Is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative*?

[jaydeehess]

Correct Tony.

This spreading false meme of debunkers needs eradicating IMO.

"You cannot claim CD at WTC unless you provide a full alternate hypothesis for all of 9/11" Hogwash.

If you claim CD at WTC that is all you have to prove. Demands that you prove all other aspects of 9/11 are improper.

I will press you as hard as anyone to meet your burden of proof. But only for whatever claim of yours is the current topic of discussion or argument. Sure I won't accept reversed burden of disproof. BUT I will never demand that you explain the plane at the Pentagon before I will accept your proof of CD at WTC.

If there is ever a definitive case made for CD in any structure in Manhattan sure. So far though its purely speculative fiction.
-No evidence of explosives being installed
-No evidence of explosive residue, control mechanism, detonators
-No definitive documentary evidence of explosives
-No described placement of charges.

In fact the meme has changed over and over again. First it was explosives, then it was thermobaric bombs, then it was thermite, then it was a combo of thermite and explosives, then it was thermite enhanced explosives, each one with its attendant problems including the ones I list above.

THE very first 911 conspiracy post on another forum, which I responded to in October of 2001, opined on "bombs in the towers". I was interested in the idea. "Was there a plan to have bombs in them as well as having planes fly at them?" I wondered. After all the towers had been bombed before. IMHO the evidence supplied then was as lacking as it is now, 14 years later!

 

[jaydeehess]

So me posting snark on an internet forum keeps you from investigating the crime of the century? That made sense when you typed it and hit submit? No, it really didn't, and everyone reading this realizes what nonsense you just aid. Now. Think again.

Human Rights Watch, Woodward and Berstein, Amnesty International, and others don't feel as impotent as you guys. They actually investigate stuff and get results. You guys? Anything? Bueller?

No, lack of funds,,,, wait,,, no they do have funding.

Its lack of expertise,,,, um ,,, no they do claim 2000 relevant experts who, one supposes, could at least give them a cut rate price on services.

Its the short time period available,,,, um ,,, no , in fact its been as long since the final NIST report came out as it took NIST to produce reports on all WTC structures. One would assume that at least one or two research reports could have been done in that time, to counter one or two NIST reports or studies.

Now didn't I read that AE911T was in fact planning on doing an FEA and to that end would be publishing monthly progress reports on that effort. How's that coming along (albeit a decade late in beginning)?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

No video and no mechanism is what I am saying. That is much stronger than just no video.

There probably isn't video of you crapping your pants but we know there is a mechanism, so it wouldn't be a strong argument against somebody saying you crapped your pants just to say there is no video of it.

My point is more akin to somebody saying they saw you flying like the flying nun. Of course, there would be no video and no mechanism.

There is no video of anyone placing tons
of sand inside the buildings to muffle the
Detonation waves from cutter charges.

So I guess since there is no.video of cutter charges
being placed, that means none existed.

 

[chrismohr]

So me posting snark on an internet forum keeps you from investigating the crime of the century? That made sense when you typed it and hit submit? No, it really didn't, and everyone reading this realizes what nonsense you just aid. Now. Think again.

Human Rights Watch, Woodward and Berstein, Amnesty International, and others don't feel as impotent as you guys. They actually investigate stuff and get results. You guys? Anything? Bueller?

Carlitos is right Tony. If AE911 Truth devoted even $10,000/year to hire independent scientists to report on one aspect after another of their claims, and they got support from the scientific community in this way, they might get some traction. That one billboard in Times Square could have financed a number of reports and standard tests etc at a few thousand dollars a pop. Some of us would be happy to work together with you to suggest studies and people to do them so you get buyin here as well.
In the 1980s, when I was publishing articles exposing torture in Central America, I studied carefully the accounts from Jesuit priests who had credibility as they reported on the abuse suffered by their own congregants. The eyewitness accounts were too numerous and universal and carefully collected to ignore. I took those reports, flew to Washington and showed them to Republican congresspeople, two of whom voted against contra aid for the Nicaraguan terrorists after talking with me.
YOU NEED OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS from institutions outside your movement. You and AE911 Truth are spending way too much on publicity and almost nothing on analysis. You want an independent investigation, get AE911 Truth to hire a series of independent mini-investigations, one after another. Even I did that for you with the Jim Millette study.
I know, it's none of my business how AE911 spends its money, but I can't take your claims seriously when you don't get them independently verified outside your cocoon of fellow activists.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Did the FBI interrogate individuals who access to the interiors of the buildings such as elevator technicians, maintenance workers, contractors etc. from the perspective of whether or not charges could have been placed in the buildings.

