Why don't the conspiracy theorists have their OWN investigation?

reply to post by Cassius666


Thanks again.

Watched it and must say that the person who made the video did some nice research. It still doesn't show how controlled demo was actually done without anyone seeing it. If people are going to claim controlled demo then one should show how it was perpetrated. Logistics.

And as I mentioned in that thread, why doesn't the video include United and American as part of the suspicious companies involved in this whole conspiracy? Without them, 9/11 doesn't happen the way they'd like us all to believe.

Originally posted by mayabong
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

So are you saying the towers weren't powered down in the days before 911? Don't you think that is a little strange?

As far as a new investigation, there already has been many investigations. No matter how many people are involved or what their credentials are, they will still be tossed aside as "conspiracy theorists" by people like good ole dave.

Powered down?

That's a myth, amongst the many about 9/11, that was started by 1 person and corroborated by no one. And it only pertained to the South tower for floors 50 and up. Yet windows of the world was still open for business that weekend. And no companies have come forward to back this this claim up. Lots of companies would have had to power down all their systems and then power them back up. Think about it

reply to post by Nutter


Well, if you're a buyer of the conspiracy theories then from your point of view the gov't got it all right.

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

We have been investigating it independently for the past 10 years, the best we can do is work with what is publicly available, which by now isn't much. It's kind of like investigating why the $10 on the bureau went missing when the only people in the house are your spouse who doesn't need the money, and your kid who does. No evidence to make a strong case, but you just know who is guilty by default, proving it in a court of law is another matter.

I'm not askign you to prove it in a court of law. I'm simply asking you to have your own investigation, and the most obvious point to begin your investigation is to document exactly how controlled demolitions brought the towers down, and you already have all the resources you need to do that.

Are you saying Richard Gage is BSing us and he doesn't know how to read his own blueprints? Are you saying Jones and Harrit can't tell the difference between thermite and bubble gum? Are you saying the 1600 professionals signing the AE199truth petition are all really a bunch of 14 year old pranksters? Are you saying the money all these web sites are collecting from selling DVDs, T-shirts, etc all just went to the blackjack table at Las Vegas? Are you saying all these leading conspiracy authorities are selfishly in it for themselves and will never coordinate their efforts with other people? If you're not, then it would seem to be you people would be chomping at the bit to have something tangible to show to everyone there's a conspiracy going on, rather than making up excuses for why you should simply sit around and make yourselves feel helpless.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Well, if you're a buyer of the conspiracy theories then from your point of view the gov't got it all right.

Since when did individual people become "the government"? Or do you believe that I think the whole over 15 million federal employees were involved somehow?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I'm simply asking you to have your own investigation, and the most obvious point to begin your investigation is to document exactly how controlled demolitions brought the towers down, and you already have all the resources you need to do that.

Supply me with the whole design drawings and I could get started.

Are you saying Richard Gage is BSing us and he doesn't know how to read his own blueprints?

I'm sure he knows how to read Architectural blueprints (the only kind we have access to). How about the structural documentation?

You can't really do a structural analysis without this information you know? Or do you?

reply to post by Nutter


You said White House. White House is government. Government in general is being blamed for 9/11.

You said White House admitted to getting it (the cleanup?) wrong. I said if you believe the White House (Government) was behind this somehow then you might think they actually got it all right.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


Ah, so that intern staffer at the white house got it all right then? I don't get what you are saying. You are saying it like the truth movement accusses the whole entire US government. As far as I am aware, it does not.

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Nutter

 

The press release was to establish the National Construction Safety Team Act which in turn enabled another body to re-investigate with more power. (i.e. NIST)

As far as did they answer any of the questions. Well, since the whole problem stated in the memo was the dumping of evidence to begin with, I would have to say..... no they didn't.

Well, the NIST had extensive access to materials from the WTC.

Obviously not all of it or there wouldn't have been a need to institute a new Act now would there?

