Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[Carll68]

The challange is to vague as to produce any substance, although it will produce more of the same regurgatated evidence free "theories" we have seen from truthers since 9/11/2001.

Rememeber, they are still trying to wrap there heads around what MIHOP means when discussing 9/11!

 

[NoahFence]

This challenge is nonsense. For several reasons.

First, you use the word "PROVE" (in caps, no less). How could anyone "prove" such a claim? Please provide a process that you would accept as providing proof.

----------------------



"In caps no less" - Yea, sorry I'm actually requiring proof of explosives. YOU CAN'T HAVE CD WITHOUT 'EM!! THAT'S THE POINT!

--- I'll accept video evidence of an explosive or an incendiary being exposed to the same temperature as the fires in the trade towers, then after burning for an hour, if they still work, okee doke.

Then I'll have to be convinced they could survive the aircraft impact. Then I'll have to be convinced that they could be planted undetected.

Second, what "explosives" are to be used in the proof? Why?

--?? I thought I made myself clear. ANY explosive that can survive the above conditions.

Third, what "impact" should be used to examine survivability? Direct impact? Two floors down? Ten floors down?

How large was the impact zone? That space'll do. Listen you fine folks have had 10 years to figure this out. All you do is cry "controlled demo" without taking into account the physical impossibility of it.

Fourth, what "fire" constitutes the basis for the proof? How hot? How long? What is the basis for your answers?

I'll defer to the professional firefighters on the temperature of the fires. You and any other truther can do so as well. Have at it. They burned for about an hour.

In short, the OP provides a challenge that, in any other area, would be immediately rejected by JREF skeptics as meaningless. Why is this thread different?

Meaningless? I suppose it should come as no surprise your kind would say that.

The entire truth movement is predicated on the fact that it was a controlled demolition. My challenge is asking to friggin PROVE IT once and for all. As I said numerous times, these explosives would have to survive for a long, long time in devastating conditions. I submit that they cannot - therefore no controlled demolition was possible.

Prove me wrong.

 

[NoahFence]

The OP allows any takers to make assumptions as they please and thus meet the challenge easily.

Did you miss this part, Oystein?

Assumptions are not proof

 

[Athyrio]

A brief recap here:

upper echelon of Bush Administration
Zionist/elites
carte blanche in the Middle East
Mineta testimony
WTC7 was a target
Towers had to fall to get at WTC 7
Silverstein a part of the plot
Flight 93 shot down, debris field
thermite cutter charges
5 dancing Israelis

And somehow these ideas and participants are part of a "plausible" explanation?

And the person proposing this is not a "truther"?

 

[aggle-rithm]

As far as proving it could survive a plane impact. I'm not sure I could do that... I would need lots of time and money to conduct experiments, to anything I could come up..I have not found any that someone else did. But as stated previously I'm not sure that it is necessary, thermite cutter charges are the most likely thing to have been used, and it would not matter if some went off early.

Ouch, you're digging yourself a hole! Now you have to prove that an effective thermite cutter charge is plausible!

 

[aggle-rithm]

Imagine this scenario, flight 93 is flown into building 7, the Media..reports..however you want to put it...is saying that 3rd plane was headed to New York to also hit the Towers..to cause more damage...when it got there it saw that the towers fell and just crashed into the next tallest building...because of time gas etc.... Seems believable to me. I agree with a previous post his challenge is impossible to answer. I will say that certainly the technology exists to have a plane hit where ever they would want it. They could place charges in places that would not be affected by this. From what I've read and seen Thermite charges can be used to cut steel.

Or maybe some pissed-off Muslims hijacked some planes and crashed them into buildings.

 

[dafydd]

What I am saying....is whatever religion the people that did 9/11 claim to be...they are really of no religion what so ever. No religion I know would ever advocate such an act. As far as evidence to Israel's involvement. First let me be clear...I don't mean the whole country of Israel, not even most of the people there, but a very small percentage of criminals, which operate at the top (same as our country and other countries whether they be Jewish or not). Most Israels like people of all races are good people who want nothing more then peace, and to be happy. Getting back to evidence, I can say the 5 dancing Israels, is a good point to start. I have read an awful lot about this, and have yet to see someone have a decent explanation for this, other then alternative theories for what happened that day. Also I believe what I stated gives a full theory, with connecting all the dots. Is it what happened...I can't say...but I believe it is a plausible explanation.

