[W:57: 1585]Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.

[braindrain]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Stupid questions deserve no answer Geoffrey. You are a credulous, if good-hearted, person.

Rarely does one get to see a better example of someone running away because they have no answer then Henry's post. well done HD. If anyone ever doubted the type of person you are you just removed all doubt.

 

[SanderO]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Would you be interested in specifying what part of the story is true in your opinion?

lots of it such as

planes were hijacked by radical suicide Islamists
3 or the 4 planes hit twin towers and pentagon
no explosives were used in the attacks
the cause of collapses of all 3 buildings were damage from the planes and heat effects from subsequent fires.

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

lots of it such as

planes were hijacked by radical suicide Islamists
3 or the 4 planes hit twin towers and pentagon
no explosives were used in the attacks
the cause of collapses of all 3 buildings were damage from the planes and heat effects from subsequent fires.

Would you be able to prove any of your claims?

None of the government agencies could prove any of those claims, and it's highly likely you cannot either, but maybe you would take a shot? :roll:

 

[Quag]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Would you be able to prove any of your claims?

None of the government agencies could prove any of those claims, and it's highly likely you cannot either, but maybe you would take a shot? :roll:

Sure they have and all your "evidence" has been proven false

 

[mike2810]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Sure they have and all your "evidence" has been proven false

T72 should ask himself the same question for the authors he follows
"None of the conspiracy authors or organizations can prove their claims, and it's highly likely you can either, but maybe you would take a shot?
Gage, et. al. failed at proving nanothermite and conventional explosives.
Prager failed at proving mini neutron bombs
Dr. Wood failed at proving energy beam weapon
CIT failed to prove the flyover of the Pentagon

 

[Quag]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

T72 should ask himself the same question for the authors he follows
"None of the conspiracy authors or organizations can prove their claims, and it's highly likely you can either, but maybe you would take a shot?
Gage, et. al. failed at proving nanothermite and conventional explosives.
Prager failed at proving mini neutron bombs
Dr. Wood failed at proving energy beam weapon
CIT failed to prove the flyover of the Pentagon

He should but he wont

 

[mike2810]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

He should but he wont

Most people that I have encountered who reject the hijack/crash/fire/collapse theory only want to ask questions regarding that explanation. They do not want to discuss the theory they accept. I have been consistent through the years in that any explanation/theory needs to stand on its own merits. What many do not want is a close look at their explanation.
One only has to look at the controlled demolition theories. When asked which one is true, no real answer is given. The usually comeback is "it could not have been fire".

Back to the OP. imo, there is no evidence 9/11 was an inside job conducted by the US Govt. The inside job idea is just a way for CT authors to keep their followers on the hook and following them. At least Mark Basile had the sense to drop out after his boondoggle "dust analysis. The one were he collected funds to send a sample to an independent lab for analysis. The lab was to tell them what the dust was. That was over 5 years ago. No sample sent to a lab. No findings released. Just drifting off to oblivion.

 

[SanderO]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Would you be able to prove any of your claims?

None of the government agencies could prove any of those claims, and it's highly likely you cannot either, but maybe you would take a shot? :roll:

T72

Few things... I don't prove anything

I've been in and at the WTC many times. Can I prove it? Why do I have to prove everything I say or accept as reasonable.

Let's say for the sake of argument... that 4 commercial flights were hijacked and 3 hit targets... and this is true.

How would one prove this? How would one offer a proof that this happened to satisfied your *standard of proof*?

Why is not the fact that there were hundreds if not more witnesses who saw this...proof enough? They could all be lying... they could be mistaken...

++++

You demand for proof is largely rhetorical nonsense.

And if anything the *burden of proof* is for those who make extraordinary claims.... which is what all the truther claims are... extraordinary.

 

[SanderO]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

For me the more interesting thing about conspiracy theories is not the theories... but the study of people who gravitate to and espouse them. It's like cults... I could care less what a cult is about... but I am interested in how people get sucked into that nonsense.

Clearly some get involved for social reasons... finding a group they can identify with and so they share a belief system. A few seek notoriety and some seek to make money... there is always some who cash out taken the money of the sycophants. Some believe that if there is money into the group it must have credibility.. as who would put money into a hair brained idea.

