Newton vs. Nist

Ya Ya another video showing how that fundamental physics brings more argumentative facts for the Truthers. And more oppertunity for debunkers to pick it apart. My question, is this video good enough to be used as evidence in court, if so why? If not why?


www.youtube.com...

Also another cool experiment using thermite to cut steel.

www.youtube.com...

I hope that this discussion can stay to if these videos and experiments are scientific enough in your opinion as evidence that can be used in court, is so or not why?

The one of the biggest issues I have with all WTC collapse theories, is that there is no way of knowing the internal conditions of the buildings (i.e. the central column) immediately prior to the collapse, from videos.
All we can see is the external effects of what is occurring internally; what I mean to say is the actual internal collapse may have proceeded the external debris effects by a large margin.
Also, concerning the heated steel frame:
If you heat a piece of steel that is under tension or compression (as is found in a skyscraper), it will stretch/bend more easily.
When that steel cools rapidly, as would occur when a fire-fighter sprays water on it, it will become more brittle, and shorten rapidly.
This contraction can amplify any bending that may have occurred whist the steel beam was hot, snapping it loose from its supports.

reply to post by myster0


"If you heat a piece of steel that is under tension or compression (as is found in a skyscraper), it will stretch/bend more easily.
When that steel cools rapidly, as would occur when a fire-fighter sprays water on it, it will become more brittle, and shorten rapidly.
This contraction can amplify any bending that may have occurred whist the steel beam was hot, snapping it loose from its supports. "

I would think that it would take much more than just heating and cooling to weaken enough of the steel beams to the point of total collapse, would you not agree? Especially considering the office and jetfuel fires as the only heating mechinism, on only a few floors.

I agree that there were a few quite bizarre things happened to make 9/11 the 'success' it was, and maybe CIA agents did rig the buildings with C4, however, all evidence is now passed its usefulness.

reply to post by myster0


How do you mean all evidence is past its usefullness?

My question, is this video good enough to be used as evidence in court, if so why? If not why?

I don't think any YouTube video is good enough to be used in court, unless of course it is self incriminating evidence, such as that of you committing a crime. I don't think YouTube videos putting forth theories or explanations are even really valid as proof or viable evidence here on ATS, much less court. That doesn't mean that videos aren't powerful tools in the denial of ifnorance, or even the propagation of the same.

And more oppertunity for debunkers to pick it apart

First of all, how do you define debunker? I'm a debunker, as I debunk the official conspiracy theory, OS and truster arguments. Most truthers (or people who don't buy the OS or official conspiracy), at least the ones that I personally know, are indeed debunkers and the fact that they are debunkers, is what would give them the label of "truther". The only thing that "truthers" have in common, is that they don't buy the OS and seek to debunk it, making the "truthers" the debunkers, not the trusters. Of course, you have some people who just put out theories that are just as absurd and unfounded as the official conspiracy theory, though I suspect that a lot of this done by the official conspiracy theorists in an effort to discredit the truth movement. Again, a truther isn't defined by any theory put forward about 9/11, instead they are defined by not believing in the unproven, official conspiracy theory. Just to be clear, the truthers are the debunkers, generally speaking, as it is the truther who is tasked with debunking the extraordinary and unfounded claims of the official conspiracy theorists.

Furthermore and unfortunately, the trusters generally don't pick apart the evidence that clearly points to their theory being a farce. Instead, they sidestep the issues or attack the messenger, as much of the evidence against their theory is based on sound logic and common-sense reasoning, two notions that have to be thrown out of the window in order to buy their conspiracy theory. Many of us real debunkers would love nothing more than to intellectually debate the evidence, though most trusters, if not all, will try to avoid such a debate because it will almost always prove their myth or wild conspiracy theory wrong. In an intellectual debate on the evidence, the truster side doesn't have a single leg to stand on.

