This is the thread that may very well change the way you look at 9/11 FOREVER!

[beachnut]

Maccy,

Please just boil it down for me. What does this GOVERNMENT agency say happened to the core columns? It's doesn't take 1000 pages. Can you please just lay it out in a paragraph?

Also, does everyone agree, that WTC 1 & 2 came down in some sort of pancake collapse? Yes or No will do. I know the actual details may be more complex, but the end result is a pancake collapse, yes?

Thanks.

You need to read all of NIST. Then if you disagree you should ask questions.

Are you able to read real works based on science and engineering and tell us what you think.

If you have not read NIST you have missed a lot.

 

[Horatius]

HOLD UP EVERYONE!!!​

-Gumboot

I tried that approach, albeit less verbosely, and perhaps a bit more snarkily, several hours ago. Still no response from him of any significance, so I've gone back to standard hit-him-with-facts mode.

I'd still be willing to play his game his way, but it doesn't look like he wants to play anymore, now that he knows we don't just accept the stacked deck without argument.

 

[28th Kingdom]

28th kingdom.. You are going to have to listen carefully to what I say. So lets Uncross your legs and get out of that lotus position. off your flying carpet. snuff out the incense and walk through the beaded curtains to the real world.

Now that I have your attention.

Name me one single time buildings as tall as the world trade center towers were demolished by controlled demolition. What? You cant? Therefore I present to you the finding that the world trade center could not have been brought down with controlled demolition.


see how your logic works when used by us on the debunking side?


OK now on to the "it sounded like an explosion" quotes from witnesses. OK I bring to you thousands of witness reports of tornado's sounding like freight trains. Therefore I present to you the finding that all tornado's are in fact freight trains.

AW,

You are right. WTC 1 & 2 didn't fall like WTC 7(typical CD) now did they? They were taken down differently. If you will notice...WTC 1 & 2 aren't actually collapsing floor by floor. That's an illusion. Actually, the floors are just being blown up floor by floor, starting at the impact point...and then moving down. There are some angles where you can really see this happening, and I will post that when I find it. Everything was turned into dust...wow, I can't believe anyone can watch these videos and think that those buildings just fell down like that. Craziness. Not one building, but 3 buildings. Unreal. No disrespect...but you people aren't very skeptical at all. Sitting there and buying a report that was issued by some bias government agency...I mean, really...that's just naive. Sorry guys... I'm not trying to be mean, but really...

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Hello all,

I KNOW there has been a tremendous debate over the subject of 9/11, and from the few threads I have read it looks like most believe the, "Official Story." Well, here's what I can assure you. If you engage me in this debate, than you will NOT leave this thread without KNOWING that 9/11 was an inside job and brought down by controlled demolitions.

Of course, WTC 7 is and will forever be the smoking gun. I am, of course, referring to 47 story steel-structured building, that dissolved to the ground in mere seconds. I say - DISSOLVED into nothingness, in a mere few seconds. Whether it was 6 or 7 or 8 9 10 seconds...that's not at debate. We've all seen the video, and the fact remains...this 47 story steel-structured building literally DISSOLVED in just the blink of an eye....apparently due to a couple fires that were so LARGE they were virtually invisible from the outside.

1) Define "DISSOLVED"
2) Provide substantiating, objective, verifiable evidence supporting this assertion.

Remember...there is no official report on the cause of WTC 7's collapse.

Yet. It is expected out in the near future.

The 911 commission didn't even address it, and if you know anything about a pancake collapse...WTC 7 was NOT a pancake collapse. All 47 stories simply turned into jello all at once. And magically at that. No wait...I mean because of those small fires that melted the entire infrastructure all at once. Yea, that's what I meant to say.

Support this assertion with objective, verifiable evidence.

Now, I think one of the main problems people encounter when analyzing an event like this is that they OVER analyze it.

Expound on this. How can you overanalyze objective, physical evidence?

Especially since politics are often brought (kicking and screaming) into this discussion...it's easy for one to loose track of the real issues by dismissing another as a, "Liberal! or NeoCON!" Please, don't be blinded by political bias. In fact, let's just check that at the door. This debate has NOTHING to do with what political party you like to associate yourself with.

