Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[thewholesoul]

Could you clear things up a bit more please? This alternative hypothesis: LIHOP or MIHOP? Planes or no planes at the WTC? Plane or no plane at the Pentagon? Plane crash, shootdown or no plane at Shanksville? Thermite, explosives, energy beams from space or no demolition of WTC1 and 2? WTC7 - CD or collateral damage? Were the passengers on board? Were the airphone calls real or fake? Were the planes remote controlled, flown by hijackers working unwittingly for the CIA, or set on autopilot by Mossad agents who then parachuted out of the nose gear door? NORAD - stand down or shoot down? Put options? Fat Osama? Shall I go on?

You see, there isn't an "alternative hypothesis", just a mess of individual fantasies that don't mesh together in any coherent form. If there was a single, coherent, complete alternative hypothesis, it would be a big step forward from where the truth movement is now.

Dave.

hey dave,

i hold the belief that bigfoot order the destruction of the towers because mrs bigfoot had an affair with donald duck.

joking aside however - your right - there is an array of different versions in relation to the "alternative hypotehsis" i mentioned. but you could hardly say that the official hypothesis has been an example of consistency??

given that the topic of this thread is about witness testimony and explosions in the buildings i do not feel obliged to go into the exact version of the alternative hypothesis i subscribe to. its not the no planes theory anyhows.

let us just say that there are two kinds of folk. those that believe that the government tells the truth and those that do not. those that believe governemnts do not perform false flag operations and those that do.

take a look at pakistan my friend. the governemt said she died from hitting her head of the sun roof - that was the official story - and lets not forget the al queda thrown in for good measure. the official story was spun eventhough there was video evidence of her being shot!!! they have sinced changed their story - of course the government are still the good guys and had nothing to do with the event - all those nut bags saying the government could be involved are just crazy heh. those pesky conspiracists

 

[JimBenArm]

One potential spark source listed here I have a problem with, if I can be a bit pedantic. Motors most likely would not be a source of sparks, especially if they were induction motors. DC motors with brushes and commutators maybe, but AC induction motors do not spark. Since this is most likely the type used in the towers, I can't see this as a potential source.

 

[WildCat]

Is thewholesoul actually arguing that a airplane traveling over 400 mph and carrying thousands of gallons of fuel won't create a gigantic fireball upon impact lacking some sort of external "ignition source"?


And btw, still waiting for that "alternative hypothesis".

 

[WildCat]

given that the topic of this thread is about witness testimony and explosions in the buildings i do not feel obliged to go into the exact version of the alternative hypothesis i subscribe to.

Great, I'll start another thread just for you to present your 100% consistent alternative hypothesis.

 

[DavidJames]

let us just say that there are two kinds of folk. those that believe that the government tells the truth and those that do not. those that believe governemnts do not perform false flag operations and those that do.

Actually, let's not say that. Let's not use a false dilemma fallacy. Let's say you take some time to learn about critical thinking, come back and try again.

 

[funk de fino]

yes

Really, then why the later question?

yes i am focuing on the ignition because experts who actually conduct experiments on jet fuel list incendary devices as a possible igniton source. an experiment on you tube confirms this aswell see Re: 9/11 Debate: Loose Change vs. Popular Mechanics pt. 1

yet there is no other evidence for this incendiary? stick to what we know was available for the fire triangle please

i agree. the air/fuel ratio is crucial.

good

i agree.

again, good

but we must assume that the for the official hypothesis to be true the correct fuel/air ratio was present in the B2-3 levels in both towers despite the fact that the planes impacted at different floors which means that - assuming the fuel was oxygenated when descending down the elevator shaft - that the fuel/air ratio must have been different in B2-3 level of both towers yet the same event occured?

Assume? Why must we assume anything? tell me what was in the B2 B3 levels?

1. so what is the rate of oxygenation of descending fuel per/sec?

2. what is the range of fuel/air ratio in terms of being flammable?

1. irrelevant and shows me you know little about this subject

2. thought you knew about LEL's? what about UEL's?

i agree. and one plausible source in my opinion is an incendary device.

no, that would be implausible, you are incorrect

i dont agree. we do not need to construct an exact replica. we could construct a scale replica and remember we are not testing the structural integrity of the towers we are testing whether the jet fuel will ignite from possible sources of ignition. the quantity of fuel is a variable that could be measured and adjusted, the fuel/air ratio could be measured and adjusted, the speed at which the jet fuel feel could be measured and adjusted, the angle etc etc the ignition sources could also be prepared and tested.

How do we make an exact replica scaled for all the possible sources of ignition? Every switch, lamp, relay etc etc that was inside the lift shaft? or the B2/3 area?

PS from EDL site, after all there help they still could not come up with a definite source of ignition for TWA 800. Could they prove it in the Towers?

"The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the TWA Flight 800 accident was an explosion of the center wing fuel tank (CWT) resulting from ignition of the flammable fuel/air mixture in the tank. The source of ignition energy for the explosion could not be determined with certainty but, of the sources evaluated by the investigation, the most likely was a short circuit outside of the center wing tank that allowed excessive voltage to enter it through electrical wiring associated with the fuel quantity indication system.

