Let us have a fact check.

[Mancman]

Let's see, hmm the winsor fire
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_15017460aaed694caf.jpg[/qimg]

WTC fire

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_15017460aaed6b2a72.jpg[/qimg]

Quite predictable that you posted a photo of the WTC taken several hundred feet away. In zoomed in shots you see the extent of the fires:

 

[Without Rights]

ok, before I post what I consider solid evidence and facts (and there is a blurred line between evidence and facts, so dont give me that black and white of evidence is not facts), I want to state that if you are going to dismiss what I post simply because you, joe blow public, do not have access to the raw information or data on said things, then lets end it here, because that is rediculous. I cannot walk up to a police station or FBI office and ask for "all the info" on criminal case "X", so why should you be entitled to the details or information from a criminal investigation...get real.

It's funny because that's what everybody asks the truthers to do.

Evidence/Facts:

The FBI, the USA's criminal investigation organization, is accepted by most sane people as a reliable source for information. If you find them corrupt, etc, than that is your problem. Arguing that in your opinion they are corrupt, does not deminish the value or weight of evidence they provide, as your opinion is just that, a useless, weightless opinion...

But something that shoud be looked in to at the request of the people. The FBI did give bombs to the terrorists. Since you have to pay to access the story I'll just post it;

THE NEW YORK TIMES
* * * * *
Thursday October 28, 1993 Page A1
"Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart
Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast"
By Ralph Blumenthal​

Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building a bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center, and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting harmless powder for the explosives, an informer said after the blast.
The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer, Emad Salem, should be used, the informer said.
The account, which is given in the transcript of hundreds of hours of tape recordings that Mr. Salem secretly made of his talks with law-enforcement agents, portrays the authorities as being in a far better position than previously known to foil the February 26th bombing of New York City's tallest towers.
The explosion left six people dead, more than a thousand people injured, and damages in excess of half-a-billion dollars. Four men are now on trial in Manhattan Federal Court [on charges of involvement] in that attack.
Mr. Salem, a 43-year-old former Egyptian Army officer, was used by the Government [of the United States] to penetrate a circle of Muslim extremists who are now charged in two bombing cases: the World Trade Center attack, and a foiled plot to destroy the United Nations, the Hudson River tunnels, and other New York City landmarks. He is the crucial witness in the second bombing case, but his work for the Government was erratic, and for months before the World Trade Center blast, he was feuding with the F.B.I.
Supervisor `Messed It Up'
After the bombing, he resumed his undercover work. In an undated transcript of a conversation from that period, Mr. Salem recounts a talk he had had earlier with an agent about an unnamed F.B.I. supervisor who, he said, "came and messed it up."
"He requested to meet me in the hotel," Mr. Salem says of the supervisor.
"He requested to make me to testify, and if he didn't push for that, we'll be going building the bomb with a phony powder, and grabbing the people who was involved in it. But since you, we didn't do that."
The transcript quotes Mr. Salem as saying that he wanted to complain to F.B.I. Headquarters in Washington about the Bureau's failure to stop the bombing, but was dissuaded by an agent identified as John Anticev.
Mr. Salem said Mr. Anticev had told him,
"He said, I don't think that the New York people would like the things out of the New York Office to go to Washington, D.C."
Another agent, identified as Nancy Floyd, does not dispute Mr. Salem's account, but rather, appears to agree with it, saying of the `New York people':
"Well, of course not, because they don't want to get their butts chewed."

1. 19 Hijackers confirmed, both by flight manifests, and via DNA analysis. They were named in a criminal case against Moussaui. The evidence was good enough for acceptance into a legal case in a US Court of Law.

Do you have a link to the manifest? and the DNA analysis?

Not in a US court of law, in a military tribunal created by GWB and cronies through the military commission act, which passed as a result of the attacks, where he is denied council, denied access to evidence against him and tortured before hand at least by the CIA.

2. Thousands of people were eye witnesses to the planes that crashed, AA11 - WTC, UA 175 - WTC, AA77 - Pentagon. In a court of law, multiple eye witnesses to a crime or event is considered VERY STRONG evidence.

Yet the people who heard bombs and saw flashes and the lobby being torn apart (How?) A guys face melted off in the sub-level his testimony don't count. You all know the maintainence man, his testimony don't count.

3. Family members of victims aboard the flights have testified, written and verbally, that they received phone calls from their loved ones while on the flights. Now in a court of law, what do you think would be seen as the strongest evidence, these testimonies from the relatives, or somone speculating that "well it coulda been actors using sophisticated voice mimicing technology" with no actual proof that this is what happened.

Every time I call my mom I say "Hi mom, it's Firstname Lastname" No I say My name and she knows. That is suspicious to me. I don't contend that it was voice technology but such technology does exist
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905E5D91E3DF932A05754C0A9679C8B63

Shall we discuss these first, or will I post more. Do you have proof that the above facts/evidence are false?

evidence can give false positives and false negatives, it happens everyday in our court system. Evidence does not = truth, all it can help you do is come to a resonable solution.

