Would a new 9/11 investigation really accomplish anything?

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Jezus
No one has proved it is physically possible for the buildings to collapse like that without explosives or some other variable.

NIST showed how.

Would you like to demonstrate this claim, jthomas?

Please note the response that will follow.

Originally posted by jthomas
Incorrect. You do not believe, "...it is physically possible for the buildings to collapse like that without explosives or some other variable."

No where have I stated this, jthomas.

Originally posted by jthomas
It is only your claim that the towers could not come down "without explosives or some other variable."

No where have I stated this or made such a claim, jthomas.

Originally posted by jthomas
Why should anything be included based on your claim about explosives? Support your contention.

Please read my post again. I said I read the paper and from that reading I do not know what you consider is the evidence that proves that "NIST showed how" it is physically possible for the buildings to collapse like that without explosives or some other variable. There were no other contentions in my posts.

Originally posted by jthomas
I am satisfied that the collapse mechanism as explained by NIST of all three towers is valid, not refuted, and does not require explosives to explain it.

And again I am asking what evidence satisfies you that it is explained. If you were to explain further, we could then discuss it and then determine if everything has been covered in the investigation or if everything was not covered in the investigation, which would then mean that a new investigation may accomplish something. Now with you're above statement I could respond that "I am satisfied" or I could respond "I am not satisfied" with absolutely the exact same right as you, and, based on your own behavior, there would be absolutely no requirement for me to explain further. But if and when I do make a contention I will not be afraid to give you the reasons and the details of how I came to such a conclusion. That is what a discussion is all about.

Originally posted by jthomas
If you can explain why "explosives" need to be included, let us know.

And again, no where did I state this. And that's besides the point of this thread, which I think if we examine the existing investigation we could then determine if a new one would accomplish anything.


NOTE TO MODERATORS: I'm writing this note here, as I have never submitted a complaint in the almost three years I've been here, and I do not know the appropriate way to do so. I see a moderator has stepped in to this board so something is wrong. But I would like to point out the post that I'm responding to. If the intent is to clean up this board, I believe one of the things above is to crack down on the behavior demonstrated in this post by jthomas. I welcome any Moderator to review every single post I have ever made on this board in the whole history of of my membership here and see if I have ever made the contentions that jthomas is now saying I am making. 911 is an emotional subject, and if you want to clean up this forum, I believe you should crack down on these blatantly false tactics, as a more emotionally invested poster with much thinner skin than me would obviously crack. I'm not making any accusations, but I have seen this used as a tactic in discussions here before, and this would need to be eradicated as a tactic in order for this board to be cleaned up. Sorry to be a burden, as you most likely have better things to do. Thank you.

Since you feel that way Nicon, I will refrain from responding to your post until your complaint to the moderators is resolved.

Originally posted by jthomas

It is only your claim that the towers could not come down "without explosives or some other variable."

Something is by default false until proven true.

Until evidence proves that it IS physically possible there is no reason to believe it is...

Assuming that that all the variables you are using are automatically all the factors in the explanation may seem logical but it is not scientific.

Re-reading this exchange, NIcon, I see a problem in definitions of just exactly what we are referring to leading us to talk past each other with increasing incredulity on both our parts.

I'll expound on it in detail in the morning when I'm at my desktop and off of this handheld.

BTW, my posts are serious and I am not playing games.


[edit on 8-4-2010 by jthomas]

Originally posted by jthomas
Re-reading this exchange, NIcon, I see a problem in definitions of just exactly what we are referring to leading us to talk past each other with increasing incredulity on both our parts.

In other words you are insisting we are making claims when really we are not, as NIcon showed. Meanwhile you still have not supported your claims.

BTW, my posts are serious and I am not playing games.

If you are genuinely interested in a real discussion now, will you please address this post:

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Jezus
No one has proved it is physically possible for the buildings to collapse like that without explosives or some other variable.

NIST showed how.

Would you like to demonstrate this claim, jthomas?

[edit on 8-4-2010 by bsbray11]

reply to post by jthomas

Well, jthomas, you can do so if you so chose, but I consider this conversation over between you and I. We've met three times on this site, and two of the times were really lousy for me.

The first time we met I had asked Craig Ranke about where he got a certain picture and you came into the thread and accused me of being a CIT lackey, and that I had to prove this, and prove that. Okay...fine..whatever.

The second time we actually had a very decent conversation about the free fall time of WTC 7 which I enjoyed.

And then this third time I ask you about what you believe about the NIST report and I get told by you what I supposedly believe.

So 2 of the 3 times we met, I've found to be very lousy, so I believe there won't be a fourth meeting. I say this with absolutely no ill will towards you, and I will not be putting you on ignore, as I actually enjoy reading some of your posts and actually agree with some of your observations. But as to further discussions with you, I see absolutely no point.

