9/11 documentary

Home Forum Chat Forum 9/11 documentary

Viewing 40 posts - 521 through 560 (of 1,456 total)
  • 9/11 documentary
  • ctk
    Member

    Does anyone remember how the FBI found a koran and a how to fly a plane manual the day after the attack? And then found a passport in NY that had survived the plane crash and the fire in the towers?

    guardian article

    Paul@RTW
    Member

    +1 with amedias.

    The other misunderstanding of the scientific approach that always undermines this type of discussion (I too am a frequenter of the NASA Facebook comments!) is that anecdotal accounts, other people’s opinion (however frequent or common) and YouTube videos with no references to sources/ out of context quotes / conjecture are rarely useful “evidence”.

    Well, apart from being evidence for the gullibility and lack of comprehension of reasoned debate of certain people.

    5plusn8
    Member

    The koran and the flight manual are hardly lucky finds. They were in the abandoned hire car rented by Atta beforehand. Big deal.
    The passport is much more interesting. If he was piloting the plane then at the front of the impact its possible his loose possessions may have been carried/thrown forward.
    I guess you are saying it was planted? I can see that as possible.
    Even if it was, does this prove the towers were demolished by controlled demolition? Or undermine the concept that they fell due to the damage and fire from the pane impacts?
    I don’t think so, do you?
    IF you are suggesting that somebody was “in on it” then I’d like to see your evidence other than 1 coincidental lucky find of a passport.

    Where we lack proof, and in this situation we do, the popperian approach fails. So we can turn to statistical and probabilistic approaches, which is why I was asking for some a priori probabilities many pages ago. Bayesian methods or Markov chains might give us some likelihoods to compare. This is why I was asking about the way the Towers fell and if that was likely given the planes and fire

    ctk
    Member

    So do you think the passport survived the plane crash?

    EDIT: I dont I think it was planted.

    Even if it was, does this prove the towers were demolished by controlled demolition? Or undermine the concept that they fell due to the damage and fire from the pane impacts?
    I don’t think so, do you?

    Not at all. In my post above I say it doesnt matter if it was planes or not the question is was anybody in on it?

    Premier Icon amedias
    Subscriber

    I don’t believe the three buildings came down because of natural collapse. It contradicts my understanding of physics and probability, especially WTC7.

    But it doesn;t contradict other peoples (namely, physicists) understanding of Physics, and those people can readily explain, with maths if necessary but you either choose not to listen, or assume your understanding of physics trumps theirs, so not wanting to be a d1ck about it, but I have to ask – Are you a Physicist? Can you do the necessary maths/calcs to show how it should (or shouldn’t) have fallen?

    Nobody I’m aware of has ever been able to physically demonstrate an alternative to controlled demolition – plenty of maths and computer models (animations), not a single experiment

    Likewise, has anyone done the opposite and actually demonstrated that it was demolition? you know, using physics and maths and stuff to prove it…

    amedias – you’ve just described the scientific method. An ordered way of observing the universe and using those observations to explain phenomena.

    Well yes, I was trying to do it without actually using the words ‘scientific method’ as IME that tends to put a certain group of people immediately on the defensive and assume you’re being condescending or another one of those ‘experts’ that need ignoring 🙁

    outofbreath
    Member

    This is why I was asking about the way the Towers fell and if that was likely given the planes and fire

    Does it matter? Even if the Towers *did* fall in an unlikely way that isn’t solid evidence of a vast conspiracy.

    As it happens I think the towers did fall in a perfectly reasonable way. The only reason towers would fall left or right is if they had significant structural integrity and a pivot point low down. Given the mode of failure was a totally weak structure collapsing onto itself then straight down was the only way to go. Indeed, if it had enough structural integrity to fall sideways it would have had enough structural integrity for, at least the bottom half, to stay standing.

    5plusn8
    Member

    I am not sure they found attas passport anyway, I have been googling this and it seems inconclusive. However I am happy to accept it was found for the sake of argument.
    You know they did also find lots of other passenger remains and belongings intact, if you present Attas passport as the only thing intact it sounds crazy but they found other peoples stuff too.
    http://www.911myths.com/html/passport_recovered.html

    outofbreath
    Member

    I am not sure they found attas passport anyway, I have been googling this and it seems inconclusive. However I am happy to accept it was found for the sake of argument.
    You know they did also find lots of other passenger remains and belongings intact, if you present Attas passport as the only thing intact it sounds crazy but they found other peoples stuff too.

    ….and again, why plant utterly improbable evidence that totally gives the game away?