 

[beachnut]

Every time I call my mom I say "Hi mom, it's Firstname Lastname" No I say My name and she knows. That is suspicious to me. I don't contend that it was voice technology but such technology does exist

I have, you just do not call your mom enough! You are sinking faster than stalled aicraft.

Your argument is antidotal, just hearsay.

 

[uk_dave]

Another paranoid android

eta: without rights, not beachnut

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

<snip>
Yet the people who heard bombs and saw flashes and the lobby being torn apart (How?) A guys face melted off in the sub-level his testimony don't count. You all know the maintainence man, his testimony don't count.

explosions <> explosives

evidence can give false positives and false negatives, it happens everyday in our court system. Evidence does not = truth, all can help you do is come to a resonable solution.

Evidence "give(s)" nothing of the sort.

[edit] Statistical error: Type I and Type II

Statisticians speak of two significant sorts of statistical error. The context is that there is a "null hypothesis" which corresponds to a presumed default "state of nature", e.g., that an individual is free of disease, that an accused is innocent, or that a potential login candidate is not authorized. Corresponding to the null hypothesis is an "alternative hypothesis" which corresponds to the opposite situation, that is, that the individual has the disease, that the accused is guilty, or that the login candidate is an authorized user. The goal is to determine accurately if the null hypothesis can be discarded in favor of the alternative. A test of some sort is conducted (a blood test, a legal trial, a login attempt), and data is obtained. The result of the test may be negative (that is, it does not indicate disease, guilt, or authorized identity). On the other hand, it may be positive (that is, it may indicate disease, guilt, or identity). If the result of the test does not correspond with the actual state of nature, then an error has occurred, but if the result of the test corresponds with the actual state of nature, then a correct decision has been made. There are two kinds of error, classified as "Type I error" and "Type II error," depending upon which hypothesis has incorrectly been identified as the true state of nature.

[edit] Type I error

Type I error, also known as an "error of the first kind", an α error, or a "false positive": the error of rejecting a null hypothesis when it is actually true. In other words, this is the error of accepting an alternative hypothesis (the real hypothesis of interest) when the results can be attributed to chance. Plainly speaking, it occurs when we are observing a difference when in truth there is none (or more specifically - no statistically significant difference).
In simple terms, a false positive normally means that a test claims something to be positive, when that is not the case. For example, a test saying a woman is pregnant when she is actually not pregnant is an example of a false positive.

[edit] Type II error

Type II error, also known as an "error of the second kind", a β error, or a "false negative": the error of not rejecting a null hypothesis when the alternative hypothesis is the true state of nature. In other words, this is the error of failing to accept an alternative hypothesis when you don't have adequate power. Plainly speaking, it occurs when we are failing to observe a difference when in truth there is one.

false positive^WP

 

[stateofgrace]

Every time I call my mom I say "Hi mom, it's Firstname Lastname" No I say My name and she knows. That is suspicious to me. I don't contend that it was voice technology but such technology does exist

Really? Well maybe next time you are on a plane that has been hijacked and you are facing certain death you will act differently to Mark Bingham. I am sure you will not feel the stress and be in total control of all you say in your last phone call to your loved ones.

 

[Disbelief]

Countless people heard bombs, that is evidence. Firefighters said they seen flashes in the lower floors, that is evidence. Molten metal in the sub-levels that is evidence. Molten metal pouring from the tower, that is evidence.

Ever see (and hear) a transformer blow? High voltage cable cut? As noted by others, there were other metals present besides steel. Do you have a picture of molten metal pouring from the tower? I haven't seen one, but would be interested.

 

[uk_dave]

I'll post this again, cause I think it's interesting.....

http://newsfilm.bufvc.ac.uk/article....05100819530392

Apparently, when the roof collapsed it was heard five miles away.

I wonder if a 1930's 'truther' believed there were bombs used?

 

[Arus808]

Ever see (and hear) a transformer blow? High voltage cable cut? As noted by others, there were other metals present besides steel. Do you have a picture of molten metal pouring from the tower? I haven't seen one, but would be interested.

speaking of transformers exploding:

 

[WildCat]

Yet the people who heard bombs

My oh my, how we've gone from being "on the fence" to full blown CT who has a complete inability to weigh facts and evidence.

 

[uk_dave]

My oh my, how we've gone from being "on the fence" to full blown CT who has a complete inability to weigh facts and evidence.

I suspect he is venting alot of pent up frustration at having served a three day suspension.

No need for any pretense now, it's full throttle woo, and damn the facts.

 

[Without Rights]

Quite predictable that you posted a photo of the WTC taken several hundred feet away. In zoomed in shots you see the extent of the fires:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/10252460ac0c39a5cf.jpg
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/10252460ac0c35d142.jpg

Still doesn't compare to the winsor burning like a giant torch for 20 hrs, and did you notice the core never collapsed. Every other building collapse that occured from structural failure (that I have seen, examples welcomed if you don't mind holding off on the sarcasm) never turned to mountains of dust, you can clearly see piles of floors stacked like you would expect in a pancake collapse. Where is all the concrete at WTC?