And to the mods reading this, I know this is very off topic and is most likely against the new terms you have instated to clean up the boards, so do as you must, but I felt the need to post this.

Edited: actually to supposedly...


[edit on 8-4-2010 by NIcon]

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by jthomas

 

Well, jthomas, you can do so if you so chose, but I consider this conversation over between you and I. We've met three times on this site, and two of the times were really lousy for me.

That's your choice. It's lousy for me, too.

Nonetheless, in the heat of these discussions, and the frustration of dealing with some who make claims without supporting them, conversations can get derailed on simple misunderstanding of meanings, as I now believe happened here.

You do not need to read further if you do not wish to, but I will explain what I see as happening for the record.

I have been consistent throughout this thread in stating that the NIST investigation demonstrated the collapse mechanisms of the WTC towers without the need to resort to explosives. I have repeatedly stated that in response to others, to wit:

"...no evidence of explosives was ever found and the collapses were explained perfectly straigtforwardly without ever having to bring in things for which no evidence existed like explosives and space beams."
www.abovetopsecret.com...

"You still don't realize that the collapses have been explained without the need to introduce "explosives" as a mechanism and that no evidence of explosives has ever been found."
www.abovetopsecret.com...

"Since no explosives were found, nor needed, it really does not matter. That's not hard to understand."

...

"It doesn't matter if I refer you to the NIST investigation or others who spell out quite clearly why evidence of explosives wasn't there, why explosives were not needed, what demolition experts have said, as well as chemists, structural engineers, physicists, and architects, all of whose material is just as available to you - you'll just say its "speculation" and that "there is no evidence," am I not correct? You just reject it all."
www.abovetopsecret.com...

"2) The collapse mechanism of the towers were explained in the NIST reports. The facts, evidence, and methodology are fully open to anyone to affirm or refute. The collapses were explained without the need to introduce other mechanisms like explosives and space beams."
www.abovetopsecret.com...

"The causes of collapse initiation were fully explained in the NIST report, demonstrating conclusively how and why total collapse was inevitable. No one has demonstrated otherwise. Of course, you are welcome to."
www.abovetopsecret.com...

"Yes, the explanation for collapse initiation is in the NIST Report. Anyone is welcome to refute it."

In addition, I've maintained that no positive evidence for explosives was ever found.

Where I see things went wrong is when Jezus wrote in response to my post:

----

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by jthomas
First, one has to demonstrate a reason and need for another investigation with convincing evidence to refute the data, evidence, and conclusions of the prior investigations. It is not sufficient to claim to "have questions", to claim they are "unanswered", and to claim they are valid without so demonstrating.

No one has proved it is physically possible for the buildings to collapse like that without explosives or some other variable.

That is obviously enough of a reason to have another investigation.

----

That I take as a direct claim that NIST did not demonstrate the collapse mechanism.

To which I responded:

---

"NIST showed how. No one has yet refuted the NIST reports.

"And don't forget that no one has produced any positive evidence for explosives."

---

The problem is the interpretation of phrase I used: "NIST showed how." I used it in the context of what I have consistently said in the thread above: the collapses have been explained without the need to introduce "explosives" as a mechanism and that no evidence of explosives has ever been found."

I believe now that you and others interpreted "NIST showed how" as meaning something different than what I thought, to the effect that, "NIST specially showed in its report how "it is physically possible for the buildings to collapse like that without explosives or some other variable,'" i.e. a specific section in the report about the subject. From that point on, you thought I was evading what you thought I meant, and I was incredulous thinking you didn't understand that NIST's investigations and conclusions did not need to introduce explosives to explain the collapse mechanism.

I think that's what happened. So let me go on the record and answer the question as I now think you meant it. NIST did NOT deal with "explosives" anywhere in the reports on WTC 1 and 2.

I also stick to what I have said all along: no evidence of explosives has been demonstrated and NIST demonstrated the collapse mechanisms without the need to introduce explosives as a mechanism.

If I am correct in my thinking how this conversation went askew, then I take FULL responsibility and apologize for my misinterpretation of what you were saying and asking.

I also restate what I said earlier in this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

"I have no "side" and it is a fallacy to assume so. I have nothing to gain or lose. There is not a skeptic like me that I know who is not 100% for the truth, no matter where it leads. I point out the failings in logic and reasoning, lack of evidence, and unfounded claims of the 9/11 Truth Movement and I ask Truthers to support their claims. I have asked bsbray11 logical and straightforward questions to support the claims he makes (while he strangely insists he does not make the claims he does) to show what Truthers will have to do get to first base if they want a new investigation.

