9-11 an INSIDE JOB?

[lee h oswald]

What do you think actually happened then? Did a plane actually hit the World Trade Center?

What I think isn't really the issue.
Do you still think the facade was 'mostly glass'? After all, it's quite a basic distinction. If you got that wrong, given the abundant evidence to the contrary, do you think your judgment might have failed on some of the (only slightly) more complex bits of the argument? Like, for example, the veracity of the Purdue simulation? The animation that resulted in Purdue being rewarded with a Homeland Security Institute grant.

By far the more important question is: Where does the burden of proof lie?

Also, I thought this quite apposite: A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep. Saul Bellow 1976

 

[Spongebob]

Engine and landing gear parts leave smoke trails after United flight 175 struck the south tower.
The engine portion came to rest at Church and Murray Streets; the landing gear on the roof of 45 Park Place...

 

[Mick West]

What I think isn't really the issue.

Well let me re-phrase that: what point are you trying to make? You said we were about to arrive at some point. What is that point?

Do you still think the facade was 'mostly glass'?

Let's go with around 40% glass? Basically there were lots of holes between the columns and the floors. How would the plane bounce off these? How is the following picture, IN ANY WAY not consistent with a plane hitting the building?



But here what you think happened actually IS important to the conversation. You are saying that what was claimed to have happened that day broke the laws of physics. But you won't actually say what you actually think happened.

What exactly is your point?

 

[lee h oswald]

Engine and landing gear parts leave smoke trails after United flight 175 struck the south tower.
The engine portion came to rest at Church and Murray Streets; the landing gear on the roof of 45 Park Place...

Very definite statement. Please verify

 

[lee h oswald]

Well let me re-phrase that: what point are you trying to make? You said we were about to arrive at some point. What is that point?



Let's go with around 40% glass? Basically there were lots of holes between the columns and the floors. How would the plane bounce off these? How is the following picture, IN ANY WAY not consistent with a plane hitting the building?



But here what you think happened actually IS important to the conversation. You are saying that what was claimed to have happened that day broke the laws of physics. But you won't actually say what you actually think happened.

What exactly is your point?

You said we were about to arrive at some point. What is that point?
Yes, but wrong thread. That would be Belfort Group's Case Orange report, wouldn't it? Anyway, there are always points.

Let's go with around 40% glass? Basically there were lots of holes between the columns and the floors
Right. So why on earth did you say that the facade was 'mostly glass'? Poor judgment? Misinformation? Disinformation? What exactly? Please, do explain. And yes, but between these holes were (the majority, surface area-wise) steels and r/c floors. They are quite hard. Compared to an aircraft, they are very hard. So...

How would the plane bounce off these? Let's be fair, it's the 'holes where the glass is' you're referring to, isn't it? Well, it's as obvious as the rest of it: No, it would not bounce off these.

You are saying that what was claimed to have happened that day broke the laws of physics. But you won't actually say what you actually think happened.

What exactly is your point? The point has been well made many times. Here it is again: Where the aircraft comes into contact with a material much more able to resist deformation due to its dimensions and qualities, ie. with more mass (that's not the glassy bits), then it would, by all known experience and experiment and observation, that is: the scientific method, be expected to behave in a different fashion to that which was observed. The fact that the aircraft went through steel and reinforced concrete (r/c) as easily as it went through glass is counter-intuitive, counter to all known science in this regard, and specifically counter to Newton's third law of motion, which says that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Can't you see how absurd your position is with regard to this? The fact is, that aircraft would have been shredded by the network of steel columns around the perimeter. It's so obvious it's painful.

Is that enough of a point?

 

[lee h oswald]

Does this look like an untouched photo?

 

[lee h oswald]

What I think isn't really the issue.
Do you still think the facade was 'mostly glass'? After all, it's quite a basic distinction. If you got that wrong, given the abundant evidence to the contrary, do you think your judgment might have failed on some of the (only slightly) more complex bits of the argument? Like, for example, the veracity of the Purdue simulation? The animation that resulted in Purdue being rewarded with a Homeland Security Institute grant.

By far the more important question is: Where does the burden of proof lie?

Also, I thought this quite apposite: A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep. Saul Bellow 1976

So, what's the answer to the far more important question?

Where does the burden of proof lie?