Strawman.

In conjunction: We're NOT debating WHO is responsible for 9/11 in this thread. So, regardless if you do decide to open your mind up to THE truth

Confirmational bias.

...it doesn't mean that you're saying or agreeing to who is actually responsible for the demolition of the WTC. The only fact about this event that we shall discuss, is whether or not FIRE was the chief cause of the collapse of WTC 1, 2, 7 or if a controlled demolition is to blame.

False choice fallacy. No one backing the Evidence Based Conclusion (EBC) has claimed that fire was the sole cause of collapse of any of those three listed buildings.

See, I think the main problem with the, 'Debunkers.' is that they never actually debunk this main issue i.e. the buildings came down via a demolition. And the reason they probably haven't presented any actual hard evidence (I'm not talking about an "expert's" commentary or analysis) I'm talking about actual evidence you could present in a court of law that PROVES unequivocally, that demolitions we're NOT used on the WTC buildings. And, really this is the only point worth discussing.

Asking to prove a negative is generally considered a logical fallacy. Additionally, assuming that something is true, just because it hasn't been proven false is argumentum ad ignoratium, also a logical fallacy.

Sorry, but calling someone a, "Nutjob!" isn't gonna work.

Strawman. No one here has used ad hom arguments as their basis for debunking.

I'm only looking for something that could be presented as evidence in a court of law. Let's get REAL left-brained and linear about this...oki doki! You know like Skeptics are SUPPOSE to be!

Attempted use of No True Scotsman as a form of poisoning the well noted.

[/strike]There is really no point in getting distracted with the small side issues and theories...because it only serves to dilute the whole point of this investigation...[/strike]and that is to irrefutably prove what caused the buildings to collapse.

And since you appear to disagree with the EBC, the onus is no your shoulders to do so.

So if we could...I would like to pose a series of simple questions...and all I want for everyone to do is simply respond to the question at hand. If everyone can follow these simple guidelines, than it shouldn't take too long before you will have to accept the fact that the buildings collapsed because of explosives and NOT a fire that melted steel wherein initiating an improbable pancake collapse.

Question 1: Is it possible to prove whether or not (irrefutably) that in the history of the world...a steel-structured building has collapsed as a direct result of a fire? I know we've all heard that this has never happened before 9/11, but is it possible to prove that statement true or false - without a shadow of doubt? And if we can prove whether or not that statement is true, than please give your answer - yay or nay, and present your evidence.

Moot point. You are falling for the Gambler's Fallacy. The outcome of previous situations has no effect on the outcome of a following situation. They can only be used to examine the physical, objective evidence, to see if it is consistent with the EBC or not.

 

[Horatius]

Maccy,

Please just boil it down for me. What does this GOVERNMENT agency say happened to the core columns? It's doesn't take 1000 pages. Can you please just lay it out in a paragraph?

You see, that's the problem. Such large, energetic events don't lend themselves to being "boiled down". People study at University for years to become just barely qualified to be able to study such things. Even then, it takes years of real-world experience before they get to the point of being recognized as an expert.

It's tempting, when confronted by such world-shaking events, that affect us all even if we're not directly linked to them, to try and understand it "using our guts" or some such thing, but that just doesn't work. Our guts don't understand kilotons of TNT type power. It just doesn't work. That may make you unhappy, but that's life. Deal.

 

[WildCat]

Please just boil it down for me.

No, read it yourself and if you object to anything specifically bring it up here.

 

[Pardalis]

You are right. WTC 1 & 2 didn't fall like WTC 7(typical CD) now did they? They were taken down differently.

So it doesn't look like a CD then?

 

[jsfisher]

How about we let Gumboot have the first?

 

[A W Smith]

OK then being that you allege every floor (your words) was brought down by explosives consecutively one by one. Figuring you would need a charge at every truss end at every floor. You know. small charges that you couldn't tell that they were charges at street level. How long would it take to plant each charge. as far as total I will do the math for you. also the weight of each charge. You see where i am going with this don't you? disregard the fact that you would have to wrap each charge to direct the explosion. we will not "overanalyze" that at this time. Just tell me where they were.. how much did they weigh. how long just to duct tape them to the truss or other member.

