Offer to the Truth Movement: Let's Settle It

[beachnut]

If you're interested, I can fill you in on the above information, I know a fair bit about it.

It is worth noting that the "Jersey Girls" ...

See, the Jersey Girls are wrong ... Either that or they're some of the worst researchers around.

Anyway, I can fill you in on the US air defense response to the 9/11 attacks if you're interested - both how it was designed to react and how it actually did react. But I can tell you now; there's no conspiracy and there's no incompetence.

... when are you setting up your country's military for the big takeover. lol

nice post

 

[metamars]

Anyway, I can fill you in on the US air defense response to the 9/11 attacks if you're interested - both how it was designed to react and how it actually did react. But I can tell you now; there's no conspiracy and there's no incompetence.

I'd be interested in reading this, but probably not until the end of next week.

 

[PugsOnAPlane]

Justin Martell of Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth was sounding off about nothing in particular, and happened to accuse a classmate of cowardice for refusing to debate him in what was apparently 'a truther forum'. I invited Justin to JREF for a more challenging discussion, and if he is a man of integrity then he should be along fairly soon.

"Will this ever really settle it?"

It should be more interesting than another "pull it" thread.

I was the student who he called a coward. He asked me to come on his radio show, "The 9/11 Truth Hour," and I said I wouldn't debate him in a non-neutral setting.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for him to get here.

 

[Par]

C'mon guys, stick to the topic of discussion.

That’s a good idea. Let’s take it to the relevant thread.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3593817&postcount=33

 

[metamars]

The "Jersey Girls" are not actually a group of their own, but four of the 11 people who formed the "Family Steering Committee" which is the group that pushed for the forming of the 9/11 Commission.

According to their website, these are the Family Steering Committee's unanswered questions.

I would estimate that I could answer at least 90% of their questions just off the top of my head.

Maybe, then, you should write up a formal response, and post it somewhere.

BTW, is

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.

the inscription at Thermopylae?

 

[gumboot]

Maybe, then, you should write up a formal response, and post it somewhere.

I prefer to research what did happen on 9/11 rather than simply countering the claims of Conspiracy Theorists. That's akin to wack-a-mole - if you explain one question they throw up ten more in its place.

When I came to this forum there was a lot of questions and CT claims about NORAD and how the air defense system responded to the attacks. I decided to look into what they actually did, because it interested me. As a result I've amassed a fair amount of knowledge of the air defense system that day, and CT claims regarding a NORAD "stand down" or similar have virtually vanished on these forums.

The only direct "debunking" I've done is addressing Dr Griffin's claims of deceit in the 9/11 Commission - as constructed from his books The 9/11 Commission Report: Omission And Distortions. That's a long and slow project that I haven't finished. I've only done this because I consider Dr Griffin to be a lying dishonest charlatan, making money from lies about a horrible tragedy.

BTW, is
the inscription at Thermopylae?

It is.

 

[metamars]

I prefer to research what did happen on 9/11 rather than simply countering the claims of Conspiracy Theorists. That's akin to wack-a-mole - if you explain one question they throw up ten more in its place.

Ah, the "Final Statement of the Family Steering Committee" is dated January 11, 2005. I don't think the wack-a-mole reason applies to a fixed set of questions.

And should you publish a point-by-point rebuttal, if the FSC then withdraws some questions, and refutes you on others, as a general principle, I don't consider that a bad thing. You seem to be projecting your experiences on this forum onto the FSC....

When I came to this forum there was a lot of questions and CT claims about NORAD and how the air defense system responded to the attacks. I decided to look into what they actually did, because it interested me. As a result I've amassed a fair amount of knowledge of the air defense system that day, and CT claims regarding a NORAD "stand down" or similar have virtually vanished on these forums.

You seem to be implying that you wacked the NORAD mole, and it stayed down!

The only direct "debunking" I've done is addressing Dr Griffin's claims of deceit in the 9/11 Commission - as constructed from his books The 9/11 Commission Report: Omission And Distortions. That's a long and slow project that I haven't finished. I've only done this because I consider Dr Griffin to be a lying dishonest charlatan, making money from lies about a horrible tragedy.

