ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 911 conspiracy theory , william rodriguez

Reply
Old 23rd December 2007, 09:29 AM   #801
T.A.M.
Keeper of the Kool-Vax
 
T.A.M.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,811
so by your line of thinking, every time we have a plane crash, or an arson, then another plane should be crashed, another building burned, in order to make sure the first ones occured as we suspect?

Modeling disasters in real world, with full or even partial models is just insane. It does not happen. When a fire occurs, and arson investigator assesses the scene, collects evidence, and reaches a conclusion.

When a plane crashes, investigators are on scene, they investigate, collect data, analyze, and reach conclusions.

NIST went beyond this and did perform some testing on building assemblies. They created gigantic and complex computer models. They performed numerous tests, and all of these things led them to their conclusions...

Once again, the idea of modeling the collapses in anything but a computer are absolutely ridiculous.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2007, 09:34 AM   #802
thewholesoul
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 835
heres anotehr idea chillzero - after exploding the 28kg of jet fuel we could compare the seismic results with the seismic results we already have for the morning of september 11th. if 28kg produces a bigger spike then we could conclude that 28kg is too much.

if scientists can imagine ways to prove the big bang theory and the creation of our universe through observing predictions i am sure mankind could come up with someway to experiment and prove the fireball hypothesis.

what bugs me is the resistance to proving your own hypothesis!! you should be supporting ways to prove your hypothesis not claiming it cannot or should not be done. if a hypothesis is neither verifiable or falsifiable through observation you do know it is nolonger in the realm of science but of fairytales and ghost whisperers?
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2007, 09:36 AM   #803
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
 
funk de fino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 11,490
the wholesoul

If an elevator shaft was airtight the elevator would not be able to move up and down

please rethink your posting
__________________

Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase.
funk de fino is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2007, 09:40 AM   #804
T.A.M.
Keeper of the Kool-Vax
 
T.A.M.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,811
Originally Posted by funk de fino View Post
the wholesoul

If an elevator shaft was airtight the elevator would not be able to move up and down

please rethink your posting
exactly...
PS:
and getting stuck in the elevator for longer than a few minutes might be fatal...

TAM

Last edited by T.A.M.; 23rd December 2007 at 09:43 AM. Reason: explanation not really needed...self explanatory
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2007, 09:41 AM   #805
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 18,383
Thewholesoul:
English is not your native language is it? I suggest you have someone with a little better comprehension of the language reread the posts your quoting. Your not understanding very well.

Just a little helpful advice.
__________________
Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join Team 13232!

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2007, 10:35 AM   #806
chillzero
Domestic Godless
 
chillzero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 15,524
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
what bugs me is the resistance to proving your own hypothesis!! you should be supporting ways to prove your hypothesis not claiming it cannot or should not be done.
My hypothesis? What exactly is my hypothesis? What assumptions are you making here?

Also, are you psychic, or do you just think that I am? Why make commetns such as:

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
besides why werent you objecting when a member of this forum says he was going to ring morelli (!!!) and ask him questions about that day?? you are obviously displaying double standards for the members in this forum.
and also:

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
how come grravy can say why dont you ring them up all the time and when i suggest that some witnesses can be used to analysis results of an experiment you all of a sudden jump down my throat assuming the moral high ground? you should think about that.
<snip>

as for the additional trauma - again where was your concern for the welfare of morelli when people in this forum - that you moderate - openly declared he was going to ring him up!!
1 - I didn't jump down anyone's throat. I suggested it might be inconsiderate to replay sounds of a traumatic event to the victims of that event, just to dismiss some mad theory that has no basis in reality.

2 - Have you reported any comments Gravy made that you feel should be addressed? Have you any evidence that I have acted - as a moderator - in an inconsistent manner? If you have, please start a thread in the Forum Management section to identify it.

3 - Where was my concern for the welfare of morelli? I ask again - do you think I'm psychic? I have no idea what you are talking about. Or perhaps you believe that you are psychic, to have such an insight into my thoughts and motives?
chillzero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2007, 10:42 AM   #807
thewholesoul
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 835
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
so by your line of thinking, every time we have a plane crash, or an arson, then another plane should be crashed, another building burned, in order to make sure the first ones occured as we suspect?
ideally yes, but in reality the sensationalist methods you describe above are not feasible. if it cannot be achieved through such sensationalist methods then some kind of experimentation can and should be devised. but not all arsons or plane crashes are nearly as controversial or mysterious as 911 and so do not merit the whole nine yards. because 911 was such a historical precedent i believe that every effort should be taken to test and prove the offical hypothesis.

Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
Modeling disasters in real world, with full or even partial models is just insane. It does not happen. When a fire occurs, and arson investigator assesses the scene, collects evidence, and reaches a conclusion. When a plane crashes, investigators are on scene, they investigate, collect data, analyze, and reach conclusions
so modelling disasters with full or even partial models IS INSANE...that means the crowd at NIST and underwriters labratory are a bunch of nuts - can you imagine they even reconstructed scale models of a floor, its trusses with fireproofing etc and exposed them to a kerosene fire?? the outrage, these scientists experimenting with partial models trying to prove their hypothesis and understand the disaster of 911 should all be in staright-jackets!!

as you wisely point out while an investigator will "assess the scene, collect evidence and data, analyse it and reach a conclusion" it is the scientist who takes that conclusion or working hypothesis and proves it through experimentation.

Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
NIST went beyond this and did perform some testing on building assemblies. They created gigantic and complex computer models. They performed numerous tests, and all of these things led them to their conclusions....
were those building assemblies full or EVEN PARTIAL MODELS?? congratualtions you just contradicted yourself.

look i have no problem with computer models but as i explained in a previous post the results will be influenced by the values we punch into the computer. consequently dr.greenings computer model will have an entirely different outcome to dr ross's computer model.

if you are so confident with computer models how would you feel if the scholars for 911 truth were responsible for it. this is exactly how i feel when government sponsored NIST are incharge of the computer modelling.

yes they perfomred numerous tests i welcome that but as you well know they did not test or prove progressive collapse. their investigation stopped at the point of initial collapse. so i want to see more tests to prove their own hypothesis of how progressive collapse was inevitable. if it is inevitable it should be reproducable and demonstratable through observation of something other than a computer model.

furthermore i have not heard of any experiments proving the fireball hypothesis. that jet fuel can travel down 90+floors and explode in the basement B2 -B3 level and do it again in the south tower despite the plane impacting lower and the jet fuel had subsequently a shorter distance to travel down and aerate.

it is not beyond the realms of possibility to construct just an identical elevator shaft to the height of the south tower below impact zone (50-60 floors high). and drop the jet fuel with an ignition intentionally placed at the b2-3 level. if the official hypothesis is true it will explode and deflagalate at least once in a 100 trials.

we can determine also through a simple experiment how the jet fuel can pass an elevator in an airtight shaft fairly easily. and given that fireballs were witnessed in b4 level below the freight elevator and 6 and 7. then we must conclude that jet fuel can pass the elevator - so lets find out how through experimentation.

the seismic recordings of exploding 28kg can be compared with the ones we already have. we can build an eight storey building with identical features as the twin towers - if you consider the amount of money spent of making a nuclear bomb or missile i feel that allocating the money from one weapon of mass destruction and redistributing it in pursuit of the truth behind 911 is well worth it. dont you?

Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
Once again, the idea of modeling the collapses in anything but a computer are absolutely ridiculous
once again you are contradicting yourself my firend. if testing partial or full models is insane then NIST and underwriters are insane for doing precisely that. if it is ridiculous to model the collapse other than through computers then NIST are behaving ridiculous becuase that is precisely what they have been doing - in addition to - computer simulation.

it is important to note that computer modelling is not the only way to experiment or prove a theory...i am not even sure if it qualifies as an experiment because it does not occur and is not observed in the REAL world. scientists do not experiment on yeast cells, fruit flies and lab rats through computer modelling and simulations that would be absurd. bombs are tested by exploding them in the REAL world not through computer simulation.

again like chillzero we have another person with a cronic shortage of imagination. can you seriously not imagine a way as to prove, test, verify, or falsify your own hypothesis? if thats what your telling me then your belief that the offical hypothesis is true is within the realm of flying pigs and lepracons.

i agree and welcome that NIST and underwriters have many disparate tests upon the structural steel and fireproofing...i merely want to see more tests...i do not understand the resistence to more testing in this forum, the defeatist attitude that says it cannot be done, or if it can be done then it should not be done.

if you want to know the truth, if you want to prove your hypothesis then you should support experimentation to prove your hypothesis. if you do not beleive we can or should prove your hypothesis then how can you expect me or anyone esle to believe it is true? more to the point why do you beleive it is true if the scientfic method has not be applied to every aspect of the offical hypothesis, namely - the progressive collapse and the fireball theory etc
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2007, 10:53 AM   #808
chillzero
Domestic Godless
 
chillzero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 15,524
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
again like chillzero we have another person with a cronic shortage of imagination.

Don't single me out again, especially with such a ridiculous argument.
chillzero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2007, 11:05 AM   #809
Totovader
Game Warden
 
Totovader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,321
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
hey totovader,

the way i see it is this. over 20 or so witness testimony in the vasement reported hearing an explosion. elsewhere that day in the building numerous people reported explosions in the building aswell as fireballs.

so the question in relation to the basement testimony is were these explosions caused by explosives or a fireball. admitedly those who claim they were explosives have little evidence. we can point to structural damage and the testimony. unfortunately the vast majority steel samples that could of been tested (INDEPENDENTLY) were removed from the crime scene.

on the other hand there is an abundance of evidence supporting the fireball hypothesis. we have testimony, and the damage to the building is also explained by the fireballs.

but i beleive in the scientific method. that is observation, hypothesis, prediction and experiment. i beleive experiments should be carried out in order for the official hypothesis to prove itself. to date no experimnets past the collapse initiation have been carried out by NIST. no experiment has been carried out to demonstrate that 28kg of jet fuel will produce the result some in this forum have predicted it would do.

no experiment has been carried out on a steel frame building 8 stories high with the same design parameters of the basement. until such an experiment has been conducted i will not be convinced by any hypothesis unless it proves itself to be true.

now as expected even the suggestion that an experiment should be carried out in order to prove the official hypothesis has met resistance.
1) it cant be done: although i doubt it ever will be done, it is not by no means beyond the realm of possibility to build an 8 story structure with the same scale as the the north tower.
2) its too expensive: well the military spends millions on developing bombs then they test them to see if they works. moreover the amount of money spent by past governments investigating JFK or shuttle disasters dwarfs the money they invested when investigating 911. besides i am sure there are cheaper ways to conduct experiments.
3) it would be immoral: experimention of the the jet fuel hypothesis does not mean that the victims must necessarily be involved. it they did choose to participate in analysis of results then fine.
4) experiment using a computer simulation: i wouldnt object to a computer simulation in addition to real life experimnets. But the problem with computer simulations is that the values are programmed into the computer, for example imagine the differences in results if Ross’s calculations and not Greening’s were applied in a computer simulation of the progressive collapse.