I can't decide if some of these characters believe the nonsense... or once believed it and feel compelled to keep up the fiction or be called out as a jerk and a con artist. As long as there are others who believe their swill they can feel validated. And if people like their posts, contribute or buy their books and vids.. it also validates them... as they are not alone howling at the moon.

Gage and Griffin are con artists... as they are cashing out. They are intelligent enough to understand that what they sell is rubbish. So they are willfully ignorant and their consciences are clear... But they should know better because all their rubbish has been refuted. This applies to Chandler, Jones, Harrit, Cole and the entire second tier truther advocates.

I don't think people like Tony and Gerry are cashing out. They seem to be egotists who try to come off as engineers truthers can respect. But the truthers can't understand the engineering or the science and when these characters come up against an engineer or a physicists their arguments completely fall apart... or they try to switch horses and demand a proof of something else.. bait and switch. The second tier guys get off on speaking at events... which they peddle as almost engineering conferences.

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

T72

Few things... I don't prove anything

I've been in and at the WTC many times. Can I prove it? Why do I have to prove everything I say or accept as reasonable.

Let's say for the sake of argument... that 4 commercial flights were hijacked and 3 hit targets... and this is true.

How would one prove this? How would one offer a proof that this happened to satisfied your *standard of proof*?

Why is not the fact that there were hundreds if not more witnesses who saw this...proof enough? They could all be lying... they could be mistaken...

++++

You demand for proof is largely rhetorical nonsense.

And if anything the *burden of proof* is for those who make extraordinary claims.... which is what all the truther claims are... extraordinary.

Thank you for the candid statement--no, you don't prove anything. You accept at face value the story. That is rather the point.

However, there are people in the world with specialties in the area of physics involved in the story you accept with no questions. I am one of them, and so are all the guys and gals at Pilots For Truth. We know that the story told is simply impossible.

So too the architects with whom you've quarreled in the past. They know that modern steel buildings don't simply blow up and collapse leaving residuals of nuclear events without a reason.

You don't want to know about any reasons because you unquestioningly accept what your leaders tell you. You demand no proof, you believe what you have been told, a good subject for the Crown.

All that really means is that you are as gullible as any human can be, and I've known that for the several years we've been posting back and forth here at DP.

You claim to be rational and analytical, but you are very much the opposite. You conveniently ignore the laws of physics and expect me to do the same. Sorry sir, no can do.

 

[mike2810]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Thank you for the candid statement--no, you don't prove anything. You accept at face value the story. That is rather the point.

However, there are people in the world with specialties in the area of physics involved in the story you accept with no questions. I am one of them, and so are all the guys and gals at Pilots For Truth. We know that the story told is simply impossible.

So too the architects with whom you've quarreled in the past. They know that modern steel buildings don't simply blow up and collapse leaving residuals of nuclear events without a reason.

You don't want to know about any reasons because you unquestioningly accept what your leaders tell you. You demand no proof, you believe what you have been told, a good subject for the Crown.

All that really means is that you are as gullible as any human can be, and I've known that for the several years we've been posting back and forth here at DP.

You claim to be rational and analytical, but you are very much the opposite. You conveniently ignore the laws of physics and expect me to do the same. Sorry sir, no can do.

This is pretty interesting coming from you. You accept at face value what Prager has stated. You accept what Gage has stated.
You say you are a free thinker. Yet, you seem to restate the most current trend put out by Vtoday or Global News.
Your sources you use to come to your conclusion have been shown time and again to be flawed sources. Sorry, you have been fooled by the sources you use.

 

[SanderO]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Thank you for the candid statement--no, you don't prove anything. You accept at face value the story. That is rather the point.

However, there are people in the world with specialties in the area of physics involved in the story you accept with no questions. I am one of them, and so are all the guys and gals at Pilots For Truth. We know that the story told is simply impossible.

So too the architects with whom you've quarreled in the past. They know that modern steel buildings don't simply blow up and collapse leaving residuals of nuclear events without a reason.

You don't want to know about any reasons because you unquestioningly accept what your leaders tell you. You demand no proof, you believe what you have been told, a good subject for the Crown.

All that really means is that you are as gullible as any human can be, and I've known that for the several years we've been posting back and forth here at DP.

You claim to be rational and analytical, but you are very much the opposite. You conveniently ignore the laws of physics and expect me to do the same. Sorry sir, no can do.

