You Can’t Handle the 9/11 Truth

I know the truth. So do thousands of others. I am fine and can handle it. So whats your point?

The CIA, FBI and other inteligence services did 9/11 with political backing from Cheney and Bush, and large corporate intelligence backing including Isreali Mossad.

Originally posted by maxella1
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"?

Not a textbook, but here's one link that claims it:

firechief.com...

The 1968 New York City building code – the code that the towers were intended but not required to meet when they were built – required a two-hour fire rating for the floor system.

Pretty sure that would be the fire code that all the buildings in the WTC complex would have used. 7 hours is just a little bit more than 2 hours, I'd imagine.

reply to post by Varemia


And I suppose in your mind that means after two hours of fire the building will automatically completely collapse into it's footprint?

The two hours simply means a particular component has to survive two hours of a temperature specified by the test requirements. I believe it's 1700°C but don't quote me on it, just going by memory.

An open air fire will not get to the kind of temperatures required for the test.

Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.

Temperatures in flames and fires

Originally posted by NIcon
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".

Oh come on, if we're talking about lame discussion tactics then "I can say anything I like and you can't stop me" is just as bad as anything I may have done.

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.)

No, single sentences said in a non professional context a decade ago is not sufficient for "evidence".

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.

What sort of counterargument do you expect? You've indicated that you are convinced by constant confirmation rather than individual evidence which has no other explanation. Now you're complaining that I provided you with a completely plausible alternate explanation?

This is getting increasingly silly. Only people who have already been convinced by the 911 truth claims will agree with you because that is the barrier for entry.

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.

The difference being that you seem to be trying to dictate who fell down and where based on things you're assuming about them.

Originally posted by maxella1
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?

This is a fairly poor example for reasonable suspicion. The very nature of it being more than one person describing the exact calibre shows that it's very unlikely they were all the shooter or somehow in league with the shooter as what reasonable person would admit as much on national TV?

There's a technique you're using here and I think unconsciously. You've select a piece of 'special knowledge' to identify the suspects. You assume that 'regular joes' will not have the facility to identify the calibre of weapon fired and so the existence of knowledge of the weapon calibre is reasonable suspicion.

However, this does not apply in the case of the WTC. What was being described is exactly what appeared in front of them, without any recourse to special knowledge or anything other than what a 'regular joe' could and would see and know. There's no reasonable suspicion because they have done nothing but describe what they see.

If you want to arrest and question people for describing what they see on 911, then surely your first priority should be to arrest those who talk about flashes and similar to get a more detailed understanding of their claim, not people who describe no interesting features at all.

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.

This is because you are assuming that 'controlled demolition' is the obvious answer, by ignoring the questions it raises. Lets say we assume that some controlled demolition was being carried out on the corner of a tower. Why?

There are no corner columns of any significance, and the very specific collapse mechanism proposed by NIST relies on corner pieces undergoing relatively little ejection and spreading. Why would a conspiracy plant bombs in open, used offices, near no structural elements but clearly visible to the public?

The fact is that wanting to question people because they described the collapse, but wanting to assume that controlled demolition explosives just must have been in place because one person says they saw windows blowing out in a specific fashion is extremely biased. It's so biased that hopefully this post will show any casual reader the different standards of evidence you are using.

If you answer nothing else in this post, please answer me as to the level of evidence you feel is required to present a 'controlled demolition' or even 'demolition' (I'm sorry, it's hard to keep in mind everyone's different personal theories). I consider the evidence for 'natural collapse' to be very detailed and with few unexplained details remaining. I consider the current controlled demolition theories to be little more than speculation. You couldn't tell me where charges were placed, for example.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
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.

Well it's notable that NIST themselves are extremely accountable, they literally put their names on the bits of the report they are responsible for and have given lots and lots of public interviews.

However, the US Government is hardly a bastion of public good. I don't disagree with the rest of your post but I don't agree with speculating wildly on conspiracy theories. These theories exist about every topic. My example was the Moon Landing hoax, which is still believed despite the incredible amount of evidence developed over 40+ years including literal video, audio, physical evidence, radio tracking, radio signals, photographs, physical anomalies etc etc.