Take for instance the consensus of scientists and experts who have either found evidence of thermitic materials, or give credence to the sound research that was published in a peer-reviewed journal with findings of the same. Instead of debating that actual evidence, they start to attack the scientists who conducted the research and the respected journal that published the study. They make unfounded, wild and extraordinary claims that the journal is a vanity publisher, eventhough they have not a single shred of evidence to back up their extraordinary claim. They then try to attack the scientists behind the findings, though they are all pretty much respected and their expertise wasn't even questioned before they came out against the wild and unfounded official conspiracy theory. This is in spite of the fact that every single scientist and expert who has considered the use of controlled demolitions and looked for the same, has actually found of evidence of controlled demolitions, again pointing to their dirty tactics of avoiding intellectual debate in the actual evidence.

So again, the only debunkers who have made any kind of headway and actually debunked something, thus are true debunkers, are the debunkers who have been applying their craft against the wild and extraordinary conspiracy theories, such as the official conspiracy theory or the no-planes or death-ray theories, all of which share the same intellectual properties or lack thereof. Pretty much those seeking the truth.





--airspoon

Originally posted by airspoon

My question, is this video good enough to be used as evidence in court, if so why? If not why?

I don't think any YouTube video is good enough to be used in court, unless of course it is self incriminating evidence, such as that of you committing a crime. I don't think YouTube videos putting forth theories or explanations are even really valid as proof or viable evidence here on ATS, much less court. That doesn't mean that videos aren't powerful tools in the denial of ifnorance, or even the propagation of the same.

And more oppertunity for debunkers to pick it apart

First of all, how do you define debunker? I'm a debunker, as I debunk the official conspiracy theory, OS and truster arguments. Most truthers (or people who don't buy the OS or official conspiracy), at least the ones that I personally know, are indeed debunkers and the fact that they are debunkers, is what would give them the label of "truther". The only thing that "truthers" have in common, is that they don't buy the OS and seek to debunk it, making the "truthers" the debunkers, not the trusters. Of course, you have some people who just put out theories that are just as absurd and unfounded as the official conspiracy theory, though I suspect that a lot of this done by the official conspiracy theorists in an effort to discredit the truth movement. Again, a truther isn't defined by any theory put forward about 9/11, instead they are defined by not believing in the unproven, official conspiracy theory. Just to be clear, the truthers are the debunkers, generally speaking, as it is the truther who is tasked with debunking the extraordinary and unfounded claims of the official conspiracy theorists.

Furthermore and unfortunately, the trusters generally don't pick apart the evidence that clearly points to their theory being a farce. Instead, they sidestep the issues or attack the messenger, as much of the evidence against their theory is based on sound logic and common-sense reasoning, two notions that have to be thrown out of the window in order to buy their conspiracy theory. Many of us real debunkers would love nothing more than to intellectually debate the evidence, though most trusters, if not all, will try to avoid such a debate because it will almost always prove their myth or wild conspiracy theory wrong. In an intellectual debate on the evidence, the truster side doesn't have a single leg to stand on.

Take for instance the consensus of scientists and experts who have either found evidence of thermitic materials, or give credence to the sound research that was published in a peer-reviewed journal with findings of the same. Instead of debating that actual evidence, they start to attack the scientists who conducted the research and the respected journal that published the study. They make unfounded, wild and extraordinary claims that the journal is a vanity publisher, eventhough they have not a single shred of evidence to back up their extraordinary claim. They then try to attack the scientists behind the findings, though they are all pretty much respected and their expertise wasn't even questioned before they came out against the wild and unfounded official conspiracy theory. This is in spite of the fact that every single scientist and expert who has considered the use of controlled demolitions and looked for the same, has actually found of evidence of controlled demolitions, again pointing to their dirty tactics of avoiding intellectual debate in the actual evidence.

So again, the only debunkers who have made any kind of headway and actually debunked something, thus are true debunkers, are the debunkers who have been applying their craft against the wild and extraordinary conspiracy theories, such as the official conspiracy theory or the no-planes or death-ray theories, all of which share the same intellectual properties or lack thereof. Pretty much those seeking the truth.





--airspoon

A very good definition of a debunker, that statement i made was to recieve answers such as this. Even if i didn't know i would get one.

When you say self incriminating to the point of the person commiting the crime, a question. What if you see him in the video only drop, or have, or knew of before hand what, when, where the event or murderweapon, and not nessesarialy seen commiting the crime but shows foreknowledge of the fact that the crime was going to happen?