Yipes, it's too bad you didn't finish before he came out with "Debunking 911 debunking". He may have to come out with a sequel.

It is.

I recognized the reference to Lakedaimon. My uncle, who used to make my aunt wake up just to cook him breakfast, claiming it was good "Spartan discipline", filled my head with all kinds of wonderful notions of our Spartan ancestry, when I was a tot. However, perhaps as a result of gravitating to the more Athenian side of the general culture, in embracing mathematics, I have concluded it far more likely that we derive from the neighboring Greeks that the Spartans enslaved to do their commerce for them.

Nevertheless, I find the Spartan devotion to their city-state admirable, and wish that our modern day spineless politicians would be as eager to fight in the battles they pick - and their kin with them - as the Spartans were. Unfortunately, even spine can't make up for stupidity and greed, as the Athenians proved by attacking Syracuse. Nevertheless, it would give pause for thought.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Was there supposed to be a point in that last post?

 

[beachnut]

Ah, the "Final Statement of the Family Steering Committee" is dated January 11, 2005. I don't think the wack-a-mole reason applies to a fixed set of questions.

And should you publish a point-by-point rebuttal, if the FSC then withdraws some questions, and refutes you on others, as a general principle, I don't consider that a bad thing. You seem to be projecting your experiences on this forum onto the FSC....

You seem to be implying that you wacked the NORAD mole, and it stayed down!

Yipes, it's too bad you didn't finish before he came out with "Debunking 911 debunking". He may have to come out with a sequel.

... wish that our modern day spineless politicians would be as eager to fight in the battles they pick - ...

The ladies are totally clueless on 9/11 and unable to use rational thought or logic. Seems like you are being too easy on them. They need to do some of their own research. Maybe they should go back to school to help them figure out things.

NORAD he has it down. It is a fact. Have you read his stuff? Your statement is wrong, it is not implied, it is true. But then 9/11 truth never did have, or will have real evidence, just hearsay. His approach to finding out what happens does beat answering stupid questions and chasing moving goalposts!

DRG, is the hearsay king, and makes money with false ideas. Zero evidence for his ideas.

Does this mean you are running for office?

Sorry, for posting to this; ask your OP question.

 

[gumboot]

Ah, the "Final Statement of the Family Steering Committee" is dated January 11, 2005. I don't think the wack-a-mole reason applies to a fixed set of questions.

It applies to why I don't, as a rule, expend a lot of effort addressing specific concerns of conspiracy theorists.

And should you publish a point-by-point rebuttal, if the FSC then withdraws some questions, and refutes you on others, as a general principle, I don't consider that a bad thing. You seem to be projecting your experiences on this forum onto the FSC....

No, I'm explaining my approach to 9/11. The reality is I'm less and less involved in anything 9/11 related these days. All of my questions have been adequately answered, I've learned a lot, I've not seen a new claim or issue in two years, and the remaining areas of genuine contention are primarily the details of the building collapses which I do not have the technical expertise to offer anything constructive. I'm not really interested in beginning any new mammoth 9/11 projects.

You seem to be implying that you wacked the NORAD mole, and it stayed down!

I think you missed my point. The purpose of my NORAD work was to investigate what happened, not to address any CT claims. I've often argued that 9/11 CTs only find fertile ground in ignorance - if the public were educated on the facts of what happened there would be no need to counter alternative claims. I think my NORAD work demonstrates that somewhat.

Yipes, it's too bad you didn't finish before he came out with "Debunking 911 debunking". He may have to come out with a sequel.

I'm not sure if I will continue or not... I've done about 20% of his claims thus far and have not found a single one that had any merit. I started it because I perceived him as a higher level alternative theorist - with some education and academic authenticity behind him. However I've found his work no better than your average bottom-dwelling alternative theorist, and the sheer number of alternative theories he endorses is mind boggling.

I recognized the reference to Lakedaimon. My uncle, who used to make my aunt wake up just to cook him breakfast, claiming it was good "Spartan discipline", filled my head with all kinds of wonderful notions of our Spartan ancestry, when I was a tot.