    Since you’ve googled the passport, perhaps you should google John P O’Neill…

    Or Ali Soufan

    Premier Icon amedias
    Subscriber

    So we can turn to statistical and probabilistic approaches,

    Except that you were trying to generate proababilities based on a limited set of predetermined and non-sequitur assumptions.

    ie: making an assumption that neat/ordered collapse may imply demolition and then trying to work backwards to a probability.

    Since a tower of that structure could only ever fall in that manner, you can’t make that link. And any probabilites would be plucked out of the air, this is not a sensible approach as there’s no control or verifiable basis for the probabilities.

    There is no/little evidence of demolition, the only evidence so far put forward is that the manner of collapse looked strange to the lay person, but since this can be explained it’s not really evidence at all.

    There is no evidence of explosives, or of a detonation method, or of the massive amounts of covert work that would have been needed, or in fact anything other than “it fell funny” (which it didn’t as previously explained, it fell like you would expect it to fall), the only reason to continue to pursue the demolition theory is because a continued rejection of the explanation of how it fell.

    oikeith
    Member

    John O’Neill’s investigations through the New York City offices of the FBI were run in concert with the CIA. The offices were in World Trade Center building number 7. World Trade Center building number 7. Floors 23 through 26 were the federal bunker offices of all the federal agencies in New York City, Set up by Jerome Hauer. Jerome Hauer was the guy who got John O’Neill his job at the World Trade Center.

    Since you’ve googled the passport, perhaps you should google John P O’Neill…

    I dont get the point you’re making here, the reason I dont get it is: why destroy a building to destroy any evidence, it was 2001, are we saying the CIA didnt have a network and back ups? People really believe that an organisation which operates across the world only has one copy of any report and that its also a paper copy?

    TurnerGuy
    Member

    so can any ogf the people who think there is more than the oficial story give me the one piece of evidence that shows this? I will then take that to piece if I can. so the one killer fact please

    maybe I’ll go through that video I linked to and collate some for you, as you can’t be arsed to watch the many qualified people on there expressing concerns over NISTs handling of the report.

    Can’t promise anything though as I am quite busy.

    why destroy a building to destroy any evidence, it was 2001, are we saying the CIA didnt have a network and back ups?

    Plausible deniability?

    We’re getting back into conjecture here though…

    Going back to this:

    The thing is it really doesnt matter if it was a controlled explosion or if it was just the planes.

    The only question is: Was anybody in on it?

    And Ali Soufan, who questioned Abu Zubaydah…

    A New Yorker article in 2006 described Soufan as coming closer than anyone to preventing the September 11 attacks, even implying that he would have succeeded had the CIA been willing to share information with him. He resigned from the FBI in 2005 after publicly chastising the CIA for not sharing intelligence with him, which could have prevented the attacks.

    tjagain
    Member

    Turnerguy – the one piece of “evidence” that is most compelling.

    Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    turnerguy wrote:

    Can’t promise anything though as I am quite busy.

    Presumably you think nobody else is, and you expect them to watch the video you posted instead of you presenting the evidence from it?

    outofbreath
    Member

    A New Yorker article in 2006 described Soufan as coming closer than anyone to preventing the September 11 attacks, even implying that he would have succeeded had the CIA been willing to share information with him.

    How was Soufan going to prevent a massive Government conspiracy involving thousands, and how did he hear about it?

    maybe I’ll go through that video I linked to and collate some for you, as you can’t be arsed to watch the many qualified people on there expressing concerns over NISTs handling of the report.

    No amount of nit-picking a report will provide evidence of a massive conspiracy. I’ve written rubbish documents myself without any instructions from Lizards.

    oikeith
    Member

    Plausible deniability?

    We’re getting back into conjecture here though

    I dont think we are, I just asked why you mentioned John O’Neills and the destruction of WTC 7 when the CIA would have had a global IT network of information, if the attack was to destroy this information it would/did fail… although I can see how you might think the last bit re a global IT network could be considered conjecture.

    Except that you were trying to generate proababilities based on a limited set of predetermined and non-sequitur assumptions.

    ie: making an assumption that neat/ordered collapse may imply demolition and then trying to work backwards to a probability.

    Not really. The whole point of using this approach is to calculate or use conditional probabilities, exactly not non-sequitur.

    Yes, it’s not ‘scientific method’ but I’m not sure how those who intend to use that in here will be testing their hypotheses anyway.

    Premier Icon slowoldman
    Subscriber

    Likewise, has anyone done the opposite and actually demonstrated that it was demolition? you know, using physics and maths and stuff to prove it…

    Doesn’t even need physics and maths and stuff. Forensics would do that. But of course the people doing the forensic investigation would be in on the conspiracy too wouldn’t they?