I fear 911 will end up like this, or the JFK conspiracies. Not enough evidence to convince even a low level court in a minor case, but thousands of people online who have been convinced by only ever being presented distorted or biased evidence.

How many people still claim 'free fall speed' for WTC1&2? Despite the fact that there's never been such a thing as 'free fall speed', it's an acceleration or a time. That is the ultimate irony in my eyes.

Originally posted by ANOK
And I suppose in your mind that means after two hours of fire the building will automatically completely collapse into it's footprint?

The two hours simply means a particular component has to survive two hours of a temperature specified by the test requirements. I believe it's 1700°C but don't quote me on it, just going by memory.

It's not 1700C but you quoted a source saying that so I don't think we need to argue there. Still, what Varemia said is exactly right. Fires over extended periods will penetrate fireproofing as it is little more than an insulator. In WTC7 no element was expected to go over a few hundred degrees, but enough to cause damage.

At least you're posting correct information about the max temperatures of fires, you don't know how many times I've seen people claim 700C as the maximum possible temperature in fire, despite the fact that there are thousands of sources available on the real details.

Originally posted by TheMindWar
I know the truth. So do thousands of others. I am fine and can handle it. So whats your point?

The CIA, FBI and other inteligence services did 9/11 with political backing from Cheney and Bush, and large corporate intelligence backing including Isreali Mossad.

You don't know the truth. You are believing what you have been told by conspiracy websites and allowing them to poison the well of your research. There is literally not the tiniest shred of evidence tying Mossad to any 911 related activities. The absolute closest you can get is just linking 'jews' in general and so conspiracy sites go on to try and push this to be something more sinister.

If you know the truth, tell me, where were the charges placed and how did they work?

reply to post by exponent

Oh come on, exponent, you left out the most important part of what I said, i.e. "based upon what I've seen, read and heard." And I've shown what I've seen, read, and heard, which is more than just cute stories about my workaday world. I've provided words right from Mr. Hamburger's mouth. And I believe when the guy that was "commissioned to perform a postmortem on the World Trade Center's collapse" speaks to a newspaper or gives a lecture at a university about the World Trade Center that it is in a PROFESSIONAL context. He wasn't speaking as a "stay at home dad" or about "how men over 50 handle a mid-age crisis." Was he?

You definitely can stop me if you were to give me more than a "water cooler conversation" with a co-worker. But let's take a closer look at your "plausible" analogy. If Mr. Hamburger was convinced merely by idle chatter and that was proven, I would then condemn him as the worst forensic investigator of all time. Why? Because he was the one to do the investigating, yet he was swayed by idle chatter from a colleague, not by verifying the facts of the case.

You asked what kind of counter arguments I expect... well I've been asking for them continuously. But here it is again rephrased, what verified facts existed 8 days after the event that could have convinced Mr. Hamburger that "no bombs had been detonated"? Was 8 days sufficient time to draw any conclusions? According to you "All it would take is a water cooler conversation the day after 911 to be informed no bombs had exploded." Please enlighten me with all the facts that were floating around the water cooler on September 12th, 2001.

But here's another plausible explanation, just to counter your plausible explanation, based on historical record rather than a personal recollection of co-workers:

Haldeman: That the way to handle this now is for us to have Walters call Pat Gray and just say, “Stay the hell out of this…this is ah, business here we don’t want you to go any further on it.” That’s not an unusual development,…

Nixon: Um huh.

Haldeman: …and, uh, that would take care of it.

Nixon: What about Pat Gray, ah, you mean he doesn’t want to?

Haldeman: Pat does want to. He doesn’t know how to, and he doesn’t have, he doesn’t have any basis for doing it. Given this, he will then have the basis. He’ll call Mark Felt in, and the two of them …and Mark Felt wants to cooperate because…

Nixon: Yeah.

watergate.info...

That's all it takes for a cover up. I'm not saying that's what happened, but it is also a plausible scenario since it happened only 8 days after the event, before Mr. Hamburger's investigation began.

So, do you have anything other than "All it would take is a water cooler conversation the day after 911 to be informed no bombs had exploded."?

