Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[DGM]

your right.

there is another angle of course. there was no CD and no terrorists either. but the government attacked the buildings with the planes.

Lets take a look:

CD - False flag - govt lies

Evidence other than speculation? None.

no CD - false flag - govt lies

Evidence other than speculation? None

CD - terrorist attack - govt true

Evidence other than speculation? Besides the fact that it's technical unfeasible to hide such a thing. None.

no CD - terrorist attack - govt true

Evidence other than speculation? Basically all available evidence points in this direction. Unless you have some deep seeded reason to distrust people in general there's no reason to doubt this evidence. We're not just talking about the government(which consists of people) we're talking about a cover up that would need to include hundreds if not thousands of regular people. This is something I find very difficult to believe. Of course I don't watch a lot of Hollywood movies either.

 

[thewholesoul]

http://www.djc.com/news/co/11155170.html

thanks for the article.

to be honest it always feels like a punch to the gut when you read of a progressive collapse of previous buildings prior to 911.

but i will give my pennies worth of critical analysis.

- the article was titled

Beware of vulnerabilities during construction

so immediately this drew my attention. all of these buildings mentioned, and specifically the one you mentioned, were not finished but still under construction.

so let us put the quote in its context

Loads applied to structural members during construction quite often exceed the design service loads that will act on the completed building.

basically this is telling us that a "completed building" can withstand loads a building "under construction" cannot.

Negligent stockpiling of heavy materials, for example, is a common source of catastrophic structural failures.

now this is exactly what happened in the dec 1985 disaster - negligent stockpilng of 80 tons - now if they are that incompetent in terms of overloading an uncompleted building. there is good reason to assume that other areas of their work exhibited incompetence - particularly in the area of structural integrity (connections etc)

now lets turn to the quote from AZ smith

In December 1985, a catastrophic accident occurred in Los Angeles during construction of a 21-story steel-frame building. Eighty tons of structural steel sections were stockpiled on one bay on the fifth floor, loading the bay to twice its designed capacity. Three beams failed suddenly at their temporary connections, precipitating a progressive collapse of 10 bays all the way to the ground floor.

first of all - unfortunately the article never provides a photo of this progressive collapse, we dont know if it looked anything at all like what we observed on 911.

second - it was meant to be a 21 story building. it was overloaded on one bay the 5th floor then beams i assume beneath the 5th floor suddenly failed at their temporary connections then we get progressive collapse of 10 bays to the ground floor.

thrid - so what floor were the 10 bays that progressively collapsed? it sounds to me that the structure was only 5 floors high - pretty small skyscraper.

fourth - and how many bays were on each floor? i am assuming 10 but if it were more than 10 then that would not support AZ smiths case. even if it was 10 there is no photos or evidence that the outer columns had been constructed which would have aided resisting the collapse.

fifth - was the concrete pulverized? did it progressively fall symetrically or asymetrically? did it have molten metal underneath the collapsed rubble?

sixth - the main point however that AZ Smith wants to make is the overloading. this point would be a lot stronger if (a) the load was not placed on temporary connections (b) and given their negligence in this regard the level of professionalism and workmanship must be brought into question concerning the integrity of every aspect of the entire structure.

so in conclusion
- given that this was not a skyscraper but a 5 story building still under construction the comparison is weak.
- given the negligence that caused the accident it is reasonable to assume that the entire structure was poorly constructed
- the collapse ensued from three steel beams failing at their temproary connections is another reason why the comparison is weak
- given the lack of photo evidence we have no idea if it shared any of the many features that we observed at 911.

so i see no reason to retract the claim that on 911 was the first time ever in the history of steel framed skcscrapers that we witnessed a progressive and global collapse of three steel framed skyscrapers due to fire and gravity.

 

[WildCat]

blah blah blah

Still have the thread up for you to explain your "alternative hypothesis" thewholesoul: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102615

Don't be shy kiddo, just post it! You didn't lie when you said you had one, did you?

 

[funk de fino]

so i see no reason to retract the claim that on 911 was the first time ever in the history of steel framed skcscrapers that we witnessed a progressive and global collapse of three steel framed skyscrapers due to fire and gravity.

Everybody knows that this did indeed happen on that day as you describe. The fact it was the first time ever is irrelevant.

Now show us where you made this exact claim earlier.

You claimed that progressive global collpase was basically invented to fit a theory for 911

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.

Slightly different from your claim above eh?