Frankly you guys should be jumping at the chance at proving your hypothesis, you should be supporting all forms of experimentation. The fact that 6 years has past without some kind of experimnet to prove the official theory of the progressive collapse says a lot to me.

The problem i have with the fireball explanation concerning David’s testimony is how could the jet fuel get past the elevator? Mackey provides a good hypothesis. But i would like to see an elevator shaft being built 90+ floors high to the exact scale of the north tower with elevators etc. Then drop x amount of jet fuel and purposely have an ignition point at the b2 or b3 area and then simply watch to OBSERVE if the jet fuel will explode into a fireball before the falling elevator. If it does not work, then try it again. Only through proving a hypothesis through experimentation will i be convinced of the truth of the official hypothesis. This is a rational criteria to believe in something.
AMAZING job of dodging the question.
__________________
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." --Jonathan Swift
Blog - Corrected By Reality. My debunking videos, and philosophy on YouTube


Totovader's 9/11 Conspiracy Challenge Still unanswered!
Totovader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2007, 11:22 AM   #810
thewholesoul
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 835
Originally Posted by funk de fino View Post
the wholesoul If an elevator shaft was airtight the elevator would not be able to move up and down, please rethink your posting
i was responding to i LASHL who suggested to ME that jet fuel cannot pass an elevator in an airtight shaft. mackey aslo suggested the same when he said in post #119 that "There is no requirement (for the jet fuel) to "get past the elevators."

so if your asking me to reconsider i have no problem. but if i reconsider then so shoudl lashl and mackey.

as for you point i say lets experiment - read my post #794 - its a simple experimnet that could be conducted to observe exaclty how the jet fuel passes, in what quantity it passes, and in what time it passes.

if you have any objections to this experiment as to why it not possible or should not be done please let me know.
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2007, 11:29 AM   #811
thewholesoul
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 835
Originally Posted by Totovader View Post
AMAZING job of dodging the question.
glad you enjoyed toto i aim to please.

are you also saying that your hypothesis cannot or should not be proven??

hip hip for the scientific method eh??

if your question is was the explosion experineced by witnesses in the basment caused by exploives then my answer is it could have been.

next you are going to say well where is the evidence. i will say the testimony is evidence as for other forms of evidence i will post a reply to the reasons why it is in short supply.

now you answer my question: do you beleive that your hypothesis should be proven through experimentation? thats a yes or no.
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2007, 11:39 AM   #812
Totovader
Game Warden
 
Totovader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,321
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
glad you enjoyed toto i aim to please.

are you also saying that your hypothesis cannot or should not be proven??

hip hip for the scientific method eh??

if your question is was the explosion experineced by witnesses in the basment caused by exploives then my answer is it could have been.

next you are going to say well where is the evidence. i will say the testimony is evidence as for other forms of evidence i will post a reply to the reasons why it is in short supply.

now you answer my question: do you beleive that your hypothesis should be proven through experimentation? thats a yes or no.
Like I said- your red herring is noted.

If you're not going to answer the question, you're not going to help your case.

Can you explain why computer modeling of collapses or building structures is insufficient?

I want to see you try and claim that the entire science of structural engineering is invalid.

This should be good.
__________________
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." --Jonathan Swift
Blog - Corrected By Reality. My debunking videos, and philosophy on YouTube


Totovader's 9/11 Conspiracy Challenge Still unanswered!
Totovader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2007, 11:46 AM   #813
thewholesoul
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 835
Originally Posted by chillzero View Post
My hypothesis? What exactly is my hypothesis? What assumptions are you making here?
if you do not have a hypothesis pertaining to the events that occured in the wtc basement well whats the point in posting in this forum? I am assuming you do not agree with the hypothesis that the explosions in the basement were the result of explosives? If that is true then your hypothesis is (a) plane impact (debunked) or (b) fireball (unproven). If it is something else please outline what that is so we engage in a fruitful dialogue.

Originally Posted by chillzero View Post
Also, are you psychic, or do you just think that I am?
Yes i am psychic, and i am sensing right now that this response irritates you.

Originally Posted by chillzero View Post
I didn't jump down anyone's throat. I suggested it might be inconsiderate to replay sounds of a traumatic event to the victims of that event, just to dismiss some mad theory that has no basis in reality.
I know thats what you suggested my point was why didnt you make the same suggestion to others in this forum

Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
You really give a damn, brasil, don't you? Your country's trying to kill you and you won't even make a phone call.
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
thewholesoul, why don't you contact Mr. Morelli to get a more detailed account? Will you? While you're at it, you can ask him if he thinks there were bombs placed in the basement that detonated before flight 11 hit.
Originally Posted by LashL View Post
If I undertake to call him and ask him about this to "save [you] the price of an international phone call", will you accept my report of the ensuing conversation as accurate?
Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd View Post
Heh. (reffering to me) The "truth" isn't worth the price of an international phone call to you. Nice.
My point was if you object to my proposal that we could replay sound recordings or present photos of the experiment to victims who consented to help in the analysis of results because it is inconsiderate and traumatic – where was your moral conscience when the above members proposed ringing up the victims and questioning them about that day.

This in my view was and is a double standard. Unless that is you disagree with the above members for the same reason you disagreed with my proposal. But because you never mentioned that reason to them – i have no idea if that is what you feel. And until you do respond to them and argue that ringing up the victims is inconsiderate and maybe traumatic then i am fully entitled to describe your behaviour as demonstarting a double standard.