Doesn't matter. There's no video, so according to Szamboti's Razor it never happened.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

YOU NEED OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS from institutions outside your movement. You and AE911 Truth are spending way too much on publicity and almost nothing on analysis. You want an independent investigation, get AE911 Truth to hire a series of independent mini-investigations, one after another.

The problem with statements like this, reasonable though they are, is that they are predicated on the assumption that there is something for that analysis to find. If there isn't - which there isn't, because 9/11 wasn't an "inside job", for whatever value of inside - then objective scientific analysis is the last thing the movement wants. From the point of view that AE911T is a fraudulent organisation that knows its central tenets are untrue, its behaviour makes perfect sense.

Dave

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Doesn't matter. There's no video, so according to Szamboti's Razor it never happened.

Dave

Dave, it is no video and no mechanism. Just not having video doesn't make it a solid argument. It is also when there is no mechanism that it becomes very solid.

Remember, you haven't been able to identify, or even describe, a mechanism for causing the inward bowing minutes before collapse. The reality is that it did not happen until the core went down during the collapse. The inward bowing minutes before is nothing but a construct of the NIST report to stay away from controlled demolition. However, they can't identify a mechanism without it either.

You shouldn't get down about it though. You should just reconsider your thinking on it.

 

[DGM]

Dave, it is no video and no mechanism. Just not having video doesn't make it a solid argument. It is also when there is no mechanism that it becomes very solid.

Remember, you haven't been able to identify, or even describe, a mechanism for causing the inward bowing minutes before collapse. The reality is that it did not happen until the core went down during the collapse. The inward bowing minutes before is nothing but a construct of the NIST report to stay away from controlled demolition. However, they can't identify a mechanism without it either.

You shouldn't get down about it though. You should just reconsider your thinking on it.

Funny thing is you have not done this. You say the "official story" does not cover this but you hand-wave it away with CD when people ask you for specifics. Funny how that is.....

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The problem with statements like this, reasonable though they are, is that they are predicated on the assumption that there is something for that analysis to find. If there isn't - which there isn't, because 9/11 wasn't an "inside job", for whatever value of inside - then objective scientific analysis is the last thing the movement wants. From the point of view that AE911T is a fraudulent organisation that knows its central tenets are untrue, its behaviour makes perfect sense.

Dave

This sounds like a lot of emotion instead of objectivity.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Carlitos is right Tony. If AE911 Truth devoted even $10,000/year to hire independent scientists to report on one aspect after another of their claims, and they got support from the scientific community in this way, they might get some traction. That one billboard in Times Square could have financed a number of reports and standard tests etc at a few thousand dollars a pop. Some of us would be happy to work together with you to suggest studies and people to do them so you get buyin here as well.
In the 1980s, when I was publishing articles exposing torture in Central America, I studied carefully the accounts from Jesuit priests who had credibility as they reported on the abuse suffered by their own congregants. The eyewitness accounts were too numerous and universal and carefully collected to ignore. I took those reports, flew to Washington and showed them to Republican congresspeople, two of whom voted against contra aid for the Nicaraguan terrorists after talking with me.
YOU NEED OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS from institutions outside your movement. You and AE911 Truth are spending way too much on publicity and almost nothing on analysis. You want an independent investigation, get AE911 Truth to hire a series of independent mini-investigations, one after another. Even I did that for you with the Jim Millette study.
I know, it's none of my business how AE911 spends its money, but I can't take your claims seriously when you don't get them independently verified outside your cocoon of fellow activists.

There have been a lot of private individuals who have looked into this, including myself, and in my opinion they have done more than enough to justify a new investigation by law enforcement. Just in this thread I have shown the NIST WTC report to be flawed with their minutes before collapse inward bowing, as they have no mechanism for it. I have done a lot more than that over the past nine years. I have also been involved with groups who sent evidence to Congressional and Senate people.

