Fire, steel, and 911.

[roger]

NISTer...get ready for your minds to implode on themselves. LISTEN UP! And if you don't address what I'm about to say...than please just remove yourself from this debate.

I WANT all of you...TO TELL ME...given the fact that the government has destroyed the evidence...what evidence is left...that ONE - such as I - could ever present to you (NISTers) that would actually make you question NIST's report and/or seriously consider the PET as a reasonable theory?

BE SPECIFIC! I bet you can't even think of such potential evidence can you? I bet you've never even viewed it from this point have you?

Of course we've thought of it; it's how you evaluate arguments, after all.

Just some possibilities:

1) audio recordings of CD demolition
2) visual evidence of CD demolition
3) a whistleblower admitting to planting the CD
4) seismic recordings from Lamont Doherty showing CD
5) explosive manufacturers reporting sales to the outfit identified in #3 in a amount required to bring down the towers
6) written documentation, reliably dated to prior to 9/11, with plans for this CD
7) confession by the building owner that this was an insurance scam
8) bank records showing the flow of funds used in the planning and execution
9) computer records of plans, agreements, etc.
10) etc.

Far more telling, your post is basically an admission that you HAVE NO EVIDENCE. Why are you asking us why we've never thought that there is no possibility to provide evidence for your scheme, if in fact you had any evidence.

As a practical matter, it will take a lot to cause people to dismiss the NIST report, because the NIST report has all of physics and available evidence going for it. Somebody confesses and says "I did it", and well, we will be sceptical; people have falsely confessed to murder, after all. But if they expplain how it was done, and we follow up on it and find bank records, sales of explosives, payment of people to rig the buildings, etc., well, there we have it. Proof of a CD. But it's going to have to be a pretty spectacular set of evidence, to deal with coincidences like why they wired WTC7 to be exploded, when it was the one that was damaged and set on fire by the collapsing WTC1 & WTC2. How did they just happen to wire up the building that took the worst damage? We will need to see plans for that. But show us those plans and there is no option but to believe it.

So, plenty of ways to prove your case. Get to it....

 

[CurtC]

YOU CANNOT debunk a THEORY (PET) with a THEORY (NIST) - they're both theories...meaning, they are conjectures...based out of complete hypothesis...NOT fact.

So "theory" means "conjecture"?

 

[The Almond]

One point I am trying to enlighten you all to...is the fact that the term, "DEBUNKED," has been grossly misused to refute and completely dismiss evidence provided by people who support a PET.

While you are correct that a blanket dismissal of all evidence based on the fact that it supports controlled demolition, I strongly disagree with your assertion that the term "debunked" has been applied in this way. To us, debunked means that the assertion has been met with sufficient counter-evidence or shown to be logically inconsistent. I

The fact remains...since, the evidence was destroyed....

The term "evidence" would imply that the billions of tons of rubble and steel would be useful in determining why or how the towers collapsed. To date, the conspiracy community has rested entirely upon the assertion that because the rubble from the collapse was removed, the US Government successfully removed all of the evidence that would support a controlled demolition, but left a sufficient amount to prove a self initiated collapse. Explosives spread uniformly throughout each floor would have left significant signs and evidence that would have required the removal of all debris from the WTC site.

Please, don't say we have some scraps of metal...CAN YOU proof this steel is from the WTC Towers?

Straw man. NIST has on its premises a significant amount of steel from the WTC towers used in its analysis.

As for proof, we're getting into dangerous regions of epistemology. Indeed, how can we prove that anything exists? What is existence? To those not interested in debating those topics, we have to go back to evidence. If you're implying that the steel stored at NIST is not from the WTC, that means you have proof that someone lied about it. That would implicate the clean-up crew at the WTC as well as the truck drivers and administrators at NIST. It would also imply that someone did a really awesome job of fabricating steel such that the damage was consistent with the theory that NIST came up with.

If not, than drop it. I HAVE proof that the government was destroying lots of key evidence:

http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Arti...n=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225

Once again, evidence for what? So the government destroyed all evidence for controlled demolition and not all evidence for initiated collapse?

You don't have any evidence to prove that any of the metal still exists from the WTC towers...anyway, since all the key evidence was destroyed...as mentioned in the article above...