“besides why werent you objecting when a member of this forum says he was going to ring morelli (!!!) and ask him questions about that day?? you are obviously displaying double standards for the members in this forum”


Originally Posted by chillzero View Post
Have you reported any comments Gravy made that you feel should be addressed? Have you any evidence that I have acted - as a moderator - in an inconsistent manner? If you have, please start a thread in the Forum Management section to identify it.
I couldnt be bothered to tell you the truth. If i did report grravy for encouraging other people to ring victims i would then be a hipocrite because i propose that victims should be asked whether they wish to help analyse the results of an experimnet recreating that day. I try not to apply double standards.


Originally Posted by chillzero View Post
Where was my concern for the welfare of morelli? I ask again - do you think I'm psychic? I have no idea what you are talking about. Or perhaps you believe that you are psychic, to have such an insight into my thoughts and motives?
Read the posts above calling for members of this forum to contact victims. I dont expect you to be psychic but i do expect that you read the postings in this forum that YOU moderate.
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2007, 11:49 AM   #814
thewholesoul
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 835
Originally Posted by chillzero View Post
Don't single me out again, especially with such a ridiculous argument.
hey you should try my position i am the only one in here arguing against the official hypothesis. so syop whinning. (oh it sure feels good to use that phrase)

ok lets assume you have an imagination please devise one experiment that could verify or falsify the offical hypothesis.
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2007, 11:49 AM   #815
Slayhamlet
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,423
Originally Posted by Slayhamlet View Post
No, your experiment is preposterous and has nothing to do with the scientific method.

Are you talking about this white smoke?
thewholesoul?
Slayhamlet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2007, 11:55 AM   #816
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
Not quoting e TheSoleHole because there is too much ignorance to quote for one post

jeeze where do I begin. First off. Your air tight elevators

Where do the counterweights and cable loops go when an elevator rises? out the side of the building? Or alongside the elevator in the same shaft? Did you know that the weight of the cable alone if not compensated for in bypassed loop slings of counterweights that the elevator cab when rising toward the top would rocket out the top of the shaft from the weight of the cable slack if not compensated for?

secondly.. your "scale model" fallacy

Troofers fail to grasp the problem of scale. Lets dumb this down to child level physics, take the insect analogy. An ant if scaled up to human size would not be able to lift its limbs let alone five times its body weight.

The scaling problem of fire
Combustion in a small box does not behave in the same manner as combustion in a large room. This problem can be demonstrated as simply as lighting a match to a half O model train scale balsa wood house. compare the flame pattern and size to that of full scale house fires which I am certain everyone has witnessed.

I find it laughable when troofers claim the collapse violates physics when there they go building hardware cloth and construction paper models in attempts to demonstrate something they cannot understand. The only thing they demonstrate is that they know nothing of everyday common laymen level physics. There is a segment of the general population who simply cannot visualize things. In my field I bring blueprints to some people who cannot grasp or see elevations that are before them on paper. Its like if you showed them a photo of their uncle Ed and they didn't recognize him until he walked in the door.
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2007, 11:58 AM   #817
thewholesoul
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 835
Originally Posted by Totovader View Post
Like I said- your red herring is noted.

If you're not going to answer the question, you're not going to help your case.

Can you explain why computer modeling of collapses or building structures is insufficient?

I want to see you try and claim that the entire science of structural engineering is invalid.

This should be good.
you answer my question first. i am not playing your little game. if you think that computer simulation is sufficient for PROVING progressive collapse and the fireball in the basement hypothesis then YOU PRESENT YOUR CASE.

if you read my previous posts i have presented several reasons why i would be sceptical of a computer simulation. try addressing them first - are they invalid reasons - then explain why you think they are invalid.

i also stated that i would not object to simulations but i would like simulations in addition to real life experimnets on partal modelling. i ahve also presented some ideas for experiments regardingt the fireball hypothesis. read them and get back to me amigo.
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2007, 11:59 AM   #818
chillzero
Domestic Godless
 
chillzero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 15,524
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post

Read the posts above calling for members of this forum to contact victims. I dont expect you to be psychic but i do expect that you read the postings in this forum that YOU moderate.
I don't have time to read each and every post in every thread. That's why we have the report function. As I said - take it to forum mgt if you have any evidence of double standards.

The world isn't as black and white as you seem to believe it to be, and I don't propose any hypothesis of my own. That's what I pointed out to you. You should stop making assumptions about what other people think, believe, read and do.

I would suggest you would be better placed to stop sidestepping totovader, and Slayhamlet, and give them decent responses to the posts they have taken time to put to you.
chillzero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2007, 12:04 PM   #819
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
 
Alt+F4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,997
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
if you read my previous posts i have presented several reasons why i would be sceptical of a computer simulation.
Well the millions of truthers out there should all contribute $5 each to pay for a new investigation free of government interference. With all this money the truthers won't have to rely on computer simulations, they'll have enough money to buy a 757 and crash it into a large building they'll also buy.

I'm looking forward to it.
__________________
"My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky
Alt+F4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2007, 12:04 PM   #820
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
 
Cl1mh4224rd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,080
If you were involved in a rather serious car accident and, years later, your insurance company came to you with a recording of a recreation they put together and asked you if it sounded like the accident you were involved in, what would you answer? Could you answer?
Cl1mh4224rd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2007, 12:11 PM   #821
thewholesoul
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 835
Originally Posted by chillzero View Post
I don't have time to read each and every post in every thread. That's why we have the report function. As I said - take it to forum mgt if you have any evidence of double standards. .
like i said i wouldnt be bothered. look your a great moderator the best i have ever seen - does that make you feel better?

Originally Posted by chillzero View Post
The world isn't as black and white as you seem to believe it to be, .
well i suggest you stop making assumptions about what otehr people think, beleive and do.