You have still ignored my question as to why you stole Hoffmans nonsense

 

[thewholesoul]

Thanks for making my point clearer.

well please allow me to opaque your new found clarity.

the quote from wikipedia concerning the burden of proof states that those presenting a "new theory or stating a claim" have the responsibility to prove that new theory or claim.

no.1 those stating a new theory have the burden of proof

contolled demolition of a steel framed building skyscraper is not a new theory.

progressive and total collapse of a steel framed skyscraper is a new phenomena - or new theory.

http://911review.com/coverup/fantasy/progressive.html

Progressive collapse describes a collapse in which an initiating event leads to a disproportionate collapse. This phenomenon is rare, especially in steel-framed buildings. The phenomenon of total progressive collapse is even more rare. In fact, there appears to be no example of total progressive collapse of a steel-framed building outside of the alleged examples of the Twin Towers and Building 7

in the link below the author mentions briefly the difference between a global and a progressive collapse.
http://www.nibs.org/MMC/ProgCollapse presentations/HallSohn Paper.pdf

on 911 we observed the first ever combination of a progressive and total collapse of three steel framed skyscrapers. that is why i would consider it a new theory. that is why you will not see the combination of the terms progressive and total (or global) used when describing the collapse of a steel framed skyscraper prior to 911 - except perhaps in a demolition paper.

no.2 - those stating a claim have the burden of proof

supporters of CD are stating a claim that total collapse is not inevitable post initial collapse. (they even dispute that initial collapse could have occured.)

supporters of official hypothesis claim that total collapse is inevitable post initial collapse.

we have two sides claiming opposite outcomes.
we have two sides with calculations predicting opposite outcomes.

the best way and perhaps the only to prove who is right and who is wrong is by either testing the claims through experiment or by demonstrating the event via computer models. so by following the scientific method and honouring the burden of proof we can end this dispute.

so whose claim should we prove first?

- given that the official hypothesis is the only hypothesis being official investigated i think they should prove their hypothesis.

- if they did prove their hypothesis it would remove alternative hypothesis at least concerning how the buildings fell. for example imagine you have a murder case and two suspects. once you prove john did it then you automatically prove harry did not do it.

- their claims overlap - CD supporters claim total collaspe will not happen post initial collapse. offical supporters claim total collapse will happen post initial collapse. obviously then, the key area to prove either through experimentation or computer model is the total collapse post initial collapse.

to conclude. i agree that supporter of CD hypothesis have the burden of proof. but also beleive that supporter of official hypothesis have the burden of proof because (a) progressive and total collapse is a new theory (b) they are stating a claim. both these criteria as stated in the quote from wikipedia determine where the burden of proof lies.

as for "bold" claim. well given that a steel framed skyscraper in the history of steel framed skyscrapers never - not once - exhibted a progressive and total collapse from fire and gravity, i would say that supporters of teh official hypothesis are making a bold claim.

 

[WildCat]

thewholesoul, I take it your absence from the other thread is because you lied when you claim there are alternative theories for what happened on 9/11, and therefore the accepted theory is the only show in town?

 

[thewholesoul]

It's not ASSUMED to be true. When such a significant mass falls, it just doesn't stop.

allow me to rephrase - it IS ASSUMED to be true because when such a significant mass falls, it IS ASSUMED that it just doesnt 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 ?

hey before you go assuming something is true why dont you prove that assumption with physics through experimentation and/or computer modelling?

Show them.

go to journalof911scholars

Source ?

i heard it somewhere before that on paper bumble bees supposedly cant fly. then i heard it again on a hard fire debate between gravvy and a 911 scholar. the moderator said that it was shown aerodynamically that bumble bees cant fly. so then assuming that the aerodynamics people used calculations to reach their conclusion - i came up wit that statement you asked me to source.

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

i discussed that before post#1047

if i am arguing that the total collapse was not proven and you say that it was not part of the scope of their investigation - that hardly counts as a rebuttal or refutation to my argument.

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

so now your know how they "feel".

to rephrase: they also ASSUME that once the collapse initiated that nothing could stop it.