They work with NTSB and the FAA. Do you agree with the findings from NTSB and the FAA about 911?

look if NIST can test how the fireproofing could be removed from the impact of jet plane by firing a shotgun into a wooden box containing a non-representative piece of fireproofing then experiments can me made to determine which ignition, if any, can in mid-air, non-locally cause a delfagration of descending jet-fuel. these are just some ideas.

They are ideas but they show you have no idea what you are talking about

also EDL - Aviation Kerosene (Jet A) Research at Caltech conduct many experiments to determine explosions in aeroplanes. that doesnto mean they fly a plane and plant an ignition in it. they do lab experiments, scale experiments, simulations in an attmept to investiagte and uncover the causes of a plane disaster. this stuff is not impossible.

For what you want to achieve, it is. Do they do full scale or small scale mock up tests of every plane crash to prove the failure?

thats fine, but other experts at the Explosions Dynamics Labratory study and test explosions for their bread and butter.

And? It is my job to understand and work in these areas, it is my bread and butter. I know more than you yet you doubt me. Why should I not doubt them?

i think thermite, lazer beams from mars, and bigfoot - sorry only joking -

i think was it an accident or intentional. and i think if it was intentional then every plausible hypothesis should be investigated thoroughly

You think this is a joke?

I asked what caused it not whether it was an accident of intentional? What do you think the most probable source of ignition could be in this gas explosion?

 

[thewholesoul]

WHAT IS PROOF?
Here are some defintions of “proof” found at dictionary.com
1 - To establish the truth or genuiness of, as by evidence or argument: “to prove one’s claim”.
2 - To give demonstration of “by action”.
3 - To subject to “a test, experiment”, comparison, analysis, to determine quality, amount, acceptability, characteristics.
4 - To establish the validity of something, as by “an example”, explanation or “experiment”.
Proof is also the conclusive establishing of the truth of a proposition

WHO HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF?

Here is a quote from wikipedia

Outside a legal context, “burden of proof” means that someone suggesting a “new theory or stating a claim” must provide eivdence to support it: it is not sufficient to say “you can’t disprove this”. Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else’s responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because “not X” cannot be proven (negative proof).

Now i understand your position on the burden of proof. what your saying is that those who do not accept the official hypothesis and are making a bold claim (i.e. the wtc were demolished by explosives or incendary devices) and it is they that are responsible to prove their bold claim.

I agree. We are responsible to prove the claim that the towers were demolished by CD.

WHAT IS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD?

Here is another quote from wikipedia

Scientific method is a body of techniques for “investigating phenomena”...it is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the “collection of data through observation and experimentation” and the formulation and “testing of hypotheses” Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinquish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers “propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses”.

(HYPOTHESES) A hypothesis consists of a “suggested explanation for a phenomenon”. The term derives from the greek, hypotithenai meaning “to put under” or “to suppose”. The scientific method “requires that one can test a scientfiic hypothesis”.
(EXPERIMENT) in the scientific method, “an experiment” is a set of observations performed in the context of solving a particular problem or question, “to retain or falsify a hypothesis” or research concerning phenomena. “The experiment is a cornerstone in the empirical approach to acquiring deeper knowledge about the physical world”.

Now i hope we are clear about “proof” the “burden of proof” the “scientific method”, “hypothesis”and “experimentation”


NIST's investigation is often cited as “proving the official theory” that the plane crashes and fires caused the collapses. Yet the Report does not explain why or how the buildings “totally collapsed”, despite the lack of a single historical precedent for a steel-framed skyscraper totally collapsing for any reason other than controlled demolition. NIST simply avoids explanation of “total collapse” by placing it outside the scope of its investigation, CLAIMING that "global collapse" was "inevitable" after the "initiation of collapse”.

So why was it inevitable? You say

because the forces involved were overwhelming

Here you are clearly making a “CLAIM”. A claim which has “not been proven” by “experimentation” but rather is assumed to be true. Your assumption is backed up by calculations which “predict” that the towers could not survive post the initial collapse. Of course there are “contrary calculations” which predict that the towers would have survived post the initial collapse.

Aerodynamically calculations on paper show that a bumble bee cannot fly – however we know that it can fly – in reality. experimentation is the best way and perhaps the only way to prove whether calculations are true or false.

Has the inevitablity claim/assumption been proven through experimentation? No!!

1)FACT: No large or partial models have been used to test the “total collapse”. The reason for this is because NIST considers such efforts “non feasible” due to problems with scaling laws.

2)FACT: No computer models or simulations were produced by NIST in relation to the “total collapse”. The reason given is because the computers are basically not sophisticated enough.

Now you pointed out that

They did a computer simulation

They actually did about 10 see my post #933 where i listed them ALL but none of these addressed the “total collapse”. Yes NIST models such things as the impact fireballs and smoke plumes and the pattern of damage caused by the impact of jetliners. Conspicuously missising from their study are simulations, models, or even calcualtions that attempt to describe how and why the towers “totally collapsed”.

So why total collapse has not be proven is essentially because

-it was not within the scope of NIST’s investigation

-to prove total collapse through experimentation or simulation is not feasible

i like to characterize this situation as the “impossible-inevitable” because although we are told that once the initial collapse occurs it is inevitable, a done deal, guaranteed that total collapse will ensue in a steel-framed skyscraper. at the same time we are told that it is impossible, not feasible, even outrageous (totovader’s comment) to prove this natural(?) phenomena through experimentation!!!