In many ways I consider Thermopylae to be the first example of people knowingly sacrificing their lives for the ideal of freedom. An important moment. Also it is a site at which my own countrymen sacrificed their lives to defend freedom again - this time from Nazi Germany - in April 1941.

 

[tanabear]

Now just a minute, you're confusing yourself. NIST has been experimentally verified. There's not a single claim in it that hasn't been tested. We can discuss whether the verification is adequate, but that's a much more complicated discussion -- I spend roughly 50 pages on this in my whitepaper -- and outside the scope of this thread. But to claim that "it has not been done yet" is simply wrong.

What you asked for on the previous page was experimental verification in full scale. You've decided the only experiment that you, personally, will accept is recreation of the entire event in the real world. That's not likely to happen. I'm unaware of even a single scientist who feels similarly, so it stands to reason that no one will be pushing for such an experiment now or in the future. As a result, I'm afraid you're just going to have to remain unsatisfied.

I welcome you to come up with a different question that I may be able to answer, but it goes without saying that I cannot destroy a skyscraper for you.

So where I can see NIST demolish a steel-frame high-rise with impact damage and fire? It doesn't necessarily have to be a perfect re-creation of the 9/11 attacks. If NIST science is applicable to the real world then this can be demonstrated in many ways. Take any steel-framed high-rise and demolish it with impact damage and fire. The dynamics of its destruction need to look similar to either WTC 1,2 and/or 7, but it doesn't need to be done on buildings of the same size and scope.

The scientific method is meant to be fairly rigorous. This is so because it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between truth and falsehood, between correlation and causation. We should not lower our standards to accommodate government propaganda.

As well, if NIST science is applicable, then those who believe in it should at least be able to provide a method/technique for demolishing steel-frame high-rises with impact damage and fire.

 

[uk_dave]

As well, if NIST science is applicable, then those who believe in it should at least be able to provide a method/technique for demolishing steel-frame high-rises with impact damage and fire.

No, once again it is those who don't believe in it who should be trying to prove that it is impossible

Can you do that, tana?

The performance of steel in fire is well known around the world
The performance of fire proofing materials is well known around the world
The performance of structural steelwork is well known around the world

Put together a set of circumstances where all three of those known factors are affected and you can understand why it is entirely possible for towers such as the wtc could collapse in the manner they did.

If you think otherwise, then it's up to you to prove it.

 

[Sizzler]

I've thought long and hard about this Mackey.

What would make me believe the gravity driven fire induced collapse hypothesis? And if I could believe in this hypothesis, it would dispel my leanings toward MIHOP.

A while back I saw a documentary about the Columbia disaster, its investigation and conclusions.

In particular they found it necessary to recreate the conditions of the panel hitting the spaceship at high speeds. It conclusively demonstrated the accuracy of their hypothesis.

So for WTC7, I'd like to see an experiment that demonstrates that their hypothesis is correct. No more theory and calculations based on assumptions and interpretations and thus open to debate and "conspiracy theory".

Now this doesn't mean they have to recreate the entire event, this of course would be very expensive and impractical, if not impossible. They could however test if office fires could cause a column to fail in hypothesized manner. They could also test if such failure would lead to an initiating floor collapse. They of course would have to make sure the conditions (fires, floor and column models, etc) matched the conditions on 9-11 and WTC7 (unlike what they did for WTC 1/2 fire tests).

If NIST's WTC7 report contains such tests (I believe them to be reasonable) and they support its hypothesis, that would bring a heck of a lot closer to ruling out MIHOP, if not completely.

 

[Tippit]

I've been gone most of the last week and a half. Dropped in briefly to pen another bit for Gregory Urich, but that was it.

It appears that nearly nothing has happened with the Truth Movement. Likewise, what ongoing contentious discussions remain are of very low quality.

I'd like to try a return to constructive dialogue, and hopefully, bring this to a closure that is satisfying to all. In that spirit, I hereby place myself at your disposal. This thread is a living experiment. Here's how it works:

In this thread, I invite anyone -- but principally the Truth Movement -- to post their crucial questions. By that I mean your questions that, if they were to be answered, would convince you that there is no compelling reason to believe in any conspiracy surrounding September 11th.

