You Can’t Handle the 9/11 Truth

reply to post by exponent

I'm sorry, but all I can gather from your last post, is that you believe second hand reports around a watercooler about a teevee show are sufficient to determine that "no bombs had been detonated." I believe that is a very, very absurd way of looking at things. But I'm willing to listen or watch the news clip that changed Mr. Hamburgers original impression that "charges had been placed in the building." But if that's your final answer to all of my questions, so be it.


But just to move this Hamburger puzzle along at a quicker pace, as I can't hang around here all day, I'll reveal another piece of the puzzle:

"For example, three months after the disaster, Ronald Hamburger, an expert in structural analysis at A.B.S. Consulting in Oakland, Calif., and a director of the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations, said he had not even been given access to basic blueprints describing where the steel and other structural elements had been when the World Trade Center was whole.

''I'd like to be able to have a set of the drawings for all of the affected buildings,'' Mr. Hamburger said. ''I don't have that.''

www.nytimes.com...

So let me see if I have my time line straight:

Somewhere on or before September 19, 2001, Mr. Hamburger may have been standing around a water cooler and became "very surprised" that "no bombs had been detonated" from someone standing around the same water cooler who had heard that on the teevee. Or something similar.

Then somewhere on or before December 5th, 2001 he says he knows what happened by stating "which is why it collapsed as it did."
(sorry I forgot the link in my last post, news.stanford.edu...)

And then somewhere around December 11th, 2001 he states he hadn't been given access to the basic blueprints to know "where the steel and other structural elements had been."

This is... one... amazing... dude....er, scratch that...."forensic" investigator!

I'm not sure why this last part is showing bold, as I didn't do it on purpose.

But another thought, Exponent, I am responding to your questions. You asked if I had anymore evidence and I'm giving you more pieces of the puzzle. You keep asking why I'm trying to discredit the NIST report and I've responded a couple of time that this has nothing to do with the NIST report. Did I miss any more of your questions?

edit on 28-9-2012 by NIcon because: (no reason given)

reply to post by exponent

I'm sorry but this just seems ridiculous to even speculate about. We're talking a few people out of thousands with no evidence and no motive or even an attempt at one.

Wouldn't we need to identiy the person to determine that he had no motive?

You're completely discounting the idea that they just guessed correctly

You telling me that the Harley Davidson guy is guessing and not stating it as a fact?
Whatever you say

I think he's describing the corner of the South Tower

He is describing something happening to the corner 20 stories below where collapse was beginning.

So what did he see happening?

Originally posted by NIcon
I'm sorry, but all I can gather from your last post, is that you believe second hand reports around a watercooler about a teevee show are sufficient to determine that "no bombs had been detonated." I believe that is a very, very absurd way of looking at things. But I'm willing to listen or watch the news clip that changed Mr. Hamburgers original impression that "charges had been placed in the building." But if that's your final answer to all of my questions, so be it.

Neither of us have talked to Mr Hamburger so it's impossible to know the truth without doing this. I think that in a non professional context many of us use watercooler talk. I have heard many many facts from my coworkers that change my opinion about a subject, even in professional context.

I don't know why you find this so hard to understand,

But just to move this Hamburger puzzle along at a quicker pace, as I can't hang around here all day, I'll reveal another piece of the puzzle:
...
So let me see if I have my time line straight:
...
Then somewhere on or before December 5th, 2001 he says he knows what happened by stating "which is why it collapsed as it did."
(sorry I forgot the link in my last post, news.stanford.edu...)

And then somewhere around December 11th, 2001 he states he hadn't been given access to the basic blueprints to know "where the steel and other structural elements had been."

This is... one... amazing... dude....er, scratch that...."forensic" investigator!

On the contrary, by this time many people had formulated theories about the collapse of the WTC. Remember that Bazant's original paper was published much earlier. The design of the WTC was well known, the specific structural parameters were not.

But another thought, Exponent, I am responding to your questions. You asked if I had anymore evidence and I'm giving you more pieces of the puzzle. You keep asking why I'm trying to discredit the NIST report and I've responded a couple of time that this has nothing to do with the NIST report. Did I miss any more of your questions?

edit on 28-9-2012 by NIcon because: (no reason given)

My only question is why you are trying to discredit someone based on picking words you dislike rather than actually calling up Mr Hamburger and asking him for an interview on the subject.

Originally posted by maxella1
Wouldn't we need to identiy the person to determine that he had no motive?

How have you determined that they do have a motive without knowing their identity?

You telling me that the Harley Davidson guy is guessing and not stating it as a fact?
Whatever you say

I think he's describing what he saw and doing an accurate job of it. That to me does not scream conspirator.

He is describing something happening to the corner 20 stories below where collapse was beginning.

So what did he see happening?

I don't know, it could be anything from the large tilt in the top of the south tower confusing him to internal office floors failing, to external windows failing. The videos of the collapse do show that sections of perimeter walls survived decent distances above the collapse wave, so there are lots of potentials for what he saw.