    5plusn8
    Member

    Doesn’t even need physics and maths and stuff. Forensics would do that

    Forensics is Physics and maths and stuff (chem and bio)..
    Plus there is no Forensic evidence of demolition.

    jimjam
    Member

    slowoldman – Member

    Doesn’t even need physics and maths and stuff. Forensics would do that. But of course the people doing the forensic investigation would be in on the conspiracy too wouldn’t they?

    Of course they would. Along with the people who decalled the military jets, and the people who designed and implemented the remote controls, along with the people who forced the passenger jets to land, and the soldiers who took them away to exterminate them, and the digger drivers who dug the mass graves they put the bodies in, and the demolition experts who trained the cia spies in controlled demolition, and the cia spies who secretly rigged the tens of thousands of tons and hundreds of miles of explosives while secretly drilling tens of thousands of giant holes at night when no one noticed….and then you have to assume that some of them might have told their families so maybe there’s an extra 30% on top of that number.

    How many conspirators are we up to now? I reckon it took at least 5000 people to plan, execute, order and execute the whole thing.

    Impressive level of coordination and secrecy for a country that elected a reality tv star as head of state.

    outofbreath
    Member

    Of course they would. Along with

    Don’t forget the firemen. The ones working on WTC7 were all in on it – they knew the tower was being blown and were openly shouting about about it in public on the day. (…but strangely afterwards they all became tight lipped!)

    The firemen in the other buildings weren’t in on it though.

    TurnerGuy
    Member

    Presumably you think nobody else is, and you expect them to watch the video you posted instead of you presenting the evidence from it?

    you’re the ones argueing about it – I just said it was quite compelling.

    I’ll have a look at the short version at lunchtime maybe.

    TJ assertions in

    Nope – there is none whatsoever. There is opinion from unqualified people that shows gross misunderstandings of the science. The classic example of this is the idea the towers fell at freefall speed. they didn’t as can be easily seen from all the videos

    are rubbish as the video show well qualified, certainly a lot better qualified than TJ, people showing that WTC fell at free fall speeds.

    Where is the evidence for the massive amount of building works undertaken to rig the explosives?

    5plusn8
    Member

    are rubbish as the video show well qualified, certainly a lot better qualified than TJ, people showing that WTC fell at free fall speeds.

    I don’t agree with TJ, I don’t care though. I can’t see why it would not fall at about freefall speed. If you can measure it, or predict what it should be for a constantly changing shape. It is a non-sequitur.
    Find me a deliberately demolished building of comparable size and construction that falls at freefall speed anyway most of them take much longer? What does it prove?

    Premier Icon amedias
    Subscriber

    Not really. The whole point of using this approach is to calculate or use conditional probabilities, exactly not non-sequitur.

    Bayes/Conditional is not the right tool for the job here

    For starters you can’t assume the starting position that you did, which is a starting probabiltiy that it was demolished.

    You’d have to start with a question like:

    “given a tower fell, what is the chance it was demolished”

    Which not only ignores the actual starting conditions (which include a plane hitting the building and a big fire), but requires having a rough idea of the probability of collapse in general. Just make a number up if you like…

    Your next part was:

    “given that it fell neatly what is the chance it was demolished”

    Bzzzzzzt, error! it can ONLY fall neatly therefore the probability of neat collapse is 100%, so no change in probability of demolition.

    You can only adjust your probabilities and use Bayes theorem if you have evidence with which to adjust it as you progress. Nobody has yet put forward any evidence of demolition.

    So until someone does we’re stuck on the made up number, which was a terrible place to start anyway. it would make more sense to start with the question:

    “Given there is little/no evidence of demoilition, and the observed colllapse can be explained by Newtonian Physics and knowledge of the building structure, what is the probability it was demolished?”

    Very very very ver very very very very low.

    If you have some evidence which we can use to revise our probability with then present it.

    whitestone
    Member

    The towers didn’t fall at freefall speed. They are roughly 1300ft high, if they fell freefall then the top floor would take 8.9 seconds to reach the ground. They actually took around 14 seconds, perhaps longer depending on when you decide that the top of the structure finally came to rest.

    5plusn8
    Member

    8.9 seconds

    Only in basic GCSE physics.

    tjagain
    Member

    Turner guy. Thats the truth There is no plausible evidence for anything but the official explanation. None. Give me one piece that you think is credible and I will demolish it citing real scientists

    The towers did not fall at freefall speed. ~This is a simple fact. You can time the fall or you can watch the bits of debris that where falling at freefall speed that go faster than the tower.

    So until someone does we’re stuck on the made up number, which was a terrible place to start anyway.

    You appear to have used some Bayes at least. I’m not sure how you arrive at this

    “Given there is little/no evidence of demoilition, and the observed colllapse can be explained by Newtonian Physics and knowledge of the building structure, what is the probability it was demolished?”