If you post those questions, I will do my level best to answer them. I also freely admit that I am neither all-knowing nor infallible. It's quite possible that you will ask something I cannot answer. If so, I will be forthright about this. If I can answer but have doubts, I will give you those as well. Full disclosure.

This is meant to be a learning exercise for all of us. It will probably take some effort on your part to organize your thoughts carefully. You should present your questions in detail, with background, and your own analysis where possible. You should also think about what kind of answers you anticipate, and what those would mean.

I am completely clearing my Ignore list, and I pledge to keep this thread abuse-free to the best of my ability. For purposes of this thread, any past you may have with me or other posters here is forgotten.

This is open to non-Truth Movement folks as well, but I anticipate the Truth Movement must have more to question, thus I am specifically inviting them.

So... any takers? Let's hear what's on your mind.

In spite of your massive ego, there isn't going to be any closure coming from you, and there isn't going to be any closure at all. The simple fact of the matter is, you don't know what happened on September 11th. You only think you do. And what you think you know is limited by what you've been told, and who you've decided to trust. Most people can't live with uncertainty. You are one of those people. It is simply inconceivable to you, and many like you, that 9/11 occurred other than how you believe it occurred. As for me, I have my suspicions, nothing said here or shown here has allayed them, nor has it explained the numerous contradictions about what we were told happened that day.

The stakes are certainly high, regardless of what one believes about 9/11. I choose to accept the fact that I do not know what happened, and that I will never know, and that there is enough uncertainty to make me question everything about the event. 9/11 will be relegated to a JFK conspiracy-esque section of history, and there isn't anything you or anyone else can do about it.

 

[uk_dave]

Now this doesn't mean they have to recreate the entire event, this of course would be very expensive and impractical, if not impossible. They could however test if office fires could cause a column to fail in hypothesized manner. They could also test if such failure would lead to an initiating floor collapse. They of course would have to make sure the conditions (fires, floor and column models, etc) matched the conditions on 9-11 and WTC7 (unlike what they did for WTC 1/2 fire tests).

Why on earth don't you just go and speak to the companies who make the fireproofing materials and ask them about the tests they conduct?

Then go and speak with a firm of structural engineers with experience of designing multistorey steel framed structures

Then go and speak with people who actually have to fight fires in multi-storey structures

Then put together everything you have learned from speaking with people who actually know what they're talking about and then you too can become royally pissed at the lazy ignorance of the 'truth' movement.

 

[Tippit]

You'll note that you are not alone in your doubt, but yes, this will settle it -- IF you participate. You are not. You have not provided me your critical questions.

Your gigantic ego is really on display here. IF we would only recognize that you are the gatekeeper of 9/11 truth, and that you know everything about what happened on 9/11 with authority, then we would resort to smacking ourselves and wondering how we could have ever been so silly!

I don't have any questions for you, because you're not capable of answering them authoritatively.

 

[R.Mackey]

So where I can see NIST demolish a steel-frame high-rise with impact damage and fire? It doesn't necessarily have to be a perfect re-creation of the 9/11 attacks. If NIST science is applicable to the real world then this can be demonstrated in many ways. Take any steel-framed high-rise and demolish it with impact damage and fire. The dynamics of its destruction need to look similar to either WTC 1,2 and/or 7, but it doesn't need to be done on buildings of the same size and scope.

Then go right ahead.

Real scientists and engineers, on the other hand, are satisfied with understanding the principles, models, and so on, and do not require a full-scale destructive test. Your need is yours alone.

The scientific method is meant to be fairly rigorous. This is so because it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between truth and falsehood, between correlation and causation. We should not lower our standards to accommodate government propaganda.

Non sequitur.

As well, if NIST science is applicable, then those who believe in it should at least be able to provide a method/technique for demolishing steel-frame high-rises with impact damage and fire.