Except photos from the NIST warehouse. They prove that the steel does indeed exist.

SINCE, this happened...everything from this point forward MUST - by default - be categorized as a THEORY!

YOU CANNOT debunk a THEORY (PET) with a THEORY (NIST) - they're both theories...meaning, they are conjectures...based out of complete hypothesis...NOT fact.

This is a rather absurd argument without any basis in knowledge of scientific theory or method.

 

[Spins]

28th Kingdom can you please answer these two questions...

What explosives do you think were used at the WTC?

Since the collapse of both towers started at the impact zone how did the explosives survive the plane impact and subsequent fires?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

A PETer and NISTer walk outside together on a starry night with a full moon in the sky:

PET: Hey, check out the moon.

NIST: Where?

PET: Right there.

NIST: Where?

PET: You don't see that HUGE round looking thing in the sky?

NIST: I don't see it.

PET: RIGHT THERE...It's huge...the round ball giving off all that light.

NIST: I don't see it.

PET: BUT YER LOOKING RIGHT AT IT!

NIST: I don't see it.


That's what it feels like sometimes.

Maybe the PETer should listen to the NISTer when the NISTer explains that the PETer is looking at a street lamp during the daytime.

 

[beachnut]

One point I am trying to enlighten you all to...is the fact that the term, "DEBUNKED," has been grossly misused to refute and completely dismiss evidence provided by people who support a PET.

The fact remains...since, the evidence was destroyed....Please, don't say we have some scraps of metal...CAN YOU proof this steel is from the WTC Towers? If not, than drop it. I HAVE proof that the government was destroying lots of key evidence:

I wonder why people got to study the steel from the WTC, they picked it out by number, the building was numbered, each piece.

Darn you are wrong again, people were allowed to study the WTC! darn, you do not have any facts!

Which brings us to the big question for you?!
Show us your hard and overwhelming physical evidence of Pathetic Explosive Theory?

 

[R.Mackey]

One point I am trying to enlighten you all to...is the fact that the term, "DEBUNKED," has been grossly misused to refute and completely dismiss evidence provided by people who support a PET.

[Blah, blah, blah...]

YOU CANNOT debunk a THEORY (PET) with a THEORY (NIST) - they're both theories...meaning, they are conjectures...based out of complete hypothesis...NOT fact.

Listen UP, friend. When you have a SHRED (any small piece) of EVIDENCE (that's verifiable fact leading to a conclusion) of your PET THEORY, bring it. You haven't brought ANYTHING so far.

Until THEN, you're just BLOWING SMOKE.

 

[28th Kingdom]

" No, you have an article that alleges the evidence was being destroyed.

We have a report from NIST that actually deals with samples of steel that were collected from the towers. I'd mention the records that were kept of where and when the debris was collected, but you'll just dismiss that as manufactured evidence, won't you?"

Okay, so if the government is involved....do you think they would be able to influence the NIST report..since you know the NIST appears to be government affiliated. Yes or No?

The link I presented purporting that the government is destroying valuable evidence...is from an extremely credible UNAFFILIATED source...the Fire Engineering Magazine, which is the oldest publication in the US on this industry - they are non-partisan - and have nothing to gain from lying or making these claims up. Understand, now?

There is a big difference, you have to look at the source of your information. Everything you get from the NIST is coming from the GOVERNMENT. Who in their right mind, would question the government if they (the government) are the ones paying your bills by writing your paychecks? The government is the one who paid for this supposedly unbiased and non-partisan investigative report. Are you starting to understand now? The NIST is about as trustworthy in this investigation as Larry Silverstein.

 

[Horatius]

Listen UP, friend. When you have a SHRED (any small piece) of EVIDENCE (that's verifiable fact leading to a conclusion) of your PET THEORY, bring it. You haven't brought ANYTHING so far.

Until THEN, you're just BLOWING SMOKE.

I think it's time to add another line to your victory speech.

 

[R.Mackey]

I think it's time to add another line to your victory speech.

Nah. This one's head would be a disgrace to my trophy case.

 

[R.Mackey]

Okay, so if the government is involved....do you think they would be able to influence the NIST report..since you know the NIST appears to be government affiliated. Yes or No?