I didn't and don't accept anything as fact unless I understand it. My interest in the building collapses was to understand how they collapsed... or could have collapsed. I found NIST's explanation for what triggered the 3 collapses less than satisfying. But by study and reading I have come to understand how they likely did collapse. These explanations might not be 100% precise. But they are definitely sensible and well within the realm of possibility. My curiosity to understand has been satisfied.

I was not closed to alternate explanations which are sensible and sufficiently detailed to understand. Not a single truther has advanced an explanation which is credible nor detailed enough to understand it.

I am not a NIST apologist or supporter and will not speak for NIST or defend their work. If you have a beef with NIST. That's up to them to respond to your critique.

I don't quarrel with many people. I might question their logic and faulty observations. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make her think. I don't debunk and have no interest in that. An explanation will stand or fall on the merits. I leave debunkery to others who want to waste their time will mostly willfully ignorant people despite their IQs.

 

[mike2810]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

I didn't and don't accept anything as fact unless I understand it. My interest in the building collapses was to understand how they collapsed... or could have collapsed. I found NIST's explanation for what triggered the 3 collapses less than satisfying. But by study and reading I have come to understand how they likely did collapse. These explanations might not be 100% precise. But they are definitely sensible and well within the realm of possibility. My curiosity to understand has been satisfied.

I was not closed to alternate explanations which are sensible and sufficiently detailed to understand. Not a single truther has advanced an explanation which is credible nor detailed enough to understand it.

I am not a NIST apologist or supporter and will not speak for NIST or defend their work. If you have a beef with NIST. That's up to them to respond to your critique.

I don't quarrel with many people. I might question their logic and faulty observations. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make her think. I don't debunk and have no interest in that. An explanation will stand or fall on the merits. I leave debunkery to others who want to waste their time will mostly willfully ignorant people despite their IQs.

I have said all along that we may never know the exact sequence of events that led to the collapse of the buildings. At best, researchers can provide a possible explanation based on the evidence. We will never know the exact damage done by the crashes, nor the exact damage done by the fires.

That said I am pretty comfortable with the hijacks , crashes, damage, fires and eventually collapse of the buildings. As I am pretty comfortable of the crash in Shankville and the Pentagon. The alternatives that have been presented by various authors and groups just don't hold up against the evidence. Some do make interesting reads. It is what is not said in those alternatives explanation that is telling. Much like Ancient Aliens a whole lot of "what if" statements.

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

I didn't and don't accept anything as fact unless I understand it. My interest in the building collapses was to understand how they collapsed... or could have collapsed. I found NIST's explanation for what triggered the 3 collapses less than satisfying. But by study and reading I have come to understand how they likely did collapse. These explanations might not be 100% precise. But they are definitely sensible and well within the realm of possibility. My curiosity to understand has been satisfied.

I was not closed to alternate explanations which are sensible and sufficiently detailed to understand. Not a single truther has advanced an explanation which is credible nor detailed enough to understand it.

I am not a NIST apologist or supporter and will not speak for NIST or defend their work. If you have a beef with NIST. That's up to them to respond to your critique.

I don't quarrel with many people. I might question their logic and faulty observations. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make her think. I don't debunk and have no interest in that. An explanation will stand or fall on the merits. I leave debunkery to others who want to waste their time will mostly willfully ignorant people despite their IQs.

I understand sir. You don't do facts and you don't do evidence, when they threaten your worldview. Old news Geoffrey.

 

[Quag]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

I understand sir. You don't do facts and you don't do evidence, when they threaten your worldview. Old news Geoffrey.

Most ironic post of the week award goes to...

 

[SanderO]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

I understand sir. You don't do facts and you don't do evidence, when they threaten your worldview. Old news Geoffrey.

This is a stupid remark. I don't have a static worldview... or even know what your's or believe mine to be.

Like most people I rely on sources... sources which I believe are reliable and honest. One simply can experience everything first hand and have all the technical knowledge to understand what you are experiencing.

My understanding of the WTC collapses is drawn from my own personal experience, my education and work as an architect and reading information and presentations prepared by others. Some of those presentations seem flawed.. others seem sensible.

 

[mike2810]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

I understand sir. You don't do facts and you don't do evidence, when they threaten your worldview. Old news Geoffrey.