"Remember, the burden of proof lies with those who want to convince some entity for the need for another investigation. I'm trying to get that across to bsbray11 and he doesn't yet understand that trying to shift the burden of proof for his claims to others will not get him a new investigation."

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
Re-reading this exchange, NIcon, I see a problem in definitions of just exactly what we are referring to leading us to talk past each other with increasing incredulity on both our parts.

In other words you are insisting we are making claims when really we are not, as NIcon showed. Meanwhile you still have not supported your claims.

For the record, bsbray11, my response is above.

Now, let me ask you, when are you going to support your claims? Let me remind you of them from this thread:

"No one looked for evidence of explosives. You can repeat "no evidence was found" until the day you die, your point will always be moot. No one even looked."

"this is not addressing the fact that (1) the residue would have been extremely diluted in an air (sic - "settled dust" is the correct term.) sample, and (b) it is NOT an accepted method of testing for explosives,..."

Please provide your sources for your claims. You claim repeatedly that the chemical analysis of the settled dust samples cannot determine if or what explosives would have been used. You say this is not accepted methodology.

I have asked you to demonstrate that the dust tests cannot detect explosive residue as you repeatedly claim. You have stated unequivocally that NO tests for "explosive residue" were done but haven't shown why the dust study to which I referred you would not detect explosive residue. It's a perfectly reasonable request.

reply to post by jthomas


The official story: the steel after being exposed to temperatures up to 2,000 F was softened (significant reduction in tensile yield strength) leading to the collapse. The official 911 reported that there was no evidence of the steel being melted.

Excuse me, but there is. The photomicrographs in Appendix C show irrefutable evidence of the steel being melted. Due to the sulfide and oxide species at the fracture, it was melted under unusual, highly oxidizing conditions. It didn't happen with the ideal gas called atmosphere (21% oxygen only). The microstructure looks identical to those produced in thermite welding.

Why did the metallurgists get it wrong? Well, they didn't. They made a general conclusion of sulfidation and oxidation. Yes, that did happen...at a temperature regime much higher than 2,000 F...more likely 4,000 F (evidence suggesting boiling/vaporization due to the phases that formed) at the fracture surface of an I-beam obtained from WTC 2. Perhaps they were pressured...perhaps they just felt safer. Someone started tracking my internet activity after discussing the details of what I know on the 911 truth on Facebook...and now I'm pissed off at the people who you work for.

What do you have to say? Please argue the details of my assertion. Feel free to attack my credentials and even my character. I'm quite comfortable with who I am.

P.S. I am not asserting what exactly happened nor am I asserting who did it...as a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure the government had nothing to do with it. But, who is the government.

[edit on 8-4-2010 by ibiubu]

Originally posted by ibiubu

The photomicrographs in Appendix C show irrefutable evidence of the steel being melted

No.

What it shows, is that under the conditions seen in the rubble pile - heat, sulfurous fumes, etc - that the steel was turned into a eutectic mixture.

IOW, no longer "steel", but rather a mixture of steel and other elements that result in a lower melting point than what "steel" has.

reply to post by Joey Canoli


You are not correct...anyway, how is steel turned into a eutectic mixture? By melting it. Thanks for further evidence supporting what I said in my post. Now you can get a real job. And you don't know about microstructures I'll bet...anyway, the phase composition, geometry, and distribution within the matrix (which is influenced by the temperature regime) indicate that the eutectic to which you refer is iron sulfide. It's in a form and within a certain phase indicating that the eutectic was not formed in the solid state.

By the way, sulfur is not soluble in steel at 2,000 F and below. Oh, never mind the iron oxide phases that are equally prevalent and well distributed. This implies oxidizing conditions (above 2000 F).

So the official story that the steel did not melt is NOT TRUE.

Okay, next?

[edit on 8-4-2010 by ibiubu]

[edit on 8-4-2010 by ibiubu]

Originally posted by ibiubu

how is steel turned into a eutectic mixture? By melting it.

No.

You really should read the report that replicated this process. Sisserman? Biederman? Something like that.

They got the same eutectic "melting" (high temp corrosion actually) at temps WELL below the melting temp of steel.

You lose.....

reply to post by Joey Canoli


Please provide the source so that I may address it. You cannot form the microstructure in Appendix C in the solid state. It can't happen. I develop metal alloys for a living...quite awhile now.

I lose? I'm making an assertion and you're playing a game. Get a life.

[edit on 8-4-2010 by ibiubu]

[edit on 8-4-2010 by ibiubu]

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by bsbray11
In other words you are insisting we are making claims when really we are not, as NIcon showed. Meanwhile you still have not supported your claims.

For the record, bsbray11, my response is above.