I think you are getting things a little mixed up. The NCST authorized the NIST to establish teams to investigate disasters involving buildings. Please consider that before the NCST the NIST was already authorized to investigate catastrophic building and structural problems. In other words, even without the NSCT the NIST would have been able to investigate 9/11. The Act allowed them to establish and pay for teams for specific responses. In fact one was just established in June to investigate the tornadoes and their impact in Joplin, MO. The "whitehouse" has never stated that there was a problem with the evidence that required a "new" investigation. FEMA had conducted an initial investigation, however, it was geared more towards emergency response and not structural issues as systematic structural issues are not the primary mission of FEMA.

The real problem lies in the very true fact that neither OS'ers or Truther's by and large, will never be able to claim that a building could or couldn't CONCLUSIVELY collapse in the way that it did. It's like having an expert witness at a trial. Both sides have an expert, and both experts present eveidence that, in their opinion, demonstrates how an event could or could not have occurred.

This is the case with the building collapse issues. There is one group of experts that all say one thing, and another group of experts that says another. That's all the Truth seekers have to go on. They choose to believe the side that supports their thought on the matter. Many of them chose to believe that the OS was false and then went out and found people that had similar beliefs. They had absolutely no facts when they decided the OS was BS, but we tend to look for information the coincides with what we believe and disregard information that does not. That's true for both sides of the story.

Personally, I haven't seen anything that really changes my mind about what I believe. I have seen some pretty far out claims like the planes were landed secretly and the passengers locked away or killed, then the planes took off again before hitting the buildings. That is some highly certain BS and a bit whacko as well.

Over all, neither side is going to suddenly quit arguing their case no matter how many studies are done. it's human nature. I don't know if we currently have the whole, true story, but I do believe most of it. That's my right and it doesn't make me a shill or anything else. Same as Truthers have every right to believe what they want. It's not a game to be won or lost.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


LOL,
it's bad enough you drank the kool-aid

but to evangelize the OS as a disinfo agent/ propagandist for free?



keep it up and when the psychopaths you're fawning on [and waiting upon hand and foot,as well] commit another atrocity, you can continue to beleive and preach the OS

while ignoring the blood on your hands that your complicity has obtained for you

reply to post by PhotonEffect


so you think this guy is lying?

reply to post by hooper

Originally posted by hooper
The "whitehouse" has never stated that there was a problem with the evidence that required a "new" investigation. FEMA had conducted an initial investigation, however, it was geared more towards emergency response and not structural issues as systematic structural issues are not the primary mission of FEMA.

Did you even read the posted memo?

The whitehouse did so state that:

"First, just as the NTSB immediately sequesters evidence involved in a plane crash, our bill creates immediate on-site authority for investigators of collapses to have access to and preservation of important materials. And–if necessary–the new panel may subpoena materials.

"Never again will we see the destruction of materials and the legal jousting that marked the scene of the 9/11 attack, where even the blueprints of the buildings took weeks to secure.

And....

The National Construction Safety Team Act will ensure that the mishandled evidence and in-fighting that hobbled FEMA’s World Trade Center investigation never happens again.

Now please explain how this statement doesn't show that the whitehouse stated that there was a problem with the evidence that required a "new" investigation.

Because they got one with the NIST.

reply to post by Nutter

Supply me with the whole design drawings and I could get started.

Really? Exactly what are you supposedly missing? Door schedules? Bathroom fixtures? Floor and wall finishes? Look at the NIST reports. Please advise exactly what information you need to perform your analysis and more importantly - why.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Nutter

 

Supply me with the whole design drawings and I could get started.

Really? Exactly what are you supposedly missing? Door schedules? Bathroom fixtures? Floor and wall finishes?

How about the structural steel configuration, the steel members etc. Bathroom fixtures......please.

Look at the NIST reports.

Please quote where they state even the exact amount of materials on each floor.

How about the core column configuration? I've tried to discern it from the NIST report only to come up with more questions than answers.