 

[28th Kingdom]

Question 2: Name the top three pieces of hard evidence that absolutely convinces you that the towers all fell according to NIST's report.

 

[Hutch]

Just reposting this so as to make sure it gets 28th Kingdom's (and ours) attention.

I concur completly with gumboot on this. 28th Kingdom, if you want this thread to progress, move forward to your second (or third and fourth and ..) questions or present something resembling hard evidence.

So far, you have said absolutely nothing we have not heard/discused/debated/proved to our satisfaction that it does not provide an explanation fo rthe facts. If you are to convine us otherwise, we need to see more that the 'same old same old"

You had a plan when you came here to convince us. I suggest you plow ahead with it.

And I further suggest you take up Gumboots' offer below on the core columns..but I doubt you are going to like it..

HOLD UP EVERYONE!!!​

My apologies, but I wanted to get your attention. Let's take a breather shall we?

First, an address to the JREFers.

In observing this thread, we have been a little hasty. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. I'd like to believe, for now, that 28K is genuine. He's just misled, not a troll.

The only way, in my experience, to truely win-over and educate a misled truther is to engage them in a dialogue. This has the added advantage that, once engaged in dialogue, it very quickly becomes clear if they are trolling or not (think Killtown and his UA93 thread).

We have not engaged 28K in a dialogue at all. He has been utterly swamped with a barrage of questions - some of which, frankly, totally disregard specific comments in his opening post.

I understand these questions. We are all frustrated at countless trolls etc. But what say he isn't a troll? Consider that you are a genuine but misled person, who foolishly believes CTs. You arrive at JREF to espouse your view. You are met with this barrage. Do you think such a response will help you to learn? Or make you resistant to the people here?

I would suggest we try a ChristopherA-like tactic of focusing on the points at hand. Unlike most Truthers, 28K actually seems to want to do this. He posed a single question. It has been answered. Instead of waylaying the dialogue into murky CT-land, let's stick with this answer and see where he goes next. We will soon learn if he is genuine or not.

This is, of course, all just my own suggestion.



To 28K:

I hope you took note of the above. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.

You asked a question in your first post:



The answer is yes, it is possible to prove the statement. For the record the TRUE statement is that a steel-structured building HAS collapsed as a direct result of fire. I have chosen to demonstrate the most striking example, but there are others.

The most striking is the Kader Toy Factory fire. I have not linked to the case study on it again, as someone else already linked to it.

But in summary, as a result of this relatively small fire, three multi-storey steel-structured buildings suffered total catastrophic collapse, killing several hundred people. Building Two, in particular suffered total collapse a mere 16 minutes after first catching alight.

Indeed, the Kader Toy Factory fire was remarkable in comparison with 9/11 in that, while it also involved three steel structures collapsing due to fire, at Kader none of the three buildings suffered any structural damage prior to collapsing, and the origin of the fires was a single corner of one floor of one building. In addition, from discovery of the very small fire, until collapse of the last building, was a duration of only 2 hours and five minutes.

In contrast, on 9/11 all three structures suffered massive structural damage prior to fires starting, two of the buildings had fuel-laden jet airliners as origin of fire, while the third had wreckage and fire from the other buildings, and from initiating event until final collapse of the third structure lasted 8 hours 34 minutes.

So, it is without dispute that YES, steel-structured buildings have collapsed due to fire prior to 9/11.

We have answered your question. I would ask that you proceed.

A further request, however, if I may be so bold.

As you can see, with so many voices, and such a complex event, it is easy to get sidetracked. You yourself have raised any number of different points.

I would ask that, for the sake of clarity, we stick to one topic in this thread. If people raise issues that are outside the designated topic, please feel free to ignore their posts, or inform them that they are off topic. Do not be baited!

If you wish to discuss other topics - Northwoods, NORAD, Iraq, etc... please create a NEW thread for the purpose of discussing the other topic.