 

[Mick West]

What exactly is your point? The point has been well made many times. Here it is again: Where the aircraft comes into contact with a material much more able to resist deformation due to its dimensions and qualities, ie. with more mass (that's not the glassy bits), then it would, by all known experience and experiment and observation, that is: the scientific method, be expected to behave in a different fashion to that which was observed. The fact that the aircraft went through steel and reinforced concrete (r/c) as easily as it went through glass is counter-intuitive, counter to all known science in this regard, and specifically counter to Newton's third law of motion, which says that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Can't you see how absurd your position is in regard this? The fact is that aircraft would have been shredded by the network of steel columns around the perimeter. It's so obvious it's painful.

Is that enough of a point?

None of that would apply if the columns broke. Which they did.

What had more mass, the columns between two floors, or the plane?

A lead bullet can puncture a much heavier steel plate. A steel bullet can puncture a much heavier lead plate.

The plane hitting the building looks exactly like what the laws of physics indicate it would look like.

Describe what you think it should look like?

 

[Mick West]

So, what's the answer to the far more important question?

Where does the burden of proof lie?

Proof of what?

 

[lee h oswald]

None of that would apply if the columns broke. Which they did.

What had more mass, the columns between two floors, or the plane?

A lead bullet can puncture a much heavier steel plate. A steel bullet can puncture a much heavier lead plate.

The plane hitting the building looks exactly like what the laws of physics indicate it would look like.

Describe what you think it should look like?

Newton's thrid law, a law which has stood up to the test of 350 years of non-stop trial and observation, and never been proved incorrect, 'does not apply' according to you, 'if the columns broke'. That, as you well know, is complete nonsense. How did the columns break? By magic?

The plane hitting the building looks exactly like what the laws of physics indicate it would look like. Wrong. Categorically.

Describe what you think it should look like? I just did. Did you miss that, like you missed that most of the facade was 'made of glass'? Another basic 'error'?

 

[lee h oswald]

Proof of what?

Come now, don't be coy.

If a crime is committed, where does the burden of proof lie?

 

[lee h oswald]

What had more mass, the columns between two floors, or the plane?

The plane as a whole has more mass than the columns initially, what it is made of does not. At first impact, it disintegrates, or begins to. Its mass is reduced instantaneously. You need to consider what it hits - a structure with a lot more mass. It's really simple.

 

[Mick West]

Newton's thrid law, a law which has stood up to the test of 350 years of non-stop trial and observation, and never been proved incorrect, 'does not apply' according to you, 'if the columns broke'. That, as you well know, is complete nonsense. How did the columns break? By magic?
?

They were hit by a plane.

Why does Newton's third law apply? It only applies to two bodies, and specifically only when the two bodies are considered as particles. Clearly there were vastly more than two bodies involved here, and in no useful way can you consider them as particles.

 

[lee h oswald]

Let's go with around 40% glass? Basically there were lots of holes between the columns and the floors
Right. So why on earth did you say that the facade was 'mostly glass'? Poor judgment? Misinformation? Disinformation? What exactly? Please, do explain.
Is that enough of a point?

Well?

 

[Mick West]

The plane as a whole has more mass than ther columns initially, what it is made of does not. At first impact, it disintegrates, or begins to. Its mass is reduced instantaneously. You need to consider what it hits - a structure with a lot more mass. It's really simple.

The mass of the plane is reduced? How? By how much? Over what time frame?

Where does the mass go?

 

[lee h oswald]

Why does Newton's third law apply? It only applies to two bodies, and specifically only when the two bodies are considered as particles. Clearly there were vastly more than two bodies involved here, and in no useful way can you consider them as particles.

That's hysterical. Do you need an explanation of Newton's third law?

 

[Mick West]

Well?

I was considering the spaces from an interior perspective, where most (i.e. over 50%) of the wall space is glass. If you take the floors into account, then it's under 50%. Not a major difference though. The point is that it's not a solid surface. Nor is it a particularly thick or strong one. The amount of energy required to break it was quite small compared to the kinetic energy in the plane.

 

[lee h oswald]

Come now, don't be coy.

If a crime is committed, where does the burden of proof lie?

Look, to progress this conversation, and not get bogged in your complete misunderstanding of Newton's third law of motion, why don't you answer this question? It's quite pertinent.