Originally Posted by chillzero View Post
and I don't propose any hypothesis of my own. That's what I pointed out to you. .
nobody is proposing a hypothesis of their own in this room, havent you noticed?
Originally Posted by chillzero View Post
You should stop making assumptions about what other people think, believe, read and do..
i do try.


Originally Posted by chillzero View Post
I would suggest you would be better placed to stop sidestepping totovader, and Slayhamlet, and give them decent responses to the posts they have taken time to put to you.
i respect your biased opinion i wished totovader would answer some of my questions for a change. i give him a yes or no question and he replys with a question for me. thats sidestepping. if you beleive my responses are poor then read totovader offically debunked - you know he actually believed that teh explosion experienced by the witnesses's in the absement was cuased by the plane impacting 90+floors above.

i too spent time in writing responses but i suppose totovaders time is more valuable than mine.

anyways have a merry christmas each and all...i will be back in a few days or so with a dreadful hangover.
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2007, 12:17 PM   #822
thewholesoul
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 835
Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd View Post
If you were involved in a rather serious car accident and, years later, your insurance company came to you with a recording of a recreation they put together and asked you if it sounded like the accident you were involved in, what would you answer? Could you answer?
ridiculous comment.

NIST and underwritings labraotories ARE conducting experiments to prove their hypothesis. i want to see more experiments. dont you?

if the man was injured because the car crashed then that experiment has been carried out tested perhaps a million times with crash test dummys.

i already distanced myself from the sound recordings being replayed to a witnesses. go read my past posts.

why dont you mention the other experiments i proposed? can you present an experiment yourself that could verify or falsify your own hypothesis - or are you yet another victim of lack of imagination in this room?
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2007, 12:19 PM   #823
thewholesoul
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 835
Originally Posted by Alt+F4 View Post
Well the millions of truthers out there should all contribute $5 each to pay for a new investigation free of government interference. With all this money the truthers won't have to rely on computer simulations, they'll have enough money to buy a 757 and crash it into a large building they'll also buy.

I'm looking forward to it.
funny.

that would be a sight.
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2007, 12:24 PM   #824
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 34,486
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
ideally yes, but in reality the sensationalist methods you describe above are not feasible. if it cannot be achieved through such sensationalist methods then some kind of experimentation can and should be devised. but not all arsons or plane crashes are nearly as controversial or mysterious as 911 and so do not merit the whole nine yards. because 911 was such a historical precedent i believe that every effort should be taken to test and prove the offical hypothesis.



so modelling disasters with full or even partial models IS INSANE...that means the crowd at NIST and underwriters labratory are a bunch of nuts - can you imagine they even reconstructed scale models of a floor, its trusses with fireproofing etc and exposed them to a kerosene fire?? the outrage, these scientists experimenting with partial models trying to prove their hypothesis and understand the disaster of 911 should all be in staright-jackets!!

as you wisely point out while an investigator will "assess the scene, collect evidence and data, analyse it and reach a conclusion" it is the scientist who takes that conclusion or working hypothesis and proves it through experimentation.



were those building assemblies full or EVEN PARTIAL MODELS?? congratualtions you just contradicted yourself.

look i have no problem with computer models but as i explained in a previous post the results will be influenced by the values we punch into the computer. consequently dr.greenings computer model will have an entirely different outcome to dr ross's computer model.

if you are so confident with computer models how would you feel if the scholars for 911 truth were responsible for it. this is exactly how i feel when government sponsored NIST are incharge of the computer modelling.

yes they perfomred numerous tests i welcome that but as you well know they did not test or prove progressive collapse. their investigation stopped at the point of initial collapse. so i want to see more tests to prove their own hypothesis of how progressive collapse was inevitable. if it is inevitable it should be reproducable and demonstratable through observation of something other than a computer model.

furthermore i have not heard of any experiments proving the fireball hypothesis. that jet fuel can travel down 90+floors and explode in the basement B2 -B3 level and do it again in the south tower despite the plane impacting lower and the jet fuel had subsequently a shorter distance to travel down and aerate.

it is not beyond the realms of possibility to construct just an identical elevator shaft to the height of the south tower below impact zone (50-60 floors high). and drop the jet fuel with an ignition intentionally placed at the b2-3 level. if the official hypothesis is true it will explode and deflagalate at least once in a 100 trials.

we can determine also through a simple experiment how the jet fuel can pass an elevator in an airtight shaft fairly easily. and given that fireballs were witnessed in b4 level below the freight elevator and 6 and 7. then we must conclude that jet fuel can pass the elevator - so lets find out how through experimentation.

the seismic recordings of exploding 28kg can be compared with the ones we already have. we can build an eight storey building with identical features as the twin towers - if you consider the amount of money spent of making a nuclear bomb or missile i feel that allocating the money from one weapon of mass destruction and redistributing it in pursuit of the truth behind 911 is well worth it. dont you?



once again you are contradicting yourself my firend. if testing partial or full models is insane then NIST and underwriters are insane for doing precisely that. if it is ridiculous to model the collapse other than through computers then NIST are behaving ridiculous becuase that is precisely what they have been doing - in addition to - computer simulation.

it is important to note that computer modelling is not the only way to experiment or prove a theory...i am not even sure if it qualifies as an experiment because it does not occur and is not observed in the REAL world. scientists do not experiment on yeast cells, fruit flies and lab rats through computer modelling and simulations that would be absurd. bombs are tested by exploding them in the REAL world not through computer simulation.

again like chillzero we have another person with a cronic shortage of imagination. can you seriously not imagine a way as to prove, test, verify, or falsify your own hypothesis? if thats what your telling me then your belief that the offical hypothesis is true is within the realm of flying pigs and lepracons.

i agree and welcome that NIST and underwriters have many disparate tests upon the structural steel and fireproofing...i merely want to see more tests...i do not understand the resistence to more testing in this forum, the defeatist attitude that says it cannot be done, or if it can be done then it should not be done.

if you want to know the truth, if you want to prove your hypothesis then you should support experimentation to prove your hypothesis. if you do not beleive we can or should prove your hypothesis then how can you expect me or anyone esle to believe it is true? more to the point why do you beleive it is true if the scientfic method has not be applied to every aspect of the offical hypothesis, namely - the progressive collapse and the fireball theory etc
You are swinging wildly and becoming more and more incoherent.