However i would contend that when computers become more advanced it will be modelled and the official hypothesis can finally be put to the test through demonstration.

There is also a “double-standard” or inconsistency that needs to be addressed. On the one hand defenders of the official hypothesis are never shy when invoking the burden of proof argument against advocates of alternative hypothesis. and as stated above i entirely agree and believe that advocates of alternative hypotheses, or any hypothesis for that matter, are responsible in terms of proving their own hypothesis. However on the other hand defenders of the official hypothesis appear to reject any call for them to prove their own hypothesis – that is, the official hypothesis. in other words, truthers have to prove how total collapse occured due to controlled demolition or explosives but defenders of the official hypothesis do not have to prove that the total collapse occured due to fire and gravity. This double standard is unacceptable.

Again the arguments presented by defenders of the official hypothesis include
(a)We already proved the official hypothesis: but we all know that their claim that total collapse is inevitable post initial collapse has neither been investigated or proven through the scientific method.

(b)It cannot be proven: the impossible-inevitable arguement which is not sustainable given advances in computer technology.

Now to my mind there are two kinds of investigation.

The first is the “full complete” investigation. That is instead of truthers calling for a reinvestigation of an alternative hypothesis they should demand that the official hypothesis be more thoroughly investigated and “eventually proven” through the “scientific method”.

If, of course, the official fire-and-gravity hypothesis cannot be proven to be true then it must be abandoned. Thewholesoul challenge still remains unaswered – that is, if (hypothetically speaking) the official hypothesis was not proven to be true – would you continue to believe it is true or would you support an alternative hypothesis???

The second is the reinvestigation of 911 under an alternative hypothesis. but this is “not feasible” if indeed members of the governemnt were complicit. If, of course, it was not an inside job then efforts for a reinvestigation under an alternative hypothesis is an extreme waste of money and ultimately a “futile endevour”.

in closing i argued that the burden of proof rests on advocates of all hypotheses and that includes defenders of the official hypothesis. if someone disagrees i would really enjoy a civil debate.

the big CLAIM is that total collapse is inevitable post initial collapse. if anyone can provide me a large or partial model, or computer simulation of this i would retract my argument that the official hypothesis is unproven - assuming of course that total collapse is also part of and included in the official hypothesis.

 

[A W Smith]

TheSoleHole thanks for making our point

Outside a legal context, “burden of proof” means that someone suggesting a “new theory or stating a claim” must provide eivdence to support it: it is not sufficient to say “you can’t disprove this”. Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else’s responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because “not X” cannot be proven (negative proof).

 

[Dave Rogers]

joking aside however - your right - there is an array of different versions in relation to the "alternative hypotehsis" i mentioned. but you could hardly say that the official hypothesis has been an example of consistency??

What you refer to as "the official hypothesis", a term of which only the first word is accurate, is indeed an example of consistency compared to the conjecture salad put forward by the truth movement. When you try to equate inconsistencies in "the official hypothesis" with those in the truther views, you're suggesting that attempts to understand the mechanism by which certain events occurred are equivalent to complete lack of knowledge of the basic sequence of events. Such an equation can only be suggested by those without the slightest vestige of a sense of proportion.

Dave

 

[Belz...]

WHO HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF?

Here is a quote from wikipedia

Outside a legal context, “burden of proof” means that someone suggesting a “new theory or stating a claim” must provide eivdence to support it: it is not sufficient to say “you can’t disprove this”. Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else’s responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because “not X” cannot be proven (negative proof).

Thanks for making my point clearer.

Here you are clearly making a “CLAIM”. A claim which has “not been proven” by “experimentation” but rather is assumed to be true.

It's not ASSUMED to be true. When such a significant mass falls, it just doesn't stop. But hey! Before you go and build yourself a full-scale Trade Center, why don't you get some physics class and calculate it yourself ?

Your assumption is backed up by calculations which “predict” that the towers could not survive post the initial collapse. Of course there are “contrary calculations” which predict that the towers would have survived post the initial collapse.

Show them.

Aerodynamically calculations on paper show that a bumble bee cannot fly

Source ?

1)FACT: No large or partial models have been used to test the “total collapse”. The reason for this is because NIST considers such efforts “non feasible” due to problems with scaling laws.

Not only that, but it also wasn't the goal of their report.

2)FACT: No computer models or simulations were produced by NIST in relation to the “total collapse”. The reason given is because the computers are basically not sophisticated enough.

And also because they didn't care much: they also know that once the collapse initiated, nothing could stop it.

 

[funk de fino]

thewholesoul

why are you stealing other peoples quotes and words and arguments?

are you not intelligent to come up with your own?

unless you are jim hoffman, you are stealing his words straight from his shambles of a paper

are you going to admit you are he, give him proper a cite, or admit you are trying to pull the wool over our eyes?

i would like to think you will do the right thing here and not creep any further into dishonesty

 

[thewholesoul]

(i said) Did i say that acceptance or popularity was the grounds by which to determine whether a hypothesis is proven or not? No.