Not the dancing Israelites again! You did not even come close to providing a plausible explanation. What happened to the passengers? Did they voluntary disappear or did the evil government dispose of them before the flight? No thermite,thermate,nanothermite or super duper thermite was found. You'll have to do a lot better. What is wrong with the theory that terrorists hijacked planes and flew them into buildings? Why can't that be true?

 

[tmd2_1]

Ok in the essence to save typing...I won't answer what I have answered previously about this theory. Who did it? Most likely a criminal cabal in our country as well as Israel, would my lead suspects. Please keep in mind in no way am I saying Jews, there were those involved who were certainly not Jewish. As I said the upper echelons of the Bush admin planned an operation Northwoods type operation at the pentagon. Others had something more sinister in mind. Taking advantage of war game scenarios, needed to make sure the operation at the pentagon was a success. The number of people involved would be a lot the pentagon...but a few for the more sinister plot. You could get a lot of people to sign up to help fake the taking of lives, but to actually take lives is another story. How the pentagon was done...I can't be 100% sure, there are many theories. Some have suggested a flyover, but I can't be sure. There is also Lloyde England's admission that "it was planned" What it all means I can't be sure. It would seem whatever hit the pentagon was not piloted by human to keep a plane off the ground at the same time low enough that it would not impact the roof (remember the roof collapsed later after impact) is possible...but would be very difficult even for experienced pilots. As far as the WTC is concerned...I've stated that CD is not necessary for alternative theories to be correct. I think it's most probable but not necessary. As I said pin point accuracy of where the planes would hit...charges placed where they would not be affected by impact, is one scenario that could have happened. Most likely the planes were remote controlled. How this happened again I can't be sure. The hijackers/hijackings could have been real, and then remote control took over by software put in the A/C. As far as who planted explosives in the WTC...if there were...it would most likely be Mossad agents. Again please don't mis-understand me...if they did plant explosives in the buildings, they did it because they were brain-washed into thinking something like this needed to happen for the survival of Israel...that Israel was at risk of losing their biggest and to some extent their only ally. Remote control detonation would be the most likely, the charges being placed in elevator shafts. How long did it take, whatever happened that day..was planned for years. Obviously I would suggest that security at the WTC and the Airports used...would have to be involved in some way. As to WTC 7 I already gave a suggestion as to the reason that would be given why flight 93 would have flown into it. WTC 7 could have been the command center for the whole operation...and needed to come down, along with other reasons.

 

[NoahFence]

Looks like my money's safe.

 

[Oystein]

Imagine

Basically, I only needed this one, first word of your post to know that you have no substance, no fact, only fantasies. But I decided to be nice and read on...

this scenario, flight 93 is flown into building 7, the Media..reports..however you want to put it...is saying that 3rd plane was headed to New York to also hit the Towers..to cause more damage...when it got there it saw that the towers fell and just crashed into the next tallest building...because of time gas etc.... Seems believable to me. I agree with a previous post his challenge is impossible to answer. I will say that certainly the technology exists to have a plane hit where ever they would want it. They could place charges in places that would not be affected by this. From what I've read and seen Thermite charges can be used to cut steel.

...but alas, I was right from the beginning. No evidence for any of this fiction near or far.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Imagine this scenario, flight 93 is flown into building 7, the Media..reports..however you want to put it...is saying that 3rd plane was headed to New York to also hit the Towers..to cause more damage...when it got there it saw that the towers fell and just crashed into the next tallest building...because of time gas etc.... Seems believable to me.

But pointless. As for the suggestion that WTC7 was the command centre for the operation and needed to be destroyed to hide the evidence, there are two rather obvious problems with that. Firstly, why would the command centre need to be in such a vulnerable and publically accessible location, given that the attack involved actions spanning from Boston to Washington DC? Virtually anywhere on the upper Eastern seaboard would have been just as good, and somewhere far from the action would have been easier to sanitise without attracting any attention at all. In your hypothesis, the conspirators chose to hide the evidence in the most public way possible by placing it at the centre of attention. Nobody clever enough to organise your proposed false flag operation would be that stupid.

And secondly, of course, there's the probblem of recursion. Where was the destruction of WTC7 controlled from, and why couldn't the rest of the operation have been controlled from there too?

I realise that your answer to these will be "I don't know, I wasn't part of the plot." That's missing the point. You're trying to convince us that it must have been this way, when in fact it doesn't even make sense for it to have been this way. Give us a reason why nowhere but WTC7 could have been the control centre, and you'll have the beginnings of an argument.

