Evan Burton

Hmm - I didn't expect a reply. When you can't defend your position, the best defence is to run away.

We are reading the information contained in the pixels NOT what is displayed on the monitor.

Changing the monitor calibration settings will change the way those pixels look WHEN THEY ARE DISPLAYED, but that does not change the data contained in those pixel.

That is correct, to the best of my knowledge.

http://www.digital-p...te-your-monitor

That's a good point, Mark.

Well, I would not post anything on the internet that I would not want made public... but should people be able to 'use' that against you?

I've heard about people being sacked because of what they have said on Twitter or Facebook. I'm not sure if that if fair; how much does your opinion link with your work? Just because you think the current government is crap does not give them the right to sack you as a public servant.

But what if you were some type of social worker who dealt primarily with minorities, and you said - on more than occasion - that you thought they were subhuman or second class citizens who don't deserve the time of day? Is it fair to use those comments to sack someone from that role, as being an inappropriate person to hold that role?

I'm undecided WRT to opening post.

Well, since Jim won't do it, would anyone else like to summarise the claim(s)? I'm quite happy to answer but am not going to waste bandwidth on downloading JW rubbish.

I only watched one, in it he complained that some rover tracks from Apollo 15 were more visible than others in the LRO photos. I assumed it was because of difference in the soil.

That is entirely possible. We see examples of that in a few of the Apollo surface photographs.

Well, since Jim won't do it, would anyone else like to summarise the claim(s)? I'm quite happy to answer but am not going to waste bandwidth on downloading JW rubbish.

Congratulations! I look forward to reading it. Bravo Zulu!

If somebody commits a crime do you go and lock up all their cousins?

Sadly that is the case in some parts of the world. Luckily, the US, UK, Australia and other democratic nations are not amongst them.

So, we have "no need" for all that evidence after all. Well, that's clear enough where you stand. You're with the suppressors. I know the ACLU - like the ADL, they're just another political hack group. Check out how they treated the guy who was investigating Courtney Love. There's nothing in your latest muddling to challenge - after all you might have had the fantasy that I was somehow trying to convince you debunkers of something. That is of course a fantasy. I say what I say solely for the benefit of new readers so they can compare and see how debunkers work.

But you never offer evidence to support your view; you just say that you know better.

What difference would release make since truthers would simply claim it is fake?

That is a good point. We've seen similar things before. For example, the LRO images of the Apollo landing sites. For years HBs were crying out for evidence and when it was provided to them, they simply dismissed it as fake without being able to show any evidence of it being faked.

Likewise the Purdue computer modelling of the Pentagon attack. 9-11 'truthers' haven't been able to point out flaws in the assumptions or algorithms; they simply dismiss the evidence that does support the 'official' version of events and label them as 'debunkers'.

Dale,

You are new here so you get a warning about this: Do not intimate or accuse any Forum member of being a paid poster unless you have evidence of such activity. If you do have evidence, then contact the moderating team and present it to them. If the evidence is accurate and a person is a paid poster, then I can pretty much guarantee they will have their membership cancelled and I would personally recommend that all their posts are deleted.

If you disagree with someone, attack their ideas, demonstrate why their opinions should not be listened to, highlight the flaws in their arguments.

You should also familiarise yourself with the Forum rules / etiquette / code of conduct.

"No credible evidence", "Nothing being kept secret".

This is pure debunker doubletalk. Anyone who has a grasp of government reality knows the score

Yes, I thought you'd say something like that. How about we just put them all up against the wall right now? No trial, no evidence necessary. After all, you know they did it... don't you?

Dale's last assertion is, of course, correct. What's troubled me for many years on 9-11 is not the events themselves but the obvious coverup that went into action immediately after. Anyone who has studied the Warren Commission and the media after JFK's assassination will understand this.

The bottom line is that, if the events happened just like the 9-11 Commission suggested they did, then all of the facts of the matter would have lined up like little dominoes and fell in a direct line that pointed right to the culprits.

Unfortunately, nothing really happened this way. The government could, of course, release all of its evidence tomorrow and we could all see how plainly obvious their assertions are (e.g., evidence of al Qaeda's planning, videotapes of the Pentagon crash, forensic evidence from the scenes, foreign intelligence, wiretaps, photos of the actual PA wreckage, etc.). By NOT doing this, they leave themselves open to all manner of speculation.