 

[Mick West]

That's hysterical. Do you need an explanation of Newton's third law?

No I don't.

 

[Mick West]

Look, to progress this conversation, and not get bogged in your complete misunderstanding of Newton's third law of motion, why don't you answer this question? It's quite pertinent.

How so?

 

[lee h oswald]

The mass of the plane is reduced? How? By how much? Over what time frame?

Where does the mass go?

The mass of the plane is broken into lots of new, different masses, much smaller than the original mass, almost instantaneously given the conditions (ie striking something much harder). By how much? How the hell do I know? - no more than you do. Over a short time frame, but that's irrelevant to Newton and his law, if only you understood it.

Where does the mass go? See above.

But, more important: Where does the burden of proof lie in a criminal case?

 

[Mick West]

I think we are getting somewhere though. Can I simplify from your point:

The point has been well made many times. Here it is again: Where the aircraft comes into contact with a material much more able to resist deformation due to its dimensions and qualities, ie. with more mass (that's not the glassy bits), then it would, by all known experience and experiment and observation, that is: the scientific method, be expected to behave in a different fashion to that which was observed. The fact that the aircraft went through steel and reinforced concrete (r/c) as easily as it went through glass is counter-intuitive, counter to all known science in this regard, and specifically counter to Newton's third law of motion, which says that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Can't you see how absurd your position is with regard to this? The fact is, that aircraft would have been shredded by the network of steel columns around the perimeter. It's so obvious it's painful.

Is that enough of a point?

To a simpler point "none of the the exterior columns should have broken"

Is that consistent with what you are saying?

 

[lee h oswald]

I was considering the spaces from an interior perspective, where most (i.e. over 50%) of the wall space is glass. .

You can't see your explanation for what it is. An attempt to create the illusion that the facade was 'mostly glass'. It's as much from your own need to show this as it is to bullshit anyone else. It's wrong and it's obvious. No more comment need be attributed it.

 

[lee h oswald]

I think we are getting somewhere though. Can I simplify from your point:



To a simpler point "none of the the exterior columns should have broken"

Is that consistent with what you are saying?

Quite obviously an illogical leap.

Where does the burden of proof lie?

Are you avoiding this?

 

[Mick West]

But, more important: Where does the burden of proof lie in a criminal case?

This is not a criminal case. We are discussing if the visible results of the WTC2 plane/building collision are consistent with a plane hitting the building.

But on the broader subject, clearly you also claim a crime was committed?

 

[Mick West]

Quite obviously an illogical leap.

So you think the exterior columns SHOULD have broken? Explain.

 

[lee h oswald]

What had more mass, the columns between two floors, or the plane?

And it was over multiple floors, not just between two, let's be accurate here. And let's not forget that the floors, traditionally, stretch from one side of a building to the other, they are not just 'edges', they are seriously solid physical barriers, with depth.

 

[lee h oswald]

This is not a criminal case. We are discussing if the visible results of the WTC2 plane/building collision are consistent with a plane hitting the building.

But on the broader subject, clearly you also claim a crime was committed?

Yes, it is a criminal act (are you suggesting it wasn't? please, do tell us), therefore a criminal investigation is required. That we have not had one is a matter of fact. In its place we must accept the 9/11 Commission Report as the definitive narrative of the events of that day. So, that in mind, where does the burden of proof lie?

 

[lee h oswald]

We are discussing if the visible results of the WTC2 plane/building collision are consistent with a plane hitting the building.

No. We are in a thread, on a website of your creation, entitled 9/11 an Inside Job? That's the context.

 

[lee h oswald]

Where does the burden of proof lie?

Are you avoiding this?

Clearly

 

[Mick West]

I think the continual bringing up of Newtons Laws is very interesting. But it's an area I don't like to go into, as it involves pointing out to someone that they don't understand what's going on. It's like with ice supersaturation in the chemtrail theory. 99.99% of the people who believe in chemtrails don't really understand ice supersaturation.

So, Newton's laws DO NOT APPLY HERE.

Why not? Because:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion

Newton's laws are applied to bodies (objects) which are considered or idealized as a particle,[8]​ in the sense that the extent of the body is neglected in the evaluation of its motion, i.e., the object is small compared to the distances involved in the analysis, or the deformation and rotation of the body is of no importance in the analysis.