Yes, and for the record, I hope everyone, especially staff and moderators, goes back and carefully reads what you have been doing.

Now, let me ask you, when are you going to support your claims?

And then it begins all over again.

People understand what proving a negative is, and how burden of proof works. Now, you are changing the subject entirely once again by going back to people looking for explosives residues, which no, no one did, and there is NO SOURCE THAT SHOWS WHERE ANYONE EVER LOOKED. The way to debunk this is to show where someone DID look for these residues by an accepted method!


But that is the last I will say on that until (IF) you post evidence demonstrating that there were tests for explosive residues using an accepted procedure.


The topic (before you tried to change it again, and if history is an indication then I'm SURE you will continue this behavior as long as you can!) is now: Will you support your claim that NIST showed how the collapses were possible?

If you are not going back up ANY of your claims, I am going to ignore you asking me to back up any of mine from now on because you are trying to make this 100% one-sided, and not only that but asserting that I and NIcon (and others) are making claims that we never even made! You do this post after post, systematically, in a way that can only be interpreted as intentional and thus dishonest and clearly against board rules. It is a pattern not apparent in each post but in all of them looked at together, which is why I am going to keep asking moderators to carefully read over all of your posts until they get a proper sense of what I, NIcon, and others, are dealing with, and what we are complaining about.

It is not only clear that you understand fundamentally how burden of proof actually works, as you have correctly stated the way it is supposed to work several times, but it is also clear that you then do a 180 and work completely against these rules of logic in what can only be called a disinformation tactic. Like I said, this is systematic. I am tired of dealing with this blatant disregard to basic respect and board rules while no one does anything about it. Once again I am asking for a moderator to at least u2u me, leave me any comment, confirming that yes, you have taken this into consideration and are looking at the situation. That is all I ask!

[edit on 8-4-2010 by bsbray11]

Yes, bsbray11, I know how the burden of proof works.

The accepted, unrefuted NIST investigations is what you are dealing with. When you make claims about those investigations, it is up to you to support those claims. It is not up to me or anyone else to do anything. I have patiently and repeatedly asked you to support your claims. You choose not to. It's a lesson on what many have observed of member of the 9/11 Truth Movement for the last 8 1/2 years, a firm dislike of having to support their own claims and avoiding answering questions inconvenient to them.

No you state:

"The way to debunk this is to show where someone DID look for these residues by an accepted method!

"But that is the last I will say on that until (IF) you post evidence demonstrating that there were tests for explosive residues using an accepted procedure."

This is just the type of assertions you make. But will you ever finally demonstrate what the "accepted procedure" is, with sources, rather then claim repeatedly that "determining the chemical composition of the dust is NOT an accepted procedure? Or will you keep evading telling us?

I don't have to convince you of anything. You have to convince me and others of your claims. Your claims form the basis of why you think there ought to be another investigation. If anyone is going to try to get another investigation your technique of refusing to back up your claims and statements and trying to shift the burden of proof to those you are trying to convince is most assuredly going to result in total failure.

So we are where we began. NIST demonstrated how and why the towers collapsed (review here: wtc.nist.gov...), it has not been refuted, no mechanism of explosives was ever needed to explain the collapses, no evidence of explosives has ever been found, and your whole premise is that the test done "... to determine the chemical and physical characteristics of the material..." is incapable of detecting the chemical signatures of explosives and that since no direct test of the metal was done, there is no proof that explosives were not present, but you won't back up that claim and tell us what the "accepted procedure" is.

Good luck with that.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by ibiubu

Please provide the source so that I may address it.

911-engineers.blogspot.com...

ANALYSIS
Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge.


they're saying this happened at temps < 1000C.

That's lower then the melting temp of steel.

You lose.

they are incorrect...in my original post i stated the problem with their conclusion...this report contains the microsructural evidence of melting. i informed them of the shortcomings in their logic on this issue...i lose? i lose what? You are both a confused and a confusing creature.

[edit on 8-4-2010 by ibiubu]

Originally posted by ibiubu
they are incorrect...in my original post i stated the problem with their conclusion...this report contains the microsructural evidence of melting. i informed them of the shortcomings in their logic on this issue...i lose? i lose what? You are both a confused and a confusing creature.

[edit on 8-4-2010 by ibiubu]

SO then let me guess.

You have all the evidence necessary to blow the whole inside jobby job thing wide open, provided of course, by the "perps".

But since "someone was tracking your internet activity" and spoiled the whole scene for you, riding in like Dudley DoRight to save the day........

You figure it's much more effective now to post anonymously on obscure internet message boards, rather than getting a peer reviewed article written up in whatever journal is themost prestigious in your field, so as to inform other professionals in your field that the study is in error...........

Uh huh......