 

[thewholesoul]

thewholesoul, I take it your absence from the other thread is because you lied when you claim there are alternative theories for what happened on 9/11, and therefore the accepted theory is the only show in town?

give me a break

i find it hard enough to keep up responding to most in this room let alone enter a new thread for your pleasure.

i never requested that you open a new thread in my honour. but thanks but no thanks.

now i am liar because i didnt enter the thread you created for me without my consent.

heres a clue to my alternative theory - it is not the official theory. if the offical theory is proven then i will believe it because i will have no rational reason to doubt it.

hey quote this - my alternative theory is that bugs bunny got drunk on a bottle of vodka and carrot juice and decided to go all terrorist. - your welcome to quote that - stick in that new thread - and then criticize and insult me to your hearts content.

 

[A W Smith]

now this is exactly what happened in the dec 1985 disaster - negligent stockpilng of 80 tons - now if they are that incompetent in terms of overloading an uncompleted building. there is good reason to assume that other areas of their work exhibited incompetence - particularly in the area of structural integrity (connections etc)

Might want to check how much the aircraft weighed that day. Take your 80 tons above and double that for each plane. And how fast was that steel stockpile traveling? A building under construction is fully bolted up on the story below before moving up. they dont progress above until that task on the existing story is completed.

 

[thewholesoul]

Everybody knows that this did indeed happen on that day as you describe. The fact it was the first time ever is irrelevant.

the fact it was the first time ever is not irrelevant to me.

can you perhaps explain and elaborate upon why you consider such a fact irrelavant?

i said

so i see no reason to retract the claim that on 911 was the first time ever in the history of steel framed skcscrapers that we witnessed a progressive and global collapse of three steel framed skyscrapers due to fire and gravity.

funk said

Now show us where you made this exact claim earlier.

i said "progressive global collapse" earlier. not progressive and global collapse. you got me the sentences are not "exactly" the same the first sentence does not include "and".

You claimed that progressive global collpase was basically invented to fit a theory for 911

well if you admit the fact that progressive and lets not forget the "and" global collapse occured for the first time ever in 911 due to fire and gravity, then that would mean that it was also the first time ever that the terms progressive collapse and global collapse were used in combination with one another. and when something is used or created for the first time - it is possible - to refer to this new linguistic, semantical or verbal combination as an invention.

Slightly different from your claim above eh?

not only slightly different but an irrelevant difference. come on i posted some arguments with a bit more substance than to be not picking on "and".

q - do you accept that total collapse has been proven by the scientific method?

thewholesoul challenge still unanswered: if you answered yes to the above question then would you still believe that the official hypothesis is true if indeed it were finally tested through experimentation and computer modelling - but they were unable to prove it?

You have still ignored my question as to why you stole Hoffmans nonsense

i apologise for delay in response to this issue i was trying to think when i quoted hoffman. if i did i was clearly wrong to do so without paying tribute to the guy. and i have no problem if you reported me to the moderator for 10 lashes of a whip!! (just joking)

 

[thewholesoul]

It must've been invented pretty much at the same time we started to build stuff. That was a long time ago.

it is a fact that a progressive and global collapse occured to three steel framed skyscrapers on sept11th due to fire and gravity. that is a fact.

it is also a fact that this phenomena never happen to a steel framed skyscraper before 911 due to fire and gravity.

now the term "progressive collapse" and "global collaspe" may well have been in use long before 911.

but we know for a fact that they were never used in combination with one another before 911 in relation to steel framed skyscrapers.

so yes the term progressive global collapse was invented - or to use less loaded language - it was used for the first time.

Oh, so now it's steel-framed skyscrapers. So, according to you, concrete-core skyscrapers can collapse, bridges can collapse, houses can collapse, and all other forms can, and have, collapsed, but not steel towers because we build them well enough for them not to have collapsed before 9/11 ??

yes the buildings that collapsed on 911 were three steel framed skyscrapers.

yes of course any structure can collapse. it is the kind of collapse that is the issue. lets here it again shall we

no steel framed skyscraper in the history of steel framed skyscrapers exhibted a progressive and global collapse due to fire and gravity.

Yes. That YOU don't accept the conclusion doesn't make it false. Again, with the burden of proof..

why dont i accept the conclusion Belz - why?

because their assumption has not yet been proven by experiment or demonstrated though computer model.

but i agree with you - just because i disagree with it does not make it false. but by the same token just because you and otehrs agree with it doesnt make it true. we went over this point before if i remember correctly?

i have been over the burden of proof aswell?
- progressive and global collapse is a new phenomena and requires a new theory.
- defenders of the official hypothesis make a (bold) claim that total collapse was inevitable post initial collaspe.
- the burden of proof rests on those who suggest a new theory and/or state a claim. that is why the burden of proof Belz rests of supporters of the official hypothesis - and also - on advocates of CD hypothesis because they too state a (bold) claim.
- i covered the burden of proof double standard in post #1047 that you continue to apply?

