energy. - Link

Global Structural Analysis and of the Response of the World Trade Center Towers to Impact Damage and Fire

Frequently Asked Questions

Just for kicks: Ryan Mackey VS David Ray Griffin

Your suggestion that two signficantly different pieces of asymetrical damage to two identical building would cause them to fall in identical manners is highly suspect and inconsistent with the laws of physics.

They both collapsed relatively in the same way, as in the portion of top fell through the remaining structure. They both suffered plane crashes that has the same effects on the building. Objects with sufficient energy to crush the object below it is consistent with physics.

To not sound like I'm making assumptions and whatnot, how were the buildings supposed to fall?

Speaking of suspect semantic tactics, your implication that I believe that 9-11 was staged to distract me specifically is absurd

I'm using Jewish tactics...? And yes, I either read your sentence wrong or you changed it, either way, my fault.

[edit on 16-2-2010 by Whyhi]

Originally posted by Whyhi
reply to post by RobertAntonWeishaupt

 

For the structural system such as WTC, the energy required to arrest the collapse after a drop of only one or several stories would have to be an order of magnitude higher than the energy dissipation capacity of the structural system used in WTC - Link

In this way it is hoped to decide if the observed collapse events could have occurred without the help of explosives or, indeed, without any input from other external sources of energy. - Link


[edit on 16-2-2010 by Whyhi]

When it comes to demonstrating the futility of continued debate, the key phrase here is "could have occurred without the help of explosives" The entire NIST report is based not on determining what actually happened but proving that the official story COULD HAVE happened.

Admittedly, the Truther movement is partially responsible for this low standard of evidence, as early on they made the mistake of declaring the OS to be IMPOSSIBLE (which, admittedly, it is not) rather than UNLIKELY, which (if you consider the perfect storm of circumstances needed to have both towers come down in the manner that they did) it is.

Language once again defined the argument. The CTs incorrectly used absolute objective language (i.e. "Impossible") and therefore had the letter of their claims, if not the spirit, easily refuted. Meanwhile the debunkers and trusters used entirely subjective language (calling alternative theories "ridiculous" or "crazy") which could only be discounted by ABSOLUTE proof of said theories.

In short, the OS only needed to be proven possible. Any contesting version of events needed to be proven absolutely. Hardly a fair fight.

The Truthers lost this argument from the opening salvos. Not because they were wrong, but because they gave the government, etc the opportunity to bypass their claims through a semantic loophole.

In the meantime, the evidence trail has dissipated off into the realm of speculation.

I will not continue debating this matter, as it goes against the spirit of my original post, I did want to make clear, that your evidence is just as suspect as any Truther's (with the exception of the hologram disinfo nutjobs).

[edit on 17-2-2010 by RobertAntonWeishaupt]

reply to post by RobertAntonWeishaupt


The phrase "could have occurred without the help of explosives" is be used the context of a question, they are not saying "it probably occurred" "may have occurred". They are asking a question, their answer was yes, it is possible for buildings to act that way.

I'm not sure how you thought of taking that out of context to make them sound like they are just speculating...

Originally posted by Whyhi
reply to post by RobertAntonWeishaupt

 

The phrase "could have occurred without the help of explosives" is be used the context of a question, they are not saying "it probably occurred" "may have occurred". They are asking a question, their answer was yes, it is possible for buildings to act that way.

I'm not sure how you thought of taking that out of context to make them sound like they are just speculating...

THANK YOU!

We can agree, then, that the NIST results have been taken out of context to by supporters of the OS. The report simply says that it is POSSIBLE for the buildings to act that way. Supporters of the OS point to this report as if it says the buildings DID act that way.

My original point that there is insufficient evidence to determine what ACTUALLY happened (as opposed to what COULD HAVE happened) still stands.

This can not, however, be proven beyond all doubt. Therefore arguing about it is counterproductive in the extreme.

Here's the thing: considering the impossibility of true irrefutable clarity as to the events of 9/11, we should collectively turn to the one thing we can legitimately examine. That is, of course, the US Government's reaction to these events. Every year that people waste resources chasing ghosts and worshipping circumstantial evidence is another year when the actions taken in the wake of this event get more and more codified as History rather than policy.

I think just having accurate knowledge of the distribution of mass of that building would PROVE that it could not have collapsed in that time just on the basis of the conservation of momentum.

This shows that just changing the distribution of mass of 4 consecutive masses dropped from 64 feet without structural supports needing to be broken significantly changes the collapse time.

www.thenakedscientists.com...

But after EIGHT YEARS our engineering schools have made themselves accomplices after the fact in this event. How do we teach physics for the next 1000 years. How are we supposed to believe these people can design skyscrapers? But they have to be able to do it because a new one was just completed recently.

www.youtube.com...

Our engineering schools are participating in bull#ting us. What kind of people have to make the decisions to build and finance these things after all? But this is grade school physics and they MUST hold themselves up. So why is it so hard to specify the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the WTC. Curiously I haven't been able to find that kind of information ON ANY SKYSCRAPER. Of course if it weren't for the WTC I would not give a damn.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


An excellent specific example of how there is insufficient evidence. Logic and reason clearly suggest that there are too many things that would have needed to happen just so for the towers to come down in the manner that they did. Add to that the fact that they fell identically despite sustaining different structural hits, it is clear that something odd went down.

You are absolutely correct that rock solid data on the mass involved in the fall would help to create more accurate models and would (in my opinion) confirm that there needed to be some sort of additional compromise of the support structures for events to unfold in the manner that they did.

And even if you were to take a look at the blueprints and manually calculate the weight of the empty building based on design and materials, the OS Believers will whip out the "Yeah but . . . "

There were tons of new antennae and broadcast equipment placed on top of the buildings since their constuction, there was how many tons of office equipment, papers, people and furniture on those floors? Your number can never be accurate enough for those who do not wish to believe your particular view.

Meanwhile the government keeps sending billions of our tax dollars overseas, destroys our standing in the world, threatens to strip us of our rights and we sit idly by trying to figure out the mechanics of what happened one day 9 years ago, rather than paying attention to the machinations that have gone on behind the scenes every day since.

reply to post by RobertAntonWeishaupt

The OS is Nonsense, but the Truth is Irrelevant

Simple fact:

There is not enough evidence in existence on this planet to confirm or deny any version of the events of September 11, 2001. Tons upon tons of evidence was destroyed within days of the crime, any physical evidence that remains has such a murky chain of possession that no one need take scientific analysis of said evidence seriously.

There is not an ounce of provable evidence that God exists yet, it is religion and the following of God that has, arguably, been the primary motivator of human civilization, including (but not limited to) countless wars, revolutions and even invention.

So, true, it really does not matter exactly what the evidence is. It only matters how many people believe in it. It won't matter a single whit what the OS says IF the mass of the people don't believe in it.

Gods and governments require followers because without that following, neither will stand for much for very long.

It is all as relative... as it is representative.

9.11 was likely constructed to unite a nation under a belief that it had been attacked from without. But, in an ultimate twist of irony, it may be the truth that it was an attack from within, that finally, truly bonds us.

It all matters... even if it doesn't.



[edit on 22-2-2010 by redoubt]

you tell that to the honest hard working Americans who perished that day. and to all the people who relied on them coming home, and all the children who are missing a parent. the OS is BS and we have the trial of the millinum to attend. there is not a place on earth you can hide from the long arms of the American People seeking Justice...


[edit on 22-2-2010 by Anti-Evil]