(you said) Why don't you read what I said again:

so what he said was

That it (the official hypothesis) is not accepted by some does not mean it isn't proven

I think we are experiencing a communications break down or something Belz. If you re-read carefully your own statement above the important parts highlighted in bold you are obviously, plainly, and clearly suggesting that because the official hypothisis is not accepted by some does not mean that the official hypothesis is not proven. meaning that you believe the official hypothesis is proven and just because some wacko truthers do not accept the official hypothesis does not mean the official hypothesis is not proven. which suggests to me that you are basing acceptance of the official hypothesis as "one ground" upon which the official hypothesis is already proven.

Once again acceptance, popularity, or whatever is not the criterion by which to determine whether a hypothesis is proven or not. The fact more accept the official hypothesis has nothing got to do with proving the truth of that hypothesis according to the scientific method of tests and experimentation.

Let me explain to you again the reason why the official hypothesis remains unproven. the official hypothesis in relation to the total collapse has not been tested.

you say

Of course it's been tested. Two airliners crashed into the WTC towers on 9/11. They collapsed. There is no rational alternative explanation.

Wrong. You are confusing the observed phenomena with experimentation.
total collapse was never tested - you could perhaps withdraw this statement aswell if you like.

Apart from 911 the primary reason steel-framed skyscraper’s totally collapsed was due to controlled demolition. To my mind that makes it a pretty rational and plausible explanation for the events.

Now as soon as you can tell me which large or partial models and/or computer models were used to test the total collapse of the twin towers – please let me know.

you said

Again, you ignore what I've said more than once: once the collapse was initiated, we all agree that it could not be stopped because the forces involved were overwhelming

Just a second ago you were claiming that terrorists flying two planes into the towers were actually conducting a scientific experiment.

Now your saying that no experimnet is required because total callapse was inevitable post initial collapse. If indeed you all agree it could not be stopped (which of course is an untrue statement) then surely it would be easy to demonstrate this natural phenomena through tests and experimentation.

This CLAIM – that once the collapse initiated – total collapse was inevitable HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN.

i am not and never have IGNORED this claim! it is CENTRAL to my argument - CENTRAL. what you seem to ignore is that this CLAIM was never proven according to the scientific method of testing and experimentation!!!!! and just because you keep repeating this CLAIM doesnt make it true.

The burden of proof IS yours BECAUSE it is the accepted theory.

Wrong. The burden of proof is on any person who endorses a particualr hypothesis. if you believe that only defenders of alternative hypothesis have a burden of prove then you are practising an unacceptable double standard. See my post #1047

To repeat the CLAIM – that once the collapse initiated – total collapse was inevitable HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN.

They did a computer simulation

They did several computer simulations but – NONE – not one on the total collapse post initial collapse.

I've asked you several times to link to a video where we DID hear, at least what sounded like, explosions. you have FAILED to do so.

No i linked videos here they are again. 9/11 Twin Towers: Bomb in the lobby!
Account of North Tower Explosions from the New Jersey Shore.
9/11: Total Proof That Bombs Were Planted In The Buildings

If you cannot hear an explosion in these videos then the only thing that failed is your hearing.

If you disagree that an explosion can be heard in all three of these videos then tell me what should an explosion sound like and why do the explosions in these videos not sound like explosions. simply stating i "failed" is not provideing the reasons why YOU THINK i failed.

(i said) it is a FACT that explosions were heard by witnesses we know this by reading their testimony

now the only logical way to refute this fact is to say that no explosions were heard, nobody claimed to hear explosions in their testimony - now thats the only logical way to refute that statement i made above. lets see what Belz says

No, what's a FACT is that they CLAIM to have heard explosions.

Hahahahah – i love it.

Heres another fact: it is a fact that planes were seen hitting the towers by witnesses and we know this by reading their testimony or by watching the event on tv, but according to you

No, whats a FACT is that they CLAIM to have seen planes hitting the towers as if to say it is NOT A FACT that the planes hit the buildings!!!

Your simply wrong my friend – the FACT was the EVENT that they were describing through their TESTIMONY which is also a FACT.

It is a fact that explosions were heard. It is also a fact that they claimed to have heard explosions. This means that what YOU said.

not a single explosion is heard

I have no idea if ANY explosions were heard at all

is factual incorrect, not true, and should be withdrawn immediately.

I'm not saying they are lying, I'm saying they are most likely wrong

So if they are not lying that they heard an explosion then they DID HEAR AN EXPLOSION that is WHY, dont you think, THEY WOULD CLAIM TO HAVE HEARD AN EXPLOSION. So if they are not lying that they heard and claimed to have heard an explosion you should consider withdrawing the statements below

not a single explosion is heard

I have no idea if ANY explosions were heard at all

This no-explosion-heard nonsense should not have been left to me to correct. Again it demonstrates the fraternal mentality in this forum.

Of course they could be mistaken or wrong regarding what caused the explosion, but the experience of the explosion itself is not a question of right or wrong – it is a matter experience - did it happen or not. Because you admit they are not lying that means the experience of the explosion DID HAPPEN.

Why do people CLAIM to hear or see something??? Answer me that please. Heres a wild guess – may be they did actually hear or see something!!!