I agree with a previous post his challenge is impossible to answer. I will say that certainly the technology exists to have a plane hit where ever they would want it. They could place charges in places that would not be affected by this.

It's good manners to read posts that reply to yours before going ahead and posting the same arguments as have already been addressed. The collapses started in the impact and fire zones; if they were caused by explosives, how did those explosives that must have been in the impact and fire zones survive? Because if there were explosives anywhere else, they didn't do anything.

From what I've read and seen Thermite charges can be used to cut steel.

At best it would be extremely difficult, and would require more steel than thermite. It's been done with radio masts; we've heard of two attempts in total if I recall correctly, one of them unsuccessful, and in at least one of them thermite was only used to cut support cables - a much easier proposition than the support columns of a 110-storey building. No sane conspiracy would rely on such a novel and untested technique. And, of course, it's absolutely impossible for sufficient quantities of thermite to have been placed in the towers without anyone noticing; large areas of internal walling would need to be stripped away in the public areas of the towers to get access to the core columns. It didn't happen.

Dave

 

[Oystein]

...I'm actually requiring proof of explosives. YOU CAN'T HAVE CD WITHOUT 'EM!! THAT'S THE POINT!

Incorrect. Several methods are available that require no explosives. But that's beside the point of this thread.

I'll accept video evidence of an explosive or an incendiary being exposed to the same temperature as the fires in the trade towers, then after burning for an hour, if they still work, okee doke.

Temperatures varied, depending on location within the towers.

Then I'll have to be convinced they could survive the aircraft impact.

Several people survived the aircraft impact on the impact floors. Would that suffice to convince you that explosive charges could, too?

Then I'll have to be convinced that they could be planted undetected.

Truthers are free to make any assumptions they like, for example about charge type, charge size, location and timing?

...
I'll defer to the professional firefighters on the temperature of the fires. You and any other truther can do so as well. Have at it. They burned for about an hour.

Is that a requirement for anyone who tries to accept the challenge - that professional firefighters get involved? Or would reference to a document like the NIST reports do?

...
The entire truth movement is predicated on the fact that it was a controlled demolition. My challenge is asking to friggin PROVE IT once and for all.

No. The OP is not about proof that it DID happen that way, but that it COULD happen that way - that CD charges could possibly survive long enough the conditions at the floors whereever they may have been placed. Without limiting your challenge to well defined impact- and fire-floors, that challenge would be easy to meet.

Your challenge is about a necessary, but not a sufficient condition, for proving CD.

As I said numerous times, these explosives would have to survive for a long, long time in devastating conditions. I submit that they cannot - therefore no controlled demolition was possible.

Prove me wrong.

Still too vague.

 

[Oystein]

Did you miss this part, Oystein?

Assumptions are not proof

No.
But since you provide no sufficient framework, one HAS to add a set of assumptions. For example, if a truther had a CD theory where no charges went off within the fire zones, than that would be something your challenge would not disproof.

Or, to put it differently: Without assumptions, no proof. Since you provided too few assumptions, you must allow for your oppononents to fill in.

 

[tmd2_1]

In regards to why they would pick WTC 7 I mean it would make sense to have a close up view of the two towers would it not? Also before the south tower collapses, you see something molten pouring out of the impact zone...Yes I know you will all say it is aluminum from the plane...but do you think it is a coincidence that the south Tower happened to fall shortly after the liquid started to pour? Also it would make sense as to why the South Tower fell first? I have never heard or read any good explanation for why this occurred. Meaning thermite charges started going off early so the South Tower had to come down.

 

[NoahFence]

Incorrect. Several methods are available that require no explosives. But that's beside the point of this thread.

Explosives are their assertions, not mine.

Temperatures varied, depending on location within the towers.

Okee doke. A range is fine - so long as it burns for an hour.

Several people survived the aircraft impact on the impact floors. Would that suffice to convince you that explosive charges could, too?

I assume these people weren't attached to columns....

Truthers are free to make any assumptions they like, for example about charge type, charge size, location and timing?

Assumptions aren't proof.

Is that a requirement for anyone who tries to accept the challenge - that professional firefighters get involved? Or would reference to a document like the NIST reports do?

It would be nice to have an expert's view on the temperatures, wouldn't it? To make it more accurate?

No. The OP is not about proof that it DID happen that way, but that it COULD happen that way - that CD charges could possibly survive long enough the conditions at the floors whereever they may have been placed. Without limiting your challenge to well defined impact- and fire-floors, that challenge would be easy to meet.