Since there is no reason to keep this evidence secret, I suspect that things didn't quite happen the way that the official story laid them out. Given that the majority of war-inducing stories have been faked over the past 100 years (and by "faked", I mean either fabricated or embellished), I have little confidence that 9-11happened as described.

I can't agree with all of that, Tom.

I do agree that there have been cover-ups to protect incompetencies (e.g. those responsible for the CIA - FBI co-ordination fiasco) and I am sure that the Bush administration took advantage of the event to take actions that it wanted to, but the actual events of the day are quite believable and there is no credible evidence to suggest in any way that it was a MIHOP / LIHOP situation.

There is evidence of the planning that went into the attack. There is forensic evidence. There is nothing being kept secret that I can think of.

You mention videotapes of the Pentagon crash; there is footage available. It just doesn't show everything that would be useful. People ask for other camera footage from outside the Pentagon... can anyone even prove there were cameras? The answer is NO, because there were no cameras. How can anyone produce footage from cameras that did not exist? All some people are doing is playing Monday morning quarterback and saying there should have been cameras there. If you look at the security situation, there wasn't a specific need for them. Cameras were located at the entrances, at checkpoints, internally, where they would do the most good.

The vast majority of people who hold qualifications in their respective areas have no issues with aspects of that day within their purview. For instance Bill, Matt, Pinch and myself can all be considered as having expertise in the aviation fields. Some of us are currently serving military, and one is retired. One aviation professional has had no association with the military whatsoever. We have collectively spoken to other aviation professionals. Bill and myself know people who hold advanced qualifications in areas such as physics. I'm pretty sure that all of us have independently spoken to structural engineers, chemists, metallurgists, etc.

I think I can say with confidence that none of us have ever found qualified persons who have doubts about 9-11 based upon expertise in their own fields.

My apologies - I won't try and waste your time in future with facts and science.

Would I be correct in assuming that you are what is commonly called a 'no-planer', that is you do not believe any aircraft actually hit the WTCs or Pentagon?

That you would insist on countering my alleged disinformation as a mere "hobby" is simply dodging the issue. The responses are, from my experience, classic military-style debunking.

LOL! You did know I am serving military, right? That was meant as a pun, right?

LOL!

My questions about debunking are more than reasonable, given that 9/11 was a world-changing event that brought us the Patriot Act, infinite torture and imprisonment without trial, and many other nasty things.

There is a huge difference between being responsible for an event, and taking advantage of an event. If you want to say that people within the US government took advantage of 9-11 then you'll get no argument from me.

Ditto. It's obvious you only seek confirming views so I won't bother to waste time on you; I'll make sure disinformation is countered with facts but otherwise...

Why do the two people who responded here do this debunking? I don't do debunking unless someone has a truly absurd conspiracy with no common sense evidence to back it up.

Bingo - you got it in one.

And even then I don't have a lot of time to waste on such things. Why would you two expend so much energy and time on this? Perhaps I can learn something from your explanations.

I do it because too many people read such nonsense and take it at face value, like your Empire State Building / WTC being similar events. They don't research the subject, they don't have the expertise, they just accept the nonsense. I do have the expertise in some areas and I do have the time on occasions.

The many scientists and engineers who believe as I do are not crazies, not conspiracy theorists in any general sense, and their arguments are based on their professional experience.

Not all are crazies, but they are still wrong. Besides, the overwhelming majority of experts in the various fields do not subscribe to 9-11 theories.

I thought I might just use an illustration of the difference between the B-25 and the B767 impacts. Most of us will remember from basic science the equation of F = ma, or Force (in Newtons) = mass (in Kg) times acceleration (in metres per second per second).

I'm going to use the MTOW of the aircraft, and to simplify the acceleration, I'll assume the mass went from its impact speed to zero in one second.

For the B-25:

F = ma

F = 15,900 Kg x 320 Kph

F = 15,900 Kg x (320,000 metres / 60 seconds in one minute x 60 minutes in one hour)

F = 15,900 Kg x (320,000 metres / 3600 seconds)

F = 15,900 x 88.88

F = 1,413,333 newtons

or rounded to 1.4 million newtons

For the B767

F = ma

F = 179,000 x (750,000 / 3600)

F = 179,000 x 208.33

F = 37,291,666 newtons

or rounded to 37.3 million newtons

For the faster B767, that would work out to 44.7 million newtons of force.