Private individuals do not have subpoena power and an appropriate investigation cannot be done without it. There is no question that there are individuals at large who had something to do with planting and detonating charges in those buildings and it is disingenuous and downright silly to even suggest private individuals do more than they already have.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

There have been a lot of private individuals who have looked into this, including myself, and in my opinion they have done more than enough to justify a new investigation by law enforcement. Just in this thread I have shown the NIST WTC report to be flawed with their minutes before collapse inward bowing, as they have no mechanism for it. I have done a lot more than that over the past nine years. I have also been involved with groups who sent evidence to Congressional and Senate people.

Private individuals do not have subpoena power and an appropriate investigation cannot be done without it. There is no question that there are individuals at large who had something to do with planting and detonating charges in those buildings and it is disingenuous and downright silly to even suggest private individuals do more than they already have.

It is disingenerous to say explosives were
Planted in the tours.

 

[jaydeehess]

This sounds like a lot of emotion instead of objectivity.

You've been invited to explain how explosives could act to gradually lower the core. I believe Dave was referring to that.

Then again, as I said before, several mechanisms by which the inward bowing could be brought about have been outlined in the pages of this forum.

 

[DGM]

Private individuals do not have subpoena power and an appropriate investigation cannot be done without it.

Subpoena power is needed to submit an engineering paper to a reputable journal? Makes you wonder how so many engineers get published.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Dave, it is no video and no mechanism. Just not having video doesn't make it a solid argument. It is also when there is no mechanism that it becomes very solid.

You've had the mechanism explained to you repeatedly. Meanwhile, you've given no mechanism by which delivery men could install charges on the main columns of the WTC towers. Therefore, by your own logic, it couldn't possibly have happened.

Dave

 

[jaydeehess]

Private individuals do not have subpoena power and an appropriate investigation cannot be done without it. There is no question that there are individuals at large who had something to do with planting and detonating charges in those buildings and it is disingenuous and downright silly to even suggest private individuals do more than they already have.

On the contrary, since you have no evidence at all of explosives there is a great deal of questioning whether or not your fictitious scenario has any merit at all.

Let's examine the evidence of how much questioning...
1) The general consensus on this forum.
2) The fact that not a single professional engineering organization has come out in support of the claim.
3) The recent court case brought by Harrit.

 

[Dave Rogers]

This sounds like a lot of emotion instead of objectivity.

Interesting. Another distinction you appear not to understand.

Dave

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Subpoena power is needed to submit an engineering paper to a reputable journal? Makes you wonder how so many engineers get published.

I have submitted papers to mainstream engineering journals more than once and one was published.

You are seemingly on here day and night and should know that as it was discussed in a thread here.

Your comments show you are just a wise guy though and you couldn't be bothered to explain.

 

[JayUtah]

...in my opinion they have done more than enough to justify a new investigation by law enforcement.

But your opinion doesn't seem to affect much, as the statistics plainly show. After more than a decade you can't convince a single law enforcement official that you have enough evidence to warrant an investigation. And you can barely convince the slightest paring of the relevant qualified experts that your ideas merit attention.

Private individuals do not have subpoena power and an appropriate investigation cannot be done without it.

And there's a good reason for that. There is a gatekeeper criterion which must be met. In order to wield the power of the state, which is the power to levy liability and curtail the rights of life, liberty, and proprty, there must be sufficient evidence to warrant unsheathing it. You cannot supply it. Hence the people who judge whether the power of the state is needed are suitably unimpressed.

...it is disingenuous and downright silly to even suggest private individuals do more than they already have.

Nonsense. You claim you have a sound legal case, but that's likely false because law enforcement ignores you. But you also claim to be a highly qualified professional who can mount a solid scientific case. For more than a hundred years there have been customary avenues for mounting those cases. Yet for some reason you eschew them and seek approval from "average people," and seek out inconsequential web forums where your argument scarcely rises above, "I'm so much smarter than all of you."

Slice it whichever direction you please. The presentation of your case is in no way consistent with a belief in having a strong scientific and legal case.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I have submitted papers to mainstream engineering journals more than once and one was published.

Yes, the reviewers must have been asleep to let that circular argument through.

Dave

 

[DGM]

I have submitted papers to mainstream engineering journals more than once and one was published.

You are seemingly on here day and night and should know that as it was discussed in a thread here.

Your comments show you are just a wise guy though and you couldn't be bothered to explain.

Could you link to your CD theory in a reputable journal? Thanks.

ETA: I'm (as you know) familiar with your papers that tap dance around minor corrections.

When are you going to drop the hammer on the NIST? Will the Europeans be involved (Dr Pepper said you guys were going to tell on them)?