And if your going to mock my reading ability or lack of, perhaps you should not be so keen as to explain where it was you were taught your english – (watching television in the 80’s).

 

[thewholesoul]

Is thewholesoul actually arguing that a airplane traveling over 400 mph and carrying thousands of gallons of fuel won't create a gigantic fireball upon impact lacking some sort of external "ignition source"?


And btw, still waiting for that "alternative hypothesis".

according to Edward McCabe B4 he felt building move a little (assuming that was caused by the impact of a plane) it was 30 seconds later than an explosion occured in the basment.

the freight elevator (car 50) was not obliterated from a fireball

felipe morelli heard the explosion below and was later burnt from heat

nobody here is saying that the fuel wont great a gignatic fireball - it did - we all saw it.

but what your suggesting - which is wrong - is that this initial fireball travelled down the elevator shaft and exploded in the basement.

if this was true then
(a) one would expect the explosion in the basement to have occured before 30 secs.
(b) one would expect the freight car to be obliterated from the fireball bursting down the elevator
(c) one would expect felipe david to be burnt before he heard the explosion below because he was standing in front of the freight elevator the fireball you are claiming travelled down.
(d) if were seriously looking for answers to what really happened that day you would not propose silly ideas that are not even supported within the official hypotheis that you yourself claim to defend.

what the official hypothesis claims is that jet fuel deflagration was responsible for the explosion in the basement. that means that jet fuel or vapor travelled down the elevator and was ignited by some heat source other than the initial fireball you suggested.

 

[thewholesoul]

Is thewholesoul actually arguing that a airplane traveling over 400 mph and carrying thousands of gallons of fuel won't create a gigantic fireball upon impact lacking some sort of external "ignition source"?


And btw, still waiting for that "alternative hypothesis".

according to Edward McCabe B4 he felt building move a little (assuming that was caused by the impact of a plane) it was 30 seconds later than an explosion occured in the basment.

the freight elevator (car 50) was not obliterated from a fireball

felipe David heard the explosion below and was later burnt from heat

nobody here is saying that the fuel wont great a gignatic fireball - it did - we all saw it.

but what your suggesting - which is wrong - is that this initial fireball travelled down the elevator shaft and exploded in the basement.

if this was true then
(a) one would expect the explosion in the basement to have occured before 30 secs.
(b) one would expect the freight car to be obliterated from the fireball bursting down the elevator
(c) one would expect felipe david to be burnt before he heard the explosion below because he was standing in front of the freight elevator the fireball you are claiming travelled down.
(d) if were seriously looking for answers to what really happened that day you would not propose silly ideas that are not even supported within the official hypotheis that you yourself claim to defend.

what the official hypothesis claims is that jet fuel deflagration was responsible for the explosion in the basement. that means that jet fuel or vapor travelled down the elevator and was ignited by some heat source other than the initial fireball you suggested.

 

[Totovader]

thewholesoul

why are you stealing other peoples quotes and words and arguments?

are you not intelligent to come up with your own?

unless you are jim hoffman, you are stealing his words straight from his shambles of a paper

are you going to admit you are he, give him proper a cite, or admit you are trying to pull the wool over our eyes?

i would like to think you will do the right thing here and not creep any further into dishonesty

It's not the first time thewholesoul has plagiarized someone else's work. I caught him doing the same thing before (in post #950)

His response?

so now i am the plagorist for reading a phd paper and using its references.

Clearly, he does not understand the implications of stealing other people's work.

 

[Belz...]

I think we are experiencing a communications break down or something Belz.

Apparently, the words on your computer screen aren't those I type...

If you re-read carefully your own statement above the important parts highlighted in bold you are obviously, plainly, and clearly suggesting that because the official hypothisis is not accepted by some does not mean that the official hypothesis is not proven.

Exactly, which counters your implied argument that because some doubt it, it should be put to the test again.

meaning that you believe the official hypothesis is proven

That's a non sequitur. The sentence you quoted: "That [the 'official' theory] is not accepted by some does not mean it isn't proven", does not mean that I believe it IS proven. That I believe it is of no consequence.

which suggests to me that you are basing acceptance of the official hypothesis as "one ground" upon which the official hypothesis is already proven.

Well, isn't that ANOTHER non sequitur ? When most professionals in a given field accept a given theory, it's not like an argument from popularity. It may not be proof that something is true, but it's sure better than a popular poll.

total collapse was never tested - you could perhaps withdraw this statement aswell if you like.

I think I'll stick with it, in fact. You have not, nor has anyone, provided an alternative theory that holds under scrutiny. We KNOW that things fall down, and, aside from twoofers, most people know that when something that big falls down, no man-made structure will withstand it. That's why skyscrapers are usually built to hold a STATIC mass, not a moving one.

Apart from 911 the primary reason steel-framed skyscraper’s totally collapsed was due to controlled demolition. To my mind that makes it a pretty rational and plausible explanation for the events.

And THAT would be a fallacy:

1.) Some As are Bs
2.) X is an A
3.) Therefore X is a B

Add the complete lack of evidence, and you've got a loser, here.

Just a second ago you were claiming that terrorists flying two planes into the towers were actually conducting a scientific experiment.

Sarcasm is not an argument.

Now your saying that no experimnet is required because total callapse was inevitable post initial collapse.