The link I presented purporting that the government is destroying valuable evidence...is from an extremely credible UNAFFILIATED source...the Fire Engineering Magazine, which is the oldest publication in the US on this industry - they are non-partisan - and have nothing to gain from lying or making these claims up. Understand, now?

By the way, ignoramus, the link you cite is talking about dissatisfaction with the FEMA investigation. The NIST investigation was started -- and completed -- precisely to answer the legitimate concerns of individuals such as Editor Manning.

That was over four and a half years ago.

You might want to ask Manning whether he's satisfied with NIST before claiming that he is not. And you might want to start reading the things you post.

 

[VespaGuy]

@28th:

And, you did hear those firefighter recordings where they say explosions are going off on floors 8, floors 10 floors 13

It took me a while to get through this thread, so I'm a bit behind, but I just thought I'd show some of 28th's fantastic research.

I imagine he got this from the video he linked to where a firefighter says:

Official: We got another explosion on the Tower, 10-13, 10-13

28th, have you ever heard of radio codes? 10-13 doesn't mean the 10th and 13th floor, it's the FDNY code for "needs assistance".

So we can at least put that little mistake you've made to rest.

 

[Horatius]

" No, you have an article that alleges the evidence was being destroyed.

We have a report from NIST that actually deals with samples of steel that were collected from the towers. I'd mention the records that were kept of where and when the debris was collected, but you'll just dismiss that as manufactured evidence, won't you?"

Okay, so if the government is involved....do you think they would be able to influence the NIST report..since you know the NIST appears to be government affiliated. Yes or No?

The link I presented purporting that the government is destroying valuable evidence...is from an extremely credible UNAFFILIATED source...the Fire Engineering Magazine, which is the oldest publication in the US on this industry - they are non-partisan - and have nothing to gain from lying or making these claims up. Understand, now?

There is a big difference, you have to look at the source of your information. Everything you get from the NIST is coming from the GOVERNMENT. Who in their right mind, would question the government if they (the government) are the ones paying your bills by writing your paychecks? The government is the one who paid for this supposedly unbiased and non-partisan investigative report. Are you starting to understand now? The NIST is about as trustworthy in this investigation as Larry Silverstein.

So there we have it. You'll just dismiss any evidence from any government-affiliated source, just because they're government-affiliated.

At this point, there will be nothing we can give you to convince you otherwise, becasue essentially every piece of evidence available has, at some time, been under the control of some organization that is affiliated with the government. Police, fire department, FEMA, NIST, NTSB, Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines, the list goes on. All tainted.

And note, you've decided to dismiss all this evidence based on nothing more than your irational distrust of the entire government structure.

Are there no parts of the government you trust? No part that is above such underhanded crimial activity? If not, why aren't you living on an island somewhere where they can't get at you?

Do you trust the government inspectors that evaluate the stores you buy food from, and restaurants you eat at? Who test the drugs you buy? Who build the roads you drive on? Who inspect the buildings you live and work in? Are they all in on it too?

 

[beachnut]

" No, you have an article that alleges the evidence was being destroyed.

Okay, so if the government is involved....do you think they would be able to influence the NIST report..since you know the NIST appears to be government affiliated. Yes or No?

NIST would turn in the Government for a dime! American hate being used, hate being told what to do, and are usually the best damn idividuals for using their heads in the world, do not get the wrong impression from hearsay news and your google world of lies.

Most look forward to correcting mistakes, you seem to relish making them.

Most engineers in the United States figured out 9/11 on their own.

Most witnessed the impacts of 11 and 175 live or on video.

Most saw that the planes had fuel on board. (10,000 galloons)

Engineers were able to know that the planes were speeding cause most engineers have seen planes fly, and that the impacts had a lot of energy to destroy part of the building due to impact. (almost 2,000 pounds of TNT energy)

Engineers know the fire was not good for the building. (building failed due to fire)

Most engineers now believe the impact and subsequent fires destroyed the WTC. Only 0.00067 engineers are nut cases who use their biased political views to blind their abilities to be objective. Not bad for engineer. So over 99.9 percent of engineers have not fallen for whatever madness you have succumbed to.

Most engineers know the WTC had a tons of potential energy! (248 tons of TNT, TONS)

So attack NIST with your talk, facts would be much better. Got FACTS?!

anyone need NIST to solve 9/11???