And yet 10 years on, not one person has even tried to explain this? I'm not talking about any place in the building, the explosives would have to had been planted in the impact zone - that's where the collapse started. That's where they'd be.

As I said numerous times, these explosives would have to survive for a long, long time in devastating conditions. I submit that they cannot - therefore no controlled demolition was possible.

Prove me wrong.

How is that vague?? Explosives in the impact zone would have to survive the impact and massive fire!

 

[NoahFence]

No.
But since you provide no sufficient framework, one HAS to add a set of assumptions. For example, if a truther had a CD theory where no charges went off within the fire zones, than that would be something your challenge would not disproof.

Or, to put it differently: Without assumptions, no proof. Since you provided too few assumptions, you must allow for your oppononents to fill in.

Assumptions backed up with EVIDENCE.

yikes.

 

[SkepticOfLies]

what I think we can all agree on is that whoever did 9/11 was of no religion at all! .

How could we agree on that when the hijackers were Muslim? You make no sense..

 

[Oystein]

In regards to why they would pick WTC 7 I mean it would make sense to have a close up view of the two towers would it not?

No, why?
But let's assume you are making sense (you aren't): So the command center from where the WTC7 action was commanded must have had a close up view of it, right? Got an idea where?

Also before the south tower collapses, you see something molten pouring out of the impact zone...Yes I know you will all say it is aluminum from the plane...but do you think it is a coincidence that the south Tower happened to fall shortly after the liquid started to pour?

No, it is probably not coincidence. That flow shows two things:
a) temperatures were very significant inside the tower
b) Something must have given way for the pooled liquid to start flowing. A good explanation would be some internal failure
The building was hot, and experiencing creep and local failures. It is reasonable to expect that catastrophic failure is more likely with these indicators in place than without them.

Also it would make sense as to why the South Tower fell first? I have never heard or read any good explanation for why this occurred. Meaning thermite charges started going off early so the South Tower had to come down.

Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy (look it up if you don't know what that means)
When two towers fell, there are three, and only three distinct possibilities for their timing:
a) 1 falls before 2
b) 2 falls before 1
c) 1 and 2 fall at exactly the same time.

You say that option b) is somehow suspicious if you, presonally, have no explanation for it. Had instead a) happened, without explanation, would that have been suspicious? How about c)? In other words: No matter in what sequence two things happen, it is always suspicious?

But there is a good explanation: UA175 hit the south tower more off-center than AA11 hit the north tower. It takes a little understanding of simple principles of structural engineering to accept the follwing, but it means that the North Tower structure had more, and more stable, paths for load redistribution, resulting in more time till creep got the better of it.
Also, the South Tower was hit lower, so there was more mass above the impact and fire zone; although this effect is somewhat offset by the structure itself getting sturdier the lower you go.

 

[Oystein]

Explosives are their assertions, not mine.

Why would you repeat wrong assertions?

Okee doke. A range is fine - so long as it burns for an hour.

Why an hour? There are many locations that could be candidates for charge placement where fires burned for less than an hour. This includes ALL locations in the South Tower, which collapsed less than an hour after fires started.

I assume these people weren't attached to columns....

This means what? Oh - nothing? I thought so.

Assumptions aren't proof.

No proof is ever free of assumptions.

It would be nice to have an expert's view on the temperatures, wouldn't it? To make it more accurate?

Yeah, would be nice. Not mandatory, I hope. Would any FF do? Can I quote my buddies from Firefighters for 9/11 Twoof?

And yet 10 years on, not one person has even tried to explain this? I'm not talking about any place in the building, the explosives would have to had been planted in the impact zone - that's where the collapse started. That's where they'd be.

Which truthers make that claim, or accept that restriction? Maybe we should have some well defined scenario first, and then put money on challenges, hm?

How is that vague?? Explosives in the impact zone would have to survive the impact and massive fire!

It still allows for a lot of assumptions.



I think you need to contemplate a little on the meaning of words like "assumptions" and "proof" within the context of rational or even scientific debate. You should come back only after you have figured out that assumptions are not something that ought to be frowned upon, but constitute a sine qua non for any proof.

 

[Oystein]

Assumptions backed up with EVIDENCE.

yikes.

If I show you that NIST makes ... say ... 10 or more unproven assumptions on their way to conclusions, will you throw their reports in the bin and proclaim that you have no idea what brought the towers down?

If not, why not?