Now ? I've been telling you this for ages.

If indeed you all agree it could not be stopped (which of course is an untrue statement) then surely it would be easy to demonstrate this natural phenomena through tests and experimentation.

Sure, it would be, but it's be a pretty expensive test for something we already know is true, by experience. YOU're the one asking for an investigation. Why don't YOU fund the test ?

Wrong. The burden of proof is on any person who endorses a particualr hypothesis.

You have no idea what "burden of proof" is, then. If you think I have to prove the Earth is round every time a flat earther comes along, you're mistaken.

if you believe that only defenders of alternative hypothesis have a burden of prove then you are practising an unacceptable double standard.

Soul, you have NO IDEA how science works.

No i linked videos here they are again. 9/11 Twin Towers: Bomb in the lobby!
Account of North Tower Explosions from the New Jersey Shore.
9/11: Total Proof That Bombs Were Planted In The Buildings

Those are not links. Those are words in a post. There is no hyperlink, and I won't chase phantoms.

If you disagree that an explosion can be heard in all three of these videos then tell me what should an explosion sound like

Well, that's the crux of your problem, isn't it ? How do you distinguish an explosion from any other, loud, sudden noise ?

Hahahahah – i love it.

You simply have a very poor grasp of English.

People claim to have heard explosions. Did they ? Did they hear a very loud noise and they think it was an explosion ? Did they hear someone say there was an explosion and are retrofitting their memories ? I don't know. That's why I can't say that any explosions were heard. Please learn to read.

No, whats a FACT is that they CLAIM to have seen planes hitting the towers as if to say it is NOT A FACT that the planes hit the buildings!!!

Precisely. The people who saw planes hitting the towers CLAIM that they saw planes hit the towers. Of course, we have an insurmountable mountain of evidence showing that those same planes DID hit the towers. Case closed.

Your simply wrong my friend – the FACT was the EVENT that they were describing through their TESTIMONY which is also a FACT.

Then you must believe in UFOs, fairies and multiple omnipotent gods.

is factual incorrect, not true, and should be withdrawn immediately.

I don't play games, Soul. If you can't understand English, logic and evidence, that isn't my problem.

So if they are not lying that they heard an explosion then they DID HEAR AN EXPLOSION

False dichotomy. I explained other possibilities above.

that is WHY, dont you think, THEY WOULD CLAIM TO HAVE HEARD AN EXPLOSION. So if they are not lying that they heard and claimed to have heard an explosion you should consider withdrawing the statements below

Non sequitur.

This no-explosion-heard nonsense should not have been left to me to correct. Again it demonstrates the fraternal mentality in this forum.

Don't try to put me in the same bag as everybody else. If you want me to debate you on a seperate thread I will gladly do so.

Because you admit they are not lying that means the experience of the explosion DID HAPPEN.

Bolding mine.

Yes. You got THAT right.

And if your going to mock my reading ability or lack of, perhaps you should not be so keen as to explain where it was you were taught your english – (watching television in the 80’s).

At least I can understand the language and write it properly, most of the time.

 

[thewholesoul]

yet there is no other evidence for this incendiary? stick to what we know was available for the fire triangle please

there is evidence and i will be presenting an argument from steven jones at a later date.
there is proof that thermite reactions can be a source of ignition when in contact with fuel in the youtube video i posted previously
there is confirmation by explosives experts that incendary devices can be an ignition source for jet fuel.
I will stcik to evidence, proof and confirmation and the fire triangle

Assume? Why must we assume anything? tell me what was in the B2 B3 levels?

We must assume that the correct fuel/air ratio was present in the B2-3 level because it was never proven that jet fuel falling the height of 90+ floors will be sufficiently or excessively oxygenated when it reaches the B2-3 level likewise for the south tower where the jet fuel fell from a lower height and shorter distance.
Now i could be wrong, may be there is calculations out there that suggest the rate of oxygenation of a droplet of fuel falling at a certain speed – but i have not read anything like that or heard NIST presenting anything as such.
However the rate of oxygenation of descending fuel seems to me an irrelevant none issue for you – and i can admit that you would know better on this subject.
Good question, what was in the B2-3 levels? I think many described it as the mechanical rooms. What these machines were responsible for i have no idea. But if you are trying to suggest that the machines were the ignition source then you would have to make the argument that the machines were somehow in the elevator shaft.
But maybe the jet fuel vapor did seep through the doors into the B2-3 level? But i heard on loose change that the elevator shaft was airtight thus it would not permit escaping gas or vapour into the floors below unless there was some kind of local damage to the structure.

thought you knew about LEL's? what about UEL's?

I have no idea what a UEL is. If you are trying to answer the question by highlighting my lack of knowledge in a subject that you teach then you have succeeded. but if you could be so kind as to explain in laymans terms “what is the range of fuel/air ratio in terms of being flammable?” because the little i do know about the fire triangle is that you need air, fuel and heat source. If there is no air then there will be no explosion, if there is no fuel there will be no explosion. And if there is no heat source then it is unlikely there will an explosion unless the fuel self-ignites.

no, that would be implausible, you are incorrect

Why would it be implausible in you opinion? Am i and EDL incorrect when we say that a thermite reaction or incendray devices can be an ignition source for jet fuel? If you are saying they cannot be used as an ignition source then present your reasons.