In their original form, Newton's laws of motion are not adequate to characterize the motion of rigid bodies and deformable bodies. Leonard Euler in 1750 introduced a generalization of Newton's laws of motion for rigid bodies called the Euler's laws of motion, later applied as well for deformable bodies assumed as a continuum. If a body is represented as an assemblage of discrete particles, each governed by Newton’s laws of motion, then Euler’s laws can be derived from Newton’s laws.

Should we use Euler's laws? No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler's_laws_of_motion

Euler's laws of motion, formulated by Leonhard Euler about 50 years after Isaac Newton formulated his laws about the motion of particles, extends them to rigid body motion.[1]
​

The laws apply to rigid bodies. The plane is not a rigid body. The building is not a rigid body.

So what should we use? Whatever we use to describe what happened, it's an approximation of the underlaying motions of the molecules. But the best way of getting a mathematical description is the finite element method. This type of thing:

 

[Mick West]

In any claim the burden of proof (or more correctly, the burden of evidence) is with the person making the claim.

I'm making claims, you are making claims. I back up my claims, I'd like you do the the same.

Like, explain how you think Newton's laws were broken when they clearly don't apply to this situation.

 

[Mick West]

No. We are in a thread, on a website of your creation, entitled 9/11 an Inside Job? That's the context.

Well, in that context, I'd suggest the burden of evidence is with the person suggesting that 9/11 was an inside job? Yes?

 

[lee h oswald]

In any claim the burden of proof (or more correctly, the burden of evidence) is with the person making the claim.

I'm making claims, you are making claims. I back up my claims, I'd like you do the the same.

Like, explain how you think Newton's laws were broken when they clearly don't apply to this situation.

What utter nonsense. Newton's laws don't apply in this case? OK, whatever you say.

Now, more pertinent: In any claim, the burden of proof is with the person making the claim. Very good. I accept this premise.

Now, prove to me that the official narrative is a 'reasonable account of what happened that day', as you explicitly said it was. A claim has been made ergo you must provide the proof.

 

[lee h oswald]

In any claim the burden of proof (or more correctly, the burden of evidence) is with the person making the claim.

No. It's called the 'burden of proof', not the 'burden of evidence'. They are distinct. Given your record on correctly quoting things, maybe you should leave that to me?

 

[Mick West]

What utter nonsense. Newton's laws don't apply in this case? OK, whatever you say.

Now, more pertinent: In any claim, the burden of proof is with the person making the claim. Very good. I accept this premise.

Now, prove to me that the official narrative is a 'reasonable account of what happened that day', as you explicitly said it was. Ergo, a claim has been made, then you must provide the proof.

What do you think I've been doing in this thread?

I think I've proved that Newtons laws don't apply. Can you explain what I got wrong?

 

[Mick West]

No. It's called the 'burden of proof', not the 'burden of evidence'. They are distinct. Given your record on correctly quoting things, maybe you should leave that to me?

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, as this is not a legal discussion.

In science we use evidence, not proof.

"Proof" in lay terms (and to a certain extent in legal contexts) is used as a synonym for "evidence", but they have different meanings in science.

*I* think the burden of evidence lays with the person making the claim.

What do you think?

 

[lee h oswald]

I think I've proved that Newtons laws don't apply.

Yes. You also think that the official account is a reasonable account of what happened that day; you thought that the facade was 'mostly glass'; you think that evidence garnered through torture is not physical evidence; you think that I 'spent many pages promoting the 'no-plane' theory. It's clear that you think a lot of things; it's also clear, and demonstrably so, that not all of your 'thoughts' are correct

 

[lee h oswald]

So, in a case such as the crime perpetrated on 9/11/01, where does the burden of proof lie in terms of prosecuting the perpetrators?

 

[lee h oswald]

Synonyms for evidence:

information, deposition, affidavit. Evidence, exhibit, testimony, proof refer to information furnished in a legal investigation to support a contention. Evidence is any information so given, whether furnished by witnesses or derived from documents or from any other source. An exhibit (in law) is a document or article that is presented as evidence. Testimony is usually evidence given by witnesses under oath. Proof is evidence that is so complete and convincing as to put a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt: proof of the innocence of the accused.
Demonstrate.