I would again ask that all JREFers use this methodology, so we may keep things clear for engaging 28K in a proper dialogue.

So, 28K, your opening question leaves the topic relatively open. What would you like to focus this thread on? I would suggest you bring forward your best argument first. Remember to keep it very precise. "New York" is not a precise enough topic. You posted this statement earlier:





Will you stand by this? I believe this is an excellent first topic. It is something we are well versed in, as ChristopherA has been running a thread regarding the WTC cores for some time.

Shall we focus on this? Or do you have another subject area you would prefer to discuss?

If you wish to stick with the above topic, I will happily reply with a very straight forward step-by-step account of the progression of collapse, as accounted by the NIST investigations and visible evidence. I believe this explanation - in layman's terms - will answer your doubt.

I await your response.

-Gumboot

 

[Darth Rotor]

If you will notice...WTC 1 & 2 aren't actually collapsing floor by floor. That's an illusion. Actually, the floors are just being blown up floor by floor, starting at the impact point...and then moving down.

I don't think you are reading the posts that are responding to you, as a few pages back you were advised that professional CD techs don't tend to blow buildings up from the top down.

There are some angles where you can really see this happening, and I will post that when I find it.

This forum has about two years of information, interlaced with plenty of useless posts from various players, that inlcude hundreds of photographs of the WTC 1 and 2, as well as some videos.

It is a lot of info. It is all worth reading (it will take some days) and examining with an open mind. It does you no good to examine the info here with a predisposed framework of "it's an inside job, prove to me that it isn't." The threads are pinned at the top of the forum.

Everything was turned into dust

That claim ignores the months long effort, referred even by Troofer Dylan Avery, of the WTC plaza site clean up crews to pick up all that stuff that fell at WTC I and WTC 2, put it on barges, and take it to a disposal site. Some of the material was later sold to firms that wanted to use the scrap for construction, to include IIRC some Chinese firms.

It did NOT all turn to dust. You need to look (use the search function on this forum) for the disposal photos and discussions to fully understand how immense the pile of rubble was that had to be removed before anyone could consider rebuilding at that site.

...wow, I can't believe anyone can watch these videos and think that those buildings just fell down like that.

I have 20-20 vision, and they way they fell puzzled me. When I finally came upon the NIST report, and some other articles by experienced engineers (my formal education was in mechanical engineering) it made a whole lot more sense, particularly my puzzlement at the top of WTC 2 not tipping over. The secret was in the three dimensional lattice/web method of construction of the towers, which made them light and strong, and distributed loads through out the structure. That design is why the buildings withstood the impact and stood as long as they did after impact.

Unreal. No disrespect...but you people aren't very skeptical at all. Sitting there and buying a report that was issued by some bias government agency...I mean, really...that's just naive. Sorry guys... I'm not trying to be mean, but really...

I've been polite to this point. I am impressed with the good humor and good nature you show.

I strongly suggest, however, that until you have read every thread on this board about flight 77 that you not initiate any discussion about the Pentagon, Flight 77, missiles, Sky Warriors, or Captain Burlingame.

You have been warned.

There is a lot of good info on this site, I suggest you read more and post less. When you have digested it all, I'd suggest you do as Gumboot suggested, and narrow the scope of your posts to single questions at a time, or maybe a few questions related to a core topic.

It will make the answers easier, and the posts shorter, more concise. Best of luck in your search for the truth.

DR

 

[Horatius]

Question 2: Name the top three pieces of hard evidence that absolutely convinces you that the towers all fell according to NIST's report.

Okay, now you're not even trying to hide it.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=974

 

[gumboot]

How about we let Gumboot have the first?

Speaking of I'm thinking of withdrawing my generous invitation to 28K. His more recent posts, where he expressed utter disbelief that we could possibly believe the "official version" reeked of a familiar poster. Pardalis and others were right.