There is no comparison between the events except that in both cases, aircraft hit buildings.

Over a week and no response? Should I take this as Jim being unable to summarise the claims made in the YouTube clip and explain why they should be regarded seriously?

Here's how I reply to what you posted. The first evidence of debunking you demonstrated was suggesting that bldg. 7 was hit by a jet. You did imply that even though you didn't state it.

Strawman - I did no such thing; you stated that that no skyscraper ever fell straight down before or after 9-11 and I said that was because none had ever suffered high-speed impacts by large jet airliners. I never implied anything about WTC7 and just so you are clear on my opinions, no aircraft hit WTC7. WTC7 was affected by debris from the collapse of WTC1 as well as internal fires.

Secondly, you argue that the buildings weakened sufficiently for a *freefall* collapse with no resistance, which is absurd, due to fire or impact?

Again, I did no such thing. Please do not put words into my mouth.

And would physicists or engineers lie? Yes they would, but I shouldn't have to be the one to tell you that.

So would it be fair to say that your position is that qualified / accredited / experienced physicists and/or structural engineers who disagree with you are lying, and those that agree with you are telling the truth?

The Empire State building was hit by a very big plane. No big deal.

The two events are only similar in that both were hit by aircraft; apart from that they are completely different events.

The Empire State Building (ESB) was hit by a B-25D Mitchell bomber at the end of a routine transport mission, which became disorientated in fog whilst waiting to land. It was travelling fairly slowly.

The WTCs were hit by B767 aircraft flown at high speed.

The B-25 has a Max Take Off Weight (MTOW) of 15,900 Kg.

The B767 has a MTOW of 179,000 Kg, over ten times that of the B-25

The B-25 had a maximum speed of about 438 Kph and impacted the ESB at about 320 Kph.

The B767s had a maximum speed of about 900 Kph and impacted the WTCs at about 750 Kph (AA11) and 900 Kph (UA175), roughly two and a half times the speed of the B-25.

The B-25 was waiting to land and refuel and so had far less that a full fuel load aboard. Even so, the B-25 could carry 670 US gallons of fuel.

The B767s were extended range aircraft (ER) and impacted with about 10,000 US gallons of fuel aboard, 15 times that of the B-25.

So the WTCs were hit by objects over ten times the mass, at over twice the speed and carrying fifteen times the fuel of the object that hit the ESB.

With charts and graphs you can prove the magic bullet theory, but the fact remains that bullets going through people and breaking bones get deformed, and to cut through steel or seriously weaken it you need a very large blowtorch or a blast furnace.

Well, if you are going to just accept what stuff you decide suits you but ignore facts that dispute your views, then I am unlikely to be able to change your mind.

In 9/11, we are asked to believe that a building nearly 1400 feet tall with 47 massive steel columns in the center and lots of additional steel structure external to that collapsed straight down at near freefall speed, through its path of *greatest* resistance, because of a fuel fire and a jet impact. Like the Single Bullet theory, my BS meter pegged on that one.

So the physicists and structral engineers who say otherwise are lying?

Normally I don't read debunker sites, because the approach is fundamentally dishonest.

So does that mean you only read sites which support your views? Would you also give some examples of fundamental dishonesty for us to see?

No big steel-reinforced skyscraper ever fell straight down before or since 9/11, for any reason other than demolition. I think 'big' and 'steel reinforced' always apply to skyscrapers.

That would be because no big steel-reinforced skyscrapers were ever subjected to high speed impacts by large jet airliners and suffered subsequent fires.

Steel melts apparently around 2700 F., but you don't lose half the strength at 1350 F.

Apparently the materials themselves don't know that:

G'Day Dale,

How did the software work: a complete word search, tags, or something else?

Cheers and welcome,

Evan

I'm not going to boost that idiot's hit count by viewing his rubbish; any assertions should be able to stated clearly.

Besides, as I am sure Jim would agree, YouTube is not research (despite what a lot of the current generation seem to believe).

OMG!