 

[rwguinn]

Still doesn't compare to the winsor burning like a giant torch for 20 hrs, and did you notice the core never collapsed. Every other building collapse that occured from structural failure (that I have seen, examples welcomed if you don't mind holding off on the sarcasm) never turned to mountains of dust, you can clearly see piles of floors stacked like you would expect in a pancake collapse. Where is all the concrete at WTC?

Did you ever notice that fires burning at night seem bigger and hotter than ones seen in daylight?
Did you ever notice that fires observed from 3 or 4 floors away always seem bigger and hotter than those observed from 88 or 90 floors away?
Did you ever notice that 2.5 hours = 20 hours?

 

[DavidJames]

never turned to mountains of dust, you can clearly see piles of floors stacked like you would expect in a pancake collapse. Where is all the concrete at WTC?

Now he's morphing into TS1234.

 

[Without Rights]

My oh my, how we've gone from being "on the fence" to full blown CT who has a complete inability to weigh facts and evidence.

So I cannot argue apoint against "skeptics" or I automatically believe the whole story. You are stating no facts. Some are present but most "debunking" claims are not facts but possibilities of what might of happened. And it doesn't even try to explain the total destruction of the building from a smaller section tilting sideways falling on a huge mass of steel and concrete that were not weakened by fire. The fires were only in the upper floors, explosions were in the lower floors if you look at eye witness evidence. Whether these explosions were bombs is definently not fact, it is a theory. The fact that were explosions that are unexplained and should be accounted for.

 

[Without Rights]

Now he's morphing into TS1234.

Oh you really debunked me there, two people sound the same, I guess we must both be P'doh too, uh?

 

[ConspiRaider]

Still doesn't compare to the winsor burning like a giant torch for 20 hrs, and did you notice the core never collapsed. Every other building collapse that occured from structural failure (that I have seen, examples welcomed if you don't mind holding off on the sarcasm) never turned to mountains of dust, you can clearly see piles of floors stacked like you would expect in a pancake collapse. Where is all the concrete at WTC?

(bolding mine)

Magic dust, man. Cheech & Chong talked about it:

Chong: No, man. No, man, how'd he do all that other stuff, man? Like, how'd he make himself small, man. And, how'd he, like, how'd he get the reindeer off the ground, man?

Cheech: Oh, well, man, he had some magic dust, man.

Chong: Some magic dust?

Cheech: Yeah, magic dust, y'know? He used ta give a little bit to da reindeer, a little bit to Santa Claus, a little bit more for Santa Claus, a little bit more...

Chong: And this would get the reindeer off, man?

Cheech: Aw, got 'em off, man?!? Are you kidding, man? They flew all da way around da world, man!

 

[Without Rights]

Did you ever notice that fires burning at night seem bigger and hotter than ones seen in daylight?

No. Are you saying that if the picture of the Madrid building would of looked similar to the WTC if it had been taken during daylight hours?

Did you ever notice that fires observed from 3 or 4 floors away always seem bigger and hotter than those observed from 88 or 90 floors away?

The only pictures of 911 burning is from 88-90 floors away?

Did you ever notice that 2.5 hours = 20 hours?

Are you saying the Madrid building only burnt for 2 1/2 hrs?

 

[stateofgrace]

So I cannot argue apoint against "skeptics" or I automatically believe the whole story. You are stating no facts. Some are present but most "debunking" claims are not facts but possibilities of what might of happened. And it doesn't even try to explain the total destruction of the building from a smaller section tilting sideways falling on a huge mass of steel and concrete that were not weakened by fire. The fires were only in the upper floors, explosions were in the lower floors if you look at eye witness evidence. Whether these explosions were bombs is definently not fact, it is a theory. The fact that were explosions that are unexplained and should be accounted for.

That smaller section being a quarter of the building. That being 125,000 tons of steel and concrete suddenly becoming dynamic.

That being that vast amounts start to fall on the floor BRACING. That simply cannot bear this dynamic load and simply collapse.

I see also in your world nothing at all could explode inside burning building, strange world you live in

 

[Without Rights]

(bolding mine)

Magic dust, man. Cheech & Chong talked about it:

Chong: No, man. No, man, how'd he do all that other stuff, man? Like, how'd he make himself small, man. And, how'd he, like, how'd he get the reindeer off the ground, man?

Cheech: Oh, well, man, he had some magic dust, man.

Chong: Some magic dust?

Cheech: Yeah, magic dust, y'know? He used ta give a little bit to da reindeer, a little bit to Santa Claus, a little bit more for Santa Claus, a little bit more...

Chong: And this would get the reindeer off, man?

Cheech: Aw, got 'em off, man?!? Are you kidding, man? They flew all da way around da world, man!

Is this suppose to prove that large concrete section are visible at GZ and that lower Manhattan was not covered in pulverized concrete?