Why should anybody try to prove anything to you. You Know What Happened.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2007, 12:34 PM   #825
Slayhamlet
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,423
Can you answer my question, please, thewholesoul? Is this the white smoke you were talking about in post #756 "rising from the basement in youtube videos"?
Slayhamlet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2007, 12:34 PM   #826
thewholesoul
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 835
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
You are swinging wildly and becoming more and more incoherent.

Why should anybody try to prove anything to you. You Know What Happened.
hey chilezero notice how this gentlemen presented a really insightful response.

do you believe in the scientific method? yes or no?

NIST has been and will continue to condut experiments to prove theis hypothesis.

NIST to date has not proven through experiment the progressive collapse or the fireball hypothesis.

i think they should prove these particular aspects included in their overall their hypothesis.

dont you? dont you think the official hypothesis should be proven.

and what bias, the post you are responding to clearly points out that a contradiction was made. yet you brush past that and come in swinging and claiming i am incoherent.

why dont you present a case instead of this all too familiar counter punching approach? present a case as to why experiments can not or should not be conducted in order to prove the offical hypothesis. can you do that? if not your just wasting my time.
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2007, 12:40 PM   #827
thewholesoul
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 835
Originally Posted by Slayhamlet View Post
Can you answer my question, please, thewholesoul? Is this the white smoke you were talking about in post #756 "rising from the basement in youtube videos"?
sorry amigo, yes that is the white smoking i was reffering to.

now its your turn to explain to me why it could not possibly be the result of an explosive because white smoke is never produced from explosives. and you will make a rational and convincing effort in explaining your case - because the only possibility is the fireball scenario.

then i will say well why dont your prove your fireball hypothesis through experimentation.

then you will say no dont be ridiculous for no good reason. then i will say well how do you expect me to believe your very convincing hypothesis if you are not willing to even accept that it should be tested through experimentation according to the scientific method.

then you will say....??
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2007, 12:51 PM   #828
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
 
Alt+F4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,997
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
now its your turn to explain to me why it could not possibly be the result of an explosive because white smoke is never produced from explosives. and you will make a rational and convincing effort in explaining your case - because the only possibility is the fireball scenario.
I can explain it to you rationally and with convincing effort. My brother-in-law, employed for 20 years with the FDNY was a Fire Marshall (title for arson inspector in NYC) and he said there was no explosives. He worked the pile for 6 months begining on 9/11/01 and has a BS in Fire Science from CUNY/John Jay College.
__________________
"My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky
Alt+F4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2007, 12:58 PM   #829
thewholesoul
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 835
Originally Posted by Alt+F4 View Post
I can explain it to you rationally and with convincing effort. My brother-in-law, employed for 20 years with the FDNY was a Fire Marshall (title for arson inspector in NYC) and he said there was no explosives. He worked the pile for 6 months begining on 9/11/01 and has a BS in Fire Science from CUNY/John Jay College.
1 - i am not doubting your sincerity and the credentials of your borther-in-law but the vast majority of firefighters testimony contend that explosives or secondary devices were used in the building. so we have conflicting testimony that does not mean that explosives could not have possibly been planted in the building.

2 - the latter part of my post suggested that the fireball hypothesis be tested through experimentation. whats your views on that?
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2007, 12:59 PM   #830
T.A.M.
Keeper of the Kool-Vax
 
T.A.M.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,811
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
ideally yes, but in reality the sensationalist methods you describe above are not feasible. if it cannot be achieved through such sensationalist methods then some kind of experimentation can and should be devised. but not all arsons or plane crashes are nearly as controversial or mysterious as 911 and so do not merit the whole nine yards. because 911 was such a historical precedent i believe that every effort should be taken to test and prove the offical hypothesis.
They are not sensationalist methods, they are simply not feasible, you and I know it. You called them "sensationalist" as a means of making me look like I was building a strawman, which I am not.

Quote:
so modelling disasters with full or even partial models IS INSANE...that means the crowd at NIST and underwriters labratory are a bunch of nuts - can you imagine they even reconstructed scale models of a floor, its trusses with fireproofing etc and exposed them to a kerosene fire?? the outrage, these scientists experimenting with partial models trying to prove their hypothesis and understand the disaster of 911 should all be in staright-jackets!!

as you wisely point out while an investigator will "assess the scene, collect evidence and data, analyse it and reach a conclusion" it is the scientist who takes that conclusion or working hypothesis and proves it through experimentation.



were those building assemblies full or EVEN PARTIAL MODELS?? congratualtions you just contradicted yourself.
When I said "full or partial" models I was referring to the buildings as a whole (meaning to fully or partially reconstruct the skyscrapers)...

Quote:
look i have no problem with computer models but as i explained in a previous post the results will be influenced by the values we punch into the computer. consequently dr.greenings computer model will have an entirely different outcome to dr ross's computer model.
This is incorrect. NIST's Models were based on data sets taken from evidence collected. Whether Greening puts in the values, or Ross, the facts are the facts, the values do not change...