Galileo was right, but he had to prove it.

exactly. hence when you and others who support the official hypothesis will be right when someone proves it.

just some quick questions Belz and i can move onto to evidence in support of the CD hypothesis.

q - do you accept that the burden of proof also rests on the official hypothesis?

q - do you accept that to date the total collapse has not been proven through the scientifc method

thewholesoul challenge - still unanwsered: if you acceot the two premises above what would you still beleive that the official hypothesis is true if they were unable to prove it through experimentation and/or computer modelling?

 

[thewholesoul]

maths, physics, gravity, calculations, momentum, force, observation

untested mathemathics and calculations

if you want to try to disprove any of these you are more than welcome

i dont want to disprove any of these claims - the burden of proof - is on those who make these calculations and theorums to prove their truth either through experimentation or computer modelling.

BTW your video links from an earlier post do not show explosions, you've been fooled by liars and morons

you right one of them was a complete fabrication. whoever made it plugged in the sound of explosions made obvious when the original is played alongside. i retracted that video.

the others however to my knowledge are genuine. and they do show explosions or very loud booms.

if you believe that the testimony of eyewitnesses is true - that they heard explosions that day in the twin towers - then it is you who are foolish when you are presented with videos where you can hear explosions for yourself.

it is not too much of an assumption to say that the explosions in the videos are the same phenomena that eyewitness describe in their testimony.

besides you completely avoided my question - to repeat

do you think that - total collapse is inevitable post initial collapse - is a claim?

 

[funk de fino]

the fact it was the first time ever is not irrelevant to me.

Well it should be or you display an illogical thought process and a non scientific method

can you perhaps explain and elaborate upon why you consider such a fact irrelavant?

Argument by history is not scientific

not only slightly different but an irrelevant difference. come on i posted some arguments with a bit more substance than to be not picking on "and".

I snipped out the trest of your junk. The above is you, yet again, completely missing the point

The difference was the addition of three skyscrapers on the same day due to fire and gravity to your claim. It adds to the argument by history junk from earlier

Show me where you made that exact claim which you said you would not retract? It does not mention three skyscrapers on the same day. This is a ery important and distinct change from earlier your claims.

q - do you accept that total collapse has been proven by the scientific method?

It has been shown using all available data, observations, calculations, physical laws and in peer reviewed papers that total collapse was inevitable. If you disagree you must refute the calculations and papers. It is your burden to refute these not ours to prove what is already proven.

Does every theory get tested with physical and scale tests?

thewholesoul challenge still unanswered: if you answered yes to the above question then would you still believe that the official hypothesis is true if indeed it were finally tested through experimentation and computer modelling - but they were unable to prove it?

I can break the F1 lap record at Monaco on a PC game. I cannot do it in real life. What does this prove?

i apologise for delay in response to this issue i was trying to think when i quoted hoffman. if i did i was clearly wrong to do so without paying tribute to the guy. and i have no problem if you reported me to the moderator for 10 lashes of a whip!! (just joking)

I would not pay tribute to him the paper you quoted is junk

Please explain to me the difference between "progressive collapse" and "global collapse"

 

[funk de fino]

untested mathemathics and calculations

Peer reviewed

i dont want to disprove any of these claims - the burden of proof - is on those who make these calculations and theorums to prove their truth either through experimentation or computer modelling.

Burden of proof is on you pal. They have published their papers for all to refute. Calculations are either wrong or right. Prove they are wrong

you right one of them was a complete fabrication. whoever made it plugged in the sound of explosions made obvious when the original is played alongside. i retracted that video.

the others however to my knowledge are genuine. and they do show explosions or very loud booms.

if you believe that the testimony of eyewitnesses is true - that they heard explosions that day in the twin towers - then it is you who are foolish when you are presented with videos where you can hear explosions for yourself.

it is not too much of an assumption to say that the explosions in the videos are the same phenomena that eyewitness describe in their testimony.

None of those videos show a demolition explosion. I am not foolish but you have been fooled.

As for the far distance video. Think about the speed of sound sparky. Oh and then think about the sound you get from wind on mic's. Posting youtube videos is the scientific method now is it? Contradict yourself much?