-Gumboot

 

[Matt32]

Sir,

Can you please link me to this? Also, it's hard to believe that SO MANY skeptics...are more willing to believe and accept an ULTRA RARE and previously undocumented event...such as the three building collapses due to fire/impact damage - than they are to believe...something as simple as a controlled demolition. We KNOW that planted explosives could have easily done that to those buildings...nothing hard to believe about that, right? Don't we all agree that explosives could have done that to the buildings?

But, hey...that's a crazy conspiracy theory, because it dissents from the, "official story." But, believing that THEORIES (remember, there is no physical evidence to back up any report you find about collapses caused by fire +/- structural damage that can unequivocally prove that those THEORIES are even possible) which are quite literally THEORIES...since this has supposedly never happened in the history of the world, until this day, somehow makes more sense to you and your left-brained analysis than a simple CD? Whoa! It's just so hard for me to believe this.

Um, we CT nuts can easily prove that controlled demolitions could have taken those buildings down...you critical-thinkers on the other hand...are shockingly...accepting some CRAZY THEORY...about how three of the most well-built structures in NYC...just happened to fall down for different reasons...in different ways on the same day...and that no other surrounding buildings...although some had more damage than WTC 7, didn't even hint at a collapse. Wow, I expect so much more from skeptics. You peeps are like charlatans or something...what the heck, man. Come on people...put on your critical-thinking caps.

This is blatantly false. First of all is the fact that WTCs 3-6 all either collapsed, or were taken down manually due to fear of imminent collapse. In addition, One Liberty Plaza was in danger of collapse for several days after 9/11, though to this day it still stands. There were a couple of other buildings that either collapsed, were destroyed, or suffered severe structural damage.

 

[beachnut]

Question 2: Name the top three pieces of hard evidence that absolutely convinces you that the towers all fell according to NIST's report.

Name any reason you think anything in NIST is not correct or is not base on fact?

You have to read all of NIST and or the conclusions.

Which of the NIST conclusions do you not like????

Hi dockerabbit

 

[Horatius]

Question 2: Name the top three pieces of hard evidence that absolutely convinces you that the towers all fell according to NIST's report.

1) Video of a big plane hitting one tower

2) Video of another big plane hitting the other tower

3) Seismic evidence that shows no evidence of explosives, but does show the vibrations from the collapses.


Just to play along.

 

[beachnut]

AW,

You are right. WTC 1 & 2 didn't fall like WTC 7(typical CD) now did they? They were taken down differently. If you will notice...WTC 1 & 2 aren't actually collapsing floor by floor. That's an illusion. Actually, the floors are just being blown up floor by floor, starting at the impact point...and then moving down. There are some angles where you can really see this happening, and I will post that when I find it. Everything was turned into dust...wow, I can't believe anyone can watch these videos and think that those buildings just fell down like that. Craziness. Not one building, but 3 buildings. Unreal. No disrespect...but you people aren't very skeptical at all. Sitting there and buying a report that was issued by some bias government agency...I mean, really...that's just naive. Sorry guys... I'm not trying to be mean, but really...

You have not read the reports. You have not read anything.

too bad your ideas are missing the noise of RDX, the pop of RDX that can be heard for miles.

What makes you different from other no brain lemmings in the 9/11 truth movement?

 

[Hutch]

Question 2: Name the top three pieces of hard evidence that absolutely convinces you that the towers all fell according to NIST's report.

OK, this thread is moving WAAAY to fast.

I am nowhere near the student of 9-11 that others are, but I'll take an initial shot:

1. The Towers/WTC were steel structed buildings and steel loses a large percentage of its' integrity at temperatures that would be generated by fires in the buildings.

2. The buildings suffered unique damage to their structures by large aircraft impact or large building material impact, amply documented and reported.

3. Once the combination of structural impact damage and the following fire weakening the remaining (and under greater stress) load bearing members, the collapse was initiated and continued as the load-bearing could not sustain the weight of the ongoing falling mass.

Which you will have to replace with a much more complling reason, for which I will patiently wait...

 

[WildCat]

Question 2: Name the top three pieces of hard evidence that absolutely convinces you that the towers all fell according to NIST's report.

Will you just continue to ignore all the responses for question 1? Will you do the same for question 2?