Quote:
if you are so confident with computer models how would you feel if the scholars for 911 truth were responsible for it. this is exactly how i feel when government sponsored NIST are incharge of the computer modelling.
Fine, have the "scholars" produce such a model, then allow others to verify their models (which I believe others did with the NIST models, but I am not certain). Jones should do the same with his Thermite Hypothesis (release his data and allow others to verify).

Quote:
yes they perfomred numerous tests i welcome that but as you well know they did not test or prove progressive collapse. their investigation stopped at the point of initial collapse. so i want to see more tests to prove their own hypothesis of how progressive collapse was inevitable. if it is inevitable it should be reproducable and demonstratable through observation of something other than a computer model.
You well know they have explained on a number of occasions why they did not do this...if you have issue with this, complain to them.

Quote:
furthermore i have not heard of any experiments proving the fireball hypothesis. that jet fuel can travel down 90+floors and explode in the basement B2 -B3 level and do it again in the south tower despite the plane impacting lower and the jet fuel had subsequently a shorter distance to travel down and aerate.
Why is that the responsibility of NIST. They were not a criminal/forensic investigating body. They were in charge of building performance.

Quote:
it is not beyond the realms of possibility to construct just an identical elevator shaft to the height of the south tower below impact zone (50-60 floors high). and drop the jet fuel with an ignition intentionally placed at the b2-3 level. if the official hypothesis is true it will explode and deflagalate at least once in a 100 trials.

we can determine also through a simple experiment how the jet fuel can pass an elevator in an airtight shaft fairly easily. and given that fireballs were witnessed in b4 level below the freight elevator and 6 and 7. then we must conclude that jet fuel can pass the elevator - so lets find out how through experimentation.

the seismic recordings of exploding 28kg can be compared with the ones we already have. we can build an eight storey building with identical features as the twin towers - if you consider the amount of money spent of making a nuclear bomb or missile i feel that allocating the money from one weapon of mass destruction and redistributing it in pursuit of the truth behind 911 is well worth it. dont you?



once again you are contradicting yourself my firend. if testing partial or full models is insane then NIST and underwriters are insane for doing precisely that. if it is ridiculous to model the collapse other than through computers then NIST are behaving ridiculous becuase that is precisely what they have been doing - in addition to - computer simulation.

it is important to note that computer modelling is not the only way to experiment or prove a theory...i am not even sure if it qualifies as an experiment because it does not occur and is not observed in the REAL world. scientists do not experiment on yeast cells, fruit flies and lab rats through computer modelling and simulations that would be absurd. bombs are tested by exploding them in the REAL world not through computer simulation.

again like chillzero we have another person with a cronic shortage of imagination. can you seriously not imagine a way as to prove, test, verify, or falsify your own hypothesis? if thats what your telling me then your belief that the offical hypothesis is true is within the realm of flying pigs and lepracons.

i agree and welcome that NIST and underwriters have many disparate tests upon the structural steel and fireproofing...i merely want to see more tests...i do not understand the resistence to more testing in this forum, the defeatist attitude that says it cannot be done, or if it can be done then it should not be done.

if you want to know the truth, if you want to prove your hypothesis then you should support experimentation to prove your hypothesis. if you do not beleive we can or should prove your hypothesis then how can you expect me or anyone esle to believe it is true? more to the point why do you beleive it is true if the scientfic method has not be applied to every aspect of the offical hypothesis, namely - the progressive collapse and the fireball theory etc
Constructing an elevator shaft to stand freely at 50-60 storeys? That I would like to see...lol

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2007, 01:02 PM   #831
T.A.M.
Keeper of the Kool-Vax
 
T.A.M.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,811
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
1 - i am not doubting your sincerity and the credentials of your borther-in-law but the vast majority of firefighters testimony contend that explosives or secondary devices were used in the building. so we have conflicting testimony that does not mean that explosives could not have possibly been planted in the building.

2 - the latter part of my post suggested that the fireball hypothesis be tested through experimentation. whats your views on that?
The Bolded is an utter lie, and you should retract it, or prove that the MAJORITY of testimony from them indicate this.

I have read many, many testimony (over 100) from the fire fighters, and have found only one or two that even imply such a thing.

You are a liar for this, and you are pissing on their graves.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2007, 01:05 PM   #832
T.A.M.
Keeper of the Kool-Vax
 
T.A.M.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,811
you want a hypothesis proposed wholesoul...here...

I propose that someone on the 60th floor dropped a grenade down the elevator shaft, and it then exploded in the basement...

Now prove me wrong...prove me right...use full or partial models to do so...there you go.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2007, 01:07 PM   #833
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
 
Alt+F4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,997
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
the vast majority of firefighters testimony contend that explosives or secondary devices were used in the building.
Sorry, but you're wrong. I'm from a firefighter family and have never, ever meet an FDNY member that thought it was anything other than the plane crashes. Besides my brother-in-law there were many other experienced Fire Marshalls there that day and afterwards. 347 of their members died, don't you think that if these professionals even suspected something other then the plane crashes they would have spoken up in a formal manner and demanded an investigation?

Keep in mind that FDNY members also said there was a bomb at Stuyvesant High School that morning, there wasn't.
__________________
"My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky
Alt+F4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2007, 01:11 PM   #834
Slayhamlet
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,423
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
sorry amigo, yes that is the white smoking i was reffering to.

now its your turn to explain to me why it could not possibly be the result of an explosive because white smoke is never produced from explosives. and you will make a rational and convincing effort in explaining your case - because the only possibility is the fireball scenario.
No, that white smoke is neither from a basement bomb nor burning jet fuel, but from a burning car well outside the WTC.

