9-11 was an inside job

[jaqeboy]

Have I posted this video on Bldg 7 yet?

It gives a quick review of the NIST report flaws and includes a demonstration of super-thermite in a paint-on preparation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V0WQFztLyg&feature=em-subs_digest-newavtr-vrecs

[Jim Johnson]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=eem7d58gjno&feature=endscreen

[MaineShark]

Would the most honest and in-depth examination possible satisfy you, if it reached exactly the same conclusion?

The most honest and in-depth examination possible would not reach the same conclusion, so your question is not answerable.

That demonstrates the problem, here: you're not engaging in science, because all science is falsifiable.

Want to falsify gravity?  Drop a weight and demonstrate that it falls at something other than 9.8 meters per second per second at sea level on this planet.  We'd have to come up with a new theory.

If you cannot imagine a test which would disprove your theory, then you're not engaging in science.

So, what would it take to disprove your theory about the collapse of these various buildings?  What evidence could be presented, which would prove to you that no demolition was involved?

Can a jet fuel/hydrocarbon fire collapse a steel structure? An experiment.

Um, that "experiment" has no basis in reality.  That rabbit wire is under nowhere near the sort of stress that a steel building is under.  Nor is it in any way structurally related to the design of such a building.  Try building something that's even vaguely similar to the structure used in the WTC towers.

No building falls symmetrically during a fire; especially a steel frame building.  It isn't possible.  It can't happen.

Actually, quite the contrary.  Any building of that size, under failure (regardless of the cause) will fall in a roughly-symmetrical manner.  The force of gravity, which pulls symmetrically downward, is overwhelmingly stronger than any other force acting on the building.  It cannot "tip," because there are no side loads that come anywhere close to the load of gravity.  A much-smaller building might fall over, because it does not mass anywhere near as much, but once you get past a certain point, gravity has such an advantage over other forces that the building must fall in the manner seen.  It would fall that way if controlled demolition was used, or if a plane caused the crash.

The only possible exception would be if it fell due to something enough stronger that it could induce a meaningful side load, like a major earthquake or an atomic blast.  Anything less than that is not going to be able to put a dent in the force of gravity on a structure like that.

[Jim Johnson]

bullshit

[MaineShark]

bullshit

Eloquent.

But the facts of physics remain the facts of physics.  Masses act in certain ways under certain conditions, just like how a explosion will create a mushroom cloud, regardless of whether any nuclear bomb is involved or not - the cloud forms due to the way that a rising column of hot gas interacts with the surrounding cooler air.  When the force of gravity is several orders of magnitude stronger than any other force, it dampens their effects - they're present, but their effects are too small for a human observer to detect, just as you cannot detect the influence of the moon's gravity on a thrown baseball, even though it is present.

And the facts of science remain the facts of science, and all science is falsifiable - that's what makes it science.  If you cannot come up with a test that would disprove your claim, then your claim is not a scientific claim.  If not, you end up with nonsense like "anthropogenic global warming," where they will tell you that the shrinking arctic ice proves their claim that humans are warming the planet... and that the growing antarctic ice does the same.  If you assert that your claim is automatically true, regardless of the evidence, then you are not engaging in science.

[Jim Johnson]

Maineshark, you didn't even watch this, http://www.hulu.com/watch/412065 did you?
I can tell because of your obtuse sciency statements.

All I want is an investigation of the facts, demonstrable evidence and repeatable conclusions.
None of those things are being provided by NIST.
I don't know why or how the buildings fell.  And don't know why you and KB feel you need to defend the government in this matter.

[MaineShark]

Maineshark, you didn't even watch this, http://www.hulu.com/watch/412065 did you?
I can tell because of your obtuse sciency statements.

No, I was speaking far more generally.  If it's not falsifiable, it's not science.  End of story.

All I want is an investigation of the facts, demonstrable evidence and repeatable conclusions.
None of those things are being provided by NIST.