    Not really a Bayesian formulation

    5plusn8
    Member

    It doesn’t matter TJ, so what if it did fall at near freefall speed, what does it prove. Don’t get hung up this.
    Think it through – lets assume it did fall at freefall speed – what does that show. Has any other demolition gone at freefall?

    tjagain
    Member

    Perfectly right 5plus8. The speed it falls at proves nothing. It however is a very good example of people making stuff up to suit their hypothesis and is very easily disproved.

    the tin foil hatters claim it feel at freefall speeds. this is clearly false. therefore anything that is extrapolated from this false premise is also false

    Bzzzzzzt, error! it can ONLY fall neatly therefore the probability of neat collapse is 100%, so no change in probability of demolition.

    So you are saying that there were no other possible failure modes for the tower?

    5plusn8
    Member

    the tin foil hatters claim it feel at freefall speeds. this is clearly false.

    Well its close enough to make you think though right?
    Which is why I prefer to look at what a fast descent proves.
    It proves the mass of the falling object had many orders of magnitude more energy than that required to breach the connections at each floor.
    I think had it been demolished in the way they think it would have collapsed at the same rate anyway.

    jimjam
    Member

    TurnerGuy – Member

    you’re the ones argueing about it – I just said it was quite compelling.

    I’ll find you some compelling videos that show the earth is flat, that god made it in 6 days and it’s 3000 years old.

    outofbreath – Member

    Of course they would. Along with

    Don’t forget the firemen. [/quote]

    Ah yes, those firefighters who were in on it. Cynical bastards let their colleagues die in such great numbers. Oh and I forgot the Saudi royal family. They all knew too. So there’s a few hundred more.

    Premier Icon mikewsmith
    Subscriber

    are rubbish as the video show well qualified, certainly a lot better qualified than TJ, people showing that WTC fell at free fall speeds.

    Not that I could be bothered with the vid but what were their qualifications?
    Were they in the correct field (demolitions etc.)

    and finally this

    Of course they would. Along with the people who decalled the military jets, and the people who designed and implemented the remote controls, along with the people who forced the passenger jets to land, and the soldiers who took them away to exterminate them, and the digger drivers who dug the mass graves they put the bodies in, and the demolition experts who trained the cia spies in controlled demolition, and the cia spies who secretly rigged the tens of thousands of tons and hundreds of miles of explosives while secretly drilling tens of thousands of giant holes at night when no one noticed….and then you have to assume that some of them might have told their families so maybe there’s an extra 30% on top of that number.

    How many conspirators are we up to now? I reckon it took at least 5000 people to plan, execute, order and execute the whole thing.
    Unless of course it was 1 guy doing this over the course of about 10 years to rig it secretly, then managed to set up the fall guys and deal with all the logistics by remote control.
    And yeah why would you go to all the trouble of making a bunch of people disappear when you could just leave them in the plane and crash them.

    If you want to pick holes in tiny details of the way something looked on TV a few years back then start with the big picture.

    whitestone
    Member

    14 seconds is close enough to 9? (or whatever your freefall time is) That’s over 50% difference! If the theoretical FF time and actual time taken were within a reasonable margin then I’d agree that they’d be close.

    But they aren’t even close.

    Premier Icon amedias
    Subscriber

    “Given there is little/no evidence of demoilition, and the observed colllapse can be explained by Newtonian Physics and knowledge of the building structure, what is the probability it was demolished?”
    Not really a Bayesian formulation

    Exactly, Bayes is not the right tool for the job because we have a better starting point. Observed collapse in an explicable manner.

    So you are saying that there were no other possible failure modes for the tower?

    We’ve been through this several times over the last few pages….it can only ever collapse ‘downwards into it’s own footprint’ due to a combination of it’s construction, its mass and its height.

    It can’t fall/topple over, what other modes (of collapse) are there?

    Or are you suggesting it shouldn’t have collapsed at all?

    If there’s another manner of collapse that you think is possible, please put it forward and explain it.

    5plusn8
    Member

    whitestone – Member
    14 seconds is close enough to 9? (or whatever your freefall time is) That’s over 50% difference! If the theoretical FF time and actual time taken were within a reasonable margin then I’d agree that they’d be close.

    But they aren’t even close.

    I agree, but to the layperson even 14 seconds is very fast, anyway it is hard to measure accurately given the constantly changing shape of the thing. Which also makes it hard to predict what the freefall speed should be.
    My point is that the speed of collapse, even if it were 9 seconds, does not prove any evidence of demolition.

Viewing 40 posts - 521 through 560 (of 1,456 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.