How do we make an exact replica scaled for all the possible sources of ignition? Every switch, lamp, relay etc etc that was inside the lift shaft? or the B2/3 area?

Well one way to make an exact replica is to do just that – make an exact replica. But we both know that is not feasible.
The sources of ignition you outlined i.e. switch, lamp, relay could be easily tested in isolation you do not have to test every switch to discover that it could be a source of ignition. However it is important that in such an experiment the identical kind of switch etc be tested and that the switch be in the identical position it was located in the twin towers relative to the descending jet fuel. It is importnat to replicate the conditions as closely as possible.
If your only reason against experimentations of possible ignition sources is that we cannot build a scale strcuture then what is your objection to building a partial structure or testing the identcial ignition sources in isolation with jet fuel?

PS from EDL site, after all there help they still could not come up with a definite source of ignition for TWA 800. Could they prove it in the Towers?

First of all NIST – never even tried to find the ignition source in the basement eventhough a mid-air, non-local ignition of descending jet fuel occured in the same location of both towers in the backdrop of witnesses claiming that this explosion in the basement was in fact a “bomb”!!
Second – i was aware that EDL did not come up with a definite source of ignition from flight TWA 800 and that NIST likewise did not find a defintie source of ignition – but may be you could help me explain that to others in this room who beleive that NIST has proven that the explosion in the basment was caused by falling debris, light bulbs etc.
Yes EDL did not find a definite source of ignition but they did at least try to discover what is was. After they tested through lab experiments, simulations and ¼ scale models they arrived at the most probable causes. Name one lab test simulation or scale model NIST has conducted in order to determine what caused the “explosion” in the basment B2-3 that somehow were actually there considered a “bomb”?? let me tell you how many – zero!!
Third – once an extensive amount of tests has been carried out and after such exhaustive and thorough investigation a definite source of ignition has not been discovered only then do we arrive at the “most probable cause” explanation behind the explosion in the basment. then we have to address the question why incendary devices or a thermite rection could not possibly be an ignition source of jet fuel – or probable causal explanation behind the explosion in the basement.

They work with NTSB and the FAA. Do you agree with the findings from NTSB and the FAA about 911?

Well when i went to NTSB website i found this:

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI. The Safety Board does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The Safety Board did not determine the probable cause and does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI

I did find lots of documents about the flight path of the hijacked planes and air trafficn control recordings as listed below
Document 1: NTSB report, "Flight Path Study-American Airlines Flight 11," Feb. 19, 2002 [Chapter 1, The 9/11 Commission Report, "We Have Some Planes." Footnotes 23, 33]

Document 2: NTSB report, "Flight Path Study-American Airlines Flight 77," Feb. 19, 2002 [Chapter 1, The 9/11 Commission Report, "We Have Some Planes." Footnote 53]

Document 3: NTSB report, "Flight Path Study-United Airlines 175," Feb. 19, 2002 [Chapter 1, The 9/11 Commission Report, "We Have Some Planes." Footnote 41]

Document 4: NTSB report, "Specialist's Factual Report of Investigation-Digital Flight Data Recorder" for United Airlines Flight 93, Feb. 15, 2002 [Chapter 1, The 9/11 Commission Report, "We Have Some Planes." Footnotes 70, 71]

Document 5: NTSB report, Air Traffic Control Recording-American Airlines Flight 11, Dec. 21, 2001 [Chapter 1, The 9/11 Commission Report, "We Have Some Planes." Footnote 24]

Document 6: NTSB report, Air Traffic Control Recording-American Airlines Flight 77, Dec. 21, 2001 [Chapter 1, The 9/11 Commission Report, "We Have Some Planes." Footnote 54]

Document 7: NTSB report, Air Traffic Control Recording-United Airlines Flight 175, Dec. 21, 2001 [Chapter 1, The 9/11 Commission Report, "We Have Some Planes." Footnotes 24, 41, 42, 44]

Document 8: NTSB report, Air Traffic Control Recording-United Airlines Flight 93, Dec. 21, 2001 [Chapter 1, The 9/11 Commission Report, "We Have Some Planes." Footnote 71]
But i found nothing – no information – about tests or experiments carried out by the NTSB concerning the explosion of jet fuel in the basement. NTSB is required by Congressional mandate to investigate airline disasters, but, due to the fact that a crime was committed, the usual independent investigative work resulting from an airline disaster was preempted by the FBI, leaving NTSB as a mere "technical advisor". http:www.justice for911.org
If there is a public report on the aviation diaster in the wtc perhaps you could direct me to a link.
As for the FAA they too have been rather secretive and they continue to withhold pre-911 ID confrming aircraft serial number data of 911 planes.

They are ideas but they show you have no idea what you are talking about

So you think the shotgun with the fireproof in a wooden box was a good idea??? Tell me why you believe that NIST’s shotgun experiment was better than the proposals i made to experiment on jet fuel. Please tell me why you think my proposals are bad ideas – not feasible – and how they show my lack of knowledge in the subject area in question.

For what you want to achieve, it is. Do they do full scale or small scale mock up tests of every plane crash to prove the failure?