But, I'm just a dumb "conspiracy theorist truther" right?

Then how am I working as we speak as a structural forensic engineer?

Please advise exactly what information you need to perform your analysis and more importantly - why.

Oh, I don't know. A finite element analysis can not be done without knowing the elements?

Originally posted by Nutter
Supply me with the whole design drawings and I could get started.

Fair enough. Here are the blueprints for the north tower. AE911truth references them on their website so I have to believe they're legitimate.

Blueprints to the North Tower

I'm sure he knows how to read Architectural blueprints (the only kind we have access to). How about the structural documentation?

You can't really do a structural analysis without this information you know? Or do you?

You're going to need to presume any structural analysis I could present to you is suspect due to it being released by people who want you to believe that fires were enough to bring the towers down. You have the blueprints, you know what materials went into the construction of the towers, you have 500 photos of what the structural steel looked like, and AE911truth even has a video of how the towers were built back during 1970. Part of your investigation will necessarily need to include your devising the "genuine" structural analysis via reverse engineering.

You're not going to let that stop you from finding out "the truth" behind the collapse, are you?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Nutter
Supply me with the whole design drawings and I could get started.

Fair enough. Here are the blueprints for the north tower. AE911truth references them on their website so I have to believe they're legitimate.

Blueprints to the North Tower

And now you have shown your ignorance. These are architectural drawings. Read that again. Architectural. This is where the bathroom fittings come into play.

Show me some STRUCTURAL drawings.

Obviously you don't know the difference.

Part of your investigation will necessarily need to include your devising the "genuine" structural analysis via reverse engineering.

Oh, so you want me to reverse engineer the towers like say Dr. greening who has had to readjust his values how many times now?

You're not going to let that stop you from finding out "the truth" behind the collapse, are you?

I shouldn't have to "find" the truth when the "truth" should be freely given.

Originally posted by Nutter

And now you have shown your ignorance. These are architectural drawings. Read that again. Architectural. This is where the bathroom fittings come into play.

Show me some STRUCTURAL drawings.

Obviously you don't know the difference.

You're right, I don't know the difference because I'm not an architect...but then again this is your investigation, not mine. Why the flip do you care where the bathroom fittings are for you to determine where the controlled demolitions would need to be placed?

...and why does AE911truth bother to list the blueprints if, what you're saying, the blueprints are completely worthless in determining whether there were controlled demolitions or not?

Originally posted by Nutter

How about the structural steel configuration, the steel members etc. Please quote where they state even the exact amount of materials on each floor.

How about the core column configuration?
Then how am I working as we speak as a structural forensic engineer?

Oh, I don't know. A finite element analysis can not be done without knowing the elements?

C'mon brah, a simple energy calc like what Ross and Bazant did can be redone using the best available info IF some truther REALLY wanted to.

There is NOTHING stopping anyone at all.

Start with Greg Urich's study into the true mass at each floor. It's found at the Scholars for 9/11 website.

Calculate the ke generated by the first fall. Assume like Bazant and Ross did, whereby the columns are impacted directly and squarely. If you say that it shows that the fall will arrest, then proceed to the next step:

DO the same thing again, except this time, incorporate the true observables:

Assume "some" energy taken out by buckling. Assume "some" column to column impacts, but be reasonable. Incorporate the plane damage into the first impacts. Incorporate the fire damage into the first impacts.

And on and on.

DO it and quit yer bitchin'.

Impress us with your findings. Get it published in a reputable journal that gets the attention of other structural engineers.

THEN you might get access to the structural docs that you're asking for, cuz you ain't gonna get it until you do.

reply to post by Joey Canoli


You mean the same Bazzant and Ross who didn't acknowledge that for each action there is an equal but opposite reaction?

Yeah, some scientists when they can't even get the laws of physics down first.

Let me ask:

If I dropped a bowling ball on your head, would your legs feel any of the force? Or just the very tippy top portion of your head where it collides?