Originally posted by NIcon
Oh come on, exponent, you left out the most important part of what I said, i.e. "based upon what I've seen, read and heard." And I've shown what I've seen, read, and heard, which is more than just cute stories about my workaday world. I've provided words right from Mr. Hamburger's mouth. And I believe when the guy that was "commissioned to perform a postmortem on the World Trade Center's collapse" speaks to a newspaper or gives a lecture at a university about the World Trade Center that it is in a PROFESSIONAL context. He wasn't speaking as a "stay at home dad" or about "how men over 50 handle a mid-age crisis." Was he?

No, he wasn't, he was talking before the investigation began. How could he possibly be talking in a professional context before the investigation? He was talking about possibilities as a professional sure, but I can't imagine how you would see a newspaper interview as being indicative of a pre-existing conclusion. We could use the same logic against almost any scientific investigation. If people said that it appeared to be a seal failure on an SRB that destroyed Columbia, would you have the same reaction? I don't think so.

You definitely can stop me if you were to give me more than a "water cooler conversation" with a co-worker. But let's take a closer look at your "plausible" analogy. If Mr. Hamburger was convinced merely by idle chatter and that was proven, I would then condemn him as the worst forensic investigator of all time. Why? Because he was the one to do the investigating, yet he was swayed by idle chatter from a colleague, not by verifying the facts of the case.

Again we're talking about before the investigation.

You asked what kind of counter arguments I expect... well I've been asking for them continuously. But here it is again rephrased, what verified facts existed 8 days after the event that could have convinced Mr. Hamburger that "no bombs had been detonated"? Was 8 days sufficient time to draw any conclusions? According to you "All it would take is a water cooler conversation the day after 911 to be informed no bombs had exploded." Please enlighten me with all the facts that were floating around the water cooler on September 12th, 2001.

The most important facts floating around would be

• The videos of the impact and collapse
  
• The information gathered from the cleanup

Neither of these initially had any support for a controlled demolition theory. It was only some time later that claims about squibs etc started being made, but to many professionals the videos show no evidence of demolitions whatsoever to this day. I don't know why you think that this wouldn't be enough for speculation.

But here's another plausible explanation, just to counter your plausible explanation, based on historical record rather than a personal recollection of co-workers:
...
That's all it takes for a cover up. I'm not saying that's what happened, but it is also a plausible scenario since it happened only 8 days after the event, before Mr. Hamburger's investigation began.

It's certainly a plausible scenario in so far as I don't have a problem with political corruption as a theory, there's just the slight issue of the wide ranging investigation coming to a specific conclusion that you are ignoring here.

So, do you have anything other than "All it would take is a water cooler conversation the day after 911 to be informed no bombs had exploded."?

Nope, and I have no idea why anything more would be required. Despite your lengthy prose we are still talking about a single statement made by an investigator before the investigation started. Again, just because someone gets a fact correct before investigation does not mean the investigation itself was biased towards that conclusion. If that is the case then I could make the same accusations against most 911 truth groups.

I'm not sure there's anything more to discuss here, we clearly disagree on this topic, but I don't think I am being unreasonable. Maxella is making roughly the same claims regarding members of the public who accurately summarised what they saw and so I think it's clear that this line of reasoning is not inherently logically sound.

I don't have any evidence about how he was convinced, you don't have any evidence of how he was convinced and refuse to contact him to ask. I don't draw any solid conclusions from this scenario, but you seem to be trying to, and so the burden of proof is on you here.

reply to post by exponent

There's a technique you're using here and I think unconsciously. You've select a piece of 'special knowledge' to identify the suspects. You assume that 'regular joes' will not have the facility to identify the calibre of weapon fired and so the existence of knowledge of the weapon calibre is reasonable suspicion.

The technique I'm using is very simple and i'm using it consciously. There are only three ways that you can know the exact callibre.. 1- you are or know who is involved in the shooting. 2- you wait for the body and crime scene examination results, 3- you got a lucky guess. For number 3 to be true we need to ruleout 1 and 2. And that is called reasonable suspicion. People are not arrested they are questioned.

However, this does not apply in the case of the WTC. What was being described is exactly what appeared in front of them, without any recourse to special knowledge or anything other than what a 'regular joe' could and would see and know. There's no reasonable suspicion because they have done nothing but describe what they see.