Eh... scroll back through this thread.  I posted a detailed failure analysis, years ago.  Entirely on my own skill as an engineer, with no input from NIST.

I don't know why or how the buildings fell.  And don't know why you and KB feel you need to defend the government in this matter.

I'm defending science, not the government.  As I've said, in this same thread.  If someone wants to assert that some part of the government knew about the attacks and did nothing, so as to have an excuse to act, that's entirely believable.  If someone wants to assert that some part of the government actually convinced the terrorists to carry out the attacks, that's also quite believable.  Both are things this government has a long history of doing.

But to assert that a government that managed to fail at running a brothel could secretly have thousands of workers install demolition charges in buildings, and have those charges be so well-done that they survived plane impacts and still worked perfectly (controlled demolition is a perfectionist's wet dream - everything has to be "just so," or it doesn't work)... just makes no sense.

It's entirely believable that the government is fully responsible.  But one does not need to bend over backwards and inside-out to make that work: postulate that someone in the government talked some terrorists into flying planes into buildings.  Exactly like all these other terror plots they keep "discovering," where they quietly admit that they actually talked the guy into the act, and supplied all the materials.  That's believable, and it puts the blame squarely with the government, while also adhering to science.

I'm rather well convinced that folks like Gage are actually working for the government, to cover up whatever involvement there was.  They develop these red herrings and wave them around.  That way, no one's asking questions like, "did someone know about these terrorists, or even finance them?," because they're too busy wasting time searching for non-existant demolition charges.  If someone's standing out in public, loudly yelling at everyone, "look over here," it's good odds that he's trying to distract you from something that's happening, just a little bit to one side or the other.  So, now, the folks who should be questioning what's happening, are instead looking where he's pointing, and are totally missing what's really going on.

[KBCraig]

And don't know why you and KB feel you need to defend the government in this matter.

Where have I defended the government?

I don't even know what the government said about it, other than the clips and snippets shown in Truther claims. I assume any government reports are full of BS. That doesn't make Truther claims valid just because the government lies about their involvement.

[Jim Johnson]

What's asked for is a new investigation.  If you can't get behind that, you're defending the government.

[MaineShark]

What's asked for is a new investigation.  If you can't get behind that, you're defending the government.

A new investigation, performed by whom?

[Jim Johnson]

What's asked for is a new investigation.  If you can't get behind that, you're defending the government.

A new investigation, performed by whom?

Yeah your right.
I can't get supposed friends to watch videos; there isn't going to be any convincing of the rest of the world. 

[KBCraig]

What's asked for is a new investigation.  If you can't get behind that, you're defending the government.

A new investigation, performed by whom?

Yeah your right.
I can't get supposed friends to watch videos; there isn't going to be any convincing of the rest of the world.

I've watched the videos. They don't constitute an investigation. They ignore physics and claim to show one thing when something else is happening. Some might call that "less than persuasive".

[jaqeboy]

One of the types of evidence that was left behind was the dust spread all over lower Manhattan. One notion is that only non-governmental scientists are doing significant investigations. Here's New Hampshire's own Mark Basile on his investigations of the iron spheres and red/gray chips found in the dust:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43zBoRupcfM

He has presented this at PorcFest under the AltExpo tent, as well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ7hXrmMRPc&feature=plcp

[MaineShark]

What's asked for is a new investigation.  If you can't get behind that, you're defending the government.

A new investigation, performed by whom?

Yeah your right.
I can't get supposed friends to watch videos; there isn't going to be any convincing of the rest of the world.

I can't watch any videos, at the moment, since my computer is screwed up, so don't take it personally.

But I'm still curious who, exactly, you want to perform this new investigation.  You want one, but who will do it?  You?  Me?  The Feds, again?  Who's going to run the show?

[KBCraig]

I have absolutely no problem with an open source investigation. The only problem is that the current movement has contributed so much noise and polluted the evidence pool, that I don't know what could be relied on.