 

[thewholesoul]

there is no evidence of thermite at WTC, dont lie, leave steven jones out of it, he is a liar

look you can call me a liar if that pleases you, i will be presenting an argument for the use and evidence of thermite at wtc. Of course if there is evidence of thermite that would support all testimony who claimed to have heard explosions. Your welcome to debate – but calling me a lar and steven jones a liar only demonstrates how receptive or rather unreceptive you are going to be to my argumnets.

Machines? electricity? sparks? They need not be in the elevator shaft

Look you teach this stuff. But you dont have to be a teacher to posses common sense. There are two options because the machines werent inside the elevator shaft that means that (A) the descending jet fuel entered the machine room and became ignited from the sparks etc, or (B) the sparks entered the elevator room being ejected from the machines.

Either way, you will agree, we have to have contact between the sparks and the jet fuel. Of the two possibilities the former seems more plausible

Astonishing display of ignorance. If an elevator shaft is airtight the lift could not move up and down. The occupants would have no air to breathe. The fuel can easily slip past the lift and escape as a vapour at the bottom.

Please tell me you understand that elevator shafts are not hermetically sealed

I was only parrating off what i heard on their documentary.

If however the elevator shaft is airtight then that does not mean that the elevators could not move up and down. Cables were responsible for pulling the elevator up and down.

The occupants having nothing to breathe is a much stronger argumnet. Which completely refutes the notion that the elevator shafts were airtight.

Maybe you should have thought about your lack of knowledge on this subject before you started railing on here about ignition sources, fuel vapours etc

i have already achieved my goal despite my lack of knowledge in the subject area.

we cannot say for definite what caused the ignition but we have a huge list of very plausible sources

So when defenders of the official hypothesis claim that the jet fuel was ignited by x, y, or z – they are really only speculating. I think it is important that people in this room recognise the difference between speculation and known proven facts.

Moreover, because we know that a thermite reaction or incendary devices can cause fuel to ignite we can not rule this possibility out. Not one person in this room argued against the fact that thermite reaction or incendary devices can serve as an ignition source for jet fuel.

Implausible due to lack of evidence. Not due to the fact they cannot be used.

We will determine how implausible it is when we discuss the evidence for thermite.

Again this is a fantasy scenario and there is no need. Switches can and do cause ignition. The systems I work with have special safeguards in place for use in explosive atmospheres. The ones in the Towers did not

Again you provided no sound reason why experimentation could not be carried out.

I agree that switches can and do cause ignition. But the position of those switches relative to descending fuel is relevant. Where they exposed or not? The kind of switches is also relevant – you say the ones in the towers did not have special safeguards – where is your source for that claim? If indeed the light switches were the cause then one would expect that the fuel would have deflagrated all the way down the elevator shaft because light switches i assume would have been positioned all the way the elevator shaft. But this did not happen – which brings into doubt that the light switches were the cause.
Experimentation is not a fantazy – you simply lack imagination. For example, to repeat, NIST tested how a jet liner could remove the fireproofing paint from the steel columns on 8 separate floors. How did they do that? They placed fireproofing in a wooden box and shot it with a shotgun!!!!
So this argument, mentioned previously as well

to test as you wish, you need an exact replica of the towers and everything that happened on that day or you have variables that deflect from what happened that day, it is an impossibility to test it as you wish and say definitively that this is what happened

Should obviously apply to NIST as well. In fact i bet you would suspend all critcial thinking and even claim that there was nothing wrong with their test. So the fact that you do not apply the same standards for experimentation on NIST as you do my humble suggestions simply means that you apply double standards my friend.

Heres is what you did say about the NIST experimentation

I am not judging NIST, you are. They are better at what they do than you or me. Deal with it.

I know you are not judging NIST that is because you are suspending your critical thinking and applying it solely to suggestions i made concerning experimentation. I agree they are better at what they do but i would have one or two objections to their shotgun experiment – dont you??? Why do hold such reverance to authority? are NIST somehow beyond criticism – even judgment – in your mind?

You tell me that i just have to deal with it – i am dealing with it, i am applying critical thinking to their experimentations and their lack of experimentations. The way you deal with NIST is through passivity, by suspending your crtical judgement and applying it soley to me for suggesting that experiments could be performed.

They do not have to find an ignition source there are literally thousands of them all around everyone of us everyday. There were even more in the Towers due to the plane crash.