Please read NCSTAR1-2, 1-5, and 1-6 in that order. It describes, using computer simulation and several bounding cases, the process of destruction of both WTC 1 and WTC 2 -- which performed differently -- due to impact and fire. Numerical experiment, backed by unit tests of specific phenomena, a few of which were in full scale.

The burden of proof has been met. The scientific method was carried out.

There is no compelling reason to conduct the entire experiment in full scale. The physics is quite ordinary.

 

[uk_dave]

In spite of your massive ego, there isn't going to be any closure coming from you, and there isn't going to be any closure at all.

Remind me again just how the 9-11 conspiracy theories are impacting upon the forthcoming US presidential elections as I seem to have missed the extensive coverage which must exist if this subject is without closure

The simple fact of the matter is, you don't know what happened on September 11th. You only think you do. And what you think you know is limited by what you've been told, and who you've decided to trust. Most people can't live with uncertainty. You are one of those people. It is simply inconceivable to you, and many like you, that 9/11 occurred other than how you believe it occurred.

That's called projection. Think about it for a while. Try some self awareness. You choose whom to believe and you've chosen badly.

As for me, I have my suspicions, nothing said here or shown here has allayed them, nor has it explained the numerous contradictions about what we were told happened that day.

And that's why nothing said here or elsewhere is really intended to allay your suspicions, because you're not willing to have them allayed. You like believing what you believe. Again, try looking at yourself and analyzing your own attitude to 9-11

The stakes are certainly high, regardless of what one believes about 9/11. I choose to accept the fact that I do not know what happened, and that I will never know, and that there is enough uncertainty to make me question everything about the event.

The stakes are high? In what sense? High enough to count in the election of the next US president?

9/11 will be relegated to a JFK conspiracy-esque section of history, and there isn't anything you or anyone else can do about it.

I agree with you on that. Doesn't bode well for the 'truth' movement.

 

[R.Mackey]

I've thought long and hard about this Mackey.

What would make me believe the gravity driven fire induced collapse hypothesis? And if I could believe in this hypothesis, it would dispel my leanings toward MIHOP.

A while back I saw a documentary about the Columbia disaster, its investigation and conclusions.

In particular they found it necessary to recreate the conditions of the panel hitting the spaceship at high speeds. It conclusively demonstrated the accuracy of their hypothesis.

I have a copy of the CAIB on my desk at work. Actually, the panel impact can be simulated to sufficient accuracy using first-principles models and back-of-the-envelope calculations. If you want to recreate the trajectory in more detail, that takes more work, but the root cause is actually extremely simple.

So for WTC7, I'd like to see an experiment that demonstrates that their hypothesis is correct. No more theory and calculations based on assumptions and interpretations and thus open to debate and "conspiracy theory".

This is reasonable, but if you don't mind, I'd like you to explore what would be a sufficient "experiment" in more detail. As it happens, there are always going to be assumptions and calculations and interpretations.

Have you read NCSTAR1? Even the question of how much combustible material was available is open to interpretation -- as much as a factor of three if you believe Dr. Quintiere. There are uncertainties, and how we choose to model things will always depend on interpretations.

A good experiment design, of course, is not sensitive to these assumptions. The problem is that most readers (e.g. the Truth Movement) rarely understand the assumptions, but merely note that there are assumptions, and thus never fairly evaluate their effect on the result. I cover this extensively in my whitepaper. Most of the assumptions NIST made are totally acceptable, but there are a few that I disagree with. You just have to be careful.

If NIST's WTC7 report contains such tests (I believe them to be reasonable) and they support its hypothesis, that would bring a heck of a lot closer to ruling out MIHOP, if not completely.

According to the updates, the WTC 7 report will include these experiments, albeit in the form of computer simulations. Unless like tanabear you demand it in full-scale, this should be enough to satisfy your request. I will be pushing for such a result myself.

 

[AZCat]

Then go right ahead.

Real scientists and engineers, on the other hand, are satisfied with understanding the principles, models, and so on, and do not require a full-scale destructive test. Your need is yours alone.

If I had to build a full-scale fully functional prototype of every building I designed in order to prove it worked prior to building the real one, nothing would ever get built.