The towers had no significant corner columns whatsoever. Why would there be explosives there? What evidence do we have of explosives? I don't think there are good answers to either.

where are the facts in the OPs articles, it just states numbers with no facts or anything... and it says things like "you cant handle the truth"

it makes me think this is for the weak minded

reply to post by exponent

I'm not necessarily trying to discredit Mr. Hamburger, but one of the ways to see if an investigation was competent is to see if it had competent investigators that had competent reasoning skills. Also to see if their actions taken based upon their reasoning skills were competent.

So it seems that Mr. Hamburger was a pretty big big shot in the investigation, but he also believed "charges had been placed in the building" and for some reason he let this belief go pretty darn quickly. What was the reasoning behind it? Idle chatter? What had he "learned"? On what evidence did he base this decision?

Perhaps that would be a good idea to give him a call and see if he would talk with a complete stranger, but I'm a busy bee these days and my whole 911 "investigation" boils down to stopping by here thinking I may learn something new. Maybe if this tidbit starts haunting me at night, perhaps I will hunt him down to find out something that he's had plenty of time to reveal in numerous interviews, papers and videos released since.

reply to post by NIcon


Just to put things in context 18 "material witnesses" to the JFK assassination died by foul play soon after they testified -- a British news paper reported the odds of it being a coincidence as 100,000 Trillion against 1.

People need to think of 9/11 as just an extension of the JFK assassination. George Bush Sr. prominently involved in both conspiracies.

So then consider that 9/11 witnesses have already been "martyred" - Sander Hicks making this readily apparent --

This goes beyond Democrat Vs. Republican as both party elites are depedent on and controlled by CIA-Oil-Drug-Weapon Sales money.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Sorry but all the construction experience in the world can not make a building completely collapse into it's own footprint from fire and asymmetrical damage.

None of what you claim is evidence that it can.

WTC 7 did not have any significant structural damage that would cause a symmetrical collapse. Fire would not cause a symmetrical collapse.

Why have fire protection then, obviously this hasn't sunk in yet want me to explain it to you!!!

Seismic design relies on modelling, risk analysis and changes to the structural stiffness. Wind design relies on additional structural members and wind tunnel tests. Current fire design relies on very simple, single element tests and adding insulating material to the frame. Thermal induced forces are not calculated or designed for.

Do YOU actually undestand what

Thermal induced forces are not calculated or designed for means?

reply to post by wmd_2008


Again you fail to understand my point.

No matter how much fire, or how much fire-proofing, a steel framed 48 story building is not going to collapse into it's own footprint from fire and asymmetrical damage.

Fire-proofing is not used to stop a building completely collapsing into it's own footprint. It is used to minimize the likelihood a localized structural collapse. Steel buildings can and do collapse from fire, but not globally, completely into their own footprints.

Asymmetrical damage and sporadic fire would not cause an asymmetrical collapse. Do YOU understand that?

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Again you fail to understand my point.

No matter how much fire, or how much fire-proofing, a steel framed 48 story building is not going to collapse into it's own footprint from fire and asymmetrical damage.

Fire-proofing is not used to stop a building completely collapsing into it's own footprint. It is used to minimize the likelihood a localized structural collapse. Steel buildings can and do collapse from fire, but not globally, completely into their own footprints.

Asymmetrical damage and sporadic fire would not cause an asymmetrical collapse. Do YOU understand that?

edit on 9/28/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

Is there anywhere but its footprint to collapse in? None of the buildings on 9/11 collapsed directly in their footprint, unless you include the next city block as the footprint. And if the footprint of a building is essentially 9 city blocks, then how is that an unusual collapse?

I imagine that you are trying to insinuate that no building should ever collapse, ever. WTC 7 especially was impacted by debris from WTC 1's collapse. It burned for 7 hours, which is plenty of time to work through even intact fireproofing. Are you saying that should have absolutely zero effect on the building's stability?

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by exponent

 

Perhaps that would be a good idea to give him a call and see if he would talk with a complete stranger, but I'm a busy bee these days and my whole 911 "investigation" boils down to stopping by here thinking I may learn something new. Maybe if this tidbit starts haunting me at night, perhaps I will hunt him down to find out something that he's had plenty of time to reveal in numerous interviews, papers and videos released since.

Well no offence intended, but you can't both insinuate that he has been using faulty reasoning or has been acting suspiciously and say that you don't have the time to try and resolve these issues with him so you are just going to accuse him without evidence.

I think frankly the fact that so early on he was able to get a grasp on the mechanisms and influencing factors on the collapse (plus his position at SGH) speaks to his competence.

reply to post by exponent

"You must climb to the highest mountain top, grasshopper, to gain the ultimate truth." In all my time on this board I think perhaps this is by far the lamest discussion tactic I've seen in these online discussions. Am I to be told next that "I'm really not interested in the truth" ?

But to the point, in fact, I can insinuate anything I want based upon what I've seen, read and heard. I've shown more in my last few posts about the basis of my reasoning than Mr. Hamburger has shown in all his interviews, videos and papers over the last 11 years about his change of belief of "charges in the buildings".