Ok we are going to have to disagree on that one. In my opinion if i, or a relative or friend of mine was burnt or injured from the explosion in the basement, and if i and many others thought it was a bomb that caused the explosion – i personally would want to know exactly, definitively, what was the cause. And I would want at the very least an investigation into the causes of the explosion in the basement not just speculation backed up by more specualtion which i have established is all we seem to be doing.
In an elevator shaft i think we could reduce or limit the causes down from literally thousands. Falling debris, lighting, and/or incendary devices seem to be the front runners.

Do you believe everything NTSB report about what happened that day? If not why not?

Having been on their website i found nothing. So i tell you what, you tell me what they said an i will tell you whether i agree with it or not.

Source? Reason?

www.911blogger.com/node/13149
you asked if i agreed with everything the NSTB and FAA reported about 911. i thought it would be relevant to establish that fact the FAA do not publicise all their information about 911 which renders it an impossibility to make an informed decision on whether i happen to agree with their information or not.

Again, you have no idea. You do not need scaling to know that an electrical switch will cause the correct explosive atmosphere to ignite.

So if scaling is not an obstacle why did you say this

to test as you wish, you need an exact replica of the towers and everything that happened on that day??

Like i said the position and exposure is relevant. The kind of light is relevant. And could be tested. Given that some people swear that the explosion in the basement was a bomb i think it would be nice to settle this issue. Like i said if it was the lighting in the sahft that cuased the jet fuel to ignite then common sense tells us that ignition would have occured long before the jet fuel reach the basement – but this did not happen. You comment below only supports my suspicions

These circuits operate on 4 to 20 mA current and 24 VDC. Do you understand how low this is?

Any single spark from any circuit in the towers will cause the fuel/air vapour to ignite. This is discounting the plane debris. Do you know how filaments in lamps work? Do you know how switches work? Do you know how hot some machinery in the towers can run at? Do you know how high the voltage is of Static Electricity discharge is when you can feel it?

All of your possible ignition sources and the more you provide only make it more incredible that the jet fuel could have reached the basement without igniting and explosing into a fireball beforehand.

911 is no joke

Of course 911 is not a joke – and you know damn well that i never said it was!

Someone in this room, we all know who, openly stated that he is willing to “disrespect” people who lost family members on 911 because he “disagrees” with them. Why dont you apply your moral standards to that person where it belongs. I never said 911 was a joke – and you god damn know that sir!

Do you think thermite is the most likely cause of the ignition in the house?

This is a ridiculous and pointless question.

In order to determine what was the cause of the jet fuel in the basement of the wtc we dont say well in a house with no previous histroy of terrorist attacks where gas explosions and normally the result of electrical ignition sources means that the explosion in the basement was also most likely caused by the same ignition source.

to answer the question however the ignition source in the house example could have been a variety of possible to probable causes - including thermite reaction if it was an arson attack. Without an investigation it is impossible to prove anything

Correct, it could be a multitude of things, now you are getting somewhere.

What do you think is the most likely third leg of the triangle in this situation?

It is a hypothetical question. But i would say in the majority of gas explosions in a house an electrical source would be the culprit for ignition.

But if your saying categorically that the explosion in the basement of wtc was caused by lighting – then why do you continue to resist any suggestion of experimentation that would prove your assumption true?? It makes no sense at all.

 

[WildCat]

i have already achieved my goal despite my lack of knowledge in the subject area.

Excellent, now you can post your "alternative theory" in the thread I created to expose your lie just for you. Remember when you claimed:

there are two main hypothesis.
the official hypothesis
alternative hypothesis

You simply just lied, yes? Your claim, back it up. I really want to see the nonsense you'll post that can account for everything seen that day as thoroughly as the 9/11 Commission and the NIST did.

But frankly, we all know you're full of excrement.


You can continue dodging questions and copying and pasting other troofer posts now.

 

[Belz...]

Please, quote me, when did i argue that because some people disagree with the official hypothesis that it should be proven???

What part of "implied" did you not understand in my sentence ?

So do you beleive the official hypotehsis is proven?

I believe it is the most rational explanation that takes all data into consideration.

Great – progress has been made. Finally you accept that even when the majority of professionals agree on a particular hypothesis that in itself does not prove that something is true.

I never said otherwise. You just keep misreading my posts, but that's not my problem.

To give a side example – all priests accept the existence of god but they cannot prove god exists.

Priests are not experts. They are believers.