Quote:
then i will say well why dont your prove your fireball hypothesis through experimentation.

then you will say no dont be ridiculous for no good reason. then i will say well how do you expect me to believe your very convincing hypothesis if you are not willing to even accept that it should be tested through experimentation according to the scientific method.

then you will say....??
Bizarre. I have no problem with experimentation done in accordance with the scientific method. The fact is your proposed experiment is seriously flawed due to your limited understanding of the event. That's all.
Slayhamlet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2007, 01:32 PM   #835
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
 
Cl1mh4224rd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,080
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
now its your turn to explain to me why it could not possibly be the result of an explosive. . .

Because it's a burning car: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klgf3aMuczA

Edit: Bah. Slayhamlet beat me.

Last edited by Cl1mh4224rd; 23rd December 2007 at 01:33 PM.
Cl1mh4224rd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2007, 01:40 PM   #836
thewholesoul
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 835
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
They are not sensationalist methods, they are simply not feasible, you and I know it. You called them "sensationalist" as a means of making me look like I was building a strawman, which I am not.
well if you knew we both thought they were not feasible why then did you bother to post them? i never claimed that we should buld a full scale tower and crash a 747 into them. if thats not a strawman that what is?

Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
When I said "full or partial" models I was referring to the buildings as a whole (meaning to fully or partially reconstruct the skyscrapers)...
you should have been clearer then when making your comments. and underwriters did build "partial" floor models of the trusses of wtc and tested it so i fail to see your point.

Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
This is incorrect. NIST's Models were based on data sets taken from evidence collected. Whether Greening puts in the values, or Ross, the facts are the facts, the values do not change...
tell me how could a computer simulation prove the fireball hypothesis in the basement?

Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
Fine, have the "scholars" produce such a model, then allow others to verify their models (which I believe others did with the NIST models, but I am not certain). Jones should do the same with his Thermite Hypothesis (release his data and allow others to verify).
i suppose funding is an issue, something that the scholars would lack. however i would love to see them produce a model and put it up for scrutiny.

i agree jones should release his data backing his thermite hypothesis.

Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
You well know they have explained on a number of occasions why they did not do this...if you have issue with this, complain to them.
i do have issue and so should you. because NIST has only investigated and tested up until the initial collpase they have not tested the progressive global collapse or the fireball scenario hence the latter remains to be proven.

besides the families who had victims arent too pleased with their explanation 6 years after the event.

Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
Why is that the responsibility of NIST. They were not a criminal/forensic investigating body. They were in charge of building performance.
well who then is responsible? if there is a government body responsible they should get to it.

Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
Constructing an elevator shaft to stand freely at 50-60 storeys? That I would like to see...lol
i expected you would say something like this. of course in order to stand vertically it would require some form of support structure. becasue i did not mention the support struture does not mean that i suggested the evevator shaft should be free-standing. saying that i said it should stand freely is another strawman because i never siad it should stand freely.

look i am just looking for ideas of how your official hypothesis could be tested, verified or falsified. are you trying to saying that there is no possible way we can test the fireball theory? if that is what you are saying then your belief in the fireball hypothesis is metaphysical i.e. cannot be observed, measured, tested or proven.

given that the elevator shaft being 50-60 floors high is too incredulous for you perhaps we could make a scale model? when i suggested that a scale model be made for the twin towers someone pointed out that this would violate the scale laws. this was a fair and valid objection. but i am not sure the scale laws would apply to dropping jet fuel a certain height and observing if it will ignite below. so maybe a smaller model could be constructed. may be not?

so before you start laughing at my suggestions maybe you should use a little imagination and device an experiment that could verify the fireball hypothesis.
you are interested in proving your hypothesis right?
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2007, 01:40 PM   #837
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,078
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
1 - i am not doubting your sincerity and the credentials of your borther-in-law but the vast majority of firefighters testimony contend that explosives or secondary devices were used in the building.
Some lies are just lies. This lie stinks.

thewholesoul, I've taken you off ignore so I'll see your retraction and apology.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2007, 01:48 PM   #838
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details...
Posts: 39,384
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
perhaps, so such an experiment should be open and transparent. if however it was carried out by an "independent" organisation, not a branch of the government then i guess that would satisfy many.

personally if the same results were achieved i would have no problem accepting them and arguing against the bombs in the basement hypothesis.
Alright, then.

Who would pay for this "experiment", then ?
__________________
"'Ought' statements are merely 'is' statements that beg the question." - PixyMisa

"When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived." - Starship Troopers
Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2007, 01:50 PM   #839
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details...
Posts: 39,384
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
i think you missed my point. the theory or hypothesis that needs to be tested is THE OFFICIAL HYPOTHESIS which remains UNPROVEN because there has been no experiments that i know of which have demonstrated how jet fuel can travel down 90+floors of an air tight elevator shaft, pass the elevator, and then ignite causing a substantial degree of damage.
So, what you're saying is that, although everything ELSE is fine, the fact that the impact could have caused an incident in the lower levels sounds fishy to you, so like a good Hollywood movie investigator it now means that everything about the "theory" is wrong ?
__________________
"'Ought' statements are merely 'is' statements that beg the question." - PixyMisa

"When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived." - Starship Troopers
Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2007, 01:52 PM   #840
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details...
Posts: 39,384
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
have you got an imagination at all?
No need. We've got reality to keep up company.
__________________
"'Ought' statements are merely 'is' statements that beg the question." - PixyMisa

"When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived." - Starship Troopers
Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:52 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.