In fact, if I were so inclined, I could actually draw a conclusion based upon what I've seen, read and heard. Is not what a person says and does considered "evidence"? (And there's more pieces to the puzzle.)

However, I am open to countering arguments, but all I've gotten in return is a "water cooler conversation" (metaphorically speaking) or Bazant came up with a theory earlier.

No offense, but who are "Exponent" and "Bazant"? They are nobody in the scheme of things. They are not "one of four top forensic engineers commissioned to perform a postmortem on the World Trade Center's collapse." They were not the lead on FEMA's report about the twin towers. So they can talk all they want around the water cooler or come up with their own pet theories as early as they want. That does not bother or matter to me.

I do, however, hold Mr. Hamburger to a much higher standard as he was in a position that mattered. So when the guy that was "commissioned" to tell us why what happened happened is "very surprised" and changes his first impression about "charges in the buildings" I believe it is his responsibility to inform everyone why and how that occurred. Was it because of some "water cooler conversation"? Was it just idle chatter with no forensic investigation?

But on a moral clarity note: if I'm ever called as a juror and the accused does not take the stand, am I to withhold judgment until such a time I can call him/her up and ask them questions directly?

(BTW, I am in no way saying or implying that Mr. Hamburger is a criminal with the previous sentence.)

reply to post by exponent

Just another post as I really didn't address your final paragraph.

Just to clarify, I'm not questioning his competence as a person in general, an engineer in general, or ultimately as a forensic engineer in general. What I'm questioning is strictly his competence in his role in the 911 investigation. Nothing more than that.

My opinion as of now is that we all "fall down on the job" at sometime or another.

reply to post by exponent

How have you determined that they do have a motive without knowing their identity?

I did not, but reasonable suspicion is enough to consider them as people of interest which is enough to have them questioned...

example: A drive by shooting, no weapon found on scene. A few people in the crowd describe to others the exact caliber gun used... Would it be reasonable to have them questioned or should that be considered a lucky guess?

Reasonable suspicion
Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard standard of proof in United States law that is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch' ";[1] it must be based on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts".[2] Police may briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such a detention is known as a Terry stop. If police additionally have reasonable suspicion that a person so detained may be armed, they may "frisk" the person for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard,[3] in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; it depends upon the totality of circumstances, and can result from a combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous.

Motive
Proof of motive is not required in a criminal prosecution. In determining the guilt of a criminal defendant, courts are generally not concerned with why the defendant committed the alleged crime, but whether the defendant committed the crime. However, a defendant's motive is important in other stages of a criminal case, such as police investigation and sentencing. Law enforcement personnel often consider potential motives in detecting perpetrators. Judges may consider the motives of a convicted defendant at sentencing and either increase a sentence based on avaricious motives or decrease the sentence if the defendant's motives were honorable—for example, if the accused acted in defense of a family member.

I don't know, it could be anything from the large tilt in the top of the south tower confusing him to internal office floors failing, to external windows failing. The videos of the collapse do show that sections of perimeter walls survived decent distances above the collapse wave, so there are lots of potentials for what he saw. The towers had no significant corner columns whatsoever. Why would there be explosives there? What evidence do we have of explosives? I don't think there are good answers to either.

We are just going in circles here and I'm not in the mood for that today... I got nothing new to add especially when no matter what is shown to you, you respond with

it could be anything

just not the most obvious.

reply to post by exponent


We're talking about America here. Our country has interfered in so many countries, you'd be hard-pressed to find one that DOESN'T have a reason to want to hurt us.

And the causes for this mindset are simple: our leaders are greedy and deluded. We have power, and we think that gives us a right. From there, it's all speculation - but the fact remains that too many questions have gone unanswered for too long, and if it had been a U.S. citizen to blame, the government would have extracted every detail by force.

But when the table is turned, that's not the way it goes down, is it? The government is allowed to keep its secrets, but we're not. And that's partially the cause for my suspicions, personally. The lack of accountability.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

But when the table is turned, that's not the way it goes down, is it? The government is allowed to keep its secrets, but we're not. And that's partially the cause for my suspicions, personally. The lack of accountability.

The lack of accountability is all I need to suspect something fishy is going on...

reply to post by maxella1


Exactly. Which is why, instead of acting like one half is defending America's actions and the other half is arguing that America was framed, we should figure out:

1) who was most likely responsible for the attack

2) how it might have been done

3) which sources are clearly lying to us

4) what sources appear to be reliable (after close scrutiny)

5) judging by the few undeniable facts in the situation, we figure out who COULD have done it (will have no definite answers)

6) from there, we figure out motives

7) tie it all back in

VOILA! You're as close to the 9/11 truth as you can get without accessing classified files. Hope you're happy, because there's nothing but brick walls after that.

reply to post by Varemia

It burned for 7 hours, which is plenty of time to work through even intact fireproofing.

In what textbook did you find this "fact"?