 

[Spins]

" No, you have an article that alleges the evidence was being destroyed.

We have a report from NIST that actually deals with samples of steel that were collected from the towers. I'd mention the records that were kept of where and when the debris was collected, but you'll just dismiss that as manufactured evidence, won't you?"

Okay, so if the government is involved....do you think they would be able to influence the NIST report..since you know the NIST appears to be government affiliated. Yes or No?

The link I presented purporting that the government is destroying valuable evidence...is from an extremely credible UNAFFILIATED source...the Fire Engineering Magazine, which is the oldest publication in the US on this industry - they are non-partisan - and have nothing to gain from lying or making these claims up. Understand, now?

There is a big difference, you have to look at the source of your information. Everything you get from the NIST is coming from the GOVERNMENT. Who in their right mind, would question the government if they (the government) are the ones paying your bills by writing your paychecks? The government is the one who paid for this supposedly unbiased and non-partisan investigative report. Are you starting to understand now? The NIST is about as trustworthy in this investigation as Larry Silverstein.

28th Kingdom do you think all 200 technical experts who worked on the WTC investigation at NIST are lying? If not why have they come to the conclusions they have after such a thorough 3 year investigation?

Public Outreach

During the course of this Investigation, NIST held public briefings and meetings (listed in Table P–2) to solicit input from the public, present preliminary findings, and obtain comments on the direction and progress of the Investigation from the public and the Advisory Committee. NIST maintained a publicly accessible Web site during this Investigation at http://wtc.nist.gov. The site contained extensive information on the background and progress of the Investigation.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-6Draft.pdf page xxviii

 

[T.A.M.]

28K:

I noticed you havent responded to any of my, albeit sparse, posts.

1. From Dictionary.com

de·bunk (dē-bŭngk') Pronunciation Key
tr.v. de·bunked, de·bunk·ing, de·bunks
To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of: debunk a supposed miracle drug.

I am sorry if the word annoys you, or you feel it is over used, but most of the debating and discussion that goes on here fill the criteria of the definition for "debunked"...like it or lump it.

2. I notice your tone has dhanged considerably from its polite, civilness of when you first came here. Have people (you know, the NISTers as you have so lovingly labeled us) here gotten under your skin?

3. wrt the fire engineering article you posted...

However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.

Bolding mine.

4. What would it take for me to believe the "inside job" theory...

(i) Confessions from accused parties
(ii) Multiple NIST whistleblowers providing information of a coverup. These NIST members would have to be free of preexisting agenda as well.
(iii) Physical evidence found by investigators of Demolition explosives.
(iv) Video evidence of people planting explosives in the WTCs prior to 9/11.

I am sure there are more...none of the above have been shown yet.

5. IQ = 150. You having to state your IQ says alot more than the actual number.

TAM

 

[28th Kingdom]

To those...who want evidence of a written plan. Well go read the PNAC. I know...BLAHHH, right? Conventional CT stuff...if you want to see where America is headed...it's all right there. What can I say...it's about as rock solid evidence as you can get. Don't deny that.

 

[roger]

To those...who want evidence of a written plan. Well go read the PNAC. I know...BLAHHH, right? Conventional CT stuff...if you want to see where America is headed...it's all right there. What can I say...it's about as rock solid evidence as you can get. Don't deny that.

Cite please. Please provide the quote where PNAC planned 9/11.

Produce it, and no one will deny it. You will change the world.

 

[beachnut]

To those...who want evidence of a written plan. Well go read the PNAC. I know...BLAHHH, right? Conventional CT stuff...if you want to see where America is headed...it's all right there. What can I say...it's about as rock solid evidence as you can get. Don't deny that.

The thread is not about old guys think tank to educate, PNAC! I saw the big army PNAC has, oops, it only has Dick's shotgun, and his wife took it away from him when he shot his buddy. Dick honey, no more huntin, and do not drive with Ted!

But let me see your hard and overwhelming physical evidence of Pathetic Explosive Theory?

 

[28th Kingdom]

To all those who actually replied with potential evidence that would make you believe or consider believing the PET...I REALLY appreciate it...that was very gracious of you. I'm just feeling drained right now..but I will go back and address most of it later today or tomorrow.