I agree i suspect they would not conduct “full scale or small scale mock up tests of every plane crash to prove the failure” – but I fail to see how testing a lamp, relay motor, or burning debris cannot be recontructed. I want to see – have it demonstrated to me – that jet fuel vapor will be ignited by these sources. These ignition sources must be identical models, in the identical location relative to the elevators design parameters. The elevator itself could be a scale model of two storeys high. If not a partial model of the elevator could be made.
I would like to know the exact design parameters inside the elevator shaft, whether for example, these sources were actually exposed to the descending jet fuel.
NIST or anyone else for that matter has not tested or demonstrated what could have been the source of ignition in the basement. They have speculated.

And? It is my job to understand and work in these areas, it is my bread and butter. I know more than you yet you doubt me. Why should I not doubt them?

I am not doubting your credentials. I know you know more about this subject than myself. If you are saying that simple experiments cannot be achieved you have to provide convincing reasons. So far all you have provided is scaling problems which i dont actually believe is a major obstacle in terms of testing ignition sources of jet fuel.
You can doubt whoever you like – thats your right. I have a sneeky suspicion you even doubt me!! Doubt is healthy and i wish more people in this room would share my doubt in the official hypothesis.

You think this is a joke?

Yes i thought it was a joke.

I asked what caused it not whether it was an accident of intentional? What do you think the most probable source of ignition could be in this gas explosion?

It was a fixed question.

when you see a gas explosion in someones house what do you think is the most likely cause of the ignition?

First – your already telling me what the cause was and then you ask me what i think it was eventhough you already made it perfectly obvious that it was caused by gas!!

Second – i object to the context or setting of the question. Why dont you use a skyscrapper building that was previously attacked and has a history of terrorist bombs instead of a nice little neighbourly house where gas explosions are not unheard of.

Third – your question ignores the fire triangle that you teach your students about. Yes we have the gas (fuel), yes have the air (oxygen), but what was the ignition source? You seem to sugegst in your question that the gas – was the ignition source – which is in violation of the fire triangle unless it somehow self-ignited. So to answer your question what was the ignition source of the gas – it could have been a thermite reaction or an incendary device. It is a fact that prior to 911 thermite has been used in arson http://www.journalof911studies.com/...a-paper-by-wood-&-reynolds-by-frank-legge.pdf

In truth what was the ignition source in the house example could have been a variety of possible to probable causes. Without an investigation it is impossible to prove anything

 

[thewholesoul]

TheSoleHole thanks for making our point

hahahahha - it that right?

lets see that quote again

Outside a legal context, “burden of proof” means that someone suggesting a “new theory or stating a claim” must provide eivdence to support it: it is not sufficient to say “you can’t disprove this”. Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else’s responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because “not X” cannot be proven (negative proof).

ok i understand you did not bother to read the whole post# 1047 but instead opted for a liitle dig - and a weak one at that. But let us examine the above quote in relation to the official hypothesis.

new theory: tell me. when was the progressive global collapse theory first invented? pre or post 911? the fact that previous to 911 no steel framed skyscrappers exhibted a progressive global collapse - this "new theory" was aptly invented. was it ever proven? - no.

claim: once intial collapse occured total collapse was inevitable. was this claim - some would say bold claim - ever proven? no

so, like i said and the quote that you used above says the burdern of proof means the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. Therefore the burden of proof rests on defenders of the official hypothesis AND advocates of alternative hypothesis. if the bold claim - once intial collapse occured total collapse was inevitable – has been proven then who proved it and did they use the scientific method? It wasnt....

moreover, you kindly made the predictable and unacceptable “double-standard” which i discussed in my post#1047 which basically asserts that advocates of controlled demolition must prove how the towers could survive the initial collapse but advocates of the official hypothesis do not have to prove how the towers could not survive the initial collapse. It seems to me in both our interests if we could prove this bold claim one way or another. Those who resist or object to this claim ever being proven cannot be said to respect the scientific method.

So next time you want to make a little dig – and least put your back into it.

 

[thewholesoul]

What you refer to as "the official hypothesis", a term of which only the first word is accurate

"the"?

but seriously why do you not consider the official hypothesis - a hypothesis - and specifically in relation to the total collapse.

you're suggesting that attempts to understand the mechanism by which certain events occurred are equivalent to complete lack of knowledge of the basic sequence of events.

no that is a strawman. to argue, as i have done, that the official hypothesis remains unproven does not mean that some aspects of the official hypothesis have been proven, that is, there is a complete lack of knowledge.

Such an equation can only be suggested by those without the slightest vestige of a sense of proportion.

now i dont know what sense of proportion you use - but when roughly 4/5 of the portion of a building is demolished i would say that is a rather significiant proportion that needs to be investigated, explained and eventually proven.

besides gven that they were the first three steel frame skyskrapeprs even to exhibit a global collapse - i think, proportionally, that was an extermemly rare occurance and ever purported explanation or hypothesis needs to be proven.

 

[thewholesoul]

Clearly, he does not understand the implications of stealing other people's work.

i only "borrowed" it. i will ring jim hoffman personally and inform him of my actions.

besides when are you going to apologise for disrespecting family members who you happen to disagree with??? i am betting never.