That was a joke, right? Most funny post in this thread. Or ironic. :lamo

 

[gerrycan]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Looked at this a little more. Now I'm even more confused as to why you think core destruction did NOT extend to the corner core columns, especially column 508. See below. The last two buckling/moving columns are in line with column 508.
View attachment 67251354

Column 508 is where the corner hat truss outrigger connected to the facade. This is in line with the last two moving/buckling perimeter facade columns below, pointed out by you.
View attachment 67251356

Edit: Added column 508 outrigger perimeter facade connection in correlation to last two moving/buckling facade columns.
View attachment 67251358

CC508 is opposite Perimeter column 150 on the North face. The 2 way zone at the NE corner does not initially descend with the one way area but rather is pushed East as can be seen in the aluminium cladding at initiation. This isn't actually too controversial an issue because the structure is strong in the corners. It is relevant though in that the bridging trusses in the floor system would seem to be what's pulling on the 3 NE panels and the corner column on the N face.

NIST removed the bridging trusses at all levels from their full WTC model.

 

[gamolon]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

on the 3 NE panels and the corner column on the N face.

Can you please mark the 3 NE panels and the corner column that you are referring to on the north face? I just want to make sure we are on the same page.

Thanks.

 

[gamolon]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

CC508 is opposite Perimeter column 150 on the North face. The 2 way zone at the NE corner does not initially descend with the one way area but rather is pushed East as can be seen in the aluminium cladding at initiation. This isn't actually too controversial an issue because the structure is strong in the corners. It is relevant though in that the bridging trusses in the floor system would seem to be what's pulling on the 3 NE panels and the corner column on the N face.

Can you also please explain why the above scenario gives you the impression that core column CC508 was not affected by the destruction and that it remained standing as the rest of the core failed?

Thanks.

 

[gerrycan]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Can you please mark the 3 NE panels and the corner column that you are referring to on the north face? I just want to make sure we are on the same page.

Thanks.

The 3 NE panels and the corner column would be 150 - 159, 159 being the corner column. These are the 10 columns furthest East on the North face. Here's where CC508 is in relation to the perimeters.

Column 150 marked in red -

 

[SanderO]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

The 3 NE panels and the corner column would be 150 - 159, 159 being the corner column. These are the 10 columns furthest East on the North face. Here's where CC508 is in relation to the perimeters.

Column 150 marked in red -

Are you asserting that the facade column movement was because of the out rigger of the hat truss? If so why wouldn't there be similar column failures at out rigger locations on each facade? Were these facade already overloaded from transferred loads from the plane made gash in the north facade?

 

[gamolon]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

CC508 is opposite Perimeter column 150 on the North face.

I agree as I showed this earlier.

The 2 way zone at the NE corner does not initially descend with the one way area but rather is pushed East as can be seen in the aluminium cladding at initiation. This isn't actually too controversial an issue because the structure is strong in the corners. It is relevant though in that the bridging trusses in the floor system would seem to be what's pulling on the 3 NE panels and the corner column on the N face.

Can you clarify the above in red please? Were the panels PUSHED east or PULLED east?

Can you also explain how the bridging trusses in the floor system (they ran parallel to the north perimeter facade correct?) PULLED the 3 NE panels and the corner column (columns 150 through 159) east iF the NE 2 way zone didn't move? See facade column designation below and which direction you say they moved.


Here is the outline of the NE 2 way zone.


Thanks.

 

[gamolon]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

The 2 way zone at the NE corner does not initially descend with the one way area but rather is pushed East as can be seen in the aluminium cladding at initiation.

As per the drawing below, the 2 way zone starts at perimeter facade column 142. That part of the perimeter area that descended as shown by the video of the north facade face. I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to explain here as this would indicate that part of the 2 way zone (up to perimeter facade column 150) descended and the other did not.

 

[gamolon]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Are you asserting that the facade column movement was because of the out rigger of the hat truss? If so why wouldn't there be similar column failures at out rigger locations on each facade? Were these facade already overloaded from transferred loads from the plane made gash in the north facade?

I'm also trying to understand how he's surmising the statement below regarding the core corner columns, especially column 508, using the video of the north facade failing and his recent explanations/descriptions.

The core destruction did not extend to columns 501, 508, 1001, and 1008 and perhaps those adjacent to each of those cores at the perimeter too. I certainly cannot for the life of me explain how the damage and subsequent fire could possibly cause this pattern of destruction, but feel free to try and shed some light on that if you wish.