Now instead of withdrawing your false statement – that total collapse was tested – you say you’ll stick with it. Eventhough it is a known fact that it has never been tested?? So why do you continue to stick to a statement that is factual wrong?

Because it is not factually wrong, contra what you think.

So let me get this straight – the reason you refuse to withdraw a factual incorrect statement – total collapse has been tested - is because you dont agree with alternative hypothesis, you know that things fall, and because you repeat the claim that total collapse was inevitable – which was precisely the subject of the statement that needs to be withdrawn. Way to go.

Now that you're done battling your private army of strawmen, let me correct you. The reason why I stand by my statement is that experience teaches us that when things collapse, bad things happen. That's why we build things the way we do.

Obviously, I don't stand by it because of some circular nonsense, and it's not because there are no alternative hypotheses. None of those would be rational.

The only logical way you can maintain your position and statement – the only logical way – is if you can provide just one example or experiment when the total collapse has been tested. merely saying, claiming and assuming that it is inevitable DOES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING FOR YOU.

You mean to say that nothing has ever collapsed ? There are enough examples of building collapses to show what fires can do to a building and what happens when collapse begins. The fact that no skyscraper even close to the size of the WTC collapsed, especially in those conditions, before 9/11 is only an indication that it never happened before, not one that it couldn't.

Because the primary reason (apart from earthquakes, missiles and nuclear bombs) a steel-framed skyscrapper totally collapsed in the history of such buildings was due to controlled demolition.

Why do you choose to exclude earthquakes, missiles (kinda like planes, aren't they ?) and other sources ?

I thought this was a petty good reason or plausible explanation for why we observed three such skyscappers totally collapsing on sept 11th – but i have made a fallacy!!

You made an error, that's for sure, because it's just as reasonable to say that it was explosives than to say that it was an earthquake for the same reason. Both would've registered on seismographs, after all, but that's not what happened.

First error: “some” is a rather cautious expression or remarkable understatement once we consider that every, or the vast majority, of steel framed skyscrappers in the history of steel framed skyscrappers exhibited total collapse resulting from controlled demolition.

Talk about misdirection.

Some As are Bs, alright.

And “none” prior to 911 resulted from fire and gravity.

NONE ? Are you that ignorant ? Sheesh, even TRUTHERS mention the Meridian plaza.

1)prior to 911 NOT ONE A’s (total collapse of skyscrapper) were B’s (were caused by fire and gravity)
2)X (total collapse of wtc on sept 11th) is an A (total collapse of skyscrapper)
3)Therefore X is B (therefore the total collapse of the wtc skyscrapper resulted from something that never happened in the history of steel framed skyscrappers!!!)

That's not much of a syllogism. No wonder you don't understand a thing I'm saying. How you can construct such a monstrosity and take yourself seriously is beyond me. What I'm saying is nothing of the sort, but let me help you:

1.) Some As are Bs
2.) We have ample evidence that this particular A is a B
3.) Therefore is it likely to be a B

By reasoning from experience – on a posteriori grounds – the controlled demolition hypothesis is far stronger than the fire and gravity hypothesis yet it was ignored and never investigated.

What the hell do you mean by "a posteriori" in this context ? And since when is a hypothesis with no supporting evidence in its favour, and with evidence against it, is better than one WITH supporting evidence and no evidence against it ???

We KNOW that fire destroys buildings, because it happens far too regularily. We KNOW that steel is particularily weak in those situations, and we know that crashing large airliners at speeds that exceed their safety limits is NOT a good idea. We also know that, considering the sheer mass of 30+ floors of a building the size of the WTC towers, once collapse begins, the kinetic forces involved are far too great for a single floor to handle, and we KNOW that it would only affect each floor separatly while crashing down. Where's the problem ?

There is no lack of evidence – there is an abundance of evidence

All of which you'll "present at a later date" ?

 

[Belz...]

Yes it would be expensive. no i dont have to pay for the official hypothesis to be proven.

You're the one who claims it's impossible, even while all those who work in that field seem to have no problem with it.

The burden of proof rests on defenders of the official hypothesis to prove their hypothesis, the burden of proof rests on defenders of controlled demolition to prove their hypothesis.

Soul, what part of "accepted theory" do you NOT understand ? Again, do I have to prove the Earth is round to every flat-earther I meet ?

“Something we already know is true” – really how did you arrive at this conclusion? Through “experience”!!! so you are claiming that fire and gravity caused the total collapse of wtc and you know this to be true because never – not once – in the history of steel framed skyscrappers was total collapse caused by fire and gravity!!