Not exactly. A "regular Joe" saw explosions didn't he? Who is the "architect" that told him that it wasn't?
So in one post you claim that people were confused and they need help understanding what they saw, but here you say that people could see from the outside that the explosions was not Explosives and the collapse was caused by intense heat from the fire and not bombs,,. This is special knowledge if you know this fact only an hour after the crime.

If you want to arrest and question people for describing what they see on 911, then surely your first priority should be to arrest those who talk about flashes and similar to get a more detailed understanding of their claim, not people who describe no interesting features at all.

Questioning is not the same thing as arresting.. People who saw flashes were questioned and dismissed as being confused remember. Plus you said that people couldn't know what caused all those flashes because they were outside and that flashes are normal in a collaplse. So why would you want them questioned again?

I'm interested in those people who saw flashes or were told by others of flashes inside the building but knew that it wasn't explosives right then and there.

The fact is that wanting to question people because they described the collapse, but wanting to assume that controlled demolition explosives just must have been in place because one person says they saw windows blowing out in a specific fashion is extremely biased. It's so biased that hopefully this post will show any casual reader the different standards of evidence you are using.

That's a hell of a way of putting it.

I'm saying that I think the people who knew exactly what was happening right there and then and even correcting others when the say that they saw explosions are suspicious because as you say a regular Joe saw flashes and heard explosions and assumed it was caused by the most obvious thing that is capable of creating explosions which is bombs. But some were telling the regular Joe that it wasn't the bombs, and even though WTC were the first in history to collapse from heat some people knew that it was exactly what happened to the buildings right away.

So i'm not biased I'm curious.

If you answer nothing else in this post, please answer me as to the level of evidence you feel is required to present a 'controlled demolition'

The buildings were blown up. We can see it on video, eyewitnesses described it in testimony. The level of destruction which I saw personally at ground zero few days later and what people who were there during the collapse were saying (explosions and a lot of them). The stonewalling by the White House, the conflicts of interest, the cover up, the fact that mobody got in any trouble is all I need to know that the OS is total BS.
As for the controlled demolition I dont know and I dont care where the bombs were placed or how many or how they were placed there. I don't need to know all that to know that the buildings were blown up.

reply to post by exponent

You forgot about this: "one of four top forensic engineers commissioned to perform a postmortem on the World Trade Center's collapse." That is past tense to me, which means he all ready had a role in the investigation, which means, to me, he was talking in a Professional context.

Or this from my second link supports it:

"The investigation, organized immediately after Sept. 11 by the American Society of Civil Engineers, the field's leading professional organization, has been financed and administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency."

But, also, you are ignoring the word "learning" (that one word again), which to me means something more than theorizing. Does it not?

And also, you're ignoring his words "very surprised." What made him "very surprised" (his words) 8 days after the event and before the investigation began? Was he "very surprised" that remnants of bombs didn't automatically start hopping out of the debris pile in 8 days? What specifically in the videos allows one to "learn" that "no bombs had been detonated"? (Remember, this all started with "You can't prove a negative")

Put another way... do coming up with theories or speculations make one "very surprised"? Can they be considered "learning"?

And you're ignoring just two months later his statement "which is why it collapsed as it did."

I guess my concern with this boils down to: Did he ever actually seriously investigate "charges placed in the buildings?" It appears to me, he did not. And I freely admit appearances can be deceiving, but he's been asked about this before and, from what I've read, he seems to just brush the question off.

Anyway, perhaps you are right, there isn't much further we can go, I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this. This does seem more of an exercise in argumentative gymnastics, rather than discovering anything new.

But just to let you know, I am definitely not conclusive on this. As I said in a previous post, I look at stuff like this and see "certain trends" emerge. But I'm not overall satisfied with any final position, whether it be NIST's report, plain incompetence, a bomb conspiracy, thermite conspiracy or a political conspiracy. None to me are totally convincing. (I suppose I should also include no-planes and energy beams and mini-nukes... but I didn't want to open that door... but it looks like I just did.)

But it's funny you used the word "political", as in my second link there is this:

''FEMA is controlling everything,'' the team member said. ''It sounds funny, but just give us the money and let us do it, and get the politics out of it.''

Hmmmm?

But for now...see you soon in another thread.