Soul, you're being ridiculous. A collapse of a WTC is not required as a test of the possibility of a WTC collapsing in that manner. Any other skyscraper will do.

Man if i was a magician i would love to have you in my audience

No, you wouldn't.

I will believe the official hypothesis is true by “experimentation” when their bold claim that total colalpse is inevitable post initial collapse is tested either through experimentation or demonstarted by computer model.

Then you will never believe it. You've carefully placed yourself beyond any possible proof by placing the burden of proof on people who are satisfied with this explanation and who are responsible for applying its conclusions, and you've admitted that you will not fund, partially or otherwise, an investigation in the matter. Have fun in your ivory tower.

First of all the claim that Earth is round has already been proven to be true by experimentation.

How ? A flat-earther could always say that HE did not experiment it, that HE did not see the results of such interpretation, that pictures of a spheroid earth COULD be the results of some unknown photographic principle, and that he won't pay the necessary money to take a boat/plane trip around the world and see it for himself.

Once it was proven it does not have to proven over and over again.

Well, at least you understand that point.

Belz i am arguing for the scientific method.

Fine, you're arguing for something that you do not understand.

You are arguing that it is not necessary, that the scientific method is not applicable to the official hypothesis.

I never said this. You are lying.

 

[Belz...]

The reason we all know that explosions were heard that day are twofold:
1)there is an abundance of eyewtiness testimony we can read

It is a fact that people claim to have heard explosions. What they did hear could be completely different, which is why we need corroborating evidence, which we have.

2)there is several videos and media clips that we can hear explosions for ourselves and hear reporters reporting about explosions

And so far you have refused to link to those 'several' videos. Oh, wait. What's this ?

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=rwhU15UY3Fc
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=HBaqG4xtyl0
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=2mtLpWYQ7Wk
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw

It's about freakin' time!

I'll adress them in my next post.

In relation to the eyewitness testimony i do not have to distinguih between a loud noise and an explosion – because the people who experienced the event do that for me as they described the events as explosions.

And that makes them automatically right ? That's downright silly, but I'm getting the impression that that's not what you're really saying. You're just really, really bad at expressing yourself.

What Belz obviously fails to recognise is that testimony is a form of evidence

Indeed, it IS evidence. Where did I say otherwise ?

that the official theory does not deny that explosions were heard and that his distinction between “claiming” that you “experience” an event is pointless if that person is telling the truth. I tried to explain this to him

I'm sure that quite a few explosions were, indeed, heard, but I don't actually know. The reason why I think they were is that a number of things can 'explode' in a fire, and if you want to get pedantic, ANY noise is an explosion. But I don't know if ANY actual explosion was heard aside from the plane crashes.

.....speechless at this juncture

Why ? You seem to think that the fact that someone experiences a UFO means that alien saucers should be considered a valid explanation for their experience EVEN when we have competing and more compelling explanations.

Why is it a false dichotomy?

Because there are other possibilities that you choose to hand-wave.

Do the other possibilites such as a loud noise, or bang suddenly remove the fact the people claimed to have heard explosions.

Oh, so now it's "claimed" ? Suddenly you're saying the exact same thing I'm saying and that you're pissed off at me for saying. That's weird.

Does other possibilities remove the fact that you said on numerous occassions that no explosions-were-heard???

I never said that. You are lying. Again.

Why is it non-sequiter?

You implied that it was a reason for me to retract what I said. It wasn't. Therefore your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. That is called a non sequitur.

What are you talking about my friend?

I am not your friend. All my friends are smart.

p.s. when your wrong and dont admit it, that looks bad. But when your wrong and continue to insult me for trying to explain to you why you are wrong, well thats just...

...proof that you don't understand a word of what other people are saying.

 

[Norseman]

Originally Posted by funk de fino
Do you believe everything NTSB report about what happened that day? If not why not?

Having been on their website i found nothing. So i tell you what, you tell me what they said an i will tell you whether i agree with it or not.

www.911blogger.com/node/13149
you asked if i agreed with everything the NSTB and FAA reported about 911. i thought it would be relevant to establish that fact the FAA do not publicise all their information about 911 which renders it an impossibility to make an informed decision on whether i happen to agree with their information or not.

Here is what NTSB has published on the 9/11 attacks:
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/foia_fri.htm

Go down a little bit on the page to the relevant reports.